At this moment I am sitting at my computer in absolute fury. The Democrats, who will stop at nothing in their attempt to destroy President Trump, are growing increasingly desperate with each iteration of their failure to prevent his success. This has most recently culminated in the vicious defamation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for alleged misbehavior while in high school 36 years ago. If I were not so disgusted, I would be amused at the innumerable worthies who appear on television and, with sorrow in their voices and tears in their eyes, talk meaningfully about the “serious charge” that “if true” should disqualify Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court.
Let me get one thing out of the way immediately, and it will infuriate many of you. As far as I am concerned, this is not a “serious charge.” This is a baloney excuse for the failure of the Democrats to come up with anything else. I won’t even discuss the merits of the charge. The charge itself is meaningless. I pity boys who are growing up today. , the public pillory, and inquisition may very well be their lot unless we step up now and declare in loud voices “ENOUGH ALREADY.”
Do you want to see a “serious charge?”
What about the charge laid by Karen Monahan, ex-girlfriend of Keith Ellison, member of Congress, former vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee and current candidate for attorney general of Minnesota? Among other pieces of evidence Miss Monahan presented a contemporary doctor’s note which corroborates injuries that she claimed were a result of physical abuse by Ellison. That is a “serious charge.”
Crickets from the Democrats and the mainstream media.
What about the charges of sexual assault laid against Bill Clinton by numerous women (including Paula Jones, who was paid $800,000 by Clinton to go away)? Those were “serious charges.”
Crickets from the Democrats and the mainstream media.
These are but two of the numerous Democrat luminaries whose escapades that, if mentioned at all, were dismissed as mere boyish exuberance.
The charges laid against Judge Kavanaugh by the “doctor”/“professor” (whose name I won’t mention because I appear to be the only one who will preserve her “confidentiality”) are nothing but a load of garbage. They are a continuation of a line of efforts to defame the characters of truly worthy candidates to the high court who would not toe the line in guaranteeing to support a variety of Democrat issues (abortion, environment, climate change, etc.). This filthiest of tactics began with the slander of the luminescently brilliant Robert Bork by the worst frat boy miscreant of modern times, Ted Kennedy, the murderer of Mary Jo Kopechne. Some paragon of virtue.
The next iteration of this disgusting tactic were the hearings concerning the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the court. The “high-tech lynching” of this great and good man (who happens to be one of my all-time heroes because of his grace and dignity in the face of unspeakable provocation) was led by the then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (guess who?), the Hon. Joe Biden. Some paragon of virtue.
I have no idea what the status of the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh will be at the time that you read this. I pray that by then he will be Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and that this circus will be at a temporary end. But whatever the outcome, the stink caused by the clownish stunts of the Democrats during this entire process will last for generations. The Democrats’ real complaint is with anyone who actually considers the Constitution of the United States as sacred. The Democrats will stop at NOTHING to destroy those who will not come to heel with the Democrat view of the Constitution as a “living document.” They have no regard for anything other than their own leftist dogma — all who care for the rule of law in the U.S. must pray for the defeat of the Democrats.
During this election cycle, the Democrats are in a bind. They continually recite the meme that President Trump is unpopular. One would think that they might have learned the lesson of the 2016 Presidential election. But no, they keep talking only to each other, convinced that what they hear has validity when it is nothing but empty nonsense. They persist in kidding themselves, thus (intentionally or not) misleading those who hear them.
This publication last month published a column by one of its regulars, whose biographic blurb states that he is a political consultant for Democrats and independent candidates, and a former director of the South Carolina Democratic Party. I actually enjoy reading his work. I have never found him to be nasty or discourteous (he is, after all, a South Carolinian), but his capacity for self-delusion is truly entertaining. This particular column laid out a list of local races that my Charleston Mercury colleague vainly tries to convince can be won by the Democrats. But the primary focus (and more than one-half of the entire column) is directed at the race in the first Congressional District of South Carolina between Katie Arrington, the Republican, and Joe Cunningham, the Democrat.
I focus on this because, firstly, this is the Charleston Mercury and this is the race to become the representative in Congress of much of Charleston’s population and, secondly, the column’s focus is typical of the output of innumerable Democrat operatives who mislead, misstate and omit critical facts. The gist of my colleague’s argument in favor of Mr. Cunningham is that he a) won’t take PAC contributions, b) is term limiting himself and b) is against offshore drilling. Let’s look at these claims and see why they are nothing more than empty froth.
First: Mr. Cunningham claims that he won’t take PAC contributions. False! That is pure casuistry. He may or may not accept cash directly from special interests, but he accepts contributions from the campaign committees of other Democrats, denizens of the D.C. swamp, which committees have taken large quantities of PAC money. Either Mr. Cunningham is aware of this fact and lies about it, or he is so blind that he has no business in any position of governmental responsibility. Furthermore, Mr. Cunningham boasts that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is strongly behind his campaign and that they have committed financial resources and additional support for his benefit. In other words, Cunningham has sold himself lock, stock and barrel to the establishment Democrats. I hardly think that that is what the First District electorate desires.
Second: Mr. Cunningham claims that he will term limit himself. My columnist colleague neglects to mention that from the very beginning of her campaign, Katie Arrington has committed herself to serving no more than eight years in the House. Furthermore, she has pledged to donate two-thirds of her salary to charities in the Lowcountry and has pledged to refuse all Congressional benefits, including retirement and healthcare perks.
Third: My columnist colleague emphasizes that Mr. Cunningham is opposed to offshore drilling, but fails to recognize Katie Arrington’s strong opposition to drilling off the South Carolina coast. The truth is that Katie Arrington has personally met with President Trump and asked him to protect S.C. waters from any offshore drilling. Mr. Cunningham boasts that he “has sent a letter to Secretary Zinke” requesting the same thing. Now, ask yourself, to whose request do you think President Trump will respond positively? To Katie Arrington, who has the ear and support of the president, or to Joe Cunningham, who is running ads bashing the president? Anyone … anyone … ?
There are many other differences between these two candidates: Katie Arrington not only advocates for President Trump’s wall, she offers a funding solution for the border wall that does not use taxpayer money. A $10 per-car toll coming into the U.S. from Mexico would generate roughly $1.65 billion per year, which would cover the financing costs of the wall construction. (I have another fund raising suggestion: The government should sell individual bricks in the wall. I personally would buy one for each of my grandchildren. As a matter of fact, I would also buy a brick for each one of my Leftist friends, and send them notice of the “gift” — it would drive them nuts in perpetuity.) Cunningham opposes President Trump’s wall, and his Democrat Party advocates for open borders, even pushing for the abolition of ICE.
Katie Arrington wants to make the Trump tax cuts permanent. The tax cuts have created jobs and increased wages; they enable families of the Lowcountry to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. The average family in this district will pocket an additional $2,700 each year due to the tax cuts. Cunningham wants to eliminate the tax cuts, agreeing with Nancy Pelosi, who has called them “crumbs.”
The First Congressional District of South Carolina is a wonderful example of a race that pits truth versus unadulterated baloney. The resurfacing of Barack Obama in this election season illustrates a startling fact: The Democrat bench is so weak that they must focus on the only person in their party who is ineligible to run against President Trump. He has set the tone for these elections. He can’t deny the startling growth of the economy, so he tries to take credit for it. How stupid does he think we are? Do you really want to go back to that?
In the final analysis, in deciding who will get your vote there is one question and one question alone that you should ask yourself: Are you better off now than you were two years ago? If your answer is “Yes,” then there is only one option: you MUST vote Republican. It is that important.
Stuart Kaufman is a retired lawyer, investment banker and businessman. He relocated from New York to Mount Pleasant in 2012. A friend recently told him that he has been a South Carolinian all of his life ... but he just didn’t know it.