Promise Kept. NAFTA Gone.

A deal experts said was dead in the water materialized over the weekend when Canada announced it had reached an agreement with the United States to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  The deal came about as a frustrated Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called a late night meeting with his cabinet.  Indeed, the materialization of an agreement serving to improve America’s trade position in North America would not have occurred were it not for the negotiating prowess and vision of President Donald Trump.

The workings of the trade deal actually date back to before President Trump’s election.  From the beginning of his campaign, then-Candidate Trump voiced his frustration at the United States’ involvement in a deal that was hurting American workers.  Calling them “bad deals,” Trump expressed his befuddlement at how politicians could agree to such catastrophic trade deals.  NAFTA quickly became a centerpiece of Trump’s campaign for president and the object of his ridicule.

Upon assuming power, President Trump wasted no time threatening the stability of NAFTA by announcing his intention to pull the United States out of it.  Predictably, the naysayers took to the airwaves, arguing that NAFTA was a creator of jobs.  Investor Dennis Gartman called such a move, “egregiously stupid,” and CNBC proudly published his opinion.  Meanwhile at Forbes Magazine, Professor J. Bradford DeLong called the prospect of leaving NAFTA, “a disaster” while Stuart Anderson, the author of the article, mocked Trump by stating that visual aids were needed to teach the President why leaving NAFTA was a bad idea.  Anderson held nothing back when he concluded, “Donald Trump does not know much about the trade agreement he has so frequently criticized.”

Undeterred, President Trump continued to place his disapproval of NAFTA at the center of public discourse.  Recognizing his greater advantage over Mexico, he then pealed America’s southern neighbor into a separate agreement that did not include Canada calling it a “terrific agreement for everybody.”

With the Mexican trade deal solidified, Trump turned his attention to Canada, this time suggesting that he might leave Canada out of the deal if it did not negotiate.

Canada remained defiant.  “We will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class,” said a spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland.  For Canada, there were a number of sticking points to a new deal. First the NAFTA dispute resolution process that protected the cultural exemptions was “fundamental.”  This “exemption” protected Canadian artistic products, including media outlets. Understandably, Canadians feel threatened that American networks might buy Canadian media affiliates and essentially control their media coverage.  Further, the abandonment of Canada’s tariffs on American dairy products was considered too great a threat to be acceptable.

But President Trump remained undeterred.  He imposed an October 1 deadline upon Canada, insisting that if it did not provide the text for a new trade deal to the United States Congress by that time he would move ahead with the deal with Mexico and exclude Canada.

Trudeau did the only thing he could and called for “common sense to prevail.”  He appealed to Canada’s partners, including the European Union, to ramp up their pressure on the United States.  But the reality was that Canada could ill afford to be kept out of a new North American trade agreement.  The Canadian dollar was weakening, and the prospect of Canada continuing without a treaty seemed like a doomsday scenario for its economy; and for Trudeau’s impending reelection.

With negotiations seemingly hopelessly stalled as recently as late September, Canadian negotiators went to work.  And by Sunday, September 30, the two countries agreed to terms.  The new agreement, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is nothing short of revolutionary.  Among other provisions, the USMCA curbs Canada’s high tariffs and low quotas on American dairy product; drops the percentage of a car needing to be manufactured in China that would still allow it to be considered “North American;” includes provisions that help NFL advertising; and forces Canada and Mexico to respect American drug patents for ten years.  And Canada gets to keep its cultural resolution process exemption.

In a very real sense, the trade deal vindicates President Trump.  He identified a palpable problem in North American trade and placed his political capital on the line to see it terminated.  As a result, Trump emerged much stronger, an important perception at a time when he is knee deep in trade negotiations with China.  But more importantly, President Trump’s priority of protecting American workers and improving the environment for American businesses prevailed.

There is also the glaring realization that these new agreements would have never come to fruition without President Trump.  The events leading to Sunday’s breakthrough would never have been possible without Trump’s aggressive, even bombastic style. Most importantly, when President Trump said he would walk away from the deal, he was believable, forcing all players to look hard at the possibility of having no deal at all.

Say what you want about President Trump, he has become America’s greatest weapon in international negotiations, much to the joy of the American worker.

RELATED ARTICLE: How the Economic Boom Is Lifting Latino Communities

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo by David Everett Strickler on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Radical Billionaires Love Andy Gillum

FLORIDA ELECTION ALERT – PLEASE WATCH AND SHARE!

George Soros and Tom Steyer are pouring millions of THEIR dollars into the Florida Governor’s race, to advance their radical, Progressive agenda.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Who is Steve Phillips and why is he backing Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida?

FL GOP Gives 10 Reasons Andrew Gillum is Too Radical/Corrupt for Governor but Misses Number 11

Does Andrew Gillum have a lobbyist-fueled slush fund? The voters of Florida deserve answers!

Birds of a Feather? Democrat Socialist Andrew Gillum’s links to Florida’s Islamic Socialists

VIDEO: Search-and-Destroy Tactics Against Kavanaugh Are No Laughing Matter

SNL Takes a Jab at Kavanaugh’s Confirmation

“I don’t really think it’s a laughing matter. When you look at what the Democrats are doing—basically trying to destroy someone’s life and destroy his family because they’re worried about him getting on the Supreme Court and overturning Roe v. Wade—it’s hard for me to really laugh at.” —Amber Athey, The Daily Caller

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Lidya Nada on Unsplash.

Here’s What Will Happen In This Week From Hell Brought To You By Jeff Flake

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.

The Alternative Two-State Solution

President Trump at his most recent press conference was asked if he favored a two-state or a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He was open, he said, to what the parties agree to, but then said, “I like the two-state solution. That’s what I think works best.”

But where would the so-called Palestinian state be located? To create yet another Arab state, this one torn out of Judea and Samaria – the tiny Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland west of the River Jordan (known also as the West Bank) – would be a monumental travesty of both Biblical and post-Biblical reality and history. It would also be an existential threat to Israel’s very survival.

But if Jordan, which is populated by two thirds Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, becomes the Palestinian state then I say yes to a two-state solution, but only if that Arab state is located east of Israel, the Jewish state, which retains full sovereignty from the Mediterranean Sea to the River Jordan, (still a miniscule state stretching a mere 40 miles at its widest). The far larger PalestinianArab state would be east of the Jordan River. With this in mind, I deeply respect the work of Ted Bellman who has been advocating for a Jordan is Palestine solution, and whose highlighted article I urge folks to read.

Jordan constitutes nearly 80 percent of the old British Mandate, or what was known then as geographical Palestine. This region never included an independent or sovereign Palestinian Arab state throughout all of recorded history, nor was there ever an independent Arab Palestinian people. Geographical Palestine was simply a territory, for example as is Siberia or Patagonia today. But there was one people in the Land since time immemorial; the Jewish people. It’s all in the Bible.

To fully understand the origins of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, we must go back to the early years of the 20th century. In 1920, Great Britain was given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Palestine Mandate with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish National Home based upon the original intent of the Balfour Declaration of November 29, 1917.

But Great Britain in 1922 arbitrarily tore away all the vast territory east of the River Jordan and gave it away to the Arab Hashemite tribe as a compensation for giving up the throne of Arabia to the Saud family. The territory and entity became Trans-Jordan and British officials claimed that the gift of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River was also in gratitude to the Hashemites for helping defeat the Turks. However, Lawrence of Arabia described in derisory terms this Hashemite role as “a side show of a side show.”

Ironically, Britain was aided far more by the Jewish Nili underground movement in defeating the Ottoman Turkish Empire which had ruled geographical Palestine for 400 years. This then was the first partition of Mandatory Palestine – the first two-state solution. Trans-Jordan, as it was then known, covered some 35,000 square miles, or nearly four fifths of the erstwhile Palestine Mandate. Immediately, Jewish residence in this new Arab territory was forbidden, and it is thus historically and unequivocally correct to state that Jordan is Palestine.

During its administration of the remaining Palestine Mandate, west of the River Jordan and until 1947, Britain severely restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land while turning a blind eye to massive illegal Arab migration into the territory from neighboring stagnant Arab states. The descendants of those illegal migrants make up most of the Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians.

The British Foreign Office’s sorry record of appeasement of the Arabs and bias against the Jewish people, at the expense of Jewish destiny in the remaining tiny territory, culminated in the infamous 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish immigration to just 75,000 souls for the next five years. This draconian policy, coming as it did on the eve of the outbreak of World War 2, dealt a deathblow to millions of Jews attempting to flee to safety from extermination by Nazi Germany and its European supporters.

Britain’s mismanagement of the Mandate finally led to the United Nations’ Partition Plan of 1947. The Jewish Agency reluctantly accepted this additional dismemberment of what was left of the promised Jewish national home in Mandatory Palestine. They did this to provide a refuge for the surviving Jewish remnants of the Holocaust and for the 800,000 plus desperate Jewish refugees who were driven penniless out of their homes throughout the Arab world. In contrast, the Arab regimes rejected the Partition Plan even though a Palestinian state would have come into existence at that time. Then, as now, the Arabs plotted and warred against the existence of an independent Jewish state.

Israel was officially reborn as a sovereign nation in 1948, and its 600,000 Jews fought to survive the massive Arab onslaught, which was intended to exterminate the Jewish homeland.

Trans-Jordan, renamed the Kingdom of Jordan in 1946, joined the other Arab nations in invading the newly reconstituted Jewish state, driving out the Jewish inhabitants from the eastern part of Jerusalem and the Old City, annexing the Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria and renaming it the West Bank. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized this illegal annexation.

In the June 1967 Six-Day War, Israel defeated the combined Arab armies and liberated Jewish and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria from the Jordanian occupation. But in return for Israeli offers to help create a Palestinian state, the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum in August 1967, delivered the infamous three Nos: No peace with Israel, No negotiations with Israel, No recognition of Israel.

It is within the narrow 40-mile-wide territory remaining for the Jewish state, if one includes Judea and Samaria, that the world now demands the establishment of a fraudulent Arab state to be called Palestine – a state that has never existed in all of recorded history.

Here then is the present unworkable and so-called two-state solution, which would dismember what is left of Israel and drive hundreds of thousands of Jewish residents from their homes, villages, and farms in Judea and Samaria. The searing tragedy is that such a two-state solution would presage for the Jewish people yet another Final Solution – the German Nazi regime’s euphemism for the Holocaust.

The empirical fact is that this is not a dispute over borders. This is a religious war and the Arabs, overwhelmingly Muslim, can never accept the existence of any non-Muslim state in territory previously conquered by them in the name of Allah and will relentlessly war against it. Hopefully President Trump and his top advisers, Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, can all be made aware of this fundamental Islamic fact before yet another terrible injustice is once again perpetrated.

A two-state solution must be between Israel, with full sovereignty west of the Jordan River, and Jordan having full sovereignty east of the River Jordan, but which – if the Arabs in Jordan so choose – could be renamed Palestine; an idea for which Ted Bellman and others, including myself, have consistently advocated.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Renew America. The featured photo is by Yosef Pregadio on Unsplash.

Blasey Ford’s Curious Omission

There was something curiously missing from Professor Christine Blasey Ford’s Thursday Senate testimony, something quite relevant to her basic claims. Please consider the following segment from her testimony about the alleged (circa) 1982 sexual assault by SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

Both Brett and Mark [Judge] were drunkenly laughing during the attack. …During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room.

Now please read the corresponding segment from her original letter, sent months ago to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.):

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with Judge. …At one point when Judge jumped onto the bed, the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.

After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom.

What jumps out at you? “[T]he two scrapped with each other.” “Scrapped.”

I related this aspect of Ford’s story to a woman close to me at a Saturday affair and asked, “What does that tell you?”

She responded, “That they weren’t that interested in her.”

Now, don’t misunderstand me. The incident Ford describes would be sexual misconduct and surely morally wrong. But assuming it happened — and let’s for argument’s sake say that Ford was assaulted by a boy (whether Kavanaugh or someone else) in the manner she describes — it’s quite understandable why she omitted mention of the scrapping from her Senate testimony.

It severely weakens her case.

Question: Would a boy intent upon raping a girl begin scrapping with a friend in the midst of passionate attack?

Were I to take Ford’s Senate testimony at face value, I’d have to say that, yes, probability dictates it very well could have been an attempted rape. But reading her original letter, I’d say that the incident sounds like something else: drunken high-school hijinks where two guys did, admittedly, cross a serious line — but not one on whose far side lies rape. That’s how significant the “scrapping” omission is.

To reiterate, the boys’ alleged actions would be wrong regardless. The point, however, is that there’s a lot of moral real estate between inappropriate, alcohol-fueled, sexually aggressive physicality and the heinous crime of rape.

Based on Ford’s original letter, a very logical interpretation of the alleged incident is that it did in fact involve drunken horseplay gone wrong. Note that boys are very physical (which is why they wrestle with each other so much); even more so when they’re inebriated. So the boys in question, inhibitions released by booze, slip into testosterone-goofing mode. This is evidenced by their hysterical laughter. One of them then gets inappropriately physical with Ford before they get physical with each other — they were getting physical, period.

The only difference is that since Ford was a girl and teen boys have sky-high libidos, the drunken horseplay with her assumed a sexual tone.

Of course, again, this is just an interpretation. But it’s one strongly suggested by the boys’ laughing and scrapping.

Ford and her handlers surely agree, too, more or less. Why else would they have omitted mention of the scrapping from the Senate testimony? After all, the professor doesn’t remember much from that allegedly known incident in that unknown house in that unknown neighborhood in that uncertain year. But that the boys “scrapped” is something that, her original letter informs, she did recall.

It’s entirely implausible that the omission could have been a mere oversight. Remember that Ford’s testimony was written out, and she, her lawyer and perhaps even some handlers undoubtedly scoured it with a fine-tooth comb. They wanted to maximize its impact and ensure she didn’t perjure herself. The only reasonable explanation is that they purposely, tactically omitted part of the story.

There would only be a strong case that Kavanaugh (again, assuming it happened and he was the perpetrator) was attempting rape if the scrapping were the result of white-knight intervention by Judge. But Ford never even implied that this was a possibility. Rather, she painted a horseplay scenario, where Judge twice jumped on the bed, with the second leap resulting in a toppling of all three.

Of course, Ford could also claim that, on second thought, she wasn’t sure if the boys actually did scrap. But then we’d have to ask: If she imagined that, what else did she imagine?

Ford’s Senate omission was strikingly significant, and Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned both the professor and Kavanaugh, should have asked about it. After all, attempting to commit the heinous crime of rape, even as an older minor, would certainly reflect damningly upon a person’s character. But it would be completely unfair to epitomize a man’s whole life based on one incident of lewd, aggressive, drunken high-school horseplay.

So Professor Christine Ford didn’t reveal anything new in her Thursday testimony — except, perhaps, in what she failed to say.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Why This Victim of Attempted Rape, Physical Assault Supports Kavanaugh

EDITORS NOTE: The edited featured photo is by Steve Johnson on Unsplash.

It’s official: U.S. admits lowest number of refugees since Jimmy Carter’s Refugee Act signed into law

Yesterday ended Donald Trump’s first full fiscal year for refugee admissions as FY18 officially came to a close.

President Trump breaks the George W. Bush record for the lowest refugee admissions. However, I’m going to say it over and over again—-lowering the numbers for a few years is meaningless without a serious push for robust reform of the entire US Refugee Admissions Program!

Trump and GW BushThe previous low admission year record belongs to George Bush who put the breaks on the US Refugee Admissions Program in 2002 with 27,070 arrivals due to fear of another 9/11.

Expect the media today to make comparisons to the mythical 110,000 refugee CEILING that Obama proposed as he was walking out the door.  They never mention that their hero had a couple of low years when he admitted tens of thousands below the ceiling he had proposed (click that link above and see the chart).

George Bush’s home state of Texas was the top resettlement state in the nation this past year! (Turning red states blue and the Rs can’t see it!)

Here is a map from Wrapsnet this morning:

Screenshot (703)

map fy 18 total

Since the numbers are hard to read, Wrapsnet has an accompanying list.

Here below are the Top Ten Welcoming States. By the way, for most of the years I’ve been writing about the refugee program, California, New York and Florida were always at or near the top:

  • Texas (so much for withdrawing from the program!)
  • Washington
  • Ohio
  • California
  • New York
  • Arizona
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Kentucky
  • Georgia

Since I know some faithful readers will be wondering, Minnesota was #11 , Michigan was #13, Florida #14, Maryland #19, Virginia #21 and Tennessee #23.

The bottom five states are below.  I always chuckle when I consider that former Vice President Joe Biden of Delaware was one of the pushers of the Refugee Act of 1980 and yet his own home state is near the bottom always.  In fact, 21 may be the highest number it ever ‘welcomed’ in one year!

  • Delaware (21)
  • District of Columbia (1)
  • West Virginia (1)
  • Hawaii (0)  LOL! the state the loves diversity!
  • Wyoming (0) the state that has wisely stayed out of the program for these last 38 years!

Inquisitive readers might want to visit Wrapsnet and play around with the data.  Click on the ‘reports’ tab and then go to ‘Interactive reporting.’  You then put in your own parameters for the search.  You can find out which towns and cities in your state received refugees.

EndNote: Since the fiscal year ended on a weekend, there could still be a few changes in the final tally.  I’ll update this report if I see that in the next few days.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Libertarian think tank continues criticism of Trump refugee policy

UN High Commissioner for Refugees: Politics driving EU migration debate

Hyatt Hotels follows the lead of the Southern Poverty Law Center to silence speech they don’t like

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo by Radek Homola on Unsplash.

Judge rules California Sanctuary State Law Unconstitutional. California Attorney General We Don’t Care!

Eye Witness News ABC Channel 7 reports:

An Orange County judge on Thursday ruled that SB54, California’s so-called “sanctuary state” law, is unconstitutional.

The Superior Court judge said the law violates the rights of charter cities.

The ruling comes in response to a challenge from Huntington Beach officials. The city opposed the controversial law, arguing it infringes on local governments’ authority. The judge agreed, saying cities must be allowed to police themselves.

The law bars some cooperation between local cities and federal officials enforcing immigration laws. Exceptions include cases that involve violent or serious felonies.

Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates called the ruling a victory for the state’s 121 charter cities.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Despite an Orange County judge’s ruling this week that California’s so-called sanctuary protections for immigrants who are in the country illegally are unconstitutional as they apply to charter cities, state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said Friday that the state would continue to uphold its laws.

“Preserving the safety and constitutional rights of all our people is a statewide imperative which cannot be undermined by contrary local rules,” Becerra said in a statement. “We will continue working to ensure that our values and laws like the California Values Act are upheld throughout our state.”

Jennifer Molina, press secretary for the attorney general’s office, declined to comment on the likelihood of an appeal.

Huntington Beach on Thursday became the first city to successfully challenge the California Values Act, also known as Senate Bill 54, after Orange County Superior Court Judge James Crandall affirmed that the law violates its local control as a charter city — one governed by a charter adopted by local voters.

Not that California State Attorney General Becerra’s statement “Preserving the safety and constitutional rights of all our people is a statewide imperative which cannot be undermined by contrary local rules…” But those people in California illegally are not citizens either of California nor America. They have no legal status unless granted citizenship by the federal government.

It appears that in California, like in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the rule of law does not apply to Democrats, only to their political opponents?

RELATED ARTICLE: Orange County Board votes to join Trump admin lawsuit against CA over sanctuary law

With Senators Like These, No Wonder America’s In Trouble

As the smear campaign against Judge Brett Kavanaugh continues, it is clear that the anti-Trump resistance has brought out the worst in many Democratic Party Senators. Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii are Exhibit A in the cutthroat, gutter-class attacks to which Republicans must put a halt.

First, it was Hirono who told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Kavanaugh’s pro-life beliefs make sexual assault accusations against him believable. The block quote below highlights just one of the at least three times she mentioned Kavanaugh’s pro-life beliefs in a discussion about sexual assault:

TAPPER: Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?

HIRONO: I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.

As I said, his credibility is already very questionable in my mind and in the minds of a lot of my fellow Judiciary Committee members, the Democrats.

So he comes, and — when I say that he’s very outcome-driven, he has an ideological agenda, is very outcome-driven. And I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplifies his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him.

This is a person that is going to be sitting on our Supreme Court, making decisions that will impact women’s reproductive choice. He has a — he very much is against women’s reproductive choice.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

HIRONO: And I can tell you two very important cases in which he applied the same standard, but came to totally different results to make it much harder for women to get this kind of coverage.

So there’s — there are so many indications of his own lack of credibility. And I put that in a context.

TAPPER: It sounds to me like you’re saying, because you don’t trust him on policy and because you don’t believe him when he says, for instance, that he does not have an opinion on Roe v. Wade, you don’t believe him about this allegation about what happened at this party in 1982? Is that fair?:

Coons’ comments were, if possible, actually worse than Hirono’s. At least she’s just being a party hack, albeit on a critical issue. (Though she’s also a hypocrite — Hirono is a supporter of Planned Parenthood despite the abortion company’s complicity in hiding sex abuse.) Coons is a Yale Law graduate, which means he knows better than to say that Kavanaugh has the burden of proof regarding innocence.

Yet that’s exactly what he did on MSNBC:

Mr. Coons said that Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez “have nothing to gain” and have put themselves “at legal risk” by accusing Mr. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in his teen years.

“It is Judge Kavanaugh who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and who I think now bears the burden of disproving these allegations,” said Mr. Coons in a Monday interview on MSNBC, “rather than Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez who should be dismissed with slanderous accusations.”

This pathetic effort at #Resistance to President Donald Trump’s excellent nominee would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. It’s past time for the hackery to stop and for Kavanaugh to be approved to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission.

The Left Aims to Destroy Our Innocence

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.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Caroline Hernandez on Unsplash.

Pathetic But In The End They Lose [+Videos]

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.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Grassley files for criminal investigation against Kavanaugh accuser; potential 10 yrs in prison

Senator Cotton: Lawyers Recommended by Democrats to Christine Ford Will Face Washington D.C. Bar Investigation Into Their Misconduct (VIDEO)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on JohnMichaelChambers.com. It is reprinted, with featured image, with permission.

Who is Steve Phillips and why is he backing Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida?

In a column titled “The Rainbow Conspiracy Part 12: Steve Phillips And Democracy Alliance Team Up To Flip Florida” Trevor Loudon reports:

Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Florida by just under 113,000 votes. For the left, Florida’s 27 Congressional Districts and 29 Electoral College votes are a tempting prize indeed.

If the Democrats can flip Florida in 2018/2020, they will almost certainly win the White House.

San Francisco lawyer and key Democratic Party operative Steve Phillips is targeting the Sunshine State. Florida has an open gubernatorial race this year and Phillips wants to use this election to inspire the state’s black and Latino voting base to vote all the way down to the bottom of the ballot. Phillips realizes that if he can steer his chosen candidate into the governor’s mansion this year, Florida will likely go blue in 2020.

If that happens – no more President Trump.

Who is Steve Phillips?

Loudon’s research found the following about Steve Phillips:

Steve Phillips has known Andrew Gillum for years. Gillum has served on the board of Phillips’ PowerPAC+ since at least 2012.

Steve Phillips wrote in July 2013:

 At PAC+, we will continue to work to identify and back candidates in strategic races and states across the country. In Florida, for instance, our Board member Andrew Gillum is running for Mayor of Tallahassee next year, and candidates such as Andrew, who is just 33 years old, can comprise the nucleus of a new group of political leaders who can methodically take power and reorder the state’s policies and priorities in coming years.

Andrew Gillum is an extreme radical. Part of Florida’s existing “political nucleus,” former Florida State Sen Tony Hill endorsed Gillum for Governor, November 9 2017.

“I am extraordinarily excited to endorse Mayor Andrew Gillum for Governor today. I have known him since his days on Florida A&M University’s campus as a student leader and activist — long before he became Mayor of Tallahassee. Back then you could tell he had a special quality that inspired his peers and elders, and he carries that spirit and passion with him in this race to take back Florida. He will deliver solutions to our most pressing challenges and be a true champion for Jacksonville.”

Replied Gillum:

“Senator Hill has long been a mentor and friend to me, and it’s humbling to receive his endorsement today. .. I can’t wait to campaign with him in Jacksonville and all over the state.”

[ … ]

Gillum has an ally, a semi-secret nest of billionaire leftist donors known as the Democracy Alliance.

Gillum’s long-term mentor Steve Phillips was involved in the Democracy Alliance from its very beginning. In 2004, billionaire socialists Herb and Marion Sandler established America Votes in partnership with even richer socialist donor George Soros “to coordinate various get-out-the-vote drives during the 2004 election.” When the Democracy Alliance was formalized the following year, the Sandlers sent their son-in-law Steven Phillips as their representative to the October 2005 meeting at the Chateau Elan near Atlanta, Georgia.

Read more.

Who is Andrew Gillum?

Trevor Loudon found the following about Democrat Socialist Gillum:

Andrew Gillum, while serving as director of Youth Leadership Programs for People for the American Way, graduated from the same Rockwood Social Transformation Project program in 2012.

Unsurprisingly New Florida Majority endorsed Andrew Gillum over his Democratic competitors.

Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum released the following statement, June 13 2018:

“I’m honored to receive New Florida Majority’s endorsement! They’re on the front lines of taking back our state for working people, and I’m proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them in fighting for our families, jobs with living wages and dignity, a thriving public education system that pays teachers what they’re worth, and quality, affordable health care as a constitutional right for every Floridian.”

Andrew Gillum had previously met with New Florida Majority in April of 2018.

Of the NFM activists named above, Gihan Perera, Valencia Gunder, Renee Mowatt and Dwight Bullard all are affiliated in some way with Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

Loudon concludes, “Lifelong revolutionary Steve Phillips is backing Abrams, Gillum and Jealous for good reason. Phillips’ purpose is to realize a goal set back in his student Maoist days – the New American Majority. Phillips understands that ‘candidates of color’ at the top of the ticket will lift the minority vote. That will help flip Congressional and Senate seats in several key states – including Florida.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hillary Clinton Causes Cracks in the Gillum Coalition – Sunshine State News

Economic Idiocy…Gillum Style

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured image is courtesy of Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal Blog.

VIDEO: Trevor Loudon on the ‘Radical Groups Behind 2018 Democrat Candidates’

On September 29th, 2018 I attended the America – The Truth Conference. One of the speakers was Trevor Loudon. Afterwards, I attended a dinner and sat across from Mr. Loudon and his son. His insights into how our government has been taken over by radical groups bent on fundamentally changing our culture, economy, politics and Constitution are compelling.

From One America News:

“Several candidates in the 2018 elections reportedly have ties to radical and far-left groups. One America’s Jack Posobiec sits down with world-renowned researcher Trevor Loudon to explain what he has uncovered about candidates in four different states.”

One American News has published a video of the interview by Jack Posobiec with Trevor Loudon. Here it is:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Steve Phillips And Democracy Alliance Team Up To Flip Florida

VIDEO: Trevor Loudon and the Center’s Frank Gaffney launch scathing critique of Keith Ellison as his Minnesota AG race tightens

Trevor Loudon: The Communists Among U.S.

Trevor Loudon author of “The Enemies Within”

RELATED VIDEO: OAN Exclusive “Trump@War”:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of One America News.

Take Action Now: Urge Your U.S. Senators to Confirm Judge Kavanaugh

On Thursday, the nation witnessed what happens when a man of principle, integrity, and dignity clashes with Washington, D.C.’s political hit machine. U.S. Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh presented  a scorching defense of his record and his character after Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sprung last-minute accusations to try to derail what seemed like Kavanaugh’s likely confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, your U.S. Senators need to hear from YOU to ensure he is seated on the nation’s highest court when it begins its next session in October.

Politely but firmly tell them you stand with Judge Kavanaugh and demand a “yes” vote on his confirmation. You can use the TAKE ACTION feature of our website or call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected with your Senators’ offices.

For gun owners – and indeed anyone who reveres the Constitution and the rule of law – Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination was reason to celebrate. He is a textualist and originalist in the mold of the Supreme Court’s other Second Amendment stalwarts, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Judge Kavanaugh provided a staunch defense of the right to keep and bear arms in a case that concerned the constitutionality of the gun control regime D.C. enacted in the wake of the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision.

Dissenting from an opinion that upheld most aspects of the District’s intentionally oppressive regulations, Kavanaugh wrote: “As a lower court … it is not our role to re-litigate Heller or to bend it in any particular direction. Our sole job is to faithfully apply Heller and the approach it set forth for analyzing gun bans and regulations.” Applying the methodology set forth in Justice Scalia’s carefully-written but often-ignored opinion, Kavanaugh concluded, “In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.”

Needless to say, this – plus his refusal to “bend” to “bend” precedent to suit the personal politics of progressive “reformers” – have made Judge Kavanaugh a target of anti-gun members of the Senate. Chief among them is the Judiciary’s Committee’s ranking member, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Feinstein humiliated herself at Judge Kavanaugh’s earlier confirmation hearings by misrepresenting the federal “assault weapons” ban of which she claimed authorship. She also ludicrously suggested that the same types of firearms owned by millions upon millions of law-abiding Americans are not “in common use” for purposes of analyzing whether they are among the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.

The Judiciary Committee has now voted to advance Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. But the same anti-gun Democrats who tried to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with last minute allegations are now demanding that the final confirmation vote should be delayed further. How such an investigation would proceed is unclear.

What is clear is that anti-gun Democrats are desperate to delay Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation until after the election, with the hope they may recapture the Senate and prevent any Trump nominee from reaching the Supreme Court at all. They have shown themselves willing to stoop to any tactic in this effort. Indeed, before the confirmation process even began , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) openly pledged to “ oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have … .”

That’s why your U.S. Senators must hear from you TODAY!   

If Schumer and his anti-gun colleagues succeed in retaking control of the House and Senate in the upcoming elections, the Supreme Court will be an even more critical backstop for our fundamental liberties.

This is an historic turning point no gun owner can ignore. Please ask your U.S. Senators to confirm Judge Kavanaugh and preserve your Second Amendment rights for decades to come!  You can contact your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 or click here to take action

RELATED VIDEO: We Stand With Brett Kavanaugh

U.S. Senate on a Perilous Path Thanks for Flake

In 1982, Greg Watson turned in a thesis to his professor at Texas Christian University.  In it, he argued that an unratified constitutional amendment first proposed by Madison as part of the Bill of Rights could still become law. His efforts earned him a C.  Not because of poor writing skills or shoddy workmanship, but because his professor thought his contention was in error.

So upset was Watson over his grade that he wrote every state legislator in the country about having his or her state ratify Madison’s constitutional amendment.  The letter caught the attention of a state legislator in Maine who moved it in his state, and shortly thereafter, Maine became the first state in modern American history to ratify one of James Madison’s amendments.  Others followed, and by 1992, the Twenty Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting congressional salaries from being altered without an intervening election became law, just as Watson had predicted.

Watson’s story is a wonderful example of the greatness of the power of one.  It is a testament of what happens when a single individual, motivated by the vision of new reality, mobilizes and convinces others that his is the correct way to proceed.

Yes, Senator Jeff Flake moved a mountain on Friday, or at least the United States Senate, when he announced that he would be voting Judge Kavanaugh out of committee but demanding an FBI investigation be performed prior to his casting a favorable vote at the floor of the Senate. His actions, however, did not rise to the level of a Watsonian performance.

Flake’s motivation was based on fear and submission to intimidation tactics, or personal gain, not the promotion of a unique insight.  On Friday morning, shortly after announcing that he would be voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh, Flake was accosted by a group of rabid feminists who reproachfully and illogically insisted that a vote for Kavanaugh was equivalent to an assertion by Flake of his disbelief of those women’s stories regarding their own alleged sexual assaults.

Of course, the claim of any association between Jeff Flake’s vote on the confirmation of a competent judge and any opinion on a totally unrelated sexual assault upon another party is patently absurd. And the fact that a senator would be allowed to be accosted by a group of very aggressive advocates, regardless of the issue being espoused, within the capitol grounds is equally as unbelievable. But whatever the pressures upon Flake to capitulate, he did, and he did so in deference to fear, guilt, or personal ambition.

Moreover, the contention that Democrats are searching for some greater truth or guidance before making their decision is untenable. Between Senator Feinstein’s near month long suppression of an anonymous complaint, to the concealment of the complaint from the nominee, to the circus environment the Democrat caucus developed during the nomination process, to the numerous, ridiculous comments made by individual senators in the Judiciary Committee during and after the proceedings, it is evident that theirs was an all out effort to embarrass and subvert the nominee.  The search for truth does not figure into the Democrats’ plan.

But still, one may ask, what’s the harm in just doing yet another FBI investigation?  If he’s innocent as he says he is, then what’s the harm?  The questions drip with hypocrisy in the face of the damage that has already transpired.  All that this delay is causing is to allow more time for the forces of evil in this country to continue their unabashed and shameless assault on a nominee with an impeccable record of service to his country, his family, and his community.

No, despite what the media is saying, Dr. Christine Blaisey Ford is not a credible witness.  Yes, her testimony was compelling, and it was emotional, but there were more holes in it than in a block of Swiss cheese, and that’s without the benefit of a cross-examination.  Honestly, if Dr. Ford, who is no psychologist despite her claim, were subjected to a cross examination, I believe she would not have even been able to finish her testimony.

Additionally, there is absolutely no good that will come from an FBI probe.  It is an investigation based on events that allegedly took place thirty-five years earlier, brought by a seriously flawed informant with ulterior motives, without time certain, nor location, and where there is no possibility for the collection of forensic or physical evidence to support or dispel the allegation.  The FBI’s efforts are dead before they even started.

Clearly, the only thing the delay will accomplish is to allow more time for the further salacious destruction of Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation and the degradation of the Senate by a bunch of reckless Senate Democrats. And it will allow more time for those nefarious detractors to conjure up more false stories about the judge and to further throw the process into disarray.

Nor will the further protraction do anything to heal the country, nor give comfort to those who would otherwise not have voted for the Judge.  There is no Senate Democrat who will suddenly change his or her mind merely because of an inconclusive FBI investigation.  Just the opposite.  When the FBI investigation fails to find anything new, the only thing that will come of it is the opportunity for Kavanaugh’s opponents to criticize the investigation for not finding anything!

No, Jeff Flake offered no improvement upon the horrible situation in which this country finds itself.  Unlike Greg Watson who was able to bring insight and wisdom to light, all Flake accomplished was the opportunity for the Senate and the nomination process to sink to new lows with ne’er an opportunity for something good to come out of this mess.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured image is by Jomar on Unsplash.