Mid-Day Digest

Sep. 27, 2018

THE FOUNDATION

“In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend.” —Alexander Hamilton (1788)

Comment | Share

IN TODAY’S EDITION

  • The Kavanaugh/Ford hearings kickoff as a Democrat setup.
  • We don’t have 11 million illegal aliens. We have 22 million.
  • What to do about American involvement in the civil war in Yemen?
  • Daily Features: Top Headlines, Memes, Cartoons, Columnists, and Short Cuts.

FEATURED ANALYSIS

The Kavanaugh Hearings Are a Setup

Nate Jackson

Today’s the big day: Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford are, as we go to press while watching proceedings, taking turns testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about her allegations that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her sometime in 1982. Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor, is questioning Ford.

Ford’s prepared opening statement is here.

Kavanaugh’s is here.

As the hearings were set to open, however, there was a development that could be significant. The Judiciary Committee spoke to two men who came forward to admit that they might be the ones at the center of Ford’s claim. If their claim is true, then it was not Kavanaugh and classmate Mark Judge who assaulted Ford — an idea speculated before now. (Ford also named P.J. Smyth and claimed a fourth classmate was there.) But if Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is correct, one of the men who came forward is “crazy as a loon” and “not reliable.” Ford says there’s “zero chance” of mistaken identity, but Kavanaugh, Judge, and Smyth deny under penalty of perjury that they know anything about the alleged incident.

Someone is wrong.

For the record, we find it plausible that something did happen to Ford 36 years ago. But whether it began as a “consensual” (if drunken) tryst that she later regretted or if it truly was nonconsensual aggression, false memories are a real thing, and Ford’s recollection of the trauma could have manifested quite different from the facts.

In any case, remember these things: The four people she claims corroborate her story can only vouch for her having spoken of it to them since 2012. And one of them is her husband, who is clearly invested in backing her. Four other people with contemporary knowledge, including her lifelong friend Leland Ingham Keyser, deny her allegations. And the polygraph Ford took was widely discredited — for one thing, it consisted of two questions.

Regardless of what happens today, however, Democrats have already made up their minds. Not only will they vote in lockstep against Kavanaugh, 10 of them have demanded his immediate withdrawal from consideration. He has been tried in their circus court of public opinion and found guilty, regardless of the dubious and uncorroborated nature of the claims.

Democrats base this conclusion not only on Ford’s unprovable allegations but on other, even less credible accusations specifically timed to coincide with other markers in the process. First, there was Deborah Ramirez’s account of Kavanaugh’s indecent exposure, announced via The New Yorker a few hours after the Ford testimony was announced. Ramirez is “willing to testify,” but there are no credible corroborating witnesses to her story and numerous denials from Kavanaugh and others.

Then, the day before testimony, came Stormy Daniels’s porn lawyer, Michael Avenatti, shamelessly self-promoting through Julie Swetnick, who was once served a restraining order for threatening a former boyfriend, but who alleges that Kavanaugh was present for a “gang rape” ring at drunken high-school parties. Those parties supposedly occurred while Kavanaugh was somewhere between 15 and 17, while Swetnick was between 18 and 20 — i.e., no longer in high school but rather an adult voluntarily cavorting with teens even after supposedly knowing of these gang rapes. And, by the way, no one reported this allegation at any time until the day before Kavanaugh’s hearing with Ford. In fact, more than 60 Georgetown Prep alumni sent a letter to the Senate rejecting the claims. No wonder Avenatti has ignored six Judiciary Committee attempts to obtain evidence and insists Swetnick will not testify. She did, however, interview with Showtime.

The Leftmedia attempted Wednesday night to level two more allegations. Accusation number four was an anonymous letter about an anonymous “victim” who was “shoved … up against the wall very aggressively and sexually” by Kavanaugh in 1998. Republicans are appropriately assigning the letter no credibility, while Kavanaugh called it “total Twilight Zone.” And fifth, a Rhode Island man accused Kavanaugh of raping a “close associate of his” on a boat in 1985, only to retract the allegation entirely a few hours later, saying, “I have made a mistake and apologize.”

The point of these pathetic attempts to besmirch Kavanaugh is to establish a pattern of horrific behavior to support Ford’s testimony today. But as Laura Ingraham astutely notes, “If Kavanaugh had done any of what he’s accused of, the Clinton War Room would have destroyed him in 1998 when he was a top official in Ken Starr’s Whitewater Investigation.”

If Democrats succeed in derailing Kavanaugh’s nomination altogether, it’s a win. If they can delay a vote until after the election, it’s a win. And if they can “merely” tarnish his reputation for the duration of his tenure on the nation’s highest court, then they’ll at least be able to decry every ruling this misogynist, attempted rapist ever makes regarding issues remotely attached to women.

Why are Democrats doing this? Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who orchestrated this cynical charade from the beginning, gave the game away as today’s hearings opened, admitting that Democrats want Ford to represent all abused and harassed women. By extension, Kavanaugh represents all white men in positions of authority or power who abuse those women. This group identity of victimization is a useful tool when Democrats want to dupe the women voters they clearly view as emotionally incontinent fools incapable of discerning fact from fiction.

Paradoxically, by pulling this heavily politicized stunt, Democrats are actually delegitimizing the victims of real sexual assault. And on that note, to be clear, there is a big difference between the motivations of Feinstein & Co. and Ford.

Let’s hope Senate Republicans and voters in November see this all for what it truly is: swamp politics at its absolute worst.

Comment | Share

22 Million: Double the Number of Illegals

Arnold Ahlert

A critical bit of “conventional wisdom,” long treasured by the Leftmedia, the Democrat Party, and the RINO wing of the GOP, has been debunked. Three college professors, Yale’s Edward Kaplan, colleague Jonathan Feinstein and MIT’s Mohammad Fazel-Zarandi, conducted a study and discovered what most Americans unpersuaded by progressive propaganda have suspected all along: The number of illegal aliens residing in America is likely double the long-stated estimate of 11 million.

And no one was more surprised by this “discovery” than the professors themselves. “Our original idea was just to do a sanity check on the existing number,” said Kaplan, an operations research professor. “Instead of a number which was smaller, we got a number that was 50 percent higher. That caused us to scratch our heads.”

Head-scratching inevitably occurs when “sanity” — along with common sense — takes a back seat to ideology. For the last decade, Americans have been brow-beaten with that estimate of 11 million, and those who dared to question it were labeled as nativist, xenophobic, and/or hysterical. Yet how that number became the “conventional wisdom” is indicative. “Call any journalist, pundit, anchor, strategist or lobbyist and ask: 1. How many illegal immigrants are in the United States? 2. What is your source for that number? Almost without exception he or she will answer: 1. 11 million. 2. The Pew Research Center,” wrote columnist William Campenni in 2015.

Media echo-chamber, anyone?

Pew gets its data from the Department of Homeland Security, which gets its data from the Census Bureau — the one Barack Obama shifted control of from the Commerce Department to the White House prior to the 2010 census. The Census Bureau bases its calculations on its annual American Community Survey. “It’s been the only method used for the last three decades,” says Fazel‐Zarandi.

A survey? How many illegal aliens would willingly admit their illegality to a government bureaucrat? Leftists must know the answer, because they’re furious that Donald Trump’s administration might include a question about citizenship on the 2020 Census. The Census determines the proportional number the of seats in the House and the level of federal funding each state would receive, and those states where illegals pad the population — and diminish the value of citizenship — would undoubtedly take a hit.

“Immigration itself was weaponized,” explains columnist Victor Davis Hanson with regard to the machinations perpetrated by the Obama administration. “Notions of legality, meritocracy and diversity in adjudicating immigration gave way to welcoming in as many as possible who might empower the Obama political agenda of ethnic tribalization.”

Better known as “fundamental transformation.”

The professors’ data was extrapolated from the number of deportations, border apprehensions, visa overstays, death rates, and immigration rates from the years 1990 through 2016. The professors insist the number of illegals is higher than expected (by whom?), due to the cheap-labor policies embraced by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Moreover, they insist the inflow of illegals leveled off following the economic meltdown in 2008.

Leveled off? Does that mean three straight years of record-breaking “border surges” during the Obama administration, at least two years (2016 and 2017) where an average of 600,000 people overstayed their visas, this year’s record breaking border surge of 16,000 “family units” in August alone, and the more than 2,000 illegals apprehended during a three-day period at a single Texas border crossing, have been offset by an equal number of illegals who have died or repatriated themselves?

More ambiguity? A 2016 DHS report insists 54% of those who entered America illegally between border crossings got caught in FY2015. How does one compute the number of people who have completely avoided scrutiny?

Everything is an estimate for the simplest of reasons: Our borders remain sieve-like, tracking visa overstayers is a technological nightmare, and America’s ruling class remains beholden to the globalist agenda. It is an agenda that champions “comprehensive immigration reform” — which looks far less palatable when an ostensibly “benign” total of only 11 million illegals suddenly mushrooms to double that number.

Or more. The figure of 22 million is the mean estimate between 16 million and 29 million.

Despite what amounts to a de facto invasion, professor Kaplan reveals the utter bankruptcy that remains the prevalent mindset of far too many elitists. “You have the same number of crimes but now spread over twice as many people as was believed before, which right away means that the crime rate among undocumented immigrants is essentially half whatever was previously believed,” he declared.

Not undocumented immigrants, professor. Illegal aliens. And if there is a more repugnant argument than the notion that there is some “palatable” number of wholly avoidable murders, rapes, etc., Americans should abide to accommodate progressive ideological sensibilities, one is hard-pressed to imagine what it could be.

Kaplan uses the same argument with regard to jobs. “Whatever job displacement there has been happened with twice as many undocumented immigrants as we thought. That causes you to rethink just how much pressure there is.” Or maybe it causes millions of Americans who’ve endured flat wages for more than 20 years, who’ve been “downsized” in favor of foreigners who’ll work for less money, or can’t find a job altogether, to become infuriated by the reality that their life-altering problems can be trivialized with weasel words like “displacement” and “pressure.” Maybe they wonder why so many of their fellow Americans would not only marginalize their futures but tell them they’re bigoted if they don’t buy into that marginalization.

Last week, the New York Post ran a story about a stabbing spree at a Queens boarding house, one that accommodated “tourist babies” — as in places where pregnant foreigners go to have children who will automatically become Americans, and eventually bring their extended family here via chain migration. This adds an estimated 40,000 babies per year to the nation’s citizenship rolls in a nation with an already record-breaking foreign-born population of 55 million.

So what’s Congress up to? The House is attempting to pass a resolution stating that “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”

Disqualifying the vote totals of such renegade states in national elections? Funding for a wall or E-Verify? Defunding sanctuary cities and holding politicians in those cities civilly or criminally liable for defying federal immigration law? Precipitating a challenge as to whether or not “birth tourism,” a.k.a. “anchor babies” comports with the 14th Amendment?

Nowhere to be found.

Chris Chmielenski, deputy director of the low-immigration advocacy group NumbersUSA, believes the study is an outlier. And if it’s not? “If you’re looking at doubling the illegal immigration population every 10 years, you’ve got serious, serious problems,” he said. Not serious. Catastrophic — and wholly self-inflicted by elitists who never bear the consequences of the policies they impose on the “little people.”

Comment | Share

Top Headlines

  • Trump says he may delay Rosenstein meeting, would prefer not to fire him (USA Today)
  • House passes $854 billion spending bill to avert shutdown; Trump says he’ll sign it (The Hill)
  • Fed hikes rates, raises 2018 growth projections to 3.1% (Washington Examiner)
  • Final reading on second-quarter GDP confirms 4.2% gain, the fastest rise in nearly four years (CNBC)
  • Pompeo confirms there will be second summit between Trump, Kim Jong-un (The Washington Free Beacon)
  • Trump: China is trying to meddle in 2018 election (CNS News)
  • U.S. court upholds Louisiana restriction on abortion clinics (Reuters)
  • Taxpayers could save over $3 trillion by eliminating wasteful and inefficient programs and unfair subsidies (The Washington Free Beacon)
  • The only thing worse than being searched by the TSA is working for the TSA (Reason)
  • Humor: United States justice system to close all brick-and-mortar locations, operate exclusively on Twitter (The Babylon Bee)
  • Policy: Keys for a consumer-centric approach to online privacy (American Enterprise Institute)
  • Policy: How Fed rate increases affect the economy (E21)

For more of today’s news, visit Patriot Headline Report.

Comment | Share

GOOD NEWS

Seven-Year-Old Girl’s Singing of National Anthem Goes Viral

Soccer fans were treated to a seven-year-old-girl’s impressive version of “The Star-Spangled Banner” on Sunday — with the results captured in a now-viral video.

For more visit Fox News.

Comment | Share

TODAY’S MEME

Share

For more of today’s memes, visit the Memesters Union.

TODAY’S CARTOON

Share

For more of today’s top cartoons, visit the Cartoons archive.

Don’t Miss Alexander’s Column

Read The Demo Assault on Kavanaugh … and Our Constitution’s Rule of Law. These Democrat tactics are the “ends justify the means” standards of “justice” upon which totalitarian regimes are built and sustained.

If you’d like to receive Alexander’s Column by email, update your subscription here.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

For more of today’s columns, visit Right Opinion.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

OPINION IN BRIEF

Gary Bauer: “Where is Judge Kavanaugh supposed to go to get his reputation back? As I have previously reported, Brett Kavanaugh has undergone six FBI investigations. Nothing like these accusations ever came up. Kavanaugh has been nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals twice — in 2004 and 2006. His nominations were very controversial at the time as Senate Democrats were aggressively fighting every single Bush nominee. But nothing like these accusations ever came up. Kavanaugh was a lead investigator for Ken Starr’s team during the investigation into Bill Clinton’s various scandals. He was extremely involved in the Monica Lewinsky investigation and wrote portions of the Starr Report that made the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment. As you may recall, the Clinton team waged all-out war against Starr and his team. Clinton loyalist Sidney Blumenthal reportedly hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on Starr and his prosecutors. Surely the Clintons would have relished the opportunity to smear one of Ken Starr’s investigators with charges of rape and sexual assault. But nothing like these accusations ever came up. I hope and pray that the American people see through this obvious smear campaign and massively punish the Democrats this November for attempting to destroy a good man and his family.”

SHORT CUTS

Upright: “The Democrats and the media have spent a lot of the last couple of years talking about undermining basic democratic norms — they should look in the mirror. Talk about undermining basic democratic norms of due process and the presumption of innocence.” —Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)

For the record: “The only senator on the Judiciary Committee to dismiss Ford’s claim was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who sat on it for weeks until it was ripe enough to weaponize. The Republicans instantly offered to give Ford a hearing, in private or in public or even in California.” —Jonah Goldberg

Double standards: “It’s fun watching all of these liberals suddenly transform into teetotalers scandalized at the notion of teenagers drinking and partying.” —Matt Walsh

Actually, there is: “There’s no presumption of innocence or guilt when you have a nominee before you.” —Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Flashbacks: “The next person that refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. [The] FBI explicitly does not in this or any other case reach a conclusion. Period.” —Joe Biden during the 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings

Obstruction agenda: “Saving the Supreme Court from Trump’s clutches has always involved a very complicated two-step: first, block Kavanaugh, then fight like hell to win back the Senate. If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there. If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his shortlist.” —former Hillary Clinton adviser Brian Fallon

Braying Jackass: “In a way, I think it goes with the territory. I don’t like that [protesters] were blocking [Ted Cruz’] wife, but that’s what he signed up for. And as a strict constitutionalist, which Ted Cruz is, he knows it is protected under the First Amendment.” —CNN’s Don Lemon

Alpha Jackass: “So Kavanaugh gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, OK? Well, in return we get to cut that pesky penis of his off in front of everyone.” —misogynist Jimmy Kimmel

And last… “Sadly, the Left demands more due process for accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay than for well-qualified Supreme Court nominees.” —Gary Bauer

Comment | Share


Join our editors and staff in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families. We also humbly ask prayer for your Patriot team, that our mission would seed and encourage the spirit of Liberty in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

Nate Jackson, Managing Editor
Mark Alexander, Publisher

Subscribe! It's Right. It's Free.