Search
Archives
Categories

If this NYTimes article is accurate, then the Democrats just lost a great opportunity to flip a Republican Senate seat.

According to the article, “When Kyrsten Sinema began her rise in Arizona politics in the early 2000s, she was a Ralph Nader supporter and local spokeswoman for the Green Party who worked to repeal the death penalty and organized antiwar protests after the Sept. 11 attacks. But today, as the Democratic nominee for Senate from Arizona in one of the most pivotal races in the country, Ms. Sinema is campaigning as an altogether different person. While she is now a three-term member of Congress, Ms. Sinema is running as much on her biography — her three years spent homeless as a child — as on any issue. She is using that personal hardship to project grit and distinguish herself from ‘most people in politics,’ as she says.”

Here’s where Sinema’s problems start:

In speeches and interviews, Ms. Sinema recalls how she spent three years as a child living in a former gas station “without running water or electricity.” She has highlighted that hardship as a way to distinguish herself from “most people in politics,” as she would be the rare senator with personal experience of being homeless.

But court documents reviewed by The New York Times raise questions about Ms. Sinema’s descriptions of what she endured in the mid-1980s, when her mother remarried and moved the family from Arizona to Florida. And Ms. Sinema herself, as her national profile has risen, has given contradictory answers about her early life.

This won’t end the race by itself, though it will cause people to think twice about trusting her.

There’s no questioning Martha McSally, though. Her life story is well-documented. She isn’t a dishonest person. Like Judge Kavanaugh, there aren’t any questions about her integrity or reliability. People aren’t looking for chameleons. They’re looking for problem-solvers. Sinema is a chameleon. This is what a problem-solver looks like:

Karin Housley and Jim Newberger are making a point of highlighting Tina Smith’s and Amy Klobuchar’s hypocrisy when it comes to Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

When contacted by the Duluth News Tribune, Sen. Housley said “I believe the Judiciary Committee should hear directly from the accuser so that all the facts can be known by the public. Tina Smith and national Democrats should apply the same standard to Keith Ellison, who has been accused by two victims of horrific accounts of abuse.” The Committee should hear from Judge Kavanaugh after they’ve heard from Dr. Ford. If Dr. Ford decides not to testify Thursday, then the Committee should immediately proceed to a vote on the nomination.

If Dr. Ford thinks that it’s ok to drop this uncorroborated bombshell on Judge Kavanaugh, then walk away from testifying, then it’ll be apparent that she’s afraid that she’ll be exposed as telling whoppers. Dr. Ford’s attorney apparently agrees:

“This hearing plan that Mr. Davis described does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment,” Bromwich wrote. “In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor,’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations.”

He added: “It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

Grandstanding senators would turn the hearing into a circus. I suspect Democrat senators will deploy that strategy if Dr. Ford shows up. Having an experienced sex crimes prosecutor question Dr. Ford would eliminate the circus.

Jim Newberger raised questions about Sen. Klobuchar in a tweet, saying “Where is her call for further action regarding Keith Ellison’s repeated reports of abuse, which are now supported by medical records?”

If watching the Democrats’ trashing of a good man’s reputation without corroboration isn’t pissing you off, then you’re either a Democrat or the most apathetic person alive. The Democrats haven’t hesitated in trashing Brett Kavanaugh’s reputation and the reputation of his young family. What Democrats have done (and are doing) is beyond reprehensible.

Friends, regardless of political affiliation, the Democrats’ tactics should turn your stomach. They’re ruining the life of a thoroughly upright, God-fearing man with unsubstantiated allegations. Judiciary Committee Democrats have said some of the nastiest things imaginable about Judge Kavanaugh. He’s done nothing to deserve this. Kavanaugh’s ‘crime’? Being a judicial conservative.

Amy Klobuchar, aka St. Amy of Hennepin County, prides herself on her bipartisan work. While she hasn’t been as hate-filled as Mazie Hirono, (D-HI), she’s been a nasty partisan nonetheless. It’s time to throw her out of office. Jim Newberger would be an outstanding replacement.

Across the nation, Democrats want to take us back to the failed policies that ‘produced’ 1.5% economic growth. Sitting at home will help get rid of President Trump’s policies that’ve replaced President Obama’s policies of pathetic growth and replaced them with robust growth. Is that what you’d prefer? Sitting at home will get you there.

This isn’t a time for complacency. There’s far too much at stake. There’s a Supreme Court seat that’s hanging in the balance. Our prosperity is, too. Do we really want a rerun of Speaker Pelosi? I don’t! If you’re ok with Supreme Court nominees getting treated like trash, all you have to do is nothing. This interview should motivate you to vote this fall:

In fact, I’d recommend you vote early for your nearest Republican. Voting Democrat is a vote for another protracted smear campaign against a good man. No Thanks.

If anything, this article proves that the Democrats’ calls for an FBI investigation were a political stunt. This article highlights the ‘plight’ of Deborah Ramirez, who supposedly was sexually assaulted by (drum roll please) Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

According to the article, Ramirez “was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.”

In the legal profession, that’s like admitting that you’re making this stuff up. “Contained gaps”? “She’d been drinking at the time of the alleged incident”? Let’s pre-emptively tell the feminist left that nobody is under any obligation to believe anything this woman says. Any person, male or female, who admits that they’ve got gaps in their memory of something that happened in the 1980s because they were drinking heavily at the time has credibility difficulties.

There’s nothing in the article that’s credible. Check this out:

After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

Translation: After Democrats prevailed upon her to step forward, Ramirez said yes.

One of the things implied in Alan Dershowitz’s article is that Dr. Ford must testify. That comes through loud and clear when Prof. Dershowitz wrote “Obviously she has to testify, she has to be cross-examined, preferably by good lawyers who can ask probing questions. Then [Kavanaugh] has to get up and respond.”

Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t think that Dr. Ford will testify. It’s her affirmative responsibility to testify now that she dropped this bombshell on Judge Kavanaugh but there’s virtually no chance that she’ll do that because there’s too much downside for her and the Democrats.

First, there’s the downside of Dr. Ford sounding like a political pawn the minute the Republicans start asking her about specifics about the event. The minute that Dr. Ford can’t identify the address of the home where the alleged attack happened, Dr. Ford’s credibility will diminish. When they ask Dr. Ford about how she got home after the event and she admits that she can’t remember, Dr. Ford’s credibility will diminish.

Dr. Ford’s team of attorneys are doing their best to ‘negotiate’ rules that benefit her the most. Testifying after Judge Kavanaugh is designed to help her craft her story after Judge Kavanaugh has testified. Prof. Dershowitz said it perfectly when he said this:

The tool of the inquisition was to always call the accused first. Make him testify. Make him lay out his whole case and only then tell him what the accusation is.

This afternoon, Dr. Ford’s attorneys issued another unresponsive response, insisting that Judge Kavanaugh go first, and that the hearing be held on Thursday. If Dr. Ford won’t testify on Wednesday and if she isn’t willing to testify first, then Republicans should highlight how Dr. Ford and the Democrats tried creating a kangaroo court in their attempt to not have Dr. Ford testify. Like I said yesterday, her testimony has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. If given a smell test, Dr. Ford’s testimony would stink like Limburger cheese.

Sen. Grassley, it’s time to make a decision. It’s time to give Judge Kavanaugh an up-or-down vote.

For most of this week, Democrat women senators like Mazie Hirono and Kirsten Gillibrand have insisted that Chairman Grassley’s invitation to Christine Blasey-Ford was an attempt to silence Dr. Ford. They insisted that making her testify first violated her constitutional rights. (It doesn’t.) The defendant always goes last. Who’s ever heard of the prosecution going last? How would the defendant defend himself/herself if the prosecution hasn’t presented its case first?

Writing in The Atlantic, Benjamin Witte writes that “Kavanaugh Bears the Burden of Proof.” When I went to sleep last night, I could’ve sworn that people were innocent until proven guilty. The truth is that this case has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. If a prosecutor were to bring it to trial, the defense wouldn’t need to call a witness. All they’d have to do is make a motion to dismiss immediately after the prosecution rested. The judge would immediately dismiss for insufficient evidence.

Nan Aron, one of the most strident activists on the Democratic side, writes “Every Woman in America Is Watching” in an attempt to intimidate men.

She wrote this:

More than a quarter century ago, a university professor named Anita Hill was abused, shamed, and ignored by the U.S. Senate—just for having the courage to go before the Judiciary Committee and describe how she’d been sexually harassed by Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

I know because I was at that hearing. My organization, Alliance for Justice, played a role in bringing Professor Hill’s story to light, by alerting the Senate Judiciary Committee to her experiences and ability to corroborate what had been widely whispered, but not validated, about Clarence Thomas. I also remember the pain and the outrage that women felt at the way Professor Hill was treated, and I want very much to believe that such a thing would not happen again in today’s #MeToo era.

First, Anita Hill was shamed because they believed Clarence Thomas, who rightly highlighted the unsubstantiated allegations in this epic scene:

Why doesn’t Aron think that women are interested in fairness? Picture a justice system where men’s careers can be demolished with unsubstantiated allegations. Is that a world you’d want to live in? Women, imagine a system where your husband’s career can be demolished with an unsubstantiated allegation. I can’t imagine that’s your definition of fairness.

It isn’t just the faux feminists that are watching on this. It’s everyone. Predictably, the Democrats have overplayed their hand. Again. There’s an old saying about Yasser Arafat that fits Democrats perfectly: He never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Democrats didn’t have an opportunity to take down Judge Kavanaugh but they’re certainly missing an opportunity to win voters over.

Senate Democrats, especially female senators, insist that women are right to expect to be believed. Apparently, that right comes with an asterisk. Apparently, that doesn’t apply if you’ve accused Tom Brokaw, Matt Lauer, Bill Clinton, Keith Ellison, Al Franken or Harvey Weinstein.

Women like Karen Monahan don’t have the right to be believed, even when they provide verification of their accusations. In Bill Clinton’s case, he even had a wife who attacked his accusers.

What’s interesting is that Kirsten Gillibrand thinks that it’s impolite for Republicans to essentially tell an accuser that she wouldn’t be believed if she didn’t testify after making strong accusations against a Supreme Court nominee without any proof.

Initially, Dr. Ford’s attorneys played this stupid, insisting that the FBI conduct an investigation. That’s rather rich considering that the alleged crime happened 36 years ago at a home the ‘victim’ doesn’t know the address of. How do you collect forensic evidence without a ‘crime scene’? Without a crime scene (and, in this case, I use that term extremely loosely) or forensic evidence, this will forever be a he said/she said allegation. No investigation, done by the FBI or otherwise, will change that. Period.

Finally, how can you trust people whose logic is this circular?

In doing background checks, the FBI just puts in raw data. It doesn’t provide conclusions. Why would Democrats want that? Explanation: so they can tell people that Judge Kavanaugh did X, Y or Z, then throw in the term BI investigation to make it sound official. It’s still a he said/she said thing. There still isn’t a bit of proof that verifies anything in either person’s direction. It isn’t a stretch to think that this is just the Democrats’ attempt to drag this out past the midterms, then pray that they win back the majority in the Senate, thereby killing the Kavanaugh nomination.

It isn’t a stretch because the Kavanaugh confirmation represents an existential threat to Democrats. (That’s why they announced their opposition to the eventual nominee before he’d been named.)

After Jessie van Berkel’s article, Doug Wardlow is going on the offensive in his campaign against Keith Ellison. Wardlow’s campaign is going on the offensive with this ad:

Here’s a partial transcript of Wardlow’s ad:

NARRATOR: Extreme Keith Ellison voted against the Farm Bill and supports radical environmental policies that hurt Minnesota farmers and workers. Extreme Keith Ellison supported cop-killers, open borders and has said he’s against the Second Amendment. Even worse, Extreme Keith Ellison has been accused of domestic violence by multiple women.

Think about this — Keith Ellison wants to be Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer but he disagrees with the Bill of Rights and he thinks that he can beat up women without getting punished. What type of idiot liberal thinks that makes sense?

Let me rephrase that. What idiot liberal other than the ones serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee thinks that ignoring the Constitution and beating up women is ok? In Karen Monahan’s case, she provided proof of Ellison’s assault. She didn’t wait 30+ years to make the accusation. She immediately reported it to the proper authorities. Medical personnel have verified her injuries.

Keith Ellison is devoid of character plus he thinks he’s above the law. Why would we elect that type of dirtbag? Instead, let’s elect Doug Wardlow. With him, we know he won’t support cop-killers or beat up women.

John Hinderaker’s latest article on Keith Ellison might push Ellison over the edge politically. Hinderaker’s article includes this screen shot:

It’s difficult to imagine how fair-minded Minnesotans give Rep. Ellison the benefit of the doubt when coupling this documentation with a transcript of a previous 911 call of another woman who has accused Ellison of physical abuse. Ellison has insisted that he’s innocent of committing domestic violence but this screen shot from an ER visit (in which Monahan identifies Rep. Ellison by name) is virtually impossible to escape from. Houdini would have a difficult time escaping from this.

Considering the fact that the KSTP-SurveyUSA poll had Ellison tied with Doug Wardlow at 41%, it’s difficult picturing things getting better for Ellison between today and Election Day.

Jessie van Berkel, the Strib reporter covering Ellison, wrote this:

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s former girlfriend Karen Monahan has posted a medical document on social media that shows she told a doctor in 2017 that she had been in an abusive relationship with Ellison. Monahan, who said Ellison domestically abused her in 2016, shared the patient progress notes from Nov. 2017 on Twitter several times this week.

Ellison, who is running for Minnesota attorney general, has denied the allegation, which emerged in August. Monahan’s son first told the story on social media, and she later confirmed what her son said. During a fight, Ellison pulled on her legs and feet while she was lying on a bed, Monahan said.

Getting around a domestic violence complaint is difficult when there’s a document signed by a doctor talking about the suffering the woman had dealt with. It’s virtually impossible for me to see Rep. Ellison wiggling out of this one.

Thursday night, C-cubed and Red Hat events are holding an event at the Tuscan Center. The subjects for the event will be “Crime & Terrorism A local & National Perspective.” Confirmed to attend are Philip Haney and Dave Bentrud. Mr. Haney is the co-author of the book titled “See Something, Say Nothing.” He is a former whistleblower who worked in the US Department of Homeland Security.

If you don’t know much about him, this article will provide you with a ton of important information about Mr. Haney and the important responsibilities he was tasked with at the DHS.

Haney will provide insights into federal counterterrorism efforts.

Dave Bentrud is currently the Police Commissioner of the Waite Park Police Department. He’s also running to become the next sheriff of Stearns County. Chief Bentrud will provide insights into law enforcement strategies to keep crime as low as possible.

The doors open at 6:30 pm, with Mr. Haney’s presentation starting at 7:00 pm. The crime/law enforcement forum starts at 7:30 pm. PS- This video will help people understand Mr. Haney: