On November 12th, 2019, the US Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the Remington Arms Company which argued that the company could not be sued for the criminal misuse of its firearms under federal law. Now, family members of those who died in the 2012 Sandy Hook Massacre will be able to proceed with their lawsuit against Remington, in which they argue that the gun manufacturer is responsible for the mass shooter’s actions. They justify this claim on that basis that the company negligently marketed a dangerous weapon to the general public. But where exactly does this line of reasoning lead to?
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
This week’s episode features Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ inability to pay for an apartment in D.C., Ruth Bader Ginsburg cracking three of her ribs, a leftist mob harassing Tucker Carlson, and Jim Acosta being banned from the White House. The weekly hottie is Kayla Ann of the YouTube channel PurpleStars02.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
This weeks news wrap-up featuring Brett Kavanaugh’s impending ascension to the Supreme Court, Christine Blasey Ford’s increasingly debunked allegations, Amy Schumer and Emily Ratajkowski’s arrest, and a Toronto soy boy kicking a pro-life woman in the face.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Hello everyone, this is My 2 Cents.
Like many people, I spent a significant amount of my time yesterday watching the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee involving Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh. While I was unable to watch the entire event from beginning to end, I tuned in at every opportunity I had and looked up all the highlights I could find after coming home from work.
There’s no doubt that many people were emotionally moved by the testimonies of both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. Even today, many journalists and commentators are discussing how difficult it would be to look either Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh in the eye and tell them they aren’t credible. None the less, I’m writing this article to communicate one thing.
I firmly believe that Dr. Ford is lying.
Allow me to make three things clear. First, I am not in a position to know with any degree of certainty whether or not her claims are true. Unlike mainstream media outlets who frequently broadcast their opinions as fact, I will clearly and unequivocally state that what I present here is solely my opinion and nothing more.
Second, I acknowledge that it is entirely possible that Dr. Ford did in fact endure a sexual assault at some point in her lifetime. While I would not begin to be able to speculate as to who assaulted her or when it occurred, it is certainly a possibility. Further, the purpose of me writing this article is not to call into question whether or not Dr. Ford was ever a victim of sexual assault.
Finally, I believe that Dr. Ford and her family have been victimized by Senator Dianne Feinstein and the Democratic party at large. Dr. Ford testified that it had always been her desire to keep her identity anonymous throughout this process, yet her personal information and her letter to Senator Feinstein were mysteriously leaked to the press at the moment that was most convenient for delaying Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. I have immense respect for how Senator Lindsey Graham called out Senator Feinstein and the Democratic Party in the way he did yesterday.
Still, I believe Dr. Ford is lying. Why is this the case?
Let me first point out something that I believe should be blatantly obvious, but that no one seems to be talking about. The physical appearance, emotional response, and apparent sincerity of a person does not in itself say anything about whether or not the claims they are making are true! A certain claim could be true even if the person making it appears very stoic and unemotional, and a different claim could be false even if the person making it has tears streaming down his face.
I haven’t lived nearly as long as most of the Senators sitting on the Judiciary Committee, but I’ve lived long enough to have met some very skilled liars. If you’ve spent most of your life around honest people, this may be difficult to believe, but the fact of the matter is that there are many people who are capable of looking very convincing when they lie. Some can conjure tears at will, and the most skilled liars are able to play on the emotions of those who are listening, carefully feeding them what they want to hear at the moment it is most opportune to do so. This being said, the fact that both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh appeared sincere while giving their testimonies should not even be considered when judging whether or not the accounts are truthful. We have to ask the question, what is the best explanation of this alleged event given all the evidence we have?
Anyone who saw through Dr. Ford’s emotional state and listened solely to what she said during the hearing will realize immediately that there are significant problems with her story. In fact, seeing as she didn’t reveal any new information that hadn’t already been relayed to the public (aside from some deeper insight into her past and present emotional state), everyone going into these hearings should have already known there were significant problems with her story.
Dr. Ford does not recall the date this alleged event occurred, even being unsure how old she was and what year the event occurred. Dr. Ford admits that the she does not know how she traveled to the alleged event, or how she got home afterwards. Dr. Ford’s story about how many people were present at the event appears to have changed several times since it became public. While I wouldn’t expect her to be able to remember definitively how many people were at a large social gathering, the changing narrative is relevant in light of the fact that every one of her named witnesses has denied under penalty of perjury that they have any knowledge of the event in question, and that Dr. Ford admitted during the hearing that no one has contacted her claiming to have been at the same event she describes.
In fact, it seems that there is only one detail that Dr. Ford does remember definitively, and that is that Brett Kavanaugh, with the help of Mark Judge, assaulted her in a bedroom of an unidentified house at an unknown time. Every time someone asks a question that could help verify the truth of her story, Dr. Ford simply doesn’t remember. Could she be telling the truth about this? Sure, but it does seem rather convenient that the trauma caused her to forget all the details that would have been the most helpful in verifying her claims.
Next, we have the testimony of Leland Keyser (Leland Ingham at the time this event supposedly occurred). Dr. Ford has described Keyser as a “lifelong friend,” and therefore most people would assume that if there was anyone who would gladly come to Dr. Ford’s aide in all this, it would be Keyser. However, according to Keyser’s attorney, she has stated under penalty of perjury that she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
When asked during the hearing about Keyser’s testimony, Dr. Ford simply claimed that Keyser has “health issues,” in effect claiming that the one person who should definitely be able to verify the truth of this story is fundamentally unreliable. Again, is this possible? Sure, but it’s terribly convenient for Dr. Ford. This is another coincidence that we’re supposed to just accept. However, the fact that Keyser’s testimony can’t confirm Dr. Ford’s story raises another line of questioning, one that I am very disappointed wasn’t addressed during the hearing.
While being questioned by Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford claimed that this event was incredibly detrimental to her psychological well being. Dr. Ford claimed that her academics suffered, and that she had difficulty forming friendships for at least four years following the event until she began to move on.
If the allegations are true, this change in behavior on Dr. Ford’s part makes complete sense, but I want you to consider something. Assuming Dr. Ford was an average 15-year-old girl prior to this event, and suddenly became a traumatized victim of sexual assault with manifested difficulties for at least four years thereafter, where were her parents, siblings, teachers and friends in all this?
The Washington Post has already reported that Ford’s immediate family (her parents and brothers) have been incredibly silent throughout this process. Distinct from her husband’s relatives who have submitted numerous letters and statements testifying to Dr. Ford’s character, her blood relatives have said hardly anything. Shouldn’t Dr. Ford’s father have come forth with a statement speaking to how he finally understands why his daughter’s behavior took such a drastic turn for the worse during her teenage years? Shouldn’t Dr. Ford’s mother be able to speak about the many times she begged her daughter to tell her what was wrong? Shouldn’t Leland Keyser be able to testify that she remembers how distant and different her close friend became around the time they were 15 years old? If Dr. Ford does not have witnesses who can confirm this clear shift in her behavior, she either had the crappiest parents, teachers and friends who have ever lived or she is being untruthful. I don’t see another alternative.
While this isn’t nearly as relevant as some of the other points I’ve raised, I also want to mention that Dr. Ford was more or less exposed with regards to the assertion that she is afraid of flying. We were told early on that her hesitancy to come to D.C. and testify was at least in part because she was petrified of flying. However, she admitted under oath that not only did she fly to D.C. for this hearing, she flies frequently for her work, to visit family, and to go on solely recreational trips. Whatever fear of flying she has, it can’t be that bad. This is dishonesty plain and simple. Perhaps it was dishonesty solely on the part of her lawyers, but it was dishonesty none the less, and Dr. Ford should not be surprised that this now becomes a point of consideration when looking at her testimony as a whole.
Now to my final point. Let’s look at the plausibility of the event Dr. Ford describes as a whole.
Anyone who studies history knows that when considering the accuracy of a given account of some event, there is a difference between establishing whether the account is possible and whether the account is plausible. To say something is possible is merely to say that there is nothing logically incoherent about what is being asserted, but to say something is plausible is to say that something is truly reasonable in light of all known facts and circumstances.
For example, it may be possible that the real explanation for the disparity between Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh’s testimonies is that Judge Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge both have identical twins that they are unaware of. Kavanaugh and Judge’s parents abandoned these twins and then forgot about their existence as a result of some severe trauma. Perhaps, back in 1982, in an effort to destroy the reputations of their counterparts, these twins traveled to the D.C. area, put on a social gathering, and attempted to assault Dr. Ford in hopes that it would one day destroy the reputations of Judge Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge. Today, they laugh diabolically from wherever it is they are hiding.
Is there anything logically incoherent about this explanation? Is there any way to definitively prove that this did not happen? Of course not. In fact, if true, this explanation might explain all the evidence and testimony we have. However, while this explanation is logically possible, it doesn’t change the fact that there is no good reason to think that is what really happened. Therefore, while the account may be possible, it is not plausible.
Dr. Ford’s testimony may not be nearly as ridiculous as the fictitious scenario I’ve just described, but I want you to ask yourself whether it’s plausible given everything you know about the circumstances. Play through the supposed event one fact at a time apart from any emotional overlay.
-At an unspecified time in the summer of 1982, Dr. Ford (who I’m assuming went by Christine in those days) traveled to a small social gathering attended by Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smith, one other unknown male, and her close friend Leland Ingham.
-I guess someone drove her there, but we don’t know who.
-There might have been some other people at this gathering, but it was a small gathering, not a party.
-This small group of people was congregated in the living room.
-There was no music playing in the living room, but there was music playing in the vacant bedroom upstairs.
-During the course of the evening, Christine walked up the staircase.
-Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge pushed Christine into the upstairs bedroom, and turned up the music so loud that no one could hear her scream.
-No one in the living room questioned why music had been playing in an unoccupied bedroom.
-No one questioned why the music had suddenly been turned up so loud.
-No one wondered why Brett, Mark, and Christine had all gone upstairs (this was after all, a small gathering).
-When Brett and Mark came down the stairs without her, no one (including close friend Leland) inquired as to where she was or what had happened.
-No one asked any questions when Christine came running out of the house.
-Leland didn’t care to ask her close friend Christine why she’d so abruptly left the gathering.
-Christine didn’t care to warn her close friend Leland about what could potentially happen to her if she remained at the gathering.
-Someone took Christine home. We don’t know who.
-Whoever this person was, he/she was apparently the most blind, insensitive person to have ever lived. Taking Christine home, he/she didn’t care to ask why Christine appeared so distraught or why she chose to leave early.
-When she arrived at home, Christine’s family was unable to notice how traumatized she was and therefore made no effort to ask her what happened or seek help. In fact, 36 years later they’ve stayed relatively silent.
-Close friend Leland Ingham never noticed any changes in her friend Christine’s behavior over the next four years. Even now, under penalty of perjury, she has stated that she has no knowledge of any event like the one Dr. Ford has described nor any additional evidence that might help establish her case.
-Thirty-six years later, no one else, named by Dr. Ford or otherwise, has any memory of this small gathering in which these rather distinct and unusual events occurred.
-All four witnesses who were supposedly at this event, to include the close friend Leland, explicitly deny any knowledge that this event ever occurred under penalty of perjury.
Now you be the judge.
It may be possible that an incident occurred exactly as described above, but is it plausible?
I don’t think so.
Quite simply, I think Dr. Ford is lying. The most charitable interpretation of the facts that I could possibly give her is that she is relaying a memory that has been severely corrupted and influenced by the suggestions of others. However, if you have a more plausible explanation, I’d love to hear it.
And that is my 2 cents. Take it for what it’s worth.
This week’s news run down featuring responses to Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, YouTube’s crackdown on independent content creators, Stormy Daniel’s arrest, and Peter Strzok’s testimony on Capitol Hill.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
Are unborn children human beings or simply clumps of cells? I contend they are the former, and with all the talk about the possibility of Roe vs. Wade being revisited, it’s important to know why.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
Citations/Further Reading:
Klusendorf, S. L. (2009). The Case for Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Patten, B. M. (1968). Human Embryology (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill
Moore, K. & Persaud, T. V. N. (2008). The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier.
Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. It is my intention to provide a counter argument to the claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
Jack Phillips’s business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, is currently at the Supreme Court of the United States because Jack said he wouldn’t make a custom wedding cake for a same sex ceremony. Regardless of whether or not you believe same sex marriage is right or wrong, everyone ought to be afraid of a government that has the power to force Jack to bake a cake against his will.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.
My 2 Cents 