Never quite giving up

How did we miss a post yesterday? Well, busy with overtime at our day-job. It is only one of a very small hand-full of times in six plus years. Because of the current outlook, for a few weeks at least, we may fall back on the good old “picture (memes and cartoons) worth a thousand words”  refuge.  Content including important articles with your intro, any commentary you would like to make or conclusion, are as always welcomed and appreciated. Favorite memes as well. It can take time to post them.

Not a meme as yet but this picture is of something that immediately struck me as something to send environmental nut-cases up the wall.  There I was at a convenience store and what did my eyes behold at the drink fountain –  plastic straws wrapped in plastic.  Must send one to Governor Moonbeam.

 

 

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

On Kavanaugh don’t count him as one of our chickens until some decisions are hatched

In previous posts, where we vigorously defended now Justice Brett Kavanaugh from unfair and by all the evidence false charges in his confirmation process, several times we indicated that we do not assume he will be a conservative (as much as we hope).  Others have presumed and endorsed as such. Our concern existed before Susan Collins’ defense of her vote to support Kavanaugh, which only gave us more concern. Her speech, methodical as it was, laid out a case that should give constitutionalists, textualists, originalists pause in any celebration to say the least.

If what she said is true and her understanding accurate, the implications are that stare decisis (precedent controls) is so important to Kavanagh (virtually part of the Constitution) that it trumps constitutionalism, textualism, originalism . . .  and so activist judicial atrocities like Roe v Wade and others may stand on his watch.

Now we do not have a recording of their conversation to determine any nuance emanating from Kavanaugh but Collins comments in support, her being the ardent abortion supporter she is, are seriously worrisome.

It is one thing to say Roe is precedent. Obviously it is. It is another to swear allegiance to all precedent and thus rubberstamp and continue an unconstitutional (properly understood) doctrine. Did he give himself  an escape nuance? Interpreting  Collins, she says he holds that any chances for exceptions are diminished by time and dependence.

Now we would make the case that the country is not dependent on Roe  by any means as it is based on matters not part of the constitution and is constantly under attack by the people and the states. It is not part of the warp and woof of our country and its implications atrocious.  It was never settled by a free people.

Our anxiety (we have it with any nominee after the experience of Sueter and Kennedy and Roberts) is somewhat mollified by Allahpundit who we do not always appreciate.  He suggests that Collin’s has always looked for a path to approval of Republican nominees in order to be with the team as much as possible.

Susan Collins: Kavanaugh told me that he agrees that Roe v. Wade is “settled law”

Heh. Say it with me: Every case is “settled law” until it isn’t. Plessy v. Ferguson was “settled law” (for longer than Roe has been, in fact). When you ask if Roe is settled law, you invite a Clintonian retort: It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

See Also: Pastor Brunson is home, but our diplomatic crisis with Turkey is not over

Don’t forget either that Kavanaugh is an appellate judge. For the D.C. Circuit on which he presently sits, it is in fact true that Roe and its sequel, Casey, are binding precedent. “Settled law.” For the Supreme Court, though?

Other have expressed serious misgivings about Kavanaugh if Collins is interpreting him correctly”

Pro-lifers should be very, very concerned about Susan Collins’ Kavanaugh speech

See also :  Soutered Again?   by former Congressman Gil Gutknecht writing at Townhall

(excerpt)

We will also remember the anticipation, waiting for the 3:00 announcement of Maine’s Senator Susan Collins. When she finally delivered her speech on the floor of the Senate, neither side could wait for her conclusion. It was high drama. Her remarks were both reasoned and principled. Whatever you may think about Senator Collins, she is her own person. She did what a Senator is expected to do. She asked tough questions and listened carefully to the answers. She was not intimidated by the hate-filled, angry mob. She came to her own conclusions and announced them in calm and measured tones.

It was branded as one of the greatest Senate speeches in recent memory. That may say something about the quality of the oratory of her contemporaries. But, it was a good speech. She used a razor to slice through the disgusting muck that Democrats had thrown at this good man.

The Left predictably and immediately unleashed fire, furry and vitriol. They pledged millions to defeat her in her next election. Traitor! She would be forever banished from the feminist plantation. How could she turn her back on her gender?

The Right just as predictably heaped high praise on her. She had become a genuine statesman (stateswoman?) in their eyes. Carving a special place in history.

What both sides seemed to have missed is what she actually had said leading up to her historic announcement.  . . .

We have been repeatedly assured that Brett Kavanaugh is a solid constitutional conservative.  . . .

Review for yourself and listen carefully to what the Senior Senator from Maine told us at https://youtu.be/LJRdMh1XhAY

She repeatedly called Judge Kavanaugh a centrist. She reinforced that point with several examples. On over 93% of the cases jointly decided, he and Judge Merrick Garland concurred. Was it a Garland fellow traveler that we had in mind? Lisa Black, who clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and has argued more cases in front of the Supreme Court than any other woman, offered high praise for Kavanaugh. Black is a self-professed staunch defender of Roe and said that he “fits within the mainstream of legal thought.”

Kavanaugh called Marbury v. Madison one of the four greatest Supreme Court rulings. This is the bedrock ruling upon which all judicial activism is built.

Hmmm?

Senator Collins reminded us that Kavanaugh had tried to find middle ground on the matter of forcing religious orders to offer contraceptives to employees. Fine. But, he went further. He offered that this was “settled law” citing Griswold v. Connecticut and that the “government had a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control.”

Compelling interest? Access? Really?

But, it was his reverence to precedents that was most troubling. Collins clearly probed deeply on the 45 year old Roe decision. He told her that past decisions become “part of our legal framework.” He added that precedents are not merely judicial policy, not a goal, but a constitutional tenant. That they were “not to be trimmed, narrowed or overlooked.” When she asked about Planned Parenthood v. Casey, (a decision co-authored by Justice David Souter) he told her that it was “precedent on precedent.”


And then there is this:

McConnell ‘proud’ pro-abortion Murkowski is in GOP, dismisses primary challenge

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

So Schumer offers to sell McConnell what he already owns

And McConnell takes the deal

Who got the better deal on judges?

Here is the story for your analysis:

Mitch McConnell Slams 15 Judicial Confirmations Through In Less Than Two Hours and Progressives Aren’t Happy 

The reports we have seen in several conservative journals are all positive about what Republican Majority Leader (emphasis on Majority) Mitch McConnell achieved in his bargaining with Charles “Chucky” Schumer, Senate Minority Leader, emphasis on Minority .  They seem to range in our interpretation from complimentary for crafty deal making to having Schumer over a barrel, to how Chucky out-smarted himself to Mitch McConnell put a gun to Schumer and said “judgeships or else”.

Or else what?

Perhaps there are some Senate intricacies we are not aware of but based on what is reported about the       ” bargaining chips” it seems that McConnell had them all before and after November no matter the election results at least until January 2019.  And Schumer was betting (now) that the Democrats best chance to win the Senate required that they be released to campaign (although they were their based on Schumer-forced scheduling of more debate).  So McConnell accommodated him?!

As a result Republicans get 15 judgeship in return for letting Democrats (and the few Republicans in any sort of a race) go campaign. But isn’t that number and more available to McConnell by sticking it out and sticking it to Democrats for their threat, making them live up to the rules they wanted implimented (ala Alinsky)?

Hell McConnell should call for the 30 hours of debate Schumer thought he was being so forceful in using to delay confirmations . .  . and keep the Democrats in Washington, to their detriment by Schumer’s bet.  If The Hill’s analysis is right Chucky had to make the hard decision to let the judgeships go through so his boys and girls could go campaign and win, that was his bet.

But what Schumer really gave was what was McConnell’s for the taking and perhaps could have been expanded on even in a lame-duck session even if Democrats won in November or increased after a win come January with an expanded Republican Senate. The thing is McConnell could see Schumer’s hold cards and Schumer’s “tell” that he had to get his people out to campaign.  Why not deny him that opportunity and Schumer/Democrats would have no one to blame but themselves?

Sure, if my presumption is correct, McConnell can add to the judgeships in the lame-duck term as well, but will he?  And the question still arises why give Schumer anything he wants after what he and the rest of the Democrats have done to the process, and by Schumer’s estimation increase the Democrats’ chance of a takeover?

R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer, movie starts today

  • Roe v Wade on trial as well – movie documents the most wide open abortion law in the Western world
  • PG 13 teens can and should see this movie
  • Trailer and theater link below

As Michelle Malkin says: The Most Important Movie You’ve Never Heard Of   (excerpt)

“Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” debuts in theaters nationwide on Oct. 12. I do believe this groundbreaking film by indie producers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney is the most important movie in America right now — a true-life saga of good vs. evil, deadly medical malpractice, systemic government malfeasance and cultural apathy toward the most vulnerable members of our society.

I first reported on this real-life horror story nearly eight years ago, but you’ve probably not heard or read a word about “Gosnell” in the mainstream press, TV news or online. The conspiracy of silence is the result of both malign neglect and active suppression of inconvenient truths:

–One CNN commentator flippantly explained that the network’s lack of interest was a “business decision,” not bias.

–Pro-abortion censors at crowdsourcing giant Kickstarter banned McAleer and McElhinney from raising money for the project — leading small donors across the country to help conduct the largest-ever crowdfunded movie on Indiegogo. (Full disclosure: I put my money where my principles are and donated three times, in addition to using my social media platforms to lend a hand.)

–Taxpayer-supported National Public Radio refused to run sponsored ads describing Gosnell as an “abortionist” because its legal department determined the accurate description violated the left-leaning network’s “value neutral” platform. LOL.

–And this past week, Facebook banned advertising for the movie — a continuation of its systemic crackdown on conservative speech.

What are they trying to hide?    . . .

Local availability:

Davenport:

https://www.cinemark.com/iowa/davenport-53rd-18-and-imax

Moline:

https://www.regmovies.com/theaters/regal-moline-stadium-14/C00377365135

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

What if it had been Christopher Ford making the allegations against Kavanaugh

  • Or a “Christopher” Ford making such a charge against Sotomayor or Kagan back in their gang days?  Daily Signal article —
  • Another article asks — why believe that any incident of any sort even took place — they have provided only hearsay at best — and follow the incentive trail. Lew Rockwell.com article —

Amy Swearer, JD knows how ridiculous the “we must believe her” nonsense is. Would you believe a quasi attempted murder charge simply because it was made by a woman?   From the Daily Signal:

Don’t Believe Me Just Because I’m a Woman

Don’t Believe Me Just Because I’m a Woman

Almost one year ago today, I wrote about my own experiences with #MeToo and asked that everyone refrain from immediately and callously dismissing the men and women who come forward to share their stories. I said we should listen. And we should.

But I also explicitly said there was a time and a place to talk about false accusations and the excesses of #MeToo. I never implied that the act of listening with compassion meant unquestioningly believing all women, without rational analysis of the evidence.

I certainly never demanded that the world take my own story at face value just because I have a uterus.

If there was ever a time and place to talk about these things, it’s right now, on the heels of a Supreme Court confirmation battle saturated with claims that we #BelieveTheWomen.

Please, stop telling me to believe all women. I did not go to law school to abandon rational analysis and basic concepts of fairness just because a particular accuser lacks a Y chromosome.

Imagine with me an alternate reality where instead of Christine Blasey Ford accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape when they were teens, we have a Christopher Ford accusing Kavanaugh of attempted murder:

Christopher Ford’s general testimony is that Kavanaugh, at a small gathering, drunkenly pushed him into a room and began smothering him with a pillow in a manner Ford thought was going to result in his death. All other facts are the same.

Despite offering a few vivid details he says are “seared into [his] memory,” Christopher Ford does not otherwise recall very basic details about the night, such as how he arrived at the party, how he got home from the party, or even where the party took place. He is initially unsure of the year or how old he was at the time of the alleged assault, which he now for the first time characterizes as “attempted murder.”

Ford’s earliest accounts consistently paint a time frame several years later than the one on which he settles for his final testimony. He cannot explain how, despite being unsure of the general time for years, he was able to narrow it down to the specific summer of 1982.

Christopher Ford’s account of who was at the party is inconsistent. Notes from his 2012 therapy session indicate he first said there were four boys in the room when Kavanaugh attempted to kill him. Six years later, he tells The Washington Post that this was an error on the part of the therapist, and that there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

In his more recent letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he states that there were actually five individuals at the party—him, three boys, and his female best friend, all of whom he identifies by name.

But then, in his final testimony, Ford says there were four boys in addition to his female friend. He cannot remember the fourth boy’s name, and no one has come forward claiming to be this individual.

All four of the people Ford claims were at the party, including Ford’s best friend, deny having any knowledge of or remembering such a party taking place. Ford’s best friend denies having met Kavanaugh. There is no corroboration that Ford and Kavanaugh even knew each other or attended the same parties.

Christopher Ford tells The Washington Post that this encounter drastically altered his life, derailing him “substantially for four or five years” such that he “struggled academically and socially.”

Yet no friends, family members, teachers, or acquaintances come forward to corroborate that Ford noticeably struggled socially or emotionally during this time period. Ford doesn’t produce academic records verifying claims of a serious academic struggle. Indeed, he was accepted into and graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before earning three postsecondary degrees.

Christopher Ford’s description of the house and the details of the event also change substantially. Notably, the changed layout comes only after high school classmates point out the well-known party houses from the summer of 1982, none of which matches his original description.

His initial letter to the Judiciary Committee states that he heard Kavanaugh and his friend—Mike Judge—talking to partygoers downstairs while he hid in the bathroom after the alleged assault. He later testifies, however, that he could not hear them talking to anyone.

Christopher Ford further refuses to turn over to the Judiciary Committee very important documents, such as the full results of his polygraph and his therapist’s notes, even though he claims these documents corroborate his claims. We later learn that he took a polygraph on the day of or the day after his grandmother’s funeral (he can’t remember which), and that the format of the polygraph seriously differed from the accepted standard.

If this alternate reality were ours, where would the national conversation have been last week?

Would senators still have come out, prior to any examination of the evidence or semblance of a hearing, stating their unquestioning belief that a Christopher Ford was truthful?

Would we still largely fail to acknowledge that a Christopher Ford may have significant motivations to lie, or that his memory may be unintentionally but substantially altered by the historical ramifications of keeping Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, with the possibility of Democrats taking back the Senate if they can just stall long enough?

Would we still ask Kavanaugh’s supporters why they would want him on the bench given the mere whiff of possible impropriety, however uncorroborated and however contrary to the experiences of every other person who has interacted with him on a regular basis over the past 36 years?

Where we would unquestioningly believe all women, would we unquestioningly believe all men?

Of course not. And this is the problem—we shouldn’t believe either women or men when their claims are inconsistent with the facts and evidence.

I don’t know for sure that Christine Blasey Ford is lying about what actually occurred that night, or if she’s mistaken, or if she has greatly misremembered it.

What I do know is that if Ford were a man, and her accusations were about anything other than sexual assault, we almost certainly wouldn’t be having this conversation.

To unquestioningly believe all women—and to continue to believe them despite a complete lack of evidence where evidence should abound—is a measure of inequality we do not deserve. It is an injustice we should not bear. It is patronization we should not tolerate.

I promise you that women sometimes lie. They sometimes misremember. They are sometimes mistaken. And they sometimes do these things in situations far less societally complex and with far less at stake than the confirmation to the Supreme Court of a judge whose nomination (we are told) represents a serious threat to the life and liberty of millions, and whose supporters are (according to a sitting senator) “complicit in the evil.”

Why does this happen? Because women are human beings subject to the same frailties, limitations, and faults as are men.

I never imagined that this would be a controversial statement for which I would be chastised by self-described feminists. This is, rather, a principle fundamental to any concept of true equality: Women are human beings, too.

When it comes to analyzing our allegations of sexual misconduct, please treat us accordingly.


 Follow the incentive trail:

Aftermath as Prologue By James Howard Kunstler  (excerpt)

“I believe her!”

Really? Why should anyone believe her?

Senator Collins of Maine said she believed that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford experienced something traumatic, just not at the hands of Mr. Kavanaugh. I believe Senator Collins said that to placate the #Metoo mob, not because she actually believed it. I believe Christine Blasey Ford was lying, through and through, in her injured little girl voice, like a bad imitation of Truman Capote.

I believe that the Christine Blasey Ford gambit was an extension of the sinister activities underway since early 2016 in the Department of Justice and the FBI to un-do the last presidential election, and that the real and truthful story about these seditious monkeyshines is going to blow wide open.

It turns out that the Deep State is a small world. Did you know that the lawyer sitting next to Dr. Ford in the Senate hearings, one Michael Bromwich, is also an attorney for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director fired for lying to investigators from his own agency and currently singing to a grand jury? What a coincidence. Out of all the lawyers in the most lawyer-infested corner of the USA, she just happened to hook up with him.  The

It’s a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the “sexual assault” circus. Did you know that Monica McClean was a retired FBI special agent, and that she worked in the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York under Preet Bharara, who had earlier worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer?

Could Monica McLean have spent those four days in July helping Christine Blasey Ford compose her letter to Mrs. Feinstein? Did you know that Monica McClean’s lawyer, one David Laufman is a former DOJ top lawyer who assisted former FBI counter-intel chief Peter Strozk on both the Clinton and Russia investigations before resigning in February this year — in fact, he sat in on the notorious “unsworn” interview with Hillary in 2016. Wow! What a really small swamp Washington is!

Did you know that Ms. Leland Keyser, Dr. Ford’s previous BFF from back in the Holton Arms prep school, told the final round of FBI investigators in the Kavanaugh hearing last week — as reported by the The Wall Street Journal — that she “felt pressured” by Monica McLean and her representatives to change her story — that she knew nothing about the alleged sexual assault, or the alleged party where it allegedly happened, or that she ever knew Mr. Kavanaugh. I think that’s called suborning perjury.   . . .

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

The thing is Hillary, a large part of the country will say “bring it bi*ch”

  • Is that what she wants?
  • The truth is Hillary Clinton never had a civil bone in her deteriorating body, or civil thought in her warped mind

This 60 second Dan Bongino political ad documents and gives some brief perspective to Hillary Clinton’s latest outrageous comments about Republicans.  It is followed by (not part of ) a commentary by Rick Manning of Americans for Limited Government.  Set forth in its entirety.

Hillary legitimizes war on Republicans

By Rick Manning

America was shocked by the screaming, temper tantrum and outright threats by those opposed to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  However, if anyone had any hope that the so-called adults in the Democratic Party would tell the violent children to cool it, Hillary Clinton put an end to it, telling CNN’s Christianne Amanpour, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.”

Let’s deconstruct what Clinton is saying so it cannot be missed.

“You cannot be civil” is an imperative that means you have no other choice but to not be civil. There is no equivocation it is a call to continue and expand the street takeovers in Portland, Oregon, the screaming at the Capitol, and yes even the violent threats and direct confrontations against those with whom you disagree.

“[W]ith a political party” tells us that this is a mass movement war which justifies virtually any action against those with whom you disagree.  Far from the days of “I disagree with what you say, but will defend with my life your right to say it,” Clinton justifies virtually any action against the over half of America which doesn’t identify with her political party.

“[T]hat wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.” This is no single-issue appeal, Clinton leaves it to the minds of the mob as to which offense they can justify attacking those with whom they disagree.

Please understand that one of the reasons the celebration of the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh was muted in many circles is that it underscored what many of us privately feared.  The left hates us and will justify anything to take back the power they lost at the ballot box.

Under the Clinton standard no amount of electoral cheating is condemned, because the end justifies the means.  No amount of intimidation is too much, because their cause is much more worthy than the one the opposing political party holds dear. Every action is justified under the rubric of protecting everything you stand for.

The Kavanaugh hearing truly showed that there are two Americas with each believing that they are correct, and at least one-side justifying a no-quarter given approach that had heretofore been rejected by both. Gone are the days where the notion that even in our disagreements we stand together on core principles.  Hillary and the Democrats no longer believe that the opposition party has a right to exist, largely because it had to audacity to win elections and begin the process of governing based upon Constitutional principles.

In the process, political violence is the new Hillary credo which makes GOP Senators like Rand Paul, who was assaulted by a neighbor while mowing his lawn, express concerns that someone is going to get killed due to this new radicalism.

But it should be no surprise that the left is justifying verbal and physical violence to achieve its ends, anyone paying attention to the presidential campaign witnessed repeated instances where Trump supporters were assaulted with few legal ramifications. And the justification was always that Trump’s language on immigration or other issues warranted the actions.

The silence of Senate Democrats in the face of the anti-Kavanaugh mob demonstrated clearly that the only difference between the primal screams of those arrested and the elected Democrats on the dais was the choice of clothing.

Even Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez inadvertently got it right when he stated, “there are no moderate Democrats left… no moderate Republicans left.”  Perez’ Freudian admission that moderates have left the Democratic Party as they have effectively purged their former middle-class worker base in favor of radicalized activists who self-identify by gender, sexual orientation or racial hyphens.

Clinton’s defense of the new, angry, win at all cost left shows clearly that the democratic socialists and their Antifa brothers and sisters have won the day.  But in winning the battle, the left has likely lost the war for at least the next generation.

Rick Manning is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Francis approved scapular to ward off conservatism

“(Pope) Francis is so convinced that Satan is ultimately to blame for both the sexual abuse scandals and the divisions within the Church that he has enlisted the aid of spiritual big gun – St. Michael the Archangel. Michael is mentioned several times in the Bible as the leader of the angels who ousted Lucifer, the fallen angel, from paradise.” (Reuters, Mon.,Oct.7)

——————-

“…divisions within the Church…”

Apparently His Holiness is set to call down St. Michael to battle the evil forces of ‘climate change’ deniers, defenders of capitalism, and political opponents of Marxism… and those “obsessed” anti-abortion Catholics.

DHL

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

It seemed there was something in the air yesterday, impervious to the moisture

Whatever the cause behind this social / political vignette I observed yesterday it was a magnitude of 2 or 3 times previous experience.

There we were along Middle Road in Bettendorf yesterday afternoon with about 50 or so Life Chain demonstrators.  It is an annual event that takes place across the country in many hundreds of communities to demonstrate for life, usually at or near abortion chambers, especially Planned Parenthood. The demonstration was near the site where there was one. The Planned Parenthood syndicate closed their baby killing enterprise  in Bettendorf about ten months ago, more out of efficiency in the face of reduced money from the public trough.

Planned Parenthood’s absence and the weather contributed to the reduced turn-out from previous years but the response from passersby was actually increased and overwhelmingly positive.  The measure is horn-honks as leading signs call to honk for life, and they did in abundance far more than any other year in my many years of participating at the site. I wish I had had the presence of mind to record a video clip with sound.

What did it mean?  I don’t know for sure as it could mean anything from better signs /visibility to the occasion, or, maybe, given the timeliness and degree of coverage,  anticipation and support of the Kavanaugh approval.  A new day dawning?  We hope Kavanaugh is worthy of the day.

R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

The Big Murkowski . . . is the joke on us?

Yesterday we advocated that no one should give Lisa Murkowski any credit for even collegiality for paring her no vote on Kavanaugh with Steve Daines’ yes vote as a courtesy to Daines as it was not necessary to the outcome.  We intimated that it was really intended to allow her to argue for her party bonafides having already done everything she could to stop any conservative nominee.  We feel her prime motivation is to stop any nominee she can who might even question Roe v Wade.  We hope she was not on track with Susan Collins who argued that Kavanaugh is no threat to Roe or anything held dear by liberals because he supposedly exalts precedence.  IF COLLINS’ RATIONALE IS TRUE ABOUT KAVANAUGH WE HAVE BEEN SNOOKERED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.  More on that later.

However, Daniel G. Jones writing today at American Thinker has a view toward other implications if not last minute skullduggery on the part of Murkowski et al:

The Democrat trick behind Senator Murkowski’s ‘present’ vote

Under the cover of doing a favor for Senator Steve Daines, Senator Lisa Murkowski actually helped the Democrats more.

Yesterday the Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh as the 114th Justice of the Supreme Court.  The final tally was 50 to 48, with 99 Senators voting to achieve that outcome.

The mathematics are odd because Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) switched her “nay” vote to “present.” She says she did this to accommodate her colleague Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) who was attending his daughter’s wedding and unable to register his vote in favor of the nomination.

Really? If Murkowski had voted “nay,” the result would have been 50-49. Kavanaugh still would have won. Her voting “present” had no effect on the outcome. Do you suppose she didn’t think of this? Or might she have something else in mind?

Let’s ask “Cui bono?” Who benefits? Murkowski’s charade serves two beneficiaries and neither of them is Republican. The first winner is Senator Joe Manchin, because it enabled him to vote for the nominee without being the deciding vote.

Had Murkowski voted “nay” as she originally announced, Manchin’s “aye” would have broken a 49-49 tie. He would have been Kavanaugh’s fiftieth and deciding vote, and many of his Democrat supporters in West Virginia would never have forgiven him. Bad news for his re-election in November. On the other hand, if Manchin had voted against Kavanaugh, he’d likely have lost many of his Trump supporters. Again, bad for re-election.

Manchin had to thread an exceedingly small needle. To maximize his election prospects, he had to vote for Kavanaugh, but only in way that didn’t make a difference to the final result. Senator Lisa Murkowski made that possible.

Senate Democrats, the second beneficiaries of this charade, may now retain a seat that otherwise might have been lost. Never have they been so happy to see one of their own support the opposition.

Alaska voters may be properly puzzled by Murkowski’s decision to help Manchin with his Kavanaugh dilemma. President Trump thinks she’s ruined her re-election prospects. So does Sarah Palin. She tweeted, “I can see 2022 from my house.”

Manchin’s alleged “pro-lifeness” is of no consequence as he remains a Democrat, serving usefully, idiot or otherwise, to protect as best he can that party’s hegemony over so much.  If the Repubs gain in the Senate (and he wins) look for this charlatan to announce he has switched parties in about a year. Well, at least he couldn’t be worse than Murkowski.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Ghost of Democrats past (and present) reacts to their Kavanaugh debacle

Savor every line of this “different words” treat

And as it is approaching Halloween and all, this added treat:

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment