Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

Friday night, I got TakeAction Minnesota’s weekly newsletter. The top item in TAM’s newsletter, predictably, was President Trump’s Thursday night rally. TAM wrote “Well, it’s Friday, and it’s been quite the week. Last night, President Trump visited Minneapolis. And, as expected, he used his platform to spread hate and division. Much of it was directed it toward our Somali friends and neighbors.”

Of course, that was only part of this DFL front group’s dishonest update. It continued, saying “But that’s not the entire story. Last night, tens of thousands of Minnesotans, including many of you, came together in the cold rain to affirm what we know: every person has inherent worth and dignity. No matter where they came from or what faith they practice. And no matter what President Trump says. Right now, we’re faced with a choice: Either we stand together with unbreakable solidarity across race, class, gender and geography, and rise up to meet the challenges we face. Or we allow hatred and cruelty to rule the day.”

Speaking of hatred and cruelty, here’s what the rioters did while the rally was just ending:

Then there’s this:


It’s a safe bet that the rioters weren’t Trump supporters. I’d estimate the chances of the rioters being Democrats and Antifa to be north of 90%. If TakeAction Minnesota wants to talk about hatred and cruelty, they’d better look in the mirror first. TakeAction Minnesota is famous for pushing the envelope when it comes to on-the-ground activism. I wrote about TAM’s threats and intimidation in this post. TakeAction Minnesota went to Jason Lewis’s home:

But my neighbors saw 20, 25 people, nobody knows the real count, outside. Their daughters were home alone, got scared, called their dad. He called the police, which, by the way, in the suburb I live in, it’s a violation of a city ordinance to what, not to mention trespassing.

Rule #1 — Whatever the DFL accuses Republicans of doing is exactly what the DFL is doing. Rule #2 — Never forget Rule #1.

Check out this wrap-up of Thursday night’s violence. Spread these videos far and wide. Without visual proof, people won’t believe that the DFL has gotten this violent.

Democrats are hell-bent on impeaching President Trump, even if it means ignoring what the key witness said. This morning in Ukraine, President Zelenskiy told the AP “We didn’t speak about this. There was no blackmail.” Further, in responding “to questions from The Associated Press, Zelenskiy said he only learned after their July 25 phone call that the U.S. had blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine.”

I’m predicting right now that this exculpatory information won’t matter to Schiff and Pelosi. This won’t break their stride. As Newt Gingrich writes in this article, “This coup attempt, which is exactly what it is, has nothing to do with evidence or any single accusation. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said when asked what she would do if the whistleblower accusation involving Ukraine collapsed, ‘We have many other, shall we say, candidates for impeachable offense in terms of the Constitution of the United States, but this one is the most understandable by the public.'”

Pelosi and Schiff aren’t interested in releasing the testimony transcripts because those transcripts will show that the Democrats’ impeachment attempt is a purely partisan activity. Democrats have started with this coup attempt literally the morning after Election Day, 2016:

On Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016, a left-wing group announced emergency protests against Donald Trump in six cities that day. Within 24 hours of Trump being declared president, left-wing activists were gathering in Chicago, Los Angeles, Sacramento, New York City, San Francisco, and Albuquerque. As the organizers at Act Now to Stop and End Racism (ANSWER) announced:

In a shock result, Donald Trump has been elected president – but the people can rise up and defeat his bigoted, extreme right-wing agenda! The ANSWER Coalition is mobilizing across the country to organize and take part in emergency actions.

Democrats don’t just hate President Trump. Democrats hate him so thoroughly that they’re willing to throw the rules of evidence aside if that’s what’s required to get rid of President Trump. This isn’t a goal with Democrats. It’s an obsession with Democrats.

This video was shot on Nov. 9, 2016, the night of Trump’s election. That means that Democrats have literally been trying to impeach President Trump since he got elected. For Democrats, this isn’t about just removing President Trump from office. For Democrats, it’s about telling President Trump’s supporters that they made a major mistake and that they’d better repent immediately.

For a little over a week, Ms. Pelosi has been talking about this being a solemn time, that we should keep President Trump in prayer and that Jefferson, Madison and Franklin gave us “a republic if you can keep it.” Ms. Pelosi has repeatedly said that respecting the Constitution was the Democrats’ highest priority. Yet when she’s been asked to give Republicans the right to ask witnesses questions or to subpoena witnesses, Ms. Pelosi has been an autocrat.

When she started the impeachment inquiry, she didn’t do it by announcing the results of a vote from the People’s House. Ms. Pelosi stepped up to the microphone and announced that she was starting the inquiry. That means this inquiry isn’t a legitimate impeachment inquiry in the eyes of the courts. When Chairman Schiff requests documents, the White House won’t hesitate in rejecting Chairman Schiff’s request.

Had the whole House voted to start an impeachment inquiry, the House’s authority would’ve expanded substantially. Ms. Pelosi didn’t want Republicans to have the same rights that other minority parties had in past impeachment inquiries so she didn’t hold a vote. No special rules were created for this special investigation. Impeachment investigations, we understand, aren’t like other investigations because so much more is at stake.

We’re talking about undoing the will of the American people with impeachment and conviction. Other than voting to go to war, I can’t imagine a more somber moment the House experiences. Instead of voting on impeachment, Ms. Pelosi walked up to a podium like a queen and declared that the House had officially started their impeachment inquiry:

Pelosi caved to the Squad, Maxine Waters and the other nutjobs in her caucus. The rest of her caucus didn’t even get a chance to express the will of their constituents. The somewhat more moderate Democrats were told what they’d signed up for. Queen Nancy had made her dictatorial ruling. Queen Nancy had made the Democrats’ decision for them, too.

Remember when Queen Nancy led the fight for the ACA? That’s when Queen Nancy shoved Obamacare down our throats and 63 Democrats into involuntary retirement. That’s when Queen Nancy became famous for this:

In 2010, TEA Party activists stepped into voting booths across America, along with other patriots, and voted out Democrats en masse. When the results were finalized, Queen Nancy was no longer Speaker/Dictator because Republicans were the new majority. It’s time to throw Queen Nancy out of House leadership once and for all. It’s time we put the Squad in the minority for the foreseeable future, too.

It’s difficult figuring out whether DFL operative Mark Jaede, who moonlights as a non-teaching professor at St. Cloud State when he isn’t an activist, is dishonest or if he’s just stupid. It could go either direction. Both options have significant proof that would prove that option correct. I’m sitting at this point because Prof. Jaede’s comment seems more along the lines of DFL talking points than outright stupidity.

The situation starts with Dan Johnson’s monthly column in the SC Times. Johnson is the chairman of the Benton County Republican Party. This month, Johnson’s column was about the Democrats’ impeachment “witch hunt.” Johnson’s column was well-researched, which meant that comments needed to be either condescending or snarky. Here’s the comment that Prof. Jaede left:

Trump asked a foreign leader for a “favor” – going after a political rival. Despite all the Republican attempts at denial, that is corruption. We should hardly be surprised that Trump cannot recognize his own corruption and thinks the call was “perfect.”

I wrote about the transcript in this post. The word “favor” is only used once in the transcript. Here’s how it was used:

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your weal thy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people.

That’s the transcript published on the White House’s website. As any student would notice, the favor wasn’t to go after one of President Trump’s political rivals, least of all Joe Biden. If Jaede thinks Trump needs foreign dirt to take down Biden (or any potential Democrat rival, then he’s employing wishful thinking. There isn’t a Democrat who can beat Trump this year.)

The Democrats’ spin notwithstanding, the truth is that asking a foreign leader to help get to the bottom of the hacking of the DNC’s server is anything except corruption. If it’s anything, it’s President Trump taking election security seriously. It’s getting difficult to take Prof. Jaede seriously. He’s a professor who, at least until this year, didn’t teach. His time was mostly spent being an activist. Then again, SCSU isn’t that bright if they’re paying him not to teach.

This LTE contains its fair share of contradictions.. Perhaps, the biggest contradiction is the one found in this paragraph:

Imagine how we could lower gun deaths by requiring a license to purchase or use a gun! By requiring background checks for every gun sale? By limiting ammunition purchases? By making firearms inoperable by anyone except the original owner? This would stop killings by children and gun thieves. The National Rifle Association uses money to prevent Congress from passing such common-sense solutions, and — guess what — the NRA is funded by gun manufacturers. They would lose money if reasonable and constitutional limits were placed on weapons.

This is the ultimate contradiction in my estimation. How do you place restrictions on guns that pass constitutional muster? First, let’s start with the text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It’s important to notice why the Second Amendment was written — for “the security of a free state.” Further, it’s worth noting that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights said that it’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The person apparently doesn’t know much about this subject because we already have a system of background checks. Some of the recent mass-shooters have shot people after passing background checks. The problem isn’t whether there should be background checks but whether these background checks should include mental health data or whether juvenile arrests should be wiped clean.

The talk about implementing “common sense solutions” is just that — talk. House Democrats don’t just want “common sense” restrictions. They want an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, etc. An assault weapons ban is worthless. If you specify which weapons are classified as assault weapons, it’s easy for the manufacturer to get around that. What they did with the initial assault weapons ban, a month after the ban went into effect, the manufacturers changed the model numbers. The new model wasn’t part of the list so it wasn’t classified as an assault weapon.

If the legislation defines assault weapon by caliber, muzzle velocity of the round, physical characteristic, etc., then the definition is too broad. In their Heller decision, the Supreme Court said that firearms “in common use” can’t be prohibited. That doesn’t stop Biden, Beto or Harris from wanting to confiscate guns:

Beto’s ‘Buyback’:

Sen. Harris’ executive order:

Democrats don’t want to pass “common sense” restrictions on guns. They want to confiscate our weapons. The people making these threats aren’t back-benchers. They’re the Democrats’ presidential candidates. Their fidelity to the Constitution is limited at best.

Like most DFL-affiliated organizations, CAIR-MN has a history of publishing one thing, then doing another. That’s quickly proven with a visit to CAIR’s mission page. A list of CAIR-MN’s principles reads like this:

  1. CAIR supports free enterprise, freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
  2. CAIR is committed to protecting the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of faith.
  3. CAIR supports domestic policies that promote civil rights, diversity and freedom of religion.
  4. CAIR opposes domestic policies that limit civil rights, permit racial, ethnic or religious profiling, infringe on due process, or that prevent Muslims and others from participating fully in American civic life.
  5. CAIR is a natural ally of groups, religious or secular, that advocate justice and human rights in America and around the world.
  6. CAIR supports foreign policies that help create free and equitable trade, encourage human rights and promote representative government based on socio-economic justice.
  7. CAIR believes the active practice of Islam strengthens the social and religious fabric of our nation.
  8. CAIR condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state.
  9. CAIR advocates dialogue between faith communities both in America and worldwide.
  10. CAIR supports equal and complementary rights and responsibilities for men and women.

I’d start by saying that the first 3 bullet points aren’t what CAIR practices. I quoted Jaylani Hussein, CAIR-MN’s Executive Director, in this post as saying “St. Cloud residents cannot allow for a small fringe group of haters to dominate and take over the narrative of what St. Cloud is and who it is. There should be concern about these hate groups who are creating a very unsafe environment to the point where talks like these are not taking place. More people, more residents need to shun and call these people for what they are — hate groups who are trying to create fear.”

Hussein insists that a group of people peacefully protesting and another group of people praying for the Persecuted Church.

  1. Mr. Hussein, please explain how CAIR can support freedom of expression while calling for an entire city to call a group of people praying for the persecute church a hate group. In fact, forget the please. I demand that you explain how those 2 principles fit together.
  2. Mr. Hussein, I’d love hearing how CAIR can oppose “domestic policies that limit civil rights” while accusing an organization that’s praying a hate group. Since the First Amendment guarantees our right to practice the religion of our choice, including not practicing any religion, CAIR apparently doesn’t understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Forgive me if I don’t take it seriously when CAIR insists that it’s a civil rights organization. This video is ridiculous:

Comparing the SJW movement with MLK’s civil rights movement is beyond ridiculous. They fit together like oil and water.

It’s time to call out the St. Cloud Times for protecting their leftist cronies. This Our View Editorial is disgusting. It’s about the postponed Dismantling Hate Crimes event from this past Wednesday. Here’s the opening of the SCTimes’ article:

Sadly, people driven by fear are still driving the public agenda. Witness about two dozen people who showed up Wednesday at the St. Cloud Library to protest a panel discussion about dismantling hate crimes because, well, spreading hate and fear is their go-to.

Shame on the Times for publishing this trash. This isn’t worthy of a college newspaper, much less worthy of a once-respectable newspaper. This editorial is cringeworthy for its sloppiness and fact gathering.

First, the St. Cloud Human Rights Commission published a postponement notice on their Facebook page Wednesday afternoon. The timestamp for the post is 1:16 pm on Sept. 18th:

Next, 2 groups were there at the Library that might’ve been considered protest groups. One was a group who prayed for the Persecuted Church. The other organization is called the “Freedom Speaks Coalition.”

One of the groups applied for and received a permit to use a room in the Public Library from 2:00 pm-4:00 pm September 18. The Dismantling Hate Crimes event didn’t start until 6:00 pm. The Times’ hit piece continues:

First, though, many of the picketers (who showed up despite the cancellation that came soon before the event was to begin) would not stand up for their beliefs in the most basic way possible, by putting their names to their convictions. Offered the opportunity by journalists from the St. Cloud Times and other news outlets to explain their point of view, many offered their thoughts but most refused to provide their names.

Why would a sane person give the Times their name considering the Times Editorial Board’s penchant for smearing its political opponents? The Times is a media organization. Do they think we don’t know that they’re aware of Antifa protests on college campuses against conservatives and Christians? Am I supposed to believe that they aren’t aware of the violence that #BlackLivesMatters has perpetrated? Democrat-affiliated thugs like Antifa, #BlackLivesMatter and CAIR shouldn’t be trusted.

Notice that the Times trusted MDHR’s and CAIR’s narrative that the event was cancelled because some peaceful protesters showed up at the event. What the Times didn’t mention is that the event was postponed before the protesters arrived at the Library. Notice that the Times omitted the fact that Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton told Times reporter Jenny Berg that they hadn’t received any threats regarding the event.

Does the Times actually think that this postponement is legitimate? The SC Chief of Police was scheduled to participate in the discussion, as was an FBI supervisor. Also, 2 St. Cloud police officers were there. To think that CAIR and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights would get frightened by these protesters is foolish.

I’m tired of the Times Editorial Board either watering down their editorials to protect their political favorites or ignoring major facts. (Think Jeff Oxton’s statement.) The Times is supposed to be a news-gathering organization. It’d be nice if their work product reflected that. This video by Marni Hockenberg lays out pretty much the same facts that I laid out in this post:

Things have changed pretty dramatically since the last time I wrote about last night’s scheduled event on “Dismantling Hate Crimes.” First, the event was scheduled to start at 6:00 pm Wednesday night. Sources close to the event have told me that the event was postponed at 3:30 pm, well in advance of the event. But i digress. This afternoon’s updated article was significantly modified from yesterday’s article.

Yesterday’s article started by saying “the panel on dismantling hate crimes scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday was postponed over safety concerns, according to Taylor Putz, communications director for the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Putz told the St. Cloud Times Wednesday afternoon that the department postponed the event due to ‘logistical concerns’ and a ‘larger public safety concern’ due to the number of people expected to attend the forum.”

Today’s article starts by saying “A panel on dismantling hate crimes scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday was postponed over safety concerns, according to Taylor Putz, communications director for the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Putz told the St. Cloud Times Wednesday afternoon that the department postponed the event due to ‘logistical concerns’ and a ‘larger public safety concern’ due to the number of people expected to attend the forum. ‘We want to make sure the space is safe and accessible,’ Putz said.”

In this afternoon’s article, greater emphasis was put on villainizing the protesters:

“Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state,” Minnesota Department of Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero said in a news release issued just over an hour before the planned start of the event. “Our community deserves better.”

“I am heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes. The goal of the forum was to discuss the community we want to create. One that is full of dignity and joy,” she said.

For the record, the ‘protesters’ held what I’d consider one of the mildest protests in American history. The ‘protesters’ held signs that criticized CAIR but they certainly didn’t threaten anyone there for the Dismantling Hate Crimes event. Most of the people there spent most of their time praying for “the Persecuted Church.”

Jaylani Hussein

I don’t know what Commissioner Lucero is talking about when she insists that the protesters silenced the “discussion on hate crimes.” If I had to guess, I’d bet that this is a PR stunt that didn’t turn out the way CAIR-MN and the ACLU of Minnesota hoped it would. The MDHR has a reputation for being racist or, at minimum, having a biased perspective on racial issues. This article highlights MDHR’s bias. This is the most paragraph in the entire article:

Despite the “public safety concern” cited by the human rights department, St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton said Wednesday the department received no reports of threats related to the event.

In other words, the postponement of the event was due to factors having nothing to do with the protesters. Let’s put that storyline to rest forever. As I told Ox on his program this afternoon, it isn’t a secret that the Twin Cities elitists don’t have a high opinion of people living in rural Minnesota.

Let’s be clear about this. The protests were peaceful, mild even. There weren’t altercations, brawls or confrontations. The day after the cancellation, though, the MDHR has issued a statement, saying that they’re working with “community partners, local law enforcement and the FBI to plan a future forum that is safe.”

This is purely spin. Jeff Oxton, the assistant chief of police stated quite clearly that the department received no reports of threats related to the event. Further, the police weren’t called to the event to break up any altercations.

That leads to a simple, important question. Why is the Minnesota Department of Human Rights playing this up like there was a major confrontation at the Dismantling Hate Crimes event? Clearly, there wasn’t a basis for cancelling the event from a public safety standpoint.

The Minnesota Department of Human Rights is filled with far left ideologues who think that there should be limits on disciplinary actions against minority students. I’ve called MDHR the ‘dog-whistle department’ because they see racism where it doesn’t exist.

UPDATE: The SCTimes has taken down their article on the event, leaving only a video of Marni Hockenberg leading a peaceful rally. The link has changed, too. The good news is that you can still find their article by clicking on the link in this post. I don’t know why they’ve hidden this story. If anyone gets the hardcopy version of the Times, please check the paper and let me know if the article is in that version.
UPDATE II: Now it’s back again. Go figure. All I did was email the reporter and told her that her article had disappeared.

This St. Cloud Times article reports that an event titled ‘Dismantling hate crimes’ was postponed. The SCTimes article starts by saying the “panel on dismantling hate crimes scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday was postponed over safety concerns, according to Taylor Putz, communications director for the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Putz told the St. Cloud Times Wednesday afternoon that the department postponed the event due to ‘logistical concerns’ and a ‘larger public safety concern’ due to the number of people expected to attend the forum.”

That sounds rather ominous, doesn’t it? How can you argue against postponing an event over “larger public safety concerns”? I’ll be the proverbial skunk at the garden party by highlighting a statement by St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton. The Times wrote that “Despite the ‘public safety concern’ cited by the human rights department, St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton said Wednesday the department received no reports of threats related to the event.

Of course, the Times used some interesting editing techniques for this story. The MNDHR concerns about the alleged “larger public safety concerns” were positioned in the first 2 paragraphs. By comparison, Jeff Oxton’s statement that no threats related to the event wasn’t found until the 16th paragraph of the Times’ article. It’s almost as if the Times wanted its readers to think that the threat was averted at the last minute. It’s as if the Times didn’t want readers to know that there weren’t any threats related to the event.

Panelists scheduled to participate were:

  1. Blair Anderson, chief, St. Cloud Police Department
  2. Jaylani Hussein, executive director, Council on American-Islamic Relations
  3. Rebecca Lucero, director, Minnesota Department of Human Rights
  4. Michael Melcher, supervisory special agent, FBI
  5. Teresa Nelson, legal director, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota

What’s interesting is that the event was scheduled for the day after the third anniversary of the terrorist attack at Crossroads Mall. Another thing that’s interesting is that the propagandists, aka CAIR-MN and ACLU of Minnesota, were afraid of people praying for the Persecuted Church.

This is smelling more and more like a setup. This article is quite illuminating:

“Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state. Our community deserves better,” says MDHR Commissioner Rebecca Lucero. “I am heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes. The goal of the forum was to discuss the community we want to create. One that is full of dignity and joy.”

Panelists would have had the opportunity to define hate crimes, explain criminal and civil responses and discuss prevention.

Commissioner Lucero’s statement is as phony as a $3 bill. If she thinks that 2 dozen activists praying for the Persecuted Church are a threat to the community, then that isn’t the type of community I want anything to do with. Then there’s this KSTP article:

“We remain committed to advancing a community dialogue focused on dismantling hate crimes,” Chair of the Regional Human Rights Commission Eunice Adjei said in the release. “While the decision to postpone the forum was unfortunate, we have renewed energy to ensure this community discussion takes place.”

Based on St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton’s statement, the decision to postpone didn’t have anything to do with threats received by the St. Cloud PD. The more I read about this postponement, the more I think it’s likely that this is based on fiction.

This weekend’s hit piece on Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the NYTimes is a new low for the former Paper of Record. The NYTimes isn’t anything except the Democrats’ version of Pravda. Still, it’s worth noting that a pattern is emerging from this article. It’s apparent that Democrats will do anything to stop the Republicans’ Supreme Court nominees unless they’re named Merrick Garland.

Smearing an innocent man and his family has become the Democrats’ new normal. Protecting Roe v. Wade has become an ends-justify-the-means fight in the Democrats’ minds. First, Democrats vilified Justice Kavanaugh with one smear after another, starting with Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford, then with Julie Swetnick (she’s the one that said Justice Kavanaugh was at a series of house parties where young women were gang-raped.) That’s why it isn’t surprising that they’d attempt to smear Justice Kavanaugh with allegations of sexual misconduct involving Deborah Ramirez and an unnamed co-ed at Yale.

It’s frightening to think that Democrats would sink so low that they’d ruin an entire family’s life just to protect their political agenda. Still, that’s what’s happening. I’m old enough to remember Ted Kennedy’s attack of Judge Robert Bork, where Sen. Kennedy said of Judge Bork “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

At the time of Kennedy’s full frontal assault on Judge Bork, this was unheard of. Kennedy’s vicious, unsubstantiated attack would be considered mild by today’s standards. That isn’t the frightening part. Today’s attacks on Justice Kavanaugh will be considered temperate compared to what Democrats will do if there’s a healthy-sized GOP majority in the Senate and President Trump gets to nominate the person who replaces Justice Ginsburg.

Democrats will launch the longest-lasting, nastiest smear campaigns in the history of this nation. They’ll accuse that nominee of being the worst human since the Romans paid Judas Iscariot thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus.

I take issue with the speech that Sen. McConnell gave on the Senate floor Monday. First, here’s the video of Sen. McConnell’s speech:

It isn’t that I disagree with what Sen. McConnell said. Sen. McConnell’s information is more accurate than the NYTimes’ article that started this high-voltage firestorm. To repeat a phrase coined by the late, great Charles Krauthammer, “Sen. McConnell, you aren’t cynical enough.” The Democrats’ intentions are apparent and two-fold. First, Democrats intend to destroy the families of Republican Supreme Court nominees. If they have to make things up, that’s what they’ll do without hesitation. If they need to start a smear campaign based totally on unsubstantiated allegations from 25 years in the past, that’s what Democrats will do without hesitation.

Republicans need to understand that, to Democrats, the fight for the Supreme Court is an existential threat. Without the Supreme Court, Democrats lose too many fights for the Democrats’ liking. Democrats are hyperventilating at the thought of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals not being heavily tilted in their direction. The thought of the Ninth being balanced equally between Republican and Democrat appointees frightens Democrats greatly. This should frighten the American people:

“Six of the Democrat presidential candidates, plus one who has now quit to run for the Senate, have publicly flirted with packing the Supreme Court. Court-packing. Today’s bold new Democrat idea is a failed power grab from the 1930s. Just a few weeks ago, some Senate Democrats nakedly threatened the Supreme Court justices in writing. Our colleagues sent the Court an outlandish brief, gravely intoning that ‘the Supreme Court is not well.’ Here was the punchline: Either issue rulings we like or we’ll pack the court. This is not normal political behavior. These are the actions of a political party whose agenda is so alien to the Constitution that they feel threatened by fair and faithful judges.

The best way to win these confirmation fights is to re-elect President Trump and strengthen Mitch McConnell’s Senate majority.

That’s the best way to thwart the Democrats’ attempt to impose a new normal on the courts.