By Carol Rushton

For weeks, the Western media has been engrossed in the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, sometime journalist and a critic of the government of Saudi Arabia, who entered the Saudi embassy in Istanbul, Turkey to obtain a marriage certificate to marry his fiancé and was never seen again. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s incessant accusations that the Saudi government murdered Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate finally led to the Saudis finally admitting the Khashoggi murder and rounding up a number of what are probably scapegoats the Saudi royal family will punish. The ones who ordered Khashoggi’s execution will probably never face a day in prison, much less a trial.

After more and more evidence emerged surrounding the circumstances of Khashoggi’s demise, the West including the United States joined President Erdogan’s condemnation of the Saudi government, the Saudi royal family specifically. The U.S. is currently reconsidering allowing Lockheed Martin to finalize a $15 billion deal with the Saudis for their Thaad air-defense system because of Khashoggi murder and the resulting cover-up.

Far be it from me to defend the Saudi government in this matter. The Saudi royal family has brutally suppressed their citizens for years. Saudi Arabia has had a horrible human rights record through the years. A human rights report for the year 2017 from the U.S. State Department states that Saudi Arabia is guilty of “unlawful killings, including execution for other than the most serious offenses and without requisite due process; torture; arbitrary arrest and detention, including of lawyers, human rights activists, and anti-government reformists; political prisoners. . .” and the list goes on and on and on (U.S. State Department, “Saudi Arabia 2017 Human Rights Report,” https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/277507.pdf, accessed November 22, 2017).

For example, in Saudi Arabia, if anyone is convicted of being a thief, their hand is cut off. If a woman is convicted of adultery she is publicly executed. This is no tall tale from One Thousand and One Arabian Nights. In 1978, the Saudi government confirmed that they had killed Princess Misha Abdul Aziz and her boyfriend the previous year for adultery. These offenses are all punishable under Islamic Law. But all this has been known by our government and presidents for decades, as well as by the leaders of European countries. Now the entire world is outraged about the Saudis murdering people? Please.

Don’t get me wrong, No one should walk into any embassy or consulate in the entire world and be murdered in any form or fashion. However, Turkey isn’t exactly a paragon of virtue when it comes to human rights, either. Didn’t the U.S. just spend two years trying to obtain the release of an American pastor from a Turkish prison on trumped up charges of terrorism? Providence Magazine carried an article on May 3, 2018, by Aykan Erdemir and Deniz Yuksel detailing Turkey’s long list of human rights violations. “US State Department Report Exposes Turkey’s Human Rights Abuses” reveals that Turkey is no better than the Saudis when it comes to oppressing their citizens.

The United States State Department released a report on April 20 detailing significant human rights abuses in Turkey, including the torture of detainees, forced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, and the detention of “tens of thousands” of individuals, including members of parliament as well as US consular staff in Turkey . . . The surge in abuses are a direct result of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s increasing authoritarianism and turn to brutish methods in the aftermath of a failed coup attempt in July 2016.

For almost two years, Erdogan has kept in place a state of emergency enabling him to rule by decree and trample on civil rights. To crush opposition, he has carried out a massive purge resulting in the dismissal of more than 100,000 civil servants and the arrest of over 50,000 individuals. As the State Department observes, Ankara fosters impunity by failing to investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators of human rights abuses . . .

The State Department’s report said prosecutors are using blanket accusations of terrorism, incitement or insulting the president to silence a broad range of critical voices including activists, journalists, academics, and politicians, mainly from the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP). These cases are often based on spotty evidence and feature an absence of due process, including attorney-client privilege . . . (emphasis mine)

Turkey is violating the rights of journalists? You don’t say!

I recently met a woman whose husband worked for NATO in the 1970s. They were stationed in Turkey for two years. The woman said that even back then they had to hide the fact that they were Christians. For instance, they were warned that they could not openly celebrate Christmas. They had to put their Christmas tree in a room that could not be seen from a window. During this time, the woman also said that two American soldiers were brutally murdered in cold blood in the streets of the Turkish city where they lived.

To top it off, American and European forces are currently fighting the Turks in Syria. So far, they have killed two American soldiers, one in 2016 and one in March of this year. Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black.

So what is really going on? Why is Turkey displaying this faux outrage over the Saudi government murdering someone when Turkey is just as guilty?

In order to understand why Turkey is supposedly so upset at Khashoggi’s murder, you have to understand some of the dynamics of the Middle East and the power struggle between the different Islamic countries in the region.

Kemal Ataturk founded the modern republic of Turkey as a secular Islamic state in the 1920s. While Ataturk may have had good intentions, it is impossible to have a secular country based upon Islam. The tenants of Islam constitute a theocracy and will eventually overthrow a secular state. This is what has happened in Turkey.

It wasn’t always this way. In the 1990s, Turkey and Israel conducted joint military operations on a regular basis. Israelis flocked to Turkey for vacations: It was close, cheap, clothes too expensive to buy in Israel were very reasonable in Turkey, and Jews were treated decently. Not any more. Islam’s increased influence on the population after Ataturk’s death has resulted in Turkey eventually electing a radical Islamic leader who is basically now ruling as a de facto dictator.

Turkey’s President Erdogan has aligned his country with Iran, a country extremely hostile to Israel and the US (I interpret crowds shouting “Death to Israel” and “Death to the US” as being extremely hostile) and a well-known sponsor of terrorist groups in the Middle East, including Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the Houthis who have taken over Yemen on Saudi Arabia’s southern border. Iran is in the process of conquering Iraq which no one is talking about now. Our former President Barak Obama decided to allow Iran to help us fight ISIS in Iraq, a huge mistake. Iran was never going to leave Iraq once they were inside. Now Iran is in control of large portions of Iraq, with Iranian military forces being able to move freely through Iraq to Syria and back. With Iranian military outposts established in Syria, Saudi Arabia must be feeling surrounded and threatened by Iran and its proxies.

Don’t forget that the Iranians are also Shi’ites. The Saudis are Sunnis and have been one of the few Arab/Islamic allies the US has in the Middle East. The Sunnis and Shi’ites, two different branches of Islam, have literally been at each other’s throats for hundreds of years. They both would love to kill the other one off – and I mean actually eradicate and annihilate the other party. The only thing that Sunnis and Shi’ites have been able to unite on through the years is their hatred for Israel and the Jews – at least until recently.

If Iran had murdered an Iranian journalist critical of their government in their embassy in Turkey, Turkey would have had no problem with it. Turkey would defend Iran to the hilt and come up with various scenarios to explain what had happened, no matter how implausible or ridiculous they sounded to us. Turkey’s condemnation of Saudi Arabia is simply an attempt to weaken the Saudi government and eventually cause the downfall and removal of the Saudi royal family so that Iran can either take over the country openly or install a puppet government like the one they have in Yemen and will probably soon have in Iraq.

Part of the reason for the Saudi royal family allowing the gradual Westernization of their kingdom – they recently allowed women to drive cars and to vote in local elections – is to try to forestall a civil war in their country. Khashoggi was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, the same terrorist group who murdered Egyptian President Anwar Sadat after he signed a peace treaty with Israel and who briefly ruled Egypt during the “Arab Spring” until they were ousted by Abdel el-Sisi, former commander of the Egyptian military. Khashoggi was no defender of freedom and liberty. The Saudis had a bird’s eye view of what happened to Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood. They could not allow that to happen in their country.

I honestly don’t know how big a threat Khashoggi was in fomenting civil unrest in Saudi Arabia that would have resulted in a coup or civil war. But the Saudi royal family obviously felt he was a huge threat or they would never have ordered his execution. On a recent program on Prophecy Watchers, Avi Lipkin stated that 90% of the Saudi people hate the royal family and supported Khashoggi. Avi concluded that although what the Saudi royal family did was despicable, this is normal behavior among Muslims in the Middle East, and it is in the best interests of the United States to keep the Saudi royal family in power.

I know this sounds very distasteful to Americans. I’m not exactly thrilled about it, either. But the Middle East is a totally different region, and except for Israel, is ruled overwhelmingly by brutal kings and dictators. The typical Middle Easterner views Western civilization and culture, which we value highly, with scorn and disdain. Arab/Islamic countries in the Middle East view Americans as weak and easily manipulated. If you are going to be a leader of an Arab/Islamic country in the Middle East, you have to be ruthless in order to survive. And the Saudi royal family wants to survive.

Sometimes, American presidents are faced with situations in which there are no good options, and this is one of them. While I hate to admit it, Avi is right. If the Saudi royal family is deposed, the US is in big trouble.

By Carol Rushton

When I was growing up, westerns were all the rage, both on television and in movie theaters. I didn’t watch many of these westerns as a child. In fact, I hated westerns. I loved music and musicals, so that’s what I migrated to, even when I became an adult. The closest I ever got to watching a western was the old TV show Dallas – which was actually a soap opera set in the 1980s, not in the American Old West.

Since I did not have a television all the years I lived in Israel, I was out of touch with what was going on in American culture and society and how it had influenced TV shows and movies during the 1990s. After I returned to the United States in 2000, I was shocked at how sexual debauchery was so easily accepted by the public on both the small and big screen. The longer I tried to watch TV, the fewer shows I watched. The shows were either stupid or sexually explicit or both, so much so that I in good conscience could not watch them. When the change from analog to digital was made, I didn’t replace the television given to me by friends.

I only have a computer now but a few years ago I decided to see if there were any old, clean TV shows or movies on YouTube that I could watch for free. I liked the theme music for The Big Valley, so I started watching the 1960 episodes of the show.

I discovered in watching The Big Valley that I have a new appreciation for the old westerns. These shows were absent of so many of the things I find so revolting in shows and movies made today. Swearing is rarely heard and no explicit sex scenes are shown. The most any of the characters do is kiss, way too tame for American audiences today. People actually thought that a relationship should lead to marriage. Imagine that. The main characters also exhibited a strong sense of decency and morality – right is right and wrong is wrong. These are things rarely seen on TV in 2018 America.

I also realized that these types of shows would never make it in today’s politically correct social environment. They would be quashed before they made it to the pilot stage, deemed too controversial for any studio to make.

For instance, there is the issue of how religion and morality are portrayed in The Big Valley. Even though the main characters are not our modern notion of born-again, evangelical Christians, they had a respect for Christians and the Church, as well as demonstrating and honoring values such as hard work, honesty, goodness, and virtue.

The very first episode has Barbara Stanwyck, that great American actress and the matriarch of the Barkley family, saying a prayer at the end of the show as the family is starting to eat breakfast. Horror of horrors! Someone call the ACLU! Some of the shows revolved around churches, ministers, and Christian themes, all treated with great respect (although is hard to swallow Linda Evans, the actress who went on to play Krystle Carrington in Dynasty, as a Bible teacher). I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth now by the atheists and secular humanists now. How dare the network put this show on the air! Think of all the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and atheists they are offending! I guess offending Christians and Jews is not important.

Then there is the matter of what is now called “cultural appropriation.” Imagine how Martin Landau (Mission Impossible) playing a Mexican, Katherine Ross (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) playing the daughter of a Mexican, Pernell Roberts (Bonanza) playing an Irishman, or Louise Sorel, a Jew and soap opera veteran, playing a gypsy would go over in today’s culturally sensitive atmosphere, not to mention how Mexicans, Greeks, Chinese, and Spaniards in post-Civil War California were portrayed. Silas, the only reoccurring black character, who is a servant in the Barkley home, would certainly not go over very well, either. The stereotypes portrayed in the show would have the social justice warriors outraged and horrified. They would come out in force to condemn the show, probably holding protests in front of the television studio.

Almost every man in the show wore a gun. Stanwyck, Evans, and other women were shown as shooting or handling guns and rifles as naturally as walking in the long, floor-length dresses of the time. The Brady Campaign would not be the only anti-gun group going after this show. The hew and cry against simply showing holsters and ammunition, much less actually shooting someone in self-defense, would be overwhelming.

Last but not least is the treatment of animals. Cattle drives, horses being whipped by reins to go faster, or even worse a steer being roasted on a spit would certainly raise the hackles of PETA and other animal rights groups. I shudder to think what they would do after seeing the episode in which Nick Barkley (Peter Breck) traps an eagle. They would have a cow!

The show would get no points for being strongly anti-slavery. For example, in the episode “Court Martial,” the Barkleys become involved in trying to catch a Confederate spy who helped to plan the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln (I won’t tell you how it ends but it’s a brilliant show, had me fooled to the end).

Nor would the show be praised for standing up for free speech. In one of the episodes, Jerrod Barkley (Richard Long), a lawyer and a son of Victoria Barkley (Stanwyck), decides to defend an anarchist, a very unpopular move among the town of Stockton’s residents, including his own family. Jerrod strongly condemns the anarchist’s viewpoint but just as staunchly defends the anarchist’s right to say what he believes. How novel.

It is not surprising that TV westerns have disappeared along with bell-bottom jeans and bouffant hairdos and will probably never return. Some Americans say that we have progressed beyond the archaic values shown in westerns, we are more sophisticated and educated. Americans have actually regressed, not progressed. Our country has rejected the morals and values our citizens once cherished and upheld, principles that are now viewed with scorn and derision. Certainly, technological and scientific achievements in the last 50 years have made our lives better and easier. But in many ways, our country has lost precious things which we may never be able to regain, things that can only be found in old TV westerns like The Big Valley.

By Carol Rushton

I usually do not address topics like this, but I felt compelled to after a recent discussion about this subject was raised in a group of Christian women.

We were studying a specific passage in the Book of Acts. I thought the passage was straightforward and found the resulting conversation about it fairly routine and boring. I wondered what the purpose was of talking about these few verses by Luke when someone casually mentioned that a Christian can never lose their salvation.

I discovered quickly why we were on this theme. All of the women agreed that no Christian can ever lose their salvation – except for one. She was very gracious when she spoke up, gently voicing her belief that if she had unconfessed sin in her life when she died, she would go to hell.

You talk about opening Pandora’s box. Some of the women jumped in right away to convince this errant one that she was mistaken and tried their best to convince her otherwise, using every argument they could think of. I couldn’t get a word in edgewise or I would have joined the fray.

I hope this young woman did not feel that the others were ganging up on her. I know this was not their intention. They were just concerned that she was living in fear that she could lose her salvation based upon her actions or non-actions.

Since I did not have an opportunity to address the subject of losing one’s salvation at the time, I thought I would take advantage of this forum to present my arguments about this issue.

First of all, none of us deserves salvation. No one has lived a perfect life except for Jesus Christ. No person in the history of the world ever has or ever will deserve the free gift that God gave us through Jesus’ shed blood on the cross and His resulting resurrection.

We don’t deserve salvation before we are saved, and we do not deserve salvation after we are saved. We cannot ever do anything to deserve our salvation. If the Lord is powerful enough to save someone in the first place, He is certainly powerful enough to keep that person saved after they become a Christian. If the Lord is not powerful enough to keep us saved, then He isn’t powerful enough to save us at all. The Lord can either save us or He can’t, period. Salvation does not depend upon us, what we do or do not do; it depends upon the Lord and only Him and His finished work on the cross.

The Lord Jesus Christ made that very clear in John 10:27-29. “My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is great than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”

We cannot be saved one moment and then unsaved the next. Quoting from one of my favorite TV shows, “it is illogical.”

Second, God is not two-faced. He doesn’t promise someone something and then yank it away at the first opportunity, the first time you fail or sin after you become a Christian. How cruel it would be for the Lord to promise us something and then go back on His word.

For instance, I know someone who is an Indian giver. They will give something to someone and sooner or later will demand back whatever they gave. I don’t like accepting things from this person because I never know if they are going to ask for something to be returned.

God is not an Indian giver. He is not going to offer mankind salvation by accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior and then turn around and say, “Sorry, I was just kidding! The joke’s on you! I didn’t really mean it.” When a Christian says they can lose their salvation, they are actually accusing God of being an Indian giver.

One case in point is Israel. The Jews have failed the Lord time and time again. While the Lord has judged the Jews many times throughout history, He has not abandoned them. Just look at the nation of Israel today. This tiny little country is a modern miracle. Thousands of years ago the Lord promised in the Scriptures that He would return the Jews to their land in the latter days, and He has. Although God has been angry with them, as He is sometimes with us, He boldly assured the Jews He would one day fulfill the promises He made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He will, if for no other reason than past performance. If God has kept His promises to the Jews so far, He will keep the rest of them as well.

God is the most powerful Being that has ever existed. He is eternal, immortal. He existed before time began, and He will exist long after time has ceased. He is so powerful that He could create the universe from nothing and hold it together.

If the Lord is powerful enough to create an entire universe and everything in it, if He is powerful enough to keep His promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Jews after all these thousands of years, is He not powerful enough to also keep His promise of salvation to those who accept it?

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast – Ephesians 2:8-9.

By Carol Rushton

Modern Israeli history since the late 19^th century is filled with many different personalities and colorful characters. One of these was Meir Dizengoff, the first mayor of Tel Aviv.

Meir Dizengoff was born in Russia in 1861. When he was old enough, he joined the Russian military and served for two years. Young and idealistic, Dizengoff afterward became involved in a revolutionary group, The People’s Will, not exactly popular with the czarist government. After a brief stint in prison for his activist activities, Dizengoff eventually decided to channel his energies into the Zionist movement that was beginning to take off in the late 19^th century. He became a devoted follower of Theodore Herzl, although he disagreed with Herzl’s proposal to establish a Jewish state in Uganda.

Dizengoff came to pre-state Israel in 1892 to start a glass factory for Baron Edmond de Rothschild, the idea being that the bottles would be used by local wineries. Although the glass factory failed (the sand in the area was unfit for making glass) and Dizengoff subsequently returned to Russia, the lessons he learned and the contacts he made would not be wasted.

Dizengoff became involved in the World Zionist Congresses being held by Herzl at that time. Dizengoff could not stay away from Israel and was one of the driving forces in establishing a homeland for the Jews on their ancient lands. He founded two companies to help Jews in Israel. The Geulah Company acquired land in the Holy Land for Jews in the Diaspora to purchase; Ahuzat Bayit bought land in northern Israel to help start Jewish communities outside of the Jaffa area, the beginnings of the city of Tel Aviv.

Dizengoff returned with his family to Israel in 1905 to stay and became a very successful businessman. He eventually became involved in local politics and was elected the first mayor of the new city of Tel Aviv in 1921, a post he held except for about 3 years until the end of his life in 1936. After a series of Arab riots, he insisted that pre-state Israel government offices should be located in Tel Aviv and saw that the city had its own port separate from the one at Jaffa.

Dizengoff was also a visionary. When Tel Aviv was just a bunch of sand, he would grab anyone he could get to listen and tell them that one day that lonely, empty stretch of beach would someday be filled with beautiful, first-class hotels circling around it as far as the eye could see, where tourists from all over the world would come to stay at them and play on the beaches. Most people probably thought Dizengoff was crazy. But when tourists come to Israel today, many of them arrive at the Ben Gurion Airport, which Dizengoff insisted be built, and spend their first night at one of the hotels Dizengoff could see in his mind’s eye.

Dizengoff was not only a dreamer who did everything within his power to make sure his dreams came true, he was a force to be reckoned with. If it had not been for him, Tel Aviv would not exist today. The city did not forget Dizengoff’s great contribution. Meir Park, Dizengoff Square, and Dizengoff Street were all named after Dizengoff and his wife. A statue of Dizengoff riding his horse stands on Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv.

Dizengoff could not stop from being at the center of the history of Israel, even after his death. When his beloved wife Zina died in 1930, he donated their house to the city which turned it into an art museum. David Ben Gurion announced the creation of the modern State of Israel on May 14, 1948 from the Dizengoffs’ former house. It is now known as Independence Hall.

by Carol Rushton

Remember the good old days, when Bill Clinton was in the oval office and a president sexually attacking and harassing women was dismissed by Democrats as “just sex”?

The multiple sex charges against Bill Clinton by Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinsky, and others (in the case of Broaddrick, she accused Clinton of brutally raping her twice) didn’t bother the Democrats or liberal media outlets one bit. Clinton’s accusers were dismissed and discredited as liars and psychos. Even after the affair with Lewinsky became public, Democrats insisted that a president of the United States rolling around on the floor of the oval office with someone other than his wife did not affect his job performance so it was no big deal.

Consider the affairs and mistresses of FDR, JFK, Robert Kennedy, LBJ, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton. According to Democrats, these men were all so great, what harm is there in having some fun once in a while and letting off a little steam? After all, boys will be boys.

The latest Democrat to become involved in a similar scandal is Keith Ellison, a divorced Muslim congressman from Minnesota and deputy chair of the Democrat Party. Ellison is facing domestic abuse charges by his ex-girlfriend – and she has pictures. The response from Democrats? One big, collective-progressive yawn.

It has been hard to watch the hypocrisy of the left in their accusations against President Trump as they have charged him with sexual scandal after sexual scandal after sexual scandal, viscously attacking him for immoral acts the president vigorously denies, the same immoral acts that the Democrats have condoned by their own party members time after time. The same Democrats who loudly protested Clinton’s numerous peccadillos as “it’s just sex” now passionately proclaim their new-found righteous indignation when porn stars and prostitutes allege numerous trysts with our current president. Hardly a day goes by that some new charge against President Trump, usually of a sexual nature, is blazoned on websites across the political spectrum.

Isn’t it remarkable that in the last 20 years, the Democrats and liberal media have become very concerned about moral issues? At least where Republicans are concerned.

Not content to try to destroy the president, his marriage, and his family, Democrats have now turned their sights to Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh. At the eleventh hour, they have revealed a charge of sexual harassment from at least 35 years ago when Kavanaugh, and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, were in high school. Democrats who refused to consider seriously the women who related sexual affairs or attacks by Bill Clinton have no problem believing Ford and tarring Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh has already been vetted by the FBI six times because of his past positions in government service, including as senior associate counsel to President George W. Bush. When the FBI investigates you for a position in the federal government, you have to provide the agency with every address at which you have ever lived, every school you ever attended, every job you have ever held, names of family members, friends, acquaintances, teachers, classmates, employers, etc. You have to fill out pages and pages of documents, enough to give the old phone books a run for their money. The rigorous investigation a person has to endure to serve in the federal government is enough to deter most people from serving in public office. It’s inconceivable that an incident like this could have happened sometime in Kavanaugh’s past and the FBI not discover it.

How far back in someone’s past is the FBI supposed to investigate to find criminal behavior? Elementary school? Kindergarten? Preschool? The womb?

Christine Ford’s lack of recall of important details of the incident is very troubling. She can’t recall the time or place or specific details about the incident. She has also changed her story over time. She told a therapist some years ago about a sexual attack but there were four boys she recalled at that time. She never mentioned names. Now she says there were two, and Brett Kavanaugh was one of them. The other man she names, Mark Judge, says he has no recollection of the incident at all.

Kavanaugh says the incident never happened and is willing to testify in an open hearing before Congress. Not Ford. She and her lawyer are insisting the FBI conduct a full investigation into an incident that happened 35 years ago BEFORE she testifies. Debra Katz, Ford’s extremely leftist lawyer, says Ford should not have to testify in front of Congress so soon. Not so fast, her defense team demurs. What’s the hurry? We’ve just come out with this charge after only 35 years. Our client should have more time to prepare for a hearing, and under certain conditions. After all, since Ford is the victim, she gets to set the terms.

First of all, it is absolutely ludicrous to expect the FBI to investigate a 35-year-plus incident when the accuser can only give a vague narrative of what happened and cannot provide essential details necessary to the case. How in the world can the FBI determine what actually happened when the alleged victim bringing the charge can’t remember important details? What evidence proving Ford’s charges against Kavanaugh could possibly be presented after all this time? On these two counts alone, the FBI has been wise to reject Ford’s and the Democrats’ pleas.

Secondly, if Ford is telling the truth, wouldn’t she welcome the opportunity to present her case before Congress as soon as possible and not take any chances that a sexual predator would soon be serving on the country’s highest court?

Kavanaugh should have the right to face his accuser and have the chance to publicly defend himself. The fact that Ford wants to charge someone with sexually attacking them after 35 years but then coyly refuse to appear in public to present evidence and facts supporting that charge undermines her believability and credibility as the alleged victim. The over 100 women who have known and worked with Kavanaugh through the years and who have publicly signed letters supporting him publicly should also be taken into consideration.

Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is right in refusing to buckle to Ford’s and her lawyers’ ludicrous demands to drag this out for who knows how long. He correctly recognizes this as an attempt to sabotage Kavanaugh’s appointment and nothing more. It is Grassley, Kavanaugh, and the Republicans who are being bullied by Ford and her defense team, not the other way around.

Thirdly, President Trump added Kavanaugh to his list of possible Supreme Court nominees in 2017. If Ford was so concerned about him being on the Supreme Court, as she claims, why didn’t she say something then? Why did she wait until now? Why didn’t she say something before Kavanaugh was appointed to DC Court of Appeals by Bush in 2006? Bush nominated him in 2003. Ford had three years to bring up a sexual assault charge before he ascended to the appeals’ bench and 12 years since that time. Why did she keep silent?

Last of all, one of the main principles in our country is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is to guard against mob rule and vigilantes. It is to protect innocent people from being punished unjustly based on emotion and not facts and evidence. It is to prevent an overbearing, tyrannical government from throwing innocent people in prison without a trial. The Democrats are trying to eradicate hundreds of years of one of the main pillars of Western civilization. It is one of the precepts that separate us from barbaric regimes like China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran.

Ford cries that she shouldn’t have to remember certain facts and details about the attack. “I’ve been trying to forget this all my life and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” Ford whined.

A sexual attack is a deeply traumatizing experience for a woman. The details are seared in her memory forever. You never forget what happened. You never forget the details. You can’t. I know, because I was sexually molested when I was 16.

I remember when it happened, where it happened, how it happened, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and every horrifying detail to this very day. I remember what happened before and what happened afterward. I can never forget it, even though it happened decades ago. Woman after woman who has called in to conservative talk shows over the past week who have been raped or sexually attacked corroborate what I have said. They also can never forget.

Ford’s not remembering the details ring hollow. The witnesses she claims were there at the party where the sexual attack occurred do not back her account. They claim it didn’t happen, further undermining Ford’s story. At this point, it is hard to ascribe to her any credibility at all. We also have to consider Ford’s political leanings, which are very liberal. Kavanaugh’s mother was the presiding judge that resulted in Ford’s parents losing their home in a foreclosure suit. These facts certainly could be two powerful motives for wanting to derail Kavanuagh’s nomination.

The second accuser who – surprise! – has her own story to tell about a sexual attack by Kavanaugh is not any more credible than Ford. Deborah Ramirez admits to be being drunk at the party where she alleges the incident with Kavanaugh took place. A woman who claims she was Ramirez’s best friend for years says Ramirez never once mentioned this story to her.

Since the Democrats don’t have the votes to deny Kavanaugh from being appointed, they are willing to crush him and his family to sabotage his nomination, no matter who it hurts in the process. To try to deliberately destroy someone, whether it is our president, Judge Kavanaugh, or anyone else simply because you disagree with them politically is absolutely despicable.

If you’re going to bring a charge about something that happened 30-40 years ago, you better have facts and very good ones to support your case if you expect people to believe you. The reason people tend to believe the accusers in the cases of Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, and Bill Cosby is the preponderance of the numbers of women who have come forward and the similar circumstances of the incidents among the scores of the victims involved. It’s hard to dismiss 30 to 40 women who tell pretty much the same story in each case.

Do not be fooled. The Democrats will produce as many women as they have to in order to ensure Brett Kavanaugh will never serve on the Supreme Court.