Friday, September 21, 2018

Spartacus Booker: "17-Year Olds Too Immature to Be Held Accountable for Actions"

Senator Spartacus (D-NJ)

Well this is interesting. While attacking Brett Kavanaugh, Senator Booker is sponsoring legislation that proposes letting juvenile offenders off the hook. (this is to gain minority favor and yes he is running for president). As all the the world knows by now, Judge Kavanaugh stands accused of assaulting Christine Blasey Ford when both were in high school. Blasey did not report the incident to authorities or apparently anyone else at the time. There is zero evidence.  Kavanaugh was 17 years old at the time.

As it happens, Senator Booker is a co-sponsor of something called the REDEEM Act along with Senator Rand Paul. The proposed legislation centers on expunging the records of juveniles convicted of non-violent crimes, thus ensuring some teenage mistake does not follow them for a lifetime. While what Kavanaugh is accused of presumably would be classified as “violent,” again, he was never charged much less prosecuted for this. But in an explanation of his concern for teenagers who get in trouble, as here at the Senator’s website, Booker says this, bold print supplied:
"Studies of youth brain development have found that the decision-making functions of the brain do not fully develop until much later than was previously believed to be the case. Despite this, some states still try 17-, and even 16,-year-olds as adults by default. 
The REDEEM Act incentivizes states to establish 18 years old as a floor for original jurisdiction by adult criminal courts by allowing preference to be given to Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant applications that originate from states that have enacted similar or stronger provisions."
In other words? If one assumes that Christine Ford’s account is accurate, it happened for one reason, the reason that no less than Cory Booker himself has — truthfully — asserted. Again, that is this: Studies of youth brain development have found that the decision-making functions of the brain do not fully develop until much later than was previously believed to be the case.

In other words? The activities of a 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, not to mention 15-year-old Christine Blasey, were the result of immature teenagers whose “decision-making functions” were impaired to begin with because they had brains that were not “fully” developed. Not to mention that if Booker is literally sponsoring legislation that would make it the law of the land to seal youthful criminal records, there is no way that Ford’s 36-years later allegation, when no charges were even filed in the day, should be relevant in the first place.

There is zero evidence — say again zero — that Kavanaugh has ever exhibited this behavior in his adult life. Say again, zero. To the contrary. One woman after another has come forward to describe him in terms of being a gentleman on a personal level and an utter professional in the workplace. 

Contrast this with the behavior Democrats are silent about this very minute.

(The Spectator)
H/T Crazy Cousin Olivia

Thursday, September 20, 2018

It's All Starting to Make Sense Now......


Thank You MJA for the Linkage!

"We Demand She Be Heard. How Dare You Ask Her To Talk"

With the Brett Kavanugh Low-Tech Lying Fest, we already know the score. Chuck Grassley has essentially told the Democrats and their Stooge Ford to either shit or get off the pot. With everything that has happened and the facts as we know them, such as they are, the Dems have stepped on a rake. Instead of torpedoing Trump and energizing their base, they have done exactly the opposite as we head into the home stretch towards the Midterms.  That brings us to the continuing saga of DNC co-chairman Keith Ellison, whose been accused by his ex-girlfriend of physical and mental abuse. What, not heard this?

Karen Monahan, who has all but been ignored by the Media (and worse) has come forth with actual medical records detailing the injuries that she allegedly suffered under the pimp-hand of Ellison. To add real insult to real injury, what have the Democrats done? Shunned her, and perhaps even worse. Naturally she now bitterly points out the hypocrisy with what is happening vis a vis Brett Kavanaugh and her own situation. And I don't think I really need to talk about  the half dozen or more women left in the wake of Bill Clinton.

Despite this, Democrat National Committee Chairman Tom Perez has proclaimed he is proud to have Keith Ellison as his number 2 man (the double-meaning of that is perfect). This is more than just disgusting - it's perfectly illustrative of who and what the Democrat-Left are and what they will do to grab, maintain and consolidate their power. In short, they are the embodiment of projection and hypocrisy.

H/T AceHQ
Ann Coulter@the Tweeter

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

The Best Giggle Snort Tweet of the Year.

Why I Don't Write Satire Anymore. They Write It for Us.
The Comments are Hilarious!

If you want to report disinformation to the New York Times, go here.

Liberal Bloodsport and a Pound of Flesh


Even if Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed and seated on the nation's Highest Court, the left will still have extracted their pound of flesh. Just as with the Florida recount of 2000 and the Trump election of 2016, any confirmation will be branded as suspect and accomplished only through brutish tactics and the wholesale disregard for the truth. If Franz Kafka had written about confirmation hearings, he couldn't have come up with a better scenario than the one now unfolding. An unimpeachable pillar of the legal establishment stands accused of a heinous offense that it is almost impossible to definitively rebut. Whether Judge Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty matters not now. He will forever be besmirched by the 10 second clips that are sure to come from the aftermath if further hearings are held, forever considered guilty of it by some portion of the public easily swayed by media propaganda and self interest, just because "she said". 

This is not due process, or any kind of decent process at all for that matter. But it is how the Senate conducts its business now, especially if you are a conservative jurist.  The confirmation process for the Supreme Court is badly broken, made into a forum for sheer bloodsport by the left. If, based on what we know now and this accusation keeps Kavanaugh from the court, it will be a new low even for them. The Senate will have embraced a new world where the existence of an allegation, regardless of whether it can be proven, is enough to stop a nominee and destroy his good name.

The effort to sink Kavanaugh is not just a naked attempt to change a confirmation vote but to forever brand him as illegitimate. Regardless of facts, vagueness, inconsistencies, and lack of evidence, any Republican nominee can now be derailed by an eleventh hour allegation and said allegation could now be given a public Senate hearing to lend it undeserved legitimacy. 


Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!

Monday, September 17, 2018

Red Flags, Red Flags Everywhere....

As soon as Christine Blasey Ford was identity as accuser of Judge Kavanaugh, red flags popped up everywhere. It didn’t take long for people to poke holes in her story from over 30 years ago. The one thing that stands out is Ford’s presumption that she thought Kavanaugh was going to rape her or even kill her…This is conjecture on her part, but now the media has jumped on the “rape” word and moved the ball down the field to accuse Kavanaugh of attempted rape and even attempted murder. If this is supposed to have happened 36 years ago, Brett Kavanaugh (53) would have still been a minor. 

Ford claims she was reluctant to come forward with her accusations. Yet, when Brett Kavanaugh’s name was first raised as a possible candidate for the nomination, she contacted both her Congresswoman, Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) and the Washington Post tip line. Kavanaugh had not even received the nomination and she had already written a letter to politician and contacted a major newspaper. Does that sound like someone who is wrestling with a decision? The version told now has changed from the version told in 2012 to her therapist and once again the media is complicit with the Democrats in their effort to smear a man who has spent his entire life as an accomplished judge and citizen.

Red Flags? Let's look at few important ones shall we:
  • Judge Kavanaugh has gone through 6 FBI background checks. Came through clean.
  • Christine Ford scrubbed her social media accounts of her activism before revealing herself. Ford, has donated money to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Friends Of Bernie Sanders, and other leftist organizations.
  • Ford’s attorney is a self-described Anti-Trump Resistance activist. 
  • It was reported that Brett Kavanaugh would be Romney’s first choice for SCOTUS if elected in 2012. That is when Ford suddenly told of the incident with Kavanaugh in couples therapy. It appears as though Ford recovered her memory at an opportune time.
  • Judge Kavanaugh’s mother presided over the bankruptcy trial of Christine Blasey Ford’s parents. Judge Kavanaugh’s mother ruled against the Batey parents.
Democrats have reached an all time low in their attempts to destroy anyone in their path. For Democrats, the ends justify the means…

(100% FedUp)
(WZ)
                                   Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!

A Good Monday Morning

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Beards Are Racist, More Naked Nude Dudes, and Willie Nelson


Observations from the far end of the sofa.
According to an article published in 'The Atlantic', if you have a beard, you just might be racist. The article is actually a timely re-post from 2014 titled “The Racially Fraught History of the American Beard.” Apparently not getting shaved and growing a beard is a racist act because newly freed slaves became barbers......or something like that. It becomes painfully obvious that the author had way too much time on his hands. What’s worse is that The Atlantic actually published it. Twice!

And from across the pond we learn Renaissance Art is getting a 'Social Justice Makeover 'so to speak. In anticipation of a showing of Renaissance art at the Royal Academy in London, curators at the museum have made a major decision: The number of paintings depicting nude females will have an equal number of paintings depicting nude males. The #MeToo movement applies to Renaissance paintings also according to the Brits. Apparently, having more male nude pictures corrects the injustice of displays of nude females by those chauvinistic unwoke Renaissance artists. Don’t laugh; an art museum in Baltimore is taking down pictures and replacing them with those of artists with more political correct amounts of pigmentation in their skin. 

Back at home it was announced late this week that famous herb connoisseur and sometime singer Willie Nelson, age 85, will headline a concert for Texas Senate candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke, better known by the first name, “Beto.” Nelson has previously campaigned for Dennis Kucinich and Wendy Davis. This should be reassuring news to Ted Cruz considering both Kucinich and Davis dramatically went down in flames.

It just keeps getting weirder and weirder.........

                                    Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!

Friday, September 14, 2018

Middle Finger Symphony Theater

* No Tuxedos Required *


Brought to You By BLUESJUNKY: Honorary Chair of Music - Middle Finger Symphony Music Director

Thursday, September 13, 2018

We Need to Stop Using the Word Journalist and Call Them What They Really Are


Few will deny we now live an age of fake news and media propaganda. I recently asked a friend who worked as a journalist before pursuing a career in advertising if there was a Hippocratic type oath or a code of ethics for journalist. They told me there was indeed an ethical code or "canons of journalism" adopted by the Society of Professional Journalist in 1922. They sent me a PDF of this "Journalist Canon"  as well as an additional PDF of the "Editors Code of Ethics". I spent an evening reading through what I can only believe are principles intentionally being ignored by today's journalist. Here is a sample of what I found. I'll let you decide as to how far we have drifted away from what was a once respected profession.....
_____________________________


This is the SPJ code of ethics that we follow as professionals:

Preamble: 
 Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity. The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is a statement of abiding principles supported by explanations and position papers that address changing journalistic practices. It is not a set of rules, rather a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. The code should be read as a whole; individual principles should not be taken out of context. It is not, nor can it be under the First Amendment, legally enforceable. Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting.

Journalists should:
  • - Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
  • - Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy. – Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
  •  - Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story. – Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
  • Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
  • - Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
  • – Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
  • – Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
  • – Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
  •  – Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant. – Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
  • – Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate. – Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear. – Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting. – Label advocacy and commentary.
  • – Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
  • – Never plagiarize. Always attribute. Minimize Harm Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
  • – Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
  • – Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
  • – Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
  • – Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information. – Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
  • – Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
  • – Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate. – Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
  • – Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
  • – Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.
It goes on the say "Act Independently" and "The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public." I for one don't see much of what is referred to as ethics in today's media. And Truth and Integrity seems to be practices of mythical gods of the distant past.

* Thank You Whatfinger News and MJA@IOTWReport for the Linkage!

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Perhaps the Finest Example of TDS We’ve Seen Yet.


by Robert Laurie

Everywhere you look, you see them: Panicked progressives and NeverTrumpers, running wild in the streets, screaming that the sky is falling. America – democracy itself – is doomed and soon we will awaken to find ourselves in a post-apocalyptic Mad Max hellscape. Once powerful pols and pundits will roam the barren land searching for seersucker and bowties, trying desperately to organize the kind of cocktail parties they used to enjoy.

What could have caused such a tectonic shift, you ask? In a word “him.” The beast. Donald J. Trump. He came crashing into town, defeated their mighty champion, and now they’ve lost all hope. This is the core of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Everything they understood to be true about their place in the political pecking order has been upended and they’re terrified that “the old way of doing things will never return.”

No one has made that clearer than Matthew Walther, the “National Correspondent” for an occasionally-respected publication called “The Week.” He’s convinced that an army of Trump supporters are, at this very moment, conspiring to eliminate the 22nd Amendment. This would remove presidential term limits and keep Trump in the Oval Office …for all of eternity! As he puts it “Trump may never leave the White House.” He warns you…this is not idle speculation:
"I don’t think it’s reasonable to dismiss the possibility of a third term for this president as idle speculation. The 22nd Amendment can be repealed like any other, and both geography and math favor Republican attempts at amendment. The end of presidential term limits would not necessarily be, in the long term, a one-sided partisan affair. It is perfectly reasonable to imagine a future in which a popular young Democratic president is elected to third and even fourth terms, perhaps non-contiguously, with a four-year interlude from a lucky but ultimately ill-fated Republican challenger. 
I do not know a single supporter of the president who opposes the idea, at least in theory, of Trump serving more than eight years. The man himself has entertained it openly, praising Xi Jinping for getting rid of term limits in China. Meanwhile, speculation about whether Obama would have beaten Trump if he had run for a third term is a liberal cottage industry. Obama, who agrees that he would have been elected again if he had run two years ago, is a young man. Perhaps he could be the one to beat Trump in 2024. 
If you think two more years of Trump in the White House sounds like a nightmare, imagine having to read about his late-night Oval Office tweets for another decade, or even longer."
This is perhaps the finest example of TDS we’ve seen yet. Not only has he killed us with net neutrality, tax cuts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, but now international media outlets are speculating that he’s going to repeal the 22nd Amendment and stay in office for life!

You have to be a spectacular imbecile to think that he, or the voters who put him in office, are in any way looking to go down this path.


Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!