DEA: Pharmacies in single Tennessee county bought drugs equaling 270 pain pills for every resident

Pharmacies in Clay County, Tennesse, caught the attention of federal agents by buying enough drugs to “provide 270 pain pills for every man, woman, and child” living there, WZTV-TV reported.
The Drug Enforcement Administration began investigating the area last year. The government agency tracks how controlled substances move throughout the country and uses databases to flag locations and physicians with high numbers of prescriptions.

How many people live there?

Clay County has just 7,800 residents. Its only city, Celina, has “a few antique stores, Churches of Christ, diners, and four pharmacies,” according to the TV station.
The DEA says the pharmacies bought a total of 1.5 million pain pills last year.
“Basically it comes out to being around 270 pills per person, for every man, woman, and child, which is impossible,” Martin Reed, division program manager DEA, told the TV station.
Tara Anderson, owner of Anderson Hometown Pharmacy, claims she did nothing wrong.
“I haven’t done anything I’m trying to hide,” Anderson told the news outlet.
She owns one of the Celina drug stores that received a surprise inspection by the DEA on Aug. 27, according to the report.
Agents conducted an audit that compared what was prescribed to what drugs the stores had in stock.
Anderson told the TV station the pain medication was prescribed due to the county’s aging workforce of manual laborers. As they’ve grown older, their bodies are feeling the strain of years of wear and tear, she said.
The business owner also claims her customers come from local prescribers. But doctors in Clay County told the TV station it isn’t them.
“I know the four doctors in the county and none of us prescribe hardly anything,” Dr. Gilbert Ghearing told the TV station. “Most of the prescriptions filled here are prescribed by doctors outside the county; we don’t have any pain clinics here.”

What is the outcome?

Reed told the news outlet the DEA’s investigation is continuing.
“We’re not really sure where this is headed, but we can tell you it’s not normal for a small population to be giving out that many pills in such a small area,” he said.
The end result could include fines, criminal charges, or closure of the pharmacies.
The investigation is expected to be completed within the next few weeks.
About 72,000 people in the U.S. died from drug overdoses last year, roughly four times the number of people who died from homicide, according to the report.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

New restrictions on gun ownership signed into law by California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat

California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, made significant changes to the state’s gun laws Friday by signing a series of bills.
One of the laws raises the minimum age for buying rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21. By signing the bill, Brown follows a move by Republican Florida Gov. Rick Scott, the Los Angeles Times reported. In March, Scott signed into law a bill that raises the age for buying long guns.
Other laws:

  • Place a lifetime firearm bans on people convicted of serious domestic violence charges and for those who have been hospitalized more than once in a year for mental health issues.
  • Make it easier for police officers and family members to have guns taken away from people who appear to be a danger to themselves or others.
  •  Require at least eight hours of gun safety training for people applying for concealed gun permits. They will also be required to demonstrate their skill through a live-fire exam.

Brown vetoed a plan to limit people to no more than one rifle or shotgun purchase in any 30-day period, the report stated.

What did the NRA say?

The National Rifle Association fought the push to raise the age limit for purchasing guns. The measure boosts a previously-approved state law that limits handgun purchases to people age 21 and older, according to the report.
“We will continue to oppose gun control measures that only serve to punish law abiding citizens,” NRA State Director Daniel Reid stated in a letter to lawmakers prior to the governor’s signature on the bills.
The NRA did not immediately say whether it plans to challenge the California law in court.
State Sen. Anthony Portantino (D) authored California’s version of the law limiting long gun purchases to those 21 and older. The law takes effect Jan. 1.
Portantino argued for the change by saying he was moved by the grief of survivors and family members of victims after the February massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
“I was determined to help California respond appropriately to the tragic events our country has recently faced on high school campuses,” Portantino told the Los Angeles Times. “No parent should have to worry that a gun gets in the wrong hands and commits a heinous and violent tragedy on our school campuses.”

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

WATCH: Kayne West delivers thunderous pro-Trump rant on the set of ‘SNL,’ crowd boos and jeers

Rapper Kanye West was jeered and booed by the audience on the set of "Saturday Night Life" after he defended his support for President Donald Trump and criticized the show’s producers.

What happened?

Wearing his infamous "Make America Great Again" hat, West initiated his political speech after the show’s live broadcast ended. Video clips from audience members, including comedian Chris Rock, captured West’s rant.
"They bullied me backstage. They said don’t go out there with that hat on. They bullied me backstage," West said in one clip. "If you want the world to move forward, try love. Thank y’all for giving me this platform. I know some of y’all don’t agree. But some of y’all be going at [Trump’s] neck a lot, and I don’t think it’s actually that helpful."

Later, West lamented at the lack of balance in media and Hollywood, estimating that 90 percent of both industries are liberal.
In other clips, West tore into Democratic policies, which he targets black people with welfare.
"I wanna cry right now, black man in America, supposed to keep what you’re feelin’ inside right now…The blacks want always Democrat…you know it’s like the plan they did, to take the fathers out the home and put them on welfare… does anybody know about that? That’s the Democratic plan," West said.


"There’s so many times I talk to a white person and they say, ‘How could you like Trump, he’s racist?’ Well, uh, if I was concerned about racism I would’ve moved out of America a long time ago," West added.
Later in the speech, West reiterated his vow to run for president in 2020 while encouraging "dialogue, not a diatribe."
The "Saturday Night Live" cast remained silent and downcast during West’s speech. The audience, however, booed and jeered at West several times. Only a few applauded West or offered him support.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

Kanye West Goes Off on Liberal News on SNL: “90% of News Are Liberal, 90% of TV, LA, Writers and Rappers” (VIDEO)


Kanye West Goes Off on Liberal News on SNL: “90% of News Are Liberal, 90% of TV, LA, Writers and Rappers” (VIDEO)

Jim Hoft
by Jim Hoft
September 30, 2018

As reported earlier by Cassandra Fairbanks, Saturday Night Live ended last night with Kanye West rocking a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat which caused some serious liberal tears.

Kanye also went off on the liberal establishment.
This was the edgiest SNL in decades!

Kanye West: “90% of News are liberal. 90% of TV, LA, NY writers and rappers.”

They cut his feed at the end of the show.
Enough was enought.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

Announcement: We have disabled the ability to post graphics after experiencing an attack of inappropriate image spam over the last several days. Thanks for your understanding.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Michelle Obama Complains About ‘Pettiness’ While Taking Veiled Shot at Trump

Political tone-deafness is a major problem in America today … and one of the most out-of-touch statements just came from former first lady Michelle Obama. On Friday, the same woman whose husband ushered in one of the most divisive eras in political history went on a rant about “pettiness and meanness” as she gave a…

The post Michelle Obama Complains About ‘Pettiness’ While Taking Veiled Shot at Trump appeared first on Conservative Tribune.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Kanye Gets Back at ‘SNL’ After Being ‘Bullied,’ Drops Truth Bomb on Audience


Let me preface all of this by saying that I’m not a particularly big fan of Kanye West. I don’t like his music, I don’t like his celebrity and I don’t like most of his muddled rhetoric.

I mean, the guy wore a MAGA hat and a Kaepernick sweater recently. That’s about as muddled of a message as you can have.

But I will say that I at least respect West’s willingness to go against the grain of Hollywood elitism.

It seems like what’s in vogue for Hollywood is to bash Trump incessantly over anything and everything. To his credit, West has refused to participate in that Hollywood elitist trend.

TRENDING: Mark Judge Blows Lid Off Accuser’s Story, Categorically Denies All Wrong-Doing

West took that message to, of all places, “Saturday Night Live” where he performed. Of note, SNL has become a haven of far-left Trump bashing.

After performing his song “Ghost Town” at the end of the Season 44 premiere of SNL, West took some time to address the harassment he received for daring to wear his MAGA hat on the show.

“They bullied me backstage. They said, ‘don’t go out there with that hat on. They bullied me backstage. They bullied me! And then they say I’m in a sunken place,” West said in his closing monologue. “A sunken place” is a reference to the hit movie “Get Out,” and without spoiling the the movie too much, it insinuates that West has been embedded with a white person’s brain.

“You want to see the sunken place? Okay, I’ma listen to ya’ll now — or I’ma put my Superman cape on, cuz this means you can’t tell me what to do. Follow your heart and stop following your mind. That’s how we’re controlled. That’s how we’re programmed. If you want the world to move forward, try love,” West continued.

Again, I’m not a fan of West. But his message is in stark contrast with some of the vitriol and hatred permeating from Hollywood since Trump became president. West deserves credit where it’s due.

“Thank ya’ll for giving me this platform. I know some of ya’ll don’t agree, but ya’ll be going at that man … and I don’t think it’s actually that helpful. I think the universe has balance. Ninety percent of news are liberal,” West bemoaned accurately. “90 percent of TV, L.A., New York, writers, rappers, musicians. So it’s easy to make it seem like it’s so one-sided.”

NBC eventually cut the feed to the show. I’d like to believe that it was due strictly to time restraints, but the cynic in me wonders if West’s message was ruffling some far-left feathers.

Just because the cameras were off, however, doesn’t mean West’s message stopped there.

RELATED: Unhinged Jane Fonda: ‘Shut Down The Country’ If Trump Fires Mueller

“I wanna cry right now, black man in America, supposed to keep what you feel inside right now,” West continued. Comedian Chris Rock kept his camera rolling and shared the video via an Instagram story.

West proceeded to both slam Democrats and defend Trump’s character. He accused Democrats of wanting “to take the fathers out the home and promote welfare.”

As far as Trump being accused of being a racist?

“Well, uh, if I was concerned about racism I would’ve moved out of America a long time ago,” West said.

But perhaps West’s most noteworthy moment came when he pushed for “dialogue, and not a diatribe.” Politics in 2018 are so incredibly divisive and polarizing, with neither side wanting to give an inch or even hear each other out.

I may not like Kanye West much at all. But fair is fair, and West’s message on SNL exposes the hateful underbelly of the far-left. He was bullied because of his hat? All the while trying to promote a message of being inclusive and understanding?

That alone should tell you everything you ever needed to know about the far left.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Robert ‘Beto’ O’Rourke’s Deported Panhandle Honor Student Wasn’t Actually Deported


It could have happened.

Via Dallas News:

It was a powerful anecdote. At the first Senate debate, Rep. Beto O’Rourke illustrated the plight of “Dreamers” by talking about the salutatorian at tiny Booker High School in the Texas Panhandle, recently deported to his country of origin, not even speaking the language.

The congressman had embellished what he’d been told on a visit to Booker 14 months ago. And even that version, it turns out, got key facts wrong.

The honor student in question was actually the valedictorian.

She spoke the language.

It happened a decade ago, not recently.

And most importantly, said Yamile Guerrero Rosales, “I wasn’t deported, but I had to figure life out on my own for six months with a baby,” stuck in Juarez, Mexico, until her paperwork came through.

Born in Durango, Mexico, she’s now 30 and was naturalized two years ago as an American. She’s raising two kids in Booker with a third coming any day, working as an accountant at a firm in the oil patch.

She was mighty surprised to be invoked at Friday night’s Dallas debate between O’Rourke and Sen. Ted Cruz.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Kavanaugh Delay Was A Bad Idea: Republicans Gave Democrats What They Wanted

The Democrats weren’t voting for Kavanaugh from day one, it is all a delay game until after the midterms.

You have opponents whose first and only objective is delay. From the start of the confirmation proceedings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, those opponents, Senate Democrats, have thus pushed for delay. At every turn. Of course they never come out and say that’s what they’re doing — they never come out and say, “We’ve abused the confirmation process and dropped a bomb at the eleventh hour, an uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegation of sexual assault, because we’re trying to delay the vote until after the midterms.” But delay is what they want.

It doesn’t matter what sheep’s clothing the wolf comes in; the wolf is always delay. When they say, “We’re protecting survivors,” they mean, “We want delay.” When they posture that “women must be believed,” their aim is more delay. When they say, “The FBI must investigate to remove any cloud over the nominee,” the translation is: “Give us a delay so we can come up with new reasons for delay.”

Get it?

Dems say, “potato,” they mean “delay”;
Dems say “tomato,” they mean delay;
Tomato, delay, potato, delay;
Let’s call the whole thing off.

So, finally, we get to a committee vote over two weeks after it should have happened; after reopening a hearing that involved 31 hours of testimony from the nominee; after 65 meetings with senators and followed by over 1,200 answers to post-hearing questions, more than the combined number of post-hearing questions in the history of Supreme Court nominations. We finally get Kavanaugh’s nomination voted out of committee. And then, as a final floor vote is about to be scheduled and debated, Republicans — taking their lead from the ineffable Jeff Flake — agree to accede to one more Democratic request (really, just one more, cross-our-hearts . . .). And what would that be?

What else? Another week of delay.

The rationale for this delay is priceless: We need an FBI investigation. It is understandable that the public does not realize how specious this demand is. But who would have thought Senate Republicans were in need of a civics lesson?

Let’s try to give them a brisk one.

The Constitution assigns the advice-and-consent function to the legislative branch. The FBI is a component of the executive branch. The constitutional powers of the legislature are not contingent on the cooperation of the executive. Moreover, the FBI did not exist until it was created by statute at the start of the 20th century, meaning the Senate was quite capably vetting judicial nominations for over a century before there was an FBI.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which is charged with assessing judicial nominees, has one of the largest professional staffs of any committee on Capitol Hill. The staff includes many former federal prosecutors and investigators. The committee never needs to wait for the FBI; it can conduct its own, very thorough investigation of any judicial nominee.

In connection with appointments to the judiciary and executive-branch offices, the FBI assists the Senate by conducting background investigations of nominees. These investigations are not like criminal investigations, in which the FBI attempts to build a prosecution by developing proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the essential elements of federal penal offenses. The investigations are not like counterintelligence investigations, in which the FBI gathers intelligence about threats to American interests posed by foreign powers. In a background investigation, the FBI simply checks its indicies (such as its databank of rap sheets) and conducts interviews with colleagues, associates, neighbors, and other acquaintances of the nominee. The point is not to conduct criminal investigations of any allegations that develop — particularly not of state-law violations that may be time-barred for prosecution and that the FBI does not have jurisdiction to investigate anyway. The point is to flag issues for the Senate so that it may make a discriminating appraisal of the nominee’s professional competence and character.

In conducting a background check, the FBI does not draw a conclusion about a nominee’s suitability. If alleged misconduct is not the subject of a conviction or acquittal, the FBI does not make an assessment of guilt or innocence. To do these things would be to usurp the constitutional role of the Senate — it is the Senate, not the FBI, that decides whether a nominee is fit for the responsibilities of the office to which he is nominated.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Sports writer says Kavanaugh should never be allowed to coach b-ball again. The backlash is brutal.

A USA Today sports writer incited outrage Saturday after he suggested that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should never be allowed to coach children’s sports again due to the "credible" accusations of sexual misconduct against him.
The suggestion ignited a firestorm of controversy.

What did the reporter say?

The writer, USA Today sports reporter Erik Brady, said Kavanaugh should never coach girl’s basketball again absent an FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against him. It’s a possibility that Kavanaugh himself lamented during his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
The sports writer explained his rationale by implying Kavanaugh may be a danger to children.
"The U.S. Senate may yet confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but he should stay off basketball courts for now when kids are around," Brady wrote. "The nation is newly vigilant on who coaches and trains its children given recent scandals in gymnastics and other sports."
Brady goes on to interview Edward McFadden, spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Washington. McFadden told Brady that Kavanaugh underwent an extensive background check in order to coach his daughter’s basketball team. And because Kavanaugh has a clean background and no criminal record, he remains eligible to coach.
"But should he?" Brady questioned. "The nation is deeply divided. Sometimes it feels like we don’t agree on anything anymore. But credibly accused sex offenders should not coach youth basketball, girls or boys, without deeper investigation. Can’t we all agree on that?"

What was the response?

Outrage poured in from every corner of the internet.

"I am beyond disgusted, every person who works at USA Today should feel deeply ashamed of this article," another person said.
"I’m a lifelong Republican. In 2003 I married a Democrat. He pulled a Republican Ballot in 2016. After I showed him this article he went to local Republican Headquarters and picked up a yard sign for every R on the ticket. It’s unlikely he will ever vote D again," another critic said.
"Smearbait. No trails. No due process. News is dead," another person added.
"I’ll be canceling my local paper because it contains your insert," another person wrote in response.

Anything else?

USA Today editors appear to have edited the article sometime Saturday, though the actual edits were not noted. However, in examining an archived version of the article, editors seemingly deleted the article’s most controversial paragraphs, the ones suggesting Kavanaugh should not be allowed to coach because "credible" sexual assault allegations against him endanger children.

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

Life in a Gynocracy



Ah, then we’d be unable to criticize your politics, your social viewpoints, your choice of teams to root for, and anything else you say because we’d be transphobic.


‪As a footnote, I’ve seen an estimate that the transgender population is about 0.05% of the population.  This is hardly a warrant for beating up people but it is not clear to me why unless we substantially alter social arrangements that have existed in almost every known human society and celebrate…not just accept but celebrate…transgenderism, we are mean, hateful people.


Victor Davis Hanson offered up the most succinct summary of Blasey Ford’s testimony: 


The “process” of memorializing Ford’s testimony involved a strange inversion of constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity; the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant; the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state’s investigation of the allegations; and the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar allegations.


Unless, however, you do not want to transgender, I want to note how we came to such a place, a place both ridiculous and dangerous.


I want you to pay attention to the distortions of language and statistics used to advance the gynocrats’ agenda.


Since when do those accusing others of crimes become “survivors” rather than “accusers”?  How you frame your self-description affects views, doesn’t it?  If you claimed that someone had raped you, why must we always believe you just because you tag yourself “a survivor”?  Do we do this with those who claim to have been robbed or beaten?  ”I’m a robbery survivor, so you have to believe me when I say X robbed me.”  The shift in language is to message that accusers must always be believed.  It is, at heart, based on a gross distortion of statistics. 


It is difficult for many reasons to determine the percentage of false rape claims, to be sure, but like the claims about 97% of “climate scientists” and global warming, the assertion that only 2% of women’s rape claims are false is itself demonstrably false.  We don’t know the answer, and since we don’t, we should not upset laws and precepts guaranteeing due process for all those accused of the crime – men and women alike.


Indirect data, in fact, highly suggest that far more than two percent of rape accusations are false.  The 2% genesis was a handout from Susan Brownmiller’s file.  (Brownmiller, the author of Against Our Will, Men, Women and Rape, argued that existing definitions of rape were a tool of male dominance.)  It was her “interpretation of some data, now a quarter-century old, of unknown provenance from a single police department unit.”


This fact is significant because based on this dubious statistic, efforts are made to transform rape accusations into a strict liability offense.  Those who believe this nonsense contend that if only half of the accusations result in convictions, the definition of “consent” must be altered, making intent irrelevant to the crime and creating “a new breed of strict liability.” 


Brownmiller’s desire to revise the definition (indeed, the meaning of sex crimes involving women) was not the only fake statistic used to turn the presumption of innocence on its head.


The same kind of jiggered statistics were used to justify Title IX tribunals in colleges where men were grossly mistreated following false accusations. The Duke lacrosse team and University of Virginia cases come to mind, but daily we read of men who fought back, were reinstated to college, and even won substantial damages because their schools followed the Obama Department of Education’s gynocratic star chamber policies.  Those policies were based on an equally suspect claim that 20% of college women experienced a sexual assault.  Countless others doubtless lacked the financial ability to do so and had their lives damaged if not ruined by campus star chambers.


Statistics surrounding sexual assault are notoriously unreliable and inconsistent, primarily because of vague and expansive definitions of what qualifies as sexual assault.  Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute explains that the study often cited as the origin of the “one in five” factoid is an online survey conducted under a grant from the Justice Department.  Surveyors employed such a broad definition that “‘forced kissing” and even “attempted forced kissing” qualified as sexual assault.


The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ “Violent Victimization of College Students” report tells a different and more plausible story about campus culture.  During the years surveyed, 1995-2002, the DOJ found that there were six rapes or sexual assaults per thousand per year.  Across the nation’s four million female college students, that comes to about one victim in forty students. Other DOJ statistics show that the overall rape rate is in sharp decline: since 1995, the estimated rate of female rape or sexual assault victimizations has decreased by about 60 percent. …


Bolstered by inflated statistics and alarmist depictions of campus culture, advocates have been successful in initiating policy changes designed to better protect victims of sexual violence.  Duke, Swarthmore, Amherst, Emerson and the University of North Carolina are among the many institutions that have recently reviewed and revised their policies.  It is not clear that these policies have made campuses safer places for women, but they have certainly made them treacherous places for falsely accused men.


It is in this fevered atmosphere, where women are led to believe that all men are rapists or would-be rapists, that a charge made months earlier with a request for anonymity and kept hidden by Senator Feinstein (but not from the Washington Post) was finally disclosed, with demands for a reopened hearing on the suitability of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.  He has, without doubt, a pristine reputation.  The accusation was vague – no date, no place were given.  The others she claimed were present, like the nominee, all denied the claim under penalty of perjury.  On examination by a mild prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell from Arizona, Ford made a number of inconsistent statements and other assertions that were hardly credible.  Miss Mitchell notified the committee that had she received this information as a prosecutor, she would not have filed a charge against Kavanaugh and doubted she would even have been able to get a search warrant issued. 


I have to agree with Powerline blog’s John Hinderaker


If we can do this to the Boy Scout Brett Kavanaugh, we can do it to anyone.  Are you thinking of serving in a Republican administration?  Or accepting an appointment to the federal judiciary from a Republican president?  Think twice, and then think again.


Because our smear machine will reach back to middle school if necessary.  If we can’t find any dirt on you, we will manufacture some.  There is no depth to which we will not stoop, and your honesty, integrity and spotless reputation are no match for our control over the media and our determination to dredge up ridiculous allegations against anyone who stands in our way. 


Really, the more ridiculous the better.  If we can accuse Brett Kavanaugh, one of the most respected lawyers and judges in America, of gang rape, we can accuse anyone of anything!  And our insane accusations will dominate the news.


That is the Democratic Party’s message.  And we have learned from the Christine Ford fiasco that accusations don’t require corroborating evidence.  A single wacky, false allegation will negate decades of hard work on behalf of the American people. …


Given that strategy, the fact that they are smearing a man of obviously sterling character on absurdly flimsy grounds is not a bug, it is a feature.  The fact that the Democrats’ smears are so patently false is ultimately their main point.


The Democrats are telling us: Republicans, beware – if this can happen to Brett Kavanaugh, it can happen to anyone.  You’d better go quietly and cede power to us.


Hinderaker is right about the strategy of the Democrats in Kavanaugh’s case, but Brownmiller, the Obama Department of Education, and the various left-wing organizations and their media cohorts have created an atmosphere within which they could commit this outrage.


And the pussy-hatted women are telling us they can do this to you whether or not you are a Republican, as long as you are a man.


Really, guys, you have to fight this.  You pick your weapon.  You can march around in penis hats and accost senators in elevators demanding that since some men have been falsely accused of rape, all accusations of rape must be deemed falsely made.  You can call a nationwide strike by men.  Let the women dig the ditches, fix the electrical wires and telephone lines, fight all the fires and wars, and conduct all the police work and intricate surgeries.  Do all the countless things men do every day to protect all of us – men and women alike.


Or maybe, like me, you can vow to never vote for a Democrat again and fight tooth and nail against such efforts to distort our constitutional rights to due process.










The performance of women this week – from Senator Dianne Feinstein to Christine Blasey Ford to the howling mobs on Capitol Hill – made me seriously consider surgically altering my sex.  They are demanding special treatment because of their sex and in the process placing all of us – male and female alike – at peril of witch hunts against men and then, in time, against all who will not bow to their rule.


My Facebook friend Alex Bensky reminded me of the advantage to me of transgendering: 


Ah, then we’d be unable to criticize your politics, your social viewpoints, your choice of teams to root for, and anything else you say because we’d be transphobic.


‪As a footnote, I’ve seen an estimate that the transgender population is about 0.05% of the population.  This is hardly a warrant for beating up people but it is not clear to me why unless we substantially alter social arrangements that have existed in almost every known human society and celebrate…not just accept but celebrate…transgenderism, we are mean, hateful people.


Victor Davis Hanson offered up the most succinct summary of Blasey Ford’s testimony: 


The “process” of memorializing Ford’s testimony involved a strange inversion of constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity; the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant; the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state’s investigation of the allegations; and the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar allegations.


Unless, however, you do not want to transgender, I want to note how we came to such a place, a place both ridiculous and dangerous.


I want you to pay attention to the distortions of language and statistics used to advance the gynocrats’ agenda.


Since when do those accusing others of crimes become “survivors” rather than “accusers”?  How you frame your self-description affects views, doesn’t it?  If you claimed that someone had raped you, why must we always believe you just because you tag yourself “a survivor”?  Do we do this with those who claim to have been robbed or beaten?  ”I’m a robbery survivor, so you have to believe me when I say X robbed me.”  The shift in language is to message that accusers must always be believed.  It is, at heart, based on a gross distortion of statistics. 


It is difficult for many reasons to determine the percentage of false rape claims, to be sure, but like the claims about 97% of “climate scientists” and global warming, the assertion that only 2% of women’s rape claims are false is itself demonstrably false.  We don’t know the answer, and since we don’t, we should not upset laws and precepts guaranteeing due process for all those accused of the crime – men and women alike.


Indirect data, in fact, highly suggest that far more than two percent of rape accusations are false.  The 2% genesis was a handout from Susan Brownmiller’s file.  (Brownmiller, the author of Against Our Will, Men, Women and Rape, argued that existing definitions of rape were a tool of male dominance.)  It was her “interpretation of some data, now a quarter-century old, of unknown provenance from a single police department unit.”


This fact is significant because based on this dubious statistic, efforts are made to transform rape accusations into a strict liability offense.  Those who believe this nonsense contend that if only half of the accusations result in convictions, the definition of “consent” must be altered, making intent irrelevant to the crime and creating “a new breed of strict liability.” 


Brownmiller’s desire to revise the definition (indeed, the meaning of sex crimes involving women) was not the only fake statistic used to turn the presumption of innocence on its head.


The same kind of jiggered statistics were used to justify Title IX tribunals in colleges where men were grossly mistreated following false accusations. The Duke lacrosse team and University of Virginia cases come to mind, but daily we read of men who fought back, were reinstated to college, and even won substantial damages because their schools followed the Obama Department of Education’s gynocratic star chamber policies.  Those policies were based on an equally suspect claim that 20% of college women experienced a sexual assault.  Countless others doubtless lacked the financial ability to do so and had their lives damaged if not ruined by campus star chambers.


Statistics surrounding sexual assault are notoriously unreliable and inconsistent, primarily because of vague and expansive definitions of what qualifies as sexual assault.  Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute explains that the study often cited as the origin of the “one in five” factoid is an online survey conducted under a grant from the Justice Department.  Surveyors employed such a broad definition that “‘forced kissing” and even “attempted forced kissing” qualified as sexual assault.


The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ “Violent Victimization of College Students” report tells a different and more plausible story about campus culture.  During the years surveyed, 1995-2002, the DOJ found that there were six rapes or sexual assaults per thousand per year.  Across the nation’s four million female college students, that comes to about one victim in forty students. Other DOJ statistics show that the overall rape rate is in sharp decline: since 1995, the estimated rate of female rape or sexual assault victimizations has decreased by about 60 percent. …


Bolstered by inflated statistics and alarmist depictions of campus culture, advocates have been successful in initiating policy changes designed to better protect victims of sexual violence.  Duke, Swarthmore, Amherst, Emerson and the University of North Carolina are among the many institutions that have recently reviewed and revised their policies.  It is not clear that these policies have made campuses safer places for women, but they have certainly made them treacherous places for falsely accused men.


It is in this fevered atmosphere, where women are led to believe that all men are rapists or would-be rapists, that a charge made months earlier with a request for anonymity and kept hidden by Senator Feinstein (but not from the Washington Post) was finally disclosed, with demands for a reopened hearing on the suitability of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.  He has, without doubt, a pristine reputation.  The accusation was vague – no date, no place were given.  The others she claimed were present, like the nominee, all denied the claim under penalty of perjury.  On examination by a mild prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell from Arizona, Ford made a number of inconsistent statements and other assertions that were hardly credible.  Miss Mitchell notified the committee that had she received this information as a prosecutor, she would not have filed a charge against Kavanaugh and doubted she would even have been able to get a search warrant issued. 


I have to agree with Powerline blog’s John Hinderaker


If we can do this to the Boy Scout Brett Kavanaugh, we can do it to anyone.  Are you thinking of serving in a Republican administration?  Or accepting an appointment to the federal judiciary from a Republican president?  Think twice, and then think again.


Because our smear machine will reach back to middle school if necessary.  If we can’t find any dirt on you, we will manufacture some.  There is no depth to which we will not stoop, and your honesty, integrity and spotless reputation are no match for our control over the media and our determination to dredge up ridiculous allegations against anyone who stands in our way. 


Really, the more ridiculous the better.  If we can accuse Brett Kavanaugh, one of the most respected lawyers and judges in America, of gang rape, we can accuse anyone of anything!  And our insane accusations will dominate the news.


That is the Democratic Party’s message.  And we have learned from the Christine Ford fiasco that accusations don’t require corroborating evidence.  A single wacky, false allegation will negate decades of hard work on behalf of the American people. …


Given that strategy, the fact that they are smearing a man of obviously sterling character on absurdly flimsy grounds is not a bug, it is a feature.  The fact that the Democrats’ smears are so patently false is ultimately their main point.


The Democrats are telling us: Republicans, beware – if this can happen to Brett Kavanaugh, it can happen to anyone.  You’d better go quietly and cede power to us.


Hinderaker is right about the strategy of the Democrats in Kavanaugh’s case, but Brownmiller, the Obama Department of Education, and the various left-wing organizations and their media cohorts have created an atmosphere within which they could commit this outrage.


And the pussy-hatted women are telling us they can do this to you whether or not you are a Republican, as long as you are a man.


Really, guys, you have to fight this.  You pick your weapon.  You can march around in penis hats and accost senators in elevators demanding that since some men have been falsely accused of rape, all accusations of rape must be deemed falsely made.  You can call a nationwide strike by men.  Let the women dig the ditches, fix the electrical wires and telephone lines, fight all the fires and wars, and conduct all the police work and intricate surgeries.  Do all the countless things men do every day to protect all of us – men and women alike.


Or maybe, like me, you can vow to never vote for a Democrat again and fight tooth and nail against such efforts to distort our constitutional rights to due process.




via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/