What was really lost in the Kavanaugh Hearings?

This morning, I watched an interview with with an American female Senator who was commenting on an article in the “Women’s March”, which is apparently some form of publication I’m not familiar with. This senator was obviously upset about the headline stating something to the effect that  Republicans has elected another “rapist” to the Supreme Court. An obviously very thinly veiled attack  on Justice Clarence  Thomas and soon to be Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 

I’m going to shift direction here a little and tell you, no I’m not asking, I’m telling you to read and study the following from the WEX Dictionary of Law.: 
“The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (“legality”) and provide fair procedures.”

Do you understand the principle of “due process?” 

Theoretically, the American legal system is based on the central principle of “presumption of innocence.”  

Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as:

“A system that is prevalent in the Commonwealth Nations where a defendant who enters trial is presumed to be innocent of the crime. However, this presumption only holds until the defendant is proven to be guilty of the crime during an investigation. The prosecutor assumes the responsibility of proving the defendant guilty in court. The defendant, however, has no obligation to prove his innocence unless in retaliation to an evidence presented in court.”

In other words, we are guaranteed the right to be innocent until there is substantial factual evidence to prove our guilt presented in a court of law.”

Now, have you figured out what was, and remains missing in the Judge Kavanaugh circus of clowns?

Throughout the hearings, there was the reference to this “not being a trial.” You heard this more often from the left than the right. Oh sure, they tried to pawn it off as a job interview, but I’ve been to many of those in my life and have never once been treated the way Judge Kavanaugh was. Yet, the left kept trying to cover their asses by saying that it was not a trial.

If it was not a trial, then why was Judge Kavanaugh subjected to hours of unprofessional cross-examination, presentation of witness testimony and evidence? Because the left knew that if it was proclaimed a trial, they would be in legal violation of due process; they wanted to remain in ethical violation.

From the very moment Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, the Democrats, at the command of Senator Schumer formulated a battle plan that was based on denying any candidate he did not approve of their right to due process under the laws of our Constitution.

Proclaiming to be acting on behalf of the American people, Senator Schumer and his lackeys (that’s all the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were) set out to deny the American people their due course in electing a Justice to their Supreme Court. 

Do you see what was lost? 

Friday’s Question is a Lesson

I can’t help but wonder if there are others besides myself who think they see what is really going with all these demonstrations and protests against everything President Trump attempts to do for our country. I’m going, to begin with defining four words:
  1. Protester:  “a person who makes a public protest; synonym demonstrator.” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionary)
  2.  Bully:  “a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable.” (Oxford English Dictionary
  3. Terrorist: “an advocate or practitioner of terrorism as a means of coercion.” (Miriam-Webster Dictionary)
  4. Coercion: “The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another’s freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim’s reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.
My question is this: When does protesting become terrorism? Here in America, we have the legal right under our Constitution to Freedom of speech and freedom to protest without fear of retribution; I’m all for that. However, in this era, we seem to have less real protesting and more real bullying capped off with organized domestic terrorism. In my opinion, protesting becomes unacceptable bullying when one side denies the other side their freedom of speech, and choice; rights guaranteed under our Constitution. As bad as these types of bullying are, they often do escalate to more severe types such as uncensored cyber attacks, gossip, negative allegations, and prejudical commentaries directed at both the person and family in an attempt to discredit.
It is when a protester crosses the line from mild verbal attacks on an opponent to coercion in the form of physically blocking movement, using bullhorns in very close proximity the victim’s head – specifically ears, screams at, throwing objects, feces and urine at, physically assaults, threats to family and home, or damages personal property that bullying becomes criminal intimidation. They are no longer protesters, they are criminals who must be arrested and charged for their crimes.
However, when they turn to coercion with threats of exposing their victim’s address and phone number, health and schools records, school,  and death threats, they’ve gone beyond criminals, they are terrorists.
Lest they feel left out, I will comment on those “protestors” who receive compensation for their efforts. For me, these people are no better than paid thugs, the Sturmabteilung (SA – Brownshirts) of Nazi Germany.
I have a question for these people: Do you know the fate of the SA when Hitler finally gained power? What about Stalin’s purge of his military officers after defeating the Nazi’s?
As vile as they are, these bullies and terrorists are merely puppets on a world stage; their value to their leadership is very transitory. Their lifespan, questionable and their cause is defeatable. However, in the interim, Americans need to stand up and fight back against the violence and terrorism spawned by our own politicians with their hate speeches, sponsorships of harassment and intimidation and above all, their abuse of the powers granted to them by Ameican voters. I personally feel that the actions and words of the alleged victim, her attorneys and the Democrat Senators on the Judicial Committee were a gross attempt at coercion of the truth. What I saw, and continue to see is an attempt at a soft coup de tat of our government by the left. Do you?  

Thursday’s Tears

Today, 10-04-18, will go down in history a day of true Democrat Infamy. It will be remembered for the attempts to continue to discredit an honorable man and is family while maniacally fighting for control of our country.

One very important item all dictators had, and still have, it the power of propaganda via control of information. While the Democrats in America have not gone so far as having conservative reporters arrested yet, YET. They are increasing their attempts to hide information from the “American people” they claim to so proudly serve.

The most recent, and blatant attempt to do this is Senator Feinberg’s attempt to conceal Dr. Ford’s original letter until the perfect moment to reveal it in an effort to stop the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. (Personally, I think Dr. Ford was working in tandem with the Democrat Party to bring down any nominee.) But that’s not my point, my point is, the disgraceful manipulation of the American voters.

Senator Feinstein was required, by the rules of the Judicial Committee to disclose the original, unredacted (censored) letter from Dr. Ford to all members of Committee, but she chose to not serve the best interests of the American people by not doing so. She didn’t even tell the committee a letter existed until she thought the time perfect. 

Senator Feinstein vehemently denies either she, or any member of her staff leaked the letter, but someone did. While the leaking is a critical issue so is the possibility that she had a specific date she planned to present it to the committee, and someone outsmarted her. 

Now, even before the FBI report has been submitted to the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein is attempting to have it sealed from the public. Again. it’s her way of serving the American people. 

My question is this: If we put the Democrat circus of the hearings aside, and we concentrate on the actions of the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein; can we find a pattern of deceit and information control? 

Is Senator Feinstein serving the American People, the Democrat Party or is she only serving herself? 

Wednesday’s thoughts.

Wednesday, or is that Wed Nest Day? Actually, I believe it was originally Wodin’s day. Now, more often than not, it’s called “Hump”, which never really worked for me.

Last night, I was asked by one of my international students: “What is a precedent and why is it so important in this..?” He had been watching the Kavanaugh hearing circus and heard the word mentioned. One of my online dictionaries defines Precedent as: “an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.” As I’ve said before, I’m not a lawyer but I do feel that a number of legal precedents were destroyed during the Kavanaugh investigation, the first being Senator Feinstein’s grab for power by withholding an accusation against a Supreme Court Justice nominee from the Judiciary Committee. From what I’ve learned, historical precedence obligated her to share the letter with the Chairman of the Committee at the very least. Her argument was that Dr. Ford wanted it to be kept confidential which could have been done by the rules of the entire committee, but Feinstein decided to set a new precedent and withhold it from them. My theory is that is that had Dr. Ford wanted only Feinstein to read the letter, she should have marked it “For your eyes only” or “Do not share with the committee.”, but she didn’t. It was Feinstein who set the precedent. In essence, she determined, supposedly without the council of other members of the 21 person committee to set a policy for the committee without it being voted on. My opinion is this: I feel the practice of establishing precedent without appropriate legal counsel and enactment, is a very poor way to govern. I realize that this has good and bad sides to it but from what I’m seeing in our Congress, the bad is far outweighing the good.

Tuesday’s question

I got to thinking the other day about politicians around the world; we could probably populate a fairly large portion of Africa if we moved them all into one location. What can’t do with them, is fill a military cemetery or even a small cemetery dedicated to police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel killed in the line of duty.

We, humans, are an amazing species. We rant and rave about poor representation in our governments, but we do little about it. Oh sure, we campaign, vote and, hopefully, elect the right person for the job, but what we don’t do is thoroughly investigate (vet) our candidates before we get on their campaign wagons.

Now, here comes my problem with all this. Here in America, we are electing Senators, Congressmen/women, and presidents without any thorough vetting process, if we were, we would have known more about John McCain’s treason, Senator Feinstein’s Chinese spy drivers, Al Franken’s history of sexual abuse, Representative Cummings alleged sexual assaults on women, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s bias against President Trump and so many more.

Even when we do our normal vetting, and uncover factual evidence of wrongdoing, do we act? No! More often than not, these allegations are locked away in the vast catacomb of our Congressional buildings, hidden in Draconian vaults to await their resurrection when needed to destroy someone.

My question for the day is: Why, Why do we allow our employees in our Congress in our Capital, get away with crimes that would destroy the average American taxpayer if reported, It makes no sense.

These are the people who make life-changing decisions for all Americans every day of the week, yet there doesn’t appear to be any form of standards or rules they are required to follow; if there are some, they don’t appear to be enforced.

They legislate our lives, yet we have very little recourse for stopping them.

They legislate what law enforcement officers can and cannot do, yet none appear to have been one, nor died while wearing the badge

They legislate what our military can or cannot do, but I can find no records of any one of them having been killed in combat.

Some even disregard common morals and ethics to attain their political goals. Their punishment appears to be automatic immunity.

Who then, must bear the burden of fault for these crimes and more?

You do, I do, all voters do because we do not care enough to say ENOUGH!

We do not demand that existing rules pertaining to the operations of our Congress are strictly followed and infringements suitably punished. Neither do we demand existing rules be updated or replaced by new ones more applicable to our time.

Today, we, the voters who elected them must stand firm and punish the children we elected to represent us. It is long past time to make them grow up and take their jobs seriously before we run out of cemeteries for the real heroes of America.

The mandate of the American people must be:

No one is above the law! If you do the crime, you will do the time!”

Please do not vote the party line tickets. Please elect only the people who will help rebuild America and defend her against the onslaught from foreign and domestic interference.

Demand accountability and a clear path to remove those who refuse to give it.