Spot the Glaring Contradictions Between Ford’s Written Allegations Against Kavanaugh?

By Townhall. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s polygraph examination results were released on Wednesday. The polygraph was conducted on Aug. 7 by Virginia-based examiner Jeremiah Hanafin. . .

In her July 30th letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ford said, “The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and 4 others.”

In her Aug. 7th polygraph letter, she said, “There were 4 boys and a couple of girls.”

. . .

In the Feinstein letter, Ford said, “Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stairwell from the living room.”

In the the polygraph letter, Ford said, “At that point I was pushed into the bedroom by two persons into a bedroom and was locked in the room and pushed onto a bed.” (Read more from “Spot the Glaring Contradictions Between Ford’s Written Allegations Against Kavanaugh?” HERE)

___________________________________________________

Christine Blasey Ford’s Opening Statement: ‘I Believed He Was Going to Rape Me’

By ABC News. In prepared testimony released before Thursday’s showdown hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford said she is “terrified,” but considers giving her account of what she has said was his sexual assault on her when they were both in high school part of her “civic duty.”

In her prepared testimony, Ford says, “I believed he was trying to rape me,” referring to an incident she has said happened at house party in the 1980s, during which she said a drunken Kavanaugh, along with another teenager, locked her in a room, and that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and covered her mouth to keep her from screaming for help. (Read more from “Christine Blasey Ford’s Opening Statement: ‘I Believed He Was Going to Rape Me'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Rare Mutation Makes Wild Copperhead Twice as Deadly

By Conservative Tribune. Copperhead snakes are already dangerous, but there’s a mutation that arguably makes one found recently twice as deadly.

In a statement released last week, the Wildlife Center of Virginia announced the discovery of a copperhead with two fully-developed heads. If you’re not a big fan of snakes, you might want to skip this article.

The snake was found in the northern part of the state, and was then quickly secured by a state herpetologist.

The center studied the serpent, finding that “it appears as though the left head is more dominant — it’s generally more active and responsive to stimulus.” Both heads appear to be able to eat and breathe, although the “dominance” of the left head could complicate things.

Although there’s only one set of lungs and a single heart in the body, both heads have their own trachea and esophagus. Radiographs of the snake show the eerie mutation in detail. (Read more from “Rare Mutation Makes Wild Copperhead Twice as Deadly” HERE)

___________________________________________________

North Carolina Man Chops Copperhead Snake Into ‘a Dozen Pieces’ After It Bites Family Dog

By Fox News. Brian Lewis felt a sense of panic when his dog’s loud barks in the backyard “suddenly stopped” last week. He rushed outside to discover his pup, Winnie, had been injured. . .

Lewis rushed Winnie to a nearby animal hospital, which confirmed his suspicion and treated the canine for a copperhead bite. . .

After returning from the vet, a furious Lewis found the copperhead likely responsible for the attack in his backyard and smashed it with a shovel.

“[The snake] was in about a dozen pieces before I regained my composure,” Lewis admitted to WNCN-News.

Winnie has been treated with antibiotics and pain medication. She hobbled around for days after the incident, but Lewis said she’s now on the mend. (Read more from “North Carolina Man Chops Copperhead Snake Into ‘a Dozen Pieces’ After It Bites Family Dog” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Critic: Kavanaugh Fiasco Proves Trump Voters Were Actually Right All Along

. . .However, Trump critic Rich Lowry may have just presented the clearest outline of why the nation needed a President Trump at this time in our history and why he continues to have the support of Americans across the nation.

On Tuesday, National Review published Lowry’s editorial in which he makes no bones about the atrocity the Kavanaugh hearings have become and why the “political assassination of Brett Kavanaugh is bad for the country, but good for a Trumpian attitude toward American politics.”

While many of us knew it before, it took the very public Kavanaugh “political assassination” for people to get a tangible grasp on just how low the left has sunk in their efforts to regain power and further drag the country into a socialist state.

It also switched on the lightbulb of those anti-Trumpers who before could not understand why anyone would support him under any conditions, but now are reconsidering their views on the president.

In short, they realized President Trump was right. Suddenly things were very clear. “The last-minute ambush validates key assumptions of Donald Trump’s supporters that fueled his rise and buttress him in office, no matter how rocky the ride has been or will become,” Lowry wrote. (Read more from “Trump Critic: Kavanaugh Fiasco Proves Trump Voters Were Actually Right All Along” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Can We All Agree Now That the Supreme Court Has Too Much Power?

Why are the Democrats fighting so hard to prevent the president from performing his constitutional function of nominating Supreme Court justices and the Senate from performing its function to advise and consent? Why the nuclear warfare over the weakest branch of government while both parties amicably agree about the power of the purse, which is manifestly more important and impactful?

It has become clear that every Supreme Court vacancy will trigger the type of thermonuclear fight we are seeing today. And for good reason. If we are going to crown the Supreme Court as God with the ability to immutably determine the outcome of every issue until the end of times, then you better believe there will be a no-holds-barred brawl over every nominee. But it’s only a fight because we’ve placed the outcome of the entire political war in the hands of “the Anthony Kennedy seat.”

The Founders would laugh at such a spectacle over a Supreme Court nominee. It’s not that they didn’t engage in mortal combat over politics. The presidential election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson took the cake. It’s just that they only envisioned such desperate politicking over offices that actually mattered to the character of the nation, such as the election of a president. The Supreme Court did not hold such offices.

Here is how much influence the Supreme Court had besides interpreting banal statutes, back when we followed the blueprint accepted by our nation in 1789.

Just as the nascent republic was getting off the ground in April 1789, James Wilson, one of the greatest Founders and perhaps the greatest legal mind of the generation, personally lobbied President Washington to be nominated as chief justice of the United States. It’s not that he thought this position would be on par or even greater than that of president. It’s that as the consummate legal nerd of his time, Wilson felt his calling in life was to adjudicate complex cases and controversies, not to be a politician. Unlike the other Founders of similar prominence, he is the only one never to have served in a political position after the government was established.

Interestingly, Washington passed over Wilson for the job and instead selected John Jay. Jay was a flashy diplomat, politician, and war hero but was clearly not a scholar like Wilson. Washington did selected Wilson as one of the original associate justices, and it was during his time on the court that he delivered his famed series of legal lectures, among the most scholarly legal works in American history.

During Jay’s six years on the court, he heard only four cases. He was mainly preoccupied with politics. He even served as acting secretary of state for the first six months of his tenure as chief justice. He left the court even before George Washington retired, eventually became governor of New York, and launched a failed bid for president. He was a politician at heart, and at the time, the last place for an ambitious politician was the Supreme Court. He hated the job of chief justice. Then, in 1801, President John Adams offered Jay the opportunity to return as chief justice. Jay responded in a way that nobody in Washington could relate to today, but is nonetheless very revealing as to the power of the federal courts during our founding generation:

Such was the temper of the times, that the Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States was in some respects more accommodated to certain prejudices and sensibilities, than to the great and obvious principles of sound policy. Expectations were nevertheless entertained that it would be amended as the public mind became more composed and better informed; but those expectations have not been realized, nor have we hitherto seen convincing indications of a disposition in Congress to realize them. On the contrary, the efforts repeatedly made to place the judicial department on a proper footing have proved fruitless.

I left the bench perfectly convinced that under a system so defective it would not obtain the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government, nor acquire the public confidence and respect which, as the last resort of the justice of the nation, it should possess.

Jay turned down a life-tenured job as chief justice because he felt the courts had no ability to shape politics, and as a politician, he found such a job unappealing. Also, remember that Congress controls the entire jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (except for a few cases), and Jay lamented that Congress barely gave it any power in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which wasn’t signed into law until after Jay had already accepted the position as chief justice.

To give you a sense of how unremarkable the high court was at the time, James Wilson himself, while sitting on the court, spent time in debtor’s prison because of bankruptcy. Talk about prestige!

The moral of the story? All the power over politics and the judiciary itself lies with Congress. So if we are going to tear each other apart and destroy people in the court of public opinion in pursuit of power, let’s at least confine this spectacle to congressional and presidential elections, where the consequences are directly determined by voters. Why outsource our political warfare to an unelected branch, when the entire purpose of not electing judges was to ensure that politics never seeped into the courts in the first place? (For more from the author of “Can We All Agree Now That the Supreme Court Has Too Much Power?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Admin Continues Pro-Life Agenda, Cancels Contract to Buy Aborted Baby Parts

The Trump administration has severed its connection with a company that was linked to the scandal in which Planned Parenthood harvested the parts of aborted children to sell to researchers.

The Department of Health and Human Services announced the decision on Monday.

“After a recent review of a contract between Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc. and the Food and Drug Administration to provide human fetal tissue to develop testing protocols, HHS was not sufficiently assured that the contract included the appropriate protections applicable to fetal tissue research or met all other procurement requirements. As a result, that contract has been terminated,” HHS said in a statement.

The company was working with the Food and Drug Administration, NBC reported, in a deal that became public in August, creating a firestorm of protest from some pro-life groups.

Last week, 85 members of Congress made their concerns about the contract known to FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb.

“We are alarmed that the FDA has continued to award contracts to ABR for the procurement of human fetal tissue,” the letter said.

“Unborn children are not commodities to be bought and sold,” it continued. “The practice of conducting research using the body parts of children whose lives have been violently ended by abortion is abhorrent.”

The statement issued to announce the end of the ABR contract said HHS is reviewing all aspects of its human fetal tissue purchases “to ensure conformity with procurement and human fetal tissue research laws and regulations.”

HHS also said it was “continuing to review whether adequate alternatives exist to the use of human fetal tissue in HHS funded research and will ensure that efforts to develop such alternatives are funded and accelerated.”

The announcement was received with mixed grades by David Daleiden at the Center for Medical Progress, which in 2015 produced a series of undercover videos showing the extent of Planned Parenthood’s involvement in selling the parts of the children who were aborted.

“So long as HHS trades taxpayer dollars for freshly-aborted baby body parts, the U.S. government is setting its own abortion quotas and sending the message that these children are worth more dead than alive,” he said in a statement, which said the contract with ABR “never should have been signed in the first place.”

“HHS has taken a small first step to stop the epidemic of trafficking tiny baby hearts, lungs, livers, and brains from late-term abortion clinics into government-sponsored laboratories for taxpayer-funded experimentation,” the statement said.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said the action is a good step, but many more are needed.

“Canceling a single contract and conducting a review is a small step forward, but overall is completely inadequate,” she said.

In 2017, the Justice Department began investigating Planned Parenthood’s sales of fetal issue, The New York Times reported.

Daleiden said that the Justice Department must finish the job HHS started and “follow through on the criminal referrals” for entities that were selling fetal tissue from aborted children. (For more from the author of “Trump Admin Continues Pro-Life Agenda, Cancels Contract to Buy Aborted Baby Parts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Teen Survives Seven Weeks Adrift at Sea Reading Bible, Catching Fish

An Indonesian teen survived seven weeks at sea drifting on a wooden fishing hut from off the coast of Indonesia to the waters near the U.S. territory of Guam, a distance of approximately 2000 miles.

Aldi Novel Adilang, 19, was working on a floating fishing trap (known as a rompong) anchored some 77 miles off Indonesia’s Sulawesi island when the rope tethering him to the seabed broke on July 14 due to high winds, sending him adrift, the BBC reported.

“My rompong’s rope snapped after it rubbed against my friend’s rompong,” said Adilang, who spoke to BBC Indonesian from his parents’ house near the city of Manado in North Sulawesi. “Unfortunately he was asleep so he didn’t know I was adrift.”

The rompong didn’t have a motor or paddle, and the teen drifted off to sea. His supplies consisted of about a week’s worth of food and water, a two-way radio, and a Bible.

“Rice, clean water, spices, cooking gas, and other supplies ran out. To survive I caught fish and burned the rompong’s wooden fences to make a fire for cooking. I even ate raw fish,” he told the BBC.

Adilang drank seawater to stay hydrated, filtering it through wet clothing he had on board to make it safer and more palatable.

The teen said he offered many tearful prayers to God that he would be rescued so he could see his mother and father again.

He also read his Bible and sang Christian songs.

He despaired at one point and considered committing suicide by jumping into the sea, but his faith helped him overcome the temptation.

Fajar Firdaus, a diplomat at the consulate in Osaka, Japan, told The Jakarta Post that more than ten ships passed Adilang during his time on open waters until on Aug. 31 he was able to get the attention of Panamanian flagged freighter.

He managed to dial his radio to the vessel’s frequency and signaled for help.

“According to video posted by a crew member, (Adilang’s) distress message — ‘Help Help Help’ — reached the cargo ship’s chief mate, Emmanuel Soriano, who informed the captain, Narciso Santillan — who ordered the ship to change course to carry out a rescue operation,” NPR reported.

Once aboard, the teen received food, water, clothing and a haircut.

The ship’s crew took him with them to their next stop, the port of Tokuyama, Japan, on Sept. 6,

From there he was flown to Tokyo and then on to Indonesia, where Adilang was reunited with his family.

The teen has no plans to return to his old job. (For more from the author of “Teen Survives Seven Weeks Adrift at Sea Reading Bible, Catching Fish” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Panicking NYT Deletes Source Name, Caught Hiding Game-Changing Facts on Kavanaugh

It has become transparently obvious over the past two weeks that Democrats and their liberal media allies are engaged in a coordinated effort to smear Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh with vague allegations of sexual misconduct designed solely to derail his nomination to the high court.

Perhaps in a bid to help bolster the crumbling narrative surrounding California professor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s 36-year-old unsubstantiated accusations against Kavanaugh, The New York Times just did a purported deep dive into Kavanaugh’s 1983 high school yearbook from Georgetown Preparatory School.

The Times heavily implied in the article that Kavanaugh and his friends were some kind of sex-obsessed gang that openly bragged in the yearbook about their sexual conquests, especially with regard to one female student in particular named Renate Schroeder Dolphin, as they referred to themselves in a group picture as “Renate Alumni.”

But as Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist painstakingly pointed out, there are several glaring problems with the article from The Times that have rendered the story “fake news” and, if The Times had any integrity left, would seem to merit a full retraction and issuance of public apologies, rather than a handful of quiet and unexplained edits.

The first problem appears to be that The Times attempted to delete the name of a source for their smear against Kavanaugh and his friends. The original online post of the article cited a source named only as “Mr. Madaleno,” a singular reference to the source that has since been completely deleted from subsequent versions of the article, according to a site known as NewsDiffs that tracks such changes via online archives.

Standard editorial procedure for The Times is to introduce a source by their full name when first mentioned in an article, followed by the individual’s last name and title for any future references to them. However, any such reference to “Mr. Madaleno” is decidedly lacking in this piece by The Times.

Hemingway pointed out that the “Mr. Madaleno” in question is most likely a Georgetown Prep classmate of Kavanaugh’s named Richard S. Madaleno Jr., a Maryland state senator who is virulently anti-Trump and just unsuccessfully ran for governor in the state on a platform that consisted largely of touting how his being gay and progressive would “infuriate” President Donald Trump.

Considering Madaleno’s obvious animus toward all things Trump, ethics would seem to dictate that The Times identify him so readers could gauge his particular motivations for making claims against Kavanaugh. Yet they did not, nor did they provide any explanation for why not or why his name was ultimately deleted completely from the article.

Furthermore, The Times also left unmentioned in the piece several key pieces of information that contradict or undermine the claims made by the article, such as the fact that another source who was actually named, William Fishburne, was an active campaign surrogate on behalf of Madaleno’s failed gubernatorial bid, a rather pertinent fact that again goes toward motivation.

On top of that, The Times also cited a classmate named Sean Hagan as condemning the jokes in the yearbook about Dolphin, but failed to note that Hagan was the editor of that yearbook — and thus allowed what was written to be published — or that he is friends on Facebook with Madaleno and “likes” socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and other anti-Trump pages.

The article did mention that “(Dolphin) and a second friend of Ms. Dolphin’s denied that there was any sexual contact between Ms. Dolphin and Judge Kavanaugh or anyone else in his circle,” but failed to include a similar statement of denial issued by Kavanaugh’s friends, which stated in part, “None of us has ever taken part in any kind of verbal conduct or physical actions described by the Times and never bragged about or suggested any such thing.”

Indeed, the men all insisted that there was nothing sexual about the references to “Renate” in the yearbook, but merely a notation that all of the friends had at one point or another dated, danced with or kissed Dolphin … all completely innocent behavior for teenage high school boys and girls.

Some of the men even claimed to have remained good friends with Dolphins over the years since then as well, all of which would undermine the narrative that she was some sort of sexual conquest the group of boys was bragging about and disrespecting.

“The New York Times’ callous treatment of the yearbook references to our friend have now destroyed relationships that span four decades. These friendships can’t be recovered and will never be replaced. The anguish caused to our friend is immeasurable; the loss of her trust and respect is devastating,” said one of the group members, who requested anonymity out of fear that The Times and the left would retaliate against him.

The New York Times purports to be the “paper of record,” but they appear to have been caught red-handed in an obvious hit job on Kavanaugh that is disgustingly beneath a supposedly objective media outlet with integrity.

In all likelihood, this article by The Times never should have been published, at least not in the manner that it was, and now The Times is panicking as they attempt to clear up yet another brightly blinking example of their slanted liberal bias and apparent animus toward Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, which in all honesty is just a useful extension of their base anti-Trump bias. (For more from the author of “Panicking NYT Deletes Source Name, Caught Hiding Game-Changing Facts on Kavanaugh” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Nikki Haley Just Revealed What Happened After UN Members Laughed at Trump

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said the news media completely missed or misrepresented what happened when members of the U.N. General Assembly laughed at one point during President Donald Trump’s address to the body Tuesday.

Shortly into his remarks, Trump said, “In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.”

Laughter could be heard in the audience, prompting the president to say, “Didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s OK,” which drew laughter and applause from the U.N. crowd.

Ainsley Earhardt, host of Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” asked Haley about the moment during Wednesday’s show.

“I know you were in the room when the laugh happened,” Earhardt said. “Sometimes the media can portray it as one thing and it’s not that at all. What was it like and why that reaction?”

“The media’s got this so wrong,” Haley responded. “I deal with these leaders every single day. I know exactly how they think.”

The ambassador explained the world leaders at the U.N. do not love America, but they respect the U.S. since Trump has become president.

“When he said that, they love how honest he is,” Haley said. “It’s not diplomatic and they find it funny. I mean, when he goes and he is very truthful, they kind of were taken back by it. …

“All day yesterday, they were falling over themselves to get a picture with him, to talk about how great his speech was, how strong it was. Whether he said good things about them or not, they love that he’s honest with them, and they’ve never seen anything like it, and so there’s a respect there.”

The ambassador further observed, “I saw that the media was trying to make it something disrespectful. That’s not what it was — they love to be with him.”

During his address, Trump listed accomplishments of his administration, including a booming economy, with the highest stock market in U.S. history and the lowest jobless claims numbers in 50 years, and the rebuilding of the nation’s defenses.

“In other words, the United States is stronger, safer and a richer country than it was when I assumed office less than two years ago,” the president said. “We are standing up for America and for the American people, and we are also standing up for the world.”

Trump went on to argue for the importance of national sovereignty over global governing structures.

“That is why America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination,” he said.

The president cited multiple instances in which the U.S. is working with other nations with the intent to make the world a safer, more prosperous place.

These include efforts to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and normalize relations between North and South, as well as working with Middle East nations to end the civil wars in Yemen and Syria.

The commander in chief also outlined initiatives his administration has taken to address the threats posed by Iran to the stability of the region and the world.

“The United States has launched a campaign of economic pressure to deny the regime the funds it needs to advance its bloody agenda,” he said. “Last month, we began reimposing hard-hitting nuclear sanctions that had been lifted under the Iran deal. … And we’re working with countries that import Iranian crude oil to cut their purchases substantially.

“We cannot allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to possess the planet’s most dangerous weapons. We cannot allow a regime that chants ‘Death to America’ and that threatens Israel with annihilation to possess the means to deliver a nuclear warhead to any city on Earth. Just can’t do it.” (For more from the author of “Nikki Haley Just Revealed What Happened After UN Members Laughed at Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Reagan Once Carried out a Deathbed Intervention for a Dying Atheist

In a modern world of dispiriting news, I offer for your perusal something uplifting. It’s an edifying letter from August 1982, found only recently, written by a great man and great president.

Credit goes to Karen Tumulty, who discovered the letter within the personal keepsakes of Nancy Reagan. Tumulty, a journalist, is writing a biography of Mrs. Reagan. She came across the letter in a cardboard box of Nancy’s cherished memories. The letter is nothing short of a deathbed intervention by President Ronald Reagan, reaching out to his atheist father-in-law, Loyal Davis, who Reagan liked and respected, and whose soul he was gravely concerned about.

I knew about this intervention by Reagan. I had written about it in a book on Reagan’s faith published in 2004. Tumulty, however, has found the actual letter, and what it says is inspiring.

Tumulty marvels that Reagan, who held the most difficult job in the world, would have paused in the middle of his day, Aug. 7, 1982, to write a four-page letter like this on White House stationery. She might be surprised to learn that Reagan sat down to pen letters like this throughout his presidency and his gubernatorial years. Reagan scholars estimate that our nation’s 40th president may have written more letters than any president since Thomas Jefferson.

I have read hundreds of them. During my first of many summers doing research at the Reagan Library, I was blown away by the sheer volume of letters Reagan produced, and how meaningful they were. There remain many unmined gems in that treasure trove of Reagan correspondence. In the summer of 2001, I resolved to read through all the letters during my next summer’s research. I made it only about half-way through 1982. Some of the most moving Reagan missives were directed to complete strangers, like Ruth Smith of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. And to think that liberals in the 1980s portrayed Reagan as a dawdling, doodling old fool who slept through workdays at the White House — when not amusing himself with VHS tapes of Bedtime for Bonzo. The left’s scurrilous caricature of Reagan was scandalous.

As for this letter to Loyal Davis, it’s yet another testimony of Reagan’s thorough decency and ever-present concern for the literal eternal dignity of people. He was concerned not merely about the perils of evil empires, but the perils of individual souls. I will not quote the full letter here, but I’d like to call attention to one particular passage, which is consistent with what I saw years ago. In one section of the letter to his dying father-in-law, Reagan tried this Christian apologetic:

Some seven hundred years before the birth of Christ the ancient Jewish prophets predicted the coming of a Messiah. They said he would be born in a lowly place, would proclaim himself the Son of God and would be put to death for saying that.

All in all there were a total of one hundred and twenty three specific prophesys [sic] about his life all of which came true. Crucifixion was unknown in those times, yet it was foretold that he would be nailed to a cross of wood. And one of the predictions was that he would be born of a Virgin.

Now I know that is probably the hardest for you as a Dr. to accept. The only answer that can be given is — a miracle. But Loyal I don’t find that as great a miracle as the actual history of his life. Either he was who he said he was or he was the greatest faker & charlatan who ever lived. But would a liar & faker suffer the death he did when all he had to do to save himself was admit he’d been lying?

The miracle is that a young man of 30 yrs. without credentials as a scholar or priest began preaching on street corners. He owned nothing but the clothes on his back & he didn’t travel beyond a circle less than one hundred miles across. He did this for only 3 years and then was executed as a common criminal.

But for two thousand years he has had more impact on the world than all the teachers, scientists, emperors, generals and admirals who ever lived, all put together.

Before digging into the roots of Reagan’s theological thinking, I’d like to share another such example. On March 1, 1978, Reagan sent a similar epistle to a Methodist minister from Shell Beach, California who was having doubts about the divinity of Christ (a rather odd predicament for a pastor). This liberal minister accused Reagan of a “limited Sunday school level theology,” and Reagan responded — characteristically — not with vitriol but grace:

Perhaps it is true that Jesus never used the word “Messiah” with regard to himself (although I’m not sure that he didn’t) but in John 1, 10 and 14 he identifies himself pretty definitely and more than once.

Is there really any ambiguity in his words: “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me?”… In John 10 he says, “I am in the Father and the Father in me.” And he makes reference to being with God, “before the world was,” and sitting on the “right hand of God.”…

These and other statements he made about himself, foreclose in my opinion, any question as to his divinity. It doesn’t seem to me that he gave us any choice; either he was what he said he was or he was the world’s greatest liar. It is impossible for me to believe a liar or charlatan could have had the effect on mankind that he has had for 2000 years. We could ask, would even the greatest of liars carry his lie through the crucifixion, when a simple confession would have saved him?… Did he allow us the choice you say that you and others have made, to believe in his teachings but reject his statements about his own identity?

It was the same tack he used with Loyal Davis. In fact, Reagan frequently used this approach, privately and publicly. He employed it in several letters, as well as in self-written nationally syndicated radio addresses (for example, Christmas 1978).

And what of the roots?

Many readers will immediately recognize here an echo of C. S. Lewis’s formulation in “Mere Christianity,” best known as his classic “liar, Lord, or lunatic” argument.

Lewis advised people against taking that “really foolish” position that people often take about Christ: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” Lewis protested:

That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level of the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman and something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord or God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

With his usual wit, Lewis confronted the popular assertion by some non-Christians that Christ should be recognized as a “great person” or “great teacher” or “great philosopher” but not as God or the Son of God. Lewis maintained that to assert that Christ was not the Son of God but still a great man is contradictory. Such a great man would be the greatest and most successful liar in human history, providing endless millions, even billions, with a false security and phony sense of salvation.

As for Reagan invoking Lewis, this tells us several things about the late president.

First, he went deep to help friends, loved ones, even strangers on matters of faith and conversion, whether in his private life or as governor of California or president of the United States. He considered this very much worth his time. Reagan’s faith wasn’t some shallow or passing interest. And clearly, Reagan not only read C.S. Lewis but internalized the renowned Englishman’s teachings. (As president, Reagan made open references to Lewis, including in the Evil Empire speech, and notably to the “Screwtape Letters,” which Reagan hailed as “unforgettable.”)

But above all, this latest Reagan disclosure, 36 years after it was written, and a decade-and-a-half after the man’s own rendezvous with the afterlife, further reveals a genuinely decent man worried about the souls of others. Here was a president engaged not only in statecraft in dealing with an atheistic empire, but in soulcraft in dealing with the eternal well-being of people like his atheistic father-in-law. (For more from the author of “President Reagan Once Carried out a Deathbed Intervention for a Dying Atheist” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Plot Twist: Kavanaugh Accuser Sued Her Former Employer for Sexual Harassment. But That’s Not All.

By Townhall. Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s third sexual assault accuser, Julie Swetnick, seems to have a few skeletons in her closet.

Swetnick, who accused Kavanaugh of gang raping her in high school, sued her former employer, New York Life Insurance Co., for sexual harassment, the Daily Wire reported. Her attorney was none other than Debra Katz, who is currently representing Kavanaugh’s initial accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The company ultimately settled with Swetnick.

According to the Daily Caller News Foundation, she has had financial issues over the last few years:

Swetnick also claims to have a security clearance with the IRS despite having recently had a $40,000 judgement against her for unpaid taxes. She settled a $40,303 IRS judgement on March 23 of this year, according to a public records search. Maryland court records show a $62,821 tax lien filed against her on Oct. 2, 2015.

And, the icing on the cake? Swetnick’s ex-boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, filed a restraining order against her. She allegedly threatened to kill him after he broke up with her, POLITICO reported. (Read more from “Plot Twist: Kavanaugh Accuser Sued Her Former Employer for Sexual Harassment. But That’s Not All.” HERE)

__________________________________________________

Ex-Boyfriend Filed Restraining Order Against Third Kavanaugh Accuser

By Politico. Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of attending house parties where women — including herself — were sexually assaulted, had a restraining order filed against her years later in Miami by her former boyfriend.

A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up. . .

According to Vinneccy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.

“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. “I know a lot about her.”

“She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.” (Read more from “Ex-Boyfriend Filed Restraining Order Against Third Kavanaugh Accuser” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.