Kavanaugh Truth

Historians Will Know This As ‘The Era Of The Witch Hunt’

Rod Thomson

There really is nothing new under the sun. The infamous Salem Witch Trials started with a group of young girls claiming they were doing bad things because they were possessed. They then said that it was witches who caused them to be possessed, naming them without providing any evidence. The “witches” were then summarily executed. Well, eight in total, over just a few months.

According to “The infamous Salem witch trials began during the spring of 1692, after a group of young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts, claimed to be possessed by the devil and accused several local women of witchcraft. As a wave of hysteria spread throughout colonial Massachusetts…”

Sound familiar? Eerily familiar?

The reasonably legitimate origins of the  #MeToo movement, and illegitimate origins of the Trump investigations, have rapidly turned into a dreadful allegory of the Salem witch trials. Horrible men such as Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Les Moonves, Louis C.K., Bill Cosby, Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer are just the tip of the bad actors in power positions in Hollywood and the media to take advantage of their positions to sexually exploit women.

Things began to get questionable when it seemed that, as more women made accusations on more men, some were driven by money and some by politics. The movement was getting twisted, which was probably inevitable. But not until the unverified and then repudiated accusations against Brett Kavanaugh did it become clear how completely the movement had been hijacked for political purposes into witch-hunt land.

Really, this idea of women accusing men in heightened political atmospheres (almost entirely Democratic women accusing Republican men) really started with Anita Hill’s unsubstantiated and largely discredited accusations against Clarence Thomas during his Senate confirmation hearings to the U.S. Supreme Court.

(In a different sense, the accusations against Bill Clinton were by dozens of women over a couple of decades, with a fair amount of substantiation, witness corroboration and payoffs on some of them. Yet Clinton was elected twice as the media deeply scrutinized the accusers in the 1990s with the help of Hillary Clinton.)

George W. Bush had vague accusations made against him. Herman Cain was derailed when the conservative black businessman ascended to the top of the Republican presidential nomination fight in 2012 by claims he denied and that were never substantiated. Then came Kavanaugh and the absurd accusations that were clearly not true — two of the three witnesses suggested by the accuser to corroborate her story said the incident never happened, while the third said she never heard about it.

While not burned at the stake, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Thomas are permanently stained for all of history by witch-hunt style charges. Their reputations are forever marred.

That, unfortunately, does not matter to those conducting the witch hunts.

Emily Lindin, a columnist for Teen Vogue magazine, tweeted during the Kavanaugh witch hunt: “If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”

Meanwhile Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono astonishingly said Kavanaugh doesn’t deserve a presumption of innocence because of his “ideological agenda.” Given the chance to “clarify” that statement on the friendly CNN network the next day, she doubled down.

Of course, this extends beyond sexual assault accusations.

President Trump has been hounded on multiple fronts. (His sexual escapades, while tawdry, seem to have been consensual.) Most ominously and clearly, the entire Trump-Russia collusion accusation turned out to be a giant witch hunt conducted at the highest levels of the U.S. law enforcement apparatus.

It is quite obvious that after Attorney General William Barr released a summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation that cleared Trump completely of the collusion accusations, Democrats say it raised more questions than it answered — and the media reported that straight as though that was even remotely possible.

And now, Democrats in Congress have promised to investigate Trump’s business, Trump’s non-profit, Trump’s holdings, Trump’s tax returns, Trump’s family members, Trump’s friends and Trump’s business partners.

Calling it a fishing expedition is far too gentle. It is a witch hunt, and one swimming in a growing sea of witch hunts. These are just more sophisticated than those launched by the girls in Salem more than three centuries ago.

Rod Thomson is an author, host of Tampa Bay Business with Rod Thomson on the Salem Radio Network, TV commentator and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod also is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Kavanaugh Supreme Court Truth

Maybe Democrats Won On Brett Kavanaugh After All

Rod Thomson

New U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been exactly what many of us who preferred other potential high court nominees, such as Amy Coney Barrett, thought he would be — avoiding controversy and hewing too closely to stare decisis, making legal decisions based on previous legal rulings rather than the wording of the law.

And it’s possible that the dirtiest, meanest, most reprehensible of all confirmation hearings may have made him even more hesitant to take on the most controversial issues of our time — particularly the kingpin of them all: abortion.

This was revealed again Monday when the Supreme Court declined to accept two lower-court rulings that blocked states from cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood — what seems like an eminently states’ rights issue. In that decision, Kavanaugh joined one moderate justice and all of the Court’s liberal justices in letting the lower court ruling stand.

It kind of makes a farce of all the shrill hysteria about how Kavanaugh was going to return women to back-alley, coat-hanger abortions. Of course, the whole hearing and surrounding leftist circus was a sham from beginning to bitter end — including threats to try to impeach Kavanaugh.

The Washington Post reported:

New Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not join the court’s three most conservative members in calling to accept the cases. Justice Clarence Thomas rebuked his colleagues for what he said was a dodge, attributing it to their aversion to taking up the issue of abortion that lurked in the case.

“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”

Thomas’s dissent from the court’s decision to pass on the case revealed a split among the court’s five conservatives: Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Neil Gorsuch signed on to the statement. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. did not.

Four justices are required to vote in favor of accepting a case. So essentially, Kavanaugh was the deciding vote, and he went with moderate Roberts and the liberals on the court.

So much hysteria in September. So little need.

Help Us Keep Telling The Truth!

Louisiana and Kansas announced plans to end funding for Planned Parenthood through Medicaid after an anti-abortion group released videos in 2015 that revealed Planned Parenthood executives laughingly discussing the sale of baby parts. Both were challenged in Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast and Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri.

The two cases raise the issue of whether individuals receiving Medicaid — which is dispensed through each state — have a right to challenge a state’s decision to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. Five lower courts said the recipients of Medicaid do, while one said they do not.

Typically when there is a split at the appeals court level, the Supreme Court will take the case to make the final ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas was clearly frustrated when he wrote his dissent on the decision.

“What explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood,” he wrote. “It is true that these particular cases arose after several states alleged that Planned Parenthood affiliates had, among other things, engaged in ‘the illegal sale of fetal organs’ and ‘fraudulent billing practices,’ and thus removed Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider.”

But Thomas went on to explain this was not an abortion issue. At stake are the rights of individuals under a major federal law.

“…these cases are not about abortion rights. They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to challenge the states’ decisions.”

Still, Roberts and Kavanaugh ducked it. There will be more opportunities. But the trendline is not good.

If the Democrats takeaway is that even when they cannot stop a nominee they can scar the person into less conservative action, nominations will become even worse — if possible.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Democrats Kavanaugh Rights Truth

Eerie Similarities Between Turkey’s Treatment Of Pastor And Democrats’ of Kavanaugh

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

A mere three weeks ago, the nation witnessed liberal groups and even some Democrat leaders argue that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh did not deserve a presumption of innocence. Still others argued that he did not even deserve the guarantees of due process. They argued — largely for political purposes — that the mere accusation alone without any evidence to back it up was enough to destroy him.

For the conservative and traditionalist Americans, the contention was simply absurd, but many failed to see matters in the same light and passionately called for the disqualification of the judicial nominee simply based on the mere accusation of sexual assault, despite the absence of any corroborating evidence in support of the charges. The discussion was, quite frankly, surreal.

Separately, on Oct. 12 America witnessed another set of surreal events when American Pastor Andrew Brunson was released from house arrest and allowed to leave Turkey for the first time since being detained in 2016. By Saturday, Brunson was in the White House thanking President Donald Trump for his interventions and openly praying that God’s wisdom fall upon the President. Make no mistake, this was Trump’s doing — which the media largely downplayed.

Interestingly, the evils that befell Brunson in Turkey are the same ones against which conservative Americans have been preciously guarding in protecting now-Justice Kavanaugh. America is based on certain rights, including a presumption of innocence.

In October 2016, Brunson and his wife, Norine, were summoned in Turkey to renew their visas. Upon their arrival, they were arrested. Their due process rights completely ignored, they were held without even being told what the charges against them were. Norine was released without explanation 13 days later, but Brunson continued to be held.

It would not be until December 2016 when charges were formally brought against Brunson accusing him of being a member of an armed terrorist organization. And in August 2017, those charges were broadened to include charges of espionage, attempting to overthrow the Turkish parliament and government, and attempting change to change the constitutional order of Turkey.

Again, it is important to remember that at no time were any of the charges against Brunson corroborated or was evidenced supplied in support of them. There was no evidence that he was actually a terrorist, and no evidence that he, in any way, tried to overthrow the government.

No evidence at all. Just an accusation. Sound familiar?

More Original Content On Patreon

But those things do not matter because in Turkey. They do not have America’s Constitution and heritage of rights, so it’s okay there to bypass another’s due process rights and to ignore another’s presumption of innocence; precisely the road Democrats have been encouraging Americans to traverse.

Brunson was held as part of a political ploy to use him as a pawn in an international game of chicken. His innocence was immaterial to his captors. Similarly, his release was part of a political ploy to improve relations between that country and the United States. Again, his guilt or innocence was immaterial. The only thing that mattered was the benefits to the Turkish government secured by his imprisonment and subsequently, by his release.

Many argue that the status of civil liberties in the United States is far removed from those in Turkey. I agree. But if Americans’ civil liberties are protected, it is only because Americans demand that due process rights and innocence presumptions be honored.

The road Democrats and the Kavanaugh protestors would put us on, although seemingly long, point directly to the reproduction of the events in Turkey here in the United States. And Americans can ill afford to take even one baby step in that direction.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Constitution Justice Kavanaugh Media Truth

Kavanaugh And Thomas Could End Media Protection From Libel

By Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

On Feb. 29, 1960, Dr. Martin Luther King was arrested in Alabama on two counts of perjury for allegedly filing false state income tax returns. In response, and believing the case to be without merit, two groups, the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and The Struggle For Freedom In The South, were formed with the aim of assisting Dr. King with the funding of his defense.  

On March 29, 1960, these two groups published a 10-paragraph advertisement in The New York Times with the aim of collecting such funds. The advertisement contained a description of multiple grievances that had occurred against the members of the black community in Montgomery.  

A number of the events depicted in the advertisement contained minor errors of fact while others were grossly inaccurate. For example, the advertisement contended that black students had demonstrated before the steps of the State Capitol while singing “My Country, Tis of Thee.”  In actuality the students sang the National Anthem.

In a more egregious reference, the students were said to have been padlocked in the dining hall of the Alabama State College Campus by the Montgomery police when they had not.  

Although the advertisement did not refer to City Public Safety Commissioner L. B. Sullivan by name or title, he contended that he was nevertheless libeled, as any false reference against the Montgomery police essentially referred to him, as its supervisor.  

Sullivan sued The New York Times and others for $500,000, the maximum allowable for libel in state court, and won. The case was appealed to the federal court and eventually reached the Supreme Court of the United States in 1964.

What resulted was a landmark case in American jurisprudence and the principal reason for the state of disrepair of American political discourse.

In New York Times, v. Sullivan, the Court placed great weight on the inherent ability of truth to naturally prevail. Seeing that erroneous statements are “inevitable in free debate,” the Court refused to uphold the libel charge brought forth from the lower court. Instead, it held that the importance of supporting “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate that may include “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials” was more important than any protections it could give to public officials.

More American Values Insights On Patreon  

The Supreme Court consequently reversed the lower court’s ruling and imposed a new standard for successful libel actions against public officials. According to the Court, in order for a public official to prevail in a libel action it must show that the defendant acted “with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” a standard known as “actual malice,” or “New York Times malice.”

Although accepted as bedrock in American jurisprudence dealing with public figures and elected officials, this case has been the source of great discussion amongst legal scholars. Is this near-impossible standard too high? Was the Court’s fear of self-censorship justified, or does the press and political opponents need a little self-restraint? Is the OK Corral attitude of the Court the better approach, or does such a cavalier attitude muddy speech and make the situation worse for voters? To this day, consensus on these questions does not exist.  

Fast forward 54 years to 2018 when a judge by the name of Brett Kavanaugh is nominated for a position in the Supreme Court of the United States. The man has an impeccable record as an adult, as a judge, and as a professional. He is one of the most revered and respected persons in his field. But at stake are the philosophical balance of the Court and the future of landmark abortion cases such as Roe v. Wade.

Predictably, Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing goes near flawlessly and his confirmation virtually sealed. But all of a sudden, after the conclusion of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, a completely unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusation regarding his alleged conduct as a 17-year-old high school student (some 36 years prior) is brought against him. The accuser claims that Kavanaugh had engaged in a sexual assault against her at a party when she was 15 years old.

Get More On Facebook 

Within days, other stories were told. Stories alleging that as a college student at Yale University, Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female student while they were both intoxicated at a dorm party. Again, no corroboration existed. And then there was another story of how Kavanaugh had been involved in drugged-out gang raping activities in high school parties in Maryland, but not a single piece of evidence substantiated the charge, either.

After a vile and disgusting display of deceit and political theater that gripped the nation and forever tarnished his reputation, Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed in the closest judicial confirmation vote in American history.

But Kavanaugh was not alone in falling victim to the predatory tactics enabled by the elevated burden of proof inherent to the New York Times malice standard. All over the country, candidates have attacked their opponents with false and misleading accusations. And because the judicial system offers littler refuge or recourse in these cases, unless the victims of these attacks are able to find sufficient funding to successfully ward them off, their reputations are smeared and their races brought to an end.  

And thus begins the endless barrage of negative campaign ads and misleading accusations. I should know; it happened to me; twice!

President Donald Trump has also fallen victim to these vicious attacks, except, in his case, it is the media that has been waging its propaganda war. Frustrated, the President has repeatedly called for an adjustment in the nation’s libel laws, most recently in comments relating to Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process. But in reality what needs to happen is an adjustment of “New York Times malice.”

Justice Kavanaugh is now a sitting member of the Supreme Court of the United States and flanked by another victim of kavanaughing, Justice Clarence Thomas. Having both been survivors of horrible and ruthless political denigration tactics, it stands to reason that these two justices would be much more sympathetic to protections against false and malicious speech against public officials than prior justices.  

Suddenly, there’s a new question for legal scholars and political observers alike: with two victims of egregiously false political speech sitting on the bench, a frustrated public, and a disgruntled President, will the Court be willing to take an ax to “New York Times malice” and restore a certain level of self-imposed responsibility upon the deliverers of political speech?  

I’m predicting we will soon find out.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Justice Kavanaugh Truth

Senate Has Duty To Immediately Investigate Feinstein, McLean

By Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

Now that the Senate, with the aid of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has completed its confirmation process of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the question is what, if anything, does it have to do next?

In light of the fact that a 36-year-old story was brought to the Senate for its serious consideration regarding a judicial nominee absent any corroborating information or evidence, the question that many ask is: Was this the result of a good faith presentation, or was it a concerted effort to disrupt the nomination process and derail the appointment of a qualified judicial nominee?

If the answer to this question is good faith, then there is no further action to be taken. But, after all the shenanigans, all the posturing, and all the insults, the reality is that absent an investigation, there is no way of knowing.

And the American people need to know. If the allegations were brought forth merely for political expediency or personal gain, then the nomination process will have been placed under great peril for no valid reason, something the Senate cannot allow.

The Senate may begin with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who allegedly came to learn of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations through a letter she received from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo in July. According to the Senate testimonies, by the time she met with Judge Kavanaugh, Feinstein was already in possession of this letter and had even assisted Ford in obtaining a lawyer. Amazingly, Feinstein did not bring up the allegation with Kavanaugh during their July 20 meeting.  

Also of great interest is the comment Ford made during her testimony indicating that Feinstein and she had agreed to keep her letter confidential until the end of the hearing. It was a comment that Arizona Attorney Rachel Mitchell was in the process of developing when Ford’s attorneys hurriedly interjected.  

If Feinstein withheld material information from the Senate Judiciary Committee for over a month with the specific intent of railroading the confirmation process, then Feinstein’s actions represent the most egregious of ethical breaches. For these reasons, her role in the presentation of Ford’s testimony must be brought to light.

More American Values Insights On Patreon

The other question is the role of Monica McLean. McLean is a life-long friend of Dr. Ford’s and a 24-year FBI operative who quit the agency about six months prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

McLean’s role in the development of Ford’s story is certainly suspect. Bear in mind that McLean lives in Delaware, which is where Ford was when she wrote the letter to Eshoo. Additionally, McLean is the person who was identified by another friend of Ford’s, Leland Keyser, as the person who had tried to pressure her into changing her testimony.

Such a change in testimony would have been very important since, up to that point, Kelly, who had been identified as one of the four people to have witnessed Kavanaugh’s alleged assault on Ford, said she had no recollection of such a gathering nor did she know Judge Kavanagh.  

It was McLean who allegedly received the coaching from Ford on taking polygraphs, a contention McLean denies. If true, the finding would make Ford’s testimony before the Senate even less credible since she told the Committee that she did not know anything about polygraph tests. If it was learned that Ford had so much familiarity with polygraph testing that she was able to coach others on how to take one, Ford’s credibility would seriously suffer as would the validity of the polygraph results.

Get More On Facebook  

Finally, it is worth noting that McLean was one of the few acquaintances of Ford who was present at the Senate hearing.  

Undoubtedly, the Senate must find out the truth regarding the events surrounding the 11th hour accusations of Ford.

If indeed, the events of the last two weeks were the result of a concerted effort to derail the nomination process, then the Senate must punish those nefarious actors supporting it — sitting senators or others — and just as importantly, it must take steps to prevent such a destructive orchestration from ever happening again.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Kavanaugh Truth

An Open Letter To Judge Kavanaugh And His Family

Dear Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Mrs. Ashley Kavanaugh, Margaret and Liza Kavanaugh:

First, on behalf of all rational, fair-minded, truly civil rights-loving Americans, I want to deeply and sincerely apologize for what you and your family are going through. It is unfair, un-American and beyond outrageous. Tens of millions of Americans see that.

We are ashamed at the spectacle that has happened in what was once, and no longer is, the greatest deliberative body on earth. We are sad that the U.S. Senate has been shriveled to a rump of irrational hatred, political demagoguery and vicious lows in pursuit of stopping your nomination.

We are heartbroken that these despicable attacks, and the depraved glee of many attackers, mean your personal life is unalterably ruined, that you will no longer be able to teach law, to coach your daughters’ basketball teams, to enjoy a family meal out.

We shudder at the thought that our sons, brothers, husbands and friends may one day be subjected to such witch hunts, such McCarthyism, for whatever political or personal objective is to be had.

We grieve that good men, upstanding citizens, husbands and fathers, can be so abhorrently impugned that even their professional career is forever and wrongly stained.

We are angry that the reality of sexual assault and the #MeToo movement is being used deceitfully as a political tool for the benefit of a few. Real victims deserve better and the #MeToo movement’s weaponization will only end up destroying it. A pity.

Like you, we are concerned for Dr. Christine Ford, and are sorry for the abusive treatment she received at the hands of Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Senate Democrats. She became nothing more than a pawn in their own chess game for political power. We apologize that she has been so shabbily treated by Democrats and activists.

Sign The Letter Supporting Judge Kavanaugh

We apologize for the reckless, partisan, hate-filled media that stoked this so irresponsibly. Virtually every media outlet chose at the least salaciousness and often purely biased hit job coverage, applying almost no ethical, journalistic standards.

We pray that your faith will be strengthened, your family sustained from on High, your children, wife, parents and others will be protected, and that some form of justice will ultimately prevail.

To sign this letter to Judge Kavanaugh, please click here: Kavanaugh Letter

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Kavanaugh Leftists Truth

The Destruction Of Presumed Innocence Invites Societal Chaos

By Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

The American left accelerated its attack on every precept of civil society this month by arguing that the presumption of innocence, as the leftists would say, “isn’t really a thing.”

The context for this latest assault is that, in its unquenchable zeal for power, the left is willing to dismiss principles that have guided human interaction for centuries just so they may have a chance at preserving a more liberal court. Specifically, their latest claim is that Judge Brett Kavanaugh need not be presumed innocent until proven guilty during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee because those hearings are not a trial. In point of fact, the left’s contention, once again, is patently false.

The fact is that in every facet of human interaction an individual is presumed to be innocent. Consider what would happen if this were not the case. Under such circumstances it would be totally appropriate for one to randomly beat up any person with whom he or she comes into contact because the recipient of the punishment is presumed to be guilty of whatever it is that he is suspected of doing.

For example, if the left’s contention that presumed innocence is only true in trials then it would be perfectly appropriate for me to walk up to a man that I presumed to be guilty of sleeping with my wife and beat him up. Or if you want to be more formal about it, it would be perfectly appropriate for me to call the police, merely tell them that the accused had slept with my wife and have the police apply the appropriate statutorily prescribed punishment upon my wife and him for adultery.

Indeed, if it were not for everyone’s presumption of innocence in every facet of life, then there would be no room for formal society since we would all be involved in an endless and random maze of revenges and counter-revenges against each other because everyone around us would be presumed guilty of whatever we want; a hopeless and absurd situation indeed.  

But such is the world of the left.

The fact is, and what the left is trying to make us forget, is that everyone around us starts with a presumption of innocence. If you call your plumber to work on your home, you do not interact with him under the presumption of shoddy workmanship. You believe he or she will do a good job, or at least is capable of it. If you go to the drugstore, you presume that the pharmacist is going to give you the correct tablets and that the pharmaceutical company placed the correct chemicals in the tablets. We do this because of the presumption of innocence under which everyone is held consciously, or subconsciously.

Join Our Fight For American Values! 

To be sure, trial proceedings are much more formal affairs and much different than what takes place in extra-judicial human interactions, but the differences lie not in the presumption of innocence. The differences lie in how we prove guilt and the safeguards with which to prove it. In short, there are only two things that vary between the ruminations of a court and public interactions: 1) the evidence we are allowed to consider; and 2) the amount of evidence required in order to arrive at the conclusion.

Let us first consider the evidence we are allowed to consider. In court, particularly in criminal courts, there are a myriad of rules that determine what evidence may be used against the defendant. The reason for this is that the courts want to only allow the most reliable pieces of evidence into the fray because the consequence of making a wrong decision can potentially be that an innocent woman gets sent to jail.

In the arena of human interaction, anything the individual wishes to consider may be taken into account. For example, if John’s mother tells John that Steve said that his wife, Mary, had been sleeping with Charles, John is free to consider that piece of evidence in passing judgment upon Mary’s and Charles’s conducts. But you will never be able to introduce that hearsay comment into a court of law to establish the fact that Mary is sleeping with Charles.  

Why the difference? Well because the consequence of the information laid upon John is potentially to upset him and cause him to act on that information. The same information given to a court can have much broader implications as the court carries with it the power of the state in enacting penalties.

Like Us On Facebook

Then we consider the amount of evidence required to make the point. Again, in the forum of personal interactions, the standard is whatever the recipient wants it to be…in other words; anything goes. In our example, John is free to personally act against his wife based only on the information his mother gave him. However, if John does that sufficiently frequently, then he will quickly learn the consequences of making false accusations and of running on unsubstantiated or uncorroborated evidence because, sooner rather than later, his information is going to lead him to the wrong conclusions and his life will be thrown into chaos.  

In legal proceedings, the amount of evidence required varies. For example, to begin many proceedings all that may be needed is a scintilla of evidence, or “just the smell of evidence.” So, a person appearing before a committee to say that someone raped someone 35 years prior absent any other evidence may be enough for that committee to look into it, but it is certainly insufficient for the committee to reach any conclusion against the nominee, or take any action against him or her.  

Usually, the lowest burden of proof with which to take actions is the more likely than not standard. Here, the amount of evidence presented would be so strong so as to make an impartial mind conclude that it was more likely than not that the accusation is true, or that the event took place. I can tell you that absent any other corroborating evidence there is no situation where the mere accusation by one person of an event that took place 35 years earlier would ever reach the more likely than not standard. Doing so would be equivalent to adopting the presumption of guilt standard, which I laid out at the opening of this article and society could not have ever developed.

For a criminal trial, the level of proof would be beyond reasonable doubt, or as legal scholars describe it, at least 95% sure. This is the highest level of proof employed and a burden that is admittedly too strict for either the court of public opinion or a hearing.

For a hearing, the more appropriate level is either more likely than not, or a preponderance of the evidence (at least 80% sure). Either way, the burden of proof is much higher than that required to merely consider an allegation. 

Subscribe To Us On Youtube

It is clear that the stakes in the fight against leftist policies have now increased from the regression to socialism or the intrusion of government onto our civil liberties to a defense of the very foundational steeples of our society.

According to the left, it is now okay for women to divorce their husbands merely because the husbands are Republicans. It is okay to harass a President merely because he won. It is okay to call someone guilty and permanently ruin him or her. And it is okay to equate a vote based on a certain set of facts with a globally broad statement applicable to a whole class of people who have no knowledge or personal association with the established facts upon which the vote is made.

This is the world according to the left. It is a world permissive of totalitarian dictatorships, a world that allows blacks to be enslaved or mercilessly discriminated against, and a world where justice does not exist except for those who are part of the ruling class.  

If this is sounding very close to the realities that existed in Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, and Mao’s China — and those called for in Antifa’s, MeToo’s, and Black Lives Matters’ America — that’s because it is. Each of those systems is all too willing to cast away presumptions of innocence, burdens of proof, and evidentiary requirements before imparting upon an individual the full wrath of government.

Let’s hope that in today’s America, there are still enough of us who are willing to stand up for our civil liberties and for the absolute right to be presumed innocent until and unless we are proven guilty. Ordered society depends on it.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Democrats Judges Justice Kavanaugh Politics Truth

Jeff Flake Sets The U.S. Senate On Treacherous Path This Week

By Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

In 1982, Greg Watson turned in a thesis to his professor at Texas Christian University. In it, he argued that an unratified constitutional amendment first proposed by Madison as part of the Bill of Rights could still become law. His efforts earned him a C. Not because of poor writing skills or shoddy workmanship, but because his professor thought his contention was in error.

So upset was Watson over his grade that he wrote every state legislator in the country about having his or her state ratify Madison’s constitutional amendment. The letter caught the attention of a state legislator in Maine who moved it in his state, and shortly thereafter, Maine became the first state in modern American history to ratify one of James Madison’s amendments. Others followed, and by 1992, the Twenty Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting congressional salaries from being altered without an intervening election became law, just as Watson had predicted.

Watson’s story is a wonderful example of the greatness of the power of one. It is a testament of what happens when a single individual, motivated by the vision of new reality, mobilizes and convinces others that his is the correct way to proceed.  

Yes, Sen. Jeff Flake moved a mountain on Friday, or at least the United States Senate, when he announced that he would be voting Judge Kavanaugh out of committee but demanding an FBI investigation be performed prior to his casting a favorable vote on the floor of the Senate. His actions, however, did not rise to the level of a Watsonian performance.

Flake’s motivation was based on fear and submission to intimidation tactics, or personal gain, not the promotion of a unique insight. On Friday morning, shortly after announcing that he would be voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh, Flake was accosted by a group of rabid feminists who reproachfully and illogically insisted that a vote for Kavanaugh was equivalent to an assertion by Flake of his disbelief of those women’s stories regarding their own alleged sexual assaults.  

Of course, the claim of any association between Jeff Flake’s vote on the confirmation of a competent judge and any opinion on a totally unrelated sexual assault upon another party is patently absurd. And the fact that a senator would be allowed to be accosted by a group of very aggressive advocates, regardless of the issue being espoused, within the capitol grounds is equally as unbelievable. But whatever the pressures upon Flake to capitulate, he did, and he did so in deference to fear, guilt, or personal ambition.

Join Our Fight For American Values!

Moreover, the contention that Democrats are searching for some greater truth or guidance before making their decision is untenable. Between Sen. Diane Feinstein’s six-week suppression of an anonymous complaint, to the concealment of the complaint from the nominee, to the circus environment the Democratic caucus developed during the nomination process, to the numerous, ridiculous comments made by individual senators in the Judiciary Committee during and after the proceedings, it is evident that theirs was an all out effort to embarrass and subvert the nominee. The search for truth does not figure into the Democrats’ plan.

But still, one may ask, what’s the harm in just doing yet another FBI investigation? If he’s innocent as he says he is, then what’s the harm? The questions drip with hypocrisy in the face of the damage that has already transpired. All that this delay is causing is to allow more time for the forces of evil in this country to continue their unabashed and shameless assault on a nominee with an impeccable record of service to his country, his family, and his community.  

No, despite what the media is saying, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is not a credible witness. Yes, her testimony was compelling, and it was emotional, but there were more holes in it than in a block of Swiss cheese, and that’s without the benefit of a cross-examination. Honestly, if Dr. Ford, who is no psychologist despite her claim, were subjected to a cross examination, I believe she would not have even been able to finish her testimony.  

Additionally, there is absolutely no good that will come from an FBI probe. It is an investigation based on events that allegedly took place thirty-five years earlier, brought by a seriously flawed informant with ulterior motives, without time certain, nor location, and where there is no possibility for the collection of forensic or physical evidence to support or dispel the allegation.  The FBI’s efforts are dead before they even started.

Like Us On Facebook

Clearly, the only thing the delay will accomplish is to allow more time for the further salacious destruction of Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation and the degradation of the Senate by a bunch of reckless Senate Democrats. And it will allow more time for those nefarious detractors to conjure up more false stories about the judge and to further throw the process into disarray.  

Nor will the further protraction do anything to heal the country, nor give comfort to those who would otherwise not have voted for the Judge. There is no Senate Democrat who will suddenly change his or her mind merely because of an inconclusive FBI investigation. Just the opposite.  When the FBI investigation fails to find anything new, the only thing that will come of it is the opportunity for Kavanaugh’s opponents to criticize the investigation for not finding anything!

No, Jeff Flake offered no improvement upon the horrible situation in which this country finds itself. Unlike Greg Watson who was able to bring insight and wisdom to light, all Flake accomplished was the opportunity for the Senate and the nomination process to sink to new lows with ne’er an opportunity for something good to come out of this mess.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Democrats Judges Justice Kavanaugh Media Truth

Here’s What Will Happen In This Week From Hell Brought To You By Jeff Flake

Rod Thomson

Here’s what’s going to happen this week. It does not require a Biblical-level prophet or a crystal ball. As a longtime mainstream media journalist and political consultant, I can see this as clearly as if I had it straight from Mount Sinai — minus the actual divine revelation. Seriously, just seeing forward by looking backward.

First and foremost, at least one other allegation of a woman or women being sexually assaulted by Judge Brett Kavanaugh will breathlessly emerge after extensive consultation with Democratic lawyers and operatives. This is all but guaranteed. Somehow, another one will come forward because the heirs to the Anita Hill and “bimbo eruptions” teams under Sen. Ted Kennedy and Bill and Hillary Clinton are always with us. Mark it down. It’s coming.

Next is just as clear: The FBI is conducting a background check of the allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh that will change nothing. It will not be a criminal investigation. Based on the complete lack of investigatable details, evidence and witnesses — unless some others magically “emerge” — this will be inconclusive. It has to be, at least based on what we know, with every named witnesses to the alleged event denying it happened in sworn statements that carry felony charges if they lied. It’s the only outcome, and of course Democrats know that and knew that all along.

When the inconclusive report is issued next Friday or before, Democrats will howl that this changes nothing because the Republicans put an artificial time limit on the FBI. They were not allowed time to conduct an investigation, to do their job. Democrats will also charge, without evidence because that is obviously an old-fashion idea nowadays, that the Trump administration tied the FBI’s hands. They will continue to work on the empty husk of the one-time Sen. Jeff Flake and on GOP moderate Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.

The FBI is also investigating the claims of Deborah Ramirez, even though she had told friends she was not even sure it was Kavanaugh — until Democratic lawyers helped her remember for sure that it was. There is also nothing to follow here unless Ramirez is coached to suddenly remember others who will “verify” her story. Yes, it is difficult not to be cynical that Democrats will create more fiction, and get away with it.

So barring some miraculous and convenient memory recall by “witnesses,” both of these investigations will determine nothing more than we already know.

The FBI apparently is not investigating the “gang train rape” nonsense by the porn lawyer huckster, or at least not the woman that claimed it. If not, late in the week there will be a call for that investigation as more women victims of the rape trains will “come forward” to extend things another week.

Join Our Fight For American Values!

The hundreds of women who have nothing but glowing praise for Judge Kavanaugh from the past 30 years will be totally ignored. Those women will not “be believed.” The women who clerked intimately for Kavanaugh who, to a woman, claim this is nothing like the man who mentored them, will not “be believed.”

Democrats such as Sens. Corey Booker and Kamala Harris will continue to run their 2020 presidential campaigns over the tattered remnants of the U.S. Senate, stomping forward to trample anything between them and a grandstand — the U.S. Constitution, fair-mindedness, morals, women and children.

Shrieking banshee activists, male and female, will continue shrieking raw emotional nonsense, but will be part and parcel with the hysterical mob that will attempt to disrupt and destroy the lives of the Kavanaughs, the GOP Senators, Trump appointees and anyone with a MAGA hat. Meanwhile, Democrats will operate in virtual peace and calm because conservatives don’t act like 1930s Brown Shirts.

More liberal organizations such as the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, will come out opposed to Kavanaugh, spaced throughout the week to suggest a growing tide against the Judge. Watch for them, and for the timing of the release of their statements. It’s calculated. I know how this works.

Like Us On Facebook

If there is any doubt as to the ACLU’s total subjugation of Americans’ civil liberties to leftist political orthodoxy, it is contained in the ACLU’s own resolution passed by its Board:

“The ACLU opposes the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. There are credible allegations that Judge Kavanaugh has engaged in serious misconduct that have not been adequately investigated by the Senate. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s credible testimony, subsequent allegations of sexual misconduct, the inadequate investigation, and Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony at the hearing lead us to doubt Judge Kavanaugh’s fitness to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

“This is not a decision taken lightly. We cannot remain silent under these extraordinary circumstances about a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. The standard for such an appointment should be high, and the burden is on the nominee. That burden is not met as long as there are unresolved questions regarding the credible allegations of sexual assault.”  

So the organization that has tasked itself with protecting Americans’ civil liberties will jettison innocent until proven guilty and due process to side with an evidence-free 36-year-old allegation that also happens to be impossible to disprove because the accuser cannot remember any details that could corroborate or exonerate other than the other four people she claims were there — who all deny it. This group claims to be defending civil liberties.

The media will continue with breathless, awful, partisan hackery on a daily basis, with wall to wall coverage and rehashing, and with Kavanaugh absorbing 96 percent of the negative reporting of the accusers’ side. Literally. And the pre-planned rollout of new revelations and liberal organizations opposing will get headline-blasting coverage. Jeff Flake will be ever ready if there is a mic or adulation to be had.

The vote, when it is taken, will be taken with no new information and the same three Republican Senators who were always the three that would decide the vote will still decide the vote. The farce will move forward.

The questions are: How does the Senate move forward after this? Unknown.

And how does the nation move forward? Like it always has when the politicians fail her. Because Americans are actually far better than what is going on in Washington, D.C.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Democrats Judges Kavanaugh Politics Truth

Senate Democrats Provide Taste Of Life If They Are In Charge. It’s Horrifying

by Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

Yesterday, I saw the most disgusting display of political gamesmanship ever, if it can be called that. A full-fledged attack on a man’s character, his past, and even his soul. The display brought to mind those videos of frenzied sharks opportunistically swiping bites at their maimed prey. And in this case, the feeding frenzy was allowed to continue by a judicial nominee that, although impassioned by anger, frustration, and shear exhaustion, was at times too meek and respectful to abandon his temperament and call out the 800-pound gorilla in the room during the question and answer portion of his appearance: vile, destructive partisan politics for personal gain.

But when the smoke cleared, the Senate Judiciary Committee shed no new light upon the events from thirty-five years ago, and the only thing that lay in tatters was the reputation of the United States Senate.

Thank you, Senate Democrats.

There were a number of goals the Senate Democrats pursued today. The first was to put on display a credible witness with a credible story against a judicial nominee. That witness was Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a Palo Alto professor who claimed that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when he was 17 years old. What we saw was a meek woman with a weak voice and sheepish delivery who seemed to conveniently forget the most important and significant of details. Ford’s demeanor was simply too passive for a Ph.D professor.

And then there were the inconsistencies. First, the progression of the events had to be delayed because of Ford’s fear of flying, which she blamed on the supposed Kavanaugh attack that made her afraid to be in confined spaces. Yet we later find out that Ford actually flies all over. To Delaware to be with her family. To Polynesia for personal pursuits.To Costa Rica. To Hawaii. And she flew not for life altering important events, but for pleasure!

And then we learned that the neural receptors in Ford’s hippocampus were predisposed to her developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the events that took place 35 years ago. But when asked if there had been any possible environmental stressors that could have deteriorated her condition, she said there were none. Nothing else in her life had ever caused her any stress. Quite simply an incredible assertion.

Join Our Fight For American Values!

And then a little pearl. She would have been able to do the hearing earlier if the Senate had offered to go to her.

But they did. And when this was pointed out, her attorney was quick to object, cover the mic and coach her on what to say.

From before the hearing, we knew she couldn’t place the house. But during the hearing we learned that the house where the events took place was about a 15-minute drive from her home. So after establishing that she was driven there and back, she still couldn’t remember who drove her to the party and back.

Wouldn’t you think that the person who had driven her home from that party would have driven an absolutely mortified 15-year-old home? No 15-year-old can bluff so well so as to hide her emotions from the person driving her home that night, and even if she could, Ford should have been able to tell us what she did in preparation for what was likely the longest trip home of her life. How had she maintained her composure? Did she cry prior to getting in the car? How did she hide her emotions from her parents that night?

But there was none of that.

Ford also did not know who paid for the polygraph test, or who was paying for her attorneys.

When faced with a prosecuting attorney that treated her with kid gloves under five minute time constraints, none of the tough questions were asked. But even at this point, something seemed off about her testimony. For me, I just kept going back to not having ever seen a Ph.D. professor act so meekly.

Then came Judge Kavanaugh. Pardon my vernacular, but he was pissed, as upset as I have ever seen anyone at a legislative hearing. He was indignant. He was unwavering in his denial that the events described absolutely never happened. And the debacle of the Democrats’ vile scam began to unravel.

Which brings us to the Democrats’ second goal; delay the hearing at all costs through a call for another FBI investigation.

Like Us On Facebook

The most obnoxious individual in promoting this agenda was Sen. Dick Durbin who kept insisting that Kavanaugh turn to the White House council, right there and then, and demand than an FBI hearing take place. Despite the intense, and unprofessional display from Durbin, Kavanaugh did not take the bait, recurrently exclaiming that he would do whatever the Committee wanted, but essentially leaving it to the Committee to call for an investigation.

And that’s when a rejuvenated and impassioned Lindsey Graham spoke.

He was the first Republican Senator to break ranks with the optional protocol the caucus had set up for itself of employing the services of an Arizona prosecuting attorney to ask the questions. Instead, Graham took the microphone himself and resoundingly called the proceedings a sham. His was a performance so riveting, so emotional, so raw and filled with honesty that it made Al Pacino’s performance in And Justice For All, look like child’s play. The Democrats don’t want an investigation, Graham exclaimed. If they did, they wouldn’t have sat on Ford’s complaint for weeks.

From Graham and others we learned that by the time Kavanaugh met with Feinstein, her staff and she had already assisted Ford in obtaining a lawyer, and she mentioned nothing to Kavanaugh at their private meeting! Nor did she say anything at the time of the hearing. Feinstein’s deceitful performance in her handling of this case was so despicable, that it brought the spurious call for an FBI investigation to a halt.

Additionally, in a case where there is nothing to pursue, no forensic evidence, no physical evidence, no DNA, no pictures, and no iron-clad testimonies, there is absolutely nothing the FBI could add.

How about making Kavanaugh look like a raging alcoholic? Here is where Kavanaugh was at his shakiest because he drank as a minor, (“everyone did”) and he liked beer and claimed to still like beer. He seemed a little frazzled as he asked the Senators, “Don’t you like beer, Senator?” To be sure, it’s what many wished to tell these arrogant senators, but it got the judge into the mud a little bit too much.

But once again, the Democrats stole defeat from the jaws of victory as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse broke one of the sacred rules of public interrogation, he asked questions of his witness to which he did not previously know the answer. Whitehouse thought he would be cute and display a huge blowup of Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook page, and thinking that the cryptic entries dealt with sexual activity, sought to pursue them.

Subscribe To Us On Youtube

What does “Renate alumnius” mean?

No, it did not mean that Kavanaugh had claimed to have sexual relations with Renata. (Here’s where Kavanaugh could have said, “No, Senator, I have no control over what your perverted brain may be thinking, but this reference is not to sexual activity,” but he didn’t.)

What does “Ralph” in “Beach Week Ralph Club” mean, and doesn’t that mean that you were a problem drinker?

Senator, it means vomiting, and no, I was not a problem drinker.

And then Whitehouse tried to cross the bridge too far.

And what about the word “boofed”?

Senator, it means flatulence. We were 16. We thought it was funny.

Everyone laughed. And all of a sudden, the absurdity of a Senator dissecting the high school yearbook page of a judicial nominee became painfully clear. And the Democrats’ efforts at discrediting the nominee came to an end.

In the end, we finished where we started. If anything, Kavanaugh appeared stronger than before the hearing. Ford looked weaker and less credible. And the Me Too movement continued its descent into the surreal.

So what did we gain from all of this? Substantively, we gained nothing.

But we got further confirmation of the disarray we would live in if this crop of Democrats ran the show. We got a taste of what its like when procedural rules are ignored and decorum abandoned. We learned how evil the left can be if left to its own devices. And once again, we learned of the importance of maintaining a man’s innocence until and unless there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate his guilt.

Today, I witnessed a horrible display of incivility and disrespect to the honor and life of another. I have nothing to say about Dr. Ford, as I do not understand what she was thinking and what motivated her to go this far after 35 years without any corroborating evidence; as a matter of fact, she brought only the opposite.

But I did see the attempted destruction of the United States Senate by those who reside within it. It was a despicable display that in the end, left our Republic that much weaker.

Thanks again, Senate Democrats.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.