Skip to content

Does anyone else besides me see a separated-at-birth resemblance between the demon nun in “The Nun” and Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer?

This looks scary:

Image result for the nun
But then again, so does this:
Do you think it’s possible that Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, and the nun from The Nun are actually the same person?
Or rather, “person.” If you count cross-religious-dressing demon-possessor Valak from The Conjuring series as an actual human, which Washington DC attorney and Democratic Party donor Katz seems to be.
Or is she? Look at those eyes.
And is it really just happenstance that just as The Nun, in which Valak, released from Hell, makes his most frightening appearance yet in veil and wimple to rain murder, suicide, and eternal damnation upon Conjuring victims, just happened to open as a box-office smash exactly when Ford, backed by Katz, who’s been representing her since August, suddenly surfaced with her tale that Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh had tried to rip her clothes off at a high-school party somewhere or other at sometime or other more than 30 years ago?
Coincidence? I think not.
Here’s what Frontpage has to say:
That partisan hit job? It’s absolutely a partisan hit job.

Kavanaugh’s accuser is being represented by Debra Katz, a Washington D.C. lawyer and the vice chair of the board of the Project On Government Oversight.

POGO co-signed a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Grassley along with a variety of lefty groups demanding Kavanaugh records. This was the obstruction tactic of choice of the left for trying to secure the Court seat before they fastened on to this latest smear.

Where does PGO gets its funding?

From, among other sources, George Soros and his Open Society Foundation tentacles.

I say: If you think that Debra Katz looks like one of the walking dead–you’re probably right.


Posted by Charlotte Allen


Stanford University, founded in 1885, doesn’t have campus Confederate statues to dump, so it’s choosing the next-best thing: memorials to California mission founder Junipero Serra

Junipero Serra (Frederic J. Brown / Getty)
Photo: Getty

Stanford University, my alma mater, was founded 20 years after the Civil War ended, so, unlike Yale or Duke, it can’t run up virtue-signaling Pokemon points by dumping statues of Confederate generals and otherwise altering campus infrastructure to remove the names of long-dead politicians associated with slavery.

But this is the #MeToo era, so Stanford found the next best thing–or rather, person–to villify in an orgy of building and street-renaming: Junipero Serra, the Spanish-born 18th-century Franciscan friar who founded nine of the California missions. Serra might be a saint of the Catholic Church (canonized in 2015 by Francis, everyone’s favorite liberal pope), but he is completely unacceptable these days because…”colonialism,” as an Aug. 18 report by a Stanford committee put it.

So Stanford is currently in the process of renaming two campus buildings (one a student dormitory) that currently bear the unfortunate priest’s name, as well as its main pedestrian street in front of its historic Quad that also happens to be the university’s official address: Serra Mall. The reason: the “hurt” and “pain” (according to the report) that various campus and off-campus activists say they feel whenever they see something that says “Serra.” (You can read my Los Angeles Times op-ed about the controversy here.)

Poor Father Junipero. He was once revered in history books for protecting California’s Indians from the Spanish military authorities then governing California who often maltreated and even killed Native Americans on a regular basis. He acquired the name “Father of California,” and a statue of him stands in the U.S. Capitol. Lately, though, it’s become fashionable to regard the 21 picturesque California missions founded by Serra and his successors as hellholes of slave labor--filth-ridden “concentration camps,” as one critic put it. Worst of all, Serra and his fellow friars converted the Indians to Christianity–and we can’t have that. Generations of California schoolchildren used to build little models of the missions in class, but now they get taught that the missions “contributed to the destruction of the cultural, economic, and religious practices of indigenous communities,” as the Stanford report put it. In September 2017 activists beheaded a statue of Serra at the Mission Santa Barbara, where a community of Franciscan friars still lives.

Unfortunately for Stanford, its founders, California railroad tycoon Leland Stanford and his wife, Jane, lived in that dark age of political incorrectness in which Serra and the missions were actually regarded as positive forces in shaping California history. Jane Stanford in particular worshiped Serra. With the help of architect Frederick Law Olmstead the Stanfords designed the Quad as a larger-scale replica of a California mission (with some Romanesque touches), complete with tiled roofs, cloistered walkways, a landscaped interior patio, and the campus’s interdenominational Memorial Church as its central feature. Other red-tiled mission-style buildings dot the 8,000-acre campus.

And of course there were those Serra building and street names that now must be obliterated on grounds of Native American distress. Indeed, one dorm on the Stanford campus, Junipero House, isn’t actually named after Junipero Serra but, rather, the Spanish name for the juniper tree–but apparently a lot of Stanford students don’t know that and get freaked out anyway. The Aug. 18 report recommended that that name, too, be changed if administrators couldn’t think of some way to publicize an “explanation.” (I can see the sign now: “Relax–this building is not named after Junipero Serra.”)

Stanford’s damnatio memoriae for Junipero Serra is sweeping but not quite complete. Although the Stanford Mall will be renamed “Jane Stanford Way” (causing the dear lady to take another spin in her grave, I’m sure), a campus roadway called “Serra Street” will get to keep its name, because after all, Serra was a figure associated with “a significant significant period of California’s history,” as Stanford says. There will, of course, be the expected brainwashing–er, “educational”–campaign “to develop signage and other educational support to more fully explore the multidimensional legacy of Serra and the mission system in California.”

Keeping the Serra Street name on that street will also obviate the need for Stanford to engage in a wholesale street-renaming throughout the campus–since other campus boulevards bear the names of his two close disciples, Fermín Lasuén and Francisco Palóu, as well as that of José de Gálvez, the inspector general for New Spain who facilitated Serra’s missionary work in Alta California.

We don’t want Stanford students to get too lost.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Confirmation battle or multi-generational soap opera? Turns out that Kavanaugh’s mother was the judge in his attempted-rape accuser’s parents’ home-foreclosure case

Is this a Supreme Court confirmation battle–or is it a soap opera titled Montgomery County?

Turns out that Brett Kavanaugh’s mother was the judge in in a 1996 home-foreclosure case in which the defendants were the parents of Kavanaugh’s last-minute attempted-rape accuser Christine Blasey Ford. The house in question, pictured above, is in Potomac, one of the highest-income towns in Montgomery County, Maryland, the Washington, D.C. suburb that is one of America’s highest-income residential areas.

Indeed, the entire cast of characters in Ford’s up-to-the-wire emergence from the shadows of Dianne Feinstein’s secret anti-Kavanaugh files seems to hail from upscale Montgomery County in what is turning out to be a complex edge-of-the-seat multi-generational saga. Move over, The O.C.!

Indeed, just as The O.C. involved hard-partying high-school students and their well-off but dysfunctional parents, so seems the tale of Kavanaugh, Ford, and Kavanaugh’s prep-school pal, Washington-area writer Mark Judge.

Let’s review the airy-fairy story that Ford told the Washington Post, with its bizarre combination of pointillistically precise detail and utter vagueness:

Ford alleges that sometime during the early 1980s, she was at a party when Kavanaugh and one of his friends and classmates at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, were drunk and corralled her into a bedroom. Per the Post’s account:

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.

Ford told the Post she didn’t tell anyone about the incident in detail until 2012 when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes from the time, which the publication reviewed, say that Ford reported being attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society.”

The notes don’t name Kavanaugh, and they say four boys were involved, not two. Ford told the Post this was the therapist’s error — there were four boys at the party, she said, but only two in the room.


According to the Post, Ford has an imperfect memory of the events. “Ford said she does not remember how the gathering came together the night of the incident.… She also doesn’t recall who owned the house or how she got there.” She does seem to remember the county….

And she told the Post that the house was “not far from the country club.” Well, guess what? Neither was the about-to-be-foreclosed-on house that belonged to Ford’s parents, Ralph and Paula Blasey. The address, 17 Masters Court, Potomac MD 20854, is just a few turns down the leafy suburban roads from the extremely posh Congressional Country Club, host of five U.S. Opens and a PGA Championship on its 36-holes of golf courses.

This story has everything: Money galore, underage alcohol, drunk teens, a bathing suit, and parents who couldn’t pay their monthly mortgage bill. And a tightly knit community (with secrets!) where everyone seemed to live near everyone else, know everyone else, and sit as judge in everyone else’s foreclosure case.

Now, how about that Mark Judge (no connection except the weirdly coincidental between his surname and Kavanaugh’s mother’s job), who attended fancy-schmancy Jesuit-run Georgetown Preparatory School (in Bethesda, also in Montgomery County) with Kavanaugh during the 1980s? Here’s the skinny on him from Raw Story (h/t: Steve Sailer):

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual assault while his buddy Mark Judge watched nearby. Judge has since said he doesn’t recall the incident in an interview with the Washington Post. However, Heavy along with internet researchers uncovered Judge has a troubling history of posting photos of young girls.

Yikes! Photos of young girls! And sure enough, the Raw Story piece has screen-grabs of pictures apparently posted on Judge’s social-media sites featuring fetching young ladies clad in shorts and swimsuits. Call the vice squad!

Furthermore, Raw Story breathlessly reports, Judge had the temerity not to believe the Rolling Stone’s thoroughly discredited and ultimately retracted 2014 story about a supposed gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house:

In one piece he wrote for GotNews, Judge attacked a woman who claimed she was gang-raped for three hours….

“There is a key part of the Rolling Stone piece that I have questions about… Jackie was a new student when she went to a fraternity party at Phi Kappa Psi. Her date, Drew, gave her spiked punch to drink and then brought he [sic] upstairs. He led her into a darkened room. Jackie ‘began to scream,’ but it was too late,” he wrote, screen captures claim.

And here’s another odd but meaningful detail: The Washington Post says that Ford confided her lurid tale to its reporters at the same time that she alerted Sen. Feinstein–that is, in July. So both the Post and Feinstein sat on the story for nearly three months, only to reveal it after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings wound up but just in time to derail the full Senate vote scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 20.

I wonder if that means yet another Montgomery County connection. I’m sure a number of Posties live out there.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

King Canute couldn’t turn back the tide–but King Donald can usher in a hurricane just by repealing some Obama-era methane regulations

Image result for king canute image
Image: U.K. Telegraph

From the Washington Post:

Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks. It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change. But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth’s systems to produce disasters.

From CNN:

But while President Trump has been talking up our preparedness his policies have been tearing down our defenses to climate change, which is often a blame for extreme weather. In fact on the same day Trump was discussing Florence from the Oval Office, his EPA proposed rolling back restrictions on emissions of methane, which is 25 time worst than carbon dioxide when it comes to climate change. And that’s just the latest environmental policy targeted by the Trump administration. According to July’s study from ‘The New York Times’ nearly 80 regulations could be on their way out. They include everything from no longer requiring chemical companies to report leaks, to cutting cars and trucks fuel efficiency, pulling the U.S. out of the parties climate accords, dismantling the clean power plant and opening nearly all coastline to offshore drilling. It is so bad that according to two Harvard scientists, Trump’s environmental policies could lead to an additional 80,000 unnecessary deaths every decade. Not convinced about the connection between climate change and extreme weather? Well warmer water means more intense storms.

From Dan Rather:

Intensifying hurricanes, wildfires, floods, droughts. Coral dies. Diseases spread. Seas rise. Earth begs for a restoration to health, or at least to minimize the decline. Future generations will damn the complicit and complacent.

Fortunately, while Trump may be powerful enough to kill the coral, burn down the forests, and murder 8,000 people a year, his hurricane-causing capacities seem somewhat limited, since Hurricane Florence has been progressively downgraded to “tropical storm,” and, now, to “tropical depression.” Violent rains, severe flooding, and falling trees remain a serious hazard, and we all mourn the 17 killed so far in the Carolinas–but repealing Obama’s methane regulations had something to do with this? Really?

I don’t think President Trump has magical powers over the wind and the seas–yet.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Fake-rape history repeats itself: first as cock-and-bull story from the UVA campus, then as cock-and-bull story from high school


Rape on Campus
Photo Illustration: John Ritter/Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone, 2014:

“Shut up,” she heard a man’s voice say as a body barreled into her, tripping her backward and sending them both crashing through a low glass table. There was a heavy person on top of her, spreading open her thighs, and another person kneeling on her hair, hands pinning down her arms, sharp shards digging into her back, and excited male voices rising all around her. When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face. The men surrounding her began to laugh. For a hopeful moment Jackie wondered if this wasn’t some collegiate prank. Perhaps at any second someone would flick on the lights and they’d return to the party.

“Grab its motherf–king leg,” she heard a voice say. And that’s when Jackie knew she was going to be raped.

She remembers every moment of the next three hours of agony, during which, she says, seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement. She remembers how the spectators swigged beers, and how they called each other nicknames like Armpit and Blanket. She remembers the men’s heft and their sour reek of alcohol mixed with the pungency of marijuana. Most of all, Jackie remembers the pain and the pounding that went on and on.

The New Yorker, 2018:

The allegation dates back to the early nineteen-eighties, when Kavanaugh was a high-school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school. In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her. She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her, and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result….

Well, at least no broken glass table in the Kavanaugh story. Although there was a “sour reek of alcohol.”

Still, the wheels of innuendo continue to spin. From Politico:

The decades-old sexual misconduct charge detonated at the most critical juncture of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle — sending Republicans into damage control mode and leaving Democrats unsure how or whether to capitalize.

And this from Slate’:

The system made certain that whatever this woman had to say, or didn’t have to say, would be evaluated by people with partial information and an agenda, even if she didn’t want to share it in the first place. The system is still sitting in this room. The system kind of is this room. The system keeps asking why women in trauma didn’t come forward earlier or later or publicly or privately or anonymously or with evidence or without evidence. The system is why women don’t talk, and even when they do, why things don’t change.

From Vox:

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh — who now faces allegations of attempted sexual assault when he was a teenager — was asked directly about the issue of personal sexual misconduct during his confirmation hearing last week.

When pressed on the matter, Kavanaugh said he had not sexually harassed anyone and had not dealt with any settlements related to such allegations. The way it was framed, however, the question at the September 5 hearing — by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) — only asked Kavanaugh to detail any incidents that had taken place after he had become a legal adult.

Mmm, yeah, they really do write this stuff with a straight face.

At least this is more interesting than last week’s burning scandal: Why did Kavanaugh pay for baseball tickets with a credit card?

Update: Thanks for the shout-out, Instapundit!

Posted by Charlotte Allen

The Harvey Weinstein video: I’m sorry, but it looked more to me like flirting to sell a product than sexual harassment

Harvey Weinstein and Melissa Thompson in his office
Sky News

The porcine, priapic Harvey Weinstein gives me the creeps, too, and it’s always fun to watch liberals eat each other. But, really, is this any way to conduct a business meeting?

Am I allowed to flirt with you?

Ummm, we’ll see, a little bit.

A little bit, not too much?

And that’s a little more than thirty seconds after Melissa Thompson, one of the latest of Weinstein’s claimed rape victims, is into her supposed sales pitch in Weinstein’s office for some kind of software gizmo–the sales pitch on the video that she’s now shopping around to the media. (You can watch the video here.)

Thompson has a master’s degree in business administration from Columbia, but she must have missed the class where they tell you that if your customer acts more interested in you than in what you’re selling, it’s time to do a little cost-benefit analysis on what your time is worth and pack up your product and leave.

Also, you’d look more serious if you didn’t wear a form-fitting leather dress, push your glasses up to the top of your head (don’t you need them to see that laptop screen?), and gaze coquettishly into the eyes of your customer and even touch his shoulder as you sit side by side? I don’t think leather garments are on John “Dress for Success” Molloy’s list of power clothing for businesswomen–unless by “power” you mean the kind that Circe used to seduce Ulysses.

Here are a couple more conversational excerpts from that video that the then-28-year-old Thompson made–apparently for marketing purposes for the tech startup where she worked–of her 2011 meeting with Weinstein inside his locked film office in lower Manhattan:

Data’s so hot, right?

It is hot. You’re hot.

Didn’t Thompson get a little hint at that point that whatever “analytics” on the “digital marketing platform” she was pitching to Weinstein weren’t really registering with him?

And then there’s this postlude to Weinstein’s allegedly putting his hand up Thompson’s  leg (the video doesn’t actually show that because they were sitting at a table, but it’s what Thompson says):

Let me have a little part of you. Give it to me. It’s okay, would you like to do it some more?

A little bit… a little high, that’s a little high, that’s a little high.

Wouldn’t Thompson’s allegations of sexual abuse by Weinstein be more convincing if she’d slapped that hand away instead of responding, “A little bit,” when he asked her if she wanted to “do it some more”?

But as Thompson told Sky News in the exclusive interview in which she aired the video: “I didn’t want to blow the meeting.”

And indeed she didn’t. She agreed to meet Weinstein again that very afternoon for drinks at a nearby hotel, where, she says, instead of closing the deal as she’d hoped, he hustled her up to a bedroom suite he’d rented (which she for some reason thought was going to be a conference room, even though it was on the third floor) and sexually assaulted her. She recently filed a class-action civil suit for damages over the alleged incident and is now involved in a further legal dispute with a lawyer to whom she’d sent the complete tape of the Weinstein office incident (the version on Sky News is heavily edited). Weinstein, meanwhile, has denied that the sex with Thompson was non-consensual.

I dunno. Why is it that so many of Weinstein’s alleged sexual misdeeds had a transactional component? Women who hoped to get something–movie roles, a “digital marketing platform” sale–out of meeting him somewhere that anyone could tell them was completely inappropriate and putting up, sometimes for an afternoon as Thompson did, but sometimes for years, with behavior that anyone could tell them was completely inappropriate?

Posted by Charlotte Allen

U.K. Guardian columnist decides that men’s preference for younger women is a sign of “masculinity in crisis”

kendall jenner
Photo: Getty Images

U.K. Guardian columnist Arwa Madahwi discovers something else that’s wrong with men:

Men’s fixation on younger women is another sign of masculinity in crisis.


This week’s peer-reviewed portrayal of fragile masculinity comes to you from the journal Science Advances, which recently published a depressing new study about online dating. Researchers looked at nearly 200,000 heterosexual users and found that while men’s sexual desirability peaks at age 50, women hit their prime at 18. And then it’s all downhill from there apparently. Can I just remind you that 18-year-olds are teenagers, and so this study is basically saying that straight men don’t find women attractive; they like girls.

#NotAllMen, I’m sure. However, this isn’t the first study to find men are fixated on women a lot younger than them. A 2010 study by OKCupid found that “the median 30-year-old man spends as much time messaging teenage girls as he does women his own age”. No doubt Roy Moore might have a thing or two to say about that….

While these studies may focus on sexual relations, they’re yet another reminder that we’re facing a crisis of masculinity that is reverberating across every aspect of our society. The far right is dominated by men, many of whom seem to be searching for a sense of identity. For feminism to get anywhere we must seriously address how we think about masculinity.

All I’ve got to say is: If this is a “crisis of masculinity,” it’s been going on for a awfully long time–like, say 200,000 years.

Poor Arwa Mahdawi seems to be undergoing a crisis of her own. Here’s what she wrote in July:

This alarming information came to me via a profile of Amber Tamblyn in New York magazine, which described the 35-year-old actor as “hurtling towards middle age”. Being 35 myself, I was rather taken aback by this characterisation….

And here’s that darned OkCupid study again:

A few years ago, the dating service OkCupid analysed its mounds of data and found that heterosexual women on the site were largely attracted to men of a similar age to themselves. However, heterosexual men of all ages were attracted to 20-year-old women. “It is kind of terrible,” OkCupid’s co-founder Christian Rudder said while presenting these findings at an event. “From the time you’re 22, you’ll be less hot than a 20-year-old, based on this data. So that’s just a thing.” Which led the Daily Mail to say: “Are you a girl over 22? Then don’t even bother with online dating.”

I hate to be a bearer of unpleasant news, Arwa, but sex and perceptions of sexual attractiveness have something to do with, uh, reproduction.

So you can “seriously address how we think about masculinity” until the cows come home, but you can’t change the fact that the world’s highest-paid supermodel had her first major photography shoot at age 19. You know, maybe your problem isn’t male “fragility” but male virility.

Update: Thanks for the shout-out, Instapundit!

Posted by Charlotte Allen