Time to Confirm Kavanaugh and End the Democratic Socialists Circus 🎪

IT IS POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE FORD AND KAVANAUGH AND STILL CONFIRM THE NOMINEE kf We don’t know and perhaps will never know what happened to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford… Is it a case of a mentally-compromised individual who requires additional therapy and who may either believe what she experienced or has been convinced that it must have been Brett Kavanaugh? Is it a case of mistaken identity? Is it a case of false “recovered” memory? Is it a case of being manipulated by activist attorneys? And, does it involve lying to the committee like saying the hearing needed to be delayed because Ford was fearful of flying? Only to find out she has flown frequently, both foreign and domestic, for work and pleasure. So let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and say that “she believes something happened to her and that there is no corroboration of her recollection.” But her assertion that she was 100% positive it was Kavanaugh, but could not provide the basics of date, time, place, additional participants, and other relevant details. But… We do know that Dr. Ford’s allegations were not corroborated and any statements presented were from family members and dated decades after the alleged event. We do know that the progressive socialist democrats attempted to exploit Dr. Ford for political reasons to delay or kill President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. We do know that the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, did know of the allegations and did nothing, allegedly not sharing the allegations with either the Democrat or Republican members of the committee. We suspect and do not know for certain that she may have shared the allegations with Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy to weaponize the allegations to thwart the Kavanagh nomination. We do know that Brett Kavanaugh did produce contemporaneous records that demonstrate that the Ford event did not take place and that none of the people closest to Kavanaugh could corroborate Ford’s story or knew anything about Ford or her allegations. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove a negative and nominee Kavanaugh deserves the benefit of the doubt as in “innocent until proven guilty.” The YUGE question… Will the GOP allow the progressive socialist democrats to BORK this candidate, turn decades of jurisprudence on its head in assuming guilty until proven innocent, and ruin a man’s lifelong distinguished service over unsubstantiated allegations that are 36 years old? Lindsey Graham said it best… I have never been a fan of Lindsey Graham, but today he did himself and the nation proud standing up for the United States Senate and America. If this compelling video is missing it can be found here. Bottom line… At the end of the day, Brett Kavanaugh deserves confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. Today, we saw the progressive socialist democrats attempt to subvert justice, destroy American values, and totally trash an honorable man for political purposes. The fact that Dr. Ford could not get on a plane to Washington because of this trauma was an absolute lie concocted by the progressive socialist democrats who should be held accountable for this tragic display of rank hyper-partisan hypocrisy. And, did anyone notice that it was the progressive socialist democrats introduced racism, gender, and ageism in this discussion, characterizing Judge Kavanaugh as an elite white man of privilege and the GOP members of the committee as “old white men?” We are so screwed. -- steve

Guess Who Runs the Worst Cities in America. Remember & Vote Responsibly!

Poverty, Crime And Human Feces: The Worst Cities In America Are The Ones Being Run By Democrats Posted: 26 Sep 2018 09:31 PM PDT Is it just a coincidence that many of the greatest cities in America became poverty-infested hellholes once the Democrats took charge of things? Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Oakland and Memphis were all once great cities. But after an extended period of control by the Democratic Party, each one of them has become a festering crisis that never seems to end. I thought that I was going to do an article about Baltimore today, but it occurred to me that the exact same things that are happening in Baltimore are also happening in a multitude of other major cities, and the common theme among all of them is that the Democrats are in control. But even though this is the case, voters in those cities just keep choosing Democrats election after election anyway. Let’s talk about crime first. According to the FBI, Baltimore had the highest murder rate in the entire country last year… Baltimore had the worst homicide rate among the nation’s 50 largest cities last year and the second-highest violent crime rate overall, according to new data from the FBI. The grim news was the latest reminder of the sustained cycle of violence that has gripped the city since 2015, when the annual number of homicides soared above 300 for three consecutive years after the unrest that followed Freddie Gray’s death from injuries suffered in police custody. In fact, it was the highest murder rate that Baltimore had ever seen. So who runs Baltimore? Democrats. But Baltimore is definitely not alone. When you start going down the list, you find a lot more major cities run by Democrats… #2 Detroit – Run By Democrats #3 Memphis – Run By Democrats #4 Chicago – Run By Democrats #5 Philadelphia – Run By Democrats And this is certainly not just a recent phenomenon. According to a broader study of major cities, there is a very strong correlation between Democratic control and violent crime… Using U.S. cities with a population over 100,000 and the most recent FBI statistics on violent crime, USA Today formulated a list of the top ten most dangerous cities in America. Of these ten, eight are currently run by Democratic mayors and city councils, and two are controlled by Independents. Of the past ten mayors of each of the three most violent cities in America — Birmingham, Detroit, and St. Louis — eight have been Democrats. All told, the three most violent cities in this country have been under nearly uninterrupted Democratic control for more than half a century. So the moral of the story is this – if you want more violent crime, vote for the Democrats. Not surprisingly, there is also a very strong correlation between Democratic control and poverty. According to the Los Angeles Times, Democratic-controlled California actually has the highest poverty rate in the entire nation… Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor. That’s according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the cost of housing, food, utilities and clothing, and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income. But aren’t Democrats supposed to be the ones that care about the poor? Well, they certainly throw a lot of money at the problem, but all of that money does not appear to be helping. In fact, the Los Angeles Times has even admitted that California’s spending on anti-poverty programs “actually seems to have made it worse”… It’s not as though California policymakers have neglected to wage war on poverty. Sacramento and local governments have spent massive amounts in the cause. Several state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200% above the poverty line receive benefits. California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and “other public welfare,” according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients. The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse. That is a stunning admission from the Los Angeles Times. And poverty is not just at crisis levels in California. It will probably not surprise you to learn that nine of the ten poorest cities in the United States are run by Democrats… Referencing data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, CBS News composed a list of the top ten most impoverished cities in the United States. The ubiquity of Democratic governance is heightened in this context, as nine out of the ten poorest cities are run by Democrats. Combining the past ten mayors of the three poorest cities — Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Detroit — there are twenty-three Democrats, three Socialists, two Independents, and two Republicans. In essence, the three most impoverished cities in America have seen more governance in the past 50 years by Socialists than by Republicans, and the ratio of Democratic governance to Republican governance is about 12:1. Ouch. And even the Democratic-controlled cities that are supposedly “thriving” economically are still dealing with squalor on an unprecedented scale. For example, one investigation found 300 piles of human feces on the streets of downtown San Francisco. The following comes from NPR… San Francisco’s streets are so filthy that at least one infectious disease expert has compared the city to some of the dirtiest slums in the world. The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit surveyed 153 blocks of the city in February, finding giant mounds of trash and food on the majority of streets. At least 100 discarded needles and more than 300 piles of human feces were also found in downtown San Francisco, according to the report. The Democratic Party is definitely not the answer, and the Republican Party often makes the mistake of trying to lean closer to the Democratic Party in order to try to win independent voters. But in the process, the GOP seems to have lost the values and principles that once made it so appealing to so many of us. We need fresh thinking, and we desperately need to return to the values and principles that once made this nation so great. This is what I am proposing, and that is what so many other true conservatives across this land are fighting for. If we keep doing what we have been doing, we are going to keep getting the same results. If we want different results, we need real change, and that means getting rid of most of the people that are currently holding political office all across America. About the author: Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is publisher of The Most Important News and the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT...

Great points. You can add: I was thinking, why has no one asked Kavanaugh's accuser what she, at 15, was doing in a stranger's house, in a bedroom, with teenage boys who were drinking? Something to Think About I was thinking; Since only 11 million people have Obama-Care, how will 24 million people die if it is repealed? Will an additional 13 million people be randomly shot? I was thinking; If Donald Trump deleted all of his emails, wiped his server with Bleachbit and destroyed all of his phones with a hammer, would the Mainstream Media suddenly lose all interest in the story and declare him innocent. I was thinking; If women do the same job for less money, why do companies hire men to do the same job for more money? I was thinking; If you rob a bank in a Sanctuary City, is it illegal or is it just an Undocumented Withdrawal? I was thinking; Each ISIS attack now is a reaction to Trump policies, but all ISIS attacks during Obama's term were due to Climate Change and a plea for jobs. I was thinking; After the London 'Lone Wolf' terrorist attack government officials arrested at least eight other 'Lone Wolves' who had conspired with the original 'Lone Wolf' in planning the 'Lone Wolf' attack. Why do they tell us even though all involved are Muslims, you can be assured, the 'Lone Wolf' attack has nothing at all to do with Islam, just like the other 1,000 plus 'Lone Wolf' attacks by Muslims, are completely unassociated with Islam. I was thinking; We should stop calling them all 'Entitlements'. Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, ad nausea are not entitlements. They are taxpayer-funded handouts, and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veterans Benefits are Entitlements because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients. I was thinking; If Muslims want to run away from a Muslim country, does that mean they're Islamophobic? I was thinking If Liberals don't believe in biological gender then why did they march for women's rights? I was thinking; How did the Russians get Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC to steal the Primary from Bernie Sanders? How did Russia get Donna Brazile to leak debate questions to Hillary Clinton in advance of the debates? I was thinking; Why is it that Democrats think Super delegates are fine, but they have a problem with the Electoral College? I was thinking; If you don't want the FBI involved in elections, don't nominate someone who's being investigated by the FBI. I was thinking; If Hillary's speeches cost $250,000 an hour, how come no one shows up to her free ones? I was thinking; The DNC is mad at Russia because they 'think' they are trying to manipulate our election by exposing that the DNC is manipulating our election. I was thinking; If Democrats don't want foreigners involved in our elections, why do they think it's all right for illegals to vote?

Democratic Socialist want another FBI Investigation...It’s all about delay, to keep their circus 🎪 going!

WHEN THE PROGRESSIVES DEMAND AN FBI INVESTIGATION ... IT IS ALL ABOUT DELAY! Even former Vice President Joe Biden, arguably one of the dumbest members of the United States Senate, knew that using the FBI in 1991 to investigate Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas was useless … biden Senator Joe Biden "FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case reach a conclusion, period." "The reason why I have worked so hard to keep FBI reports totally secret is because they have little or no probative weight, because they are hearsay.” "FBI does their interviews by walking up to person A and saying will you speak to us, and the guarantee is anonymity. That is what the FBI tells the person, and the FBI speaks to the person. Now, for us to summarily go back and say, as a matter of policy, that we are going to break the commitment the Federal Government makes to an individual, in order to get that individual to cooperate in an investigation, is disastrous." "And the last thing I will point out, the next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything, obviously doesn't understand anything." "The FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case reach a conclusion, period, period. So, Judge, there is no reason why you should know this. The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report, you would not like it if we did because it is inconclusive. They say he said, she said, and they said, period. So when people wave an FBI report before you, understand they do not, they do not reach conclusions. They do not make, as my friend points out more accurately, they do not make recommendations." And since when does any congressional committee allow the participants to dictate the terms of the hearing, including the number of cameras and the media to be present? [The accuser’s attorney] Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter. This is only one of the “demands” the accuser has made through her attorneys. Some totally outrageous like demanding the accused testify first, followed by the accuser after the accused leaves the room. One can only believe that all of the negotiations are a stall tactic or a dodge to provide a “lack of fairness” excuse if the accused decides not to testify. Whoops… It appears, as of this hour, that the second accuser is refusing to testify and referring the committee, through her attorneys, to her unsworn story in the New Yorker magazine. Of course, there is no penalty for lying to the media. Additionally, there is some suggestion that the third accuser, represented by the media whore/attorney Michael Avanatti, may have been a hoax played on the attorney. Bottom line… Thursday is a momentous day. Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh will meet his accuser and the committee will decide on Friday whether or not to release the nomination for a floor roll-call vote by the entire Senate. If that was not enough titillation for the media, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein meets President Trump in the White House Oval Office which may decide his short-term future with the Department of Justice. Knowing President Trump does not like to lose control of the daily media cycle, one can only wonder what outrageous thing he might say and do that will counteract coverage of the Kavanaugh hearing. And let us not forget that the progressive socialist democrats and their media propagandists who told us that the probable cause for the Carter Page FISA warrant was contained in the redacted portions of the documents – and who are now fighting so hard to keep the documents from being declassified and a portion unredacted so the people can plainly see what was done in their name. We are so screwed. -- steve

Sociopath... Signs & Behaviors. Reminds me of Leadership of a certain (https://giphy.com/gifs/DOwlR4nSA5pv2/html5) political party...

What Is a Sociopath? Signs and Behaviors Share Flipboard Email silhouette of human figure beest / Getty Images by Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D. Updated May 14, 2018 The term "sociopath" is often used loosely in media and pop culture. But despite being frequently lumped together with psychopaths as likely criminals, not all sociopaths are violent, nor is sociopathy a condition recognized by doctors or psychologists. In the past, sociopathy was considered a form of psychopathy or a closely related condition. In contemporary medical practice, antisocial personality disorder is the diagnosis that best fits the characteristics associated with sociopathy. A Brief History of Sociopathy In the 1880s, the prefix "socio-" first came up in science and medicine. German-American psychiatrist and neurologist Karl Birnbaum appears to have coined the word "sociopathy" in 1909. Then, in 1930, American psychologist George E. Partridge popularized the term and contrasted it with "psychopathy." Partridge described a sociopath as an individual who displayed antisocial behavior or defied social norms. In the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), published in 1952, the condition was identified as sociopathic personality disturbance. Over time, the name continued to change. The modern DSM-5 includes sociopathy under the label antisocial personality disorder. Characteristics and Behaviors Most non-sociopathic individuals display antisocial traits and behaviors from time to time. A diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder requires an ongoing pattern of behavior that produces a consistent negative impact. The standard criteria for antisocial personality disorder includes: A failure to conform to social norms or laws. Lying, usually for personal gain or pleasure, but sometimes for no apparent reason. Impulsive behavior and failure to plan ahead. Irritability, aggression, and poor anger management. Disregard for safety of self or others. Irresponsibility, typically manifesting in problems maintaining employment and relationships or meeting financial obligations. To be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, an individual much be at least 18 years of age and have demonstrated the behavior before 15 years of age. The antisocial behavior cannot occur only in conjunction with other disorders (e.g. schizophrenia). Sociopaths vs. Psychopaths The difference between sociopaths and psychopaths depends on how you define the terms. In the modern era, there are three different definitions of sociopathy, which may be compared with psychopathy: Some doctors and scientists contend that antisocial behavior caused by environmental and social factors is sociopathy, while antisocial behavior stemming from genetics or biology is psychopathy. A few researchers consider sociopathy to be synonymous with psychopathy, or else a less-severe form of psychopathy. In this definition of sociopathy, a sociopath is simply a type of psychopath. Canadian criminal psychologist Robert Hare describes a psychopath as a individual who lacks any sense of morality or empathy, while a sociopath is a person who has a different sense of right and wrong from the majority. How Common Are Sociopaths? Deciphering the prevalence of sociopathy is complicated by its changing definition. However, no matter which definition is used, it's not a rare condition. A 2008 American study identified 1.2 percent of its sample as "potentially psychopathic," correlating with alcohol abuse, violence, and low intelligence. A 2009 British study reported an incidence of 0.6 percent, correlating the traits to male gender, young age, violence, drug use, and other mental disorders. Diagnosed antisocial personality disorder is more common in alcohol or drug abuse treatment programs than in the general population. It occurs more frequently in individuals who were hyperactive as children. Antisocial personality disorder is seen in between 3 percent and 30 percent of psychiatric outpatients. A 2002 literature review found 47 percent of male prisoners and 21 percent of female prisoners had the disorder. Potential Treatment Sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and psychopathy tend not to respond well to treatment. In fact, some studies indicate treatment may worsen the condition. According to Mayo Clinic, there are no drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat antisocial personality disorder. Psychotherapy is often unsuccessful because many sociopaths are won't admit they have a problem or else are unwilling to change. However, if the disorder is identified early (by the teen years), the chance of a better long-term outcome increases. Key Points Although the term "sociopath" is popular, sociopathy is not an actual medical condition. The characteristics associated with sociopathy best fit the description of antisocial personality disorder, which is a diagnosable medical condition. A sociopath lack empathy, disregards societal norms of right and wrong, may be impulsive or take excessive risks, frequently lies, and has trouble maintaining relationships with others. Most people display some of the traits of a sociopath. This does not mean they suffer from a psychological or medical disorder. Psychosis and antisocial personality disorder are characterized by a pattern of behavior that produces a consistent negative impact. Sources Farrington DP, Coid J (2004). "Early Prevention of Adult Antisocial Behavior". Cambridge University Press. p. 82. Retrieved May 8, 2018. Hare RD (1 February 1996). "Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion". Psychiatric Times. UBM Medica. 13 (2). (archived) Kiehl, Kent A.; Hoffman, Morris B. (1 January 2011). "The Criminal Psychopath: History, Neuroscience, Treatment, and Economics". Jurimetrics. 51 (4): 355–397. Mayo Clinic Staff (2 April 2016). "Overview- Antisocial personality disorder". Mayo Clinic. Retrieved May 8, 2018. Mayo Clinic staff (12 April 2013). "Antisocial personality disorder: Treatments and drugs". Mayo Clinic. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Retrieved May 8, 2018. Rutter, Steve (2007). The Psychopath: Theory, Research, and Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 37. Skeem, J. L.; Polaschek, D. L. L.; Patrick, C. J.; Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). "Psychopathic Personality: Bridging the Gap Between Scientific Evidence and Public Policy". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 12 (3): 95–162.

Feinstein Doubles Down on Smearing Kavanaugh...!

SCH-DIFI A personalized email from Senator Dianne Feinstein that addressed few of my concerns… ----- Original Message ----- From: Senator Dianne Feinstein To: Steve@onecitizenspeaking.com Sent: 9/24/2018 4:04:44 PM Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message df-hdr Dear Stephen: Thank you for contacting me about Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. I appreciate you writing to me on this important issue. I have many concerns about Judge Kavanaugh’s record and his views. I also have strongly objected to Republicans’ withholding of millions of documents related to Judge Kavanaugh’s years in President George W. Bush’s White House. The limited White House record we have received indicates that Judge Kavanaugh has given misleading and evasive answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee. After thoroughly reviewing his judicial opinions and participating in four days of testimony at his nomination hearing, my concerns about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination have only deepened. [OCS: One, no other nominee has presented such a rich body of judicial writings as Brett Kavanaugh. Two, because of Kavanaugh’s executive position with the Bush Administration, much of the information sought by the Ranking Democrat cannot be produced without a mass waiver of Executive Privilege and thousands of hours of reviewing and redacting documents – and this is well-known by those who are making the demand. And three, Feinstein’s duty to her Senate Committee, the Senate, and the nation demanded that she not only release the allegations she withheld since July 2018 and pose objective questions to the nominee during the days of private and public hearings.] A Supreme Court Justice’s decisions will affect the lives of all Americans for generations. Judge Kavanaugh holds highly ideological views on a variety of issues, including the Second Amendment, women’s reproductive rights, and the executive power of the presidency. For these reasons, as well as Judge Kavanaugh’s misleading testimony and the lack of transparency, I strongly oppose his nomination. If you would like to read in greater detail the reasons behind my decision, you may find them in my Op-Ed to the Los Angeles Times here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-feinstein-kavanaugh-hearings-20180916-story.html [OCS: One, Feinstein’s assertion that Judge Kavanaugh holds highly ideological views can be translated that the nominee may hold views that run counter to Feinstein’s ideological views. It is impossible to view Feinstein’s assertions with respect to ideological views given that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was an attorney with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and there was no such corresponding demand for documents and writings between Ginsberg and others at the ACLU. Two, there is nothing in the official record that suggests that the nominee provided misleading testimony. Three, as for the lack of transparency, the nominee has provided more information than any other nominee in modern history. Grave allegations about Judge Kavanaugh’s character and integrity have also come to light, and serious questions remain about him in this regard, as indicated in information I referred to the FBI. Due to the gravity of the alleged misconduct, I have called on the White House to direct the FBI to investigate the allegations. I have also called for the Judiciary Committee to not move forward with Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination until it has received a report from the FBI. Many questions must be answered before the Senate moves forward on this nominee. [OCS: Feinstein is being intellectually dishonest. Feinstein refuses to release the letter that she forwarded to the FBI along with her cover letter. But it is well known from reported sources that Dr. Ford’s allegations were vague and without reference to a specific date, time, location, and the number of participants about an event which occurred 36 years ago. In addition, Dr. Ford told her marriage counselor, thirty-years after the fact, she was attacked by four individuals and did not specify names. All of the individuals cited claimed no knowledge of the event or the party mentioned.] I applaud Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s courage, especially as we have seen that her decision to come forward publicly has subjected her to attacks. Sharing an experience involving sexual assault is extraordinarily difficult for any woman, and it is all the more difficult for Dr. Blasey Ford because of public scrutiny. I hope the attacks and shaming of her will stop and that her allegation will be treated with the seriousness it deserves. [OCS: One wonders how much courage was provided by the activist attorneys and others who helped to stage manage this “last-minute” revelation.] Once again, thank you for writing. Should you have any other questions or comments, please call my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at feinstein.senate.gov. You can also follow me online at YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, and you can sign up for my email newsletter at feinstein.senate.gov/newsletter. Best regards. Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein United States Senator It appears that the progressive socialist democrats want to delay the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings until after the 2018 mid-term election when they hold that the narrow majority held by the Republicans in both the House and Senate flips to Democrat-controlled bodies and they may proceed with destroying the Trump Presidency by refusing to confirm his nominees, refusing to allow his legislative initiatives to come to the floor and to possibly impeach, try, and remove President Trump from office. Rank political hypocrisy? Consider Debra Katz, the progressive socialist democrat activist attorney representing Dr. Ford on a sexual allegation by Paula Jones against Bill Clinton… In trying to legally diminish the Jones case, Katz made several public statements in 1998 regarding the interpretation of valid sexual harassment incidents. Katz's comments were all in the context of "even if Jones's allegations are true." In March of 1998: "Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak. She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes." In April 1998: "[This was] clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition" and thus not enough to create a valid sexual harassment claim. Later in 1998: "If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, I would probably tell her that I'm sorry, it's unfair, but you don't have a case." And in a case defending Senator Al Franken from the allegations of eight women… ‘This is not a Harvey Weinstein situation,’ said Debra Katz, a civil rights lawyer who handles sexual harassment cases. ‘Harvey Weinstein was a serial predator who used his power to put women in very vulnerable situations. He abused that power by sexually assaulting women. That’s not what this is.’ Ms. Katz also drew a distinction between Mr. Franken’s role as a comedian and that of a senator. ‘Context is relevant,’ she said. ‘He did not do this as a member of the U.S. Senate. He did this in his capacity of someone who was still functioning as an entertainer.’ Bottom line… The progressive socialist democrats are a true fifth column trying to destroy America from within on behalf of its enemies, both domestic and foreign. If there is an FBI investigation, perhaps it should be an investigation of Dianne Feinstein and any possible collusion with Communist China. And, why Feinstein hid the fact that a Chinese spy worked for Feinstein for 20+ years was allowed to retire rather than face prosecution. We are so screwed. -- steve

Feinstein’s Queen of Democratic Socialists Smear Machine...Remember & Vote Responsibly in November!

ACTIVIST-JUDGE Think about what the progressive socialist democrats are really saying: that unsubstantiated allegations from your time in high school should destroy your career and be a disqualifying factor for public service. According to published reports, Judge Brett Kavanaugh accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has said the FBI should investigate her accusations before she testifies. In a letter to Committee Chuck Grassley, Ford's representative, attorney Debra Katz, has demanded a "full investigation by law enforcement officials" which she says "will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions." Unfortunately, Dr. Ford cannot supply necessary details like: time, date, place, participants other than Judge Kavanaugh and a friend – and has told her therapist years later that there were four boys, but did not name any individuals. In what world do we allow anyone to come forward with an uncorroborated and vague story of sexual abuse approximately 36 years ago and demand to open a criminal investigation of an American citizen. Using this criterion, the entire American system of justice “innocent until proven guilty” on its head. Additionally, the FBI does not investigate state criminal activity nor do they investigate after the statute of limitations expires because the individual cannot be brought before any court in the land. DIFI-SMEAR' "I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know." ~ Senator. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA Dianne Feinstein held the allegations since July to release this bombshell charge just before a confirmation hearing, not to mention that the accuser’s attorney is a known Democrat operative/activist with a known hatred of Donald Trump. Even the alleged lie detector test arranged by her activist attorney is suspicious as the attorney claimed that a polygraph report, “concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate,” which could refer to the transcription of the statement and not that her story itself was accurate. Additionally, the polygraph is not a lie detector and is subject to all manner of flaws, including which questions are asked and how they are asked. To be more specific, both Judge Kavanaugh and his friend, who was said to be in the room and complicit in the attack, have categorically denied that such a scenario happened. Bottom line… Not only is it impossible for the Senate Committee to make a judgment on the accuracy, truth or falsity of the allegations, but even the FBI cannot produce evidence that may have existed 36 years ago. So why are we not surprised that Dianne Feinstein withheld the allegations from the Committee since receiving them in July and presented them with media fanfare weeks before the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice that might fundamentally change the direction of the Court. And two months before a major election when the progressive socialist democrats are trying to influence women, a key voting block, by weaponizing the #MeToo movement for political advantage. Especially playing upon progressive identity politics by featuring the hearing optics of a panel of men interrogating a woman “victim” in distress. WHO IS PAYING FORD'S LEGAL FEES? Dianne Feinstein should be impeached or at least censured. If Ford refuses to testify, open an investigation of her attorney and others for trying to influence an election. We are so screwed. -- steve