Categories
Climate Change Conservatism Economy Judges Justice Supreme Court Truth

Breakdown: The World Is Measurably Better Since January 2017

Rod Thomson

The largely unreported and to some ironic reality of the past two years is that the world overall is a better, safer, more prosperous place since the swearing in of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016. Better than it was under Barack Obama and better than it was under George W. Bush.

Despite the nonstop onslaught of negative reporting on Trump — 90 percent according to the Media Research Center (there’s been 10 percent positive?) — and the breathless reporting on the government shutdown, the latest Robert Mueller leak or arrest, the Kavanaugh hearing fiasco, fake news such as BuzzFeed’s flat wrong non-story on Trump telling Michael Cohen to lie, the disgusting anti-Christian bigotry associated with the MAG-hat Covington Catholic High School students and so on ad infinitum — Trump’s approval ratings remain right in the range they were when he took office, and ticking upward.

That suggests that the relentlessly anti-Trump, Democratic partisan media is washed out by what his actual policies have so clearly accomplished.

But it also suggests that a lot of Americans — probably more than are reflected in polls, and at least some who support Trump — simply do not feel safe saying to anyone that they realize how much better off the country and the world are. It wasn’t supposed to happen. But the media not reporting something does not mean it didn’t happen.

So here are some of the major areas where the world is demonstrably better off since January 2016:

→ First, the economy, duh! 304,000 jobs in January, blowing out all of the predictions. Manufacturing has burst back in the U.S. when President Obama said those jobs would never return. (Man, that guy was wrong a lot.) GDP growth 50 percent higher than it had been under Obama, even though the recovery is now long in the tooth. This has led to a growing consensus among non-political economists that what has driven the economic renaissance has been tax cuts, massive deregulation, stronger trade policy, tax breaks to lure back offshore capital, and a dramatic rise in oil and natural gas production.

→ The entire federal court system will be far more conservative and constitutional for a generation as Trump’s judicial nominees have been uniformly originalists and conservative…and young. This means that there should be fewer overtly political rulings in which the law and constitution are bent to judges’ political views like a reed in the wind, and more solid rules for governing and living.

→ The dishonest and duplicitous media has been unmasked for the partisans they are. This was unintended, of course, but Americans are better off knowing this (something I have known for many, many years as a former member of the mainstream media.) The media’s vicious partisanship has been widely self-exposed for Americans to see, although many members of the media themselves seem to remain in denial. The vast majority of Americans do not.

China’s systemic cheating on trade agreements and thieving of intellectual properties has been called out and responded to forcefully. Since Trump’s inauguration, an accepted consensus has emerged that China’s actions pose a commercial threat to world trade, to its geographic neighbors and to the security of the United States. Ultimately, we will end up with better, more fair trade that will absolutely benefit American companies and workers, but also will benefit most of the rest of the world, which will be more empowered to demand better, more fair agreements for their companies and workers.

→ Pulling out of the terrorist-enabling Iran nuclear agreement did not result in the end of the world, In fact, the world basically yawned past the regular hyperbolic media coverage. Further, most of the sanctions have been reinstated, including by our European friends, when the media Democrats assured us they could not be. Iran is feeling the pinch. Leashing up the murderous Mullah’s financially makes the world that much safer.

→Similarly, when the U.S. walked away from the essentially worthless, symbolic Paris Climate Accords, the world did not warm and seas did not rise. Actually, the U.S. continues to be a leader in reduction of carbon emissions, largely through the voluntary, innovative private sector.

→ The U.S. showed its promise-keeping resolve for the first time when Trump directed the U.S. embassy in Israel to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — just like Obama, Bush and Bill Clinton had promised to do before him, but never did. The hyperventilating over lighting the Middle East tinderbox never materialized. The normal amount of Muslim terrorism and Israeli military response ensued afterwards as before.

Black Americans are enjoying an employment resurgence like that not seen since before the disastrous implementing of the Great Society. While overall U.S. unemployment hit a 50-year low in Trump’s second year, joblessness among black Americans has set a modern record as well. Black employment has risen about 1.3 million under Trump to hit a record 19.3 million in October. Now this clearly started before Trump, but that it accelerated this long into a recovery is fairly remarkable.

Russian aggression against Ukraine and other small neighbors has been held in check as the U.S. has sent arms and supplies to the Ukraine and stiffened the response to Russian belligerence. The tough talk had already been backed by missile attacks against Russian mercenaries in Syria and Russian-backed Syrian allies. Using the big stick once or twice means carrying it around becomes a deterrent — not a joke as with the previous president. The crossing of any red line is obviously not going to be acceptable and Russia knows that.

→ Trump’s forceful efforts to denuclearize North Korea resulted in a one-one-one summit with President Kim, and second one coming up. It started with tough talk, followed by the movement of U.S. naval and air power off the coast. It’s ended so far with the self-destruction of some of North Korea’s nuclear facilities and no more of the missile tests that had become common under Obama.

→ Most of our European allies in NATO have been weak and sometimes duplicitous on defense, refusing to live up to their promise on minimal military expenditures to help defend themselves from Russia. Trump again talked tough. Considering he had pulled out of the Paris climate accords and the Iran agreement, European leaders worry he could follow through on NATO threats. They have accordingly increased their defense spending by a combined $100 billion now so far — strengthening free countries against tyranny.

ISIS decapitated.

There are plenty more. But this hits the highlights. By all the evidence, it is unarguable, even by the Orange Man Bad crowd, that the world is better off now than two years 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


 

Categories
Judges Justice Truth

Judge Sullivan Must Recuse Himself From Flynn Case

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

When I was in sixth grade, I was chosen to be the defense attorney for a classmate. Evelyn was accused of passing an answer to a test question to a fellow student during an exam. She was accused of cheating.

Evelyn was a great student, and she had never been accused of cheating before, but her accuser was none other than the principal of the school, Dr. Gil Beltrán.

As it were, Dr. Beltrán had seen Evelyn pass the note to her friend when, while performing his routine rounds, he glanced through one of the door windows behind the class and saw the allegedly illegal act take place. Upon seeing the exchange of information, Dr. Beltrán opened the back door of the class, signaled to the receiving student to hand over whatever paper Evelyn had just handed him, and opened it.

You could hear a pin drop as Dr. Beltrán stared down at Evelyn and signaled for her to go to his office. Evelyn cried for hours after that prompting the rest of us to protest about the unfairness of the treatment to which Evelyn was being subjected.

At some point, and I am foggy on the details, Dr. Beltrán offered us our class a compromise. We would have a trial, one with witnesses, lawyers, and a judge; the whole deal. I think Dr. Beltrán (may he rest in peace) concluded this would be a great opportunity for us kids to engage in experiential learning. Of course, Evelyn was the defendant, and I was chosen by the principal himself to be her attorney. And to serve as my co-counsel, the principal chose Dagoberto, my best friend in the world.

But the principal also picked himself to serve as the judge, and the trial would take place in his office; in a week.

Dago and I zealously worked to get Evelyn off. First, we learned that what Evelyn had handed to her friend, was not an answer to the test, but a question about what they were going to do after school. Unfortunately, the principal, Dr. Beltrán, had since thrown away the piece of paper.

And in a great development for the defense, we were also able to procure the teacher as a witness who was willing to testify that not only did she not see Evelyn pass any piece of paper that day, but that Evelyn was a young lady of impeccable character and would be the last student the teacher would have expected to engage in cheating.

Help us keep fighting!

Overall, Dago and I were feeling pretty good about our case. At best, we might be able to get Evelyn off altogether. At worst, she would be found guilty of a lesser offense such as disruptive class behavior.

Despite our success at building the case: the accuser was also the judge. I remember Dago and I worried that we would not be able to bring Dr. Beltrán to the stand because a) he was the principal; and b) he was the judge. How do you get the judge to serve as a witness? Dago and I asked ourselves. For the answer to this question, Dago and I would need a classmate friend’s parent who was also an attorney! But try as we did, we couldn’t find one.

Our school, La Lúz School, was a small private, Cuban immigrant school where the Cuban National Anthem was played immediately following the American National Anthem every morning while we stood in ranks with our hands on our hearts and where the Cuban flag proudly waived next to the Stars and Stripes.

At that time, most Cubans had not had the time in country to become members of the learned professions.

So, into trial at the principal’s office we went with the whole class as our audience.

I’ll never forget it! I thought our team performed marvelously. We laid out the facts of the case by calling our witnesses to the stand and having each tell his or her story. We were able to ascertain that the note was not an answer to a test question, that Evelyn had impeccable character, and that no one, except the accuser, ever saw her even pass the paper; a paper no one could produce!

Still, we lost.

Like Us

Why? Because the judge, who was also the accuser and who was not called to the stand said he knew what he saw, and that Evelyn was guilty.

It wouldn’t be until years later, during a high school civics class, that I learned that the judge could not be a witness or a party to the case!! I needed to move that the judge recuse himself because he was the witness AND the accuser! 

The reason I’m sharing this story with you is because it was the first thing that came to mind when I heard of the shenanigans that took place yesterday at General Michael Flynn’s sentencing hearing.

Let me be clear. I believe that General Flynn lied to the FBI and in so doing broke the law. I also believe he was set up to lie by a manipulative, vindictive, and agenda-driven FBI bent on entrapping the General. What’s more, I believe the investigators in this case were the primary reason General Flynn was without an attorney at their meeting of Jan. 24, 2017, and to allow the FBI to get away with that level of disrespect to a defendant’s rights is repulsive.

But yesterday, a new offense arose. Yesterday, we learned for the first time, that Judge Emmet Sullivan, the judge assigned to the Flynn case, is horribly and irreparably biased against Flynn, and we know this from the judge’s very words.

During the hearing, Judge Sullivan is quoted as saying to Flynn, “I am not hiding my disgust, my disdain for your criminal offense.” At one point, the judge went on to state that Flynn, a 33-year Army veteran of war and peace, had betrayed his country and asked whether General Flynn could be accused of treason. Treason!

That is the only crime so egregious, so vile, and so disgusting to the Framers that it stands as the only one mentioned by name in the Constitution of the United States and punishable by hanging. The same crime for which Jane Fonda was not accused when she pranced around in her short shorts in front of the Viet Cong and sat on an anti-aircraft battery for a photo op.

This is what Judge Sullivan thinks of General Flynn! I notice that Judge Sullivan never served in our nation’s military. Never saw bullets flying nearby while wearing a helmet and shrapnel vest, and never spent months overseas away from his family not knowing if he would ever get back home because he might say hello to an enemy bullet first.

With all due respect to the judge, I will put one year of General Flynn’s service to this great country against the judge’s whole career any day and easily come out winning.

Admittedly, the judge corrected himself and apologized for his remarks, to which I will respond in kind. I apologize for those last two paragraphs and strike them from the record.

But regardless of how I feel about this case, we still have a very significant problem. We still have a judge who is disgusted by the defendant and holds disdain for him to the point where he would consider employing the word treason around this American hero.

It’s like having Dr. Belrtrán try a case all over again, except this time, although I am not Flynn’s attorney, I know better.

Judge Sullivan, recuse yourself from this case!

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 www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Judges Justice Russia Truth

Today’s Chaos Over Flynn Sentencing Is Result Of FBI Entrapment

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D., and Rod Thomson

Every once in a while, you come across a set of circumstances that brings you great sadness about our country’s state of affairs. (Yes, it may be happening more frequently.)  The events surrounding the prosecution of General Michael Flynn and his treatment by the FBI and Special Counselor Robert Mueller is such a situation — and the reason that Judge Emmet Sullivan has been having a difficult time with the plea and sentencing that was scheduled for today and has now been delayed.

By now, most of you are aware of the circumstances of clear entrapment behind the charges against Flynn, but they nevertheless require elucidation, because they loom large beyond Flynn’s case. First, General Michael Flynn is a 33-year veteran of the United States Army with an impeccable history of patriotic service to his country. His service specialized on counter-intelligence, and he is likely responsible for the identification, capture, and destruction of more anti-American terrorists than anyone in the history of the United States. In other words, a true hero.

On Jan. 20, 2017, Flynn assumed the office of National Security Advisor to the President Trump. Just prior to taking on that role, on Dec. 29, 2016, Flynn had contact with Russian Ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak. The details of this contact are somewhat sketchy, but suffice it to say that the contact took place.

During this time, the Obama Administration, still reeling from the Democrats’ unexpected loss to Donald Trump in the presidential elections, was bent on blaming Russian interference for the defeat of the anointed Democrat darling, Hillary Clinton. The shock associated with the defeat led to a zealous effort to identify and understand the extent and machinations of this interference and to discover whether the Trump campaign was in any way involved.

The agency tasked with the investigation of potential Russian meddling was the Federal Bureau of Investigation headed at the time by James Comey. The FBI was very interested in the specifics behind the interactions between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador because it wanted to know whether there was any evidence of promised benefits to the Russians under the new administration in exchange for Russian assistance in tilting the election in Trump’s favor. To be clear, the mere fact that the Russian Ambassador had made contact with Flynn was not illegal, or even unusual during a transition.

For the sake of our discussion, I am going to assume that the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s version of the details regarding the contact between these two men is correct. I am going to grant the Mueller team’s assertion that Flynn had not forgotten about the contact he had with the Kislyak (even though both FBI agents who conducted the interview did not believe Flynn was lying.)  I am going to assume, as Mueller reports, that by the time the FBI agents contacted him, Flynn was already relating a false narrative regarding his conversation with the Ambassador. I am also going to assume that, as Mueller says, Flynn was given more than ample opportunities to correct the falsehoods he delivered to the inquiring agents on Jan. 24, 2017. I am also going to acknowledge, for the sake of argument, that Flynn was not coerced into admitting that he had lied when he struck a plea deal with the FBI and that he was actually being accurate when he admitted his illegality to them.

But even if those assertions are true, Judge Emmet Sullivan, the judge responsible for sentencing Flynn on Tuesday and the one who has asked to review any exculpatory evidence in the case, must still throw out the case against Flynn.

The principal question is whether the FBI induced Flynn into lying during its interview of Jan. 24, 2017. More directly, did the FBI conduct its interview in such a manner as to induce the general to lie. After reviewing the Mueller memo to the court, my conclusion is that it absolutely, positively did.

In arriving at this conclusion, I first take note that prosecutorial entrapment is clearly illegal and fatal to the prosecution of a suspect. Entrapment, the act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit, is a vile and vicious technique that if allowed to run unabated represents a fundamental threat to our liberties and to our abilities to live our lives in peace and free of government persecution.

Help Us Keep Fighting

Entrapment cannot be tolerated.

Consequently, if the FBI induced the general into committing the crime of lying to the FBI, it would nullify its prosecution of him and force the case to be dismissed.

According to the memo produced by Robert Mueller in defense of his prosecution of Flynn, Mueller admits that the FBI knew prior to its interview that Flynn had made contact with Ambassador Kislyak on Dec. 29, 2016, “the same day the US announced sanctions against Russia for its interference with the 2016 elections. ” Moreover, Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, the man who contacted Flynn about a potential meeting with FBI investigators, believed Flynn had already lied to others regarding his contacts with the ambassador and that he was already “committed to that false story.” Even so, those deceitful acts of delivering a false narrative on the part of Flynn, whether excusable or not, were not illegal. Despite this, McCabe, in coordination with James Comey, made the decision to bypass protocol in seeking the interview with Flynn in the hopes that he would repeat those lies to investigators. In other words, McCabe and Comey built a trap for Flynn.

Additionally, we know from comments made by Comey that when McCabe set up the interview with Flynn, he knowingly bypassed protocol. We also know that Flynn inquired as to whether he should have his attorney present and was dissuaded from doing so by McCabe.

More egregiously, McCabe and Comey purposely decided not to warn Flynn that it was illegal to lie to the FBI. This is an important detail because it is distinguishable from the mere omission of the information, which is how the media generally reports this fact. Instead, according to Mueller’s memo to the court, McCabe and Comey made the purposeful decision to conceal the subject’s legal peril. The reason for this purposeful omission was to fool Flynn into being “relaxed,” and because “they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the report.” The implications of this admission are fatal to Flynn’s successful prosecution since they acknowledge that if the FBI had properly performed its job, Mueller would not have committed the crime of lying to them. Once again, the FBI investigators admit to the entrapment of Flynn.

Judge Sullivan is clearly aware of all of these facts as he tries to decide how to rule on the Flynn plea and sentencing.

As the Mueller memo states, the overall effect of the FBI’s efforts was to make Flynn believe that he was dealing with allies in an investigation, not that he was the subject of one.

With these admissions, Mueller has essentially painted a picture whereby the FBI created an environment by which Flynn would be induced into committing a crime he would not otherwise have committed; the very definition of entrapment.

With this information, it is very likely that, should this have gone to trial, it would have been thrown out because of entrapment of the defendant and due to the FBI’s advice to Flynn against obtaining legal counsel. Instead, the case was pleaded out by a defendant who was on the verge of bankruptcy from the mammoth legal defense bills he had incurred and whose son was being threatened with prosecution should he not submit to the FBI’s demands.

This story reveals one of the grossest displays of reckless disregard for prosecutorial restraint and for the rights of the defendant imaginable. With any luck, Judge Sullivan will see the brazen unprofessionalism displayed by McCabe, Comey and Mueller and bring some semblance of justice to the negatively impacted life of a man who is nothing short of a great American hero.

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 www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Immigration Judges Leftists Truth

Reversing ‘Obama Judge’ Ruling On Asylum Seekers

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

An Obama appointed federal judge ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants regardless of the point of entry and how the entry occurred — in direction contradiction to both the immigration law and to the Supreme Court’s ruling this year.

In dismissing the administration’s new policy requiring that only asylum applicants who entered the country through designated points of entry be processed, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco held that the Trump Administration was essentially rewriting immigration law.

Advocates against President Trump successfully argued before the judge that immigration law required people fleeing persecution to be allowed to seek safety in the United States regardless of how they arrived in the country. 

There’s only one problem with the advocacy groups’ arguments and with the judges ruling; the language within the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) itself. The fact is that Congress foresaw the possibility of explosive situations like the one in Central America.

For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the INA reads, in part, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” [emphasis added.]

That is exactly what the President did.

What Judge Tygar purposely ignores is that Section 1182(f) of the INA actually gives the President the authority to respond to issues such as the one developing in Central America in whatever manner he feels appropriate. Consequently, the President’s proclamation is completely consistent with the powers afforded to him by Congress.  

To make matters even dicier for Judge Tigar, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court decided on June 26, 2018, that the President was granted “broad discretion” in dealing with aliens attempting to enter the country.

Help Us Further The Truth  

So, where are we in this situation?  

Unfortunately for our nation’s security, the court’s ruling essentially amounts to an invitation to all foreign nationals attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States to pursue their entry at all possible costs. The urgency of the matter, particularly in light of the growing wave of migrants accumulating south of the board, makes affirmative action by the White House a must.

First, it is imperative that the President undertake the appellate process with all possible haste. The President must seek emergency judicial review to the Ninth Circuit. Of course, the Ninth Circuit with its consistent liberal agenda will uphold the lower court’s ruling.  

The President must then rapidly proceed to the Supreme Court where this case will undoubtedly be overruled.

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 www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Courts Elections Judges Truth

Once Again, Judges Insert Themselves Into Florida Political Campaign

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

In a move with significant implications to Florida’s gubernatorial election, the Florida Supreme Court granted an order sought by the League of Women Voters of Florida prohibiting Gov. Rick Scott from naming the successors to three Supreme Court justices scheduled to retire on the same day the Governor relinquishes power to his own successor.

Unlike the federal Constitution, the Florida Constitution requires Supreme Court justices to retire once they reach the age of 70, except that the retiring justices may continue to serve until the last day of their term; the same day the governor’s term ends. Additionally, a Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) provides the governor between three and six nominees from which to choose their successors.

The JNC is supposed to offer recommendations to the governor within 30 days of the occurrence of the vacancy, and the governor is to appoint his choice within 60 days of certification of the nominations to the governor by the JNC. Article V, Section 20(c)(5) of the Florida Constitution describes the required make up of the board and states that each member of the board serve for four years such that the same JNC members who are presently serving will be serving at the time the new governor takes office.

In Florida, three of the seven Supreme Court justices are scheduled to term out on Jan. 8.  Gov. Scott argues that he ought to be making the appointments in keeping with the established precedent of appointing judges in such a manner so as to avoid vacancies. In anticipation of the deadline, Scott instructed the JNC to have its nominations on his desk by Nov. 10.  

But the Court disagreed.

In an unsigned order, the Court said that the authority for filling vacancies lies solely with the governor who is elected in the November 2018 election, meaning the winner of the contest between Republican Ron Desantis and Democrat Andrew Gillum. What’s more, the Court said that the JNC did not need to comply with the Governor’s Nov. 10 deadline. The Court was amenable to hearing arguments regarding the time by which the JNC needed to certify its recommendations to the Governor.

(A few weeks before Florida’s primaries, an Obama-appointed federal judge skewed skewed the flow of funds to some election campaigns while sparing others without forewarning, and with significant effects on the outcome of primary elections.)

Who gets to select the next three justices to the Florida Supreme Court is important not only because of the sheer number of appointments, but because the balance of power in the Court hangs on the ballot. At this time, the Florida Supreme Court carries a 4-3 edge of liberals over conservatives. All three retiring justices are liberals.

Get More Truth On Our Facebook Page

It is safe to presume then, that if DeSantis wins, the Court will have a 6-1 conservative majority, but if he should lose, the liberal Court will keep its 4-3 lead with perhaps an even more liberal slant considering Gilluim’s strongly leftist positions. What effect a JNC appointed by a conservative governor can have in controlling the political slants of a new, liberal governor’s judicial appointments remains to be determined. 

One thing is clear, however, the stakes of the Florida gubernatorial race just got a lot higher. And when the winner takes office, there will be three Supreme Court vacancies.

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 www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Judges Justice Truth

For Kagan, Only The Illusion Of Impartiality Is Important

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

Let’s be clear. The Supreme Court is no more impartial or neutral a body than Congress itself.

I have heard it said so many times that the Supreme Court’s opinion is the final word on a legal issue. The contention is that because justices are neutral arbiters of the law and draw up their conclusions based on legal tenants equally applicable to all, then the answers they give us must be the “correct” position on a matter.

In reality that supposition is erroneous. If the judicial process is truly driven by such neutrally applicable and neutrally applied principles, then why so many 5-4 opinions on politically charged questions? As a matter of fact, why even have an appellate court?

In school, we were taught that appellate courts existed to see whether a judge made an error in law during a trial. That contention may be true, but in the really important cases, the ones touching our fundamental relationships with government, the appellate judge is not being asked to review whether the trial judge forgot to consider a certain statute or whether he or she was correct in ruling a piece of evidence inadmissible. The question before the appellate court is whether the lower judge was wrong in believing a law or action to be constitutional. This question is not so much a legal one as it is a political one.

In reality, there are no immutable legal principles. They are all subject to the taint of judicial interpretation and application subject to the philosophical slant of the presiding judge or judges.  Think of legal jurisprudence not as black versus white but as containing every shade of color imaginable and then arguing about the particular shade employed in a certain case. That’s politics. That’s the Supreme Court.  

Indeed, the whole reason the nation has been subjected to the traumatic Kavanaugh confirmation process is because liberals know the Court is inherently political. As a matter of fact, if the Court were not political, then what difference does it make who sits on the bench?

The fact is that the inhabitants of the Court and their political views are quintessentially important to those who wish to use the Courts to fashion the laws of the land. And therein lies the motivation for all the nonsense we have recently seen.  

In a women’s conference at Princeton University last week, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said, “It’s an incredibly important thing for the court to guard this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not simply an extension of a terribly polarizing process.”  

Important to whom?  

Notice that Justice Kagan did not say that it was important for the Court to guard its impartiality or neutrality. Rather, it was the reputation of impartiality about which she worried. Indeed, when it comes to the promise of impartiality and the Court, the only thing there is for liberals to worry about is the illusion of impartiality. That’s because the Court is in fact not impartial.

And why is it so important for liberals to preserve the reputation of impartiality in the Court?  Because as long as the Court is viewed as a pillar of impartiality and neutral legal assessment, it will be able to keep its chokehold over the other branches of government — a chokehold that was never given to it by the Constitution, but rather acquired by fiat through the legal opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall.

In his letter to William Charles Jarvis regarding Jarvis’s book, Thomas Jefferson derailed the idea of the Court being a neutral arbiter of laws. “You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions,” he said. “A very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” (emphasis added)  

The Kavanaugh confirmation process has demonstrated that every judge is tainted with his or her own personal political philosophy and that his or her politics colors every opinion and ruling he or she makes. Now that we can acknowledge this fundamental fact, it is time to enact a correction to the Constitution that places a check on this inherently political body. It’s time to allow the Court’s opinions to come under the scrutiny of those who are actually elected into office. It’s time to fashion a supermajority legislative override of Supreme Court opinions. And Jefferson would agree.

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 www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Judges Supreme Court Truth

New Supreme Court Session Shows Need For Legislative Override

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

With the advent of October, comes the start of the Supreme Court’s session. As the Court enters the session with only eight members, there is no tiebreaker. If there is an equal vote, then the lower court’s decision will stand.

And there is no shortage of cases awaiting it.

Weyerhauser Co. v. US Fish and Wildlife questions the Endangered Species Act and the owner’s right to challenge the designation of private land as critical habitat. In Madison v. Alabama, the court is asked whether the Eighth Amendment allows for a state to execute a prisoner who can’t remember his or her capital offense because of mental disability. And Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, asks whether the ruling in Williamson County Regional Commission v. Hamilton Bank requiring that property owners exhaust state court remedies prior to being reviewed in federal court should be overturned.

Overall, there are 20 cases slated for consideration in the October docket. Many of these cases will have a big impact on our rights, our liberties, and upon the future interpretation of our Constitution and statutes.

While most of us enter this latest Supreme Court session with thoughts of the impending judicial nomination, the circus it has become, and the impact these proceedings will have on the Court’s future, the greater question remains unaddressed; namely the role of the Court and the checking of its power.  

In a discussion with Judge Gregory Maggs hosted by the Supreme Court Fellows Program, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke of his conscious effort at checking his own ability to influence the future interpretation of the Constitution by reminding himself that it was someone else’s Constitution he was writing on. Christopher Scalia, the late-Justice Antonin Scalia’s son, related his father’s concerns of how much of what the modern Court does rightfully belongs in the legislature. And Sen. Ben Sasse echoed the sentiment in between circus performances at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Hearing last week.

Once again we enter a Supreme Court session under the effects of the Court’s power grab in Marbury v. Madison. Indeed, Justice John Marshall’s determination that it was up to the Supreme Court to decide what was constitutional and what was not is at odds with the views of many of the Framers.

Join Our Fight For American Values!

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned of the importance of changing the Constitution through the amendment process and not by usurpation as the latter was the “the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” And Thomas Jefferson (who was not a Framer of the Constitution) warned that allowing judges to be the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy,” and cautioned that such an arrangement would have never been accepted by the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention.  

So, we enter another session with the balance of power skewed in the direction of the judiciary. To a great extent, every law passed by Congress is essentially a trial balloon floated to see if it passes muster before a board of appointed reviewers. Literally, the nature of our liberties hangs at the unchecked hands of the Court, which in today’s environment is able to overturn practically any rule, statute, ordinance, or law at its whim, and when it does so on constitutional grounds, there is nothing the other branches can do about it other than capitulate.

Such a power is at the very least disconcerting and inconsistent with a government that is designed under the construct calling for a balance of powers between three co-equal branches of government.  

And once again, we are faced with the question of what to do about it. Yes, one answer is to get better judges. But hiring great people to work within a certain branch of government is not a check on that branch’s power. The real solution is to create an external impediment on the branch. In this case, it is a step that should have been implemented in the nineteenth century in direct response to Marshall’s opinion.  

The most logical correction is a legislative override amendment.

Like Us On Facebook

Under this provision, a supermajority of the legislature would be able to override an opinion of the Court and keep a statute operational. The override provision has been adopted by Canada, Israel, the European Union, and Australia, among others, and it is one proposed by Madison himself to Thomas Jefferson when the latter penned a draft of the Virginia Constitution.

In a nutshell, once the Court issues an opinion, Congress would have four years to override it through a supermajority vote of about 60%. In such instances, the law would remain operational despite the opinion of the Court. At the very least, such a provision would have a chilling effect on activist judges. It would send legislation back to Congress for consideration and debate, and it would allow a ruling inconsistent with the will of the vast majority of the American people to be nullified.

If there is one thing the Kavanaugh nomination proceedings teach us is that the Supreme Court is as political a body as any other. Knowing this, then why ought it be given full reign on the interpretation of the nation’s governing document?  

The question we must be asking ourselves is, to whom does the Constitution belong?

If the Constitution of the United States belongs to the Supreme Court, then we have no right as citizens to tinker with the Court’s opinion on the document’s interpretation. But if the Constitution belongs to we the people, which I believe it does, then we must demand an instrument by which we may overrule the opinions of errant judiciary, i.e. a legislative override.

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 www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
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 www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
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


 

Categories
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 www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS