Here are a couple of easy immigration questions -- answerable with a simple “yes” or “no” -- we might ask any American of any political stripe: Does everyone in the world have a right to live in the U.S.? Do the American people have a right, through their elected representatives, to decide who has the right to immigrate to their country and under what conditions? I believe that most Americans, even today's open-borders people, would answer “no” to the first question and “yes” to the second.
In a confirmation hearing late last year and a later questionnaire, District Court nominee Brian C. Buescher was assailed for his Catholic beliefs and membership in the Knights of Columbus by Democratic Senators Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Kamala Harris of California. The incident, which went unreported by the broadcast network news programs, was back in the news Thursday following a rebuke from Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Hint, the networks ignored that too.
The New York Times carefully sandwiched the disturbing Democratic trend of increasing mob behavior by liberals and Democrats -- culminating in the hysterical reaction to Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation -- into a story that made it about a hypocritical Trump. Reporter Peter Baker put the onus on the president, not the mob-instigation of his political opponents in “‘Unhinged’? No, Trump Tells Opponents, You Are.” The online headline underlined that Trump-centric spin: “Trump’s Contradiction: Assailing ‘Left-Wing Mob’ as Crowd Chants ‘Lock Her Up.’
Sarah Silverman’s I Love You, America has become indistinguishable from every liberal news panel or late-night talk show out there nowadays. Case in point, the October 4 episode delivers almost a half-hour of the same tired, debunked, and all-around irritating talking points surrounding the Kavanaugh hearings. It looks like she’s running out of unique ideas.
How did we get here? The Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination circus didn't happen by accident. The emergence of incredible — and by “incredible,” I mean the literal Merriam-Webster definition of “too extraordinary and improbable to be believed” — accusers in the 11th hour was no mistake. It is my contention that this grand unearth-and-destroy spectacle was planned, coordinated and facilitated by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats and their staffers.
On Monday night, Fox News Channel hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham pointed out the Democratic double standards when it came to how they reacted to sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh versus allegations and proven misdeeds among members of their own party.
In just over 11 minutes on Monday afternoon’s CNN Newsroom, one panel encapsulated why the liberal media are not fans of due process regarding the sexual misconduct claim against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and questioning the accuser’s story equates to painful sexism.
Responding Monday morning to the sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh with predictable hypocrisy, the liberal ladies on ABC’s The View applauded Democrats for finally “play[ing] hardball,” deemed Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s claims to be “very credible,” and defended Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) for not going public sooner with the letter.
In a last-ditch effort to sink the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) sent a letter to the FBI asking them to investigate the candidate for an undisclosed reason. All Feinstein revealed to the public was that she received “new” information from a source she wouldn’t name. Apparently, NBC was the only broadcast network to not apply ‘the smell test’ since they were the only ones to run with it.
Since Robert Bork’s “borking” 30 years ago, Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for a high court nominee by a Republican president have become predictable. Democrats, who favor a “living Constitution,” meaning whatever they think the founding document ought to say, are pitted against “originalists,” who believe the document speaks for itself and should be taken as something only slightly less compelling than holy writ.
If Alexander Hamilton had been nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court today, Democrats would likely oppose him. About the court, Hamilton said: “[A] limited Constitution ...can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. ..To deny this would be to affirm...that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid...”