Timothy Birdnow

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a teenage boy?"

That seems to be the thrust of the Waterloo last stand by the Democrats and their media allies, who have spent decades criminalizing male behavior and have now made it a matter of guilty until proven innocent when any female, no matter how emotionally unstable or politically motivated, makes a claim that is so old that it cannot not only be proven or disproven but where the parties involved may well not even be alive. While they laughed off the "bimbo eruption squads" of Bill Clinton and Hillary's leading the attacks on women who President Penis molested they now are willing to take the word of someone claiming to have been "assaulted" back in the early 1980's by a high school aged Brett Kavanaugh.

Now, I am not saying attempted rape is a minor matter, don't misunderstand. But what really happened, if anything at all?
The early eighties was coming off of the "sexual revolution" of the late sixties and seventies, and AIDS had yet to come along and strangle it. There was sexual activity in those days, and it was still understood (something that modern feminism has tried to deny) that women liked to be pursued, The chase, the hunt, what-have-you was prominent in literature, movies, music, and other cultural media in bygone days. IF - and it's a big IF - Brett Kavanaugh pulled her into a bedroom and climbed on top of her it may well have been a more whimsical thing than she either remembers or likes.

But feminism has made contact between men and women a largely legal affair, and the sexes today are no longer able to fraternize in what was always considered a natural and normal way. Feminists hate men, seek absolute power over them. The charge of rape or suggestion of sexual assault (a name they came up with to overly broaden the accusations) has great power, and the feminists have learned to wield it as a nasty political weapon.

Now basic male attributes are treated as criminal "toxic masculinity" and bring horrible retribution. Again, I am not referring to a true rape or sexual assault. I am speaking of the "microaggressions" or other dubious accusations.

Do you doubt me on this? Remember not too long ago liberals changed the lyrics of the flirty, light hearted Christmas song Baby it's Cold Outside because it supposedly promotes rape and sexual assault.

So now, after three and a half decades, Brett Kavanaugh is going to be brought down, perhaps, by accusations from a left-wing activist based on a claim he got handy with her.

She, of course, can not be said to bear any blame whatsoever, even though she may well have given even over permission at the time.

I put this all out there as a matter of speculation only; I don't believe any of this for a single minute. This is clearly, unequivocally a political hit.

And while if Kavanaugh did it, and the way Mrs. Ford claims, then it is a terrible thing. But how much of this is true, and how much stemmed from her own mind?

I choose my words carefully in calling her Mrs. Ford, by the way. The media keeps calling her Doctor Kristine Blasey Ford is not a medical doctor. She has a PH.D. in Psychology. It is customry to refer to someone as Doctor only when they are MD.'s, not Ph.D.'s. The media keeps referring to her as Doctor, knowing this will give her a certain gravitas, as the media used to say. Most people don't have a lot of respect for psychologists, but they have plenty of respect for medical doctors.

Here is an interesting post from CNN back in July. In this the author argues the Democrats should "Bork" Brett Kavanaugh. From his article:

"Last year, I fine-tuned a model that tries to explain the factors behind how each lawmaker voted in Senate confirmations since Bork and then tries predicting how Supreme Court future confirmation votes will go. It came within one vote of correctly predicting how many votes Neil Gorsuch would
get during his Senate vote.

[...]

The model looks at the ideology of each senator and nominee, how often each senator votes with his
or her party on votes where at least 50% of Democrats vote one way and 50% of Republicans vote
another, the party of each senator, the qualifications of the nominee, the president's popularity and the nominee's popularity.

[...]

"Put another way, Kavanaugh needs to be unpopular enough that he won't be seen as an electoral
liability for moderate Democratic senators to vote against. These include red state senators up for
re-election such as Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West
Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

On the other end, Collins needs to feel electoral pressure to vote against Kavanaugh.

Keep in mind, Democratic senators and liberal groups were able to pull off such a feat with the Bork nomination. Bork's net favorability ended up at -11 points nationally. Bork finished the
nomination process so unpopular because Democrats and liberal groups went after him for his views
on the Constitution, such as privacy and the right to an abortion. They also brought up his views on executive privilege, which could be the cornerstone of a Democratic argument against Kavanaugh.
The obvious difficulty for Democrats is that it's unlikely Kavanaugh will end up as unpopular as Bork was or Trump is. Among those who form opinions of Supreme Court nominees, their feelings are usually positive.

Kavanaugh wins confirmation under most realistic scenarios.

End excerpts.

So the Democrats had only one option - destroy Kavanaugh, destroy his name, his reputation, his career. In short, they were planning this since July, at minimum.

Isn't it interesting that Christine Blasey Ford purged her social media before coming forward, or that someone purged her high school yearbooks from the internet after this story broke?

Another point to ponder; are women/girls strong, confident, capable or are they weak and fragile? The feminists simply cannot give us an answer, swinging back and forth between the two when it is convenient. Girl power turns to victim at the drop of a hat.

According to carol swain

"Was Ford drinking at this party that no one else remembers? Treating women like delicate snowflakes provides a convenient shield for those who want to shirk responsibility for their own personal behavior or mental-health condition.

The Democrats seem to have an endless supply of women waiting in the wings to step forward with an
accusation. In 2011, when Herman Cain was the front-running GOP candidate for the presidential
nomination, several women accused him of sexual misconduct. After Cain suspended his campaign, his
accusers faded back into the woodwork. Mission accomplished. Of the GOP candidates, Cain was the one who could have proven to be a substantial threat to Barack Obama."

End quote.

Yes indeed; it seems that there is a double standard, and men are in a catch-22, guilty until proven innocent, always at fault, and there is an endless supply of women willing to prostitute themselves with false accusations to promote a doctrine that ostensibly promotes female empowerment and strength. It is, frankly, revolting.

After discussing the Roy Moore smear, she states:

"The #MeToo women have proven to be filled with hypocrites and liars. Asia Argento, one of Harvey

Weinstein’s female accusers and a #MeToo leader, carried on an affair with a teen male over whom
she exerted power. Women who consented to have sex with men in exchange for promotions and benefits now bring forth decades-old allegations painting themselves as victims.

Some of these victims either lie or fail to put forth credible cases against the men they target.

The accused men sometimes get their jobs back or prevail, despite the odds being against them. Ryan
Lizza and Chris Hardwick are two high profile #MeToo victims who were reinstated after investigations found no reason to continue punishing them."

end excerpt.

By the way, another man who was said to be present at the supposed assault by Kavanaugh denied the allegation.

Meanwhile Ford is making out quite well, raising over two hundred grand for her "defense". So, she has nothing to gain from making these allegations? Remember, Kavanaugh's mother was the trial judge who cost Ford's family their home in a bankruptcy case.

I should point out, too, that Ford claimed not to come forward out of fear of retaliation. Huh? Judges have no enforcement power of any sort. How could Kavanaugh hurt her? Especially as a SCOTUS judge, where he would have more to lose. It is completely illogical.

I did a little background searching on Ford and her husband.

Both have ties to Big Pharma, with Ford working for pharmaceutical companies in the past and her husband being employed by Sigma pharmaceutical. Her husband worked at a number of pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies:

" Moreover, Russell and his wife Christine tied the knot in June 2002 in Half Moon Bay, California.

His wife a former research psychologist and bio-statistician at Stanford University School of
Medicine. Mrs. Ford graduated from Pepperdine University and the University of Southern California;
subsequently from the University of North Carolina and Holton Arms School.

Russell Ford worked for Abbott Medical Optics; also spent some time with Boston Scientific
Neurovascular, Zosano Pharma. Nowadays, Russell Ford, is a principal mechanical engineer at Triple Ring Technologies. Prior to that, he worked for the Cygnus Corporation in Redwood City, California.

Furthermore, Russell his wife and two sons. reside in Palo Alto, Cali."

End excerpt.

So, they make a living - a very good living, as it turns out - from money coming from the evil healthcare industry. Much of this comes from big government.

Here's some info from her husband Russell's Linked-in profile:

As to Mrs. Ford, well, here's a bit about her.

The U.K. Daily Mail tells us:

"Having dealt with topics such as depression on an academic level, Christine co-authored a book in

2015 with Helena Chmura Kraemer called ‘How Many Subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research.’

In total, she has co-authored over 50 scientific publications, book chapters and books.

She has also written a number of journals, including 'Does Gender Moderate the Relationship Between

Childhood Maltreatment & Adult Depression?', 'Acupuncture: A Promising Treatment for Depression

During Pregnancy' and 'Post-traumatic Growth Following the Terrorist Attacks of September 11,
2001'.

In the article, she and her co-writers wrote: '[Our] findings suggest that there may be a range of traumatic experience most conducive to growth and they also highlight the important contributions of cognitive and coping variables topsychological thriving in short and longer-term periods following traumatic experience.’

In another piece, Ford also revealed the effects of meditation with yoga on depressed patients, writing: ‘Results indicate that significantly more meditation group participants experienced a remission [of depression] than did controls at 9‐month follow‐up.’

End excerpt.

So she is a big advocate of acupuncture and meditation. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it does bespeak a person who is into the moonbat counter-culture of California, and probably into Eastern mysticism to boot.

Another point to ponder; she married her husband in 2002, which means she was a wallflower snagged late in life. I could find no evidence she had a former husband, quite the opposite. Women who marry late in life are often on the market for a reason, often because they are crazy or overbearing or unpleasant people. She may well have a chip on her shoulder over this. I suspect she's a flaming feminist and that chased men away. Since we know she scrubbed her internet footprint we can assume she is a radical. We can also assume that since she was seen wearing a vagina hat.

It appears her high school was a swinging place with heavy drinking a a very sexually active student body.

Also, she appears to be a terrible professor with terrible review from her students.

I have theorized in the past that the endgame of the #meetoo movement was to enshrine the Obama policy towards "sexual assault" that was implemented on college campuses, where the accused stood condemned unless he could prove unequivocally that he was innocent and would be punished administratively, into civil and criminal law in society as a whole. I believe they want to create a board that deals with accusations outside of the criminal courts, one which fundamentally alters the rules involving discovery and presumption of innocence. It seems hard to imagine, but we've seen them do all manner of terrible things to college kids based on weak or hazy accusations. See here for an example.

I believe the Left wants to create these star chambers for any sexual assault case that could not succeed in court. And what they are doing to Kavanaugh here is very much like that. He has to prove his innocence in this case. It is horribly un-American.

Increasingly, having a Y chromosome is prima facia evidence of guilt. And our society is criminalizing what had been normal interaction between men and women. It is the implementation of Mussolini's dream of Fascism "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state". This is putting all relationships under the thumb of the State.

So how does this play out? I am certain they will turn up some women who will claim - falsely - to have been present or that Kavanaugh bothered them as well. It will be lies, but all they need is to get these claims out there. The Democrats and media learned their lesson with Anita Hill, an uncorroborated source. You have to pile on.

This is going to get much nastier in due course.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2300 words, total size 20 kb.