Once upon a time, (July 5, 2016) there was an old witch disguised as a princess (Hillary Clinton) who was under fire for misdeeds to the realm, and consequently exonerated by an inept inquisitor (James Comey), who was hexed into a decision out of his authority, saving her from the gallows of obscurity.

Two weeks before the people were to pick a new leader of the realm, information  appeared that might put the princess/witch back on politician's death row, but she dodged the bullet and challenged the new kid on the block (Donald Trump) for leadership. The people were on to her and instead, gave the new kid the thumbs up. Meanwhile the screwing up by the inept inquisitor was under scrutiny by the new leader's judicial advisory team and he accepted their recommendation that he be fired. That's when everything hit the fan!

The second in command from the judicial team (Ron Rosenstein) arranged to have his  friend, who once held the same position of the fired inept inquisitor replace him. That was turned down by the leader. The following day, because the head of the judicial team (Jeff Sessions) didn't want to get  involved, left his deputy in command (Ron Rosenstein) to hire his friend to lead a contrived investigation about collusive shenanigans between the leader and the Russians, to 
delegitimize his win.

In order to form and legitimize a need for a special counsel, the contrivers needed proof of  this to get authorization, but they had none, so the princess/witch and her  cronies paid for a false dossier, put together by a retired  MI6 spy, (Christopher Steele) now in business selling his clandestine experience for big bucks, containing false information and  endorsed by high level intelligence individuals, sworn to protect impartially, the integrity of its purpose, but didn't and instead, subverted the very system they swore to protect.

The knight in shining armor (Robert Mueller) who was suppose to sort out this whole mess,  added to it by forming a round table of partial allies to the princess/witch and scoring on things that have nothing to do from the original franchise, and turning it into a witch hunt. Only his pursuit is after the wrong witch. And the princess/witch dodges another bullet forevermore.
​
The end.

To listen to the Sen. Bill Nelson and the Democrat Party ads on radio and T.V., and an editorial in the Sun-Sentinel, they are charging that Gov. Rick Scott acted in a criminal way in the Columbia/HCA fraud case (the same charges were made 4 years ago, and he was re-elected as governor of Florida). Is that a fair and reputable charge to level at Gov. Scott again in this campaign for senator?

First off, Rick Scott was CEO of Columbia/HCA which was fined by the federal government, $1.7 billion for Medicare fraud. The Nelson ad and the Sun-Sentinel editorial mentions that, but never mentions that Scott was never questioned by the federal government and was never charged with a crime in that fraud case. Scott, at that time, said he had no knowledge of the fraudulent activity and said he would have acted to stop it if he had known. Scott was never charged with any wrongdoing. To imply otherwise, is a deceitful statement.

Also in that ad by Nelson, and in the Sun-Sentinel endorsement of Bill Nelson, it mentions the fact that Rick Scott took the 5th Amendment 75 times in order to not to admit committing a crime in that fraud case.

Is that Bill Nelson ad and the Sun-Sentinel editorial, true or not? Did Scott commit a crime and did he invoke his 5th Amendment right 75 times to avoid incriminating himself?

According to two prominent independent fact checking organizations, FactCheck.org, and Politifact.com, they found that Scott was never officially asked questions by the federal investigators in the criminal case of Columbia/HCA and he was never charged with a crime. As to the 75 times that Scott took the 5th on July, 2000 (3 years after he left the company in 1997), it was in relation to a totally unrelated civil case between Nevada Communications Corp. and Columbia/HCA, with Nevada claiming that Columbia/HCA had violated the terms of a contract. It had nothing to do with the criminal case. Under advice of his lawyer in a deposition in the civil case, Scott exerted his 5th Amendment Constitutional right against answering questions in the pending case between Nevada and HCA. The ad in question, by Nelson and the Democrats, does not make clear in which case Scott took the 5th. The ad implied that Scott took the 5th in the criminal case, which was totally and factually untrue.

So knowing the facts as they actually are, you could say that Gov. Scott was and is the victim of a knowingly untrue ad and editorial whose main purpose was to impugn the honesty and integrity of his character. This ad and editorial should be given “4 Pinocchio's” for outright deceit.

Vote for or against Gov. Scott on the basis of his performance in office, not on some deceitful ad put out by his opponent claiming that he is a crook. Maybe Bill Nelson was looking in the mirror?
​
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

I firmly believe that the organized vendetta against the elevation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, is the fear by the pro-abortion zealots, that he could be the swing vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Therefore, you, as a sane person, could conclude that this whole sex abuse fiasco against Judge Kavanaugh could be classified as “The Attempted Abortion of Judge Kavanaugh”.

Chances of overturning Roe vs. Wade is remote (possible, but not likely), but if you are part of the pro-abortion crowd that abortion is the “holy grail” of public policy, the likes of which are NARAL, the ACLU, and PLANNED PARENTHOOD, you'd think that it is a “sin” to even contemplate that Roe vs. Wade would somehow be overturned. Since Judge Kavanaugh is painted as a strict constitutionalist, and a practicing Roman Catholic, according to them, he most likely would vote to overturn the right of women getting an abortion in the minds of the pro-abortion lobby. Judge Kavanaugh has not given any indication one way or another how he would rule, but that's not good enough for the pro-abortion zealots.

This whole organized attempt to delay and hopefully derail the vote on Kavanaugh to be confirmed, is being financed by the likes of George Soros and other pro-abortion benefactors. The Democrat Party is a willing co-conspirator using liberal activists and anti-Trumper's to come out of the woodwork to make sexual abuse charges against Judge Kavanaugh. It seems like they would go to any lengths to block the confirmation of Kavanaugh - they validate the saying that “the end justifies the means”. They are so dedicated to their pro-abortion cause that they'll ruin a mans reputation in trying to meet their goal – to them, so be it. In addition, what about the rule of law, the Constitution, the trauma to his family or even the general welfare of society? The quest for power is so intense on the part of the Democrats, that they will use such extreme actions to achieve it.

Judge Kavanaugh has led a life of decency, integrity, commitment to family, the rule of law, and a commitment to community few Americans can match. He also has received the highest rating of the American Bar Association, a liberal lawyer organization, and has served admirably over 10 years on the D.C. Court of Appeals. He has been subjected, over his legal career, to 6 FBI background checks with nary a dissenting opinion, and just recently he was subjected to 2 days of scrutiny by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Other than some challenges to some of his legal decisions, he passed the test with flying colors. Then the charges of sexual abuse surfaced after the Judiciary Committee had finished its work and right before a committee vote was scheduled to pass along his nomination to the full Senate for confirmation, all for the purpose of delaying or scuttling his nomination.

So, in conclusion, if Judge Kavanaugh would've come out saying he wouldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade, he wouldn't have had any trouble being confirmed, including the votes of many Democrats. But, since he has an open mind on the subject of abortion, he is subject of the same violation faced by now Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991 - a high tech lynching, only this time with a white candidate not a black candidate to the Supreme Court.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Never heard of that word? It is the antonym of “misogyny” which is defined as hatred of women. Misandry is defined as the hatred of men.

Hawaii Senator, Mazie Hirono, recently has stated that men must step up in the era of “#Me Too” or just shut up. That belligerent statement seems to be the prevailing opinion of many feminist groups who blame all men for all misbehavior against women. Placing all men in the same boat as women abusers seems to be quite a misguided blanket statement.

According to these emotionally charged statements by feminists, if you don't believe or you question the motives of women, you are classified as a misogynist. They say all women should be believed if they make a claim that they have been abused by a man, no if's, and's, or but's, no matter if the facts are dubious or even non-existent.

The accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, fall into this category. Regardless of of his exemplary record of integrity and judicial achievement, he has had to defend himself against a nebulous charge of sexual abuse of 36 years ago, as a 17 year old, by a woman he may or may not have known. According to the “fake news” media, without any real proof at all, they have accused, tried, and convicted him without a trial or any corroborating witnesses. A sane person observing this hysteria should be able to come to the conclusion that they could “smell a rat”. This last minute “Hail Mary” against Judge Kavanaugh, pushed by the Democrats to stall or postpone the elevation of him to the Supreme Court, seems to be an act of desperation on the part of the Democrats. They want to delay a vote before the mid-term elections hoping that the Democrats will prevail and be able to take back control of the Senate, thereby voiding the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.

The “#Me Too” movement seems to be the motivating factor in this charade of a confirmation process. Why should we accept the charges of a partisan Democrat woman activist who was a “Bernie” supporter and who has also contributed to the Hillary Clinton campaign. This has all the markings of a “political hit job” for only partisan political purposes.

The women who practice “misandry”, will do or say anything to ruin the reputation of this outstanding jurist, not because he is deficient in the law, but because of his judicial philosophy which they disagree with. They are using this dubious charge of sexual abuse as the reason he should be denied confirmation.

This charade must end and the Senate must confirm him immediately to bring sanity back into the realm of fairness and due diligence in the confirmation process.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

​A few years ago that question would be scoffed at, but today that question is being debated and in some cases embraced by a significant number of people, mostly left-leaning people (a/k/a Democrats and Progressives).

With the emergence of socialist Bernie Sanders, during the 2016 Democrat primary, when ole Bernie attracted a strong, vocal following in his quest for the Democrat presidential nomination (which he lost to the chicanery of Hillary and the DNC), to now, with the emergence of 28 year old Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez, who won the Democrat primary in NYC against a sitting long time congressman, by proclaiming that she was a Democrat Socialist (she won with only 13% of the registered voters voting in the district), she has now become the darling of the Democrat left.

In subsequent interviews in the press and on T.V., she has espoused what she thinks is the way our country should change - to a socialist system of government. Quite simply, she defines her socialism as taking money and property from some people (the rich) so it can be given to make everyone more or less equal. She has as her goals, free college, paying off a student's debt, housing as a human right, Medicare for all, and a mandatory minimum wage guaranteed by the government. Basically, what she is proposing is that “stealing” is the right of governments to try to level the playing field of life.

When she is asked, “Who is going to pay for all this “free stuff”, her answers vary, but all have one thing in common, confiscatory taxation, and she graduated from college with a degree in economics? It looks like she missed a few classes, or she was just repeating the words of her ultra-liberal professors who make up 90% of the faculties of our colleges and universities and who believe in the socialist philosophy.

Ole Bernie and his protege, Ms. Cortez, have been barnstorming around the country espousing their socialist ideas and programs, which seems to find sympathetic ears on the group called “Millennials” (18 to 35 age group). That group of people are easy marks because many of them are saddled with a huge amount of debt due to their student loans, and their inability to get a decent job to make their college degree pay off financially. I guess a degree in women's studies, black history, and communications etc. are not that much in demand, and they are “pissed”, so they welcome the “free stuff” offered by Bernie and Alexandria.

Socialism is defined as such: “Socialism requires the intervention and control of the marketplace by an overwhelmingly powerful central government. It penalizes high achievers, rewards laziness, and stifles choice”. As the late former Prime Minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, once said; “The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money”. A recent report by George Mason University evaluated the proposals of Bernie and Alexandria and came up with the figure that it would cost $33 trillion over the next 10 years to implement their proposals. Both of them don't know where or how we would get all that money to pay for all that “free stuff”, but they say not to worry as it is for the benefit of society (deja vu Margaret Thatcher). Isn't that called “pie in the sky” or “wishful thinking”? Of course, and that's why the question asked at the beginning of the editorial should read that socialism is NOT a viable alternative to capitalism. And in the words of another famous Brit, Sir Winston Churchill; “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery”. And, that's the way it is.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann​