While I have mostly been trying to stay off of this topic since everyone else is talking about it and I have already said likely what is the most important thing surrounding this issue: that the #MeToo movement is a Socratic issue of logic vs. ignorance, I feel compelled to talk about something that happened recently surrounding this entire issue, at least in regards to the way the MSM wants to portray this entire matter.
CNN interviewed a group of five Republican women from Florida last week to ask them some questions on their opinions surrounding this entire case.
Randi Kaye, the interviewer from CNN, asked: “A show of hands, how many of you believe Judge Kavanaugh when he says this didn’t happen?”
To which all five women raised their hands.
One of the women, named Lourdes Castillo De La Pena, elaborated further: “How can we believe the word of a woman from something that happened 36 years ago? This guy has an impeccable reputation. Nobody, nobody that has spoken ill will about him. Everyone that speaks about him. This guy’s an altar boy, a scout. Because one woman made an allegation? Sorry, I don’t buy it.”
Another, named Inna Villarino, added: “In the grand scheme of things, my goodness, there was no intercourse. There was maybe a touch. Can we – really? 36 years and she’s still stuck on that?”
With another woman, named Gina Sosa adding: “I mean, we’re talking about a 15-year-old girl, which I respect. You know, I’m a woman. I respect. But we’re talking about a 17-year-old boy in high school with testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasn’t done this in high school. Please, I would like to know.”
And another woman, named Angie Vazquez, was savvy enough to ask: “Why didn’t she come out when he was going into the Bush White House? Why didn’t she come out – he’s been a federal judge for over a decade.”
Now, I have mixed feelings about these responses. While I do appreciate that these women are smart enough not to fall for Ford’s evidence-less accusations, some of the answers here are fairly questionable.
Let’s begin with the first answer, the one that Lourdes gave. She mentions that it’s been 36 years since this incident happened and that it’s only been one woman stepping forward to accuse him. While I am of the belief that the Left could and likely would recruit other women to come forth and accuse Kavanaugh of things he likely didn’t do, my bigger issue is with her initial response.
It doesn’t really matter how long ago something happened if it was wrong. Assuming that what Ford is saying is the truth (this is basically the only time I will do this as I do not believe she’s telling the truth), objectively, the only problems I have with this being so old are that:
1) Ford likely won’t be able to remember things in too great a detail. As traumatizing as such an even is for women, it’s also something they’d like to forget.
2) I really do have to ask why she didn’t come forward earlier than this. I believe that maybe she didn’t go to the police because it’s either an embarrassing thing to admit (though it was just groping, according to her, so it’s not as embarrassing as full-blown rape) or the police wouldn’t do much to investigate the issue.
So while I do have problems with the fact that this is an allegation of something that happened 36 years ago, if it did happen, it doesn’t matter how long ago it was. Now, Lourdes could mean to say that Ford’s memory likely won’t be too good and thus, the accusation might not be very credible, but she did not elaborate much further on what she meant by mentioning how long ago it was and why should we believe her considering how long ago it was.
And perhaps my argument is shaped this way because of what the second woman, Inna, said, about it having been 36 years ago and she’s “still stuck on that”. Maybe that’s the reason I made the argument that it doesn’t matter how long ago it was, and I believe that’s a fairly good argument, but Lourdes might not necessarily have meant it as “it was over 30 years ago, just let go!” That’s how I heard it, but maybe she didn’t mean it that way.
Now, the answer that Gina Sosa gives, about this being a 17-year-old boy with raging hormones and “what boy hasn’t done this in high school” does irk me a lot.
Understanding such behavior does not necessarily mean excusing it. Using the “boys will be boys” argument in this instance, under the assumption that Ford is telling the truth, is asinine and wrong. If Kavanaugh did grope Ford when they were teenagers (I feel compelled to remind everyone that I do not believe Ford’s accusation and this is entirely hypothetical) and if they were both drunk, the fact that they were teenagers does not excuse their behavior.
I was a teenager once and I dealt with my share of hormones. I would look where I ought not to look, I would think what I ought not to think and had impulses. But I never acted on those impulses, at least not with other people.
Sosa asks what boy in high school hasn’t done something like that, well I’ll raise my hand and say that I never did. In high school is when I converted to Christianity. Of course, I still dealt with hormones and emotions and impulses, but I knew better than to act on them. If Kavanaugh was a Christian when he was 17, and I mean truly Christian, knowing right from wrong and doing things with the aim to please God, then I have a hard time believing that 1) Kavanaugh groped anyone and 2) he was illegally drinking and getting hammered to the point where he would grope someone.
That’s not to say we don’t sometimes stumble and do something wrong, of course. As I’ve explained in the past, we are all sinners and sin is wrong. But being a Christian tends to lower the chances of doing something like that (and don’t bring up the Catholic Church priests molesting young boys because those “priests” are not Christians and neither is the Pope for ignoring it).
So Sosa’s answer really is not good at all. Understanding that teenagers have hormones does not excuse the actions they partake because of those hormones. If my 15-year-old daughter went to a party, got drunk and got groped by a 17-year-old boy who was also drunk, I would do a number of things.
First, of course, ground her for going to an unsupervised party (I assume it was unsupervised if there was alcohol) and getting drunk at said party.
Second, I would go to the boy, give him a stern talking-to, give his parents a stern talking-to and encourage my daughter to file charges the following day (and not 36 YEARS LATER).
Finally, I would give her a big hug and tell her everything’s taken care of.
But that last one is beside the point. The point is that I would be righteously pissed if a boy did that do my daughter. She would not be entirely without blame for being there and getting drunk in the first place, but I would be angrier with the boy. So Sosa’s answer, even without having a daughter, honestly annoyed me. That’s entirely the wrong answer to give, truthful accusation or not.
Finally, we move on to the one answer to the interviewer’s question that I actually liked, which is Angie’s. Why didn’t Ford bring this up in the past? Why didn’t she bring this up when Kavanaugh was going to the Bush White House? Why not at any point when he was a federal judge, or when he was going to get confirmed as a federal judge? Why wait until now when he’s about to be on the Supreme Court, nominated by a President Ford adamantly disagrees with?
A lot of things surrounding this case raises questions. Such as: “why didn’t she go to the local police soon after it happened?” Or “Why did she write a letter to a Senator 36 years after the incident happened?” Or “If Ford really did not want to come out to accuse Kavanaugh, why write the letter in the first place?” Or “Why did Feinstein sit on that letter until about a week before his confirmation vote? Why not raise this during the hearings I will henceforth dub ‘the Spartacus hearing’?” Or “Why did no one find this issue during the extensive vetting process Kavanaugh underwent before the hearings?”
So there are a lot of questions surrounding this issue that, to me, diminish some credibility of Ford. Add that to the fact she has no evidence or witnesses to corroborate her story or even the willingness to go under oath to testify in a trial that would be equally fair for Kavanaugh and I find it astonishing for anyone to believe her for any reason other than that she’s a woman.
Now, there were more questions from the CNN interviewer that you can hear in the video posted below, but I won’t talk about those as this article is long enough as it is.
The overall point of sharing this is that I believe CNN’s intent for this interview was to have Republican women openly going against Kavanaugh. I think it was an effort to have other Republican women be against Kavanaugh because these ones were. Although, it clearly backfired. I don’t think CNN expected any woman, conservative or liberal, to support Kavanaugh regarding this issue.
Although, I find it interesting that they didn’t get 5 Democrat women to lie and say they were Republicans who were against Kavanaugh. I feel like that would be more along the lines of the fake news nature of CNN, but I guess they decided to go with legitimately Republican women here and thought even Republican women would be against Kavanaugh.
Regardless, CNN failed once again and I get to laugh at their flimsy attempt to destroy Kavanaugh and subsequently Trump, since that’s always the aim of CNN.
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are His delight.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. It contains a compilation of the week’s articles as well as access to our online store sent straight into your inbox. And the best part is that it won’t cost you a single cent. And given the verse above, you know that I wouldn’t lie about that.
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...