So What Did We Learn?

Yesterday, if you were working, you were probably the only one. I can’t think of too many people that were busy at work doing what they should be doing to earn a living. Most people, kind of like on the first day of the NCAA Tournament, were glued to a TV set somewhere, trying to see whether or not Christine Blasey-Ford or Brett Kavanaugh was going to say anything to tip the scales their way.

As far as that verdict goes, I don’t think there was a clear winner either way. In fact, if you went into the whole proceeding thinking the Ford was abused and it was Kavanaugh that did it, you probably came out of the proceedings thinking just that way. If you thought Brett Kavanaugh was getting railroaded and it was nothing more than a Democrat smear attempt to get this thing pushed past the election, so the Dem’s could say (if they re-take the Senate) that you can’t have a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination now… you should wait until the new Senate is seated. And you probably came away thinking just the same thing as you went into the day with.

I don’t think either Kavanaugh or Ford did themselves any harm. Both sounded credible. Both were effective at communicating what they felt the whole thing was about. But there were winners and losers.

I think the GOP came out of the whole affair a winner. And that wasn’t the case early on. Having the woman from Arizona ask the questions of Ford was good, though she was obviously not used to the attention, nor the process. But by the time Kavanaugh was taking his turn, she was pretty useless. When the GOP Senators started asking the questions…or basically apologizing to Kavanaugh for all he and his family had been put through, things turned up for them. I thought that Lindsay Graham had the brightest spot of all, calling out the Democrats for the sham that the hearing was. And I thought my own Senator, Jeff Flake was a mealy-mouth loser. He comes out saying “there will always be doubt”. Thank God I don’t have to hold my nose and vote for him this year!

As far the losers, yeah, the Dem’s pretty much reeked when it came to questioning Kavanaugh. They constantly interrupted him…tried to ask “gotcha” questions, and when he wouldn’t fall for it, they would give the excuse that “My time is almost up so let’s move on”. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and several others did that. The left tried hard to make the tie that because Kavanaugh got drunk in high school and college, he probably could have possibly maybe blacked out and didn’t remember accosting Ford. That really didn’t work, and came across very weak. They also tried to get him to “ask the White House for an FBI investigation.” He didn’t fall for that, and several times, Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) slammed them for that.

The big loser on the Democrat’s side was Diane Feinstein. She was called out several times for sitting on the Ford letter from July and not bringing it up in a timely manner. She tried to defend herself, and all but blamed her staff. In the end, she look old, ineffective, and just plain partisan as hell.

Today, with any luck, the Judiciary Committee will be voting on this (the meeting was scheduled to start at 9:30am EDT, which means by the time you read this, they’ll already be meeting. The only fly in the ointment is Jeff Flake. If he “flakes out” again, as he is wont to do these days, the nomination will be voted down in committee, but will still go to the Senate floor next week. With any luck, Flake pulls on his big boy pants, and realizes that what he will always be remembered for in his time in the Senate will be this vote. And if he pulls a John McCain and wimps out like McCain did on healthcare, it will forever be his legacy. Only time will tell.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!


Have we sunk to the new low that all you have to do to uncork an outstanding nomination to the US Supreme Court is to come up with some cock-n-bull story about high school dalliances? That’s why Senator Diane Feinstein has done by outing this Stanford University professor who is claiming that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh groped her (and according to her, would have raped her had he not been so drunk). I have one word for this whole kettle of fish.


First of all, it smacks of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill…to the point that Hill was also a college professor. Second, as in Thomas’ case, it was held until just before the vote. And third, unlike the Thomas case, it was a Senator that brought it to the forefront and outed the accuser. This really reeks of something bad I’m smelling.

Let’s look at it. Why are we only now hearing of this? Why, if this woman has been so tormented throughout her life didn’t she come forward when Kavanaugh was before the Senate for confirmation to the Federal Bench? If this was such a huge ordeal, why does this woman not have one soul that can also remember the incident? And let’s face it… it was supposedly happening 35 years ago when she and Kavanaugh were in high school. Are you kidding me? The FBI has vetted this guy and plowed into his past looking at everything he ever did not once, not twice or three times, but SIX separate times. They have turned over every rock. They have looked under every leaf. Hell, this guy is the squeakiest clean boy scout if there ever was one.

How can hundreds of women that he dated in high school, and college, and since his education, while a legal professional come forward and say that he has always been upstanding and treated them well.

And now we learn that this professor is a dyed in the wool snowflake who’s taken part in anti-Trump marches, signed petitions about separating children from their parents at the border, and has been a staunch donor of extremely liberal campaigns for not just a year or two…we’re talking decades.

The other problem I had with this is the fact that her lawyer seems to be as partisan as she is. While she rails against Brett Kavanaugh being such a bad person and trying to “rape” her client 35 years ago, she fails to mention that she was wanting to give Bill Clinton and yes, even Al Franken a pass on their sexual dalliances. Now wait a minute! If you’re such a fan of the #MeToo movement, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, how can you call it OK when a Democrat does commits sex abuse when there are plenty of witnesses, and go on the offensive when your client has NO witnesses, is a dyed in the wool liberal who’d do anything to see this guy not get confirmed, and it supposedly happened in HIGH SCHOOL? C’mon…can’t you get more creative than that?

You couldn’t have written a better script for a “gotcha” moment than this. And now the GOP has to hold this insane hearing next Monday to listen to this woman’s testimony. This has all the trappings of the typical Democrat “win at all cost, even if it’s a lie” mentality. The least they could do is come up with a different play, rather than some 27 year old play that led to absolutely nothing except Thomas’ confirmation.

Feinstein should be investigated and impeached!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Democrats’ Desperate Play

I want you to think back for a minute to when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was getting confirmed. Do you remember that? He got almost all the way through the confirmation process, and then, out of nowhere, there is this lady named Anita Hill who had claimed that he had sex with her, did lewd stuff with pubic hair and Coke cans. Do you remember that? There was no evidence, but it’s where “We have to investigate it because of the ‘seriousness of the charge'” came from.

It didn’t work then, but that doesn’t mean that the Democrats aren’t going to try it out today.

Diane Feinstein, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and is up for re-election in a state where her own party decided not to endorse her in the primary, decided she had to do SOMETHING to get this confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh at least slowed down until the elections in November. So she said that there was a woman at Stanford University that came to her and said she wanted to stay anonymous, and didn’t want this to be investigated further, but Di Fi decided that the seriousness of the charge was so great that she HAD to come forward and give the information to the FBI to investigate.

That information was that while in HIGH SCHOOL, Brett Kavanaugh made sexual advances to this woman. He may have even groped her. Wow. And the FBI missed that when they vetted him?

Look, there is only one reason for this to come to light now. First of all, Feinstein knew of this in July. Why did she wait until now to have it foisted on us? Because it was their ace in the hole. Democrats can’t vote for Kavanaugh while this is out there, and it may be enough to sway Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski into wanting to wait. IF the Dems’ were to win the Senate in the November elections, then they could delay this confirmation indefinitely and tell Donald Trump to choose someone else. THAT is the reason this is being used now.

The Republicans need to band together and stick to their guns…ALL of them. And they need to confirm Kavanaugh. They guy answered 30 hours of questions during his hearing, another 1,200 plus questions the Democrats sent him afterwards, he’s met with 65 Senators (including Feinstein), and not even the FBI rectal exam has found anything in his past to stop this from going forward. It’s a desperate move by a desperate party.

And it should weigh in on the election. If a party is this desperate to get it’s own way, they’re going to be desperate enough once in power to force anything they want through Congress and the White House. They’ll stop at nothing to feed their power trip.

When I look at the Democrat candidates around the country, I have to laugh. They aren’t politicians. They are Saul Alinsky wannabes, and a bunch of people that have been living in their parent’s basement (I’m looking at YOU Kyrsten Sinema!). It’s absolutely laughable to think these people are capable of governing anything. Hell, they couldn’t even put on a neighborhood show in their parent’s basement!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Do We REALLY Need Hearings?

So the Kavanaugh hearings continue to drone on, and it’s become apparent it’s really nothing more than a stage for Kamala Harris and Cory Booker to show themselves to their base as they ready a run for 2020’s presidential primaries. And it begs the question: Do we really need to have these hearings?

Actually, we don’t.

The Constitution says that the Senate should provide “advise and consent” for the Supreme Court nominees. That doesn’t mean that they have to have a full blown three ring circus for four days, and ask every stupid and inane question (yes, from both sides of the aisle), of the nominee prior to holding a confirmation vote. The Senate just needs to do an up and down vote and let the Senators do their own damn due diligence on the nominee.

Ever since Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to basically answer any question dealing with the issues she’d be potentially facing on the high court, every single nominee for the Supreme Court has undertaken that very same tone. They can’t answer anything on any particular issue because that would be setting themselves up for having to later recuse themselves from a particular case that might come before the court. They all say that when it comes to abortion, Roe v Wade is the law of the land. Duh. And they all say that their job as a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret the Constitution and render a fair and just verdict in all cases.

So why do we need to have Diane Feinstein asking stupid and insipid questions about guns and abortion? And why do we have to learn that Clarence Thomas used to play basketball on the court upstairs from the hearing room until he got injured? And why as Ted Cruz asked, do we need to know if Brett Kavanaugh intends to follow in that tradition? What a meandering and stupid question!

What information can really be gleaned from these hearings? The only things I can think of would be that the Senators uncover some dirt on the nominee that the president’s team failed to find in their vetting process…or that the nominee completely comes apart at the seams during questioning. If that’s the case, who would want them as a Supreme Court Justice in the first place?

Brett Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed. That’s all there is to it. The Dems’ on that committee aren’t going to find anything in the 70,000 pages of documents that they asked for. In fact, in one email, Kavanaugh was even mentioning how we needed more racial equality! Gasp! How shocking! The Dems’ helped prove his case that he’s unbiased on that one…thank’s Cory Booker!

No, it’s a waste of four days, it’s a waste of taxpayer money, and it’s a waste of the Senators’ time. Instead they could be fixing healthcare, they could be re-writing the immigration laws for this country. They could be fixing so many different things. If only they attack those issues with the same zeal and determination that they have used in going after a guy that a) doesn’t have anything to hide, and b) is going to be confirmed anyway.

What a waste of airtime for all of the cable news channels covering this circus!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Bye Di!

What happens when you have too many candidates for an office? The short answer is, you get competition. In an era that has traditionally been void of good, solid political candidates, Democrats are finding that there are a lot of people all over their political spectrum that want high political office. So, it’s with that in mind that the California Democrat Party has decided to back Kevin deLeon, the current president of the California Senate over Dianne Feinstein, who’s served The Golden State for 26 years.

deLeon won the bid 54 to 37 percent, falling just short of the 60% needed in order to actually get the endorsement of the state Democrats. He’s viewed as much more liberal than Feinstein.

So, what does all of this say?

Well, for one thing, it says that the state of California is tired of old, worn out leadership, and is looking at new and younger people to take their place. That’s one thing that’s going to haunt another bay area member of Congress, Nancy Pelosi. Her seat probably will still be hers, but the members of the House Democrats are crying for new leadership, and she has the distinct possibility of losing the House Minority Leader role.

If you look back about ten years ago…it’s the same thing the GOP went through. Think back to when the Tea Party stuff began. It started with a fight against taxes…but ended up where the conservative wing of the Republican party took over (briefly), and ran a bunch of people against incumbents, making for an awful lot of heavily fought primary fights. Then, when it came to the general elections in November, the GOP saw that they had nominated someone that was far too conservative for the district or state on the whole. The GOP learned their lesson, but it cost them big time as several big names fell in primaries. I’m guessing that the same thing will happen on the Dem’s side.

Now the question is, “is that a bad thing?” I kind of think it is. Eventually, while the GOP gains in the short term as Democrats eat each other (and incumbents), in the long term most of the people that they will be nominating will be farther left on the spectrum. It seems as if the two sides are getting farther apart philosophically, not closer. That, while disturbing that congress won’t be able to work together, does provide one thing… it creates gridlock in congress. That means that they’ll get fewer bills passed. As long as you’re not trying to undo Obama era bills, little will change, which should be good for most of America.

My point here is, we have enough bills. They should pass a law that says for every new law passed, two old laws have to be taken off the books. When you hire someone to do a job, most of the time they do it. That means when you hire a congressman by electing them, you are asking them to pass laws. That’s not necessarily a good thing; especially when the Democrats are in charge, as they will be someday!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!