All Women Joe?

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print

I have missed the comic stylings of former vice-president and beloved national clown Joe Biden.  I am glad to see he is still in business:


“For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time,” Biden said. “But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.”

Go here to read the rest.  The following women would like a word or two with you:


 Juanita Broaddrick has made the most serious allegations against Clinton, accusing him of raping her in 1978 while Clinton was Arkansas’ attorney general.

Broaddrick, then a 35-year-old nursing-home administrator, met Clinton when he visited her nursing home on a campaign stop. After Clinton asked to meet with her on her next trip to Little Rock, the two set up a meeting in a hotel coffee shop.

Broaddrick, who first made the accusation publicly in 1999, told BuzzFeed News last year that when Clinton arrived at the hotel he asked to meet in Broaddrick’s room instead and, after he arrived, violently raped her. Broaddrick said he bloodied her lip by biting it.

“There was no remorse,” Broaddrick told BuzzFeed News. “He acted like it was an everyday occurrence. He was not the least bit apologetic. It was just unreal.”

The Washington Post reported that two people close to Broaddrick said she described the rape to them at the time.


Kathleen Willey said Clinton kissed her, fondled her breasts, and forced her to touch his crotch during a meeting in the Oval Office in 1993, while Willey was a volunteer in the White House correspondence office.

Willey made her allegations public in 1998, and Clinton “emphatically” denied that the interaction was sexual, arguing that he hugged Willey and may have kissed her on the forehead.




A former Arkansas state employee named Paula Jones said that in 1991, at a government quality-management conference that Clinton attended, she was approached by the state police and told that Clinton, then the governor, wanted to meet with her. Jones said that a police officer escorted her to Clinton’s hotel room in Little Rock and that Clinton then propositioned her for sex and exposed his genitals to her.

“He sat down, pulled down his pants, his whole everything and he was exposed, and I said, ‘I’m not that kind of girl, and I need to be getting back to my desk,'” Jones recalled to Hannity.


Leslie Millwee, a former television reporter, came forward publicly for the first time in October 2016 to accuse Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1980.

Millwee says Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, groped her on several occasions at the now-defunct TV station she worked at in Arkansas.

“He followed me into an editing room,” Millwee told the far-right website Breitbart News in an October 2016 interview. “It was very small. There was a chair. I was sitting in a chair. He came up behind me and started rubbing my shoulders and running his hands down toward my breasts. And I was just stunned. I froze. I asked him to stop. He laughed.”

Millwee says the incidents escalated.

She said of a second incident: “He came in behind me. Started hunching me to the point that he had an orgasm. He’s trying to touch my breasts. And I’m just sitting there very stiffly, just waiting for him to leave me alone. And I’m asking him the whole time, ‘Please do not do this. Do not touch me. Do not hunch me. I do not want this.'”


Go here to read the rest.  I am sure they will receive a kindly ear from Joe, ever the friend of women everywhere:



More to explorer

Media Hardest Hit

News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   U.S.—Somber members of the press offered their thoughts and prayers that someone

Let There Be Light

As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught us, there is no contradiction between Reason and Faith.  As the poet Blake summarizes:   Mock on,

Thought For the Day


  1. Touche Mr. McClarey. Touche!
    Unfortunately the left have complete amnesia when it comes slick Willie and his peccadilloes.
    … trying to be “nice.”

  2. “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time,” Biden said. “But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.”

    Let’s hear from Hunter’s ex, Joe.

  3. Creepy Uncle Joe promoted me to “dreg of society.” I’m thrilled.

    FYI, Uncle Moron, I am striving to be Numero Uno Dreg.

  4. HAVE YOU NOTICED,,,,,,,,,the blood red commie dems have good looking handsome intelligent well spoken guys???,,,,,,,,ike,,,,,,reagan,,,,,,trump,,,,started off in life as dems,,,,,THE REPS,,,,,,,LOOK LIKE HAMSTERS,,,,,GERBILS,,,,GEEKS AND FREAKS AND A FEW SISSY BANKER COUNTRY CLUBBERS LIKE SAXBY CHAMBLISS AND JOHN CORNYN AND A FEW OTHER SENATORS THAT ARE EXECUTIVE LOOKING,,,,,but have spines of jelly when it comes to standing up to the junk yard dog street fighters ,,,,,,where are the rep versions of clinton and biden,,,,,,trump and that’s it. wasn’t the gov of wisconsin caught wearing women’s lingerie,,,,,at a college party??? it was on youtube….that’s scott walker.

  5. AVV, That’s the point. Trump isn’t a Republican in the jello-mold of the slugs with which we have become inured. He fights back and the RINO’s and Dems can’t handle it.

    BTW she is lying about BK.

  6. [Y]ou’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real[.]

    I’m more interested in substance than essence personally.
    Leftists have an established record of making sh*t up if that’s what it takes to advance the essence of the narrative.

  7. Bonus if you noticed how many of the big name #MeToo accusations against national stage actors and power players come from around the time of the late 90s and early 00s. Not all of course. But quite a few date to that period of time when the Left worked to convince us that obsessing about morals, truth, character and values (especially where S-E-X was concerned) was just baggage from our own puritanical heritage. Thank goodness they got us to move past that. Until 2016, then morals became important again. Dumb luck on the timing no doubt.

  8. Character assassination is preferable to assassination.

    Thank God James T. Hodgkinson was unavailable to shoot Judge Kavanaugh.

  9. Ernst Schrieber, you wrote “‘[Y]ou’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real[.]’

    I’m more interested in substance than essence personally.”

    That is really well said and one of the more profound take-aways from Vice President Biden’s piece. Thanks.

  10. I agree with you as well David Spalding. Great point from ES. The card game is not policed. Cheating, lying and treason is fashionable forms of play when the Dems are across the table. Former Sec. of State 30,000 e-mails…??? Wiped drive? AG and Willie on the tarmac? Now this allegation? Sickening.

  11. BTW she is lying about BK.

    In the long run, this it what will kill conservativism. What happened might not be proven, but before any investigation, the right wing takes the side of the accused abuser over the claimed victim.

  12. Ya know, Kurt, that 65 women vouched for Kavanaugh’s character. Guess you missed that. “Conservatism” is in the process of being redefined. When “conservatives” love free trade so much they demand the US be the only nation to practice it….when “conservatives” refuse to enforce the border…when “conservatives” won’t cut federal spending or repeal Obumblercare, then really what is conservatism anymore? In Great Britain, “conservatives” don’t want to exit the EU or stop immigration.

    Biden is a hypocrite, and a Democrat, but I am being redundant.

  13. She has the burden of proof Kurt, as all accusers have. She waited until 2012 to say boo about this, when she and her husband were in couples’ therapy. She apparently told no one at the time, not the police, not a teacher, not a parent, not a best friend. She claims to have drunk only one beer, yet she can’t recall how she got to the alleged party, or how she got home from the alleged party. She can’t name the date, or even the year, when this alleged event occurred. She can’t identify the house where this allegedly occurred. The other person she named as being present, Mark Judge, denied that this event occurred. Everything we know about Judge Kavanaugh’s life indicates that such behavior would be completely out of character for him. No one has the privilege of making an accusation, and having other people accept it as Gospel, unless the proof proffered supports the accusation. Simple fairness dictates this.

  14. Kurt.

    I have no proof.
    I wasn’t there.

    Unless you were there you too have no certainty that this happened.

    All that I know for certain is that a Catholic, cradle Catholic, that has gone through intensive scrutiny reviewing his past decisions while on the bench, has suddenly become the villain in a drama called “She said He said” and now it’s on every tabloid television..ABC CBS NBC station across the country. Oh….Fox too.
    CNN? Cough cough.

    So let’s look at next Monday Kurt.

    Let’s see her account in front of the powers that be. That will be interesting television.. except for the liberal commentary spewing from the bought and paid for liberal press..ABC CBS NBC CNN MSMBC. Talk about Spin?
    They are masters.

    What about timing?

    Opps. Sorry Kurt. Hope I didn’t bust your bubble.

  15. Please read ES’s link; “makes a pretty good case,” if you haven’t already.

    Thanks so much Ernst!

    “They want to slow-walk Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote until after the midterms, in the hopes that they swing the Senate in their favor and have the numbers to defeat the nomination.”

    Yes they do.
    They are willing to do anything to accomplish that. Anything!

  16. It’s interesting that Kavanaugh’s accuser had scrubbed all of
    her social media accounts before coming forward with this story.
    Now why do you suppose she’d do a thing like that?

  17. Professor Ford, Sen. Fienstein, Sen. Hirono, . . . are insulting real rape victims and the #MeToo movement, too.

    Seen on Facebook: “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was sexually assaulted by Abraham Lincoln in a log cabin.”

  18. I heard someone bring up an interesting question. If we don’t believe Dr. Ford, why did we believe Juanita Broaddrick? I don’t know the details from that particular case. I’d be interested to hear the differences.

  19. I heard someone bring up an interesting question. If we don’t believe Dr. Ford, why did we believe Juanita Broaddrick? I don’t know the details from that particular case. I’d be interested to hear the differences.

    Broaddrick’s account is consistent with Clinton’s known behavior patterns (“you better put some ice on that”) and she told others contemporaneously. It’s also specific to time and place. It’s public disclosure wasn’t precisely calibrated to disrupt public hearings and deliberations. It was just one of an array of contentions about Bill Clinton’s mundane conduct which were made public at the time. Only his conduct vis a vis Paula Jones was at issue and only his statements under oath about ML were consequential. JB was a news story.

  20. If we don’t believe Dr. Ford,

    1. 36 years after the fact.

    2. No time or place specified.

    3. Swiss cheese account of the circumstances (she attends alone at a place unfamiliar to her with people unfamiliar to her).

    4. Incoherent account of the precise sequence of events.

    5. The second party named a person who had published a memoir with details of his adolescent and young adult life which could be used as fodder for a fabricated story. BK is mentioned in passing in the memoir.

    6. Exquisitely timed and choreographed accusation. She had the polygraph results and counsel lined up, then Feinstein drops the dime and refers the matter to the FBI. When the FBI punts, she discloses her identity. When the Republicans schedule a date for testimony, she demands a nonsensical FBI investigation as a prerequisite. With scant doubt, the choreography was cooked up by her lawyer and Feinstein’s staff.

  21. In addition to Broaddrick v. Clinton and Kopechne v. Kennedy, they’re serially lying about BK and concomitantly seriously threatening and vilifying a woman that was actually abused by DNC Co-Chairman Keith Ellison.

    Prof. Ford and et al are lying.

    The evil, idiotic left thinks we are as stupid as they. Sadly, the typical GOP congress critter is that craven.

    If the hate-filled left wins on this, I’m moving to Wyoming.

  22. She waited until 2012 to say boo about this, when she and her husband were in couples’ therapy.

    Someone else has pointed out the convenient timing there.

    So what happened in 2012? Coincidentally (or not), 2012 was another election year.

    In 2012, Romney ran against Obama. Up until his 47% gaffe, Romney was doing well. He actually had a shot of winning.

    For the Democrats, as has been the case since Bork, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg a perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the Supreme Court. With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, remembered something interesting he’d read back in 2012:


    I’ll save you a click to The New Yorker website. The article, which The New Yorker published in 2012, is a Jeffrey Toobin analysis about Bret Kavanaugh and the threat he would pose should he get on the Supreme Court. According to Toobin, Kavanaugh was a scary conservative who, if he got on the Court, might overturn Obamacare:

    In other words, according to Kavanaugh, even if the Supreme Court upholds the law this spring, a President Santorum, say, could refuse to enforce aca because he “deems” the law unconstitutional. That, to put the matter plainly, is not how it works. Courts, not Presidents, “deem” laws unconstitutional, or uphold them. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, and that observation, and that case, have served as bedrocks of American constitutional law ever since. Kavanaugh, in his decision, wasn’t interpreting the Constitution; he was pandering to the base.

    In the nineteen-nineties, during Kavanaugh’s first brush with prominence, it was said that some conservatives suffered from Clinton derangement syndrome—an obsessive belief that the President and the First Lady had committed every misdeed that was attributed to them. (Hillary Clinton was involved in Vince Foster’s death; Bill Clinton had trafficked narcotics through Mena, Arkansas; and so on.) Kavanaugh’s bizarre opinion confirms that a contemporary analogue to the Clinton malady has taken hold: health-care derangement syndrome.

    There’s more blah-blah from Toobin, a man who can never be trusted to be honest about the law. Don’t bother reading it. Just pay attention to that last paragraph:

    If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh. (Emphasis mine.)

    In 2012, Romney might have won the election. In 2012, Toobin stoked Democrat fears that Kavanaugh, a conservative, might get on the Supreme Court and overturn Obamacare. And in 2012, Ford, a psychotherapist who undoubtedly had years of prior therapy herself, suddenly can’t stop talking about her hitherto undisclosed claim that Kavanaugh was a bad boy almost 30 years before.

  23. She has the burden of proof Kurt, as all accusers have.

    No, she does not. A prosecuting attorney in a criminal trial has that burden. An accuser, be it Dr. Ford or a victim of priest child abuse, does not have the burden of proof before they can accuse. They have an obligation to tell the truth. Those who hear their accusation have the freedom to make discernments according to their own judgment. But the alleged victim does not have the burden to gather the proof to third parties before they can speak. I certainly hope no diocese is telling child abuse victims not to come forward unless they have proof.

  24. Nate Winchester read my mind.

    I thought this whole matter had long been in the planning stage, then was put in sleep-mode, so it could jump out Alien-style (the Ridley Scott movie that is). In 2012, Kavanaugh was already a well-known fixture on the DC Appeals court and a highly likely SCOTUS choice for a Romney presidency. But 2012 is STILL 30 years after an alleged incident when the supposed perpetrator was a minor. Absolutely nuts.

    And yes, I think the psychologist was in on the whole fake narrative. These are committed Leftists.

    Q. How many other pre-faked narratives out there on every other Heritage Foundation-recommended conservative nominee for SCOTUS?
    A, Every single one.. with a yearbook signature and innuendo and date, of course.

  25. And by the way, the reason she doesnt want to testify under oath is that she likely has talked about this with others—way too many others to trust, even if they are Lefties—who may leak out the whole scheme. But that would take beyond Nov. 6th for that to develop.

  26. Kurt,

    This is about doing whatever it takes to keep abortion legal. [Trump effectively killed ACA (affordable = 30% to 50% annual premium increases) by ending enforcing the individual mandate – it will go broke. Congress would have repealed ACA except McCain refused to fulfill his campaign promise.]

    If you’re still in college, leave now.

    You already know everything.

    Now, I can get off my chest my horrid crime of 31, 32, 33, or 37 . . . years ago.

    It was me. It was me [sob] [sniff].

    I did whatever Dr. Ford says I did. And, I can prove it.

    I was at any house party in any DC, or Maryland, or northern Virginia locale on whatever date and whatever time Dr. Ford says.
    I was often (six or eight weeks long trips a year) in DC on business. If Dr. Ford says, I habitually partied with rich, under-age private HS kids, I did.

    Dr. Ford’s calumnious fabrication does not rise to the level of the common lie. It’s not about the law or justice – socialist or otherwise . It’s about deceit and coercion – the end justifies the means – dirty [redundant] politics.

    I am Spartacus!

  27. “No, she does not.”

    Of course she does if she wishes for the accusation to be taken seriously. People can say anything they wish, but when you are accusing someone else of doing something you better have this quaint item called proof, something sorely lacking in the accusation of Ms. Ford.

  28. Hypothetically speaking, if Donald were to institute a policy of only allowing comments from persons of known good character; and I were to claim that another commenter was not a person of good character because I remembered –30 years after the fact– that said commenter had once stolen a library book, but I couldn’t remember the name of the book, or of the library, or agree with my therapist on the number of people who were with said commenter at the time of the theft, should that commenter be compelled to defend his or her character upon pain of being banned from the website?

    I at least demand an investigation before we vote!

Comments are closed.