Democrats make Joe McCarthy look like an amateur

Joe McCarthy was a U.S. senator who relentlessly pursued communists in the U.S. government.  But because liberals have always been more enthused about communism than freedom, the Democrat establishment lied McCarthy into oblivion.

As a result of the liberal smear campaign, McCarthy is memorialized by the term "McCarthyism," which is defined as "the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges; broadly: defamation of character or reputation through such tactics."

That's right: the term Democrats developed to smear McCarthy because he was hunting traitors in the U.S. government is a perfect description of the Democrats' and their propaganda arm, the fake news media, treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

They couldn't find anything in his judicial record to justify denying him a seat on the Supreme Court, so Democrats have turned to unsubstantiated, and in fact repudiated, charges of ancient personal impropriety, which these same Democrats have widely publicized.

Democrats knew that Christine Blasey Ford's claims about Kavanaugh assaulting her were bogus, which is why they waited until the last minute to reveal them.  In fact, the only thing they've been right about so far is that Ford isn't credible.  Even though she made the most ambiguous, uncheckable claims possible within a week of her going public, every person who she said could confirm her account was on record, under threat of imprisonment, of saying there was no truth to her claim.  Even her lifelong friend, a female Democrat who doesn't like Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court, has said she was never at a party with Ford and Kavanaugh, even though Ford said she was.

If the Democrats hadn't hidden Ford's claim, the whole issue would have been resolved before the hearings began.

The latest claim by Deborah Ramirez is even less credible than Ford's.  Even the NYT, for whom, usually, any anti-Trump rumor is fit to print, wouldn't run the story because it lacked any credibility.  Even Ms. Ramirez said that she wasn't sure that it was Kavanaugh until she spent six days with a Democrat activist lawyer.  The witnesses she said would corroborate her account said she was wrong.  She called former classmates up recently to ask about the event and told them she wasn't sure who exposed himself to her.

It turns out that Ramirez is a Democrat activist.  As the coup de grâce, one of her best friends at the time, who shared secrets with her, says Ramirez never mentioned the incident.

Meanwhile the porn lawyer Michael Avenatti claims to have a woman who says Kavanaugh and his friend Judge used to drug and gang-rape women.  We know that Avenatti is a liar and a tax cheat.  He has presented not a single detail, but we're supposed to believe that by day Kavanaugh was the fantastic gentleman commended by 65 women, but by night, he organized gang-rapes of women.  Right.

There's more evidence that the fake news media are trying to tip the scales.  We all know how irritating it is when some reporter refers to a person caught in the act of some horrible crime as the "alleged" perpetrator.  We're all for presumption of innocence, but when you have video footage of someone shooting an unarmed cop, we think leaving the "alleged" out is okay.  But when you read stories about Kavanaugh in the fake news media, are you seeing a significant usage of the word "alleged"?  In fact, Democrats are arguing that the mere fact that Kavanaugh has been accused means we can drop the "alleged" and presume he's guilty.

Chuck Schumer and the rest of the neo-fascist Democrats are engaging in true McCarthyism.

They can't give any reason why Kavanaugh wouldn't be a good judge or how any of his past rulings are inconsistent with the law as written, so they're saying that because random Democrat activist women are suddenly remembering after decades of silence allegedly horrible things that Kavanaugh did, we must reject him, even though in both cases the people the "victim" has said would back up their claims have in fact said the "victim" is wrong.

The American people generally don't like liars, and they especially don't like liars trying to smear innocent people.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Joe McCarthy was a U.S. senator who relentlessly pursued communists in the U.S. government.  But because liberals have always been more enthused about communism than freedom, the Democrat establishment lied McCarthy into oblivion.

As a result of the liberal smear campaign, McCarthy is memorialized by the term "McCarthyism," which is defined as "the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges; broadly: defamation of character or reputation through such tactics."

That's right: the term Democrats developed to smear McCarthy because he was hunting traitors in the U.S. government is a perfect description of the Democrats' and their propaganda arm, the fake news media, treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

They couldn't find anything in his judicial record to justify denying him a seat on the Supreme Court, so Democrats have turned to unsubstantiated, and in fact repudiated, charges of ancient personal impropriety, which these same Democrats have widely publicized.

Democrats knew that Christine Blasey Ford's claims about Kavanaugh assaulting her were bogus, which is why they waited until the last minute to reveal them.  In fact, the only thing they've been right about so far is that Ford isn't credible.  Even though she made the most ambiguous, uncheckable claims possible within a week of her going public, every person who she said could confirm her account was on record, under threat of imprisonment, of saying there was no truth to her claim.  Even her lifelong friend, a female Democrat who doesn't like Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court, has said she was never at a party with Ford and Kavanaugh, even though Ford said she was.

If the Democrats hadn't hidden Ford's claim, the whole issue would have been resolved before the hearings began.

The latest claim by Deborah Ramirez is even less credible than Ford's.  Even the NYT, for whom, usually, any anti-Trump rumor is fit to print, wouldn't run the story because it lacked any credibility.  Even Ms. Ramirez said that she wasn't sure that it was Kavanaugh until she spent six days with a Democrat activist lawyer.  The witnesses she said would corroborate her account said she was wrong.  She called former classmates up recently to ask about the event and told them she wasn't sure who exposed himself to her.

It turns out that Ramirez is a Democrat activist.  As the coup de grâce, one of her best friends at the time, who shared secrets with her, says Ramirez never mentioned the incident.

Meanwhile the porn lawyer Michael Avenatti claims to have a woman who says Kavanaugh and his friend Judge used to drug and gang-rape women.  We know that Avenatti is a liar and a tax cheat.  He has presented not a single detail, but we're supposed to believe that by day Kavanaugh was the fantastic gentleman commended by 65 women, but by night, he organized gang-rapes of women.  Right.

There's more evidence that the fake news media are trying to tip the scales.  We all know how irritating it is when some reporter refers to a person caught in the act of some horrible crime as the "alleged" perpetrator.  We're all for presumption of innocence, but when you have video footage of someone shooting an unarmed cop, we think leaving the "alleged" out is okay.  But when you read stories about Kavanaugh in the fake news media, are you seeing a significant usage of the word "alleged"?  In fact, Democrats are arguing that the mere fact that Kavanaugh has been accused means we can drop the "alleged" and presume he's guilty.

Chuck Schumer and the rest of the neo-fascist Democrats are engaging in true McCarthyism.

They can't give any reason why Kavanaugh wouldn't be a good judge or how any of his past rulings are inconsistent with the law as written, so they're saying that because random Democrat activist women are suddenly remembering after decades of silence allegedly horrible things that Kavanaugh did, we must reject him, even though in both cases the people the "victim" has said would back up their claims have in fact said the "victim" is wrong.

The American people generally don't like liars, and they especially don't like liars trying to smear innocent people.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.