Christine Blasey Ford and the ACLU: Now accusations count more than evidence.

By Rubashov

Once upon a time, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) could be relied upon to follow its core beliefs to their logical conclusions. Freedom of Speech was Freedom of Speech – even if it meant defending the right of American National Socialists to conduct a public demonstration in a town where a large community of Holocaust survivors resided.

While the ACLU’s defense of the Nazis was in poor taste, it was in keeping with their purist – admirably so, many would argue – view of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, that gift from all the Americans who have gone before us. That is who the ACLU was, with a stated mission "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".

But no longer. The ACLU has “jumped the shark” as is said. We cannot tell if this is due to a growing presence of a new generation, unhistorical, overloaded on so much information from today that no room remains for all that came before; or if it is due simply to the whims of those who underwrite the ACLU – its contributors and benefactors. We cannot tell. We can only observe what they have done.

Those funding an organization inevitably call its tune. Today, there are many more groups asking for money than there were back in 1920, when the ACLU was formed. And an annual budget of more than $230 million is a big nut. One can only imagine the arguments between the group’s purists and those whose concerns focus more on fundraising.

And then there is the ever present pressure of political correctness, illustrating that America has never really moved on from its puritan roots. The need to shun, to censure, to shame remains within our DNA. Only the subject changes. If a company like Chick-fil-A can be brought to heel from the outside, how much easier for an organization like the ACLU, from within?

And so, this past weekend, the ACLU presented an award to an accuser whose accusations could not be substantiated and whose own supporters later doubted her account. An accuser who made her accusation in 2018 – about something that she said happened in 1982 (Yes, wouldn’t we all wish to live under a tyranny in which government investigators could conjure an accusation from our long past that could be made fresh to destroy us? Wouldn’t we all wish to apply such to our own lives?) In presenting an award for “courage” to this accuser, the ACLU made clear that innocent until proven guilty no longer matters.

The accuser is Christine Blasey Ford. The accused, one Brett Kavanaugh. Of course they did. What else matters?

The accuser is painting herself as a victim of a crime and the ACLU is accepting this. And yet no crime had been adjudicated. So we say again, the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty no longer matters.

This is quite a turnabout for the ACLU. Most everyone has heard of the Miranda case and that the police, when arresting someone, must “Mirandize” them or read them their Miranda rights. This came out of a 1963 case in which the accused was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old girl. The accused admitted to the rape and confessed to police. The accused was convicted at trial of kidnapping and rape. Later, it was found that the police had neglected to inform the accused of his right to counsel, so the ACLU and others successfully argued for his release. It led to the famous decision by the United States Supreme Court, in favor of the accused – who had been convicted of kidnapping and rape.

Ernesto Miranda went to trial again in 1967. Witnesses testified that Miranda himself had bragged about the rape at the time of the offense. He was convicted in 1967 and sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years in prison. However, this was before the Reagan/Clinton era of tough-on-crime mandatory sentencing laws and such, so he was released in 1972. Miranda was stabbed to death in a bar fight in 1976.

(NOTE: America is now in the process of regressing to the past – of going back to those halcyon days when a man convicted of kidnapping and rape was back on the streets in five years. The victim, in this case, was just 27 years old when the man convicted of kidnapping and raping her was released. Hopefully, she moved so she didn’t have to look at him. Remember this well, because this is where we are going – here and to the great re-learning that will of necessity follow. Look forward to a new wave of mandatory sentencing laws in the 2030’s and 2040’s.)

This was who the ACLU was back when it believed that the accused was innocent until proven guilty – back when the ACLU would take on the case of a convicted rapist and kidnapper and insist that – no matter the public outcry, no matter how loud this mob or that howled – the rules had to be adhered to. How you played the game mattered to the ACLU. Then. Not now.

Now the howls of the mob are all that matters. And the money. Bet the fundraising is going great!

The Left in America (and throughout the West) has embraced a kind of Modernist justice that leaves it “free” from empirical evidence and facts. Going forward, they tell us, “justice” will be based on “imagination” and “feeling” – whether of the individual or of the mob (be it in body or on social media). Of course, even the most ardent Modernists had to later admit that the “oakness” of the truncheons did intrude on the mind’s abstractions. Then, when the darkness fell, and “justice” became whatever the government, with its men with guns, said it was.

Let us mourn the passing of the old ACLU. Too bad, it almost made a hundred.

HATE: InsiderNJ writes that Bible-based Christianity is “bizarre”.

Fred Snowflack is an idiot.  That is the only way to explain the InsiderNJ operative’s statement that denies the central tenant of all religions, which is that the religious belief they offer is the one and true way to salvation. 

Who goes to the church of “maybe this is the right way”? 

Are the people who own InsiderNJ too stupid to understand that this is how religions work or do they just hate the very concept of religion?  Perhaps in the Graham family what they worship is money and power and ass?  Hey, that is okay, but maybe you should employ open-minded people who understand that not everybody shares the same view.

Apparently at the church of the sacred orgasm – or whatever equivalent Mr. Snowflack attends – they have never heard of the “lake of fire” – also known as something called “hell”.  How is it that a man as old as Fred Snowflack has never encountered Dante’s Divine Comedy?  That he has somehow gone through life without ever coming across the concept of hell… even in the movies? 

Or maybe Snowflack knows exactly what the Christian pastor he smeared meant but pretended he didn’t so that Snowflack could appear “cool” and “oh so cosmopolitan”?  Face it Fred, you are neither.  You are just a persnickety old puritan.  You can’t help sticking your little old pecker into a story.

Snowflack attended a meeting of the Sussex County Community College Board of Trustees on Tuesday night to… well, “report the news” wouldn’t be quite accurate.  Fred makes up his stories beforehand and then fills in the blanks with his own brand of witty opinion.  Of course, one man’s wit is another man’s hate.

And Fred Snowflack shows us what he “hates” every time he posts a new story.  Of course, being a servile creature, Fred’s hates mirror those of his masters – the family of insurance vendors who own the InsiderNJ blog. 

When inconvenient facts pop up – like the poor job Sussex Democrats did in turning people out for the meeting or that half those present spoke up for and supported Sussex GOP Chairman Jerry Scanlan – Snowflack inflates the first by counting orifices and simply ignores the second.

Real journalists never describe things using subjective terms.  Real journalists might report that Mr. X or Ms. Y called something “hate” but real journalists don’t simply assign unprovable subjective terms to what is being reported on.  That isn’t newsworthy reportage, it is just opinion having a go at cross-dressing in order to look like news.  But here is Fred Snowflack…

“…after (GOP Chairman) Scanlan’s sexist and homophobic tweets, they (trustees) took the only action they could.”  Applying lines like “sexist” and “homophobic” doesn’t belong in a news report, it belongs on a piece of political campaign mail.  As for “the only action they could” – a reporter would report what a participant said.  In this case, Snowflack is the participant.  He’s become part of the story. 

Why is the Graham family content to pay for such poor and unconvincing work? 

Snowflack writes that (GOP Chairman) Scanlan “retweeted a series of offensive messages”.  Why the judgment?  Once again, Fred Snowflack has stuck his pecker in the story.  Wouldn’t a proper reporter write, “messages that some have found offensive”?  Why does Fred need feel the need to burden us with his pecker?  He should be an observer, not a participant. 

Then Snowflack makes the claim that neither he or Bill Curcio, or Howard Burrell, or Tyler Morgus or Michael Spekhardt have ever used or considered using the words “whore” or “bitch” or “lesbian” or “hag”.  Snowflack seems to believe that these words possess such power that their use turns the user into someone who must be shunned by all “good” society.  What a quaint puritan concept!  Besides which, it is a lie. 

It is a great pity that someone hasn’t invented a convenient boardroom polygraph machine.  Something with a single prod, neat and tidy.  In this way, before handing down such a ridiculous pronouncement, SCCC Chairman Bill Curcio could have inserted it into the anus of each and every board member, while the SCCC counsel asked them whether or not they had ever uttered any of those grave words.  After which, they could adjourn the meeting and all resign.

Think Snowflack’s writing couldn’t get weaker, check this out… “This became your proverbial hot potato for college trustees, who are not normally entwined in such controversies.”  “Proverbial hot potato”?  Maybe he meant “pecker”?

Well, there have been a few other “hot potatoes” that we can bring up from memory, like the time a Trustee was caught voting on SCCC contracts while taking monetary payments from the company being hired by the college.  Maybe – in the mind of a guy like Fred Snowflack – such conduct doesn’t rise to the level of a “hot potato” or a “re-tweet” or even a “hot pecker”, but it doesn’t sound very ethical to us.  But what are ethics when you work for government contractors yourself?

And now for the final insertion of the Snowflack pecker into the story… “But freedom of speech doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The trustees also had the right and the freedom to say that Scanlan’s tweets were incompatible with a college environment.”

What’s wrong here, aside from the insertion of the pecker, is that somehow Snowflack misses the fact that the trustees didn’t merely give their opinion, they labeled someone and punished him absent a written policy and outside the written rules of their organization.  Here, in America – in this country – we don’t punish people because other people think they should be punished.  It would be better that people go unpunished than to allow them to be punished at the whim of others.

Bill Curcio, Howard Burrell, Tyler Morgus, Michael Spekhardt, and the other members of the SCCC Board of Trustees failed to create a policy to deal with the private misuse of social media by trustees, faculty, and staff.  It is legally, morally, and ethically wrong to come up with an ad-hoc punishment, absent a written policy, simply because some people demanded it.

Even if the demand for punishment was popular (which, in this case, it is not), in America we don’t punish people simply because other people hold an opinion that they have done something wrong.  That is an evil precedent. 

The courts have ruled that calling someone a racist is every bit as damaging as calling someone a pedophile.  When Oberlin College tried to label someone a racist the college ended up getting hit with a $44 million judgment. 

We expect to see legal action taken against Sussex County Community College over the trustees’ institutional failures and unprofessional, irrational handling of this matter.  With spending out of control and enrollment declining, it will be a very high price to pay for making a fashion statement.

Before sexualizing children. Why not have a debate?

By Rubashov

Is it the ACLU’s fault?  Or is it the people who fund them who have changed? 

We all remember how the ACLU stood up for Freedom of Speech – even when it meant protecting that freedom for people with whom they had absolutely no sympathy.   It was the ACLU who famously set the parameters of First Amendment protections in the 1970’s, when the organization defended the right of the American Nazi Party to march through Skokie, Illinois, a town chosen by the Nazis for its ethnic and religious make-up.  Placing their loathing of the Nazis aside, the ACLU stood with the American Bill of Rights to argue that the Nazis had the right to transgressive speech – the right to knowingly offend. 

Of course, transgressive speech is the very foundation of comedy, and there was some wisdom in the suggestion that we laugh at the Nazis, their silly uniforms, and that flag.  Better to laugh at them, to tolerate them, than to become them, so the wisdom went. 

But times have changed.

The ACLU is under pressure from the people who fund it, from its donor class, as are politicians from all parties and persuasions.  There is a new public religion and it is in the process of driving out its competition from the public square.

And just as transubstantiation demands that its believers accept that bread and wine is changed into flesh and blood, so in this new religion, a person with a penis can be made woman.  It is mystical, faith-based, beyond debate or reason.  It is religion.

Central to this new religion is a persecution myth.  Just as the early Christians had their martyrs and their festivals of remembrance, this new religion has its Stonewall, its AIDS epidemic, its accounts of martyrdom.  The carnality of it – the sex – is all scrubbed from the accounts.  The public face of this new religion is Neo-Victorian in its use of language – “No Sex, please” – this is all about “Love”.

Proselytizing to children is central to all religions, but especially so to groups who make the oppression of the faith central to their ideology.  This was so with Jim Jones, David Koresh, the “Children of God” cult, and many others.  Did they not all operate under the banner that children be sexualized at the earliest possible moment?  Did they not preach endlessly about “Love”?  That “Love is the Answer”, “Love is Love”? 

Sex is as addictive as tobacco and like the sellers of cigarettes (or narcotics) they like to get them while they’re young.  So they come for the children.  Public libraries host “drag queen story hours” for little children, with readings by folks with names like “Lil Miss Hot Mess”.  Isn’t “hot” an explicitly sexual term?  School curriculums now include such varied activities as “condom races” – in which 10 and 11 year-old girls compete to be the first to put a condom on a model of an erect adult male penis.  All watched by their male classmates.  Magazines like Teen Vogue – specifically marketed to children – argue that prostitution is just a job, work like any other, with no moral or psychological concerns whatsoever. 

This is all part of this new public religion.  So a new law, signed by Governor Phil Murphy, mandates the teaching of people from history based on how their alleged sexual practices conform to one of a series of letters (LGBTQ…).  It’s a rather shallow way to teach, for how can the endless ways in which human beings order their lives really be bound and categorized by a half dozen letters – or indeed, a thousand? 

Within the last few days, a School Trustee in Hackensack had the temerity to express an opinion on the new mandate that failed to conform to the new public religion.  In response, Garden State Equality (GSE) – the “LGBTQ” equivalent of Hezbollah – went all jihadist on the trustee, demanding that she be forced into submission or made to resign and shunned thereafter. 

An email from GSE made it clear that they weren’t stopping with her:  “It’s imperative that each and every education official across New Jersey understands that our curriculum law must be faithfully implemented.”  Each and every.  There is no place for religious dissent. 

A GSE supporter reached out and noted that the trustee in question used the term “repugnant” to describe “the LGBTQ lifestyle.”  The term is generally used when describing something that the user finds “distasteful” or that the user is “incompatible” with.  It must be noted that many of our fellow human beings do find such sexual practices as oral or anal sex “distasteful” and that they are “incompatible” with same. 

We are not speaking here for Phil and Tammy Murphy, or Valerie Vainieri Huttle, or Jim Tedesco, or Gordon Johnson, or Loretta Weinberg, or indeed for the other politicians who have condemned the use of the term “repugnant.”  What they find “tasteful”, what they are “compatible” with, what their appetites bend towards is entirely their business.  And we would defend their endorsement of oral or anal sex as much as we defend the right of others not to enjoy such things.  Whatever floats your boat, as they say. 

But expressing one’s sexual preferences, one’s choice, is not welcome by the new “public” religion.  Blank conformity is what is expected.  Every public statement, written or spoken must conform.  The new religion allows no public expression of older religions.  All must conform… or they will be made to conform. 

Having gained significant cadres amongst elites in government, the media, in education, and with One-Percenters who control the corporate world, the new religion is attempting a top-down takeover of the public square – bullying out older religions, forcing compliance and general conformity of expressed opinion.  They seem to forget that Americans are contrarian by nature.  Nonconformity is the way with us and we will continue to practice it, even while being oppressed and punished for doing so. 

Of course, this is another reason why they want our children.  But then they forget that generations of Soviet indoctrination did not extinguish the seed of traditional faith in Russia or in Eastern Europe. 

This is an interesting topic that should be debated openly and honestly.  Instead, jihadists like Garden State Equality are concerned only with bullying and banning public dissent.  They don’t care if people dishonestly mouth those allowed saccharine platitudes, so long as they mouth them.

Instead of punishing questioning minds, why not debate them?  Before we allow government – in service of the new public religion – to continue to sexualize children, why not have an open and honest debate on the subject? 

Maybe a group like the Center for Garden State Families or the New Jersey Family Policy Council will set up a series of open discussions on the Murphy administration’s sexualization of young children.  Then they can invite folks like Senator Loretta Weinberg and Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle to explain what they like and don’t like – and how they came to embrace the new religion (HINT: Check their campaign finance reports, and you will know why).

Before the Murphy Democrats force one more unfunded mandate on the property taxpayers of New Jersey… have an open and honest debate about their need to sexualize children.

You will be made to care

Erick Erickson, the conservative radio host who was editor at RedState -- a top national conservative news and opinion website, has a new book coming out this month.  It's title: You Will Be Made to Care: The War on Faith, Family and Your Freedom to Believe!

Erickson and his co-author, Bill Blankschaen, describe how religious liberty is under attack in America and how our "freedom to believe" may not last much longer.  Their message is for all those who say they don’t care about the culture war:  “The Left will not let you stay on the sidelines. You will be made to care.”

Look at how quickly intolerance entrenched itself in Britain, so much so that a few years ago an effort was started to claw back some of the freedom that had been lost.  Here is comedian and free speech activist Rowan Atkinson speaking on the subject:

By imposing strict "politically correct" codes and defining the expression of any opinion outside the establishment orthodoxy as "hate speech," those who oppose freedom are determined to drive Christianity from the public square.  The effort to make Christian small businesses conform to this "new religion" by offering them the option of conversion or bankruptcy represents only a skirmish in the wider effort to drive the Christian faith into the shadows.

You will not be left alone.  You will be made to "celebrate."

We have been here before -- and warned before.  Lillian Smith was a good and tolerant liberal.  She one of the first Southerners to write about the evils of segregation, and lived long enough to see most of that system eradicated and reforms enacted.  But at the end of her life, she became concerned that the love of ideology would trump humanity.  In accepting the Charles S. Johnson Award, she wrote:

“It is his millions of relationships that will give man his humanity… It is not our ideological rights that are important but the quality of our relationships with each other, with all men, with knowledge and art and God that count.

The civil rights movement has done a magnificent job but it is now faced with the ancient choice between good and evil, between love for all men and lust for a group’s power.”

“Every group on earth that has put ideology before human relations has failed; always disaster and bitterness and bloodshed have come.  This movement, too, may fail.  If it does, it will be because it aroused in men more hate than love, more concern for their own group than for all people, more lust for power than compassion for human need.”

“We must avoid the trap of totalism which lures a man into thinking there is only one way, one answer, one option, and that others must be forced into this One Way, and forced into it Now.” 

Totalism.  One Way -- forced into it Now.  Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell, in every state where same-sex marriage was legalized, people of conscience who objected to participating in someone else's "celebration" were targeted and made to pay for their dissent.  So the Court legalizes same-sex marriage and what does the winning side do?  It starts talking about stripping religious organizations of their tax exempt status.  Not the best way to build comity.

That's why You Will Be Made to Care is such a timely book.  It recognizes that the assault is under way and details the steps you can take to resist.

To order the book and take advantage of the Pre-Order Bonus Package, please follow this link:  http://YouWillBeMadetoCare.com