Let’s Join In On This Cavalcade of Yarns and Opinions

By, Jim Bowman

The fabricator limits yarns so that any retelling does not betray. However, not necessarily so with this particular Doctor/Professor of Psychology. While admitting to a spotty memory, she never-the-less delves into the unnecessary, questionable and irrelevant.

For those unknowing, we learn that the science of psychology deals with “mental processes and behaviors.” Also, the American Heritage Dictionary details that this deals with “the emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual.” Regarding Mrs. Ford, her halting recall appears geared simply for energizing a particular public reaction. Ironically, this ability relates closely with her own specialized field of expertise.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?

  • Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Scientists Admit “Math Error” Led To Alarming Results In Major Global Warming Study

An early editorial from the Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) 15/16 September issue entitled, The Dirt and Delay Playbook, casts a less graphic quote from the September 14th The New Yorker, which described “Mr. Kavanaugh had ‘attempted to force himself on her.’” This description offers a vast latitude of male/female actions which includes even one who persists in asking for a dance over and over. So in later accounts, is there any doubt as to why this has morphed onto the more defined and graphic “sexual assault.”

Another reference was offered in a separate September 17th WSJ article entitled, Kavanaugh Accuser Goes Public. To quote; “Judge Kavanaugh pinned her down on the bed, groped her and attempted to remove her clothing before she escaped. Mrs. Ford described the episode as aggressive. ‘I thought he might inadvertently kill me,’ she told the Post.” This quote, one which leaps from being groped to possibly being murdered, was attributable to a Washington Post piece from the previous day by the WSJ.

Also too was the touch for remembering laughter from both attackers, of which was absent in earlier reports. Mrs. Ford’s possible garnishing of certain instances of recall can be had with her laughter embellishment, reported in the WSJ’s September 28th issue. Her highbrow emphasizing stated that, “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense.”

Really, is her technical acumen a normal descriptive when retelling such an emotionally searing ordeal? Such a term seems at least unusual when testifying about such terror. On September 26th, WSJ reported her testimony as, “the assault had scarred her for life?” In this setting, the word “hippocampus” stands out in challenge to one with such wounds. It just doesn’t fit and neither does her “uproarious” description of the laughter.

This enrichment should taint her credibility, especially when not one of her supporting cast can agree with her account of what took place or with who. If nothing else, doubt clearly emerges when the very real possibility of a mistaken identity is considered. Memories play tricks over time and she, above all others, should be well aware of this fact. Essentially, all doubts rest solely with Mrs. Ford!

Also too, if her scars are for life, explain her actions when observing one of her supposed attackers in a “grocery store.” Are we to believe that her saying hello to Mr. Judge is normal? Just how many sexual attack victims can commiserate with her recounting of, “I said hello to him, and his face was white and very uncomfortable saying hello back?” This WSJ article from September 28th noted this occurring just “six to eight weeks after the alleged assault.”

In the final analysis, Mrs. Ford’s discrepancies, which is PC jargon for her inaccuracies, they all tend to validate Kavanaugh’s innocence since all inconsistencies originate with the accuser.

Finally, when does the law take effect? Legally speaking, one cannot be judged, much less prosecuted, based upon an unsubstantiated charge. Our Fourth Amendment requires “probable cause” prior to the issuance of a warrant. In a court of law, the place and date of said offense must be ascertained before any criminal proceeding is filed. When erasing the emotions from Mrs. Ford’s testimony, her position becomes legal quicksand!

Also, consider who gains from the political tactic of delay during this confirmation period, which so closely precedes “the midterms.” So, let us now rid ourselves of the Left’s insulting refrain of “what’s the rush!”

And from another WSJ September 15th article, “the alleged victim ‘strongly requested confidentiality.’” Along with this caution comes the unsettling query of why even forward the letter, especially to kindred democrats who will find it irresistible? That is, if Mrs. Ford truly wished anonymity!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Jim Bowman

Retired, grandfather, 71 years old, Vietnam vet, author of This Roar of Ours, over 25 year of published op/eds.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend