web analytics

Accusation as Political Weapon

So, here we go again.

The Democrats have once again turned to alleging that something occurred in the distant past, with no way to come close to what could count as a proof or disproof that the incident occurred.  I have already detailed my principled objections to this as it related to Roy Moore so the reader can look at that for more background.

What’s setting me off as I am writing this is the overwhelming hypocrisy and even rank stupidity surrounding this approach, by people who have built their entire political machine around the ‘victim.’  Meanwhile, they have no compunction about victimizing people who may very well be innocent.  Or have we forgotten about ‘innocent until proven guilty’?  Or does that only apply to liberal/progs?  Then they have the audacity to claim they are on the moral high ground, and even that they are taking the Christian perspective.  It’s not even worth going into all of it.  I’d be writing all day.

How about we start with this article: “Every man should be worried. At least, I’m worried. ”  It is an opinion piece by a certain Alexandra Petri at the Washington Post.  She starts out with this quote as her baseline… it is literally the first thing in her article:

“If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.” — A lawyer close to the White House, speaking to Politico

And now she begins to mock this.

“Look, who among us? If, apparently, a single alleged assault at a single party decades ago is to be frowned upon, then no man is safe, right?”

This is literally the second thing she says.   Now, if you have even half a brain and a shred of honesty and integrity, you will spot the problem right off.

Not counting on that, let me spell it out.

The person writing at the Politico says… “brought down by accusations” … Petri skips over the word ‘accusations’ and writes the rest of her article as if the assault actually happened.  From ‘accusations bringing someone down’ we go straight to ‘the person really did the thing he is accused of doing.’

(The word ‘alleged’ is included as pure CYA.  She doesn’t mean it.  The whole article is premised as if what is ‘alleged’ is actual fact.)

The person she is quoting… that SHE is QUOTING… at the VERY BEGINNING of her own article, says…. “BY ACCUSATIONS.”

Anybody who is literate and even slightly honest would be able to tell that Petri was being blatantly deceitful.

However, based on such vile tactics, there will be people who nonetheless infer that it must be known that he actually did what he was accused of doing.

We have no way of knowing if the accusations are true.  Kavanaugh has no way of disproving them.  Ford has no way of proving them.   If Kavanaugh’s friend corroborated Ford’s story, that might be more damning–in the political arena.  Alas, he did not.

So, here we have a case where someone’s career is going to be brought to a complete stop because of uncorroborated assertions by a single person.

If the ability of ONE PERSON to make accusations against someone, without evidence, without corroboration, without, dare I say it, shame, and threaten that person’s livelihood, which the person quoted in Politico was referring to, then absolutely Petri should be worried.  She could be next.  We all could be.  Petri, like most progressives, have not considered what life would be like in a society that has fully embraced her methods.

I’ve heard more than a few atheistic secular leftist humanists thump their chest on this (and Moore, and other #MeToo allegations) as though they are the ones more authentically Christian.   Actually being a Christian, and actually knowing Christians, I have yet to come across anyone that condones rape or assault.  I can’t think of a single friend or acquaintance that is not repulsed by such behavior–genuinely.

IF it were shown that the person ACTUALLY did the things in question, most Christians would dump them (and even Moore, who was only accused, was not elected).

Let me say that again, using little words so that Petri and WAPO readers can understand.

IF.

IF.

IF.

SHOWN.

SHOWN.

SHOWN.

IF.

IF.

IF.

IF is a conditional clause, meaning that what follows only applies IF the conditions exist.

ACCUSATIONS do NOT equal DID THE DEED.

There is something else in that Bible that atheists-who-are-more-Christian-than-Christians would do well to remember:

One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. — Deuteronomy 19:15

This principle is repeated several times throughout the Christian Scriptures, and for good reason.  In the days before DNA, fingerprints, and surveillance cameras, it was not easy  to prove or disprove that a crime took place in a manner that did not involve the testimony of a witness.  This reality made was ripe for abuse.  In cultures where a single accuser could literally end someone,  people inevitably took advantage of the system for their own personal gain.

Thus, when God gave the Ten Commandments and included, “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness” he was not issuing a trivial, ad hoc, statement.    A ‘false witness’ was not merely someone who told a lie.  A ‘false witness’ had the power to essentially murder someone via third parties (eg, tribal chief, etc). God was countermanding a despicable trend within many societies, past and present.

The IF matters.  You are NOT representing a Christian worldview if you focus solely on the crime, and omitting any consideration of the Bible’s many warnings about false accusations.

When the founders wrote the US Constitution and included in it robust measures for defending THE ACCUSED, they were doing more than recapitulating a biblical principle.  They were responding to realities on the ground:  the ability of the state to run roughshod over individuals by the force of accusation alone was vividly displayed.   And, it is important to remember that the ‘state’ could be influenced by the rich and powerful who had the knowledge and means to get the ‘state’ to malign people for their own benefit.

What the Founders tried to prevent, the Democrats and their rabid base are going out of their way to do, over and over, and over.

What could go wrong?  I mean, besides destroying the career and reputation of your political foes?

One doesn’t have to look hard to find examples, but of course that would require actually looking.  Let me suggest you start with Solzhenitsyn and his The Gulag Archipelago.

Literally millions of people had their lives utterly demolished, and even–literally–ended, because of a system where false accusers were given unfettered ability to send people off to the interrogators.

What the Democrats are playing with was not too long ago the ‘law of the land’ in Russia.  The system that chewed up Solzhenitsyn and millions of others is precisely the kind of system that the Democrats are facilitating in our own country.

Democrats are constantly tearing at the fabric of the various checks and balances and guiding principles that have allowed the United States to be free of the many horrific abuses that have permeated the rest of the globe throughout times past and present.  The sincere ones think they are doing it for a good cause, that their treading on basic rights enshrined in the Constitution is justified “for the common good.”  The ends justify the means; and not to worry, things won’t get out of control.  They can always walk it back.  After the political foes are suppressed, they can return to the enterprise of ‘progress.’

Unfortunately, such malicious behaviors and attitudes tend (historically) to metastasize and spiral out of control.  Mere accusation as a means to destroy someone who deserves destroying (historically) fuels a system where people who don’t deserve destroying are likewise destroyed.  People like Petri, who engage in irresponsible accusations today, may find themselves targeted for destruction in exactly the same way.

And next thing we know, we’re all sharing a cell in the gulag.

People like Petri, who cannot even tell the difference between the idea of mere accusation vs actual commission of the deed, will be utterly clueless about how it happened.

The hyper-partisans I expect to happen upon this post will disregard all that I just said and accuse me of mounting a blind defense of Kavanaugh.  Thus, I have to issue this disclaimer:  I don’t even like Kavanaugh.  He’s uber-establishment, which I detest.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT KAVANAUGH.  This is about liberal/progs continuing to tear at the threads of the fabric of all that gives us freedom and liberty, probably escalating finally into a ‘hot’ civil war.   Maybe its just me, but I would prefer we didn’t see such a conflagration.  Others seem hell bent on bringing it about ASAP.

Now, a quick word on the hypocrisy stuff.

Watching people froth at the mouth about Kavanaugh with so little evidence, about a crime that is tame compared to what many other–liberal–politicians have done, I am starting to consider a proposition that seems unthinkable.  Their support for Bill Clinton, Edward Kennedy and Chris Dodd (eg, the “Waitress Sandwich”), their support for Hillary Clinton who enabled her husband who was doing all sorts of things liberals aren’t supposed to approve of, not to mention the great irony of Ford’s attorney defending Clinton over accusations of far more severity… makes it look like they don’t actually believe ANY of the stuff they are saying.  Can it really be?  Surely, there must be some liberals that genuinely frown on sexual assault.  Funny how we only hear their condemnations when its alleged against their political foes, though.

And they call me the partisan!

—————————————-

* This is the same kind of stupidity we see in other areas of dispute in American society.  For example, liberals relentlessly accuse conservatives of hating immigrants, etc, deliberately omitting the word ILLEGAL.  Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of integrity will notice that objections raised by conservatives are to ILLEGAL immigration.  I personally have trouble believe that people are really so stupid as to not notice this qualifier, which raises the specter that they are deliberately ‘bear false witness’ in order to achieve their political goals.   But I could be wrong.  They really could just be that dumb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share

11 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Dannyboy on September 19, 2018 at 1:06 pm

    Do you think the bible is really a good guide to judicial morality from an “innocent until proven guilty” perspective? Just consider the following:

    “If, however, the CHARGE is true and NO PROOF of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.”

    By this standard (fairly applied), any man would have to prove himself innocent of whatever historical sexual assault that he was accused of.

    I am not advocating that, by the way, just calling attention to the shakiness of your scriptural justification.

    • Anthony on September 19, 2018 at 2:47 pm
      Author

    I note that you omitted the preceding verses, where the man is severely punished for lying if the charge is found to NOT BE TRUE.

    You fail to take into account in this passage that the charge is not merely made, but tested. I assume you have some idea about how such a claim might be tested.

    As far as the ‘shakiness of your scriptural justification,’ I’d encourage you to not be like Alexandra Petri. 😉

    In the first place, I said nothing about offering a biblical rationale for ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ I plainly indicated that the rationale in question concerned the number of witnesses. Did I not? I didn’t say anything about the Bible and ‘innocent until proven guilty.’

    Second of all, I was taking aim at the secularists who think they are out-Christianing Christians, when in fact their understanding of Christianity is extremely thin. But then, they have the luxury of picking and choosing (as you did), and don’t have the responsibility of attempting to reconcile the WHOLE of the Scriptures.

    Taking the WHOLE of the Scriptures, it would be understood as definitely NOT Christian to be opposed to rape/abuse but in favor of convicting people on the testimony of a single person.

    *I* am not permitted to register opposition to rape/abuse but then accept the word of a single person who presents zero corroboration for the charge. YOU can do it, if you like. *I* cannot do it… and call it Christian.

    I note that you have left alone the critical question:

    Do you think its appropriate to treat people as guilty based on the accusations made by a single person, with no other corroboration?

    • Dannyboy on September 20, 2018 at 1:15 am

    *Sigh* Tony.

    Your defence of that passage is surprising, because it is in fact an example of exactly the kind of injustice that you are decrying in the present day. One party (in this case a man) is permitted to make an accusation without any evidence, and if the other party (in this case a woman) cannot prove it false then she is killed. Notice the parallel? The fact that there are consequences for a provably false accusation has no bearing on the dilemma in which the accused is placed.

    If this example of divine justice was applied in the case you’re talking about then Kavanaugh would have to provide an unimpeachable alibi (for a currently unspecified date thirty-something years ago) or else face the full legal consequences for the act of which he is currently merely accused.

    So no, I don’t think that people should be treated as guilty without very good reason. It’s a shame that the author of Deuteronomy had inferior moral principles to you and me eh? ?

    • Anthony on September 20, 2018 at 7:11 am
      Author

    First of all, I wasn’t defending the passage. I was attacking your blatant omission of the context, which unsurprisingly, flatly contradicts your reading of the later passage.

    Second of all, you are misreading the later passage. The other party is NOT permitted to make an accusation without any evidence.

    Since Dan doesn’t want to talk about the context, let me help the lurker.

    Dan says, “One party (in this case a man) is permitted to make an accusation without any evidence.”

    ” 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip[b] him,”

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22&version=ESV

    So, let’s see if we got this straight. If the guy makes a false accusation, he is whipped, but Dan thinks this is the same as “being allowed to make an accusation without evidence.” I’d say that this clearly indicates the guy is NOT allowed to make a claim without evidence. He’ll have the snot beat out of him if he does. He’d BETTER have evidence!

    That sounds like the OPPOSITE of being “permitted to make an accusation without any evidence” to me, but what do I know?

    I am not defending the passage. The passage simply does not say what you say it says, and I’m not going to respond to the passage as if your flawed reading is accurate.

    —–

    Comment updated.

    • Anthony on September 20, 2018 at 8:25 am
      Author

    I was going to take a minute to try to read between the lines on your argument and address what I think you are trying to say, but I have decided its not worth my time. Your comments have nothing to do with anything I said in my blog post, and, lest you were confused about what I meant in the blog post, I have already clarified… and you have disregarded the clarification. So, what’s the point?

    If you want to continue to play the part of Petri, intentionally mischaracterizing the statements I made in my blog post, good on you. I won’t play.

    On the day when you want to really understand the Christian Scriptures on their own merits, instead of playing ‘proof text gotcha’ and taking pot shots, let me know.

    • Dannyboy on September 20, 2018 at 10:55 am

    I don’t know why you’re being so stubborn about this, apart from all the usual reasons. As you say, this is tangential to the OP, so feel free not to engage with it if you don’t want to. If this argument holds no pleasure for you then by all means don’t have it – any of your time that is “wasted” thereby is your responsibility, not mine.

    That being said, you are totally (and obviously) misrepresenting the meaning of this biblical passage. You say that the accuser “had better have evidence”, but that is flatly contradicted by the text that YOU quoted. The burden of proof (or rather, disproof) is placed entirely upon the woman and her family. The husband merely has to make the claim that she was not a virgin on their wedding night, and IF SHE CANNOT DISPROVE HIS ACCUSATION she is sentenced to be stoned to death. There is NO burden placed upon her husband to provide any evidence for his deadly assertion, although if he is proven to have lied then he will be punished. The accused “merely” have to prove him a liar – I rather thought that was precisely the kind of baseline presumption of guilt that you were arguing against here?

    • Anthony on September 20, 2018 at 11:12 am
      Author

    Second of all, I was taking aim at the secularists who think they are out-Christianing Christians, when in fact their understanding of Christianity is extremely thin. But then, they have the luxury of picking and choosing (as you did), and don’t have the responsibility of attempting to reconcile the WHOLE of the Scriptures.

    Taking the WHOLE of the Scriptures, it would be understood as definitely NOT Christian to be opposed to rape/abuse but in favor of convicting people on the testimony of a single person.

    *I* am not permitted to register opposition to rape/abuse but then accept the word of a single person who presents zero corroboration for the charge. YOU can do it, if you like. *I* cannot do it… and call it Christian.

    I note that you have left alone the critical question:

    Do you think its appropriate to treat people as guilty based on the accusations made by a single person, with no other corroboration?

    • Endbringer on September 20, 2018 at 4:27 pm

    The whole circus display is indeed frustrating to be sure, but it can’t really be called surprising. It’s not like this tactic is anything new. And any conservative male who wants to enter politics, better be fully prepared for such accusations, no matter how tenuous a connection to the accuser there is, or how dubious the specific claim (because if what little has been said so far from Ford’s claim is enough to decide guilt, throwing people in jail based off some random person on the street pointing at you really is the next step).

    One can’t be too shocked to see people who largely believe that authority over the material is the greatest authority that exists, go to any lengths to make sure they’re the one’s who have it. I’d say it be some solace that clear minded people get to see Lib/prog’s hypocrisy and blatant political opportunism (let’s all remember which party had this for months and sat on it till the very last second, only then to demand investigation) being on full display to show what the liberal/progressive agenda has always been about (or at least is about these days), but with academia and the majority of the media being in such lock-step with liberals, clear minded people are dwindling.

    I too am not a huge fan of Kavanaugh and think he was made as the ‘safest’ choice possible with the party majority in the Senate being as thin as it is, and with swing votes from ‘Republicans’ who are indistinguishable from Democrats (irony of ironies is that he’s likely to be another Kennedy swing vote, so there’s no real change). But no one deserves to be convicted by mob rule (which is what liberal’s ultimately amount to these days), and I deeply pray for his and his family’s safety, because the possibility of harm is all too real.

    • Anthony on September 20, 2018 at 4:43 pm
      Author

    Thank you for the relevant, non-tangental comment! 🙂

    Yea. Uh, why would any decent conservative male go into politics at all, anymore? I’m not even sure the gender matters that much. Female conservatives are disowned as quickly as anyone else. Black conservatives, male or female, are called ‘Uncle Toms.’ But sure, the conservative male seems like generally the safest target.

    Perhaps driving decent people out of politics is the goal.

    You have to think that driving decent people out of politics pretty much means that anyone who takes a shot at it is not going to be the sort of person we want. They’re going to be uber-ambitious, and probably even more immoral than they are now… although perhaps better at hiding it.

    I saw this post on the National Review which I thought nailed it:

    “If Democrats get away with what they are trying to do to Kavanaugh, the only decent people in politics will be decent progressives; people who reflect the broader range of opinion and civility in the country will not participate in or pay much mind to our politics because it is too savage. The cut-throat operators who do not believe in the Constitution, pluralism, and civility will be running the country, until they inevitably push too far and provoke ugly pushback.”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-democrat-accusations-not-enough-evidence/

    Seems right to me.

    • Endbringer on September 20, 2018 at 4:57 pm

    Oh, I don’t mean to imply that ANY conservative is safe from Liberal wrath for the crime of not-being-Liberal, regardless of race or gender. I just mean this specific accusation of sexual assault/misconduct/abuse/etc. is in all likelihood going to occur more frequently for conservative men than conservative women on average. They’ll just use some other means to tear down women who think differently than them.

    And I agree hands down with the NR assessment. ‘Decency’ is a tangential matter for Democrats in politics. It’s all about the power being in the party. That’s it. ‘Decency,’ ‘the Constitution,’ and ‘principles’ (even their own) can hang.

    • Timaahy on October 16, 2018 at 9:19 pm

    ” I just mean this specific accusation of sexual assault/misconduct/abuse/etc. is in all likelihood going to occur more frequently for conservative men than conservative women on average. ”

    Hmmm… I wonder why?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

ten − two =