Let’s see if I have this right, Democrats. We have two people here:
- Person A: cleared of being influenced by a foreign power by a 2 year $40 Million law enforcement probe that could access anything it wanted. In that time, billions of dollars and millions of people were also able to investigate Person A, and they too found nothing otherwise the law enforcement probe would have used it.
- Person B: Representative elected to represent the terrorist recruitment capital of this country, came here from a terrorist hotbed just like the terrorist recruits in their community, thinks Hamas the terrorist organization is heroic compared to its victim the nation of Israel, says terrorism only happens because America has influence in the world, courts campaign money from funders of terrorism, blamed the U.S. media and discrimination against the Arabic language for belief that terrorist groups are evil while saying that the only reason groups like al-Qaeda are illegitimate is that they weren’t elected (and note that while Person B said al-Qaeda would be legitimate if it were elected, she said Israel was evil for its less-severe actions in fighting terrorist group, meaning Omar clearly only has heart for terrorists and is just saying whatever she thinks will get support for them), laughed and joked about America’s post-USS Cole/post-911/post-WTC bombings/post-Embassy bombings/post-attempted-attacks-on-U.S.-soil concerns about al Qaeda, raised money for a terrorist-linked group, voted to allow terrorists that kill Americans to hold life insurance policies, demanded that a terrorist be released from jail, believes 9/11 was merely when “some people did something” and Muslims were oppressed because of it which codifies the traditional narrative used when recruiting terrorists (one that’s a total lie mind you- the organization Person B claims was founded to fight President Bush’s alleged attacks on Muslim civil liberties actually COMPLIMENTED Bush for how he handled Muslim relations after 9/11), and Person B spread this narrative while speaking to/praising a group that was labelled by the United Arab Emirates as a terrorist group and according to America is an unindicted co-conspirator with a known terrorist organization, claiming that this group was founded to advance Muslim rights thus implying Muslims should blindly follow this terrorist-associated group (which was founded 8 years prior to when Person B claims, and was founded in part by a terrorist organization to advance Islamic extremism) that covers for terrorists, and Person B believes that referring to al-Qaeda should elicit the same reaction in Americans as referring to the U.S. Army thus meaning Person B finds these institutions to be equal (also a conclusion drawn from her statements referenced earlier).
Yet, according to Democrats, Person A is the enemy. Person B merely speaks truth to power and you are racist if you criticize her, in fact criticizing her means you want people to kill her, thus your very act of criticizing Person B constitutes a physical threat to her life. Actually, the Democrat head of the House Committee on Homeland Security said there was nothing wrong with Person B’s speech which A: encouraged belief in a terrorist recruitment lie, B: downplayed the largest terrorist attack on this country, and C: lied about the founding of a terrorist-linked organization in a way that encouraged devotion to that organization and its often radicalizing messaging (remember- the same party who made that man Homeland Security chairman and defends Person B’s pro-terrorist rantings also believes in open borders, so take whatever you want from that implication!).
In fact, while rushing to defend Person B, Person A is so deplorable to Democrats that they’ll attack anyone associated with him, and encourage mobs to form around government officials that work with him. They will defend Person B’s statements and beliefs, but demand Person A be charged with obstruction of justice for his words, and openly claim that Person A’s words are an attack on the media and incite violence. Violence like what Person B’s words encourage, which I guess Democrats are ok with since they openly support her (I’ll get into Kavanaugh later, but here we have an anachronistic point: much as Democrats support Omar’s violence but hate Trump’s, we have Democrats demanding that threats against Dr. Ford be investigated while ignoring threats against Kavanaugh, clearly meaning that they must tacitly approve of them, it’s not like the threats were unknown).
Oh, and while the Left throws its pity party for the threats on Person B, aside from the obvious Bernie Sanders supporter who shot Republicans let’s look at some other instances of violence against the Right that the media deems unimportant, or laudable. Obviously they approve otherwise they’d go after their perpetrators and folks like Former Democrat VP Candidate Tim Kaine and former Democrat Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Obviously Person A Is Trump and Person B Is Omar
If Omar weren’t basically on Hamas’ payroll, I might agree with her on sentiments like this (they hadn’t committed any acts of terror yet, and honestly the FBI basically creates radicals to arrest). But now I can’t since it seems the only people who believe it are folks like her who think America is the problem and think we’re hypocrites for being upset about 9/11 (and it’s an easily reached conclusion that she thinks that- combine her belief that the U.S. Army should elicit the same reaction as al-Qaeda and bafflement that it doesn’t, her belief that 9/11 wasn’t that big a deal, and her statements about how terrorists are just like elected governments, and her belief that terrorist groups are not the threats that we believe them to be). If I give them an inch, they’ll take a yard. If calling someone a liar on one issue hurts their credibility on other issues (lawyers discredit witnesses with this all the time), then it follows that admitting someone is right on one issue opens the door to believing them in other areas, and makes for headlines like “Bipartisan Agreement that Omar is Right”.
And Democrats are obviously never going to stop investigating Person A. I guess it’s justified that Democrats would want their own investigations into Trump. Afterall, according to them the FBI never looked at him in 2016, and the Mueller Probe never even happened depending on who you ask.
It wasn’t until I was writing last week’s piece that I made the connection, that I realized why I should’ve realized that no matter what the Mueller Probe was not going to satisfy liberals. Sure, liberals said that if The Probe (if all that ever comes of my writings is that one person can no longer think of the Mueller Probe without making that association, then my life’s work is complete) came back with a negative conclusion then they’d accept it and it’d even be a “reckoning“, but they say a lot of things. In fact, with headlines like “Scenario as crazy as Trump: President fires Mueller and orchestrates own impeachment for power grab” (from Salon) I daresay someone who believed the Left was in for a reckoning was in the minority or a conservative prone to flights of fancy. For once, my least favorite olive-head actually told the truth when saying he wouldn’t accept Mueller’s findings if they cleared Trump, so I will give credit where credit is due. But keep in mind also that was in the waning days of the probe when the media started the “it will be anti–climactic” narrative.
How did that compare to Kavanaugh? Well, we were told that if the FBI investigated and found nothing (regardless of the fact that it wasn’t the FBI’s job and if Dr. Ford had simply filed a police report with the relevant department her case would’ve been investigated- l) then they’d accept it. But of course we learned that they didn’t like how the FBI worked it even though they would have known that would be the case, and we learned that despite months of Democrats sitting on the report, weeks of having it out in the open, having Congressional subpoena power and being able to investigate for themselves, and months of digging up everything they could on Kavanaugh (with the assistance of the press, who were so eager to help they buried evidence that would help Kavanaugh) the Left still wasn’t satisfied that Kavanaugh was clear. Not satisfied with their own investigating, not satisfied with the FBI’s, because they just couldn’t get the answer they wanted. Just like with Mueller.
Listen to them talk. “If the president cannot be indicted … as a matter of law, then the only way to hold the president accountable is for Congress to consider it and act, if warranted… Congress can only do that if it has the information… For the department to take the position that, ‘We’re not going to give information because he’s not indicted, like a normal person who’s not indicted because of lack of evidence,’ is equivalent to a cover-up and subverts the only ability to hold the president accountable.” In other words: “if you didn’t indict because Trump didn’t do anything, give us all the information you do have so that we can impeach him, otherwise we’ll say this is a cover-up and take you down with Trump!”
They KNOW collusion happened, and they freely admit they don’t understand why there were no indictments from Mueller. They pretty much openly stated that the idea that Trump cheated with Russia to beat Hillary is beyond their ability to comprehend. This probably stems from the fact that Hillary’s loss is still equally as incomprehensible to them. It’s like every Democrat saw Hillary win on election night, then woke up the next day to find Trump as President. Desperate to find a reason that makes sense, they dug into their subconscious and pulled up the old Russian boogeyman from the Cold War as the best monster to scare the American people into believing their narrative with. He was never legitimate to them (Nadler got uppity in that clip about Trump insulting John Lewis, but I guess Indians don’t matter to him because Hillary insulted Gandhi).
Aren’t They The Party Of Reason?
The Mueller Probe, loaded with Democrats who had plenty of reason to be sour after losing 2016 and backed by millions of dollars, could not find collusion by Trump or even by his campaign. Period. But Democrats refuse to accept this outcome.
Kind of like how they believe Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist despite Congress and the FBI investigating. In fact, not finding evidence means it MUST have happened (like how Mueller saying that Trump did not collude with Russia meant that he did, and Attorney General Barr lied when he quoted the report or something). Just look at what the party of science and reason takes as evidence for the truth these days (stole the list from here, verified on my own):
- Years of therapy didn’t give her attacker a name (the notes indicated that she only mentioned being attacked by boys from an elitist school- and as for the polygraph she passed, well…), address, month, or even year. But then as soon as Kavanaugh, who had media exposure in 2012, pretty much is chosen as the next SCOTUS Justice she remembers everything. Meanwhile Kavanaugh kept a detailed record of the time this occurred and no such party is found in that record.
- The memories she recovered over years of therapy concluded there were 4 men present in the room, but after Kavanaugh is nominated and possibly after meeting with Democrats (as Senate Majority Leader McConnell describes, this Democrat activist wrote to her Representatives who then got her a Democrat law firm that hid from her the Senate’s offers about interviewing her at her convenience- something only a shady partisan law firm would do, something which implies they at least had low enough moral standards that they’d tweak her testimony for her) her memory narrowed it down to two plus she suddenly remembered that her best friend at the time was there. Her friend flatly denied being at the party as Dr. Ford alleged and none of the people Dr. Ford named as being there said that they were present. Interesting too how she not only remembered Kavanaugh’s name, but her friend’s name and the name of the other boy who was there.
- People were quick to pounce on the idea that the party matched an entry in Kavanaugh’s calendar, but it didn’t. Besides, no one remembers driving her to any such party. Offhand before she pinned a date down she could have said she drove herself. Yet the party they’ve seized on would mean she was 15 at the time, meaning she could NOT have driven herself due to her age, and it was a 7 mile hike to get there from her house. Worse, her family surely would have noticed over the next 3 years before she went to college that SOMETHING was different about her. So far her family hasn’t corroborated any part of the story.
- After the sudden shocking memory came to her, she couldn’t remember if she was in Delaware or New Hampshire when relating her tale to Democrats, and doesn’t know how the Washington Post got her confidential story months prior to its leak. Now, you’d think Ford would remember being in New Hampshire or Delaware because the rape allegedly left her too terrified to board an airplane as she said when asking for the hearing to be delayed (her lawyers asked for the delay, and during that delay two bogus Kavanaugh accusers popped up- I can say that offhand because Dr. Ford is the one with the most solid accusation), thus she would have driven from California to those states or taken a train out to them. Many days of travel for that. Yet she doesn’t remember! Probably because she lied about that- in fact, she flew, and flies quite frequently, a regular globetrotter she is! Even said in the hearing it’s not so bad when doing it for vacations. But then it came out that she’s not really much afraid of flying at all, with her attorneys saying they never said that, even though in the hearing Dr. Ford totally ran with the idea and CBS even tried to show why she would only be scared to fly some of the time. Talk about much ado about nothing if she never expressed a fear of flight!
- Ford, who hitherto had not been able to put a name to her attacker, or so the therapy notes told us, mentions that she was upset when Trump won in 2016 because Kavanaugh was one of the judges he might pick for the Supreme Court with the Washington Post saying that she remembered Kavanaugh’s name for years by that point. She only had a therapy session in 2012, and did not recall anyone’s name during it, and at that time still thought it was 4 attackers.
- She can’t remember details about the recent week or the past summer but she knows for a fact she had just one beer at the party, that EVERYONE had one beer, that it was Kavanaugh and his friend who showed up already drunk, and she knew no one there despite being invited and despite living so far she needed to be driven… except she later says her friend was there and she could somehow identify Kavanaugh and his friend. Also, before she was done testifying, we learn Kavanaugh was the one who had just one beer, not her despite her earlier crystal clear recollection.
- Ford wanted her story to get out there badly, yet refused to tell it under oath at first.
- Somehow, she remembers the following about this party she hitherto had only minor recollections about: loud music played by her assaulters (there was music already playing in an empty room for some unknown reason, the ONLY music in the house, which her attackers turned up the volume on, and then according to her turned the volume down on once she left the room and hid in the bathroom, and instead of continuing the “rape” they ignored her and went downstairs and talked like nothing happened (or didn’t talk because Dr. Ford first claimed they did but then wasn’t sure), meaning anyone of the 3 people downstairs including her lifelong friend would have heard Dr. Ford running into the bathroom and slamming the door, would have noticed that she disappeared, and would have (especially her friend) inquired about what happened right then and there and definitely would have referenced the party to her later- I don’t know about you, but as far as I know NO ONE doesn’t talk with their friends who were there about the party the night before unless Ford never saw any of them again ever even though A: one was a lifelong friend and B: she DATED one of Kavanaugh’s friends for a few months and remained “distant friends” with him, yet he was the one that she says introduced her to Kavanaugh! Show of hands for how many people would stay friends with your rapist’s friend that introduced you to said rapist. She says she and Kavanaugh had other acquaintances in common too that she was on friendly terms with- all of them plus the friend that introduced her to Kavanaugh were at the country club where she routinely went swimming. So you go swimming in front of your rapist’s friends and are friendly to them, and are comfortable getting naked to change into your swimsuit around them. She said she was likely picked up from the country club where she gets naked to change into her swimsuit and swims. She has a fear of flying/panic attacks/claustrophobia because of Kavanaugh, but had no problem getting naked and swimming around his friends in the place where her evening of Hell started! In fact, years later after she remembers the incident, she still tried to PROTECT Garrett by not revealing his name as you read in the testimony I linked to! So… this man is friends with a rapist and introduced her to a rapist, and she still wants to protect him even after coming out to take down Kavanaugh. Moreover, if this were the July 1 1982 party mentioned above then this man Dr. Ford is protecting might well have been there!) to cover her screams, but doesn’t know if it was turned on or off or was playing during the conversations she remembers/doesn’t remember hearing after the incident.
- She claimed to have added a door to her house which led to a disagreement with her husband and the 2012 therapy session because she was so traumatized. Except she had the door built 4 years prior as part of an addition that has been used by a marriage counselling business and renters thus depriving her of ready access to this safety door, and she bought a summer house in 2007 which she made no plans to build a second door for. Also worth noting in that link is that the first time she allegedly named Kavanaugh, to her husband and anonymously described in the therapy session, was after Kavanaugh was announced as a possible Mitt Romney SCOTUS nominee. Regardless of if the rape took place, Dr. Ford still would have known Kavanaugh or known of him through common friends. And around that time Herman Cain was being taken down by accusations of sexual misconduct and affairs. Dr. Ford is a registered Democrat, donor (including to far Left Bernie Sanders at a time when he was more of a fringe and Hillary Clinton was more mainstream), attended an anti-Trump march, and planned to attend another one.
- She went in for the polygraph the same day her grandmother’s funeral was held or the day after. Unless she hated her grandma, that would certainly screw up the results and this is a thing polygraph takers don’t do (unless that was the idea- if she couldn’t fake it good she’d just blame the death in her family).
- She claims she was driven back home, a 20 minute drive, after sneaking out of the house. In 1982, with no cell phones, and at age 15. She does not mention using a pay phone, or really how she did any of this.
So, Democrats, what does logic and reason tell you? About Kavanaugh, about Mueller, about Omar? All we got from you on Dr. Ford was that we should believe her because she has a uterus, and outlining any flaws in her testimony is just a sexist attack on a poor traumatized girl. And as for Mueller? You’ve said for two years that the evidence was obvious, yet someone with a record of false convictions couldn’t even get a grand jury to indict based on it when that’s the easiest kind of jury to get an indictment out of! And Omar? You stood with her after the towers fell.
…hey wait, didn’t Democrats promise to probe the allegations against Kavanaugh?