No More Kavanaugh Cartoons After These. Back To Radical Progressive Hypocrisies etc. Dershowitz - Lost Opportunity. Another Rant.

No more Kavanaugh cartoons. We need to get back to other untruths, hypocrisies and radical progressive attempts at stonewalling in order to  make America worse again.

Right click. then click on open link incognito window on the  bottom "left" video and listen to "Upchuck"Schumer. Then have a nice day!

And:

This from a very dear and old friend and fellow memo reader responding to my previous posting about rules and regulations and respect for the rule of law: "Given enough minute regulations, we are all in violation of something that awaits discovery when we become inconvenient to those in power. It is a means to tyranny. Ann Nonimus"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More intimidation efforts from the radical  liberal academic crowd. (See 1 and link below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ACLU oversteps .

I tried to get Dershowitz to speak at  The SIRC's President's Day Dinner  this coming February but he declined because he said, being a Democrat, he would  not feel comfortable raising money for Republican Candidates.

I understand his reticence but it would have been a great opportunity for conservatives to hear from a rational, courageous  liberal.(See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Waterloo? (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This from a great, former district attorney who knows something about the law.
If this does not answer those who are critical of Kavanaugh's temperament then nothing will,  I suggest "Spartacus" should choke on this.(See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More Rant. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The  November election will turn on the following, in my opinion.

a) Will a continued negative message and obstructionism by radical progressives  overcome an attempt to move forward on the part of Trump?

Does a positive economy count for anything?

Will the Kavanaugh Hearings and results energize enough Republicans to offset the hatred on the part of Democrats and the increase in their registration numbers?

Will Mueller begin to leak negative news that puts Trump in  a bad light and unable to respond to because Democrats are going to make the election all about Trump ?

Will bad weather effect voter turnout?

Will there be any foreign  events that could impact voting decisions and/or will there be any further revelations regarding senior government officials, in various agencies, were engaged in making sure Trump did not win and could not govern?

There is no doubt in my mind, between now and November, Democrats will do everything they can to smear Trump while various fascistic groups will rally and organize to defeat Trump and they will have the funding from the Soros types or have the radical progressives so overplayed their hand in the Kavanaugh Hearings they have turned off many of their own and turned on many of their adversaries?
  As for myself I believe The Republicans pick up a few Senate seats and lose a few House seats. The market will take this result positively.  If Democrats capture The House the market could sink like a stone.

What do you think  Time will tell.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) University of Michigan Student: I Was Forced to Attend ‘Antisemitic Lecture’ Comparing Netanyahu to Hitler

An undergraduate at the University of Michigan said she “was forced to sit through an overtly antisemitic lecture” on Thursday, which compared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler.

Alexa Smith, a senior, said the presentation was part of the Penny Stamps Speaker Series, which arts and design students are required to attend.

The image — shared by lecturer Emory Douglas, a graphic designer who served as minister of culture for the Black Panther Party — branded both Netanyahu and Hitler with the caption, “Guilty of Genocide.”

“In what world is it ok for a mandatory course to host a speaker who compares Adolf Hitler to the Prime Minister of Israel?” Smith asked in a Facebook post shared on Friday.

 “As a Wolverine, I sat through this lecture horrified at the hatred and intolerance being spewed on our campus,” she continued. “As a Jew who is proud of my people and my homeland, I sat through this lecture feeling targeted and smeared to be as evil as the man who perpetuated the Holocaust and systematically murdered six million Jews.”

Smith — a member of the campus group WolvPAC, which aims to promote the US-Israel relationship — said her recent experience was not unprecedented.

Two years earlier, she attended another Stamps lecture with comic book artist Joe Sacco, who “made references to Israel being a terrorist state and explicitly claimed that Israeli soldiers were unworthy of being represented as actual human beings in his artwork.”

“This time I will no longer sit quietly and allow others to dehumanize my people and my community,” Smith said. “The administration is repeatedly failing to forcefully respond to antisemitism, and so it comes back worse and worse each time. A line needs to be drawn and it needs to be drawn now.”

Rick Fitzgerald, a spokesperson for U-M, told The Algemeiner that Douglas’ lecture centered on the “vast body of work” he produced, most during his time with the Black Panther Party.

“His presentation included a video and nearly 200 slides with images of his work,” Fitzgerald said. “He presented and discussed a wide array of topics and subject matter, much of which was focused on the oppression of people across the globe by governmental powers.”

“The Stamps program is intentionally provocative and we are clear with our students about this,” he continued.

Part of the introduction to the event includes a disclaimer emphasizing the diversity and independence of speakers, which the university does not “control or censor,” Fitzgerald added.

He said undergraduates only need to select and attend 10 of 14 scheduled Stamps events to receive the required credit.

The incident comes shortly after a U-M digital studies professor, John Cheney-Lippold, rescinded an offer to write a letter of recommendation for a student after learning she sought to study abroad in Tel Aviv.

The professor, a supporter of academic boycotts targeting the Jewish state, defended his position amid significant criticism — including from the university president, who disavowed boycotts of Israel, and a regent who called the professor’s behavior “antisemitic.”

In response to the controversy, an executive faculty body at the school urged professors last week to base their letters of recommendations on “student’s merit” — a statement that was criticized by some for its ambiguity over disciplinary action. Tammi Rossman-Benjamin — director of the AMCHA Initiative, a campus antisemitism watchdog that led nearly 60 groups in condemning Cheney-Lippold — called the statement “irrelevant,” pointing out that it did not clarify whether any faculty members who violate it would be penalized.

Rossman-Benjamin estimated that “there are probably close to 2,000 faculty across the country who have endorsed some version of the academic boycott of Israel,” including at least two dozen at U-M, a number of whom serve in leadership roles within their departments.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/10/05/at-protest-students-say-columbia-university-fails-to-protect-zionists-from-harassment/?utm_content=news1&utm_medium=daily_email&utm_campaign=email&utm_source=internal/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2) ACLU's Opposition to Kavanaugh Sounds Its Death Knell

by Alan M. Dershowitz

Now that Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed, it is appropriate to look at the damage caused by the highly partisan confirmation process. Among the casualties has been an organization I have long admired.

After Politico reported that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was spending more than $1 million to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court, I checked the ACLU website to see if its core mission had changed -- if the ACLU had now officially abandoned its non-partisan nature and become yet another Democratic super PAC. But no, the ACLU still claims it is "non-partisan."

So why did the ACLU oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against that judicial nominee?

The answer is as clear as it is simple. It is all about pleasing the donors. The ACLU used to be cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after Trump taking office, the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet principle-poor. Before Donald Trump was elected President, the ACLU had an annual operating budget of $60 million dollars.[1] When I was on the ACLU National Board, it was a fraction of that amount. Today it is flush with cash, with net assets of over $450 million dollars. As the ACLU itself admitted in its annual report ending 2017, it received "unprecedented donations" after President Trump's election. Unprecedented" it truly has been: the ACLU received $120 million dollars from online donations alone (up from $3-5 million during the Obama years).

The problem is that most of the money is not coming from civil libertarians who care about free speech, due process, the rights of the accused and defending the unpopular. It is coming from radical leftists in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and other areas not known for a deep commitment to civil liberties. To its everlasting disgrace, the ACLU is abandoning its mission in order to follow the money. It now spends millions of dollars on TV ads that are indistinguishable from left wing organizations, such as MoveOn, the Democratic National Committee and other partisan groups.

As the New Yorker reported on the ACLU's "reinvention in the Trump era,"

"In this midterm year...as progressive groups have mushroomed and grown more active, and as liberal billionaires such as Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer have begun to imagine themselves as political heroes and eye Presidential runs, the A.C.L.U., itself newly flush, has begun to an active role in elections. The group has plans to spend more than twenty-five million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by [Midterm] Election Day, in November. Anthony Romero, the group's executive director, told me, 'It used to be that, when I had a referendum I really cared about, I could spend fifty thousand dollars.'"

This new strategy can be seen in many of the ACLU's actions, which would have been inconceivable just a few years ago. The old ACLU would never have been silent when Michael Cohen's office was raided by the FBI and his clients' files seized; it would have yelled foul when students accused of sexual misconduct were tried by kangaroo courts; and it surely would have argued against a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against a judicial nominee.

Everything the ACLU does today seems to be a function of its fundraising. To be sure, it must occasionally defend a Nazi, a white supremacist, or even a mainstream conservative. But that is not its priority these days, either financially or emotionally. Its heart and soul are in its wallet and checkbook. It is getting rich while civil liberties are suffering.

There appears to be a direct correlation between the ACLU's fundraising and its priorities. When the ACLU's national political director and former Democratic Party operative Faiz Shakir was asked why the ACLU got involved in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, he freely admitted, "People have funded us and I think they expect a return." Its funders applaud the result because many of these mega donors could not care less about genuine civil liberties or due process. What they care about are political results: more left-wing Democrats in Congress, fewer conservative justices on the Supreme Court and more money in the ACLU coffers.

When I served both on the National and Massachusetts Boards of the American Civil Liberties Union, board members included conservative Republicans, old line Brahmans, religious ministers, schoolteachers, labor union leaders and a range of ordinary folks who cared deeply about core civil liberties. The discussions were never partisan. They always focused on the Bill of Rights. There were considerable disagreements about whether various amendments covered the conduct at issue. But no one ever introduced the question of whether taking a position would help the Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, Jews or Catholics or any other identifiable group. We cared about applying the constitution fairly to everyone, without regard to the political consequences.

As the New Yorker described these more innocent times: the ACLU "... has been fastidiously nonpartisan, so prudish about any alliance with political power that its leadership, in the nineteen-eighties and nineties, declined even to give awards to like-minded legislators for fear that it might give the wrong impression."

Those days are now gone. Instead we have a variant on the question my immigrant grandmother asked when I told her the Brooklyn Dodgers won the World Series in 1955: "Yeah, but, vuz it good or bad for the Jews?" My Grandmother was a strong advocate of identity politics: all she cared about was the Jews. That was 63 years ago. The questions being asked today by ACLU board members is: is it good or bad for the left, is it good or bad for Democrats, is it good or bad for women, is it good or bad for people of color, is it good or bad for gays?

These are reasonable questions to be asked by groups dedicated to the welfare of these groups but not by a group purportedly dedicated to civil liberties for all. A true civil libertarian transcends identity politics and cares about the civil liberties of one's political enemies because he or she recognizes that this is the only way that civil liberties for everyone will be preserved.

Today, too few people are asking: Is it good or bad for civil liberties?

Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, July 2018.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)

Kavanaugh May Be the Democrats’ Waterloo

By  Allen C. Guelzo

The Supreme Court has always been political, but this time the demagoguery got way out of hand.

The nine long faces that stare back in photographs of the U.S. Supreme Court radiate a sobriety intended to convince us that it is a bastion of deliberation, reason and uprightness, walled off from the messy business of politics. Nothing has done more to turn that perception upside-down than the past two weeks of sound and fury over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

Perhaps the perception itself has been part of the problem. From the beginning, the Supreme Court was much more of a political cockpit than the legend of jurisprudential neutrality suggests. John Marshall, the most significant chief justice in the court’s history, was appointed by President John Adams in the dying weeks of Adams’s administration specifically to discomfit the incoming president, Thomas Jefferson. Marshall did so by asserting the court’s power to review federal legislation and giving Jefferson’s nemesis, Aaron Burr, a free pass at his treason trial in 1807.

The courts were notoriously politicized in the fight over slavery. The Judiciary Acts of 1789 and 1837 both required that as new states were admitted to the Union, new federal judicial districts be created for them. If those new states were slave states, pro-slavery jurists from them became candidates for the Supreme Court. By the 1850s, the Supreme Court was composed of “five slaveholders and two or three doughfaces,” in the words of Horace Greeley.

Not much has changed in the last half-century of culture wars. The 1969 nominations of Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell both foundered on civil-rights politics. Robert Bork went aground on both civil rights and Roe v. Wade—which was itself the product of considerable political jockeying among the justices on the court at that time. Anyone who imagines that the Supreme Court floats serenely above the political fray knows little of its history. The Kavanaugh fight was just another turn of the screw.

When President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh in July to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy’s seat, the consensus among the wise heads was that the president had played it safe. Judge Kavanaugh was a carefully vetted Kennedy protégé with a sterling reputation and a long history of inside-the-Beltway service. The liberal Yale Law School professor Akhil Amar wrote that the nomination was Mr. Trump’s “classiest move” yet.

What turned Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation process into the biggest judicial firestorm in decades had little to do with Judge Kavanaugh and a lot to do with Democrats’s overconfidence that his nomination could be turned into a Republican Waterloo. Driven by the conviction that they were riding a big blue wave to the November shore, Democrats laid into Judge Kavanaugh in the hope that something about the nominee could be confected into a seismic rumble and turn the wave into a tsunami.

They did not find much. Although Judge Kavanaugh generated baskets upon baskets of documents during his years in the Bush White House, they contained little that set political pulses fluttering. Ditto for his decisions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which were routinely very conservative but largely concerned out-of-the-spotlight issues such as environmental regulation and due process. Of the 14 Kavanaugh opinions later reviewed by the Supreme Court, 13 were upheld.

It was not until a sensational sexual-assault allegation lodged by Christine Blasey Ford was made public in mid-September that the Kavanaugh confirmation appeared to be in any danger, and even then, the charge had the uncomfortable appearance of a Democratic Hail Mary play. The case did not grow stronger over the 10 days that followed Ms. Ford’s first public statement. Purported participants or witnesses denied recollection of any assault or of even being present at the party Ms. Ford described.

In their testimonies last week, both Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford had some pinholes pricked through their testimonies: he about his wild student life at Georgetown Prep and Yale, she about factual inconsistencies and potential political motivations. But by the end Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the Judiciary Committee Democrats were left without a meaningful case. Judge Kavanaugh might have gone on to a swift confirmation vote had it not been for the last-minute insistence of Sen. Jeff Flake on an additional FBI investigation into the Ford allegations.

I have undergone an FBI investigation. In my case, it was for a relatively harmless executive appointment. While it might sound like a forbidding exercise in mystery noir, the reality was nearly as humdrum as a mail delivery. Calls for an investigation arose less from a genuine effort to uncover the truth about a 1982 teen drinking party than from a desire simply to delay the vote. But with the submission of the FBI report, nods of approval from Sens. Flake and Joe Manchin, and Sen. Susan Collins’s powerful speech Friday announcing her support for Judge Kavanaugh, the last obstacles to confirmation evaporated. The Democrats spent a lot of credibility over seven days, but they didn’t get anything in return except the opportunity to grandstand.

If Sen. Feinstein was convinced that Ms. Ford’s allegations were serious, she should have shared them with the Judiciary Committee or law enforcement when they first came to her attention weeks earlier. That hesitation—and then the demand for a delay to conduct an FBI investigation—have combined to make Mrs. Feinstein look uncertain and perhaps unscrupulous. Judge Kavanaugh’s critics did not make themselves look better by turning on the FBI itself when it did not find what they wanted, with Sen. Richard Blumenthal making the McCarthyesque claim that it “smacks of a coverup.” Ms. Feinstein herself said “the most notable part of this report is what’s not in it,” suggesting (again) that she has access to some secret knowledge about the case that she won’t share.

Democrats have also cited Judge Kavanaugh’s angry testimony denying sexual assault as itself disqualifying—as if he had no business crying out while being stretched on the rack. He might not have been as deferential to the senators as norms of judicial gravitas would dictate, but he was certainly more poised than his inquisitors. In the end, even that line of attack accomplished nothing.

This process has inflicted real damage to Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Ford—enough to make any intelligent citizen wonder if it would ever be worth entering public service. But the most immediate casualty is likely to be the much-hyped November blue wave. If a vote for a Democratic majority in the Senate is a vote for the tactics of Sen. Feinstein, or for the boorish behavior of Sens. Blumenthal, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, then that vote may not materialize at all.

In the Missouri Senate race, Republican Josh Hawley has overtaken incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill, largely in reaction to the Kavanaugh hearings. In North Dakota, Republican Kevin Cramer has opened up a yawning lead over Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. The newest Quinnipiac and NPR/PBS NewsHour polls show that the Democratic generic-ballot advantage has halved and the party’s enthusiasm advantage has vanished.

Napoleon counted on offensive bluster at Waterloo to give him victory, and it failed. By amplifying the politicization of the judiciary, Democrats may have achieved a Waterloo—but not the one they imagined.

Mr. Guelzo is a professor of history at Gettysburg College.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Kavanaugh’s Temperament  
By S------ L-----                             

All else having failed, Senator Feinstein and her acolytes urged the defeat of Kavanaugh’s confirmation on grounds of “temperament.”

In his response to weeks of relentless and unproved allegations of a gross sexual assault committed in his teens, prosecuted against him without a shred of due process and resting on a presumption of guilt, Mrs. Feinstein said, “Judge Kavanaugh did not reflect an impartial temperament or the fairness and even-handedness one would see in a judge.”

Memo to the Senator: In prosecutions conducted according to civilized rules well-established in this country in the three hundred years since the Salem witch trials, trial by ambush is frowned upon, the accused is not expected to prove his innocence, nor is he expected to be impartial, fair or even-handed in his defense.

In the hearing to which he was subjected, Kavanaugh wasn’t sitting as a judge or responding as a judge. He was a defendant and a witness testifying on his own behalf, fighting for his honor, his reputation and his career. While his wife and daughters were forced to watch, Feinstein et al. tied him to his chair, poured gasoline on him and lit him on fire. Then they condemned him for screaming.

In my opinion,  this is by itself an act of gratuitous cruelty sufficient to make them unfit for office in any post-Enlightenment government. If there’s any justice in the world, they’ll lose an election over it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5)Ignore the low job creation number. 1. It will be adjusted up, just as the last two months were adjusted up by 87,000.  2. Carolina made a big dent of 300,000 jobs temporarily lost to the hurricane impact, so that September number should not mean much on its own. We need to wait to see October before concluding anything. At 3.7% unemployment, the economy remains very strong. The only two times it was lower was during the Korean War and during the Vietnam war when hundreds of thousands were enlisted in the military on a far smaller population base. There are over twice as many workers today than in 1969. In addition, few women were in the work force back then so were not a material factor like they are today. Therefore, it is likely that if they made those adjustments to the data, this would be the lowest unemployment rate in history. We are comparing apples to oranges on unemployment now. Wages continued up moderately by 2.8%, which is not great, but better than inflation. Low income wages rose 5%, and those without even a high school degree rose 6%, so the good news on wages is positively benefiting the most needy, not the top levels. For someone making $12 an hour, that raise is equal to around $115 a month- a lot to that worker who may also get food stamps and pay no taxes. Consumers continue to be extremely positive.

The normal Wall St reaction to good news on the economy is to run up the yield on the ten year, which is now at 3.2%, and then to slam stocks because they ran up the yield on the ten year. In a while these same Wall St geniuses will figure out that 3.2% on the ten year is still very low historically, and will not inhibit corporate borrowers, or most home buyers, once reality sets in. Mortgages are still cheap. Home equity lines are still cheap. When the ten year hits its normal 5% range, then things do happen to slow the economy, but we have a very long way to go before we get there. Maybe two years according to the Fed. So ignore the stock market ups and downs as they will sort out over the next couple of weeks, as they have always done when there is a spike in the ten year yield. Earnings season is about to start again, and it will be strong, although you will note that a majority of company CFO’s are saying they expect earnings growth to slow. It is the job of a CFO to say this so they can beat next quarter. It is unrealistic to think they can produce 22% growth every quarter, so they need to pull down expectations. Maybe it will be less than 22%, but 18% is still great if you own shares, and that sort of growth continues into 2019. Let’s say the earnings growth slows to 15%, so now in 2019 your stock is earning 15% more than in 2018. That is down from 23% now, but still one of the best performances ever. Try to keep some perspective, and ignore analysts. They are mostly arrogant kids who never ran a company. They just think they know better, but they do not, and like politicians, they say things to get attention, and then hope they are right once in a while. A lot of this is not to say there are not risks. In November things could go the wrong way, and the Dems could get control of the House, and then they try to stop the world. In January the capital expense tax boost disappears. QE ends by the Fed. They become just sellers of bonds. And maybe home prices stop rising as fast. Maybe then oil is at $75 or $80 -probably not, but maybe. While next year looks very good, there are black swans all over the place, especially with China.

The EU has said it is going to do a fast deal with the US so they can manage the Brexit mess, now that they have the template set for a deal as it was done with new NAFTA. All the trade deals other than China will be done before November elections, so that issue will be off the table. While some with their own agenda will criticize tariffs on China, nobody can argue we need to avoid the trade fight with China. It is clear there are numerous issues with China well beyond trade. Cyberwar, IP theft, South China Sea, human rights, military buildup, Belt and Road initiative meant to close the US out of SE Asia, and N Korea. China is in a long war with the US for economic and military dominance, and Trump is correct to take them on now aggressively to stop this before it is too late. No more do nothing and let it become a cancer like Obama did on many issues. By waging economic and presumably now cyberwar, we can avoid a real war at some future date. China is the real existential challenge of the next decade, and stopping them now is essential to US dominance over the next decades. Just as the borders in the Mideast drawn after WWI, the failure to stop Stalin after WWII, and the failure to fully resolve Korea in 1953, have all reared their ugly heads even now. This situation with China is one of those things that, if left unresolved, will haunt the world for the next 50 years. China, unlike Russia, has the cash and the population, and the well educated workforce, to dominate the world in ten years if not stopped now.  So the trade war with China is only a piece of the strategy. Obama talked about it, but never did anything at all. Trump is taking them on very aggressively in every area.

What is the real reason the left and Dems are so out of control over Kavanaugh. If you noticed over the past 18 months, the resist movement has run to the courts in San Fran and Hawaii mainly, and the ninth circuit, to get judges who issued injunctions to stop as much of Trump’s agenda as they can.  They judge shop, and then get injunctions that are national, not just in the district of the judge. They are using the courts to legislate because they lost the election and refuse to accept the election results. That is what this is really all about, because now there is a shot that the Supreme court will rule that district courts do not have national authority, and are acting improperly, and that will shut down the game the left is playing with trying to legislate in the courthouse of choice to stop Trump and the Republicans.  Kavanaugh and his teen years has zero to do with anything. Ford was just a throw away piece of scenery for them. Obviously they used and abused her, and she is too naïve to understand what was going to happen to her. Now she will appear at left wing functions and fund raisers, and on CNN and NBC, and be the heroine of the left, just like Anita Hill has become. They have not finished using her. Facts do not matter.  It is all theater of the absurd.

If you did not watch the Collins speech, you missed one of the most historic speeches in Senate history. I never thought she had the ability to deliver such a well prepared, well researched and well documented destruction of every left wing misstatement made over the past several weeks. She completely demolished every left wing position and statement, but it was done professionally and calmly, point by point. It was a very lawyerly presentation of facts. I watched CNN and a bit of NBC after, just to see how they would react. CNN had a panel of all women, of course, plus Toobin who is a left wing propagandist.  It was not surprising to hear them go back over all the same talking points as before, and to ignore how Collins just had dismantled all of that. MSNBC was no better.

What we now have is the campus playbook of shout down and disrupt anyone not agreeing, and an attempt to intimidate, and end free speech in Congress.  Same as we have seen on campus by screaming at them, harassing them and thinking one can do anything they wish to a miscreant who does not think correctly. Much of the press is on board with this as we have just seen. Hurray for Grassley and McConnell for speaking out and preventing the caving in to the left wing mobs. Their statements that they will never be intimidated was a wonderful teaching moment for college presidents.  It was not a lesson the college officials attended. A senior Facebook exec is a close friend of Kavanaugh and he attended the hearing. He sat quietly as an individual, did not identify himself, in a public open setting, on his own time. That was followed by a town hall meeting at Facebook with all employees where he was trashed, admonished, slammed, shamed and beaten down until he apologized for exercising his American free right of association.  This is what I have warned about for a couple of years. The mob has graduated from their campus indoctrination, and training, and now, in the grown up work place, and especially in Silicon Valley, they are treated like it is a campus and not a workplace. This is extremely dangerous for democracy. What is the message to anyone who wants to build a career. Shut your mouth if you do not tow the left wing line, and do not do anything the mob does not approve, or you career is going to be destroyed. What happened to Kavanaugh will happen to you at work as we just witnessed at Facebook. If this does not scare you, no matter your politics, then you have a big problem.

There is an organization -American Council of Trustees and Alumni which is made up of university trustees across the country. They are a professional group working to try to bring back free speech and tolerance to campus, and to stop grade inflation which is now rampant because schools think their real job is to provide a ticket, diploma, to get you a job. When I went to school, a university was there to give you a better ability to think objectively, and the courses like history to provide the basic knowledge from which the ability to analyze and reason stems. They now forget it is to give you a broad education. History is no longer taught on college campuses, or even much in some high schools. Our country is losing its grounding in our history. When questioned about the past, college kids and recent grads know nothing about our history, so they have no basis for assessing our present. Very scary for our future. One of the best things to come out of this awful mess was, the mobs lost. McConnell and Grassley completely outmaneuvered Schumer and Feinstein, and plowed thru the mob efforts to derail the confirmation. Trump hung tough. A great lesson about leadership, and how to stand up to mob rule. A big lesson for the Dems about why not to overplay their hand next time. Yet today they failed that class and are pushing to impeach and reopen the investigation. Frank Lund, the pollster, said the longer the Dems keep this going, the better Republicans do in November. Trump and McConnell taught a lesson to the snowflake mobs that they are no longer on campus, and now they are playing big league hardball against the toughest team in DC. Trump is that NY developer I always refer to, and now you see what happens when, the mob of screamers and Dem politicians,  get into  a street fight with a NY real estate brawler. You get the crap knocked out of you and you lose. It is not a college campus, and Trump does not fight like a politician. Anyone who thought he would back down and withdraw Kavanaugh, has no clue about Trump. A great lesson for college presidents who have no backbone other than the president of U of Chicago who simply said, if you do not like how we have free speech here, find another school.  The Dems are the major losers now. All they have is mob rule, outlandish, unsubstantiated statements to the press by Schumer, Pelosi, Blumenthal, Booker and Harris, uncorroborated claims, and threats to impeach Kavanaugh.  Trump has the Kavanaugh win, 3.7% unemployment, historic low minority unemployment, an excellent economy, stocks near all-time highs, and the trade deals, all in one week. Republicans will hold the House, and pick up 4-5 seats in the Senate. This will be one of those historic inflection points that changes political history and cultural history.

Now you know what a black swan event is.

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++