Hey, when Michelle Obama’s right, she’s right!

Self-awareness fail of the week

Former first lady Michelle Obama this week took aim at the “nastiness” that has permeated the political discourse in the country:

She’s absolutely right, but to a great degree not in the way she wants that to be taken.

Remember “argue with your neighbors” and “get in their face”?

Apparently Michelle Obama hasn’t met her husband.

Remember Hillary calling millions of Americans “deplorables”?

Or when Hillary called Republicans her #1 enemy:

Remember mobs of angry lefties chasing people like Sarah Sanders, Pam Bondi and Ted Cruz out of restaurants? Remember the angry rhetoric that led a deranged lunatic to try and assassinate a bunch of Republicans at a baseball practice?

And just for kicks, let’s not forget Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono saying Brett Kavanaugh is basically guilty of attempted rape based only on the fact that he’s a right-leaning judge and not a lockstep lib:

The Dem with the most appropriate first name in the Senate, Dick Blumenthal, agreed with Hirono, by the way.

The list could go on forever, but basically what I’m trying to say is Michelle Obama is totally correct about the nastiness in politics, just not in the way she thinks she is.

It’s come to this: Jennifer Granholm says witnesses corroborate Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh because they can’t remember anything

Mind = lost

Lefties have officially lost their minds over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, but few have gone more batsh*t crazy than Jennifer Granholm, who now claims — for this one instance at least — that witnesses who can’t remember seeing anything that’s been alleged corroborate the accuser’s story:

JAKE TAPPER: We now have four individuals who have come forward who were named by Professor Ford who were at that party. And all four: Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, and her friend, Leland Keyser, have all said they don’t remember anything like this ever happened. And Leland Keyser, who says she believes Ford, says that doesn’t even remember being at a party where Kavanaugh was present.

JENNIFER GRANHOLM: Right. And that actually corroborates Ford’s story. Which is that she was so horrified by this that she kind of snuck out or slunk out of this apartment in a way that no one would no what happened because she was so utterly mortified.

This loon was the governor of my state for eight years.

In case anybody’s wondering what it would take to make the left think the accuser’s story was falling apart, the answer is “nothing would make them believe that.”

Kavanaugh accuser’s lawyer presents ‘witnesses’ who didn’t witness anything

Total clown show

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what your definition of “witnesses” is:

Another person claimed by Christine Blasey Ford to have attended a gathering decades ago during which, Ford claims, she was sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has denied any recollection of having attended the party.

In an email to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford’s at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, said she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh III of Bethesda, Md., conveyed in an email to the committee that was obtained by Fox News.
Keyser’s denial brings to four the number of witnesses, including Kavanaugh, who’ve all said they have no memory of the party or the incident.

Other denials were issued earlier this week by Mark Judge and Patrick “PJ” Smith.

That’s a full “crash & burn” for the accuser’s side.

So far the witnesses named by Kavanaugh’s accuser’s lawyer have been like those two airmen in “A Few Good Men” who were brought in for bluff purposes and would have testified that they didn’t witness anything.

But Ford’s lawyer had that covered in the most ridiculous way possible:

“It’s not surprising that Ms. Keyser has no recollection of the evening as they did not discuss it,” Katz said. “It’s also unremarkable that Ms. Keyser does not remember attending a specific gathering 30 years ago at which nothing of consequence happened to her. Dr. Ford of course will never forget this gathering because of what happened to her there.”

Ha! I’m sure Ford’s alleged “best friend” really appreciates the attorney responded to her claim that she didn’t witness anything by basically saying “well of course YOU don’t remember anything because nobody tried to rape YOU that night!”

So what happened to her was so awful that she never told anybody but people she knew are supposed to be considered witnesses because they would have known if Ford would have told them? I’m confused.

The Republicans need to bring this three-ring circus to a close and just hold the vote. Ford, her attorney, and the Senate Democrats obviously have no intention of testifying and will drag this out until next year if the GOP allows it.

Thud: Michael Moore’s anti-Trump ‘Fahrenheit 11/9’ stumbles YUGELY out of box office gate

Cue the sad trombone

Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9” opened yesterday at 1,719 theaters and barely made over $1 million. Even people as bad at math as I am know that’s a pretty weak haul, even for a documentary. Bombs away!

Gee, it’s almost like people are sick of the anti-Trump theatrics. Moore was hoping to re-create 2004’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” and instead might have ended up making the political documentary equivalent of Waterworld.

Knowing Moore, he’ll use that low box office haul as evidence that Trump’s lying about the great economy.

Here’s the updated soundtrack to “Fahrenheit 11/9”:

Juanita Broaddrick’s blowing the lid off Senate Dems’ glaring hypocrisy


Shameless Democrats who defended Bill Clinton, supported his wife who helped smear her husband’s accusers in the early 1990s and were pals with people like Harvey Weinstein are now aghast at claims of sexual assault, as long as it’s against somebody who’s not an ideological fellow traveler. Here’s Chuck Schumer:

Juanita Broaddrick’s not letting him get away with that:

Unfortunately that’s one call the Dems REFUSE to answer.

Dianne Feinstein also walked into a hornet’s nest of hypocrisy after this claim that was responded to by Broaddrick:

Glad you brought it up, senator!

None of what we’re seeing from Dems in DC right now about Kavanaugh and his accuser have a damn thing to do with getting to the truth. This is all about revenge for Merrick Garland, regardless of who has to be smeared in the process.

Dem Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: Encouraging Kavanaugh accuser to tell her story is trying to silence her, or something

Impossible to parody

Need more proof that up is down, down is up and two plus two equals whatever Dems say it does? Check out this liberal lunacy:

“Giving her a chance to say what’s on her mind in an open or closed hearing at the location of her choice is keeping her quiet.” This is how stupid it’s gotten.

I take that back — this is how stupid it’s gotten:

“Want to prevent rape? Cave into every Democrat demand!

These people are impossible to parody.

Russian to judgment: Rep. Adam Schiff, one of the biggest hypocrites in Congress, strikes again

This guy’s a total joke

Time once again to play “one of these things is not like the other.”

Rep. Adam Schiff on declassifying documents about the Russia investigation when Trump’s president:

But here’s Rep. Adam Schiff on declassifying documents about the Russia investigation when Obama was president.

I should no longer be stunned by this guy’s level of hypocrisy, and yet he keeps out-doing himself.

(h/t me, except at Twitchy earlier)

Confirmed: New York Times editors really need to start reading the New York Times more

Like The Onion but funnier

Ok, so I’ve been laughing at this for about a half hour now:

Wow, that’s almost as funny as Paul Krugman’s prediction about the markets on election night!

The ink is barely dry on the Times’ correction to their attempted hit piece blaming Nikki Haley for spending money that was in fact allocated during the Obama administration:

And by asking for examples of attempts to “confuse, mislead or influence voters” ahead of an election, would that include constant reminders about how the Republican has almost no chance of winning?

Or does publishing an anonymous op-ed written by somebody claiming to be a “senior” Trump admin official making claims that may or may not be total BS count as an attempt to influence voters ahead of an election? Or how about this from just over a month before the 2016 election:

If New York Times editors want to see questionable or false information being spread before an election all they have to do is read the New York Times.


It gets worse (and by “worse” I mean even more hilarious):

Figures: Dems want Kavanaugh confirmation delayed until FBI looks into an accusation they’re not going to investigate


The Democrats have latched onto a stall tactic to try and delay the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh and they’re clinging to it like Michael Moore on a hoagie. The latest spin is this: The FBI needs to investigate a claim about Brett Kavanaugh over something alleged to have happened nearly 40 years ago when he was in high school.

Among those Dems insisting that the FBI investigate before holding a vote is Kamala Harris, who is in perpetual 2020 campaign mode but already reaching peak shamelessness:

It should be noted that Kavanaugh has already been subjected to several FBI background checks due to various positions he’s held in the judicial system, including the position for which he’s been nominated.

Why do Dems keep insisting that the vote be delayed until the FBI checks out the allegations? Because the FBI isn’t going to investigate the allegations:

Senate Republicans need to hold the confirmation vote as soon as possible. It’s not like there’s any scenario or information that could be presented that would make them stop clinging to their narrative.

Meanwhile, the accuser doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to testify:

The woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape nearly 40 years ago, Stanford professor Christine Blasey Ford, isn’t responding to requests from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to testify about her claims.

“We still haven’t heard from Dr. Ford, so do they want to have the hearing or not?” Grassley said during an interview with Salem Radio host Hugh Hewitt Tuesday morning. “We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours, three or four times by email and we have not heard from them. It kind of raises the question do they want to come to the public hearing or not? The reason we’re having the public hearing is obviously, well number one, accusations like this deserve consideration and looking into and that’s what the purpose of the hearing is. We wouldn’t be having the hearing if Dr. Ford told the Washington Post and other people publicly she wanted to testify.”