EDITORS NOTE: The following letter to the editor was sent to us by Bob Kunst, President of Shalom International. It is published with permission.
Subject: Sen. Bill Nelson Is A Fraud
Letters to the Editor
P.O.Box 1121 St. Petersburg, Fla. 33731
In the Tampa Bay Times, 10/7/18, backing the re-election of Sen. Bill Nelson, you cited his ‘ethical service’ and ‘personal integrity’, I take issue with.
On April 26,2018, Trump nominates and gets passed an openly Gay man, Rick Grenell, as Ambassador to Germany and its Holocaust past. All the Republicans supported Grenell, but 42 Democrats voted against him, including Sen. Bill Nelson, because they didn’t want to give Trump a victory, nor change the narrative that Trump is anti-gay, when he isn’t. They want our money and votes and then stab us in the back and why this Democrat will not vote for Nelson, who lacks ethics and integrity.
Having led the opposition to Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell, through 5 elections (1976-1980) that made Dade County, the ‘Holy Land of Gay Rights’, the treacherous Democrats are playing very dangerous and evil games and can’t be trusted.
Nelson failed U.S. by supporting the awful Iran Nuke deal and giving $150 Billions to this international terrorist state.
Nelson is silent about Obama/Hillary/Kerry ‘politics’, costing 1 million lives in Middle East and North Africa.
Nelson is silent about Obama/Hillary/Kerry wanting to divide Jerusalem, Jewish for 3000 yrs. and Israel, Jewish for 5000 yrs. and give it to the very Arabs aligned with Hitler to ‘kill All Jews’, while denying their role in the Holocaust and dancing in the streets after ‘9/11’, and making cartoons on this tragedy in October, 2018.
Where is Nelson, when Obama/Hillary//Kerry illegally gave $2 Billion to Hamas and Fatah, both committed to Israel’s destruction?
Where is Nelson, when the Democrats exploit the Holocaust, Auschwitz and Kristolnacht, for votes, which is so disgusting, to compare a child’s center for refugees, which Obama also had, and these kids getting 3 meals a day and playing soccer and compare this to millions of Jews being exterminated at Auschwitz. Unbelievable!
For all the screaming about racism and sexism from the Democrats, apparently anti-semitism is okay with them. Farrakhan hates all Whites, Jews, Gays and Nelson is silent, like the rest of the Democrats. Shame on them and shame on Nelson who needs to be retired.
Where is Nelson, when Gillum for Gov. wants to ‘impeach Trump’, ‘divide Jerusalem’ and ‘abolish ICE’, while his running mate said 20 yrs. ago that Jews at Harvard Crimson ‘Nailed Him To The Cross”, while wanting to boycott Israel are backing this disastrous candacy[sic].
And where was Nelson, when Obama took over $700 billions from Medicare for Obamacare? Now Nelson votes against Kavanaugh for the Supreme Ct., before the awful attempts by the Democrats to destroy him and his family.
The D.C. ‘sewer’ was exposed as to its dirtiest and sadistic politics and any lovers of America, need to throw the bums out this November and Nelson tops the list of these sell outs, willing too take down America to ‘get Trump’.
Yours in Shalom,
Bob Kunst
Pres., Shalom International
305-864-5110
525 W. 49th St.
Miami Beach, Fla. 33140
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bob-kuntz.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-10-07 18:15:452018-10-07 18:15:45Letter from the President of Shalom International: Sen. Bill Nelson Is A Fraud
This week, it gave up all pretense at not being an arm of the Democratic Party. The following ad compares Brett Kavanaugh to Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Bill Clinton:
Got that? According to the ACLU, Kavanaugh is as bad as Bill Cosby — who was recently convicted of sexual assault. He’s as bad as Harvey Weinstein — a man accused of decades of sexual assaults, harassment, spying on women, and more who was arrested in May on charges. And he’s as bad as Bill Clinton, who used his power as first governor and then president to have his way with women. Clinton has also been credibly accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick.
These (Democratic Party) men’s behavior is atrocious, immoral, and illegal. The evidence backing their accusers is enormous, and accusers’ stories frequently have corroboration. Compare that to the accusations against Kavanaugh, which are a) politically motivated, b) new, c) uncorroborated, d) full of holes, and e) refuted by those who know Kavanaugh best.
The facts are clear. Kavanaugh is nothing like these (Democratic Party) men. Yet the ACLU is putting one million dollars behind this ad to target five Senators they believe can be convinced to oppose Kavanaugh.
This hit job cannot be allowed to stand. 2ndVote conservatives can make their voices heard by demanding the ACLU’s corporate backers stop funding this new arm of the Democratic Party. Specifically, we recommend telling Bank of America, Walgreens, Lyft, Yahoo, and Verizon to demand the ACLU return to its civil rights roots — or these corporations will lose you as customers.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image by Shutterstock and column originally appeared on 2nd Vote. Republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_1168995703-990x556-e1538824397850.jpg3596402ndvote .comhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png2ndvote .com2018-10-06 07:13:532018-10-06 08:06:03See Who’s Funding The ACLU’s Claim That Kavanaugh Is Just Like Weinstein, Clinton, & Cosby
In the race for US Senate Bullsugar.org endorsed Nelson for his public acknowledgement that Florida’s flawed water management has fueled toxic algae and red tide blooms on both coasts, and for Nelson’s support for solutions that protect the health and safety of waterside communities, as well as the health of Everglades National Park and Florida Bay.
Who is Bullsugar.org?
This is a questions that two Florida newspapers have tried to answer.
If Bullsugar.org didn’t exist, someone would have to invent it.
The group was formed in 2013, but it came to prominence this past summer as blue-green algae choked our waterways.
[ … ]
Judy Sanchez, spokeswoman for Clewiston-based U.S. Sugar, suggests it’s because Bullsugar and other Everglades environmental groups are working in tandem, likely all funded by the same “out-of-state hedge fund billionaire” (Paul Tudor Jones II) in an effort to push their “anti-farming, anti-rural communities agenda.
[ … ]
And its critics are complaining, we suspect, because Bullsugar has drawn rhetorical blood in its criticism and its activism.
Nonetheless, the secrecy doesn’t reflect well on Bullsugar’s cause. Given the severity of this summer’s algae crisis, it might have been tempting to fight fire with fire, to counter the sugar industry’s political donations funneled through myriad PACs, “grass roots” organizations and, yes, “dark money” groups with similar tactics.
The group supporting a water reservoir to divert and store discharges from Lake Okeechobee has brought harsh rhetoric to the debate on Everglades issues this past year after being formed just two years ago.
Group members have criticized politicians who have received donations from the sugar industry. But the group would not provide a list of its donors when requested by POLITICO Florida.
“OK, so, I can’t really give you a list of our donors,” co-founder Kenan Siegel said. “I don’t think they’d really want to be named.”
Bullsugar.org is a 501(c)(4) organization, which means it doesn’t have to reveal its donors. Such organizations in political circles often are called “dark money” groups.
The Nelson for Senate Campaign in an email stated:
Friends – our campaign has been outspent 5-to-1, and right now our fundraising is falling behind. If we let Rick Scott buy this seat, Democrats have NO chance to take back the Senate.
He and his right-wing allies have already spent more than double what my campaign spent in 2012, and recent polls show this race within a single point – that’s why this fundraising deadline is so important.
Perhaps Florida’s Senator Bill Nelson should come forward and ask Bullsugar to reveal from where it gets its funding in the name of honesty and transparency? Who is buying whose seat?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bill-nelson.jpg419639Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-10-04 06:16:242018-10-04 07:04:57Why is the anti-Florida farmers ‘dark money’ group Bullsugar.org endorsing Senator Bill Nelson?
With the advent of October, comes the start of the Supreme Court’s session. As the Court enters the session with only eight members, there is no tiebreaker. If there is an equal vote, then the lower court’s decision will stand.
And there is no shortage of cases awaiting it.
Weyerhauser Co. v. US Fish and Wildlife questions the Endangered Species Act and the owner’s right to challenge the designation of private land as critical habitat. In Madison v. Alabama, the court is asked whether the Eighth Amendment allows for a state to execute a prisoner who can’t remember his or her capital offense because of mental disability. And Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, asks whether the ruling in Williamson County Regional Commission v. Hamilton Bank requiring that property owners exhaust state court remedies prior to being reviewed in federal court should be overturned.
Overall, there are 20 cases slated for consideration in the October docket. Many of these cases will have a big impact on our rights, our liberties, and upon the future interpretation of our Constitution and statutes.
While most of us enter this latest Supreme Court session with thoughts of the impending judicial nomination, the circus it has become, and the impact these proceedings will have on the Court’s future, the greater question remains unaddressed; namely the role of the Court and the checking of its power.
In a discussion with Judge Gregory Maggs hosted by the Supreme Court Fellows Program, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke of his conscious effort at checking his own ability to influence the future interpretation of the Constitution by reminding himself that it was someone else’s Constitution he was writing on. Christopher Scalia, the late-Justice Antonin Scalia’s son, related his father’s concerns of how much of what the modern Court does rightfully belongs in the legislature. And Sen. Ben Sasse echoed the sentiment in between circus performances at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Hearing last week.
Once again we enter a Supreme Court session under the effects of the Court’s power grab in Marbury v. Madison. Indeed, Justice John Marshall’s determination that it was up to the Supreme Court to decide what was constitutional and what was not is at odds with the views of many of the Framers.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned of the importance of changing the Constitution through the amendment process and not by usurpation as the latter was the “the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” And Thomas Jefferson (who was not a Framer of the Constitution) warned that allowing judges to be the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy,” and cautioned that such an arrangement would have never been accepted by the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
So, we enter another session with the balance of power skewed in the direction of the judiciary. To a great extent, every law passed by Congress is essentially a trial balloon floated to see if it passes muster before a board of appointed reviewers. Literally, the nature of our liberties hangs at the unchecked hands of the Court, which in today’s environment is able to overturn practically any rule, statute, ordinance, or law at its whim, and when it does so on constitutional grounds, there is nothing the other branches can do about it other than capitulate.
Such a power is at the very least disconcerting and inconsistent with a government that is designed under the construct calling for a balance of powers between three co-equal branches of government.
And once again, we are faced with the question of what to do about it. Yes, one answer is to get better judges. But hiring great people to work within a certain branch of government is not a check on that branch’s power. The real solution is to create an external impediment on the branch. In this case, it is a step that should have been implemented in the nineteenth century in direct response to Marshall’s opinion.
The most logical correction is a legislative override amendment.
Under this provision, a supermajority of the legislature would be able to override an opinion of the Court and keep a statute operational. The override provision has been adopted by Canada, Israel, the European Union, and Australia, among others, and it is one proposed by Madison himself to Thomas Jefferson when the latter penned a draft of the Virginia Constitution.
In a nutshell, once the Court issues an opinion, Congress would have four years to override it through a supermajority vote of about 60%. In such instances, the law would remain operational despite the opinion of the Court. At the very least, such a provision would have a chilling effect on activist judges. It would send legislation back to Congress for consideration and debate, and it would allow a ruling inconsistent with the will of the vast majority of the American people to be nullified.
If there is one thing the Kavanaugh nomination proceedings teach us is that the Supreme Court is as political a body as any other. Knowing this, then why ought it be given full reign on the interpretation of the nation’s governing document?
The question we must be asking ourselves is, to whom does the Constitution belong?
If the Constitution of the United States belongs to the Supreme Court, then we have no right as citizens to tinker with the Court’s opinion on the document’s interpretation. But if the Constitution belongs to we the people, which I believe it does, then we must demand an instrument by which we may overrule the opinions of errant judiciary, i.e. a legislative override.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/jomar-271602-unsplash-e1538268454737.jpg374640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-10-03 17:58:162018-10-03 17:58:16New Supreme Court Session Shows Need For Legislative Override
Writing in theDenver Post, U.S. Attorney in Colorado, Bob Troyer, says you may see his counterparts begin to criminally prosecute licensed marijuana businesses and their investors. Colorado legalized marijuana in 2012 but has not gotten what proponents promised. Here’s what it’s gotten instead:
Youth
Youth marijuana use is 85 percent higher than the national average.
The industry targets kids by selling marijuana consumption devices to avoid detection like vape pens that look like high-lighters and eye-liner.
Marketers advertise super high potency gummi candies to youth whose developing brains make them more vulnerable to addiction. The vast amount of industry profits come from heavy and addicted users.
Marijuana-Related Traffic Fatalities
Marijuana-related traffic fatalities are up 151 percent.
Environmental Damage
An indoor marijuana grow consumes 17 times more power than an average residence.
Each marijuana plant consumes 2.2 liters of water—per day.
Contaminated Products
Colorado has issued more than 40 recalls of plants laced with pesticides and mold.
Burgeoning Black Market
Rather than being eliminated, the state’s black market has exploded. Colorado has become a source state for international drug trafficking and money laundering operations from Cuba, China, Mexico, and elsewhere.
Last year, the regulated industry produced 6.4 metric tons of unaccounted-for marijuana. More than 80,000 black-market plants were found on Colorado’s federal lands.
Colorado legalized marijuana commercialization for medical use in 2009 followed by recreational use three years later. Like Colorado, the other seven states that fully legalized marijuana commercialized the drug for medical use first.
If you don’t want your state to become Colorado 2.0, make sure your state senator and state representative hear from you. Now, they are hearing exclusively from the marijuana industry, which is contributing to their campaigns.
If you live in Colorado or one of the seven other states with full legalization, ask your legislators to modify or repeal legalization.
If you live in a state that allows medical use of the drug, ask your legislators to prevent full legalization and to modify or repeal medical legalization.
If you live in a state that has done neither, work with your legislators to keep it that way.
You can find your state representative and state senator along with their contact information here. To the left, click on “Engage.” Click on “Who represents me?”
Colorado produced over 6 million marijuana plants, more than one plant for every man, woman, and child in the state.
Between January and June 2018, Colorado marijuana cultivators grew 6,011,678 marijuana plants, according to the Colorado Department of Revenue’s Marijuana Enforcement Division. The data come from the division’s just released mid-year update.
Reading from the bottom of the graph above, the counties of Denver (A-dark blue), Pueblo (B-dark red), El Paso (C-green), and Boulder (D-purple) produced 80 percent of the plants grown across the state. See key, below.
Access Marijuana Enforcement Division report here. This key and graph above are on pages 7 and 8.
Violent crime up 25 percent in Colorado since 2013, latest CBI report shows
Crime has surged in Colorado since the state legalized marijuana, says the Colorado Crime Bureau of Investigation:
violent crime up 25 percent (18,426 in 2013 to 23,009 in 2017)
aggravated assaults up 31 percent (9,714 to 12,711)
drug violations up 53 percent (13,878 to 21,166)
motor vehicle thefts up a whopping 73 percent (12,806 to 22,187)
Colorado legalized marijuana for medical use in 2000, legalized dispensaries in 2009, and legalized “recreational,” “retail,” or “adult use” (choose one, the state has used all three names) marijuana in 2012.
Read Denver Post story here. Access Colorado Crime Stats here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/thomas-bjornstad-554934-unsplash-e1538595956160.jpg372640National Families in Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNational Families in Action2018-10-03 15:46:042018-10-03 15:46:04U.S. Attorney in Colorado may shut down pot shops. Here’s why.
You’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted. You are humiliated and upset. It’s time to roll the dice!
The goal of the game is to get justice. The path to justice can be treacherous, though. You’ll need your instinct, guts, and some luck to get there.
To play: Each player chooses one of the “disgraced woman” game pieces and draws a card from the Perp Deck. This card goes face up in front of you while you are playing – this is your criminal. Now it’s time to get to work – try to move your game piece to Justice! Each player rolls the die to determine more about their perp and what path they’ll be taking to get to Justice.
If you roll a 1 or a 2: congratulations! Your Perp is a conservative. You will get full media and political support! Celebrities and news anchors will hang on your every word. Twitter and Facebook will support and help you with righteous outrage. You could actually make things up and no one will ever verify it or care. You will definitely get to Justice. Your goal is now to maximize the amount of payout and perks you’ll get along the way. Can you parlay this into a political career or maybe have a law named after you?
If you roll a 3 or 4: bad luck, your Perp is a liberal. While you can reach Justice, it won’t be easy and there will be difficult choices to make along the way. Will the media try to destroy you or your family? Will you be threatened or lose your job? Hopefully you’ll keep your sanity and your dignity through the long ordeal – don’t give up!
If you roll a 5 or 6: unfortunately, your Perp is either a Muslim grooming gang or a Kennedy. You will never achieve Justice and you automatically lose. Better luck next time.
Play again and again, there are endless possibilities!
Ages 18+
Up to 4 players
EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by Panem Et Circenses originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.
The American left accelerated its attack on every precept of civil society this month by arguing that the presumption of innocence, as the leftists would say, “isn’t really a thing.”
The context for this latest assault is that, in its unquenchable zeal for power, the left is willing to dismiss principles that have guided human interaction for centuries just so they may have a chance at preserving a more liberal court. Specifically, their latest claim is that Judge Brett Kavanaugh need not be presumed innocent until proven guilty during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee because those hearings are not a trial. In point of fact, the left’s contention, once again, is patently false.
The fact is that in every facet of human interaction an individual is presumed to be innocent. Consider what would happen if this were not the case. Under such circumstances it would be totally appropriate for one to randomly beat up any person with whom he or she comes into contact because the recipient of the punishment is presumed to be guilty of whatever it is that he is suspected of doing.
For example, if the left’s contention that presumed innocence is only true in trials then it would be perfectly appropriate for me to walk up to a man that I presumed to be guilty of sleeping with my wife and beat him up. Or if you want to be more formal about it, it would be perfectly appropriate for me to call the police, merely tell them that the accused had slept with my wife and have the police apply the appropriate statutorily prescribed punishment upon my wife and him for adultery.
Indeed, if it were not for everyone’s presumption of innocence in every facet of life, then there would be no room for formal society since we would all be involved in an endless and random maze of revenges and counter-revenges against each other because everyone around us would be presumed guilty of whatever we want; a hopeless and absurd situation indeed.
But such is the world of the left.
The fact is, and what the left is trying to make us forget, is that everyone around us starts with a presumption of innocence. If you call your plumber to work on your home, you do not interact with him under the presumption of shoddy workmanship. You believe he or she will do a good job, or at least is capable of it. If you go to the drugstore, you presume that the pharmacist is going to give you the correct tablets and that the pharmaceutical company placed the correct chemicals in the tablets. We do this because of the presumption of innocence under which everyone is held consciously, or subconsciously.
To be sure, trial proceedings are much more formal affairs and much different than what takes place in extra-judicial human interactions, but the differences lie not in the presumption of innocence. The differences lie in how we prove guilt and the safeguards with which to prove it. In short, there are only two things that vary between the ruminations of a court and public interactions: 1) the evidence we are allowed to consider; and 2) the amount of evidence required in order to arrive at the conclusion.
Let us first consider the evidence we are allowed to consider. In court, particularly in criminal courts, there are a myriad of rules that determine what evidence may be used against the defendant. The reason for this is that the courts want to only allow the most reliable pieces of evidence into the fray because the consequence of making a wrong decision can potentially be that an innocent woman gets sent to jail.
In the arena of human interaction, anything the individual wishes to consider may be taken into account. For example, if John’s mother tells John that Steve said that his wife, Mary, had been sleeping with Charles, John is free to consider that piece of evidence in passing judgment upon Mary’s and Charles’s conducts. But you will never be able to introduce that hearsay comment into a court of law to establish the fact that Mary is sleeping with Charles.
Why the difference? Well because the consequence of the information laid upon John is potentially to upset him and cause him to act on that information. The same information given to a court can have much broader implications as the court carries with it the power of the state in enacting penalties.
Then we consider the amount of evidence required to make the point. Again, in the forum of personal interactions, the standard is whatever the recipient wants it to be…in other words; anything goes. In our example, John is free to personally act against his wife based only on the information his mother gave him. However, if John does that sufficiently frequently, then he will quickly learn the consequences of making false accusations and of running on unsubstantiated or uncorroborated evidence because, sooner rather than later, his information is going to lead him to the wrong conclusions and his life will be thrown into chaos.
In legal proceedings, the amount of evidence required varies. For example, to begin many proceedings all that may be needed is a scintilla of evidence, or “just the smell of evidence.” So, a person appearing before a committee to say that someone raped someone 35 years prior absent any other evidence may be enough for that committee to look into it, but it is certainly insufficient for the committee to reach any conclusion against the nominee, or take any action against him or her.
Usually, the lowest burden of proof with which to take actions is the more likely than not standard. Here, the amount of evidence presented would be so strong so as to make an impartial mind conclude that it was more likely than not that the accusation is true, or that the event took place. I can tell you that absent any other corroborating evidence there is no situation where the mere accusation by one person of an event that took place 35 years earlier would ever reach the more likely than not standard. Doing so would be equivalent to adopting the presumption of guilt standard, which I laid out at the opening of this article and society could not have ever developed.
For a criminal trial, the level of proof would be beyond reasonable doubt, or as legal scholars describe it, at least 95% sure. This is the highest level of proof employed and a burden that is admittedly too strict for either the court of public opinion or a hearing.
For a hearing, the more appropriate level is either more likely than not, or a preponderance of the evidence (at least 80% sure). Either way, the burden of proof is much higher than that required to merely consider an allegation.
It is clear that the stakes in the fight against leftist policies have now increased from the regression to socialism or the intrusion of government onto our civil liberties to a defense of the very foundational steeples of our society.
According to the left, it is now okay for women to divorce their husbands merely because the husbands are Republicans. It is okay to harass a President merely because he won. It is okay to call someone guilty and permanently ruin him or her. And it is okay to equate a vote based on a certain set of facts with a globally broad statement applicable to a whole class of people who have no knowledge or personal association with the established facts upon which the vote is made.
This is the world according to the left. It is a world permissive of totalitarian dictatorships, a world that allows blacks to be enslaved or mercilessly discriminated against, and a world where justice does not exist except for those who are part of the ruling class.
If this is sounding very close to the realities that existed in Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, and Mao’s China — and those called for in Antifa’s, MeToo’s, and Black Lives Matters’ America — that’s because it is. Each of those systems is all too willing to cast away presumptions of innocence, burdens of proof, and evidentiary requirements before imparting upon an individual the full wrath of government.
Let’s hope that in today’s America, there are still enough of us who are willing to stand up for our civil liberties and for the absolute right to be presumed innocent until and unless we are proven guilty. Ordered society depends on it.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/pierrick-van-troost-646913-unsplash-e1538497385740.jpg432640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-10-02 12:23:482018-10-02 12:23:48The Destruction Of Presumed Innocence Invites Societal Chaos
Here’s what’s going to happen this week. It does not require a Biblical-level prophet or a crystal ball. As a longtime mainstream media journalist and political consultant, I can see this as clearly as if I had it straight from Mount Sinai — minus the actual divine revelation. Seriously, just seeing forward by looking backward.
First and foremost, at least one other allegation of a woman or women being sexually assaulted by Judge Brett Kavanaugh will breathlessly emerge after extensive consultation with Democratic lawyers and operatives. This is all but guaranteed. Somehow, another one will come forward because the heirs to the Anita Hill and “bimbo eruptions” teams under Sen. Ted Kennedy and Bill and Hillary Clinton are always with us. Mark it down. It’s coming.
Next is just as clear: The FBI is conducting a background check of the allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh that will change nothing. It will not be a criminal investigation. Based on the complete lack of investigatable details, evidence and witnesses — unless some others magically “emerge” — this will be inconclusive. It has to be, at least based on what we know, with every named witnesses to the alleged event denying it happened in sworn statements that carry felony charges if they lied. It’s the only outcome, and of course Democrats know that and knew that all along.
When the inconclusive report is issued next Friday or before, Democrats will howl that this changes nothing because the Republicans put an artificial time limit on the FBI. They were not allowed time to conduct an investigation, to do their job. Democrats will also charge, without evidence because that is obviously an old-fashion idea nowadays, that the Trump administration tied the FBI’s hands. They will continue to work on the empty husk of the one-time Sen. Jeff Flake and on GOP moderate Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
The FBI is also investigating the claims of Deborah Ramirez, even though she had told friends she was not even sure it was Kavanaugh — until Democratic lawyers helped her remember for sure that it was. There is also nothing to follow here unless Ramirez is coached to suddenly remember others who will “verify” her story. Yes, it is difficult not to be cynical that Democrats will create more fiction, and get away with it.
So barring some miraculous and convenient memory recall by “witnesses,” both of these investigations will determine nothing more than we already know.
The FBI apparently is not investigating the “gang train rape” nonsense by the porn lawyer huckster, or at least not the woman that claimed it. If not, late in the week there will be a call for that investigation as more women victims of the rape trains will “come forward” to extend things another week.
The hundreds of women who have nothing but glowing praise for Judge Kavanaugh from the past 30 years will be totally ignored. Those women will not “be believed.” The women who clerked intimately for Kavanaugh who, to a woman, claim this is nothing like the man who mentored them, will not “be believed.”
Democrats such as Sens. Corey Booker and Kamala Harris will continue to run their 2020 presidential campaigns over the tattered remnants of the U.S. Senate, stomping forward to trample anything between them and a grandstand — the U.S. Constitution, fair-mindedness, morals, women and children.
Shrieking banshee activists, male and female, will continue shrieking raw emotional nonsense, but will be part and parcel with the hysterical mob that will attempt to disrupt and destroy the lives of the Kavanaughs, the GOP Senators, Trump appointees and anyone with a MAGA hat. Meanwhile, Democrats will operate in virtual peace and calm because conservatives don’t act like 1930s Brown Shirts.
More liberal organizations such as the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, will come out opposed to Kavanaugh, spaced throughout the week to suggest a growing tide against the Judge. Watch for them, and for the timing of the release of their statements. It’s calculated. I know how this works.
If there is any doubt as to the ACLU’s total subjugation of Americans’ civil liberties to leftist political orthodoxy, it is contained in the ACLU’s own resolution passed by its Board:
“The ACLU opposes the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. There are credible allegations that Judge Kavanaugh has engaged in serious misconduct that have not been adequately investigated by the Senate. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s credible testimony, subsequent allegations of sexual misconduct, the inadequate investigation, and Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony at the hearing lead us to doubt Judge Kavanaugh’s fitness to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
“This is not a decision taken lightly. We cannot remain silent under these extraordinary circumstances about a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. The standard for such an appointment should be high, and the burden is on the nominee. That burden is not met as long as there are unresolved questions regarding the credible allegations of sexual assault.”
So the organization that has tasked itself with protecting Americans’ civil liberties will jettison innocent until proven guilty and due process to side with an evidence-free 36-year-old allegation that also happens to be impossible to disprove because the accuser cannot remember any details that could corroborate or exonerate other than the other four people she claims were there — who all deny it. This group claims to be defending civil liberties.
The media will continue with breathless, awful, partisan hackery on a daily basis, with wall to wall coverage and rehashing, and with Kavanaugh absorbing 96 percent of the negative reporting of the accusers’ side. Literally. And the pre-planned rollout of new revelations and liberal organizations opposing will get headline-blasting coverage. Jeff Flake will be ever ready if there is a mic or adulation to be had.
The vote, when it is taken, will be taken with no new information and the same three Republican Senators who were always the three that would decide the vote will still decide the vote. The farce will move forward.
The questions are: How does the Senate move forward after this? Unknown.
And how does the nation move forward? Like it always has when the politicians fail her. Because Americans are actually far better than what is going on in Washington, D.C.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The edited featured photo by Charles Deluvio 🇵🇭🇨🇦 on Unsplash.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/charles-deluvio-651963-unsplash.jpg366639Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2018-10-01 15:01:262018-10-01 15:01:26Here’s What Will Happen In This Week From Hell Brought To You By Jeff Flake
The American left accelerated its attack on every precept of civil society this month by arguing that the presumption of innocence, as the leftists would say, “isn’t really a thing.” The context for this latest assault is that, in its unquenchable zeal for power, the left is willing to dismiss principles that have guided human interaction for centuries just so they may have a chance at preserving a more liberal court. Specifically, their latest claim is that Judge Brett Kavanaugh need not be presumed innocent until proven guilty during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee because those hearings are not a trial. In point of fact, the left’s contention, once again, is patently false.
The fact is that in every facet of human interaction an individual is presumed to be innocent. Consider what would happen if this were not the case. Under such circumstances it would be totally appropriate for one to randomly beat up any person with whom he or she comes into contact because the recipient of the punishment is presumed to be guilty of whatever it is that he is suspected of doing. For example, if the left’s contention that presumed innocence is only true in trials then it would be perfectly appropriate for me to walk up to a man that I presumed to be guilty of sleeping with my wife and beat him up. Or if you want to be more formal about it, it would be perfectly appropriate for me to call the police, merely tell them that the accused had slept with my wife and have the police apply the appropriate statutorily prescribed punishment upon my wife and him for adultery.
Indeed, if it were not for everyone’s presumption of innocence in every facet of life, then there would be no room for formal society since we would all be involved in an endless and random maze of revenges and counter-revenges against each other because everyone around us would be presumed guilty of whatever we want; a hopeless and absurd situation indeed.
But such is the world of the left.
The fact is, and what the lying left is trying to make us forget, is that everyone around us starts with a presumption of innocence. If you call your plumber to work on your home, you do not interact with him under the presumption of shoddy workmanship. You believe he or she will do a good job, or at least is capable of it. If you go to the drugstore, you presume that the pharmacist is going to give you the correct tablets and that the pharmaceutical company placed the correct chemicals in the tablets. We do this because of the presumption of innocence under which everyone is held consciously, or subconsciously.
To be sure, trial proceedings are much more formal affairs and much different than what takes place in extra-judicial human interactions, but the differences lie not in the presumption of innocence. The differences lie in how we prove guilt and the safeguards with which to prove it. In short, there are only two things that vary between the ruminations of a court and public interactions: 1) the evidence we are allowed to consider; and 2) the amount of evidence required in order to arrive at the conclusion.
Let us first consider the evidence we are allowed to consider. In court, particularly in criminal courts, there are a myriad of rules that determine what evidence may be used against the defendant. The reason for this is that the courts want to only allow the most reliable pieces of evidence into the fray because the consequence of making a wrong decision can potentially be that an innocent woman gets sent to jail.
In the arena of human interaction, anything the individual wishes to consider may be taken into account. For example, if John’s mother tells John that Steve said that his wife, Mary, had been sleeping with Charles, John is free to consider that piece of evidence in passing judgment upon Mary’s and Charles’s conducts. But you will never be able to introduce that hearsay comment into a court of law to establish the fact that Mary is sleeping with Charles.
Why the difference? Well because the consequence of the information laid upon John is potentially to upset him and cause him to act on that information. The same information given to a court can have much broader implications as the court carries with it the power of the state.
Then we consider the amount of evidence required to make the point. Again, in forum of personal interactions, the standard is whatever the recipient wants it to be. . . in other words; anything goes. In our example, John is free to personally act against his wife based only on the information his mother gave him. However, if John does that sufficiently frequently, then he will quickly learn the consequences of making false accusations and of running on unsubstantiated or uncorroborated evidence because, sooner rather than later, his information is going to lead him to the wrong conclusions and his life will be thrown into chaos.
In legal proceedings, the amount of evidence required varies. For example, to begin many proceedings all that may be needed is a scintilla of evidence, or “just the smell of evidence.” So, a person appearing before a committee to say that someone raped someone 35 years prior absent any other evidence may be enough for that committee to look into it, but it is certainly insufficient for the committee to reach any conclusion against the nominee, or take any action against him or her.
Usually, the lowest burden of proof with which to take actions is the more likely than not standard. Here, the amount of evidence presented would be so strong so as to make an impartial mind conclude that it was more likely than not that the accusation is true, or that the event took place. I can tell you that absent any other corroborating evidence there is no situation where the mere accusation by one person of an event that took place 35 years earlier would ever reach the more likely than not standard. Doing so would be equivalent to adopting the presumption of guilt standard, which I laid out at the opening of this article and society could not have ever developed.
For a criminal trial, the level of proof would be beyond reasonable doubt, or as legal scholars describe it, at least 95% sure. This is the highest level of proof employed and a burden that is admittedly too strict for either the court of public opinion or a hearing.
For a hearing, the more appropriate level is either more likely than not, or a preponderance of the evidence (~80% sure). Either way, the burden of proof is much higher than that required to merely consider an allegation.
It is clear that the stakes in the fight against leftist policies have now increased from the regression to socialism or the intrusion of government onto our civil liberties to a defense of the very foundational steeples of our society. According to the left, it is now okay for women to divorce their husbands merely because the husbands are Republicans. It is okay to harass a President merely because he won. It is okay to call someone guilty and permanently ruin him or her. And it is okay to equate a vote based on a certain set of facts with a globally broad statement applicable to a whole class of people who have no knowledge or personal association with the established facts upon which the vote is made.
This is the world according to the left. It is a world permissive of totalitarian dictatorships, a world that allows blacks to be enslaved or mercilessly discriminated against, and a world where justice does not exist except for those who are part of the ruling class.
If this is sounding very close to the realities that existed in Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, and Mao’s China, and those called for in Antifa’s, Me Too’s, and Black Lives Matters’ America, that’s because it is. Each of those systems is all to willing to cast away presumptions of innocence, burdens of proof, and evidentiary requirements before imparting upon an individual the full wrath of government. Let’s hope that in today’s America, there are still enough of us who are willing to stand up for our civil liberties and for the absolute right to be presumed innocent until and unless we are proven guilty.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/caroline-hernandez-374851-unsplash-e1538342843121.jpg392640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-09-30 17:27:332018-09-30 17:27:33The Left Aims to Destroy Our Innocence
As a TRUE AMERICAN, I must say that I am furious, saddened and sickened by this embarrassing and pathetic attempt by the Democrats (DC Deep State Operatives), to delay, derail and prevent a most highly honorable and qualified man, Brett Kavannaugh to the Supreme Court. These hearings were an embarrassment and quite dangerous based upon setting the precedence of presumed guilt over assumption of innocence. There is so much to write about and so much to be said about this horrific turn of events but I will take a bit of a different angle and approach to this and summarize it by simply saying, Pathetic But In The End They Lose.
Con Job
President Trump is right. This was a well planned clandestine con job by the Democrats (DC Deep State Operatives) as well as Jeff Flake (who is not to be trusted). Michael Savage released some intel connecting the dots on Dr. Blasey Ford to the CIA. Savage discusses this on his radio broadcast which can be found on YouTube.
Savage published the following: “Who is Dr. Ford? Well, besides being a “professor” at the off brand university, she also works at a major university down the street from Palo Alto. She just so happens to head up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford university. Christine Blasey’s brother, Ralph the third, used to work for the international law firm of Baker, Hostetler. The firm created fusion GPS, the company who wrote the Russian “dossier”. They later admitted it was only a collection of field interviews. Baker Hostetler is located in the same building where the CIA operates three companies called: red coats inc. Admiral security services and Datawatch they are operated by Ralph Blasey II He is the father of Christine and Ralph III. Christine and Ralph III’s grandfather was Nicholas Deak. Former CIA director William Casey acknowledged Deak’s decades of service to the CIA.” In my opinion, she was under the control and influence of some form of mind control and there are a variety of ways this can and be done. More data and links about the Deep State’s involvement in this can be viewed here. Please have a look.
F-F-F-F-F-F- Flake
Trump hater. Not up for re-election. The man cannot be trusted. We succeeded but they succeeded. Now there will be further delay with an FBI investigation. God only knows what new outrageous events will begin to be presented.This will not simply be about a standard FBI inquiry into Ford’s allegations and Kavannaugh’s actions. You wait and see. And based upon this investigation, there is now the chance for Flake to flip his vote. And the FBI? Who the hell trusts this FBI these days! This can get messy folks.
Trump’s Plan B
The attacks,rigging of elections, fake news, treasonous acts, felonies, fraud, crimes, murders and the possible deliberate collapsing of the stock market and so on will continue. They will not stop unless the control is taken away from them. This can and will be accomplished. This is discussed here by viewing this link particularly steps six and seven of which we are now embarking upon. The Deep State, its operatives and subjects which are used at many levels, are exposed, desperate and on the run. They have for the first time with President Trump and the forces behind Trump, a formidable challenge and they are about to lose it all. But I am afraid we will end up resorting to Plan B, Martial law and military tribunals as set forth by President Trump via two executive orders. There are archived articles you can find here on this website to become more familiar with Martial Law. This time spent may be wise. Read about this here. Listen to an excellent analysis by Mike Adams on video here:
What we have witnessed in the past few weeks is pathetic but in the end they lose. Vote RED. Get others to do the same. Support and pray for our President. Stay the course. Things will get worse before they get better.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on JohnMichaelChambers.com. It is reprinted, with featured image, with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/feinstein-flake-kavanaugh-e1538314029373.jpg367640John Michael Chambershttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Michael Chambers2018-09-30 09:28:562018-09-30 17:14:07Pathetic But In The End They Lose [+Videos]
On Oct. 5, 2018, the Norwegian Nobel Committee will be announcing this year’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. If there is any remaining intellectual honesty in the Committee, the next Nobel Peace Prize Laureate should be President Donald J. Trump.
To be sure, he would be an unconventional choice, but President Trump is an unconventional man, and we are living in an historical pinnacle of unconventionality.
So, why does President Trump merit the Nobel prize?
First, he has consistently delivered a vision for the world’s future centered upon the concepts of individual freedoms, democracy, patriotism, and the supremacy of the nation state. He has told the community of nations that unlike the message delivered by his predecessors, it’s okay for each nation to represent its own interests, while accepting that the United States will be acting with the same premise. But even as he delivers this message, he cautions about the necessity of adherence to the Thomistic presumption that a nation’s leader, indeed the nation itself, exists for the purposes of promoting the rights of its citizens and loses its right to remain in power if it abandons the rights of the people they represent.
Consequently, President Trump called out Venezuela for its socialistic policies that he says have bankrupted that state and oppressed its people. He also called out Iran and its tyrannical actions, not only with regard to its citizens, but also as they relate to its regional neighbors. As such, he has withdrawn the United States from the Iran deal that only served to enrich Iran and strengthen its support of rogue regimes and terrorist organizations.
Additionally, Trump has unequivocally identified the absolute unacceptability of allowing Iran, a regime that routinely chants death to Americans and calls for the annihilation of Israel, to possess a nuclear weapon and has mobilized nations to pressure the regime into abandoning the program.
Within the United Nations, he has insisted that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights be reformed and has called for ending the practice of allowing nations that do not respect the fundamental rights of man from being allowed access to world trade.
Except for those celebrating magniloquence and rhetoric, no award should be given without the actions to merit them. So, let’s look at what President Trump has accomplished.
President Trump’s first visit abroad included Saudi Arabia, Israel, Rome, Brussels, and Sicily on the same trip, sending a symbol of unification and leadership unmatched since Kissinger’s visit to China and Reagan’s visit to Berlin.
On the humanitarian front, on July 7, 2017, during a working session of the G20 summit of world leaders, President Trump promised $639 million in humanitarian aid for Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria, and Yemen (yes, Yemen).
In the Middle East, he procured the commitment from the region’s nations, so that they, for the first time, worked seriously with the United States to end terrorism. Their concerted efforts at ridding the world of this cancer was instrumental to defeating ISIS, a feat not possible except for the motivational and leadership efforts of one Donald J. Trump. These same countries have now pledged to provide $2 billion in humanitarian aid for Yemen.
In Iran, the President has stopped the flow of billions of dollars to the regime and is working with the international community to increase the pressure with the aim of changing Iran’s hostile and destructive behaviors.
But perhaps North Korea is where the President’s influence has been most effective. For the first time, denuclearization is a real, albeit still difficult, possibility. The world took note when the President met with Kim Jong-Un and, amazingly, offered him the chance to have a look at the inside of the Presidential limousine. Who can forget Kim Jong-Un’s joyful reaction to that spontaneous and unscripted moment? As a result, Rocket Man stopped shooting rockets, American remains are being returned, and hostages have been released (this time in better conditions than being on the brink of death).
The only American leader to have the courage to move the American embassy to Jerusalem in compliance with Israel’s desires is Donald J Trump. He did it as promised, and he did it despite the protestations from countless others. In the end, despite the unrelenting pressure against him, the mission was accomplished and the threatened apocalypse never happened.
Yes, President Trump’s style is confrontational, and he continuously deploys hard-hitting rhetoric laced with unapologetic stances. Almost incomprehensibly, he has been willing to take the world to the brink of war with the aim of achieving of a lasting peace; and as he likes to say, he has won and continues to win in so doing.
Although the left is busy criticizing him, maligning him, and even laughing at him, President Trump’s many accomplishments at making the world a safer place in a mere two years has really been nothing short of remarkable. So, we are left with one question for the Norwegian Nobel Committee: what person has accomplished more than Donald J. Trump to improve man’s situation and foster peace on earth in the recent past?
As difficult as it may be for some to admit. The answer is no one.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/nobel.png360640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-09-29 20:27:142018-09-29 20:27:44President Trump Should Be Next Week’s Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Although he was in power for only a handful of years, Hitler and his Nazi government slaughtered millions. One of the more well-known victims of that slaughter was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed on April 9th, 1945, a few short weeks before Hitler’s own death.
Unlike many of Hitler’s victims, Bonhoeffer was not a Jew, but a Lutheran minister, scholar, and theologian who boldly spoke against Hitler’s policies. Bonhoeffer landed a position in the German government during WWII and subsequently used that position as a cover for assassination attempts against Hitler.
While awaiting execution, Bonhoeffer recorded a number of his thoughts in a work we now know as Letters and Papers from Prison. One of these essays, entitled On Stupidity, records some of the problems which Bonhoeffer likely saw at work in Hitler’s rise to power:
Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. … The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.
As both major US political parties continue to centralize power, Americans today would do well to heed Bonhoeffer’s warning.
Annie is a research associate with Intellectual Takeout. In her role, she writes for the blog, conducts a variety of research for the organization’s websites and social media pages, and assists with development projects. She particularly loves digging into the historical aspects of America’s educational structure.
EDITORS NOTE: This column is reprinted with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/hitler_0-e1538152792853.jpg420640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2018-09-28 12:40:312018-09-28 12:42:12Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the ‘Stupidity’ That Led to Hitler’s Third Reich by Annie Holmquist
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes to influence elections.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes to influence elections that manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes to influence elections that manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court to sustain a split-court configuration.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes to influence elections that manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court to sustain a split-court configuration and empower lower court judges above Supreme Court justices.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes to influence elections that manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court to sustain a split-court configuration that empower lower court judges above Supreme Court justices allowing activist judges in lower courts to legislate their radical agenda with impunity.
Activist judges have an anti-American, collectivist agenda that is antagonistic to the Constitution. Activist judges do not support the separation of powers – they legislate from the bench. Activist judges do not support the Constitution – they defy the executive branch. Activist judges are usurping the power of the legislative and executive branches of the United States government.
Theoretically, the power of activist judges in lower courts is held in check by upper courts and finally the Supreme Court. A tie in the Supreme Court upholds lower court decisions and awards lower court activist judges the final say. It neuters the Supreme Court.
The entire legal system of the United States of America rests upon the principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. This is no small thing.
When ALLEGATIONS of misconduct, sexual in nature or not, are allowed to replace PROOF of misconduct as the metric for truth we have destroyed the foundation of civil society in America. The adult world of objective reality demands facts and proof to determine truthfulness. The childish world of subjective reality accepts allegations and feelings to determine truthfulness.
Consider the consequences.
If we surrender to the world of feelings where accusations are regarded as truth then anyone can accuse YOU of anything for any reason and it will be accepted as truth. Without the presumption of innocence, allegations can be weaponized to destroy YOUR reputation, YOUR family, YOUR business, YOUR personal life, YOUR political life, YOUR religious life, and YOUR standing in the community.
The presumption of innocence is codified in our legal system and must be protected by our national conscience. We the people must remain adult citizens who demand evidence and the presumption of innocence. We must reject the emotional impulse to accept feelings as facts.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault being exploited to dismantle the foundation of American jurisprudence.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/lukas-muller-383629-unsplash-e1538149396166.jpg374640Linda Goudsmithttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLinda Goudsmit2018-09-28 11:43:242018-09-28 11:44:42I am a Woman
Today, I saw the most disgusting display of political gamesmanship ever, if it can be called that. A full-fledged attack on a man’s character, his past, and even his soul. The display brought to mind those videos of frenzied sharks opportunistically swiping bites at their maimed prey. And in this case, the feeding frenzy was allowed to continue by a judicial nominee that, although impassioned by anger, frustration, and shear exhaustion, was too meek and respectful to abandon his temperament and call out the 800-pound gorilla in the room: cheap partisan politics
But when the smoke cleared, the Senate Judiciary Committee shed no new light upon the events from thirty-five years ago, and the only thing that lay in tatters was the reputation of the United States Senate.
Thank you, Senate Democrats.
There were a number of goals the Senate Democrats pursued today. The first was to put on display a credible witness with a credible story against a judicial nominee. That witness was Dr. Christine Blaisey Ford, a Palo Alto professor who claimed that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when he was 17 years old. What we saw was a meek woman with a weak voice and sheepish delivery who seemed to conveniently forget the most important and significant of details. Ford’s demeanor was simply too passive for a Ph.D professor.
And then there were the inconsistencies. First, the progression of the events had to be delayed because of Ford’s fear of flying, yet she flew into Washington for the hearing.
Then we heard Ford actually flew to all sorts of places. To Delaware to be with her family. To Polynesia for personal pursuits. To Costa Rica. To Hawaii. And she flew not for life altering important events, but for pleasure!
And then we learned that the neural receptors in Ford’s hypocampus were predisposed to her developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the events that took place 35 years ago. But when asked if there had been any possible environmental stressors that could have deteriorated her condition, she said there were none. Nothing else in her life had ever caused her any stress. Quite simply a incredible assertion.
And then a little pearl. She would have been able to do the hearing earlier if the Senate had offered to go to her.
But they did! And when this was pointed out, her attorney was quick to object.
From before the hearing, we knew she couldn’t place the house. But during the heating we learned that the house where the events took place was about a 15 minute drive from her home. So after establishing that she was driven there and back, she still couldn’t remember who drove her to the party and back.
Wouldn’t you think that the person who had driven her home from that party would have driven an absolutely mortified 15-year-old home? No 15-year-old can bluff so well so as to hide her emotions from the person driving her home that night, and even if she could, Ford should have been able to tell us what she did in preparation for what was likely the longest trip home of her life. How had she maintained her composure? Did she cry prior to getting in the car? How did she hide her emotions from her parents that night?
But there was none of that.
Ford also did not know who paid for the polygraph test, or who was paying for her attorneys.
When faced with a prosecuting attorney that treated her with kid gloves under five minute time constraints, none of the tough questions were asked. But even at this point, something seemed off about her testimony. For me, I just kept going back to not having ever seen a Ph.D. professor act so meekly.
Then came Judge Kavanaugh. Pardon my vernacular, but he was pissed, as upset as I have ever seen anyoneat a legislative hearing. He was indignant. He was unwavering in his denial that the events described absolutely never happened. And the debacle of the Democrats’ cheap scam began.
Which brings us to the Democrats’ second goal; delay the hearing at all costs through a call for another FBI investigation.
The most obnoxious individual in promoting this agenda was Senator Dick Durbin who kept insisting that Kavanaugh turn to the White House council, right there and then, and demand than an FBI hearing take place. Despite the intense, and unprofessional display from Durbin, Kavanaugh did not take the bait, recurrently exclaiming that he would do whatever the Committee wanted, but essentially leaving it to the Committee to call for an investigation.
And that’s when a rejuvenated and impassioned Lindsey Graham spoke. He was the first Republican Senator to break ranks with the optional protocol the caucus had set up for itself of employing the services of an Arizona prosecuting attorney to ask the questions. Instead, Graham took the microphone himself and resoundingly called the proceedings a sham. His was a performance so riveting, so emotional, so raw and filled with honesty that it made Al Pacino’s performance in And Justice For All, look like child’s play. The Democrats don’t want an investigation, Graham exclaimed. If they did, they wouldn’t have sat on Ford’s complaint for weeks.
From Graham and others we learned that by the time Kavanaugh met with Feinstein, her staff and she had already assisted Ford in obtaining a lawyer, and she mentioned nothing to Kavanaugh at their private meeting! Nor did she say anything at the time of the hearing. Feinstein’s deceitful performance in her handling of this case was so despicable, that it brought the spurious call for an FBI investigation to a halt.
Additionally, in a case where there is nothing to pursue, no forensic evidence, no physical evidence, no DNA, no pictures, and no iron-clad testimonies, there is absolutely nothing the FBI could add.
How about making Kavanaugh look like a raging alcoholic? Here is where Kavanaugh was at his shakiest because he drank as a minor, (“everyone did”) and he liked beer and claimed to still like beer. He seemed a little frazzled as he asked the Senators, “Don’t you like beer, Senator?” To be sure, it’s what many wished to tell these arrogant senators, but it got the judge into the mud a little bit too much.
But once again, the Democrats stole defeat from the jaws of victory as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse broke one of the sacred rules of public interrogation, he asked questions of his witness to which he did not previously know the answer. Whitehouse thought he would be cute and display a huge blowup of Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook page, and thinking that the cryptic entries dealt with sexual activity sought to pursue them.
What does “Renate alumnius” mean?
No, it did not mean that Kavanaugh had claimed to have sexual relations with Renata. (Here’s where Kavanaugh could have said, “No, Senator, I have no control over what your perverted brain may be thinking, but this reference is not to sexual activity,” but he didn’t.)
What does “Ralph” in “Beach Week Ralph Club” mean, and doesn’t that mean that you were a problem drinker?
Senator, it means vomiting, and no, I was not a problem drinker.
And then Whitehouse tried to cross the bridge too far.
And what about the word “boofed”?
Senator, it means flatulence. We were 16. We thought it was funny.
Everyone laughed. And all of a sudden, the absurdity of a Senator dissecting the senior page of a judicial nominee became painfully clear. And the Democrats’ efforts at discrediting the nominee came to an end.
In the end, we finished where we started. If anything, Kavanaugh appeared stronger than before the hearing. Ford looked weaker and less credible. And the Me Too movement continued its descent into the surreal.
So what did we gain from all of this?
Substantively, we gained nothing. But we got further confirmation of the disarray we would live in if this crop of Democrats ran the show. We got a taste of what its like when procedural rules are ignored and decorum abandoned. We learned how evil the left can be if left to its own devices. And once again, we learned of the importance of maintaining a man’s innocence until and unless there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate his guilt.
Today, I witnessed a horrible display of incivility and disrespect to the honor and life of another. I have nothing to say about Dr. Ford, as I do not understand what she was thinking and what motivated her to go this far after 35 years without any corroborating evidence; as a matter of fact, she brought only the opposite.
But I did see the attempted destruction of the United States Senate by those who reside within it. It was a despicable display that in the end, left our Republic that much weaker.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/senate-judiciary-committee.png366640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-09-28 04:10:342018-09-28 05:41:22Thank You, Senate Democrats.
Rightly, Americans are worried about the use of dark money in our election process, money that flows from organization to organization (political action committees, or PACs) without identification as to the source, and used for the purposes of supporting candidates or campaigns.
Americans are also worried about the possibility of foreign governments, most notably the Russians, meddling with our election process.
But in August, without the knowledge of the overwhelming number of Americans, an Obama-appointed federal judge skewed the flow of funds to some election campaigns while sparing others without forewarning, and with significant effects on the outcome of primary elections like the ones in Florida that were so near the time of the ruling.
So while some Americans worry about Russian meddling, a clearer case of election tampering from inside the United States just occurred.
The case, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, et al, arose out of a 2012 incident in Tampa, Fla., involving Karl Rove. Apparently, at a fundraiser sponsored by Crossroads GPS, Rove made an offer. He told those in attendance that an “anonymous donor” had offered to match up to $3 million in contributions to whatever contributions they made that night. The offer resulted in an extra $1.3 million being raised.
Shortly thereafter, another organization, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington, D.C. — founded by two liberal Democrats — filed a complaint claiming that Crossroads GPS had failed to disclose the identity of those who had contributed to the event. Their logic was that the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) required that persons disclose their identities when contributing to an organization intended to affect the outcome of an election.
The Federal Elections Commission had interpreted the statute to mean that the identities of the persons needed only to be disclosed when they were made in support of specific independent expenditures. In other words, if the donor was only intending to support the overall efforts of the organization, then no disclosure needed to be made, but when the same donor contributed to the same organization with specific instructions that such funds be used to support a specific candidate the identity would need to be revealed.
In Karl Rove’s case, the anonymous donor requested that the money go towards the support of the Republican challenger in the 2012 Ohio Senate race without specifying how the funds should be spent. For 38 years and 19 prior elections, the law had been interpreted in such a manner that those kinds of generalized instructions would not require the disclosure of the donor.
The complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission and in 2014, while acknowledging issues regarding the proper interpretation of FECA, the Commission tossed out the case because, in its opinion, the regulation did not require such a disclosure. The Commission was concerned that interpreting the law in the manner CREW was requesting would allow for a significantly more expansive interpretation of the situations by which donors’ identities needed to be disclosed.
About four years later, the case reached the federal trial court where Judge Beryl A. Howell, an Obama appointee, ruled, on Aug. 3, 2018, that the Commission’s rule must be vacated because, in the court’s opinion, CREW’s interpretation was a more proper one. Howell recognized that this new interpretation could have a “chaotic” effect on the upcoming elections and therefore stayed her order for 45 days while the Commission revised its rule.
Immediately, Political Action Committees (PACs) across the country reacted with fear as the rules under which they were accustomed to working were being pulled out from underneath them, and they risked being forced to disclose the identity of their donors. Funding towards campaigns all over the country halted as the PACs figured out what the ruling meant and its significance to their donors’ privacy concerns.
In Florida, the effect was profound.
The Florida primary was scheduled for Aug. 28, just 21 days later with early voting schedules beginning about 10 days later. In accordance with McCain-Feingold, candidates were busy spending their hard dollars as they jockeyed for position in the arena of public opinion. These candidates were also prohibited from communicating with the PACs that had issued commitments on their behalf, so they could not ascertain why the independent expenditures that they thought were coming by way of political ads, mailers, and fliers never appeared. What’s worse, those PACs whose contributors were not concerned about the protection of their identities continued to spend without a care for the same judicial ruling that was paralyzing their competitors.
In the meantime, the Federal Elections Commission refused to change its rule despite the court’s order since it was confident that the case would be overturned on appeal.
By Aug. 24, with the Florida primary elections a mere four days away and the ruling disparately advantaging certain candidates over others, Crossroads GPS asked the Circuit Court of Appeals for an extension on the stay of Howell’s order, but the appellate court refused.
On Aug. 28, the Florida primary elections were held. The damage had been done, and the court had, either unwittingly or purposely, irreversibly affected the public’s opinions of the various candidates throughout the state, and successfully interfered with the election process and its outcomes. True meddling.
And so it was that an event taking place six years earlier impacted the outcomes of countless races in various states, but especially Florida, under the guise of being an administrative emergency.
It would not be until Sept. 15, 2018, two weeks after the conclusion of Florida’s primary elections, that the appellate court would issue a ruling upholding the lower court’s actions.
Too late to affect the Florida primaries, but still hoping to rectify the situation, Crossroads GPS asked the Supreme Court to hear the case in order to still be able to impact the midterms. On Sept. 16, 2018, Chief Justice Roberts, acting alone, ordered that the rule remain in effect pending further orders, effectively reversing the rulings of the lower courts. But two days later, he reversed himself, apparently with the participation of the rest of the Court.
What does this mean to election finance laws? At least for now, it means more disclosures of federal campaign donors. Of course, actions calling for greater transparency are helpful towards ensuring an open elections process, but it will also have a chilling effect on political speech, particularly when the status of the law remain in a state of flux.
The great injustice here is that a monumental shift in the interpretation of our nation’s election finance laws was allowed to happen weeks before an election and three months prior to the midterms.
In other words, who needs the Russians to attempt to meddle in our elections process when the courts can successfully do it themselves?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bonnie-kittle-1037677-unsplash-e1538068446850.jpg388640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-09-27 13:14:142018-09-27 13:14:14Obama-Appointed Judge’s Ruling Is Actual Election Meddling
Got that? According to the ACLU, Kavanaugh is as bad as Bill Cosby — who was recently convicted of sexual assault. He’s as bad as Harvey Weinstein — a man accused of decades of sexual assaults, harassment, spying on women, and more 
