≡ Menu

You Must Believe

Americans who viewed the scorched earth political tactics of Democrats during the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh witnessed a spectacle unlike any other in our recent political history. Those who expressed doubts about the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford’s version of a thirty-six year old alleged incident of sexual assault implicating Kavanaugh, were told emphatically, “you must believe.” And, Democrats are correct, “you must believe”:

You must believe…

That the Democratic Party, after many years of moving away from the political center, has finally lurched leftward right off the cliff. The party has now been overtaken by perpetually petulant progressives who relish their self-appointed role as the nation’s commissars of political correctness.

You must believe…

That the left-wing fringe of academia, whose pseudo-intellectual triumph is grievance-mongering, now shapes indelibly the political philosophy of the Democratic Party.

You must believe…

That defendants in the Soviet Union show trials of the 1930’s had better due process protections than were afforded Brett Kavanaugh.

You must believe…

That white men, particularly “Old White Men”, no longer have standing in the new identity politics world of the Democratic Party. In an ironical historical twist, White is now the new Black.

You must believe…

That the need for victims of sexual assault to be “heard”, in and of itself, is sufficient grounds for trampling two hundred years of jurisprudence that has been prized throughout the civilized world. That “need” always must supersede the innocent until proven guilty presumption.

You must believe…

That going forward, the chicanery and dirty politics practiced by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will continue unabated.

You must believe…

That it is frightening that far too many “law” professors, members of the bar, Yale law students and every prominent member of the Democratic Party, had no compunction dispensing with venerated American principles of fairness in favor of a guilty verdict, without the slightest bit of corroboration, knowing the process would defame, and irreparably damage an honorable and accomplished judge.

You must believe…

It is shameful and distressing that the former attorney general of California was one of the most strident members of the Committee looking to discard some of the country’s bedrock principles of law

You must believe…

It is telling that not one leader of the Democratic Party came forward to challenge, dissent from or criticize the party’s new standard for equal justice under the law.

You must believe…

That the hearings demonstrate Democrats will do anything in their ruthless quest for political power.

You must believe…

Lord Acton, when he said, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


For astute conservatives, the Democrats despicable tactics at Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation hearings, came as no surprise. There have been numerous warning signals about the hard leftward lurch of the Democratic Party and their increasingly subversive and extreme posture. I thought it would be appropriate, but more importantly, enlightening, to copy an article I wrote for American Greatness a couple of months ago that discussed what lay in store at the Kavanaugh hearings based on Maxine Waters call for Democrats to verbally accost and assault Republicans where they dine, where they work and where they live.

The Democrats fully lived up to the Maxine Waters standard of political engagement with their protests at the Kavanaugh hearings.

Here is the article:

The most newsworthy event to emerge from the Maxine Waters affair wasn’t her call for mob harassment tactics against Trump Administration officials, nor the attendant inflammatory language employed, but rather, the swift reaction of two women’s activist groups who castigated House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, for her audacity in reproaching Waters.

The two letters are significant because they not only convey the ideological principles on which the progressive opposition to the Trump Administration will be based but also, because they forebode the inevitable internecine conflict that will soon engulf the Democratic Party.

The contents of both letters are rife with extremism and provide a glimpse into the soul of modern progressive identity politics.

The letters also are evidence that the zany social theories and concepts of group identity politics, spawned by diversity beast’s need for instances of perpetual grievance and once confined to the fringes of the academic left, have now become incorporated into the mainstream vocabulary and policies of the Democratic Party.

The first letter from a group of black women politicians states an obvious but unpleasant identity politics political reality for the Democratic Party. In order to win national elections, Democrats needs to capture almost ninety percent of the black vote. The letter indelicately reminds Pelosi of the long-term fealty of African-Americans to the party in stark and unforgiving terms.

“For Black women, who are the most loyal base of the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement, Congresswoman Waters is our shero sic.”

The letter further reminds the Minority Leader that,

“Disparaging or failing to support Congresswoman Waters is an affront to her and Black women across the country and telegraphs a message that the Democratic Party can ill afford: that it does not respect Black women’s leadership and political power and discounts the impact of Black women and millennial voters.”

For purposes of gleaning the nature of Pelosi’s insolence, here is what Waters said,

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd,” Waters said at an event in Los Angeles. “And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

How is it possible to denounce the ultra-liberal House Minority Leader of the party for criticizing these incendiary remarks? How can a congresswoman who utters such rabble-rousing comments not be subject to censure? [click to continue…]


CNN’s Brooke Baldwin: Democrats Favorite Anchor

She’s at it again…

During the last presidential election, the pro-Hillary CNN anchor, Brooke Baldwinwho shut down guests who wanted to discuss Bill Clinton’s debauchery, recently told guests on her show that they were not going to call democratic protestors at the Senate a “mob.” This is despite the fact that a group of irate women charged in the Senate Office Building and stated pounding on the doors.

The fact that Baldwin chooses not to acknowledge what is plain for all to see is a water carrier for the Democratic Party.

As the video demonstrates, Baldwin is carrying on her deliberate blackout on stories that may prove inimical for the Democratic Party. The last video is a clip of Baldwin’s admonishing guests that Bill Clinton’s depravity was off limits, but of course, it was OK to savage Trump. Different standards for different party.


I am enclosing comments from my new Book, The Story of How Trump’s Politics Changed Mainstream Media-Democratic Party-Complex and Why He Drives Them Stark Raving Mad available soon on Amazon. The following passage describes how when it came to covering Trump during the election, the media, particularly CNN, wore their bias proudly on their sleeves.

Nowhere was this overt bias by mainstream media journalists more apparent than in CNN’s repeated refusal to discuss Bill Clinton’s mistreatment of women. Since it would be difficult to discuss Bill’s aberrant behavior without looking at Hillary’s indispensable role as his enabler, it was not surprising, that CNN news anchors would make it a habit to remind guests on the program who were Trump supporters, that the topic of Bill’s well chronicled mistreatment, philandering and abusive treatment of women, was verboten —especially during the election, when the CNN host’s preferred candidate, was running for president.

A perfect example was CNN anchor, Brooke Baldwin, who repeatedly shut down guests who brought up Bill Clinton’s despicable past behavior. Here is Baldwin in one of her “see no evil, speak no evil, hear not evil” moments. When a guest started to speak about Bill’s womanizing, Baldwin immediately interrupted her and stated that, “We’re not going to air Bill Clinton’s dirty laundry on this show.” 

Of course, Baldwin’s blackout on Bill’s past behavior came to an unexpected and ignominious end, when Trump  held a press conference before the start of the second debate and proceeded to  introduce Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones, all women who had accused Bill Clinton of assaulting them in the past. 


The GOP’s Jeff Flake Syndrome

It is difficult to know whether the decision of  Senator Jeff Flake to make his yes vote on Kavanaugh conditional on an FBI investigation was done to spite his nemesis, president Trump, or was based a genuine belief that the investigation would compel Democrats to accept his legitimacy as the newest member of the court.

The fact that Flake believed that he would be able to reach some compromise with the Democrats, despite their persistent and unrelenting strategy of delay from day one of the hearings, illustrates why the dilatory and bad faith tactics of the Democrats makes any agreement with them in terms of an investigation too risky. No sooner had Flake agreed to the extension for confirmation, that Senator Chris Murphy bellowed: “Kavanaugh Is The Most Dangerous SCOTUS Pick Of Our Lifetime — No Matter What The FBI Finds.” Did Flake not see this coming? Then Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, piped in with her comments that there is no need to rush the FBI investigation. As Andy McCarthy in National Review has been arguing from the start, Democrat members on the Committee are interested in one thing and one thing only: delay.

Whatever his motives, Flake and other establishment holdouts give us a picture of how Trump, during the primaries, was able to put out to pasture members of the GOP establishment.

In my book, Election 2016: How Donald Trump and the Deplorables Won and Made Political History, I discussed how the establishment Republican Party was always duped by the Democrats,

“Republican politicians who were unaware or utterly indifferent about the nature of today’s Democrats had managed the party for too long. The GOP sought comity and congeniality, whereas the Democrats continually engaged in warfare both in the halls of Congress and in the media. John McCain was prone to this blindness on countless occasions during his tenure in the Senate. For McCain, the collegiality and comity of the Senate as an institution was of paramount concern when seeking to bridge partisan divides. Yet his longtime “collegial” colleague Ted Kennedy had no compunction in casting the collegiality of the Senate aside with his vituperative and entirely false character assassination of Robert Bork during his 1987 Senate confirmation hearings. Kennedy’s assault on this prominent jurist’s character was so offensive and egregious that it spawned a new dictionary term for the lexicon of the late twentieth century: to “Bork.”

Kennedy’s scorched earth and unprecedented breach of political decorum in 1987 marked the end of “comity” and “collegiality” in the Senate. The politics of personal destruction would rear its ugly head. From that defining moment on, the stewards of the Republican party were clearly unequal to the task at hand in confronting the opposition party and forcefully standing their ground against an onslaught of Democratic Party attacks against individual Republican politicians and the voters who supported them. Some deluded party elders seemed to believed that the media would function as the arbiter of Democratic Party misrepresentations and perfidy. Time and again, the press corps, acting as handmaidens of the Democratic Party showed this was wishful thinking.”


Although I don’t share Dershowitz’s political views, he has shown himself to be, along with George Washington Law Professor, Jonathan Truly, a voice of reason in criticizing the partisan perspective of Democrats on some core constitutional issues such as the Travel ban, the firing of James Comey and now the Kavanaugh vote.

Dershowitz claims that an FBI investigation is needed so as to bring some measure of finality to the confirmation process that would satisfy both Republicans and Democrats on the Committee in terms of being able to say that that Kavanaugh’s hearing was conducted fairly.

Dershowitz may be correct on the appearance of propriety, but he is dead wrong on the political aspect of extending the hearings.

The Democrats have shown themselves to be naked partisans and have turned the Supreme Court confirmation process into a circus. Every time, Chairman Grassley graciously granted Christine Blasy Ford’s attorney’s request for additional time, backfired. Ford’s legal team simply used the courtesy extended to engage in more dilatory tactics. The principal reason from the start for the requests to postpone the hearings were so that Ford’s attorney could go trolling for additional parties to come forward with more uncorroborated accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.

Given the fact that the Democrats every procedural request was done for explicitly partisan political gain, Dershowitz can’t possibly believe that stalling again to conduct an FBI investigation would not inevitably lead to more “victims” coming out of the closet with concomitant calls from the Democrats to further delay the hearings to hear the new allegations.

Further delays in the hearing would be used by the Democrats solely to engage in additional bad faith tactics.

From the moment Dianne Feinstein deliberately withheld the Ford’s letter containing the original allegations only to spring it on the Committee a day before a vote was scheduled the strategy of Democrats has been nakedly apparent: derail the nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court at any cost.


Rachel Mitchell Didn’t Help Republicans or Kavanaugh

Which Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee came up with the idea of ceding their allotted time for questioning to an Arizona Sex Crimes prosecutor? Mitchell is an accomplished prosecutor with over twenty years experience. Her qualifications as an attorney are not in doubt. The question is why did Chairman Grassley think an attorney that prosecutes alleged victims of sexual assault would be a good interrogator for a woman who claims she is a victim of sexual assault committed by Kavanaugh?

Is it because Joy Behar complained that the Republicans on the Committee were all White men? What Grassley and other Republicans didn’t seem to grasp was that bringing in a woman attorney to question Ford wouldn’t appease the Democrats, nor would it placate the identity politics lunatics on the left, such as Behar and her fellow travelers.

The forum of the proceeding was anathema for eliciting inconsistencies in Christine Blasey Ford’s earlier testimony and allegation. Mitchell, conducted herself, as if she was back in a courtroom with an unlimited amount of time to question the witness and attempt to assail her credibility.

As such, Mitchell wasted precious time with formalities that are commonplace in a deposition or at trial.

As it became painfully clear after a short period of time, Republican members of the Committee would have been better off questioning Ford themselves.


The New Yorker’s Disgraceful Hit Piece on Brett Kavanaugh

As the date for a confirmation vote on Judge Kavanaugh, draws near, Democrats with the able assistance of their allies in the mainstream media are frantically bringing additional accusers out of the woodwork. The fact that none of the stories can be corroborated or have an iota of credibility is of no consequence when the left’s ability to legislate from bench is in jeopardy.

The latest concocted tale of Kavanaugh’s alleged propensity for inappropriate sexual behavior comes to us via The New Yorker, a fervent anti-Trump publication, and long-time official communications organ of the Democratic Party.

The new allegations have the same glaring evidentiary defects as the original accusations by Christine Blasey Ford, namely, they are over thirty-five years old, can not be corroborated by any eyewitnesses, contain no contemporaneous accounts to third parties and already have been refuted by numerous individuals, who were classmates and friends of Brett Kavanaugh’s. And, oh, yes, the classmate of Kavanaugh’s, Deborah Ramirez, who made the original accusations, later claimed she could not remember if what she previously described, had in fact, taken place.

Here is how The New Yorker describes Ramirez’s Road to Damascus moment,

“She 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. 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…”

Miraculously, after thirty-five years, Ramirez, after having her memory massaged by an attorney for six days, suddenly has a sufficient recollection that Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face at a party and forced her to touch it. Ramirez’s account was also buttressed by double hearsay: I heard from a friend of a fried that remembered it was Kavanaugh at the party. In other words, Ramirez “recollection” wasn’t stimulated until aftershe received emails from classmates describing Kavanaugh’s time at Yale subsequent to his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Despite having serious doubts about Kavanaugh’s role in the incident, The New Yorker ran with the piece written by Ronan Farrow and the notoriously unreliable Jane Mayer.

The Democrats fingerprints are all over this latest smear job as they obviously went looking for additional pro-Democratic individuals to reconstruct tales that utterly strain ones credulity

How shaky is The New Yorker story? After interviewing several dozen people over the past week to corroborate Ramirez’s tale, even the New York Times, no fan of conservative jurists, could locate no one with firsthand knowledge of the alleged incident.


Yesterday the New York Times achieved another milestone in the decline of American Journalism and demonstrated how that paper has functioned as nothing more than the official communications organ of the Democratic Party.

The Times published an Op-Ed written by an individual whom we are told is a “senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.”

The gravamen of the op-ed is that the writer and other officials in the Administration are baby sitting the president in order to insure that his impulsive behavior doesn’t cause harm to the Republic.

The tone of the article seems to reflect in general, the sentiments of the neverTrump faction of the Republican Party, who argued that Trump was unfit for the presidency due to his debauchery and refusal to embrace traditional conservative values.

The writer arrogantly implies that without his tutelage and guidance, the country would be in grave peril. He provides further clues as to his identity as a member of the neverTrump wing of the Republican Party, with his lavish praise for John McCain — perhaps the most stalwart of the anti-Trump Republications.

The author rejects his role as a member of the “Resistance”, instead characterizing his role and that of others similarly inclined as the “Resistance inside the Trump Administration.” Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept, calls the writer and his co-conspirators, White House ‘Coward’ Behind Anonymous Op-ed Part of ‘Unelected Cabal.’

The article gives us no clue as to the Administrative position of the writer. “Senior official”, could be any individual within the federal bureaucracy, including holdovers from the Obama administration.

While the writer credits the Trump Administration with notable accomplishments, his claim is undermined by his failure to identify the reasons for the successes.

“Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.”

In spite of his vacuous assertion that the successes of Trump are purely accidental and not incidental to his serving as president, the writer offers no explanation or clues as to exactly who is responsible for Trump’s accomplishments. He and his fellow inside resistance guardians? Congress? He doesn’t say, perhaps because giving Trump credit would undermine his entire argument that the man is simply a reckless and unmoored figurehead, guided inadvertently by his watchdogs, who are indispensable for maintaining stability.

The article is rife with ironies, one of which is noted by Charles C.W. Cooke at National Review,

“That some people think that Trump is insane or unstable or unable to fulfill his duties in no way alters the fact that this, by the author’s own admission, is subversion. There are mechanisms in place to deal with an unfit president in the White House. This was not one of them.”

The obvious question for this anonymous author is that if Trump’s management style is so reckless and he believes that, “The root of the problem is the president’s amorality”, he should resign and comment in the public arena, rather than trying to undermine the goals of a duly elected president.


On the first day of Senate hearings on  confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the Democrats have shown what a weak hand they hold in terms of stopping Kavanaugh’s approval. An unprecedented lack of decorum is on display by Democrat Senate Judiciary Committee members, as they have been deliberately interrupting the proceedings from the moment Senator Grassley gaveled the confirmation hearings to order.

Here is a rundown of the Democratspremeditated tactic of incessant interruptions, for those keeping score:


Blumenthal, Richard 13

Booker, Cory 10

Harris, Kamala 8

Hirono, Mazie 6

Klobuchar, Amy 3

Whitehouse, Sheldon 2

Leahy, Patrick 1

Coons, Christopher 1


There has also been no shortage of grandstanding during the hearings, most notably by Kamala Harris, 2020 Democratic Party presidential contender.

Grassley has refused to delay the proceedings for Democrats to review documents. This brazen dilatory tactic is particularly offensive for two reasons. The same Democrats who are insisting on the need to review documents are the same Senators who had previously proclaimed that they were voting no on Kavanaugh long before the first hearing today. Secondly, all the pertinent documents Democrats need to make an informed decision on Kavanaugh are part of the public record. All of Kavanaugh’s decisions from his tenure on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air correctly observes that,

The objections of the minority might hold more consequence if the same senators hadn’t pledged to vote against the nominee even before he was appointed. All of them have gone on the record as a nay to Kavanaugh, regardless of his qualifications and temperament. All of them have had open access to twelve years of Kavanaugh’s work as an appellate jurist, which are the records most pertinent to this appointment, and Senate Democrats had covered his previous work in his 2006 confirmation hearing to the DC circuit. Complaining about the late release of barely relevant documents from an entirely different phase of Kavanaugh’s career is nothing more than a stunt.

Perhaps Grassley should end this Theater of the Absurd starring Chuck Schumer and his colleagues on the committee. The virtue of this course of action is that it would spare the country from a frivolous, bad faith and prolonged spectacle that in the end, will be all for naught.

While he is busy fomenting discord during the confirmation hearings, Chuck Schumer can thank his former Senate colleague, Harry Reid for eliminating the filibuster.

What goes around, comes around…


John McCain: A Full Measure of the Man

The recent eulogizing of John McCain by members of the Mainstream Media-Democratic Party-Complex was so hyperbolic, that one would have thought he was being canonized. There can be no doubt that McCain was an unabashed patriot who served his county well and with great distinction. However, the lavish praise and adulation bestowed on McCain after his death, was particularly irksome for two reasons.

Those liberal pundits and Democratic politicians who elevated McCain to sainthood status after he died, hardly had the same reverence for him when he was alive. Their ennobling words following hie death, was starkly at odds with how he was vilified when he ran against Obama in 2008.

Since McCain was a prominent member of the Old Guard of the GOP, his death is symbolic, as it signifies the end of the Establishment Republican Party. Trump put a nail in the coffin of Bush Republicanism, which perhaps is why George W. Bush, along with others, in no uncertain terms, used the opportunity of a hero’s funeral to attack the president of the United States.

The media loved “Maverick” McCain on those occasions when he poked a stick in the eye of conservatives in the Republican Party. McCain was so solicitous of the media, that in a very real sense, his constituency wasn’t the citizens of Arizona, but rather, the mainstream media.

For many Republicans, particularly those who expressed their disapprobation for the establishment by voting for Trump, McCain was the personification of the Republican “useful idiot” who was consistently duped and played fora fool by an obliging media. Because he was particularly vainglorious, McCain on many occasions failed to appreciate how an adoring media was capable of turning on a dime and finding him dispensable when a liberal democrat was his opponent.

I think the irreparable damage McCain did to the Republican Party and why he was viewed with such disdain by many in the party, can best be summarized by referring to an excerpt from my book, Election 2016: How Donald Trump and the Deplorables Won and Made Political History,

“Republican politicians who were unaware or utterly indifferent about the nature of today’s Democrats had managed the party for too long. The GOP sought comity and congeniality, whereas the Democrats continually engaged in warfare both in the halls of Congress and in the media. John McCain was prone to this blindness on countless occasions during his tenure in the Senate. For McCain, the collegiality and comity of the Senate as an institution was of paramount concern when seeking to bridge partisan divides. Yet his longtime “collegial” colleague Ted Kennedy had no compunction in casting the collegiality of the Senate aside with his vituperative and entirely false character assassination of Robert Bork during his 1987 Senate confirmation hearings. Kennedy’s assault on this prominent jurist’s character was so offensive and egregious that it spawned a new dictionary term for the lexicon of the late twentieth century: to ‘Bork.’”

McCain’s lopsided and wholly unrealistic view of “comity”, was one of the reasons why the longer McCain stayed in the Senate, the less enamored many rank and file Republicans became of his leadership position. Over time, McCain’s sanctimony became insufferable, alienating many conservatives as well as some establishment Republicans. His 11th hour vote against the repeal of Obamacare was one such moment. During his career in the Senate, there were many others.

{ 1 comment }