After enduring weeks of character attacks and a disgraceful media lynching, Brett Kavanaugh now sits on the Supreme Court. But some activists still aren’t letting it go.
In a new assault on Kavanaugh, a liberal advocacy group has created a website called “brettkavanaugh.com.”
Instead of containing accurate, truthful information about the justice’s professional credentials and legal career, the webpage instead is about sexual assault. The first thing the viewer sees is a banner headline saying, “We Believe Survivors.”
This is another hit job on Kavanaugh.
Aside from misleading the public about him, this website may very well break the law by constituting an unlawful theft of Kavanaugh’s property interest in his name.
The webpage was put up by a group called Fix the Court, run by Gabe Roth, a former NBC producer who also worked for a left-leaning political consulting firm. Fix the Court is entirely funded by the New Venture Fund, which, according to the Capital Research Center, is a “major funding organization for left-wing organizations as well as the fiscal sponsor of a number of activist groups like [Fix the Court].”
The New Venture Fund has been “criticized as a ‘dark money organization’ for serving as a way for left-wing groups to anonymously funnel money toward advocacy issues, such as attacking Republicans.”
As the Capital Research Center says, although Fix the Court purports to be nonpartisan, “Gabe Roth is highly critical of President Donald Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court, Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.” This is clearly demonstrated in the way Roth used Kavanaugh’s name in the website domain.
Roth has used Fix the Court to push for term limits for Supreme Court justices as well as live television coverage of oral arguments. He has also pushed for a requirement that justices file detailed financial disclosure reports to be published online. (For the record, Fix the Court doesn’t disclose its donors on its own website.)
Roth has said that he believes the claims made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford despite their inconsistencies, the lack of corroborating evidence, and outright refutations by some of the alleged witnesses.
Congress has shown concern for the misuse of names in website domains. In 1999, it passed a federal law (15 U.S.C. §8131) that allows an individual to sue any person who “registers a domain name that consists of the name of” that individual without his or her consent “with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain.”
Roth may not fall within this federal statute unless it can be proven he registered Kavanaugh’s domain name in order to sell it for financial gain.
But Roth and Fix the Court may still be liable for what they have done. On its website, Fix the Court lists its office as being located in the District of Columbia. Therefore, D.C. law applies to its operations.
The District of Columbia recognizes the common law tort of misappropriation of another person’s name or likeness. In several decisions, including Vassiliades v. Garfinckel’s (1985) and Tripp v. U.S. (2003), the D.C. courts have adopted the Second Restatement of the Law on Torts. Section 652C of the restatement provides that anyone “who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy.”
The comments to Section 652 make it clear that the interest protected by this rule “is the interest of the individual in the exclusive use of his own identity.” Unlike the federal statute, a violation does not require that someone like Roth acquire the name in order to make a profit, although there seems little doubt that Roth and Fix the Court may profit from increased donations due to the attention given to the website.
In fact, the restatement says that the rule “is not limited to commercial appropriation.” It applies when a “defendant makes use of the plaintiff’s name or likeness for his own purposes and benefits, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one.”
Here, Roth is using the public’s interest in Kavanaugh to benefit his organization by bringing attention, support, and possible donations to Fix the Court and its advocacy against Kavanaugh. That public benefit falls squarely within the rule according to Tripp v. U.S., in which the court pointed out that the types of benefits contemplated under the restatement include “reputation, prestige, social or commercial standing, public interest, or other values of the plaintiff’s name or likeness.”
Roth’s use of Kavanaugh’s name is clearly not just “incidental,” and might well violate the misappropriation rule.
This kind of misappropriation of internet domain names of celebrities, government officials, and even ordinary Americans in order to fool the public into going to such a site and reading derogatory or misleading information about that person is another unpleasant and obnoxious misuse of the internet in the social media age.
No one should have a right to use someone else’s name or likeness in this manner. Roth, Fix the Court, and the New Venture Fund should be embarrassed that they are engaging in such deceitful, underhanded, and potentially unlawful behavior.
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: @HvonSpakovsky.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
EDITORS NOTE: This column with photographs is republished with permission. The feature image is of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Photo: Ron Sachs/Sipa/Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/KavanaughWH-1250x650-e1539610047687.jpg405640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-10-15 09:29:302018-10-15 09:30:52Liberal Activists Just Made a Website Using Kavanaugh’s Name. That Could Be Illegal.
Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion company. It is also one of the most powerful liberal advocacy groups in the country.
That advocacy didn’t prevent Brett Kavanaugh from getting on the U.S. Supreme Court. But it did show corporate backers of Planned Parenthood that they are standing with racism, sexual assault hypocrisy, and mob rule.
This Tweet says it all, and the Rewire piece goes straight into wondering why white women aren’t dedicated supporters of liberal accusations of sexual assault and Democratic Party nominees named Hillary Clinton (no irony was included in the piece related to sexual assault accusations and the spouse of Hillary Clinton). The piece also says, “Throughout history, white women—including those who identify as feminists—have routinely thrown people of color under the bus to advance their own interests.”
Got it? White women are racist and self-interested, according to Planned Parenthood. (As opposed to Planned Parenthood, which uses half-a-billion taxpayer dollars to slaughter unborn babies for, what, altruism?) Additionally, white women allegedly vote how their husbands want them to.
To put it another way — Planned Parenthood and liberals at Rewire want women to make their own decisions, unless those decisions go against liberal preferences.
Hating Sexual Assault When It’s Convenient
According to Planned Parenthood when it retweeted NARAL, “we believe survivors.”
Democracy has often been described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. This is why America is a representative republic, with competing interests in our political system to ensure that the wolves don’t always agree — and, thus, Americans could be free.
Planned Parenthood appears to be ignorant of this basic piece of American history. Check out these Tweets, the last two which were retweeted by Planned Parenthood:
Putting Politics Ahead of America
We want to make two last points about Planned Parenthood’s actions here. First, in supporting the Women’s March organization, Planned Parenthood is aligned with an activist group which is so anti-conservative and so incompetent that its initial anti-Kavanaugh press release had “XX” instead of Kavanaugh’s name because it didn’t matter who President Trump nominated. The Women’s March organizers were always going to take this route of aggressive and unethical opposition.
More importantly, Planned Parenthood’s support for mob rule clearly only applies when in support of the abortion giant’s goals. It has supported so-called “buffer zones” across the country — here’s just one example — which prevent pro-life activists from using free speech to advocate against abortion.
Yet corporations continue to blindly stand with Planned Parenthood. This cannot continue. It is long past time for corporations to put their money towards hiring Americans instead of killing them, and towards giving raises instead of deadly political activism.
Marya Farah, legal research consultant with a human rights organization in the West Bank, was a visiting speaker at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) School of Law, on October 11. The event was held in the Moot Court, yet “moot” or “debate” was discreetly discouraged. We learned that the woman with the mic was told not to extend it to those whose opinions might prove inconsistent with the speaker’s narrative.
Professor of Law Avi Cover invited Farah to address students seeking Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and aptly served as her “cover” when she would decline to address certain issues. A self-described Palestinian, she has come to delegitimize and denigrate Israel and the international Jewish community; this is stealth jihad. She repeatedly spoke of Israel as the occupiers of areas she referenced as “occupied Palestinian territories” (OPT), and supports boycott-divestment-sanctions, BDS, against the Jewish state, ignoring the 4,000-year history of Jewish presence, preceding Christianity and Islam by more than two millennia. Clearly not expansionist, Israel’s legality stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments accepted by the international community. Her boundaries have changed only as a result of her winning a defensive war against the armed aggression of five Arab countries.
Here it should be noted that the Palestinian nomenclature designation is the largest hoax of the Twentieth Century, and it continues today as part of the plan to eradicate the Jewish State, taking control of small parts at a time. The territories are neither “occupied” nor Palestinian; there is no Palestinian sovereignty.
One slide was described as a section of the wall that separates Israel from “Palestine,” and its serious inconvenience to the Palestinians. Farah did not say why the wall exists; it was begun in 2002 to protect Israel’s citizens when Arab terror attacks had reached unprecedented levels. Neither did she mention the considerable expense to Israelis to fund the barriers, bomb shelters, and all manner of security measures, so this wall is no frivolous undertaking. Of course, despite the protective barrier, Palestinians have killed or maimed many thousands of Israelis through suicide bombings, stabbings, explosives, rocket fire and mortar shells, and most recently the use of incendiary balloons and fire kites that have destroyed more than 3,000 acres of forestry and agricultural land, livestock, wild animals, homes and industry – not to mention lung ailments from the smoke and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder.
The speaker also criticized the color-coded license plates on cars that made it difficult for friends from different city sections to meet but failed to explain that the color-coding is necessary to distinguish the vehicle of a potential terrorist. She spoke of the inconvenient road system, but not that they were designed to ensure safe access by Arabs and Israelis alike, and thwart Arab rock throwers from hitting passing Israeli cars and causing damage and deaths. Another gripe was the tiresome checkpoints, again without clarifying their purpose of preventing armed terrorists from entering crowded places.
Another slide was one of bulldozer moving earth on a deep embankment, which she identified as the destruction of homes. Houses are destroyed if built illegally, and when they are the homes of the families of martyred killers of Israelis. Israel has learned that this destruction is the greatest deterrent to terrorism because families will actually report a potential terrorist in order to avoid losing their home. The excavator might also have been demolishing a terror tunnel, through which terrorists gain underground access into Israel proper, to kill Jewish children and families.
Farah lamented the assault and war (Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, attacked Israel) that immediately followed Israel’s Independence in 1948 – and the 462,000 to 750,000 Arabs who remained homeless. However, they had been commanded to leave by the Arab military leaders, with a promise of return upon the Arab victory. Another 160,000 Arabs accepted Israel’s invitation to stay and live as Israeli citizens. It is the subsequent generations of those who fled that are now hostages for negotiation. No one cited the 850,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab lands around the same time. They were absorbed by Israel and some European countries, not held as displaced pawns. The war of 1967 was yet another attack by five Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq) on Israel, yet Marya Farah said this was a war over water rights! Absolutely not.
We spoke to Professor Cover after the event and Q&A. He posited that he wants no barriers around Israel and that it was unjust that the many were inconvenienced because of the actions of the few. The Koran still commands death to Jews, and weaponizes their children to kill Jews. If, indeed, only 10 percent of the Palestinians were overcoming the border wall with firebombs and explosive devices, launching thousands of arson kites and booby-trapped incendiary balloons into Israeli communities, they are still killing indispensable people and wild-life. Would the American citizens accept being blown up in coffee houses, pizzarias and schools by the 10 percent, or would they demand that their government protect them?
I am most dismayed at the American professor who identifies with a people who yell, “Death to Israel,” and “Death to America,” while expressing no sympathy for America’s steadfast ally, Israel, whose people are consistently attacked and slaughtered.
Finally, I also had a moment to ask Farah where, exactly, was her country of Palestine and when was it established. She hesitated only momentarily and said she would not deal with a challenging question, and that I was denying her identity as a human being. No, but the land is not “occupied” by Israelis. Israel’s legal presence has been accepted by virtue of her history, documentation, and that the Jews’ built a thriving nation out of desert and malarial swampland; the only illegality is the “Palestinian” presence. By this time, she had backed away so much, that she was against a wall, inviting others to queue up to her new position.
In summation, we heard not one iota of truth during the entire session. I fault the school’s programming director, Professor Avi Cover, and his choice of speaker, who together altered the facts of every sub-topic raised. This was no impartial criticism of a country or its policies, but anti-Zionist revisionism. How is it that pure propaganda is acceptable for a CLE class? How are the students perceived to benefit? How did this activity qualify for law credit? The majority of the attendees seemed either to not understand or not care to question the allegations, but surely they would remember some of the misinformation; a seed of hate has been sown, and there was no debate from anyone prepared to counter the fallacies.
In addition to current rules by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), and the commitment to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, I recommend that CWRU review the Trump administration’s new definition of antisemitism in schools, which includes the demonization or delegitimization of Israel. For the sake of academic and intellectual honesty, CWRU is obligated to hold a CLE that presents and defends Israel’s position.
I herewith expressed my indignation at what transpired and asked that the department be called to account. I look forward to a reply and explanation of how this may be avoided in the future.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/case-western-university-school-of-law.jpg360640Tabitha Korolhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTabitha Korol2018-10-14 06:44:022018-10-14 06:44:02A Case of Calumny
Folks, I guess I should let this go. But, it still blows my mind that the American left is committed to branding Brett Kavanaugh, without a shred of evidence, a sexual predator for the rest of his life. That is incredibly, cold, calculating and evil.
Adolf Hitler said,
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
This propaganda technique has been embraced by the Democratic party. Here are three huge lies Democrats continue to invest billions worth of media to deceive the public. Big lie number one: America’s cops are racist and routinely murder blacks. Big lie number two: Trump colluded with Russia to steal the presidency from Hillary. Big lie number three: Brett Kavanaugh is a serial rapist.
Let’s address Democrats’ big lie that cops kill blacks for being black. Harvard professor Roland Fryer analyzed over 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country. Fryer concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings. Inner-city black communities are plagued by criminals, not police.
In 2014, over 6000 blacks were murdered, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined. These blacks were not killed by whites or cops. They were killed by other blacks.
Researching “deadly force” a study by Washington University’s Lois James revealed that police were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed whites and Hispanics in similar threat scenarios. Federal crime stats show that 12% of whites and Hispanics who die by homicide are killed by cops. Only 4% of black homicide victims are killed by cops.
There is no government agency dedicated to protecting black lives more than the police. Proactive policing in the mid-1990s had a huge impact, bringing down the inner-city murder rate and saving tens of thousands of black lives. Democrats and leftists spread their lie that cops are racist which caused cops to back-off. This resulted in violent crime back on the rise and black lives lost. In cities with large black populations, homicides in 2015 rose from 54% to 90%.
Immorally, Democrats, fake news media and Hollywood are still promoting the lie that black criminal Michael Brown was gunned-down by a racist white cop while trying to surrender with his hands up. Blood in the officer’s police car proved Brown was shot while assaulting the police officer inside his car.
Leftists branding cops racist is a selfish evil scheme to keep blacks falsely believing they are victims in a forever racist America. Leftists’ message to blacks is voting for Democrats is blacks only hope of keeping racist white America at bay. A despicable Democrat get-out-the-vote campaign told black parents that they had better vote or send their elementary students to school wearing bullet proof vests to protect them from racist white police.
Black Lives Matter thugs, funded by George Soros and anti-America groups, continue to ambush and assassinate innocent police officers around the country because of Democrats’ lie that cops kill blacks because they are black.
Democrats’ big lie that Trump stole the presidential election via collusion with Russia. After two years of investigations, there is zero evidence supportive of this absurd Democrat lie. Democrats presented their lie in such a way to make voters believe Russia tampered with the counting of votes which is impossible. Fake news media, Democrats and Hollywood continue to promote their Trump-Russia-Collusion lie 24/7 for the past 2 years; believing American voters will come to believe it – making Trump’s presidency illegitimate.
Democrats’ big lie that conservative Brett Kavanaugh is a sexual predator/serial rapist. This huge lie pulled out of thin air by Democrats is particularly heinous and cruel. Throughout his 30 something year career, Kavanaugh passed seven FBI background checks with flying-colors. Dr Ford who accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her 36 years ago does not remember the date, place and other crucial facts regarding her allegation.
And yet, Democrats, fake news media and Hollywood have decreed Kavanaugh guilty simply because this woman said so. Daily piling onto their outrageous allegations, Democrats sought to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the supreme court by branding him a drunk who experienced frequent blackouts in which he participated in group rapes. But get this folks, while these allegations against Kavanaugh are obviously false, Democrats will promote their Kavanaugh is a sexual predator/serial rapist lie for the rest of his life. How truly sick is that?
It bears repeating that leftists use liberal activist justices on the Supreme Court to force laws on voters against their will. Kavanaugh on the court will give conservatives a five to four majority. This is why leftists seek to destroy Kavanaugh, his wife and two daughters at any and all cost.
The mid-term elections are only weeks away. Clearly, Democrats’ big lies prove they are willing to sacrifice decency, morality and human lives in their depraved quest to win and maintain political power. Decent right-thinking Americans cannot possibly want Democrats in control of the peoples’ house and senate. The Democratic party has become the home of the ultra-left and demonically evil. It must be defeated. My fellow Americans, please vote Republican in the swiftly approaching mid-terms.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/brian-wertheim-329714-unsplash-e1539512724220.jpg348640Lloyd Marcushttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLloyd Marcus2018-10-14 06:26:442018-10-14 06:30:42Democrats Use Hitler's Propaganda Technique
Ever since the Kavanaugh hearings Democrats have scrambled to characterize their vicious, underhanded tactics as “just politics.” And as usual, the pundits are punting. Everyone from CNN to Fox News decries the “lack of civility” in current political discourse, as though this were a bipartisan problem that both sides shared equal blame for. Democrats even blame President Trump for being crude, one radio talker even called him “cruel.” Thus, their anger and insane behavior is “justified.”
None of this Democrat narrative is true. In fact it is the opposite. Democrats and the extreme Left (but I repeat myself), are simply doing what they always do when called out: doubling down on their behavior and trying to pass it off as legitimate.
Somehow, “crude” and “cruel” never applied to Bill Clinton’s rape, sexual abuse and likely pedophilia. And while accusations against Kavanaugh, debunked by Blasey-Ford’s own “witnesses,” justifies angry mobs “tearing this sh*t down,” we get crickets from Democrats regarding much more credible sexual abuse allegations from two former girlfriends of DNC Deputy Chairman and current Minnesota Attorney General candidate Keith Ellison. This included a 2005 911 call, and most recently, allegations stemming from a 2016 incident. No confusion about when these events happened.
According to the luminaries of the Left there is now a new Word-That-Cannot-Be-Spoken — the “M” word. On CNN a few days ago, moderator Brooke Baldwin interrupted Daily Beast columnist Matt Lewis when he characterized the protesters who chased Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) out of a restaurant as “a mob.”
Baldwin: “Oh, you’re not going to use the ‘mob’ word here!”
Lewis: “It’s totally a mob.”
Baldwin: “Matt, Matt — a mob… Stop. Stop. A mob is what we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia, two Augusts ago.”
Lewis: “What about the people who were at the Supreme Court banging on the walls? What do you call that, civil protest?”
Mary Katherine Ham: “And if they were tea partiers we would call this a mob. C’mon. Let’s be serious.”
But Baldwin had set down the marker. The “M” word, like the “C”word, (for communist, which frankly is what most Democrats have become), is now verboten in polite DC company.
And Democrats are taking every opportunity to draw parallels between the kind of Tea Party protests we saw in 2010 with what the left is doing now.
But there is no comparison. Leftwing protests are routinely obscenity laden, disrespectful, pompous, entitled, threatening, often unsanctioned and violent. Furthermore, they are usually highly-organized astroturf protests with paid protesters financed by extreme Left groups, unions and Democrat mega-donors like George Soros.
Tea Party and other similar groups never engage in the kind of ugly, obscene behavior that is a signature of almost all leftwing protests, and have never engaged in unprovoked violence. Their protests are orderly and meticulously follow the law – obtaining permits, staying within their allotted areas, and very diligently cleaning up after themselves.
Even the Charlottesville protests, where Democrats falsely characterized Richard Spencer’s group as demonstrative of mainline conservatives rather than the fringe group it is, became violent only when leftwing protestors showed up without a permit, violated the boundaries of the parade route sanctioned by the city, and were unopposed by police when they attacked Spencer’s group. This is no defense of Spencer, but without the leftists, the protest would have gone on without incident. President Trump was vilified for simply observing that both sides engaged in violence.
But it was the Left who provoked it.
The eight years of the Obama administration should be characterized as one long “opposite day,” where everything he said was the opposite of the truth, and almost everything he did opposed what he promised. His “most transparent administration in history” exceeded even Clinton’s promised “most transparent administration in history” in its duplicity, secrecy and obstruction.
Obama set his Justice Department and the IRS against the American people in a full-throated effort to silence us, while ramming his extremist agenda down our collective throats. The Obama administration carried out what has been characterized as a war on police, immigration-enforcement efforts, and electoral integrity. When he refused to turn over records on the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, responsible for at least one Border Patrol agent’s death and hundreds of Mexican deaths, Attorney General Eric Holder was the first ever declared in contempt of Congress. Lois Lerner’s IRS transcended all history in its abuse of law-abiding citizens.
The Obama administration was 1984 on steroids.
Vicious, over-the-top defamation, lawfare and violence are central tactics in the Left’s political bag of tricks, and have been for decades. The first time we saw Kavanaugh’s “search and destroy” tactic employed in confirmation hearings was with Justice Robert Bork, probably one of the most qualified jurists ever nominated to the Supreme Court. That was followed by the equally repulsive treatment of Justice Clarence Thomas.
You must also remember that this was, according to Democrats, a supposed age of “civility,” when, with the exception of a very few years, Democrats held a vice grip on both houses of Congress for over 60 years. At that time, GOP members of Congress were ignored, overlooked and disrespected by Democrats, while the GOP responded with “civility.” This is the kind of “civility” Hillary Clinton recently referred to when she said, “if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”
Now we have to contend with daily assaults from the absolutely unglued Left; from top to bottom. Google executive Ken Norton tweeted, “Abolish the Senate.”
The Senate and Electoral College are both institutions of racism according to the latest leftist mantra. Ian Millhiser of Think Progress tweets, “The Constitution of the United States has failed.
The New York Times wonders aloud if Donald Trump is “a threat to democracy.” It is actually the Left that is a threat. Our nation is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. As the founders knew, democracy ultimately leads to mob rule. But the Left isn’t really talking about democracy, they are talking about socialism. Either way, they are the threat!
Democrats have a different word for “mob rule” too. They call it “direct democracy,” and hold up Egypt’s so-called “Arab Spring” as a perfect example of direct democracy in action. But the “Arab Spring” did not result in a democratically elected government. Egypt is a nation of 92 million people, of which a small proportion took part in the protests.
And what kind of “democratic protest” was it? Why don’t you ask CBS reporter Lara Logan, who was stripped, repeatedly raped, beaten and nearly scalped by dozens of “democratic protesters.” Crickets from the Left about that unsavory aspect of mob rule, excuse me, direct democracy. Instead, Lara Logan is marginalized for having the temerity to get herself gang raped by these budding “democrats.”
Today we live in an alternative universe, like something out of the Twilight Zone or its cheaper knockoff, The Outer Limits. Do you remember? The announcer says:
“There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission… We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical… sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear…”
Civility can only reign when Democrats hold the levers of power. Getting just rewards for the losers they are guarantees nothing but constant “resistance” in the form of insane incivility. During the Kavanaugh hearings, Senator Lindsay Graham shouted directly at the Democrat senators “Boy, y’all want power. I hope you never get it.”
Truer words were never spoken. In their lust for power, Democrats have shown they will stoop to anything to have their way. President Trump recently said that if Democrats take power they will turn our nation into Venezuela.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Members of One Resistance, an alliance of Progressive groups in Austin, Texas, march across the 1st Street Bridge in protest of the inauguration of Donald Trump as 45th President of the United States. Photo by Andrew Vickers on Unsplash.
Google’s burying of material critical of Islam, along with Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube censorship of material that violates Sharia blasphemy laws, show that the “official Google source” that said that “the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position” was lying. This is already being implemented on a massive scale. If it isn’t stopped, and these tech giants broken up, the First Amendment could soon be a dead letter, along with America as a free society.
“THE GOOD CENSOR: Leaked Briefing Says Google Must Move Away from ‘American Tradition’ of Free Speech to Expand Globally, Attract Advertiser $$$s,” by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, October 9, 2018:
A leaked Google briefing titled “The Good Censor” advises tech companies to move away from the “American tradition” of free speech if they wish to attract advertising revenue and continue global expansion.
The briefing, leaked exclusively to Breitbart News, was the product of extensive research on the part of Google. This included expert interviews with MIT Tech Review editor-in-chief Jason Pontin, Atlantic staff writer and tech critic Franklin Foer, and academic Kalev Leetaru. 35 cultural observers and 7 cultural leaders from seven countries on five continents were consulted to produce it. It can be read in full here.
The 85-page briefing admits that Google and other tech platforms have fundamentally altered their policies in response to unwelcome political events around the world, including the 2016 election and the rise of Alternative für Deutschland in Germany.
Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.
Page 14 of the document acknowledges that a few Silicon Valley tech giants now “control the majority of our conversations,” but that these platforms – including Google – must now break their initial promise to users of free speech and content neutrality.
Pages 19-21 of the briefing describe this initial support for free speech as a “utopian narrative” that has been undermined by political events including the 2016 election and the rise of the populist AfD party in Germany.
Later, on pages 66-70, the briefing explains that tech companies including Google, Facebook and Twitter initially leaned towards an “American tradition” of free speech that prioritizes “free speech for democracy, not civility.”
But it goes on to say that the same companies now embrace the “European tradition,” that favors “dignity over liberty, and civility over freedom.”
Google, argues the briefing, must move towards the European tradition and create “well-ordered spaces for safety and civility” rather than “unmediated marketplaces of ideas.”
Doing so, says the briefing, will enable Google to “respond to regulatory demands” and “maintain global expansion,” as well as “monetize content through its organization” and “protect advertisers from controversial content,” both of which will “increase revenues.”…
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured photo is by Arthur Osipyan on Unsplash.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/arthur-osipyan-455426-unsplash-e1539380431163.jpg406640Robert Spencerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Spencer2018-10-12 17:40:552018-10-12 17:40:55Google briefing says tech companies should abandon 'American tradition' of free speech
President Donald Trump announced his 18th wave of judicial nominees Wednesday night, just four days after the Senate confirmed Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wednesday’s nominees include two candidates for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and three for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 2nd Circuit is based in New York City and has jurisdiction over New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. The 9th Circuit is based in San Francisco and hears appeals arising from nine Western states as well as the outlying Pacific territories.
Michael Park of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC, a litigation boutique with a conservative bent, and Judge Joseph Bianco of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York were tapped for the 2nd Circuit, while Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins, and Kenneth Kiyul Lee were selected for the 9th Circuit. Bumatay is a federal prosecutor. Collins and Lee are appellate advocates in private practice.
Trump has struggled to secure confirmations to both courts. The president’s sole confirmation to the 9th Circuit, Judge Mark Bennett, is a largely unknown quantity with questionable conservative bona fides. A second 9th Circuit nominee, Ryan Bounds, lost a narrow floor vote due to racially tinged opinion columns he wrote as an undergraduate at Stanford University.
The Senate has yet to confirm a Trump nominee to the 2nd Circuit.
As the Supreme Court hears less than 80 cases per years, circuit courts issue final judgement in the overwhelming majority of federal cases.
The package also includes eight nominees for trial courts in California, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and Tennessee.
The Senate may move on further judicial confirmations before the November elections. The Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to forward nine nominations to the full Senate for final confirmation on Thursday, and a confirmation hearing for lower court nominees is scheduled for Oct. 17. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will seek terms with Democrats to confirm a package of judges before the chamber adjourns for the midterms.
“There are still tools that I have available, that’s why I canceled the August recess,” McConnell told Politico on Saturday. “And that’s something I’ll discuss with Sen. [Chuck] Schumer before we leave for the election.”
Kevin Daley is a legal affairs reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @kevindaleydc.
EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email firstname.lastname@example.org. This column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is of U.S. President Donald Trump smiling as he makes remarks at a “Face-to-Face With Our Future” event at the EEOB next to the White House in Washington, DC on June 27, 2018. The event was was with young Americans learning and excelling in various professions. Photo by Pat Benic/UPI [Photo via Newscom]
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-Smiling-1260x650-e1539295803281.jpg367640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2018-10-11 18:11:162018-10-11 18:11:16Trump Isn’t Stopping With Kavanaugh. He Just Nominated 13 More Judges.
If you’re looking for respect from the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton says you’ve come to the wrong place. In a damaging sit-down with CNN, the former First Lady didn’t do the Left any favors when she insisted that liberals should only act decently when they’re winning. (Something her interview may have just put on hold indefinitely.)
“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton said to the gasps of plenty in her own party. “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.” But given what we’ve seen over the last two years I don’t think the Left is even capable of civility at this point! We’ve seen leftists call for the assassination of the president, Brett Kavanaugh,and issued death threats to Senate Republicans. And instead of condemning the aggression, one of the faces of the Democratic Party is encouraging more of it.
“Seriously, Hillary?” tweeted House Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who barely survived a shooting that was inspired by the kind of hostility Hillary is advocating. There is absolutely no place, Scalise has said, “for violence or threats in our political discourse.” But as far as Clinton is concerned, these shootings, flash mobs, arrests, and threats are the price of controlling Congress.
For Kelley Paul, and other high-profile Republican spouses, it’s a price that no American family should have to pay. In an open letter to Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) — the man who urged liberals to “get up in the face of congresspeople” — she explains that she has to keep a loaded gun by her pillow, because of some in Booker’s party who’ve done a lot more than get up in her husband’s face. They’ve leaked her personal address to people who have no intention of playing nice.
“It’s nine o’clock at night, and as I watch out the window, a sheriff’s car slowly drives past my home. I am grateful that they have offered to do extra patrols, as someone just posted our home address, and Rand’s cell number, on the internet — all part of a broader effort to intimidate and threaten Republican members of Congress and their families. I now keep a loaded gun by my bed. Our security systems have had to be expanded. I have never felt this way in my life.”
“In the last 18 months,” Kelley writes, “our family has experienced violence and threats of violence at a horrifying level.” She ends the letter by asking Senator Booker to retract his statement, to “condemn violence, the leaking of elected officials’ personal addresses (our address was leaked from a Senate directory given only to senators), and the intimidation and threats that are being hurled at them and their families.” He never replied.
Instead, Kelley listened — with every other American — as another Democrat issued her own license for violence. “When you’re dealing with an ideological party that is driven by the lust for power, that is funded by corporate interests who want a government that does its bidding… you can’t overcome what they intend to do unless you win elections,” Hillary said. It was an incredible statement, since almost everything she said applied exclusively to Democrats.
Wasn’t it a lust for power that drove Senate liberals to leak a month-old letter to the press — against Dr. Christine Ford’s wishes — to try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation? Hasn’t it been corporate America who’s done the Left’s bidding on liberal social policies like gender-free bathrooms, open borders, religious censorship, and the national anthem? Isn’t it Silicon Valley that’s working behind the scenes to suppress the conservative voice, while places like Google vow to “use the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance” progressive values?
Hillary did get one thing right: you have to win elections. But in times like these, the message of “more incivility” is hardly the way to go about it. “She told CNN exactly how she views millions of Americans who hold different political views than her own,” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor. “No peace until they get their way? More of these unhinged tactics? Apparently, these are the Left’s rallying cries.”
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/101018_hillary-alt_770x400_1-e1539260037405.jpg356640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-10-11 08:15:042018-10-11 08:15:04Hillary Moves in the Riot Direction
The highest court in the United Kingdom has ruled that a Christian bakery’s refusal to make a cake supporting same-sex marriage does not constitute discrimination.
The U.K. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that the Northern Ireland-based family bakery, Ashers Baking Co., did not discriminate against a gay customer in 2014 by refusing to make the cake.
The cake’s icing was to include the “Sesame Street” characters Bert and Ernie and the slogan “Support Gay Marriage,” according to a report by the BBC.
Daniel and Amy McArthur, the married owners of the Belfast bakery, argued in court that they could not produce products with messages that go against their Christian faith.
Gareth Lee, the customer, sued the bakery on the grounds that its owners discriminated against him based on his sexual orientation and political beliefs.
Lee is a gay rights activist and campaigner.
The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, a public body established by law in Northern Ireland, supported Lee both legally and financially throughout the case. The commission offers “protection against discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, race, religion and political opinion, sex, and sexual orientation.”
Lee had ordered the cake for a civic event in another city to mark the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, the BBC reported. Another bakery made the cake.
Brenda Hale, president of the court, said in her ruling that “it is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief.”
“But that is not what happened in this case,” Hale said, speaking for the 12-member high court.
“They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” she said of the McArthurs.
What has been dubbed the “gay cake” case made its way to the U.K. Supreme Court after lower courts found the bakers to have discriminated against Lee. This was the first case from Northern Ireland that the Supreme Court has heard, according to CBS News.
So far the case has cost the bakery around 200,000 pounds (about $264,000). The Christian Institute, a charity and lobbying group, is paying the bakery’s legal expenses.
“I know a lot of people will be glad to hear this ruling today, because this ruling protects freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for everyone,” Daniel McArthur told BBC News.
McArthur has said his bakery took issue with the requested slogan and not Lee’s sexual orientation or political beliefs.
“We didn’t say no because of the customer; we’d served him before, we’d serve him again,” McArthur told the BCC in June at the start of the Supreme Court case.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal aid organization that litigates religious liberty cases and has an international affiliate, approved of the court’s ruling.
“The U.K. Supreme Court recognized that artists and other professionals don’t discriminate when they object ‘to the message, not the messenger,’” Kristen Waggoner, vice president of the organization’s U.S. legal division, said in a press release provided to The Daily Signal.
“The court also affirmed the fundamental freedom of Ashers Bakery’s owners to decline to express through one of their cakes ‘a message with which they deeply disagreed,’” Waggoner said.
“Thankfully the court correctly noted that the objection in this case was to the message, not the customer,” Anderson said, adding:
We live in societies where citizens disagree about the nature and purpose of marriage. No one should be punished simply because they believe and act on the belief that marriage unites husband and wife. That’s the only way to protect pluralism—to peacefully coexist—in the midst of disagreement.
Hale, for her part, said her ruling was not intended to diminish the need for protecting gays and lesbians and those who support same-sex marriage.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
Hillary Clinton during a CNN interview in Oxford, England stated,
“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”
Karl Marx said, “The meaning of peace is the absence of the opposition to Socialism.”
Watch Mrs. Clinton:
The Democratic Party has left its roots and is now a full blown socialist organization. The Democrats have moved well passed progressivism and now are the followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.
President Trump tweeted:
You don’t hand matches to an arsonist, and you don’t give power to an angry left-wing mob. Democrats have become too EXTREME and TOO DANGEROUS to govern. Republicans believe in the rule of law – not the rule of the mob. VOTE REPUBLICAN!
Let us, given the statements of Mrs. Clinton, Andrew Gillum, Bernie Sanders and other Democrats, say, you don’t give matches to an anarchist or he/she will burn this Constitutional Republic down to the ground.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/rene-bohmer-370497-unsplash-e1539197145651.jpg408640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-10-10 14:45:542018-10-11 07:18:58Hillary Clinton's 'cannot be civil' paraphrases Karl Marx. Don't give matches to an anarchist!
The shameful circus of the Kavanaugh confirmation is behind us, yet the horrible process we were witnessing in the Senate drove me to express my warning and wake-up to America again—the Socialist threat is real and immediate in America. Our national security is in real danger, because Russia and China are working hand-in-glove in collaboration with America’s radical Socialist mafia. The Socialist concept of “permanent revolution” is alive and America is experiencing it in the 21st century—“permanent revolution” means a war against the opposition until the victory of Socialism. My warning is based on my professional experience as a Soviet defense attorney, who studied Marxism-Leninism for many years. That is the reason I am presenting my personal opinion on the recent events in America.
What we saw in September 2018 in America was a carbon copy of a manufactured crisis in the KGB’s style. America’s entire radical Socialist Mafia and media, working together, executed from the same play-book, telling us by a hundred different voices about the treason committed by President Trump and sexual assaults committed by Judge Kavanaugh. Offense is the best defense—this was the slogan and policy of the Socialist apparatchiks taught by Stalin. Never admit the crime committed, but accuse the opposition in that exact crime. You saw it here in September 2018.
We, the former Soviet citizens, knew the policy very well, having watched it for many years in Russia. This policy, coordinated by the KGB helped the Socialist system to survive for many years. For your information the collapse of the Soviet Union meant the collapse of the Socialist economy, which couldn’t produce, but the Police State under the KGB has survived. Nothing substantial has changed and under Putin’s leadership the current apparatchiks are flourishing in Russia today. Yes, nothing substantial has changed in Russia. The KGB is still running the country with a crony capitalism instead of failed socialism. That’s it.
Stalinist Show Trial in Washington D.C.
The Dems’ reason for the hateful resistance to the GOP is not only to revenge a losing election. The main reason of resistance is to cover-up the sinister crime of TREASON that they have committed over several decades. This crime of the Dems, committed by the leadership of a radical Socialist mafia should be a major topic in the midterm election on November 6, 2018.The upcoming November election is monumentally consequential and there are no room for Republican mistakes. The Truth does not matter to the Dems, they have a political agenda to destroy the capitalist economic system left to us by our Founding Fathers and have pursued this agenda for the last forty years. The current crisis in DC we saw in the Senate confirmation process of Judge Kavanaugh is the culmination of the Dem’s activities, a result of modern Washington’s agenda to establish a socialist America by all means possible.
I knew the crisis was bound to happen! In my columns, have I not constantly warned you, writing about a plot against President Trump by the Obama/Putin Conspiracy in preparation for a Socialist Revolution in America? I was warning you for many years, because I knew the agenda of the socialist/communist entity in America and the concept of “permanent revolution”- a war against the opposition until the victory of Socialism. Trump’s agenda to make America great again is a red cape for the bulls of the radical Dems-Socialists to intensify the war… Trump labeled the Dems the “party of crime” and suggested that the Dems want to “turn America into Venezuela.” In calling Democrats the “party of crime,” he reminded voters that the blue party supports the lawlessness of open borders. He is right in this part, yet it is much more when calling the Dems the “party of crime.”
The Dems are acting in cahoots with our deadly enemy—the Russian KGB, I named them “the criminal cabal.” Using the term KGB, I mean the entire Russian Intel—it is a collective image, the reason for that is those three letters are familiar to the vast majority of Americans. In fact, the Kavanaugh confirmation is the KGB’s deadly game against the Republicans on American soil. Moreover, the entire current turmoil in America is the result of the socialist/communist ideology they adhered to—the Ideology of Soviet Socialism, I named Soviet fascism. Senator Susan Collins is right in ever warning us that Fairness is in dire jeopardy in America…
If you are associated with Trump, some mud-slinging is headed your way and all cases mentioned above are manufactured by the Dems. Though he is not mentioning the ideology, yet Limbaugh is vividly describing Soviet Socialism: “It’s not just Kavanaugh,” Limbaugh told his listening audience: “They (Dems) need to destroy anybody credible who opposes them. They need to ruin them,” he said, referring to Democratic operatives. “I don’t think decent people quite know how to deal with this,” Limbaugh said. “Decent people don’t spend their day strategizing like this. And, as such, they don’t end up being prepared for it.”
Limbaugh elaborated: “By definition, decent people are not prepared for this kind of thing. Not that they’re ignorant of it. It’s just they don’t go through each and every day studying up on how to get ready for the next smear job from the Democrat Party,” he surmised.
Kavanaugh isn’t facing accusations from some garden-variety academic. A registered Democrat, Ford is on the liberal fringe, reportedly donating to Democratic support organization ActBlue, along with Bernie Sanders, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Rush Limbaugh: Kavanaugh’s accuser is part of the Dems ‘everyday’ strategy to destroy ‘decent’ people’, Conservative Institute, September 19, 2018
I couldn’t say it any better. The destruction of decent people by the Dems has gone on for forty years. Truman’s Party was annihilated by the operatives of Soviet Socialism and has since then embraced all features pertaining to the ideology of Soviet Socialism, described by me during the last decades. You saw a radical army of Socialist Mafia in action, presented by the Dems—distortion, sabotage, deceit, subversion, and intimidation, cheating, lies, bribery, fraud and violence. During those four decade the Dems created the dirty Socialist machinery they needed to produce a spin cycle of their narrative, attacking the Republicans and especially their leaders.
The Chair of the Judicial Committee Chuck Grassley is right calling Dems’ behavior as “monstrous” encouraging “mob rule.” He is right in describing Dems this way. We the former citizens of the socialist regimes know that we are dealing with Stalinist Soviet Socialism, I named Soviet fascism. As a matter of fact, the rule of law is the determining factor in the foundation of the American Republic, whereas all Socialist countries are lawless. There are no principles of “due process” and Presumption of Innocence under Socialism. If in American law you are innocent until proven guilty, Socialism makes it up-side down and person must prove his or her innocence. The one-party system of the Police State is running Socialism and not Constitutional Law like in the American Republic. You saw the Dem’s attempt to install radical Socialist’s rules in America during Senate confirmation…
The Kavanaugh confirmation battles, as I described in the presiding column, is the old ideological confrontation between Capitalism and Socialism. We are dealing with the Stalinist aggressive politics of personal destruction: Show Trials and Purges that castrated Russia of the best minds in the country. That exact Stalinist politics have been hijacking the American Dems’ Socialists/Communists by the KGB during the last four decades. They believe in a centralized Socialist bureaucracy and want party control over the courts, especially over the Supreme Court. Republicans should be ready for bad news—the mocking, smear, and outrages lies, the dirty campaign against Justice Kavanaugh will not stop until the Dems are able to implement Socialist rule or to impeach him after the confirmation.
I am grateful to Jerry Newcombe, D. MN, who reminded us about Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals. “Alinsky’s seminal book was Rules for Radicals (1971), which he dedicated to Satan: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history … the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.” Alinksy said: “The end justifies almost any means. All effective actions require the passport of morality. You do what you can and clothe it in moral garments…moral rationalization is indispensable at times of action, whether to justify the selection or the use of ends and means.” “All values and factors are relative.” Eagle Rising, Saul Alinsky Does the Supreme Court, by Jerry Newcombe, D. Min. 9/20/18
I’d like to add to this information the following: Saul Alinsky was a son of Russian immigrants. Speaking Russian, he was inculcated by KGB’s political operatives and became a devoted disciple of Stalin’s teachings. Knowing Stalin’s teachings, I recognized them reading Alinsky. Community organizing is a Soviet Stalinist teaching. I have written about it, criticizing Obama for years. It is not Saul Alinsky manipulating with dirty tricks the Supreme Court, it is Dems’ Socialist Party adherence to the ideology of Soviet Socialism manipulating the Supreme Court today. I named the ideology of Soviet Socialism—Soviet fascism, which has brought this Stalinist Show Trial to Washington D.C.
The Plot of the Criminal Cabal against President Trump
If you are interested in who was behind the attacks on Judge Kavanaugh, and who was dragging his name through dirt, my latest columns answered the questions. We are dealing with “the criminal cabal” of the CIA, FBI, DOJ, and KGB plot against President Trump and his agenda. Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh was Trump’s agenda. Therefore, radical Socialist Mafia in cahoots with Soviet/Russian operatives were using identical fights against both Trump and Judge Kavanaugh. Please read my columns at www.drrichswier.com/author/spipko/.
Dr. Ford has never been questioned about the people she is affiliated and working in this political drama. As a result, we don’t know who is behind this historical sham to smear a spotless choir-boy making him an alcoholic and a participant in the serial gang-rapes and murder. As sex is a topic for all times, the KGB uses it against the Republicans. There are the patterns in the similarity of methods, manner and operating technics of accusations, which are quite familiar to us, people from the countries of socialist system. It is a typical KGB’s style, distinctive and emblematic handwriting, all former Soviet citizens would recognize it. And, I will give you several examples:
While watching the so-called Trump/Dossier document, it did not take me even ten seconds to realize that it was Russian “fallshivka,” a fraud with outrages lies. Everything in the Dossier exposed the KGB’s handwriting: lies, arrogant manner of presentation, method, character with an aggressive and salacious tone to denigrate President Trump, the Republican Party, and to influence American opinion. It was a vivid picture of the incredible dirt on Trump, a typical Stalin’s legacy of demonizing and attacking the opposition leader, used by the KGB for many decades.
Please, compare this with the outrageous dirt brought by so-called witnesses charging Judge Kavanaugh with outlandish crimes, making a spotless choir-boy an alcoholic and a serial participant in the gang-rapes and murder. Look at the salacious details in their testimonies and you will find the same dirty handwriting in an attempt to smear two innocent men President Trump and Judge Kavanaugh. And they are not the first victims among the Republicans, there had been many before them shamefully accused without evidence by Dems. And the war is ongoing in the 21st century…
For many years, I have been writing about the ideology of Soviet fascism that was disseminated throughout the world by Russian Intel Services and especially by the KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov. I was a member of the legal community at his tenure and all my professional knowledge was being obtained at that time. I am not surprised by the Dems’ violation of the constitutional process and the actions against American Law and American Republic. I believe the entire anti-Republican forces were led by the KGB through their collaboration with the Dems. Hence, I want to find this connection and expose an attempt of Soviet fascism to destroy my country. Look at this:
The FBI obtained text messages from MONICA McLEAN, Ford ‘beach’ friend and former press agent of Schumer’s right-hand Preet Bharara, to LELAND KEYSER. The texts asked Keyser to “clarify” away her statement that she never met Kavanaugh! — Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) October 5, 2018
If the name Monica McLean sounds familiar, she is the FBI agent, you may recall she was part of another falsehood that came out of Ford’s testimony. Under questioning by sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, Ford claimed she had never offered tips on how to pass a polygraph. An ex-boyfriend of Ford, however, claimed she’d helped a friend prepare for a polygraph exam once upon a time. That friend was McLean. This is only the first step in my search. The second one will be Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Democratic operative Ricki Seidman, who just happens to be the adviser hired by Christine Blasey Ford to prepare for her expected senate committee testimony, revealed a plot was in place back in July to derail Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Audio of Ford’s adviser shows an anti-Kavanaugh plot has been planned for months, Patriot News Alerts, September 23, 2018 by Jerry McCormick
I believe that the Senator Feinstein is a center link in this plot in the Senate. Feinstein tried to suggest that she held the letter accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in confidence at the request of Ford. At the same time she was consulting the accuser: Dr. Ford admitted that at least one of her lawyers came about as a suggestion from Dianne Feinstein’s office– “The Katz firm.” I saw and listen to a Layer Katz several times—she is a definite leader of the radical Socialist mafia. No doubts. Sen. Cotton is right “Let’s quit calling them “Ford’s lawyers.” They’re Democratic operatives.
Participation of the Senator Feinstein in consulting Dr. Ford also suggests a level of strategic maneuvering between the Senator and a woman she’s supposed to objectively evaluate during these hearings. “What else does the Senator consulting the accuser? Than at eleven hour she leaked the confidential information betraying Dr. Ford.” Everything in the Senator’s action suggested a deep and hidden maneuvering. There is a logical question: what is the reason for this hidden maneuvering? The answer will come with the next step.
Do you know who Daniel Jones is? It is very interesting coincident. Daniel Jones formed the Democracy Integrity Project in 2017. Jones is a former Intelligence Committee staffer for Dianne Feinstein. “His group hired Fusion GPS to continue their investigation into Trump and Russia after the 2016 election. The House Intelligence Committee reported Jones told the FBI that a group of wealthy donors funded his group to the tune of 50 million dollars.” George Soros’s Link To This Plot To Take Out Trump Will Make Your Blood Boil, Great American Daily, September 29, 2918
“In late March 2017, Jones met with FBI regarding PQG, which he described as ‘exposing foreign influence in Western election,’” the Intelligence Committee wrote. “[Redacted] told FBI that PQG was being funded by 7 to 10 wealthy donors located primarily in New York and California, who provided approximately $50 million.” Do you grasp the corrupting effect of money on the Dems’ activities? I do.
I was writing about George Soros for the last thirty years. He was recruited by the KGB while he was a minor, when the Soviets took back Budapest and Hungary in 1944. Prior to that he was working for the Gestapo together with his Father, helping Gestapo to confiscate Jewish valuable items: jewelry art, and so on. It is a long, complicated, and convoluted story missed by our Intel. George Soros is constantly damaging and harming America for the last thirty years. He is sponsoring 184 different groups and organizations, including paid of protesters you saw them lately in the streets of the big cities, in the Senate’s home, and on the steps of the Supreme Court. And the “mob rules” of the radical Socialist mafia continue destroying the American Republic today…
“George Soros’ fingerprints are all over the Deep State coup. He funneled money into a shady group spreading fake news all over the media to try and take down Donald Trump. No one will be surprised if further investigations uncover even greater Soros involvement in this conspiracy.” I believe that the Deep State coup is a global KGB’s operation against the American Republic. I have been writing about the coup against President Trump for all eight years of Obama’s regime. I am not alone thinking that.
“Of course, Democrats are unsatisfied with the FBI’s findings because the FBI found nothing. They want another investigation. On that point, I actually agree with them. Now that Kavanaugh is officially confirmed, perhaps there should be another investigation — an investigation into Christine Ford, her attorneys, and Senate Democrats. There is plenty of smoke to indicate that this was all a highly-coordinated political hit job. If it was — indeed, if there was any coordination at all, in any form — then this would be one of the great scandals in American political history.” WALSH: The FBI Must Now Investigate Christine Ford. Here’s Why.
I agree with Mr. Walsh and my next step will introduce you to a document that can answer several questions we are interested in and identify the organizations involved. Please read this document: CIA Honeytrap set – Kavanaugh accuser CIA ties by globalintelhub Sun, 09/23/2018 – 21:49
After reading this message, you will have a broad panorama of the forces behind Dr. Ford, acting against President Trump. Hence, in this connection, I have to turn to another drama, which in my opinion is intertwined with the subject of this column: Rod Rosenstein. In my analyses he has a direct connection to the anti-Trump forces and I have already written about him and his diabolic role in the Deep State’s un-American activities. My thought process is very simple one and based on my experiences in Russia. Knowing Andropov’s plan, I was looking for the media and possible family connection in different security and law-enforcement agencies. As another drama was allotting with Rod Rosenstein, I went there.
I did not like Rod Rosenstein, listening to his stonewalling to the legitimate demands of certain documents by the Congress. His ascent to unlimited power was unexpected, but when AG Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia Probe, Rod Rosenstein became the master of all of what we are witnessing today–America’s Socialist mafia took over. There is another man I did not like either—the CIA Director, John Brennan, a man who voted for the communist candidate in 1976. The family connection is a simple one—Rosenstein’s wife is a CIA agent working with John Brennan—this is Andropov’s plan in action missed by our failed Intelligence…
The next step was finding Rod Rosenstein’s wife. I did—her name is Lisa Barsoomian, she is an Armenian descent. Information about her just surpass the suspicions I had. DEPUTY AG ROD ROSENSTEIN’S WIFE HAS EXTENSIVE TIES TO CLINTONS, MUELLER & COMEY! Dick Morris described her as “Rod Rosenstein’s wife is a top lawyer for Obama and Clintons! The circle has closed for me—it was Andropov’s plan of actions in America. The ties between Intel and Law Enforcement to destroy them from within was clear to me after the information I had obtained. The FBI, CIA, and DOJ have composed of a group of people, which is the nucleus of the anti-Trump campaign. Some of them are the members of “the criminal cabal…”
There are two types of people committing betrayals: those who do not like the system established by our Founding Fathers and are trying to transform it– they are currently collaborating with the KGB to destroy America the Beautiful, and those people who haven’t a clue about the KGB infiltrations, hence becoming their unwitting accomplices. The FBI Director, current security and Intel’s people won’t be able to identify those culprit without reading my books and columns. We are dealing with the Axis of Evil and Americans must know that, because there is not only a coup against President Trump, it is also a coup against the American Republic led by the Dems collaborating with Putin’s KGB. Please, read my columns.
Now, I hope, you will agree with my identification of Soviet Socialism as Soviet Fascism and I can repeat a conclusion made by me several months ago:
First: An Anti-Trump “criminal cabal” was manufactured and organized by the Russian Intel through the Democrats’ leadership and the Clinton Mafia. The motivation is clear–to cover-up the crime they had committed. We are dealing with “the criminal cabal” of the CIA, FBI, and KGB plot against President Trump and his agenda.
Second: The Anti-Trump “criminal cabal” consists of two groups: the leadership of the Deep State and the leadership of the Clinton Mafia. Today, Rod J. Rosenstein of the DOJ is a conduit, the connective link between the two groups.
Third: This Anti-Trump “criminal cabal” was run and coordinated by three individuals: two Democrats Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Vladimir Putin—these three have worked together for several decades.
Fourth: Investigation of this huge case of international espionage and treason requires deep knowledge of Russia and its Intel. The current FBI Director, Christopher Wray did not read my books, he doesn’t know about the Axis of Evil and that it took Stalin twenty-nine years to create and establish the Chinese Communist State. The structure, agenda, and ideology were identical in both Russia and China. The two National Intelligences have the same strategic plan executed the same strategy, tactics, methods, and tricks, working together like a hand-in-glove. Yet, there is a difference today: a billion hardworking Chinese people have achieved substantially more than sick, alcoholic and drug addled Russians…
A monumental investigation into the Un-American forces’ conspiracy against the American Republic has been initiated by President Trump and Congress. They have the honorable task to expose Un-American forces of “the criminal cabal” and accomplish the Democrat’s generational defeat—masked Democrats are more dangerous than Russia…
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/tetrebbien-545947-unsplash-e1539179581699.jpg382640Simona Pipkohttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSimona Pipko2018-10-10 09:54:072018-10-10 10:15:11Socialist Threat is Real and Immediate in America
Our most equal Chairman Meow made this picture yesterday and posted it as a modest comment on Further Kavanaugh crimes brought to light: jaywalking. Within hours of it appearing on social media, it collected hundreds of retweets and hilarious replies on Twitter and over a thousand shares on Facebook, with dozens of great comments. We decided it deserved its own thread.
We encourage you to read these excellent exchanges and post your favorite lines in the comments.
Brad Miner reviews “Gosnell,” the dramatic film about the arrest and trial of the abortionist who was “America’s Biggest Serial Killer.”
There have been notorious murderers brought down for reasons other than their most horrific crimes. Al Capone, mob boss, was felled by tax evasion; Dr. Kermit Gosnell, abortionist, by illegally selling prescriptions for painkillers.
I’d be surprised if there are any readers of The Catholic Thing who don’t know who Gosnell is, but just in case: he’s the former operator of a Philadelphia abortuary, who was a specialist in late-term and “partial-birth” abortions. He would regularly take babies born alive (his clinic’s procedures were slapdash at best) and cut their spinal cords at the neck.
Al Capone was a better person.
Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer is in some ways like an hour-and-three-quarter length episode of Law and Oder: SVU– although the best-ever episode. The director of the film (also one of its stars) is Nick Searcy. Here he plays Gosnell’s defense attorney and manages to be convincing enough so that – even though we know he will lose the case – there’s still dramatic tension in the trial sequences.
Opposing him in court is an assistant district attorney played by Sarah Jane Morris. Ms. Morris is the film’s true star and its dramatic hub. I cry easily and did several times watching this film. Morris is an actress of the first order and her eyes show depth of feeling, whether of anger or sorrow or compassion, and it was she who made me tear up.
The levels of evil in this story are manifold. It starts, of course, with the indifference to human life inherent in abortion itself. Yet you could say – after the familiar pro-abortion mantra – that legal abortions should at least be safe and rare, whereas at Gosnell’s “clinic” they were anything but safe, were very frequent, and many weren’t even legal, occurring after the time limit prescribed by Pennsylvania law.
All this came to light because of a raid on Gosnell’s clinic by the Philadelphia P.D., the FBI, and the DEA looking for evidence related to those painkiller prescriptions.
During the raid, Gosnell is called into a procedure room to aid a patient “in distress.” One of the Philly cops, James Wood (Dean Cain), sees the patient sitting up, her hands on her belly: she’s clearly full-term. This can’t be right. . . . It’s just a glimpse, but it was enough to make me realize Mr. Searcy is as good a director as he is an actor.
Similarly, there’s a very nice sequence of scenes featuring an ambitious blogger, Molly Mullaney (Cynthia Fiallo), with bright red streaks in her hair and the requite tattoos, suggesting a far-Left pro-choicer, which is true. But she’s honest.
And there is some excellent balance between scenes, as, for example, when Detectives Wood and Stark (AlonZo Rachel) discover Gosnell’s collection of . . . baby feet and a later scene in which the prosecutor (Ms. Morris) plays with her own baby’s tootsies and, pro-choice though she is, “has a moment.”
Later, drinking something strong both to deaden her emotions (unsuccessfully) and to loosen her tongue, she explains to her shocked husband what investigators have discovered. “I’m gonna get that bastard,” she says.
The District Attorney (played by Michael Beach) is the first to pronounce Gosnell the worst serial killer in American history and warns his team that the courthouse will be swarming with reporters, all of whom will make this case (about the hottest of hot-button issues) a nightmare for the prosecutors. But when they arrive for the trial, only Molly the blogger is there, although that will change – thanks to her.
Gosnell is rated PG-13, which rating should put at ease any fear that the film is exploitive of the gore associated with abortion. To the extent that there is gore, it’s verbal. The horrors of the abortuary are described, not shown. Normally that would be bad cinema, where the rule is: Show, don’t tell. Here it works.
Gosnell, as portrayed by Earl Billings, lacks “affect,” as perhaps the bad doctor does – so much so that you might have thought he would escape conviction with an insanity defense. His Gosnell is ever-smiling and always in denial. “I look at all the women I’ve treated,” he says proudly, “as if they were my own daughter.”
Much of what’s in the film is based on trial transcripts, but there are some scenes that seem less fact-based – even unlikely. In the morgue, examining the bodies of the largest baby corpses recovered from Gosnell’s clinic of horrors, the medical examiner hands a scalpel to our heroine, the woman prosecutor, so she can cut into a skull to see if the brain is or is not intact (intact would mean the child was born alive and then murdered). This seems unlikely – a violation of medical and legal ethics. But it’s meant to be a kind of “crossing-the-Rubicon” moment for her. She’s pro-choice, after all.
Gosnell is not preachy. It’s fact-based. Janine Turner appears as a “respectable” abortion provider testifying for the prosecution, who – in cross-examination – says she has performed 30,000 abortions. As much as any line in the film, that one brought me up short. It’s that staggering number, of course, but it’s also because Ms. Turner, so stately and beautiful and composed, delivers the line so matter-of-factly. What she describes would make the film R-rated if it were shown.
Earlier, as the murderer’s trial is set to begin, a judge asks Gosnell if he has anything to say. He expresses concern for the rare turtles he keeps at his clinic. The judge instructs the prosecutor to see to the turtles’ welfare, because the judge takes the Endangered Species Act very seriously: “You are going to have to figure out how to deal with these vulnerable creatures.”
As mentioned, Gosnell is rated PG-13. Only one scene (in the morgue) involves blood – a liver autopsy. The teleplay is by Andrew Klavan; the screenplay is by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinny and is based upon their bestselling book. There are some interesting cameos, including the actual prosecutor, Christine Wechsler, and our friend and former contributor, Austin Ruse, as one of the late-to-the-trial press corps.
Sarah Jane Morris
Brad Miner is senior editor of The Catholic Thing, senior fellow of the Faith & Reason Institute, and Board Secretary of Aid to the Church In Need USA. He is a former Literary Editor of National Review. His new book, Sons of St. Patrick, written with George J. Marlin, is now on sale. The Compleat Gentleman, is available on audio.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Catholic Thing. Republished with permission. Copyright 2018 The Catholic Thing. All Rights Reserved. Site designed by Hyperdo Media. Developed by Fiat Insight
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/gosnell-e1539124652391.jpg362640The Catholic Thinghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Catholic Thing2018-10-09 18:37:412018-10-11 06:53:58“These Vulnerable Creatures”: A Review of “Gosnell”
This is truly an amazing time to be alive. I stated weeks ago on FB feeds that Brett would serve on the bench and this farce would turn upside down on the guilty. This now begins. Read this post. Susan Collins and many others unite and support truth and justice. Not only are Republicans in the Senate and in the public uniting, you can take it to the bank there will be many Democrats who will not be supportive of their party in the mid-terms, let alone a 48 state historic landslide for the re-election of President Trump in 2020. God bless Susan Collins and God bless America. Global support for Trump continues.
Susan’s speech is worth not only listening to again but reading the transcript. A stellar, truthful, analysis and perspective. MAGA – Susan Collins Resurrecting America.
Historic Senator Susan Collins Transcript
“Mr. President, the five previous times that I have come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the United States Supreme Court, I have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion.
But today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.
The President nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th. Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn’t even bother to fill in the Judge’s name on its pre-written press release – they simply wrote that they opposed “Donald Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavannaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States.” A number of Senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee’s identity was even known.
Since that time, we have seen special interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial record. Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines which, although debunked hours later, continue to live on and be spread through social media. Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination.
Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than thirty years. One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom.
Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual Senator to decide what the Constitution’s “advice and consent” duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the President has broad discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought.
I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I have never considered the President’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, who were nominated by President Obama, and Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump.
So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. Nineteen attorneys, including lawyers from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge’s extensive record. I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the Committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And, I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions.
I have also met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents, regarding Judge Kavanaugh. One concern that I frequently heard was that Judge Kavanaugh would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. I disagree with this contention. In a dissent in Seven-Sky v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full. Many experts have said his dissent informed Justice Roberts’ opinion upholding the ACA at the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh’s approach toward the doctrine of severability is narrow. When a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain intact.
This was his approach in his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (PPH v. CFPB). In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued for “severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.” Given the current challenges to the ACA, proponents, including myself, of protections for people with pre-existing conditions should want a Justice who would take just this kind of approach.
Another assertion I have heard often is that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the President were to come before the Court. The basis for this argument seems to be two-fold. First, Judge Kavanaugh has written that he believes that Congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. Mr. President, I believe opponents miss the mark on this issue. The fact that Judge Kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the President does not have such protection currently.
Second, there are some who argue that given the current Special Counsel investigation, President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. That argument ignores our recent history. President Clinton, in 1993, nominated Justice Ginsburg after the Whitewater investigation was already underway. And she was confirmed 96-3. The next year, just three months after Independent Counsel Robert Fiske was named to lead the Whitewater investigation, President Clinton nominated Justice Breyer. He was confirmed 87-9.
Supreme Court Justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. Perhaps most notably in United States v. Nixon, three Nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him.
Judge Kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. He has stated that Marbury v. Madison, Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer and United States v. Nixon are three of the four greatest Supreme Court cases in history. What do they have in common? Each of them is a case where the Court served as a check on presidential power. And I would note that the fourth case that Judge Kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was Brown v Board of Education.
One Kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. He wrote the opinion in Hamdan v. United States, a case that challenged the Bush Administration’s military commission prosecution of an associate of Osama Bin Laden. This conviction was very important to the Bush Administration, but Judge Kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the DC Circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bush’s White House, ruled that the conviction was unlawful. As he explained during the hearing, “We don’t make decisions based on who people are, or their policy preferences, or the moment. We base decisions on the law….”
Others I met with have expressed concerns that Justice Kennedy’s retirement threatens the right of same sex couples to marry. Yet, Judge Kavanaugh described the Obergefell decision, which legalized same gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent. He also cited Justice Kennedy’s recent Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion for the Court’s majority stating that: “The days of treating gay and lesbian Americans or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the Supreme Court.”
Others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control. In one case, Judge Kavanaugh incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections. Although his critics frequently overlook this point, Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception. In fact, he wrote that the Supreme Court precedent “strongly suggested” that there was a “compelling interest” in facilitating access to birth control.
There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me.
To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article III of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent “is not just a judicial policy … it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent.” In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration; it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance, and fairness. There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, correcting a “grievously wrong” decision–to use the judge’s term–allowing racial inequality. But, someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is “grievously wrong” or “deeply inconsistent with the law.” Those are Judge Kavanaugh’s phrases.
As Judge Kavanaugh asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight such that precedent can’t be trimmed or narrowed simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.
Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago, and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.
Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy, on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptives. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to Roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as “settled law,” Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s, Meyer and Pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, describing it as “precedent on precedent.” When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no.”
Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe. The Republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. During this time, Republican presidents have appointed Justices O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. These are the very three justices—Republican president appointed justices—who authored the Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe. Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously opposed each of these justices’ nominations. Incredibly, they even circulated buttons with the slogan “Stop Souter Or Women Will Die!” Just two years later, Justice Souter coauthored the Casey opinion, reaffirming a woman’s right to choose. Suffice it to say, prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.
These same interest groups have speculated that Judge Kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologues, despite his record of judicial independence. I asked the judge point blank whether he had made any commitments or pledges to anyone at the White House, to the Federalist Society, or to any outside group on how he would decide cases. He unequivocally assured me he had not.
Judge Kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament. The American Bar Association (ABA) gave him its highest possible rating. Its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary conducted an extraordinarily thorough assessment, soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. The ABA concluded that “his integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence met the highest standard.”
Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history, testified: “By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.” “His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair….” Ms. Blatt, who clerked for and is an ardent admirer of Justice Ginsburg, and who is, in her own words, “an unapologetic defender of a woman’s right to choose,” said that Judge Kavanaugh “fit[s] in the mainstream of legal thought.” She also observed that “Judge Kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession.”
That Judge Kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93 percent of the cases that they heard together. Indeed, Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96 percent of the majority opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.
Despite all this, after weeks of reviewing Judge Kavanaugh’s record and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate’s advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford. The confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault, and lied about it to the Judiciary Committee.
Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.Top of FormBottom of Form
Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.
In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.
The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.
Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred; none of the individuals Professor Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night.
Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. PJ Smyth, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. Professor Ford’s life-long friend Leland Keyser indicated that, under penalty of felony, she does not remember that party. And Ms. Keyser went further. She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.
In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say, “I was at the party that night.”
Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that, because of the distance, she would have needed a ride – yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one that drove her home or were in the car with her that night. And Professor Ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying goodbye and distraught, none of them called her the next day – or ever – to ask why she left – is she okay – not even her closest friend, Ms. Keyser.
Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance as to how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. It leaves that decision up to each Senator. This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of “more likely than not” as our standard.
The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night – or at some other time – but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the “more likely than not” standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Court.
Let me emphasize that my approach to this question should not be misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is not a serious problem in this country. To the contrary, if any good at all has come from this ugly confirmation process, it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the pervasiveness of this terrible problem.
I have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is rejected, the Senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Every person—man or woman–who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect. The #MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed. And it is long overdue. We know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault. On average, an estimated 211,000 rapes and sexual assaults go unreported every year. We must listen to survivors, and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many. We owe this to ourselves, our children, and generations to come.
Since the hearing, I have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. Many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. Some were friends I have known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, I had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks. I am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward, and I hope that in heightening public awareness, they have also lightened the burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years. To them, I pledge to do all that I can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences.
Over the past few weeks, I have been emphatic that the Senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. I called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I also pushed for and supported the FBI supplemental background investigation. This was the right thing to do.
Christine Ford never sought the spotlight. She indicated that she was terrified to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and she has shunned attention since then. She seemed completely unaware of Chairman Grassley’s offer to allow her to testify confidentially in California. Watching her, Mr. President, I could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well-being.
Professor Ford testified that a very limited number of people had access to her letter. Yet that letter found its way into the public domain. She testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released. And yet, here we are. We are in the middle of a fight that she never sought, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially.
One theory I have heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague, Senator Feinstein, leaked Professor Ford’s letter at the eleventh hour to derail this process. I want to state this very clearly: I know Senator Diane Feinstein extremely well, and I believe that she would never do that. I knew that to be the case before she even stated it at the hearing. She is a person of integrity, and I stand by her.
I have also heard some argue that the Chairman of the Committee somehow treated Professor Ford unfairly. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chairman Grassley, along with his excellent staff, treated Professor Ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. And that is the way the Senator from Iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service.
But the fact remains, Mr. President, that someone leaked this letter against Professor Ford’s express wishes. I suspect, regrettably, that we will never know for certain who did it. To that leaker, who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect, but who also trusted you to protect her – and you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting. My only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate – and indeed all Americans – to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court nominees. If that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded Professor Ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences.
Mr. President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination had reached a fever pitch even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction.
We live in a time of such great disunity, as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates. It is not merely a case of different groups having different opinions. It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them. In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans. When some of our best minds are seeking to develop ever more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify.
This would have alarmed the drafters of our Constitution, who were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people. Indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the Constitution, the one that they put first was the formation of “a more perfect Union.”
Their vision of “a more perfect Union” does not exist today, and if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it. It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principal guardian of our shared constitutional heritage, is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.
Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and counter charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father. Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our Judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/susan-collins-facebook.jpg360640John Michael Chambershttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Michael Chambers2018-10-08 11:15:332018-10-08 11:19:16Susan Collins Resurrecting America
Despite the naysayers’ denials, we are at war. Some cite President George H.W. Bush as the impetus when he signed UN Agenda 21 in 1992, calling it a One World Government, a la George Soros’s One World Order. And with all the offenses we have seen since then, occurring more frequently now than before 9/11, we continue to misjudge our formidable foe and wait for recognizable uniforms, grander weaponry and futuristic vehicles. Rather, one facet of the war comes by small boats and on foot.
They are a ragtag army, shabby, unruly, ungovernable with no discernible leader, although they operate in unison, and occasionally accompanied by a woman and child to confuse and tug at heartstrings. Their methods are effective because our populace has been shamed into obediently accepting the concept of multiculturalism from tyrannical regimes over our own, believing that disparate, incongruent, and even conflicting ideas can suddenly and mysteriously blossom into harmony once they’re embraced on Western soil.
We underestimate these people of the sand, whose accomplishments cannot be measured by our standards, cannot earn our respect or Nobel prizes, yet they nevertheless manage to achieve their undertakings, reach their objectives, and day by day, spread their influence throughout the world, poisoning and destroying all they touch. How is it that, despite their backwardness, they can infiltrate other cultures and challenge the limits of democracies, republics and kingdoms?
First, the populations of western countries have been prepared by a thorough indoctrination of believing themselves to be the cause of the world’s woes and, therefore, the ones responsible for their welfare and apportioning our bounty.
Second, the Islamic migrants’ training derives primarily from their family structure, where there is no fealty between the man and his multiple wives and concubines, who come from a background that leaves their basic human needs unmet, and continues the same ideology into the next generations. Their offspring carry the familial enmity with them and their religion/ideology promotes a deep-seated hatred from the moment they can understand language. We now also recognize that they are cast out by their families during their teen years, when they are most beset by physical, cognitive, emotional, social, sexual, and spiritual challenges. They are filled with deep frustrations and rage, prepared to overwhelm the women of the welcoming countries, while facing little opposition from the men.
Third, the migrants are menacingly – even strategically – dispersed throughout most of western Europe. France and Germany have the largest Muslim populations in Europe – 5.7 million (8.8%) in France and 5 million (6.1%) in Germany, and constitute 25.4 percent of Cyprus’s population. Angela Merkel admitted that multiculturalism has “utterly failed,” as mosques are replacing churches, and attacks against Jews increase. Sweden has become a “disaster, with her generous policy of mindless immigration and inability to control them, and 61 no-go zones, thus seriously endangering her citizens. At 6,620 reported rapes in 2014, an increase of 300 percent, Sweden is the Rape Capital of Europe, second only to Lesotho, Africa. The jihadi-rapists are Salafists who demand that women be veiled, disallow votes, and threaten business owners with decapitation, while the Swedish political leaders avert their attention. Britain’s Muslims are responsible for kidnapping female students off the streets for sex trafficking. “Grooming gangs” abused more than 700 women and girls (sometimes boys) in North East section alone, including rape, supplying drugs and trafficking for sexual exploitation.
Fourth, by 2050, the Muslim population could double due to the overwhelmingly young male influx with high fertility rates. The welcoming European countries are over-extended with the burden of providing food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education in the billions of Euros; and dealing with the decline of societal cohesion, neighborhoods-turned-no-go-zones, a general rise in criminality; and a rise in Islamic-style crimes of gang rape, kidnapping and sexually enslaving young women and children.
Disclaimers be damned, France’s character is hanging in the balance. Her Muslim minority, now estimated at 4.2 million (5% of the population) considers itself a new nation that will emerge as an Islamic African nation in 30 years due to rampant immigration by teens and young adults with a 33% higher birthrate than the indigenous French. Their more than 700 Muslim neighborhoods are rife with riots, violence and law-breaking, unemployment, and increased Islamic identification with their women wearing the veil. Rape is up 20%. Some 500,000 Muslims are said to be converts, while, by contrast, the Catholic church and clergy are on a dramatic decline. “France is no longer France”; “Paris is no longer Paris.” It is now a state of fear, with increasing Muslim assertiveness.
The French authorities, Globalists, are more than mere bystanders. They are complicit in destabilizing the values and identity of the occupied country. Nathan, France’s most popular, controversial and government-funded textbook publisher, has produced books that are clearly indoctrinal. A math book last year featured a math problem about drowning migrants. This year, it produced a 32-page, sex-educational manual, “How to make babies,” read by millions of children, age five and older. It contains love-making instructions and drawings of mixed-race couples, always unveiled white women with darker-skinned Arab-Muslim men – obvious thought reform. The books address “love,” but there is no love in the multiple, non-consensual Islamic marriages. Neither do the textbooks address what happens to French white girls who marry the older Muslim men. When he returns with his bride to his country of origin, she faces the full impact of Sharia – beatings, imprisonment for disobedience, and she may be prevented from ever returning to her Western home.
Globalists accept the multitudes and endless chain-migration families on the absurd and deceitful premise that all cultures are equal, employing the same tactics used by other tyrannies. Our own leftists have supplied our schools with the like-minded and proselytizing teaching materials to produce a compliant generation that is tolerant of the intolerable. Our textbooks have long been teaching that America is colonialist and guilty of slavery. The fact that we were among the first countries to abolish slavery has been omitted from the text.
Our children are no longer learning the truth about our country’s history and founding. As we saw during the Kavanaugh hearings, young women are reacting viscerally that all men are guilty of crimes, and all contradictory opinions must be screamed down. Our boys are being debilitated, ridiculed and feminized (emotionally emasculated) to the extreme. They are eagerly accepting their leftist instructors’ views on whitewashed progressivism, communism, and Islamism; weakened in morality and responsibility for jobs and families, and proving to be less qualified to join the armed forces should they be needed for defense.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.”
The Globalist regime has their army from within – the world’s children.