Sunday, September 30, 2018

Judiciary Committee refers man who made false allegation against Kavanaugh to the FBI

With so many women coming forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that may or may not be true, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, wants to make sure what's in store for those who make blatantly false allegations.

A man claiming that he knew a woman who was raped aboard a boat in 1985 by Kavanaugh and later retracted the allegation has been referred to the FBI to determine if his false charge obstructed the committee's deliberations.

CNN:. "Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal," committee Chairman Chuck Grassley wrote in a letter Saturday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Chris Wray.

Grassley wants the FBI and DOJ to investigate whether the individual potentially obstructed the committee's nomination process of Kavanaugh by providing fraudulent information to committee investigators.

The office of Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee, received a call on Monday concerning an allegation - now found to be false - of a 1985 incident in Newport where a woman was sexually assaulted on a boat by two heavily inebriated men she referred to as "Brett and Mark.".

Kavanaugh was interviewed by the committee on Tuesday about the allegation and categorically denied the claim.

I think it's probable that committees of congress get these sort of bizarre, false allegations against every nominee for a government position.

Trump administration to China: Compete on a level playing field

U.S. ambassador to China Terry Branstad, a former Iowa governor, speaks with Iowa soybean growers who were on a trade mission to Beijing in July 2017.

On Sept. 23, the China Daily - a newspaper the Chinese Communist Party uses to circulate propaganda to foreign audiences - took out a paid advertisement in the Des Moines Register criticizing U.S. actions on trade.

The Trump administration is putting America and Americans first by calling on China to live up to its pledge when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 to provide greater economic openness and to compete on a level playing field.

"I ran a small business in Kansas before I came to Congress. I saw how companies were treated differently when they attempted to do business, whether they were trying to sell goods into China or to purchase goods, to export from China. I watched how American companies were treated unfairly, differently, a different set of rules. If they wanted to invest in my business in Kansas, they could have. Had I wanted to invest in a Chinese supplier there, I couldn't. These are fundamentally unfair. The American people know that, and President Trump is going to fix it."

The administration implemented tariffs to obtain elimination of China's unfair policies and begin to level the playing field between American companies and their Chinese competitors.

If China is serious about its commitment to reform, its WTO obligations and fair trading practices, the government of China should instead take appropriate steps to change its behavior and adopt market-oriented reforms that lead to fairer trade, freer markets and prosperity for all.

In the end, the best way to increase prosperity for both the United States and China is for trade to be fair, reciprocal and balanced.

Dear Senators Flake, Collins, and Murkowski

You don't know me, though I've met both Collins and Murkowski when I worked for the late Montana Senator Conrad Burns.

The same people who've been threatening all of you and your staffs are the same people you're hoping to placate.

What will be enough for people who verbally attacked Senator Ted Cruz and his wife in a restaurant? Or Secretary Kristjen Neilson? Or anyone else with an as their political affiliation who's been on the receiving end of the liberal mob's rage?

Sometimes it's not simply good people doing horrible things under extraordinary circumstances, sometimes they're just horrible people being themselves.

The Democrats' playbook is to keep people in an emotional frenzy over everything to prevent rational thought.

People just don't grow out of being monsters, it's either in them or it's not.

Derek Hunter is a husband, father, and author of the book, "Outrage, INC.: How the Liberal Mob Ruined Science, Journalism, and Hollywood," which examines the ways, both obvious and subtle, liberals use emotional manipulation to override rational thought and influence the American people.

Brett Kavanaugh's hearings are a national disaster

Witness how the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh started as cheap theater and ended in bloodsport.

Friday's agreement to give the FBI a week to supplement its background check by looking into existing misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh guarantees the nightmare will continue, especially for him and his battered family.

First he said he would vote to move Kavanaugh out of committee, then was shouted at in an elevator by leftists and cornered by Senate Democrats.

GOP senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, in office since 1977, voted for both Bork and Thomas, and offered his view that the hit job on Kav­anaugh is the worst of all three.

While there is no moral or principled defense for the Dems' conduct, the explanation is that they are terrified of Kavanaugh because he would be the fifth constitutional conservative on the court.

Now they would gladly take him back because if Kavanaugh joins Chief Justice John Roberts, Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch to form a consistently conservative majority, even liberal presidents and Congresses would be limited in their powers.

That scenario is why the attacks on Kavanaugh are so vicious, and why they won't stop.

Judicial Confirmation Battles: Longer & Longer

Democrats are hoping to delay Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation until after the November election.

While the Supreme Court can overrule its own precedent, Kavanaugh has co-authored a hefty 942-page book on precedent, titled "Law of Judicial Precedent." The book seeks to formally describe rules for when courts should follow precedent, and it makes clear that jettisoning precedent is not something that Kavanaugh takes lightly.

A smart, persuasive Supreme Court justice might persuade other justices to change their votes on a case.

Government has grown by leaps and bounds, and the Supreme Court's decisions about government power have far-reaching consequences for our checkbooks and personal freedoms.

The Supreme Court - and the federal courts generally - are more deeply involved in our lives than they were 50 years ago.

Long gone are the days when a Republican president would appoint a Democrat to the Supreme Court, as Herbert Hoover did in 1932, simply because he was told that the nominee, Benjamin Cardozo, was the smartest lawyer in the country.

In my 2013 book Dumbing Down the Courts, I show that the length of Supreme Court confirmation hearings has grown with the expansion of judicial power.

Why are we subsidizing Saudi Arabia's military?

President Trump made it clear Saturday that the United States wants Saudi Arabia to step up its military spending.

Trump, who spoke with Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud this morning, said the U.S. needs to stop subsidizing the Middle Eastern country's military.

"Why are we subsidizing the military? It's one thing if a country is in deep trouble and in danger," he said during a campaign rally Saturday night in Wheeling, W.Va.

Saudi Arabia, he said, can pay its own military bills, especially in the face of a trade deficit: "I said 'Saudi Arabia, you are rich, you have got to pay for your military. You have got to pay for your military, sorry.'".

According to World Bank data, Saudi Arabia has one of the highest rates of spending on its military in the world, at 10.3 percent of GDP in 2017.

The group did not heed his call last week to lower oil prices by upping oil production, and this week, the U.S. likely surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world's largest producer of crude oil, according to U.S. government figures.

Saudi Arabia-based Arab News reported Trump and the king discussed regional development and the oil market in the morning's call.

Saturday, September 29, 2018

I’m A Latino Democrat, But Thanks To The Kavanaugh Circus I’m Voting Republican In The Midterms

I am a college-educated, suburban, first-generation Latino immigrant. I voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012. I find President Trump to lack the basic moral character that we should expect in our political leaders and did not consider, even for a moment, voting for him in 2016. After watching how Senate Democrats and the media handled the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, however, I will be voting Republican in 2018 and for Trump in 2020.

When I came to the United States, I left a country that had recently undergone a military coup. My family experienced first-hand what happens when those in power abandon the rule of law. We saw the devastation that comes to a society when men of power believe their political objectives so justified that they are willing to pursue them by any means necessary. In the eyes of those men of power, we could see the deadening of souls that occurs when a man’s perceived benevolence blinds him to his own tyranny.

During the Kavanaugh hearings I saw that same look in the eyes of Senate Democrats. The hearings made clear that the Democrats on the committee were not interested in pursuing the truth or respecting Christine Blasey Ford’s desire for anonymity. Instead, they simply sought to delay the vote in the hopes of winning the next election.

Corroboration, Evidence Must Transcend Emotion

It was about ten minutes after Christine Blasey Ford began her opening statement during Thursday's Senate Judiciary hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh that I began noticing the tweets.

Rebecca Traister, a columnist at New York and author of the just-published book Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger, followed with a "Genuine question: were men out there brought to tears or shaking visceral response [sic] by that? Because the messages I have from women, and what's happening in my own apartment, suggest that many many women were." Others reported seeing women in cafes and airport lounges crying.

The coldness of the congressional rules, the irritation of the committee's fumbling chairman Charles Grassley, and questioner Rachel Mitchell's matter-of-fact interest in the process that had pushed a reluctant Ford to the Everett Dirkson hearing room made a jarring contrast with the psychologist's combination of conviction, fear, and almost-desperate agreeableness.

The actor John Cusack accused Kavanaugh of crying "Cause a life time of snarky country club Ass kissing GOP water carrying groveling to power-is going down the drain-fast." "Pure aggrieved entitlement," Cusack concluded, repeating a meme that proliferated on social media.

The Kavanaugh haters might be cruelly partisan, but they are right about this much: the judge's sadness and indignation cannot give us insight into the reality of what happened in the summer of 1982 in suburban Maryland.

The tears of the thousands of women who wrote on Twitter or op-ed pagesor called into C-Span about their own experiences may suggest that sexual assault is far more widespread than many imagined.

Their tears tell us nothing-or shouldn't-of what happened to Ford.

Reject This Campaign of Character Assassination

Thursday's hearing did not add an iota of corroboration to Christine Blasey Ford's allegations against Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Ford says her friend Leland Keyser was at the party; Keyser may have told The Washington Post that she believes Ford, but that means nothing: As Kavanaugh pointed out, Keyser "Said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not ever recall being at a party with me ever." Ford was too young to drive but cannot recall how she got there or how she left - a big deal for those of us who remember the days before cellphones or Uber.

Asked before the hearing whether Kavanaugh deserved a presumption of innocence, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "There's no presumption of innocence or guilt when you have a nominee before you." That is simply un-American.

Because after watching Kavanaugh be put through the gauntlet of personal destruction, good people of both parties will hesitate to answer the call to serve, and, as Kavanaugh said, "I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind."

Seriously? The world's greatest deliberative body has been reduced to this? As for Democrats' calls for an FBI investigation, their interest in an investigation is not to get to the truth; it's to stop Kavanaugh at all costs.

Graham rocked the hearing room when he asked Kavanaugh whether he knew when he met with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Aug. 20 that she had had these allegations for 20 days and had recommended a lawyer to Ford.

Regardless of whether he is confirmed, Kavanaugh said, they have already done that.

The Return Of The Inquisition: Do You Confess?

In the early days when Rome was still a republic, its Senate was a highly revered institution that stood for wisdom, dignity, and virtue.

The men who served in the Senate during the early republic were heavily responsible for building the most advanced civilization the world had ever seen up to that point.

Within a few hundred years, the Senate had become a corrupt joke, filled with venal criminals, weak sycophants, and mediocre minds.

Another disgusting perversion of justice is that the United States Senate actually felt compelled to negotiate with the accuser about when/how she would testify.

Accusers must face the accused in a court of law and submit to cross-examination, following the same rules that everyone else has to follow.

There are countless legions of people, including United States Senators, who have already made up their minds, like the Inquisition demanding, "Do you confess?".

Clearly the Senate is no longer an assembly of kings but a brood of bickering, immature weaklings.

Records Show Dr. Ford is NOT a Licensed Psychologist

Testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford identified herself as a ‘psychologist,’ but records indict this is a false statement under California law. Someone at Stanford University also appears to have caught the blunder and edited Ford’s faculty page.

Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie.

After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while under oath, Ford opened her testimony saying, “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.”
The issue lies with the word “psychologist,” and Ford potentially misrepresenting herself and her credentials, an infraction that is taken very seriously in the psychology field as well as under California law.

Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous exams. To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.

Former employer sued third Kavanaugh accuser for ‘false and retaliatory' sexual harassment allegations

Rew Kerr, DCNF. Julie Swetnick, the third woman to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school, faced allegations from her former employer that she engaged in "Unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct" in 2000.

WebTrends alleged in a lawsuit that, after the company determined she had engaged in "Inappropriate conduct," Swetnick made "False and retaliatory allegations" of sexual harassment against two male co-workers.

The woman who charges she was gang-raped at a party where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was present, Julie Swetnick, had a lawsuit filed against her by a former employer that alleged she engaged in "Unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct" towards two male co-workers, according to court documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

WebTrends conducted an investigation that found both male employees gave similar accounts of Swetnick engaging in "Unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct" toward them during a business lunch in front of customers, the complaint said.

Swetnick denied the allegations and, WebTrends alleged, "In a transparent effort to divert attention from her own inappropriate behavior [made] false and retaliatory allegations" of sexual harassment against two other male co-workers.

"Based on its investigations, WebTrends determined that Swetnick had engaged in inappropriate conduct, but that no corroborating evidence existed to support Swetnick's allegations against her coworkers," the complaint said.

After a WebTrends human resources director informed Swetnick that the company was unable to corroborate the sexual harassment allegations she had made, she "Remarkably" walked back the allegations, according to the complaint.