The “BrouHaHa” That Should Not Have Happened

I’m certain you saw or heard that — apparently — the Republicans have sufficient “Yes” votes to confirm the Supreme Court Justice nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Friday at 3:00 PM Eastern, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) gave a passionate (and historical) speech on the floor of the Senate that will not soon be forgotten.

Her speech was extremely important because she, as a Moderate Republican, has been known as holding a crucial vote on all Senate confirmations for pretty much every presidential appointee — and especially on this one.  As a Moderate, Collins is pro-choice, fiscally conservative, and has been jealously watchful over Roe v Wade and Obamacare. She also has been non-committal on the Kavanaugh confirmation to everyone — until today.

The speech today was lengthy, well thought-out, well-written, and VERY specific and non-political. It was without question the best U.S. Senate speech I have ever heard from any senator or any other, and will undoubtedly go down as a “forever” reminder of how dangerous American politicization has become and the necessity of abandoning it to help our nation re-engage with the Rule of Law. 

It was so appropriate and to-the-point, I am attaching it in its entirety in PDF format below so that you can download and keep it for your reference and that of your children. I will refer in my Summary to that speech as I wrap-up today’s story titled “The BrouHaHa That Should Not Have Happened,” but will spare you from reading her speech in its entirety as part of this story. PLEASE, download it and read it for yourself.

Analysis

At the top of her speech, Senator Collins hit the nail on the head as it pertains to members of the U.S. Senate exercising their right and responsibility regarding the confirmation process of presidential appointees — specifically that of Brett Kavanaugh:

“Now it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution’s advice-and-consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I’ve never considered the president’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan nominated by President Obama. And Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump. So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. 19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge’s extensive record.  I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. I also have met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents regarding Judge Kavanaugh.”

Here’s what set Senator Collins apart from all those who had embraced the madness that Americans watched play-out in this highly publicized and amazingly partisan war of words over the last two weeks: SHE investigated Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive judicial history, examined his 300 published case opinions, read his numerous speeches and judicial writings, and then interviewed him personally for more than 2.5 hours. She asked him every imaginable question about all those things that are pertinent for any person seeking a seat on any federal court — especially the Supreme Court.

She listened to the opinions of thousands of her constituents who were both in support of Kavanaugh and against him. She spoke to both Democrat and Republican fellow senators at length listening to their thoughts on the nominee. Don’t forget she watched and listened to the many hours of his testimony and responses to questions posed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the same during the second hearing before the Committee in which both Professor Christine Ford and Kavanaugh addressed her 35-year-old allegations of sexual abuse against Judge Kavanaugh.

“Advice and Consent”

In the United States, “advice and consent” is a power of the United States Senate to be consulted on and approve treaties signed and appointments made by the President of the United States to public positions, including Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, United States Attorneys, and ambassadors.

The term “advice and consent” first appears in the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, referring to the Senate’s role in the signing and ratification of treaties. This term is then used again, to describe the Senate’s role in the appointment of public officials, immediately after describing the president’s duty to nominate officials. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Needless to say, Senator Collins fulfilled her Senatorial obligation of “advice and consent.”

Summary

Before you read Senator Collins’ speech attached below, I have some final comments regarding the “BrouHaHa” we are discussing today:

  • Our political process is far too partisan. We as Americans are approaching a tipping point regarding political matters that is tearing our republic apart. Common decency is absent from political conversations. Respect for the opinions of others is not even an afterthought. A disagreement has devolved into first anger and now hatred;
  • Some point to our forefathers who fought partisanship too. Sometimes their division resulted in physical violence, even among themselves. Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr actually had a gun duel! But it has been the better part of two centuries since this type of animus resulted in gun violence — until on a baseball field in suburban D.C. a year ago, Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) was gunned down by an angry Democrat partisan. Fortunately, Scalise has made a miraculous recovery;
  • On Thursday, 300 angry protestors who were illegally protesting the pending Kavanaugh confirmation were arrested in Washington D.C.  To make that situation worse, it was later revealed that hundreds of protestors (including some of those 300) were actually paid to protest by at least two non-profit organizations funded with several million dollars by liberal global activist George Soros to simply protest this and other conservative speakers, groups, and causes;
  • We should have known Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination would begin a political battle — especially when minutes after his nomination was announced, before any interviews, witness appearances, committee hearings or testimony was provided to senators, multiple Democrat senators publicly announced they were going to vote “no” on his confirmation. Several protestors carried professionally produced signs that said “I Am Against the President’s Nominee XX.” They did not even take the time to write Kavanaugh’s name on their signs! Obviously, to leftists, it mattered not if the nominee was Kavanaugh or some other conservative under consideration, the leftists would reject any nominee of THIS president. I thought it would have been humorous if President Trump had nominated an African American woman to the Court. Democrats would have probably treated that nominee the same, just because Donald Trump nominated her.

It may seem trivial at this stage for me to say “We need healing.” But we really do.

We’re not Republicans or Democrats or Socialists or Libertarians — WE’RE AMERICANS. The strength we have domestically and internationally comes from that strength.

There’s an age-old battle cry that has been used by many a despot, military leader, and dictator: “Divide and Conquer.” The division in the United States right now is at a fever pitch never before seen — at least not in my lifetime. What is its source? Who initiated it?  The most important question we all need to ask is “Can we obliterate it and replace it with unity?”

Senator Collins vividly painted a picture of what SHOULD have happened regarding this justice confirmation and that of every other presidential nominee to any federal position. She is a Republican. But in her speech, she spoke as an American. She challenged all of her fellow Senators and each American to go back to the drawing board, re-visit the ideals our forefathers drew upon when penning our Constitution. Further, we all should consider just how effective that constitution has worked for more than 200 years in crafting, managing, and maintaining the United States as not only the freest country on Earth but the richest — not just financially, but richest in its values regarding everything pertaining to liberty and justice for all and equal justice under the law.

We all need to examine that for ourselves. It’s decision time!

Susan Collins Kavanaugh Senate Speech

 

A Doctor: Yes or No?

Have you noticed every television anchor and news reporter since two days ago have referred to Christine Blasey Ford as “Professor Ford” or simply “Christine Ford?” I have seen or heard no one refer to her since Tuesday as “Dr. Ford.” I wonder why that is?

Millions looked in as “Dr.” Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her alleged sexual abuse at the hands of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Ms. Ford introduced herself as a “research psychologist:” “My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.” Her often stated and written title of “Dr.” has been shown to be incorrect, for Christine Blasey Ford — according to California psychologist databases — is not and never has been a licensed psychologist in California, and apparently in no other state.

An argument has been raised by the Leftist fact-finding website Snopes.com that Ford — even though not a licensed psychologist — is a “research psychologist,” which is not the same as a doctor, and calling herself that is perfectly all right. Snopes.com in their story paints a pretty picture saying (paraphrased), “It’s OK. She doesn’t treat patients and doesn’t have a practice for doing so, so it’s OK to call herself simply a ‘research psychologist.'”

I personally have no factual insight into her practice of psychology, do not know for certain she has a practice at which she sees, counsels, and treats patients. But I DO know she called herself a doctor and — at least during that 4 hour Senate Judiciary Committee hearing — never corrected anyone who addressed her as “Dr. Ford.”

That sounds innocent enough — but it apparently breaks California law.

“No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” Section 2902(c) states:“ (c) “A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words ‘psychology,’ ‘psychological,’ ‘psychologist,’ ‘psychology consultation,’ ‘psychology consultant,’ ‘psychometry,’ ‘psychometrics’ or ‘psychometrist,’ ‘psychotherapy,’ ‘psychotherapist,’ ‘psychoanalysis,’ or ‘psychoanalyst,’ or when the person holds himself or herself out to be trained, experienced, or an expert in the field of psychology.”

Hillary Clinton: “What Difference Does It Make?!”

Here’s what difference Ms. Ford’s presenting herself as a doctor makes: she isn’t nor has ever been a doctor. She has a Ph.D. from Southern Cal — an MD from nowhere.

Brett Kavanaugh is in the fight for his life right now. Every all day every day he struggles for his personal, social, professional, and family reputation that apparently (at least according to Democrats) has nothing to do with his professional law career, his last 12 years as a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C., his teaching at Harvard and Yale, longtime charity work with the poor in D.C., or his activity with youth in Washington. According to Democrats, the only thing that matters is his honesty and integrity: which they assault non-stop.

The attacks against Judge Kavanaugh originate in numerous sources. Among those sources, there is one common thread: none of the accusations of any of the dozen or so people who knew him personally in high school in the 80’s has been corroborated by anyone! The New York Times, NBC News, FOX News, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, ABC, CBS — none have been able to corroborate any of the allegations made against Kavanaugh. That inability to corroborate allegations includes those made — every allegation made — by Christine Blasey Ford. Their attacks include attempted rape, sexual assault, illegal drug and alcohol use, verbal abuse, lying, even alcoholism. NONE OF THESE HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY ANYONE — EVEN THOSE NAMED AS WITNESSES!

“What difference does it make” that Christine Ford claims professionally to be something she is not? It’s because of all of these dozens and dozens of baseless claims made by all these people against Brett Kavanaugh. No, I am not speaking about the criminal justice phrase “innocent until proven guilty.” This is not a criminal investigation, rather (as Senate Democrats say) “a job interview.” However, if the attempted rape claim made by Ford against Kavanaugh is real, he can still be prosecuted under Maryland law: there is NO statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland. That’s how serious this mess is.

Here’s the difference: it’s about integrity and character. That’s what is being attacked.

Brett Kavanaugh’s character is being attacked by many on the Left:

  1. Senator Richard Blumenthal. former Attorney General of Connecticut. For more than a decade, Blumenthal claimed that he served in combat in Vietnam. He used that in his campaigns, proudly seeking current and former military members’ votes. He never served in combat in Vietnam or anywhere else;
  2. Senator Dianne Feinstein. the California Senator held for a month the initial Ford letter detailing her allegation rather than as Senate mandatory process dictated turning that letter over to the FBI to investigate the allegations against Kavanaugh. Feinstein made that letter’s existence known only a couple of days before the Senate would vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation — using it as a political ploy. Either Feinstein or a member of her staff allegedly and “conveniently” leaked the contents of that letter to the press even after promising Ford they would keep it confidential;
  3. Senator Cory Booker. the New Jersey Senator never told anyone about the sexual assault he attempted while in college. He later wrote about it — admitting it himself — in a college newspaper;
  4. Hillary Clinton. Oh My God! Yes. She has come out questioning the nominee’s qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court and questioning the veracity of what he said under oath;

This list could go on and on. I’ll spare you the heartburn.

Summary

Here’s what matters — and pretty much is all that matters: Is Brett Kavanaugh qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice? Does he have the expertise, knowledge, experience, and temperament to do so? Are there any factual improprieties in his past that should disqualify his confirmation?

The answers to all of those are yes, yes, yes, yes, and no.

J.C. Watts — a famous African American quarterback for the University of Oklahoma — served as a Congressman from Oklahoma’s 4th Congressional District from 1995 to 2003. He won each of his elections by a landslide. He left Congress after deciding (with his family) that he should NOT run for Congress again and went into the private sector where he serves today in numerous capacities.

Watts — besides as an OU football star — is best known for giving a speech at the Republican National Convention before Bill Clinton was re-elected for his second term as president. The Monica Lewinsky incident was front and center in Washington and everywhere else in America.

In that speech, Watts defined the word “character” for Bill Clinton: “Mr. President, character is not just being honest and doing the right thing. it’s about doing the right thing when nobody else is looking.”  Of course, Congressman Watts was referring to the Lewinsky scandal and President Clinton being caught in a lie — under oath — that resulted in his impeachment for perjury.

Hundreds of personal friends, fellow workers, employees, fellow judges, former professors, politicians, and schoolmates have chimed in during these confirmation investigations confirming Brett Kavanaugh’s character with not a single asterisks included. Even while the darts, bricks, and hand grenades have flown from the Left nonstop since his nomination, Kavanaugh has kept his hand on the plow, weathered death threats against his family and himself watched his home trashed with graffiti and other vandalism, been forced into hiding. The Kavanaugh’s have been attacked in every conceivable manner short of physically. And that not happening has been a shock to me.

Brett Kavanaugh does not deserve that. He certainly does not deserve that from members of the U.S. Senate — especially those on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, Democrat members of that committee to a person have violated their oath of office and their commitment to serve in the U.S. Senate and that committee in which they promised to serve the American people and support the Constitution. They — beginning with their universal commitment to NOT vote for his confirmation within minutes of it being announced and long before any testimony, questions or answers — shows that they have discarded any shred of character they may have possessed and donned the robes of Leftist Partisans with one and only one purpose in this matter: Stop Kavanaugh at all Costs!

In doing so, these Democrats and others have taken their final steps to the abandonment of their Constitutional duties in this matter: advice and consent of the President’s Supreme Court nominee.

Brett Kavanaugh has the education, the experience, the knowledge, and the temperament to serve on the High Court.

That’s all that should matter…PERIOD.

And one more thing: Christine Blasey Ford apparently misrepresented herself as a “psychologist” when she is not nor ever has been. Any way you couch that, it’s a lie.

Here’s a conundrum for me: when someone tells one lie, how do you know which — if any — of the things they subsequently say is true and which is false? What — if anything — Christine Blasey Ford gave as “fact” in that hearing was true and which was false?

 

 

Play

Will Brett Kavanaugh Make It?

Not unexpected that Democrats announced yesterday another demand for the one-week extension in the Kavanaugh confirmation investigation to be extended further to allow inclusion of “further” allegations against the nominee. I am certain Democrats did NOT want it revealed that Professor Ford’s activist attorney Debra Katz (at least an associate of hers) began sending out group/mass emails on Friday stating (paraphrased) “We need for anyone who can shed knowledge on the true meaning of the words used by Kavanaugh in his high school yearbook to step forward immediately. Further, we need all those who will step forward with any and all sexual abuse allegations against Kavanaugh to contact us immediately.”

It’s no shock they are willing to circumvent the confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh at any cost. Their efforts have nothing to do with his qualifications to serve. Their efforts have nothing to do with the Constitutional process in place for Supreme Court Justice confirmations with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. In fact, these efforts are aimed directly at destroying this legal and historical process for liberal-left political purposes only. (We will not discuss today their political purposes because they are many in number and very well known to all)

The Price

Judge Kavanaugh’s family is paying dearly for this debacle in numerous ways. (See the atrocious cartoon here) One can only imagine the horrors all three — his wife and both daughters — face daily when interacting with their peers. That doesn’t even account for the numerous death threats they continue to receive that have resulted in 24/7 security for them.

What about Judge Kavanaugh himself?  Until a week ago, an unblemished judicial career replete with glowing recommendations from hundreds of fellow employees, classmates, professional colleagues and professors linked with his stellar record on the bench was all that was necessary for his confirmation. I seriously doubt there are any in the United States that are unaware of this logjam in his SCOTUS confirmation. I doubt any of those have NOT developed their own assessment after the internationally televised “She Said/He Said” hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

There’s something important for us all to realize: YOUR opinion, MY opinion, the opinions of ALL the Senators who serve on that committee don’t matter at the end of this. Judge Brett Kavanaugh will either be confirmed to the Supreme Court or he will not be. But none of this other stuff matters in that context. Each person’s life who is looking in on this circus will go on. Each person’s opinion will probably never be factually proven, just as happened in the 1991 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas amid similar claims made by Anita Hill. What really matters is how Brett Kavanaugh processes all this moving forward with his life.

Remember: he is serving as a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals in D.C. — a lifetime appointed position — that he will re-assume if his nomination is denied or withdrawn: or will he?

The “Kavanaugh” Opinion

Our opinions or those of even those who are slated to vote on his confirmation — U.S. Senators — are not the important opinions in this matter. Nor or those of Christine Ford, who called herself a doctor until yesterday. She is NOT nor ever has been a licensed psychologist in California as she claims. Now she’s just “Professor Ford.” The only opinion that matters is that of Brett Kavanaugh.

I’ll explain.

The Coat of Many Colors

Joseph was the youngest son of Jacob, and Joseph was Jacob’s favorite son of his 12 boys. Jacob gave Joseph a very elaborate and expensive “coat of many colors,” and his brothers hated him for it. They hated Joseph so much, they plotted to get rid of him. Their plan (which they implemented) was to sell him into slavery. Joseph found himself as a slave working in Egypt. There he was wrongly accused by the wife of his master for sexually attacking her. For that — without proof — Joseph was thrown into prison where he was held for 13 years though completely innocent.

His release came from a miraculous event regarding a dream of  Pharoah. None of Pharoah’s palace seers could interpret it. A baker who had been imprisoned with Joseph but was released to work in the palace remembered that Joseph had interpreted a dream of his when they were imprisoned together. He related that story, and Pharoah had Joseph released and summoned to the Palace. When Pharoah told Joseph his dream, Joseph immediately told him what it meant.

To shorten this story, Pharoah made Joseph his “Second in Command” in all of Egypt, and Joseph ruled over the business process of import-export of Egypt’s crops and other goods.

Israel was experiencing severe famine at that time. Joseph’s brothers were sent by their father to Pharoah to seek assistance in the way of food for him, his family, and others. Of course, they ended up before Joseph, who was in charge of that process for Egypt.

His brothers had for all those years assumed Jacob was dead. When they came before him, none recognized their brother, but he immediately knew them. Joseph responded to them immediately:

How dare you not recognize who I am! You sold me into slavery, let me go innocently to prison for 13 years, and never thought to even search for me. How dare you come here to beg for Egypt’s assistance!”

Of course, that’s not what he said. Joseph immediately confronted his brothers, identified who he was, hugged all (who were shocked and afraid), and the first thing he asked was, “Is our father alive?”

The rest is history: Joseph provided massive amounts of food to the Israeli people to get them through their famine. He reunited with his family and brought them all to live in Egypt.

So?

Hmmm..

You probably are asking “How does the story of Joseph apply to Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation?” There certainly are commonalities between the two. But they may not be what you first think.

Joseph was certainly wronged by his brothers. It was NOT his fault that his father loved him dearly — far more than his 11 brothers — and obviously treated Joseph different from them. I cannot imagine how horrible it must have been for him to find himself one day sitting at the dinner table with his family and the next in chains going to a slave sale in Egypt to be sold. Many Americans have grandparents that related stories of these same things.

The bombshell in this story is the answer to these questions: What did Joseph do when he found himself a slave and then a prisoner in jail for 13 years? Did he quit, did he complain, or lash out to others about how unwarranted his treatment was? Did he threaten others?

No. He quietly waited. He did what he was supposed to do when he found himself in those circumstances. He made himself ready for all the things he faced daily while in slavery, serving his master after being sold and sitting in jail as a sentence for a crime he did not commit.

There’s a BIG lesson in this for all of us. Let’s take a look:

Summary

No doubt Joseph had every right to hold several grudges: against each of his 11 brothers for at first hating him the way they did, then for selling him into slavery, and then for never caring about what happened to him; a grudge against his slave master’s wife for wrongly accusing him of attacking her; against those who held him in prison for more than a decade when he was totally innocent of the charges.

But Joseph bore no grudges. And that saved his life, that of his brothers and his father, and an unknown number of his fellow countrymen whom he was able to feed during a multi-year widespread famine.

How could Joseph do all these positive things after the very ones he helped sold him into slavery and ended up in prison for 13 years?

Obviously, you are trying to figure out where this story is going and how it applies to Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. But it doesn’t apply to Kavanaugh’s confirmation: It applies to Brett Kavanaugh as a man, a husband, a father, a judge, a friend, a coach, a professor, and as a mentor before, during and AFTER his confirmation or his NOT being confirmed. How Brett Kavanaugh comes out of this — even if it ends horribly and his reputation is permanently destroyed and he loses his current lifetime appointment to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in addition to his Supreme Court confirmation — is all that really matters.

Joseph figured it out:

  1. People wrong each other all the time;
  2. Life is seldom “fair;”
  3. Bad things often happen to good people for no fault of their own;
  4. Nobody owes us anything.

It’s in that scenario that Bret Kavanaugh finds himself today. He MUST move forward with his life. We all must move forward with OUR lives. No matter who takes advantage of us, who uses us, who hurts us, who lies to or about us, or whatever bad circumstances come our way that seriously alter our “perfect lives,” we must find ways to deal with it all. But most importantly, we MUST deal with the people responsible for the bad stuff that comes our way of no doing of our own. The key? Forgiveness.

Forgiveness in itself is healing. Mental health professionals make clear how important forgiveness of those who wrong us is. Not only does it clear our minds and hearts of anger that feeds unforgiveness, but forgiveness also releases us to love again, enter into healthy relationships again, and be available for new opportunities in our own lives that come our way going forward. Often, unforgiveness blinds us and prevents us from even recognizing good things we simply ignore, mistrust, or just walk by because we cannot see those.

No human will ever be truly successful without relationships with others. Our DNA comes from others and is comprised of all the things that are part of establishing and developing healthy relationships with others. Our lives are all pretty much part of others lives and vice versa.

Because of that and because of the human nature we all share, people often hurt other people. Being hurt is inevitable. Unfortunately, forgiveness should inevitably be meted out by all. But sadly, many hold it tight, refusing to give it away.

How does this relate to the Kavanaugh situation? That’s simple: Judge Kavanaugh has much to get over — much to forgive others for. He and his family members must be drowning in anger and unforgiveness for the thousands of wrongs being perpetrated on them. Even though Judge Kavanaugh and his family members each know deep in their hearts that much of what they are seeing, hearing, and reading is not based on facts but on emotions. Knowing and accepting that are two different things.

Sadly, I believe their lives are forever changed by this. I just hope the four of them and the Judge’s parents can each find a way to work through it and get on the other side of unforgiveness. Forgiveness is the key for them all. Forgiveness will allow them to trash the pent-up anger and hatred they may be experiencing.

But there’s one other big reason forgiveness is necessary: they do not yet know what amazing good things are ahead for them that they might miss if they harbor uncontrolled unforgiveness.

Forgiveness IS for the present. But forgiveness is for the future, too. If Joseph had not found a way to forgive his brothers, his slave master’s wife, or his jailers, he probably would have never been in a mental place to help anyone else as he did with that first dream interpretation. He then would have missed the meeting with Pharoah, not interpreted Pharoah’s dream, and not been appointed V.P. of Egypt. He then would NOT have been able to restore his relationships with his brothers and father AND feed millions of his people for several years through a famine.

You know what else would have NOT happened if Joseph had not forgiven? Today’s twelve tribes of historical Jewish people who comprise all of Israel would have never existed! Each of his brothers and Joseph were the original founders of each tribe. Israel as the world knows it would not exist.

Is all this just a story? If it is, it’s a really good one! One thing is certain: Joseph understood and implemented in his own life a trait we all should seek for ourselves and those we love: Forgiveness.

Forgiveness has so many benefits that each begin with relationship restoration. Why not give it a try?

I bet the Kavanaughs will.

 

 

Play

SCOTUS Confirmation: Final Word

This is Saturday! Today’s chapter will be brief: we all need at least one day in the week without Washington D.C. drama. And today will be just a podcast. But there are a couple of things of import for you:

  • We will begin the week Monday with a critical chapter into what may be the most important issue of this century: Sexual and Domestic Abuse. In the story, we will discuss the depths of the problems, their sources, but more importantly, we will discuss a way and a plan to eliminate the large majority of these abuses suffered most often by the weakest among us: women and children. 
  • We will NOT weigh-in any further on the Kavanaugh SCOTUS confirmation until the FBI supplemental background investigation is complete and results are released. It is anticipated that will happen by the end of next week.
  • I promised a treat for our listeners and readers just ahead. Details of that will come Sunday, (which is basically another day off for you!) so don’t forget to look-in. You are going to like this, I’m certain!

PLEASE listen to today’s podcast: it is brief, but contains some very applicable and important information about these and other events. And there’s also a surprise included in the podcast!

ENJOY!

Dan

Play

SCOTUS: Is it Set?

Not yet. But I think it’s close.

In spite of today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Dr. Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh gave separate testimony regarding Ford’s allegations of sexual assault by Kavanaugh, there really is no “there-there.” Those who were expecting to come away from the hearing with proof of one or the other telling the truth while the other one lied about sexual assault came away disappointed.

I watched all 7.5 hours of the hearing. At times it was gut-wrenching, nauseating, and infuriating. More than anything, the hearing was a bad imitation of a Barnum and Bailey circus. And there were plenty of clowns in the act.

At the center of the hearing was the testimony of the accuser: Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. She testified first, without Judge Kavanaugh in the room. After a lunch break, Judge Kavanaugh testified. No one lit the fuse on the fireworks until Kavanaugh showed up. And the fireworks ensued — with much drama, grandstanding, and fanfare. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina actually stole the show during Kavanaugh’s questioning:

Graham’s outrage came after his Democrat counterparts on the Committee derided Kavanaugh in pretty much every way they possibly could. His testimony above tells the entire story of Graham’s feelings on the hearings.

Christine Blasey Ford: Testimony

Regarding Ford’s testimony, she simply repeated her claim of sexual assault against her by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh from 36 years ago. She repeated (under questioning) the names of those she previously named as witnesses. She repeated her claims about Kavanaugh and his friend Judge being in the room. She repeated several inconsistencies in her story that were already out in public from details leaked to the press apparently by members (or staff) of Democrats on the committee. She spoke quietly, seemed puzzled at questions fairly often, and responded in a voice that has been characterized as “Up-Talk.” (that is a trait used by some who when speaking make the last words of a sentence go up in pitch. Professionals say doing so is an effort to draw sympathy from listeners as well as to sound/seem victimized)

Obviously, there is NO way to verify the veracity of her testimony. Why? In her case, the 4 people she named as witnesses of the Kavanaugh sexual assault alleged to have been committed by Kavanaugh have all in affidavits provided to the Judiciary Committee denied even being at the party, knowing about the party, knowing where the alleged party was held, and in one case, even knowing Brett Kavanaugh. Each of the 4 gave those under threat of felony for lying.

Here are bullet-point items that raised some eyebrows regarding Ford’s testimony and circumstances surrounding her way of coming forward to testify:

  • She wanted anonymity. She contacted her Congresswoman first, then wrote that Congresswoman the letter with details and gave a copy to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA);
  • Even while claiming she wanted anonymity, Ford reached out to the Washington Post to tell her story. She gave her full story to a Post reporter who wrote and published it;
  • Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) as Chair of the Committee, when told Ford hated to fly and therefore did not want to come before the Committee in D.C., offered for the Committee to go to California to meet with her anywhere and anytime. In her testimony, she shared details of numerous trips she has made in her work and for personal purposes in which she flew all over the world. It was revealed AFTER the hearing that she had NOT been in California when Grassley’s offer was made to go to her in California. Ford was actually in Delaware, just a short distance away from Washington D.C. No explanation for her lack of candor was given;
  • Ford was definitive in her description of what happened during the incident: she remembered that she drank just 1 beer at the party, stated emphatically who the 4 others were at the party, what Kavanaugh and Judge allegedly did to her, who all were in the house, how she prevented what she thought was going to be a rape, and even the sounds of the 2 boys going down the stairs after she was able to get into a locked bathroom in avoiding an attack. Yet she did NOT know the location of the house where party and attack occurred, who the house belonged to, who took her to the party, or who took her home. She also has no memory of the date of the party;
  • Details in the Post story differed in part from her accounts of the “event” that her therapist put in her interview notes. Ford had no explanation for the differences other than the therapist’s notes were wrong;
  • The only explanation she had for any of the named witnesses not corroborating her story (and their even refuting her story) was that one of those witnesses — her best friend — has been having serious “medical issues.”

Committee Democrats lobbed nothing but softballs at Ford, each lauding her for coming forward with the sexual abuse charges. None asked her a single tough question. Republicans deferred their questioning to a female rape victim legal expert. (In my estimation, their doing so was a huge mistake) This rape expert is an Arizona attorney who prosecutes sex crime perpetrators and simply took too much time asking her questions that were often benign. (Republicans in questioning Kavanaugh replaced her with the normal process in which Senators asked questions)

Brett Kavanaugh: Testimony

  • If you missed the hearing — especially the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh — I encourage you to search online, find it and listen to it. If you have young children or teenagers, I encourage you to include them. His opening remarks were historical, bombastic, and challenging. He called out Senate Democrat Committee members for orchestrating what he called a lynching and a circus, multiple times charging those Democrats with destroying his credibility, his reputation and that of his family, and doing so in retribution against Donald Trump for beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. He likened it to the 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas, in which a surprise last-minute sexual attack was made by Anita Hill in testimony against Thomas.
  • The common thread throughout his testimony was that EVERY Democrat implored Kavanaugh to ask, request, implore, and even demand for President Trump to “make” the FBI investigate Ford’s allegations against him before his confirmation goes to the full Senate for a vote. Each time, Judge Kavanaugh made it clear he is committed to doing anything that the Judicial Committee requests, even if they asked for another FBI hearing. Senator Grassley several times interrupted, making it clear that the Committee has an investigative staff comprised of G.O.P. and Democrat staffers who had already investigated the Ford charges. That did not stop Democrats from badgering Kavanaugh. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) was the most noxious in her questioning, demeaning Kavanaugh for not demanding another FBI investigation.

At this point, let me address the demands for this second FBI investigation: in Senate confirmation investigations, the FBI exclusively performs those for every nominee. They had investigated Kavanaugh 6 times for previous nominations. None of these allegations surfaced in this most recent investigation or any previous investigation. It was made clear (though Dem Senate members ignore the fact) that the FBI does only background investigations, that the allegations made by Ford and the other women were criminal in nature. The FBI, therefore, has no jurisdiction — Montgomery County, Maryland law enforcement would investigate any allegations of criminal wrongdoing — not the FBI.

It was also made clear that for any agency to launch such an investigation, basics must be provided by any accuser: the nature of the crime, who committed the crime, where the crime was committed, names and details of potential witnesses, and when the alleged attack occurred. MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE THIS ALLEGATION WITHOUT FORD (OR SOMEONE) PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION.

Ford’s cries and that of every Democrat on the Committee and in Congress for the FBI came even though ALL committee members knew the above information would be required for anyone to begin an investigation. They also knew that there is NO statute of limitations in Maryland for sexual assault. With credible evidence, law enforcement could still prosecute Kavanaugh for Ford’s allegations if probable cause was found.

The Ultimate Travesty

Republicans pretty much nationwide have blasted Senate Democrats for several weeks over Democrat handling of this confirmation process. Why? It became obvious early on that Democrats care not for Kavanaugh’s experience, judicial expertise, or any other of his qualifications for the job of Supreme Court Justice. Obviously their desire is to delay any Kavanaugh confirmation hearing by painting him with as vile and salacious allegations as possible to totally discredit him, keep him or any other Conservative from becoming SCOTUS Justice. Senate Democrats have NO regard for the truth, the standard of the presumption of innocence, the cost to the nation of disallowing who is probably the most qualified person in the U.S. to hold that position, while simultaneously destroying his life and that of his family.

Senate Democrats purpose: keep a conservative majority from controlling the Supreme Court. Their goal: protect Roe v. Wade in doing so.

Their war to accomplish that goal was made obvious with the revelation of specific actions by the Ranking Member: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). She received the letter from Ford July 30, 2018, detailing Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Senate rules require any member receiving such information to do two things: forward the allegations to the FBI immediately to be included in their nomination investigation and to simultaneously share the information with fellow members of the committee. Feinstein knew both were required of her, yet she did neither.

Why? She said she did so because of the request by Ford for anonymity. But Feinstein knew that her forwarding the letter to fellow committee members and the FBI would  NOT violate her promise to Ford for anonymity. Actually, doing so would have protected her identity. Instead it was leaked to the press which began the normal press feeding frenzy and the Post story was published.

Feinstein by turning that letter over to the FBI July 30th would have allowed a confidential and thorough investigation of Ford’s allegations by Montgomery County well before the Kavanaugh hearings began. Yet NO question in the 30-hours of Committee hearings was asked of Kavanaugh about the allegation even with the Ford allegations being in the hands of Feinstein. Feinstein herselft did not even ask Kavanaugh about it in her 40-minute private meeting with the nominee!

Feinstein’s motive could only be one and on only: stop Brett Kavanaugh at any cost.

Summary

The only Constitutional role in this process of the Senate is “Advice and Consent” in confirmation proceedings. This Senate Judiciary Committee took it upon themselves to orchestrate an unethical if not illegal plan to thwart the Senate’s 200-year-old confirmation process purely for political purposes.

Very few are surprised at their actions, I am sure. Many if not most are disappointed.

Think about this: the United States of America was just about to be robbed of the services of who many are calling THE most qualified Supreme Court Justice nominee of the last century.

Shame on those Democrats! Thank God for the fortitude shown today by Judge Kavanaugh to stand firm in the face of pure partisanship in Senate Democrats’ efforts to stop his confirmation. He had help from his friend Senator Lindsey Graham as shown in the video above.

I may be counting chickens before they hatch, but, “Ladies and Gentlemen, I’d like to be the first to introduce to you the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court: Brett Kavanaugh!”

“So It Is Written…So Let it be Done!”

Play

“You Can’t Handle the Truth!”

It seems odd that a long list of politicians and other high profile individuals have announced their belief of the allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Why does it seem odd? The answer to that lies in another question: what does it take for one to learn the truth of an allegation — ANY allegation?

That second question is precisely why the founders of the U.S. demanded a justice system that was built on the fundamental principle they never had the benefit of in their European homeland: “Innocent until proven guilty.” That principle has been the linchpin of American justice for almost 250 years. But its existence and the founders’ reasoning for demanding it as a building block for our country is lost on many today who number themselves among the “political elites” in American government. Here’s what a number of U.S. Senators had to say:

  • New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) Gillibrand offered words of support to Ford during a Tuesday interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, telling him simply: “I believe Kavanaugh’s accuser.”
  • California Senator Kamala Harris (D) “I believe her,” Harris told CBS in a Tuesday interview. It’s a serious matter. And she has the courage to come forward. She has nothing to gain. What does she have to gain?”
  • California Senator Dianne Feinstein (D )”During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere and believable.”
  • Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono (D) “Not only do these women need to be heard, but they also need to be believed,” Hirono said.
  • Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) “Christine Blasey Ford is brave, deserves to be heard, and treated with respect as she raises new questions about Brett Kavanaugh.”
  • Senate Judiciary Committee member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said there needs to be an FBI investigation before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and declared, “I believe the survivor, Dr. Ford.”
  • South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R) said he’d gladly listen to her story. “I don’t know when she took the polygraph,” Graham later said, referring to a lie detector test Ford’s lawyer says was administered to her by an FBI agent. “I don’t know who paid for it. I don’t know when she hired the lawyer. But if you didn’t want to go public why are you buying a polygraph and why are you hiring a lawyer?” he added. “All those things will come out.”

There are dozens of others in Congress who have come out in full support of Dr. Ford’s allegation, even before reading the letter in which the allegations were made or facing her in a Q&A before the Senate Judiciary Committee! How is it possible for anyone to determine guilt or innocence of a person when there is NO evidence, (either direct or circumstantial) there is NO testimony from the accuser or the accused, and there are no corroborating witnesses? Before we go into further details, it is noteworthy that not one Democrat in Congress has publicly stated disbelief in Ford’s story. And not one Democrat in Congress has publicly stated support for Kavanaugh’s nomination to SCOTUS before Ford’s allegations or since.

Do you think there may be possible politicization going on?

How Best to Determine if Someone is Telling the Truth

I thought it best to bring a small bit of objectivity and knowledge into this political debacle. There ARE experts among us who professionally conduct such investigations every day. Certainly hearing from one of those experts could shed some light on the probable upcoming testimony of Dr. Ford.

J.J. Newberry was a trained federal agent, skilled in the art of deception detection. So when a witness to a shooting sat in front of him and tried to tell him that when she heard gunshots she didn’t look, she just ran — he knew she was lying. How did Newberry reach this conclusion? The answer is by recognizing telltale signs that a person isn’t being honest, like inconsistencies in a story, behavior that’s different from a person’s norm, or too much detail in an explanation. While using these signs to catch a liar takes extensive training and practice, it’s no longer only for authorities like Newberry. Now, the average person can become adept at identifying dishonesty, and it’s not as hard as you might think. Experts tell WebMD the top 10 ways to let the truth be known.
Tip No. 1: Inconsistencies

“When you want to know if someone is lying, look for inconsistencies in what they are saying,” says Newberry, who was a federal agent for 30 years and a police officer for five. When the woman he was questioning said she ran and hid after hearing gunshots — without looking — Newberry saw the inconsistency immediately. “There was something that just didn’t fit,” says Newberry. “She heard gunshots but she didn’t look? I knew that was inconsistent with how a person would respond to a situation like that.” So when she wasn’t paying attention, he banged on the table. She looked right at him. “When a person hears a noise, it’s a natural reaction to look toward it,” Newberry tells WebMD. “I knew she heard those gunshots, looked in the direction from which they came, saw the shooter, and then ran.”

Sure enough, he was right. “Her story was just illogical,” says Newberry. “And that’s what you should look for when you’re talking to someone who isn’t being truthful. Are there inconsistencies that just don’t fit?”

Tip No. 2: Ask the Unexpected

“About 4% of people are accomplished liars and they can do it well,” says Newberry. “But because there are no Pinocchio responses to a lie, you have to catch them in it.”

Sir Walter Scott put it best: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” But how can you catch a person in his own web of lies?

“Watch them carefully,” says Newberry. “And then when they don’t expect it, ask them one question that they are not prepared to answer to trip them up.”

Tip No. 3: Gauge Against a Baseline

“One of the most important indicators of dishonesty is changes in behavior,” says Maureen O’Sullivan, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at the University of San Francisco. “You want to pay attention to someone who is generally anxious, but now looks calm. Or, someone who is generally calm but now looks anxious.” The trick, explains O’Sullivan, is to gauge their behavior against a baseline. Is a person’s behavior falling away from how they would normally act? If it is, that could mean that something is up.

Tip No. 4: Look for Insincere Emotions

“Most people can’t fake smile,” says O’Sullivan. “The timing will be wrong, it will be held too long, or it will be blended with other things. Maybe it will be a combination of an angry face with a smile; you can tell because their lips are smaller and less full than with a sincere smile.”

These fake emotions are a good indicator that something has gone afoul.

Tip No. 5: Pay Attention to Gut Reactions

“People say, ‘Oh, it was a gut reaction or women’s intuition,’ but what I think they are picking up on are the deviations of true emotions,” O’Sullivan tells WebMD. While an average person might not know what it is he’s seeing when he thinks someone isn’t being honest and attribute his suspicion to instinct, a scientist would be able to pinpoint it exactly — which leads us to tip no. 6.

Tip No. 6: Watch for Microexpressions

When Joe Schmo has a gut feeling, Paul Ekman, a renowned expert in lie detection, sees microexpressions. “A microexpression is a very brief expression, usually about a 25th of a second, that is always a concealed emotion,” says Ekman, Ph.D., professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California Medical School in San Francisco. So when a person is acting happy, but in actuality is really upset about something, for instance, his true emotion will be revealed in a subconscious flash of anger on his face. Whether the concealed emotion is fear, anger, happiness, or jealousy, that feeling will appear on the face in the blink of an eye. The trick is to see it.

“Almost everyone — 99% of those we’ve tested in about 10,000 people — won’t see them,” says Ekman. “But it can be taught.” In fact, in less than an hour, the average person can learn to see microexpressions.

Tip No. 7: Look for Contradictions

“The general rule is anything that a person does with their voice or their gesture that doesn’t fit the words they are saying can indicate a lie,” says Ekman. “For example, this is going to sound amazing, but it is true. Sometimes when people are lying and saying, ‘Yes, she’s the one that took the money,’ they will without knowing it make a slight head shake ‘no.’ That’s a gesture and it completely contradicts what they’re saying in words.”

These contradictions, explains Ekman, can be between the voice and the words, the gesture and the voice, the gesture and the words, or the face and the words. “It’s some aspect of demeanor that is contradicting another aspect,” Ekman tells WebMD.

Tip No. 8: A Sense of Unease

“When someone isn’t making eye contact and that’s against how they normally act, it can mean they’re not being honest,” says Jenn Berman, Ph.D., a psychologist in private practice. “They look away, they’re sweating, they look uneasy … anything that isn’t normal and indicates anxiety.”

Tip No. 9: Too Much Detail

“When you say to someone, ‘Oh, where were you?’ and they say, ‘I went to the store and I needed to get eggs and milk and sugar and I almost hit a dog so I had to go slow,’ and on and on, they’re giving you too much detail,” says Berman. Too much detail could mean they’ve put a lot of thought into how they’re going to get out of a situation and they’ve crafted a complicated lie as a solution.

Tip No. 10: Don’t Ignore the Truth

“It’s more important to recognize when someone is telling the truth than telling a lie because people can look like they’re lying but be telling truth,” says Newberry. While it sounds confusing, finding the truth buried under a lie can sometimes help find the answer to an important question: Why is a person lying?

These 10 truth tips, experts agree, all help detect deception. What they don’t do is tell you why a person is lying and what the lie means. “Microexpressions don’t tell you the reason,” says Ekman. “They just tell you what the concealed emotion is and that there is an emotion being concealed.” When you think someone is lying, you have to either know the person well enough to understand why he or she might lie, or be a people expert.

“You can see a microexpression, but you have to have more social-emotional intelligence on people to use it accurately,” says O’Sullivan. “You have to be a good judge of people to understand what it means.”

Summary

Even if one agrees with the steps given above to discern truth, one thing with Dr. Ford is missing: no one has had even a conversation with her, yet alone a face-to-face meeting. Hopefully, that will happen soon. But even if terms of her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee are agreed to and she does testify, it is doubtful any tangible evidence is even available to either confirm or deny her 35-year-old allegation of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh. What it will come down to will be conclusions drawn by those in the room about her testimony and that of the nominee — now known as “the accused.”

Here’s a summary question: how can any American feel any finding of the truth can result from her testimony? Those Senators listed above and dozens of other Democrats in the House and Senate have already made their commitments of belief of her story. It is impossible for anyone to determine that now. And even after Dr. Ford’s sworn testimony and that of Judge Kavanaugh, a decision will still be subjective for anyone and everyone.

Sadly, even if this concluded today, there will always be a cloud of suspicion hanging over the head of Brett Kavanaugh. He obviously was given NO presumption of innocence by any of those who blindly support his accuser.

Is Dr. Ford telling the truth? Only two people knows that answer: Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh. And without the ability to “read” their brains, no other human will ever know for sure.

As the clock ticks and the calendar pages turn, it has become more and more obvious to me that our political process is structured totally by political partisanship — especially among those on the Left. “Innocent until proven guilty” is actually thrown out the window when it comes to sexual allegations against Republicans. Universally though, Democrats accused of sexual assault or domestic abuse are immediately considered by their peers to be innocent or immediately forgiven and restored.

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) is the latest Democrat who has been accused of brutal abuse by his former girlfriend. Her accusation includes video, audio, and sworn testimony of others. Yet Ellison remains in Congress with no DNC investigation. And he is the Vice-Chair of the Democrat Party.

Former President Clinton was accused of all types of sexual assault and harassment as well as rape by multiple women. Democrats stood idly by in support of the Democrat President. He was impeached — but not for committing sex crimes. He famously committed perjury in sworn testimony in a civil trial. Remember this: “I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman.” “That” woman was White House intern Monica Lewinsky. And he HAD sexual relations with that woman. Clinton survived his impeachment trial in the Senate and was rewarded for his sexual crimes against these women by being elected to his second term as President.

It all comes down to this one thing: they don’t want the truth. They simply want Democrat power in government wrestled from the grasp of the Republicans — and they’ll do or say anything to get it. They do not care if they must lie, cheat, or steal to get it. Any price they must pay is all right. “The end justifies the means.” And they daily show that’s their goal and their methodology.

Will any Democrat change their opinion of Brett Kavanaugh serving on the Supreme Court? That is doubtful.

It’s hard for Americans to reconcile any elected representative in Congress would even consider making such a critical decision based on anything but Truth.

How can they predetermine their vote on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, many making their announcement to vote “no” on his confirmation before he appeared before Congress or met one-on-one with Senators?

The answer to that question came from Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men.” (Click to see/hear his answer)

 

They cannot handle the Truth, so they refuse to even consider it.

 

 

Play

The “Other” Kavanaugh Woman

Christine Blasey Ford has come forward to accuse Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct that dates to the 1980s when both of them were in high school. Because the Supreme Court nomination is so politicized, some people are wondering about Christine Ford’s politics. Is Christine Ford a Democrat or Republican? What are her politics?

Ford graduated with an undergrad degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and went on to receive her Master’s in psychology from Pepperdine University and a Master’s degree in education from Stanford University. She also has a Ph.D. in educational psychology from the University of Southern California. She teaches graduate students in clinical psychology, specializing in statistical models for research projects. She’s also a visiting professor at Pepperdine University, a professor at Stanford School of Medicine, and a research psychologist for Stanford’s Department of Psychiatry.

Ford married her husband, Russell Ford, in 2002. He is a senior director at Zosano Pharma, and also received a Master’s degree and Ph.D. from Stanford. The couple has two sons.

Years after the alleged sexual assault she stated was perpetrated by Kavanaugh, she began to show signs of symptoms and “had increasing anxiety.” Before meeting her husband, she also struggled with relationships with men: “I think it derailed me substantially for four or five years. I was very ill-equipped to forge those kinds of relationships,” she said.

Her Professional Career and Politics

Ford is a registered Democrat, according to The Washington Post. In addition, The Mercury News reported that a friend of Ford’s says Ford attended a women’s march protesting Donald Trump.

Ford works as a professor at Palo Alto University and teaches in consortium with Stanford University. She has written or helped write more than 50 journals, book chapters, and other articles. One study focused on trauma as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A 2017 article in the San Jose Mercury News says that she was planning to attend a science march wearing a knitted brain hat that was supposed to resemble the pink vagina hats that many have used to protest Donald Trump and advocate for women’s rights.

Ford has made contributions in the past to various Democrat candidates and causes. The federal campaign donation website lists these donations for Christine Blasey, which is how Ford is known professionally. Among them: In 2017 she made 3 donations each for less than $30, 2 in 2014 for $35 and $3.50: one earmarked for the Democratic National Committee, one designated for Bernie Sanders.

Ford’s attorney — Debra Katz —  says Ford would testify in a public hearing. The Senate Judiciary Committee has set a hearing in which to hear Ford for Monday, September 24, but as of this writing has not received confirmation from Ford or her attorney about appearing at that hearing. On September 16th, after the Washington Post published an article with Ford’s first public description of the alleged incident, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, questioned how Democrat members handled a confidential letter from Katz detailing her side of the story but also said he would gather more information.

Just for a point of political perspective, Debra Katz is vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight, an organization that has been directly funded by Geroge Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

Katz is also a hefty Democratic donor, giving thousands of dollars over the years to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other leftist candidates.

The accuser initially did not want to talk publicly about the allegations because she viewed Kavanaugh’s nomination as extremely “politicized” and because she feared doing so would put herself and her family at risk, Katz said. To that end, since the Post article published, Ford has received “hostile threats” and “recrimination.”

Her intent in sending the confidential letter to members of California’s congressional delegation, including Judiciary ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, was to provide information about Kavanaugh’s character. Feinstein did not ask the nominee about the letter or its allegations during her 50 minutes of allotted time to question him during a confirmation hearing earlier this month. But after the existence of the letter surfaced in media reports, then subsequent articles detailed the charges, “that decision was taken from her,” Katz told CNN.

Christine Ford came forward on September 16, 2018, to The Washington Post and revealed that she was the anonymous woman who has accused Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school – accusations that Kavanaugh has strenuously denied. Ford, 51, says she instantly thought Kavanaugh might “inadvertently kill” her during a party in the early 1980s after he and a friend corralled her in a bedroom and the Supreme Court nominee pinned her to a bed and groped her over a one-piece bathing suit. Kavanaugh denies the allegation. She says another high school friend of Kavanaugh’s named Mark Judge was in the room. Judge, a D.C.-based writer, previously told The Weekly Standard – before Christine Blasey Ford was named – that the account was false.

Ford’s Facebook page and LinkedIn page appear to have been deleted, although it’s not clear when.

Ford’s Actions in Revelation

In her letter which was read to The Post, Ford described the incident and said she expected her story to be kept confidential. She signed the letter as Christine Blasey, the name she uses professionally.

Though Ford had contacted The Post, she declined to speak on the record for weeks as she grappled with concerns about what going public would mean for her and her family — and what she said was her duty as a citizen to tell the story.

In 2012 while in couples therapy, she reportedly discussed a sexual incident that occurred when she was in high school. She released those notes to the Washington Post. The Post story said Ms. Ford told her therapist about the alleged incident during couples therapy with her husband in 2012. The therapist’s notes do not mention Judge Kavanaugh by name but say she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” There are some discrepancies in the therapist’s notes and the interview with The Post, which Ms. Ford blamed on the therapist.

Ms. Ford told The Post that she said nothing at the time, not even apparently to her girlfriends because she didn’t want her parents to know she had been at an underage drinking party.

Conservative Ben Shapiro after examining the therapy notes and hearing Ford’s explanation of the incident detailed the differences:

“Ford showed her therapist’s notes to The Washington Post. Those notes conflict with her account. The notes don’t include names, instead stating that the alleged perpetrators were ‘from an elitist boys’ school,’ and had since become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’ The notes also state that four boys were involved, not two; she says her therapist got it wrong, and that there were four boys at the party but only two boys involved. Another therapy session the following year includes the charge that Ford underwent a ‘rape attempt’ in ‘her late teens,’ but she was allegedly 15 – not late teens – when this incident occurred. Her husband, who was present for the first therapy session, said Kavanaugh’s name was raised, but the Post account doesn’t say that Kavanaugh was called the alleged perpetrator.”

Kavanaugh Confirmation Hoopla

“Sixty-five senators met individually with Judge Kavanaugh during a nearly two-month period before the hearing began, yet Feinstein didn’t share this with her colleagues ahead of many of those discussions. It raises a lot of questions about Democrats’ tactics and motives to bring this to the rest of the committee’s attention only now rather than during these many steps along the way,” Judiciary Committee Republicans said. That apparently won’t be enough for Senator Feinstein.

“There’s a lot of information we don’t know, and the FBI should have the time it needs to investigate this new material. Staff calls aren’t the appropriate way to handle this,” she told Bloomberg News.

Even though the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a meeting in which to hear from both Ford and Kavanaugh, Ford has not accepted an invitation to appear. (In our summary below, we analyze that fact and what specifics are playing into this event and its expected outcome)

“Men will be Men”

What is all this really about? Is it about wrongdoing of men who sexually assault women? Or is it about a conservative Supreme Court Justice nominee and Democrats fighting to defeat his confirmation as they did of Supreme Court Clarence Thomas in 1991?

November 20, 2017, we published a narrative titled “Men Will Be Men.” http://truthnewsnet.org/men-will-be-men/  It detailed exactly what we face today with not just the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh, but the environment that fosters these sexual abuse problems and the problems they initiate.

In it, we stated this: “It appears that in Washington D.C. a culture of sexual harassment has been thriving in the highly charged atmosphere in which some of the most powerful people in the World live and work. We now have learned that for some time, the House of Representatives has maintained a ‘Sexual Harassment Slush Fund’ comprised of taxpayer dollars. It is used specifically to payoff interns, pages, and some junior staff members who have been sexually abused or harassed by their bosses and/or other House members and senior staffers. We do not yet have any of the details of the fund, dollar amounts, who has used it, or how it has been specifically used, but media calls for those details are ringing out. Do not be surprised for a Freedom of Information Act court order to obtain the House release of that information during the holidays. Obviously, members of Congress probably are not going to take the lead on stopping the longstanding practices involving sexual impropriety and abuses among their ranks.

Here’s the 900-pound gorilla in this room: Lady Liberty. Problem is, the #1 thing that makes America the greatest nation in human history is the fact that the government does not impose its thoughts, ideas, rights, and wrongs on U.S. citizens. Our “Bible” is the Constitution. While the landmark separation of how the government treats its citizens in right and wrong disputes — at least in criminal cases — is ‘innocent until proven guilty.” We each have the “presumption of innocence.’ No, that legally does not apply to civil matters. But its reality reaches far into Americans’ discernment of rights and wrongs.

The dilemma is this: how can an absolute answer be found in most of these cases when evidence that can prove or disprove sexual harassment and abuse allegations that have been buried sometimes for decades? Should we in the cases of these most often hidden transgressions decide based on a default position of guilt or should the accused be ‘innocent until proven guilty? And who would make that determination? Lady Liberty — long the symbol of American fairness in such determinations — wears a blindfold while holding a scale. When if ever is it right for someone — anyone — to with a finger change the balance between guilt and innocence?”

Summary

There are two travesties being committed in this “circus” as we labeled it in yesterday’s story. One is that this is an attack on the due process of the determination of guilt and innocence in the U.S. No, these allegations are probably not regarding criminal activity. If not criminal, they would certainly be civil in nature. But in either case, those charged with wrongdoing in the United States have always had the commitment from the American people to be “innocent until proven guilty.” Once again, in the world of American politics, Leftists are endeavoring to take away that right and determine guilt by allegations, no facts, and no evidence.

Do you know what is really going on here? Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and other Senate Democrats have joined forces with their House counterparts Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters to do anything and everything they can to not just prevent Brett Kavanaugh from becoming the next Supreme Court Justice. They are doing everything they can to change the outcome of the 2016 presidential election!

We have seen it again and again. Democrats were devastated by the election results. Every Democrat — from DNC leadership to rank and file Dems — just knew the White House would be home to Hillary and Bill for another 8 years. And they do not lay that loss at the feet of the American voters who are the ones who thwarted their dreams of another near-decade of “liberal euphoria.” They lay that loss at the feet of members of the Republican Party and House and Senate leadership.

What we are witnessing is the all-out move of the Left to summarily and steadily undo the constitutional method of choosing those who govern in the United States. Don’t think for a moment Hillary’s comments about Trump supporters coming from her “basket of deplorables” as her solo opinion of conservative Americans. We see again and again Leftists thumbing their noses at the concept of a representative republic, the electoral college, the free market system, capitalism, AND liberty and justice for all.

Leftists are today more than ever committed to Socialism in America even though it has never succeeded in any country on Earth!

I’ll finish this with this example of what I state in the above paragraphs:

Debra Katz — Ford’s attorney who is known as a leading legal advocate for those women who allege sexual attacks from others — made it clear on Tuesday that her client has NO obligation to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee or any other group. Why? In her words (paraphrased): “My client has no responsibility to prove that what she is saying is true. It is incumbent on Brett Kavanaugh and Republicans to prove that she is NOT telling the truth!”

Imagine for a moment what that world would look like: there would never be any need for anyone to run for political office. Why? No matter how committed or qualified a candidate would be IF the political elite were in charge of who might be unqualified based simply on alleged wrongdoing, those elitists would decide who governs in the U.S.

Our forefathers traveled half-way around the world to escape such a system. European countries were each run in that same manner. A “ruling class” unilaterally determined what was right and what was wrong, who was “eligible” to be in their class and who was not. It was a reprehensible life for most. America gave those early settlers a chance at a new life: one that offered justice for all and equal opportunity.

This Kavanaugh confirmation circus is evidence that the Politically Elitists on the Left want to take the United States back to that place in World history.

The question is simply this: will Americans standby idly and let that happen?

Play

The “Kavanaugh Circus Hiccup”

Today was to be a day in which we mused over the extensive qualifications of the incoming Supreme Court Justice. Sadly, we are NOT discussing his over-qualification for the position today. We are NOT discussing how balanced the Court will be with him on the bench with the other 8 justices. Instead, not just us, but the entire country is being forced to take sides in a senseless, unfair, and untimely smear campaign strategically put together as a hail-mary disruptive pass thrown by a senior Democrat Senator to at best delay, at worst derail Kavanaugh’s donning the robes of SCOTUS. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) chose to throw a wrench in the confirmation of Kavanaugh by releasing that she holds a letter from an anonymous source that reveals a sexual travesty perpetrated by Kavanaugh more than 30 years ago while in high school.

There are a plethora of questionable elements to Feinstein’s release of this information along with the alleged victim almost immediately stepping forward out of the “anonymous” shadows to go on-the-record — this in spite of her purported pleas to Feinstein to allow her to remain anonymous and that she did NOT want to step forward.

Questions? Does anyone besides the investigative staff at TruthNewsNet.org have any questions? Share some of ours, and maybe as we answer those we may be answering yours’ as well.

Questions about the “Kavanaugh Circus” Hiccup

♦  Every circus has a ringmaster. Who is the ringmaster of the “Kavanaugh Circus Hiccup?”

That’s an easy one to answer: it’s Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Although he has played no active role in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Schumer has not just been quietly waiting to cast his vote against Kavanaugh when his confirmation vote comes to the full Senate. He has been working diligently behind the scenes to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Senator Schumer (D-NY)

Why? Maybe it’s because he went nuts when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as Senate Majority Leader prevented hearings for Obama’s last SCOTUS nominee — Merritt Garland — and he wants to pay Republicans back for their blocking Garland’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Maybe it’s because Democrats in Congress are frantic, trying to find any way possible to short-circuit any appointment of any conservative judge to the Court, certain that whoever gets that 9th seat would be the determiner of the future of Roe v. Wade. Maybe it’s simply because Schumer is mad: mad about not being Senate Majority Leader, not ever considered as a Democrat vice-president running mate, or because he has been unable to railroad several of President Trump’s signature legislative agenda items. Whatever the reason or reasons, Schumer is in the ring, controlling the circus, and had one of his circus clowns throw a new trick into the ring that has everyone breathlessly looking in.

♦  What is the claim of sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh all about?

Senator Feinstein (D-CA) announced Thursday, September 13, 2018, “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. 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.”

The FBI, which is responsible for background research on judicial nominees and other presidential appointments, said in a statement that it had included the information in Kavanaugh’s background file after receiving it from Feinstein on September 12, but would not be investigating the 35-year-old claims. Details of the allegations first came out in The New Yorker in a piece by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, who wrote, in part; “The allegation dates back to the early 1980s, when Kavanaugh was a high school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school.”

“She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result.”

♦  If Feinstein received the letter in July, why did she not immediately turn it over to the FBI?

That’s the million dollar question. It answers? Let’s look at a few possibilities:

First, Feinstein met privately with Kavanaugh in her Senate offices and took a considerable amount of time questioning the nominee about a myriad of important elements regarding his appointment to the high court. One would think that during such an interview, Feinstein would have broached such a dynamic issue with the nominee. She did not question him about it nor did she even mention.

In Kavanaugh’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feinstein asked Kavanaugh numerous questions. But she did not mention in her questioning anything about the abhorrent charges made against him.

Feinstein has not explained why she waited so long to refer the letter to the FBI nor why she did not question Kavanaugh about the alleged incident. So what could her reason(s) be for not doing so?

Simple answer: political expediency. The “new” way in Congress for the minority party to influence any and all issues that come before it is to whenever necessary play whatever card it takes to upset whatever the opposing party is endeavoring to accomplish. We see it almost daily since the G.O.P. hold majorities in both Houses. Democrats find all sorts of ways to obstruct normal governing in Congress. This is no different and should have been expected.

♦  Can this stop Judge Kavanaugh from becoming a U.S. Supreme Court Justice?

The allegation alone cannot stop his confirmation. What CAN stop it (and what Democrats are holding out for) is to put doubt in the minds of a handful of Republican Senators sufficient to fall short of the majority necessary for his confirmation. Republicans hold just a slim margin in their majority. There are several Senators who already were unsure about Kavanaugh — primarily based on the fear that he is anti-abortion and might be the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if a case came to the High Court to do just that. Those Senators are Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.

Additionally, Democrat hopefuls hope that Kavanaugh will tire of this unforeseen pressure and attack on his integrity and will simply withdraw from consideration for the spot. President Trump could too request that Kavanaugh withdraw.

♦  Has there been any other case similar to this in the Supreme Court confirmation process?

There is a case that is eerily similar to this. In 1991, Clarence Thomas was a Supreme Court nominee. A former associate of his — Anita Hill — came forward and accused Thomas of sexual assault against her. There was no evidence proving or disproving her claim. In very ugly public hearings, Democrats and Republicans alike sparred back and forth regarding the validity of her claim.

There we no women on the Senate Judiciary Committee that was chaired by former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden. The Committee failed to via committee vote endorse a full Senate vote on the nominee. The full Senate voted on Thomas’ confirmation without committee approval. Thomas was confirmed.

It is noteworthy that NO such case has ever been brought forth in a case involving a liberal/Democrat justice nominee. This appears to be still another way for the minority party to throw a curve ball in this process that they find necessary because of lacking control in the confirmation process.

♦  What role is the Media playing in this happening?

That is probably the easiest question to answer: they are all going bonkers!

One can just imagine which networks and newspapers are being objective while giving Americans the facts of the story and which are “in the tank.” It’s the usual lot: FOX News, the Drudge Report, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, are all simply passing out facts while CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times and Washington Post are wall-papering their news reporting 24/7 with not news, but their “perspectives” on all things to do with this. It is so ridiculous, it is almost funny.

Andrea Mitchell of NBC Nightly News gives us an example in this report:

Summary

This story is far from over. No doubt even with the obvious delaying tactics being used by Democrats Kavanaugh should still be confirmed. But the process is not going to play out so quickly. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee want to interview the woman and Kavanaugh in a hearing in which they are both under oath. The committee is scheduled for a vote on moving his nomination to the full Senate this Thursday. That is unlikely at this point. I expect for the Committee to have testimony from her and Kavanaugh both before a vote is taken.

It is important to note that Democrats are the solo artists of turning the presidential appointment — confirmation process into a simple majority. Former Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) changed the rules that formerly required a 60-vote majority to a simple majority. Obviously, if that old rule was still in place, confirmation of Kavanaugh would be almost impossible. This latest hiccup brings that possibility back into play.

Who is the woman?

The investigative staff of TruthNewsNet.org is preparing a full in-depth report we will bring you in full tomorrow. Make a note: that story will go live internationally at 01:45 AM tomorrow morning. If you have not already, log in your email address at the bottom right of the home page. You will then receive during the night an email link to this and any other new story/podcast on which you can simply click to read or hear every story ever posted at www.TruthNewsNet.org.

Your email address is totally confidential: we NEVER give any email addresses to anyone. The only entity you will hear from is us. And we promise to NEVER try to sell you anything and will NEVER even run ads on our site. Everything here that you read or listen to is 100% free to you. Login simply to assure you never miss a story or podcast.

“The lights in the kitchen have been turned on…and the roaches are scrambling for cover!”

There are many things going on in D.C. part of this story and part of “other” stuff there. Stay with us: it’s getting deeper and deeper!

 

 

 

Play

“Chain Chain Chain”

This article’s title is in part an acknowledgment of the loss of one of America’s greatest singers of all-time. Aretha Franklin was a champion to all American musicians, songwriters, and singers. In my radio broadcasting career, I fell in love with her songs. She will be sorely missed.

The other part the title’s purpose: Americans today wish the lyrics of the great Aretha Franklin song would be changed from “Chain, chain, chain” to “Change, change, change.” Nope…..NO CHANGE!

What’s Up?

“You got me where you want me; I ain’t nothin’ but your fool. Ya treated me mean; Oh you treated me cruel.”

Aretha could have been singing about today’s U.S. Congress in her hit “Chain Chain Chain.” I now know why the Founders set Congressional terms at 2 years and Senate terms at 6. The problem is Congressional members really don’t care why the Founders did so. Job #1 for everyone on Capitol Hill seems to be to maintain the status quo. Why not just dial back the Nation’s political atmosphere to that of the late 1700’s? The legislation would be dramatically different than today’s, and there would certainly be more accomplishments. Remember this: Washington D.C. was not the site for the first Congress.

During the 1790s, while Philadelphia served as the nation’s temporary capital, the U.S. Congress met problems and threats to the nation that tested the endurance of the Constitution and the republic it framed. Domestic issues of finance, taxation, sectionalism, Indian affairs, and slavery divided the delegates into bitter political camps, and international relations morphed into disagreements as well. Partisan politics aside, Congress during this decade forged a government that remained intact, despite projections of failure from the prevailing monarchies overseas. Imagine if THIS Congress functioned as those first Congresses did. They too faced amazing challenges and roadblocks — some similar to today’s and some different. But what was truly different was that those early U.S. governments found ways to daily put aside partisanship and personal differences and GOT THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS DONE!

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing

There certainly is no change in the attitude of those sitting at the table in Senate confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh. Democrats on that committee have all already publicly announced they do not and will not support Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Why? They give no substantive explanation other than they “think” he (if confirmed) would not support anti-abortion and/or gun laws if any should come before the court. His history upon which they universally base those feelings is: ____________ and _____________. “Those spaces are blank,” you say. Yes, they are. There are NO opinions, no writings, no speeches given by Brett Kavanaugh upon which they can base their opinion that he is unworthy of their votes.

Here’s their reason: Democrats and others on the Left feel abortion is the right of every woman. Even though they have a SCOTUS confirmed law that provides that legal right to all — Roe v. Wade — they are all horrified that abortion might someday be ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. They are petrified that Kavanaugh if confirmed, might cast the deciding vote. Forget about the law in existence and forget about precedence. ABORTION IS LEGAL!

Political historians, current and past federal judges, and federal law scholars pretty much in unison state that if Roe v. Wade is ever challenged at the Supreme Court on its legal structure, it would fail. But on principle, it will stand, unless a future SCOTUS faces a challenge of the law’s legal substance.

Surely they know that even if Roe is ever overturned, the legality determination of abortion will simply go back to the states. Then (as before) determination of abortion will be state-by-state.

So why the uproar? It’s not about abortion at all. Pro-Choice is simply the face of a Socialist movement. Their agenda goes far beyond just abortion rights. It includes the fundamental changes to U.S. law and American rights. And it even includes changing a fundamental principle held dearly by all Americans since the Declaration of Independence: the right to vote.

We’ll get into the substance of those. But first: the Senate confirmation hearing.

The “Agenda” of the Kavanaugh Hearings

In Judge Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearing, there were no questions from Senators on Tuesday, but there will be questions, answers, accusations, and assumptions Wednesday about the following:

  • Roe v. Wade
  • Gun Rights
  • Immigration
  • Public Education vs. Private Education
  • First Amendment
  • Roe v. Wade
  • Executive Department Authority
  • Same-Sex Marriage
  • Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade is in the list 3 times because, in the hearing, it was (and will be) mentioned and discussed in questions and answers at least 30% of the hearing time!

Senators (probably by the time you read this) will have already begun Q & A with the nominee: 30 minutes each in the first round and 20 minutes each in round two. What that means is Republican members will use 25 minutes in the first round (as an accommodation to the confirmation process to save time), 15 minutes in the second round for the same reason. Democrats, however, will use 35-40 minutes just because they will demand it!

In case you missed Tuesday’s initial hearing, let me boil it down for you:

  1. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-IA) set the rules for the hearing up front but was instantly when gaveling the hearing open interrupted by Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) who demanded immediate hearing adjournment because Senators had not had enough time to read necessary documents to prepare. And she continued to interrupt Grassley about the same subject again and again;
  2. Democrat Senator after Democrat Senator too demanded adjournment for the same reason, over and over again. They needed to “learn more about how Brett Kavanaugh if confirmed, would rule on controversial cases based on his notes and previous cases.” This complaint continued, even though they had been provided more than 400,000 pages of notes, case history, financial records, education records, witness testimony and on and on about Kavanaugh;
  3. All this came in the shadow of one glaring fact that revealed the animus, hatred, and partisanship of the Left: Appellate Judge Kavanaugh had written 307 opinions on cases that came in front of his court — 307! “If” they want to know what his judicial stance is on any one particular issue that might result in Supreme Court consideration, they certainly have documentation to show them. How do you measure what a judge thinks about issues on which he or she has ruled? Read his or her opinions.
  4. The harsh reality of Democrat reasoning here is clear: their only intent is to discredit Brett Kavanaugh in every way possible and disrupt confirmation hearings. It was revealed today they had a conference call over the weekend and set a plan in motion to do exactly what they did in the Tuesday hearing: obstruct the hearing with constant interruptions and attacks on Kavanaugh. Their attacks on Judge Kavanaugh were not for his specific case results — he participated in over 2000 court decisions — but on the process of these hearing led by Grassley. And the process was exactly the same as that used in the Gorsuch hearings for which no one had any issues at all about the process.
  5. The most glaring proof of how vile the Left was in the Tuesday hearing was that Judge Kavanaugh’s two young daughters had to leave the hearing so they would not see and hear how nasty, rude, and bombastic Democrat Senators were to their father.

Summary

I recorded and watched the replay of Judge Kavanaugh’s opening statement at the hearing. I was amazed at his composure, his positive attitude, and his grasp of the meaning of being a Supreme Court nominee and what it means if he is confirmed. He made it clear that he is proud of the work completed in his 12 years as D.C. Appeals Court judge and has no hesitation in supporting each decision reached by that court — even those with which he disagreed. Not many can say that in looking back on 12 years on their job there is nothing they’d change . Kavanaugh emphasized that his fundament basis for every court ruling was his undying commitment to the “Rule of Law.”

For those of our liberal members, before attacking Judge Kavanaugh during these hearings, please don’t listen to someone else’s summary of Judge Kavanaugh’s written opinions. Yes, 307 is quite a few, they are lengthy (I know because I’ve read several), but it is worth your time to at least Google those, grab at least a few, and read them. Once you do that, I suggest you do what is apparent Democrats are so far unwilling to do: question the Judge for what he actually did in consideration and forming opinions on specific cases.

A real and accurate measure of a nominated judge is not what he or she says. A real and accurate measure of ANY judge is what he or she actually does on cases.

These confirmation hearings illustrate the vast chasm between what Congress in the 1790’s did to operate our government and this Congress — especially the U.S. Senate. I’m certain there were partisan differences and controversial and heated debates. But those members of Congress knew one thing superseded all partisanship and personal opinion: the Rule of Law, and that justices with whom they may have had personal or political differences but had a history of supporting the U.S. Constitution and were qualified that were appointed by the President should be confirmed to the Court.

This Senate better get the job done or the mid-term and 2020 elections will be a blood-bath, regardless what the MSM polls say!

 

 

 

 

Play

Democrats: SCOTUS Furor Even Worse Than Anticipated

    We finally know the specifics of Democrats “new” plan for governing in the U.S. In today’s TNN offering, we will walk you through their governance process, give you its history, and facts that prove this plan is not a conservative conspiracy theory — it’s factual. It’s not new. In fact, it has existed for a decade or more. On its own merits, it is scary. But the scariest realization is that it has been there for all to see from its inception, and Americans have either ignored it, seen it but dismissed it or have missed it altogether. See more about this in the “Summary” below.

Leftist Frenzy

Who would have thought that a kind, gentle, and soft-spoken jurist with a history of 300 legal documented opinions written during his 11 years a federal appeals court judge, would (according to Democrats) either be Satan himself or at least Satan’s best friend? That’s the story being trumpeted to the Nation by Democrat Party leaders in D.C. Putting it plainly from Dems perspective: Brett Kavanaugh is an evil Supreme Court nominee who wants to snatch all personal freedoms from every American — especially from women.

How to respond to such bombastic allegations?

How bombastic are they? Here are U.S. Senate Democrat leaders Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA) — who is almost certainly a candidate for President in 2020 — Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):

Roe v. Wade

Is it surprising that the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling by the Supreme Court 40 years ago is “the” hot button for whoever is to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy’s spot on the Supreme Court? Is it surprising that even before President Trump’s announcement of the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to fill that spot, Leftists were screaming that “the” nominee (if confirmed) would single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade?

Enter Brett Kavanaugh.

Immediately upon his nomination, the Leftist abortionists began alerting every American that women’s rights — including abortion — would be immediately abolished by Justice Kavanaugh. Their cry would have been the same no matter who the President nominated.

In his Senate confirmation hearing in 2006 after his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, here is how Judge Kavanaugh replied to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) when asked about his position on Roe v. Wade (click on the link to watch):

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4739106/schumer-questions-kavanaugh-2006

SCHUMER: “Do you consider Roe v. Wade to be an abomination? And do you consider yourself to be a judicial nominee, like the president (George W. Bush) said he was going to nominate people, in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas?”

KAVANAUGH: “Senator, on the question of Roe v. Wade, if confirmed to the DC Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be a binding precedent of the Court. It’s been decided by the Supreme Court.”

That answer, of course, was not sufficient to stem Schumer’s fear of the overturn of Roe v. Wade:

SCHUMER: “I asked you your own opinion.”

KAVANAUGH: “And I’m saying if I were confirmed to the DC Circuit, Senator, I would follow it. It’s been reaffirmed many times, including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.”

SCHUMER: “I understand. But what is your opinion? You’re not on the bench yet. You’ve talked about these issues in the past to other people, I’m sure.”

KAVANAUGH: “The Supreme Court has held repeatedly, Senator, and I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to give a personal view of that case.”

SCHUMER: “Okay, you are not going to answer the question.”

Kavanaugh’s answer seems clear and to the point to most, but not to Schumer who simply sought to disqualify Kavanaugh — a conservative judge who is thought to be Pro-Life — for his personal stance on abortion. But the “Ginsburg Rule” was invoked and has been often since the Senate confirmation hearing in 1993 of Ruth Bader Ginsburg then a Supreme Court nominee. Let’s look at it.

Ginsburg Rule

At her 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her opening statement urged the Judiciary Committee to judge her fitness to be a Justice principally on the written record of her past 34 years of legal experience—as a law teacher, practicing attorney, and
federal appellate court judge. She then articulated a limit on what the Senators could expect their questioning to elicit from her. For, she said, she would be constrained, when responding to Senators’ questions, from providing any “previews,” “hints,” or “forecasts” of how she as a Justice might cast her vote on issues that might come before the Court:
“Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues. Each case comes to court based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”
In her subsequent testimony, Judge Ginsburg sometimes declined to address or discuss in any way an issue raised by a Senator’s question, in each instance referring to her earlier proclaimed intention not to provide any “hints or forecasts” on how she might vote on an issue once on the
Court.
Since that hearing, it has been — on both sides of the political aisle — not just acceptable but considered the just and right thing that nominees to ALL federal courts not be asked to give personal opinions on specific legal issues that are not specific to the Constitution or the Rule of Law. Of course, senators who are pushing political agendas will occasionally push nominees on certain hot topics (like Roe v. Wade) so as to politically expose nominees’ personal convictions and opinions about those topics.
Today’s Democrat Senators have thrown “The Ginsburg Rule” to the curb. They apparently do not care for historical precedent, the decency, and decorum that has been part of confirming judicial nominees to federal courts. Want an example? That same senator above — Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) — said this about the upcoming Senate confirmation hearing to be held for Judge Kavanaugh: “During confirmation hearings for nominees to the High Court, members of the Judiciary Committee have the right to hear the personal opinions of candidates on anything that might impact the way they would rule on any issue.” (paraphrased) Blumenthal angrily made that statement in an interview, demanding that Kavanaugh is forced to tell members of the committee where he stands on abortion and other hot political issues. Doing so would obviously obliterate the long-standing standard set by Justice Ginsburg in her confirmation hearing in which she stated refused to answer questions 70 times because “doing so would possibly prejudice any position I might take if/when that issue was part of a case the Supreme Court agreed to rule on.”

Why the Demand from Dems on this Issue?

The answer to that question not only explains past nominees’ reason for refusal to answer questions about personal views, it exposes Democrats “new” plan for governing in the U.S.

The Dem “Plan”

It’s simple: they have lost the election war in America, and they’ve thrown in the towel. For the last decade, Democrats have watched election after election at federal, state, and local levels in which Dems lost 1000+ seats of government to Republicans. That slide had already begun when their former leader — Barack Obama — installed and initiated the “new” Democrat plan that is still in use. What WAS and IS the Democrat plan?

Democrats understand that their old party platform based on higher taxes, increased regulations, increased government subsidies, open border immigration policies, diminished military, anti-law enforcement policies, anti-business legislation and restrictions, and socialized medicine with a much larger federal government running the show, was impossible to sell to the American people. Obama promised to install policies that would “fundamentally change” America. In his first term, he did just that, and America realized they did not like those changes. Those policies were not helping them, their wallets, or the towns and cities where they lived. They lost jobs and businesses while unemployment soared as they watched company after company abandon the U.S. for other nations with better financial policies.

Middle America stopped voting for Democrats. Democrat Party leaders were horrified at their loss of power, so frantically struggled to find a way out. Obama schooled them on the “new plan:” Make the American Judiciary the political arm of the American government — a Democrat government. He knew that federal judges and courts had the final say-so on all laws and policies. If Democrats could flood the federal courts with liberal activist judges, they would see federal court case verdicts based on liberal political philosophy and abandoning the longstanding Rule of Law for court rulings. That meant appointing activist judges wherever federal court judge openings occurred. Barack Obama did just that.

The total number of Obama Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate was 329, including two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 55 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 268 judges to the United States district courts, and four judges to the United States Court of International Trade.

In terms of Article I courts, Obama made 8 appointments to the United States Tax Court, 3 appointments to the United States Court of Federal Claims, 3 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, 2 appointments to the United States Court of Military Commission Review, and 2 appointments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. He also elevated two chief judges of the Court of Federal Claims.

All were Democrats — and all were political activists.

The “Plan”

Now we know the reason for the outcry from the Left over the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy and the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to replace him. We know why long before the Kavanaugh appointment, the Left made preparations to fight ANY Trump appointee. They knew Trump would appoint a Conservative judge to the High Court — a justice that would certainly NOT be an activist, and would certainly rule according to Constitutional guidelines and certainly not for Democrat political leanings on any issue.

Democrats are in total melt-down.

Summary

There are several points I want to make here:

  • There’s a reason why our forefathers created the electoral college for our presidential election system. They knew large cities and heavily populated areas would eventually dominate national elections at the expense of those from rural and less populated areas. Therefore elections could not fairly be determined by just a popular vote. The “new” plan was to eventually with activist court decisions do away with the electoral college;
  • The Democrat Party has quickly slipped left politically — not just a little bit. The Party is now Far-Left, and can fairly be termed “Socialist.” In fact, many on the Left are past European Socialism and are flirting with Totalitarianism in which Big Brother Government totally controls the lives of the citizenry;
  • Democrats can no longer control the legislative process to install their Socialist agenda, which they for a decade have secretly been developing. And they have for a decade relied on activist judges to do that;
  • Donald Trump foiled their plan by “stealing” the election from HRC. They don’t know what to do.

We will continue to see and hear the shouts of anger and hate from the Left as the process of confirmation for Kavanaugh get underway. I fear that this may devolve into real violence. FOX News’ Shannon Bream was doing her show from outside the Supreme Court the night of the President’s nomination announcement. She had to terminate her show plan and move inside because Leftist demonstrators threatened violence. I think that is just the beginning.

Make no mistake: Brett Kavanaugh will be the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice. He “will not” because one Justice “cannot” overturn any federal law: that includes Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage, and cannot install any new conservative laws at all. JUDGES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE LAWS! The only judges that have and are doing so number among those Leftist, activist judges appointed to federal courts by Obama.

I’ve said this before today, and it’s more applicable to today than any other: buckle up…..WE’RE IN FOR A RIDE!

Play