“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” – President Ronald Reagan
FoxNews.com reports that
A hearing in the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the state of Texas over its ”heartbeat bill” is scheduled for Friday.
The Biden administration, after the law went into effect earlier this month, announced that it would sue the state over the law known as Senate Bill 8, which allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone who assists in the procedure.
The law, as reported by The New York Times, makes it “difficult to challenge in the courts” since the lawsuit does not name state officials as defendants. Rather, the defendants in this lawsuit are private citizens who “have no connection to the patient or the clinic.”
The Texas Tribune reports that both state and federal lawyers will give their arguments at Friday’s hearing, which is being overseen by Judge Robert L. Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The DOJ argues that Texas has flouted “settled constitutional law” that “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.”
The federal government also states that S.B. 8 “conflicts with federal law by purporting to prohibit federal agencies from carrying out their responsibilities under federal law related to abortion services,” and that since S.B. 8 does not make exceptions for rape or incest, “its terms purport to prohibit the federal government and its employees and agents from performing, funding, reimbursing, or facilitating abortions in such cases.”
Texas’ argument states that “if the Department of Justice wants to expand its authority, it should direct its requests to Congress, not this Court.”
As they consider similar abortion restrictions, other states are watching the court’s ruling in the Texas case. In addition, Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave women the right to legally access abortion throughout the United States, might again be back before the high court for a ruling on whether the decision is constitutional.
If you are surprised that Biden’s Democratically-controlled Department of Justice is attempting to overturn Texas’ “Heartbeat Law” in favor of continuing the practice of killing the unborn, then you have not been paying attention to “The Party of Death”.
Prior to 1973, abortions were allowed in some states but restricted or almost banned in others. Every state legislature made their own decision on whether to allow abortions and under what circumstances. There was no Federal Law in regards to abortion. Then, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade. It declared a Texas anti-abortion statute unconstitutional and, in doing so, affected abortion laws in many other states.
For any low information voters who might be reading, I present the following summary:
Jane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident in 1970. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, contesting the statue on the grounds that it violated the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In deciding for Roe, the Supreme Court invalidated any state laws that prohibited first trimester abortions.
“We … acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.” — Justice Blackmun (1973), majority opinion in Roe v. Wade
When you talk to Far Left Democrats about this stopping of a beating heart, they will claim that, a human fetus is “just a clump of cells”.
From the scientific perspective, Dr. Carlo Bellieni, in his book “Dawn of the I: Pain, Memory, Desire, Dream of the Fetus,” says:
As soon as it is born, the child shows in a scientifically demonstrable way that it recognizes its mother’s voice and distinguishes it from that of a stranger. Where has he learned that voice other than in the maternal womb?
There are also direct proofs. For example, we register how the movements and cardiac frequency of the fetus vary if we transmit unexpected sounds through the uterine wall. And we see that at first the fetus is startled, then it gets used to it, just like we do when we hear something that does not interest us.
In fact, the scientific evidence is immense. We cannot understand how it can be thought that it becomes a person at a certain point, perhaps when coming out of the uterus.
From the physical point of view, at the birth very little really changes: Air enters the lungs, the arrival of blood from the placenta is interrupted, the type of circulation of blood in the heart changes, and not much more.
As I often say, only blind faith in magic arts or some strange divinity can lead one to think that there is a “human” quality leap at a given moment — certainly not science.
Several years ago, then-President Obama, who was brushing away tears on a Tuesday Morning on behalf of limiting the Second Amendment Rights of American Citizens, said the following,
Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.
My question for the Democrat Elite and their Department of Justice, is:
When do children stop being a “punishment” and start being precious lives to shed tears over?
Is it simply a matter of “Political Expediency”?
Until He Comes,
DONATIONS ARE WELCOME AND APPRECIATED.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
You may have seen this already, however, it explains illegal immigration as succinctly as anything I’ve come across:
Let’s pretend I broke into your house. When you discover me there, you insist I leave. But I say, “I’ve made all the beds, washed the dishes, did the laundry, and cleaned the floors; I’ve done all the work you don’t like to do. I’m hardworking and honest (except for breaking into your house). Not only must you let me stay, you must also add me to your insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide these benefits to my husband, too (he will do your yard work, he’s honest and hardworking too–except for that breaking in part). If you try to force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house and proclaim my right to be there! It’s only fair, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m trying to better myself. I’m hardworking and honest…except for, well, you know. I will live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness and prejudice.
Oh yeah, I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.
Good plan.. don’t you think?
However, Joe Biden’s Handlers do.
Newsmax.com reports that
President Joe Biden’s administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss three pending appeals stemming from his predecessor’s efforts to block federal grants to cities and states that don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
In joint filings with the court on Thursday, Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar indicated that the new administration had resolved federal litigation with California, New York State, New York City and other so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.
The cities and states sued after former President Donald Trump’s administration threatened to withhold the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, which are often used to buy equipment or pay for police overtime. Byrne, a New York City police officer, was murdered in the line of duty in 1988.
Lower courts were divided on the legality of the Trump policy, and both sides were appealing. The Trump administration had asked the high court to hear a case from California, while New York City and a group of states led by New York were seeking review of a ruling they lost.
The Supreme Court had been deferring action on the appeals while the new administration decided how to handle the cases. The cases are Wilkinson v. San Francisco, 20-666; New York v. Department of Justice, 20-795; and City of New York v. Department of Justice, 20-796.
The last bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform wrangled with the hot topic of Illegal Immigration for six years. President Clinton appointed former congresswoman and Democratic icon Barbara Jordan as its chair. Jordan came from humble beginnings to become a lawyer and the first Southern black woman elected to the House of Representatives. A DEMOCRAT, she was a leader in the civil rights movement, a professor of ethics, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and a world-class orator (two of her speeches are considered among the greatest of the 20th century). Her appointment gave the commission instant credibility. According to Jordan, she believed her responsibility as the head of the commission was to restore credibility to the U.S. immigration system. On the issue of illegal immigration, Jordan was very clear and succinct:
Unlawful immigration is unacceptable. Those who should not be here will be required to leave.
I wonder what Rep. Jordan would think of her beloved Democratic Party, now that they have embraced and are not only welcoming the same illegality, which she was so clear about, but protecting illegal aliens from deportation?
And, how would she feel about the fact that innocent Americans are being murdered by these uninvited guests?
I believe that she would stand with our Former President and walk straight into the Oval Office and give the current resident a piece of her mind.
So, why are these Democratic Mayors refusing to abide by our nation’s laws by HARBORING FUGITIVES?
Liberals, on both sides of the Political Aisle, have continuously masked their true intentions for the political usefulness, in their incessant push to grant blanket amnesty to Illegal Aliens, by swathing it in the noble rhetoric of “Civil Rights” and “Social Justice”.
What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens.
And, yet, even as I write this, they are in our hospitals, taking advantage of our charity and the finest health care system in the world, and driving our streets, with either forged drivers licenses or those obtained from states who have acquiesced and given them to these “undocumented workers”.
This is in no way a human rights issue.
Freedom is God-given, and with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way.
Attempting to assign “Constitutional Rights” to those who are here illegally is a usurpation of power Democratic local and national Politicians.
I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children. We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight. But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.
I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish. But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.
Those who came here illegally and taken advantage of our benevolence need to be deported.
If they want to become Americans, they can get in line and do it legally.
Until He Comes,
FoxNews.com reports that
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, fresh off her confirmation to serve as an associate justice on the nation’s highest court, took her constitutional oath on Monday at the White House.
The Supreme Court said in a press release that Barrett will be able to start her new role after Chief Justice John Roberts administers her judicial oath on Tuesday. Justice Clarence Thomas administered the constitutional oath at Monday’s ceremony.
Thomas has long been considered one of the more conservative justices on the court, along with Barrett’s mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Echoing her mentor, Barrett underscored the need for a separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches.
“It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences,” Barrett said to an audience on the South Lawn of the White House. “In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. Federal judges don’t stand for election. Thus, they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people.”
The separation of duty is what makes the judiciary distinct, she said.
“A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the president, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her,” she said.
The Senate confirmed Barrett with a 52-48 vote. All 45 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the Democrats opposed her confirmation.
Controversial from the start, her confirmation prompted a wave of backlash on Monday. Almost immediately after the Senate voted, Democratic lawmakers panned the decision while some called demanded leaders “expand the court.”
Barrett’s confirmation solidified a conservative majority on the nation’s highest court, and gave Trump another victory as he headed into election day.
Whoever wins on Nov. 3 will likely have major consequences on the Supreme Court as an American institution. Former Vice President Joe Biden has mostly refused to answer questions about whether he would pack the courts.
On Monday, Biden said that he might be open to shifting Supreme Court justices to lower courts if elected president, noting that he hadn’t made any judgment yet on the issue.
“There is some literature among constitutional scholars about the possibility of going from one court to another court, not just always staying the whole time in the Supreme Court but I have made no judgment,” Biden said at a campaign stop in Chester, Pa.
He went on to say that “there are just a group of serious constitutional scholars, have a number of ideas how we should proceed from this point on.”
“That’s what we’re going to be doing. We’re going to give them 180 days God-willing if I’m elected, from the time I’m sworn in to be able to make such a recommendation.”
During an interview with “60 Minutes,” Biden said he would set up a commission that would make recommendations for reforming the court system.
“I will ask them to, over 180 days, come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack,” he said.
What has played out before our eyes since the death of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg concerning the highest court in that land is a clue to the crux of matter as to what is at stake in the 2020 Presidential Election, just one week away.
The Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of the laws of our land.
The House and the Senate draw up and pass bills which the President signs into law.
The Far Left Democrats are so desperate to control America and its citizens’ daily lives from cradle to grave that they are willing to expand the Supreme Court and even to add states in order to accomplish their quest for power.
All their crying concerning the “fairness” of Donald J. Trump choosing Judge Barrett to fill the seat of Justice Ginsburg has been nothing but a smokescreen of selfishness and egotism.
They knew that the President had every right to fill the empty seat of the Supreme Court.
The Democrats were desperate to maintain a majority by adding another Liberal to join turncoat Justice Roberts.
They knew that if a Conservative Majority were seated on the court that they would follow the letter of the law…instead of interpreting the Constitution to meet the Marxist Dreams of the Far Left Democrats.
For example, not allow mail-in votes that “suddenly appear” after November 3rd to be counted.
Make no mistake…the Democrats’ wailing and gnashing of teeth was never about fairness.
It was always about political power.
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant men who pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to the fight for our future as a Sovereign Nation.
They left us a blueprint.
We must not let the followers of a failed political philosophy which has not worked anywhere which have constantly tried to rewrite that document which has served our country and its citizens so well to win the power of the Oval Office.
Our future as a Sovereign Nation is at stake next Tuesday.
Until He Comes,
FoxNews.com reports that
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, have been mum on the question of court-packing should they win the November election, but in 1983 Biden was much more outspoken on the issue, calling it a “bonehead idea.”
Biden, then a U.S. Senator from Delaware, made the comments during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in July 1983 regarding nominations to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. At the time, Republican President Ronald Reagan had stoked controversy for attempting to replace three members of the commission.
Biden argued at the time that, although it was within the president’s right to do so, it risked damaging the credibility of the commission. He compared it to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unsuccessful attempts in 1937 to expand the Supreme Court by six justices – in other words, pack the court.
“President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court. It was totally within his right to do that. He violated no law. He was legalistically, absolutely correct,” Biden, then 40, told the committee. “But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make. And it put in question, if for an entire decade, the independence of the most-significant body … in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”
The question of court-packing has been evoked in recent weeks amid President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Democrats have argued that the next Supreme Court Justice ought to be decided by the winner of the November election and that Barrett’s confirmation to the court – so close to the election, no less – would unfairly cement a 6-3 conservative majority on the court.
With just three weeks to go until the election, Republicans have seized on the issue as a last-minute argument to voters that a Biden administration would upend norms and install liberals on an expanding Supreme Court.
Facing pressure to take a stance during a campaign swing through Phoenix on Thursday, Biden said the country would “know my position on court-packing when the election is over.”
Biden once again deflected on the court packing question on Saturday during in a campaign stop in Erie, Pennsylvania – telling reporters that should instead focus on Republican efforts to fill the empty seat on the Supreme Court before Election Day.
“Look, the only court packing that’s going on right now. It’s going on with the Republicans packing the court now,” Biden said, arguing that “it’s not constitutional what they’re doing.”
Both Biden and Harris have said the Senate should wait until after the election to fill the seat. Biden has pledged to select the first Black female justice if given a chance. But he and Harris are otherwise taking pains to avoid talking about their vision for the Supreme Court’s future.
There is a reason that Biden and Harris refuse to talk about packing the court:
That reason being, because they intend to do it if they get elected as President and President-in-Waiting.
Sunday’s “Democrat lie of the day” on the morning news shows was a false equating of Trump getting his nomination for the vacant Supreme Court Justice Seat, Amy Coney Barrett, seating before the Presidential Election to the practice of “packing the court”, which actually means adding more justices to the nine who already serve on the Highest Court in the Land.
The Democrats desperately want to pack the court so that, like all fascist governments before them, they can rule with impunity.
There is nothing illegal or immoral about President Trump wishing to get Judge Barrett seated on the Supreme Court before November’s Presidential Election.
It is one of the perks of winning the Presidency.
For the last four years, the Democrat Elite have behaved as if they were still in power in Washington, D.C. and as if their embracement of the failed political ideology of Marxism was shared by the majority of Americans.
They are wrong on both counts
Their behavior has not won the hearts and minds of average Americans living between the coasts…in fact, quite the opposite.
While push poll after push poll attempt to convince the gullible among us that Biden is way in the lead in the race for the Presidency, in reality, Sleep Joe has trouble getting more than 40 people to come to one of his campaign rallies.
Could it be the fact that Biden, after suffering two aneurysms and the possible onset on dementia, and those who have put him up to this, including Dr. Jill Biden and the Democrat Elite, has underestimating the intelligence of average Americans living between the coats, just as they did in the 2016 Presidential Election?
Until He Comes,
It was an honor to be at the @WhiteHouse when Pres.@realDonaldTrump announced his nominee for #SCOTUS—Amy Coney Barrett. From what I’ve read, she is more than qualified, has a brilliant legal mind, & will interpret the Constitution as it is written. – Franklin Graham, Twitter, 9/26/20
FoxNews.com reports that
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Saturday said the Senate should not act on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court until after “the American people select their next president and the next Congress.”
“Supreme Court decisions affect our everyday lives, and the Constitution was designed to give voters a voice on who makes those decisions,” Biden tweeted Saturday, just after President Trump nominated Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left by late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“The Senate shouldn’t act until after the American people select their next president and the next Congress,” Biden continued. “Americans deserve to be heard.”
Biden, this week, called Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s efforts to push a nominee through the Senate before Election Day an “exercise in raw political power.”
Biden pointed to the controversy surrounding Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy left by late Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, and argued that “having made this their standard when it served their interest, they cannot, just four years later, change course when it doesn’t serve their ends.”
Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or a vote on Garland’s nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.
Biden has refused to release a list of potential Supreme Court picks should he be elected president, saying that he would make his nominations to the high court on a bipartisan basis.
“If I win, I will make my choice for the Supreme Court—not as part of a partisan election campaign—but as prior presidents did,” Biden said last week. “Only after consulting Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate—and seeking their advice before I ask for their consent.”
He added: “As everyone knows, I have made it clear that my first choice for the Supreme Court will make history as the first African American woman justice.”
The Trump campaign has criticized Biden for failing to release a list of his own, suggesting he is “hiding” something.
“We know he’s a tool of the radical left, so the only answer must be that he doesn’t want Americans to see the radical leftists he would appoint, with judicial histories littered with extremist rulings on issues like abortion, religious freedom, immigration, Second Amendment rights and government regulation,” Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh told Fox News this week.
Meanwhile, Biden’s running mate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said that Trump’s choice to nominate Barrett would “harm millions of Americans.”
“Trump’s hand-picked successor to Justice Ginsburg’s seat makes it clear: they intend to destroy the Affordable Care Act & overturn Roe,” Harris tweeted, referring to the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
“This selection would move the court further right for a generation & harm millions of Americans,” she said.
Also Saturday, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez also weighed in, saying the president’s choice “confirms what we already knew.”
“Everything we care about is at stake in this election. Health care is on the ballot. Reproductive rights are on the ballot. LGBTQ rights, voting rights, and workers’ rights are on the ballot. The future of our planet is on the ballot,” he said in a statement. “Today’s announcement is an affront not simply to our values as a democracy, but to every organizer and activist who has fought, marched, and voted to make this country live up to its founding ideals.”
Perez added: “We must send a loud, clear, and unified message to Trump and every one of his Republican enablers at the ballot box in November by voting them out of office.”
The comments come after Trump formally nominated Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court from the White House Rose Garden Saturday. Coney Barrett accepted the nomination, pledging to “discharge the responsibilities of this job to the very best of my ability.”
“I love the United States and I love the United States Constitution,” she said Saturday. “I will do equal right to the poor and the rich and faithfully and impartially discharge my duties under the United States Constitution.”
Why are the Democrats so scared of a strong Christian Conservative American Woman with a loving husband and seven children, including two they adopted from Haiti and one who has special needs, who possesses an impeccable legal background which makes her more than qualified to serve on the Supreme Court?
Consider, if you will, a country in which its president is being fought against by municipal leaders of the other political party for trying to keep his promise to protect his country’s citizens for riots and killing sprees in their cities.
…a country where a black race car driver intentionally damages his sport by identifying a rope used for closing a garage door as a “noose” “awakening’ executives as NASCAR resulting in a ban on Confederate Flags at the races and a “solidarity march”, only to have the FBI find that the offending object was never a noose at all, just a way to close the garage door.
…a country in which a political party supports abortion up until birth and its Presidential Candidate calls a sitting President a “racist” without proof, while ignoring his own well-documented racism.
“You are traveling through a previously unknown country, a country whose population has politically been torn asunder, a country whose Democratic Leadership have forsworn its traditional faith and values to embrace those of its enemies. A country whose great promise is once again being realized, despite the best efforts of its enemies within. There’s a signpost up ahead. Next stop, the 2020 Presidential Election.”
This country has been pulling apart at the seams since the night of November 8, 2016, which Donald J. Trump was elected as our 45th President.
And the thing is, it is not his fault.
The direction which the Modern Democratic Party has taken to the Far Left of the Political Spectrum has put them at odds with the majority of Americans who still hold dear the Traditional Faith and Values System upon which our Sovereign Nation was founded.
In an article written for Decision Magazine dated February 12, 2012, America’s Pastor, Rev. Billy Graham, wrote on the subject of “Confusing Evil With Good”. Here are some excerpts…
Humanity has always been dexterous at confusing evil with good. That was Adam and Eve’s problem, and it is our problem today. If evil were not made to appear good, there would be no such thing as temptation. It is in their close similarity that the danger lies.
Modern social righteousness often differs from the righteousness of the Bible. Someone has said: “A wrong deed is right if the majority of people declare it not to be wrong.” By this principle we can see our standards shifting from year to year according to the popular vote! Divorce was once frowned upon by society, and laws against fornication and adultery were strictly enforced. But now divorce is accepted by society, and fornication is glorified in our literature and films.
The Bible says: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.” God has not changed. His standards have not been lowered. God still calls immorality a sin, and the Bible says God is going to judge it.
Honesty was once the hallmark of character. But it has been set aside with an “It’s all right if you don’t get caught” philosophy. Only when we are in court are we required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
…How do we get our values so mixed up? How do we fall into this trap of Satan? For one thing, we’re shortsighted. We look for shortcuts to happiness. Our lust for immediate pleasure prompts us to think of evil as good.
In one of novelist John Steinbeck’s books he has a character saying: “If it succeeds, they will be thought not crooked but clever.” In our desire to achieve success quickly, it is easy to get our values mixed up and call evil good and good evil.
Another way to call evil good is to say that morals are relative. Someone has said: “As the occasion, so the behavior.” We have changed our moral code to fit our behavior instead of changing our behavior to harmonize with our moral code. Nothing is firm today. We are not on solid ground. Young people are shifting from one side to the other. Morally, they are drifting aimlessly without compass or guide.
Still another way that evil is called good is for the conscience to be perverted, and certainly our consciences today are perverted. But right is right even if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong. God does not change the moral law to suit our behavior.
…The modern conscience has been twisted and distorted so badly that it is difficult to tell what is genuine and what is false.
Self-centeredness is another reason we are so inclined to call evil good. When something brings profit or pleasure to us we are inclined to call evil good, even though we know it is dead wrong. “But it’s what I’ve always wanted,” or, “It’s good for me, although I know it’s wrong” are the alibis we have manufactured to justify evil and call it good.
It is very apparent that there is something that is literally tearing apart the fabric of our country.
The only conclusion that I, as a Christian American can reach, is the fact that our Sovereign Nation is in the midst of SPIRITUAL WARFARE for its very soul.
Make no mistake about it, boys and girls, EVIL EXISTS.
My friends, I believe that we are fighting a war against “princes and principalities”. Evil is still alive and well and flourishing in a world in which relative morality and situational ethics are increasingly being accepted as normal behavior.
We see it everyday around us.
It inundates the cable news channels, 24 hours a day. Heck, you can even see it on Facebook.
Since Cain slew Able with a rock, mankind, because we are all fallen creatures, has had to deal with the presence of evil in our lives.
From the legendary massacres, perpetrated by Vlad the Impaler, to the horrific scenes of Hitler’s Concentration Camps, to the killing fields of Pol Pot, to the massacre of innocent Middle Eastern Christians by Islamic State, to the murders by Chicago Street Gangs every night, the Forces of Evil continue to flourish across the globe.
Who we as a nation are struggling with are those forces who want to turn our country into not just an immoral society, but, an amoral one, whose concept of right and wrong is “Whatever Gets You Through the Night (It’s Alright. It’s Alright.)”, and whose ultimate authority is not the God of Abraham, but a Godless All-Powerful Central Government, whose credo is
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. (Karl Marx)
Just as Marxism has failed wherever it has been tried before, if the Far Left Democrats have their way, so it would lead to America’s downfall.
The galling thing is the fact that, even though American Christians remain 75% of the population, we are propagandized and suppressed by the Liberals in both the Old and New Media, to make it seem as if WE are the Minority, when, in fact, WE are the overwhelming Majority.
It is this New Generation of Amoral Marxists, who have taken over the Democratic Party, who are in fact, just a tiny, albeit vocal, Minority of America’s population.
So, what can an average Christian American, like you and me, do about this “Tyranny of the Minority”?
Christians have to make a choice in these tough times whether to allow those who are attempting to “radically change” our Sovereign Nation, given to us by God into a Democratic Socialist Paradise or…
As the Apostle Paul tells us in Ephesians, we can STAND.
However, you cannot stand without “the full armor of God”. I have found, as have my family and friends, that the better that you are doing, in terms of your Christian Walk, the harder that you will be attacked.
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.…- Ephesians 6:10-12
Our Christianity as Americans does not and can not end at Noon on Sunday, as we shake the Preacher’s hand and walk out of the sanctuary (those of us who still get to go and are not “quarantined” at home).
“Onward, Christian Soldiers, marching as to war.”
Because believe me, Americans…we are in one.
With his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, President Trump has fired a shot across the bow of those Americans who not only hate our country and our Traditional American Faith and Values, but who also look down at with disdain those of us who cherish them.
Isaiah 5:20 tells us
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Stay tuned, gentle readers. they are about to one again reveal themselves for the entire world to see.
Pray for our President.
Pray for Amy Coney Barrett.
Pray for our country.
And, vote on November 3rd.
Until He Comes,
FoxNews.com reports that
Almost immediately after news of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, some verified Twitter users threatened arson and apparent violence in order to block Republicans from replacing her before the elections.
“If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f—–g thing down,” author Reza Aslan tweeted. He later responded to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s vow to hold a vote on President Trump’s nominee. “Over our dead bodies, literally,” he tweeted.
Author Aaron Gouveia similarly blasted McConnell’s statement, saying: “F–k no. Burn it all down.”
A Canadian political science professor called for arson, prompting accusations he made a terroristic threat. “Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS,” Waterloo professor Emmett MacFarlane tweeted.
In response, Canadian attorney Ezra Levant worried about the consequences for MacFarlane’s students.
“Macfarlane is a professor at @UWaterloo, promoting violence against his political enemies,” he said. “If you were a young woman in his class who was a Trump supporter, would you risk being a target of his violent rage if he found out about you? Should you transfer to a different class?”
Ginsburg’s death came just weeks before the presidential election and opened the opportunity for Republicans to dramatically shift power on the Supreme Court by confirming another conservative justice. Democrats have long criticized McConnell, R-Ky., of hypocrisy given his previous refusal to hold a vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland before the 2016 elections.
McConnell has maintained, however, that Garland’s confirmation was unique in that the Senate and executive branch were controlled by different parties. That isn’t the case in the wake of Ginsburg’s death.
The incredibly high stakes prompted what appeared to be panicked reactions from many on Twitter. Writer Beau Willimon threatened: “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.”
A member of Wisconsin’s ethics commission, Scott Ross, ordered Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., to “burn it all down” if he couldn’t stop McConnell. “F—–g A, Ed. If you can’t shut it down, burn it down,” he said.
Other tweets didn’t contain violent threats but indicated opponents wouldn’t take Ginsburg’s replacement lying down.
“If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots,” warned GQ writer Laura Bassett.
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld responded to the controversy by criticizing anyone who might mock people for worrying about political terrorism.
“[L]eftists promise violence and ‘burning it all down'” if they don’t get what they want. Then their enablers in media mock you for worrying that there might be violence and ‘burning it all down’ when the leftists don’t get what they want,” Gutfeld said.
Isn’t it funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant among us, are actually the most intolerant of all of us?
So, anyway, here we are…with a bunch of paid and unpaid “useful idiots”, i.e., Far Left Wannabe Marxists, telling all of us normal Americans living out here in the Heartland, how stupid and intolerant we are, for actually holding on to Traditional American Values and wanting to “Make America Great Again” through allowing President Donald J. Trump to make the same decisions that everyone else who ever held the office of the President of the United States of America has had the power to make.
I have heard this kind of garbage before.
Back in 2011, I got into a discussion on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website with some Cheetos-munching, Mom’s basement-dwelling Lib with no home training, who proceeded to tell me that he would be proud to defecate on the American Flag.
If I could have reached through my computer monitor and throttled that useless, ungrateful spoiled brat, I would have.
That “dude” was yet another example of the useful idiots of this present generation, such as the members of Antifa and BLM, who seem to be garnering a lot of national attention for their outrageous, disrespectful, intolerant…and, yes, violent, behavior.
Just as we have bore witness to the glorification of thugs and the vilifying of our local police departments by the Obama Administration and the local “communities” which they lay their lives on the line for, every day they put on their uniforms, the effects of LBJ’s “Great Society” on American Culture and the Black Family Unit, so are we witnessing, through the behavior of this present generation of “New Bolsheviks”, who riot, threaten, and commit violence when they don’t “get their way”.
The behavior of these New Bolsheviks is what happens when children are left to “their own devices”, instead of being raised “in the way in which they should go”.
These “spoiled brats”, as exemplified by those who are threatening riots and physical violence towards the President, do not care about the “Will of the People”, but, rather, they are intent on implementing and enforcing their Far Left Political Ideology, resulting in a “Tyranny of the Minority”, which we saw play out, as paid and unpaid protestors attempted to stop the Nomination and Installation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh as our latest Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, Trump’s Campaign Rallies, in an attempt to somehow halt the fulfilling of President Trump’s Campaign Promises in order to stop comeback of America which he has been responsible for and to hold on to their “FREE STUFF” bestowed upon them by the “benevolent masters” of the Democrat Party, and recently in the horrible riots and violence in our major cities on behalf of criminals who did not deserve any support.
If you have ever attempted to debate a Liberal on a Facebook Political Page or a Political Website, they always attempt to present their opinions as facts, with nothing by Political Rhetoric to back them up.
The use of Karl Marx/Saul Alinsky-inspired “Class War Politics” by the Democratic Leadership, while promising to somehow restore Barack Hussein Obama’s “share the wealth” failed Domestic Policy, has inspired these self-absorbed Modern American Liberals to act like the Bolsheviks of the Russian Revolution, in an attempt to create a divided nation, the likes of which has not been seen since “The War of Northern Aggression” for the sole purpose, as Senator Lindsey Graham pointed out in the Kavanaugh Hearings, to gain back their political power.
When our Founding Fathers sat down to provide form and substance to the laws and procedures for governing this new country, which they had fought and won a bloody war over, by pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, they were very aware of the price of tyranny and the danger of mob rule.
They determined that this new nation would be a Constitutional Republic, having had their fill of monarchies.
And, that Sacred Document, our United States Constitution, gives each of us the right, including Trump, to speak our minds and be heard.
It gives the protestors of the Presidency of Donald J. Trump that right, too…but, not at the expense of others, by attempting to destroy a good man through lies and innuendos or by strong-arming and harassing those who refuse to believe the way they do, for the expressed purpose of denying someone their First Amendment Rights.
Our Constitution, in fact, allowed then-Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton to call all of us who believe in Traditional American Values and the preservation of American as the Greatest Country on God’s Green Earth “Deplorables”.
However, that same Constitution, which Americans have fought and died for to preserve, also gives me the right to label the self-entitlement-driven condescending Political Ideology of these New Bolsheviks what it actually is:
HYPOCRITICAL INTOLERANT VIOLENT UN-AMERICAN MARXISM
Ignore the New Bolshevik punks, Mr. President.
FILL THE SEAT!!!
Until He Comes,
“The Committee’s impeachment investigation related to obstruction of justice pertaining to the Russia investigation is ongoing” Douglas Letter, House of Representatives General Counsel, Supreme Court Filing
FoxNews.com reports that
House Democrats told the Supreme Court on Monday that they are again in the midst of an “ongoing presidential impeachment investigation” as part of their “weighty constitutional responsibility” – and, the Democrats argued, redacted grand-jury material from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s now-completed Russia probe must be turned over as a result.
Top Democrats have repeatedly suggested since President Trump was acquitted on two articles of impeachment in February that they might initiate new impeachment proceedings. In their brief with the Supreme Court, which seeks testimony, exhibits and transcripts, the Democrats promised that leaks won’t be a problem, owing to their “special protocols” that will ensure “secrecy.”
“The [House Judiciary] Committee’s investigation did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial,” the Democrats told the nine justices on Monday. “If this material reveals new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles adopted by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.”
Specifically, the Democrats said they were looking into “the possible exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the Roger Stone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the special counsel.”
In Stone’s case, the DOJ reversed a sentencing recommendation to Judge Amy Berman Jackson by former Mueller prosecutors that Stone should receive nine years in prison for obstructing Congress and related charges, saying it was obviously too harsh; indeed, Jackson later sentenced Stone to just three years in prison.
And, the DOJ has moved to dismiss Flynn’s case entirely, citing a mountain of exculpatory material that has surfaced since his guilty plea on one count of false statements to FBI agents, even after prosecutors had assured the court they had turned over all potentially relevant documents. Neither Flynn nor Stone were accused of conspiring with Russians, despite months of unfounded speculation. (“Flynn to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with Russians: Report,” read a false 2017 CNBC headline. ABC News’ Brian Ross was suspended for the report’s inaccurate claim that then-candidate Trump had told Flynn to reach out to Moscow, which the network admitted was a “serious error.”)
Earlier this month, the DOJ filed an emergency 3 with the Supreme Court to temporarily block an order by theD.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held by a 2-1 vote that the government needed to turn over the grand-jury materials. The DOJ has argued that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) protects the secrecy of grand-jury materials and that the exception allowing the disclosure “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding” didn’t apply, especially given Trump’s acquittal by the Senate in an impeachment trial earlier this year.
But, Democrats have argued that preliminary impeachment hearings in the House constitute a pending judicial proceeding. They emphasized in their filing with the Supreme Court on Monday that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals explicitly agreed with them on that point.
“[B]ecause that exception encompasses impeachment proceedings and the committee has established a ‘particularized need’ for the grand jury materials, the order of the district court is affirmed,” Judge Judith Rogers wrote in the D.C. appellate court’s decision, siding with the House Democrats.
To establish a “particularized need” under existing case law, the Democrats noted, parties seeking grand-jury material under Rule 6(e) must show (1) “that the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding,” (2) “that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy,” and (3) “that their request is structured to cover only material so needed.”
The lower court in the case had also held that precedent supported the idea that an impeachment trial is akin to a judicial proceeding, citing a case that allowed the disclosure of grand jury material for the impeachment investigation of President Richard Nixon.
The Circuit Court also agreed that the lower court properly used its discretion in determining that the possibility of new articles of impeachment stemming from the grand jury materials satisfied the requirement for a “particularized need.”
The DOJ, however, has countered that having a court evaluate the House’s needs related to impeachment would be “in considerable tension with the House’s ‘sole Power of Impeachment’ and the Senate’s ‘sole Power to try all Impeachments,'” as laid out in the Constitution.
The Justice Department has also emphasized the need for a pause in the case. “Absent a stay of the court’s mandate, the government will have to disclose those materials on May 11, 2020, which would irrevocably lift their secrecy and possible frustrate the government’s ability to seek further review,” the DOJ wrote in their filing, explaining the necessity for the Supreme Court to step in.
But, the Democrats maintained, any delay would serve no legitimate purpose for the DOJ, and only continue to frustrate their Article I impeachment power.
…Trump has noted that no Russian collusion with his campaign was proven, and Republicans and even left-of-center commentators argued that Russian disinformation was irrelevant, given that social media and other platforms are already rife with inaccuracies.
“Before a pandemic, there was a time when we were relentlessly told to fear Russian social media accounts,” mused journalist Aaron Mate on Monday. “Their juvenile memes not only elected Trump, but also ‘sowed chaos.’ When Mueller indicted 13 Russians over it, he was hailed as a hero. Well, DOJ just dropped the case.”
What we have here, boys and girls, is the Democratic Party being so consumed by their hatred for a sitting President and those who elected him, that they are devoting their energy to a strategy to remove him from office which has failed before instead of reopening America so that its citizens may return to their jobs and provide for their families.
In a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee last December, Rep. Nadler said,
“We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems, when the president threatens the very integrity of that election.”
Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, and the rest of the House Democrats are aware that average Americans have more important issues to deal with that their frivolous attempts at removing President Donald J. Trump from the Oval Office.
They don’t care.
Americans have seen this load of fertilizer before.
During the closing arguments of the First Impeachment Hearings, the citizens of the United States of America witnessed a bunch of lies which they had heard and seen before during the “Impeachment Inquiry” held by the House Democrats.
The House Managers, chosen by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, repeated these lies ad infinitum in the hopes that their verbal torture would force “Moderate” Republican Senators to turn against President Donald J. Trump and to side with them and their Democrat colleagues in the Senate, instead of doing the right thing and standing in unity with their fellow Republicans and vote for dismissal of the Sham Impeachment or to acquit the President .
During their closing arguments, not only did the Democrat House Managers lie their hindquarters off, they instructed and insulted Republican Senators, telling them that they would not be doing “right” if they did not vote to impeach Trump.
Quite frankly, in this Deplorable’s eyes, Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, Waters, Jeffries, and the rest of the House Democrats accomplished nothing by their behavior before, during, and after their Sham Impeachment except to establish themselves in the eyes of average Americans between the coasts as the “Poster Children” for the 3-year long National Temper Tantrum which began the night of November 8, 2016 when Political Outsider Donald J. Trump defeated the “Chosen One” Hillary Clinton to become the 45th President of the United States of America.
If the Democrat Elite believe that they would accomplish anything by attempting another Sham Impeachment of President Trump, they have not been paying attention.
Average Americans were not paying any attention to them at all the first time.
We watched clips of their whining on Fox News before and after WORK.
And, those Americans who began watching them, soon changed channels, as the ratings showed at the time.
From the Democratic Elite to be allowing the House Democrats to be attempting another Sham Impeachment, tells me that they know that Sleepy Joe Biden does not have a chance of being elected President this November.
I wish those affected by Trump Derangement Syndrome, like the House Democrats would work as hard to help average Americans as they do trying to overturn their 2016 President Election Votes.
Until He Comes,
FoxNews.com reports that
Top 2020 Democratic contenders Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker and Julian Castro announced on Sunday that Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh “must be impeached,” after a new, uncorroborated and disputed allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh surfaced in a weekend New York Times piece.
The revitalized, longshot push to get Kavanaugh removed from the high court comes as Democrats’ apparent effort to impeach President Trump has largely stalled. Trump, for his part, suggested Sunday that Kavanaugh should sue for defamation.
The Times piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their forthcoming book, asserted that a Kavanaugh classmate, Clinton-connected nonprofit CEO Max Stier, “saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”
The Times did not mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”
According to the Times, Stier “notified senators and the FBI about this account, but the FBI did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly.”
But, the Times’ article also conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly’s book found that the female student in question had denied any knowledge of the alleged episode.
“The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event,” observed The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway. “Seems, I don’t know, significant.”
The book reads: “[Tracy] Harmon, whose surname is now Harmon Joyce, has also refused to discuss the incident, though several of her friends said she does not recall it.”
“Omitting these facts from the @nytimes story is one of worst cases of journalistic malpractice that I can recall,” wrote the National Review’s Washington correspondent, John McCormack on Twitter.
McCormack wrote separately: “If Kavanaugh’s ‘friends pushed his penis,’ then isn’t it an allegation of wrongdoing against Kavanaugh’s ‘friends,’ not Kavanaugh himself? Surely even a modern liberal Yalie who’s been to one of those weird non-sexual ‘naked parties’ would recognize both the female student and Kavanaugh are both alleged victims in this alleged incident, barring an additional allegation that a college-aged Kavanaugh asked his ‘friends’ to ‘push his penis.'”
The Times went on to note in the article that it had “corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier,” but the article apparently meant only that the Times had corroborated that Stier made his claim to the FBI. No first-hand corroboration of the alleged episode was apparently obtained.
Nevertheless, Democrats announced a new effort to topple Kavanaugh. Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono — who infamously said last year that Kavanaugh did not deserve a fair hearing because he might be pro-life — said the Senate Judiciary Committee should begin an impeachment inquiry to determine whether Kavanaugh lied to Congress.
Impeaching Kavanaugh would require a majority vote in the Democratic-controlled House, and a highly unlikely two-thirds vote in the GOP-majority Senate would then be needed to remove him from the bench. No Supreme Court justice or president has ever been convicted by the Senate, although eight lower-level federal judges have been.
The long odds didn’t stop 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls from joining in on the effort.
“I sat through those hearings,” Harris wrote on Twitter. “Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people. He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice. He must be impeached.”
During the hearings, Harris strongly implied that she knew Kavanaugh had improperly discussed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s then-ongoing probe with a Trump-connected lawyer.
Harris provided no evidence for the bombshell insinuation, which went viral on social media and sent the hearing room into stunned silence, even as she directly accused Kavanaugh of lying under oath.
Castro and Warren echoed that sentiment and said Kavanaugh had committed perjury.
“It’s more clear than ever that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath,” Castro wrote. “He should be impeached. And Congress should review the failure of the Department of Justice to properly investigate the matter.”
Warren wrote: “Last year the Kavanaugh nomination was rammed through the Senate without a thorough examination of the allegations against him. Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached.”
O’Rourke claimed to “know” that Kavanaugh had lied under oath, and falsely said that the new accuser was not known to Senate Democrats or the FBI last year.
“Yesterday, we learned of another accusation against Brett Kavanaugh—one we didn’t find out about before he was confirmed because the Senate forced the F.B.I. to rush its investigation to save his nomination,” O’Rourke said. “We know he lied under oath. He should be impeached.”
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted in part, “This new allegation and additional corroborating evidence adds to a long list of reasons why Brett Kavanaugh should not be a Supreme Court justice. I stand with survivors and countless other Americans in calling for impeachment proceedings to begin.”
Amy Klobuchar stopped short of calling for impeachment, and instead posted a picture of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford with the words, “Let us never forget what courage looks like.”
Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, said he backed getting rid of Kavanaugh by any legal means available: “The revelations today confirm what we already knew: During his hearing, Kavanaugh faced credible accusations and likely lied to Congress. I support any appropriate constitutional mechanism to hold him accountable.”
As the calls mounted, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., shot back Sunday afternoon on Twitter — and made clear that Kavanaugh wasn’t going anywhere.
“The far left’s willingness to seize on completely uncorroborated and unsubstantiated allegations during last year’s confirmation process was a dark and embarrassing chapter for the Senate,” McConnell wrote.
He added: “Fortunately a majority of Senators and the American people rallied behind timeless principles such as due process and the presumption of innocence. I look forward to many years of service to come from Justice Kavanaugh.”
The Times’ piece also stated that well before Kavanaugh became a federal judge, “at least seven people” had heard about how he allegedly exposed himself to Deborah Ramirez at a party.
Ramirez had called classmates at Yale seeking corroboration for her story, and even told some of her classmates that she could not remember the culprit in the alleged episode — before changing her mind and publicly blaming Kavanaugh “after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney,” the New Yorker reported last year in a widely derided piece.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, then led by Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote in an executive summary of its investigation that it contacted Ramirez’s counsel “seven times seeking evidence to support claims made in the New Yorker,” but that “Ms. Ramirez produced nothing in response and refused a Committee request for an interview.”
Late Sunday, Grassley’s office called out the Times for omitting key details in the story published this weekend.
“@NYTimes did not contact Sen. Grassley’s office for this story. If they had, we would’ve reminded them of a few key public facts they omitted,” Grassley’s team wrote. “Despite 7 attempts by staff, Ms. Ramirez’ lawyers declined to provide documentary evidence referenced in the article/witness accounts to support the claims. They also declined invitations for Ms. Ramirez to speak with committee investigators or to provide a written statement.”
It seems like every day that the Democrats and/or their Propaganda Arm, the Main Stream Media, are making some sort of wild accusation against President Trump or a member of his Administration.
Unfortunately for them, nothing has stuck.
So, now, in their frustration, they are once again accusing a great American, Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, of unseemly behavior, relying on a former co-ed from Yale University who can not get any one of her contemporaries to verify her story.
The entire nation would have to be as dense as AOC not to recognize the Democrats’ and MSM’s behavior for what it is: DESPERATION.
Why are they so desperate?
To begin with, the “Notorious RBG”, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is living on borrowed time. Her age and physical condition could force her to step down from the Supreme Court at any time. In fact, her handlers may have already told the Democratic Party Hierarchy that she will be stepping down soon.
Even if she does not step down due to health issues, realistically her age will not allow her to serve for much longer.
With President Trump doing such an excellent job at filling spaces in the Judiciary with Conservative judges, the Democrats cannot afford to lose a Judge’s seat on the highest court in the land.
Or course, as regards the Democrats’ desperation, the 800 pound gorilla sitting on the sofa is the fact that all of their potential Presidential Candidates STINK ON ICE.
Even as ideologically strident as the Far Left Democrats are, their sphincters must have slammed shut when they saw actual internal polling which no doubt showed that Americans are less than enamored of the losers whom they are presenting as their choice for the next President of the United States of America.
This year’s Democratic Primary Candidates’ lack of likability make the Queen of Mean, Hillary Clinton, look like Mary Poppins.
Having said all that, look for the Democrats and their lackeys in the Main Stream Media to continue concocting Fake News Stories and rehashing old ones in their attempt to keep President Trump from being reelected.
Instead of “all the news that’s fit to print”…today’s Main Stream Media’s motto is
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.”
Unfortunately for them, average Americans aren’t baffled at all.
Until He Comes,
Desperation: a state of despair, typically one which results in rash or extreme behavior
FoxNews.com reports that
More than five dozen women came forward Friday to defend Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh against an alleged high school incident, calling President Trump’s pick for the high court “a good person.”
The 65 women, who claim to have known Kavanaugh for more than 35 years, penned a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to vouch for 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,” the letter read. “We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the Committee at this time.”
The women wrote that while Kavanaugh attended Georgetown Preparatory School, an all-boys high school in Bethesda, Maryland, they knew him 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,” they wrote. “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.”
They added: “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 amid a controversy ignited by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who released a statement this week saying that she turned information about Kavanaugh over to the FBI. She did not detail the accusation, and Republicans accused her of trying to orchestrate a last-minute smear.
“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Feinstein said in a surprise statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
Fox News confirmed that the letter involved an allegation about Kavanaugh while in high school in the 1980s. A woman who was also in high school at the time, accused Kavanaugh of holding her down and trying to force himself on her during a party, before she got away. The details were first reported by The New Yorker.
The woman also claimed Kavanaugh was joined at the time by a friend who turned up music to conceal her protests. The unnamed classmate, quoted in the New Yorker article as having “no recollection of that,” is Mark Judge, Fox News confirmed. His identity was first reported by The Weekly Standard.
“It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way,” Judge said, adding that he still does not know the identity of the woman who made the allegations.
Kavanaugh denied the allegations Friday.
“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh, 53, said in a statement.
The White House blasted the charges on Thursday.
“Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new ‘information’ about him,” White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement.
What Senator Feinstein did was the act of a desperate politician.
According to an article posted on July 4th at LATimes.com,
Though California primary voters supported U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein by a huge margin, state party insiders are readying for a fight over choosing a favorite in her general election race against fellow Democrat state Sen. Kevin de León.
Feinstein, in an apparent attempt to avoid what could be an embarrassing loss, called for unity on Tuesday and urged party leaders to decline to endorse anyone at the upcoming executive board meeting where the endorsement question will be decided.
“Republicans would like nothing more than to see Democrats fighting each other, and a formal endorsement in our race will divide our party at the exact time we need to come together and focus on the general election,” Feinstein, who is seeking a fifth full term, wrote in an email to state Democrats.
The drama over an official endorsement is another indication that California’s Democrat-on-Democrat fight for the Senate seat, born out of the state’s top-two primary system, is exposing fractures among the party’s moderates and progressives. Neither candidate won a primary endorsement but De León came close, winning 54% of votes, shy of the 60% needed to secure the nod. Feinstein received just 37%.
And, don’t forget her fondness for Red China(but never with a blue tablecloth)…
An alleged Chinese spy reportedly infiltrated Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) office by posing as her driver for 20 years, according to multiple reports.
Reports from Politico and the San Francisco Chronicle revealed the alleged Chinese government mole posed as a staffer in Feinstein’s San Francisco office— serving as the California Democrat’s driver, Asian-American community liaison, and stand-in for the senator at Chinese consulate events.
Politico reported that the staffer allegedly delivered non-top-secret political intelligence to Chinese consulate officials in San Francisco. Five years ago, the FBI told Feinstein—who served as chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee—that her staffer was a spy.
The California Democrat was reportedly “mortified” by the news and fired the staffer but did not disclose the news to the rest of her staff.
The FBI could not charge the individual with espionage because none of what he leaked was considered to be classified information, making it difficult for the agency to prosecute him.
Feinstein is definitely from the old school of Democrats.
She has done quite well for herself as a professional politician. However, just like Nancy Pelosi, she finds herself in the twilight of her career, seeking desperately to hold onto what little power within her state and within the New Far Left Democratic Party while somehow remaining relevant.
Through a strategy born of desperation, she attempted to slander a very good man who is destined to be our next Supreme Court Justice.
Her strategy has failed miserably as even members of her own political party are seeing it for the weak sauce that it is.
Feinstein and her fellow Democratic Senators could not make Judge Brett Kavanaugh look bad during the Confirmation Hearings. In fact, he made THEM look silly.
Of course, that doesn’t take much. However, Judge Kavanaugh still more than held his own and looked impressive while doing so.
Feinstein, through her attempted slandering of Kavanaugh has actually proved us with a prime example of the present mindset of the Democratic Party Hierarchy.
They are all so desperate to somehow damage President Trump, to somehow, someway derail “The Trump Train” which is bringing back our economy and accomplishing more in less than two years than his predecessor did in 8, that they will unashamedly slander anyone connected with him in order to do so.
This ineffectual strategy by Feinstein and her fellow Democrats has already grown old and tiresome in the eyes of average Americans and will be one of those responsible for the political “Red Wave” which will occur in less than two months in the Midterm Elections.
Even “Sainted” ol’ Jimmy Carter, himself an ineffectual Democratic President, warned the Democrats this past week against their current political strategy of moving to the Far Left of the Political Spectrum.
However, I doubt that they were listening to the 90-something year old from Plains, Georgia.
They did not listen to us average Americans in 2016, why should they listen to him now?
After all, they are way too smart for that.
Just ask President Clinton.
Until He Comes,
Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever. – William Howard Taft
If you have not heard by now, the booming thunderclap that you heard yesterday morning was not a prelude to the Second Coming, it was Modern American Liberals slamming their sphincters shut in unison over the announcement that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring.
Once the announcement was made, Liberals started melting down all over the cable news networks and social media.
It was glorious to behold.
The realization that elections have consequences has finally hit them, bursting through their year and one-half long Nation Temper Tantrum like Mama’s yardstick across their legs.
It was painful enough when Billionaire Businessman Donald J. Trump beat their “Chosen One” Hillary Clinton for the Presidency.
Now Democrats, from Tinseltown to the Beltway, have suddenly realized that with Kennedy’s crucial swing vote no longer available, Constitutional Law will once again be the Order of the Day at SCOTUS.
Everything that the Progressive Movement has accomplished since Calvin Coolidge may very well be undone through a combination of a President and a Judicial Branch who both believe in upholding the Constitution of the United States of America.
All the Liberals can do now is to attempt to stall the nomination of the next Justice by asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to enforce the “Biden Rule”, a move which would delay the seating of the next Justice until after the Mid-Term Elections in November, as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did yesterday.
Unfortunately for ol’ “Chuck U.” and the rest of the Hive-Mind, McConnell announced that the Senate would be voting on the nomination in the Fall.
During his radio program yesterday, Rush Limbaugh observed that,
Two weeks ago they were thinking and praying about a blue wave, winning the House back, and impeaching Trump, and bringing back nirvana. And now, and now their judge, their judge, their abortion judge, their gay marriage judge, their affirmative action judge is leaving! Oh, now. Can you imagine? Everything has gone to hell for these people inside of two years.
However, it’s not just the Democrats who have a tear in their beer, it’s all of the “Never Trumpers”.
Trump is doing exactly what he promised that he would do. He’s WINNING.
Oh, and here’s something else to chew on: At least one more of the Supreme Court Justices could retire before Trump has to run for reelection.
That means that the Supreme Court could be a Conservative Court for decades to come.
To paraphrase country singer Toby Keith,
How do you like him, now?
Until He Comes,