Sexual McCarthyism – Why Every Public Figure Needs to be Concerned

…what should stop every adult in their shoes — and not just men — is the immediate finding of guilt…

It started with Harvey Weinstein. Then it was James Toback, Kevin Spacey, Brett Ratner, Louis CK, George Takei, Jeremy Piven among more than a dozen of well-known and not-so-well-known producers, directors, and actors in Hollywood.

Then came the journalists. Tech blogger Robert Scoble, Vox Media Editorial Director Lockhart Steele, fashion photographer Terry Richardson, former editor at The New Republic Leon Wieseltier, CBS’s Rick Najera, NBC News contributor Mark Halperin, president and publisher of The New Republic Hamilton Fish, former NYT editor and head of news at NPR Michael Oreskes, among others.

Next it was politicians. Though we’ve heard about “indiscretions” for decades from presidents John F. Kennedy, to Bill Clinton, US Rep Gary Condit, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, US House Rep Anthony Weiner, former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, we’ve been subject to a new round of allegations with claims against President Donald Trump in the run-up to the 2016 elections. Kentucky Speaker of the House Jeff Hoover, Alabama Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore, and seemingly new accusations and revelations every day.

Sexual misconduct in the workplace has been an issue for decades. Anita Hill, Susan Fowler at Uber, Gretchen Carlson, among many, many more.

High-profile criminal cases such as the Brock Turner case from Stanford, the “Mattress Girl” case at Columbia have raised doubt as to both the veracity and handling of claims of inappropriate and/or criminal conduct on American college campuses.

We’ve moved from the days where women were hardly believed to a time when at least in the court of public opinion, an allegation is nearly as good as fact.

There is no question that many of the individuals named above have been involved in inappropriate and in some cases criminal sexual activity. In some cases the acts are not just sexual in nature, but have involved sexual acts against children which takes things to a whole different level of disturbing skeeviness.

No rational person would deny that victims should be heard, their cases investigated, nor that improper or illegal behavior should not have consequences. But what should stop every adult in their shoes — and not just men — is the immediate finding of guilt in the news media and on social media.

Allegations are spread around the world within hours. Lives and livelihoods are put on hold or torn apart with a few paragraphs or even 140 characters. The speed at which this happens, repeatedly, is astounding.

Many on the right of our political spectrum were bemused at first when it appeared that the liberal left in Hollywood who had shouted so loudly about the allegations against then-candidate Trump had begun eating their own with the Weinstein scandal.

It was pretty easy to roll your eyes at Ashley Judd’s admission of tolerating and ignoring behavior to get ahead as an actress while screaming about President Trump wearing a pink pussy hat, or throwing a hissy fit about a TSA agent calling her Sweetheart.

Every new allegation came along with declarations of accusers being “brave” for speaking out about their experiences. Social media became riddled with the hashtag #MeToo, as a declaration of solidarity in having experienced sexual assault.

More and more allegations flowed, some of them getting older and older, 10, 20, 30 years or more ago. Anyone questioning why these women were just now speaking out have been quickly condemned. The allegations can’t have any motive beyond a sisterhood of support and caring for future victims yet to be violated.

We have seen a wide range of responses from the accused. Some have acknowledged and admitted their wrong-doing and stepped away from positions of power. Others have been more truculent in their responses while still moving aside.

Then there are those who deny the allegations, yet their claims fall on deaf ears. Why do these individuals have less of a voice than their accusers? Why are we willing to destroy careers and reputations decades after the fact?

One of the more recent accusations involving some of the oldest alleged misdeeds is that of  the Alabama Republican Senate candidate Judge Roy Moore. Moore prevailed in a hotly contested primary election and runoff election against junior Senator Luther Strange who had the initial support of President Trump.

Millions of dollars flowed into the campaigns, with establishment Republicans backing Strange, who was appointed to the seat after the confirmation of former Senator Jeff Sessions to the US Attorney General post.

Despite a long, storied, and controversial career in Alabama politics and the judiciary, only once Moore secured the Republican primary did the allegations begin to surface. In over 40 years in politics, no allegations were made of criminal conduct or inappropriate conduct beyond the small town rumor mill.

Yet here we are with self-styled liberal caped crusader Gloria Allred holding a press conference with a woman accusing Moore of assaulting her in 1977 when she was 16 years old. Nineteen seventy-seven. That’s 40 years ago, when even my middle-aged self was in the sixth grade.

Wiping away non-existent tears, Beverly Young Nelson allowed herself to be paraded before the cameras with a sordid story of a 30-odd year-old man making advances, and if she is to believed, assaults against her as a 16-year-old waitress.

As tends to be the case when Allred swoops in, there’s no possibility of a criminal complaint in this case, the statute ran well over 35 years ago. Further, Allred asserts that her “client” has no interest in filing a civil suit. Why then, is this story being proffered now, other than as a means to discredit the Republican candidate?

Those who opposed Moore in the elections have been quick to jump on the bandwagon demanding he step down as candidate, or even assert that if he is elected by the will of the Alabama voters, that he be removed from his seat by the Senate.

There is no question that it is politically expedient to declare belief of every accuser’s story, particularly if it involves someone unpopular with the Swamp in DC.

If the talk of the town in Etowah County Alabama, which has popped up locally from time to time, is to be believed, then Moore is may very well be guilty of at least skeevy behavior, if not criminal behavior if it were reported in a timeline manner.

Guilty or not, what should scare every public figure in America is the realization that Roy Moore, Jeremy Piven, and others who deny the allegations made against them have no forum to dispute these stories but in the press.

Criminal actions cannot be brought, either through the expiration of any statute of limitations or the conduct not rising to the level of criminal offense. Civil suits are not being filed by these purported victims, where the allegations would be tested against established standards of law.

Most readers are too young to remember the “Red Scare” that was the result of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s mission to rid our country of alleged communist supporters resulting in hearings by the House Un-American Activities Committee. If there is any awareness of it at all, it is often as a quaint relic of the early cold war. What people forget is how many lives, livelihoods and reputations were forever tarnished by these accusations, which coincidentally also impacted primarily Hollywood and government officials or employees.

Like the Salem witch trials, McCarthyism was the result of hysteria sweeping a community with what may have been suspicion rooted in some small grain of truth exploding into a runaway train of accusations and fallout.

How many of today’s accused truly are innocent? How much was perhaps a poor choice, but not  abuse of power or influence? We won’t ever know for sure, but there will inevitably be some.

We are better than this. It is not brave to lob accusations at someone decades later and then disappear back into the woodwork as most of Allred’s “clients” have over the years.

It is not brave to write articles trumpeting the alleged misdeeds of politicians who are members of the opposing political party while ignoring the misdeeds of members of your own party (Can we talk again about Juantia Brodderick?).

It is not brave to pass around these allegations with glee across social media, where truth is not a necessary component of going viral.

We should be afraid, very afraid, that we ourselves will be subjected to such treatment with no resources to fight it, and no recourse to be had.

We must examine ourselves and our motives in staying quiet for so long, while in many cases benefiting from being acquainted with or working with the individuals we accuse.

Any chance we have as a society to truly no longer tolerate sexually abusive behavior is to respond to it when it happens. Open secrets only exist where people put personal profit ahead of what’s right. Those who turn a blind eye are just as complicit and guilty as any perpetrator.

Take your stand when it happens, not when it is politically expedient. That is brave, and that should be supported.


He was NOT your child!

Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile makes mind-boggling statement about murdered staffer Seth Rich.

In the continuing saga of Democrats imploding and turning on each other as the ship sinks, former DNC Chair Donna Brazile goes on “ABC This Week” this morning to discuss her latest work of fiction — oh, her book — and makes this staggering statement. Watch, with the statement in question at 6:30.

I’m just…

giphy (3)

He was not your child, and I’d be damned surprised if you even knew who he was. If we were to believe the ongoing Democratic narrative from the time Seth Rich was murdered, it was a random robbery gone bad, not an attack on someone about to expose the shenanigans in the DNC and the Hillary for America campaign.

Now we’re supposed to believe the self-aggrandizing and deflecting account of Brazile who claims she was in fear of sniper fire after his death? Really?

Why would you be hunkering in your home afraid of a sniper if he was a random crime victim? If he wasn’t a random crime victim, why have you helped perpetuate a false narrative for over a year? Because you’re a rat trying to distance yourself from a sinking ship, and it’s disgusting. I hope they all get brought up on charges.



Uranium One and Deep State Explained

A great explanation for us mere mortals.

For those of us mere mortals who haven’t been following all of this in minute detail, here’s a great video explaining the issues around Uranium One, what the “Deep State” is, and what the timeline has been.

Secrets, Scandals, and Sanctimony

A relatively simple summary of this week’s news bombs

If you’re like a lot of us, this week has seemed like an never-ending flood of scandals, both old and new, denials, rebuttals, and obfuscations. So much so, that it’s hard to keep track of everything going on.

People far more connected than I are actively following these stories, but we’ll take a look at the top issues of the week, in no particular order.

The unsealing of JFK documents 

For over 50 years, much of the investigation of the assassination of President John F Kennedy has been surrounded in secrecy and suppressed from the public view with the sealing of investigation and background documents.

An estimated 3,600 documents had still been under seal at the National Archives. Legislation passed in 1992 set a deadline for the release of these documents, which was set as 25 years after the legislation past, October 26, 2017. President Trump announced he would release the document, pending any necessary review.

More than 2,000 of those documents were released last night, with others held back at the request of the FBI and CIA. What excerpts have surfaced are certainly some of the more salacious contents.

While much supposition is flying about the “Deep State” then, and how it ties back to today, the most interesting part of the read so far is the view from the mid to late 60s of Russia and spycraft, keeping in mind this was the era of the rise of Castro’s Cuba and the related Cuban Missile Crisis. There’s enough material to keep conspiracy theorists frantic for several years.

My take? Historically interesting. Everyone is dirty in the spy game. The big questions will remain unanswered.

Robert Mueller and the Russia Probe

Related to the next item, Mueller had been tasked with investigating alleged collusion between the Russian Federation an President Trump’s campaign during the 2016 elections. Nothing substantive at all has come from these inquiries. With the surfacing of new information about the Uranium One deal (next) that included questionable actions on the part of the FBI which Mueller headed up between 2001 and 2013, there are calls for him to step down from this investigation, and rightfully so.

If Mueller were to stay involved in this case, he would effectively be investigating the decisions he himself made as FBI Director, or actions that he authorized and condoned. That this presents a conflict of interest is patently obvious, even the

My take? Mueller must step down. The focus of this inquiry needs to shift to the actions surrounding the run-up to and completion of the Uranium One deal, as well as the rising evidence of collusion not from the Trump camp, but from Clinton’s.

Uranium One

The fact that Hillary Clinton approved and arranged the sale of 20% of our uranium to a Russian-backed firm is really undisputed at this point. The radioactivity level of this deal gets even worse with the typical Clinton pay-to-play actions of accepting a HALF MILLION dollar payment to Bill Clinton for a speech in Moscow, and up to $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation filtered through third parties.

An FBI informant has long been gagged from testifying to Congress on this issue (who is wagging the dog here?), and that gag order has just been lifted, with the expectation of incredibly damning evidence about HRC’s involvement, the FBI’s failure to report Russian activities related to it, and the money trail. Always the money trail.

This Fox News piece with Sebastian Gorka details things nicely.

My take? Between this and the dossier, Clinton is toast, and several people should end up in prison.

The Dossier

The dossier, a briefing paper of sorts about an individual, is a document waved around during and since the presidential election in 2016 as “proof” of President Trump’s collusion with the Russians to influence the outcome of said election.

First, let’s be very clear. Governments and high-profile individuals — and even regular people thanks to the Internet — have long taken interest in the outcome of elections and legislation of other countries. This isn’t new, nor is it nefarious.

The United States has had varying levels of success in supporting one regime or another in dozens of countries around the globe over the history of our nation. That Russia might want to have the election turn out one way or the other is no surprise, nor honestly, would be the production of “news” stories, Facebook posts, and other online information designed to sway opinion. We certainly yap our heads off about Brexit, matters before the EU, and the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of regime changes in less developed countries.

There’s also a concept in elections known as “opposition research.” One side tries to dig up dirt on the other side, see the never ending string of “attack ads” that happen every election cycle.

This dossier was used in the election and since the election to pummel the public with the suggestion that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in order to turn the election in his favor. I’ve long found this preposterous on a number of fronts, primarily the Uranium One deal – we gave them 20% of our uranium, why would Putin then want to ally with Trump who is campaigning on America first?

This week’s information is that while the funding for this dossier allegedly started with a Republican donor who was backing someone other than Trump, when that was set aside, Hillary’s campaign AND the DNC picked up the tab for over $6 million in expenditures, and then buried the spend as legal expenses instead of declaring such research efforts as required by elections law.

On the surface this may sound like a semantic argument to some, and maybe a little creative accounting, but…this was used as the basis for the entire Mueller investigation. Illegally obtained documents, created through espionage, were tendered as the basis for a federal investigation. This is way more than about who wrote the check.

My take? There’s much more going on under the surface here, we haven’t even begun to hear about it yet. This will be big. Yuge.

One for You and One for You!

Debunk This!!

There’s so much happening today that it’s tough to pick just one that makes me the happiest, but I think by far is the lifting of the gag order allowing the FBI informant to testify about all the juicy details of #UraniumOne.

Let’s see you #DebunkThis Hillary!

Mythomania – Hillary Clinton, Pathological Liar

How’s that debunking working out for you?

Liar is not a new way to describe Hillary Clinton, nor even is pathological liar, narcissistic, or megalomania, among others. A new one to me is mythomania, synonymous with pathological liar, a condition where one lies so frequently on so many things that the lie becomes truth to them.

The thing is, if we were truly to believe that this was an actual psychological condition, we might — might, maybe, conceivably, maybe, OK not really — have some minimal amount of sympathy for her.

Reality is, it is not the lies Hillary tells that she believes, she actually believes she is entitled to a position of being above reproach. Over the years, as far back as her husband’s presidential bid, she has managed to dance around allegation, after allegation, after allegation which includes a body count which is simply staggering.

As recently as Monday, Clinton claimed that the focus on her involvement in the Uranium One deal is an allegation that has been “debunked repeatedly.”

With the ongoing investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election turning up nothing of substance against Trump, additional sources have turned that investigation on its head to expose again her involvement with that pay for play deal.

With even the Clinton-apologist Washington Post reporting this as factual, her glass house is about to fall apart in shards.


Send in the Marine. Take Back Washington!

Husband, Father, Marine, MBA. My kind of guy!

Husband, Father, Marine, MBA. My kind of guy! Kevin Nicholson is running in Wisconsin for the senate seat currently held by Democrat Tammy Baldwin. We’ve got a year to get Kevin to Washington, but support needs to be deployed now!

Through gaining a strong, Trump-supporting Senate seat through the election of Kevin, we also remove the threat Tammy Baldwin represents with her beliefs:

  • Baldwin is a local advocate for single-payer, government-run healthcare — Because the VA is doing so well as a benchmark for government performance.
  • Baldwin is soft on immigration, even going so far as to vote no on the 2006 Congressional resolution to honor the victims of 9/11 because of alleged divisive language.
  • Baldwin wants to label more private sector employees as lobbyists in the hopes of preventing them from holding key elected offices or committee appointments.
  • Baldwin believes in politics as a profession, business people should be obstructed or even barred from service
  • Baldwin makes specious attacks on those in the financial sector who earn compensation from capital gains of private equity funds as somehow not contributing their fair share.
  • Baldwin voted No in the Senate on every appointment made by President Trump.
  • Baldwin opposes voter ID laws – the most rural of rural Indian and Mexican voters all have ID, there’s no reason we can’t accomplish the same.

Our first hurdle is securing the primary election for Kevin. Show your support for this patriot Marine and Trump supporter today, with even the smallest of donations. Send in the Marine. Take Back Washington!