As of Sunday Night: Kavangauh Case By Tom Donelson

We are in the final week of the Kavanaugh-Ford Confrontion and it is looking like an ambush. Are we are witnessing a smear job with a accused who so far has been less than forthcoming and evidence pointing to Kavanaugh innocence?

Let begin with what we know as of Sunday night, all of those who have been identified as being at the party including one friendly witness that was supposed to back Ford’s claim have all denied that the event occurred so we have no witnesses to the alleged rape and sexual assault.   As for Ford’s friendly witness, she even denied that she even know Kavanaugh.  The case against Kavanaugh is imploding.

bk two

What did happen some 36 years ago and with no witnesses to collaborate the story, what will a hearing settle other than get Ford statement on the record.  This case is similar to the original Thomas –Hill hearing 27 years only there was even less evidence than in that case.  (For those who might not remember, the FBI concluded that the charges against Thomas unsubstantiated and it is a good thing for Ford that Feinstein sat on this as oppose taking it to the FBI several weeks ago since she would look even worse than Hill did in her hearing. It is obvious that even Feinstein had her own doubt about the story and released it in this fashion because she was attempting to smear Kavanaugh’s reputation if he got confirmed.)


Here is a question I was asked and it is a good question, why would Ford lie knowing what storm awaits her. Even a liberal friend, who was a rape victim, admitted that women do lie about being rape.  A few years back, a woman lied about being rape by fraternity members at University of Virginia to a reporter of the Rolling Stone magazine. (Rolling Stone lost more than 1.5 million dollars in a lawsuit over this case.)  So why would a woman lie about being raped to a national magazine Kavanaugh case enters the final week but what we are learning, this is looking more like a? Did she assume that she would not be exposed and that automatically believed?

In looking at Ford’s own career, we see a Professor who was politically active and her brother law firm worked with Fusion GPS.  Fusion GPA worked on behalf of Obama campaign, doing opposition research (which occasionally does include looking for dirt on the opposition campaign.)  It is known that as early as 2012 that Ford feared that Kavanaugh could be a nominee for the Supreme Court and CNN reported that Kavanaugh was on Romney’s short list.  Ford’s brother law firm work with Fusion GPS was in 2016 so there was no evidence to suggest that Ford got any information from Fusion GPS about Romney possible nominee to the Supreme Court.

Professor Ford was politically astute and her brother may be equally politically aware.  So was Ford prepared to do sabatoged the Kavanaugh nomination if Romney did this in 2013, if elected?   Was Ford willing to do what it takes to stop Kavanaugh nominations?  That is a big if but what we are learning about Ford and her legal team, it is not beyond imagining since her team are made up of political operatives with law degrees. Truth is not their concern.  My own view is that Ford is complicit in this and not an innocent bystander exposed accidently by Feinstein.  I don’t know what happened 36 years ago and no one does but based on what we know, there is no evidence to suggest Ford was sexually assaulted or the event happened as she said.

Did Professor Ford think that she would not exposed by Feinstein and did this slip out of her control?  Or did she understand that once she wrote her letter and Feinstein got a copy, was she prepared to do what was needed to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation?  These are questions that can no longer be ignored as the case against Kavanaugh has imploded with every witness denying anything happened.  I can’t imagine any woman lying about rape but it does happen.  And as I will discuss later, Christine Ford and Diane Feinstein has hurt the MeToo Movement and undermined other women who will have a stronger case against powerful people.

Joshua Beat Povetkin by Tom Donelson

Anthony Joshua once again showed that he may be the best heavyweight in the world as he defeated Alexandra Povetkin and it was not an easy bout as the 39 year old Povetkin nailed Joshua with a combination that open a gusher of blood from Joshua nose in the first round.  Joshua may have fought the rest of the fight with a broken nose but certainly, the blood flow from his nose hampered his breathing.


Povetkin proved competitive through the first six rounds as he landed solid combinations and pursued Joshua through the first half of the fight as he attempted to get inside of the bigger Joshua.  I had Povetkin winning the first two rounds and the halfway mark, I had the fight even.  Throughout the sixth round, Joshua started to take command as he threw and connected on double the punches while Povetkin looked tired.

Povetkin pushed the pace but Joshua adopted to the Povetkin and fought like the taller fighter as he started to pump his jab to establish the real estate between the two. In the first round, Povetkin wobbled Joshua knees with a left uppercut and he landed numerous punches that shook Joshua up but Joshua jab started to control the fight as the fight proceeded.  Joshua proved vulnerable as Povetkin proved an able competitor but Joshua height and power proved decisive.


Joshua understood that Povetkin could end his championship and used his jab to set up combinations.  The jabs went to the body and to the head and while defense was not perfect, he started to block many of Povetkin’s shots coming his way. By the fifth round, Joshua controlled the pace of the fight and by the end of the sixth, it was Povetkin who was wilting.

Joshua ended the fight in spectacular fashion as he landed a right hand that nearly sent Povetkin head spinning 180 degrees and after three more power shots, Povetkin went down.  Povetkin barely got back up and the referee could have easily stopped the fight but he gave the further Povetkin one more shot but it didn’t matter.  One more Joshua combination had Povetkin reeling and his corner threw in towel to surrender before any further damage was done.

Joshua did what champions are supposed to do, finish off an opponent but there were flaws but also positive development.  The flaws could be seen in the first round as he got nailed with power shots and his knees wobbled as a result.  The positive is that he adjusted and used his jab to re-establish control of the real estate between him and Povetkin who had more difficulty getting inside.

The ending came suddenly and without warning, which is what great punchers do.  One punch and the fight is over.  While Povetkin looked weary going back to his corner at the end of the sixth, he did not look in trouble. The only fighter who looked in trouble over the first half of the fight was Joshua in the opening round and Povetkin landed significant power shots.  Over the first half of the fight, Povetkin laned more than double the power shots than Joshua while Joshua landed nearly 11 times more jabs and that is where the fight was won.

With a potential Wilder-Joshua fight over the horizon in 2019, the Heavyweight division is becoming exciting once again with fighters that fans want to see. From 2004 through 2015, the Klitschko brothers dominated and most of their fights were in Europe, invisible to Americans fans and the lack of American heavyweights to challenge for the title dampened the excitement of American fan even further.

Now Deontay Wilder is challenging Joshua as the best of the heavyweights and he has a date with Tyson Fury, whose last big victory was his upset over Wladmir Klitschko and has won his two warm up fights in his comeback.  If Wilder wins, then we are set up for the first big mega fight in the heavyweight division since Lennox Lewis fought Mike Tyson back in 2002.

Joshua has the kind of appeal that fills up football stadium in Great Britain and when was the last time any American fighter filled up a Stadium.   Wilder now must get past Fury and while he is the favorite, Fury will be a tough fight for Wilder, a big fighter who is awkward, something that Klitschko found out when he fought Fury.   If Wilder beats Fury which is he favored to do, then the big fight is on.

The Real Hill vs Thomas hearing by Tom Donelson

In a recent discussion, I heard a leftist talk show viewed Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas as sexual predators prepared to strip women their right to choose.  The problem with this argument is that anyone who actually witnessed the actual Thomas-Hill hearing would know that Thomas confirmation came as a result of Thomas testimony being viewed more truthful as Anita Hill. 

anita hill

For those who don’t remember or those not old enough to know the actual truth and exposed to revisionist history, not a single colleague of Anita Hill came forward to support her allegations and Senate Judiciary Committee included a panel of women, seven of whom worked with Thomas rejected Hill’s charges and one of those women was a previous victim of sexual harassment.


Hill didn’t mention the more salacious details that later become a focal point in the hearing to the FBI in initial meetings.  Charles Grassley and Arlen Spector asked Hill why her story changed and Hill responded, ““I did not tell the FBI all of the information because the FBI agent made clear that if I were embarrassed about talking about something, that I could decline to discuss things that were too embarrassing, but that I could provide as much information as I felt comfortable with at that time.”  Both of the FBI agents responsible for the initial investigation into her charges filed statements about the untruthfulness of Hill’s testimony. Anita Hill testimony was rebuked by her own fellow colleagues and while there have many attempts to rewrite the history of the hearings but the reality is Thomas testimony and follow up testimony backed up Thomas’ version, not Anita Hill.

Anita Hill did not support women in every cases where sexual harassment occurred.  Just read this Hill’s quote about a charge that President Clinton grope a White House volunteer, “For President Clinton, he’s going to suffer a disadvantage because it is now that these allegations are coming out, during his presidency. But I think what Ms. Steinem also says is we have to look at the totality of the presidency and how has he been on women’s issues generally? Is he our best bet, notwithstanding some behavior that we might dislike? I don’t think that most women have come to the point where we’ve said, well this is so bad that even if he is better on the bigger issues, we can’t have him as president.” Translation, if a Democrat is accused, the woman expendable since a Democrat is “better on the bigger issues” like abortion.  That is the Anita Hill I remember and Clarence Thomas was right when he described what happen to him as “high Tech lynching.”    It is looking  more like Kavanaugh case is ambush similar to Clarence Thomas leaving one to ask, do Democrats have no shame to attempt the same tactics some 27 years apart? I don’t have to answer that for the answer is obvious.


Whit Merrifield, the Best Baseball Player You don’t Know

Whit Merrifield is the best baseball player that no one knows about and one reason is that he plays in Kansas City for one of the worst team in baseball.  Merrifield came up to the Royals in 2016 and since then, he has hit .292 including over .300 this year.  Over the past two seasons, he has hit 33 homers and stolen 70 bases plus he has played not only a very good second bases but has proven to be valuable player in the outfield.

What Merrifield has done is to combine the classic utility player, playing many positions while proving to be a solid hitter.  At the age of 29, he is in the prime of his career and presently his 36 stolen bases leads the league.  One player that he compares is to Ben Zobrist who is presently hitting .312 but a lifetime .267 hitter and Zobrist has played in two World Series for Kansas City and Chicago in 2015 and 2016.  Zobrist, like Merrifield, plays multiple positions and plays them well but so far Merrifield is the better hitter.

If Merrifield was on the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox, he would be a household name but being in the Midwest and on a last place team in the worst baseball division, no one knows how good he truly is.  The question remains, how long does Merrifield stay a Royal? Right now he is under control until 2021 but there is always talk about trading him for multiple prospects.


What should the Royals do?  They should keep him since he can play so many position but as a lead up batter and combined with Mondesi who has shown both power while hitting for average.  These two at the top of the lineup could the most potent one two punch. They can not only hit for power but also two of better base stealers in the game today.  That means those behind them are getting a lot of fast balls if they are on the base path, which benefits hitters down the line up and

The Royals are few years from competing but this year, younger players brought up showed potential just as Ryan O’Hearn who has hit 11 homers in less than half of the year along Hunter Dozier who added 11 homers. They still have Salvador Perez who is the game best catchers and there are young pitchers just as Brad Keller who look like they belong in the majors.

Merrifield is the best Royal player who can do about anything, hit for power and in Royal stadium that means not just homers but power to the gaps.  He is an excellent baserunner and fielder.  He is a Royal building block for the future.




From Lauren Bies, Thoughts on Kavanaugh

We are selecting a future Supreme Court Justice. Not one American should dismiss Dr.Fords statement. The actions by K should not be tolerated, covered- up nor ignored. Actions speak to character or the lack of. Dr. Ford has taken risk to her personal, professional and future state of mental and physical health to have come forward

. One must also be cognizant that this action of hers will affect her family for generations. It is not dramatic and certainly not an ignorant stance to realize that we as a country must understand that citizens will either become heroes, fools or exist in an apathetic state of being.

These are extraordinarily important moments which with just one brave act…, America will be forever the Land of the Free, or continue down a path whereas we will completely forget our humanity.

(Ms. Bies is presently living in Ireland, pursuing educational opportunities and working advance degree. She is an director, theatre screenwriter, poet, and scholar. This was an email read on the Donelson Files)

Triple G’s vs Alvarez by Tom Donelson

The second Golovkin-Alvarez was closer than their first bout and while I won’t say that Golovkin was robbed in this fight, he better understand he will never fbeat Alvarez short of knocking him out. I had Triple G’s the winner in the first bout 115 to 113 but this bout was closer as Alvarez pushed the action and as HBO Roy Jones noted that Alvarez pushed Golovkin and that unlike any previous Golovkin fights, Alvarez stalked triple G’s.   In their first bout, Golovkin threw 200 more punches as he did in the second bout but in the first bout, he landed nearly 50 more punches than Alvarez and power punches were nearly the same.  He out punched Alvarez in 10 of the 12 rounds and this was why many were disappointed he wasn’t awarded the decision.


In this bout, he landed twice as many jabs as he did in the first fight but Alvarez landed nearly twenty six more power shots than Golovkin and Golovkin landed more punches in 7 rounds as compared to 4 for Alvarez and one even.  The perception of Alvarez more aggressive stance gave judges the reason to award the fight to Alvarez and the closer nature of the rounds aided Alvarez in the decision.  There were rounds Alvarez won in which he landed fewer punches because he landed effective power shots.

I had the fight even and many pundits including ESPN Dan Rafael had the fight even while others had like Bleacher Reports had it 116 to 112 for Golovkin.  This fight was closer than the first one and it was Alvarez who improved and adopted from the first fight.

In the seventh and eighth round, Alvarez looked stronger and it was Triple G’s who looked exhausted as the younger Alvarez appeared to be taking command. In the tenth round, and eleventh round, it was triple G’s who dominated the actions, it was Alvarez who look to be wilting.

Both fighters gave it all they had in the final round as both fighters landed big shots but over the last half of the round, Alvarez held the advantage and I had him winning the last round.   What we saw in the last half of the bout, was both fighters showing sign of wilting only to come back.  So the big question left to answer who won and we don’t have a clear answer.  Golovkin barely won the first fight but the judges awarded a draw with one judge giving it to Alvarex 118-110 while the other two had a more reasonable score with one judge scoring it 115-113 in favor of Golovkin and the other a draw. The latter two scores were reasonable even if I disagreed with the final decision draw.  This bout was better scored as two judges had it 115-113 for Alvarez and a third had it a 114-114 draw.

The bout was that close and it could easily have been scored the other way and Golovkin given the majority decision.  What we learned is that both fighters are close to each other in talent and skill.  Alvarez has quicker hands and showed in this bout, he could adjust his strategy.  Golovkin follow the same strategy as he did in the first fight, depending upon his jabs and just as in the first fight, he connected on double the jabs.  The only difference is that Alvarez connected on more power shots and he also stood his ground more often and victory came due to his change in tactic, Alvarez moved slightly ahead in the eyes of the judges and as Roy Jones noted, Triple G’s found himself on his back foot.  So who won? I had it even but the majority of ringside has it for Golovkin but many also had it a draw. It was a tough fight to score and unless Team Alvarez decide that two fights is enough, there should be a rematch and maybe this time not in Vegas. The Barclay Center in Brooklyn will be a good place where maybe Golovkin will have a home court advantage.

Path to More Free Market Health Care by Larry Fedewa


The starting point for a discussion of a national health care system should be setting our goals.

American health care should be:

  1. High quality, state-of-the-art
  2. Available to all
  3. Affordable
  4. Abundant
  5. Well-funded 

What are the principal obstacles to these goals

A. The shortage of medical personnel. This shortage has two facets:

Not enough medical professionals are produced in the first place, and too many drop out before their time.There are whole areas of inner cities and rural America, for example, which have no physicians at all. Why? Because our medical schools do not graduate enough doctors to serve the population of the United States. Why not? Lack of intelligent students? Lack of students who are motivated to give their lives in service to their fellow man? Not at all.

The reason is lack of money! Medical education is so lengthy and so costly in this country that very few students can afford to go to medical school. This situation has created a national crisis.

One very good use of taxpayer funds would be to offer medical and nursing school students free tuition, open to all qualified applicants. We do it for the military, why not for doctors and nurses? The cost would be miniscule compared to the Department of Defense or agricultural subsidies.

This policy would have a massive return on public investment. More doctors would increase coverage of the population (perhaps there should be a requirement for a graduate M.D. and R.N. to spend two years in a “no-doctor zone”). More doctors would increase competition for the patient dollar. More could devote themselves to research. New people, new ideas, new openness to change. The quality of care would go up, and the cost would go down – a mantra we have been hearing a lot lately. This program would also assure continuing support for U.S. medical technology which is already the envy of the world.

B. Inadequate funding

So how do we provide for adequate funding? Where does the $3 trillion we now spend go? The money flow starts with the employers who pay the insurance companies out of profits. It then goes mainly to the vast bureaucracies in the insurance companies which distribute the money, the government which oversees the money, and the hospitals and practitioners who must respond to the companies and the government. Only about one-third of the $1 trillion spent on healthcare gets to the practitioners. So how can this labyrinth be simplified?

1)  First, take the employers out of the picture. The added financial and personnel burdens on businesses of paying and accounting for employee health care is a double disaster. It is a drag on the efficiency of the economic system by vastly increasing the cost of starting and staying in a business, and on the healthcare system by removing from individuals the responsibility of seeing to their own health needs.

2)  Next, reduce the role of insurance companies. They are not chartered or ordained by God to be judging the value or disvalue of medical procedures. They are supposed to know about money, not cancer! The decisions about medical care and the balancing for costs versus therapies should be in the hands of the patients where they belong. When the ultimate decisions of life and death have been left with the patient, we will have come a long way toward patient-centered medicine. Face it, there is no way for the patient to become the main arbiter of his or her fate unless the patient is the source of the money which runs the system.

3)  This free market system would be much better and much cheaper. The individual works for the money; the individual chooses the doctor, makes the final decision as to spending the money, and pays the doctor, hospital, physical therapist, and pharmacist. So where does the individual get the money? From his or her own health savings account with enhanced income from fewer deductions, also from voluntary insurance or cooperative membership, or from family, friends or philanthropic sources. Since the money is the patient’s own, the patient is far more likely to become very cost-conscious – unlike today’s insured patient, who is always spending someone else’s money

C. Insurance Companies and Government

A patient-centered system also reduces the role of federal and state governments (46.9% of health expenditures, NCHS, 2016). The patient doesn’t need the insurance company or the government. If both the government and the insurance companies were completely eliminated from the system, about two-thirds of the cost of American health care would be gone. Of course, there will always be some need for both, so assume that half of that cost would be gone. At today’s rates, that would be about $1.5 trillion. This is a gross number, but it shows the potential.

1) There is still a place for insurance companies in this system, although dramatically reduced. The most obvious place is for catastrophic insurance. A safety net for when something very expensive happens to someone in the family – or the church, or the credit union, or whatever assembly of people the individual chooses to participate with. And this brings us to the role of governments.

2) The first federal government act should be to lift all interstate commerce restrictions on insurance companies, so that they are free and invited to offer policies in any or all the states they wish without the necessity of creating a separate bureaucracy for every state they enter.

3) The second federal reform should be the creation of a program for financial aid to qualified students in the medical professions. My suggestion would be a free education in exchange for a period of service in underserved areas of practice as determined by a federal government body, such as, CDC or NIH or HHS.

4) A third federal reform which would dramatically reduce national health care costs is tort reform. Everyone makes mistakes, including medical practitioners and hospitals. It is the federal government’s role to protect both the treatment sector and the patient. But the current practice of unlimited liability has led to “defensive medicine,” that is, exhaustive tests and treatments used far beyond medical purposes. These extras are done to provide a defense against the inevitable lawsuit in case anything goes wrong. This uber caution has become a major cost driver in American medicine. Congress should set reasonable and realistic limits on the monies which can be given to the victims of everything from malfeasance to honest mistakes. No more windfalls for injury lawyers.

D Universal Coverage

The larger issue is care for the poor and the other underserved members of our nation. The concept of universal care is a noble and worthwhile goal. But socialized medicine is not the only or even the best way to achieve universal care. We have government programs to feed the hungry; to provide health care for the elderly; to protect the innocent. We can provide health care access to the poor and the underserved, whether because of poverty or location. We can also do better than the COBRA coverage for those who lose their jobs, or those who are excluded because of pre-existing conditions.

It is very tempting to design a system in which no government plays a major role. However, the most efficient way to care for the poor would seem to be a State-run program which levies a small per capita fee on each pool of insured to be placed in a designated fund, administered by the State, for the benefit of qualified citizens. A model for such a program might be the Medicaid programs in each State. Another model is the Uninsured Driver programs administered by the states.\

E. Medicare

We have now discussed the entire healthcare cycle without mentioning Medicare. There is a moral and legal mandate involved in Medicare which does not exist elsewhere. Medicare works reasonably well as a medical insurance system for those who contributed to it all their working lives. The most prudent and honorable way to approach Medicare would seem to be to leave it alone for those to whom commitments were made, even while moving the system slowly toward a patient-centered system for those just starting out, with free choices developed for those in mid-career. The pressure of the free market system we have been describing here will undoubtedly alter and reform Medicare as the new system matures in due course.

So here is what a free market system might look like. It would fulfill all our goals for an American system that is:

  1. State-of-the-art;
  2. Available to all in need;
  3. Affordable;
  4. Abundant; and
  5. Well-financed.

To get there, we need to:

  1. increase the supply of medical practitioners,
  2. create a patient-centered system by letting the patient spend his or her own money on healthcare;
  3. create state-sponsored safety nets for the poor and underserved. 

These proposals, of course, seem radical today, even in America’s free market culture. But sometimes the most obvious solution is indeed the best. The fact is that the employer-based system we have today was initiated because the elite of another day considered average Americans too irresponsible to handle their own health and welfare. Not true today.

(Larry Fedewa, Ph.D. is a conservative commentator on social and political issues. Former international technology executive, business owner and college president, he lives on an Arabian horse farm near Washington, D.C.  He granted permission to use this article and we are appreciative.  He will contribute to the websites and is presently working on a his own radio show/podcast)