Brett Kavanaugh was on track – and hopefully remains on track – to become the next Supreme Court associate justice. But then came a last-minute allegation of attempted rape.
Sen. Diane Feinstein sat on the letter accusing Kavanaugh through the summer and only recently revealed its contents.
When Kavanaugh heard of the charge, that he allegedly tried to rape a girl, he stated: “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”
The accuser is a research psychologist at a university in Palo Alto, California. The alleged incident occurred in the early 1980s.
Writing for the Washington Post (Sept. 16), Emma Brown reports: “Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland.”
Ford claims that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were “stumbling drunk” and that the former tried to rape her until Judge interfered, and she was able to escape.
Mark Judge denies this story. According to the Post article, Judge said: “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.” She adds that Judge “told the New York Times that Kavanaugh was a ‘brilliant student’ who loved sports and was not ‘into anything crazy or illegal.'”
Sixty-five women who knew Kavanaugh as far back as those days have come forward to positively testify on behalf of his character. Additionally, his accuser is reported to be an anti-Trump activist. Of course, the facts should be heard and weighed before the vote. Ben Shapiro asks six important questions to answer about this allegation of sexual assault.
Meanwhile, there is a pattern here from the left. Just when it looks like a conservative might attain a high position, like a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, all of a sudden come accusers out of the woodwork, alleging something that supposedly took place even decades ago.
This is reminiscent of last-minute allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas, who decried the “high-tech lynching” the left attempted against him at that time to block him from sitting on the high court.
These are the same people who for more than 20 years gave Bill Clinton a pass.
Too often the left has begun to take the principles of that Machiavellian Marxist community organizer from Chicago, Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) and apply them to virtually every position of political power. Alinsky studied organized crime and was in effect tutored by Al Capone’s successor, Frank Nitti – the boss of Chicago’s chief crime mob – and he had great influence on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Alinsky’s seminal book was “Rules for Radicals” (1971), which he dedicated to Satan: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history … the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
Alinksy said: “The end justifies almost any means. All effective actions require the passport of morality. You do what you can and clothe it in moral garments. … Moral rationalization is indispensable at times of action, whether to justify the selection or the use of ends and means.”
He also said, “All values and factors are relative.”
Rule No. 4 in his “Rules for Radicals” is: “Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.”
He added: “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
With this kind of thinking, virtually no Christian or person of goodwill could run for office because no one is perfect. Yet our 30th president, Calvin Coolidge, once said, “If good men don’t hold office, bad men will.”
There is a dehumanizing element to Alinsky’s treatment of those the left disagrees with: “Treat opponents not as persons, but as symbols representing interests or ideas which [the Radical] believes inimical to the welfare of the people.”
In a different context, Erick Erickson and Bill Blankschaen observed, “What we are seeing is a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners approach as the wildfire burns across our land. It is not enough that Christians be quiet. … There is one key reason that those on the left must force their beliefs on the rest of us: If they didn’t force their craziness on us, we would never embrace it.”
That point is particularly relevant to who sits on the Supreme Court, which has imposed much of its “craziness” on this country through judicial fiat. As a potential justice who would return the Court to its constitutional moorings stands sketchily accused, Saul Alinsky would be proud.