Jim made a comment in my post The Civil War may have just started – Update.

The more talk there is on BOTH sides of a civil war in the US the more likely it is that there will be major unpleasantness (IMHO). Yes we as a country have some major differences of opinion on many important issues but our issues are not so major that justifies major civil disturbance (riots) or the possible nightmare of a civil war, one in which both sides would suffer far more horrendously than any thing that is currently going on.

Yes, I am aware or “Rule .308” and looking at such a terrible possibility from a wargaming point of view I would far rather be on our side than theirs in terms of possible outcome.

But the cost to both sides would be so high,no matter who wins that it would not be worth it given the current situation or anything in the near term future.

If, I repeat if, such a terrible thing should become justified (which I hope it never does) there will be enough causes that are indisputable and attributable that there will be no doubt that it is justified. But until then (again IMHO) talk about such a thing is not a good idea and could easily lead to a viscous cycle where both sides escalate due to the verbiage instead of actions.

Such talk also makes our side look very bad from those in the middle and would tend to drive many reasonable people against our side.

Please, let’s try to use the ballot box instead of the ammo box.

It’s a respectable comment, but I am going to rebut it.

Clearly, political violence is on the rise.  This is not the first time we’ve seen this in America.  I’m not just talking about the Civil War in the 1860’s, but union riots in the early 20th century and bombings in the late 1960’s to early 1970’s.

This however, feels different.  For one, we have sitting members of Congress encouraging this type of confrontational behavior.  We also have a social media feedback loop that polarizes and intensifies the political emotions.

The violence shows no sign of slowing down or stopping.  So at what point does it become Civil War 2.0?

That depends on what you think Civil War 2.0 will look like.

I love military history, I read it and study it all the time and I do not believe that Civil War 2.0 will look anything like the first Civil War.

I do not foresee the Alabama Militia marching up I-95 to do battle with the 1st New York Infantry.  There will be no Gettysburg or Bull Run.  Americans, by and large, do not have the stomach for it.

What I expect to see is something that embraces elements of The Troubles of Northern Ireland, and Middle Eastern or South America civil wars.

Watch this video from the open carry march at Kent State.

We’ve seen similar protests or mob actions around the country from the student protests in California to Charlottesville.

The “battles” of Civil War 2.0 will look more like these protests ramped up in intensity.

A Politician will host an event, and people in opposition will attack the crowd.  The attacks will quickly become lethal, with opponents bringing machetes, guns, or melee weapons with the intent of killing, not just intimidating, people.

We will also see a rise in political assassinations or attempted assassinations.

Lastly, I expect to see more bombings or mass shootings of politicians’ offices and of political gatherings.

This is how civil wars are conducted in the more stable nations of the Middle East and South America.  The nations do not totally collapse, but political leaders and their supporters are killed and the goverment loses a substantial portion of the control it once had.

The Irish Independents used terrorist tactics against political targets.

A hallmark of the Sierra Leone civil war were partisans asking civilians who they would vote for and if the “wrong” answer was given, the partisans would chop off the person’s hand.

I don’t expect much hand chopping, but voter intimidation and attacks on voters  is within the realm of expected possibilities.

Image a bunch of racial Leftists showing up in a swing county in a swing state to beat and maybe kill anybody that looked like a Republican and stop them from voting.

This tactic was employed in the Middle East as well.

Right now, these incidents have not been lethal, with the exception of Charlottesville.  Police can still maintain control.

What happens when the intensity reaches a point where law enforcement can’t contain it and these rallies turn into pogroms at which dozens or more people die?

What happens when instead of painting “rape” on a GOP office, a staffer is raped  and/or killed, or the office is shot up, bombed, or set on fire with people still inside?

Civil War 2.0 will start with people confronting a Senator in an airport than beating him.  It will be an angry mob beating people who vote for the opposing party.

Then it will be the push back against this.  Antifa created the alt-Right stick man.  Lefties hurt Republicans in a swing area in Florida so the radical Right create some casualties at a Bernie Bro rally.

Life will go on, for the most part, but many people will be  intimidated all the time, afraid to go out or be noticed less they become a target.  The goverment will lose the ability to control these attacks.

It will be Bleeding Kansas all over again, asymmetric political violence.

What I can’t foresee is how it will end.  Will there be a goverment crack down that removes our rights, will we dissolve as a nation, or will we live in a constant state of unstable discomfort and economic depression?  I don’t know.

But what I see the references to the “Rule of 308” and other such language is really a warning.

People like us do not want to have to walk a gauntlet of radical Leftists to cast our vote for the person who will preserve our rights.  Come at me with a club because I’m not wearing an !Ocasio! shirt as I go vote and I will defend myself.

I wouldn’t say the violence is one sided, but it is heavily lopsided.

History has shown us that it is the radical Left that starts it, from the Nazis to the Communists to the Socialist to the Weathermen and FALN.

What needs to be understood is that in America, there will be push back.

I’d rather not have a Civil War.  I also won’t live in an America in which there is total one party Democrat rule because when Republicans try and vote they are lynched at the polls.

Tampa, FL – Millionaire business man Scott Mitchell was going to be charged with criminal domestic violence, until a surveillance video from inside his home showed what really happened to his ex-fiancé.
…

Hunt claimed that Mitchell was abusive to her during their relationship and that he had given her the black eye.

It is sad that the only way this guy saved himself from a jail term was because he was paranoid enough to have full surveillance inside his house.

Yeah, but they would not dare to lie on something so important, right?

Literally.

WATCH: A “tolerant” leftist rips up posters belonging to students that support Brett Kavanaugh at the University of Texas.

Her acts are beyond reprehensible. Expel this fool. pic.twitter.com/AJsuG61xfB

— Kyle Morris (@RealKyleMorris) October 3, 2018

I find myself smiling sadly at the fact that a young black woman is in favor of what amounts to lynching an innocent man without a shred of evidence to back up the accusation.

Sad state of affairs when the chickens are accomplices of the foxes.  It is not going to end well for feathery friends as nature always takes over.

Found via Wirecutter. How come this did not make Mainstream Media?

ROCKFORD — The Winnebago County Republican Headquarters was vandalized with sprawling spray paint of the words “rape” and “shame” all across the building in downtown Rockford.

Rockford police officers at the building said the graffiti was spotted by an officer on patrol shortly before 10 a.m. Sunday.

More pics at this link.

It is getting harder and harder for our side  to remain peaceful.

I figure I won’t be the only one snacking on pop corn when the levy finally breaks.

Yale Law School students have irreparably destroyed the reputation of their institution by going full SJW and convicting one of the school’s alumnus in the court of public opinion without evidence or corroboration.  They have shown just how bad the level of legal and moral education Yale offers, as well as absolutely no loyalty to their alma mater or the principles of American jurisprudence.

In the constant competition between Harvard and Yale, Harvard Law School students had to figure out how to ruin the reputation of their school as well.

From the Harvard Crimson:

Kavanaugh Will Not Return to Teach at Harvard Law School

Embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh will not return to teach at Harvard Law School in January, according to an email administrators sent to Law students Monday evening.

“Today, Judge Kavanaugh indicated that he can no longer commit to teaching his course in January Term 2019, so the course will not be offered,” Associate Dean and Dean for Academic and Faculty Affairs Catherine Claypoole wrote in the email, which she sent on behalf of the Law School’s Curriculum Committee.

A Harvard Law School spokesperson confirmed late Monday night that Kavanaugh will not teach his course, titled “The Supreme Court Since 2005” and slated to last for three weeks. Kavanaugh has taught at the Law School for roughly a decade.

If I were a student at Harvard Law, this would break my heart.  To be taught law by a man of Kavanaugh’s legal acumen and experience is the reason to pay for Harvard Law tuition.  It is unique opportunities like that, that make students go to Ivy Leagues.

The showdown over Kavanaugh has roiled the campus where he spent ten years instructing Harvard Law students on issues such as the separation of powers and the Court on which he hopes to serve. Though Law School Dean John F. Manning ’82 has remained largely silent throughout the controversy, Law students and alumni — as well as Harvard undergraduates — have been outspoken in their desire to see Kavanaugh investigated and possibly barred from teaching in Cambridge.

The school is kowtowing to the SJW crowd.  That is the death knell for a college.

A few days before Claypoole announced Kavanaugh’s decision to sever ties with Harvard Law School, hundreds of school alumni signed a letter to Manning urging him to “rescind” Kavanaugh’s position as a lecturer and to forbid the judge from teaching this winter. The alumni had not sent the letter to Manning as of Monday evening, though it is available online.

“We believe that Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment as an HLS lecturer sends a message to law students, and in particular female students, that powerful men are above the law, and that obstructive, inappropriate behavior will be rewarded,” the letter states. “Judge Kavanaugh is not leadership material, and he is not lectureship material. HLS would be tarnished to have him on campus in any position of authority.”

“We ask that you rescind his lectureship,” the letter continues.

Thoroughly partisan.  We still have no evidence or corroboration, but at Harvard Law, just like Yale, things like evidence, witness testimony, and the presumption of innocence take a back seat to social justice.

Some of the letters sent to Manning over the weekend stated that Law School students — especially those who have suffered sexual assault or harassment — would be made uncomfortable by Kavanaugh’s presence on campus. Close to 300 first-year students signed the six letters.

“Allowing a person credibly accused of sexual assault to teach students prior to a full investigation surely creates a hostile environment for many students, and especially survivors,” students wrote in one letter.

They can’t be taught by someone accused without evidence?  How will they ever defend a client who has been accused of the same or worse?

First, four Law students involved with student advocacy group the Pipeline Parity Project published an op-ed in the Harvard Law Record calling on the school to bar the conservative judge from teaching pending a “full and fair investigation” into the women’s allegations. Following the op-ed, Law students staged a rally last Monday that saw hundreds of students across the University walk out of class to stand in solidarity with Ford and Ramirez. And during the tense and high-stakes Kavanaugh-Ford hearings Thursday, students staged further protests, stepping outside during a break in the proceedings to pose for pictures and hoist anti-Kavanaugh posters.

Some Law students cheered when the nominee lamented during his testimony that accusations of sexual misconduct might prevent him from returning to teach at Harvard.

None of these kids deserve to graduate from law school or be allowed to pass the bar.  They are activists and will be activists with law degrees.  I fear for any client they might have that doesn’t fit their world view.  How could any client trust that their lawyer has their best interests at heart if their lawyers have such an activist past.

Students Filed Title IX Complaints Against Kavanaugh to Prevent Him From Teaching at Harvard Law

Jacqueline L. Kellogg ’19 — who said she has filed a complaint against Kavanaugh with the University’s Office for Dispute Resolution — came up with the idea several days ago. She began urging fellow students to follow suit over the weekend, at one point sending an email to a group of students at the College and the Law School that offered specific instructions on how to bring a formal complaint to ODR.

By the time The Crimson reported late Monday that Kavanaugh had left his teaching position at the Law School, at least 48 students had signed an online petition certifying they had filed a Title IX complaint against the nominee.

Let me see if I understand.  Three women make baseless accusations in a highly partisan setting against a well respected judge.  These students then decided that it is therefore sexual harassment of them (the students) to have the option of taking an elective from this same judge, who has yet to be convicted of anything.

This is such a naked power play and abuse of Title IX it is hard to believe.

Employees take note, Harvard Law grad Jacqueline L. Kellogg ’19 is a lawyer you should never hire.  She is lawsuit in heels waiting to happen.  She will also never be able to serve clients without you always wondering “is she doing less than her best because her client is white/male/conservative/privileged?”

The same goes for all the other signatories of this letter.

These students are burning the reputation of Harvard Law to the ground and the school is doing nothing to stop them.

I thing at the end of this, as the dust clears, Harvard and Yale will end up like Evergreen State.  Failing schools that only a handful of ideologues send their kids to.  If Harvard law can’t teach their students the principles of the law, what good is it?

https://twitter.com/rabrowne75/status/1047168663772700672

I wonder who sent the Ricin?

If it came from some radical Lefty, I think attempting to assassinate the Secretary of Defense (and Trump’s most popular person in Trump’s Cabinet) is the kind of think that will kick off a shit storm.

The good news is that Mad Dog Mattis is immune to Ricin and I’m pretty sure he uses it as a seasoning.  One time, while deployed to Afghanistan, General Mattis was bitten by a sand viper.  After a week of unbearable pain, the snake died.

We will have to follow the news on this one closely.

Ted Cruz office hit too:

BREAKING: HAZMAT Team Responds to Suspicious White Powder Mailed to Ted Cruz’s Campaign Office https://t.co/qX4snoTFaM

— RedState (@RedState) October 2, 2018

Two people were taken to the hospital after apparently being exposed to a white powdery substance in an office building at 3200 SW Fwy. The 9th floor of the Phoenix Tower has been evacuated as HFD HazMat is responding to the scene working to determine the nature of the substance.

— Houston Fire Dept (@HoustonFire) October 2, 2018

Usually AL.com is a decent source of news.

The other day it published an OpEd that was the most vile internet shit-smear I’ve read on the Kavanaugh issue yet.

What was Brett Kavanaugh’s wife thinking?

By Roy S. Johnson

I don’t know Roy, why don’t you tell me.

I wonder what she was thinking.

I wonder what was going through Ashley’s Estes Kavanaugh’s mind as she watched her husband’s snarling, petulant, tear-stained, whining (My life is ruined) exhibition before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

So when a man who was admitted to the bar in 1992 and to the Federal bench in 2006, with a sterling reputation is accused without evidence or corroboration his indignation at the baseless accusation is “snarling, petulant, tear-stained, whining.”  I sincerely hope ever person who has been  pushing this line is accused of child molestation.  I want to see how they react.

But to answer his question, I bet it was “what does this lying bitch have against my husband?”  They have been married for 14 years.

I am fully convinced that Lefties don’t understand marriage.  In every episode of Law & Order: SVU, as soon some cop accuses hubby of a sex crime, his wife of 20 years takes the kids and goes to her mother’s.  Do they not understand that a good wife should stick by her husband (and vice versa)?

Heck, I wonder what was on the minds of each of the women occupying the rows behind Brett Kavanaugh, women who were ostensibly there to support his defense against an accusation by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that he, then a privileged teen kid who liked beer–as he told us many times–sexually assaulted her when she was 15 years old.

Oh my god, he likes beer.  That mean’s he’s guilty.  He’s also privileged, so double guilty.  But this line of though assumes guilt.  Guilt without evidence or corroboration.

Fifteen years old.

Yeah, I get it, you are implying he’s also a pedophile.  Still didn’t mean he did it.

I know the women were there as a family member, friend or whatnot.

I know Ashley was there as a dutiful and supportive spouse.

Still, what they were all thinking?

They were probably thinking the same thing the same things out the Senate Democrats as I am thinking about Roy here, that they are soulless pieces of shit.

What were they thinking as Kavanaugh and his equally-snarling GOP Judiciary committee supporters essentially said their own white, male privilege is more important than the wrenching pain of Ford’s emotional and credible recollections of the assault?

Oh yeah, it’s not that the Republicans of the Judiciary Committee held fast to the principles of American jurisprudence such as the presumption of innocence and need for evidence and corroboration.  It was just a bunch of white guys circling the wagons.

Also, if you can dismiss Kavanaugh’s emotions as petulant and whiney and not as a man defending his honor, you cannot accept Ford’s emotion as evidence of her credibility.

More than any woman’s sexual assault.

The social justice cry of collective punishment.  This was about Ford’s accusation of Kavanaugh.  Nothing more.  All the other sexual assaults in the world are irrelevant in this case.  This is about Ford and Kavanaugh only.

Kavanaugh should not suffer unjustly because another woman was assaulted by another man.

I don’t know if any of those women sitting behind him in support of Kavanaugh, including Ashley, have friends or relatives who were sexually assaulted in their youth.

Unless they were assaulted by Kavanaugh himself, it doesn’t matter.

I do.

Some have shared their horrid experiences with me–in vivid, technicolor detail.

They remember.

They remember names. They remember pain.

They know their truth.

A truth that still reverberates in their lives, still affects them today–still affects their encounters with others. And will likely affect them tomorrow. And maybe even the next day.

I know women who are close to me who have been sexually assaulted.  I’m not going to convict Kavanaugh on their behalf.

I know a woman who was raped by a black man who was never caught.  Maybe we should start by jailing all black men because of her rape?  Same logic, right?

What does that matter to Kavanaugh, a federal judge who feels a seat on the nation’s highest court is, perhaps, his birthright?

Had he ever said that?  No, this is just Roy and others on the Left putting words in his mouth.  If Kavanaugh is elevated to the Supreme Court, it’s because he’s earned it.  But lets be clear here, he’s not just interviewing for SCOTUS, he’s defending his honor and reputation.  It’s more than just a job at this point.  It is the entirety of his life that is on the line.  How his past is viewed and what becomes of his future.

It clearly does not matter as much as his own privilege and pride. Not as much as his entitled right to demand all he seeks.

Oh no, not privilege again.  A hard working man with sterling record attested to by everyone who knows him.  That can’t be it, it must be his white maleness.

This idea that its a unfair sense of entitlement not to have your name dragged through the muck with spurious accusations is way over the line.  Maybe people are entitled to be treated with a modicum of decency?

It does not matter to GOP Senators as much as the experiences and aching memories of female sexual assault victims–no matter when the assaults occurred–as much as winning.

But the Democrats who pulled this stunt are only after the truth?  That bullshit is beyond believability.

As much as taking control of the wombs of American women and overturning Roe v. Wade.

Nonsensical non-sequitur is nonsensical.

To be sure, Kavanaugh has every right to defend himself. He has every right to not take a lie-detector test (as his accuser did) and rail on like a half-drunk adolescent who knew that no matter what he said, or how he said it, his equally privileged kind would have his back.

Polygraphs are bullshit.  They show nothing.  His refusal to take one is on par with his refusal to sit on a dunking stool.  Roy is just upset he doesn’t want to volunteer to go to the Democrats Room 101.

He railed on like a man trying to defend his reputation.

I’m calling it.  Every time Roy here brings up privilege I will mention that there is credible accusations that Rob is a child molester.  Let him defend himself dispassionately.

Imagine if, 27 years ago, Clarence Thomas had acted as such. (Full disclosure, I am not a fan of the now-Supreme Court justice). What if Thomas had cried, snarled and had been as pointedly disrespectful to members of the Senate Judiciary committee as was Kavanaugh?

Actually, he did call out the Senate.  The Senate also didn’t ask him about fart jokes in his high school yearbook.

There were no female Judiciary committee members in 1991 when Anita Hill testified that Thomas sexually harassed her when he was her boss.

What if there had been?

What if the Democrats didn’t act like total pieces of shit?

Then what if Thomas had treated her as Kavanaugh so wretchedly and disrespectfully treated Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar?

She asked him if he’d ever blacked out because of alcohol abuse, an occurrence with which she was familiar, she explained, because her father was an alcoholic.

I don’t give a shit about her alcoholic father.  She tried to embarrass him.  There was no point to this other than make the accusation “well, if you blacked out you could have done it an not remembered.”

Have you?! Kavanaugh sneered. Sneered with amazing vitriol.

Sneered with anger.

With elite entitlement.

How dare you, he frothed.

How dare a sitting United States Senator go into the high school drinking habits of a man 36 years prior with no evidence of alcoholism.  What is off limits just from human decency.  It wasn’t intended to get to the truth, it was intended to shame him in front of his children.  How dare she.

His apology–later, after a break, and probably some wise counsel–really didn’t matter. What Kavanaugh showed in the moment was who he is.

What Brett Kavanaugh showed in that moment was real.

Real pissed.

Real enough to make me wonder if he could ever be impartial if, say, a sexual harassment case ever came before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is an amazing line of horse shit.

I expect a judge to be impartial and judicial when he is acting as a judge.  Third party to a case.  It is different when the judge himself is being accused.  I don’t expect him to be impartial.  I expect him to fight back.

Let me put it like this.  If I were to attack a judge with a knife, should I expect the judge to be impartial and let me stab him, just in case he ever has to hear an attempted murder case?  No, because that’s bullshit.  A man has the right to defend himself against accusations.

This is the tactic of a middle school bully.  Picking on a kid then complaining to the teacher when the kid pushes back.

Thomas was just as mad. He seethed during his rebuttal testimony.

Yet he never exploded/ He didn;t have a childish fit.

Had he performed as Kavanaugh did, had he displayed such anger, disrespect and petulance, well, he’d not likely be sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court now.

No black man today could’ve gotten away with Kavanaugh’s angry  display.

What is social justice without an accusation of racism.  If they can’t find it, they will make it up.

Yet privilege just might.

Roy is a child molester.

Kavanaugh just might–after a one-week FBI “investigation” that will likely reveal little more to us than Kavanaugh’s favorite beer.

Way to move those goalposts, pervert.

I wonder what the women were thinking.

“I didn’t know you could store 200 lbs of pig shit in a tailored suit.”

Maybe they–Ashley and the women who steadfastly support Kavanaugh–believe him, which is their right.

She’s his wife of 14 years you fuckless asshole.

Maybe they don’t know any women like Dr. Ford.

You mean emotionally damaged women who allow themselves to be used by a political party to smear a man in public without evidence?

God I hope not.

I do–and I believe her. I believe her truth.

Her truth?  What about the truth?  I guess you don’t care about that.

The truth may be different by my truth says that you rape children.

I wonder if, somewhere in her mind, Ashley Estes Kavanaugh does, too.

You miserable, slimy, disgusting fuck.  How dare you?

Of all the OpEds I’ve read on Kavanaugh, this is the worst.  Using his wife as an angle to attack him, assuming the unverified, uncorroborated, no-evidence accusation is 100% accurate is plain grotesque.

I cannot believe that AL.com published this.