The Impeachment of Donald Trump and the Truth About the Democrats

media.defense.gov

The Democrats, time and again, have accused President Trump, among other things, of dividing the nation, spreading hatred, and threatening the integrity of our democracy. These accusations are not at all surprising, although they are totally false, because they follow a predictable pattern among liberals. They accuse others of doing what they themselves are doing.

Take, for example, Russian collusion. Remember that? Turned out that zero collusion was found between Trump or his campaign and the Russians. Huh. Who knew? Wonder why we got that idea in the first place? OH! I remember! Hillary and the democrat party hired a British spy to obtain "dirt" on Trump, which he did, from the Russians! 

And dividing the nation? Who is throwing baseless accusations at the president, duly elected by the American people? Who is calling him Hitler and white supremacist and a traitor? Who is insinuating, on a regular basis, that Trump's supporters must be the same? Who constantly calls people racist, incites resentment among the less affluent for the wealthy, sends protesters to silence conservative speakers and run conservatives out of restaurants? Oh, surprise surprise, it's the Democrats! They are the ones who are dividing the nation, not Trump.

pixabay.com

The current sham follows the same model. You have a vice-president who is the point man for two, and only two, countries. Damned if his son doesn't get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from one of those countries for doing nothing! And, oh! A billion and a half from the other in exchange for doing..... oh, nothing! And Democrats have the gall to accuse Trump of corruption? It's so absurd it would be hysterically funny if it weren't so sickening, not to mention damaging to the country.

But Democrats truly do not care about damage to the country. That fact is glaringly obvious. They will do anything— that is, anything— to obtain and maintain power. Their hatred for this president is so psychotically extreme, they are perfectly willing to trash the constitution, trample on the democratic process, and smear half the country's voters to get their way. 

Their appalling behavior exposes their greed for power in no uncertain terms. It is both disgusting and dangerous, and people like Adam Schiff, making up a conversation that did not exist between Trump and the Ukrainian president and blurting it out on television in the hope that enough stupid people would see it and believe it is, sadly, typical of the lying that has become second nature to most of the liberal leadership.

And stupid people are those who fall for the Democrats' contrived scandals, such as the current so-called impeachment, which isn't, really, because Pelosi won't let her members vote on it in order to protect them from having to go on the record, for or against: pretty spineless, but again, not surprising. Oh, and holding a vote would enable Republicans to call witnesses to testify as well, and that can't happen, right?

Trump had every right to bring up the ongoing investigation into pre-election corruption involving Ukraine, since, after all, the Ukrainians have admitted that they did attempt to interfere, with the aim of promoting Hillary Clinton.

President Trump had every right to ask for cooperation in looking into what may have been criminal, or, at the very least, grossly improper, use of the vice-presidential office for self-enrichment. He did not ask them to "dig up dirt", another blatant lie. He asked about a very specific situation that is already known. Nothing needs to be "dug up"! (And anyone looking at the known facts of that case who doesn't agree that it's very fishy is either dumb or lying.)

photo: public domain

So, Biden shouldn't be investigated because he is running for office? That makes him immune? Oh, right, I forgot, just as Hillary Clinton was immune to being charged with the offenses she absolutely committed with regard to the email debacle. I guess Democrats are not held accountable for their mis-deeds, but Republicans are held accountable for deeds they did not commit. Makes sense.

Every American who subscribes to the nonsense the Democrat leadership is perpetrating on our country is either complicit in the racket or not smart enough to be. It is simply a naked grab for power, an attempt to reverse an election because they didn't like it, and because they know that Trump is very likely to win again in 2020. Can't have that, can we? Let's make the American people believe that he's a criminal! It's not true, but they won't know that, right?

Unethical is too mild a term to describe this repugnant scam. Unpatriotic is not strong enough either, though it is both of those. No, the Democrats' behavior is descpicable, and they all should be ashamed of themselves. But, of course, they are not. They never are.

Kat

Hatred in America, 2019

It's amazing. It is utterly amazing. Over two years after Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States, liberals are still acting like toddlers whose lollipop just got taken away from them. Why won't liberals just get over it?

photo: Lance Cheung/public domain

Honestly, if it weren't so damaging to the republic, it would be funny. Oh hell, it IS funny! It's like they're competing against one another for who can make the biggest fool out of themselves, and it is amusing to watch. 

"He's a racist!" "He's a Russian spy!!" "He's mentally unbalanced!" "He's unfit for the presidency!"

I'm waiting for "He's an alien, planted among us to destroy the universe!"

That's how silly they sound. And it is humorous. But it's also destructive to our country.

The hatred that liberals are displaying for our duly elected president is literally derailing our system of government. They are so hyper-focused on finding a way to bring him down, to un-do what the American people have, by fair and legal means, decided, that they are ignoring the real and serious problems that face this country. 

Much has been said in the past few years about the level of hatred that is swirling through American society since Trump was elected, and that seems to be accurate. However, it is not the fantasy of rampant racism and intolerance emanating from Trump and his supporters, it is the hatred of Trump himself and his followers by liberals that has sent the wheel of hatred spinning through our national discourse.

From conservatives being banned from social media, again and again, to attacks in restaurants and airports on conservatives, to chasing conservative speakers (literally) from college campuses, to punching people wearing MAGA hats.... yes, the hatred is there, and it's coming almost entirely from the left. (go ahead and cite the few incidents of violence perpetrated by conservatives and make a list, two columns... one will be hugely longer than the other, I promise)

The world stage is in a precarious position right now, with the middle East a veritable tinder box, India and Pakistan waving nukes at one another across the border, China rampantly stealing our technology (including military) and surreptitiously establishing land bases in international waters, North Korea building and testing nuclear missiles that can reach the U.S. and Russia hell bent on sowing discord among us to disrupt the smooth transition of power and unbalance our republic. And the liberals are worried about the last ten years of Donald Trump's tax returns.

photo:  Tony Webster/wikimedia commons

Their visceral hatred for him not only blinds them to serious issues around the world, it warps their judgement at home as well. The liberals know very well that a wall at the southern border, in areas where such structures are appropriate, would drastically decrease the flow if illegal aliens, drugs, human trafficking and gang infiltration at our border. Of course they know that. But their hatred of Donald Trump himself has rendered them totally incapable of relying on reason to make decisions regarding our southern border. 

Liberals know that babies born alive cannot be murdered on the table. Of course they know that. But, as with the wall, they cannot allow Trump to have a "win" with his base. They must prevent him from any and every possible success, even when his achievements are helpful to the United States of America. Hatred for Trump comes first, last and only, well-being of the nation be damned.

photo: pixabay

That this puts liberals in with the same playground name-calling as a group of seven-year-olds goes without saying. But it really is surprising how few seem even capable of addressing national concerns at all, so great is their focus on destroying Trump. The nation's business is being largely ignored in this era of "let's get him!", much to the disgrace of the vast majority of those on the left. 

Let us hope that we do not suffer a major event, such as a large-scale terrorist attack, cyber attack or destruction of the grid while half the law-makers' focus is on bringing down a president. They will not be ready to deal with such a catastrophe, so great is their day-to-day compulsion to destroy the reviled commander-in-chief. Their childish, unmitigated hatred is destructive, precludes progress on real national issues, and is, frankly, dangerous. 

While it is tempting to shake our heads and chuckle at the absurd conniptions of the left, they need to be shown what fools they are making of themselves and wake up to the disservice they are doing to their country. They should know that they, not Donald J. Trump are, in 2019, the fountain of hatred and the country's great disgrace.

Kat

"To Be Believed": The Case Against Blasey Ford & the Democrats

(source: senate.gov)

First I would like to make clear that I am a person of empathy and compassion for women – and men – who are victims of sexual harassment, abuse and assault. These are serious, heinous crimes that have terrible, lasting effects on the survivors. In no way should they ever be excused, minimized or tolerated.

Because I feel for survivors, I tend to believe those who come forward with allegations of this nature. Most people who do so are courageous and resilient, and offer hope to those who have not yet spoken up about their own experience. However, it is also true that sex crimes have a higher rate of false reporting than has been claimed in recent weeks by those supporting Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations. The figure that has been cited is that only 2% of reports of sexual crimes are false. According to criminologist Brent E. Turvey that rate is actually closer to 40%. Even the Pentagon reports that approximately 25% of reported sexual crimes in the military are found to be unsubstantiated. (Rowan Scarborough/ Washington Times/7 Oct 2018) With this in mind, it makes sense to question reports of sexual assault and not to assume that all women are simply “to be believed”.

That caution is particularly valid when the purpose of the disclosure is to affect the political process. Ford said that she felt it was her “civic duty” to disclose her experience so that it could be considered in the process of vetting a Supreme Court nominee. That is, by definition, political motivation. Not to imply that that in itself means she is not telling the truth, just that it should be noted along with other factors when evaluating her claims.

So what are her claims? Well, she described the assault itself with pretty solid detail, to be sure. However, she did not recall when it took place, where it took place, how old she was, how she got to the party, how she got home, how many were at the party, who she talked to at the party or any more than the four named who were at the party (none of whom could corroborate her story). Those are not only major holes in her story, but also very convenient holes if your purpose is to falsely accuse someone of the offense. Sketchy, to say the least. There may never be a confirmed answer as to whether or not this assault ever happened. Therefore it is left to us, based on what we have seen and heard (or not), to decide for ourselves. I believe Ford was lying. Here is why:

At first Ford said she wasn’t sure of the year, let alone the month or day of the assault. She later settled on 1982, but still no month or day. It is sincerely doubtful that such a traumatic event could not even be placed in the right year by the victim. She was not claiming that she’d repressed the memory, when it might have made sense that the year and month could be in question, rather she said that she had remembered it all along and it had affected her life through the years. Even when she decided that it was 1982 she couldn’t name a month or day.

I find this to be quite convenient for Ford and her Democrat friends. After all, had she been able to name the day, or even the month, the Democrats could not have been sure that Kavanaugh may not have had an alibi for that time. Had she said it was July 17th, for example, he may have been able to prove that he was at his aunt’s funeral in Illinois on that day. If she’d said it was even in July, well he may have been at basketball camp that entire month. They didn’t know, so they couldn’t risk putting even a rough date on the accusation. It was necessary to leave it vague and un-provable. That way he had little chance of being able to provide any specific alibi.

Her assertions that she was afraid to fly were easily shown to be lies by the questioning attorney. When asked why she didn’t take the Judiciary Committee up on their offer to interview her at her home in CA, she had to pretend she hadn’t known about that offer. Really? It was all over the news for several days prior to the hearing. But she had to have some reason why she didn’t agree to those terms, which would have provided for a private interview, away from cameras and reporters, presumably what she would have preferred. The reason, of course, is because the Democrats didn’t want a private interview. They wanted the media circus that they orchestrated. A private interview at Ford’s home wouldn’t have accomplished the display that they needed to put on for public consumption.

But what about Ford’s demeanor during the hearing? Wasn’t she so very credible? Didn’t she seem sincerely traumatized and “terrified” to testify? Yes, she did seem so. I could have too. It’s not hard for someone with decent acting skills to appear to be sincere, traumatized and entirely truthful. Her convincing demeanor proves exactly nothing. (More than one person who has known Ford for years have said that they never heard her speak in the “little girl” voice that she used during her testimony.)

What about the polygraph test? And the therapist’s notes? In the first place, neither were provided to the Republicans for examination, even though they were cited as evidence. (Gregg Re, John Roberts/Fox News/10/04/18) Secondly, the reason polygraph tests are inadmissible in court is because they are not that difficult to “pass” fraudulently and are easily manipulated by the person administering the test. A former boyfriend reported that he had witnessed Ford coaching a friend on how to pass a polygraph test. (Gregg Re, John Roberts/Fox News/10/04/18) As for the therapist’s notes, I would have liked for the FBI to have been provided with the originals. It is possible to forensically date how long the ink has been on the paper. I wonder if it would have indicated several years ago, as reported, or perhaps closer to July of 2018. But these documents weren’t provided despite requests for them. No wonder.

This entire accusation was concocted by the Democrats. It was held back as a last resort, in case Kavanaugh could not be stopped by other means. When it looked like he had the votes to be confirmed, the fraud was set in motion.

How Ford was contacted will likely never be known, but it wouldn’t be hard to identify and approach a person sympathetic to the Democrats for the purpose of recruiting that person, particularly if there were financial incentive involved. (What is Ford’s ‘gofundme’ page up to now, half a million at last count?) That is not to mention the book deals and movie screenplays that will likely gain her many more millions in the future nor the feminist heroine stature that will follow her for the rest of her life in professional, social and political circles. She is a liar, but she’s not stupid. And, by the way, check out Palo Alto University, where she is a professor of psychology. It is an eye-opening example of an ultra-feminist institution which specializes in women’s trauma, combating male patriarchy and feminist political activism. See? Not that hard to find her.

How the Democrats could do something so incredibly devious, disgraceful and damaging is easily identified. POWER. That’s it.

The Democrats are terrified of a Supreme Court that has a majority of justices who actually do what they’re supposed to do: interpret the Constitution. They need justices who will base decisions on what they wish the Constitution said, shape law from whole cloth, read things into our most revered document that are not there, turn the intention of the founders on its head in order to achieve the social change they desire. They need these justices because it is the only way they can ram their extremist, socialist agenda down the throat of the American voter who will not support their ultra-liberal policies at the ballot box. The fact that Kavanaugh is far from the most conservative judge that could have been nominated and is, in fact, considered by constitutional scholars to be within the “mainstream” of judicial thought that the Democrats are always talking about illustrates their level of desperation. With Kavanaugh now on the Court, it is likely to remain a conservative majority for decades. The best avenue for Democrats to pursue their aims is now closed to them.

For this reason they have shamelessly perverted the process of selecting Supreme Court justices, destroyed an innocent man’s reputation, dragged his wife and two young girls through the mud, created and deepened division in the county, demeaned the Senate as a governing body, and turned their backs on any chance of conducting their responsibilities in a decent, civil manner with their colleagues on the other side. They have shown themselves to care much more about their own power over the lives of Americans than about the integrity and well-being of America herself.

That is completely unforgivable.

Kat

- Washington Times Article

- Fox News Article

The Shame of the Democrats: More Disgraceful Than Any of the Accusations

(image: wikimedia.com)

Exactly as expected, the Democrats have trotted out yet another liar to smear the impeccable Judge Kavanaugh, nominee for Supreme Court justice. Of course they did. The initial vote on Kavanaugh was scheduled for Friday, after all. Apparently the first two accusers were not enough. So here comes number three, and there will most certainly be a number four and a number five and as many as can be digested and spewed out by the compliant media prior to the final vote.

This is not only outrageous behavior by a group of lawmakers who are supposed to embody some level of integrity and decency, it is a frightening statement of what the Democrat Party has become. Sadly, this is only the latest, though perhaps most egregious, example of the willingness of the Democrats to lie outright in order to derail a legitimate process set in motion by the voters of the United States.

Yes, lie. These are all lies, make no mistake about it. There is zero evidence for any of it, only the statements of these women who were likely recruited, carefully and indirectly, by democrat politicians. The only possibility that there is any shred of truth to it at all would be that possibly the first accuser has the wrong person in her memory of who assaulted her. The rest of it are bold faced lies, cut out of whole cloth.

Why would the Democrats do such a thing? Because they are terrified of losing the court for decades to come. The Supreme Court, of course, is the only means by which they can force their destructive, socialist, ultra-liberal agenda past the American voter and they know it. Without the help of activist justices on the Supreme Court, they will be utterly unable to abolish the second amendment, introduce open borders, prevent the rolling back of Roe v Wade and ultimately turn the entire country into the cesspool that cities like San Francisco and Chicago, under democrat leadership, have become.

That is the motivation, and smearing and destroying a decent person who they know to be completely innocent is the method. It is appalling behavior for anyone, but especially for so-called leaders who are supposed to be able to be held up as shining examples of dedicated Americans who serve their country and interact decently and fairly with political opponents. They are proving themselves to be anything but. This campaign of mud slinging is vicious, shameful and extremely destructive to the cherished processes and institutions that are held so dear in this country.

If this disgusting campaign of sleaze should succeed and Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is defeated, then any other conservative person who attempts to rise to any position of authority in government can be destroyed by any outlandish, unsubstantiated accusation that may be thrown at them by the opposition. That cannot be allowed to occur in a country where justice is a most prized attribute.

The Democrats, both those who are actively putting forth these women and those who are remaining silent and allowing this disgrace to go forward, should be deeply and utterly ashamed.

Kat

Is President Trump A Racist?

(wikimedia commons)

No. He's not.

Oh, he is, you say? I'm wrong then? Okay, well show me how you know that he is racist. Give me examples of his behavior that illustrate racism.

Oh, wait - I think I know what you're going to say. He said that immigrants were rapists and drug dealers, right? And the immigrants he was referring to were Mexican, right, so he is racist, right?

According to reporter Ryan Gorman of The Daily Mail.com, about 60% of illegal female immigrants face some kind of sexual violence during their migration from their home countries to the United States. (The Daily Mail.com, 25 April 2014) Of course, Gorman includes the fact that these attacks "have even been at the hands of at least one U.S. Border Patrol agent". Trust me, if he could find more than the one case, he would have listed them.

No, the vast majority of these en-route sexual assaults are perpetrated by coyotes, the "guides" who are paid to get the migrants to the U.S., and by fellow migrants. These would be primarily Mexicans and Central Americans. The Huffington Post, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, puts the estimated number of victimes at 80% of girls and women crossing into the United States. (huffingtonpost.com, 12 Sept. 2014) So yes, many Mexicans bringing illegal immigrants to our borders as well as some of the immigrants themselves are rapists. No racism there!

(wikimedia commons)

And drug smugglers? The venerated New York Times reports that in 2016 "about two million pounds of illegal drugs were seized by Customs and Border Protection". (Drew Jordan and Mark Scheffler, nytimes.com, 25 July 2017) Because it has grown so rapidly and expanded so much in recent years, the illegal drug industry has actually become vital to the Mexican economy. Worth now over $50 billion per year, it is estimated that Mexico's economy would shrink by more than 60% were the drug traffickers to be put out of business. (drug trafficking statistics/drugabuse.net, 2017) So yes, there are a significant number of Mexicans coming to our borders who are smuggling drugs. No racism there either!

It is true that the way in which Donald Trump chose to describe many of the problems coming to the U.S. along with illegal immigrants from Mexico was not particularly well stated or well clarified at the time. But a clumsy delivery of fact does not amount to racism.

Well what about the "Muslim ban", you say? Trump is a racist because he doesn't want Muslims to come to our country, right? Again, Trump's statement that we need to stop Muslims from entering the U.S. until a proper vetting process could be developed and implemented was poorly worded. By saying "Muslims", he clearly meant individuals from primarily Muslim countries. If he meant to ban Muslims, he would not have listed only the countries that were in the initial temporary ban proposal. Certainly he would have included Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Wouldn't he?

As it was, the initial plan banned travel by individuals from countries which are either in such turmoil that accessing any reliable records for its citizens is impossible and/or those that have harbored terrorists or sponsored terrorism. That they were all countries with a majority Muslim population is true. But nearly all terrorism in recent years has been at the hands of Muslim extremists! It follows, then, that Trump's responsibility to protect U.S. citizens from future terrorist attacks was the focus of his temporary ban. So I guess that makes sense, correct? No racism there.

But oh, what about when he said that a Mexican-American judge couldn't be impartial because he was Mexican? Surely THAT proves him to be a racist, right? Sorry, wrong again. Donald never said that he was a poor judge simply because he was Mexican-American. What he implied was that because Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel was of Mexican heritage (his parents emigrated from Mexico in the 1920's), and that Trump was embroiled in controversy over his proposal to build a wall to block illegal immigration from Mexico, he could have a conflict of interest in dealing with the case against Trump University.

Whether Judge Curiel was conflicted or not, it was certainly not unreasonable to pose the question, was it? — especially given how front and center the issue of the wall was at that precise moment in the political discourse. Be honest now, if it were you who were to be judged by someone who may reasonably be supposed to have a conflict of interest, wouldn't you at least bring it up? So again, no racism.

Well, Donald Trump is a white supremacist, isn't he? Doesn't he support the views held by David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan? Nope. There are numerous tapes out there, from before his candidacy as well as during the campaign, where Trump denounces, in no uncertain terms, both David Duke and the Klan and, in fact, all white supremacist nonsense. 

But I guess that doesn't count, because he didn't immediately jump out after the Charlottesville riot and use the precise wording that his opponents wanted to hear to denounce the activity of racist groups at that event. 

That he was said to "walk back" his clarifying statement on the incident by reiterating that not everyone there was a bad person, ignores that he was referring to the presence of some of the protesters in Charlottesville that day, who were not white supremacists, but merely wanted to prevent the statue of Robert E. Lee from being removed, for historical purposes. He wasn't implying that the white nationalist element were the decent people. And he was correct that "both sides" had a part in the instigation of violence. Some Antifa members arrived at the protest with cement-filled cans, baseball bats and improvised flame-throwers, some even possessed semiautomatic weapons. (Chris Mondics/ The Inquirer Daily News 16 August 2017)

Once again, Trump is not skilled in the exacting communication of the polished politician. He has, perhaps, a flawed understanding of how vital each word chosen and voiced can be, especially under the hostile microscope of the American press. Donald Trump is a plain spoken, brash and bold New Yorker. He pretty much says what goes through his mind and is not good at filtering his thoughts so that the words that come out are the most likely to be understood as they are meant.

I would agree that this is not a commendable characteristic for a president. In fact, I wish he'd get coaching in this area, as these skills can be learned. Certainly, his rough-hewn speech is not helpful to himself as a newly minted politician. But neither does it reflect any kind of racism on his part.

In addition, not one person who has personally known Donald Trump over the years has ever accused him of any sort of racial slur or of behaving with any kind of racial animosity or bias towards anyone. Even Geraldo Rivera, a far leftie who has known Trump for decades, swears that all this talk of Trump holding racist views is totally and entirely false.

Not to mention that Trump was awarded, along with others such as Muhammed Ali and Rosa Parks, the Ellis Island Award in 1986 at the 100th anniversary of the Statue of Liberty's dedication. Meant to honor leaders who "exemplify a life dedicated to community service", among other criteria, Trump had his photo taken at the ceremony with Ali and Parks. Hardly a plausible scenario for a racist, but this event is apparently forgotten.

Thirteen years later, Trump was highly lauded by none other than self-appointed black leader Jesse Jackson, in praise of a lifetime of helping the African American community with the Rainbow-PUSH coalition. Again, this has been conveniently swept under the proverbial rug.

We know that "racist" is the accusation hurled by the left at anyone who disagrees with their dogma (especially after attempts to prove "Russian collusion" fail). Because it is such a horrific charge, even the act of denying that one is a racist can permanently mar the reputation of that individual, a truth that liberals are acutely aware of and, in fact, count on. 

Not that words don't matter, since we have seen here that they clearly do, but what matters even more than words are actions and behavior, wouldn't you agree? Who then, are the true racists in America today? Why not take a moment to examine the state of our cities' black communities these days, as opposed to prior to the implementation of decades of liberal policy? 

Those cities which have been run almost exclusively by democrats for decades show a sharp decline in nearly every quality of life measure in their African-American populations. These include Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Newark and, of course, Chicago, where 323 people died of gun violence in the first six months of 2017. (christianpost.com, 7 July 2017) A majority of those deaths were black young men.

You would think that liberals would be horrified at what their policies have resulted in, would be jumping up and down to make the changes necessary to turn these deplorable (yes, deplorable) trends around. But, despite their dismal failure at "helping" African-Americans in the cities that they run, liberals continue to call for the same policies to be continued and for more money to be poured into more of the same sorts of programs that have led, over and over again, to disastrous results and worsening conditions for their black communities. Then they hold out their hands for votes, in the belief that their African-American constituents will surely want more of their "help".

So who are the real racists in America today? I'll tell you one thing—

it ain't Donald Trump.

Kat

Neil Gorsuch: Why He is Unassailable as a Prospective Supreme Court Justice

Judge Neil Gorsuch (wikimedia commons)

Judge Neil Gorsuch is the perfect nominee for the Supreme Court. Why? He understands exactly what his job is... and what it is not. A concept which seems to be lost on many liberals. I can't quite tell if they're too stupid to understand the purpose of the Supreme Court, or if they are pretending they don't so they can push their liberal agenda, using the court system. Could be either.

One of the cases used to attempt to show how horribly harsh and thoughtless Judge Gorsuch is was the case of the truck driver whose rig was stuck in a snow storm on the highway in sub-zero temperatures in the middle of the night. Apparently the man radioed in and was told to stay with the rig, as was company policy, until help arrived. He waited and waited and help didn't arrive. Finally, at the point of hypothermia, the trucker left the rig to get help. He was fired for disobeying company policy and direct instructions. Judge Gorsuch sided with the company. WHAT A MEEEEEAN MAN!

Okay, liberals, now listen up. I'm going to try to explain how a judge operates (or should) using the absurd to illustrate. Ready? Okay, suppose, just for the sake of argument, that there was a law on the books in the state where this event took place that said "Any trucking company has the right to require a trucker to remain with his rig, regardless of weather conditions or how long he is forced to wait for help to arrive." Silly law, but remember, I'm using the absurd to make a point!

So the man goes to court and tells his story. Judge Gorsuch isn't really such a meanie. Let's say he was all choked up, listening to the man's recounting of the events of that frigid night. No, lets's say Judge Gorsuch was spilling tears of sympathy as he listened to the man describe how cold he was, how afraid he was that he would freeze to death, how he called his wife from the cab and said goodbye to her in case he didn't make it.

But how the good judge felt about the story, however unfair he thought the company was to fire him for leaving the truck, he would be compelled to rule in favor of the company, because the law says that it is legal to require him to stay and he violated that requirement. Now it may be a bad law. But it is not the judge's job to change that law, only to apply it as it is currently in force.

(pixabay.com)

So where's the justice?? Well, perhaps the state legislature, after seeing that the ruling the court handed down seemed terribly unfair to the trucker, might decide that the law may be a bad one. Maybe that law needs to be changed or scrapped from the books. It is their job to change or eliminate the law, not the judge's.

Do you get it now??? It's really not that hard. But, of course, if this were not the case - if judges were supposed to rule based on their personal feelings about a case or a litigant - that makes it much easier for liberals, who have hard time getting their ideas accepted at the ballot box (because they are absurd), to manipulate the law to their liking. And that's really what it's all about.

Judge Gorsuch knows, as he has demonstrated in his hearings, that his job is to apply the law as it is written. And that's whether he thinks the outcome is fair or unfair. He knows that he must leave it to the legislature to decide on the fairness of a law and take action to correct any unfairness. He will not make a decision based on his personal beliefs, ideology, or feelings. He will put those aside and consider only what the law says.

That is why he is unassailable. Because that is what a judge is supposed to do. Period.

Kat

Ninth Circus Court and Ridiculous Ruling

(pixabay.com)

What Are They Thinking?

The ninth circus court has done it again! An absurd ruling, based on extreme liberal bias and contrary to their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution and follow the law. Never fear, they will, once again, be overruled, assuming the Constitution eventually wins out, since it so clearly and unambiguously provides for the temporary travel ban that President Trump put in place.

Of course, there is always the fear, more and more so over the past eight years, that liberalism run amok could prevail, which would indeed be a tragedy and would only continue the downward spiral of our once glorious country. That is why this particular case carries so much weight. Not only because the original intent of the ban is being thwarted and our safety as a nation threatened, though that is a grave enough consequence, but because our very integrity and continued existence as a country is being threatened as well. 

There is no question that the President has the absolute right to do what he did. The ninth circus court's primary objection seems to be that he can't prove to them that there is a threat sufficient to require the ban. Well he doesn't have to do that! Nowhere does it say that he must justify his actions in this regard to anyone! The President has access to very sensitive and confidential intelligence that can't and should not be shared with any idiotic court! It is not their purpose to satisfy themselves that President Trump made a GOOD decision, only whether or not he has the RIGHT to make the decision, which he clearly does.

Not only that, but let's have a DUH moment here, shall we? Do the members of the court not believe that travel from countries like YEMEN and SOMALIA without any ability to know who is coming or why is NOT a threat to the United States' safety? REALLY???? Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that those countries as well as the other five in the ban certainly DO pose a threat to the United States. All together, now..... DUHHHH!

If this ridiculous ruling should prevail in the end, this would mean that - oh, let's say North Korea - suddenly begins to threaten the U.S. with the nuclear arsenal that it does possess, claiming that they will either launch them towards the West Coast or maybe they'll carry them in to the country in a briefcase and set them off in an American city. But these threats are only perceived by the intelligence community and are not generally known to the public. The President would not be allowed to ban travel from North Korea to the U.S. How insane is that?

And, as for the concern of the court that Trump's intention was to impose a "Muslim ban"... what possible difference does that make?? It would be one thing if he had intended a Muslim ban and then proceeded to impose travel bans on all countries with majority Muslim populations, but that's not the case! What his initial intention might have been is totally irrelevant. It is obviously NOT a Muslim ban, since most of the world's Muslim countries are not on the damn list! Another DUH! Since the court cannot read the man's mind, they must go on what is EVIDENT, and that is that certain countries who have a history of harboring, encouraging and exporting terror AND who are currently unable to provide citizens with reliable proof of identity were chosen for this temporary ban.

As usual, since the libs cannot win at the ballot box, they are attempting to create law and impose their will from the benches of our court system. Sadly, they have plenty of willing accomplices on those courts, due to Harry Reid's decimation of Senate procedural rules, allowing Obama to stuff the courts with liberals over the course of eight years.

(morguefile.com)

In my opinion, this Trump administration represents a tipping point. Either our country will continue to decline and eventually drown in a swamp of liberal debris, or we will turn the country around and begin to reclaim the nation that our founders left for us. With this in mind, I hope they invoke Reid's nuclear option and push Neil Gorsuch through so that there will begin to be some level of sanity restored to the Supreme Court. God willing, there will be more SCOTUS appointments in Trump's future.

We must focus on regaining the integrity, nobility, and spirit of the United States as it was founded and supported by the Constitution of the United States. If the Constitution is the deciding factor, as it should be, then President Trump's ban will eventually go back into effect. In the meantime, I would not want to be one of these foolish judges when, God forbid, someone from Somalia who enters the U.S. this weekend ends up shooting up a mall or blowing up a plane a few months from now. Would you?

Kat