The Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearings for Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, started with two Democrat senators demanding a delay and recess, and with 10 protesters being escorted from the room. The hearing has gone downhill since then, and it has all been on TV.
Even a reporter from the liberal CNN, legal analyst Joan Biskupic, who has covered the Supreme Court for 25 years and is the author of several books on the judiciary, said she had "never seen such a disruption" at a hearing like today's. Are the Democrats having their “Senator Joe McCarthy” moment on TV with their disrespectful and antagonistic behavior?
On June 9, 1954, during the televised Army-McCarthy hearings, the Army's chief legal representative, Joseph Nye Welch, challenged Senator McCarthy’s right hand man, Roy Cohn, to provide the U.S. Attorney General, Herbert Brownell Jr., with a list of the 130 supposed Communists or subversives employed in defense plants. Senator McCarthy replied to Welch to check with a Boston attorney who had once belonged to the liberal National Lawyers' Guild.
Welch immediately responded, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness ..." When McCarthy resumed his attack, Welch interrupted him and said, "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
But when McCarthy continued his attack, Welch cut him off and demanded that the chairman "call the next witness". At that point, the gallery erupted in applause and a recess was called.
Thanks to television and radio, the American people heard and saw the exchange and Senator McCarthy never recovered politically from the incident. The fear he had created under the guise of defending the country was gone because the people saw firsthand his abuse of power.
Could the same thing happen to Democrats and liberal groups as people watch their immature and disruptive behavior during the Kavanaugh hearing?
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the committee chairman, began his opening remarks at 10:47 a.m. ET today, more than an hour after the hearing was scheduled to start because of the Democrats’ appeals to adjourn and protesters who repeatedly interrupted the proceedings. To rephrase Welch’s 1954 statement, “Have Democrats and liberals no shame?”
Since the entire proceedings and circus are reported by TV, radio, and the rest of the national media, we should wonder how the liberal media will report, explain, or defend this behavior? Can the liberal media successfully spin what people view and hear firsthand?
It is apparent that Democrats’ and liberals’ behavior at this hearing will impact on the 2018 midterm election in November. It is one more example of how Democrats and liberals seem to have lost their collective minds and sense of proper, civilized behavior…and it has been seen on national TV.
On Thursday, Aug. 30, 2018, San Antonio city councilman Roberto Trevino controlled the meeting, and Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush complimented the results as the Alamo Citizens Advisory Committee decided to renovate Alamo Plaza, including relocating the Cenotaph and "highlighting" all cultures.
The plan's approval means the San Antonio city government and SA Establishment can proceed with their plans to move the iconic Cenotaph and minimize the Battle of the Alamo, particularly the role of the defenders, in order to give it the site more "global" appeal. That includes the visual appearance of the Alamo, and the presentation of its history.
It means the Cenotaph, the central monument to the Alamo defenders, will be moved. This can be compared to the removal confederate statues because many progressives feel the Alamo defenders were pro-slavery, Anglo-American imperialist invaders who helped “steal” Texas from Mexico.
Democrat candidate for U.S. senate from Texas, Robert Francis (Beto) O’Rourke, has score a major campaign victory according to the state and local press for his answer and position on the NFL-national-anthem controversy.
On Friday, Aug. 10, at a town hall event in Houston, a man who identified himself as a veteran from a family of veterans told O’Rouke that he was offended by football players’ protests during the "Star-Spangled Banner". He asked if O'Rourke agreed.
O’Rouke answered, "My short answer is no, I don't think it's disrespectful. Reasonable people can disagree on this issue…let's begin there. And it makes them no less American for them to come down on a different conclusion."
He compared their protest to the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., noting that the NFL players and other major sports figures were focusing public attention on “police brutality involving unarmed black men, women and children.”
A candidate’s character is always a good topic for discussion during election campaigns, and El Paso congressman and Democrat candidate for U.S. senate Robert Francis “Beto” O'Rourke’s character should be no different. It should be carefully examined by Texas voters as they get ready to vote in November.
How a person responds to adversity and/or to problems they create, as well as how they present themselves in public, says something about them. O’Rouke’s past can give voters a peak into his character and what kind of senator he will be.
In 1995, O’Rourke, was arrested in El Paso County for illegal trespassing and jumping a fence at the University of Texas at El Paso. He was released on bail the next day, but he says it was a youthful mistake and not a major crime. However, it was serious enough for him to be arrested and detained.
In 1998, he was involved in a far more serious incident. O’Rourke was arrested for drunk driving and for trying to flee the scene of an accident.
The San Antonio city council voted unanimously on Thursday, Aug. 16 place three city charter amendments on the Nov. 6 ballot for the voters to decide. The SA mayor and most members of the city council have opposed the amendments and formed a PAC to raise money to fight them.
The amendments would: 1) cap the salary of future city managers and place term limits on them; 2) lower the threshold for signatures on referendum petitions, increase the amount of time allowed for gathering them and remove prohibitions against overturning utility rates, tax levies and appropriations; and 3) give the Firefighters’ union the ability ask for arbitration if necessary.
The city has been fighting against these charter changes because they don’t want their power limited nor have the voters have a say in the matter. The SA city council has often ruled without having voter input on controversial issues, such as the oridnance forcing private businesses to provide sick-leave to their employees that was passed today.
Yesterday, Wednesday, Aug. 15, a state district judge denied a request from the city’s PAC to prevent the City Council from calling for a November charter amendment election at today’s meeting. The judge said the Firefighters’ union did not act illegally in gathering signatures for the petitions for the city charter amendments.