Sunday, 7 October 2018

To the Weinsteins and Dr. Peterson,

It's not very often that I disagree with JBP, and when I do I feel a need to articulate why. Today, he said something in response to Eric and Bret Weinstein, that I vehemently disagree with, so I'm going to say so, and I'm going to try to explain why.

First off, please understand that I am not criticizing the intentions of anyone in this conversation (Peterson or the Weinsteins). Particularly given JBP's clarification:

I don't know how closely any of them have been watching Kavanaugh's confirmation process, or whether they're getting their information from primary (the hearings and his judicial opinions) or secondary (the media) sources. I'm guessing that none of these gentlemen have the kind of time on their hands to have watched the hours and hours of live testimony after Dr. Ford's allegation was leaked, or to go back and watch a bunch of the earlier testimony, or to investigate some of the more egregious things that have been brought out in the open that have occurred since the nominee was chosen.

And this is not to say that I have done an exhaustive investigation of Kavanaugh’s judicial record, despite the fact that I actually enjoy reading judicial opinions. (Call me crazy, but I find the nuances of the law to be very interesting.)

I had a lot of time to sit and watch and be engrossed and amazed and appalled and intrigued. I even, a week ago or so, went and looked at the votes-by-party summaries for Supreme Court Justices from Scalia (1986) onward. What is revealed there is a clear trend away from bipartisan unity and toward partisan antagonism.

The politicization of Supreme court nominations has been 30 years in the works. Scalia—perhaps the most conservative Justice in recent memory, and the most hated by the left due to his strict adherence to the text of the law and the original intent of the Constitution—was confirmed with 98 votes in favor and 2 abstentions. Kennedy (1988) got 97 votes and 3 abstentions, and the vote was 50 Democrats and 47 Republicans in favor despite the fact that Reagan nominated him. 

Clarence Thomas was the first anomaly, but even he got 11 Democrat votes, allowing him to squeak in despite the Democrats holding a majority in the Senate at that time. And while there was a return to unity afterwards, with Ginsburg and Breyer, both appointed by Bill Clinton, things started to become more distinctly partisan from that point on.

And now here we are. Gorsuch’s confirmation saw three Democrat senators voting for Trump’s first SCOTUS nominee, primarily because their electorates were pro-Trump and they have a normal sense of self preservation. 

This time around, however, only one of these three dissidents was prepared to break ranks with the party.

Having watched hours of testimony and read thousands upon thousands of words, and listened to Senator Susan Collins (a staunch pro-choice Republican) speak for 43 minutes, I’m going to have to say, Democrat opposition to Kavanaugh is much ado about nothing.

There is nothing in this man's judicial record that should scare anyone.

And yet I sat on a stage in September with “Faithless Feminist” Karen Garst and heard her express her fear about Roe v Wade being overturned now that Kavanaugh was shaping up to be the next Supreme Court Justice.

According to Senator Collins, nothing could be further from the truth. Kavanaugh appears to be a true conservative, in that he will prioritize adherence to the law, the constitution and precedent over using his position to push for sweeping changes in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, whether in a forward-looking direction or a backward-looking one, and regardless of his personal or political opinions. This includes Roe v Wade, which has been reaffirmed by SCOTUS more than once since it set precedent, decisions which add weight to the initial precedent and on which Kavanaugh has commented positively.

When Collins spoke to him about the right to choose, his response was that it is a case of precedent on precedent on precedent, each affirmation bolstering the original, and the passage of time cementing it in place such that one would need extraordinary justification to overturn its underpinning principles.

That's what a genuine conservative is. A keeper of things as they are, based on tradition, precedent, and durability over time.

For a Republican appointee who is also Catholic, the Democrats couldn't ask for much better than Kavanaugh, particularly when it comes to women's reproductive rights. His entire record speaks of a man who thinks, "it's best to keep things as they are, unless there's a VERY compelling reason to change that." That includes Roe. 

As Senator Collins mentioned in her speech, special interest groups scrambled to be the first to publicly register their objection to Kavanaugh. One organization put out a press release saying as much, a document we know was written in advance of the announcement, because some PR staffer had embarrassingly forgotten to replace "XX" with Kavanaugh's name (I actually read that press release when it came out, and had a good chuckle. I'm not chuckling so much now). 

One Democrat senator, she added, vehemently stated his objection to the nominee after the announcement that a decision had been reached, but before the actual name of the nominee was known. 

This was never about Kavanaugh. It was always about “whoever Trump picks”.

It’s not a genuine objection to Kavanaugh’s qualifications, his judicial record or his politics. It's not even a shining #MeToo moment of solidarity with a survivor. 

It’s Trump Derangement Syndrome by Proxy.

I’m sure there are some people who believe Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh, just as I know there are people who believe Kavanaugh is innocent of the charges. To them, I say, you are making a claim to know what you cannot know.

But one thing we DO know--Dr. Ford asked that her allegation be kept confidential. We know that the allegation could have been investigated by the FBI and Dr. Ford’s testimony given in private during the initial confirmation hearing, without revealing her name.

We know that the allegation was in the hands of Senator Feinstein (the ranking Democrat on the committee) for more than forty days before it leaked, and that Feinstein could have taken advantage of the above measures during the initial hearing and thereby protected Dr. Ford’s privacy and dignity, and concealed her name from the press and the public. 

None of this was done. Instead, the hearing was closed after 32 hours of testimony from Kavanaugh, and more questions put to him, and more handing over of documents by him, than the last five Supreme Court Justices combined. 

Everything about his career was scrutinized with a scanning electron microscope, and he came out looking like a boring boy scout. 

And then the allegation leaked. To the best of anyone’s knowledge, only three parties had knowledge and possession of the letter. Democrat Senator Feinstein and Democrat Representative Eshoo (and their staff), Dr. Ford, and Dr. Ford’s lawyers (one of whom was apparently improperly recommended to her by a Feinstein staffer). 

The leaking of the letter to the public meant that the Democrats could take another run at Kavanaugh during the run-up to the midterms, where they hope they’ll be able to secure a majority in the Senate. As Lindsey Graham (hereafter to be referred to as “Grahambo”) said during that hearing, the Democrats on the committee had their minds made up from the start, and the allegation, the testimony and the demands for an investigation amount to little more than creative filibustering until after the midterms.

So who leaked it? I don’t know, but I’d really like to. Because the leak of that letter took the process of confirmation from the cynically partisan joke it had already become, all the way to a three ring, #MeToo, virtue signalling circus. 

Bret Weinstein said both possible outcomes of the vote would be "completely unacceptable". I disagree. There's nothing objectionable about Kavanaugh's judicial record.

Eric Weinstein said that “everyone thoughtful” he’s spoken to about Kavanaugh agrees that both potential outcomes are unhealthy and unworkable. I disagree. The "thoughtful" people he's spoken to don't understand what's really at stake here.

Jordan Peterson responded that he thought, if confirmed Kavanaugh should step down. That is, make the big public sacrifice for the sake of fostering unity in an increasingly polarized nation. 

I disagree. 

We know from Gorsuch that anyone nominated by Trump would garner default “no” votes from the Democrats. I’m actually kind of shocked that there were three Democrat dissenters in the case of Grosuch, and a whole ONE dissenter in the case of Kavanaugh.

I understand why a progressive like Bret Weinstein would think Kavanaugh is a poor choice for the Supreme Court. He's not. In fact, I don’t know why Bret Weinstein thinks the Dems' opposition and their collective hysteria has anything at all to do with Kavanaugh. 

It doesn’t. 

According to the Democrats, Trump has the reverse Midas touch—everything he puts his hands on turns to shit, triggering moral disgust and the urge to purge. If Trump likes something, the Democrats are morally obligated to hate it. If Trump does something positive (like, I don't know, getting North Korea to chill out a bit), the Democrats are obligated to predict the end of the world.

I have no idea whether Eric Weinstein's belief that the reason Kavanaugh is “divisive”—that Kavanaugh would "break the political symmetry" of the Supreme Court—is correct. 

The only way it CAN be correct is if we are to accept that SCOTUS is not a legal body but a partisan political one. That it is not beholden to the law (in all its forms, from the Constitution to statute to precedent), but rather that it is a forum for partisan activism on the part of the Justices at the political whim of the president, or the majority in congress, or both.

Brett Kavanaugh strikes me as a judge who eschews activism. Who eschews "big" decisions that take us forward (or backward) by leaps rather than increments. 

But again, this isn't about Kavanaugh. It's about sticking it to Trump.

And I have no idea whether JBP realizes that it wouldn't matter who Trump named as a nominee--the reaction from the Democrats, their media lapdogs and the pussy hat-wearing, mass-produced placard-waving, Ashley Judd-worshipping, #MeTooing leisure class of well-heeled feminist do-gooders and progressive Hollywood moral busybodies would have been the same no matter who the nominee was. Trump could have nominated a clone of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the body of a black lesbian in a wheelchair, and they’d have found some reason to vote against her (I exaggerate, but not by much). 

Just look at the media over the last few days. When it looked like Dr. Ford's spaghetti wasn't sticking to the wall, what was the next “big controversy”. OMG, one time in college at a bar, Brett Kavanaugh threw ice cubes at a guy during a heated disagreement. Surely THIS is sufficient to demonstrate Kavanaugh lacks a proper judicial temperament. 

Never mind that the ONLY aspect of his judicial record—you know, the record that matters—that the Democrats don't like is his distinct lack of impulsivity.

Surely this conclusion—that nothing whatsoever was going to convince the Democrats to accept ANY nominee put forward by Trump—is supported by the two examples given by Senator Collins. Surely it's further demonstrated by declarations on the part of the Democrat members of the committee that they would vote no on Kavanaugh long before they had even held the first hearing. 

And now, with the ink on his confirmation papers still wet, Democrats and left wing political action groups are petitioning for Kavanaugh’s impeachment, if and when they gain a majority after the midterms.

As Jordan tweeted, legal scholars warn it’s a terrible idea that if successful would set a dangerous precedent and completely undermine public perception of the stability and reliability of the highest court in the US. It would essentially turn SCOTUS from an independent and apolitical body that provides a necessary check against the potential excesses of the other two branches, into an exercise in partisan rubber stamping, with the bench politically subordinate and subservient to whatever party holds the majority.

A petition to impeach Kavanaugh has already garnered over 125,000 signatures, all from people who have not one clue what would be destroyed in the process.

And here we come around to Jordan’s suggestion that Kavanaugh should step down, for the sake of bringing the highly polarized American left and right back together. In a perfect world full of perfect people, sure. He should know better.

The truth is, this isn’t a world of perfect people. When my fiance gets upset over how so many people behave, how they act on base instinct and then back-rationalize what they did (in whatever context, but particularly in those that can be characterized as “us vs them”), I tell him to imagine two troupes of chimpanzees, screeching, whooping, thumping their chests and throwing smartphones at each other. Because that’s exactly what they're doing.

And that’s exactly why we have these institutions and their processes, regulations and procedures designed to take the chimpanzee in all of us out of the equation. It’s why we have the system of checks and balances in the first place. It’s why the law is written down, and why bad decisions can be taken to higher courts. It’s why a successful impeachment and removal of someone from public office requires a supermajority of 67 votes.

All of these things are there to put obstacles and barriers in front of the chimpanzee that exists in every single one of us.

If Kavanaugh steps down, it won’t bring the two sides back together. 

The right will see it as either a noble sacrifice or a betrayal. The left will call it evidence that Kavanaugh probably IS a sexual predator merely looking to avoid more and deeper investigations, and, more importantly, they’ll see it as evidence that they can get what they want by corrupting the confirmation process and making a mockery of what was once a sober, nonpartisan deterrent to mob rule.

That those interested in corrupting that process to their own ends are on the left is immaterial. Whether you believe Dr. Ford is a victim of sexual assault, or Justice Kavanaugh the victim of a wrongful accusation, is immaterial. The real victim if he steps down will be the integrity of both the process and of the highest court in America.

Worse still, if he’s impeached and the impeachment is successful, the entire system will be destroyed by this abuse of process. A system designed to depoliticize at least one branch of the federal government, keep it beholden only to the law, and protect it from the vagaries of the partisan mob. 

This is not about the presumption of innocence. As important as that presumption is in the strict legal sense, and as a cultural value, presumption of innocence is a difficult case to make in a situation where someone has been subjected to half a dozen thorough FBI background checks just to get the job they’re applying for. Kavanaugh willingly subjected himself to an invasive process that sets aside that presumption. Seven times now. Because of the enormity of the authority he will wield and has wielded in the past.

That is a necessary part of the vetting process if you want to do the type of work that involves the complete trust of the public. The process found NOTHING on his record as a judge suggesting he would abuse that authority or violate that trust and through the commission of his service bring the Supreme Court of the United States into disrepute. 

The process found nothing, despite the fact that even before Dr. Ford’s allegations were made public, Kavanaugh had jumped through more hoops than any SCOTUS nominee has ever been forced to, and he did so with humility and without complaint. 

“Why aren’t you calling for an investigation into Dr. Ford’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh?” he was asked over and over again, by people who should know (at least I would hope they know) that it’s not his call. The nominee has no jurisdiction to call for an investigation—that’s the goddamn committee’s call. He could demand one until the cows come home, but it’s not his decision to make. All he can do is cooperate with the committee’s decisions to the best of his ability. And he has.

The Democrats have abused this process for political ends, cynically sacrificing Dr. Ford’s privacy and violating her trust, subjecting Kavanaugh and his family to the same, for no good reason, and all of it is justified to them as necessary collateral damage in their quest to stick it to Trump by any means necessary. 

That Kavanaugh’s justifiable anger at this shit show, that his emotionality over the more ludicrous accusations made against him in the liberal press, utterly unvetted accusations presented with a drooling, fapping, titillated, eager credulity so ravenous and gross it could only be self-serving... 

That this is now being used against him to criticize his judicial temperament and deem him unfit for the bench… Well, that’s like kicking a man in the balls and then saying he retroactively deserved it because while he was writhing in agony on the floor, cradling his battered testicles, he raised his voice and used harsh language.

And this petition to impeach? Just this moment, my son (all of 16 years old) said, "why not just impeach everyone then?" Why not, indeed? Because that would be stupid and dangerous and would throw everything we value away. He added, "Meh, no more Supreme Court. Might as well not exist. Just impeach everyone. The mob knows best."

This entire process has been turned into a joke. And if the Democrats are able to get what they want out of it, whether because Kavanaugh nobly but futilely falls on his own sword, or because the Democrat mob opts to impeach—the equivalent of pulling a fire alarm to shut down a speaker they don’t like—it will open a door we do NOT want opened.

It will invalidate the integrity of the entire process and turn the highest court in the United States into the political majority’s partisan prostitute. 


  1. Great piece, Karen, well thought out and well written. Probably the best take I've yet seen on this utter mess.

    1. And that's why some enlightened philanthropist needs to create a generous fund to support Karen Straughan as a full-time scholar at large. In the end, I imagine Peterson will see things differently. The totalitarian left in league with the Mafia Democrats (crooks like Feinstein), which is in many ways in league with the worst globalist neo-cons, cannot be placated. They will not collaborate with those who want the Constitutional Republic too survive.

    2. It's why she needs to write everything down in a long and comprehensive book.

  2. I always appreciate a well written piece that I can lazily point to when people ask me to outline my opinions in writing. Excellent work.

  3. 1. I believe that we must speak our truth as we perceive it.
    2. Karen, you have a brilliant mind.
    3. This article should appear as an op-ed in a major U.S. newspaper. It is that good.
    4. Human life does not derive its intrinsic value from the thought processes inside a woman's mind. I deeply believe that this simple statement has profound philosophical implications when it comes to the issue of abortion.
    5. I believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it has no basis in the U.S. Constitution. If it is overturned, it will not necessarily make abortion illegal. What it would do is force each of the 51 U.S. states to democratically decide the degree to which abortion remains legal.
    6. You last two paragraphs perfectly describe the essence of why a supreme court nomination should be carried out as dispassionately as (humanly) possible.
    7. I believe that many on the left are throwing large lumps of excrement along with their mobile phones.

  4. You've put my imperfect thoughts on this subject to shame! In my opinion, in this article, you've nailed what this process has been about.

    I'm a bit stunned by what Peterson said; it's as if he's turning Kavanaugh into a sacrificial lamb in order to quite the insane mob banging at the door.

    Does he really believe that Kavanaugh leaving the court would satisfy the leftists?

    Those who are willing to use mob tactics to get their way in politics, instead of the ballot box, won't hesitate to ramp up those tactics over time.

    We've certainly seen that already with the Scalise shooting, the chasing of people from restaurants and the beating of people in the streets.

    This was a great read for me.

  5. This is simplistic yet significant. There is now a SURVIVOR of false rape accusations seated on the Supreme Court. And that is, in itself, valuable. Sort of that "Wise Latina" thing. Only this is a survivor of toxic gynocentrism.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Beautiful essay, Karen. Probably my favorite that you've penned--and that's saying a lot! Submit this thing everywhere; it needs to be read.

  8. Karen thank you, this is beautiful. You have a wonderful mind.

    Here's a poem I wrote :)

    The term

    'political correctness'

    was born

    in the breath

    of Russia's Vladimir Lenin.

    By the early 20th century,

    he was using it as an ideological shotgun


    over a hundred years,

    went on

    to fire communism across a

    quarter of the world,

    taking the lives

    of a hundred million.

    In Cambodia's killing fields,

    several decades into

    'political correctness',

    families were ordered to dig the graves

    that would be their own.


    they were hacked to death.


    they were buried alive.

    Bullets weren't to be wasted.

    We, in our societies,

    have not begun to kill for the sake of

    'political correctness'.


    it's clear we've begun

    to murder something

  9. Karen,
    Brett Kavanaugh should be celebrated because the mob failed to bring him down using made-up sexual assault allegations. Your analysis of the entire saga is excellent.

  10. Excellent work, Karen! You are absolutely right about what would happen if Kavanaugh stepped down -- this is one area in which you seem more astute than Dr. Peterson, whom I admire greatly. Also, if he stepped down, President Trump could have lost the chance to fill the empty spot, because if we end up with a Democratic majority after November, I'm quite sure they'll block anyone he nominates.

  11. Yes! That's all I got. Found you in a post by my friend Adam Friended on Think Club on EweToob. I'll be reading more. This is the best analysis of the entire advice and consent debacle I've seen. I'll be spreading your blog around, best as I'm able.

    Thank you Ms. Straughan.

  12. I echo the view of others here that this is a brilliant piece that unfortunately will not get the widespread exposure it deserves. As an outsider to this drama (Brit living in Spain), I have heard little of Mr. Kavanaugh's judicial record, other than vague mutterings of 'religious right', and far too much about beer and (possibly) penis.
    That said, I have been disappointed in the reaction from some of JBP's so-called supporters, who seem to think that he is there to mouth their views for them, and when he doesn't, look all hurt and surprised. This seems to be the 'makeup in the workplace' moment again, just with the flak coming from the other direction.
    I like the Weinsteins, Heather Heying, and JPB, although I don't always agree with them, and I hope they will engage with you on this. Maybe you'll get a key to the IDW clubhouse, and get to arm wrestle with Joe Rogan.

  13. Good piece overall, but it's not accurate to say Kavanaugh willingly subjected himself to an invasive process that sets aside the presumption of innocence. Presumption of innocence was the basis for the most critical vote--that of Sen. Collins. Though not a required standard, presumption of innocence was an appropriate one upon which to base a vote, she said. I agree.

  14. For those who thought they would somehow get to Trump through destroying Kavanaugh, another of their disingenuous arguments was that confirmation hearings are merely glorified job interviews and so due process could be disregarded. Of course, what job interviews have they gone through that have required FBI investigations and testifying under oath under penalty of perjury?

  15. Well bloody said!
    Can I vote you in for president please?

  16. Peterson is an anti male trad con. Who thinks men have to struggle and strive to earn women, and men who refuse to do so are damaged.

    He thinks women are out competing men in universities due to superior social skills, totally ignoring affirmative action in women's favor.

    Why do you like Peterson so much? You seem to love trad con right wing men a bit too much.

  17. "This is not about the presumption of innocence. As important as that presumption is in the strict legal sense, and as a cultural value, presumption of innocence is a difficult case to make in a situation where someone has been subjected to half a dozen thorough FBI background checks just to get the job they’re applying for. Kavanaugh willingly subjected himself to an invasive process that sets aside that presumption. Seven times now. Because of the enormity of the authority he will wield and has wielded in the past.

    "That is a necessary part of the vetting process if you want to do the type of work that involves the complete trust of the public."

    Only Nixon could go to China, and only a well-established due process advocate like you can safely put aside the issue of presumption of innocence here.

    I'm sure you learned from your older stepson's experience with a security clearance that with certain types of work -- even much humbler than the US federal judiciary -- the burden of proof flips. Once the government produces the rough equivalent of probable cause -- enough to at least say something bad *could* have happened, even if it's still less likely than not -- it's now the applicant who has to prove that it *didn't* happen.*

    [*] Or if it did, that due to the context it wasn't bad or at least wasn't as bad, or that s/he has since become a better person. That last *is* commonly satisfied by the passage of a long time since -- especially when the applicant was immature at the time. However, nothing is set in stone, and I understand adjudicators may make an exception for certain very serious offenses...including attempted rape.

    An explicit security clearance adjudication directive says that any remaining questions or doubts must always be resolved in favor of the national security.

    "The process found NOTHING on his record as a judge suggesting he would abuse that authority or violate that trust and through the commission of his service bring the Supreme Court of the United States into disrepute.

    "The process found nothing, despite the fact that even before Dr. Ford’s allegations were made public, Kavanaugh had jumped through more hoops than any SCOTUS nominee has ever been forced to, and he did so with humility and without complaint."

    How extensive was the process? In the US, we have two types of background checks:

    * The kind we typically associate with security clearances but in fact is reserved for the most sensitive positions: Investigators personally knocking on doors and having one to one, sit down, private interviews with the subject's current and sometimes former neighbors, bosses, school officials, professors/teachers, fellow students, co-workers, roommates, friends, etc.

    * And then there's by far the most common type: Checking databases and sometimes sending out forms to current and former bosses, school officials and the like. Forms which sometimes aren't returned -- and aren't followed up on.

    More than a few cleared people have destroyed their own careers when they tried to step up from a less sensitive to a more sensitive position:

  18. I skimmed through the article
    good stuff from what I read- JoeyJoJo

  19. Jordan Peterson, by his own assertion, has experienced nominally "False Sexual Misconduct" accusations at least three different times.

    although it's particularly stupid that he's bringing this on himself by insisting upon having closed door / private sessions with female students.

    it's almost like a guy with a 150 IQ knows how to put himself in a situation in which he can make unverifiable sexual moves on his female students.

    this is not necessarily the case, mind you. but it's certainly not difficult to arrange a talk in an open park or library or restaurant or some such thing where a "Private" conversation can easily be held while still likely having 3rd party observers who could easily verify / disprove fondling charges ( or what have you ).

    therefore, Jordan Peterson knows perfectly god damn well about the prevalence of False Rape Accusations. if we assume his innocence here.

    and the only way his "resign" advice makes any sense is
    if he actually is molesting students and is projecting his personal life experience onto Kavanaugh
    because he knows his accusations were true, despite none of the women having the proof necessary to establish it to a preponderance of the evidence.

    thus, he assumes Kavanaugh is guilty. and a devious little weasel who knows how to cover his tracks well.

    how you 'cover your tracks' in a situation in which you are supposed to have had near a dozen Rape Train House Parties with more than a score of victims and numerous female bystanders
    many of whom repeatedly went back for subsequent Rape Train House Parties
    baffles me.

  20. Guaranteed #1 Search Engine Ranking Supreme Free Viral Traffic Join Now Get Millions Of Hits Free To Your Site/Blog!

    PornKings Adult Shopping Backlinks-Shopping Mega Store Legendary Stars As Stormy Daniels,Shawna Edwards,Jenna Jamison-New Adult Stars Movies,Adult Toys,Enhancers,Merchandise-More !

    Hits Express Rotator System Do You Need Visitors to Your Website or Affiliate Program? If your looking to gain more visitors to your website Hits Express is your answer. With our program your site is being shown to people all over the world 24/7 365 days a year!

    Payserve Euro Live MYSEX GIRLS KITTEN/CamsGlobal Networks Portals!

    FreeLinkExchanges Be Seen In 12 Nations 312 Sites Over 30 Millions Viewers Monthly Buy Featured Link Now With 150 Search Engines Crawling The Network!

    New-Legendary Pornstars Famed Digital Gamma #1 4K HD Networks!

    How do I get guaranteed traffic? When someone signs up from your site, they must first click on your classified ad which will open a new window leading to your main website. They will have to wait a few seconds for the code to appear on a separate frame at the top of the screen reach millions free now!

    Blast Your Ad to Over 23,000 Opt-in Prospects at ShowMyLinks Submit Your Solo Email Ad to All Showmylinks Members GET YOUR TEXT LINK ADs LISTED 100% FREE FOR LIFE PLUS EARN MONEY TO YOUR PAYPAL!!

    Adult Store Empires Backlinks Resources Search Engine XXX!

    GET YOUR OWN MONEY-MAKING AD BOARD -- Integrating Text ad, Banner Ad and Email Ad into one Portal Make Money Fast With Your Paypal Reach Million Dollars In A Year Fast !

  21. Excellent work, Karen! You are absolutely right about what would happen if Kavanaugh stepped down -- this is one area in which you seem more astute than Dr. Peterson, whom I admire greatly.

    deaddiction centre in Amritsar
    rehabilition centre in ludhiana
    alcohol deaddiction centre in Patiala
    deaddiction centre in ludhiana
    deaddiction centre in chandigarh
    rehabilition centre in Haryana

  22. Amazing stuff article thanks for posting.

  23. Karen, he is blinded by gynocentrism. This is rife throughout his work. I respect him as a scholar, but in the area he is compromised. Apparently the same can be said for the Weinstein brothers.

    This is the primary reason I fear they will not be able ( the IDW ) to push back effectively against the onslaught of feminist driven politics we are currently mired within. What I see is a slight correction, but no sweeping change.

  24. Thanks for all your effort that you have put in this, It's very interesting Blog...
    I believe there are many who feel the same satisfaction as I read this article!
    I hope you will continue to have such articles to share with everyone!

    casino online

  25. Công ty dịch thuật miền trung - MIDtrans có trụ sở chính tại 02 Hoàng Diệu, Nam Lý, TP Đồng Hới, Quảng Binh là doanh nghiệp có tư cách pháp nhân với MST: 3101023866 đươch cấp 09/12/2016 chuyên về dịch vụ dịch thuật chuyên nghiệp. Công ty luôn . Sự cống hiến và tận tụy luôn được đền đáp một cách xứng đáng trong mọi công việc, đặt biệt trong ngành dịch thuật một ngành cần sự tỉ mỉ nhẫn nại và sự kết tinh của trí tuệ.
    Chúng tôi cam kết gọi lại trong 5 phút Phục vụ Quý khách hàng là niềm hạnh phúc và vinh hạnh của chúng tôi. Trân trọng cảm ơn Quý khách hàng đã liên hệ và ước mong sẽ có cơ hội được phục vụ Quý khách.
    Gửi cho chúng tôi dự án của bạn ngay hôm nay !
    Hotline: 0947.688.883 – 0988.598.386
    ĐC: 02 Hoàng Diệu, Nam Lý, TP Đồng Hới, Quảng Bình

  26. I want to share a testimony on how Le_Meridian funding service helped me with loan of 2,000,000.00 USD to finance my marijuana farm project , I'm very grateful and i promised to share this legit funding company to anyone looking for way to expand his or her business project.the company is UK/USA funding company. Anyone seeking for finance support should contact them on Or Mr Benjamin is also on whatsapp 1-989-394-3740 to make things easy for any applicant. 


Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!