Trump’s Fighting Spirit Gets Kavanaugh Confirmed

The president’s winning streak continues.

Front Page Magazine, by Matthew Vadum, October 8, 2018:

After the dirtiest, nastiest Supreme Court confirmation battle in American history, President Trump’s pick, Brett Kavanaugh, was finally confirmed to the high court and sworn in as its ninth justice on the weekend, cementing for years what could be an ideologically conservative majority on the court.

This means that in under two years in power President Trump has succeeded in putting two apparently originalist justices on the Supreme Court, a font of outrageous big-government activism where unelected black robed-politicians have for decades imposed unconstitutional left-wing monstrosities like Obamacare and so-called affirmative action on the American people, policies that voters have rejected at the polls.

In the rest of Trump’s time in office, more vacancies are likely on the court. Left-wingers Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are 85 and 80, respectively. If these liberals are replaced by conservatives, the effect on American jurisprudence, and on society itself, could be profound, even revolutionary.

Of course, just because a Supreme Court justice is appointed by a Republican president, there is no guarantee that the lifetime appointee will act like a conservative while serving on the court. Chief Justice John Roberts (President George W. Bush, confirmed 2005) has been a great disappointment to conservatives, as have former Justices Anthony Kennedy (President Reagan, confirmed 1988), David Souter (President George H.W. Bush, confirmed 1990), John Paul Stevens (President Ford, confirmed 1975), and Sandra Day O’Connor (President Reagan, confirmed 1981).

But a victory is a victory and getting a conservative like Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch last year, on the Supreme Court is no small achievement. Given the enormous leftist angst and apoplexy out there, it probably won’t be any easier next time President Trump nominates someone to the high court

That said, President Trump deserves high praise.

As J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, writes at PJMedia, two factors pushed Kavanaugh across the finish line.

First, there was Kavanaugh’s wise decision to fight “all of the false, outlandish accusations” against him.

Second, there was President Trump’s speech Tuesday, October 2, in Southaven, Mississippi, in which he rehashed principal Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s ridiculous, impossible-to-believe testimony about the nominee’s alleged attempt to do some vague, unwanted, possibly sexual thing to her almost four decades ago at a party in high school that none of the witnesses she identified could corroborate.

Trump said:

How did you get home? I don’t remember. How did you get there? I don’t remember. Where is the place? I don’t remember. How many years ago was it? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know.

“You’d hardly know it at the time how this helped Kavanaugh,” Adams wrote.

He continued:

Democrats and MSNBC pundits were outraged. NeverTrump Republicans were mortified. Even Republican senators critical to Kavanaugh’s confirmation were critical of Trump.

The Washington Examiner‘s Robert Donachie adopted the language of the Democrats when he wrote — as many did — that Trump “mocked” Ford.

Trump wasn’t mocking Ford, he was transcribing her.

Trump’s “transcription made the difference,” Adams added.

“He accomplished in 36 seconds what took Senator Susan Collins nearly an hour to do [in a Friday speech on the Senate floor] — shine a 100,000 megawatt spotlight on the failure of Ford to convince us that Brett Kavanaugh did anything to her.”

The Washington Post identified Trump’s attack on Ford’s credibility as “a key turning point” in the confirmation battle.

Although a “cadre of advisers, confidants and lawmakers all urged him — implored him, really — not to personally attack the women who had accused” Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Trump “did it anyway.” The president “laid into Ford with the ruthlessness of an attack dog and the pacing of a stand-up comedian,” and the crowd “roared with laughter and applause.”

Establishment Republicans initially reacted with horror. But Trump’s 36-second off-script jeremiad proved a key turning point toward victory for the polarizing nominee, White House officials and Kavanaugh allies said, turbocharging momentum behind Kavanaugh just as his fate appeared most in doubt. 

The confirmation vote itself went about as smoothly as it could have in the circumstances.

Under siege by howling leftist mobs, the Senate’s presiding officer, Vice President Mike Pence, declared the nomination of Kavanaugh approved by a vote of 50 to 48 at 4:00 p.m. Eastern time Saturday. Throughout the roll call vote in the Senate and in the debate preceding it, the visitors’ gallery erupted with screaming by protesters.

Only one Democrat, the perpetually endangered Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a state President Trump carried in 2016 by 42 percentage points, voted to confirm Kavanaugh. Manchin also voted last year to confirm Gorsuch, Trump’s other nominee to the high court.

Two Republicans failed to vote to confirm Kavanaugh but only one of those senators had a good excuse. After it become clear that enough votes would be forthcoming to get the nominee confirmed, Steve Daines of Montana attended his daughter’s wedding in his home state.

After a rambling speech explaining her position on the nomination, the cowardly RINO, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted “no” in the roll call but then announced at 3:53 p.m. Saturday on the Senate floor that she was withdrawing her “no” vote after noting that doing so would not change the outcome. On Friday morning Murkowski was the sole Republican to vote against a procedural motion to move forward with the confirmation vote. Daines and Manchin voted in favor of the motion.

Alaska voters “will never forgive” Murkowski for voting against Kavanaugh, President Trump told the Washington Post. “I think she will never recover from this” and will be defeated in the GOP primary in 2022, Trump said.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) taunted Murkowski on Twitter. “Hey @LisaMurkowski — I can see 2022 from my house…”

In the days leading up to the vote, leftist operatives, largely females, working for groups underwritten by billionaire speculator George Soros harassed and accosted Republican senators on Capitol Hill over Kavanaugh and the various scurrilous, uncorroborated allegations hurled at the nominee.

When a woman screamed if Kavanaugh “would take a polygraph, this would all be over!” at Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the lawmaker fired back with a reference to a brutal, often lethal, medieval method used for detecting witches. “Why don’t we dunk him in the water and see if he floats?” Graham said.

When a group of women taunted Orrin Hatch of Utah, asking aloud why he wasn’t “brave enough” to talk to her and her group, the senator waved his hand in the air. “Don’t you wave your hand at me,” the woman said. Hatch looked at her and said, “When you grow up, I’ll be glad to” talk to you. “How dare you talk to women that way,” one woman huffed.

A backlash among GOP voters against the over-the-top tactics employed by leftists against Kavanaugh will come back to bite the Left in the posterior, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted Friday.

“I want to thank the mob, because they’ve done the one thing we were having trouble doing, which was energizing our base.”

“The mob was not able to intimidate the Senate,” McConnell said. “We stood up to the mob.”

President Trump piled on, ridiculing the out-of-control protesters and warning voters about supporting Democrats.

“You don’t hand matches to an arsonist, and you don’t give power to an angry left-wing mob[,]” the president wrote on Twitter. “Democrats have become too EXTREME and TOO DANGEROUS to govern. Republicans believe in the rule of law – not the rule of the mob. VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

The messy fight over Brett Kavanaugh may yet help Republicans retain control of Congress in next month’s elections.

***

***

***

Also see:

 

Candidate to Replace Keith Ellison May Be Even More Hostile to Israel

by IPT News  •  

Within three short hours of U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison’s announcement that he would leave Congress to run for Minnesota Attorney General, Minneapolis state Rep. Ilhan Omar became a candidate to replace him in Washington. Omar became the first Somali Muslim legislator in 2016, defeating 22-term state Rep. Phyllis Kahn.

Ellison’s tenure has been marked by concerns he is hostile to Israel, something compounded by the Investigative Project on Terrorism obtaining a 2010 recording in which Ellison complains that Israel enjoys disproportionate influence over U.S. foreign policy.

But given what she says on social media, including comments before she ran for office, Omar appears explicitly and openly hostile toward Israel.

In the wake of last month’s violence at the Israel-Gaza border, Omar blasted what she called “Israeli crimes” and called Israel’s response a massacre. Palestinians and their advocates tried to cast the violence as unprovoked, and coming amid peaceful protests. In fact, a senior Hamas official admits the Palestinian border protests were “not peaceful resistance” and another Hamas leader bragged that the overwhelming majority of casualties were part of the terrorist group.

Omar has not commented on those facts or lamented the damage Hamas does to everyday life in Gaza in order to invest in future terrorist operations. Instead, she lets stand claims that Israel alone is to blame.

She also has worked with people and groups which share her enmity toward Israel. Omar served on the advisory board for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Minnesota chapter and has spoken at numerous CAIR events with Zahra Billoo and Linda Sarsour.

Internal records seized by the FBI show that CAIR was formed by Muslim Brotherhood officials in the United States to serve a broader Hamas-support network called the Palestine Committee. Billoo has repeatedly argued that there is no moral distinction between ISIS and the Israeli army. Sarsour is a rabid anti-Zionist who literally embraced convicted Palestinian terrorist bomber Rasmieh Odeh and hails ultra-conservative clerics.

Omar also appears in a new video by the pop music act Maroon 5. That prompted a Twitter exchange in which a writer called her a “Jew hater.”

“Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews,” Omar shot back.

The video always features Israeli actress and “Wonder Woman” star Gal Gadot, an Israeli citizen and veteran of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

During the last round of Gaza violence in 2014, Gadot shared a picture of her with her daughter lighting Shabbat candles. “I am sending my love and prayers to my fellow Israeli citizens,” she wrote. “Especially to all the boys and girls who are risking their lives protecting my country against the horrific acts conducted by Hamas, who are hiding like cowards behind women and children…We shall overcome!!! Shabbat Shalom!”

It’s not clear whether Omar knew she would share the screen with Gadot, or whether that might have caused her to reconsider participating. As this new campaign begins, we might soon find out.

Also see:

The Ninth Circuit’s stolen sovereignty should serve as final wakeup call

Africa Studio | Shutterstock

Africa Studio | Shutterstock

“What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation” ~ Justice Samuel Alito, (Obergefell v. Hodges, dissenting)

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, February 10, 2017:

Last night, we saw the logical outcome of over a half century of political agreement on the Right and Left that the opinions of the courts are the sole and final arbiter of every public policy issue, no matter how divorced from the Constitution and inimical to national interests those decisions may be.

The Ninth Circuit, although not “officially” deciding the merits of the immigration case, indicated that there is a constitutional right for anyone to immigrate, even during a time of war, even from countries we were so careful never to take immigrants from until recently. It concluded the president must show the courts sufficient evidence that each person will be a terrorist and anything short of that creates a due process right to be here.

It’s very important to remember that this is not about the executive action. President Trump’s executive order is following a statute, really a series of statutes, which grant any president ABSOLLUTE at-will power to shut off all or any immigration. According to the perverted rationale of the courts, even Congress couldn’t cut off immigration, even from part of the Middle East because it poses issues to the Left’s social justice agenda, which has been retroactively enshrined into the Constitution.

The outcome of this case is that even if Congress was to merely bar visas from countries that support terror (which is current law for state-sponsors of terror), that law would be open to lawsuits and would be enjoined nationwide by one district within one liberal circuit — and there’s not a darn thing we can do about it. It means any Islamic supremacist sitting in a shack in Somalia has due process rights to immigrate here and liberal states can sue on his behalf.  It means any Muslim in Syria can sue us if they believe a Christian was admitted as a refugee in front of them. After all, we already know that four of the justices on the Supreme Court will never defy any political agenda of the Left, and that Anthony Kennedy is terrible on immigration.

Those radicals breaking windows and beating people up in the streets? Those views are not only represented in Congress but are now codified into law and the Constitution by the misconceived supremacy of the judicial branch of government. As I predicted in my book, within a few years (perhaps less), there will be wholesale judicial amnesty for all of the illegal immigrants in this country under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It’s already happening in the lower courts. Last night, it was codified into law by the Ninth Circuit when it said illegals have due process rights (to remain in the country).

So where does it say in the Constitution that there is a right for foreign nationals to immigrate, especially when courts have said the opposite for 200 years? It’s in the same clause as “separation of church and state,” gay marriage, sex change operations, and the right to 30 days of early voting.

It’s not worth re-litigating what is so obvious to a sane person and frankly what is obvious to these judges themselves. We’ve covered every aspect of this case in the following articles:

What I would like to focus on is the solution. In the coming days I plan to focus on the strategy of wholesale judicial reform as well as the need to continue the push for an Article V Convention of the States. But the first step is understanding the severity of the problem and to stop legitimizing the false premise that courts have the final say on political questions.  Let’s say this together: The federal judiciary is IRREMEDIABLY broken, and as witnessed by these cases, half the GOP judges are just as bad.

We must also stop legitimizing the notion that Congress doesn’t have full authority over the jurisdiction and structure of the courts.

Let me leave you with the following twisted irony.

Samuel Chase was one of first Supreme Court justices and one of the earliest supporters of judicial review (which is not synonymous with judicial exclusivity/supremacy). Chase was impeached, at the behest of President Jefferson, for using the court to advance his political agenda. Yet, even this judicial strongman of his day, when defending the original rationale for the power of judicial review against laws passed by legislatures, declared, “an act of the Legislature contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority.” Chase believed the Court could strike down laws passed by Congress that violated the essence of the social compact and fundamental natural rights.

Fast-forward two centuries and we have unelected judges, not the legislature, violating the essence of the social compact by redefining marriage and gender itself (the ultimate natural law). Courts have violated the popular and jurisdictional sovereignty of our states and federal union in hamstringing the elected representatives from protecting us against those who come here without our consent and harm our society. The fact that any liberal state official can sue to bring in people who don’t share our values and might do us harm violates the very essence of the consent-based national sovereignty at the core of the social compact and at the foundation of why the Constitution gave national sovereignty questions to the national government. As Justice Scalia warned, we are suffering from social transformation without representation.

Until and unless we reclaim our sovereignty from the courts, we are no longer a sovereign nation.

Keith Ellison’s Disinformation Campaign

ipt2by Steven Emerson
IPT News
December 2, 2016

Confronted by his own words and facing a direct threat to his bid to become the next Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison flagrantly lied Thursday. We are releasing the full audio and transcript to prove this.

Two days earlier, the Investigative Project on Terrorism released audio of Ellison during a 2010 political fundraiser, criticizing what he saw as the inappropriate and disproportionate influence Israel carries over American foreign policy.

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million,” said Ellison, D-Minn. “Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

In a statement Thursday, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said it found Ellison’s comments “deeply disturbing and disqualifying.” That’s because, “whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives.”

In an open letter to the ADL, Ellison falsely claimed that “the audio released was selectively edited and taken out of context.” He also claimed that he was merely “responding to a question about how Americans with roots in the Middle East could engage in the political process in a more effective way.” And then he chose to attack the messenger.

None of Ellison’s comments are true.

We have released the full audio of his remarks (click here to hear them and to read a complete transcript) to show no edits were made and to show the full context. Let him also explain this other clearly anti-Semitic comment he made: “But it makes all the sense in the world when you see that that country has mobilized its diaspora in America to do its bidding in America.”

Ellison and Context

As we reported, Ellison’s 2010 comments came during a fundraiser for Esam Omeish’s state assembly campaign. Omeish is a former president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), a group created by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States. In 2007, Omeish was forced to resign from a Virginia immigration panel after the IPT produced video of him praising Palestinians in 2000 for learning that “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” A second video, shot two months earlier, shows Omeish congratulating “our brothers and sisters in [Palestine] for their bravery, for their giving up their lives for the sake of Allah.”

Just this week, Omeish posted a paean to the Muslim Brotherhood on Facebook.

Nihad Awad, the only executive director the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has ever had, also attended the Omeish fundraiser. Court records show Awad was a member of a Muslim Brotherhood created Hamas support network in the United States called the Palestine Committee. So was CAIR, the organization he leads.

Awad attended a pivotal 1993 gathering of committee members in Philadelphia, convened to discuss ways to “derail” the U.S. brokered Oslo Accords.

Palestine Committee members opposed it because it included recognition of Israel’s right to exist and because it empowered the secular Fatah movement over the Islamists in Hamas. We know this because the FBI secretly recorded the meeting.

He has never explained why he joined the otherspresent in referring to Hamas in the agreed-upon, yet crude code of reversing the spelling and speaking about “Samah.”

Six months later, Awad appeared in Miami, where he publicly stated that, after some research, “I am in support of the Hamas movement more than the PLO.”

When Keith Ellison stands before Omeish and Awad and asks whether it makes sense that America’s Middle East policy “is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people,” or when he says “that country [Israel] has mobilized its diaspora in America to do its bidding in America,” the context seems pretty clear.

Democrats should choose the candidate they think can best lead their party to success in the future. They might decide Ellison fits that description.

They do so armed with greater understanding of Ellison’s true feelings toward an issue pivotal for a lot of voters of all political persuasions.