May Face Huge Red Tide in November
By Mike Scruggs- Harper Lee’s 1964 fictional novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, cites Alabama and Southern folklore that to kill a mockingbird is bad luck, and the consequences can result in misfortune for an entire community.
The main plot-line of Harper Lee’s famous fiction work involves an innocent black man, Tom Robinson, being accused by a white woman of attempted rape. Despite convincing evidence of his innocence presented by his small town lawyer, Atticus Finch, a prejudiced small-town jury finds him guilty. Tom Robinson is later shot dead trying to escape from prison.
Although fiction, the moral of the story is that bearing false witness against innocent persons is despicable conduct, which can have far reaching negative consequences.
That plot-line is often played out in political contests, where mere allegations—most often false allegations—are used to poison and prejudice the minds of the public and voters against a political candidate. In political contests, false allegations need only cause doubt about a candidate by a small percentage of the electorate to ruin their election chances.
The defeat of Alabama Judge Roy Moore for U.S. Senate sharpened the Democrat character assassination model and reduced the Republican majority to a narrow 51.
In their reckless slander and character assassination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the Democrat Party may have aroused the vengeance of the Mockingbird. Republicans, conservatives, independents, and other ordinary decent folks are outraged and are eager to vote out the villainous false accusers.
In this country, both Constitutional law and social tradition insist that the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Neither are multiple allegations the equivalent of guilt, as Senator Corey Booker falsely claims. Presumption of guilt by allegation is a dangerous totalitarian concept practiced only by tyrants.
There is no credible evidence to substantiate Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. In fact, her story is not only unsubstantiated, it is sufficiently flawed to suggest that it is part of a contrived character assassination.
The expert sexual offense prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, who cross-examined her before the Senate Judicial Committee, found at least 12 reasons to be significantly concerned about the truth of her testimony.
A sworn testimony by an ex-live-in boyfriend also revealed a serious contradiction to her “fear of flying” claim and contradicted her claim not to have coached people on taking lie-detector tests. None of four alleged witnesses corroborated her allegations.
The legal principle is Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus. When a witness willfully falsifies one matter, they are not credible in any matter.
Ergo, Christine Ford may have shown many signs of past and present psychological distress deserving respectful consideration and personal sympathy, but she cannot be considered a credible witness.
One area of concern is that Dr. Ford “recovered” her memory of the alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh during psychological therapy sessions using “Recovered-Memory Therapy” (RMT). RMT is not a practice recommended by mainstream ethical and professional mental health associations.
Many RMT claims of sexual abuse have later proved not to have occurred. A 1994 study of 1,000 therapists by Michael D. Yapko found that 19 percent knew for certain of cases where RMT had resulted in memories later proved false. RMT is a dangerous and unreliable source of evidence in any legal or government proceeding.
Professor Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Professor of Constitutional Law, has pointed out several times on Fox News in the last week that many rape and sexual assault allegations prove false and are a danger to just and civil government.
Dershowitz is a traditional liberal and Democrat who has strongly criticized the Democrat Party and the ACLU abandonment of the principle of presumption of innocence. Dershowitz has called the current trend to conviction by allegation “Sexual McCarthyism,” also saying that Democrats have “set a terrible precedent with Kavanaugh allegations” and that the nomination process is being “destroyed” for future judges.
It is extremely difficult to assess the prevalence of false rape and sexual assault accusations, but many statistical studies indicate it is large enough to warrant concern.
In 2017, the Journal of Forensic Psychology published a study of FBI data from 2006 to 2010 that from 4,400 to 5,100 allegations of rape every year were baseless.
This was an average of 5.55 percent of the total of 87,000-90,000 allegations per year. These did not include disputed consent cases. In addition, many accusations are dropped before scrutiny by legal authorities.
In 2016, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published a paper by Claire E. Ferguson and John M. Malouff that found that 5.2 percent of reported rapes were confirmed to be false.
The authors noted that this 5.2 percent represented only those that could be confirmed to be false. There were many others that ranged from possible to probable rather than confirmed, so that the actual rate is probably higher than 5 percent. An FBI study for the years 1995-7 indicated false rape accusations to be about 8 percent.
False sexual assault crimes are four times more likely than other crime claims to be false.
A UK Ministry of Justice Research Series for 2008-2009, indicated that 12 percent of rape claims were false. In a collection of false rape allegation studies by Philip Rumney in 2006, false claims ranged from only two percent to over 40 percent..Long delayed rape allegations are generally suspect.
Differences in definition and culture make estimating the percentage of false rape and sexual assault allegations difficult, but it is clear that simply taking an allegation as truth is dangerous tyranny.
It is almost self-evident that many rapes and sexual assaults are never reported, but that does not justify condemning the accused on mere allegations.
Guilt by allegation is typical of totalitarian regimes. This was notoriously true of the Soviet Union under Stalin. Prominent enemies of the Communist regime were first subjected to extensive character assassination and demonization in the Soviet media and then given show-trials for further public condemnation.
That seemed to be the model followed by the Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even the actual confirmation of Kavanaugh by a Senate vote of 50 to 48 was accompanied by orchestrated disturbances in the Senate gallery.
False rape and sexual assault allegations have an ancient history. In roughly 1525 BC, according to Genesis 37 to 39, a young Hebrew slave, named Joseph, was purchased by Potiphar, the Captain of the Egyptian Pharaoh’s Guard. Everything that Joseph did was so well done and successful that Potiphar put Joseph in charge of his household and everything he owned.
However, while Potiphar was away, Potiphar’s wife asked Joseph to sleep with her. When he refused, she falsely accused him of attempted rape. Upon hearing the allegation, Potiphar sent Joseph to prison.
By God’s providence, Joseph rose from prisoner to a high-ranking Egyptian official to whom Pharaoh trusted the welfare of all of Egypt. Thus Joseph was able to save his family and the people of Egypt from future famine.
According to Jewish and Muslim traditions, Potiphar’s wife was named Zuleikha. A May 2017 article by Sandra Newman in Quartz, asserts four main motives or conditions for false rape allegations: personal gain, mental health issues, vicious revenge, and need for an alibi.
I will add a fifth: sick Marxist ideology.
The Democrats’ character assassination and slander of Judge Brett Kavanaugh was despicable, but God may now raise him to prominence and important service.
The Republicans already have Trump’s extraordinary economic success to run on. Forty Democrats in Congress openly admit they are socialists. Few have any economic sense at all. Plus conservative voters are anxious to stop illegal immigration and to lower legal immigration, neither of which the Democrats favor.
The Democrats are now essentially for open borders. Too few Americans trust the Democrats, so they are flooding the country with a welfare constituency that will be dependent on them and vote for them.
Voters want to defeat terrorism, but Democrats continue to treat Islam like a sacred cow that cannot be criticized. This is an ignorant and dangerous self-delusion. Democrats don’t believe in and support the Constitution anymore—at least not in any recognizable form.
There were times in history when the Democrats were good guys, but that time is long gone. The Democrats have gone radical, crazy, mean-spirited, and slanderous far-left. Finding a good Democrat is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Every eligible American citizen should vote in the November election, but none who love truth, honor, freedom, prosperity, justice, and common decency should vote for any Democrat.
We have a chance to clobber them, but it will take hard work and financial donations to bring the people the truth and get the vote out.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Author and Columnist
a.k.a. Leonard M. Scruggs
Mike Scruggs is the author of two books: The Un-Civil War: Shattering the Historical Myths; and Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You, and over 600 articles on military history, national security, intelligent design, genealogical genetics, immigration, current political affairs, Islam, and the Middle East.
He holds a BS degree from the University of Georgia and an MBA from Stanford University. A former USAF intelligence officer and Air Commando, he is a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War, and holds the Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart, and Air Medal. He is a retired First Vice President for a major national financial services firm and former Chairman of the Board of a classical Christian school.
His viewpoint is unapologetically Christian, conservative, and patriotic. He has been a Republican County Chairman in two Southern states and remains an active participant in church, political, and veterans’ affairs.
Often our readers have comments they wish to make in response to commentaries in The Tribune Papers.
We welcome such response.
Please e-mail them to