Monday, September 24, 2018

“CONCERNED” DEMS AREN’T CONCERNED ABOUT PAST SEXUAL ASSAULTS BY DEMS

“CONCERNED” DEMS AREN’T CONCERNED ABOUT PAST SEXUAL ASSAULTS BY DEMS

It’s amusing, in a sickening sort of way, to hear Senate Democrats say it’s unacceptable to have on the Supreme Court someone “credibly” accused of assaulting a woman 36 years ago, when he was in high school. Who among these “outraged” Senators has complained about serving with Democratic colleagues credibly accused of, and in at least two cases admitting to, assaulting women?
Sen. Sherrod Brown’s ex-wife claimed that Brown threw her up against a wall and showed “physical violence and abusive nature.” This allegation is contained in court documents. According to this source, Larke Brown told the court, “I am also intimidated by the Defendant and am in fear for the safety and well-being of myself and our children due to the Defendant’s physical violence and abusive nature.” A judge reportedly granted her request for a restraining order against Sherrod Brown.
Brown’s alleged assault occurred in 1986, around the time Kavanaugh allegedly jumped on Christine Blasey Ford. However, Brown was an adult, unlike Kavanaugh. And Larke Brown made her claim roughly contemporaneously with the alleged assault. She didn’t wait 36 years.
It must also be mighty difficult for Kavanaugh’s Senate critics to serve with Sen. Tom Carper. He admits he gave his ex-wife a black eye. In a 1998 interview, Carper stated:
Did I slap my wife 20 years ago? Yes. Do I regret it? Yes. Would I do it again? No.
I slapped Diane one time. It was a stupid thing to do and I. . .regret it now. It caused some discoloration of her left eye and some puffiness.
Just one time, or so he says. Shouldn’t MeToo movement Democrats be asking how many free pokes a man gets to take at his wife?
Then, there’s Cory “Spartacus” Booker. Expect much posturing, including hand on heart, from Booker if hearings on Ford’s allegation proceed.
But Booker has admitted groping a friend when he was in high school. He made the admission in a characteristically pompous column in the Stanford school newspaper.
The column is vintage Booker. He tried to show, in the most pretentious way possible, how enlightened he had become since his high school days.
Because Booker is a fabulist, we cannot be confident that he actually groped his friend or, if he did, that he was actually a reformed sexual harasser during his time at Stanford (or now). But his admission of groping in high school renders ridiculous his expressions of outrage over someone else’s alleged groping during the same stage of life.
And what about Mazie Hirono? From her perch on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she asks every male judicial nominee whether he has ever sexually harassed or assaulted anyone.
Yet, according to the Washington Free Beacon, Hirono’s Senate campaign accepted $1,000 from Sen. Carper’s First State PAC in June of this year. The Free Beacon cites Federal Election Commission records.
That’s Sen. Carper, the wife beater. And that’s Sen. Hirono who declared this week:
As Americans, it’s on all of us to take a stand and do what is right—regardless of political party. It’s time to stand up for victims of sexual assault and harassment.
Hirono won’t divulge whether she has discussed Carper’s spousal abuse with the Delaware Senator. As far as we know, she hasn’t returned the $1,000.
Finally, let’s not forget the case of Keith Ellison. He stands very credibly accused of assaultingtwo women as an adult. Contemporaneous police records back up at least one of the assault claims.
Yet, Ellison remains Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee. To my knowledge, none of the Democratic Senators expressing outrage over the prospect of Kavanaugh serving on the Supreme Court has publicly demonstrated any discomfort over Ellison serving as the number two person at the DNC.
It’s difficult to resist the view that congressional Democrats don’t care about youthful indiscretions towards women, even violent ones. Indeed, they don’t seem to care about violence against women by adult members of their caucus and party leadership.
What do they care about? Power and moving America to the left.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CONFOUNDS THE PRESS

PRESIDENT TRUMP CONFOUNDS THE PRESS

To hear the press tell it, President Trump is an unprecedented menace to the republic. Every day’s news is devoted to undermining him and his administration. Not just the New York Times and the Washington Post, but news outlets that once were regarded as relatively neutral, like the Associated Press, have made war on Donald Trump ever since his nomination for the presidency, if not before. Time after time, they have delivered blows they thought would be fatal. NBC’s leak of the Access Hollywood tape is one notorious instance among many. The Russia Hoax is another.
And our readers do not need to be reminded of Democratic politicians’ non-stop hysteria over the last 18 months.
Still, despite everything–despite his own occasional blunders as well as the unremitting hostility of all right-thinking people–Trump’s standing with the voters has barely been dented. His approval ratings move within a rather narrow range. At the moment, he is at 49% approval in the Rasmussen survey, the only rolling daily poll now being published, with 50% disapproving. Moreover, his “Approval Index”–the difference between strong approval and strong disapproval–stands at -7. That doesn’t sound great, but at the same point in his first term, Barack Obama’s Approval Index was -19.
The Democrats have yet to come to grips with the fact that so far, President Trump is more popular with voters than their idol Barack Obama. If they were more reflective, Democrats might wonder why this is so. I suppose it has to do with a booming economy, record low unemployment, especially among minorities and women, solid advances in foreign policy, and in general, a sense that we now have a president who is at least trying to advance American interests. To put America first, in other words.
If there is a Democratic politician who understands the appeal of economic success, strong foreign policy and a focus on the interests of American citizens, he is assiduously keeping his mouth shut. I am not aware of any dissenters in the Democratic ranks. Democrats are too focused on President Trump’s supposed illegitimacy to ponder why he has been successful.
In 2010, Republicans gained 63 seats in the House and took control of that chamber, and picked up six Senate seats. That was largely due to President Obama’s unpopularity, especially as reflected in the widely disliked “stimulus” package and Obamacare.
No one imagines that the Democrats will do anywhere near as well this year. But then, they don’t need to. I believe they only need 23 seats to take control of the House, and the GOP Senate majority is razor-thin. By historical standards, 23 seats is a very low bar for a president’s first midterm election.
When Republicans made massive gains in 2010, the press did not hail those midterm results as a repudiation of President Obama, such that he might be evicted from office or effectively neutered for the remainder of his term. Rather, they stuck steadfastly to their support for the president, heedless of his policy failures.
That won’t happen this year. If Democrats make modest gains, the press will hail them as a definitive repudiation of President Trump and his policies, and will redouble its efforts to incapacitate the administration.
None of this is fair, or makes any sense, objectively. But it is the skewed world we live in. The good news is that most voters are on to the Democrats’ game, and don’t care what the press says about the president or, frankly, much else. That is a very healthy development. Which suggests that if the Democrats manage to eke out control over one or both chambers of Congress in November, Trump’s supporters will be unfazed and the political battle will continue to rage.

The Left’s Long Attempt to DerailKavanaugh Vote by Any Means Necessary


·          
·          
·          
·          
·          
·          
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., questions witnesses who are giving testimony on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill, Sept. 7, 2018. (Photo: Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom)
Commentary By
Portrait of Star Parker
Star Parker is a columnist for The Daily Signal and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education.
While questioning Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about abortion during his Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., grossly misstated statistics about abortion deaths before Roe v. Wade.
“In the 1950s and 1960s, two decades before Roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. That’s according to the Guttmacher Institute.”
The Guttmacher Institute has very close ties to the abortion lobby, but even its numbers proved Feinstein way off base.
The Guttmacher study actually reported 200,000 to 1.2 million as the number of procedures. Regarding actual deaths, in 1965, for example, there were 200, according to Guttmacher.
When corrected, Feinstein was dismissive of the gravity of her error. “So, a lot of women died in that period,” she demurred.
Feinstein’s distortion of data points to the agenda driving this new discussion from the left to derail the Kavanaugh vote by any means necessary.
Nothing, certainly not facts, will get in the way of their attempts to control the courts, regardless of any collateral damage done to the reputation of an upstanding and decent man.
Thus we can understand the sudden emergence of Christine Blasey Ford and her claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, when she was 15 and he was 17.
As reported in The Washington Post, Ford, a vocal progressive and pro-Democrat donor, wrote to Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, describing the incident but requesting anonymity in July.
Apparently, Feinstein was so moved to keep the letter anonymous that she buried the contents as well as the identity of the author.
Per reports, Feinstein did not ask Kavanaugh about this in her interview with him prior to the hearings. Nor did she question Kavanaugh about it during the hearings.
Suddenly, two months after Feinstein received Ford’s letter, she announced she had information about Kavanaugh that she reported to the FBI.
Then a story revealing the contents of Ford’s letter appeared in the press. Days later, Ford concluded her “civic responsibility” compelled her to shed anonymity and step forward, armed with a polygraph test corroborating her story and a seasoned, progressive legal adviser.
How can anyone take this seriously?
Even liberals should concede that in America one is innocent until proven guilty. Particularly with 36-year-old allegations that are impossible to corroborate.
Kavanaugh has had a long, distinguished career, serving as counsel in the White House and for the last 12 years as a federal district appeals court judge. Along with this, he has undergone a half-dozen FBI background checks, with no irregularities arising.
This is now standard fare for Democrats. When they perceive that our constitutionally defined machinery of government is not serving their far-left interests, they reach into the “dirty tricks” bag and pull out racist or sexual accusations to derail things.
This is exactly the swamp in Washington that President Donald Trump was elected to drain.
If Feinstein thought Ford’s accusations had teeth, then she had two months to vet them. It is a travesty to our system of government and justice to now interrupt the progress of Kavanaugh’s confirmation with these tenuous claims. Feinstein had her chance.
It is transparent that this is about Democrats wishing to cause a delay until after November, opening the door for a new, progressive nominee, should Democrats gain control of congress.
Nothing prevents Democrats from continuing to investigate Kavanaugh after he is confirmed—if they so wish.
The abuse that concerns me now is the abuse of our system of government by devious progressive political operatives.
It is imperative that Republicans show leadership now, before the election in November, and move forward immediately to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination.
COPYRIGHT 2018 STAR PARKER

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/09/19/the-lefts-long-attempt-to-derail-kavanaugh-vote-by-any-means-necessary/

Sunday, September 23, 2018

A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY?

A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY?

Yesterday, word circulated in certain quarters of the D.C. legal/public policy community that the assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh may be a case of mistaken identity. In other words, the incident happened, but the perpetrator wasn’t Kavanaugh.
In the version I heard, the assault was committed by a guy who attended the Landon School, not Georgetown Prep where Kavanaugh was a student. Landon and Georgetown Prep are both elite prep schools in the prosperous Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Having no idea whether this information is reliable, I wrote nothing about it. I was struck, however, by this tweet by Ed Whelan from last night:
By one week from today, I expect that Judge Kavanaugh will have been clearly vindicated on this matter. Specifically, I expect that compelling evidence will show his categorical denial to be truthful. There will be no cloud over him.
I’ve known Ed for years and have read “Bench Memos” regularly since its inception. He’s a pretty cautious guy, and not prone to wishful thinking. Thus, I was surprised by the boldness of his tweet.
The conventional wisdom among Kavanaugh’s supporters is that this a case of “he said, she said” and that the alleged episode occurred so long ago that evidence doesn’t exist conclusively to prove or disprove Ms. Ford’s allegation. But here was Ed predicting that compelling evidence would vindicate Kavanaugh.
Is Ed basing this prediction on a more detailed and better sourced version of the “mistaken identity” narrative I had picked up? His subsequent tweets suggest to me that he is.
Then, this morning, Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post wrote a column about how mistaken identity is not uncommon in cases like these. Was this column prompted by buzz that the Kavanaugh case is, indeed, one of mistaken identity?
Finally, there is this post by Ramesh Ponnuru. He cites Parker’s column and suggests that Kavanaugh “may be confident that new evidence will emerge that strongly tends to vindicate him.”
I still don’t have an opinion on whether the Kavanaugh case is one of mistaken identity. That’s a possibility, but it’s also possible that the incident didn’t occur at all or in anything like the way Ford describes. And it’s possible that Ford has gotten it right and is telling the truth.
However, some publicly known facts tend to support the mistaken identity theory. I’m thinking of (1) Ford’s failure to remember such details as where the alleged attack took place, (2) Sen. Feinstein’s seeming unwillingness to treat Ford’s story as tight enough to push forward with for months, (3) Ford’s reluctance to testify publicly (or maybe even privately) before the Judiciary Committee, (4) the reported absence of Kavanaugh’s name in the notes of the psychologist with whom she discussed the alleged incident some years back, and (5) Patrick J. Smyth’s denial of Ford’s claim that he was at the party where the assault allegedly took place.
Lack of clarity by Ford about who really attacked her would tend to explain all of the above. I emphasize, however, that such lack of clarity is not the only possible explanation.
For now, let’s just say of the mistaken identity theory: Developing. Maybe.

Trump’s Iran sanctions prove the establishment wrong — again

Trump’s Iran sanctions prove the establishment wrong — again


When President Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal back in May, the foreign-policy establishment was unanimous in its opposition.
Their dismay was rooted in loyalty to Barack Obama’s legacy and personal contempt for Trump. But there was at least one point the critics made that seemed irrefutable, in warning against the re-imposition of US sanctions on Iran’s oil exports.
Trump’s unilateral move would certainly fail because of the interest of America’s European allies as well as the Russians and Chinese in continuing to do business with Iran. But if by some chance it worked, the experts were sure that would result in a severe hike in oil prices that American consumers would feel at the gas pump.
But the experts were wrong. Reports in Bloomberg Newsechoed by The New York Times, tell us that three months into the new sanctions — and less than two months before the Trump administration plans to implement even more far-reaching restrictions on doing business with Iran that will affect US allies — the move has succeeded in crippling Iran’s oil exports without causing a significant increase in oil prices.
Iran’s principal source of foreign exchange is drying up, ratcheting up the pressure on an unpopular despotic regime without Americans having to pay appreciably more for gas.
How is that possible?
The answer is obvious, and it explains why the Obama negotiating strategy — resulting in an agreement that allowed Iran’s rogue state to keep its nuclear program and its ability to eventually create a bomb, while also enriching it — was so wrongheaded. In 2013, Obama relented just when sanctions were starting to bite and what followed was a strategic victory for Iran that brought it victory in Syria as well as a cash windfall to the tune of over $100 billion.
The Obama administration was guided by two critical false assumptions.
One was that the only way to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions, ballistic-missile program or role as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism was to work in concert with US allies as well as Russia and China. Obama and former Secretary of State John Kerry were sure that the United States could achieve nothing acting on its own and allowed countries with a greater interest in commerce with Iran than in stopping it to exercise a veto over US policy.
The other assumption was that Iran was too strong to be brought to its knees even by international sanctions. That meant Obama and Kerry saw the only choices available to the West were either war or appeasement.
So they punted on any effort to link the nuclear issue to missiles or terrorism and ultimately made concession after concession in the negotiations that wound up giving the Iranians pretty much everything they wanted while the West swallowed a terrible bargain.
But it turns out that the Iran hawks in Trump’s new foreign-policy team — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton — understood the situation better than the “adults” who urged the president not to scrap the nuclear deal. Rather than allow weak-willed allies to dictate US policy, Trump realized he could tell the appeasers what to do and make it stick because of the power of the US economy.
The shift in energy markets that led to the world being awash in oil — including the fact that the United States is now a net exporter rather than dependent on foreign sources — also means Iran has little leverage over the West.
The implications are clear.
Far from a hopeless quest, the US determination to force Iran to renegotiate the nuclear issue, cease its illegal missile program and desist from terror is a realistic goal.
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Just as important, though Trump didn’t enter the White House with much knowledge of the subject, this vindicates his instincts that the establishment is intellectually bankrupt. For decades it has guided US Middle East policy on both Iran and Israel.
The success of oil sanctions should not only encourage the United States to push Tehran harder. It’s also one more reason to ignore the so-called experts’ contempt for Trump’s unconventional but clearly spot-on approach to the region.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org and a contributor to National Review.
FILED UNDER       

Democrats’ smash and smear agenda reaches new heights

Democrats’ smash and smear agenda reaches new heights


A nation gawks as Washington sinks deeper into the muck, but put aside your disgust long enough to digest what we’re seeing. Three big things are on display.
First, Democrats are proving again that their force multiplier is a win-or-die zealotry. They were on a mission to kill anybody President Trump chose to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and, within minutes of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced he would fight Kavanaugh “with everything I have.” All 10 Dems on the Judiciary Committee pledged to vote no.
They looked silly given the nominee’s impeccable credentials, and worse when leftist legal luminaries lined up to praise Kavanaugh as a brilliant jurist and sterling father, husband and mentor.
One feminist supporter of Hillary Clinton called him “a superstar” and urged his confirmation by saying, “He is the most qualified conservative for the job.”
Yet the Dems persisted with unabashed fervor. They tried to stop the hearing before it started, took turns twisting Kavanaugh’s words and insinuated, without evidence, that dark secrets existed.
Orchestrated protests aimed to silence the Senate, an effort that collapsed in farce when Sen. Cory Booker declared he was having his “I am Spartacus” moment. His act of undaunted courage was to release documents that had been approved for release.
Yet all that was mere warmup for the character assassination plot now unfolding. Sen. Dianne Feinstein sat on the allegation of sexual misconduct for nearly two months, only to inject it into the political bloodstream after the final hearing.
Given one last chance for a kill, the assassins are determined not to let their prey escape. Even the Republican concession of a hearing for accuser Christine Blasey Ford to testify isn’t enough. Schumer demands an FBI investigation, which would ensure Kavanaugh couldn’t be confirmed before the midterm elections — and maybe never.
At this moment, Kavanaugh’s confirmation has gone from a slam dunk to a jump ball. That’s because of the second big thing to notice — some Republicans have a streak of French in them and surrendered before the first shots were fired.
With a 51-49 GOP majority, two defectors would kill Kavanaugh, and more than that have announced they have cold feet.
At least three — Jeff Flake of Arizona, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Susan Collins of Maine — are now “maybe” votes. Flake and Corker want to be the new John McCain, meaning they aim to get invited to the liberal Sunday talk shows with the understanding they will criticize other Republicans.
There are no Democrats who play the turncoat role, nor are there any Democrats — not one — who rushed to defend Kavanaugh. Only Republicans waver when the going gets tough, as if a real fight is beneath them.
That is a chief reason why Flake and Corker are “retiring.” Republican voters in their home states of Arizona and Tennessee are sick of them and neither could win a primary let alone a general election. But they appear to be set on one last act of sabotage against Trump and the party.
If that shreds Kavanaugh’s reputation for life and turns the crucial court seat over to a Dem-controlled Senate, what do they care? Their treachery will get them a glowing send-off in the New York Times and maybe some fat lobbying gigs.
Which brings us to the third reason why the kangaroo court is worth watching. It reminds once again why Trump was elected and why his presidency is so important.
Many voters looked at Washington without hope or trust in either party. They saw the Dems as too liberal and willing to stop at nothing to win, the two main legacies of the Obama presidency.
Those voters looked at Republicans with equal disgust for other reasons. They were the errand boys of Wall Street and big business but, even worse, folded like cheap suits on everything they were elected to do.
The relative handful of true conservatives in their midst, the Freedom Caucus, are treated like crazy aunts. The others, like Speaker Paul Ryan, long for the one thing liberals will never give them — respect. And so they ultimately stand for nothing because anything important means they must buck the swamp, which they won’t do.
Trump, to 63 million Americans, was the antidote to both parties. Warts and all, he still is.
He is the fighter Republicans longed for, which is why he still commands upwards of 90 percent of GOP support. They know nobody else would have beaten Clinton, so, without him, one Clinton nominee already would be on the high court and the second one about to join. Neither would be named Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh, and you can bet that many Republicans would have played nice and voted yes for her nominees.
Yes, yes, I know, Trump has created many of the dynamics that make him a lone ranger. He doesn’t always return loyalty and trusts no one as much as his own gut. Given his druthers, he would like to govern as a bipartisan president and cut deals like a Lyndon Johnson.
Maybe in the next life. In this one, Trump is the only defense against the left’s smash and smear agenda. It’s either him or the deluge.