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 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.