theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Andrew Gillum Staffer FIRED After Calling for Trump's EXECUTION

Just what our nation needs, Democrat Operatives working with our youth, calling for the Assassination of the President of the United States! The disrespect by Minority Communities for our
Institutions, Federal, State and Local Laws. Too many bottom feeders giving orders to those who have toiled to make this nation  safe and prosperous...tmiraldi

Gregg Re

A youth outreach staffer for Democratic Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum has been terminated after calling for President Trump's death on Twitter, and wearing a shirt calling pro-Trump states "Dumbf--kistan."
The staffer, 24-year-old Manny Orozco-Ballestas, made a series of sexually graphic and politically charged comments on social media in 2012 and 2013, according to fringe blogger Jacob Engels, who flagged the posts. 
In one 2013 post, Orozco-Ballestas wrote to Trump: "you need to be executed." In another, he reportedly wrote, "If you're weighing 300 pounds+ maybe it's a good idea you stop posting all that fattening food pics on [Instagram]!"
But it was one of Orozco-Ballestas' own Instagram posts last summer -- which was also unearthed last week by Engels and published by The Tampa Bay Times -- that led to calls by state Republicans for his termination.
In the post, Orozco-Ballestas is pictured wearing a shirt depicting a map of the United States, with red-colored states indicating ones that went for President Trump in the 2016 election.
On the shirt, a key provided below the map explains that the red states refer to "Dumbf---istan," while the blue refer to the "United States of America."
Former Obama campaign regional field director Robin Biro and former George W. Bush senior staffer Brad Blakeman on how Florida gubernatorial nominee Andrew Gillum, who was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), will face off against Trump-backed GOP candidate Rep. Ron DeSantis.
The Republican Party of Florida immediately called for Orozco-Ballestas' firing, saying the post was unconscionable.
"It is unbelievable to me that Andrew Gillum would not only employ, but promote on social media, a person who calls voters 'dumb f*cks' for electing Republicans," Florida Republican Party Chairman Blaise Ingoglia wrote in a statement. "It is hypocritical for Gillum to endorse the same kind of hateful, intolerant speech that he likes to denounce."
At the time, a spokeswoman for Gillum told the Times they had addressed the explicit shirt with Orozco-Ballestas, who had been on the job for less than two weeks. The campaign added that they won’t "be lectured about words by the Party of Trump."
In a statement released Saturday, Orozco-Ballestas, who reportedly previously worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign, apologized.
“I am embarrassed, angry and disappointed in myself,” he said. “I took social media for granted when I was younger and I am now facing the consequences. ... What I tweeted as an immature student many years ago is not a reflection of the man I am today."
Gillum had denounced a remark his Republican opponent Ron DeSantis made last month after they each secured their party’s nominations in November’s election for warning voters not to “monkey this up” by voting for the Democrat, who is black.
A Quinnipiac Poll released Wednesday showed Gillum, who is running on a platform calling for expanding access to Medicare and raising the minimum wage, advancing to a 9-point lead over DeSantis, 54 percent to 45 percent.
Fox News' Stephen Sorace contributed to this report.


Conservative STUDENT LOAN IDEAS Work

This, not immigration or taxes, is how the GOP can win over Millennial voters.



As students arrive on campus this fall, political controversies such as speaker disinvitations, protests, riots, and professor bias will come to dominate conservative media. But while rallies and far-right guest speakers can certainly stir up controversy, conservative students should set aside those tactics. Instead they should reach out to politically liberal and neutral college students by offering conservative solutions to the problem that concerns them the most: high tuition.
There are plenty of students open to persuasion on this subject. Last year, the University of California, Los Angeles released a study on the political viewpoints of college freshman and found that 35 percent identify as liberal or far-left, and 22 percent identify as conservative or far-right. That difference in itself is not encouraging for Republicans, but it’s also true that more new students identified as neutral (42 percent) than with either political extreme. Given that young people as a whole have fairly liberal social attitudes, it makes sense to introduce them to a conservatism of ideas that will practically improve their lives.
The image of the Bernie Sanders-loving Millennial college student is an accurate one—after all, more Millennials voted for the democratic socialist senator in the 2016 primaries than for Trump and Clinton combined. But that’s because Sanders focused more on issues that matter to them, like tuition and the burden of studentloans, than the other candidates—Hillary’s asking for an emoji-driven explanation of student loan debt notwithstanding. The Vermont senator’s solutions might be foolhardy—“free” college would cost over $800 billion and end up benefiting wealthy families the most—but his political savvy is undeniable.
It isn’t enough for conservatives to focus on the flaws of Sanders’ proposals. Pointing them out does not address the problems that led young people to support Sanders in the first place.
College tuition has risen almost 200 percent over the past 20 years, nearly four times faster than inflation. Democrats blame the rise in tuition on lower fundingfrom state governments, which theoretically forces universities to rely on higher tuition to raise revenue. However, lower state funding is not the cause of higher tuition. The American Enterprise Institute found that a dollar less in state government funding for higher education translated to only five cents higher tuition. This shows that colleges respond to lower state-level subsidies by decreasing spending on research and administration, not by raising tuition.
However, the expansion of federal subsidies for student loans has been a leading cause of tuition increases. In a comprehensive 2017 study, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that 60 percent of federal government student loansubsidies end up raising tuition. In other words, an additional dollar of federal government student loan subsidies means 60 cents higher tuition and only 40 cents benefits to students.
Further, the money that universities get from that higher tuition has mostly been wasted on hiring administrators—college employees that neither conduct research nor teach courses. Between 1993 and 2009, administrative spending at colleges rose by 60 percent, 10 times as much as faculty spending. This means that colleges have been using higher tuition to expand school bureaucracy, not to increase quality of education. If conservative student activists really want to make the case for small government, there’s no better way than by showing how the federal student loan subsidy program does more to enrich school administrations than help students.
Fortunately, there’s an excellent model of how to rein in college tuition costs. Former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels became president of Purdue University in 2013. Since then, he has frozen tuition for both in-state and out-of-state attendees, which has been extremely popular: Purdue has seen a 56 percent increase in applications since that change. Daniels made this tuition freeze possible by slashing the university’s operating budget and pioneering the “Degree in 3” program, which allows students to take a heavy course load and graduate in three years, saving tens of thousands of dollars. The former Indiana governor has also expanded options for online and technical education, as well as interest-free financial aid.
Clearly, young people respond well to these ideas. Conservative proposals to improve higher education are popular when implemented, but GOP leaders do not place them center stage, instead choosing to focus on taxes and immigration. Conversely, leading contenders for the Democratic nomination in 2020, such as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, have long put the cost of higher education at the center of their political agendas. To a casual observer, the Republican Party does not seem interested in addressing the student loan crisis.
The GOP can’t win over college students if these students don’t know about its solutions to their problems. Educating the rest of the student body on policies to reduce tuition rates should be the top priority of campus conservatives.

OpEd: Liberalism's 24th CHROMOSOME

Image result for human evolutionary tree

theodore  M I R A L D I.

All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomesHumans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes.

Whether you believe the Kavanaugh nomination should be confirmed or not, the Bazaar  actions of some on the Judiciary Committee should raise extreme concerns for every American.

Regardless of the Hyper Partisanship that now exists within our Body Politic, what we've experienced while following these hearings is far more disconcerting than what meets the eye.

What we are really experiencing is a Democrat Party doing more harm to the nation than any Russian, or Chinese Interference has, or will do in the future. The rot sitting in the Senate and House comes from a Party desperately trying to relevant to shrinking constituency since 2010.

The disingenuous call for an additional FBI Investigation is no more than Kabuki Theater. The masks of concern by the Democrats are the same masks presented to those who actually vote for these idiots.

What should shame us all is the Savage behaviors of those we Trust to Govern Us.

A mere child could formulate the logic being used to blacken the impeccable credentials of Judge Kavanaugh. Our nation has been cheapened by the actions of lesser minds, in jobs they have no Acumen or Honor to occupy.

The Democrats embrace a nation that will allow some groups to run roughshod over others whether they are Legal Citizens, or not!

The Democrats are willing to allow Illegals to vote in Local Elections and have a voice in running your community.

The Democrats will LIE in the face of Truth, and Justice .

Facts are mere obstacles, Evidence, a turn of a screw to be use against their adversaries. Concealment
and Abuse of Power are for the weak who feel unsure of their position. We've experienced 8 full years
of Secrecy and Division for  Promise and Hope. Division flourished while Hope disappeared into the Past.

The Democrats are just not Poor losers, they govern Poorly as well. Long gone are the articulate thinkers whose Idealism led a hungry nation in search of ideas. The Democrat Party of today is filled with haters who profess fairness and act like an angry mob at every opportunity.

They use Race, Gender, Innuendo and Outright Lies to vanquish those who disagree. How unfortunate that a once Great Party has become a Gaggle of Silly School Children who would choose
to Search and Destroy rather than listen to all sides of an issue.

The open hostility toward others is primitive and lacks the sophistication of any Social Integration. Americans and America are not lifted by Savage Behaviors. 

And Savage It Is!

The Democrats may have Cried Wolf one too many times!

This methodology of Resistance may finally come to a screeching halt.

People are beginning to realize that personal accomplishment means little in the eyes of the Evil
Ideologues confronting everything imaginable to deflect from the Truth. 

It's by no fault of omission, that these are Liberalism's Goals; there is No God, No Fidelity, and No Respect for Life. They live a lesser existence of wanton Lust, Lies and the hunger for Power.

That being said, our Nation is better off Now than it was when they were in power.

The Kavanaugh Debacle may wind up being a footnote in the Political Sphere, but it has the power to change the minds and actions of those who know that EVIL must be confronted head-on to Defeat it.

No matter what you party or persuasion, the choice between Good and Evil has been the difference between success and failure.

The Left conveniently forgets, that if not for the Virtues and Grace of God, the world we now enjoy would not Exist!

We seem to have an ever growing population with 24 Chromosomes...


The ACLU is a Sham filled with Democrat Political Operatives Inclined to fight solely for Social Change and not Social Justice. In what tenet of Law does an Accusation get called CREDIBLE EVIDENCE when there is NO Corroboration by ANYONE!! Looks like lots of current Attorneys missed a few classes regarding Criminal Evidentiary Foundations and Ethics.

Image result for Anthony D. Romero
Anthony D. Romero is the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. He assumed the position in 2001 as the first Latino and openly gay man to do so.Wikipedia
NEW YORK — In the wake of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s sworn testimony of sexual abuse at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh, the American Civil Liberties Union has announced its opposition to his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.  
As a matter of organizational policy, the ACLU does not support or oppose candidates for political or judicial office. In this instance, the national board held an extraordinary meeting, and has chosen to make an exception to that policy. 
“The ACLU’s board of directors, deeply concerned by the allegations raised in recent weeks, has made a rare exception to its longstanding policy and voted to oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” said Susan Herman, president of the ACLU. 
The ACLU’s national board of directors passed a resolution stating:

“The ACLU opposes the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. There are credible allegations that Judge Kavanaugh has engaged in serious misconduct that have not been adequately investigated by the Senate. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s credible testimony, subsequent allegations of sexual misconduct, the inadequate investigation, and Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony at the hearing lead us to doubt Judge Kavanaugh’s fitness to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

“This is not a decision taken lightly. We cannot remain silent under these extraordinary circumstances about a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. The standard for such an appointment should be high, and the burden is on the nominee. That burden is not met as long as there are unresolved questions regarding the credible allegations of sexual assault.”  

“As a nonpartisan organization, the ACLU does not oppose Judge Kavanaugh based on predictions about how he would vote as a Justice. We oppose him in light of the credible allegations of sexual assault against him,” concluded Herman. 
Under its current policy, the ACLU does not take formal positions on judicial nominations. This is the fourth instance in the organization’s 98-year history that the ACLU’s national board of directors has voted to oppose a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Most recently, the organization did not endorse or oppose the nomination of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. 
For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has worked in courts, legislatures, and communities to protect the constitutional rights of all people. With a nationwide network of offices and millions of members and supporters, the ACLU takes on the toughest civil liberties fights in pursuit of liberty and justice for all.


Saturday, September 29, 2018


Inadequate—and blameworthy—are expressions of sympathy for the abused that disguise the elephant in the rectory. The first responsibility is to call things by their right name.

Pedophilia Isn’t The Main Problem With Catholic Priests, Homosexuality Is

 Maureen Mullarkey

The editorial board of the New York Times declared it had identified the source of “The Catholic Church’s Unholy Stain.” It names pedophilia and asks: “How have so many pedophiles been allowed into the priesthood?”
The question was purely rhetorical because the board had an answer ready. It cited the usual grounds: “the all-male priesthood and the celibacy imposed on Catholic priests; the elitism, careerism and clericalism of the church hierarchy; the lack of transparency or accountability among bishops.” Most damning is “the power a man of God has over a child.”
Every parent knows instinctively that sexual abuse of the young and vulnerable is an evil that cries out for punishment, swift and severe. Anything less mocks the harm done by abusive priests. Equally inadequate—and blameworthy—are expressions of sympathy for the abused that disguise the elephant in the rectory. The first responsibility is to call things by their right name.

Ignoring the Issue Will Prevent Addressing It

To casual readers, duly angered, the Times’ charge sounds about right. More thoughtful ones, however, will hesitate over the word pedophilia. With few exceptions, sexual abuse by priests has been visited overwhelmingly upon pubescent boys, and young men, most often teenagers. This is pederasty, not pedophilia. And pederasty is endemic to gay culture. (For an unsparing indictment of that culture by a gay man, read Jason Hill’s “Loveless, Narcissistic Sex Addicts” in The Federalist.)
Without intending to, the Times’ studied determination to ignore homosexual predation as the culprit parallels the Catholic Church’s dilemma. How is the hierarchy to work at “restoring trust, instituting accountability, and eradicating the cancer of sexual abuse” without acknowledging a subject inoculated from judgment by reigning opinion?
Homosexuality has been normalized, officially approved, ratified, and okayed. Since the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the roster of mental disorders in 1973, activists have parlayed homosexuals into a protected species, more like black rhinos or orangutans than moral beings. The church’s ancient description of homosexuality as an “objective disorder” is dismissed as the last gasp of the 19th-century Society for the Suppression of Vice.

Why Celibacy Isn’t the Problem

Before going any further, stop for a moment on the matter of celibacy. The credibility of the priesthood is in the dock when celibacy is presented among root causes of sexual predation. To say that it is imposed suggests it is something done to a man against his will, more like castration than a free choice. Yet no man is forced to become a priest. Priestly celibacy is both a free choice and a free gift.

Unchosen celibacy, by contrast, is the condition of many men—and women—who are celibate by happenstance: no opportunity for marriage presented itself; marriage was disallowed by health problems, disability, or disfigurement; a spouse was removed by divorce or death. Many single people live without alternative. Yet no one would be so doltish as to believe unsought singlehood leads to rapacity.
Just so, it is grossly simplistic to present marriage as a cure for sexual predation. Andrew Greeley, both priest and sociologist, was a passionate, outspoken advocate for victims of abusive priests. No naïf, Greeley was also a vigorous defender of the celibate life: “Anyone who thinks that marriage or sexual relations solve many male (or female) problems has not paid much attention to the human condition.”
The church is not a museum, as Pope John XXIII quipped. We are called to live in, to leaven, the times in which we find ourselves. Perhaps the pressure of numbers on vocations will cause the discipline of priestly celibacy to be relaxed in the by-and-by. But that is for conscientious men to decide for reasons beyond the ken of a Times’ editorial board. And it would not abolish the beauty or efficacy of a celibate vocation, faithfully and joyfully lived.
Meanwhile, the words of moral theologian Bernard Häring still resonate. In 1996, two years before he died, Häring wrote that celibacy, rightly understood, is not a form of ascendance over laity: “To the contrary, celibacy expressed as ‘life in Christ’ and ‘love in Christ’ is the sum and center of the priestly celibate life.” He concluded:
An especially one-sided philosophy or psychology that emphasized self-fulfillment is unlikely to find meaning in sexual continence. Above all, it is joy in the Lord, coupled with generous service to the Gospel on behalf of God’s people, which gives sexual continence its deeper meaning, thus making it a positive experience. However, only persons of deep faith can come to this realization.

Homosexuality Is the Opposite of Taboo

That brings us back to homosexuality. Has there ever been a time when men—and women—with homosexual leanings have not been drawn to life in the church? Likely not. The Vatican’s own history testifies against the notion. There have been homosexually oriented priests, prioresses, and probably a few saints. (St. Philip Neri: “What we know of the virtues of the saints is the least part of them.”)
Down the centuries, stigma against same-sex activity—and all non-marital sex—was universally accepted by a society that was Christian by birth, including those to whom censure applied. However much forbidden behavior might have been engaged in, it did not challenge the norms of Christian conduct. A sense of sin, drawn from the Hebrew bible and coupled with insistence on the perfection of the Christian life, saturated the air breathed by saint and sinner alike.
Moreover, sanctions were inhibiting. Outside rarefied court culture—and such elite precincts as the Platonic Academy of Renaissance Florence—consequences were severe. (Our word faggot evokes the kindling used to burn heretics or embroidered onto a miscreant’s clothing as a badge of infamy.) Forces of disapproval were powerful agents of deflection and redirection, or sublimation, as we like to say today. Virtues were forged in the furnace of interiorized prohibitions.
Those constraints are gone, the brakes shot. They have been psychologized and conjured out of existence. Western man lived between God and Satan until relatively recent times. John Milton’s audience grasped the truth of the myths of Moloch and Belial. Ours does not recognize the names; it would mock them if it did. Gay is so okay that militant sexual nihilists now feel free to move the goal posts from gay marriage to transgenderism as the new frontier of civil rights.

The First Place to Start Is With the Truth

Seminaries function in the midst of this sea change in public morals. Tainted air does not stop at the seminary gate. Modernity is not about to be rolled back. What to do?
We can begin by calling things by their right names. A rhetorical smokescreen has been up since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. In the late 1970s, before the HIV virus had been identified, the medical profession witnessed what it called GRID or “gay-related immune disease.” Instead of encouraging withdrawal from the “gay lifestyle,” identification of the virus prompted activists to mobilize in safeguarding their sexual conduct. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, in “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” (1996), wrote:
The first priority was to protect homosexuality itself as a perfectly acceptable, normal, and safe way of life. Massive interventions were designed and funded to a greater extent than with any other illness, but none were allowed to target the number one risk factor itself, homosexuality. Even treatment to help those homosexuals who fervently wished to change came under fierce attack . . . .
In the early ’80s, the first move was a name change. GRID was changed to AIDS, or “Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.” A spreading lethal disease was disassociated from its cause, from specific sexual practices peculiar to a limited population.
In a replay of that sleight of mind, pederasty—the erotic attraction of older men to younger ones—has been stricken from our vocabulary. Pedophilia, sexual attraction to prepubescent children, is the governing usage, the controlling conceptual category.
It scapegoats the priesthood as a deviant caste while it shields a hierarchy in which apparently active homosexuals go unrestricted. They create commissions, hold conferences, and tout “safe environment” protocols to handle near-nonexistent pedophiles while they protect themselves under the pretext of protecting children and the prestige of the church.

Protecting People Is More Important than Image

The Catholic Church is not breaking up, as some contend. But its institutional manifestation is at a definitive crossroads. Upper management can follow this debased pontificate further into the embrace of temporal powers and principalities. Or it can brave the decisiveness that theologian Romano Guardini called for seven decades ago: “It must strip itself of all secularism, all flabbiness and eclectic mixtures.” Higher clergy must distinguish themselves more sharply from all ambitions destructive of the Judeo-Christian ethos on which we depend.
Higher clergy must distinguish themselves more sharply from all ambitions destructive of the Judeo-Christian ethos on which we depend.
If church officials acquire the grit to admit the nature of the scandal, what then? The renewed hounding of Christian baker Jack Phillips by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission gives us a hint. Courage is needed to place the wellbeing of the young—and truth itself—ahead of concern for institutional image. Catholics see their own shepherds frightened of losing the approval of a secular order they were ordained to sanctify, not appease or emulate.
In 1997 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued “Always Our Children,”a lengthy, appropriately compassionate pastoral letter to parents of homosexual children. In 2017, the best it could do in response to predation by predominantly homosexual clergy was this: “Each month, supported with your prayers, the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection offers a rosary for the healing of those who have been sexually abused, and for the protection of minors and the vulnerable.”
More to the point was Cardinal DiNardo’s latest statement, made in the wake of the McCarrick scandal: “We have failed you.” But even here the underlying origin went unnamed. Zero-tolerance policies, safe environment training, “victim assistance coordinators,” and the like are of small use if the leading cause cannot be acknowledged.

Democrats' OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT Toward Cavanaugh Victimized Him, Ford and ALL Americans

Gregg Jarrett: At Kavanaugh hearing, Democrats' outrageous conduct victimizes him, Ford and all Americans

Gregg Jarrett

If Judge Brett Kavanaugh was not telling the truth Thursday at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court, he is one of America’s greatest actors.  
The emotion Kavanaugh evinced during the hearing cannot be feigned. When it finally spilled out, it was real and raw. His justifiable anger at being falsely accused of sexually assaulting Professor Christine Blasey Ford when both were teenagers some 36 years ago was palpable.
“I swear today, under oath, before the Senate and the nation, before my family, and God, I am innocent of this charge,” Kavanaugh said.     
Most people who are grievously wronged react with outrage. In his statement and testimony, Kavanaugh expressed such righteous indignation. His defense of himself was forceful and convincing.   
Kavanaugh’s core message was both conciliatory and compelling.
“I don’t question that Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted at some time and at some place, but it was not me,” Kavanaugh said.
Kavanaugh emphasized that none of the people identified by Ford as attending a party – where Ford claims a drunken Kavanaugh got on top of her on a bed, tried unsuccessfully to take off her clothes and covered her mouth to stifle her screams – corroborate the accusations leveled against him.  
Kavanaugh also firmly denied claims by three other women not at the hearing that he was guilty of sexual misconduct. Like Ford, those women have presented not a shred of corroborating evidence or any other witnesses to back up their claims against the judge. One accusation came from an anonymous person who claimed to be the mother of another woman and is so weak that it can’t even be seriously considered.  
In support of his denial of Ford’s allegations, Kavanaugh offered a meticulous calendar he kept in 1982. It served as a remarkably convincing piece of evidence showing he could not have been the teenage boy who attacked Ford.
Significantly, the calendar shows that the then-17-year-old Kavanaugh was out of town nearly every weekend of the summer when Ford claims he attacked her at a house party in Maryland, just outside Washington.
For the two weekends Kavanaugh spent at home, his whereabouts were accounted for. His weekdays were equally accounted for.
Kavanaugh laid bare the partisan motivations of Democrats for ruining his reputation and destroying his family. He condemned their actions for transforming the Senate confirmation process into “a national disgrace” and “replacing advise and consent with search and destroy.”
These records clearly reflect that there were no house parties involving the people Ford said were at the party where she was allegedly attacked. While not dispositive evidence, the calendar is highly persuasive. Why would young Kavanaugh have noted all his other activities on the calendar but for some reason left off the party?
Ford also told a credible story. During her testimony, she seemed authentic and sincere. However, when two people tell different and conflicting stories, the benefit of the doubt must always go to the accused. This is consistent with an important principle by which our democracy abides both inside and outside the courtroom: the presumption of innocence.
Fundamental fairness and due process demand every accused person receive a presumption of innocence. If it did not exist, America would be a police state, where the government could accuse any of us of any crime and convict us without evidence. The liberty and freedom of each and every one of us would be endangered.
Try a thought experiment and think back to your own high school years. Imagine if someone came forward tomorrow and accused you of criminal activity long ago. How could you possibly prove you did not engage in such conduct?
Sadly, decency has eluded these proceedings against an superbly qualified judge who has been repeatedly investigated by the FBI for high-level positions in the White House and elsewhere, including for the past 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Choking back tears, Kavanaugh – a deeply religious man – recounted how his youngest daughter, Liza, wanted to pray for Ford. “That’s a lot of wisdom for a 10-year-old,” the judge observed. Senators could learn a thing or two from a 10-year-old.
Kavanaugh justifiably heaped scorn on Senate Democrats for what was he described as a “smear” and “character assassination,” pointing out correctly that they revealed the allegations against him by Ford only when his confirmation seemed assured.
Kavanaugh laid bare the partisan motivations of Democrats for ruining his reputation and destroying his family. He condemned their actions for transforming the Senate confirmation process into “a national disgrace” and “replacing advise and consent with search and destroy.” 
At times, questioning resembled a theater of the absurd as some clueless Democratic senators like Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut implied that cryptic references to drinking in Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook were somehow incriminating evidence of attempted rape. That’s so ridiculous as to be laughable.  
More than anyone, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is responsible for this abomination.
Feinstein knew of Ford’s allegations for the better part of two months. Yet she concealed the professor’s claims about Kavanaugh until after Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing had ended. The hearing was reopened to give Ford a chance to testify, out of respect for her and a sincere effort get to the truth.
Feinstein could have – and should have – brought Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh to the attention of the Judiciary Committee without revealing the accuser’s identity. Committee staffers could have questioned Ford in a private and confidential manner, allowing a more orderly investigation to take place.
Feinstein’s explanations for her actions in refusing to disclose Ford’s claims are nothing more than vacuous excuses. 
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was right to strongly chastise Feinstein at Thursday’s hearing for hiding Ford’s accusations.
“I hope the American people can see through this sham – that you knew about it and you held it,” Graham told Feinstein. “You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford, none! She’s as much of a victim as you are,” Graham said as he pointed to Judge Kavanaugh.
But Graham wasn’t done.
“If you wanted an FBI investigation you could have come to us,” Graham told Feinstein. “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020,” referring to Democratic hopes to capture the White House in two years.
Graham then criticized all the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee.
“I would never do to them what you’ve done to this guy,” Graham said. “This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics. If you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you did to this guy.” 
The plain truth is that it didn’t matter who President Trump nominated to fill the existing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. The president could have nominated a saint and Democrats would have done everything humanly possible to stop the nominee from being confirmed. No shameful tactic would have been spared. 
Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are the victims of the outrageous conduct by Senate Democrats. And so are the American people.