What "facts" do you have? A polygraph test is not only unreliable, the results are inadmissible in court. And, you seem to ignore the FACT that Ford doesn't remember much at all about the alleged incident, other than one freaking name. That is highly suspicious and is indicative of an ulterior motive, obviously a political one.

Senator Grassley has given Ford every opportunity to step up to the plate, including flying the committee's investigative team to a location of her choice to get her testimony. Even president Trump is on board with her stepping forward. Ford's lawyers say she is open to testifying IF the senators offer her "terms that are fair and which ensure her safety." WTF? I sure as hell don't see any liberal progs on that committee treating Kavanaugh fairly, all those assholes do is vomit all kinds of vile s**t about the man.

The FACT is, woodenhead, that we all would like to hear what this femin**i activist, pussy hatted dev**ee of Bernie Sanders has to say.

The drive to sink Kavanaugh is liberal totalitarianism

If Senate Democrats and their media allies manage to destroy Brett Kavanaugh, they will bring America one step closer to a new, liberal style of totalitarianism.

I don’t use the “T”-word lightly. I’ve spent years pushing back against those who fling it about in free societies like ours. But totalitarianism doesn’t require cartoonish, 1984-style secret police and Big Brother. The classical definition is a society where everything — ethical norms and moral principles and t***h itself — is subjugated to political ends.

By that measure, the Democratic campaign to block Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, based on a hazy, uncorroborated, decades-old assault allegation, tends toward the totalitarian. Certainly, it has many of the elements of abusive politics that Americans normally associate with foreign lands untouched by the light of liberty and reason:

An (initially) anonymous accusation, surfaced at the 11th hour, seemingly calculated to strike terror into the hearts of Kavanaugh and his family members and supporters? Check! That came in the form of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s cryptic statement last week, confirming that she had “received information from an individual concerning the nomination” of Kavanaugh but declining to offer any details.

An accusation that’s impossible to rebut? Check! Senate Democrats are demanding that the FBI look into the allegations first before the Judiciary Committee holds a hearing. But Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, can’t remember the time or location of the alleged incident. An FBI probe is impracticable, not to mention improper given the lack of a federal crime.

Kavanaugh’s integrity is thus besmirched, and the path to the only forum where he could clear his name is obstructed.

A media mob that treats the mere existence of an accusation as proof of its veracity? Check! The examples of this are legion. My favorite came courtesy of the Atlantic writer who claimed that her own run-in with a pervert meant that Kavanaugh is also guilty. This, just a couple of years after Rolling Stone’s University of Virginia fiasco was supposed to have taught reporters a lesson about the importance of listening to the accused as well as the accusers.

It didn’t have to be this way.

Feinstein didn’t have to leak the anonymous accusation to the press, contrary to Ford’s wishes. Or she could have urged Ford to go public early, giving both parties enough time to be heard.

Even now, Feinstein and her colleagues could back a committee hearing, without which Kavan­augh has no realistic opportunity for mounting a defense. Kavan­augh is a judge and a political operator. But he ‘s also a father and husband.

But no. Senate Dems have settled on the ugliest means available, even by the standards of the body that added the verb “Borking” to our political vocabulary. The question is: Why have Republican high-court nominations brought out the worst from the left, going back to the Ronald Reagan era?

The short answer is that liberals fear their major cultural victories of the past half-century are democratically illegitimate. Not a single one was won at the b****t box, going back to the Supreme Court’s 1965 Griswold decision, which recognized a constitutional right to contraceptives. From a******n to gay marriage, plus a host of less titillating issues, modern liberalism has lived by the Court. And liberals fear their cause will die by the Court.

Unless, that is, they block conservative encroachments into the judiciary by all means necessary. Hence, Borking and Clarence Thomas-ing. And hence, too, the naked slandering of Mitt Romney in the course of the 2012 p**********l campaign, to forestall his shifting the Court to the right.

I wish I could say that the way out of this impasse is for the right to double down on the gentle conservatism represented by Romney, the Bush dynasty, and the late John McCain. Perhaps that is the right course in the long term. But for now, it is imperative for the health of American democracy to resist the liberal ruthlessness that is on display in the halls of the Senate.

The verb “to Kavanaugh” must not be permitted to enter our lexicon, lest the step to unfreedom become irrevocable.

Liberal progressives are pushing their anti-American agenda to the threshold, there is a breaking point, and there will be a reckoning if they go too far. It won't be pretty. Genuine Americans have had enough of this s**t.

3rd Person in Room During ‘Kavanaugh Attack’ Comes Forward and Blows Story Apart
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/author/malachi-bailey/?ff_source=push&ff_medium=conservativetribune&ff_campaign=manualpost&ff_content=2018-09-20

The left’s characterization of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is falling apart after another individual identified as being present during the alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh has come forward and rejected the accuser’s story.

In a letter sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California professor Christine Blasey Ford said there were four people besides herself at the party when she was allegedly assaulted by Kavanaugh.

One of those four people, Patrick J. Smyth, a high school classmate of Kavanaugh, provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with a letter rebutting Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh, according to CNS News.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in his statement published by CNN.

Smyth went on to claim “no knowledge” of the party Ford described.

“I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Smyth also commented on Kavanaugh’s character and his treatment of women.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women,” Smyth said.

Smyth’s statement makes him the third person to deny Ford’s claims out of the four individuals Ford said were present at the party....

Show me some law or executive order that permits s**tting in public water supplies or unrestrained emmission of pollutants into the air.

Banks have been able to tank the eonomy since 1916. The true criminality is that Obama gave those banks roughly Nine Trillion of our dollars to do with as they pleased after the last recession, without putting any of the criminals responsible in jail. Instead, they got huuuge bonuses.

What is Net Neutrality? It has so many meanings to so many different players that they can't all be true. Is there any way to determine if this is an issue for the ordinary net user or is it germane only to owners of massive server farms? The term has never been properly defined and each pundit has a different take on who it affects or what it does, so how can you hold an opinion either way?

I can agree with you on this one. I would propose a DOD funding limit at 25% of GDP. I would make it law and restrict any cuts, to meet budget, to the Non-Military portion of the budget. We have far too many paper pushers who have retired early on the job, in Federal Government agencies. The Civil Service Laws regarding dismissal should also be revised so that simple imcomptence is cause for termination. Moral turpitude should definitely be cause for termination and blacklisting.