Only President Trump can stand up against CNN, MSNBC, TV sitcoms, and their Democrat drones.

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/

In 2020 Trump Will Reduce the Blue Wall to Rubble  . . . "The Democrats have attempted to repair the damaged wall, but it has only weakened further as the unemployed voters who took a chance on Trump have found jobs. They won’t desert him next year, which means the crumbling blue ramparts will completely collapse in 2020.

"These voters, many of whom found themselves out of work for the first time in their lives during the Obama years, see the resurgence of the job market since the last election as a promise kept by the president. In states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, unemployment has plummeted. In Pennsylvania, for example, Obama and his Democratic accomplices declared war on coal and drove unemployment to a peak of 8.8 percent. It was still 5.2 percent when President Trump took office. Unemployment is now 3.9 percent. In 2016, the President won Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes, less than 1 percent. He will win by a far larger margin next year.  "The story is much the same in Michigan. " . . .

Donald John Trump is still your president.  . . . " 'Yemen’s Iranian-aligned Houthi rebels claimed credit for the attack, saying they sent 10 drones to strike at important facilities in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province. The production shutdown amounts to a loss of about five million barrels a day, the people said, roughly 5% of the world’s daily production of crude oil."
"Glenn Reynolds wrote, "Good thing we have frackers."
"This is why Democrats want to end fracking." . . .
. . . "Speaking of Coons, the Washington Examiner reported, "Chris Coons to Beto O'Rourke: You are so not helping.' " . . .

. . .  "Zero Hedge reported, "More than 1.2 million American households moved to above $50,000 in annual income between 2016 and 2018, according to Census Bureau data released on Sept. 10, a sign of a growing middle class."
"Mitt Romney must hate this." . . .

If You Believe the Accusations About Brett Kavanaugh and Cheer Attacks On Him, You’re Not the Good Guy

Democrats enjoying the destruction of a good man.

If You Believe the Accusations About Brett Kavanaugh and Cheer Attacks On Him, You’re Not the Good Guy  . . . "Even the most popular accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, was found to be pretty fraudulent after her own lawyer admitted that her quest to have Kavanaugh denied his seat on the Supreme Court was about fighting for abortion. Ford’s own father seems to disbelieve his daughter as he was seen telling Kavanaugh’s father that he’s glad his son got to the Supreme Court." . . .

. . . "Furthermore, all the accusations against Kavanaugh have all the substance and weight of shadows. Every accusation has come up empty in terms of evidence and witnesses. In fact, every witness who knew Kavanaugh completely demolished these claims, and even witnesses called on by accusers seem to lend to Kavanaugh’s goodness.

"The man is innocent.

. . . "I pray that you or your loved ones never wind up in a situation where a false accusation causes so much upheaval in your lives that you never come back from it. However, if you support the figurative crucifixion of an innocent man because his politics differ from yours then you’re making that scenario all the more likely.

"No matter what you say or do, you won’t be able to stop it. No matter what evidence you put forth, it won’t mean a thing. You’ve been deemed guilty and so you are.

"And should that day come, you can reflect back to when you yourself cheering on as it happened to someone else."

‘They are CORRUPT’: Brit Hume rakes NYT over the coals for attempting to revive their smear campaign against Kavanaugh :
This smear was disgusting the first time around. This attempt to revive it is beyond disgusting and speaks to the dishonesty of leading organs of the mainstream media. They are corrupt.  https://spectator.us/brett-kavanaugh-debbie-ramirez-character/ …

Here’s Just How Much of a Dumpster Fire That New Kavanaugh Hit Piece Is "As you’ve probably heard over the weekend, The New York Times covered itself in glory and released excerpts from a supposed well-researched book focused on destroying Brett Kavanaugh. The “revelations” have led to major Democrats rushing to social media to proclaim the current Supreme Court Justice should be impeached. On what grounds? There are none, but they just know it should be done.

The main “witness” of this new allegation is a man named Max Stier. The hit piece itself offers no background about who Stier is, and once you find out, it’s obvious why.

. . . "So who is Stier? He just happens to be Bill Clinton’s former lawyer, who defended him from accusations of sexual misconduct in the Paula Jones case."
(Emphasis mine, TD)
. . . 

"As for the victim? They say she “has refused to discuss the incident, though several of her friends said she does not recall it.”

To repeat: Several of her friends said she does not recall it.

"So to summarize, the only new claim in the new book is that a Democratic attorney told two senators that he saw an incident where a third party allegedly did something to Kavanaugh and the young woman. In their book, the authors are upset that this claim didn’t lead to a massive FBI investigation, although they don’t explain why they think it should have.

"Pogebrin and Kelly left the victim’s denial out of their New York Times story. It is unclear why the reporters and editors allowed the story to be published without this salient fact that they conceded, albeit briefly, in their own book." . . .

Latest Kavanaugh Accuser Was Hillary's Lawyer in Clinton Impeachment . . . "Interestingly, the alleged victim is not quoted in the article, and neither are any corroborating witnesses. In fact, The Federalist's Mollie Hemingway reported that "the book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event."
"As for Max Stier, he has a long history with sexual assault claims, but from the other side. Stier, a Democrat, represented President Bill Clinton after Paula Jones accused him of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000 and lost his law license for five years." . . .

The Two Latest Sexual Assault Claims Against Brett Kavanaugh Disprove Themselves

Video: Carrie Severino: Latest Kavanaugh allegations a shameful attempt to reignite baseless smears

First Democrats must kill each other off; then they will come for us

Mike Harris

Is Dianne Feinstein out to kill off Kamala Harris's presidential bid?  . . . "So just the fundraiser in Harris's home state of California was a shiv in the side to Kamala.

Why is that? 

"Well, for one thing, the Democratic political set widely believes that to win the presidency, one must win California. Harris is from California, so that stacks things in her favor. 

"Now Feinstein is marshalling money from California Biden's way? So that they give their money to him and feel 'donor fatigue' when Kamala comes calling?

"The matter is compounded by the fact that the California Democratic campaign fatcats weren't impressed with Harris's performance in the third debate, as this CNBC report here indicates. Feinstein knows those people and may very well be egging them toward Biden, or at least piling on.

"Here's another thing: Money from fatcats over little-people donations is Kamala's vulnerable spot. The queen of fake Twitter followers is also highly reliant on big dollar donors over the little guys, even as the New York Times tries to claim she's changing that. Well, maybe she is, but if she is, it would be in the infant stage and in any case, they're taking her word for it. More likely, she still relies on the big boys, because that's what she knows." . . .

Always The Bridesmaid, Never The Bride . . . "Even Hillary Clinton was able to win the nomination once. Sanders can’t.

"But still he runs, and in running he is twice now dividing the party he’s not even a member of in order to fail to win their nomination for president."

Warren And Sanders Join Attack On Kavanaugh "They just can’t stop the crazy." 
Check Dems And Media ‘Talking Points’ Against Kavanaugh, There’s No Coordination Here…   "So Journolist is back?? See if you notice a common refrain in the latest Brett Kavanaugh outrage"  . . .

The White Supremacy Hoax

Center for American Greatness   

"The specter of white supremacy haunts America. Let us empower the government to crush it.

"Just yesterday, “the deplorables” were to be deplored because they were “racist, sexist, homophobic,” clingers to “God and guns,” and Russian dupes to boot. Today, the agility and unanimity with which our politicians and media—heck, the ruling class—have shifted to indicting roughly 72 percent of the population as white supremacists, likely violent, would fill with envy their homologues in China, Cuba, North Korea, and other tyrannical places. By comparison, Joseph Goebbels had sloppy message discipline. Not even the Soviets in their salad days were so “on message!”

"One may suppose that our ruling class merely intends to energize its constituencies and cower the opposition in the 2020 elections. But this is no game. Their proposals would impose pre-punishment for pre-crimes on persons accused or “suspected” of being a “white supremacist.” By whom? On the basis of what?

"In practice, a “white supremacist” is anyone whom anyone in power dislikes enough to so label him. Who would accept being outlawed at will? Our ruling class plays with matches in a house drenched in gasoline.

"Here is the latest. The Wall Street Journal on Saturday featured an essay by one Clint Watts, formerly of the FBI and West Point’s Counter-Terrorism Center. Watts makes those proposals using the word “white” 16 times in 18 paragraphs. The sociopolitical ideas rife among white people are the main matrix of terrorism in America, Watts contends. Racial profiling, anyone?

"Bemoaning the fact that U.S. law now restricts surveillance of, never mind restrictions on, U.S. persons to those who have committed or may be about to commit crimes, Watts proposes legislation that would permit designating persons associated with what the government may identify as “white supremacist ideology” as subject to surveillance to “preemptively assess whether these white supremacists are taking a radical turn toward violence.”

"Watts also proposes “red flag” laws, that would allow the government to take away weapons from someone so designated. Loss of weapons would be the least of burdens imposed on anyone so “red-flagged.” Career, reputation, possibly family, would be gone because someone in the notoriously impartial FBI so decided, perhaps with the agreement of the highly scrupulous FISA court, subsequent to ex parte, secret proceedings.

"This has become ruling-class conventional wisdom. Desire to wage war on ordinary Americans—to disadvantage them and even to kill them—had long been bubbling in the ruling class’s basements. The countless, nearly identical pronouncements from on high in recent days can be taken as an announcement that the ruling class has raised them into its forceful mainstream." . . .

Woke privilege: The lynching of a good man's reputation

"I am with Dinesh on this one. Beyond that, I have no particular comment, other than to note that we are reminded, once again, that there is literally no depth to which the Democratic Party will not sink in pursuit of power."

Democrats Haven’t Given Up On Smearing Kavanaugh  "Those who take such things seriously are abuzz about a book that will come out on Tuesday, written by a couple of New York Times reporters activists. It alleges that decades ago, when he was in college, Brett Kavanaugh misbehaved at a party. As I understand it, the woman toward whom he allegedly misbehaved says she remembers no such thing, but apparently one or more rabid Democrats who say they were at the party are now, many years later, willing to smear Kavanaugh."
. . .

"Is that the Democrats’ motive? In part, probably; they want to intimidate Kavanaugh into being a moderate. They also are trying to intimidate anyone who in the future may consider accepting an important appointment by a Republican president. 

"Dinesh D’Souza has advice for Kavanaugh:" . . .

I have a message for #BrettKavanaugh . Don’t let these attacks intimidate you. Don’t pivot left to appease the jackals.  Instead never forget what they tried to do to you, and use your lifetime position to teach them a lesson they will never forget 

The New York Times Anti-Kavanaugh Bombshell Is Actually a Dud 

The authors omit the fact that the alleged victim has no memory of the alleged incident.
. . . "So they corroborated the fact that Stier made the allegation to the FBI, but the authors give no indication that they have corroborated any details of the alleged incident." . . .

"And yet liberals wonder why public trust in the media has plummeted."

The NY Times Never Disappoints (2)  "It is increasingly clear that the real problem with the country is not “white privilege,” but the woke privilege of the New York Times. Further to John’s item immediately below about the Times‘s newest attack on Justice Kavanaugh, and my item last week on how Times seems to have decided to operate without editors, behold this Tweet the Times issued in support of their latest hit piece:" . . .

So, almost everyone willing to comment on the record has positive things to say about Kavanaugh, but everybody who hates him does so anonymously. Once again, seems legit….  . . . "Again, Hemingway is talking about Ramirez.  Hemingway also notes that a leftist congresswoman found no partisan agenda from leftist accuser Christine Blasey Ford – even though Ford’s attorney has now admitted Ford was motivated by her support for abortion.
"What are the odds that every single woman accusing Kavanaugh would happen to be a raging leftist?
"Also, it’s recently been reported that Ford’s own father supported Kavanaugh’s nomination despite his daughter’s allegations."

Politico Doubles Down on Fake Turnberry Scandal

Occasional Air Force layovers at a Trump hotel in Scotland, which were started under Obama, are a pathetic excuse for an exposé.

National Review

"It’s tough to be an investigative reporter. Everybody who feeds you a tip has an axe to grind. Or, alternatively, you find yourself going, “I wonder if . . . ?” You put in your research, you talk to lots of people, you accumulate a huge pile of information, but you still haven’t proved your hypothesis. A wise reporter says to herself either “I don’t have the story yet” or “I guess this didn’t pan out.” In either event, she doesn’t publish. More likely, since reporters always think they have the story and always want to publish, an editor says, “Kid, you haven’t got the story.”
"One of the many rules of the road that have changed in the Trump era is that reporters have taken to blasting out their BREAKING NEWS about scandals that they haven’t actually proven to be scandals. There is so much hay to be made during this administration, so many reporters are becoming superstars, so many comfy houses in Bethesda are being bought with so many large book deals. Any fresh angle you can find on the iniquity of the administration is going to be lapped up eagerly by everyone you know. But what if your new angle isn’t . . . actually. . . the truth?
. . . 
"Politico reporters Natasha Bertrand and Bryan Bender suspect President Trump has been directing Air Force flights to an obscure Scottish airport and fuel stop in order to generate business for his nearby hotel. Since the Obama-era Air Force also used the fuel point (which Trump has no interest in) scores of times, and since those troops also understandably stayed at the hotel because it’s affordable and close to the airport, there is only a scandal here if Trump, or someone operating at Trump’s direction, is ordering the Air Force to do things differently than it ordinarily would in order to benefit Trump. The numbers at issue here are paltry. The hotel is charging $130 a night. How much of that winds up in Trump’s pocket, 11 cents? Bender and Bertrand inform us in dire tones that Air Force crews have made “at least four stays” at the Trump resort in the last year. How much do four stays at a cheap hotel really mean to a billionaire?" . . .