The Kavanaugh martyrdom: when the Salem witch trial meets Mao’s Cultural Revolution

Why Now is the time to consider owning gold
Brett Kavanaugh Swetnick

Brett Kavanaugh’s martyrdom before unfounded, bizarre, nonsensical accusations, is a Salem witch trial redux with hints of Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

The ordeal of Brett Kavanaugh takes us back to the bad old days of the Salem Witch Trials, though our proggies add their own Maoist Cultural Revolution gloss.  If they succeed with Kavanaugh, he will be the first, not the last, to be hanged at Salem’s gallows hill.

Just in time for Halloween, we’re seeing a good old-fashioned witch trial very much in the spirit of Salem 1692.  The parallels are striking.  Wild accusations.  No physical evidence, but the mere charges and their number by “wronged” women supposedly being the proof.  The townspeople thrown into mass hysteria, which plays out today with the mass hysteria the media is trying to create today surrounding Brett Kavanaugh.

And as Corey Booker said yesterday, channeling Cotton Mather far more than Spartacus, facts proving innocence or guilt do not matter.  The sheer weight of accusations is sufficient to dispense with Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination.  That accusatory weight is a much more humane way of dealing with the accused sans trial than pressing him to death with heavy stones, as the Puritans did to Giles Corey in 1693.

Even the condemned in Salem were given more in the way of due process and a presumption of innocence.

Brett Kavanaugh, an eminently qualified jurist nominated for the Supreme Court, has, by all accounts, acquitted himself stalwartly and honorably as an adult.  And yet the progs and their media arm are throwing everything at the wall hoping that something — anything really — sticks so that they can keep him off of the Supreme Court, forcing another choice that could not possibly be confirmed prior to the November 2018 election . . .

So let’s do a quick review of the charges and the ever-moving goal posts.

____________________________

Rape . . . without the rape part, but everything else is the same

At age 16 may, Kavanaugh may have tried to have sex with  Christine Blasey Ford.

Cue the media:

Except that:

Not a single witness Ford herself identified corroborates her story in any way.  Now that alone does not mean she’s lying.  But . . .

She testified before Congress that, in 2012, her marriage was falling apart because she insisted on putting a new door in her home so she could escape if anyone tried to attack her, a phobia brought on by horrid memories of Brett Kavanaugh forcing himself upon her lo those three decades past.  Talk about delayed PTSD.  Now it comes out that the door was installed . . . at least by 2010 if not earlier, and it was installed for the convenience of the prior owner who maintained a business in Ford’s home.  Add that to the total lack of corroboration and it does appear that Ms. Ford may have a problem with veracity (that being lawyer speak for telling a big fib).

This stinks to high heaven.  And you can bet your last dollar that if the marriage counselor notes from 2012 supported her story, her attorneys would have given it to the NYT to run enlarged, covering the entire front page.  There is a reason her attorneys are refusing to produce those notes.  The notes need to be made public immediately.  If Ford perjured herself, she needs to prosecuted for it.

This morning, even more nuggets emerged suggesting that Ford, rather than having been traumatized forever when a drunken teen boy tried to dry hump her, has been happy to perjure herself, either for self-aggrandizement or to achieve a political goal. It turns out that, when Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor, asked Ford seemingly pointless questions about whether Ford ever coached people about how to take polygraph tests (be Zen! be Zen!), Mitchell probably knew about an ex-boyfriend stating that Ford had helped a friend with that very issue. So when Ford said “Never!” Mitchell remained stone-faced even as, inside, she might have been thinking, “Got you, bitch!” That same boyfriend, incidentally, talks about a few other little problems with Ford: not only did she happily fly on teeny planes and burrow into small spaces without stress, she also cheated on him and committed credit card fraud. Whoops!

If this oozing perjury was aided by Ford’s attorneys, well, let’s apply proggie rules.  No need to go through due process.  Just mount their heads on pikes outside of the Conference Room.

____________________________

Free Willie

Deborah Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, claims that at a party, Kavanaugh freed willie and waved it about her face.

Cue the Media:

Except that:

There is zero corroboration to the story from any witness, and the NYT interviewed several dozen people to that end.

Ramirez was blind drunk and is not sure whether it was Kavanaugh.

Interestingly, Ramirez started calling all of her old Yale friends and asking them whether they remembered the event.  A cynic might think that someone in the MSM was using her — quite willingly — to try to dig up anything they could on Kavanaugh.  More on this under the “Perjury” section below.

____________________________

All Aboard The Booty Train

Leave it to porn lawyer Michael Avenatti — perhaps the most sleazy lawyer I have ever seen — to introduce us to Julie Swetnick.  She says that, as a college student, she went to numerous high school parties with Kavanaugh present.  Kavanaugh and his friends would slip the girls spiked punch and then the boys would line up and ‘pull a train’ on them.  She apparently attended numerous such parties, leaving one to wonder just how much track was laid on that line?

Cue the Media:

Except that . . .

Not only is there no corroboration for Swetnick’s story, but she was interviewed on NBC recently and changed her story.  She said she could not be sure if Kavanaugh was one of the . . . participants.  BUT . . . he may have been. There’s also an interesting (although as yet unvetted) letter on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s own website suggesting that, if there was in fact group sex going on at these teen parties (which I doubt), Swetnick the college student was hanging out with high schoolers because she liked group sex. If there was a pervert line-up with both Swetnick and Kavanaugh in it . . . I’d have to pick Swetnick for the Gold.

____________________________

Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness . . . The high school yearbook edition

There are so many progs throwing around charges that Kavanaugh perjured himself in his testimony to Congress, it is hard to keep track.  The most insane involve Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook.

Specifically:

Kavanaugh told the Senate that “Judge — Have You Boofed Yet?” refers to flatulence, and that “Devil’s Triangle” refers to a drinking game. His critics insist that the former means anal sex and the latter three-way sex. Since slang by its nature is informal and ever-changing, this stupid dispute is never going to be settled to anyone’s satisfaction.

As for “Renate Alumnius,” Renate Dolphin, the woman to whom it refers, has gone on record taking offense at the comment, and a plausible reading of it is that it was innuendo. Kavanaugh called the phrase a “clumsy” way to “show affection” and denied that they ever had sexual relations. But he expressed regret over the phrase and in general said he was embarrassed by his yearbook, calling it a “disaster” and noting that it was an “absurdity” meant to conjure the movies Animal HouseCaddyshack, and Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

Cue the media . . . (picking up the scent)

Except that . . .

A Supreme Court nomination turning on High School Yearbook entries?  This is so obviously pretextual as to be beyond ridicule.

____________________________

Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness . . . teenage binge drinking

While no one claims that Kavanaugh, as an adult, has a drinking problem, that is not at issue.  The proggies want to portray young Mr. Brett as drinking to the point of blacking out.  It is not hard to see where they are going with this.  It would render Kavanaugh unable to fully deny the allegations by Ford, Ramierez, or Swetnick.  So, sober, Kavanaugh is the good Dr. Jekyll.  Get him blackout drunk where he cannot remember what he did, then he turns into Mr. Hyde the Pepperoni.  And he can’t defend himself because he doesn’t remember.  So the NYT has run several stories where Yale classmates call Kavanaugh a liar for his testimony regarding his teenage drinking habits.

Cue the media

Except that . . .

Kavanaugh freely admitted to drinking beer to excess in his youth — trust me, this was a thing among teen boy in 1970’s and 80’s Maryland — but testifies that he has never been black out drunk.  And for all of the charges of perjury and the colorful descriptions of a drunken young Brett Karanaugh in the NYT, no one alleges facts that conflict with Kavanaugh’s testimony on this point.

____________________________

Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness . . . the NBC not quite perjury allegation

NBC was in a lather.  Kavanaugh’s testimony was looking more and more problematic wrote Chuck Todd.  Specifically, NBC suggested, in so many words, that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Committee when he testified that the first time he had heard about Ramierez’s Free Willie story was when it was printed in the New York Times.

Cue the media:

Except that . . .

NBC engaged in a lie of omission and did not include Kavanaugh’s full testimony, in which he testified that his friends told him that Ramierez was contacting them to get dirt on Kavanaugh.  The question Kavanaugh answered was about the specific allegation. The NBC quote, however, took only the first sentence of Kavanaugh’s response where he gave a specific answer to a specific question before explaining the context.  The bastards at NBC later did a stealth edit to add in all that testimony without providing any notice that they’d made this edit, nor did they change to the bullshit title of their hit piece.  And this isn’t the only problem NBC has had with honest and fair reporting as regards Kavanaugh.

READ  BREAKING: Kavanaugh Killed And Ate Puppies And Kittens On Accuser’s Front Lawn

____________________________

The Great Ice Massacre of 1985

A NYT hack reported that, while at Yale, Kavanaugh was present at a bar fight and allegedly . . . bit off . . . no, no . . . cold cocked . . . no, no . . . ice . . . that is it . . . he brutally and with malice aforethought threw a deadly piece of ice at a belligerent, for which Kavanaugh was questioned by police and then . . . nothing.  He was neither arrested nor charged with any crime or with any intoxication offense. In that, he is distinct from Justice Breyer, who was arrested for underage drinking.

No word on whether it was Assault Ice.

Cue the media . . .

 

Except that . . .

What the hell does that have to do with anything about this man’s fitness for the Supreme Court?  We are not testing him for beatification.  This is the equivalent of testimony against Bridget Bishop claiming that she was guilty of witchcraft because she occasionally violated Puritan code and dressed in black.  The NYT is asking us to believe that Kavanaugh may be a violent psychopathic rapist because he was once questioned by police for tossing ice.

____________________________

The Greatest Show On Earth

It isn’t Barnum and Bailey’s.  The latest is that Kavanaugh, while in law school, may, possibly, perhaps, although no one actually knows, have returned to his fraternity for a party and, during the party, the entertainment was a prostitute doing a live sex act not involving Kavanaugh.

Cue . . . Wyonna Ryder?  Hey, troops need their entertainment.

Except that . . .

Again, what the hell does this have to do with Kavanaugh’s fitness for the Supreme Court? He’s a man with an apparently healthy desire for sex (monogamous after marriage) with pretty and willing women.  Pure toxic masculinity . . . and human nature.  Could there be any greater sin in the proggie pantheon of sins?  Clearly he is not Supreme Court material.

____________________________

He Fought Back.  It’s Not Fair When They Fight Back

So Kavanaugh got angry at the left for their utterly immoral ambush tactics and for being wrongfully smeared with false allegations.  And he expressed that anger articulately, accusing the Senate Democrats on the committee of grossly unfair, unprofessional, and libelous conduct all designed to scuttle his nomination and destroy his reputation, something that they could not do in the within the normal course of the hearing.  And now progressives (along with that special case, Flake) are complaining that when Kavanaugh took offense to the disgusting claims against him, rather than sit and take it like a good little Fredocon (h/t Kurt Schlichter), his natural umbrage showed a lack of “judicial temperament.”

Cue the media:

Except that . . .

What a bit of Orwellian tendentious redefinition this is.  Judicial temperament is the ability to approach cases and questions with fairness.  To quote Chief Justice John Roberts, “I think judicial temperament is a willingness to step back from your own committed views of the correct jurisprudential approach and evaluate those views in terms of your role as a judge.”  The term has absolutely zero to do with restraining one’s anger at obscene personal attacks, whether on or off the bench.  And if anyone thinks that judges restrain their anger on the bench, they are living in la la land.  This is a bold-faced lie told to sway those ignorant of trial law.

And one more point for those who claim that Kavanaugh was faking both his outrage and his despair. If you watched his opening statement, you noticed that he kept sniffing. If you’ve ever tried not to cry, you know that what gives you away is that your mucus glands go into overdrive. Even if will power allows you to hold back visible tears, they still try to leak out of your nose. It’s easy to fake crying; it’s incredibly hard to fake mucus overload. In other words, Kavanaugh was not play-acting. But back to the ridiculous claim that a man defending himself against outrageous person attacks must be dry and bloodless if he ever wishes to serve

Jeff Flake is a special case.  A Fredocon’s Fredocon, who knows his bread will soon be buttered on the left side of the aisle, he seems to be looking for any excuse to vote against Kavanaugh.  His latest belly crawl is that there should be “no partisans on the Supreme Court.”  And according to Flake, Kavanaugh showed he was a partisan when he, honestly and forthrightly, called out the Democrats for their obscene ambush.

Flake is obviously a man of fairness and principal.  You will recall, of course, how he started a campaign to impeach Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and remove her from the Supreme Court in 2016 after she publicly decried Trump as unfit to be president.   Hard for a Supreme Court justice to get more partisan than that. It’s the preening and moral hypocrisy of people like Flake that disturbs me the most.

____________________________

Summary

We are in a zero sum game with Democrats. They are determined to impose their rule, irrespective of the laws and democratic processes of this nation.  If they succeed in scuttling Kavanaugh on this utterly pretextual and obscene power play and no one (e.g., Feinstein) pays a heavy price, rest assured, this will be a trick the Left will play whenever they want an outcome they can’t get within the rules.  Just as the Salem Witch Trials did not end until almost 200 were tried for witchcraft, 19 hanged, and one pressed death, the Left will feel free to skirt the laws of this nation and the results of the ballot box because, as it has always been for the Left since the day socialism was born in the bloody crucible of the French Revolution, the ends justify the means.   The only thing that will stop them is to hold them liable and make them pay a price for breaking our laws and skirting our Constitution.

There is only a single tie that binds our nation.  It is the only thing that ties a southern boy like me to a farmer in California, a black entrepreneur in Pennsylvania, or a janitor at a school in Texas.  That is the Constitution.

Most people are, I think and hope, willing to abide by the Constitution, the rule of law, and the ballot box.  The radical progressives who control the Democrats do not.  That has us on a direct road to civil war in this country.  I am far from the only one who thinks that.  I recommend Gerard Van Der Luen’s thoughtful take on it at American Digest.

____________________________

A Coda (from Bookworm)

The brilliant content above is Wolf Howling’s. I have just one more thing to add.

As deeply troubling as all of the shenanigans in Washington, D.C., are, there is a recent trend that I think is even more troubling, which is what’s happening on college campuses. Keep in mind that college campuses birthed the Kafka-esque kangaroo courts regarding “rape culture” that D.C. Dems are now using against Kavanaugh. That is, what we’re seeing in D.C. was first rehearsed with help from taxpayer money in myriad hard Left colleges and universities. Uncounted numbers of young men, unwise enough to get drunk and have consensual sex with a drunken woman, found themselves accused of sexual wrongdoing when that young woman woke up feeling that she’d done something very stupid.

These unwitting young men were dragged into campus tribunals without being told the charges against them, without being allowed even to call their parents or talk to an attorney, without being able to confront their accuser or her witnesses, without being able to call their own witnesses and, often, without even being able to voice a defense. They were denounced as “rapists” and “sexual predators,” a verdict that saw them kicked off campus. They and their families — all of whom were probably already marinated in political correctness — slunk off campus, grateful that the boy’s life wasn’t ruined even more by something public, such as the Duke Lacrosse team scandal. Never mind that those boys were vindicated, as were the boys at the University of Virginia fraternity. We all know that mud, once thrown, sticks.

In other words, the campus sex witch hunts were a trial run for the attack on Kavanaugh. What’s frightening is that the campus rehearsal hall is gearing up for even more extreme attacks on anyone who does not embrace Leftist orthodoxy. Two recent reports will illustrate this. The first comes from the University of Southern California (once a famously conservative bastion):

Nearly 100 students at the University of Southern California attended a rally at noon on Monday demanding a tenured professor be fired after he sent a reply-all email last Thursday to the student body noting that “accusers sometimes lie.”

“If the day comes you are accused of some crime or tort of which you are not guilty, and you find your peers automatically believing your accuser, I expect you find yourself a stronger proponent of due process than you are now,” emailed Professor James Moore.

The email — in response to a reply-all email that urged students to “Believe Survivors” on the day of Christine Ford’s testimony  — triggered what one school admin said was “hundreds” of emails from concerned students and alumni since Thursday.

USC students Audrey Mechling and Joelle Montier then organized a Facebook rally against the engineering professor, entitled “Times Up for James Moore.” Monday at noon at the USC Argue Plaza, nearly 100 students yelled, “Times Up, No Moore!” dozens of times.

Roughly 7 students also spoke at a makeshift podium, sharing sharing [sic] stories of sexual abuse. The crowd then marched over to the office of Dean Jack Knott, according to multiple live-streams of the protest.

The students’ combination of aggression and fragility is pretty common fare now. What’s really troublesome is the fact that the Dean of the Poli Sci department abased himself before these irrational, vicious baby tyrants:

“What [Professor Moore] sent was extremely inappropriate, hurtful, insensitive. We are going to try to do everything we can to try to create a better school, to educate the faculty,” said Dean Knott to the crowd.

He then announced that USC would take action.

“This is going to be a multi-pronged effort. We are going to have a faculty meeting later this week around implicit bias, sensitivity towards [sexual assault]….” he said.

And thus did the Poli Sci dean at USC consign our constitution and over a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon due process rights for the accused to the dustbin of history.

READ  Why I Won’t Vote For The Dirty Sonsabitches In November

Far away, on America’s other coast, the students’ insanity went even further off the charts:

In the days before Harvard Law School announced embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh will not teach in Cambridge this January, undergraduates eager to block his return to campus struck on a new strategy: file Title IX complaints against the conservative judge.

Over the past week, several students filed formal complaints alleging Kavanaugh’s presence in Cambridge would violate Harvard’s policy prohibiting sexual and gender-based harassment — though several Title IX experts said this strategy was unlikely to succeed.

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. But at least one signatory said that not all of those who signed the petition had actually filed complaints as of Monday evening.

What the Harvard students are saying is that Kavanaugh’s very existence constitutes a danger to them.

The world has actually seen students make these allegations before — namely, that wrong-thinking teachers needed to be purged lest their very existence destroy progress — and the last time it happened, it did not end well. In China, in the mid-1960s, the Cultural Revolution, which saw millions killed, imprisoned, tortured, and humiliated, started the same way — with professors and students egging each other on to take ever more extreme stands on Leftist orthodoxy. Looking at the news reports above, USC’s Dean Knott seems to be auditioning for the roll of Nie Yuanzi:

Nie Yuanzi (Chinese: 聂元梓; pinyin: Niè Yuánzǐ; born 5 April 1921) is a Chinese academic who taught philosophy at Peking University. She is primarily known for writing a big-character poster criticising the university for being controlled by the bourgeoisie, which has been credited with launching the Cultural Revolution.

[snip]

Nie’s big-character poster was put up on 25 May 1966. In it, she criticised Song Shuo, deputy director of the Beijing Municipal University Bureau, Lu Ping, the President of Peking University and head of its Communist Party committee, and Peng Peiyun, an official in the Beijing Municipal University Bureau. Although Nie’s main criticism was the control of Peking University by the bourgeoisie, the aim of the campaign was to legitimise the purge of the Beijing municipal party chief Peng Zhen, by exposing his crime of supporting a bourgeoise reactionary education line. This was pushed by members of the radical clique surround Mao Zedong, including Kang Sheng and Cao Yi’ou. This inspired students at other universities to write posters, most of which expressed support for the “revolutionary action” of Nie Yuanzi.

When she published the poster, Nie was one of Peking University’s top 30 officials on the Party committee. She was married to an official in the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and, along with her husband, Nie often socialised with ministerial-level officials.

Nie initially supported the persecution of other academics, but later disagreed on the course the Cultural Revolution was taking and tried to quit her position in the Red Guards. She controlled revolutionary activities at Peking University, along with her colleagues, protected by her status as a celebrated rebel. (Footnotes and hyperlinks omitted.)

Dean Knott would do well to remember that, because revolutions always eat their own, if you don’t end up at the very top of the dung heap you’ve created, you will be dead or imprisoned. (In Yuanzi’s case, forced labor and prison awaited her.)

With ever-increasing speed, the Democrats are dragging us down a path that others have gone down before, always with bloody, destructive results. Unless you are a doctrinaire Leftist, in which case there is no hope for you, I urge you to vote a straight Republican ticket this November. It doesn’t matter if your local Republican is unsavory or stupid. That’s a local problem that should be addressed in the primaries (although somehow it never is). The only thing that matters this time around is to deny Democrats control over either house of Congress (or, God forbid, both houses).

Keep in mind that we don’t need to guess what the Left plans to do if it manages just to win the House. Democrats have already made it clear that the party intends to destroy the Supreme Court and, with it, all notions of a stable constitutional republic:

If it wasn’t already evident that even if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court in a few days the left will carry on with a full-scale attack (including an impeachment investigation), then the email below from Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect sent out yesterday makes the matter explicit. I’ll intersperse my comments in places:

The Back-Up Way of Defeating Kavanaugh. Assume the worst: Let’s posit that within a week, despite the evidence of his abuses when young, his temperament when middle-aged, and his unyieldingly troglodytic beliefs at all times, Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. That, of course, would create the first hard-right majority on the Court since 1937—a majority dead-set against modernity, equal rights for women and minorities, and any rights at all for workers. What to do then?

[snip]

There would still remain one perfectly legal and valid exit ramp from this lowdown circle of hell. In the increasingly likely event that the Democrats take the House this November, the new Democratic majority on the House Judiciary Committee could revisit Kavanaugh’s testimony last week for evidence of deception. Indeed, the senior Democrat on that committee, New Yorker Jerry Nadler—as smart and progressive a congressman as the Democrats have—has already indicated the committee, which he’d be chairing, would do just that.

Comment: Jerry Nadler-the-Hutt. (Maybe Trump will call him a “Nadlering nabob of negativism?”) I look forward to watching that.

It’s almost impossible to envision the Senate convicting Kavanaugh—it requires a two-thirds vote, which is to say, Republican support, and given that party’s commitment to anti-empiricism, all evidence will become beside the point—but a House-enacted resolution to impeach would in itself throw the Court into crisis.

First, additional revelations from a House investigation might compel Kavanaugh to resign. Second, were he to stay on the court, the Senate would have to hold a trial (unless, if the Republicans still control the Senate, they refuse to, which would lead to a constitutional impasse that would doubtless have to be decided by, yep, the Supreme Court). Third, whether Kavanaugh could continue to hear and rule on cases while all this was proceeding would be hotly disputed and, again, a matter that the Court would have to decide since there would be no one else who could decide it. Fourth, if after all this Kavanaugh remains on the Court, the legitimacy of its rulings would be questioned as never before in our history, laying the groundwork for the addition of at least two justices to the current nine should the Democrats control the White House and Congress following the 2020 election.

The Supreme Court, along with the military and the police (!), is one of the few national institutions that still enjoys the majority support, respect, and confidence of the American people according to most surveys. So now the left wants to create a “crisis” at the Court, and delegitimize its rulings.

When America’s mid-19th century Civil War began in mid-1861, people on both sides predicted it would end by Christmas. In fact, it ended four years later, having claimed approximately 620,000 men, or 2% of America’s population (which would be equal to about 6,000,000 dead today).

Civil Wars are never short, sweet, or bloodless. They are brutal, bloody conflicts that grind on to the military fighter standing, at which point the military conflict ends. As America’s history shows, though, and as a quick look around the world confirms, even after the actual battle ends, the schism in society remains as a toxic lesion for decades or centuries.

When it comes to the Left’s plan for an all-out assault on America’s Constitution, and all the freedoms flowing from it, we don’t need to nip the Left in the bid. We need to destroy the whole plant, root and branch, and then sow the ground with salt so that this never happens again. And because we Normals (as Kurt Schlichter perfectly characterizes us) are civilized constitutionalists, the way to do that is at the voting booth.

Again, I don’t care what doofus on the ballot has an R behind his or her name. Your job, is you don’t want to repeat either Antietam or the burning of Atlanta, is to vote for that doofus. Do not let the Democrat party get its tyrannical claws sunk into the instruments of government power.

URGENT: SS Administration Announcement Affecting Your Benefits 
 
Due to a change in Social Security regulations that took place on April 30th 2016, you can now add as much as a potential $570 to your monthly benefits… Just by contacting the SS administration and saying ONE simple  word. 

That’s an extra $6,840 a year! 
About Bookworm 876 Articles
Bookworm came late to conservativism but embraced it with passion. She's been blogging since 2004 about anything that captures her fancy -- and that's usually politics. Her blog's motto is "Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts."