Christine Blasey Ford’s Whitebread Anita Hill Shtick Is Beyond Tedious

Spread the love

Loading

by Stephen Kruiser

Some of the women whom Democrats pick to champion as paragons of the leftist feminist ideal don’t do as much for the cause as they think. As you can see by the headline, I’m thinking specifically of two women they plucked out of obscurity and threw in front of television cameras in the hope of taking down Republican-nominated Supreme Court nominees.

The incidents were 27 years apart and in very different media eras, but the goal was the same: find a female who has some unrequited fame you-know-what yearnings, and have her be the focal point of a smear campaign.

As soon as all of the Christine Blasey Ford nonsense began in 2018, those of us with good memories couldn’t help but think of the Anita Hill nonsense from 1991. OK, we really didn’t need to have good memories; the Democrats have been tasking their flying monkeys in the mainstream media with trotting out Professor Hill every few years to fuel their never-ending character assassination attempt against Clarence Thomas.

Now they are putting Christine Blasey Ford into the rotation. She’s revisiting her fiction about Justice Brett Kavanaugh with a memoir and a book tour.

Kevin reminded us last week that Ford never actually accused Kavanaugh of raping her. The Democrats’ narrative machine is so powerful that it made the rape story stick in the heads of the frothing leftist mob. Character assassination doesn’t have to be factual, after all. especially the way that the Dems do it.

Victoria wrote a column last weekend that delves into the creation of the narrative. It involves Mark Judge, who is supposed to have been the other person at Christine Blasey Ford’s alleged #MeToo incident:

At the time, Judge sent senators a letter stating that not only does he not want to testify about it, but wasn’t asked. He didn’t remember the incident at all and stated “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

He still maintains that this whole thing is BS, telling McCallum in a short teaser of the interview that he believes he was picked by Blasey-Ford’s narrative setters to be a witness.

Yes, they’re that devious. False narratives don’t make themselves.

There are only so many hit-piece memoirs that Christine Blasey Ford can write, but that doesn’t matter. She’s in the mix now. The Democrats’ dutiful media lapdogs will find a reason to write about or interview her every three years or so as long as Brett Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court. And she will make a lot of money off of her sham memoir.

As we are still seeing with the 2016 Russian collusion garbage, the Democrats have no hesitation whatsoever when it comes to repeating their lies that have been debunked. They marry their make-believe. It’s easy to do when so many in the media are unwilling to do their actual jobs.

Democrats are angry that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford were unable to get the job done, and they don’t take losing lightly. They will forever be looking for new ways to weaponize these women and bring them back to fluff the old allegations.

One of the more ridiculous aspects of these hit jobs is that these are the same people who have practically canonized Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

In her “interview”, I noticed that she no longer has her “little girl about to cry” voice. Has there been a Democrat accusation that has not turned out to be a massive lie? If they have to lie in order to have an issue, maybe those so slavishly following and supporting them would do well to reevaluate their loyalties.

The UN/Democrats/Globalists don’t want any Judge who is pro 2nd Amendment and Pro America they want only UN/Globalist Judges