Ms Dowd: THIS WON'T DO IT EITHER.

I confess to listening to Rush Limbaugh at times. And when Rush said that Liberals are obsessed with trying to pin something on Donald Trump (anthing), I thought that he was exaggerating. But I wonder after having read Maureen Dowd's comments in the NY Times. Here is what Ms Dowd writes, proving that Rush is correct:

"The One that’s going to finally bring Donald Trump down.
As soon as the news broke Wednesday night in The Washington Post that a whistle-blower had accused the president of making some sort of nefarious “promise” during a call to a foreign leader, the hive erupted.
Democrats haven’t been able to get Trump on paying off a porn star to protect his campaign. They haven’t been able to get him on being a Russian agent. They haven’t been able to get him on obstruction of justice.
But maybe this time. Maybe this was the One where all would decide that they wanted impeachment, that the president’s behavior was so outrageous that they couldn’t imagine this sleazy business guy sitting in the Oval Office playing a tinpot dictator in a tinfoil hat for another second.”

I was about to write that I hate to burst Ms Dowd's fantasy bubbles but that would not be quite accurate. In fact I do love to point out that the Libtrads were unable to get Donald Trump because: 1. paying off an annoying whore is not a crime; 2. Donald Trump was not a Russian agent and 3. he was not obstructing justice. And the Libtards will not get him this time either because the sleazy person in the Ukrainian caper was the VP who threatened Ukraine unless they fired the Prosecutor hot on the trails of the VP's son investigating the VP's son for getting a million bucks for...well...being the VP's son.

Rush keeps telling us that the Libtards do not understand why we (his supporters) like Donald Trump. Well here it is. Mr Trump has gotten rid of some of the most bothersome Liberal rules that hogtied our economy. He dispenses with the man-made global warming hoax. He is appointing Conservative (meaning reasonable) judges who do not legislate. He does not think that Iran should get nukes and threaten us and Israel as well as others in the Middle East. He does not approve of other countries taxing our exports more than we tax imports from other countries. He does not approve of China ripping off our companies by copying their products and manipulating currencies. He is letting others know that our government will serve our interest first, just like their governments serve their interest first. He does not believe that this country's interests are well served by having open borders. And yes, we like the way he fights back via his TWEETS: in clear English so we can understand. Yes, he is no angel. But untill Jesus Christ returns and becomes our King, Trump is the best we got

Tucker Carlson on the second Kavanaugh smear.

read:https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-lefts-smear-campaign-kavanaugh-trump-supreme-court

 

Tucker Carlson: What the revival of the left's smear campaign against Kavanaugh is really about

Believe it or not, it was a year ago this week that a constellation of left-wing activist groups cooked up a series of outlandish lies designed to keep Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court.

The national news media, as you remember, joined the smear campaign. They repeated and magnified the slurs. But in the end, it was to no effect. Kavanaugh was confirmed anyway. Why? Because not a single allegation against him turned out to be true -- not one. And so the only lasting effect was to traumatize Brett Kavanaugh's wife and children.

And yet the left never to this day apologized for their dishonesty or their profound cruelty. Nor did they ever accept defeat. They never do accept defeat. Why? Because when politics is your religion, acknowledging reality looks like sin, and so it continues.

NYT REPORTERS BEHIND KAVANAUGH STORY SUGGEST KEY INFORMATION WAS REMOVED BY EDITORS

Over the weekend, The New York Times revived the attacks on Brett Kavanaugh. The newspaper ran a story, an excerpt from a book written by two of its reporters that claimed that while in college, more than 30 years ago, Kavanaugh exposed himself in effect to another student while drunk at a party. It was the flimsiest kind of charge. Where did it come from? Well, it came secondhand from a single classmate of Kavanaugh's, a man who worked as a left-wing activist, later worked for the Clintons, in fact.

So, 20 years ago, no credible news organization would have run a story like that on the basis of that sourcing. The Times didn't hesitate, and it was picked up everywhere of course, instantly. On NBC's cable channel, for example, they immediately denounced Brett Kavanaugh as a gang rapist.

"I've never heard of a guy who is a one-time rapist," Jason Johnson, politics editor for TheRoot.com, said on MSNBC. "I've never heard of a guy who is a one-time sexual assaulter. I grew up with guys like this. He is from around this area, right? He is the fifth guy in a gang rape, okay? He is the guy who comes in after he is drunk as everybody else encourages. He can get away with it. And he has been pretty much covered his entire life.

Kavanaugh frustrates their political hopes. So any smear against him is acceptable, no matter what it is. But don't kid yourself. It's not just about destroying Brett Kavanaugh; he is ancillary. It's about destroying the entire legitimacy of our third branch of government, the judiciary.

Johnson added: "It amazes me that we have an administration that, out of the millions of people who are qualified in this country, of all races and genders, they consistently find men who beat, abuse and sexually assault women."

Imagine saying something like that about somebody, where there's no evidence that it's true and a lot of evidence that it's not. But they didn't hesitate.

Democratic presidential candidates, meanwhile, demanded that Kavanaugh be removed by force immediately from the Supreme Court.

Julian Castro: What becomes clear is that he should be impeached. The House absolutely has the ability to impeach him.

Joy Reid, MSNBC host: And do you believe then that he is essentially a sexual predator or that he was at some point?

Castro: Yes, I believe -- I believe that he engaged in the conduct that was described.

Beto O'Rourke: And given the fact that it appears as though Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath, which is a crime, I think that he has disqualified himself for service on the Supreme Court and he should step down, or he should be impeached.

A sexual predator who must be impeached. OK.

But wait, here's a late-breaking addition to the story: It turns out that the woman it supposedly happened to -- the alleged victim back at Yale more than 30 years ago -- it turns out that person has no memory whatsoever of the incident.

Whatever they tell you, don't let them tell you that justice has any role in this. Of course, this is a pure power grab. The left feels entitled to run the country.

Now, the paper knew that but somehow neglected to include it in their account, probably because it strongly suggests that their story is once again, a total crock -- yet another lie. They should have told you that and they didn't. It's dishonest, of course.

And you'd think it would spur the Democratic candidates, the one who called for Kavanagh's impeachment, to rethink their positions. New evidence? Maybe that would shape their view. But no, not at all. Several Democrats said exactly as they did a year ago. Remember this?

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.: There's no presumption of innocence or guilt when you have a nominee before you.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Ct.: We have a constitutional duty to get to the bottom of these allegations. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a responsibility to come forward with evidence to rebut them.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del.: Kavanaugh who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, and who I think now bears the burden of disproving these allegations, rather than Dr. Ford and Miss Ramirez.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.: To those who I hear, say over and over, "This isn't fair to Judge Kavanaugh. He is entitled due process. What about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?" He is not entitled to those because we're not actually seeking to convict him.

We're not trying to convict him. We're just trying to destroy him and his family -- so no due process, no presumption of innocence. Fairness is irrelevant.

Whatever they tell you, don't let them tell you that justice has any role in this. Of course, this is a pure power grab. The left feels entitled to run the country -- truly entitled to and they feel entitled to control the Supreme Court. If they don't, it drives them crazy.

Kavanaugh frustrates their political hopes. So any smear against him is acceptable, no matter what it is. But don't kid yourself. It's not just about destroying Brett Kavanaugh; he is ancillary. It's about destroying the entire legitimacy of our third branch of government, the judiciary.

Plenty on the left are using the Kavanaugh saga to justify packing the court -- adding more justices to make it reliably left-wing or to change the rules so they can remove any judge the left doesn't approve of. This is the opposite of what the third branch was meant to do or be.

The judiciary was meant to change slowly. The courts change over decades, rather than in response to a single election cycle. That's the way it was designed and for a reason. And for more than 200 years, it's worked.

But to the modern left, that's totally intolerable. They're committed to remaking this country completely right now. America needs a new system, they tell us, one with open borders and far fewer pesky individual rights. Rights like the freedom to speak clearly out loud. The freedom of expression, the right to bear arms, the freedom of religion -- no.

To create this new utopia of obedient, happy serfs, they're going to have to destroy all of that -- two centuries of precedent and tradition. Maybe even destroy the country itself, whatever. They're happy to do that.

As Robespierre noted, when you make omelets, you break eggs.

AJ Adds:This is a clear case of DELIBERATE fraud done by the NY Times. They should be sued and put out of business.

 

The Kavanaugh smear #2

We have seen the Left do Kavanaugh smear #2. Smear #1 was to stop him from getting confirmed. Smear #2 is done to intimidate him from voting with the Conservatives on the Supreme Court, or any Conservative Justice from accepting a nomination when Justice Ginsberg vacates her seat. Also, the Left wants an excuse to label any Conservative decision as illegitimate since Kavanaugh voted for it.

How was the smear done? The NY Times knows of a book, where the authors claim that Kavanaugh as a student went to a party (drunk) and exposed his wieny and said to a woman "hey hold on to this." The woman? She does not remember it. Collaboration? None. The NY Times knew about the lack of evidence but they published a story and left out that there was no evidence. So, it was a deliberate smear by people who knew it was a smear - done to accomplish the political aims stated above.

As stated recently on these pages, the problem is that the Left has become lawless yet there is no consequences to pay for their lawlessness.

The Constitution protects free speech, especially political speech. This is NOT a free speech issue though but fraud. We do have a law that prohibits a newspaper from doing deliberate fraud. It should be applied. The NY Times should be shut down. NOW!

The NY Times published a retraction, but of course every Democrat candidate for President continues calling for the impeachment of Kavanaugh as they call for the impeachment of Trump. And the war against America continues.

This has been reprinted from a FACEBOOK post.

Why America became great this century.

This has been around before, but is worth sharing again.

From: "David LaBonte"

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer.

Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground.

They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good-bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.

Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from.

They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German-American or the Irish-American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country.

Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here.

These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one Red, White and Blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.

I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life.

I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty , it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

(signed)
Rosemary LaBonte

KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING. FOR THE WRONG THINGS TO PREVAIL THE RIGHTFUL MAJORITY NEEDS TO REMAIN COMPLACENT AND QUIET! LET THIS NEVER HAPPEN!

Polar bears and the shrinking myth.

Beto should be off the ballot.

Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke proposes that we have a Civil War. How has he done this? He promised in the last debate the 10 Democrats who are now running for President  that if elected he will issue a Presidential Ukaz (Executive Order) to confiscate all AR-15s and AK47s. He made it clear that the confiscation will NOT be voluntary.

To start with, his premise is ineffective at best. Legally purchased AK47s and AR15s are NOT military weapons. Let us define the terms we are dealing with. The military uses fully automatic weapons. That means that the trigger mechanism allows you to pull the trigger and as long as the trigger remains in that position, the weapon will fire continuously. Civilians are not allowed to own such a weapon by law. Civilians can purchase only semi-automatic weapons.These weapons can fire only one bullet for each pull of the trigger but the mechanism kicks out the spent cartridge and replaces it with a fresh one without the shooter needing to do anything. That is why they are  called SEMI-AUTOMATIC.  Ordinary weapons require the shooter to do something to put a fresh round in the firing chamber before the pull of the trigger will fire another bullet or shotgun ammo.

Legally sold AR-15s and AK47 s are made to look like military weapons, but they lack the capability to operate like military weapons. Mr O'Rourke knows that but the pretense that he lacks the knowledge of how weapons work is just a tool to confiscate all weapons Americans have and intend to use as a last resort to prevent would be tyrants from seizing power.

How does the promise of Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke is a call for Civil War? Several States (including Texas) have laws that prohibit the confiscation of weapons. Many Sheriffs and Police Chiefs stated that they will not enforce such calls to collect weapons. So, that means that Mr O;Rourke would have to use the military. Some would obey, some would refuse. That is the very definition of Civil War.

I propose that we call on State Governors to strike the name of Mt O;Rourke from primary ballots in next year's election. While the Constitution gives us a great leeway to say anything (one Rapper calls for white people to be shot) it does not prevent us from imposing consequences for proposing doing such things as starting a Civil War.

Al Qaeda Congresswoman.

Here is the picture of a Congresswoman when she was in an Al Qaeda training camp. What is she doing in this country, let alone being a Congresswoman? Oh, she is a Democrat. So, when you vote for Democrats you in fact vote for a Party that sees nothing wrong with having a member who is a former recruit of a terrorist organization that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11.