The Politics of Character Assassination and Personal Destruction: Evidence that Evil Has Co-opted the Democratic Party

(credit:  Reuters photo)

by Diane Rufino, October 8, 2018

Judge Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as the 114th associate justice to the Supreme Court on Saturday, October 6. It almost didn’t happen. And if everything went the way Democrats planned, it wouldn’t have.

According to Christine Blasey Ford (“Christina Ford”), thirty-six years ago, when she was only 15, she was assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh at a party. He was 17 at the time. She made a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee explaining her account, but putting her theatrics aside, her naivete, her confusion and timidness and her frequent consults with her many attorneys, the truth is that she presented no evidence, no details, and no witnesses. She apparently only told one person – her husband, Russell Ford. She told him “He could become a justice of the Supreme Court someday.” She said her husband remembered that she said her attacker was Brett Kavanaugh, but she herself doesn’t remember telling him that. She never told her account to anyone else until May 2012, during a couples counseling session. Again, no details were given.

Until July 2018, Ford had never named Brett Kavanaugh as her attacker outside of therapy. In early July 2018, she saw press reports stating that he was on the “short list” of potential Supreme Court nominees and decided to tell her story.  She called her congresswoman, Anna Eshoo (D- Palo Alto) and left a message with her receptionist that someone on the president’s short list of judicial nominees had attacked her. On July 9, after Kavanaugh had become the nominee, Ford received a call from the office of Rep. Eshoo and she proceeded to meet on two occasions with her staff (July 11 and July 13). She mentioned sending a letter to ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein.  In fact, Rep. Eshoo’s office delivered a copy of my letter to Sen. Feinstein’s office on July 30, 2018. The letter included Ford’s name, but she requested that the letter be kept confidential until she had a chance to speak with her in person. Apparently, Senator Feinstein sent a letter in response confirming that she would keep it temporarily in confidence. [I included a copy of that letter at the end of this article]

The rest is history.

Christine Blasey Ford thought not to contact any authorities about her allegations but rather, her first instinct was to get it to Democratic politicians so they could use it to disgrace President Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh and to impugn his character. For thirty-six years, she essentially kept her accusations to herself until the 11^th hour, when Kavanaugh made it through to be the president’s choice for the high court. Feinstein sat on that letter and that information until after Kavanaugh did far better in his confirmation hearings than Democrats hoped – when it looked like he would indeed be confirmed.

To be clear about the accusations made by Ford against Brett Kavanaugh:  The one person Ford said was at the party in question not only denied that she was there, but went on to sign a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, that she: (i) never once met Kavanaugh; (ii) was not at the party; and (iii) the party Ford addressed in her accusations never happened. In fact, she said, Ford’s allegations came as a shock to her. On the other hand, Brett Kavanaugh brought to the Committee a journal that he meticulously kept to document his life (just as his father had done) which provided an air-tight alibi for his whereabouts on the possible evenings of the party.

Ignoring the evidence, Democrats concluded that just because Ms. Ford made accusations of possible sexual misconduct, she must be believed and Kavanaugh must be the attacker. And then when he passionately and forcefully defended his whereabouts, his reputation, and his good name, Democrats went after him again claiming he is an angry man who doesn’t possess the temperament necessary for an associate justice of the Supreme Court.  The made a mockery and a circus out of the Confirmation Hearings.

Let’s face it, no one expected the Democrats to make it easy for Trump to have Kavanaugh confirmed. Senator Chuck Schumer even said as much in a tweet he made moments after Trump announced him as his pick to replace Justice Kennedy, on July 9.  Schumer tweeted: “I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same.”  Schumer, who apparently was spearheading the resistance against Kavanaugh, also was the one who sent out emails to fellow Democrats the night before the confirmation hearings began and who orchestrated to have all those annoying screaming protesters show up to disrupt the proceedings.

As bad as outright partisan delay and obstruction tactics are, which we have seen from the very first day Trump stepped into the White House, I and most Americans are far more concerned with something far more serious — which is the Democrats’ policy of PERSONAL DESTRUCTION and CHARACTER ASSASSINATION when it comes to Republican candidates and judicial nominees.  They spread lies and make up allegations of sexual harassment, without conscience and without impunity…. Why do they do it???  — Because it works.  It almost worked to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the bench. It already worked to make sure law schools won’t hire him. Harvard already announced that he is not welcome back. The politics of PERSONAL DESTRUCTION is something the Democrats have become good at. The politics of spreading lies and instilling fear (including a return to Jim Crow or a return to back alley abortions) is something Democrats are good at. Look what they did to Judge Roy Moore. (You don’t hear anything any more about his accuser). Look what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012 when he ran for president. During that election, Senator Harry Reid accused Mitt Romney, FALSELY, of not paying his taxes in over 10 years. He knew it wasn’t true. After the election, when confronted about his lie and whether he felt remorse for stooping so low, he said no. His response epitomized what the Democratic Party’s politics of personal destruction would become: “It worked didn’t it? He lost, didn’t he?”

The writer for the Stephen Colbert show, Ariel Dumas, tweeted during the Senate vote on Saturday: “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”

The writer’s name should forever be changed to Ariel Dumb-ass.

MSNBC host Mika Brzezkinski mocked Kavanaugh, saying he “raged” and “cried like a baby” while defending himself. This jubilation and mocking of a good and decent man, blemished by unverified accusations, humiliated before all of the country and the world, and fighting to save a reputation he spent an entire life building, is similar to the jihadists celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans in the wake of 9/11. It says more about who THEY are – the Democrats, the main-stream media, the Hollywood and entertainment industry – than who Brett Kavanaugh is.

These Democrats are not good people. They are not decent people. They are certainly not the kind of people that should be given any power over others. These are people co-opted by the devil; commissioned to do evil.

Remember what Judge Kavanaugh said in his remarks addressing Ford’s accusations?  He said: “I’m never going to get my reputation back. My life is totally and permanently altered.” Later, during that same hearing, an angry Sen. Lindsey Graham told his Democratic colleagues, “You don’t want to find out the truth.  What you want is to destroy this guy’s life.”

The sad thing is that those Democratic Senators, the ones so willing to condemn Kavanaugh merely because Ford made an unverified accusation against him, took an OATH to the US Constitution, which guarantees to each US citizen the right to be presumed innocent, the right to confront his or her accuser, the right to a fair trial by members of his peers. They ignored their oaths and betrayed their allegiance to the Constitution in denying Kavanaugh his fundamental liberty rights. These Democratic Senators are political terrorists and are unfit to serve in government. Their choice of terror is character assassination.

One of the tricks Democrats and other liberals love most is taking something that is as  universally despised as possible, like rape, racism, or police shooting innocent people, and then declaring that they are against it while Republicans are indifferent to it.

• “You’re against disrespecting the flag?” Then you must want black men to be shot by the police!
• “You’re not in favor of tearing down historical statues because the owners had slaves?” Then you must hate black people! You must believe slavery was OK.
• “You don’t believe EVERY rape accusation made against a man?” Then you must be pro-rape or think that women are to be sexualized.

We have Congresswomen, like Mad Maxine Waters, who go around telling people to harass members of Trumps’ team and Trump supporters. “Tell them they aren’t welcome here.” What an unconscionable message to send. What an unconscionable tactic.

These people are taxpayers and citizens of this country; they are entitled to feel comfortable and welcome in their own country.

The actions of Maxine Waters and the obstructionist, duplicitous, actions in general of the Democratic members of government are deeply troubling and let me tell you why…

Government is supposed to be the governing body for the People. It is the creation of the Constitution, adopted by the People, organized in State Conventions. Government serves the States and the People. That’s its sole function. It is NOT to serve itself or a Political Party.

Years ago, before our Revolution, when people were dis-satisfied with their royal governor or with the King and Parliament, they protested; they petitioned, they engaged in peaceful acts of civil disobedience, designed to frustrate or scare those enforcing government policy. The point is that when government is not serving the people as legally authorized to do, it is the PEOPLE who organize and carry out the protests. That is how they put pressure on their government. In our present case, it is GOVERNMENT who is organizing and encouraging the protests – for government’s interests only.  Not for the people’s interests.  What we have now is a Political Party doing anything and everything it can to cause civil and national unrest because it believes it is entitled to the control of government. They absolutely can’t stand the fact that Donald Trump won. And they absolutely refuse to accept it.

If the people want the government to continue to be a GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE, the People are going to have to fight for it and defend it. Otherwise, it will become a Government of the Democratic Party, by the Democratic Party (and its band of indoctrinated useless idiots), for the Democratic Party.

This is the state of our government in DC right now —  It’s no longer the seat of government. It is a battlefield. Democrats feel entitled to power in DC and the election of Donald Trump in 2016 threw them for a loop. That is why we have the insurance policy known as the Russian Collusion scandal; That is why we have talk of instability and impeachment; that is why Democrats have adopted the tactic of Personal Destruction…..

We cannot be fooled by these desperate acts of a desperate political party. We can’t give into their despicable tactics.  We can never, ever allow such vile, uncivil, unethical, morally bankrupt people to control government.  We need to keep their kind off our courts.  We need to talk to our friends and neighbors and family members. We need to get conservatives out to vote. We need to support the #WalkAway movement.  We also need to get those who ordinarily may not be conservative to get out and vote Republican –  to prevent to stop the advancement of the Democratic Party agenda of national destruction.

The tactics employed by the Democratic Party are evil. This conduct, this blackening of the heart, this outright hatred against fellow Americans, this campaign of character assassination, the silencing of speech, the gestapo tactics of fear and violence is not who we are as Americans. It sickens us. It tarnishes our good name and reputation as countrymen. It cheapens our republic. And it must be STOPPED.

As Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA tweeted: “The sooner conservatives realize that the left will do absolutely anything to win – they will lie, cheat, steal, slander, falsify, attack, demagogue, insult, protest, malign, fabricate, make false accusation, and organize – the sooner we will realized that they will not give us our country back. We must fight for it.”

 

APPENDIX:   Christine Blasey-Ford’s Letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein

July 30 2018

CONFIDENTIAL

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Dear Senator Feinstein;

I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.

Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.

Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.

The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.

Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.”

At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.

I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.

I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information . It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.

In confidence, REDACTED.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787: Prayer Served a Purpose Just as Prayer Always Serves a Purpose

 

by Diane Rufino, October 8, 2018

Here is a trivia question for you:  Who were the oldest and youngest delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787 ?

The oldest delegate, as many I’m sure remember from your history class, was Benjamin Franklin. He was the delegate from Pennsylvania and he attended the Convention at the ripe old age of 81. The youngest delegate was Jonathan Dayton, age 26, from state of New Jersey.

These two men share in a very special moment at the Convention:

On June 28, almost exactly a month after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia convened, the 81–year-old Benjamin Franklin rose to address his fellow members. He had become frustrated over the constant and fruitless bickering and the inability of the representatives to made any significant progress in amending the federal government. He noted how some members had already left in disgust.

He began by talking about the fact that they were a well-read group of men; they had enjoyed a classical education and some studied further. In preparing for their important task that summer –  of designing an appropriate government to unify the states – they brushed up on their ancient history. They reviewed ancient history and the models of government that were established back then. They analyzed why the Republics of the ancient civilizations and empires ultimately failed. They looked at the modern governments in Europe, but quickly concluded that none were suitable. The delegates at the convention couldn’t find any common ground.

And so he suggested that they appeal to God for help.

And then he delivered the first prayer of the Convention:

Mr. President,

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks in close attendance and in continual reasonings with each other, with different sentiments on almost every question, is melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?  In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.  And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?  Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, in Psalm 117:1a, that “Except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this. And I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.

Out of the 55 delegates at the Convention, only a handful were devoutly religious. And here was Franklin, perhaps one of the least religious of the Founding Fathers, calling for prayer and quoting Scripture. As James Madison noted, in the notes he meticulously took of the Convention, many were deeply moved.

New Jersey delegate Jonathan Dayton reported:  “The Doctor sat down; and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington at the dose of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater that we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman senate!”

Immediately after Franklin spoke, Roger Sherman of Connecticut seconded his motion for prayer.

But the motion ended up fizzling out among the other participants. There were some who opposed to the motion to appoint chaplains to begin each day with prayer because they had no funds to pay such chaplains. In fact, he recorded his disappointment at the bottom of his prayer speech, writing: “The Convention, except three or four Persons, thought Prayers unnecessary.”

What is important to note in this tiny bit of history is that Ben Franklin’s passionate plea served to break the stalemate, or impasse, that was crippling the convention. The delegates were dismissed for three days, and some, moved by Franklin’s words, attended the Old First Reformed Church, where Rev. William Rogers held a special time of prayer for the proceedings. Dayton reported that when the delegates met again on July 2, much of the animosity was gone:  He noted: “We assembled again; and … every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated.”

While some difficulties continued to arise before the conclusion of the Convention’s business in September, the delegates apparently never returned to the fruitless bickering that had existed prior to June 28th.  It would certainly be an exaggeration to suggest that the drafting in earnest of the US Constitution began as the result of a prayer delivered at the Convention in Philadelphia, but Franklin’s call for prayer clearly played a pivotal role in softening the hearts and opening the minds of the delegates and reminding them that if they intended to proceed with such a critical undertaking without God’s help, all their efforts would be in vain.

 

References:

Ben Franklin’s Call for Prayer in the Constitutional Convention,” Lost Episodes in American History, March 21, 2013.  Referenced at:  http://lostepisodes.us/37/

“Benjamin Franklin’s Request for Prayers at the Constitutional Convention”  – http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/21/benjamin_franklins_request_for_prayers_at_the_constitutional__1.html

“Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention,” Wallbuilders –  https://wallbuilders.com/franklins-appeal-prayer-constitutional-convention/

Thank You Senator Susan Collins for Defending Our Institutions and for Supporting Judge Kavanaugh

by Diane Rufino, October 5, 2018

Several heroes emerged in this whole sordid, circus-freak show that Democrats made of our Constitutional process of nominating and affirming judges to the Supreme Court, and those include Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Mitch McConnell, and now Senator Susan Collins of Maine.

Today, in announcing her decision to vote in favor of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, Senator Collins stood up for our institutions of government, for the proper decorum of Senators, for the solemn role of the Senate in the confirmation process, for our history and our Founding Fathers, for the Rule of Law, for the presumption of innocence, for the role that evidence plays in allegations claiming a crime of moral turpitude, and for fundamental fairness. She hit the nail on the head when she said that the allegations against Kavanaugh were unverified and wholly refuted and therefore in all fairness could not prevent him from serving on the Supreme Court.

Democrats promised to oppose any nomination offered by Donald Trump “with everything they have.” They weren’t opposing Judge Brett Kavanaugh because of any failing on his part but rather because another “conservative” judge would severely undermine liberals/progressives/Democrats in their attempts to count on the courts to circumvent the Constitution and democratic processes that happen to stand in their way. For Democratic members of the Senate, their shameless, obstructive uncivilized conduct was a desperate political act to advance a desperate Political Party. As someone recently said: “The Democratic Party used to be the party of bad ideas; not it’s the party of bad people.”

As Senator Collins made clear in her remarks: Our Constitution and our laws are far more important than any political party. Political parties may not survive (and maybe shouldn’t survive), but our country must survive.

One person on Twitter commented that Collins’ speech may go down as one of the most important speeches of all time, and another commented: “Dear Cory Booker, this is what a real ‘Spartacus moment’ looks like.”

I’m grateful and vindicated that out of the great heap of depravity in DC, some noble members of our Congress could emerge. I’m grateful and vindicated that out of the great barrage of uncivil and vile dialogue and discourse, some words of clarity and truth, and inspiration, could shine through reminding us good and decent citizens that at some level, we can find hope in the honest and proper and constitutional function of our government.

Thank you so very much, Senator Collins.

 

VIDEO:  Senator Collins’ remarks today, October 5, 2018: https://youtu.be/FRpSJed5xsA

The Double Standard That Makes Victims of Ordinary Men

by Diane Rufino, October 4, 2018

Last night I watched an episode of Ally McBeal that had quite an impression on me — season 5, episode 16 (“Love Is In the Air,” Part 1). In that episode, the firm assigned Nelle to a very important case involving the wrongful dismissal of a female employee. She was set to go against the notorious court femme fetale, Liza “Lolita” Bump – a bitchy, young, flirtatious, sexually inappropriate, feared, AND yes, extremely successful attorney, and the attorneys at the firm feared the worst for Nelle. And so, Nelle and Ally felt the need to seek the assistance of the best trial attorney they know, senior partner John Cage. Cage, at that time, had requested to step back from trial work (to become “of counsel”) but expressed willingness to help where absolutely necessary. Hearing that Nelle would have to go to court against the notorious Liza Bump, Cage agreed to take over the case. It was the details of the case that spoke to me; it was the attorneys’ closing arguments that left an impression.

Holly held a management position at a production company. She was fired because she refused to attend a company-sponsored seminar, titled the “Bully Broad Program,” which her boss had recommended to her. He recommended she take the seminar because he found her “too tough” and because the male employees who reported to her found her to be unlikeable and therefore they didn’t want to work with her. Holly sued, claiming discrimination (no male had ever been asked to take such a program) and improper termination.

At trial, under questioning from Liza, Holly’s boss testified: “Holly is a smart woman. But for men to refuse to work with her was a problem. Holly’s problem. I was trying to help her address it. I sent three other female executives to this seminar and they all thanked me for it.”

The rest of the testimony went like this:

Liza: “Did you ever send men to these camps?”
Boss: “No. I haven’t had complaints about the males.”
Liza: “So a man can be a tough boss, but not a woman?”
Boss: “A boss has to be able to motivate, not alienate.”
Liza: “You didn’t answer my question. Is there a double standard?”
Boss: “Perhaps. I can’t change that, but I can deal with it.”
Liza: “By dealing with it, you mean making the women become softer… helping them to be liked. They would be liked by being softer?”
Boss: “Well, yes.”
Cross-Examination by Opposing Counsel (Nelle): “Where do you draw the line between being too domineering and too feminine? When should a woman be softer? When does she need this seminar? From my perspective, if she is hated by everybody she needs the seminar.

The next day, a female employee from the company took the stand:

Female Employee: “When it was first suggested to me, I scoffed. The idea of a Bully Broad camp to soften me?”
Liza: “Did you have trouble with employees?”
Female Employee: “Yes, I thought it was discrimination. When a man is tough, he’s a leader. With a woman? A bitch.”
Liza: “Nevertheless, you did go?”
Female Employee: “I did. – And much to my shock, I loved it.”
Liza: “Why?”
Female Employee: “It made me realize, I was in a man’s world, trying to be like a man. Why should I be like a man? Who’s to say a woman can’t succeed being like a woman?”
Liza: “Did the program help?”
Female Employee: “Very much. I was better able to relate to my employees and productivity went up.”
Liza: “Even so, to be required to attend a seminar, didn’t you object?”
Female Employee: “Executives are sent to seminars all the time.”
Cross-Examination by Opposing Counsel (Nelle): “The seminar made you a better leader?”
Female Employee: “Correct”
Nelle: “By teaching you to be feminine?”
Female Employee: “By teaching me to use my God-given femininity. The seminar taught me to use my innate femininity.”
Nelle: “You mean being demure?
Female Employee: “Yes.”
Nelle: “Submissive?”
Female Employee: “The willow tree can seem submissive, but actually it’s quite strong.”
Nelle: “Did the seminar teach you to cry sometimes?”
Female Employee: “It taught us to use emotion, not conceal it. – Rather than demand, cry. – Sometimes. Do you believe we are the weaker sex? No. We’re stronger when it comes to compassion and empathetic skills. And using those skills- By using those skills, you mean act weak, don’t you? I can see you’re getting frustrated. Let’s examine our goals and see if we can’t find a way to achieve them

The Closing Arguments to the case were excellent. John Cage went first, to defend the right of his client (Holly) to be free from gender discrimination in the workplace:

Cage: “The defendant didn’t seek to make my client friendlier or nicer. No. The goal here was to make her more feminine. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there’s a word for that. Sexism. And this was blatant sexism. He didn’t send the aggressive men off to camp. No, just the tough women. Because women shouldn’t be tough, should they? What message does this send to our daughters? That if you want something, be weak cry for it, act demure? Look at this young woman. She’s an intelligent, competitive litigator. Yet she chose to offer tears in this courtroom as her best strength. That’s what the weaker sex should do, right? Be soft so society will like you. And that is her message, ladies and gentlemen. Women can compete in a man’s world. They can be just as tough as men, and they have the right to be. If society has a problem with that, then the 12 of you need to send a message to society. But if not for society then for our daughters. You tell the young people, like Liza Bump they have the right to be strong. They don’t have to go through life weak.

Liza Bump followed, arguing why women should even have to conform to “a man’s world”:

Liza: “This isn’t about getting women to perform in a man’s world. This is about teaching women that it doesn’t have to be a man’s world. So many women today are aggressive, belligerent, ruthless because our culture values these masculine traits as leadership. Why can’t female traits, such as emotion, empathy, connectedness Why can’t these things be signs of good leadership? As long as we continue to attach such value to dominance and aggression we’re gonna end up with a man’s world, and that is sexist. Let’s place a premium on emotional intelligence on the ability to mediate instead of fight. To feel as well as think. We might not only have a woman’s world we might turn out better companies. That’s what was proposed to the plaintiff, but she didn’t try. She just dropped her gloves, sued and said, ‘Let’s have a fight.’ How manly.”

No doubt, Holly was wronged. She was treated unfairly; she was treated differently than a man would have been treated in the same situation and under the same circumstances. She could see what her boss wanted from his female employees – to conform to a stereotypic version of a woman while being able to use and exploit the nuances of such a stereotyped woman. She knew it and wouldn’t put up with it. She wasn’t going to play the “weak female” card; she was going to compete on equal terms with her male counterparts. And so she sued. She stood up for herself because she knows that our legal system is blind and fair. Lady Justice wears a blindfold for that very reason. Our legal system is blind to race, gender, religion, age, ability, and social status. It doesn’t require less evidence because a woman brings suit; it doesn’t expect less credibility on the witness stand because a woman is testifying; and it doesn’t weigh the merits of a case more lightly just because a woman happens to file it. Holly brought suit not because she was weak but because she believes in equality and believes in fundamental fairness. Equality and fairness are the hallmarks of our Rule of Law.

The Bully Broad Seminar taught women employees to be “feminine”… to be the weaker sex that they were created and intended to be. Men respond better to women when they “act the part.” In dealing with men, women can accomplish as the weaker sex what they can’t accomplish when they try to be tough like a man. Why? Because men respond to women when they act in the traditional stereotypic manner; they are put off when women try to act like men.

This conflict of human nature (How should a woman act? Should she act like a 50s woman or a contemporary woman?) has reared its ugly head in the horrible accusations levied against Judge Kavanaugh. How best will others respond to women, and especially when it involves accusations of sexual misconduct? When she acts like a demur, unsophisticated woman or when she acts like a contemporary strong woman? And that’s exactly what we saw at the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings with Prof. Christine Blasey Ford. She acted like a “traditional” woman (weak, soft, demur, submissive, ditzy, confused, easily exhausted, quickly overwhelmed, unable to answer tough questions, apologetic) and was treated as the weaker sex by those who questioned her. It is easy to see her as a victim when she comes across as weak and vulnerable. It’s easy to believe she could be taken advantage of, right?

Imagine if Brett Kavanaugh defended himself in the same manner Ford pursued her accusations….

But wait, men aren’t supposed to be weak or demur or soft or easily overwhelmed. They are supposed to be the tougher sex, the ones who stand up for their women, their children, their jobs, their good name. We expect them to be forceful.

The reality is, and we saw it on full display with the accusations made by Prof. Ford and her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, is that women need to play whatever role best advances a particular cause. We thought the notion that women are necessarily the “weaker, softer” sex is a thing of the past; that women have been liberated from that stereotype. It’s the age of equality. But it’s not true. Sometimes, women need to be “soft and weak” in order to be effective. It of course depends on what she needs to be effective at.

Being a boss is not a situation that calls for a woman to be weak. Being a lawyer is not a situation that calls for a woman to be weak. Being an activist for social justice and abortion rights is not a situation that calls for a woman to be weak. But alleging victimhood at the hand of a man is absolutely such a situation. Almost instantly, she must be believed. “Believe Women!” is the new protest theme of the left. What that protest theme means is that if a woman merely alleges that she has been abused, she must immediately and without question be believed. How dare anyone challenge or doubt her. How dare anyone try to pressure her for details.

As we also witnessed with the Kavanaugh hearings, and particularly with the allegations made by Prof. Christine Ford, woman are subject to a lower standard of expectation and proof. They would certainly never make up an allegation of sexual misconduct, right? They would certainly never make up an allegation of mistreatment or rape, right?

Because women are weak, they can be expected to be taken advantage of at every possible opportunity, right? Men can’t be trusted to be around them – they look at them inappropriately, they say inappropriate things (or if they don’t say anything inappropriate, it can be assumed they meant something inappropriate), they touch them inappropriately, under the guise of being complimentary, they (of course) are really sexually harassing them with their kind words, if they are nicer to another woman, then they (of course) are being discriminatory and creating a hostile working environment, if they give a woman a drink, they expect sex, if they dance too close to a woman, they are hitting on her, if they happen to speak to a woman while under the influence of alcohol, they have rape on their minds……… this list goes on and on. Men just can never be disinterested around a woman, right?

Women hate to be accused of anything less than being honest. Yet we know that all too often they are dishonest. They are ruthless. They are disingenuous. They are cunning and conniving. Hillary Clinton is one such woman. And they are willing to play the “sex” card. Yet they don’t think men should be given the benefit of the doubt as well, to assume they are honest. Because they have a penis, they are automatically dishonest and unable to control themselves. Never mind that women intentionally put themselves out there as a sexual object; they emphasize their curves, show too much skin, show too much cleavage, wear tight clothing, wear flimsy underwear so that it looks like they aren’t even wearing any at all, make sexual inuendo, flirt, act loose when they drink, purposely try to get a man worked up by the stuff they talk about, post inappropriate pictures on their social media, and the list goes on. One can hardly walk through a mall and not see women’s clothing stores that don’t advertise by displaying sexy dresses and shirts. Some dresses are so tight and so short as to leave nothing to a man’s imagination. And yet, men are supposed to ignore the “window dressing” and treat her like a sophisticated, intelligent woman who is interested in conversation? Some dresses must be worn without underwear. I suppose when a woman wears one such dress, she expects a man, including one who has had a drink or two, to look only at her eyes. Victoria Secret advertises sexy lingerie, bombshell bras (making even a woman as flat-chested as Calista Flockheart appear to be a bodacious double D), and string thongs. Is a man to honestly think that women aren’t interested in putting themselves out there more sexually than need be?

Woman can’t – and shouldn’t – have it both ways. The truth of the matter is that perhaps it is men who are the weaker sex. They have sexual urges far more frequently and intense than women; they have testosterone and a penis, and most importantly, they have an obligation imposed by nature itself, wired into their genetics and biology, to spread their seed and procreate the species. They may be stronger physically, but hormonally, they can be, and probably are, the weaker sex.

The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings should disturb every one of us.

I’m disturbed, first of all, because Prof. Ford made serious and horrible allegations against a man six times investigated and cleared by the FBI without providing any details, without providing any evidence, and without providing any means to corroborate her story. In fact, the persons she listed as able to corroborate her story emphatically denied it ever took place – under penalty of perjury. There is no stronger denial than one accompanied by a legal agreement to serious consequences. (“If you find I am lying, you can punish me for a crime.”). I’m disturbed that charges were levied that are absolutely unverifiable. And I’m disturbed that such unverifiable allegations have tarnished the name and reputation of a man who worked his whole life to build an exemplary ones.

I’m disturbed that Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee continued to hold her as more credible than Judge Kavanaugh even after he produced absolute and undeniable proof of an alibi for the incident alleged. It was Kavanaugh who presented evidence and who presented proof. When a crime or a serious allegation is made, it is PROOF that matters… not facial expressions, not demeanor, not gender, not softness

I’m disturbed that Democrats (and Ford herself) played the “woman as a natural victim” card. It was offensive and reprehensible. How does a party that stands for Women’s Rights and Equality betray both so callously?

I’m disturbed at how viciously, how ambitiously, and how unscrupulously Democrats conducted themselves all for the purpose of advancing Party interests. I’m disturbed at how uncivilly and disrespectfully they treated the process and the hearings, as well as their solemn duty as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (to give advice and consent), for the purpose of advancing their Party interests. They turned the hearings into a damn circus. They protesters they colluded with to disrupt the hearings acted like a bunch of untrained monkeys. Judge Kavanaugh was absolutely correct when he said that Democratic members of the Committee replaced “advice and consent” with “search and destroy” and he was right to accuse them of turning the hearings into a circus. A man who, above all else, displaced the highest respect for law, the Rule of Law, for the Constitution, for government, and for the bench watched those who took an oath to the Constitution make a mockery of all of it. He deserved so much better.

Professor Ford may have had something happen to her at a party back when she was 15 years old (back when she looked like she was 15, braces and all), but making those unverified allegations against a SCOTUS nominee 36 years later, at the 11th hour, under the circumstances that she did and using the persons she used as vehicles for her allegations, and selling herself (a professor, mind you) as a weak, demur, soft, fairly helpless woman was disgraceful.

It’s not a “man’s world” or a “woman’s world”; it’s a world where everyone is treated equally.
Reference:
Ally McBeal, Season 5, Episode 16 Script – https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=ally-mcbeal&episode=s05e16