“I’m Just Glad We Ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s Life”: Colbert Writer Tweets Out A Celebration Of The Politics Of Personal Destruction

As discussed today, the Kavanaugh nomination unleashed a form of primordial politics that seemed to reach horrifying levels on both sides of personal destruction and no holds barred attacks.  No sooner had that column run in the Hill when Ariel Dumas, a writer for CBS’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” declared that “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”  It summed up in a Tweet that vicious character of our politics and discourse.

I expect Dumas’ desire for the ruination of Brett Kavanaugh will ultimately prove unrealized.  As I have discussed, while Kavanaugh’s Wikipedia page might start with this controversy, it will not end there. What will follow is decades of consequential cases.  That is called a legacy. The Ford controversy was an allegation.

That legacy will start sooner than most expected.  Last week, the court heard three cases dealing with areas like environmental law and the death penalty where Kavanaugh is likely to shift the Court to the right.  I expect that some if not all of those cases will be a 4-4 split.  Tradition allows for those cases to be reargued for Kavanaugh.  This week, there are additional criminal cases.  In other words, Kavanaugh’s confirmation will start to pay dividends for conservatives in the first week.


281 thoughts on ““I’m Just Glad We Ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s Life”: Colbert Writer Tweets Out A Celebration Of The Politics Of Personal Destruction”

  1. In school, we read about the Salem Witch Trials, The Crucible, To Kill a Mockingbird, and lynch mobs. We all sadly shook our heads, superior in the knowledge that law and order prevails in modern America. If only we had been there to be the voice of reason.

    All of the above hinged upon the false testimony of women, and it required people to believe a victim without a shred of evidence, ignoring exculpatory evidence, to do grave injustice.

    And yet, what did America do when faced with the accusation of a woman against a man with an impeccable character, laid down over the course of nearly 40 years? People did the same thing. They declared they believed victims, because the outcome suited them politically. People who pointed out problems with the accusation were accused of enabling rape culture.

    There were contracictions in her story, her story changed significantly, none of her named witnesses corroborated her story, 65 women who know Kavanaugh at the time and over the course of 40 years all declared that he never engaged in such behavior, and there were no such stories about him at the time. In fact, she changed her age at the time of the incident from 17, when Kavanaugh would have been away at college, to 15, the last year he was in the area. Her reasoning for guessing at that age was that she did not remember driving to a party 36 years ago, and if she had her license, she would have surely driven herself. That’s it. That’s the entire basis for the timeline critical to placing Kavanaugh in the same state. She didn’t remember how she got to or from a party, so she MUST not have had her license.

    The Left gleefully participated in a lynch mob. When they failed to slaughter their victim, they proclaimed the righteous protectors to be rape enablers, again with zero evidence against the new targets of their rage. Now they have reformed their lynch mobs against conservatives in general. It’s literally unsafe to walk down the street in many parts of America as a conservative. God forbid you wear a MAGA hat. You’ll likely be physically assaulted and even college professors will attack you..

    Those who believe in justice and law and order had better stand up for what’s right, firmly, or the lynch mob will sweep across America, turning it into Venezuela, where political dissidents are jailed and the rest of the people starve.

    1. Karen S – “All of the above hinged upon the false testimony of women, and it required people to believe a victim without a shred of evidence, ignoring exculpatory evidence, to do grave injustice.

      And yet, what did America do when faced with the accusation of a woman against a man with an impeccable character, laid down over the course of nearly 40 years? People did the same thing. They declared they believed victims, because the outcome suited them politically. People who pointed out problems with the accusation were accused of enabling rape culture.”

      One must also consider what America does in the face of women given true testimony? There is certainly a case based on what we were allowed to discover that Kavanaugh’s character was not impeccable, in fact it is likely he perjured himself on multiple occasions under oath and certain that he was grossly misleading in order to advance his prospects. There is no doubt that witnesses that may have shed light on his character were suppressed by the sham of an investigation that we are not yet allowed to know of the restrictions placed on it.

      In the Clarence Thomas hearings, multiple corroborative witnesses were not called, by Joe Biden of all people for fear of being labeled a racist. For all the people you say believed victims because the outcome suited them politically, there were those that refused to believe them for exactly the same reason. The President calls it all a hoax, as he does the Russia investigation and revelations about his finances and a whole range of relationships with women, many of which you’ve heard described in his own words. I suspect (because I can’t really know the true level of disbelief some are able to muster) that all of you know that Stormy Daniels is telling the truth, that Karen MacDougal is telling the truth, that Trump wandered through dressing rooms of naked teenagers because he could, that he hits on his friends wives, that he has sexually harassed women and assaulted some according to the definition of the word. But because he meets your political needs… you don’t care.

      1. ” But because he meets your political needs… you don’t care.”

        How rich. You gotta love the dictatorship of relativism by the defenders of oh so many men who have raped, plundered, pillaged and/or ruined women ala Bill Clinton, Keith Ellisson, Ted Kennedy and on and on and on

        Juanita Broadrick sends her regrets

      2. In the Clarence Thomas hearings, multiple corroborative witnesses were not called,

        Because they were lousy witnesses and would have taken a beating from minority counsel when their employment history was explored.

        The committee did call people who said Hill had spoken to them contemporaneously. Principal among them was Susan Hoerchner. Hoerchner had to revise her testimony when she realized that her contextual details (that the conversations occurred before her move to California in the fall of 1981) had an implication unfavorable to Hill: it indicated that Hill was discussing someone she’d worked with at the law firm which had employed her prior to her employment at the Department of Education.

        Thomas had his own character witnesses, including his secretary who attested to the times Hill had contacted Thomas after her move to Oklahoma. There was one general state of affairs at the EEOC which the testimony did manage to prove: Hill’s co-workers didn’t much care for her.

        1. Anita’s co-workers at the EEOC didn’t much care for her? LOL, her boss Clarence certainly did! 😍😍😍😹😹😹

      3. Enigma:

        1. He did not perjur himself. Yale has declared that he was not a legacy student. His grandfather went to undergrad, which had no bearing on his law school acceptance. If that’s what Yale said, then that’s certainly what Kavanaugh was given to understand at the time.
        2. Former classmates have come forward to confirm that “boof” meant fart and “Devil’s Triangle” did indeed mean a drinking game. Kids are allowed to make up silly games.

        So, your statement that he perjured himself was false.

        If you believe that she gave “true testimony” then prove it. She could not. An independent FBI investigation could not. She materially changed her statement. She lied about her fear of flying. She lied about her second front door, which was in fact installed 4 years before she miraculously discovered this “repressed memory” (which at the time did not name Kavanaugh and had 4 boys assaulting her). That door was for her rented rooms to the Google interns. She actually lived quite contentedly in a studio apartment with a single front door for years, and showed no signs of trauma, according to an ex boyfriend. She also scrubbed her social media of incriminating evidence of extremist anti-Trump views. Why did she try to cover her tracks?

        Again, prove it. If you can’t, then you belong to a lynch mob.

        Witnesses were not investigated? Did you not do any research at all? The witnesses referred to where people whom she told about her claim after 2012. They were not fist hand witnesses, nor were they even hearsay witnesses back in 1982. The FBI was not interested in hearsay from the last few years, but rather witnesses to the alleged assault, or who heard something back in 1982. There were none. Zero. Zip. Nada. Null.

        Again, this is misinformation. The FBI doesn’t interview people she told this to a couple of years ago, and that makes it a sham of an investigation? Now you want to direct the FBI? The only direction they were given was to research all credible claims and to wrap it up within a week. Otherwise, they would have to look into lies, such as that whopper where someone submitted an anonymous tip that there was a prostitute at Kavanaugh’s fraternity during the years he was in lawschool. Was she a stripper? Don’t know. What year? Don’t know. What month? Don’t know. What did she do? Don’t know. Who was there? Don’t know. Was Kavanaugh there? Don’t know. Was this just a stripper at a frat house during the time that Kavanaugh was under a crushing workload at Yale Law School? Don’t know. People on the Left will literally say anything to block him, considering their lie fighting the good fight. The FBI does not review non credible allegations.

        This happens every time there is a prominent drama unfolding, like with serial killers. All of a sudden, people starved for attention make all kinds of things up. The FBI and police ignore them as loonies.

        What does America do in the face of true testimony? Well, the legal system tries the case. Take Bill Cosby, for example. There were many victims who failed to file police reports. However, there was a decades long pattern of similar allegations, there were police reports for some, and he admitted drugging women and sleeping with them. Plus he paid money to some of his accusers. None of that happened with Kavanaugh.

        This was a political hit job. If you cower before terrorists, it encourages them to attack more often. This would then be the new playbook – to make up false sexual assault allegations to try to get their way poltiically. Look at how it started with the “grab them by the &(*&&” comment. He was bragging about willing groupies who encourage and allow all sorts of shenanigans. He was never talking about assaulting anyone. Rock stars, movie stars, and other popular people brag about their groupies. I certainly don’t like it, but it’s not sexual assault. I suggest you read some of the memoirs by prominent groupies if you want to know what goes on in their circles. But the lie got legs, and there are now a surprising number of people who think that Trump was grabbing girls lady parts on the street. They even have genital headgear and clothing lines devoted to condemning sexual assault that never happened. Can you imagine the good that could have been done if such unified rage and treasure were devoted to ending sex trafficking across our borders?

        1. Sorry, Enigma. That comment was from me. My avatar did not come through for some reason.

        2. Someone – Your proof Kavanaugh didn’t perjure himself has nothing to do with the areas in which he did so in 2004, 2006, and 2018. The proof of which was in emails that Republicans tried to exclude from the hearings. Proof he was had received and used stolen documents which he denied and worked on other projects he said he wasn’t involved with.
          Interesting you note Cosby paid money to keep his accusers quiet. Kavanaugh didn’t do that but I wonder if there’s anyone else we can think of who might have? Initials DJT if you need a hint. Thank you for your explanation of what Trump actually meant and did and didn’t do. You don’t mind if I wait for the depositions in the Summer Zervos case coming up before the end of the year which may disappoint you greatly. While perjury is no stranger to Trump either, it may bring into evidence a new set of tapes showing Trump in action.

          1. Again, the notion he perjured himself in 2006 is a Democratic talking point, not an established fact.

          2. That story about his perjuring himself about SpyGate has been debunked. Read the actual email. He forwarded an email with the subject line “spying”. It was an email that said that someone in the Democratic Party had told her that a big Soros fund was being put together, so they should move quickly. It would be difficult to fight that kind of outside money. There was zero mention of stolen documents. It was just discussing a leak, like the many leaks out of the Trump Administration that have been reported on. There was no stolen document in the email, no stolen document referenced, and no stolen document forwarded. But, like so many lies, this one got legs. The email was called a smoking gun, and people heard through the grapevine that Kavanaugh received a stolen document. He didn’t. The email in question is out there for you to read, and I encourage you to do so, instead of forwarding misinformation.

            Kavanaugh did not perjur himself. He did not receive stolen documents. Why does this lie persist? My question is if you finally read the actual email that he forwarded, will you do the right thing and correct your statement, or continue to claim he perjured himself for political expediency? I hope you do the right thing.

            1. I read a few articles on the subject including what was purported to be a rebuttal by the National Review. Here’s another article which sums up why I stand by my belief. And when the rest of the remaining documents come to light, I’m sure it will be confirmed. This isn’t something just coming up with this nomination. The charge was referred to the Justice Department in 2006 but Republicans refused to investigate.

          3. enigma……white guy won….grow up and get over it. Real life goes better with adults.

                1. I’ve heard him talk about her. He didn’t do it though did he? How much credit should we give a man that lies all the time for saying he might do something he ultimately didn’t do?

                  1. Good point. He put her name on his list. Big deal. The fact is, he didn’t select her, and that’s all that really matters.

      4. ah just the fellow i was hoping to see sometime soon. Hello!
        did you see this article Enigma? Help me decipher it.

        “liberals this is war”


        in it the author who is black calls for a war lead by “liberals” against white men,

        you can dig into it and say if I am exaggerating. he used the word war and he denounced white men by name. it does not sound like a metaphorical war to me either.

        Since I am a white man, and certainly not a liberal, i feel that i should take this seriously.

        I asked DOCTOR david benson to explain this as a supposed white liberal but he did not reply. will doctor benson be a commissar, or a punishment brigade shock troop? Or just a REMF? What role would you see for yourself in such a “War” that the NYT oped writer is calling for against white men?

        I have a great idea. I mean, it’s not mine. I saw it on the internet. Maybe after the “war” against whites is over, reparations can be had against elderly whites in the form of zeroing out their Social security. That would be a humane measure compared to some other incidents of “decolonization” that history records.

        1. Mr Kurtz – I hadn’t seen the article but have read it now. Nice to know I was missed by the way. Its still hit and miss as far as notifications on new posts.
          I do think you take the word “war” far too literally and are missing one major point entirely. The rich and powerful (and white) that compose 99% of the 1% is whom Mr. Blow was speaking of. Those same people have done a noteworthy job of convincing most of the rest of white males in particular that their interests are yours and any attack on them and their interests is an assault on all white males.
          Recent policies of the current administration have enriched those in question without much of that trickle don theory we’ve been hearing about since Reagan. The dismantling of regulations designed to make our air and water safer can’t possibly have any negative effects down the road, affecting those not rich enough to live in a safe environment. Making sure for-profit prisons are at full occupancy (almost none of whom are rich white males) seems to leave the rest of us and some of you to fill them.
          If you are wondering what to take seriously, ask yourself how do I personally benefit from many of the policies advocated by the ultra rich? Did I benefit or was it almostly exclusively them?
          As far as my role, I’m not in a war with you or anyone here. My battle is against ignorance and the unrealistic hope of occasionally penetrating the bubble of news that surrounds so many here. I also offer the opportunity for some hear to ask questions of and actually listen to what an actual black person might think as opposed to the charicatures provided by Fox News et. al.

          1. well thank you for a sincere and responsive answer. David Benson is still ignoring my invitation to comment on this oped.

            You speak of the ultra rich. That is not my category, unfortunately. Not even rich. And i suspect Mr Blow is probably wealthier than myself by far. I hear writer for the NYT is a good gig. I suspect he does not suffer too badly.

            and the war he calls for can easily become quite literal. That would be a harder for the likes of Mr Blow cooped up in NYC than a redneck in flyover like me.

            I am for an end to mass incarceration for petty drug offenses. I am for an end to for profit prisons or at least subjecting them to higher quality standards and oversight.

            I am not for anything that makes an enemy out of me because I am white. A lot of what the Democrats say does exactly that. I have no delusions about any sort of compassion nor mercy to come from the likes of Mr Blow, should he succeed in elevating himself through war.

            1. Mr Kurtz – My observation is that the right wing media needs for there to be wars that don’t exist to make themselves more relevant. Right wing politicians need to stay popular in right wing media so they promote these false wars. Wars on Christmas, Christianity, free speech, anti-political correctness and a dozen others. Taking the words of one obscure politician, blogger, or opinion writer, magnifying them or perhaps quoting them accurately and applying them to a whole group as if they represented all of them. I submit you are free to live your life without fear of a war breaking out in flyover country. Best keep your eyes out for methheads and those addicted to opiods who have no access to health care or addiction programs.

          2. Ultra Rich=Barack and Michelle. Do you have a beef with them? Didn’t think so.

            1. Your definition of “Ultra Rich” is probably different than mine. Still, if they advocated the same policies I’d lump them right in with the others.

              1. enigma…….why would my definition of ultra rich be different from yours? Except……..
                You got to attend a private high school, so your family had more money than mine.
                I thought any one who was lucky enough to go to a private school was rich.

                So, you mean like that being an example of my definition of “rich” being different?

                1. I got a scholarship to attend a private school in 7th grade after which it merged with a public school and became public. There was the cost of the city bus fare to get there and back. My early years were spent in the Sumner Field Projects in Minneapolis which can be Googled if you”re curious. Still not comparing my family income to yours but was comparing the Obama’s to the Koch’s et al who have no problem shaping public policy to benefit themselves at our expense.

                  1. enigma……..shaping public policy to benefit themselves is actually the best description of the Obamas I’ve heard.
                    Ask Chicagoans.

        2. You didn’t ask me, but I’ll answer you anyway.

          1. The Op-Ed is contentless bar one thing: Charles Blowjobs’ upraised middle finger.

          2. Charles Blowjobs gets paid to write this witless palaver by editors too stupid to notice that it’s witless. They think of this patronage recipient as the voice of authentic blackness. (When they’re not conferring that function on a more verbose specimen, Ta-Nahesi Coates).

          3. White people qua white people are not a problem for blacks, nor are the 1%.

          4. Street crime is a problem for blacks. The homicide rate in the inner city neighborhoods where I grew up is currently 7x the national mean and 30x what you might expect in an ordinary occidental country. The lassitude of our administrative class (including key portions of the legal profession) bears responsibility for that. That most of these people are white is incidental. (And they are commonly the sort of white bourgeois who despise working-class whites).

          5. School disorder is a problem for blacks. The responsible parties would be the issue of the teachers’ colleges with all their shticks, conjoined to elements of the legal profession.

          6. Lax standards in education and suboptimal sorting of the student population is a problem for blacks. Responsible parties noted above.

          7. Material insecurity due to dysfunctions in various markets are a problem for blacks, as are poorly structured responses to these problems. The responsible parties are noted above (supplemented with the social work industry).

          8. Decaying built environment is a problem for blacks, in part due to neglect of sanitation and beautification in slum neighborhoods, in part due to a poorly structured set of tax burdens.

          White patricians bear some responsibility for neglecting aspects of the world around them. But they’re hardly alone in that. You’d have to scrounge to locate a black politician who observably cares much about any of the foregoing while higher education and corporate HR are dominated by people pushing one and another red herring.

          Charles Blowjobs is worthless, and merits no one’s attention.

    2. “And yet, what did America do when faced with the accusation of a woman against a man with an impeccable character, laid down over the course of nearly 40 years? ”


      1. If a white man accuses a priest of sexually abusing him 36 years ago, everybody on this blog who says Dr. Ford is lying will believe him without question.

    3. Earth to Karen: The Crucible and To Kill a Mockingbird Are works of fiction. The Salem Witch Trials took place in the 17th century. We are currently in the 21st century.

  2. “It summed up in a Tweet that vicious character of our politics and discourse.” That statement implies that this is a symptom of all political parties. That everyone is to blame. It describes The Left.

    Conservatives do not storm college campuses across America, threatening violence if a Liberal speaker is invited to speak. They don’t continuously heckle all conservative speakers all across America. They do not control the mainstream media, Hollywood, and academia, preaching preschool to grad school that Liberals are evil and should be destroyed at any cost. They don’t accost Liberals in restaurants all over the country, making sure they know “they are not welcome anywhere, anymore.” They don’t chase Liberals down the street. Liberals were not terrified to wear Obama clothing, proclaiming the support for their party, for the quite rational fear that they would be physically assaulted. Conservatives don’t stand in the streets of Seattle, screaming, “White Supremecist” to frightened Liberals just trying to drive downtown. They don’t run down and threaten to beat up a Liberal elderly man who dared to turn where they told him not to. They don’t openly use racist slurs against Liberal blacks who dare to speak their minds. They don’t fabricate sexual assault allegations against Sureme Court nominees for the express purpose of keeping them off the bench. They don’t call Liberal candidates “predator” or “serial rapist” or force them to cancel thier speaking engagements or courses they planned to teach.

    No, the Left does this. You might find a crazy right extremist somewhere, somehow, making a nuisance of themselves, but this terrorism on the Left is mainstreamed, and approved of heartily by politicians.

    Why is this? Because the Left wants to rule by government fiat, whether it’s dictating whether you are permitted to drink out of a straw, or drive a car, or bake a cake. It wants to be in power, and it wants no other party to be in power. The Left espouses Socialism, which requires a police state, and has been responsible for massacres from Stalin to Hitler to Mussolini. Fascism was an attempt to adapt Socialism to the common good of a nation rather than focus on class struggle. The Nazis openly admitted they copied the Eugenics programs of American Progressives. The Nazis also subverted the individual right to the common good, only throwing in rabid anti-Semitism as the bugaboo, using the phrase loved so dearly by the Left of the struggle against “the 1%”.

    One can clearly see from the Shenanigans of the modern American Left that it still does not value the rights of individuals or the rule of law. If they don’t get their way through the vote, they will use any means necessary to get what they want. After all, how can you possibly harm evil? Moderates have been brainwashed to beleive that conservatives are evil for enough generations that they give inexcusable behavior a pass. If a moderate like Alan Dershowitz speaks out, he is castigated and shunned in Martha’s Vineyard for helping the enemy.

    The Left wears Jackboots, and are trying to run amuck yet again. The only way that Moderates on the Left will snap out of it and realize this is wrong is for Leftist politics to be thrown out of the education system. It has poisoned critical reasoning.

  3. Off topic. Carlos Danger will be released from prison 2 months early because of good behavior.

  4. I myself have poked fun at Kavanaugh’s bizarre assertion that his “life was ruined”. That tweet was clearly sarcastic. How out of character for a Colbert writer.

    1. Jonathan Turley does not appear to always have a sense of humour; too self-righteous.

    2. I myself have poked fun at Kavanaugh’s bizarre assertion that his “life was ruined”.

      Citation please. And to an actual statement, in context, by BK. Not to a paraphrase composed by one of our lying media.

      That tweet was clearly sarcastic.

      No it was not. You can tell that by looking at the conversation on her feed.

      1. To the bombastic one who loves the pillory:

        Of course the tweet was sarcastic. And if one of your darlings said it, you’d be defending that person right now, claiming “sarcasm.” Get over yourself.

  5. Way off topic, but I have just seen a review of the new book “Mohammed: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires” by Juan Cole. Many readers here would profit from reading this account of the prophet.

    1. A Prophet of Peace who was a slave trader, rapist, kept sex slaves, and encouraged his men to rape and plunder? One who charged a fine for non believers? One who waited until dawn to raid villlages to see if he heard a call to prayer? He was only peaceful when he was outnumbered. Chronologically, his verse became that of a warlord who openly expressed the end goal of a global caliphate.

      1. all those bad things may be true. may be. some dispute his historicity. see book by robert spencer.

        but, on the plus side, there is the prohibition of usury. which helped sign up new troops. our society could use a more critical viewpoint in respect of usury. look it up if you never heard of it. it’s all around you. also, there is the emphasis on sobriety., people could use a little more sobriety. hillaire belloc said a heresy draws its strength from truth not falsehoods, and there are some truths in Islam to consider.

        americans should not take a doctrinaire wholly negative viewpoint about Islam, that only plays into the hands of Salafist fanatics.

  6. …not sure what marks this guy more, that he tried to claim partial credit for other people’s efforts or that Ariel Dumas could not explain why he so hates Judge Kavanaugh without resorting to sloganeering.

  7. The Kavanaugh swearing in was on TV tonight and I enjoyed watching. Trumpster was a good talker. So was Kennedy. So was Justice Kavanaugh.
    Jim Crow is not coming back.
    But Citizens United and the power of the rich and the corporations will rise higher.

    Bye, bye Miss American Pie. Dorve my Chevy to the levee and the levee was dry.
    Good ol boys drinking whiskey and rye…Singin…this will be the day that I die.

    1. “Jim Crow is not coming back.”

      Jim Crow was espoused, nay created, by Democrats who pushed our country to Civil War to keep blacks as slaves.
      If Jim Crow is not coming back, then the DNC should be very worried given your prognostication. When do your peeps plan on starting your next Civil War?

      “But Citizens United and the power of the rich and the corporations will rise higher.”

      George Soros, Clinton Global FUNDation and Hollywood womyn beating Matt Damon types prigs find your comment offensive

  8. Kavanaugh has been a policalhack all of his life and a leopard can not change his spots.Hie has lived a llife of wealth power and priviledgeand he has now ascended to a very high office .His life is far from ruin

    1. My guess you’be done no research on Kavanaugh besides DNC taking points!

      1. DNC ARE taking points..have you seen the polls???? Trumps behavior is handing the elections to the DEMS…..but y’all love his bad boy self so much you don’t even see it. That’s ok by me 😉

  9. On Columbus Day, I have to note the conspicuous absence of defacement of Columbus statues by the PC mob. On the other hand, I also note a conspicuous abundance of short, stocky guys in black limousines patrolling around. Correlation? Causation?

        1. They survived.

          And Incidentally, Columbus came from Genoa; there was no Italy before Garibaldi.

          1. I did not say there was an Italy before Garibaldi. I would never want to appear that foolish.

        2. Cindy Bragg – no, they did not discover Italy, but they did discover Canada.

            1. Cindy Bragg – not sure about that. I do know we have sent some Italians or Sicilians back to the old country.

      1. Sorry, Your Eminence, them Injuns came over the Alaskan Land Bridge from Asia where they are native and indigenous. They will never be Americans as Americans were their mortal enemies and Americans did not exist before 1789, a date which their presence preceded by millennia. Preposterous. Indians can only be illegal aliens under American law as they have never immigrated properly. Presumably they have reservation rights by way of treaty.

        Indians arrived on this continent before Americans so the most appropriate appellation would be the “Before People.”




        adjective: indigenous

        originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.

        1. Then all of us non-Africans are descendents of immigrants.

          Aboriginal is the strictly correct appellation but indigenous is close and vastly better than “Native American” as almost all of us are natives.

          1. INDIAN

            “The term Aboriginal has been in the English language since at least the 19th century, formed from the 16th century term, Aborigine, which means “original inhabitants”. It derives from the Latin words ‘ab’ (from) and ‘origine’ (origin, beginning). The word was used in Australia to describe the original inhabitants of the land as early as 1789. Since colonisation it has been employed as the common name to refer to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”

            – Common Ground

            Americans were created in 1789 and were native to Europe and, originally, Africa.

            Indians are native to Asia and, originally, Africa.

            Them Injuns is the “Before People.”

            They did not properly immigrate under American law.

            They are illegal aliens with a visa right when they are off of their reservations.

            Keep yer eyes peeled, Pardner.

            Aboriginal is not American or European but 16th century Australian.

            “Indian” is the name given by Europeans in 1492.

            There is no reason to change that which has been fact for 526 years.

            Communistic social engineering is not an acceptable rationale in constitutional America.

            “Application of the term “Indian” originated with Christopher Columbus, who, in his search for India, thought that he had arrived in the East Indies.”

            – Wiki

            1. But they weren’t the original inhabitants. Those were the Neanderthals, who were wiped out, and then the Clovis, who were wiped out, and then the conquering third people, or “Native Americans” or “First Nations” took root in the land they won. Then they warred with each other. Some modern people were found to have Clovis DNA. Want to guess how Clovis DNA got into the Native American blood? Hint, it probably has something to do with the near ubiquitous practice among Native Americans of keeping sex slaves, women kidnapped from enemy tribes or survivors of the massacres of their tribes.

              1. Completely wrong.


                Some of the


            2. George, it is too confusing. Around here we have plenty of Indian Americans as well as American Indians. For the latter we usually refer to the tribal name.

        2. Racially, they are Mongolian, but “First Nations,” As they are called in Canada, makes more sense than “Indian,” or the ridiculous PC term, “Native American.”

      2. David:

        There is no inherent nobiltiy in indigenous people, gender, race, or ethnicity. There are differences in culture and society, but human nature is the same everywhere. Tribes were not pacifists handing out flowers.

        Every tribe was different. They warred with each other over resources. Many kept slaves, especially sex slaves of female captives. Some tribes revered bravery in the face of pain. What they did to prisoners makes the worst Chainsaw Massacre movie look tame. Some kept scalps to prove their bravery. There were stories of cannibalism. Native Americans used technology and other assets they got from Europeans to wage war on each other. The horse came from the Conquistadors. Mounted tribes promptly overwhelmed those without the horse. Guns were used against each other once they got them from Europeans. The Apache rode their horses into the ground, ate them, and then just stole another one. The Nez Pearce were famous horsemen, by comparison. The Iriquois Nation terrorized surrounding tribes. Archeologists unearthed towers made up of hundreds of thousands of human bones, and they confirmed that Aztecs did indeed tear the beating hearts from the chest of their sacrifices, including many children. Wtihout the Conquistadors, the Aztecs would be stilll merrily terrorizing the entire region, slaughtering millions of people.

        Indigenous people were also not “First Nation.” That was the Neanderthals, which were discovered to have existed in North America. They were wiped out in their contact with Cro Magnon. The Clovis Indians were Second Nation. They were displaced by immigrants from Asia, who are Third Nation indigenous people. Later colonizers were Fourth Nation. Those values will probably be reshuffled over and over again the more we learn about ancient migrations and displacement.

        The Fourth Nation people adopted the conquered Third Nation into their tribe, but many live separately in reservations. They are administered many socialis programs, are not allowed to own tribal land, and are treated like children by the government. Consequently, they live in abject poverty with terrible education. By contrast, the tribes who do not live under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, own land and have a high median income. That’s without casino revenue.

        In addition, why does the government help the Sioux hold the Black Hills? They took it from the Cheyanne, who also took it from other tribes. The land changed hands multiple times that we know of. Why do the Sioux claim ownership? Native tribes did not believe in deeded land ownership that can be passed down in perpetuity. Tribes held land until and unless they lost it to a stronger tribe. The explanation for why the Sioux took the Black Hills from other tribes was that it was strong. The Fourth Nation is just a strong tribe that overpowered all others, and introduced them to the wheel.

        I do not condone any of the savegery that both sides did to each other. It was grievous. I also do not subscribe to the attitude that Native Americans were peace loving pacifists who cared for the land. They were fierce fighers, and if they needed to make a fire, they burned wood. Greenhouse gas producing wood burning. In fact, they would put land to the flame to create more open hunting ground. This was not a holier than thou war, but one of a fight for survival and resources. I believe that Reservations should be done away with, and the land divided up among members of the tribe to do with as each individual wishes. Just being allowed to own their land would be a huge step forward in improving thier circumstances. It is unacceptable that tribes STILL live in poverty in these failed Progressive plantations of Reservations. Immigrants come here with the equivalent of 50 cents in their pocketes, and live far better than the Res within a year.

        If Colombus had not arrived, then the Aztecs would have murdered millions more people. If there was no United States, there would have not been the key Ally that helped defeat Hitler. Without the US, all of Europe would be Nazis and the Jews might have been wiped out. Without the US, there would not be our trillions of dollars spent on global environmental, humanitarian, and military aid. We float the budget for the UN and various environmental initiatives. I also do not believe for one instant that if Spain had not colonized America, that the rest of the world would have ignored our enormous, resource rich continent and genteely starved to death in their overcrowded countries, where class was an insurmountable barrier. People didn’t have the land to grow a head of cabbage for themselves. But people with superior mlitary might were going to leave open, unworked, fertile land to those who didn’t have the wheel, or steel, and were still using bows and arrows? No way. No. Way. A superior tribe would have taken the land from the less advanced tribe, just as the Native Americans had been doing to each other for thousands of years. Perhaps even the Aztecs would have expanded, and we’d have our own mountains of bones.

        1. You are
          1st through 4th

          4 waves
          Aluts and
          the peoples of
          The Arctic.

  10. A sample of 15 or so incoming freshman shows that not one can name a current Supreme Court justice. When asked about Ruth Bader Ginsburg precisely one recalled hearing the name.

    So somehow I think Associate Justice Kavanaugh is likely to be able to toil in the hall of justice sweatshops in relative obscurity

    1. “A sample of 15 or so incoming freshman shows that not one can name a current Supreme Court justice. When asked about Ruth Bader Ginsburg precisely one recalled hearing the name.”
      And by that sample, 100% of the population has mastered “Fortnite” and looks badass playing the cinnamon challenge. Never dabble in stats, prof.

    2. david, please hop on over to the Horror page and tell me how you expect to fare in the coming “war” one white male privilege in America that has been declared by the black oped writer for the NYT today. I want to know how you fit into the war effort, assuming that is, if you want to eschew your evil white male privilege.

      I don’t. I like privileges and intend to keep as many as I can. but i want to understand people who aren’t like me. after all diversity is our greatest strength, and as a parochial sort from flyover country i want to broaden my horizons

    3. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me twelve citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after nineteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – at your age you should not be trolling the freshman, you are going to get arrested. However, I do agree. They are undereducated in Civics. And although I have called the President, both my Senator and my Congressman (love cellphones with free long distance) I have never called my Supreme Court Associate Justice. You and I share one, which is ours?

  11. drag a $100 dollar bill trailer park

    Where is metoo with Paula’s humiliation and Juanita’s punctured lip as slick held her still with his teeth, so he could rape her and get on with raping more women? where’s their support for Kathleen, Gen Flowers, and hundreds more including Hillary? she’s fortunate not to have contracted a serious std married to that snake.

    Anybody read Primary Colors?

    1. sue brighyam – the irony of Hillary saying woman need to believed just about had me wetting my pants.

    2. Don’t forget Hollywood awarded an Oscar to Roman Polansky in absentia, and he received a standing ovation. He was convicted of brutally raping and sodomizing a young girl. If you read the transcription of his testimony, you’ll want to vomit. He’s a hero of the Left.

      1. As Whoopi Goldberg says, “that wasn’t rape, rape” so they overlook it and give Polanski, not just a pass, but an award. See how that works when you’re a Dem?

  12. We are on the precipice. Violence on a major scale looms around the corner. Not since the civil war have Americans been this anxious to go to war with each other.

    1. Sue………from what I observe, the Republicans are not at war with anyone, nor do they want war with Dems. What they want seems obvious to me: Let us all respect our laws and each other. Period. A simple request.

      1. Agree, Cindy. The only ones who want war are the ones who couldn’t accept the results of the last election.

    2. will anarchy precede civil war or subsist in it? i think this time round it will be different in many ways than the first one. the first will seem quaint by comparison

      the Left hasnt thought this out much. they would get mauled

      but i doubt it will come to that.

    3. Sue:
      “We are on a precipice.”

      Not really. Things were worse lots in the 70s with Kent State and the university bombings. Race riots in schools and in ghettoes were rough, too. Social media makes it sound worse but in reality how many unpaid radicals are there? A thousand or two. They all look like they couldn’t get to Penn Station without an Uber, Waze and a map. The violence is limited to fools paradises like Charlottesville and Berkeley. Here in Richmond the Antifa nuts faced off with the Klan-lite and the biggest altercation was bumping into each other ordering slushees. Richmond cops broker no nonsense like the incompetents in Charlottesville.

      Fear not. Stupid and mean always has a short shelf life.

      1. Yesterday or so, The antifa are blocking traffic and harassing and battering motorists in Portland. I posted links. There was a stand-down order on the police which allowed them to do it.


        Just like in charlottesville, the police failed to protect the protesters who had a lawful rally. Chaos predictably ensued.


        former AUSA said the police badly goofed.

        who gave the stand down order? black police chief.

        if police chiefs wont enforce law and order in streets or allow lawful public demonstrations, things move on to a different level.

        I feel empathy for these motorists who were assaulted in Portland. I would feel very unsafe if someone were blocking my car, as a man with a club banged on my window. I might be in a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death, and act accordingly.

  13. An ex-boyfriend of mine, a Republican politician state level, used to complain to me often that Republicans were too decent, too civil, too polite when it came to political warfare whereas the Democrats, he often argued, were vicious, underhanded, evil operatives. He and I dated back in the 1990s, he lost his job in office when he was outed in the Gainesville Sun (Florida) for being gay, and not surprisingly, it was the Democrat machinery of Florida that ruined his career

    This Kavanaugh episode was no different than what James Carvelle did with his “drag a $100 dollar bill trailer park” quip where the Feminzzis found it amusing.

  14. Why should anyone be surprised the hate and lack of decency on the Left? Look at their leaders in the MSM and in Congress! Look at Schumer, Look at Clinton or Feinstein. Look at the NYT and WaPo. Look at CNN, or the trash comics on CBS/NBC/ABC. Its Republicans must die, lets support Anitfa, hate for white people -especially white men.

    1. In re Schumer and Clinton, no surprise this happens. Feinstein used to be better than that.

      1. Tabarokk……Yes.I thought so.. I recently chkd wiki and they did not have as many marriages listed for her as I remember.
        Do you know?

        1. She was married to Jack Berman from 1956 to 1960, and he was the father of her only child. A reporter came calling in 1984 and Mr. Berman answered. He tells the reporter that they’d separated 25 years previously, but she still wouldn’t speak to him, their shared child notwithstanding. Jack Berman was a lawyer and later judge 11 years her senior. He died in 2002.

          She married Bertram Feinstein in 1962. He was 17 years her senior, a neurosurgeon who had migrated from Winnepeg to somewhere in Britain to San Francisco. He may or may not have had a previous marriage and children. The two of them had no children. Her first forays into public office were while she was married to him so she’s always used his name. By some accounts, an unusually clingy marriage. He died in 1978.

          She married her current husband in 1980, while she was Mayor of San Francisco. He’s about 3 years her junior. Pretty sure he had a previous marriage and children. He’s a real estate developer and was already rich if not big rich when he married her. For whatever reason, she limits her time around him. Sort of absurd for her to be running for re-election at age 85 and jetting across the country every other week. (It was marginally less absurd when she ran for re-election in 2012).

          For whatever reason, her daughter, who was born Katherine Berman and has been married to a Mr. Mariano for close to 30 years, uses the name ‘Katherine Feinstein’ Rather rude to her father to be using her deceased stepfather’s name.

          1. DSS – DiFi wants the same funeral that McStain got. If she is out of office, she doesn’t even get the flags at half-mast for a day.

          2. Feinstein divorced Berman when the daughter was only nine months old. So likely the girl was raised by her step-father and doesn’t really know her bio-dad, which is why she chooses to carry her step-father’s name. There’s a lot more to being a father than being a sperm donor.

            1. Feinstein divorced Berman when the daughter was only nine months old.

              Her divorce from Jack Berman was in 1960. Her daughter would have been about 3. She married Bertram Feinstein in 1962, when her daughter was bout 5.

              Bertram Feinstein died in 1978 and Jack Berman in 2002. It’s a reasonable inference that she did in fact know her father. He lived locally and she was his only daughter.

              1. So she knew him and didn’t like him. It happens. Maybe he was a dick. There’s a reason DiFi divorced him, ya think?

      2. No, Republicans do their fighting by hiding within the process. It’s what Mitch McConnell’s buddies did by refusing to meet with Merrick Garland for months on end. That’s not an excuse for what Democrats did…their members misrepresented Kavanaugh’s testimony, staged a phony “Spartacus” moment over a public document and leaked Ford’s identity to force a confrontation. That doesn’t justify treating a Supreme Court nomination like a political football, something McConnell did when he crowed about how the confirmation “turned our base on fire.”

        1. it is inherently political and that is why the Founders wisely put power of nomination in an elected official, and confirmation in an elected body.

          article III is at once both the least powerful branch, and yet the most– unelected, lifetime tenure lordships, with a veto power on laws.

          1. If you define “political” as appointing judges with a particular philosophy (ie. Republicans appoint judges with a particular view of the 2nd Amendment and Democrats do the same) it is. The problem is that McConnell used the nomination as a get-out-the-vote stunt when his team had the votes to reject Garland. I doubt the Founders had anything like this in mind when they pictured “advise and consent.”

            1. on the contrary, they devised rules and a body that can set more rules over time. that is law. the Founders were very long sighted and facile.

              political questions always inhere in government. there is no system of ideally objective commissars who can save us from having to mediate some conflicts among different sectors of society. the genius of america is allowing the process of political conflict not to end up getting out of hand, and for a stable government to endure which secures the rights of individuals at the same time it allows majorities to exercise their political will.

              in many ways it is excessively complicated. that is by design. it slows down the pace of change, but it allows change. the democratic majorities can exert power but only so much.

              delaying garland was very much within the rules. quit fuming over it. it’s like a boxer getting mad about the other side clinching too much.

              1. First thing…I violated one of my own standards by using the departed as a rhetorical tool. My bad. As to the “genius of America” found in the balance between majority rule and minority rights I’m on the same page. Garland’s rejection does fall within those rules; what got me was the way it went down.

                The Senate could have voted him down if McConnell could keep the troops together. Republicans would have defied spin that said their job is to “advise (then) consent” and I wouldn’t have given it a second thought. He didn’t, presumably because McConnell couldn’t keep the troops together, then came up with what sounded like a cover story about giving the people a voice in the process. It was as though Republicans were playing a weak hand while boasting about their strength.

        2. You are misquoting Senator McConnell. He said that the “mob did what we could not: they fired up our base”.
          But that’s okay. If you guys weren’t misquoting someone, you’d be completely mute.

          1. The surrounding words are missing — and so is some of the context — but that quote is from an AP article so I have no reason to doubt that McConnell said those words at some point Friday or Saturday. Quite an odd definition of misquoting.

  15. Look at the bright side of political discourse. At least Ariel Dumas did not call for the ruination of Kavanaugh’s family members and progeny.

  16. Payback time. I was a Bank America Customer for decades when it was the venerated bank founded by A.P.Giannini. I even worked in their man building. But it changed.

    Moved to North Carolina and became the Bank of the DNC. The change was swift and viscous.

    The point system. One of the uses was cash value. But in trying to use it to pay off and cancel a card I began to find bills, fines, and fees to twice the supposed cash value. The credit card was paid off by other means. It took almost two years to get my retirement pays sent to the new bank. But eventually I became BA Free. Why all this?

    BA is The Late Shows primary sponsor.

    Just recently I get a notice that BA some five years later has issued me a new card and sent it to an address that no longer exists. I hope somebody uses it but I’m not paying. Ha HA ha.

    Revenge is a dish best served cold.

    So boycott that program.. .Simple. If you have a BA Account cancel it. It will save you money.

    Strike Three. They are a major contributor ro Lizziei Borden Warren who has the Banking Committee which has The Fed.

    Mother Feathers came home to roost….A Hat Trick Cold Dish!

    For those who have other accounts never drive or walk down a street with one of their banks or ATMs. Your wallet won’t survive to the next corner.

  17. The Obama Coup D’etat in America.

    All roads lead to Obama.

    Ariel Dumas Road leads to Stephen Colbert Road which leads to Obama:


    Democratic Integrity Project Road leads to Fusion GPS Road which leads to George Soros Road which leads to Howard Schweitzer, top Obama administration official.

    “George Soros and the Obama Administration Now Linked To Fusion GPS”

    “Progressive billionaire George Soros’ spokesman confirms that Soros funded the Democratic Integrity Project, which was a contractor for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm responsible for the discredited Christopher Steele dossier. It turns out that a former top Obama administration official, Howard Schweizer, was hosting Fusion GPS spy Natalia Veselnitskaya in the Washington office of his law firm Cozen O’Connor.”

    – Patrick Howley

    1. Ahhh yes and not limited to Russians The Sparrow School. I wonder if any of the DNC are thier handlers?

  18. Trump gets more specific today:

    Sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh are a “hoax” cooked up by people who now want to impeach “a brilliant jurist,” President Donald Trump said Monday.

    “I’ve been hearing that that now they’re talking about impeaching a brilliant jurist, a man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax set up by the Democrats using the Democrats’ lawyers, and now they want to impeach him,” Trump said on the South Lawn of the White House as he left to give a speech to a police chiefs group in Orlando.

    Looks like Dr. Ford may have to give some more information….And the details & remember exactly what happened.

    1. Nah, that’s just Trump running his mouth. You should be used to it by now. He has ADD and won’t remember what he said 5 minutes later.

Comments are closed.