Yale Law Students Protest Kavanaugh Nomination

            Yale Law School students have been protesting the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh because of the utterly unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations against him. That is correct, these future lawyers, sitting in and acting out, have literally taken to the halls, sidewalks, and streets of New Haven, Connecticut and Washington, D.C. to rail against the Due Process Clause and the presumption of innocence, twin pillars of the American legal system since the country was founded. If this isn’t disturbing to a rational, freedom-loving human being, nothing should be.

 Due process was considered so important by the Founders, in fact, that not one, but two Amendments to the Constitution contain a Due Process Clause, the Fifth and the Fourteenth. And the concept of presumption of innocence dates back to ancient Rome.

What has Yale done in regards to these demonstrations? It cancelled more than 30 scheduled classes on September 24^th alone, to accommodate its budding young legal minds in their quest to eviscerate long-standing principles of enlightened jurisprudence that have protected billions of people from arbitrary search, seizure, imprisonment and death at the hands of despots and illegitimate governments over hundreds of years. “Yay, Elis!”

Oddly enough, I don’t recall the school’s law students going postal when Bill Clinton was credibly accused of harassment—or rape—by a baker’s dozen or so women prior to his election and throughout the 1990s. In fact, many on the left were appalled—appalled!—that pervy Republicans wanted to delve into Clinton’s private life. (Several “journalists” and commentators at the time felt tingles down their legs while in Bill’s presence or openly admitted that they’d “do him” if he kept abortion legal). Nor do I recall many Ivy-Leaguers rioting over the sexual harassment allegations against Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN).

Which makes what one second-year law student told the Hartford Courant even more hilarious. She said: “As a community, we are here today to show that we take allegations of sexual assault and harassment seriously. We are here today to discuss the very real threat that Brett Kavanaugh poses to this country.”

No, you aren’t. You are revealing your extreme close-mindedness, bias and intolerance. You are, perhaps inadvertently, flaunting your ignorance of history and hatred of America.

Whether or not Brett Kavanaugh groped a gal in high school, he isn’t a real or existential threat to the United States.

Dispensing with due process and the presumption of innocence most certainly is.

                                ************************************

                (Winston Churchill was once taken to task for ending a sentence with a preposition. His response? “This is precisely the sort of pedantic nonsense up with which I shall not put!”).

RINOs, The Swamp, And The Blue Wave

                The stock market at an all-time record high. A booming economy. Record-low black unemployment. Record low Hispanic unemployment. Record low unemployment rates for women. For the first time ever, more job openings than people to fill them. ISIS diminished, on the run. Fewer domestic instances of radical Islamic terror. A military being rebuilt. Strong retail sales. Average wages rising for the first time in…a long time. Robust 4.1% GDP growth. Major businesses coming home. Tax rates lowered for the vast majority of Americans. Employees receiving bonuses. Etc., etc., etc.

                Yet there is something more incredible than all of this put together: the stupefying inability of Republicans to capitalize on this vast treasure-trove of good news that President Trump has given them. For all the progress, economic and otherwise, there is legitimate talk of a coming “blue wave.” That’s correct, despite bullet-proof talking points handed to them on a (golden platter), the large majority of Republicans are once again proving too stupid and timid to utilize them.

                Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s what they do.

    The relatively few Republicans who have functioning cerebrums and frontal lobes in conjunction with a backbone, have done well by simply citing the economy and the desire to protect their citizens from gangs, crime, and various ills attendant to large influxes of illegal aliens. It’s not rocket science, and it simply requires telling the truth. Too many Republicans, appalled at President Trump’s occasionally unmannerly behavior, wish to be seen as fair and caring, and are afraid to offend anyone. Remarkably, they are far more worried about losing any one vote than they are about cementing the votes of countless thousands. Theirs is a special kind of dementia. In and of itself, a sad sight to see. Combined with their sheer cravenness, it is pathetic and appalling.  

                These “RINOs” appear to believe that if they are tolerant and decent and bend over backwards to accommodate their opponents and accusers (see the “Dr.” Christine Blasely Ford-Brett Kavanaugh farce) they will be treated with respect and prove that they aren’t the racist, bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, mean old deplorable-enabling troglodytes that their opponents have smeared them as. How’s that working out for them? Like it always has. It isn’t.

                The only way to counteract the increasingly hysterical attacks of the left is to call them out for it. And fight the hell back. With firmness, reason and logic.

    Republican candidates: the left and their abettors in the mainstream media may on rare occasions seem to like you better if you are the picture of decorum and don’t fight back, but only to the extent that you agree with them. And this is because you are no longer a threat to their agenda. Period.

   The handful of Republicans who have shown the most courage in the face of adversity— think Trump and Cruz for example— have usually fared well. If you are waiting for many others to learn that lesson, don’t hold your breath. There is a connection there, but it’s a bridge too far for RINOs to cross.

   Besides, The Swamp is calling.

Christine Blasey Ford And The Left's Assault On Language

                Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) made one of the most ludicrous statements imaginable recently. And that is saying something in the context of today’s society. She tweeted: “Denying Dr. Ford an FBI investigation is silencing her. Forcing her into a sham hearing is silencing her.  And pushing through Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation is silencing her.” No on all counts. Granting her the opportunity to testify about the totally unsubstantiated accusations she has made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is the opposite of silencing her. It is providing her a sanctioned, formal, forum for speaking about those totally unsubstantiated accusations.

                The hearing won’t be a sham, at least in the sense that Gillibrand meant. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has offered Ford a public hearing, a private hearing, a public staff interview and a private staff interview. He said he’d even be willing to have his staff travel to California, or anywhere else she’d care to meet, in order to obtain her testimony. This is, again, not “silencing” Ford, but the opposite…a willingness to provide numerous alternatives for her to talk.

                Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), on the other hand, recently said that men should “just shut up.” That is a clear attempt to silence not just one person, but an entire gender. It was not immediately clear if Hirono believes that women who identify as men should be silenced, too.

                Leftists have a long and complicated history with language. They are exceedingly fond of certain words, such as “racist,” “Homophone,” “bigot,” “misogynist,” “marginalized,” “inclusive,” “safe space,” “genderqueer,” “impeachment,” “abortion,” and “Stormy.” They do not, however, like engaging in principled, rational debate. Nor do they like it when conservatives are allowed to talk. They no longer like the words comprising the Second Amendment. Or the First, Fifth, Sixth or Tenth.

                They do take an almost religious zeal, ironically, in adamantly asserting that many words mean exactly the opposite of their actual dictionary definition. Therefore, encouraging someone to speak is “silencing” them. Yet, progressives think conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh should be permanently shut up via “The Fairness Doctrine.”

                Leftists label true stories as “fake news.” They believe averring that “All Lives Matter” somehow means “Let’s Kill Black People.” They think “justice” is achieved by racial quotas and affirmative action and that “merit” is synonymous with “racist.” They call the mass killing of babies “women’s health care.” They apparently define “antonym” as: “one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning.”

                Orwell understood this tactic. Ergo: “war is peace,” “freedom is slavery,” and “ignorance is strength.”

    Today’s socialist Democrats really seem hell-bent on proving that last one.

                                                   *********************

                “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.”—George Orwell

    “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”—George Orwell. (Hence, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Freedom, as long practiced in the West, is fading out of the world, too).

Believe All Women

                “Believe all women.”

                That phrase should be insufferably offensive and appalling to……all women. A phrase so exclusionary, so biased, so trite, so close-minded and so steeped in stereotyping should be anathema to any sentient being. Why? If one has to ask, one is probably incapable of rational thought. Which would be the case with anyone tritely tossing “believe all women” around. The user is immediately exposed as a person bereft of reason and devoid of the subtlety of mind necessary to process complex or contradictory information.

                Moreover, they obviously eschew the fundamental precepts of American jurisprudence: innocent until proven guilty and due process. “Bleep it!” they say, “I want this to be true, therefore it is true! So there! Don’t agree? Then shut up!” Border collies are smarter and more reasonable than that, and far less prone to temper tantrums.

                The message of the phrase is so ridiculous, so beyond the pale it should be embarrassing to anyone who uses it or accepts it at face value. “Believe all women,” huh? That’s logically impossible. No sane person could simultaneously believe all the women who’ve accused Bill Clinton of sexually harassing them and Hillary Clinton who has repeatedly called them lying hussies.

                “Believe all women?” Does this include the two that have accused Keith Ellison of harassment and physical abuse?”

                “Believe all women?”  Does this include Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Ann Coulter? Apparently not.

                “Believe all women?” Including all Republican women who are debating their Democratic opponents?

                “Believe all women?” Does this include the millions who devoutly believe abortion is a sin?

                “Believe all women?” Does this include all women who devoutly believe?

                “Believe all women?” Perhaps that’s a bit arbitrary. Why, then, shouldn’t we believe all white, Christian males? Or all transgendered mulatto accountants?

                “Believe all women?” Those who believe in the veracity of that phrase are still free to think what they will.

They just don’t want others to have that same freedom.  

College Students: It's Too Hard To Vote

            College-age kids aren’t what they used to be.

Of course, in the not-so-distant past they used to be adults, typically having received an eighth-grade education before going to work and raising a family. In the 1800s many of their age group managed to hop in the Conestoga wagon-- along with a gun or two and their other belongings-- and travel across country to carve a life out of the remote wilderness.

Today, the hardy young scholars at Haverford College outside of Philadelphia have been demanding to get a polling site closer to their campus because the closest one currently is nearly a mile and a half away. According to Philly.com, Haverford students make up the majority of voters in the district, but most don’t have cars. What’s even more horrifying is that part of the road to the elementary school is not flanked by a sidewalk. But I’m sure the students have access to bicycles, and, as anyone with any familiarity with modern cyclists knows, they refuse to use sidewalks anyway.

As if a polling place 12 blocks away wasn’t a big enough cross to bear for today’s students, a recent focus group revealed an even bigger hurdle they might have to clear if they wish to vote-- even once!-- for their favorite socialist candidate. The students who can’t find a way to get to the ever-so-distant voting booths are also stymied in their attempts to send in absentee ballots. A recent focus group of college interns from many different departments revealed why. WTOP reported that the Fairfax County Office of Public Affairs, who hosted the focus group, discovered that the students didn’t know where to get stamps.

What’s more, it said, the United States Post Office “seems to be a foreign concept” to college students. The office’s Lisa Connors stated the students can obtain and fill out the absentee ballot, but then are utterly flummoxed at what to do with it. Connors said: “That seems to be like a hump that they can’t get across,” adding, “They all agreed that they knew lots of people who did not send in their ballots because it was too much of a hassle or they didn’t know where to get a stamp. Across the board, they were all nodding and had a very spirited conversation about ‘Oh yeah, I know so many people who didn’t send theirs in because they didn’t have a stamp.’” Thank the Lord.

These college kids wouldn’t be able to answer most of the questions on an eighth-grade test taken in a one-room schoolhouse in Kansas in the 1800s. They sure as hell couldn’t survive being 15 miles from their nearest neighbor and having to farm, hunt and work long days at hard, blue-collar labor to survive.

 Even sadder, many probably aren’t aware that the Liberty Bell exists, let alone that it resides in Philadelphia…near Haverford College. The iconic bell first cracked in 1752 (13 years before the British imposed the Stamp Act on the colonies) due to its being too brittle. Today's students aren’t taught about the Stamp Act. Nor can they find a stamp.

Today’s college kids don’t care much about liberty, because they are so brittle they are more concerned about finding “safe spaces” where they can hide from politically incorrect thought and speech.

That makes me want to go postal.

Restaurant Gets Lobsters High Before Serving Them

                Charlotte Gill, proprietor of Charlotte’s Legendary Lobster Pound in Southwest Harbor, Maine, is now offering to get lobsters high on marijuana before cooking them for her customers. Gill, a licensed marijuana caregiver in the Pine Tree State, apparently believes it is a more humane way for the lobsters to meet their demise.

                The first lobster used as a guinea pig in her doping experiment she dubbed “Roscoe.” Roscoe was put in a box with several inches of water at the bottom, and marijuana smoke was then blown through the water, into the box. Voila, a box-bong for shellfish! Gill claims Roscoe was much calmer and less aggressive for the subsequent three weeks and didn’t try to attack the other lobsters in his tank even though his claws were unbound. Yes, because he was stoned into oblivion.

                Gill eventually released Roscoe into the ocean “as a thank you,” according to a local newspaper. That’s great, send him out into the vast, unforgiving sea docile and insensate, unable to defend himself because he’s baked like Cheech and Chong. Nice thank you, Gill.

                Gill has dedicated a special outdoor station to lobster sedation. She plans to build a bigger tank in the near future, one that will allow her to get multiple lobsters wasted at one time. She says she doesn’t believe this practice will impart the lobster meat with THC, as the lobsters will be steamed at temperatures above 400 degrees before being served, thereby destroying any residual traces of the drug. (This may be the first instance of lobsters being “baked” before they are steamed).

                What’s next? Will other restaurants coke-up their crustaceans? Perhaps stone crab will become stoned crab. Will it soon be best-practice to put cows on cocaine and chickens on ecstasy before processing them?

                Is “out of the pot, into the kettle” really a giant leap forward for either crustaceans or mankind?

                Like, probably not, dude, but I’m so blunted I don’t care!

LGBTQ Freshmen Outnumber Conservatives At Yale

                A recent Yale Daily News survey of that school’s freshmen found that more of the students identified as members of the LGBTQ community than as conservatives. Over one-half of the class of 2022 took part in the survey, in which a total of 22% of respondents claimed to be either gay, bisexual, transsexual, asexual, “ace spectrum,” or questioning. Of the 864 young scholars polled, nine percent thought they were “somewhat conservative,” while only one percent admitted to being “very conservative.” (Everyone sing it with me now: “Nine of these kids just don’t belong here, nine of these kids just aren’t the same”). There are, apparently, more Hasidic Jew hairdressers named Adolph on campus than there are conservatives. Only 16 percent of those surveyed identified as Protestant, 15 percent as Catholic.

                A 2018 Gallup poll estimated that just 4.5% of all Americans identified as LGBTQ. Thank goodness for higher education! An earlier survey of Yale professors found that about 75%  identified as liberal while less than 10% purported to be conservative. Over 90% of faculty members in the humanities classified themselves as liberal, roughly equaling the same percentage of leftists as were found in the Supreme Soviet circa 1980. Even nearly two-thirds of STEM faculty identified as liberal.

                According to The College Fix, in 2015, Yale professors Nicholas and Erika Christakis became the targets of students vitriol after Erika had the balls to suggest that students shouldn’t be so quick to find offense with things such as Halloween costumes. At one point, Nicholas was surrounded by a mob of threatening students, one of whom screamed “Who the f**k hired you?” He eventually resigned. As did Erika. Yay tolerance! Yay diversity! (The students probably didn’t like that they shared the same last name. Come to think of it, they probably didn’t like the name).

                Back in 2016, a Yale Daily News survey found that 95% of conservative students on campus thought that their views were unwelcome. Ninety-five percent. Yay tolerance! Yay diversity!

Yale Campus

Rosenkranz Hall

115 Prospect Street

Discovery Group Meeting

Leader: “Good morning, group! I’m Patrick Fitzmichael, and in the seat next to me is my dynamic—and hunky!—assistant group leader, Michael Fitzpatrick! Yay! Right? Anyway, we are all here today to celebrate our diversity. Many of you have felt marginalized at some point in your life because of your identities, passions, activities, or…whatever, right? So, this group is here to provide affirmation to you…to each and every individual here from everyone else here today. How awesome is that? (Cheers and applause ring out). We will go around the room now, and each of you will tell us a little about yourselves and why you’ve felt oppressed, scared and saddened at some point in your lives. (Points). Bob, let’s start with you. Don’t be shy big boy.”

Bob: “Well, I’ve known I was gay since I was 2. You can imagine how hard it was to go through my life having to watch non-gay people on television, in movies, and in my real life. It’s just so…marginalizing.” (Room explodes with applause. Everyone shouts, “You go, Bob. So cool! We love you!”).

Leader: “We’ll just go cockwise—I mean clockwise-- from Bob. Lance?”

Lance: “I’d just like to echo Bob’s comments. It was so hard…no pun intended…growing up knowing that I might be deprived of covenantal marriage, even if I was destined to make more money than heterosexuals.”

Leader: “Sarah?”

Sarah: “I am bisexual. Well, pansexual, actually. I just like sticking things up my butt for the most part. Giggles.” (Loud applause. “So cool, you go girl, we’ve got your back, love you” cries ring out).

Leader: “Hillary?”

Hillary: “I like to mix it up, if you know what I mean. Why limit ourselves to one person, one sex, one species. I mean, hello, it’s so prudish. And Trump wants to kill us all!”

Leader: “Great , great points, Hillary. Edward?”

Edward: “ I must…no….I am proud to announce that I now identify as a 16-year-old, two-spirited, bisexual, transgendered jackalope from Oklahoma.” (Wild applause, whistling, shouts of “alright!” ensue).

Leader: “Alexandria?”

Alexandria: “I have just had my third abortion, and I just wanna say it was fantastic! I mean, I love sex…who doesn’t?...but, like, I don’t need kids! I think abortions should be free, like tampons and stuff, and, like, maybe there should be like vouchers or something!” (Crazed affirmations, cheering).

Leader: “And, Thomas… is it?”

Thomas: “Yes, ma’am.”

Leader: “Go, Thomas.”

Thomas: “I…well, I have to out myself as a …conservative…and I believe in the rule of law and the Bill of Rights and—” (Drowned out with boos, jeers, and threats of physical violence).

Leader: “Thomas, you are sick. I’m going to have to ask you to leave. We can’t take the risk that you might infect the minds of others in this room. I will, in the strongest possible terms, recommend that you be psychologically evaluated and sent to a reeducation camp- I mean to a psychiatric facility- to get the help you so desperately need.”

Leader: “Alright everyone, let’s hear it for our motto: ‘Light and Truth!’” (Orgiastic approval).

                                                                       {fade}

Bert And Ernie Are Gay!

                Bert and Ernie are gay.

                So says Mark Saltzman, one of Sesame Street’s script and songwriters since 1984. According to news.com.au, Saltzman told Queerty magazine that he wrote Bert and Ernie as a loving couple, one reflecting his own homosexual relationship with one of the show’s film editors at the time. He added, “I remember one time a preschooler [in San Francisco] turned to her mum and asked, ‘are Bert and Ernie lovers?’ and that, coming from a preschooler, was fun. That got passed around, and everyone had their chuckle and went back to it. And I always felt that without a huge agenda, when I was writing Bert and Ernie, they were. I didn’t have any other way to contextualize them.”

                (Supposedly) seeing a four-year-old ask her mother if two male puppets are gay is “fun?!” Ha, ha. I don’t want to know what “everyone went back to it” was referring to. You have a “huge agenda” if you can’t figure out “any other way to contextualize them.” You couldn’t bear to think of two young male puppets as simply friends or roommates, you had to homosexualize them, Mark? Much as some fans of the show did after same-sex marriage was legalized in New York, when they set up a petition asking the show’s creators to have Bert and Ernie get married on screen. Agenda? This is a public-broadcasting show-- featuring puppets-- aimed at preschoolers. It makes no sense for the show to feature any kind of sexuality.

                Sesame Street’s creators rejected the claim that Bert and Ernie had it going on, instead describing them as “best friends,” adding, “They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves.” Like girls and boys, perhaps?

                Some fans were upset at this denial of sultry, sexual, subtext between Bert and Ernie, with one stating that it had “broken his heart,” according to London’s The Sun newspaper. But Sesame Street first aired in 1969, fifteen years before Saltzman signed on and projected his own sexuality onto existing—and beloved-- kid’s show characters.

                “Kukla, Fran and Ollie,” was a puppet-themed children’s show of the 1950s that most people believe spawned “Sesame Street.” Were it around today, you can bet that writers would be clamoring for Kukla and Ollie to be married, Fran and Madame Ooglepuss to advance the lesbian cause, and, for a dramatic series-ending special, all four to engage in an orgy for the ages.

                That so many are talking about this is patently absurd…and not a little horrifying. Puppets-- even Muppets-- are not alive, do not sport genitalia, and cannot have sex. As such, they have no sexual orientation. (Perhaps they are “agender”). Progressives should be made to deal with this ridiculously obvious fact. But that won’t happen.

                Because, the truth is, we are all puppets…of the politically-correct elites that control our culture, our schools, our media, our politics…and our lives.   

Bill O'Reilly's "Killing" Book Series

                I have greatly enjoyed Bill O’Reilly and Brian Kilmeade’s “Killing” series books. The first of these, “Killing Lincoln,” was perhaps the quickest-paced, most intense and utterly fascinating historical book I’ve ever read. “Killing Kennedy” was well-done and interesting, as well. “Killing Reagan” was, I thought, less so, but I did like “Killing Patton.” I have not read “Killing Jesus.”

                More recently, “Killing the Rising Sun” and “Killing England” have been published. I have read both, and, while I didn’t think either of them were as riveting as “Killing Lincoln,” I believe they each have merit. History has so much to teach us. As much about the future as the past.

    Now comes “Killing the S.S.” Whereas this book, too, could have its moments, I am beginning to be concerned that O’Reilly and Kilmeade could be running out of things to kill. Or, more properly stated, I’m worried they may be running out of legitimate and cogent tales of people, countries and other entities that have already been killed to relate to the rest of us. At some point, the writing style or hook utilized in the beginning of the series might just wear thin. It’s one thing to refer to “the man with 24-hours to live,” but quite another to say, “the major fascist paramilitary organization with 2-years to live.”

               What’s next? Will we soon see titles such as “Killing Two Birds with One Stone,” “Killing the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg,” “Killing the Fatted Calf,” “Killing Oneself,” “Killing the Clock,” and “Killing with Kindness?” Perhaps “Killing It” is next. Or, maybe, “Killing Time.” (“The year with 48-hours to live?”).

               The suspense is killing me.  

College Student Denied Admission Due To Twitter Follow

               The College Fix reported on Bradley Shear, a lawyer who is representing a teenage client who was denied admission to a “prestigious” college after the school’s admissions officer asked him why he followed Alex Jones, the InfoWars conspiracy theorist, on Twitter. The student didn’t interact with Jones-- nor did he himself promote any conspiracy theories. “He simply followed a controversial personality,” according to The Fix. Shear is hoping to persuade colleges and universities to give up their social-media snooping.

                But, hey, in the meantime, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Jones is a bit of a wacko, but no more so than many other media and entertainment types. Shouldn’t a prospective freshman freshperson who follows, say, Joy Behar on Twitter be denied admission to any self-respecting institution of higher learning? Anyone who religiously watches Rachel Madcow Maddow (speaking of conspiracy theorists) has no business applying to Stanford or Notre Dame, for example. Similarly, a person who has professed admiration for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, Maxine Waters or Bernie Sanders could be rightfully banned from attending any “prestigious” university, right? If a student answers the question, “Would you, if you could, vote for Nancy Pelosi?” in the affirmative, they should logically be denied entrance to every community college in the nation.

                What’s more, I believe that, if a youngster has watched a Rosie O’Donnell movie or more than five episodes of The View, he/she/they should be kicked out of school, made to perform 80 hours of community service while wearing a “MAGA” hat, and be sentenced to an all-tofu diet for 60 consecutive days.

                If that youngster has watched, follows, or knows the names of CNN’s Jim Acosta, Chris Cuomo or Don Lemon……an “after-birth abortion” should not be too hastily ruled out.

                Either we all defend The First Amendment, or we all pay the consequences. In institutions of “higher education,” that sentiment should be a no-brainer.