We are the drain the swamp people

A sufficient impetus* but only one of many

Last summer the Iowa Supreme Court handed down an edict that amounts to Roe V Wade for the state of Iowa. In a 5 to 2 decision overturning legislation by those responsible to the people a requirement of a 72 hour waiting period for an elective abortion, an act with profound implications for mother and definitive implications for the child, was declared null and the court used the opportunity to write abortion on demand into the Iowa constitution.

Justice Edward Mansfield in a powerful dissent wrote “From reading the majority opinion, one would barely know that abortion—with few exceptions—was continuously illegal in Iowa from the time our constitution was adopted until the United Supreme Court overrode our law by deciding Roe v. Wade. From reading the majority opinion, one would scarcely be aware that many women in Iowa are prolife and strongly support the same law the court concludes unconstitutionally discriminates against them.”

Certainly every one of the five as they come up for a retention vote by the people under Iowa’s current staggered process (one has decided to retire) should be thrown out of office. But something to ameliorate the process that helps produce this utter disregard for written law, producing judges that substitute what they think the law ought to be, needs to happen at the outset. A proposal in the Iowa legislature for judicial selection reform of Iowa’s good -old boy insider system is a step in the right direction. Fortunately it is in the works and with the support of the Governor’s office.

All our state legislators need to hear from us but in addition to your own state legislator we are told Representative Gary Mohr from Bettendorf needs some urging. It is appropriate that outside constituents voice their opinion as his role in the process affects all Iowans. Urge your state representative and Representative Mohr to support judicial selection reform in Iowa along the lines of Senate File 237 / House File 503.  (contact information below)

Why this is necessary:

The people of this state need to have more say in the judicial selection process through their elected representatives. Iowa’s current process is unduly slanted toward Iowa Bar Association activists who tend to be even more liberal than the general membership of a profession that in general is more liberal than the general population.

Such association activists know that “personnel is policy.” The bar associations and their membership are not neutral on matters of great constitutional or juridical importance. Their collective views and policy statements tend less toward rule of law under a constitution and laws as written, and more towards results-oriented interpretations and encouraging judicial policy making. Because they were brought up the same way, so to speak, they are in a position to fine tune with judges matters in which they are likely to be on the same wavelength because of the association’s out-sized influence in the process that selects them! A liberal group effectively has a thumb on the justice scale, whether it evolves over time or is as blatant as can be.

But the law is not for lawyers or judges, it is for the people. It is about what they approved when the Constitution was established and laws compatible with that Constitution passed by their elected representatives. The people should have a more effective voice in the judicial selection process through their elected representatives than a private organization like the bar association.

For all practical purposes the selection process is more effective than the retention process — no one can seriously deny that. Bar associations and phony judicial canons conspire to keep people in the dark about constitutional views of prospective judges (or provide cover for them to hide behind). The people are afforded only a retention decision in a system that can be manipulated so that people who reject Tweedledee only get Tweedledum later as the Bar association helps insure. Further, there is no effective mechanism to insure an informed vote on retention save when a most egregious situation erupts from a judge or judges overplaying their hands. In the meantime liberal judicial views ratchet further into the fabric of the law.

The people should not be so directly and indirectly left out of such an important process that hugely effects governance. If we are good enough to vote on retention, why are we not good enough to be more a part of the initial selection of the judges who we will vote to retain later (through our elected representatives)? The current Iowa process is a mere facade of representative government and democracy.

Short messages urging support for judicial selection reform in Iowa along the lines of SF 237/HF 503 are needed. Your legislator can be found at https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/find — Representative Gary Mohr can be contacted at Gary.mohr@legis.iowa.gov

Current text of HF 503

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGI/88/HF503.pdf

Related reading:

As seen at Americans for Prosperity —

Iowa’s judges are chosen by a special commission. Half of that commission is chosen by lawyers.

By allowing lawyers to play such an important role in the selection of our judges, a small group of unelected individuals examines candidates instead of voters. This removes debate over the candidates from the public space and puts it behind closed doors.

There is a proposal in the state legislature to make much-needed reforms. The legislature is considering a change that would replace the lawyer chosen commissioners with ones appointed by legislative leaders from both parties.

If legislative leaders instead of lawyers nominated candidates, these legislators would have the opportunity to be held accountable if they make a poor choice with their nominees. This process would be far more transparent than how it currently stands.

Urge lawmakers to reform our state’s judicial selection process for more transparency and accountability!

Iowa Republicans introduce bill that gives lawmakers, governor more power over courts

(Ignore the biased reporting for the outline of the proposal)More on the subject from the Des Moines Redstar here

*Other egregious examples of Iowa court policy making under the current system of selection include writing a right to same-sex marriage into the Iowa Constitution. It is inescapable that these court decision are essentially saying that same-sex marriage and abortion on demand for any reason at any time were always in the Iowa Constitution, we and the framers just didn’t know it. The people of this state would not have approved the Constitution as written knowing that.

0

0

… has anybody seen, or heard from, whatshisname…the FBI Director, Ray Christopher, Christ Raytopher or whatever, lately?

Never been much impressed with Mr. Wray. Any Trump nominee who gets confirmation support from all but 5 Democrats certainly isn’t seen by Democrats as any kind of reliable conservative; but more likely a prospective “Deep Stater”

0

0

• Even WSJ’s ‘anti-trump’ columnist’ gets it

Daniel Henninger is one of the many ‘anti-Trump’ pundits at the Wall Street Journal…some more so than others…he perhaps less so

In the column linked to and excerpted below, despite his affinity for “open Borders”, or at least low-wage illegal immigrants, Henninger boldly identifies SCOTUS as villain

The Court-Ordered Caravan Deluge
The anti-Trump ‘resistance’ includes judges making the border mess worse.
——
And in particular it’s the Chief Justice…”FC” (“Faux Conservative”), the mendacious John Roberts

Henninger, of course, does not go so far as to credit President Trump for much of anything positive offering up such snideness as: “If as reported, Mr. Trump is giving White House adviser Stephen Miller full control of immigration policy, the issue’s descent into rank nativism should be quick. As in: “Our country is full.”    More excerpts:

“Did the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court contribute to the deluge of migrants at the nation’s southern border? In December, John Roberts voted with the four liberal justices to sustain yet another national injunction that a district court judge imposed against the Trump administration’s revision of the asylum laws.

“In retrospect, the chief justice’s decision to vote against the court’s four conservatives was a major event in the border drama. The legal blockade against immigration policy likely led to an enraged president firing Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. In turn, this policy collapse is going to poison the U.S. immigration debate for years.

“The justices got one chance to issue a yellow flag on the border mayhem. Instead, they let it rip.

“The discretionary asylum revisions proposed late last year by the Trump administration would have required the caravan masses from Central America to make asylum pleas at ports of entry, instead of coming across anywhere on the border.

“The goal, as border security officers had been saying for months, was primarily to make the exploding mess at the border manageable. Apprehensions are now hitting a mind-boggling 3,000 people each day. ”     . . .

DLH

0

0

• VP Mike Pence and Walter Williams respond

Millennials for Socialism ( posted at Townhall, here with our annotation)

If one needed evidence of the gross ignorance of millennials, and their teachers and college professors, it’s their solid support for socialism and socialist presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders. Socialism has produced tragedy wherever it has been implemented. Last year marked the 40th anniversary of nearly 1,000 Americans perishing in a mass suicide/murder in the jungles of Guyana. Just as Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez see socialism as mankind’s salvation, so, too, did Rev. Jim Jones, who told his followers, “God is Socialism, and I am Principle Socialism, and that’s what makes me God.”

Perhaps the most disastrous failing of our educational system and the news media is that people are neither required nor encouraged to test ideas against facts. The promises of socialism sound wonderful and caring, but in reality, wherever it has been tried it has been a true disaster. Let’s examine the history of socialism.

During the first three decades of the 20th century, Argentina was one of the world’s top-10 richest nations. It was ahead of Canada and Australia in total and per capita income. After Juan Peron’s ideas, captured in his economic creed that he called “national socialism,” became a part of Argentina’s life, the country fell into economic chaos. Today it has fallen to 25th in terms of GDP.

Nicolas Maduro, an avowed socialist, has turned oil-rich Venezuela into a place where there are shortages of everything from toilet paper to beer, where electricity keeps shutting down, and where there are long lines of people hoping to get food. Some people are eating their pets and feeding their children from garbage bins. Socialism has crippled Venezuela’s once-thriving economy. Today, Venezuela is among the world’s most tragically poor countries.

Socialism can be tested by doing a few side-by-side country comparisons. After Germany’s defeat in WWII, it was divided into socialist East Germany and capitalist West Germany. West Germans had far greater income, wealth and human rights protections. In large numbers, East Germans tried to flee to West Germany, so much so that the East German government set up deadly mines and other traps to prevent escape. Few, if any, West Germans tried to flee to East Germany, and the West German government spent no resources preventing its citizens from leaving.

Then there’s North Korea and South Korea. North Korea’s nominal per capita GDP is only 3.6 percent of South Korea’s nominal per capita GDP of $23,838. There are few human rights protections for North Koreans. North Korea, like East Germany, has set up deadly mines and other traps to prevent its citizens from escaping.

The key features of a free market system are private property rights and private ownership of the means of production. By contrast, socialist systems feature severely limited private property rights and government ownership or control of the means of production.

There has never been a purely free market economic system, just as there has never been a purely socialist/communist system. Let’s do an experiment. First, rank countries according to whether they are closer to the free market or the communist end of the economic spectrum. Then, rank countries according to per capita gross domestic product. Finally, rank countries according to Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World” report.

Here’s our finding: People who live in countries closer to the free market end of the economic spectrum not only have far greater income and wealth than people who live in countries toward the communist end; they also enjoy far greater human rights protections. Moreover, it’s the socialist nations that have murdered tens of millions of their own citizens such as the case with the former USSR and China.

Sanders and other socialists hold Denmark as their dream, but Prime Minister Lars Lekke Rasmussen said: “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” Scandinavian socialism is a myth.

Ed note: A myth in many ways as it turns out – several Scandinavian countries rank very high in economic freedom – even higher than the US and of course on the spending side they irresponsibly enjoy the savings of relatively little defense spending, leaching off of US)

This courtesy Gary Bauer at American Values:

Pence vs. The Left

Speaking at Rice University Friday afternoon, Vice President Mike Pence took on the radical left and the atmosphere on our college campuses that is fueling the surge toward socialism.

Pence denounced the dictatorial government of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, and warned against implementing failed socialist policies in the United States. Here are some excerpts of his remarks:

“[W]e’re living in a time in this country of growing support for socialism and a growing intolerance for diverse viewpoints, including on many college campuses across America. Speech codes, safe zones, and intolerance against people whose faith and economic philosophy are no longer considered fashionable are on the rise.

“And so, as we reflect on the cause of freedom in this hemisphere, let me close with a word to the rising generation — those of you who feel drawn to the siren song of socialism: Be careful what you wish for.

“Socialism is not the road to freedom. Socialism is the road to government control. And it grows in the soil of censorship. . . But once you say that some people should not be heard, once you say some should not be able to think or speak or believe in a certain way in the public square, you have left the road to freedom and you’re on the road to serfdom. . .

“The essence of freedom, enshrined in our founding documents and enshrined in the heart of the American people, is the freedom to disagree, the freedom to air one’s opinions without fear or intimidation. . .

“And so I say to this rising generation: The moment America becomes a socialist country is the moment America ceases to be America.”

0

0

In an op-ed in last Thursday’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Karl Rove gives a clue to how and who Never-Trumpers and Establishment folks like himself will seek to rid Washington of the dastardly Donald Trump.

While it may or may not be fair to label Rove a “Never-Trumper”, it’s not a stretch to say that the “architect” of G W Bush’s presidency is not a big fan of President Trump, being a long time denizen of the “Big Muddy”, Washington’s establishment. Maybe Karl’s not even a ‘big fan’ of conservatives (“Conservative internet wizards then made the touchy-feely Mr. Biden into a meme as “Creepy Uncle Joe.”).

The strategy, it appears, is to try to push now aging but always ‘creepy’ Uncle Joe Biden across the Democratic Party’s presidential primary’s “finish line” ahead of the other 128 candidates, at last count, give or take a few dozen.

The strategy as Rove is promoting it in this piece, is not necessarily out of the “Never Trumpers” (N-Ts) affection for old Joe…although he is ‘one of them’. If we’re translating Mr. Rove’s words correctly, it is because they don’t believe the current radical leftward stampede by all the other Democrat aspiring nominees is a winning proposition…at least not yet in 2020.

Thus, another ‘dreadful’ four more years of the ‘terrible Trump’!

We don’t think there should be any doubt that Karl Rove and all the “Rinos” and Never-Trumpers would much prefer Democrat ‘moderate’ Joe Biden to our current non-establishment president.

Actually, we believe that they’d prefer ANY of the other potential nominees if they thought one could win, his or her far left agenda notwithstanding!

Again, as a Great American often says, “Sad”!             DLH

————————————-

Prospective Democratic presidential candidates now get opposition-research packets dumped on them before they enter the contest. Ask Joe Biden, who is edging closer to joining the 2020 Democratic primary. The former vice president was attacked Friday by a Bernie Sanders supporter for encroaching on her personal space at her 2014 campaign rally, smelling her hair and kissing the back of her head, leaving her uncomfortable. Conservative internet wizards then made the touchy-feely Mr. Biden into a meme as “Creepy Uncle Joe.”

Mr. Biden’s subsequent apologies and his promise Wednesday to be “more mindful” because “social norms are changing” are acknowledgments that he is struggling in today’s #MeToo culture. This reinforces the sense that his first day as a presidential candidate will be his best one. Mr. Biden’s lead in early polls is usually attributed to his strong name identification, an advantage that can quickly erode as the race progresses.

Mr. Biden also may be out of touch with a party that is increasingly progressive on policy. This could leave him apologizing endlessly for his Senate votes, including for the 1994 crime bill, welfare reform, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Iraq war. Factor in a March 28 Quinnipiac poll that found Democrats prefer, by 51% to 45%, a candidate who shares their views to the most electable candidate, and Mr. Biden could be in trouble.

Some observers say he made a mistake in not entering the race earlier. Talented staffers and operatives joined other campaigns, and Mr. Biden’s lack of organization was evident in the slow-rolling response to Friday’s accusation. Democrats also worry a Biden campaign wouldn’t be nimble enough for the social-media age because the candidate himself isn’t. And with no proven ability to rake in the small-dollar online donations fueling other campaigns, Mr. Biden is expected to have money problems.

But what if Mr. Biden’s 7-point lead in the RealClearPolitics poll average is real?
What if he stops apologizing, except to repeat what he said last weekend? “Not once—never—did I believe I acted inappropriately. If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully. But it was never my intention.” Maybe this early hubbub makes him a better candidate and the issue dwindles away.

When other candidates bring it up, what if he says they all have something they must defend, like being a National Rifle Association fellow traveler (Mr. Sanders) or a nightmare boss (Amy Klobuchar) or falsely claiming to be a Native American (Elizabeth Warren)?

What if Mr. Biden pushes an incremental liberal agenda that appeals to Democrats worried about supporting free everything and neosocialism? He could make strengthening ObamaCare a priority and promise to fix the social safety net, help working families, make the rich pay their fair share, reform immigration, and push an infrastructure bill.

What if he has a Sister Souljah moment? He might remind Democrats that their political opponents are not their enemies and that when Washington was last broken, Democrats fixed it and healed the country by fostering bipartisanship.
What if Democrats want a transitional figure? What if Mr. Biden says he would serve only one term, bring America together post-Trump, and allow the country to turn the page to a new chapter?

What if Mr. Biden wins voters who are more open to a traditional liberal message than to the call of Mr. Sanders and his ideological clones to smash capitalism and fundamentally transform America? Polls show Mr. Biden leading among union members as well as older, moderate, somewhat liberal and black Democrats.

Mr. Biden’s strong African-American support—44% in the Quinnipiac poll—may be a credit to his longstanding friendships in the community and his service as Barack Obama’s vice president. Perhaps it’s also because black voters, especially older women and Southerners, are more moderate than the current crop of Democratic left-fringe dwellers.

Mr. Biden could do well in Iowa because of his union ties, rely on older Democrats to stay alive in New Hampshire, stay competitive in Nevada with support from union members and older Democrats, and score in South Carolina with help from African-Americans. He doesn’t need to win every contest, but could end the first four as the most consistent candidate with the most delegates.

Conventional wisdom was blasted to pieces in 2016 and may shatter again. How individual candidates perform may mean more than it has in years. So don’t count Uncle Joe out. Let’s see if he has what it takes, starting with his formal announcement and the June debates.

0

0

Peggy Noonan Has written Another ‘Prize Winner’ This Week…

Thanks to HP for the forward

Say It Ain’t So, Joe

Ms. Peggy’s tearful paean to “Shoeless Joe” Biden this week:

“Your very strength –that you enjoy talking to both sides, that deep in your heart you see no-one as deplorable–will be your weakness. You aren’t enough of a warrior. You’re sweet, you’re weak, you’re half-daffy. You’re meh.

“At this point you’re not out of step, you’re out of place.”

OH Peggy! Give me a hug!

If Biden Runs, They’ll Tear Him Up

The old Democratic Party was warm, like him. The new one rising is colder, less human and divisive.

Don’t do it, Joe.

Don’t run for president. It won’t work, you won’t get the nomination, your loss will cause pain and not only for you.

And your defeat will be worse than sudden, it will be poignant.
Right now operatives for the other candidates are trying to scare you out of jumping in. We all know that what you intended as warmth is now received as a boundary violation. You addressed this in a video that was crisp and friendly: You never meant to cause discomfort, you intend to change your ways.

But it’s not going away. It will linger, and more will come.

Democratic operatives do not fear you will win the nomination—they think you’re too old, your time has passed, you’re not where the energy of the base is, or the money. But they do not want you taking up oxygen the next six to 10 months as you sink in the polls. And they don’t want you swooping in to claim the middle lane. Others already have a stake there, or mean to.

In the past you were never really slimed and reviled by your party; you were mostly teased and patronized. But if you get in the race this time, it will be different. They will show none of the old respect for you, your vice presidency or your past fealty to the cause. And you are in the habit of receiving respect. Soon the topic will turn, in depth, to Anita Hill, the Clinton crime bill, your friendliness to big business. You have opposed partial-birth abortion. Also, the old plagiarism video will come back and be dissected. It was more than 30 years ago, and for a lot of reporters and voters it will be a riveting story, and brand new.

You backed the Iraq war. That question will be resurrected, as opposed to redebated. It is always fair to redebate it—to be asked, “Why did your generation of Democratic politicians back that war. Looking back what did you misunderstand?” But it will only be resurrected, and thrown in your face.

You will be judged to be old-school, and insufficiently doctrinaire. The current Democratic Party is different from the one you entered in the late 1960s, not only in policies but in mood, tone, style. Today’s rising young Democrats see no honor in accommodation, little virtue in collegiality.

In the old party of classic 20th-century Democratic liberalism, they wanted everyone to rise. Those who suffered impediments—minorities, women, working people trying to unionize—would be given a boost. There’s plenty to go around, America’s a rich country, let the government get in and help.

The direction, or at least the aspiration, was upward, for everybody.

The mood of the rising quadrants of the new party is more pinched—more abstractedly aggrieved, more theoretical. Less human. Now there’s a mood not of Everyone Can Rise but of Some Must Be Taken Down. White people in general, and white males in particular, are guilty of intractable privilege. It’s bitter, resentful, divisive.

And it is at odds with the spirit in which your political categories were formed. Actually, your politics always struck me as being like the World War II movies Americans of a certain age grew up on. The American soldiers are in the foxhole in Bataan, and there’s the working-class guy from Brooklyn, the tall Ivy League guy, the baker’s apprentice from Ohio. They’re all together and equal, like the country they represent. When the war’s over they’ll probably stay friends and the Brooklyn guy will be in the union and the Ivy League fancy-pants will be in management, but they’ll quickly forge the new contract and shake on the deal because back when it counted we were all in it together.

That is not the 2019 Democratic Party! This party would note, correctly, that there was little racial diversity in the foxhole, and would elaborate that its false unity was built on intersectional oppressions that render its utility as a unifying metaphor null.

The party’s young theorists are impatient with such gooey patriotic sentiment. America is not good guys in a foxhole to them, it’s crabs in a barrel with the one who gets to the top getting yanked down to the bottom—deservedly.

Your very strength—that you enjoy talking to both sides, that deep in your heart you see no one as deplorable—will be your weakness. You aren’t enough of a warrior. You’re sweet, you’re weak, you’re half-daffy. You’re meh.

At this point you’re not out of step, you’re out of place.

The press too will have certain biases, and not only because they’re 30 and 40 years younger than you and would like to see their careers associated with the rise of someone their age. Their bias is also toward drama, as you well know—toward pathos, and the end of something. They love that almost as much as the beginning of something. They can’t wait to write their Lion in Winter stories. “The Long Goodbye.” “The Last Campaign.” “Biden faltered for just a moment when a white-haired woman put her hand to his face and said, ‘I remember you from ’88, Joe. We all do, and we love you.”

And that is apart from those young reporters who consider themselves culture cops, and who enjoy beating people like you with the nightstick of their wokeness.

Why will it be painful to witness all this? Because it will mark the fall of a political figure who was normal. Who knew there was a left over here and a right over there and a big middle. Who went with the flow of cultural leftism but understood the other side’s reservations and signaled that in some way he had some sympathy for them. Who knew politics wasn’t always about absolutes.

This in contrast to the up-and-coming manipulators for whom it is second nature to feign warmth and outreach, but whose every hug is backed by the sharp and crooked finger of accusation. Their engine is resentment, their fuel is unearned self-esteem, their secret is lust for power.

You probably think they’re just girls who need a hug.
But their place is not your place.

It would be one thing if you wanted to enter the race to persuade the party on the merits of more-centrist approaches and working with the other side. But is that your intention? You’ve been apologizing for calling Mike Pence decent, and groveling over your “white man’s culture.” If you go with that flow, it will wash you away.

It is hard for the political personality to say no—to more fame, more power, more love. To the history books. It is hard for a man who’s always seen a president when he looked in the mirror to admit he’s an almost-president. It’s hard to get out of the habit of importance.

But you’ll never be unimportant. You’ll be Joe Biden, a liberal lion of the U.S. Senate at the turn of century. A man with a heart, unhated in an age of hate.

That’s not nothing, that’s a lot.

So don’t do it. Wisdom here dictates an Irish goodbye—a quiet departure, out the back door with a wave and a tip of the hat to whoever might be watching.

Ed note: posted in its entirety as it must be seen as such to appreciate the fulsomeness of Miss Peggy

0

0

Do you remember the Associated Press’ account of President Obama speaking at a ceremony in 2010 as he presented a Navy corpsman with the Medal of Honor?:

“Obama, as he so often does, was unable to correctly pronounce well-known words as the Commander-in-Chief bestowed the nation’s highest military honor referred to the recipient as a “corpseman”. He has used the term on other occasions at least twice, including in a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. ”

No? You don’t recall that?

That’s probably because it never happened. Such ‘editorial snark’ in a “news story” by the AP is reserved exclusively for President Trump, as in from a recent report on Trump’s visit to the southern border”

“Trump as he so often does, mixed fact with fiction when warning of the threat at the border”.

(This opportunity to jab Trump was this: “When complaining about the Flores legal settlement that governs treatment of migrant children and families, he blamed “Judge Flores, whoever you might be.” But Flores was an unaccompanied 15 year old girl from El Salvado.)

To all you former military “corpsemen” in our “57 states”, you gotta admit…the Associated Press is on the case!        DLH

0

0

USA TODAY GLEEFULLY REPORTS THAT KAVANAUGH IS NOT AS ‘CONSERVATIVE’ AS US HEARTLAND YOKELS THOUGHT

Article in USA Today celebrates the fact that Justice Brett Kavanaugh is not the guy conservatives hoped he would be as he sides with ‘ Faux Constitutionalist’ Chief Justice Roberts in joining liberals on the Court.

We may recall how Democrats and radicals reviled, slandered, and attempted to destroy Kavanaugh’s life and nomination to the High Court when they feared he might be an honest defender of the Constitution.

But, then, that’s what many thought about Chief John Roberts.

Happily, from the viewpoint of USA Today columnist, it’s looking more and more likely that the Court’s liberals can roll merrily along as Brett strives mightily to assure the east coast cocktail circuit that he’s really a good guy after all.

Surprise, surprise!!    DLH

(excerpt)

0

0

It is what they do.  Fortunately we have a president who is capable of making them squirm, but he needs help.  Now if Lindsey Graham comes through and the conservative media pounds the hypocrisy of the Democrat tax return calumny  (where is Bernie’s?, where is Pelosi’s?) then they can move on.

Napolitano is by no means our favorite analyst but this will do to introduce the matter

https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/02/28/judge-napolitano-michael-cohen-testimony-democrats-investigating-president-trump

0

0