Why is it okay to sexualize kids?

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

When I was a child, I did not have a concept of sexual intercourse.  I began learning about it around the junior high school age range but, even when I was introduced to the concept, I struggled to understand it and I didn’t really want to understand it.  I was more concerned with building some fantasy castle with my LEGO blocks.  So, when I see a kid today like 10-year-old Desmond Napoles (“Desmond is Amazing“) making a youthful career out of dressing like a drag queen, I start to wonder about the parenting methods raising that kid.  Have these so-called “drag kids” even gone through puberty yet?  Do they understand what it means to be sexually attracted to another person?  Do they understand how their own sexual development will mature through their teenage years?  What is motivating these kids to become drag queens?

Perhaps I have a more traditional attitude regarding sex in media, displaying children in such a sexualized manner seems weird.

I think this commentary from Roaming Millennial covers how I feel about this phenomenon:

The “LGBT” phenomenon seems like a sex cult determined to destroy any boundaries around the intimate activity without thinking about why those boundaries are in place.  Maybe sexual expression should be kept between small groups of people who love one another rather than flaunted throughout media like a public event.

Did Professor Christine Ford lie while under oath?

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

Yesterday (10/2), the Wall Street Journal reported that the renewed FBI investigation into the allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh could be over “very soon, well ahead of the end-of-the-week deadline.”

This is not surprising considering that Senator Diane Feinstein had already approached the FBI with the allegations prior to Judge Kavanaugh’s planned confirmation hearing; the FBI had denied to investigate the allegations further.  The public has also seen a statement from Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona-based prosecutor hired by the Senate Republicans as an independent investigator, saying “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee.”  (See my previous blog entries for the sources.)

I mean no disrespect towards Professor Ford, whatever trauma she has experienced in the past.  If there is not enough evidence of the alleged crime, action should not be taken in her favor.  That is the unfortunate reality sex crimes, they are exceptionally difficult to prove.

A new development now brings Ford’s credibility into question: a letter from a person claiming to be an ex-boyfriend of then-Christine Blasey.

Screenshot_2018-10-03 Shannon Bream on Twitter

SOURCE: Shannon Bream, <https://twitter.com/shannonbream/status/1047293294567456770?s=21> (Twitter, 2018).

The author of the letter states at the end that he wishes to maintain his anonymity but still wanted to share what he knew about Ford.  If this person is who he says he is, there seems to be several things about Ford that contradict what the country saw and heard in Ford’s Senate testimony.

Professor Ford testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that she was hesitant to come to Washington D.C. because she has a fear of flying and it would have been nerve-racking for her.  This is despite the fact that Senator Chuck Grassley (the Judiciary Committee Chairman) offered to fly a team to her in California to record her testimony in a more comfortable location.  This letter, supposedly from Ford’s ex-boyfriend, reveals that Ford does not have a fear of flying or didn’t at that time.

Professor Ford was specifically asked by Rachel Mitchell in cross-examination if she has ever discussed how to take a polygraph test with anyone.  Ford responded, “never.”  This letter reveals that Ford assisted a friend of hers in obtaining a job in law enforcement.  The friend named as Monica L. McLean apparently had to take a polygraph as a condition of potential employment and Ford helped her prepare for the examination.  The letter reads that Ford was able to help her friend prepare for a polygraph due to her knowledge of psychology.

The latter revelation may be the most damning as it is a federal crime to provide false information to an government body during the course of an investigation, a crime that can carry a punishment of a fine or a 5-year imprisonment.

Did Professor Ford lie while under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Senator Grassley has re-submitted a request to Professor Ford’s lawyers for more evidence regarding Ford’s allegation.

Screenshot_2018-10-03 10 02 18-CEG-to-Ford-Attorneys pdf

SOURCE: Sean Davis, The Federalist, <http://confirmkavanaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/10.02.18-CEG-to-Ford-Attorneys.pdf> (2018).

Senator Grassley later explains to Ford’s lawyers:

“That the Senate is not a court of law doe not change the reality that Dr. Ford’s allegations have put Judge Kavanaugh on trial before the nation.  A sitting federal judge and Supreme Court nominee has been accused of committing a violent crime.  Dr. Ford, to her credit, offered her testimony to the Judiciary Committee, notwithstanding attempts at obstruction by her attorneys and Senate Democratic leadership.  The testimony hinges on evidence to which Dr. Ford has repeatedly referred – some of which has already been provided to a nationally circulated newspaper – but which you have refused to provide to the Senate.”

It seems strange that supposed evidence to a crime would be given to a national newspaper to be showcased before the whole country but not to an investigative body with the specific intent to investigate the allegation.

Why are Ford’s attorneys dragging their heels in cooperating with the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Another Week of Hyperbole and Slander from Clownish Jackasses

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

Another week, time for more hyperbole in media.  The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee caved to public pressure to delay Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The deciding vote to delay came Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) although he also stated somewhat definitively that he would eventually vote in Judge Kavanaugh’s favor.

Screenshot_2018-10-02 Flake Statement on SCOTUS Nomination - Press Releases - United States Senator Jeff Flake

SOURCE: Office of U.S. Senator Jeff Flake, <https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/9/flake-statement-on-scotus-nomination>, 2018.

A presumption of innocence?  Equality under the law?  It’s as if these concepts have become foreign to the over-sensitive activists we see advocating for entitlements, censorship, and uses of violence as an acceptable method of political maneuvering.  We need not look far to see the tactics of these feelings-based collectivists to see the violent nature behind their pathology.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and his wife attempting to enjoy some personal time together at a restaurant:

SOURCE: TicToc by Bloomberg, 2018.

Senator Flake leaving Tuesday’s (9/28) Senate committee hearing:

SOURCE: CNN, 2018.

These radical activists seem to believe that confronting people in an intimidating fashion at inopportune times is preferable to seeking out proper methods of communication and initiating contact like a civilized person.  My advice to anyone who finds themselves the target of an unapologetic mob is to NEVER SUBMIT TO THE MOB.  Either stand your ground and peacefully defend your political stance or walk away without acknowledging any of the mob’s sycophants.

Rachel Mitchell, the independent investigative counsel appointed by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, released a statement of her own regarding Professor Christine Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

Screenshot_2018-10-02 Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis pdf

SOURCE: Rachel Mitchell, legal memorandum, <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf>, 2018.

The document goes on to state:

“In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.  Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.  For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee.  Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard (Rachel Mitchell, memo, 2018).”
If these allegations have no legal standing, then the Senate Judiciary Committee should stop wasting the American people’s time with this charade and hold the vote to either confirm or deny Judge Kavanaugh.

4 Possible Corroborators for Kavanaugh Accuser, Problems still at Issue

Credit for cover image: BBC, 9/23/2018.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

The USA Today reported this morning that the legal team for Professor Christine Ford, Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s initial accuser, has four sworn statements from four different people corroborating the Palo Alto University professor’s allegation of sex assault at the hands of Judge Kavanaugh back in 1982 – one of the corroborators being Ford’s husband and the other three close friends.

“In documents sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee and obtained by USA TODAY, Ford’s attorneys present declarations from Ford’s husband, Russell, and three friends who support the California college professor’s accusation that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982.

The declarations will be used by Ford’s attorneys during a committee hearing on Thursday that could determine the fate of Kavanaugh’s embattled nomination.  He also faces a second accusation of sexual assault from Deborah Ramirez, who claims Kavanaugh exposed himself and pushed his genitals into her face at a drunken party during the 1983-84 academic year at Yale University.”

SOURCE: Steve Kiggins and Richard Wolf, USA Today, 9/26/2018.

While four sworn statements may be slightly more credible than one allegation on its own, the flaws in the Professor Ford’s initial allegation still have not been addressed.  Chief among them: the fact that the crime allegedly occurred over three decades ago making it incredibly difficult to track down specific corroboration from that area at that time, the lack of details regarding the specific place and time of the alleged crime, the apparent lack of consistency between Ford’s account to her therapist in 2012 and her recent account to U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, and the question of why the alleged victim waited so long to tell anyone about the crime.

There is also an issue with these four corroborators: they all were told of the alleged crime in the past five years (after Ford’s first telling of her account to her therapist in 2012) so it still does not answer the question of why she waited so long to come out.

This case surrounding Judge Kavanaugh has apparently spawned a discussion on Twitter under the hashtag “#WhyIDidntReport,” the discussion comprised of various women claiming to be victims of sex crimes explaining why they did not report the alleged crime to the police.  Most of the reasoning for not reporting seem to relate to the alleged victim’s emotional state at the time (which would obviously be distraught, I’m not denying that) as well as a distrust in the American justice system (which is flawed but still among the best on the world).

“Under the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport, thousands of women began recounting why it took them many years to talk about their attacks.  By Sunday, there had been 675,000 tweets.”

SOURCE:  British Broadcasting Corporation, 9/23/2018.

There is one thing that Professor Ford could have done to avoid all of this political drama currently playing out.  Assuming that she is telling the truth, she should have reported the crime as soon as possible (back in 1982).  Ford says she was in high school at the time.  Why didn’t she at least inform her parents of this horrible crime against her?

Regardless of the emotional state of the victim, reporting a sex crime as soon as possible after the fact is the best way to get the law on your side, it will significantly increase that chances that the alleged criminal will be caught by police.  This is true for all crime, the longer the victim waits to report it, the more difficult it will be for law enforcement to raise legal charges and obtain a conviction.

Tracing Transgenderism

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

Men and women are inherently different from each other.

^ The above statement may be considered offensive by many in the contemporary LGBT(Q+whatever) movement for absurd reasons that I don’t give one shit about and it raises the question of where this existentialist ideology began.

It can be traced to a psychologist, Dr. John Money (1921-2006), and a curious case of male twins (Brian and Bruce Reimer) born in 1965.

British Broadcasting Corporation, “Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis,” (September 2014).

Dr. Money specialized in sexology and had written case studies about hermaphrodites and sexual transitions.

The story begins with a botched circumcision on one of the twin boys, Bruce Reimer.  The infant’s penis was burnt off and the Reimer parents chose not to operate on the other twin.  The parents were distraught and did not know what to do for their son, Bruce.

The Reimer’s eventually learned about Dr. Money from a television program.  The psychologist convinced the parents to raise young Bruce as part of an experiment regarding nature versus nurture; Dr. Money wanted to prove a hypothesis revolving around childhood socialization and whether or not gender could be taught rather than simply born.  Prior to the Reimer twins, Dr. Money had not performed any clinical studies on non-hermaphrodites.

Here lies the initial problem with the experiment: it was an opportunity for an ambition.  It is understandable that the Reimer parents wished to give their deformed some a sense of normalcy in childhood but Dr. Money was seeking a chance to prove his hypothesis and exploited the tragedy of these parents’ situation.  It also seems like Dr. Money had the end-goal in mind from the start of the experiment.

Bruce Reimer’s early childhood was marked with visits to Dr. Money and forced socialization tactics (wearing female clothing, playing with supposedly female toys, etc.) in an effort to convince him of his female identity.  However; as Bruce grew into adolescence, he began to reject the socialization and revert backward to his original gender.  Apparently, Bruce hated his visits to Dr. Money and was grateful to his brother for letting him play with his (male) toys.

The story ultimately ends tragically with the deterioration of both brothers’ mental health and their deaths, although Dr. Money continued talk up his experiment as a success despite resistance from the young Bruce Reimer.  The moral of this story is one of hubris in which a scientist falls in love with his own hypothesis and goes to extreme lengths to prove it with the goal of being etched into the annals of history.  A particular personality or an identity cannot be forced onto a child because a person cannot be forced into an identity.  Any parent that forces their child into a specific role will most likely be met with resistance.  The idea that gender has no relation to biology is based on a lie.

Steven Crowder of late-night fame “Lowder with Crowder” ranted about this subject more in-depth.