November 13, 2017
A quick thought on Roy Moore's answer to the charges of molesting a then 14 year old girl nearly 40 years ago; He has said far too much. Moore has denied even knowing the girl, a very stupid mistake if he is lying. Moore is a lawyer, and has been in the public eye, quite visibly, for all this time. He is not a stupid man. He has to know that it is a mistake to deny this if he is guilty. As Bill Clinton said to Paula Jones, if everyone just denies remembering anything there is no way it can stick.
Moore need only say he didn't remember her - or more usefully that he knew her, perhaps spoke with her a time or two, and maybe even was concerned about her as she seemed like she may have been troubled. This is plausible deniability. But Moore denies having met her at all. That would be an act of stupidity on Moore's part if he were guilty.
It would be very easy for Moore to spin this as a troubled youth and a fantasy. A young girl in desperate need of some attention (since her parents were divorcing) making up a story about how an older man had been overcome with ardour for her. But he's not taking that tact.
As James Hirsen pointed out a, Leigh Corfman has made similar accusations against three of her pastors in times gone by.
Purportedly Moore’s main accuser Leigh Corfman has had three divorces, filed for bankruptcy three times, and has been charged with multiple misdemeanors.
Posts on Moore's FB page indicate that Corfman, has claimed several pastors at various churches made sexual advances at her.
— James Hirsen (@thejimjams) November 10, 2017
Oh, and if anyone doubt the political nature of this one should disabuse themselves of the notion by noting that Gloria Allred, queen of sexual misconduct smears, has has slithered out from under a rock over this. Allred has pervected the sex smear to destroy Republicans (see Herman Cain) and no doubt she has some Clinton Cash to spread around.
By the by, Moore is threatening to sue the Washington Post for this.
Dana Mathewson inserts his two cents here:
Paul Mirengoff has been commenting on the case in Power Line. Paul is a respected lawyer, and his comments should be seen in that light:
The Post found four women whom Moore dated as teenagers. His conduct towards all four might well have been basically the same. The unstable woman of the four might well have embellished.
I’m not saying she has. Her allegations may be true. But based on what has been reported so far, I think her most serious allegations — the ones that, if true, would constitute criminal conduct — are more likely false than true.
When I read the Washington Post’s account of Roy Moore’s alleged sexual misdeeds towards Leigh Corfman, one detail rang particularly false. Corfman told the Post that she spoke with Moore on her phone in her bedroom. As one woman of my acquaintance who lived in the deep South during that era guaranteed, 14 year-old girls in Alabama didn’t have phones in their rooms back then.
Corfman, it turns out, was no exception. Aaron Klein reports that Corfman’s mother, Nancy Wells, told Breitbart News that her daughter did not have a phone in her bedroom during the period when Moore allegedly called the girl.
However, Wells stands by the rest of the story reported by the Post.
Does Corfman’s faulty recollection about the phone undercut the thrust of that story? I spent decades working with and examining witnesses. In my view, Corfman’s mistake about the bedroom phone is the kind of error people often make when trying to remember details from the distant past. I don’t think her mistake regarding this detail bears much on her overall credibility.
Corfman’s claim of sexual misconduct by Moore is not a detail. If she is erring about this matter, she’s not failing to remember something incidental. Her "error,” if she’s making one, is of a different nature — a lie, a delusion, or a substantial embellishment.
The Army plans on meeting their recruitment quotas by mining mental institutions.
From the Independent Sentinel:
"People with a history of "self-mutilation,” bipolar disorder, depression and drug and alcohol abuse can now seek waivers to join the Army under a new policy. We’re going to give people with a history of mental illnesses guns and grenades, machetes but we keep hearing we shouldn’t allow people with mental problems have guns.
The Army needs 80,000 new soldiers by September 2018. Last year, they took in 69,000, loosening up the restrictions on poor scores on aptitude tests, gave waivers for pot smokers, and offered hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses."
The author mentions meny of teh problems with this, such as suicide risks and rapes of foreign women, but misses one of the key points; these people will cost the U.S. taxpayers huge sums of money in medical care. It's a free mental health plan should they get in.
The author also blames a good economy for a lack of recruits, but is this so? Is it not, perhaps, equally the fault of the political correctness that has infected the military, from the abolition of "don't ask don't tell" making gay sex an oopen and protected thing to the transgenderising (well, Trump at least ended THAT). Feminism plays a large part, too, where women are given lesser standards than men. Oh, and if you go to war the rules of engagement mean you often lose your life frivolously because you aren't allowed to fight back. Fighting in the military was a way of channeling a restless and combative spirit. Now it is worse than useless for this as the person so encumbered is put into battle and not allowed to fight.
It's a wonder we can get anyone to join.
So we are going to remedy that by recruiting the insane. Gee, that's a winning strategy!
When George W. Bush was President of these United States he was often accused by the media and their Democrat allies of being stupid, of being dull, of lacking curiosity. At the time I and many others defended him; he had an MBA from Harvard, after all. But now I'm not so sure.
Recently the former President (a President who brought back many of the most idiotic policies of the Carter White House, such as solar panels and wind farms) recently took a swipe at the current President and, more to the point, at the voting public who elected him
Speaking at a George W. Bush Institute event in New York the former President had this to say:
"[W]e can’t wish globalization away,any mo more...
Scandals take many forms. If you could be transported back to antebellum times, for example, would you not find scandalous the desire to perpetuate the legal institution of slavery? This brings us to the Alabama special election to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacant Senate seat, a contest now front-and-center with the recent sex allegations made against GOP hopeful Judge Roy Moore. Moore denies the charges, but there are certain things that can’t be denied.
Democrat Doug Jones, Moore’s opponent, has some noteworthy positions. He’s pro-prenatal infanticide. It’s not a stance he took 40 years ago but has since abandoned, and it doesn’t mean he’s accused of once having kissed an underage girl.
It means he believes in the murder of underage girls — and boys. That’s beyond scandalous.more...
November 12, 2017
There is no mention of whether Weiner will include a "revealing" photo of himself in his return letter.
Oh My: Anthony Weiner Is Looking For Pen Pals While In Prison
Read the rest at Townhall
"If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” wrote Fyodor Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov. Mentioning this in association with Devin Patrick Kelley, the militant atheistwho last Sunday perpetrated the worst church shooting in U.S. history, is bound to raises hackles. Of course, few atheists will descend into committing murder; in fact, I’ve known some I’d call "good people.” Moreover, note that I myself once not only didn’t believe in God, but like Kelley thought religious people were "stupid.” Yet is it possible a straight line can be drawn between atheism (the belief) and increasing crime and immorality?
Ultra-Orthodox women surge as tech entrepreneurs
Read it all at American Thinker.
November 11, 2017
A quick thought; we have been hearing much about how we have to figure out "how to pay for the tax cuts" by our leaders and our media. Somebody explain to me how you "pay for" a tax cut? If you offset a cut with a raise elsewhere you do not have a cut but a restructuring. Restructuring has some uses, but if you want to ignite economic growth you aren't going to do it with a restructuring. A cut means reducing taxes, not shuffling them around like deck chairs on the Titanic.
Precise language people!
If you doubt the political nature of the Roy Moore accusations, just read this paragraph from the "investigative report":
"Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post. While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying they thought it was important for people to know about their interactions with Moore. The women say they don’t know one another."
End excerpt. more...
Writing at American Thinker the normally lucid Ned Barnett seems to have suffered an aneurism in his thinking on the Roy Moore libel attack.
He argues: more...
Back in the days before moral relativism and progressive historicism rendered all war (except communist revolutionary war) an unambiguous evil — that is, before "giving peace a chance,” regardless of the conditions upon which that peace was to be purchased, became an unqualified (and therefore non-relative?) good — art about war was expected to comprise both the pain of loss and the legacy of heroism.
Today, by contrast, "serious” art
about war must focus only on the absurdity, emptiness, or futility of
it all. Thus, in an age that conflates its petty materialism with
righteous sophistication, we are losing the compulsion to keep faith
with those who traded everything earthly on our behalf,in exchange for
a bit of eternal dignity. In neglecting this compulsion, we lose that
part of ourselves whence also derives such old-fashioned concerns as
conscience, responsibility, and loyalty.
In a scene from "I, Claudius,” a 70s television drama based on the life of the Roman emperor who ascended to power after Caligula’s death, Claudius relates the dismay of Julius Caesar when the emperor discovers the extent of his daughter’s promiscuity. The accused are lined up before Caesar and confess their sins.
Finally, after hearing out all the fornicators, a frustrated and overwhelmed Caesar exclaims, "Is there anyone in Rome who has not slept with my daughter?”
A similar question could be asked of the Hollywood and Washington swamp critters coming out of the woodwork either to confess their sins or to expose those who sinned against them: Is there anyone who has not been harassed by or forced to sleep with people like Harvey Weinstein?
However, even more ominously for Hollywood, the lowlifes who have a penchant for pedophilia are being exposed by Cory Feldman, while at the same time Kevin Spacey, who is accused of molesting underage boys, provides ratification of Feldman’s accusations. Both men present a worry for Hollywood’s LGBT communities, as they have always sought to separate themselves from accusations of pedophilia, insisting that gay sex is practiced among adults who are completely consensual partners who wish to be married for life.
Amidst all the accusations, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that professional saviors of actors’ and politicians’ reputations and careers, seeing the likes of Weinstein going to the block, have advised their clients to get ahead of the coming storms of judgment by preemptively confessing, savagely beating their breasts while at the same time they beat a judicious but hopefully temporary retreat from the public gaze.
In Kevin Spacey’s case, he is being erased from Hollywood’s collective memory.
His appearances in Netflix’s "House of Cards” are cancelled. His shoots in Ridley Scott’s upcoming film All the Money in the World are being expurgated, with actor Christopher Plummer taking his place. One is reminded of others who have been erased from history, like Nikolai Yezhov, Leon Trotsky and Bo Gu were eliminated from the collective memories of Communist regimes.
For the truth is that Spacey, who followed Hollywood’s political correct rules in "coming out” in order to ransom himself, must wonder what he has done wrong, much as the accused Soviet and Maoist show trials must have wondered why their heads were suddenly in the noose.
After all, the milieu in which Spacey lives and works has promoted films and lifestyles that have seen no particular wrong in promoting sexual activities of all types. Hollywood’s films are routinely vehicles for celebrating every permutation of the sexual revolution, as many producers have bought into cheap philosophical musings on post-modernist deconstruction of everything, including sexual morality.
The questions are, "Why Spacey? Why now?”
Not that most will feel sorry for him, but the actor must be confused, for it wasn’t so long ago that Roman Polanski was applauded in absentia at the Oscars, receiving a standing ovation from Meryl Streep, even though he had raped a drugged 13-year-old girl.
Why was Polanski applauded? For one thing, Polanski was and for some still is considered an artiste to whom no moral judgments apply. His creative genius apparently puts him beyond the condemnation doled out to less talented mortals. Polanski escapes condemnation much like the artist Paul Gauguin, who though he deserted his wife and children and took child mistresses to whom he gave the gift of syphilis, is forgiven. The greatness of his art has been deemed to transcend his pusillanimous sex life.
The fact is that Hollywood’s condemnation of Spacey, who apparently is truly guilty of child abuse, is completely arbitrary. Hollywood has no real moral basis for the finger pointing, for to judge justly requires a knowledge of right and wrong; and Hollywood in general does not believe in right and wrong, particularly when it comes to sexual behavior.
What’s left in the absence of a moral thermometer is total arbitrariness. Arbitrariness provokes fear, not true repentance. Arbitrary judgment and fear are always the results when the concepts of moral truth are infinitely flexible.
Since it is unlikely that genuine moral indignation is behind the current show trials now being played out in Hollywood (and in D.C.), we have to ask ourselves, to what end are all these displays of accusation and repentance being employed? What is truly feared? What sacrificial lambs are being given up in order to protect people behind the curtain? Who is being protected while a few are led to the gallows?
It is hard not to come to the conclusion that Spacey and others are being sacrificed in order that more powerful people who do not want their sexual proclivities revealed are not exposed. Certainly, Elijah Woodand Corey Feldman, along with other former child actors, have stated that pedophile rings including some of the world’s most powerful, famous and influential figures not only exist, but continue to operate freely because the deeds done in secret are covered up.
One need only think of the Rochdalesex abuse scandalin England. Police and other law officials looked the other way while young girls were drugged and passed around to "Asian” men who raped them. According to reports, some of the guilty men are still walking around freely.
The list of powerful people who are child abusers is no doubt quite long. There are still unanswered questions about Jeffrey Epstein’s "Lolita Express.” Who among the famous are implicated in the child abuse happening on Epstein’s private island? Is it fair to ask just who was involved in the orgies aboard Epstein’s jet,” which according to the Daily Mail and other publications, Bill Clinton boarded 26 times in three years -- apparently accompanied at least once by Spacey?
Isn’t it fair to demand reporters and law enforcement do some serious investigating of sex crimes committed against child actors in Hollywood? Isn’t it fair to demand Hollywood, which has produced exposés like Spotlight, which documented the sex abuse scandals afflicting the Roman Catholic church, turn that same glaring spotlight on its own denizens of the child sex underworld? If the demand is that Catholic priests clean up what Hollywood deems as unspeakable acts, isn’t it fair to ask Hollywood to uncover its own scandals while demonstrating genuine change in the way it operates? Hypocritically targeting a few lowlifes while indulging in ritualistic breast-beating is not enough. There has to be real change, including stopping the glorification of sexual deviance in films -- starting with romanticizing pedophilia.
Time will tell. In the meantime, most will not be convinced Hollywood’s repentance is genuine by the social execution of a few stars like the odious Kevin Spacey.
Best Food Deals on Veterans Day for Those Who Served
Starbucks, Crispie Creme, Dunkin Donuts, Home Depot, Bed Bath and Beyond, and a host of other companies have special deals for Vets. Check it all out.
November 10, 2017
Way down yonder in Alabamy there is trouble a-brewing. Seems Jeff Bezos's propaganda rag The Washington Post has penned a hit piece on former 'Bama Judge Roy Moore, you know, the guy who beat the Establishment candidate for the U.S. Senate despite the best efforts and a huge pile of money from Mitch McConnell, and the Swamp is screaming for Moore's head. The charge? That a 32 year old Moore had forced an unwilling (I mention that because in Alabama as in Arkansas one never knows about the legality of early bloomers and their beaus) 13 year old girl into carnal acts. In short, he is accused of Weinerism, or Weinsteinism (Weinsteinerism?). Oh hell; he's accused of being a dirty pervert. more...
On February 17, 2005 two border agents shot an illegal alien drug dealer on the border at El Paso Tx.and were sentenced to prison. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean received 11 and 12 year sentences respectively. Why? The drug dealer (who would later be convicted of importing tons of marijuana to the U.S.) had resisted arrest and was shot in the back. The agents were doing their jobs and ended up in prison as a result.
In 2011 Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martlan was nearly given a Dishonorable Discharge for stopping an Afghan police commander from raping a young boy inside a U.S. base. Political pressure was brought to bear and the military relented. The soldier was a decorated Green Baret, a true American hero.
So why was a deserter who voluntarily joined the Taliban given little more than a DD? Bergdahl voluntrily put himself in harm's way and one must wonder if he really was captive or if he had voluntarily joined the enemy. Still, it was crystal clear he was a traitor and deserter who should have been punished. A military court simply kicked him out of the army and let him be on his way.
If border guards go to jail for protecting America's border and if decorated special forces officers are to be kicked out for protecting innocent young children why wouldn't Bergdahl get prison time" The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) allows for a punishment of death in the case of desertion during wartime - a state that was clearly present. And we traded a peck of the worst, more vicious terrorists for Bergdahl. SWtrange.
Question; was bergdahl working for the DIA or some other military spy operation? Is that why the Obama Administration was so eager to have him back - and why he was treated so kindly by the military court? Or was it that the Obama Administration wanted to claim they left no one behind and were willing to give away U.S. security to do that - and the military court had to justify the price paid for Bergdahl?
We will likely never know, but I suspect the latter. Too many institutions were horribly corrupted by eight years of Obama and the "deep state" has been covering for the BHO ever since.
BTW, Bergdahl sounds like a screwball; a ballet dancer and Buddhist who was kicked out of the Coast Guard for "unspecified" reasons and who seemed to spend much of his time hanging with the natives. There is more to his story than meets the eye, methinks.
November 09, 2017
Yesterday there was much discussion on talk radio about the defeat of Ed Gillespie in the Virginia gubernatorial race. The news media naturally spun this to be a defeat for President Trump, who was not running and largely stayed out of the whole fray. Even Rush Limbaugh seemed to be chewing on the edges of this, looking for the reason why Gillespie lost. Healthcare stood accused, for instance. But in the end it comes down to one simple thing.
It was a huge victory for Trump.
go to the web page
You made FrackNation possible. You supported it when we needed help, so now I'm asking for your help again. Making FrackNationwas a lot of fun. Even when Julie Sautner threatened to pull a gun on me, I was happy. I was also a little nervous, but I was happy because I knew that people only get angry when you expose their lies. I was confident my journalism was on the right track.
And something similar has just happened with the closing night of FERGUSON the play in New York.Basically, a near riot situation erupted on closing night when one of the actors suddenly decided to lecture the audience with fake news and politics. Thankfully, he was quickly shut down, but that wasn't enough, as the arguments and shouting spilled out into the lobby and 30th Street Manhattan. I was accused of "White Arrogance" by cast member Cedric Benjamin.more...
November 9, 2017
Down the Memory Hole: Obama Stole the 2008 Primary with Help of DNC
31 queries taking 0.0209 seconds, 100 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.