If You Voted Democrat, Was This What You Voted For?

Yesterday The Federalist posted an article about some of the plans the Democrats have now that they will be the majority party in the House of Representatives. The dominant aspect of their plans has been obvious for a while–do anything they can to derail the Trump Agenda. That is rather logical considering that they are the opposition party, but I think some voters will be surprised at how far they are willing to go with this.

The article reports:

Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., revealed plans for House Democrats to investigate and impeach Justice Brett Kavanaugh for alleged perjury and investigate and impeach President Donald Trump for alleged treasonous collusion with Russia.

In post-election chats with various callers while riding the Acela train from New York to Washington, Nadler gave advice to a newly elected representative and discussed potential 2020 Democratic presidential nominees with another. He also lamented identity politics and the thriving economy and worried about Democrats losing working-class voters while gaining elite former Republicans and suburban women.

Although I hesitate to give the Democrats good advice, I would like to remind them what happened when the Republicans impeached President Clinton–the American people did not view the efforts favorably and the Republicans lost Congress. If the Democrats want to take that chance, they are welcome to, but it is a fool’s errand. The House of Representatives needs a simple majority to impeach, but the Senate needs a two-thirds vote–67 votes. That is highly unlikely. A very wise man once said, “Do not strike the king unless you kill him.” The political repercussions of attempting to impeach a Supreme Court Judge and a President would be overwhelmingly negative.

There is one other aspect of this I would like to mention. In recent years, more government policy has been set by the courts than by Congress. The political left is well aware of that fact. The biggest danger to the left from President Trump is the fact that he is naming judges who will follow the Constitution. That is the reason for the attack on both President Trump and Justice Kavanaugh. Congress has given over so much of its power to the courts that Congress is very close to irrelevant.

It Only Matters When It Can Be Weaponized

The political left loves to scream that President Trump has a bad attitude toward women or that Judge Kavanaugh was guilty of sexual assault and should therefore be disqualified as a judge, but how good are they at policing their own. If last night’s election results are any indication, not very good.

Fox News posted an article today reminding us that four of the Democrat candidates who won their elections last night are facing sexual misconduct controversies.

The article reports:

House Reps. Keith Ellison, Tony Cárdenas and Bobby Scott, and Sen. Bob Menendez, all came out victorious on Tuesday, despite being accused of misconduct.

Their election raises questions whether the Democratic Party, which went all-out to stop now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the face of assault claims and stressed the importance of believing women’s allegations, is selectively tapping into the #MeToo movement.

I guess #MeToo only matters if you are a Republican.

The article includes the names of the candidates and the charges:

Ellison, the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was one of the highest-profile candidates who won the election. He became the state attorney general in Minnesota despite allegations of domestic violence.

Karen Monahan, the Democrat’s former girlfriend, alleged that he once dragged her off a bed while shouting profanities and sent multiple abusive text messages. She also published a 2017 medical document that identified Ellison as the abuser who caused “emotional and physical abuse.”

…Cárdenas, a California Democrat, meanwhile, easily cruised to victory in the state’s 29th Congressional District, receiving nearly 80 percent of the vote, while being the subject of a lawsuit claiming he drugged and sexually assaulted a 16-year-old teenager in 2007.

A Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that “a reasonable and meritorious basis” existed for the case to proceed and Cárdenas was publicly identified as the accused person. He denied the accusations.

…Old allegations of misconduct also came back to haunt Menendez, the incumbent New Jersey senator, who won the closer-than-expected race as well.

Republican candidate Bob Hugin revived salacious allegations that Menendez had sex with underage prostitutes during past trips to the Dominican Republic.

…Virginia Democrat Bobby Scott won Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District thanks to nobody challenging him, even after he was accused of sexual misconduct in 2017.

A former Congressional Black Caucus Foundation fellow. M. Reese Everson, claimed that the congressman sexually harassed her in 2013, and that she was fired and blacklisted from further work on Capitol Hill after she refused his advances.

One standard for me, and one standard for thee.

Something To Think About

The confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh was ugly. He was confirmed, but there are those who will ignore the exculpatory evidence that has come out since the hearing and choose to believe he was guilty of the charges. There are two recent articles that detail that exculpatory evidence. Since the mainstream media will probably ignore these stories, I would like to summarize them. However, I also want to remind everyone that it is becoming obvious that an innocent man was almost destroyed for political reasons. That is totally unfortunate and unacceptable.

The Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday about one of the charges against Justice Kavanaugh.

The article reports:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) released a 414 page report on Brett Kavanaugh over the weekend and confirmed that there is no credible evidence to support the sexual assault allegations.

The Committee interviewed 45 individuals and took 25 written statements relating to the various allegations against Kavanaugh, the Senate Judiciary said.

This is one of the most important facts uncovered in the report:

Grassley’s probe also revealed details behind ‘mistaken identity’ claims from two other witnesses who came forward claiming they were the ones who had the encounter with Christine Ford, not Brett Kavanaugh.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed in late September that they were talking to two men who thought they had the “encounter” with Christine Ford, not Brett Kavanaugh.

The Federalist posted a summary of the report yesterday.

These are some highlights from the article in The Federalist:

Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee differed in many respects from statements she made to her therapist, the Washington Post reporter who broke the story, and even from her initial letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Ford’s story morphed from a sexual assault by four boys in the mid-1980s, while she was in her late teens, to a sexual assault by one boy at a party attended by five people in 1982, when she was 15.

…In addition to these inconsistencies in Ford’s story, following the Senate hearing the public learned of another problem with her testimony when a former longtime boyfriend came forward. He contradicted Ford’s claim that she had never “had discussions with anyone, besides [her] attorneys, on how to take a polygraph,” and had never given “advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test.”

The ex-boyfriend stated that “contrary to Dr. Ford’s testimony, she had helped prepare her roommate, former FBI agent Monica McLean, for a polygraph examination.” Grassley’s report includes the letter from Ford’s former boyfriend detailing his claim.

…Ford expanded on the effects, stating: “I struggled academically. I struggled very much in Chapel Hill and in college. When I was 17 and went off to college, I had a very hard time, more so than others, forming new friendships and especially friendships with boys, and I had academic problems.”

However, a former college acquaintance told the Judiciary Committee that Ford had “a fairly active and robust social life” in college at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His letter added that Chrissy “seemed to have a number of other non-dating male friends, more guy friends perhaps than females,” and that she attended “frat house parties, some crowded and lasting very late in the evening,” as well as “smaller gatherings in male friend’s rooms or apartments.”

…Throughout the entire ordeal, many commentators—myself included—suggested that while Kavanaugh did not assault Ford, someone else may have. After hearing Ford’s Senate testimony, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins similarly concluded that Kavanaugh was not Ford’s assailant but “that she was assaulted.” By whom and when, though, Collins did not know.

It is unlikely the public will ever know what happened to Ford, if anything. But Grassley’s report supports the possibility that the encounter Ford described involved other boys and different facts. Specifically, the report summarized statements made by two men who believed they might have been involved in the encounters Ford described, albeit with it being consensual.

…Grassley’s memorandum discussed Deborah Ramirez’s claim that, in the 1980s while attending Yale University, Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her, thrusting “his penis in her face.” Kavanaugh denied Ramirez’s charge and Ramirez admitted she was intoxicated at the time and wasn’t sure Kavanaugh was the flasher until she spent a week thinking it over and talking with her attorneys. Grassley’s report concluded there was no verifiable evidence supporting Ramirez’s claim that Kavanaugh had exposed himself.

In fact, the committee received evidence indicating that another Yale student had been a known flasher at the time. A witness told the committee investigator that a different classmate, who was a member of the same fraternity as Kavanaugh, “had a reputation for exposing himself publicly.” This witness provided the investigator a yearbook photo showing that individual sans pants.

The article lists more problems with the charges against Justice Kavanaugh. Please follow the link to read further details.

The bottom line here is simple–an innocent man’s career was almost destroyed by false testimony. I don’t know if Dr. Ford actually believed what she testified to, if she was simply confused,  or if she was simply being used for political purposes. I do wonder what the consequences of making false charges against someone during a Congressional hearing should be. My impression of Dr. Ford is that something traumatic did happen to her in high school and that she should be treated gently. However, there do need to be some consequences for the false charges she levied. Behavior that is not dealt with will continue. I think we need to send a message that this sort of circus at a confirmation hearing will not be tolerated. There also need to be some rules about introducing inflammatory charges just before a committee is going to vote.

There Is (And Should Be) A Penalty For Dishonesty

The Gateway Pundit is reporting today the Senator Chuck Grassley has criminally referred another Kavanaugh accuser to the Justice Department for investigation. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was turned into a circus when Diane Feinstein withheld charges of sexual assault against Justice Kavanaugh until the last day of the hearing. The chargers were unsubstantiated, and there was some suspicion of misconduct by the lawyers of the accused. The actions of the lawyers are being investigated. Now another accuser has admitted that she made up the charges, and she has been referred to the Justice Department for investigation.

The article reports:

Senator Grassley sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions regarding “fabricated allegations” the Senate Judiciary Committee received.

Brett Kavanaugh was previously questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee after an anonymous letter signed ‘Jane Doe’ alleged he and a friend raped an Oceanside, CA woman in a car.

The hand-written letter was sent to Democrat Senator Kamala Harris.

…The accuser, Ms. Judy Munro-Leighton, now admits it was a “ploy” and she just wanted to “get attention.”

…The Senate Judiciary Chairman recently referred creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick to the DOJ for a criminal investigation for false statements and deliberate obstruction of a congressional investigation (violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001 and 1505).

Grassley then hit Avenatti with a second criminal referral regarding another declaration he submitted to the Committee related to the second, anonymous Kavanaugh accuser he brought forth with allegations of gang rape.

Falsely accusing someone during a Senate hearing should have consequences. Thank goodness President Trump, Senator Grassley, and other Senators did not let this false charge ruin a man’s life. What a travesty that would have been.

 

 

Abandoning What You Probably Never Read

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal posted a commentary with the headline, “Democrats Abandon the Constitution.” Actually they did that a long time ago, which is why they were so upset at the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh–he might work to bring it back.

The commentary goes on to list some of the basic tenets of the Constitution that the Democrats are currently railing against:

Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court has sparked a firestorm of outrage and recrimination on the left. Some attacks seem aimed at intimidating the justices into supporting progressive causes. “The Court must now prove—through its work—that it is worthy of the nation’s trust,” Eric Holder, President Obama’s attorney general, tweeted Oct. 6.

Yet the attacks go beyond ideology. Detractors of Justice Kavanaugh and President Trump are denouncing the Constitution itself and the core elements of America’s governmental structure:

  • The Electoral College. Mr. Trump’s opponents claim he is an illegitimate president because Hillary Clinton “won the popular vote.” One commentator even asked “what kind of nation allows the loser of a national election to become president.” The complaint that the Electoral College is undemocratic is nothing new. The Framers designed it that way. They created a republican form of government, not a pure democracy, and adopted various antimajoritarian measures to keep the “demos” in check.

The Electoral College could be eliminated by amending the Constitution. But proposing an amendment requires two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress, and the legislatures of three-fourths, or 38, of the states would have to ratify it.

  • The Senate. The complaint here is that the 50 senators who voted in Justice Kavanaugh’s favor “represent” fewer people than the 48 who voted against him. But senators represent states, not people.

Equal Senate representation for the states was a key part of the Connecticut Compromise, along with House seats apportioned by population. The compromise persuaded large and small states alike to accept the new Constitution. It was so fundamental that Article V of the Constitution—which spells out the amendment procedure—provides that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” That means an amendment changing the structure of the Senate would require ratification by all 50 states.

  • Judicial independence. Commentators who disapprove of the Supreme Court’s composition have urged, as one law professor put it, “shrinking the power of the courts to overrun our citizens’ democratic decisions.” Some suggest limiting and staggering the justices’ terms so that a vacancy would come up every other year, ensuring that the court follows the election returns. That could be achieved via constitutional amendment, but it would go against the Framers’ wisdom. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, life tenure for judges is “the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.”

What we have hear is a living example of what happens when you don’t teach American history and the principles of the Constitution in schools. The people calling for these changes have no concept of how our government was designed or the safeguards that were put in it. Their desire is to take those safeguards out and institute mob rule. That has not worked well in other places, and I seriously doubt it would work well here. It was what our Founding Fathers sought to avoid.

The commentary concludes:

The anger and disappointment of Justice Kavanaugh’s opponents is understandable, as would be that of his supporters if the vote had gone the other way. They are perfectly entitled to pursue political remedies, including using his appointment as a campaign issue. They also are entitled to pursue amendments to the Constitution that would make our system of government more responsive to the popular will. What they cannot do is overturn the Connecticut Compromise guaranteeing each state equal representation in the Senate, or launch unconstitutional investigations or impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court justice. The Constitution protects all of us, even Supreme Court justices.

True.

In Keeping With His Efforts To Further The Careers Of Women In The Law Profession…

The Federalist Papers reported today:

Brett Kavanaugh, the newest Supreme Court justice, just made history, even though he’s been on the job barely 24 hours:

A day after the bitter fight over his nomination ended in his elevation to the Supreme Court, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was in his new chambers on Sunday, preparing for the arguments the court is to hear as it enters the second week of its term. …

Justice Kavanaugh met with his four law clerks, all women — a first for the Supreme Court — in chambers that had until recently been occupied by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who has moved to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s old chambers. …

Justice Kavanaugh said in his testimony last month that he had started to take action to address the underrepresentation of women among law clerks after reading a 2006 article in The New York Times noting that only seven of 37 Supreme Court clerks were women.

“A majority of my 48 law clerks over the last 12 years have been women,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “In my time on the bench, no federal judge — not a single one in the country — has sent more women law clerks to clerk on the Supreme Court than I have.”

Indeed, as Liptak notes, he can expect to see some familiar faces:

This term, six of his former clerks are working at the Supreme Court, double the number of any other appeals court judge. Four of them are women.

The article also notes that Brett Kavanaugh has also appointed more African-Americans than Ruth Bader Ginsburg has in her entire career.

The article also mentions Judge Kavanaugh’s role in helping women become law clerks at the Supreme Court:

On the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh hired 25 women and 23 men as law clerks. His four clerks from 2014 to 2015 were women, and 21 of the 25 he hired went on to U.S. Supreme Court clerkships. His 48 clerks represented diverse background and viewpoints.

With Kavanaugh’s elevation, law school graduates lose an opportunity for an appellate clerkship with one of the top “feeder judges” to the justices who are now his colleagues.

Kavanaugh sent 39 of his 48 clerks to the Supreme Court, including clerks serving justices in the current term. Although most of those clerks have gone to the conservative justices—with Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. hiring 13, the largest number—Kavanaugh sent two each to justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, and one to Stephen Breyer. No former Kavanaugh clerk has gone on to clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The man the Democrats and the media attempted to paint as a monster who abused women turns out to be one of the major mentors of women working in the law profession in Washington. So much for the honesty and reliability of information provided by the Democrats and the media.

This Says A Lot About How Things Work In Washington

Yesterday The Daily Wire reported the following:

A Democratic staffer arrested last week on charges that he revealed the personal information of several Republican Senate Judiciary Committee members was not an “intern” for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), as originally reported. The 27-year-old career staffer, Jackson Cosko, was, instead, reportedly a “fellow” paid by an “outside institution” who served as a primary adviser in Lee’s Congressional office.

This wasn’t some unpaid intern–it was an advisor in a Congressional office.

The article notes:

As the Tennessee Star points out, that raises questions: “It seems clear Cosko isn’t some unlucky and overzealous intern who got caught being a naughty boy. Rather, it seems Cosko might be a Democratic operative, paid by an outside organization, planted in an unpopular congresswoman’s office possibly so he could engage in exactly the type of behavior that just got him arrested.”

Cosko was arrested last week after federal investigators discovered he was responsible for editing a Wikipedia article revealing the personal names, addresses, and phone numbers of several Republican senators, almost immediately after Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) concluded a fiery speech defending then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

This is simply another example of totally unacceptable behavior by Democrat operatives. This creates a nightmare for the security details of these Senators. The Senators are considerably safer when the crazies out there don’t know where they live. How many attacks on Senators do we need before we admit the need for absolute secrecy regarding their home addresses?

Hopefully this paid operative will spend some time in jail.

This Is What Sore Losers Look Like

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article about some recent comments by former Attorney General Eric Holder.

The article reports:

Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, who is considering running for president in 2020, called into doubt the legitimacy of the Supreme Court following the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Court by a 50-48 vote in the Senate on Saturday. Holder on Friday used incendiary rhetoric to call on liberals to use their “rage” to vote to “be rid of these people”–singling out Republicans in the Senate who support Kavanaugh and have used their majority power to control nominations to the courts.

I hate to say this, but this brings to mind how unpolitical the actions of the Senate were when Barack Obama nominated judges to the Supreme Court. The Democrats held the majority in the Senate when Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. Fifty-nine Democrats voted for confirmation (Ted Kennedy was not present) and nine Republicans voted for confirmation. When Elena Kagan was nominated for the Supreme Court, the Democrats also held the majority. The vote was 63-37 with five Republicans voting for confirmation. The Republicans acted like gentlemen, and the judges were confirmed. Both judges were known as liberal judges, but no one questions the legitimacy of the Supreme Court after they were confirmed.

The duly-elected President is the person the Constitution gives the power to select Supreme Court Justices. The Senate’s role is Advise and Consent. I believe that in the hearings for Judge Kavanaugh the Senate abused that role. There is nothing illegitimate about the Supreme Court now that it includes Justice Kavanaugh.

The article continues:

On Friday Holder expressed similar concerns in comments but also exhorted his supporters use their “rage” about how the Republicans who control the Senate used their power to confirm Kavanaugh and fill other judicial seats to “be rid of these people.” While Holder wrote he was urging people to vote to “be rid of these people”, his choice of language encouraging liberals to ‘use their rage’ to ‘be rid of these people’ is deliberate.

“Reputation and credibility of Supreme Court at stake with upcoming vote. How the Court is viewed. For years. Bigger than one individual. There are conservative acceptable alternatives…As you lament the Merrick Garland outrage never forget that McConnell and R’s did not fill lower court seats for YEARS. Those are the seats being filled now. Use the rage of today to get people out to vote and be rid of these people. Your voice matters. Your vote counts. VOTE!”

I really don’t think Eric Holder’s statements add anything to the civility of our political discourse.

A Short History Lesson

Remember Herman Cain? He ran for President, but dropped out of the race after sexual allegations. So what happened next?

A site called Yahoo Answers explains:

What ever happened to the women that accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment?

I know that Sharon Bialek has a history of lawsuits against her and I believe that she wanted to use Herman Cain to her own advantage by supposedly coming out about this so called sexual harassment. Then Karen Kraushaar the last time I have heard filed a complaint at her new job. According to the huffington post “two former supervisors say she initially demanded a settlement of thousands of dollars, a promotion on the federal pay scale, reinstated leave time and a one year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of government.” Why do women like them think they can do these things abuse the sexual harassment policy against male supervisors?

This is the “Biden Rule” as stated in Politifact:

“Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”

Let’s fast-forward to the sudden death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016.

Politifact reported:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called “Biden Rule” to justify why the Senate should not consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court in an election year.

Chuck Shumer was fine when the Biden Rule was used in the George Bush administration. He was not fine when it was used in the Obama administration.

That tweet illustrates part of the reason for the brutal attack on Judge Kavanuagh. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Hillary was supposed to win the election, and Loretta Lynch was going to be named to the Supreme Court.

Today ABC 7 News is reporting:

With the Senate voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Christine Blasey Ford has no further plans to pursue her sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, according to her lawyers.

Ford only wanted to speak with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, her attorneys told CNN on Friday. Ford does not want the situation to “drag on into the next Congress should Democrats end up winning control on Capitol Hill,” the network reported.

When asked about the possibility of impeachment proceedings, attorney Debra Katz told the network: “Professor Ford has not asked for anything of the sort. What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI, and that’s what she sought to do here.”

Judge Kavanaugh has been confirmed. Professor Ford’s charges did not cause him to withdraw from the race. Unfortunately, her charges, though unproven, will have a negative impact on Judge Kavanaugh’s spotless record and on his family. Now, with a serious amount of money from her GoFundMe Account, Professor Ford will go on her way, leaving a trail of destruction behind her.

It’s funny how unsubstantiated charges of sexual misconduct seem to magically disappear when they are no longer useful.

Congratulations to Judge Kavanaugh for standing firm and beating back the mob.

This Is A Scary Statement

On Wednesday, The Independent Journal Review posted an article that included a very interesting quote.

The article reports:

Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) claims that having strong emotional reactions could be grounds to disqualify Judge Brett Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court.

During a press conference on Tuesday, Booker said that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed, regardless of the conclusion of the FBI investigation.

“Ultimately — not whether he’s innocent or guilty, this is not a trial … have enough questions been raised that we should not move on to another candidate?” said Booker.

The senator questioned if the uncorroborated accusations against Kavanaugh were enough to deny him a seat on the Supreme Court. He also brought up Kavanaugh’s emotional testimony and labeled it as shocking.

“Is this the right person to sit on the highest court in the land for a lifetime appointment — when their credibility has been challenged by intimates, people that knew the candidate well as a classmate, when his temperament has been revealed in an emotional moment where he used language that, frankly, shocked a lot of us?” asked Booker.

So let me get this right. A man accused of a vicious crime with no supporting evidence reacts to the charges. Therefore he is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Imagine if this set a precedent for future Supreme Court hearings. Find someone the person knew in high school and make up a great story. Professor Ford may have been telling the truth as she believed it, but it is telling that there were a few obvious lies in her testimony–she is obviously not afraid of flying, the front door was to run a business out of her house, and she had previously coached a friend for a lie detector test. Interestingly enough, that friend is a former FBI agent who was present at the hearing, sitting behind her. It is also interesting that all the people that she claimed as witnesses denied the story.

This whole charade was a little too much like the Salem Witch Trials to belong in today’s America. Hopefully there will be enough of a backlash so that the Democrats do not do this to the next Supreme Court nominee.

Who Were Those Women?

Most of us have seen the video of Senator Jeff Flake accosted in the elevator before the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to move the Kavanaugh nomination out of committee. Many of us have little doubt that it was staged. If nothing else, it provided cover for the actions of the spineless Senator.

Yesterday John Fund posted an article at the National Review which sheds some light on exactly what happened. Mr. Fund notes that the two women had to get past reporters and security officers in order to block a senators-only elevator in the U.S. Capitol. That should cause some concern about the safety of our legislators. Considering the 3017 attack on Republicans while they were playing softball, I would think the security at the Capitol would be better.

Let’s take a look at who those two women are. The article reports:

Ana Maria Archila and Maggie Gallagher were the two women who confronted Flake inside the elevator to express, as the New York Times put it, “a rising anger among many who feel that, too often, women’s voices are silenced and their pain ignored.”

Perhaps because the women expressed such raw emotion, few media outlets dug into their political activism. Archila is an executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy; she had spent the previous week in Washington engaged in protests against Kavanaugh. Gallagher is a 23-year-old activist with the group. The Center is a left-wing group that is heavily funded by George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Indeed, as of 2014, the Open Society was one of the three largest donors to the group.

…Archila has another role beyond her duties as co–executive director of the Center. She is also a member of the national committee of the Working Families Party (WFP), a New York–based fringe political party that exercises outside influence in the Empire State because of the state’s unique law allowing candidates to run on more than one party line.

…The WFP was founded in 1998 by the leaders of ACORN, the now disbanded and disgraced group of community organizers for whom Barack Obama served as a lawyer, in Chicago in the 1990s.

The article concludes:

I have no doubt that the vast majority of protesters who want to stop Brett Kavanaugh are sincere and are merely exercising their constitutional rights. But imagine if two women had cornered a Democratic senator in an elevator and demanded an investigation of who had leaked to the media Christine Blasey Ford’s letter alleging that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her. (Senator Lindsey Graham said today that he planned to investigate the leak.) There would have been sputtering outrage in media circles, and reporters would have breathlessly hunted down any ties between the women and outside groups.

It’s a sign of media bias that the people from the well-funded groups behind the anti-Kavanaugh protests are described merely as “activists” and that their political motives and origins are largely unexplored.

The fact that these fringe-left groups are fighting so hard to stop Judge Kavanaugh convinces me that he needs to be confirmed. He represents a return to Constitutional Law that the political left does not want. He summed up his views when he reminded Congress that it was their job to make laws–not the Supreme Court’s. It is time to get back to the Representative Republic our Founding Fathers designed.

Adding To The Circus

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about an accusation against Judge Kavanaugh that has already been proven false.

The article reports:

Mr. Jeffrey Catalan accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of assaulting a woman on a boat in Rhode Island. Mr. Catalan first sent the accusation to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the primary Democrat operatives who was helping to construct the attacks against Judge Kavanaugh. Senator Whitehouse simultaneously informed the media and the Judicary Committee of the allegations. Mr. Catalan later recanted his story, saying he made it all up.

Today, Senator Chuck Grassley requested a criminal investigation of Mr. Catalan for making false accusations.

The investigation may also include Senator Sheldon Whitehouse for assisting and promoting the false accusation:

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today referred for criminal investigation apparent false statements made to committee investigators alleging misconduct by Judge Brett Kavanaugh. In a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Chris Wray, Chairman Chuck Grassley sought a criminal review of the actions by a named individual who provided Congress with the information, diverting Committee resources from an ongoing investigation.

This is the part of the story that I think is interesting:

While Whitehouse referred the accuser to a reporter, the committee took the claim seriously and questioned Judge Kavanaugh about the allegations under penalty of felony. Judge Kavanaugh denied any misconduct. After the transcripts of that interview became public, the individual recanted the claims on a social media post.

Why would you refer the accuser to a reporter rather than have the committee quietly investigate the charges? If you refer the accuser to a reporter, you are letting the accuser know that the accusation is going to be made public without any confirmation of the charges. That is exactly what happened. It should also be noted that it is (possibly remotely) possible that Professor Ford did not want her name made public with the charges. However, our justice system provides that the accused be able to confront his accuser, so at some point her name was going to become public.

This was a false charge which the person making the charge admitted that he made up. It illustrates that damage that can be done to a public figure by someone who simply makes something up.

Rewriting The Constitution As You Go Along

The mass hysteria over the idea that Judge Kavanaugh might be confirmed has gotten a little out of hand. On Thursday, Newsbusters posted an article about some comments by ABC’s Terry Moran.

The article reports:

While CBS was conceding that Brett Kavanaugh will probably make it onto the Supreme Court, ABC’s Terry Moran on Thursday fumed about how “millions of women” will feel “annihilated” if the Judge is confirmed. He also warned Kavanaugh not to rule against abortion or the high Court will lose “legitimacy.” 

Moran lamented, “I can’t imagine the feeling of the millions and millions of women, and others who found Dr. Ford very, very credible.” Conceding a Kavanaugh victory, the ABC journalist stooped to extreme hyperbole on female reaction: “If, as seems likely, Republicans are able to get… Judge Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court, they’re just going to feel annihilated inside.” 

But Moran wasn’t done. He lectured a potential future Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh: “Well, he had better take into that lifetime appointment a sense of the woundedness [sic] of so many people in the country.”

I mean, overturning Roe vs. Wade by an all-male majority, two of whom have had credible accusations of sexual misconduct lodged against them would not be a legitimate action. And that is the question of the court. Legitimacy. It has always had a high place in American, in the American popular opinion, and it could lose it if it loses legitimacy. 

Wow. Let’s just ignore the rule of law and do what I want.

There is nothing in Brett Kavanaugh’s professional history that confirms any of the allegations against him. It is possible that he drank too many beers in high school and college, but that should not disqualify him from the Supreme Court. He has obviously been an upstanding citizen during his adult life.

This is a quote from an article at Red State on September 26th:

In the early part of 1863, Major General Ulysses Grant was beset with difficulties and setbacks on his approach to the Vicksburg, MS. A group of his political foes visited President Abraham Lincoln and demanded Grant be superseded by one of the politician-generals that staggered about the military landscape of the Civil War. They topped the story by claiming Grant was a drunk (he actually was). Lincoln asked them what brand he drank because he wanted to send a barrel of it to his other generals.

If Brett Kavanaugh has accomplished more as a sloppy drunk than his critics have sober it tells us a lot more about the staff of the Washington Post and BuzzFeed “News” than it does about Brett Kavanaugh. Maybe they should take up drinking. Then maybe they could get their sh** together and act like adults.

I sincerely hope Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed as a Supreme Court Judge.

There Seems To Be A Lack Of Ethics Among Some Of Our Senators

This post is not directly related to the Senate hearings yesterday, but it may be an indication of the ethics of the people involved.

The Washington Post posted an article yesterday about something that happened to the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee as the hearings were going on.

The article reports:

Several Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee had their home addresses and phone numbers released to the public on their Wikipedia pages during Thursday’s hearing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination.

The victims included Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

According to Caleb Hull, editor of the Independent Journal Review, the wife of Mr. Hatch “has been receiving calls nonstop ON HER BIRTHDAY and their home address was made public.”

The article explains what happened:

CongressEdits, a bot account that for four years automatically retweets edits to Wikipedia made anonymously from IP addresses associated with the U.S. Congress, said the information was also posted on Mr. Lee and Mr. Graham “from US House of Representatives.”

The article auto-posted screen shots supporting the edits being made and noting the inclusion of private information, a practice known as “doxxing.”

The Gateway Pundit reported yesterday:

The private information on the Republican Senators is coming from a computer from the House of Representatives!

Congress reporter for Politico Burgess Everett tweeted: “Someone is doxxing GOP senators on a computer from the House of Representatives, began shortly after the Graham speech. I’m not going to retweet the account where this is posted.”

The person who leaked this information needs to go to jail. He has put members of Congress at risk.

This is a new low in American politics, and one has to wonder what it is about. What is the threat that confirming Judge Kavanaugh represeents? Why are the Democrats willing to go to such lengths to block him?

I suspect that if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, we will know the answers to those questions fairly quickly. We have watched the Advise and Consent process turned on its head. A strategy that failed with Anita Hill was retried. Hopefully it will fail again. The politics of personal destruction should not be a part of the confirmation process–particularly when an allegation is not able to be proved. If you are going to make a charge that has the potential of ruining a man’s career, come with evidence.

Congress Is Hearing From The Grass Roots

Yesterday I attended the Rally for the Republic in Washington, D.C., sponsored by Freedom Works. I boarded the bus to Washington at 1 am. I arrived home at about 11 o’clock last night. I mention that because I am a person who loves my sleep, but the rally was important enough to me to give up a lot of that sleep to attend.

Here are two pictures from the rally:

It was a hot, humid day. Two people were carried away by ambulance because of problems related to the heat. I have no idea how many people were there, but there were a lot of people, and they were angry about the circus the confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh has become.

The rally had two main focuses–the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh and the election of Jim Jordan as Speaker of the House. Both causes were enthusiastically supported by the crowd that attended.

The average American recognizes a smear when he sees it. Professor Ford may have been assaulted, but there is some real question as to the accuracy of her memory of the incident and as to the guilt of Judge Kavanaugh. Because there is no pattern that continued into adulthood, I believe he needs to be given the benefit of the doubt. We might also remember that innocent until proven guilty is one of the foundational blocks of our justice system. Evidently there are many people who feel that Judge Kavanaugh should be confirmed.

It is time to move forward and confirm Judge Kavanuagh.

 

When Lawyers Are Willing To Disregard The Law

On Saturday, Townhall posted an article about a recent New York Times editorial. The editorial was written by former Obama White House lawyer Kate Shaw. Ms. Shaw argues that traditional due process protections such as “the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the presumption of innocence; [and] the right to confront and respond to an accuser” are not necessary for the purposes of determining if Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Christine Blasely Ford more than 35 years ago or whether he should serve on the Supreme Court. Seems as if she went to the same law school as Barack Obama–the law is whatever she decides it is.

The article at Townhall includes the following from the New York Times:

“It’s natural to place this sort of accusation within a criminal-justice framework: the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the presumption of innocence; the right to confront and respond to an accuser. If Judge Kavanaugh stood criminally accused of attempted rape, all of that would apply with full force. But those concepts are a poor fit for Supreme Court confirmation hearings, where there’s no presumption of confirmation, and there’s certainly no burden that facts be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” emphasis added

…“What matters here isn’t law as much as politics — though not (or not just) partisan politics. Confirmation hearings are also about constitutional politics — the debate, involving both institutions of government and the polity, about what the Constitution means and requires.

“So what standard should the Senate use in evaluating the claims made by Dr. Blasey and in deciding how they bear on Judge Kavanaugh’s fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court? The Senate’s approach to its constitutional “advice and consent” obligation has always depended on context.A number of factors matter: the timing of the vacancy; the justice being replaced; the nominee’s likely impact on the ideological makeup of the court; even the popularity of the president (very popular presidents have always had more leeway when it comes to picking justices).” emphasis added

So what is this really about? The Democrats have used to courts for years to pass laws that Congress could not pass. Abortion never made it though Congress–it was decided by the courts. Gay marriage never made it through Congress–it was decided by the courts. Teenage boys in teenage girls’ locker rooms never made it through Congress–it was decided by the courts. So Judge Kavanaugh is a threat to that status quo. He would probably be the fifth vote on the Supreme Court who would bring common sense back into the picture. The fact that he believes in the Constitution is a major threat to the hold the liberal wing of the Democrat Party (is there any other wing?) has on the Supreme Court. That is what this is really about.

Is anyone taking odds as to whether Professor Ford is going to be present at her hearing on Thursday?

Let’s Take A Walk Down Memory Lane

First I need to say that times have changed since the 1960’s when I was a teenager. During the 1960’s, it was understood that girls were responsible for their actions. They were encouraged not to do stupid things. It was understood that there were young men out there who were not gentlemen, and that those young men should not be given an opportunity to behave badly. I am not trying to ‘shame’ victims, which is what you get charged with when you bring common sense into the picture, but the fact is that women are responsible for their actions. They are also responsible for deciding whether or not to take the identify of ‘victim’ for the rest of their lives. Sexual assault is a horrible thing, but there are ways women can protect themselves from it. Getting drunk at a high school keg party is not smart. Getting drunk at a college fraternity party is not smart. Going into a room alone or with a group of drunken young men is not smart. Without ‘shaming’ the victims, can we at least put some of the responsibility for their reckless behavior on them. Then we have the case of the new accuser of Judge Kavanaugh who can’t remember if it was him who did what he did, but came forward to show support for the other accuser after four witnesses denied the charge. In what universe does this make sense?

The charges against Judge Kavanaugh are starting to resemble the charges levied in Rolling Stone Magazine against a University of Virginia fraternity house that the fraternity house fostered a ‘rape culture.’ The article appeared in November 2014, and was apologized for in December 2014.

On December 5, 2014, CBS News reported:

Rolling Stone’s managing editor apologized Friday for a story the magazine published last month describing a gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house, saying its trust in the alleged victim “was misplaced.”

I don’t have to remind you about the Duke Lacrosse team story. Again, trust in the victim was ‘misplaced.’ That’s a polite way of saying ‘she lied.’

So let’s get back to the matter at hand. Yesterday PJ Media posted an article which included the following:

As Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh lost all credibility, it was reasonable to assume there was a reason for all the stalling. Many believed that somewhere, somehow, leftists would find someone else to come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh.

Earlier this evening The New Yorker published a story written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer proving that theory correct. This story centers on Deborah Ramirez, who has come forward (or was pushed to come forward) with a claim that while she and Kavanaugh were both students at Yale, they were both at a drunken dorm party where Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself to her.

The article lists four reasons the new charges are not believable:

  1. Ramirez admits gaps in her memory and wasn’t certain it was Kavanaugh
  2. The New Yorker tried to find eyewitnesses… and failed
  3. Others alleged to have been involved deny it happened
  4. Ramirez’s former best friend challenges the claim

There seems to be a pattern here, and it’s not the one the Democrats want. The charges against Kavanaugh would never make it to court (even without a statute of limitations). No lawyer would take the case, and no judge would be willing to hear it.

If these women were actually sexually assaulted by someone, that is sad. However, they have both moved on with their lives and become successful. Why in the world would they want to take victim-hood as their identity? You really have to wonder about the motives here–there are numerous people the accusers claim as witnesses who have stated that the charges are not true. There are numerous people vouching for Judge Kavanaugh’s character. This is beginning to look more like the Salem Witch Trials than a Senate Confirmation process. Remember, the Salem Witch Trials had a lot to do with power, jealousy, and money. One wonders what is going on behind the scenes with the accusers.

Underneath The Borking

What is being done to Judge Kavanaugh is a borking. It’s an eleventh-hour attempt to make sure he never sits on the Supreme Court. It is based on a thirty-some-year-old charge that cannot be substantiated or disproved. On an interesting side note, a classmate at one point posted on Facebook that the incident happened and was the talk of the school for days. Unfortunately, the incident evidently happened in the summer when school was not in session. One thing everyone needs to consider is whether or not they want to live in a country where when you are up for a promotion a person can come out of the woodwork and deny you that promotion based on an unsubstantiated claim that you did something inappropriate in high school. The other thing to consider is patterns. Is there a pattern of abuse in Judge Kavanaugh’s life? Is the pattern there that was there with Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and some other public figures? If there is a pattern, this charge needs to be examined more closely. If not, it is time to move on and understand that the charge can be neither proven or disproven and therefore must be dismissed.

Yesterday The New York Post posted an editorial about the circus this nomination process has become.

The editorial states:

It didn’t have to be this way.

Feinstein didn’t have to leak the anonymous accusation to the press, contrary to Ford’s wishes. Or she could have urged Ford to go public early, giving both parties enough time to be heard.

Even now, Feinstein and her colleagues could back a committee hearing, without which Kavan­augh has no realistic opportunity for mounting a defense. Kavan­augh is a judge and a political operator. But he ‘s also a father and husband.

But no. Senate Dems have settled on the ugliest means available, even by the standards of the body that added the verb “Borking” to our political vocabulary. The question is: Why have Republican high-court nominations brought out the worst from the left, going back to the Ronald Reagan era?

The short answer is that liberals fear their major cultural victories of the past half-century are democratically illegitimate. Not a single one was won at the ballot box, going back to the Supreme Court’s 1965 Griswold decision, which recognized a constitutional right to contraceptives. From abortion to gay marriage, plus a host of less titillating issues, modern liberalism has lived by the Court. And liberals fear their cause will die by the Court.

Unless, that is, they block conservative encroachments into the judiciary by all means necessary. Hence, Borking and Clarence Thomas-ing. And hence, too, the naked slandering of Mitt Romney in the course of the 2012 presidential campaign, to forestall his shifting the Court to the right.

I wish I could say that the way out of this impasse is for the right to double down on the gentle conservatism represented by Romney, the Bush dynasty, and the late John McCain. Perhaps that is the right course in the long term. But for now, it is imperative for the health of American democracy to resist the liberal ruthlessness that is on display in the halls of the Senate.

The verb “to Kavanaugh” must not be permitted to enter our lexicon, lest the step to unfreedom become irrevocable.

This is where we are. The only way out is to confirm Judge Kavanaugh so that this does not happen again. The last-minute sex accusation did not work on Clarence Thomas and it should not work on Brett Kavanaugh. Maybe after two strike outs, the Democrats will stop using this technique.

Valid Perspective

Dennis Prager posted an article at American Greatness today that I believe illustrates the proper perspective on the charges against Judge Kavanaugh.

The article states:

Those who claim the charges against Judge Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford are important and worth investigating, and that they ultimately, if believed, invalidate his candidacy for the U.S. Supreme Court are stating that:

a) What a middle-aged adult did in high school is all we need to need to know to evaluate an individual’s character—even when his entire adult life has been impeccable.
b) No matter how good and moral a life one has led for 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years, it is nullified by a sin committed as teenager.

No decent—or rational—society has ever believed such nihilistic nonsense.

That about sums it up.

The article concludes:

In sum, I am not interested in whether Mrs. Ford, an anti-Trump activist, is telling the truth. Because even if true, it tells us nothing about Brett Kavanaugh. But for the record, I don’t believe her story. Aside from too many missing details—most women remember virtually everything about the circumstances of a sexual assault no matter how long ago—few men do what she charges Kavanaugh with having done only one time. And no other woman has ever charged him with any sexual misconduct.

Do not be surprised if a future Republican candidate for office or judicial nominee—no matter how exemplary a life he has led—is accused of sexual misconduct … from when he was in elementary school.

This is an important moment in American politics. If this accusation derails the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, we can expect to see similar actions in the future. No self-respecting judge in America will be willing to put himself or his family through this kind of garbage. The woman making the accusations cannot even remember the year it happened or how she got home the night of the party. Does this sound logical? How much had she had to drink, and how clear was her memory? The fact that these accusations were even made public is a disgrace. The Democrats should be ashamed of the fact that they are willing to destroy a good man’s reputation for political ends.

 

Questionable At Best

The October Surprise is a political tactic that has been used in the past to convince the public that a candidate is unfit for office. It is done close enough to the election so that there is not adequate time to research the the accusation before the election. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t. Somehow the accusation and the accusers disappear after the election. Rarely does the accused get a chance to redeem his reputation. In the past the tactic has been used in presidential campaigns and Congressional campaigns. A form of it has also been used to attempt to block Supreme Court nominees. It worked on Robert Bork; it failed on Clarence Thomas. I have no idea what is going to happen with Judge Kavanaugh.

There are a few things to consider in the attack on Judge Kavanaugh. Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article today that revealed the following:

It looks like Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Judge Martha Kavanaugh, ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accuses Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Court documents show the losing party in a foreclosure case Martha Kavanaugh heard to be Ralph and Paula Blasey of Potomac, Maryland. They appear to be Christine Blasey Ford’s parents.

The fact that Kavanaugh’s mother ruled against Ford’s parents doesn’t prove Ford is lying about the conduct of the son. Her allegation, coming so many years after the fact and without a description of when or where the event supposedly occurred, is probably not susceptible to being ruled out conclusively. But there now seems to be a motive, beyond partisan politics, for Ford to make up or significantly embellish her story so long after the “fact.”

In any event, the fact that Ford’s story, having been presented so late and with little detail as to time and place, is probably not susceptible to being ruled out means that, if not “ruled in” conclusively, the story should not preclude Kavanaugh’s confirmation. We have statutes of limitations for a reason.

Finally, unless we accept the view that Kavanaugh truly attempted to rape this girl, I don’t believe his conduct provides a basis for rejecting his nomination. Kavanaugh was still a teenager. More than five dozen women who knew him at the time vouch for his behavior. His female law clerks consider him a gentleman and a mentor.

The American Thinker posted an article today detailing some of Ms. Ford’s student reviews. It is very obvious that Ms. Ford easily fits into the category of a radical liberal. The question is whether or not she has any foundational principles that would prevent her from making false accusations.

The article at The American Thinker concludes:

So has Kavanaugh gotten on Ford’s bad side by expressing conservative ideas?  Probably.  And even if her allegations are true, I very much doubt she’d have come forward had Kavanaugh stayed on her good side by being a leftist reprobate in the mold of Slick Willie or Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy.  For a good example of such situational sexual mores, note that liberal reporter Nina Burleigh actually said in 1998 about B. Clinton, “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

As for Kavanaugh, unless it’s shown that he’s like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy and has exhibited a pattern of sexual wrongdoing, there’s nothing to see here.  Ford claims that the 36-year-old alleged incident of sexual misconduct took place in a room with only her and the two boys present.  So while 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school have come forward to vouch for his character as a gentleman, Ford’s lone word is the only claim against him.  Heck, there are more testimonials as to Ford’s alleged insanity than there are regarding Kavanaugh’s alleged impropriety.

This is foul play on the part of the anti-Trump crowd. The fact that Jeff Flake is using these accusations as an excuse not to vote Judge Kavanaugh out of committee and let the Senate vote is an indication of where things are. The fact that the Democrats are using this tactic to attempt to stall the nomination also illustrates their pettiness in trying to prevent the President from exercising his Constitutional right to select judges. The actions of Diane Feinstein and the other Democrats involved in this smear campaign are a disgrace to their party and to their country. These are the people who supported Bill Clinton as President when there was current evidence against him. Now they have discovered morality and can’t support a man with a questionable accusation from thirty years ago. That really does not pass the smell test.

Looking At The Complete Picture

Every now and then someone comes along who sums up a situation beautifully–succinctly and with humor. Victor Davis Hanson has done that in an article posted at American Greatness yesterday. The article is titled, “The Circus of Resistance.”

Here are a few wonderful observations by Professor Hanson:

Democratic senators vied with pop-up protestors in the U.S. Senate gallery to disrupt and, if possible, to derail the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. U.S. SenatorCory Booker (D-N.J.) played Spartacus, but could not even get the script right as he claimed to be bravely releasing classified information that was already declassified. I cannot remember another example of a senator who wanted to break the law but could not figure out how to do it.

Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Harvard Law Professor who still insists she is of Native American heritage, called for the president to be removed by invoking the 25th Amendment. Apparently fabricating an ethnic identity is sane, and getting out of the Iran deal or the Paris Climate Accord is insanity and grounds for removal.

…To cut to the quick, the op-ed was published to coincide with the latest Bob Woodward “according-to-an-unnamed-source” exposé, Fear. The intent of anonymous and the New York Times was to create a force multiplying effect of a collapsing presidency—in need of the Times’ sober and judicious handlers, NeverTrump professionals, and “bipartisan” Democrats of the sort we saw during the Kavanaugh hearing to “step in” and apparently stage an intervention to save the country.

Had the Woodward book not been in the news, neither would be the anonymous op-ed. And of course, the Times, in times before 2017, would never have published a insurrectionary letter from an unnamed worried Obama aide that the president was detached and listless—playing spades during the Bin Laden raid, outsourcing to Eric Holder the electronic surveillance of Associated Press journalists, letting Lois Lerner weaponize the IRS, and allowing his FBI, CIA, and Justice Department to conspire to destroy Hillary Clinton’s 2016 opponent.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is beautifully written. The article takes the time to remind us of past events as well as the current lunacy. It also reminds us that although President Trump often refers to some members of the press as ‘fake news,’ he has not followed in the steps of the previous administration by monitoring on the sly the communications of Associated Press reporters or the private emails of a Fox correspondent, or using his Justice Department and FBI hierarchy to delude a FISA court in order to spy on American citizens.

President Trump was elected by ordinary people like you and me who decided that we wanted our country back. The elites who like running things their way instead of our way do not approve. We will continue to see evidence of that for as long as President Trump is in office.

Watching The Double Standard In Action

Before I get into the substance of this article, I would like to note that the change in Lindsey Graham since the death of John McCain is interesting. All of a sudden Graham is sounding like a conservative. He is not up for re-election until 2020, so that’s not it. It seems as if he is finally waking up to what the deep state is up to and has decided not to be part of it. He may be beginning to realize that the days of the deep state may be numbered.

At any rate, yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article detailing some of Senator Graham’s comments at the confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh.

The article reports:

Democrats bellyache that Kavanaugh worked as an attorney for the Ken Starr investigation and served in the White House of President George W. Bush. Graham could care less.

“Have you heard of Justice Breyer? Do you know him?,” Graham said in an opening statement equally rambling and passionate. “Where did he come from? He was Ted Kennedy’s Senate judiciary person. Where do you think Republicans are going to go find a judge?”

Good point. The article notes one other area where the double standard is glaring:

But Graham has another reason to be angry, and it isn’t just hypocrisy. He held up what he considered his end of the bargain during the Obama administration, voting for both Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The Republican senator certainly didn’t agree with every decision either nominee made. But Graham found both of them to be qualified and found himself “getting a lot of crap” as a result.

The same standard, Graham groused, has not been applied to Republican nominees like Neil Gorsuch and now Kavanaugh. “I would suggest you think long and hard,” he said with some bitterness to the aspiring 2020 Democrats on the committee, “if you’ve got a political ambition, of voting for this guy because it will not play well on your side.”

Graham isn’t wrong, and that is why he’s angry.

The elected President is entitled to his choice of judges and cabinet members unless there is a moral or character issue with the candidate. That is what ‘advise and consent’ is about. The Democrats seem to have forgotten that.

Looking At One Of The Protesters

The hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh got off to a raucous start, with shouting and protesting beginning almost immediately. The Daily Caller posted an article today about some of the events and some of the people involved.

The article reports:

Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour was among the left-wing activists arrested Tuesday for interrupting the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Sasour entered the hearing room in the Hart Senate Office Building just before 9:30 a.m. EDT. She sat quietly with other anti-Kavanaugh activists until the hearing opened, at which point she loudly rebuked Republican lawmakers and urged them to adjourn. She continued to shout at senators as she was dragged from the room by multiple police officers. Several other activists brandishing signs immediately followed suit and were removed.

So who is Linda Sarsour? Breitbart ran an article about her in February of 2017. She was the principal organizer for the Woman’s March on Washington following President Trump’s inauguration.

The article included some of her other history:

She supports the discriminatory and terror-tied BDS Movement and has claimed that “nothing is creepier” than Zionism.

She called for solidarity with Muhammad Allan, a member of the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad who has a history of recruiting suicide bombers.

After her hypocrisy towards Woman’s issue’s was exposed, she defended herself by describing attacks on her as fascist, claiming “Fascism is here” and that “[w]e cannot allow them to criminalize our leaders and movements using baseless claims… Remember, we are and can be the true #NeverAgain generation.”

She describes those supporting her as her “Love Army.” To them, legitimate criticisms of both her views and her associations ring hollow.

Groups that sponsored the march – including the official twitter account of Woman’s March, Human Rights Watch, Black Lives Matter, Amnesty International, and the Southern Poverty Law Center – have launched a full scale defense of Sarsour. The hashtag #IMarchWithLinda trended on Twitter.

Cable news personality Sally Kohn issued several tweets defending Sarsour, including calls for people to donate to the AAANY. I don’t think Kohn is aware that the AAANY used to receive financial support from Qatar Foundation International, an organization closely linked to the Qatari government. Additionally, because of her ties to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, the AAANY was able to secure $500,000 in funding for the AAANY.

Sarsour also received several celebrity endorsements from, among others, Susan Sarandon, Mark Ruffalo, and Russell Simmons.

This is the kind of person who is opposing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. That alone should make those of us who truly support equality for women want to support him. I don’t want to see the treatment of women that occurs in Muslim countries make its way to America. The fact that this women evidently accepts that treatment of women but opposes Judge Kavanaugh because he might possibly be against abortion is simply ridiculous.

Misplaced Values

How much is a human life worth? We live in a world where some countries kill their elderly simply because they are a financial burden on the younger generation. In some countries it is legal to kill children because they have birth defects or other issues. Who decides which lives have value and which do not?

On Monday, CNS News reported:

At the event promoting opposition to President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the former First Daughter of President Bill Clinton credited legalized abortion for helping add trillions of dollars to the U.S economy because women who had abortions were more inclined to enter the labor force:

“Whether you fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access right, because these are not the same thing, if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency – you have to care about this.

“It is not a disconnected fact – to address this t-shirt of 1973 – that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right?

“The net, new entrance of women – that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.”

Thus, no matter what other things Americans may care about, everyone should appreciate the economic value of legalized abortion, Clinton said:

“So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue.

“Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices – but, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully, come some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be.”

Could one on those aborted babies have grown up and found the cure for cancer, dementia, Parkinson’s Disease? Who did we kill? Could one of those babies have grown up to find the key to nonpolluting green energy, preventing some valuable species from going extinct, or finding a key to longer, healthier living? How much would those discoveries have added to the economy?

The article at CNS News includes an update:

In response to tweets critical of her remarks, Chelesea Clinton declared that “Pro-choice is Pro-life” and that “Reproductive rights have always been about economic rights.”

We have sold our souls for a mess of pottage.

Common Sense In The Midst Of Hysteria

Yesterday The Daily Caller reported that the Latino Coalition, a “leading, national non-partisan advocacy organization representing Hispanic businesses and consumers,” has released a statement in support of the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

The article includes the statement:

“Judge Brett Kavanaugh is an exemplary individual and an extremely qualified legal constitutionalist with a record of ruling against the kind of regulatory overreach that can be chilling to America’s entrepreneurs,” said TLC Chairman and former U.S. SBA Administrator Hector Barreto. “The Latino Coalition urges the Senate to put partisanship aside in order to quickly confirm Judge Kavanaugh. We believe he will protect the rights of all Americans, including the small-business owners who suffer most when government goes beyond its constitutional bounds.”

The article concludes:

Meanwhile, liberal advocacy groups like Think Progress continue to proclaim the various ways in which the sky will fall if Kavanaugh is confirmed, as evidenced by this piece published Monday titled “If Kavanaugh is confirmed, you can kiss the right to vote goodbye.”

Does anyone actually believe the garbage about Judge Kavanaugh being put out by the political left?