Combat-Decorated Green Beret Takes On a New Enemy: The Washington Swamp


Many politicians in Washington, D.C. are more concerned with getting elected than with governing this country.  Veterans see this as something that goes against their spirit.  They served in the military to protect and defend, and now they want a chance to serve in Congress to fight for their fellow Americans.  Their mission is to get results and not constantly be lame-duck representatives.  One such candidate is Michael Waltz, who is running in Florida’s District 6, the seat Ron DeSantis currently holds as he runs for governor.  He interviewed with American Thinker about why he is running for office.


He told American Thinker, “I have been serving my country my entire life, twenty-two years as a Green Beret.  I wake up in the morning thinking about the issues this country is facing.  We can either yell at the TV or roll up our sleeves and serve in the political arena.  When someone is in the foxhole, he does not care about differences in race, religion, creed, sex, or economic or political background.  It is all about mission and country.  There is a commonality of service on how we should move this country forward.”



Waltz’s résumé shows that he has multiple kinds of experience.  A retired Army lieutenant colonel, he was awarded four Bronze Stars, including two for valor.  A counterterrorism adviser during the George W. Bush administration, he worked in the Pentagon as a defense policy director for secretaries of defense Rumsfeld and Gates, and in the White House as Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism adviser.  He is a small business-owner, CEO of Metis Solutions.


The credit goes to his mother for instilling in him the drive to be someone who strives for success; leading by example; and putting forth the value of delivering results, not excuses. 


“My mother truly represented someone who lives the American dream.  She worked three jobs when my sister and I grew up, sleeping only between 6 A.M. and 10 A.M.  Her jobs included a night security guard, dental hygienist, and a claims clerk.  We ended up graduating college at the same time because it took her fifteen years.  She ended up retiring as a vice president of a company.”


Because the #MeToo movement is playing a role in current events today, Michael was asked about his views. 


“The men being exposed in Hollywood, like Harvey Weinstein, or in New York, like Les Moonves, deserve to be exposed.  As a father of a teenage girl I have zero tolerance for them.  But we need a balance.  People’s lives should not be ruined because of a spurious accusation.”


Furthermore, he wants people to understand that the extremist Islamists want a society that would keep women down.  Many countries do not believe in freedom, equal opportunity, and human rights for women.


“I spent my life fighting Islamic extremists’ ideology.  We need a broader strategy that goes after it.  Think of the quote by Malala, the Indian girl shot for going to school.  She said the thing the extremists fear the most is a girl with a book.  It is a global issue.  The cover of my book has schoolchildren.  This school was burned down multiple times just because it taught girls, but we rebuilt it.”


One of the important issues facing America is border security. 


“President Trump offered a deal on DACA that would allow about one million more people than what President Obama offered.  I think it is reasonable to move away from a lottery system and chain immigration because border security is national security.  Let’s remember: Hezb’allah has a track record of working with the Mexican drug cartels when they attempted to murder the Saudi ambassador in Washington.  If they can infiltrate by moving drugs and human-trafficking, then they can cross our southern border.  It is certainly possible to be used for all types of bad activities.  It is not as if the smugglers discriminate what they move across our border.”


He gives President Trump high marks for getting things done. 


“I cannot tell you how many speeches I wrote for the defense secretaries asking our NATO allies to live up to their defense commitment.  They shrugged their shoulders and blew us off.  No longer with this president.”


On the domestic front, he is grateful to the president for reducing so many regulations. 


“When I tried starting my business, I could not get capital or loans under the past Democratic administration.  Then we had to take the Obamacare compliance that exploded our overhead costs.  Year after year, we had sky-high deductibles.”


Andrew Gillum, the Democratic choice for governor of Florida, is a progressive who wants Medicare for all and to abolish ICE.  Along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is running for Congress in New York, Gillum and others in the Democratic Party have socialistic ideals.  Waltz shakes his head and points to socialist nations around the world.


“What has socialism given to people?  Look no farther than Venezuela and Cuba.  It is mind-boggling this is the direction they want to take us.  They believe in Medicare for all and a single-payer health system yet cannot explain how they will pay for it, with the estimated cost about $32 trillion.  Let’s not forget that Pelosi and now Gillum say they will raise taxes.”


What he wants Americans and Floridians to understand is that “I am in a tough race.  The Democratic Party is sliding toward socialism with an open border agenda.  They call for an impeachment of our president that will grind his positive agenda to a halt.  The question voters need to ask: Which America do they want?  I hope to run a positive campaign that highlights what the Republicans have done so far.  Frankly, I wish the White House would talk more about their accomplishments.  I am focused on results and what has been done to affect American lives for the better.  Anyone with the ability to work hard should be able to achieve the American dream as long as he plays by the rules.”


The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.










Many politicians in Washington, D.C. are more concerned with getting elected than with governing this country.  Veterans see this as something that goes against their spirit.  They served in the military to protect and defend, and now they want a chance to serve in Congress to fight for their fellow Americans.  Their mission is to get results and not constantly be lame-duck representatives.  One such candidate is Michael Waltz, who is running in Florida’s District 6, the seat Ron DeSantis currently holds as he runs for governor.  He interviewed with American Thinker about why he is running for office.


He told American Thinker, “I have been serving my country my entire life, twenty-two years as a Green Beret.  I wake up in the morning thinking about the issues this country is facing.  We can either yell at the TV or roll up our sleeves and serve in the political arena.  When someone is in the foxhole, he does not care about differences in race, religion, creed, sex, or economic or political background.  It is all about mission and country.  There is a commonality of service on how we should move this country forward.”



Waltz’s résumé shows that he has multiple kinds of experience.  A retired Army lieutenant colonel, he was awarded four Bronze Stars, including two for valor.  A counterterrorism adviser during the George W. Bush administration, he worked in the Pentagon as a defense policy director for secretaries of defense Rumsfeld and Gates, and in the White House as Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism adviser.  He is a small business-owner, CEO of Metis Solutions.


The credit goes to his mother for instilling in him the drive to be someone who strives for success; leading by example; and putting forth the value of delivering results, not excuses. 


“My mother truly represented someone who lives the American dream.  She worked three jobs when my sister and I grew up, sleeping only between 6 A.M. and 10 A.M.  Her jobs included a night security guard, dental hygienist, and a claims clerk.  We ended up graduating college at the same time because it took her fifteen years.  She ended up retiring as a vice president of a company.”


Because the #MeToo movement is playing a role in current events today, Michael was asked about his views. 


“The men being exposed in Hollywood, like Harvey Weinstein, or in New York, like Les Moonves, deserve to be exposed.  As a father of a teenage girl I have zero tolerance for them.  But we need a balance.  People’s lives should not be ruined because of a spurious accusation.”


Furthermore, he wants people to understand that the extremist Islamists want a society that would keep women down.  Many countries do not believe in freedom, equal opportunity, and human rights for women.


“I spent my life fighting Islamic extremists’ ideology.  We need a broader strategy that goes after it.  Think of the quote by Malala, the Indian girl shot for going to school.  She said the thing the extremists fear the most is a girl with a book.  It is a global issue.  The cover of my book has schoolchildren.  This school was burned down multiple times just because it taught girls, but we rebuilt it.”


One of the important issues facing America is border security. 


“President Trump offered a deal on DACA that would allow about one million more people than what President Obama offered.  I think it is reasonable to move away from a lottery system and chain immigration because border security is national security.  Let’s remember: Hezb’allah has a track record of working with the Mexican drug cartels when they attempted to murder the Saudi ambassador in Washington.  If they can infiltrate by moving drugs and human-trafficking, then they can cross our southern border.  It is certainly possible to be used for all types of bad activities.  It is not as if the smugglers discriminate what they move across our border.”


He gives President Trump high marks for getting things done. 


“I cannot tell you how many speeches I wrote for the defense secretaries asking our NATO allies to live up to their defense commitment.  They shrugged their shoulders and blew us off.  No longer with this president.”


On the domestic front, he is grateful to the president for reducing so many regulations. 


“When I tried starting my business, I could not get capital or loans under the past Democratic administration.  Then we had to take the Obamacare compliance that exploded our overhead costs.  Year after year, we had sky-high deductibles.”


Andrew Gillum, the Democratic choice for governor of Florida, is a progressive who wants Medicare for all and to abolish ICE.  Along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is running for Congress in New York, Gillum and others in the Democratic Party have socialistic ideals.  Waltz shakes his head and points to socialist nations around the world.


“What has socialism given to people?  Look no farther than Venezuela and Cuba.  It is mind-boggling this is the direction they want to take us.  They believe in Medicare for all and a single-payer health system yet cannot explain how they will pay for it, with the estimated cost about $32 trillion.  Let’s not forget that Pelosi and now Gillum say they will raise taxes.”


What he wants Americans and Floridians to understand is that “I am in a tough race.  The Democratic Party is sliding toward socialism with an open border agenda.  They call for an impeachment of our president that will grind his positive agenda to a halt.  The question voters need to ask: Which America do they want?  I hope to run a positive campaign that highlights what the Republicans have done so far.  Frankly, I wish the White House would talk more about their accomplishments.  I am focused on results and what has been done to affect American lives for the better.  Anyone with the ability to work hard should be able to achieve the American dream as long as he plays by the rules.”


The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.




via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Trumponomics Triumphant


Trumponomics is working extremely well and it can for a long time if we don’t screw it up.


I saw a headline in the Washington Post telling us that Trumponomics is not working, and I wondered what the heck these people must be smoking because obviously the economy is humming on almost all fronts. T



The reason they say his policies aren’t working or won’t work in the near future is because of Trump’s trade policies. 



Trumponomics is actually a very simple concept. Get rid of unnecessary regulations and let people and businesses keep more of the money they earn, which will allow great compounding throughout the private sector.


We should all remember that a lot of economists predicted doom and gloom by now, and since they were way off they will just predict doom and gloom down the road a little. Few predicted the growth that we are having now so why would we believe their predictions for the future.


Let’s look at the current economic statistics to see how Trumponomics is working today:


  • Economic growth of 4.2%,
  • consumer and business confidence near record highs,
  • Unemployment for all ages, education levels, sexes and races near record lows,
  • unemployment claims at 50 year low,
  • part time jobs for economic reasons are down more than one million,
  • stock prices have hit record high over 100 times since Trump took office,
  • capital spending for businesses up substantially,
  • business and retail sales up,
  • imports and exports up,
  • oil production near record highs,
  • median family income rising faster than at any time in over a decade,
  • corporate profits are high,
  • bonuses have gone up, wage levels are rising,
  • take home pay is  up more because of tax cuts,
  • dividend  income, interest income and capital gains income up. 



Oil prices are actually below 2008 and 2012-2015, when incomes and economic growth were lower.  Isn’t it amazing how more drilling and production works.


Government entities throughout the country are seeing extra revenue come in because of the surging growth.  Higher stock prices, interest rates, dividends and capital gains are helping their (and everyone’s) pension funds.


Food stamp usage and disability claims are down, helping the budget. Health care costs and premiums look to stabilize in 2019 for the first time in a long time. Isn’t it amazing what more competition, freedom of choice and getting rid of the individual mandate will do


I am truly having trouble finding anything that indicates that Trumponomics isn’t working. 


But since journalists support Democrats and more government, the WaPo puts out this.


So is Trumponomics working? With one significant caveat, the answer is no. For one thing, Trump’s trade policy is turning out to be worse than expected. For another, the growth surge mostly reflects a temporary sugar high from last December’s tax cut. Economists are already penciling in a recession for 2020.


Here’s the link predicting recession. Fortune:


The panelists forecasted that the nation’s GDP would grow by 2.7% in 2019.


However, the NABE [National Association of Business Economists] panel also stated that the growth could be cut short by an upcoming recession, with two-thirds of the economists predicting that a recession will start by the end of 2020 and 18% believing that a decline could begin as soon as the end of 2019.


One of the biggest causes for the decline according to the economists are Trump’s current trade policies; three-fourths of the panelists predict that Trump’s imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, as well as tariffs on Chinese imports, will trigger a global trade war as the nations look to retaliate. 


As for trade, it seems that most economists didn’t mind the theory that manufacturing jobs were gone for good and that there was no harm in letting them to continue to flow overseas. Trumponomics is about more than simple growth.  I believe it is very short sighted to not understand the long term risk if a dangerous country like China controls so many of the goods we need in our economy.  Do any of these economist understand that China could cut off supplies any time they want?  Do economists think that if China gets control of most of our manufacturing that they wouldn’t also go after services?


Have these economists not noticed that Europe, South Korea, Mexico and Canada are clearly willing to deal? Do they think China will let their economy completely tank by not giving in somewhat to Trump?


We were told that if Trump pulled out of the TPP that countries would stop trading with us. That shows a complete lack of thought. These countries need the U.S. because we are the biggest economy in the world. 


We also hear how the tariffs will raise prices and then we are told that the tariffs are lowering grain prices. Why don’t we hear about the benefit to 100% of consumers from the lower grain prices? Doesn’t that reduce the sting of the minor tariffs on China?


There is absolutely no reason the economy won’t continue to grow substantially if we stick to Trumponomics. There is a great risk of recession if we move to the socialist policies the WP writers and others support. We can make growth collapse by reversing the corporate and individual tax cuts, going to single payer health care and adding back regulations. We can go back to the slowest economic recovery in seventy years which we got because of Obamanomics.


Photo credit: Gage Skidmore










Trumponomics is working extremely well and it can for a long time if we don’t screw it up.


I saw a headline in the Washington Post telling us that Trumponomics is not working, and I wondered what the heck these people must be smoking because obviously the economy is humming on almost all fronts. T


The reason they say his policies aren’t working or won’t work in the near future is because of Trump’s trade policies. 



Trumponomics is actually a very simple concept. Get rid of unnecessary regulations and let people and businesses keep more of the money they earn, which will allow great compounding throughout the private sector.


We should all remember that a lot of economists predicted doom and gloom by now, and since they were way off they will just predict doom and gloom down the road a little. Few predicted the growth that we are having now so why would we believe their predictions for the future.


Let’s look at the current economic statistics to see how Trumponomics is working today:


  • Economic growth of 4.2%,
  • consumer and business confidence near record highs,
  • Unemployment for all ages, education levels, sexes and races near record lows,
  • unemployment claims at 50 year low,
  • part time jobs for economic reasons are down more than one million,
  • stock prices have hit record high over 100 times since Trump took office,
  • capital spending for businesses up substantially,
  • business and retail sales up,
  • imports and exports up,
  • oil production near record highs,
  • median family income rising faster than at any time in over a decade,
  • corporate profits are high,
  • bonuses have gone up, wage levels are rising,
  • take home pay is  up more because of tax cuts,
  • dividend  income, interest income and capital gains income up. 



Oil prices are actually below 2008 and 2012-2015, when incomes and economic growth were lower.  Isn’t it amazing how more drilling and production works.


Government entities throughout the country are seeing extra revenue come in because of the surging growth.  Higher stock prices, interest rates, dividends and capital gains are helping their (and everyone’s) pension funds.


Food stamp usage and disability claims are down, helping the budget. Health care costs and premiums look to stabilize in 2019 for the first time in a long time. Isn’t it amazing what more competition, freedom of choice and getting rid of the individual mandate will do


I am truly having trouble finding anything that indicates that Trumponomics isn’t working. 


But since journalists support Democrats and more government, the WaPo puts out this.


So is Trumponomics working? With one significant caveat, the answer is no. For one thing, Trump’s trade policy is turning out to be worse than expected. For another, the growth surge mostly reflects a temporary sugar high from last December’s tax cut. Economists are already penciling in a recession for 2020.


Here’s the link predicting recession. Fortune:


The panelists forecasted that the nation’s GDP would grow by 2.7% in 2019.


However, the NABE [National Association of Business Economists] panel also stated that the growth could be cut short by an upcoming recession, with two-thirds of the economists predicting that a recession will start by the end of 2020 and 18% believing that a decline could begin as soon as the end of 2019.


One of the biggest causes for the decline according to the economists are Trump’s current trade policies; three-fourths of the panelists predict that Trump’s imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, as well as tariffs on Chinese imports, will trigger a global trade war as the nations look to retaliate. 


As for trade, it seems that most economists didn’t mind the theory that manufacturing jobs were gone for good and that there was no harm in letting them to continue to flow overseas. Trumponomics is about more than simple growth.  I believe it is very short sighted to not understand the long term risk if a dangerous country like China controls so many of the goods we need in our economy.  Do any of these economist understand that China could cut off supplies any time they want?  Do economists think that if China gets control of most of our manufacturing that they wouldn’t also go after services?


Have these economists not noticed that Europe, South Korea, Mexico and Canada are clearly willing to deal? Do they think China will let their economy completely tank by not giving in somewhat to Trump?


We were told that if Trump pulled out of the TPP that countries would stop trading with us. That shows a complete lack of thought. These countries need the U.S. because we are the biggest economy in the world. 


We also hear how the tariffs will raise prices and then we are told that the tariffs are lowering grain prices. Why don’t we hear about the benefit to 100% of consumers from the lower grain prices? Doesn’t that reduce the sting of the minor tariffs on China?


There is absolutely no reason the economy won’t continue to grow substantially if we stick to Trumponomics. There is a great risk of recession if we move to the socialist policies the WP writers and others support. We can make growth collapse by reversing the corporate and individual tax cuts, going to single payer health care and adding back regulations. We can go back to the slowest economic recovery in seventy years which we got because of Obamanomics.


Photo credit: Gage Skidmore




via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Judge Kavanaugh and Sexual McCarthyism


One fully expects in each news cycle to hear some Democratic presidential wannabe, pundit, or drive-by journalist step forward and proclaim in the manner of the late Sen. Joe McCarthy: “I have in my hand a list of women whom nominee X molested, assaulted, fondled, and exposed himself to that disqualifies him for the position he seeks.”  Never mind that the charges will be vague, uncorroborated, even contradicted by alleged witnesses, and deal with events at an unknown date, time, and place.  The charges have been made and must be investigated.


McCarthy was looking for communists in the State Department and other places in government, and while some did exist, just as predators preying on young women do exist, so does character assassination in the name of pursuing a political agenda.



Now we have Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker reporting on another vague, uncorroborated, and contradictory charge against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, this time by a Yale classmate, Deborah Ramirez, alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself at another one of those drunken parties we are told he was so fond of attending.  Yet again, we have a questionable account


The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer.  For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices.  She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident[.] …


In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale.  He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place.  Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale.  We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it – and we did not.  The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett.  In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending.  Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”


The New York Times, no friend to Trump or Kavanaugh, could not corroborate Ramirez’s story:


The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge.  Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.


Have you no shame, senators?  Particularly shameful, and someone who deserves censure for sitting on the letter of the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, the full text of which is still being withheld, since July, is Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who had Judge Kavanaugh sitting in front of her in a public hearing, in a private session, and talked with Kavanaugh on the phone and said nothing, not even to ask Kavanaugh when he stopped beating his wife.


This is not about the truth of these allegations.  This is about power, and the threat that President Trump will restore our courts to their originalist interpreting of the Constitution by appointing judges who believe that that sacred document should be interpreted by what those who wrote it meant in the context of their times.


Somewhere, Saul Alinsky, author of the progressive guidebook, Rules for Radicals, is smiling.  His goal was to destroy America’s institutions through demonization of their occupants and the corruption of their functions.  Judge Kavanaugh must be destroyed, lest he and others like him prevent the progressives from using the courts to legislate what they can’t get through Congress.  Judge Kavanaugh must be demonized in the Alinsky model.  If Donald Trump’s election has done anything, it has exposed the depth and stench of the swamp, pulled back the curtain, and forced us to pay attention to the anarchists running the show behind it.


One remembers back when President Trump picked Kavanaugh from his list of 25 qualified nominees.  Kavanaugh’s name apparently was not high on the radar of progressives, who had their prefabricated press releases and protest signs ready, with only a name to be filled in:


It was a wild night outside the Supreme Court Monday, as a [sic] leftist demonstrators, organized by NARAL, scrambled to find the most appropriate sign to protest President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy[.] …


Under the clear assumption that any nominee would be, by definition, an affront to their “human rights,” demonstrators carried fill-in-the-blank signs and fistfuls of markers, so that they could make appropriate placards on the spot.


As soon as Brett Kavanaugh’s name was officially announced, they set to work[.] …


Some organizations flush with cash, like NARAL, came prepared with several different signs, one for each possible nominee.


Press releases were ready to denounce ”fill in the blank’s” participation in the “war on women” and assault on so-called abortion rights:


But no protest was more embarrassing than an email blast sent by the liberal group known as “Women’s March.”


Minutes after Trump announced his nominee, the group released a statement blasting Kavanaugh.  However, there was a major problem with the email copy: the opening line didn’t cite Kavanaugh’s name.  Instead, the first sentence had “XX” where Kavanaugh’s name should have been, an obvious sign the email was pre-written and that the group planned to oppose the nominee regardless of who it was.


Unfortunately, missing Kavanaugh’s name was not the only glaring mistake in the email.  In a subsequent paragraph, the organization misspelled Kavanaugh’s name with a “C.”


“Trump’s announcement today is a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States.  Judge Brett Cavanaugh’s nomination threatens to move our nation’s highest court dangerously to the right and further erode protections for almost every marginalized group in America,” the email read.


One wonders if other names on Trump’s list of possible appointees have been used to look for other potential Democrat-linked character assassins with an ideological ax to grind that might be used to slander other nominees.  Even creepy porn lawyer and legal counsel to porn star Stormy Daniels Michael Avenatti has risen from his part of the swamp to slime Kavanaugh:


Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti claims he is now representing a woman with “credible information regarding Judge [Brett] Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.” …


“We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify,” he tweeted Sunday night.  ”The nomination must be withdrawn.”


Of course it must.  That is the goal and purpose of this serial defamation.  And if Kavanaugh’s nomination is withdrawn, the sexual McCarthyism of the left will continue, with the next target being “fill in the blank.”  As I have previously noted, these charges are reminiscent of the campaign of smear and innuendo leveled at former GOP presidential candidate and successful black American conservative businessman Herman Cain.  Cain’s candidacy derailed after repeated and unproven  sexual harassment allegations by former employees.  Like Harry Reid’s tax lies about Mitt Romney, the strategy worked.


Liberal accusations against Republicans are accepted as credible immediately.  Smear first, prove later.  Guilty until proven innocent.  To various extents, it worked with Romney and Cain; why not Judge Brett Kavanaugh?


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.










One fully expects in each news cycle to hear some Democratic presidential wannabe, pundit, or drive-by journalist step forward and proclaim in the manner of the late Sen. Joe McCarthy: “I have in my hand a list of women whom nominee X molested, assaulted, fondled, and exposed himself to that disqualifies him for the position he seeks.”  Never mind that the charges will be vague, uncorroborated, even contradicted by alleged witnesses, and deal with events at an unknown date, time, and place.  The charges have been made and must be investigated.


McCarthy was looking for communists in the State Department and other places in government, and while some did exist, just as predators preying on young women do exist, so does character assassination in the name of pursuing a political agenda.


Now we have Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker reporting on another vague, uncorroborated, and contradictory charge against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, this time by a Yale classmate, Deborah Ramirez, alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself at another one of those drunken parties we are told he was so fond of attending.  Yet again, we have a questionable account


The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer.  For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices.  She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident[.] …


In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale.  He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place.  Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale.  We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it – and we did not.  The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett.  In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending.  Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”


The New York Times, no friend to Trump or Kavanaugh, could not corroborate Ramirez’s story:


The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge.  Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.


Have you no shame, senators?  Particularly shameful, and someone who deserves censure for sitting on the letter of the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, the full text of which is still being withheld, since July, is Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who had Judge Kavanaugh sitting in front of her in a public hearing, in a private session, and talked with Kavanaugh on the phone and said nothing, not even to ask Kavanaugh when he stopped beating his wife.


This is not about the truth of these allegations.  This is about power, and the threat that President Trump will restore our courts to their originalist interpreting of the Constitution by appointing judges who believe that that sacred document should be interpreted by what those who wrote it meant in the context of their times.


Somewhere, Saul Alinsky, author of the progressive guidebook, Rules for Radicals, is smiling.  His goal was to destroy America’s institutions through demonization of their occupants and the corruption of their functions.  Judge Kavanaugh must be destroyed, lest he and others like him prevent the progressives from using the courts to legislate what they can’t get through Congress.  Judge Kavanaugh must be demonized in the Alinsky model.  If Donald Trump’s election has done anything, it has exposed the depth and stench of the swamp, pulled back the curtain, and forced us to pay attention to the anarchists running the show behind it.


One remembers back when President Trump picked Kavanaugh from his list of 25 qualified nominees.  Kavanaugh’s name apparently was not high on the radar of progressives, who had their prefabricated press releases and protest signs ready, with only a name to be filled in:


It was a wild night outside the Supreme Court Monday, as a [sic] leftist demonstrators, organized by NARAL, scrambled to find the most appropriate sign to protest President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy[.] …


Under the clear assumption that any nominee would be, by definition, an affront to their “human rights,” demonstrators carried fill-in-the-blank signs and fistfuls of markers, so that they could make appropriate placards on the spot.


As soon as Brett Kavanaugh’s name was officially announced, they set to work[.] …


Some organizations flush with cash, like NARAL, came prepared with several different signs, one for each possible nominee.


Press releases were ready to denounce ”fill in the blank’s” participation in the “war on women” and assault on so-called abortion rights:


But no protest was more embarrassing than an email blast sent by the liberal group known as “Women’s March.”


Minutes after Trump announced his nominee, the group released a statement blasting Kavanaugh.  However, there was a major problem with the email copy: the opening line didn’t cite Kavanaugh’s name.  Instead, the first sentence had “XX” where Kavanaugh’s name should have been, an obvious sign the email was pre-written and that the group planned to oppose the nominee regardless of who it was.


Unfortunately, missing Kavanaugh’s name was not the only glaring mistake in the email.  In a subsequent paragraph, the organization misspelled Kavanaugh’s name with a “C.”


“Trump’s announcement today is a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States.  Judge Brett Cavanaugh’s nomination threatens to move our nation’s highest court dangerously to the right and further erode protections for almost every marginalized group in America,” the email read.


One wonders if other names on Trump’s list of possible appointees have been used to look for other potential Democrat-linked character assassins with an ideological ax to grind that might be used to slander other nominees.  Even creepy porn lawyer and legal counsel to porn star Stormy Daniels Michael Avenatti has risen from his part of the swamp to slime Kavanaugh:


Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti claims he is now representing a woman with “credible information regarding Judge [Brett] Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.” …


“We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify,” he tweeted Sunday night.  ”The nomination must be withdrawn.”


Of course it must.  That is the goal and purpose of this serial defamation.  And if Kavanaugh’s nomination is withdrawn, the sexual McCarthyism of the left will continue, with the next target being “fill in the blank.”  As I have previously noted, these charges are reminiscent of the campaign of smear and innuendo leveled at former GOP presidential candidate and successful black American conservative businessman Herman Cain.  Cain’s candidacy derailed after repeated and unproven  sexual harassment allegations by former employees.  Like Harry Reid’s tax lies about Mitt Romney, the strategy worked.


Liberal accusations against Republicans are accepted as credible immediately.  Smear first, prove later.  Guilty until proven innocent.  To various extents, it worked with Romney and Cain; why not Judge Brett Kavanaugh?


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.




via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Yale Law School professors teaching an odd lesson


Yale Law School graduates are considered the elite of the elite (though Harvard Law School would dispute that title), even though the school famously does not emphasize the actual practice of law. Yale Law’s much smaller size means that admission is more competitive than its bigger neighbor in Cambridge.  Bill and Hillary Clinton and Brett Kavanaugh only scratch the surface of its list of distinguished alumni.   


Yesterday, 31 classes were cancelled at Yale School to enable students to go to Washington, DC. Aryssa Damron writes at the Free Beacon:



Professors at Yale Law School, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s alma mater, cancelled class on Monday to allow students to protest Kavanaugh’s confirmation in light of sexual assault allegations made against him.


One professor, James Forman, cancelled his Criminal Law class in an email to his students, writing “I just received a request to cancel class on Monday. I understand that some students want to go to D.C. to protest or otherwise engage with the Kavanaugh hearings. Criminal Law is cancelled”


 



 



Not all classes were cancelled though, according to Yale Law spokeswoman Debra Krozer.


“Yale Law School did not cancel all classes,” she said. “Many faculty members chose to reschedule or cancel their own classes today. And some held classes as usual.”


Law & Crime reports that 31 classes were cancelled due to the protests. Yale Law School students and alumni have organized “sit ins” against Kavanaugh’s nomination both on Yale’s campus and in Washington, D.C.



As my friend Ed Lasky wryly notes: “Guilty until proven innocent. Nice lesson for Yale Law students.”


Yale Law School graduates are considered the elite of the elite (though Harvard Law School would dispute that title), even though the school famously does not emphasize the actual practice of law. Yale Law’s much smaller size means that admission is more competitive than its bigger neighbor in Cambridge.  Bill and Hillary Clinton and Brett Kavanaugh only scratch the surface of its list of distinguished alumni.   


Yesterday, 31 classes were cancelled at Yale School to enable students to go to Washington, DC. Aryssa Damron writes at the Free Beacon:



The Sterling Law Building, housing Yale Law School (via Wikipedia)


Professors at Yale Law School, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s alma mater, cancelled class on Monday to allow students to protest Kavanaugh’s confirmation in light of sexual assault allegations made against him.


One professor, James Forman, cancelled his Criminal Law class in an email to his students, writing “I just received a request to cancel class on Monday. I understand that some students want to go to D.C. to protest or otherwise engage with the Kavanaugh hearings. Criminal Law is cancelled”


 



 



Not all classes were cancelled though, according to Yale Law spokeswoman Debra Krozer.


“Yale Law School did not cancel all classes,” she said. “Many faculty members chose to reschedule or cancel their own classes today. And some held classes as usual.”


Law & Crime reports that 31 classes were cancelled due to the protests. Yale Law School students and alumni have organized “sit ins” against Kavanaugh’s nomination both on Yale’s campus and in Washington, D.C.


As my friend Ed Lasky wryly notes: “Guilty until proven innocent. Nice lesson for Yale Law students.”




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Cannabis Countdown: Anxiety lingers over impact on impaired driving, organized crime and use among minors

Cannabis Countdown: Anxiety lingers over impact on impaired driving, organized crime and use among minors
With less than a month until the legalization of recreational marijuana, a new study from the Angus Reid Institute finds Canadians are three times as likely to say that measures in the law will fail rather than succeed (57% versus 17%) at preventing minors from accessing cannabis after October 17, and twice as likely to say they lack confidence in the ability of their community police to assess and punish those driving under the influence of marijuana (60% to 32%).

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/

DISGUSTING: Open Borders Claire McCaskill Lies to Missourians on Her Immigration Record in New TV Ad — Is Against Trump Border Wall


DISGUSTING: Open Borders Claire McCaskill Lies to Missourians on Her Immigration Record in New TV Ad — Is Against Trump Border Wall

Jim Hoft
by Jim Hoft
September 25, 2018

Liberal Senator Claire McCaskill is a far left hack who has NEVER disappointed the Democrat Party.
When they need a vote — Claire is there for them.
Always.

Claire McCaskill gets most of her donations from Hollywood elites.
But come election time Claire McCaskill comes back to Missouri and pretends to be one of the people.

This past week Claire McCaskill launched an ad with Border Patrol agents pretending to be tough on immigration.
This could be Claire McCaskill’s worst lie to date…

McCaskill has openly and repeatedly mocked President Trump’s border wall.
McCaskill told CBS News that Trump’s border wall is “embarrasing” and “it’s not going to happen.”

It is stunning the border patrol would throw their support behind open borders Claire McCaskill?

Here are the facts on Claire McCaskill and border security.

The Josh Howley campaign released this rebuttal to Claire’s outrageous lie!

COLUMBIA, Mo. – In a new TV ad about border security, Senator Claire McCaskill is lying to Missourians about her record.

Hawley Campaign Press Secretary Kelli Ford said, “Claire McCaskill will do anything to hold on to power, even lie to Missourians about her record on immigration. She isn’t tough on border security. She’s weak and her record proves it. She thinks the border wall is ‘embarrassing,’ has flip-flopped on sanctuary cities, refuses to ask who is and isn’t a citizen, and wants to pass catch-and-release legislation. Instead of standing for security, she stood with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

“That record would get her re-elected in New York or California, but not Missouri, and Senator McCaskill knows it. That’s exactly why she is trying to deceive voters about her work on immigration. She has richly earned the title of the most unpopular senator on a ballot this fall because she doesn’t stand with Missouri, she only cares about opposing President Trump. And she’s willing to sacrifice our safety and security in order to make that happen.”

CLAIM VS. FACT

CLAIM: She Was One Of Only Four Democrats To Vote To End Sanctuary Cities.

FACT: McCaskill Flip-Flopped On Withholding Certain Law Enforcement Grants For Sanctuary Cities.

In February 2018, McCaskill Voted For Cloture On The Toomey Amendment That Would Make Sanctuary Cities Ineligible For Certain Federal Law Enforcement Grants. (S.Amdt. 1948 To S.Amdt. 1959 To H.R. 2579, Roll Call Vote #34: Cloture Motion Rejected 54-45, 2/15/18, McCaskill Voted Yea; CQ Summary, Accessed 2/16/18)

Previously, McCaskill Voted Twice Against Cloture On The Motion To Proceed To Bills That Would Withhold Federal Law Enforcement Grants For Sanctuary Cities:

  • In July 2016, McCaskill Voted Against Cloture On The Motion To Proceed To A Bill That Would Make Sanctuary Cities Ineligible For Certain Federal Law Enforcement Grants. (S. 3100, Roll Call Vote #119: Cloture On The Motion To Proceed Rejected 53-44, 7/6/16, McCaskill Voted Nay; CQ Summary, 7/6/16)
  • In October 2015, McCaskill Voted Against Cloture On The Motion To Proceed To A Bill That Would Withhold Certain Federal Law Enforcement Funds For Sanctuary Cities. (S. 2146, Roll Call Vote #280: Cloture On The Motion To Proceed Rejected 54-45, 10/20/15, McCaskill Voted Nay; CQ Summary, Accessed 1/15/16)

FACT: McCaskill Also Voted Against Cutting COPS Program Funding For Sanctuary Cities.

In 2007, McCaskill Voted Against The Vitter Amendment That Would Block Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Funding To Communities That Refused To Help With Federal Enforcement Of Immigration Law. (S. Amdt. 3277 To H.R. 3093, Roll Call Vote #370, Motion To Table Agreed To 52-42, 10/16/07, McCaskill Voted Yea; CQ Summary, Accessed 7/21/16)

CLAIM: [McCaskill] Votes To Secure Our Border. We Endorse President Trump And Claire McCaskill Because Of Their Records On Border Security.

FACT: McCaskill Is Not Supportive Of President Trump’s Border Wall.

  • McCaskill On Border Wall: “It’s Embarrassing. It’s Not Going To Happen.” “‘It’s embarrassing,’ McCaskill said. ‘It’s not going to happen. Everybody in Congress knows it’s not going to happen…. It appears the only person who won’t say it out loud is the president.’” (CBS News, 4/5/17)

FACT: McCaskill Opposes Asking Citizenship Status In The U.S. Census.

MCCASKILL: “I do think there’s going to be litigation over it. Yeah, California filed suit saying that it was unconstitutional because it was depressing the count. It is I believe blatantly partisan.” (Claire McCaskill, Remarks, Springfield, MO, 3/27/18)

CLAIM: Take It From Us, No Senator Is Tougher On Securing The Border Than Claire McCaskill.

FACT: McCaskill Is A Current Co-Sponsor Of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Open Borders Bill.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

Announcement: We have disabled the ability to post graphics after experiencing an attack of inappropriate image spam over the last several days. Thanks for your understanding.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Alert: Ted Cruz, Wife Attacked — Escape After Staff Struggle With Door


In an act of “protest” that appeared to verge on a violent attack, a group of liberals drove Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife out of a Washington, D.C., restaurant Monday, the New York Post reports.

The protest was ostensibly about federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, and most of the verbal attacks seemed to be directed toward that. Footage of the attack, posted by a group calling itself Smash Racism DC, shows the protesters chanting “We believe survivors” as they chased Cruz and his wife Heidi from the unidentified eatery.

“I know that you’re very close friends with Mr. Kavanaugh,” one of the activists says to Cruz.

“But do you believe survivors, sir? We believe survivors!”

One protester, describing herself as a constituent and “survivor of sexual assault” followed the Cruzes throughout the restaurant and said, “Senator, I have a right to know what your position is on Brett Kavanaugh.”

TRENDING: Look: Cartoon Perfectly Skewers Both Anti-Kavanaugh Crowd and Abortion Activists

“God bless you, ma’am,” Cruz replied.

“Vote no on Kavanaugh!” another protester screamed. “Cancel Kavanaugh for women’s rights.”

However, not all of the protesters were exactly concerned about how the Kavanaugh nomination might affect American women: “Beto is hotter than you, dude,” one protester can be heard to say, referring to Cruz’s Democrat challenger U.S. Rep. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke.

Eventually, after having his table surrounded, Cruz decided it was time to leave.

“Let’s go ahead and go,” Cruz said.

They finally managed to get out after a restaurant employee struggled to get the door open, though it wasn’t clear what the problem was.

The group bragged about its thuggishness on Twitter.

“Activists just chased @TedCruz out of a fancy Washington DC restaurant, chanting ‘We Believe Survivors!’” the group’s post read.

“Cruz has been friends with creep Kavanaugh for 20 years. Now Cruz is on judiciary committee hearing his testimony.

RELATED: Beto O’Rourke Denies Key Detail in 1998 Arrest, Police Report Silences Him

Do you think this is a sign of how desperate the left is?

“Fascists not welcome! #CancelKavanugh,” the post concluded.

Just a note, this hasn’t been taken off Twitter or caused any banning, but James Woods remains locked out of the platform as of Tuesday morning for tweeting a joke meme (nothing has been posted to his normally active account since Thursday). Just throwing that out there.

I’m also forced to note not infrequently that this is apparently where we are in 2018 — harassment and confrontation has replaced civilized discourse, and anyone who’s conservative is considered fair game for public intimidation.

This group shouted at Cruz, they blocked his wife, and all over the fact that he’s friends with Kavanaugh. (He’s also said that the judge needs to give a public explanation about the charges leveled against him, but apparently that doesn’t matter.)

In short, Cruz said “God bless you.” In return, they chased him and his wife out of a restaurant. If that doesn’t say everything about the left and how they’re approaching Brett Kavanaugh and everything involved with the GOP, I don’t know what will.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Sarah Sanders: America ‘A Country Where You’re Innocent Until Proven Guilty — Unless You’re A Conservative Republican’

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Tuesday that Democrats are playing a "political game" with allegations of sexual misconduct by President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, calling the ploy "appalling."
Sanders, appearing on "Good Morning America," also decried the state of politics in the U.S. today.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml