Skip to content

Judging Kavanaugh — Feinstein’s ‘Guilty Until Proven Innocent’ Strategy

September 20, 2018

Mark Alexander


Source …..

Feinstein has scripted the Ford allegation to run out the clock on Kavanaugh.

On Monday, we celebrated Constitution Day, the 231st anniversary of the signing of our Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. That day also marked the 22nd anniversary of The Patriot Post — the first and thus oldest news digest on the Internet.

Unfortunately, it has been a week when our Constitution and the Liberty it enshrines have been subject to yet another ludicrous assault. This attack came, of course, from Democrat Party leaders, and it went far beyond their usual relentless grind to undermine constitutional Rule of Law and to subordinate it with a so-called “living constitution.”

In my column two weeks ago, “Obstruction of Justice: The Demos’ Kavanaugh Blockade,” I noted, “The left-leaning (to put it kindly) American Bar Association awarded Judge Brett Kavanaugh its highest endorsement, a unanimous ‘Well-Qualified’ rating. According to ABA guidelines, ‘The rating of “Well Qualified” is reserved for those found to merit the Committee’s strongest affirmative endorsement.’“

I wrote further, “This endorsement used to be the gold standard for Democrats considering Republican judicial nominees for the Supreme Court. So what’s the holdup on Donald Trump’s Kavanaugh nomination to SCOTUS — a nominee who has already been through six intense and exhaustive FBI background investigations associated with high-level judicial and presidential appointments between 1993 to 2018, including congressional hearings for previous federal judicial appointments?”

The answer is obvious:

1) The election of Donald Trump; 2) the resulting epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome; 3) pandering and political theater, Democrat Party style; and 4) a deep sense of remorse by Democrats that they killed the filibuster for judicial nominations in 2013 to clear the way for a slate of Barack Obama’s far-left nominees to the federal bench.

On that last point, Democrats inadvertently cleared the way for the appointment of Trump’s constitutional constructionist judges to the court, those who will abide by their oaths “to support and defend” our Constitution rather than twist it into whatever shape the Democrats please.

Even their leftmost justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, laments the patent partisanship in the Kavanaugh hearings: “The [Justice Antonin Scalia] vote was unanimous. Every Democrat and every Republican voted for him. But that’s the way it should be, instead of what it’s become, which is a highly partisan show. … I wish I could wave a magic wand and have it go back to … the way it was.” She noted the vote on her own confirmation was 96 to 3, despite her having spent “10 years of my life litigating cases under the auspices of the ACLU.”

So now, after six separate FBI background checks of Kavanaugh, after Senate Democrats had more time to review this nominee’s background than virtually any SCOTUS nominee, after hundreds of thousands of background documents were released for their review (despite the “Spartacus” claims), after 65 individual meetings with senators, after his written answers to 1,278 follow-up questions, and after more than 30 hours of public testimony, let me ask again: “So what’s the holdup on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination?”

In short, the holdup now is a collusion and obstruction strategy cooked up by the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, five-term California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Two months ago (according to her recollection), Feinstein says she received a letter from one Christine Blasey Ford, a leftist, pro-abortion, Bernie Sanders-supporting California college professor, who alleged that she had been subject to some kind of assault, maybe in the summer of 1982, by Brett Kavanaugh, who would have been 17 years old at the time. By Ford’s account, she was an inebriated 15-year-old, and the incident took place at a party location she can’t recall, nor can she remember how she got to or departed the party.

Ford says she mentioned the incident to a therapist back in 2012. According to the therapist’s records, Ford mentioned no names and insisted there were four boys involved. Ford later claimed that only Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge was present, but he has categorically denied any knowledge of this incident.

Last weekend she claimed another student, Patrick Smyth, was also present. Today, he issued a letter to the Judicial Committee declaring, “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh. Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

Of course, Ford’s “forgotten” details make it easier for Feinstein to frame Kavanaugh as “guilty until proven innocent.”

For his part, Judge Kavanaugh has categorically denied the allegations, and he has produced a letter signed by 65 female colleagues and lifelong friends attesting to his sterling character. In addition, two women who dated Kavanaugh during the period of the alleged assault have also said the allegations are utterly inconsistent with his character, noting he was “kind and polite and respectful” and a “stand-up guy, full of integrity” who “treated no one with disrespect.”

The only thing Kavanaugh is guilty of is being a constitutional constructionist.

But the Leftmedia insists that Ford’s account must be true because she has “passed” a polygraph test. At best, that is an indication that Ford believes her own story. But who paid for it? And who administered it? And what questions were asked? And how were they formulated?

When Feinstein was asked why she sat on this “bombshell” letter for months and why she’d failed to even mention it to Kavanaugh during her one-on-one meetings with him prior to the Senate hearings, instead turning it over to the FBI just last Thursday, she claimed, “I don’t know; I’ll have to look back and see.” Later she claimed that it was because Ford “asked that it be confidential.”

Are you a believer yet?

On Monday, Democrats demanded an open hearing for Ford, so Republicans granted an open or closed hearing next Monday, whichever Ford preferred. According to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), “Immediately after learning of Dr. Ford’s identity from news reports Sunday, committee staff started working to gather facts related to her claims. We’ve offered Dr. Ford the opportunity to share her story with the committee, as her attorney said she was willing to do. We offered her a public or a private hearing as well as staff-led interviews, whichever makes her most comfortable.”

By Tuesday, Democrats were, predictably, erecting obstacles to that hearing — again all designed to obstruct and delay. Rather than accept Grassley’s invitation, Ford’s lawyer insisted that would only happen after “a fair proceeding,” insisting the FBI would first have to conduct a “full investigation” into the 35-year-old accusation, the fundamental details of which her client can’t even remember.

Demo leader and arch-obstructionist Chuck Schumer (D-NY) insisted that requiring the alleged victim to testify before a full investigation “is simply inadequate, unfair, wrong, and designed not to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

Huh? For the record, this entire episode has been specifically “designed not to get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

On Ford’s refusal to testify, Grassley responded, “It raises the question: Do they want to have the hearing or not?” He noted that the FBI “considers the matter closed” and that next Monday’s hearing will go forward with or without Ford.

Of course, Democrats are just trying to run out the clock. The two Republican senators who initially said the nomination vote should be postponed until Ford testified, Bob Corker (R-TN) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), are now insisting it proceed.

As for the veracity of Ford’s claims, Feinstein now says, “I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.” Democrats aren’t interested in what’s “truthful” as long as there’s still a chance to kill the Kavanaugh nomination.

Let me be clear: The alleged “leak” about Ford’s accusation was scripted by Feinstein to coincide with the conclusion of the Kavanaugh hearings. Ford’s subsequent interview by The Washington Post was scripted by Feinstein and Ford. Likewise they scripted Ford’s refusal to testify prior to a “full FBI investigation.”

And Feinstein has an ulterior motive. After the California Democrat Party endorsed her November opponent, socialist Kevin de León, the 85-year-old Feinstein is desperately endeavoring to ensure her victory in November.

This was a brilliantly timed character assassination designed to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination if, as estimated, Ford’s allegations elicit enough female voter outrage in the swing states of squishy Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, thus compelling them to vote against Kavanaugh, or forcing Kavanaugh or Trump to withdraw the nomination.

Ultimately, the Democrat delay strategy is based on the assumption of retaking the Senate in the midterms, at which point the plan, as Sen. Maize Hirono (D-HI) outlined, is to then keep the seat vacant until 2020. “The world does not come to an end because we don’t fill all of the nominees,” declared Hirono, who added that men on the Judiciary Committee should “just shut up.”

In other words, Republicans best get this nomination through next week, or they risk not filling the seat.

Feinstein’s “#MeToo” farce is the latest manifestation of the Democrats’ 2018 midterm election alleged assault strategy.

Unlike all the leftists who’ve been outed recently as serial sexual abusers, there’s been no such pattern with Kavanaugh — just this single out-of-left-field allegation.

Political analyst David French notes, “Feinstein’s conduct raises multiple questions. If the allegations are serious, why sit on them since July? Also, if the allegations are serious, why refer them to law enforcement just now? And why not ask Kavanaugh about the claims, even in a closed session? While we don’t know the contents of the letter, Feinstein has not behaved like a person in possession of blockbuster revelations. Instead, she’s behaving like a person engaged in a vicious smear.”

Indeed, even the hard-left San Francisco Chronicle is questioning the timing of Feinstein’s political ruse, noting her “treatment of a more than 3-decade-old sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was unfair all around. It was unfair to Kavanaugh, unfair to his accuser and unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

But Feinstein knows that adjudicating 36-year-old unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegations in the court of public opinion will, effectively, frame Kavanaugh as “guilty until proven innocent.” The accusations will, as was the case with late accusations against Justice Clarence Thomas, follow Kavanaugh to his grave, whether appointed or not.

Footnote: On the subject of things “unfair”: At the same time Democrats are treating the incredible Ford accusation as “credible,” they’re completely ignoring recent credible accusations against DNC Deputy Chair Keith Ellison by his recent former girlfriend, Karen Monahan, and her son — accusations that purportedly include videotaped evidence.

When she was asked if Democrats had investigated her claims of assault by Ellison and given her a fair hearing, she responded, “No. … I’ve been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.”

She added, “Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more. As I said before, I knew I wouldn’t be believed.”

But no double standard here. Move along.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776



CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS? Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff and Warner DEMAND DOJ-FBI Defy Trump Declassification Order

September 20, 2018


Source …..

In a shocking letter intended to undermine the President, and his authority over the Executive Branch, multiple high ranking Democrats sent a letter ordering intelligence agencies to ignore Trump’s order to declassify numerous documents involving the Russia investigation until consulting with Congress.

The intelligence agencies serve at the pleasure of the president — and this clearly crosses the line separating the branches of government.

The letter was signed by Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senator Mark Warner, and Senator Charles Schumer and sent to Director Coats, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Director Wray.

“Your agencies’ review, and any communication with the White House on the substance of the material, should not proceed further until you have briefed the Gang of Eight in person,” the letter orders.

DC-based lawyer Will Chamberlain called the letter a constitutional crisis and urged the GOP to consider taking action against the lawmakers who signed.

“You are equal branches of government, but they’re not subordinate to you,” Chamberlain said of the letter signers. “I’m sorry — President Trump has not issued a request to the intelligence agencies that they declassify this information, he has issued an order.”

Chamberlain continued on to say that, “President Trump has issued an order to his subordinates to declassify certain information related to the Russia investigation. He has plenary declassification authority as the President of the United States. The FBI and DOJ are subordinate to him. Congress does not get to order Executive Branch officials to defy a president — that is actually a constitutional crisis.”

On Monday, President Trump went scorched earth and ordered the DOJ to publicly release all text messages WITHOUT REDACTION relating to the Russia investigation from James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.

As the Gateway Pundit reported earlier on Tuesday, Congressional sources now fear intel agencies will slow-roll the process to frustrate President Trump and others who want these documents released to the public.

House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes said Monday evening that the FBI’s “insurance policy” that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page discussed over text message will be exposed along with other exculpatory evidence once the Carter Page FISA documents are made public.


Trump’s Beast in the Night

September 20, 2018

Andrew P. Napolitano


Source …..

If you have been following the serious destruction brought about by Hurricane Florence in North Carolina and the political turmoil caused by the allegations of teenage sexual misconduct made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, along with his firm and unbending denials, you might have missed a profound event in a federal courtroom in the nation’s capital late last week.

The Florence damage may take years to repair, and the Kavanaugh nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, which once seemed assured, at this writing is in a sort of limbo, pending an Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas-like confrontation before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week. But when Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s one-time campaign chair, entered a guilty plea in federal court last week, it created the potential for a political earthquake.

Here is the backstory.

Manafort was indicted by two federal grand juries — one in Arlington, Virginia, and the other in Washington, D.C. — for financial crimes committed before and during his time running the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. Both prosecutions have been led by Robert Mueller, the Department of Justice-appointed special counsel charged with investigating whether there was a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and people working for the Russian government.

Often, when prosecutors are looking for evidence of crime A, they find evidence of crime B. This is what happened to Manafort. Yet, as the trial judge said in Manafort’s Virginia trial last month, which ended in convictions on 8 of 18 charges, the feds were indeed looking for evidence of crime B as well. We all know that the principal reason for pursuing Manafort on financial crimes has been to squeeze him for what he knows about Trump.

Last week, on the eve of Manafort’s second trial, that prosecutorial strategy paid off when he entered a guilty plea before a federal judge in Washington, D.C. Manafort’s guilty plea is unique and extraordinary. In the plea, Manafort, who only pleaded guilty to two federal crimes — witness tampering and conspiracy to defraud the government — also admitted that he committed dozens of other federal and state crimes.

This was intentionally maneuvered by Mueller as part of the plea agreement so as to make it bulletproof from a presidential pardon. I have never seen this before. The president can only pardon federal crimes. Should he do so for Manafort, state prosecutors in New York, Virginia and California — the states where these crimes (mainly bank fraud) to which Manafort admitted under oath actually took place — can seek indictments immediately. It will be easy to indict and easy to convict Manafort because of his public admissions last Friday.

The pattern of crimes to which Manafort admitted but for which he did not plead guilty is breathtaking. It involves tens of millions of dollars, the highest-ranking former government officials in the Ukraine, an unnamed Obama Cabinet member and a few Russian oligarchs. The only good news for Trump in all this is that he and his Republican congressional colleagues will be spared the daily barrage of negative headlines from a second Manafort trial, which was scheduled to start this week and which would have led up to the midterm elections, had it not been aborted by the guilty plea. But the president surely fears a beast in the night in the form of whatever Manafort privately tells Mueller.

The plea agreement — all 117 pages of it — does not spell out what evidence Manafort gave Mueller to persuade him to agree to cap Manafort’s prison time exposure at 10 years when he could have gotten 60. But it does spell out Manafort’s willingness and now legal obligation to assist Mueller.

We know that Manafort’s personal offer of assistance to Mueller took place over the course of two days of negotiations on Monday and Tuesday of last week. That type of meeting, during which Manafort tipped his hand as to what evidence he could give Mueller about Trump, has been called a “Queen for a Day” by federal prosecutors and FBI agents because the defendant gets to say whatever he wants and if the negotiations fail to produce a deal the feds cannot use what the defendant has told them. The meeting obviously intrigued and excited Mueller’s team, and hence a deal was struck.

What did he tell them?

Manafort was present at the July 2016 Trump Tower meeting between campaign officials and Russian intelligence agents, and he made notes. He was present at the preparatory meeting for that Trump Tower meeting. He can probably explain the circuitous and mysterious route of Russian money transfers that followed the Trump Tower meeting. He can explain the 80 times the campaign was in contact with the Russians while he was the campaign chair, and he probably knows if Trump personally knew of the Trump Tower meeting in advance and of any agreements made there.

Stated differently, Manafort can help Mueller paint the Trump Tower meeting and whatever followed it as an agreement by the campaign to accept something of value from a foreign entity, even if the thing of value never arrived: That would be a criminal conspiracy, which my media colleagues call “collusion,” a non-legal term. Manafort can also inform Mueller of his financial deals with Trump that preceded Trump’s candidacy, at least one of which involved Russian money.

The president’s lawyers have shrugged off the Manafort guilty plea as unrelated to the president. This is false bravado for public consumption only, and I don’t blame them for it when their client is the president. But if their client has been candid with them, then they can prepare for the Manafort bombshells that are coming.


Hypocrisy: Dems Ignore Ellison Accuser While Demanding Kavanaugh Probe

September 19, 2018

Thomas Gallatin


Source …..

The DNC remains silent on much more credible accusations of domestic abuse by Ellison.

Democrats who ignored accusations against their own are now loudly clamoring for the need to fully investigate the politically timed accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Recall this past August that Karen Monahan, former long-term girlfriend of current DNC Deputy Chairman Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), accused him of domestic abuse. Ellison, who is running for Minnesota attorney general, denied the allegations and the DNC offered nothing other than the standard “we’re looking into it” statement.

Fast forward to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) last-minute accusation against Kavanaugh of an alleged incident from 36 years ago and none other than DNC Chairman Tom Perez, who has remained conspicuously silent regarding the claims against Ellison, jumped into the fray. Perez declared Monday, “This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land and this serious allegation must be investigated thoroughly. The American people deserve answers, not a vote that is rammed through by Republicans. There is too much at stake.”

Meanwhile, Monahan noted the Democrats’ blatant hypocrisy in their calls to believe women. She wrote, “No, they don’t. I’ve been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.” She added, “Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more. As I said before, I knew I wouldn’t be believed.”

Monahan has company. When Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) pontificated that “we must respect and listen to survivors of sexual assault,” Juanita Broaddrick replied, “Well, Dick, do I have a story for you. Once upon a time Bill Clinton raped me.”

It would appear that the “party for women” only listens to women when it helps to further its own political agenda.


President Trump Orders Declassification of Some FISA Court Documents, All Texts From Russia Investigation

September 19, 2018

Katie Pavlich


Source …..

After months of requests, President Trump declassified a number of FISA court documents late Monday afternoon and directed the relevant government agencies to release them to the public.

“At the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency, the President has directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to provide for the immediate declassification of the following materials: (1) pages 10-12 and 17-34 of the June 2017 application to the FISA court in the matter of Carter W. Page; (2) all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation; and (3) all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders released in a statement.

President Trump also ordered the unredacted release of all text messages related to the Russia investigation from fired FBI Director James Comey, fired Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, fired FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

“In addition, President Donald J. Trump has directed the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to publicly release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr,” the statement continues.

On Sunday House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, who has been requesting President Trump declassify these documents for months, argued the documents needed to be declassified before the2018 midterm elections. Nunes also announced he would be declassifying a number of depositions by key players in the Russia probe.


The Late Hit on Judge Kavanaugh

September 19, 2018

Patrick J. Buchanan


Source …..

Upon the memory and truthfulness of Christine Blasey Ford hangs the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, his reputation and possibly his career on the nation’s second-highest court.

And much more. If Kavanaugh is voted down or forced to withdraw, the Republican Party and conservative movement could lose their last best hope for recapturing the high court for constitutionalism.

No new nominee could be vetted and approved in six weeks. And the November election could bring in a Democratic Senate, an insuperable obstacle to the elevation of a new strict constructionist like Kavanaugh.

The stakes are thus historic and huge.

And what is professor Ford’s case against Judge Kavanaugh?

When she was 15 in the summer of ’82, she went to a beer party with four boys in Montgomery County, Maryland, in a home where the parents were away.

She says she was dragged into a bedroom by Brett Kavanaugh, a 17-year-old at Georgetown Prep, who jumped her, groped her, tried to tear off her clothes and cupped her mouth with his hand to stop her screams.

Only when Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge, laughing “maniacally,” piled on and they all tumbled off the bed, did she escape and lock herself in a bathroom as the “stumbling drunks” went downstairs. She fled the house and told no one of the alleged rape attempt.

Not until 30 years later in 2012 did Ford, now a clinical psychologist in California, relate, in a couples therapy session with her husband, what happened. She says she named Kavanaugh as her assailant, but the therapist’s notes of the session make no mention of Kavanaugh.

During the assault, says Ford, she was traumatized. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”

Here the story grows vague. She does not remember who drove her to the party. She does not say how much she drank. She does not remember whose house it was. She does not recall who, if anyone, drove her home. She does not recall what day it was.

She did not tell her parents, Ford says, as she did not want them to know she had been drinking. She did not tell any friend or family member of this traumatic event that has so adversely affected her life.

Said Kavanaugh in response, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Mark Judge says it never happened.

Given the seriousness of the charges, Ford must be heard out. But she also needs to be cross-examined and have her story and character probed as Kavanaugh’s has been by FBI investigators as an attorney for the Ken Starr impeachment investigation of Bill Clinton, a White House aide to George Bush, a U.S. appellate judge and a Supreme Court nominee.

During the many investigations of Kavanaugh’s background, nothing was unearthed to suggest something like this was in character.

Some 65 women who grew up in the Chevy Chase and Bethesda area and knew Kavanaugh in his high school days have come out and spoken highly of his treatment of girls and women.

Moreover, the way in which all of this arose, at five minutes to midnight in the long confirmation process, suggests that this is political hardball, if not dirt ball.

When Ford, a Democrat, sent a letter detailing her accusations against Kavanaugh to her California congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, Ford insisted that her name not be revealed as the accuser.

She seemingly sought to damage or destroy the judge’s career behind a cloak of anonymity. Eshoo sent the letter on to Sen. Diane Feinstein, who held it for two months.

Excising Ford’s name, Feinstein then sent it to the FBI, who sent it to the White House, who sent it on to the Senate to be included in the background material on the judge.

Thus, Ford’s explosive charge, along with her name, did not surface until this weekend.

What is being done here stinks. It is a transparently late hit, a kill shot to assassinate a nominee who, before the weekend, was all but certain to be confirmed and whose elevation to the Supreme Court is a result of victories in free elections by President Trump and the Republican Party.

Palpable here is the desperation of the left to derail Kavanaugh, lest his elevation to the high court imperil their agenda and the social revolution that the Warren Court and its progeny have been able to impose upon the nation.

If Kavanaugh is elevated, the judicial dictatorship of decades past, going back to the salad days of Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black and “Wild Bill” Douglas, will have reached its end. A new era will have begun.

That is what is at stake.

The Republican Senate should continue with its calendar to confirm Kavanaugh before Oct. 1, while giving Ford some way to be heard, and then Kavanaugh the right to refute. Then let the senators decide.


The Bad Boy Brett Baloney

September 19, 2018

Joan Swirsky


Source …..

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has always been in the crosshairs of the left, ever since he played a major role in urging the impeachment of their icon of moral rectitude, President Bill Clinton, and also led the investigation into the alleged suicide (or fishy murder) of Vince Foster, Clinton’s Deputy White House Counsel and close friend of Ms. Hillary.

No doubt red flags were raised by the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party when Kavanaugh was confirmed for the Court of Appeals in 2006 as a potential candidate for the Supreme Court––especially because an analysis covering the period 2003–2018 found that in every area of policy he had the most or second-most conservative voting record on the D.C. Court.

Kavanaugh has been vetted 6 times

It didn’t help that Kavanaugh was given thorough and extensive and exhaustive colonoscopies––I mean vetting––by the F.B.I., not once or twice or three times, but six times!

Yet somehow, this microscopically intrusive process failed to uncover the mortal sin––or was it simply typical teenage rambunctiousness?––that the archeologists of the left just uncovered. Specifically, that a drunken 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, and his equally drunken friend, got a hold of the cold-sober and very proper teenager Christine Blasey, who went where with the boys? To the porch? the den? the kitchen? the backyard? Noooooo––to the bedroom! Clearly to talk about college applications!

Then, according to Ms. Recovered Memory, Mr. Drunk misinterpreted her none-too-subtle behavior and lay down alongside her or on top of her on the bed and––gasp––touched her!

Now how on earth could a smart kid like Brett Kavanaugh have been so amazingly clueless that he thought a girl who went into a bedroom could have anything in mind except taking a rest? Kinda like saying that the person who opens the refrigerator isn’t hungry or thirsty!

As they say in the Bronx––gimme a break!

Consider the Source

Of course, the foregoing scenario depends on how credible you consider the now-51-year-old professor of psychology, Christine Blasey Ford, or the woman who brought this sordid story to light, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Yes, that Dianne Feinstein, the woman whose husband, real estate mogul Richard Blum, obtained an exclusive contract with the U.S. government in 2015––while she was a U.S. Senator––and earned as much as $1 billion dollars selling 56 U.S. Postal Service buildings across the country.

According to journalist Steven Rosenfeld, “Feinstein dismissed the conflict-of-interest allegations at the time, which were followed by numerous investigative reports criticizing the deal, [but] even if Feinstein’s word is true—that she never lobbied or intervened with the USPS on behalf of her husband—the political world in Washington is like a village where longtime players know everyone else, and favors are implicitly given and taken without explicit approval.”

Swamp, anyone?

And last month, according to, there are numerous reports that an alleged Chinese spy reportedly infiltrated Sen. Feinstein’s office by posing as her driver for 20 years. “Five years ago,” Politico reported,” the FBI told Feinstein—who served as chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee—that her staffer was a spy. But the FBI could not charge the man with espionage because none of what he leaked was considered to be classified information, making it difficult for the agency to prosecute him.” Uh huh.

And why did Sen. Feinstein wait until the 11th hour to produce this tabloid accusation? Because the best efforts of the Democrats to stop Judge Kavanaugh from ascending to the Supreme Court had failed thunderously and she thought she could delay the hearings until after the midterms when Democrats dream of reclaiming a majority in the U.S. Congress, thereby increasing their power to obstruct the president’s agenda.

Pants on Fire?

Prof. Blasey Ford reported the incident to her therapist (who took notes) in 2012, about 36 years after she said it happened. As reported by, she wasn’t quite sure of the location, or for that matter the year, but she was quite sure that she tried to scream and he put his hand over her mouth, which led her to believe that “he might inadvertently kill me.” She said that his friend Mark Judge intervened and saved the day….or night.But Mark Judge, an author and journalist, has thoroughly refuted this description: “It’s just absolutely nuts,” he said, and, according to The New York Times, he said the incident never happened.In fact, the therapist’s notes never mention the name Kavanaugh at all! Duh.But what about the polygraph test she passed last month––the one administered by an FBI agent? Was that agent, perchance, connected to any of the FBI agents who are now being accused of plotting to overthrow the Trump presidency––the likes of Rod Rosenstein, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, on and on and on?If there is such a connection, why would anyone trust the results of such a test? Besides, it is well known that sociopaths and pathological liars have an easy time passing lie detector tests. Does Professor Blasey Ford––a Democrat partisan and Hillary fan––fit into either category? We don’t know because, unlike Judge Kavanaugh, she has never been vetted.

Recovered-memory poseurs

Or is Professor Blasey Ford more like the women who lawyer Gloria Allred rounds up for her victims-on-parade showcases? The kind of women who brag of longtime marriages, raising children, coping with adversity (including breast cancer), pursuing successful careers, but then produce tears on cue, speak with oh-so-poignant catches in their voices, and claim that 10 or 20 or 30 years ago they couldn’t quite muster a voice of resistance or a flat refusal or a slap in the face to an overly-aggressive amorous pursuer.

We don’t know, but we certainly can’t rule out that possibility.

And then there are the recovered-memory poseurs who journalist Dorothy Rabinowitz brilliantly exposed in Harper’s Magazine and The Wall St. Journal. Her exposés of the dubious––indeed, malevolent––sexual-abuse charges filed against the operators of daycare centers and other individuals, notably the Amirault family in Massachusetts and those in Washington State, not only freed the wrongly accused from lengthy prison sentences, but earned her a 1996 Pulitzer nomination, formed half of the articles cited for her 2001 Pulitzer Prize win, and were the basis of her book, No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors of Our Times.

Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham have also written about the subject in The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse.

Of course, Judge Kavanaugh has “categorically and unequivocally” denied that the event ever occurred. And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) released a letter signed by 65 women who knew him in high school and praised him highly.Yes, there are women who have legitimate grievances about abuses that occurred in their pasts. Today, however, partisan plaintiff Christine Blasey Ford is telling us how she remembers a surge of teenage testosterone––if the incident happened at all. I’m not buying what she is selling and I hope the legislators who vote on the matter agree!


Chelsea Clinton Invokes Christian Values To Support Abortion – REALLY!

September 19, 2018

Deplorable Patriot


Source …..

Chelsea Clinton, you have got to be kidding. Honest to God, she actually said the words during an interview with SiriusXM’s “Signal Boost” on Thursday. She actually said it would be “unChristian” to return to a time pre-Roe vs. Wade.

Holy crap. Now the pro-death crowd is invoking Christ and Christianity, twisting the actual teachings, traditions, and values, trying to justify killing unborn children mostly in the name of convenience. And not only that, she’s playing the guilt card.

Clinton said, “I look at my children and I have to quote Jim Yong Kim, ‘optimism is a moral choice.’ Every day I make the moral choice to be optimistic. That my efforts and my energies, particularly when I’m fortunate enough to be in partnership with kinda fellow travelers, hopefully, will make a difference.”

She added, “And when I think about all of the statistics that are painful of what women are confronting today in our country, and what even more women confronted pre-Roe and how many women died and how many more women were maimed because of unsafe abortion practices, we just can’t go back to that. Like that’s unconscionable to me, and also, I’m sure that this will unleash another wave of hate in my direction, but as a deeply religious person, it’s also unchristian to me.”

What is unChristian to many people who believe that life from womb to tomb is sacred is the societal pressures that make women think that killing their babies is their only option when they get pregnant at inopportune times. It is also a sad testament to the harsh reality that women have been objectified to the point that the life-giving purpose of copulation has been subverted and children are now considered to be almost accessories.

Chelsea, support or the killing of the innocent is not a Christian value and has not been since the time Christians inhabited the catacombs. It simply isn’t. No the treatment of women is not Christian nowadays, but neither is convincing them they should kill their children.


The real Russian collusion is Uranium One and beyond

September 16, 2018

Wayne Wickizer


Source …..

Foreword: On November 14, 2017, the Canada Free Press posted an article by Doug Hagmann entitled Understanding the Uranium One “Scandal”. It merits re-reading today.Hagmann chronicled, with meticulous and well-documented detail, the major events of Uranium One. At the close he asked a question that remains pertinent ten months later: “Why is there an investigation of collusion between Russia, Donald Trump and the Trump campaign when there is smoking gun evidence of collusion and more between Russian and other foreign assets, Hillary and Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation?” An answer to that question is offered below by a writer with over two decades of U.S. military experience, and six years as an F.B.I. Agent. His bio will come at the close of what follows.

There is, today, collusion among known, and unknown, principals of a cartel cooperating to monopolize the global uranium market, in a way not-unlike how DeBeers cartel controls the diamond market.

This emerging uranium cartel is forming as a confederacy with no allegiance to any State or Rule of Law. It is evolving from globalists for the benefit of globalists.

The goal of this cartel is to exercise future international control of uranium resources and processes.

The Uranium One scandal chronicled on this site nearly one year ago—linked in the Foreword—was one episode in the cartelizing effort that involves, at least, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Uranium One was facilitated by Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as other current and former U.S. government officials, who benefited as event brokers.

Here are the major factors provoking the uranium cartel.

Global nuclear power is poised for dramatic growth

According to The World Nuclear Organization:

“The USA is the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity. The country’s 99 nuclear reactors produced 805 billion kWh in 2017, 20% of total electrical output. There are two reactors under construction. Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that two more new units will come online soon after 2020, these resulting from 16 license applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors. Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity.”

Globally, The World Nuclear Performance Report predicts that “With construction on more than 25 reactors scheduled to be completed in 2018 and 2019 strong progress is being made. New reactor projects are needed to maintain and accelerate global nuclear build so that nuclear generation can meet the Harmony goal of supplying 25% of the world’s global electricity by 2050.”

InvestorIntel posted an article entitled “Is the Uranium sector about to come back to life?” and then affirmatively answers the question: “Currently in more than 12 countries, 71 nuclear reactors are under construction, 165 are planned, and 315 are proposed. China plans to spend $2.4 trillion to expand its nuclear power generation by 6,600%. Demand side growth in new nuclear reactors continues to grow with ‘first fills’ for new reactors requiring three times the uranium up front as annual burn. Japan is restarting idled capacity, and the primary producers are cutting back on production.”

This pending growth in nuclear power capacity will directly impact the price of uranium.

Again, from InvestorIntel: “Morning Star expects global uranium demand to rise roughly 40% by 2025. They forecast that low secondary supplies will cause shortfalls and that this will affect price negotiations by 2019. To encourage new supply, expected price should rise to around $65 per pound. Marin Katusa’s research, shown below, forecasts a steady increase in global uranium demand, mostly due to China, India and South Korea.” offers a graph illustrating the coming increased demand for uranium.

These factors indicate that the uranium market is ripe for cartelization. And, there are global actors ready and eager to exploit that demand.

A global uranium cartel is forming to monopolize uranium sales

To date, two key players in the emerging global uranium cartel have surfaced.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is, by multiple accounts, a very rich man.

Town & Country Magazine cannot say how rich Putin is, but does report that:

“Last year, Hermitage Capital Management CEO Bill Browder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he believes the Russian president is “the richest man in the world” with a net worth of $200 billion. Browder has some bona fides to back up his Russia connections; the financier’s firm was once the largest portfolio investor in Russia. has a more conservative estimate: $70 billion, which matches the figure Russian political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky gave the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in 2012.

Forbes, the universally accepted source of wealth information, has dubbed the former KGB agent “the world’s most powerful person” but does not give an estimate of his net worth.”Russia, and Putin, directly benefited as a result of the Uranium One “scandal”.

Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev rules, with an iron hand, the Number 1 leading uranium mining country in the world. The top ten are: 1. Kazakhstan; 2. Canada; 3. Australia; 4. Niger; 5. Russia; 6. Namibia; 7. Uzbekistan; 8. China; 9. U.S.; and, 10. Ukraine.

“The country [Kazakhstan] has steadily rose (risen) in production since 2009 through to 2015, with 39 percent of world production last year. In 2015, Kazakhstan produced 23,800 tonnes, which is a significant leap from 2014’s 23,127 tonnes. The country’s government is planning to build a Russian nuclear power reactor, possibly at Kurchatov, by 2025. Kazakhstan holds 12 percent of the world’s uranium resources with an expanding mine sector and is planning to increase that by 2018.”

Nuclear Threat Initiative states that “Kazakhstan is home to some of the world’s most abundant uranium deposits, accounting for 39% of the total world supply extracted from mines in 2016. [3] Russia, China, and Japan all import large quantities of uranium from Kazakhstan. Established in 1997 by the Kazakhstani government, Kazatomprom controls all the country’s uranium exploration, mining and other nuclear activities.”

Nazarbayev’s net worth is unknown, but widely assumed to be in the multiple billions.

An answer to Doug Hagmann’s question on Uranium One

As is often the case, the answer is found within the question: ““Why is there an investigation of collusion between Russia, Donald Trump and the Trump campaign when there is smoking gun evidence of collusion and more between Russian and other foreign assets, Hillary and Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation?”

It is precisely because of the “smoking gun evidence of collusion and more between Russian and other foreign assets, Hillary and Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation” that there has, and continues to be, an “investigation” into Russian-Trump collusion, with every indication that it may go on indefinitely.

The Mueller investigation is a distraction taking attention away from the real collusion with Russia that happened during the Obama administration and involved then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her ex-President husband.


Sixty-Five Women Who Went to High School With Brett Kavanaugh Write Their Own Letter About His Character

September 16, 2018

Katie Pavlich


Source …..

Five dozen women who went to high school with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have written a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein backing his character.

“We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect. We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the Committee at this time,” the letter states. “Brett attended Georgetown Prep, an all-boys high school in Rockville, Maryland. He was an outstanding student and athlete with a wide circle of friends. Almost all of us attended all girls high schools in the area. We knew Brett well through social events, sports, church, and various other activities. Many of us have remained close friends with him and his family over the years.”

“Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity. In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day,” the letter continues. “The signers of this letter hold a broad range of political views. Many of us are not lawyers, but we know Brett Kavanaugh as a person. And he has always been a good person.”

The letter comes one day after Senator Feinstein referred Kavanaugh to the FBI for investigation after receiving a letter from an unnamed woman. In a statement released by Feinstein Thursday, the Democrat implied wrongdoing by Kavanaugh without offering any evidence or transparency.

The accusation, reportedly, is that Kavanaugh and another young man locked a woman in a room by herself during a party in high school. The woman was able to get out and was not harmed. (UPDATE: The New Yorker is reporting the woman, who refuses to be named, claims Kavanaugh “tried to assault her” at a party in high school).

Judge Kavanaugh issued a statement in response to the accusation Friday morning.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh said.


%d bloggers like this: