"Serious Allegations"

Dumocrats talk about Kavanaugh having “serious allegations against him,” and that this, alone, should cause them to “bend over backward” to investigate (which they did, six times). One congressman even asked a newswoman, “Would you have preferred that she not come forward?” (The Kavanaugh case) My answer would be, no. I would have preferred she come forward with something besides her unsupported word to back up her allegations. Anybody can “allegate,” if he/she is not required to provide PROOF of his/her allegations. The same congressman asked that same newswoman, “Is it possible that three women, who have never met, would come up with allegations about the same thing? The answer is, yes, if somebody (the Dumocrat operatives) “beat the bushes” (which they did), even offering money under the table, for such allegations, with or without proof. And how do we know those three women had never met one another? In a world where “the seriousness of the allegation” means more than NO PROOF, we’re in big trouble. That means ANYBODY, who has a grudge against someone, can ruin his/her life with ease, just by coming out with an “allegation” of some evil act, even three or four decades later, with no proof required, to ruin his/her life. In the real world, allegations mean NOTHING, without some PROOF the thing alleged ever happened. (Just common sense)

The Democrats Win

It doesn’t matter in the long run whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court. If he is not confirmed, they’ll take it. If he is not, they still win. Because their goal was not just to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. That was only an incidental goal. Their basic goal is to make ALL of Trump’s nominations for ALL positions think twice before accepting, lest their lives be ruined, whether or not they are confirmed. The Dumocrats have used LIES and INNUENDO, unprovable “facts,” “reports” in newspapers and on television using unnamed, anonymous “sources,” which makes their “accusations” nothing but “flights of fancy,” and nothing more. They have nothing real against this nominee, but that makes no difference to them. Named “witnesses” to his “offenses” deny they ever happened, but are ignored, in favor of the unproven accusations. They are treated as “Gospel” by Dumocrats, and given “serious consideration” by Republicans. BY so doing, Republicans are playing right into the hands of the Dumocrats. So they win, whichever way it goes. (Just common sense)

Kavanaugh Scares Liberals

Trump’s most recent appointment to the Supreme Court frightens liberals no end. Mostly because they know many of their fondest wishes to impose on the rest of us are unconstitutional and they’re afraid a real believer in the Constitution (which ALL Justices should be) will reverse their unconstitutional actions. Chief among those are their perennial attempts to reverse, or “get around’ the Second Amendment, by placing all kinds of restrictions on gun ownership, for the thinnest reasons possible. They KNOW their laws and regulations do NOTHING to stop, or even slow down “gun crime,” because they only apply to the LAW-ABIDING, completely ignoring the lawbreakers, who simply IGNORE them. Another thing is abortion. A previous Supreme Court, with a liberal majority making law, rather than affirming the constitutionality of laws, rules that murdering unborn infants is legal, disregarding entirely the human right of that infant to life, on the very thin reasoning that he hasn’t yet passed the lips of his mother’s vagina, and that it is not a human being until then. Liberals keep telling us that Republican policies will get millions killed, completely ignoring the millions of defenseless infants their policies have murdered. With Kavanaugh a Justice. They will not be able to “slip by” their unconstitutional measures, and THAT frightens them. And that is as it should be. They are “disturbed” by him being on the Court, but I, and many right-thinking Americans, are gratified. (Just common sense)

You Can't Escape It!

I’m trying my best to escape seeing and hearing the “side show” going on in the Senate this morning. Christine Ford did actually show up, in spite of the fact that not all her demands were met. I don’t want to sit through all the boring back and forth between senators, lawyers, representatives, and those “testifying.” I will get the essentials, later. But even Rush Limbaugh is streaming the hearing live. I’m pulling my hair out! I refuse to watch ANY of those “dog and pony shows” they put on in DC. They’re mostly to let the senators and representatives preen before the cameras, anyway, with no substance coming out. Anything of substance that comes from these hearings usually comes from meetings of staff before and after the hearings, anyway. So there’s no point in allowing yourself to be bored by watching the hearings, themselves. And that includes just listening. I’ve got batter things to do. (Just common sense)

Stop Taking Them Seriously

Day after day, the Dumocrats keep coming up with yet another Dumocrat operative who CLAIMS Kavanaugh “was there” when somebody MIGHT HAVE sexually assaulted one (or more) women (or girls). A woman SWEARS that she was sexually assaulted by SOMEBODY, “MAYBE” Kavanaugh. She can’t be sure it was him, but she wants to derail his appointment to the Supreme Court because of it, anyway. Dumocrats keep coming up with accusation after accusation, none of which contain ANY PROOF that Kavanaugh ever did anything they allege, but they want to accuse him of it. Kavanaugh has been investigated by the FBI six times, as he was promoted from job to job in the judiciary, and NOTHING was ever uncovered that would make them think there was anything to these accusations, today. The first accuser says she wants to testify, but she keeps making impossible demands, BEFORE she testifies. The other two don’t know whether or not they WANT to testify. But the Republicans bend over backwards, forwards, and sideways, to accommodate them until they resemble pretzels, while the Dumocrats protest their every move—and they allow it. It’s time they stopped taking these “accusations” seriously, and pretending they are valid, when they are obviously not. On the newest “accusation,” I have to ask the obvious question: “If she knew they were drugging girls so they could screw them and were gang-raping them, why the HELL did she keep going to those parties? That’s if they even happened. (Just common sense)

"They Came Looking"

If you’re wondering why, all of a sudden, more women are “coming forward” claiming Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them in some way, it’s because the Dumocrats “came looking” for them. They went out and actively SEARCHED for women to make such claims. And thus, some women (who may have even been PAID to come forward) responded. One constant in these claims is LACK of proof of ANYTHING. All they have is the UNSUPPORTED WORD of those women that he did SOMETHING. Some offer “details,”others do not. But the very fact that they are coming out of the woodwork NOW is very suspicious to those of us with a modicum of INTELLIGENCE. When Dumocrats come LOOKING for someone to claim sexual misdeeds on the part of someone like Judge Kavanaugh, offering to give them money (calling it “expenses”) to do so, it isn’t very hard to find some woman willing to lie to “get the money.” The more women who “come forward” right now, after Dumocrats went out, actively SEARCHING for them, the less I believe them. Dumocrats deny they offer them money, but they do. One thing that makes it even more unbelievable to me is that the third accuser is being touted by “Stormy’s lawyer,” who seems now to be “in business” to accuse Kavanaugh, with as many women as he can scrounge up. (Mediaite)

Guilty "Til Proven Innocent!

That’s the Dumocrat Standard for proof of sexual assaults. That is the “Neapolianic Code” everywhere else in the world but America (and maybe some countries that have copied America in the way they operate) In this country, you are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. That is the rule of law. That’s the way the founders wanted it, and they wrote it into the Constitution. But today, if you are a conservative, any woman can accuse you of sexual misconduct, without ANY kind of proof, and Dumocrats will believe her. Especially if you are a judge, who has been appointed to the Supreme Court by President Trump, and your known judgments are not what the left (Dumocrats) would like them to be. Then they BELIEVE what she says, without proof, and try to derail your appointment to the Supreme Court. And then it was asked, “Where are all the other accusers, who seem to come out of the woodwork in times like these?” So, right on time, ANOTHER accuser came out, claiming Kavanaugh was guilty of an even WORSE sexual assault, and they learned their lesson. This time, they cited actual DETAILS; something the first one lacked. And now yet another, claiming something even more evil, still without proof. Yes, such accusations should be investigated—WHEN they happen, when there MIGHT be some actual EVIDENCE to prove the accusations. Not YEARS, or even DECADES later, when it would be impossible to find any real evidence. One thing the Dumocrats want to accomplish here is to make any conservative with some intelligence, want to AVOID being appointed to any such office, so their own life will not be ruined by the Dumocrat elites, with no real reason. By so doing, they hope to destroy Trump’s effectiveness, by denying him the appointments he wishes to make, completely forgetting the fact that, some day they will be back in power, and that can then be used against THEM. But they only think about NOW. To hell with “down the pike.” (Just common sense)

Completely Out of Character

I frankly don’t believe any of the accusations that has been made against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Not because none of the accusers have presented any evidence that it ever happened. Not because both accusers waited many years to come forward, at just a convenient time that can derail his being appointed to the Supreme Court. And not because these accusations can keep an honorable man who happens to be NOT a liberal, who believes in ruling according to the Constitution, not according to his own biases and opinions, off the Court. Not because of the many other reasons many people give. I don’t believe them because such acts are so OUT OF CHARACTER for this man. The people who know him well are aghast that he would ever even be ACCUSED of such things, because of what they know of the man, through EXPERIENCE with him, do not believe he could ever DO such things as are claimed. It’s way too convenient for the Dumocrats for these accusations to come up at just this time, when they are out to stop this man from ever becoming a Supreme Court Justice. I further don’t believe it because this is the exact same scam liberals TRIED to use against now Justice Thomas (also a conservative) with that ridiculous claim made by a woman who FOLLOWED him from job to job, whose claim was “supported” only by a “pubic hair on a Coke can.” And the public hair was not even his. This seems to be a common scam run by the Dumocrats, and it is very transparent, to somebody with a modicum of INTELLIGENCE. That politicians in Washington don’t see it, and they treat these accusations seriously, tells me a lot about their intelligence. (Just common sense)

Liberals and the 6th Amendment

Liberals don’t like the Sixth Amendment—except where their own freedom is concerned. The Sixth amendment is as simple as the Second, and is just as important to our freedom. It says: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The Dumocrat bimbo who has accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault is making impossible demands of Congress. Unconstitutional demands. The Sixth Amendment says each accused IS entitled to know the charges against him, and see the proof, if any, of same. He is not to be forced to testify against himself. This Ford bimbo demands that the FBI “investigate” her claims, which it is not legally allowed to do, since any crime thus uncovered is a STATE crime. She wants Kavanaugh to testify FIRST, and then to follow him. Which is definitely against every civil right all Americans enjoy. This, in fact, 

cannot happen in any real court. But that’s what this Ford bimbo is demanding, BEFORE she “testifies.” IF she testifies. I’ll believe she testifies IF, and when I see it. She wants to convict him in the “court of public opinion” without ever having to prove her outlandish claims. That’s how it is in politics, especially when the Dumocrats want someone’s hide. Then, it seems, the accuser does not have to prove the charges. He/she need only accuse, and the accused has to prove his innocence. That’s just BACKWARD to the way the Constitution demands it work. And the Constitution is the “final authority” on the way to convict ANYBODY of anything, in the real world.But this is not the real world. It is the world of politics. (Flag and Cross)

"Respectful Treatment"

“Professor” Ford, who has accused Judge Kavanaugh of a sexual attack that is completely foreign to the way he has lived, all of his life, that supposedly happened more than 30 years ago and was never mentioned before (except supposedly to her husband, of course specifically mentioning Kavanaugh), and only brought up when Kavanaugh is up for a Supreme Court appointment, which is a lifetime appointment. Dumocrat politicians say she has “not been accorded ‘respectful treatment’ and the right to tell her story,” even though she has been accorded AMPLE opportunity to do so, but has made numerous excuses, in the guise of demands, BEFORE she tells her story. SHE is the reason she has not told her story. Congress has bent so far over backward to accommodate her they now resemble a leftward-facing pretzel. Yet she still has even more demands. Cartoonist Gary Varvel, with the Indianapolis Star, did a cartoon where she is refusing to exit her limousine (provided by the Dumocrats) while her lawyer tells them, “She doesn’t like the color” of the red carpet they rolled out for her. A picture is worth a thousand words. (Just common sense)

They're Too Effective!

Dumocrats want to abolish ICE. Why? Because they are so effective at their job, in spite of the opposition of “sanctuary cities” and the blocks they present. Those cities are against them enforcing the law. They know that, if the law is enforced as written, they are going to lose a lot of cheap labor, and they don’t want that. The Dumocrats need a permanent underclass, and if the law is enforced, they will lose it. In California, one city has already “legalized” illegal aliens to vote, and nobody has done anything about it except to whine and moan. They can’t seem to stop ICE from doing their job, so they now want to ABOLISH them. What’s next? The State Police? Will there soon be a “mass movement” to close the prisons? How about making a LAW against enforcing the law? That’s about as stupid as other things liberals push. (Breitbart)

Telling the Difference

In Chicago, how do you tell the difference between a gang killing an a cop killing? The direction in which the bullets are going, maybe? The cops killed a man who was fleeing and reaching for a gun. That makes no difference, I suppose, to the “citizens” who are protesting that. What are the cops supposed to do? Wait until he gets his gun out and aimed at a cop before they “cancel his check?” As many of the very people who are protesting themselves are likely involved in shootings of other citizens, it’s a wonder they have time to protest. They deny the guy had a gun, but you take ANY gathering of people in certain parts of Chicago, and a majority of them will have guns in their pockets, needing cleaning after they killed somebody. Meanwhile, Rahm Emanuel and his gang make more and more anti-gun laws for them to ignore while they kill each other on purpose, and innocent people by accident, while trying to kill those they aim at. Nobody seems to notice that their anti-gun laws just make it easier for those who ignore them to victimize the law-abiding, who DO obey their laws. (Hey, Jackass!)

Sorry About That

There was no update on Friday, and there will be none on Monday. That’s because my sister is in town for a visit, which might well be her last (don’t tell her that, she wouldn’t respond well). I need time to visit with her, and her son, who is also here. He’s paying for the trip. Posts will resume on Tuesday, after I take her to the airport.

Democrat "Heroes"

Dumocrats talk about TWO people who have been “accused” (only) of sexual misconduct “being on the Supreme Court.” That includes Justice Thomas and future Justice Kavanaugh. They think unsupported by evidence “accusations” are proof of misconduct. They tried very hard in the case of Justice Thomas, but couldn’t come up with more than a pubic hair on a Coke can. And even that hair cannot be attributed to Thomas. Now they’re talking about a 37 year-old UNPROVABLE accusation of “near rape” that the accuser can’t even come up with any details of. She won’t even come forward to testify about it, and is making excuse after excuse to avoid it. Meanwhile, Dumocrats laud Bill Clinton as a hero even though there is ample evidence of his sexual misconduct, even rapes. The “Lion of the Senate,” Teddy Kennedy, he of the “woman sandwich” and the killing of “that Kopechne woman” as she was referred to by Kennedy and his accomplices, is STILL a Dumocrat hero, even after his death. Then there is Alcee Hastings, a Dumocrat judge who was impeached for corruption, who later ran for, and was elected to, the Senate, where he remains, to this day. These are the kinds of people who are dumping all over Judge Kavanaugh, who has NEVER had anybody even THINK of accusing him of any misconduct until the Dumocrats wanted to keep him off the Supreme Court, at all costs. They STILL have no PROOF of any misconduct, sexual or otherwise, but they are in the process of systematically ruining his life, on the basis of something that can’t be proved (as usual). The swamp is “doing it’s thing” while Trump is “tearing their house down.” (Wikipedia)

Mueller's Credibility

He has none. He threw that away right after being appointed, when he hired 13 KNOWN anti-Trump Dumocrats to be his staff. One that attended Hillary’s “victory party” before she realized she had been whupped. Another was an FBI man who was having an affair with another anti-Trumper, both of who were unalterably OPPOSED to anything Donald Trump ever did. Then there were all the other people, some of whom had worked on Hillary’s campaign, or the campaigns of other Dumocrats. Just about every one of them had reasons to want to FRAME Trump for anything they could. The bias of every member of his staff is not in question to anybody but other Dumocrats, all of which want one thing: to be rid of Donald Trump, who happens to be our ELECTED president. Mueller, and his “band of bandits” have worked diligently for almost two years, and have ruined many lives in their quest to frame Trump for SOMETHING, They have failed to find ANYTHING they can “pin on” Trump. They need to surrender, and call their “investigation” off. They have spent $MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars in a failed quest to FRAME Trump, and that needs to STOP. (Just common sense)

Using Any Excuse

This guy’s SON made a comment abut his school’s security and that brought the cops to his home wanting to confiscate guns. They found no guns in his room, and then wanted to “confiscate” (steal) his father’s guns. Unfortunately, for them, his father had served three tours in Iraq and knew his rights. The cops had no warrant, and he told them to “screw off.” They did. The law under which they wanted to take his guns says the state may take guns away from those who are “a danger to themselves or others.” What is not said is just what the son said, so we don’t know what he said, and whether or not they are “stretching a point” to come to take his, AND his father’s guns away. Never mind his father is well trained in handling his guns—probably better than those cops. Needless to say, he “shut them down” easily—as can any citizen who stays up on his rights under the Constitution of the United States, which GUARANTEES their RIGHT to be armed for self defense. (Breitbart)

Racists Against "Racism"

It’s getting stranger and stranger our there, folks. Gays are teaching our school children as early as the first grade how great it is to be gay. Dumocrats are trying to ruin a good man because he had the misfortune to be appointed to the Supreme Court by President Trump. Men are now being allowed in women’s restrooms and changing rooms if they “think” they are a woman, that day. There are many other strange things happening today, and now a bunch of RACISTS are teaching our kids, in college, how to combat RACISM! No, not racism as you know it. They’re on about “white privilege,” which is nothing but a “pipe dream” in the feeble minds of liberals. But they’ve managed to get gullible (or colluding) college “authorities” to allow them to teach this as if it were real. They’re trying to change the entire base of the thinking of America through stupidity in teaching. “White privilege” does not exist. But, as with many damned fool things liberals push, they hope to convince our children it is, before they’ve been alive long enough to see how they’ve been fooled. They want to teach that it is “normal” for men to sleep with men, and women to sleep with women, and that it should be a CRIME to say otherwise. Same with global warming. The list of things they want to convince us of being real but are NOT, is long, and growing longer. (The Blaze)

Hey! A Real Justice!

If Trump’s latest appointee to the supreme Court is affirmed, it’s good news for those who wish the supreme court would just do what they are SUPPOSED to do: figure out if a law follows the constitution, or not. Lately, the Court has not done that. It has “made it’s own law.” It has ruled, based on FOREIGN LAW. Everything BUT the Constitution of the United States of America, which it is MANDATED to do. It is supposed to be a “last resort” to keep ignorant politicians from violating the Constitution with their many stupid laws. And that is the most noticeable on gun control. Each and every “gun control law” now in force is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why? Because they are an ABRIDGMENT on the Second Amendment right that says “the right to be armed shall not be abridged.” It’s as simple as that. But the Supreme Court, which has been largely controlled by liberals, has used every subterfuge they can think of to get around that. But the Second Amendment is not “gibberish,” as they would have you believe. It is one short paragraph that says ONE THING. It is easily understood, even to the feeble minded (which describes the anti-gun fools). But anti-gun fools don’t understand it, or PRETEND not to understand it. They try and convince us that the right to be armed is ONLY for an “organized militia,” which did not exist when the Second was written. They want us to believe that “arms” means flintlocks, when it means ALL guns. It did not specify a certain kind of gun. (Daily Caller)

Next: Plastic Box Cutters

The anti-gun fools are, as usual, thrashing around, doing the wrong thing. They’re so afraid somebody’s going to get something up on them, they focus on “the issue of the month,” which in this case is 3D printed plastic guns, completely ignoring everything else. While the bad guys concentrate on everything else. Whatever they ban, the bad guys come up with something else for them to ban, next, And so on, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Meanwhile, people die because the bad guys seem always to be one step ahead of their bans. They’ve banned “bump-stocks,” in many places, even though the bump stock has only been used in ONE mass shooting, and is so easy to make, it doesn’t even require anything beyond a garage workshop to make. Just wait until a terrorist does his work only with hand-to-hand combat tactics. Will the “authorities” ban the teaching of hand-to-hand combat techniques? Or hands? Probably. And that will be just as futile, as the bad guys will figure out something else just as effective, and they’ll ban it, too. And so on. (NJ)

"No Proof Needed"

The woman who has accused Judge Kavanaugh of (almost) rape now has a lawyer who apparently doesn’t know much about how the law works. This fool lawyer says “she doesn’t need to prove her accusations.” I guess this lawyer figures a woman can stick a pin in the phone book and choose a man she wants to accuse of a serious crime, and do it, with NO PROOF required. And that man has to prove it didn’t happen. I got a clue for ya, “counselor.” It doesn’t work that way in the real world. In the real world, the accuser MUST prove the accusations for them to be taken seriously. But not, apparently, in the world of politics. Especially not if the accused is not a liberal. Liberals who are accused DEMAND proof, while they say a non-liberal is “guilty until proven innocent.” In fact, liberals seem to be never charged. Hillary Clinton, for example, violated many laws, and has yet to face any charges. In Kavanaugh’s case, some bimbo comes out of the woodwork at the last minute, accusing him of a terrible crime, and they say she MUST be believed, and he should be put before a firing squad, just on her unsupported word. (Just common sense)

The Liberals' Downfall

They think Trump and all his supporters are stupid, (while they) run rings around them at every turn. And they’re not even smart enough to understand that. They think he wanders the halls of the White House muttering to himself, and spends too much time watching television. Every time he “steals a march” on them, they belittle it, and believe their belittling. By so doing, they concede the field TO him, whether or not they know it. They really believe they are going to win back control of Congress in the next election because all their friends (all liberals) seem to agree with them. They just cannot understand that Trump is something they’ve never encountered before—somebody who has never been a politician until he announced he was running for the presidency, and is not going to ACT the same as a politician. That he won on his first time out should have given them a message, but they aren’t smart enough to understand. They are going to get beat, and beat badly in the next election, and STILL they are going to blame outsiders for their loss, and never realize it’s their POLICIES that are responsible. They’ll whine and moan and start “investigation” after “investigation” for the next four years he is in office. Meanwhile he will be tearing down their house. (Just common sense)

Gun Control Doesn't Work

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, as many times as it takes for the fools who want to control access to guns for the law-abiding while ignoring it for the law BREAKERS to become intelligent enough to understand. IF they ever do. Gun control only makes it easier for lawbreakers to victimize the law-abiding. Criminals and other miscreants love gun control laws because they understand that those laws ONLY apply to the law-abiding, and they can “do their business” without fear (for the most part) that the law-abiding (who usually aren’t the problem) will be armed, and able to defend against them. Criminals in prison have been asked about that, and, to a man, they have told us they love those laws, because it makes it easier for them. Why otherwise intelligent people just can’t understand this, and continue to insist on making more and more of those USELESS laws, is beyond me. These laws are forcing the usually law-abiding to become criminals, and get their guns ILLEGALLY, so as to have “parity” with those who obey NO LAWS, much less ones that say they cannot be armed while they commit their crimes. Chicago and Toronto, Canada, and other cities have very tight anti-gun laws, but still have very high “gun crime” stats. Why is that? I’ve already told you, above. (Just common sense)

Why Did DiFi Wait?

Dumocrat Senator Diane Feinstein supposedly got the letter from Christine Ford about her imaginary “rape attempt” by Judge Kavanaugh when they were in HIGH SCHOOL, last July. Why did she hold it until now? That’s simple to those of us who are INTELLIGENT. She wanted to make a “Hail Mary” play, leaving Republicans NO TIME in which to defend themselves against this unsupported by facts accusation. This woman is a Dumocrat operative who wore a “vagina hat” at a recent #MeToo demonstration. She is PART of the “irrational Trump haters,” and wants to do as much damage as she can to anything Trump wants to do. I think, when we get deeper into this, we will find that this woman was a “Kavanaugh fan” in high school and he didn’t even know she existed. Now she sees a way to “get even” with him by being instrumental in denying him his seat on the Supreme Court. This woman needs to testify before Congress, so when her story is found to be false, there will be consequences. She SAYS she wants to testify, but I’ll believe that when she does. DiFi says she kept it quiet because Ford wanted to remain anonymous, but wanted DiFi to know about it. Why? So DiFi could do her “Hail Mary” play. If she really wanted to remain anonymous, why did she write the letter in the first place? Their answer doesn’t hold water. It causes my BS meter to SPIKE. (Just common sense)

Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional

Cops can TAKE your car if you commit a small crime like having an ounce of pot in it. Or take your HOUSE if your KIDS are found to have coke in it. The whole concept of civil forfeiture was begun when they passed the RICO laws, to take away the money drug dealers, who had a lot of it, could use to defend themselves when arrested. The “authorities freely admit that, apparently not knowing that action effectively took away any chance those drug dealers had to defend themselves against the charges. The Constitution GUARANTEES the right of every citizen to be “secure in their person and their possessions. This law VIOLATES that, in every way. Yes, I know, drug dealers deserve whatever comes to them. But what if the person arrested is NOT a drug dealer? What if he’s innocent, and has no way to defend himself? Worse yet, the cops don’t even have to PROVE any crime to steal a person’s money, or any other belongings. All that is necessary is an ACCUSATION, and they can TAKE what is not theirs. This makes THIEVES out of the cops. And violates a very basic human right. (Reason Magazine)

Where Were the Cops?

Proving AGAIN that the cops can’t protect us from those who would abuse the use of guns, it took the cops 14 MINUTES to respond to this home invasion, while a woman and two children cowered on a rooftop, waiting to be murdered by an armed intruder. The Baltimore cops say at least one cop arrived on the scene within ONE MINUTE of receiving the call. Apparently, he “waited outside” for other cops to arrive, while this woman and her children cowered on the roof, for 14 MINUTES. That’s IF the “one minute claim” was true. We can’t find that out, because the cops will not release records to either prove, or deny the truth of that claim. Baltimore is where they wrongly indicted six cops in a case where the crook accidentally killed himself while trying to incriminate the cops. Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed, and they were found not guilty. But that shows that there is something very WRONG in Baltimore. Cops should take 14 minutes to respond to such a call, NEVER. For ANY reason. Under ANY circumstances. In any case, this strengthens the argument for the NECESSITY for more people to be armed for self defense. (Fox Baltimore)

Typical Democrat Lies

Dumocrat Senator Diane Feinstein says she has a letter from a woman who SAYS Kavanaugh locked her up in a room and tried to rape her when they were both in HIGH SCHOOL. If they had to go back that far to even FIND a woman to lie about him, they’re really desperate. And I believe that’s what they did. Again, it’s an accusation based entirely on the UNSUPPORTED WORD of one woman who, if it did happen (which I sincerely doubt), remained silent about it all these years, including the time he went through the same process when he was first appointed to superior court. Why did she bring it up now (if she actually did)? Because the Dumocrats have a lot of money they can drop in her bank account if she does it. And DiFi didn’t want to give Congress any time to “look into it.” I don’t know if her accusation is true or not (I doubt it). But without more than just her unsupported word, it is USELESS. Means about as much as Anita Hill’s “pubic hair on a coke can” did in getting now Justice Thomas rejected. The tactics of the Dumocrats are so transparent, a toddler could see through them. They use the same ones, over and over, even though they rarely work. They won’t work this time, either. (Daily Caller)