In your recent editorial "Accusation is still not evidence" (Web, Oct. 8) you casually toss out the standard references to the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, drawing a comparison between McCarthy's tactics and those of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh's accusers. Such references to McCarthy are easy to make given the conventional wisdom on his activities, but they are also mistaken.
I am an avid reader of op-eds and editorials, especially those found in the Drudge Report and The Wall Street Journal. Recently I read Suzanne Fields' op-ed drawing parallels between today's circus and the Arthur Miller play "The Crucible" ("Kavanaugh in the crucible," Web, Oct. 3). It was one of the finest and most perceptive writings I have read in a long time. I congratulate Suzanne Fields on her excellent writing. In a sense, the mob thinking that was the theme of "The Crucible" has invaded American university and college campuses as well. Mob thinking wasn't present when I attended college half a century ago.
Only three times in the history of American politics has an incumbent president's party won at the midterm elections: In 1934, 1998 and 2002. And on those three occasions something big always happened.
The left has been attacking President Trump as a Nazi because he wants to deport illegal aliens, especially violent criminals like MS-13 gang members, back to their country of origin. But who are the real Nazis? It's the Democrats, who have extinguished 60 million lives via abortion.
America is in serious trouble. We have reached a point in our history where the future of our nation is in jeopardy.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh is not the real issue. The liberals and "progressives" are really attacking the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law (including the presumption of innocence and due process) and civil society.
We often hear how the right is fascist. Maybe that is backward. The left clearly considers Judge Brett Kavanaugh guilty based solely on the allegations against him. "Guilty until proven innocent" sounds more like the legal proceedings of Fascist Germany or Italy than a democratic republic.
Beer drinking at 17 — that's the final low bar set by the Democrats in their judgment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Set that charge next to any in the hall of fame of mature heroes from the Democratic Party: Joseph Biden's 1988 plagiarism of the British Labor Party politician Neil Kinnock's speech, the 1991 finding by Boston University of Martin Luther King Jr.'s plagiarized dissertation, Richard Blumenthal's lie about having served in Vietnam, Bill Clinton's longtime randy conduct, and to end this dismal list of Democrat hypocrites for now, Ted Kennedy's drunken swim sprint away from a drowning woman.
Gabriella Munoz's article today concerning Judge Brett Kavanaugh's letter that describes his group as "loud, obnoxious drunks" in fair warning to neighbors during beach week kind of blows up Christine Blasey Ford's version of events at the intimate get-together she says she attended ("1983 letter from Kavanaugh: Warn the neighbors that we're 'loud, obnoxious drunks,'" Web, Oct. 3).
Compromise can be a great idea, the averaging of demands and agreeing in good faith to make a half-measure work. Like many theories, it doesn't always work in practice. The man with one foot in a fire and the other in a bucket of ice water is, on average, warm. But he's usually not very comfortable.
The time has come for good women to stand up and defend the good men of America. The very notion that men are somehow predisposed to violence is as flawed a concept as has ever been fabricated by the human mind. Today there are angry, bitter women who would have America believe that generally every single man — and more specifically, every white man — is a predator waiting for an opportunity to abuse a woman.
For many years, there have been persistent attempts to hasten the "inevitable rot" of society: The presumption of guilt until proven innocent, promoting conflict by creating artificial antipathies between demographic groups, teaching children what to think (and especially, what not to think) rather than how to think, leveraging precepts of moral relativism to validate venality and the preference for form over function and emotion over reason. In short, we're seeing the justification of mob rule in the name of social justice.
A famous comedian of a bygone era once stood before an audience and told a joke. Nobody laughed. He repeated the joke. Again nobody laughed. Puzzled, he repeated the joke again, and still nobody laughed. Undeterred by the audience's obtuseness, he continued to repeat the joke until suddenly the audience grasped it and erupted in laughter.
© Copyright 2018 The Washington Times, LLC
3600 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002
