Let The FBI Investigate Kavanaugh (And Ford Too)

The Democrats have called for a thorough FBI investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh based accusations of sexual misconduct when he was a teenager. President Trump has come out in support of a limited, one-week FBI investigation of the charges. I think this might be a good idea. It could quickly clear Kavanaugh of these charges which so far are denied by every single supposed witness put forth by the accusers.

One thing any investigation also needs to include is a thorough examination of the accusers, including Dr. Ford. If any of these people are shown to have deliberately lied about any of the circumstances to Congress and the American people then the possibility of criminal charges needs to be seriously explored.

It already appears that something actionable may have occurred with Dr. Ford and her attorney. The Senate Judiciary Committee offered to come to California to interview Dr. Ford based on a claim that she was afraid of flying. In Senate testimony Dr. Ford then literally admitted to being a world traveler (who flies around the world). In further testimony Dr. Ford claimed not to have understood the offer. One of two things then must be true. Her attorney did not communicate this offer to Dr. Ford (a legal ethics violation probably deserving for the lawyer to be disbarred) or Dr. Ford blatantly lied. This looks to be a conspiracy to draw out this incident as long as possible, delaying confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh past the mid-term elections where the Democrats hope to regain majorities in Congress to thwart any Supreme Court nomination of a Conservative by President Trump.

Certainly somebody, Dr. Ford, her attorney, or both lied to Congress in order to drag out this as far as possible.

One interesting story coming to light is that the third accuser, Julie Swetnick, was sued in 2000 for making false accusations of sexual misconduct.

Finally there needs to be an investigation into the mental health of Dr. Ford looking at the possibility that her “recovered” memories were actually false. I do not forego the possibility that she believes her memories are true, but in fact were fully fabricated in suggestive psychiatric interviews. Perhaps we need to investigate the possibility that political operatives helped facilitate those “interviews” leading to Dr. Ford’s testimony before the Senate.

 

December 2, 2017 In America

Support it – repeal regressive tax on the uninsured!

Repeal regressive tax on the uninsured!


Senate Should Repeal Regressive Tax on the Uninsured

“This [Obamacare] tax disproportionately falls on those with incomes less than $50,000, while exempting many households earning six-figure salaries. Many who qualify for subsidies will have to choose between paying the tax and buying policies that offer shabby coverage with onerous deductibles that could stick them with big medical bills.”

-Doug Badger, The Daily Signal, Dec 1, 2017


House Conservatives Advocate Breaking Caps on Defense Spending

With government funds running out Dec. 8, House conservatives argue that lawmakers should boost military spending in a new funding bill.

“We are breaking the caps on defense,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Thursday at Conversations with Conservatives, a monthly Q&A with reporters hosted by House conservatives and The Heritage Foundation.

-Rachel del Guidice, The Daiy Signal, Dec 1, 2017


Why No One Trusts the Mainstream Media

Trust in the media is at an all-time low. But should it be? Why do fewer and fewer Americans trust the mainstream media.

-Sharyl Attkisson, PragerU


Trump Frames Tax Vote as Swamp Drainers vs. Swamp Dwellers

As the Senate prepares to vote on a tax reform package, President Donald Trump called the vote a “moment of truth.”

“In the coming days, the American people will learn which politicians are part of the swamp and which politicians want to drain the swamp,” Trump said to a supportive crowd Wednesday in St. Charles, Missouri.

-Fred Lucas, The Daily Signal,  Nov 30, 2017


InAmerica.us December 2, 2017

No Freedom For Hate Speech

Somewhere in America
Somewhere in America

Freedom of speech is not about protecting the right of free speech of those we agree with. It is about protecting the right to speak for those we hate and despise. It is the job of government, and of the police in particular, to protect and defend the right of all people to speak. Those who use violence and intimidation to silence those they dislike are Fascists in the exact meaning of the word. Fascists before WWII in Italy and Germany were famous for using violence to silence those whom they disliked.

The man holding up this sign is a Fascist.

Hate speech protestor
This is what real hate speech looks like.

Noam Chomsky, despite my personal disagreements with many of his beliefs and positions, put it very well.

If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all. Noam Chomsky

It seems to me today the sort of people who want to ban hate speech basically define “hate speech” as pretty much anything they disagree with or don’t understand (or don’t feel prepared to refute logically).

I had an interesting discussion with my son and daughter recently. They are millennials and were telling me that the Antifa folks were justified in physically attacking and beating up people at a public rally whom they characterized as white supremacists. They justified this with this line of logic:

“White supremacists like Nazis advocate the genocide of inferior people. They want to gas blacks like the Nazis gassed the Jews in WWII.”

I am fairly certain that the vast majority of so-called “white supremacists” don’t want to gas black people and, although some may hold views I find personally despicable, are not in the same league as the Nazis who really did murder millions of people in concentration camps.

I would say to these people, as I said to my son and daughter, “You need to find out what these people truly believe and then use rational arguments to refute them based on facts, not fictions based on your own prejudices.”

Using violence first is always the naked admission that you don’t have good arguments, at least good arguments that will win the hearts and minds of rational people. Are there bad people out there that hold bad views? Of course there are. But if your first response is to use violence against people exercising their constitutional right to free speech just because you despise them, well, then you are an even worse person than they are.

It is ok to fight Nazis and evil people, but only after those people stop talking and start using violence to get their way. Then by God get your gun and have at it, just like our fathers and grandfathers did in WWII. But not before.