Just in the past 2 years we’ve witnessed the Democrats:
• Weaponize the intelligence community to spy on political opponents
• Actively lobby for opening the borders & disbanding ICE
• Destroy the life, career, and reputation of a dedicated public servant in their quest for power.
Political Character Assassination: The partisan, shameless clearly political character assassination of an honorable man because the looney left doesn’t agree with him is disgusting. Judge Brett Kavanaugh deserves to be confirmed.
The politicization of sexual assaults makes legitimate cases of sexual harassment or assault even harder for folks to bring forward. The fundamental rule of law says someone is innocent until proven guilty and that makes these kinds of cases difficult to bring forward because of the circumstances many assaults take place. Every accusation of sexual abuse or harassment deserves to be heard and investigated, but there have to be reasonable levels of proof to avoid someone from being wrongly accused.
When a partisan group of “resist” activist discredit rationale debate and investigation of various cases only makes it harder for women to come forward.
Think about it… No witnesses. No evidence to corroborate the allegations. No other accusers. And all funded and orchestrated by “resist” movement. Allowing these unsubstantiated and discredited allegations that are decades old hold up a nomination is horrible miscarriage of justice.
I think what the partisan looney left has done to Judge Kavanaugh and his family is disgusting. I hope the average American sees it for what it is and punishes them at the polls.
Republican Party Favorability Highest in Seven Years
- Republican favorability at 45%, Democrats at 44%
- Democrats generally have had the upper hand in favorability ratings
- Major gains for Republican Party within the party, including leaners
Forty-five percent of Americans now have a favorable view of the Republican Party, a nine-point gain from last September’s 36%. It is the party’s most positive image since it registered 47% in January 2011, shortly after taking control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections. Forty-four percent give the Democratic Party a favorable rating.
The parity in Republicans’ and Democrats’ favorable ratings marks a change from what has generally been the case since Barack Obama’s election as president in November 2008. Republicans have usually been rated less positively than Democrats over this time, with the Republican Party’s favorability rating for the last decade averaging 39%, compared with the Democratic Party’s 44%.
Only one other time in the last decade has the Republican Party had a significantly higher score than the Democratic Party. That one exception came in November 2014, immediately after elections that saw Republicans capture control of the Senate and expand their majority in the House, when 42% rated the GOP favorably and 36% the Democrats.
Confirm Brett Kavanaugh
The real Democratic goal is to push a confirmation vote past Election Day. They can then spare their incumbents running for re-election from taking a difficult vote. If they win the election, they will then try to block any confirmation until they take over the Senate in January. No nominee to the right of Merrick Garland would then be confirmed in the final two years of the Trump Presidency. The Supreme Court would be divided 4-4 until 2021 at least.
Senate Republicans should understand that these are the real political stakes. This nomination isn’t only about the fate of a single man whose reputation can be discarded like some tabloid celebrity. This is about the future of the Supreme Court and who will control the Senate. If Republicans reject Mr. Kavanaugh based on what we know now, millions of voters will rightly be furious.
But as important, a rejection will bring dishonor to the Senate. It will validate the ambush and smear politics that Democrats are using. And it will turn Supreme Court nominations over to the justice of the social-media mob and the politics of accusation. It’s time for Senators to stand up and confirm Brett Kavanaugh.
The Kavanaugh Stakes
The Ford-Kavanaugh hearing consumed most of Thursday, and unsurprisingly we learned nothing from the spectacle. Christine Ford remains unable to marshal any evidence for her claim of a sexual assault. Brett Kavanaugh continues to deny the charge adamantly and categorically, and with persuasive emotion.
Something enormous nonetheless has shifted over the past weeks of political ambushes, ugly threats and gonzo gang-rape claims. In a Monday interview, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski noted: “We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified.” Truer words were never spoken. Republicans are now voting on something very different and monumental—and they need to be clear on the stakes.
To vote against Judge Kavanaugh is to reject his certain, clear and unequivocal denial that this event ever happened. The logical implication of a “no” vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community. Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said: “If you vote ‘no,’ you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”
They gave Democrats exactly what they wanted
You have opponents whose first and only objective is delay. From the start of the confirmation proceedings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, those opponents, Senate Democrats, have thus pushed for delay. At every turn. Of course they never come out and say that’s what they’re doing — they never come out and say, “We’ve abused the confirmation process and dropped a bomb at the eleventh hour, an uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegation of sexual assault, because we’re trying to delay the vote until after the midterms.” But delay is what they want.
It doesn’t matter what sheep’s clothing the wolf comes in; the wolf is always delay. When they say, “We’re protecting survivors,” they mean, “We want delay.” When they posture that “women must be believed,” their aim is more delay. When they say, “The FBI must investigate to remove any cloud over the nominee,” the translation is: “Give us a delay so we can come up with new reasons for delay.” Get it?
Dems say, “potato,” they mean “delay”;
Dems say “tomato,” they mean delay;
Tomato, delay, potato, delay;
Let’s call the whole thing off.
So, finally, we get to a committee vote over two weeks after it should have happened; after reopening a hearing that involved 31 hours of testimony from the nominee; after 65 meetings with senators and followed by over 1,200 answers to post-hearing questions, more than the combined number of post-hearing questions in the history of Supreme Court nominations. We finally get Kavanaugh’s nomination voted out of committee. And then, as a final floor vote is about to be scheduled and debated, Republicans — taking their lead from the ineffable Jeff Flake — agree to accede to one more Democratic request (really, just one more, cross-our-hearts . . .). And what would that be?
The Smearing Of Brett Kavanaugh Is Truly Evil
Maybe Brett Kavanaugh is a gang-raping attempted murderer who managed to live a public life of acclaim and honor. Maybe the devotion to his wife and two daughters, his respect for countless women and their careers, and his wisdom on the bench are parts of an elaborate plot to get away with it. Anything is possible.
But the idea that the country should convict him and destroy his life with no evidence other than recovered and uncorroborated memories and creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti’s say-so is quite insane.
President Donald Trump, who was elected by people who cared deeply about fighting the progressive takeover of the courts, nominated Brett Kavanaugh to fill Anthony Kennedy’s seat. D.C. establishment figures on the right revere Kavanaugh, and praise his extensive judicial record. Before meeting with him or holding hearings, most Democratic senators said they planned to vote against him.
The hearings ricocheted from interesting discussions of judicial philosophy to clownish “I am Spartacus” moments and radical abortion protesters screaming about their love of killing unborn children.
Why the Kavanaugh Smears Validate Trumpian Politics
The Trump phenomenon is impossible to gainsay. The attempted political assassination of Brett Kavanaugh is bad for the country, but good for a Trumpian attitude toward American politics.
The last-minute ambush validates key assumptions of Donald Trump’s supporters that fueled his rise and buttress him in office, no matter how rocky the ride has been or will become. At least three premises have been underlined by the tawdry events of the past couple of weeks.
First, that good character is no defense. If you are John McCain, who genuinely tried to do the right thing and carefully cultivated a relationship with the media over decades, they will still call you a racist when you run against Barack Obama.
If you are Mitt Romney, an exceptionally earnest and decent man, they will make you into a heartless and despicable vulture capitalist, also for the offense of campaigning against Obama.
If you are Brett Kavanaugh, a respected member of the legal establishment who doesn’t have a flyspeck on his record across decades of public service in Washington, they will come up with dubious accusations of wrongdoing from decades ago when you were a teenager.
What Democrats Have Become
Let us posit that the one thing not at issue here is the truth. As a matter of law and fact, Ms. Ford’s accusation can be neither proved nor disproved. This is as obvious now as it must have been when Dianne Feinstein and the other Democrats came into possession of this incident.
Surely someone pointed out that based on what was disclosed, this accusation could not be substantiated. To which the Democrats responded: So what? Its political value is that it cannot be disproved. They saw that six weeks before a crucial midterm election, the unresolvable case of Christine Blasey Ford would sit like a stalled hurricane over the entire Republican Party, drowning its candidates in a force they could not stop.
In #MeToo, which began in the predations of Harvey Weinstein, Democrats and progressives finally have found a weapon against which there seems to be no defense. It can be used to exterminate political enemies. If one unprovable accusation doesn’t suffice, why not produce a second, or third? It’s a limitless standard.
Common Sense: Trump Reform Denies Green Cards To People Who Expect Taxpayer Aid
The Department of Homeland Security has released its draft regulation to bar the legal immigration of people who are likely to rely on taxpayer-funded aid programs, including medical care, pensions, and anti-poverty aid.
The regulation is based on long-standing law, and could begin operating early next year.
Overall, the regulation is expected to sharply cut the taxpayers’ cost of supporting the roughly 1.1 million legal migrants who are given green cards each year. Over time, it may also reduce the inflow of unskilled labor, helping nudge up wages for unskilled Americans and prior immigrants.
The regulation uses existing law, so migration advocates may not be able to stop it via lawsuits unless President Donald Trump loses the 2020 election. However, business groups likely will lobby Congress to override the regulation.
The rule likely will trim the fast-growing inflow of elderly migrants, such as the retired parents of recent immigrants. It could also block the arrival of many ailing or poor chain-migrants, such as the siblings of unskilled immigrants, but it is not likely to reduce the overall chain-migration inflow because the chain-migration waiting-line of 4 million people includes many people who are not poor, ill or unskilled.
Why the Left Is Consumed With Hate
For many on the left a hateful anti-Americanism has become a self-congratulatory lifestyle. “America was never that great,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently said. For radical groups like Black Lives Matter, hatred of America is a theme of identity, a display of racial pride.
For other leftists, hate is a license. Conservative speakers can be shouted down, even assaulted, on university campuses. Republican officials can be harassed in restaurants, in the street, in front of their homes. Certain leaders of the left—Rep. Maxine Waters comes to mind—are self-appointed practitioners of hate, urging their followers to think of hatred as power itself.
How did the American left—conceived to bring more compassion and justice to the world—become so given to hate? It began in the 1960s, when America finally accepted that slavery and segregation were profound moral failings. That acceptance changed America forever. It imposed a new moral imperative: America would have to show itself redeemed of these immoralities in order to stand as a legitimate democracy.
Will Democrats Regret Weaponizing the Judiciary?
The year was 1937. Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts had to decide which was more important: his intellectual integrity, or the integrity of the court as an institution. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s court-packing plan—which FDR billed as a measure to shore up the country’s “overworked” courts—had precipitated a showdown with the judiciary. No one doubted the plan’s true purpose was to strong-arm the justices into ruling in the president’s favor on his signature New Deal program. If the court as constituted didn’t start approving the president’s agenda voluntarily, he was going to add enough seats filled by handpicked appointees to force it into compliance. The question was whether the justices would yield to the threat.
For Justice Roberts’ more conservative colleagues—ominously dubbed “the Four Horsemen” by political opponents—the answer was a resounding “no.” Such a blatant assault on judicial independence was too much for them, the long-term viability of the court be damned. They’d sooner see the judicial branch implode than give an inch in the face of what they saw as executive tyranny. On the other side, it was clear that the court’s liberal minority—the so-called “Three Musketeers”—would continue supporting FDR’s New Deal regardless of what happened in the court-packing fight. But Roberts, a moderate former prosecutor appointed by Calvin Coolidge, was in neither camp. So the role of saving the court fell to him and, to a lesser extent, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.
In the end, Roberts came through. Despite the blow his reputation would take, he began to side with the administration in virtually all the cases that came before the court, often reversing votes he had cast just a few terms before. The message was clear: The court would no longer get in the president’s way. And it worked. Despite the usual impulse of the Democratic majority in Congress to rubber-stamp anything Roosevelt advanced, Congress took heed of the court’s change of heart and killed the court-packing bill. The crisis was over.
But why did it arise in the first place?