I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes to influence elections.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes to influence elections that manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes to influence elections that manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court to sustain a split-court configuration.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes to influence elections that manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court to sustain a split-court configuration and empower lower court judges above Supreme Court justices.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes to influence elections that manipulate the composition of the Supreme Court to sustain a split-court configuration that empower lower court judges above Supreme Court justices allowing activist judges in lower courts to legislate their radical agenda with impunity.
Activist judges have an anti-American, collectivist agenda that is antagonistic to the Constitution. Activist judges do not support the separation of powers – they legislate from the bench. Activist judges do not support the Constitution – they defy the executive branch. Activist judges are usurping the power of the legislative and executive branches of the United States government.
Theoretically, the power of activist judges in lower courts is held in check by upper courts and finally the Supreme Court. A tie in the Supreme Court upholds lower court decisions and awards lower court activist judges the final say. It neuters the Supreme Court.
The entire legal system of the United States of America rests upon the principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. This is no small thing.
When ALLEGATIONS of misconduct, sexual in nature or not, are allowed to replace PROOF of misconduct as the metric for truth we have destroyed the foundation of civil society in America. The adult world of objective reality demands facts and proof to determine truthfulness. The childish world of subjective reality accepts allegations and feelings to determine truthfulness.
Consider the consequences.
If we surrender to the world of feelings where accusations are regarded as truth then anyone can accuse YOU of anything for any reason and it will be accepted as truth. Without the presumption of innocence, allegations can be weaponized to destroy YOUR reputation, YOUR family, YOUR business, YOUR personal life, YOUR political life, YOUR religious life, and YOUR standing in the community.
The presumption of innocence is codified in our legal system and must be protected by our national conscience. We the people must remain adult citizens who demand evidence and the presumption of innocence. We must reject the emotional impulse to accept feelings as facts.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault allegations made for political purposes.
I am a woman outraged by sexual assault being exploited to dismantle the foundation of American jurisprudence.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/lukas-muller-383629-unsplash-e1538149396166.jpg374640Linda Goudsmithttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLinda Goudsmit2018-09-28 11:43:242018-09-28 11:44:42I am a Woman
Today, I saw the most disgusting display of political gamesmanship ever, if it can be called that. A full-fledged attack on a man’s character, his past, and even his soul. The display brought to mind those videos of frenzied sharks opportunistically swiping bites at their maimed prey. And in this case, the feeding frenzy was allowed to continue by a judicial nominee that, although impassioned by anger, frustration, and shear exhaustion, was too meek and respectful to abandon his temperament and call out the 800-pound gorilla in the room: cheap partisan politics
But when the smoke cleared, the Senate Judiciary Committee shed no new light upon the events from thirty-five years ago, and the only thing that lay in tatters was the reputation of the United States Senate.
Thank you, Senate Democrats.
There were a number of goals the Senate Democrats pursued today. The first was to put on display a credible witness with a credible story against a judicial nominee. That witness was Dr. Christine Blaisey Ford, a Palo Alto professor who claimed that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when he was 17 years old. What we saw was a meek woman with a weak voice and sheepish delivery who seemed to conveniently forget the most important and significant of details. Ford’s demeanor was simply too passive for a Ph.D professor.
And then there were the inconsistencies. First, the progression of the events had to be delayed because of Ford’s fear of flying, yet she flew into Washington for the hearing.
Then we heard Ford actually flew to all sorts of places. To Delaware to be with her family. To Polynesia for personal pursuits. To Costa Rica. To Hawaii. And she flew not for life altering important events, but for pleasure!
And then we learned that the neural receptors in Ford’s hypocampus were predisposed to her developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the events that took place 35 years ago. But when asked if there had been any possible environmental stressors that could have deteriorated her condition, she said there were none. Nothing else in her life had ever caused her any stress. Quite simply a incredible assertion.
And then a little pearl. She would have been able to do the hearing earlier if the Senate had offered to go to her.
But they did! And when this was pointed out, her attorney was quick to object.
From before the hearing, we knew she couldn’t place the house. But during the heating we learned that the house where the events took place was about a 15 minute drive from her home. So after establishing that she was driven there and back, she still couldn’t remember who drove her to the party and back.
Wouldn’t you think that the person who had driven her home from that party would have driven an absolutely mortified 15-year-old home? No 15-year-old can bluff so well so as to hide her emotions from the person driving her home that night, and even if she could, Ford should have been able to tell us what she did in preparation for what was likely the longest trip home of her life. How had she maintained her composure? Did she cry prior to getting in the car? How did she hide her emotions from her parents that night?
But there was none of that.
Ford also did not know who paid for the polygraph test, or who was paying for her attorneys.
When faced with a prosecuting attorney that treated her with kid gloves under five minute time constraints, none of the tough questions were asked. But even at this point, something seemed off about her testimony. For me, I just kept going back to not having ever seen a Ph.D. professor act so meekly.
Then came Judge Kavanaugh. Pardon my vernacular, but he was pissed, as upset as I have ever seen anyoneat a legislative hearing. He was indignant. He was unwavering in his denial that the events described absolutely never happened. And the debacle of the Democrats’ cheap scam began.
Which brings us to the Democrats’ second goal; delay the hearing at all costs through a call for another FBI investigation.
The most obnoxious individual in promoting this agenda was Senator Dick Durbin who kept insisting that Kavanaugh turn to the White House council, right there and then, and demand than an FBI hearing take place. Despite the intense, and unprofessional display from Durbin, Kavanaugh did not take the bait, recurrently exclaiming that he would do whatever the Committee wanted, but essentially leaving it to the Committee to call for an investigation.
And that’s when a rejuvenated and impassioned Lindsey Graham spoke. He was the first Republican Senator to break ranks with the optional protocol the caucus had set up for itself of employing the services of an Arizona prosecuting attorney to ask the questions. Instead, Graham took the microphone himself and resoundingly called the proceedings a sham. His was a performance so riveting, so emotional, so raw and filled with honesty that it made Al Pacino’s performance in And Justice For All, look like child’s play. The Democrats don’t want an investigation, Graham exclaimed. If they did, they wouldn’t have sat on Ford’s complaint for weeks.
From Graham and others we learned that by the time Kavanaugh met with Feinstein, her staff and she had already assisted Ford in obtaining a lawyer, and she mentioned nothing to Kavanaugh at their private meeting! Nor did she say anything at the time of the hearing. Feinstein’s deceitful performance in her handling of this case was so despicable, that it brought the spurious call for an FBI investigation to a halt.
Additionally, in a case where there is nothing to pursue, no forensic evidence, no physical evidence, no DNA, no pictures, and no iron-clad testimonies, there is absolutely nothing the FBI could add.
How about making Kavanaugh look like a raging alcoholic? Here is where Kavanaugh was at his shakiest because he drank as a minor, (“everyone did”) and he liked beer and claimed to still like beer. He seemed a little frazzled as he asked the Senators, “Don’t you like beer, Senator?” To be sure, it’s what many wished to tell these arrogant senators, but it got the judge into the mud a little bit too much.
But once again, the Democrats stole defeat from the jaws of victory as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse broke one of the sacred rules of public interrogation, he asked questions of his witness to which he did not previously know the answer. Whitehouse thought he would be cute and display a huge blowup of Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook page, and thinking that the cryptic entries dealt with sexual activity sought to pursue them.
What does “Renate alumnius” mean?
No, it did not mean that Kavanaugh had claimed to have sexual relations with Renata. (Here’s where Kavanaugh could have said, “No, Senator, I have no control over what your perverted brain may be thinking, but this reference is not to sexual activity,” but he didn’t.)
What does “Ralph” in “Beach Week Ralph Club” mean, and doesn’t that mean that you were a problem drinker?
Senator, it means vomiting, and no, I was not a problem drinker.
And then Whitehouse tried to cross the bridge too far.
And what about the word “boofed”?
Senator, it means flatulence. We were 16. We thought it was funny.
Everyone laughed. And all of a sudden, the absurdity of a Senator dissecting the senior page of a judicial nominee became painfully clear. And the Democrats’ efforts at discrediting the nominee came to an end.
In the end, we finished where we started. If anything, Kavanaugh appeared stronger than before the hearing. Ford looked weaker and less credible. And the Me Too movement continued its descent into the surreal.
So what did we gain from all of this?
Substantively, we gained nothing. But we got further confirmation of the disarray we would live in if this crop of Democrats ran the show. We got a taste of what its like when procedural rules are ignored and decorum abandoned. We learned how evil the left can be if left to its own devices. And once again, we learned of the importance of maintaining a man’s innocence until and unless there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate his guilt.
Today, I witnessed a horrible display of incivility and disrespect to the honor and life of another. I have nothing to say about Dr. Ford, as I do not understand what she was thinking and what motivated her to go this far after 35 years without any corroborating evidence; as a matter of fact, she brought only the opposite.
But I did see the attempted destruction of the United States Senate by those who reside within it. It was a despicable display that in the end, left our Republic that much weaker.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/senate-judiciary-committee.png366640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-09-28 04:10:342018-09-28 05:41:22Thank You, Senate Democrats.
Rightly, Americans are worried about the use of dark money in our election process, money that flows from organization to organization (political action committees, or PACs) without identification as to the source, and used for the purposes of supporting candidates or campaigns.
Americans are also worried about the possibility of foreign governments, most notably the Russians, meddling with our election process.
But in August, without the knowledge of the overwhelming number of Americans, an Obama-appointed federal judge skewed the flow of funds to some election campaigns while sparing others without forewarning, and with significant effects on the outcome of primary elections like the ones in Florida that were so near the time of the ruling.
So while some Americans worry about Russian meddling, a clearer case of election tampering from inside the United States just occurred.
The case, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, et al, arose out of a 2012 incident in Tampa, Fla., involving Karl Rove. Apparently, at a fundraiser sponsored by Crossroads GPS, Rove made an offer. He told those in attendance that an “anonymous donor” had offered to match up to $3 million in contributions to whatever contributions they made that night. The offer resulted in an extra $1.3 million being raised.
Shortly thereafter, another organization, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington, D.C. — founded by two liberal Democrats — filed a complaint claiming that Crossroads GPS had failed to disclose the identity of those who had contributed to the event. Their logic was that the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) required that persons disclose their identities when contributing to an organization intended to affect the outcome of an election.
The Federal Elections Commission had interpreted the statute to mean that the identities of the persons needed only to be disclosed when they were made in support of specific independent expenditures. In other words, if the donor was only intending to support the overall efforts of the organization, then no disclosure needed to be made, but when the same donor contributed to the same organization with specific instructions that such funds be used to support a specific candidate the identity would need to be revealed.
In Karl Rove’s case, the anonymous donor requested that the money go towards the support of the Republican challenger in the 2012 Ohio Senate race without specifying how the funds should be spent. For 38 years and 19 prior elections, the law had been interpreted in such a manner that those kinds of generalized instructions would not require the disclosure of the donor.
The complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission and in 2014, while acknowledging issues regarding the proper interpretation of FECA, the Commission tossed out the case because, in its opinion, the regulation did not require such a disclosure. The Commission was concerned that interpreting the law in the manner CREW was requesting would allow for a significantly more expansive interpretation of the situations by which donors’ identities needed to be disclosed.
About four years later, the case reached the federal trial court where Judge Beryl A. Howell, an Obama appointee, ruled, on Aug. 3, 2018, that the Commission’s rule must be vacated because, in the court’s opinion, CREW’s interpretation was a more proper one. Howell recognized that this new interpretation could have a “chaotic” effect on the upcoming elections and therefore stayed her order for 45 days while the Commission revised its rule.
Immediately, Political Action Committees (PACs) across the country reacted with fear as the rules under which they were accustomed to working were being pulled out from underneath them, and they risked being forced to disclose the identity of their donors. Funding towards campaigns all over the country halted as the PACs figured out what the ruling meant and its significance to their donors’ privacy concerns.
In Florida, the effect was profound.
The Florida primary was scheduled for Aug. 28, just 21 days later with early voting schedules beginning about 10 days later. In accordance with McCain-Feingold, candidates were busy spending their hard dollars as they jockeyed for position in the arena of public opinion. These candidates were also prohibited from communicating with the PACs that had issued commitments on their behalf, so they could not ascertain why the independent expenditures that they thought were coming by way of political ads, mailers, and fliers never appeared. What’s worse, those PACs whose contributors were not concerned about the protection of their identities continued to spend without a care for the same judicial ruling that was paralyzing their competitors.
In the meantime, the Federal Elections Commission refused to change its rule despite the court’s order since it was confident that the case would be overturned on appeal.
By Aug. 24, with the Florida primary elections a mere four days away and the ruling disparately advantaging certain candidates over others, Crossroads GPS asked the Circuit Court of Appeals for an extension on the stay of Howell’s order, but the appellate court refused.
On Aug. 28, the Florida primary elections were held. The damage had been done, and the court had, either unwittingly or purposely, irreversibly affected the public’s opinions of the various candidates throughout the state, and successfully interfered with the election process and its outcomes. True meddling.
And so it was that an event taking place six years earlier impacted the outcomes of countless races in various states, but especially Florida, under the guise of being an administrative emergency.
It would not be until Sept. 15, 2018, two weeks after the conclusion of Florida’s primary elections, that the appellate court would issue a ruling upholding the lower court’s actions.
Too late to affect the Florida primaries, but still hoping to rectify the situation, Crossroads GPS asked the Supreme Court to hear the case in order to still be able to impact the midterms. On Sept. 16, 2018, Chief Justice Roberts, acting alone, ordered that the rule remain in effect pending further orders, effectively reversing the rulings of the lower courts. But two days later, he reversed himself, apparently with the participation of the rest of the Court.
What does this mean to election finance laws? At least for now, it means more disclosures of federal campaign donors. Of course, actions calling for greater transparency are helpful towards ensuring an open elections process, but it will also have a chilling effect on political speech, particularly when the status of the law remain in a state of flux.
The great injustice here is that a monumental shift in the interpretation of our nation’s election finance laws was allowed to happen weeks before an election and three months prior to the midterms.
In other words, who needs the Russians to attempt to meddle in our elections process when the courts can successfully do it themselves?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bonnie-kittle-1037677-unsplash-e1538068446850.jpg388640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-09-27 13:14:142018-09-27 13:14:14Obama-Appointed Judge’s Ruling Is Actual Election Meddling
When Kermit Gosnell was sentenced to three life terms for killing at least one mom and snipping the necks of who-knows-how-many babies, Planned Parenthood tweeted that “justice had been done.” But apparently, it’s justice they don’t want anyone talking about.
Five years ago, the case had all the makings of a riveting courtroom drama. The man on trial was charged with serially murdering children and at least one mom in a filthy, blood-splattered horror house near Philadelphia. A real-life monster, he preyed on his victims as a doctor, then stashed parts of their bodies in a basement freezer, jars, or cat-food containers. He tried grinding the pieces down garbage disposals or flushing them down toilets. It was a scene that Philadelphia’s District Attorney Seth Williams said “comprehension of the English language doesn’t and cannot adequately describe.”
Normally, the media would be tripping over themselves to report every grisly detail. But as the gruesome testimonies spilled out, the bright lights of the network cameras were nowhere to be found. And the keyboards of reporters, who race to recount the nightmarish details of every other tragedy, fell silent. It wasn’t because the story lacked jaw-dropping revelations. Sherry West, who had been with the office for years, told the court about a screaming baby that had been born in the clinic and then murdered. Steven Massof, who was also hired by Gosnell, sent shivers down people’s spines when he described the busy times: “It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.” In those moments, Massof confessed, “I felt like a fireman in hell. I couldn’t put out all the fires.”
“The killings became so routine,” an employee admitted, “that no one could put an exact number on them. They were considered ‘standard procedure.'” But what’s also become standard procedure in the half-decade since Gosnell’s conviction is for the media to pretend it never happened. The Left ignored the story then – and they want to ignore now.
Hopefully, that will be a lot harder, thanks to the producers of Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer. Despite four years of roadblocks — from censorship to outright intolerance — the film has survived its share of adversity. When Kickstarter refused to let the movie raise money on its site, they took their project to Indiegogo — and broke a crowdfunding record in the process. This past August, the hurdles only got higher. Executive Producer John Sullivan approached about buying airtime, only to be told that the ad was too conservative. Calling Gosnell an “abortionist,” they said, was a violation of their “value-neutral” policy. When Sullivan offered to change it to “abortion doctor,” executives refused a second time. Gosnell had to be a “doctor” — or no deal.
Now, the same organization that insisted Gosnell got what he deserved is doing everything they can to keep his story from being told. In Austin, the local Planned Parenthood is so afraid of people learning the truth about their industry that they bullied the local Hyatt Regency Hotel into canceling a screening of the film. Why? Because it coincided with Planned Parenthood’s $400-a-plate fundraising gala. According to Sullivan, the producers had more than 250 people registered only to be told the event was viewed as a “security” risk.
How ironic. If anyone’s a security risk, it’s the group killing 881 babies a day! Of course, no one should be surprised at Planned Parenthood’s pathetic attempt to shut the movie down. They’re probably afraid more Americans will make the connection between Gosnell’s barbarism and their support for procedures just like it. After all, if the group really wanted to spare women from these horrors, they’d fight for tougher clinic regulations. Instead, they’ve spent the last two decades trying to stop doctors from helping born-alive babies. Obviously, like Gosnell, they only believe “wanted” children have rights.
That would certainly explain why Planned Parenthood knew about Gosnell’s slaughterhouse and did nothing. For years, women and children suffered at the hands of this monster only to find out that Planned Parenthood could have stopped it — and didn’t. And this is the kind of organization we entrust with more than a half-billion taxpayer dollars? One that’s silent on abuse — and too concerned about profits to care about patients? “If Planned Parenthood thinks what Gosnell did was ‘appalling'” — at least publicly — “what do they call their own facilities’ dangerous, unsanitary conditions and practices of infanticide?” Students for Life asked.
In the end, the only way to stop this nightmare is to expose it. The producers of Gosnell did their part. Now it’s up to us. On October 12, go see the movie that the abortion industry doesn’t want you to see! In the meantime, check out what Gosnell‘s stars — including Dean Cain — had to say at VVS about the powerful story behind the film in the panel below. And take a minute to contact the Hyatt Regency in Austin (@Hyatt) and let them know that if they really believed in choice, they’d give audiences one!
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/092618_gosnell_770x400-e1538043186785.jpg362640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-09-27 06:16:322018-09-27 06:20:29The Hyatt of Hypocrisy: Banning Gosnell
We are now on the eve of the confrontation between Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford at the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing in Washington, DC. Although nothing has been formally filed, neither in 2018 or 35 years ago, Dr. Ford accuses the Judge of sexual harassment when she was in high school. This is an eleventh hour “Hail Mary” pass made by the Democrats to delay the confirmation vote until after the midterm elections where they might possibly capture both chambers of Congress, and thereby negate the nominee.
Undoubtedly, the Democrats will not believe the Judge’s testimony; likewise, the Republicans will see Dr. Ford as a willing pawn in their opponent’s strategy. Without some sort of tangible evidence or expert testimony, this will remain a “he said/she said” affair, and the Democrats will have successfully delayed the confirmation vote on the Judge by two weeks.
Regardless of the outcome, the Democrats will, of course, demand an FBI investigation, thereby further delaying the vote, but this is something for a criminal case, of which the Judge is yet to be charged. They may also introduce something else to delay the vote, such as a parade of women accusing him of indiscretions.
This is all known by people on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats are playing the Republican leadership who wants to appear fair. However, the Left has been working behind the scenes orchestrating delays and interruptions, such as the protesters who earlier upset the proceedings. All of this has taken what is normally a rather civil investigation into am embarrassing affair for all involved.
Even before the Judge’s appointment by President Trump, the Democrats let it be known they would not support any candidate put forth by the president, as the person would undoubtedly be conservative and allegedly would overturn Roe vs. Wade. Judge Kavanaugh just happened to be the one selected and has had to go through Hell, along with his family. If the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were asked to vote on the Judge based solely on his legal record, I am confident they would still vote against him. In other words, the vote would be no different today as it would have been if it were held at the beginning.
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans possess the will to shut them down. If the shoe was on the other foot, and the Democrats were in charge of the committee, they would have surely voted on the candidate already. If the Republicans botch the hearing, this could have devastating consequences on the midterm elections.
As I indicated in my recent OpEd, “The Political War of 2018,” the Democrats are desperate and, as such, are exhibiting obnoxious immoral behavior. They will go to any length to get elected, regardless if it is legal or not, believing the end justifies the means. Fortunately, their shenanigans during this campaign cycle, culminated by the Kavanaugh hearings, has not gone unnoticed by the American public.
In a new report, Gallup claims “Republican Party Favorability Highest in Seven Years” (jumping from 36% to 47%). According to the report, Democrats have historically had a higher favorability rating with Democrats and Independents, but this all changed this year as Independents gravitated to Republicans. As Gallup reports:
“The overall increase in the favorable image of the Republican Party is a result of a jump in the positive views of Republicans, including independents who lean toward the party. The percentage of Republicans and leaners with favorable views of their party grew from 67% last September to 85% now.”
This jives with another Gallup report, issued in June, stating Americans who are satisfied with the direction of the country has reached a twelve year high, going back to September 2005.
In other words, Americans appear to appreciate the efforts of President Trump and the Republicans, such as the upturn in the economy, the support for law enforcement and the military, and the need to curb illegal immigration. Further, they do not seem to appreciate the helter-skelter of the Democrats and want to see the country return to normal.
All of this suggests the Democrats are not winning the hearts and minds of the American people, but, rather, are alienating them instead. This does not bode well for the party as they approach the midterm elections just a few scant weeks away.
Should they lose in November, and I suspect they will, it will mean the Democrats cannot win lawfully or unlawfully, thereby presenting a serious conundrum for them as they approach the 2020 presidential year. This is where the party will have to make some hard decisions, such as policies and tactics, finding suitable candidates, and the general direction of the party, e.g., do they continue to embrace Socialism or return to a moderate position? I suspect the first reaction will be to march and protest the outcome, thereby compounding their problem with the American people.
Now the question is, can we survive the next six weeks? Let’s pray we can.
RELATED VIDEO: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.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of Judge Brett Kavanaugh was provided by TimBryce.com. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/kavanuagh-e1537962287868.jpg360640Tim Brycehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTim Bryce2018-09-26 07:42:442018-09-26 08:46:31Chinks Appear in the Democrats’ Armor
It is important to understand who one is voting for, especially when it comes to local government offices. Let’s take a look at Ruta Maria Jouniari the Democratic Party candidate for Sarasota County Commission in District 2.
BACKGROUND
Ruta converted to Islam and in 1999 was married to Moroccan Noureddine Jouniari. Both Ruta and Noureddine are active members of the Islamic Society of Sarasota-Bradenton. Ruta’s campaign Facebook page has links to her being endorsed by Florida LGBT Democratic Caucus, an article about Canada’s legalizing recreational marijuana (a campaign promise of Andrew Gillum), believes in global warming, is anti-Charter Schools and has links to various negative articles about Florida Governor Rick Scott and Republican Congressman Ron DeSantis. The words racist and white supremacist appear in articles Ruta links to. Links to the Islamic Society of Sarasota-Bradenton and anything about her being a Muslim convert are missing from her Facebook biography.
In contrast, Ruta is prominently named in an article on the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) website dated October 8, 2007 “FL: Muslim Women Aim To Dispel Stereotypes.” The CAIR news article reported:
Sarah Zaouzal of Sarasota is one of the leaders of the new Women’s Committee at the Islamic Society of Sarasota & Bradenton, whose stated goal is, among others, to dispel myths about women in Islam.
[ … ]
Ruta Jouniari, a member of the new group, said television is partially to blame for the misunderstandings.
“The only view many Westerners have is that of a black-clad, covered woman who seemingly has no rights,” Jouniari said. “Our group is needed to procure the truth about women Muslims. They are educated, not submissive to anyone, except God, and that they are as human as anyone else.”
Discover the Networks profiles CAIR. Discover the networks describes CAIR as a “Civil rights group partially funded by the Saudi Wahhabi establishment. Has numerous ties to extremist Islamic organizations.” Discover the Networks goes on to state:
CAIR was co-founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber, all of whom had close ties to the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), which was established by senior Hamas operative MousaAbu Marzook and functioned as Hamas’ public relations and recruitment arm in the United States. Awad and Ahmad previously had served, respectively, as IAP’s Public Relations Director and President. Thus it can be said that CAIR was an outgrowth of IAP.
CAIR opened its first office in Washington, DC, with the help of a $5,000 donation from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), a self-described charity founded by Mousa Abu Marzook. In May 1996, CAIR coordinated a press conference to protest the decision of the U.S. government to extradite Marzook for his connection to terrorist acts performed by Hamas. CAIR characterized the extradition as “anti-Islamic” and “anti-American.” When President Bush closed HLF in December 2001 for collecting money “to support the Hamas terror organization,” CAIR decried his action as “unjust” and “disturbing.”
WHAT IS THE ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF SARASOTA-BRADENTON (ISSB)?
According to the ISSB newsletter The Faith, in May 2001, the mosque’s children’s school, Dar al-Iman, was visited by then-professor at the University of South Florida (USF), Sami al-Arian, to discuss with the school’s parents “the opportunity for [their] children to attend a fulltime Islamic school in Tampa.” The school is presumably the Islamic Academy of Florida (IAF), an institution founded by al-Arian in 1992 and which is still in existence under a new name.
At the time of his visit, Al-Arian was also the North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). In April 2006, al-Arian pled guilty to conspiracy to provide services to PIJ. Between 1986 and 1992, al-Arian helped found a charity, a think tank, and the IAF school, all of which, according to the indictment against him, were actively used “to raise funds and provide support for the PIJ and their operatives in the Middle East, in order to assist its engagement in, and promotion of, violent attacks…”
As well, according to The Faith, from the beginning of 2000 through the end of 2001, Friday prayers at ISSB were led by al-Arian colleagues Mazen al-Najjar and Hussam Jubara on at least eight separate occasions each.
According to the US Justice Department, Al-Najjar, the brother-in-law of al-Arian, “had established ties to terrorist organizations and held leadership positions” within groups that raised funds for PIJ and Hamas. Those groups included al-Arian’s founded charity, Islamic Concern Project (ICP), and al-Arian’s founded think tank, World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE). Following his imprisonment, in August 2002, al-Najjar was deported from the US.
Jubara, then-professor at the University of Central Florida (UCF), co-founded the Islamic Concern Project (originally Islamic Committee for Palestine) with al-Arian. Jubara was arrested in March 2003 and charged and convicted of felony immigration fraud. Later, he too would be deported.
In January 2001, under the banner of ‘Aqsa Victims,’ The Faith announced that the mosque’s “community members” had raised $4000 to be sent to the family of Palestinian “martyrs.” The newsletter read, “The second payment of donations for Aqsa victims were sent the martyrs families and needy in the West Bank in Palestine.” With regard to Palestinians, the term ‘martyrs’ denotes either terrorists (general) or suicide bombers (specific).
In January 2002, a decision was made by ISSB to hire as its full-time imam Muneer Arafat and have Arafat relocate from New York, where he had a residence at the time. In 2001, Arafat had already been leading mosque prayers and teaching Islamic classes to the mosque congregation.
[ … ]
While residing in Saint Louis, Arafat also came into contact with al-Qaeda and Hamas operative Ziyad Khaleel. The two became roommates.
In May 1998, at the behest of a senior al-Qaeda lieutenant, Khaleel delivered a satellite phone and battery pack he had purchased to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, which was later used to plan the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. As well, Khaleel was a webmaster for the official website of Hamas and lectured at the University of Missouri on behalf of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a now-defunct Hamas propaganda group co-founded by al-Arian and Hamas global leader Mousa Abu Marzook.
[T]he Sarasota Fl area was the base of operations for 9/11 Al-Qaeda Hijack Pilots Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, they had a support network entrenched in the area when Al-Qaeda linked Imam Muneer Arafat shows up at the Sarasota-Bradenton Islamic Center (Mosque) in March 2000 just 3 months before the Hijackers show up in the Sarasota area in June of 2000.
See Jan 20, 2003 article about Sarasota Imam Muneer Arafat in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, below, just after he was arrested on Immigration charges by ICE agents in November 2002. Sarasota Imam Muneer Arafat had been the roommate of Al-Qaeda procurement terrorist Ziyad Sadaqa aka Ziyad Khaleel.
Fast forward to today and we find sheikh Monzer Taleb, someone with links to the terrorist group HAMAS, sitting with Islamic Society of Sarasota and Bradenton mosque leaders for a fundraiser in support of the organization Helping Hand for Relief and Development (HHRD). The Islamic Society of Sarasota published the attendees list for the event. The list included:Speaker Ali Syed, Speaker Monzer Talilb, Speaker Suleiman Salem, Speaker Tariq AbuKhdeir and Poetry by Remi Kanazi.
Watch the video, below, and you will see Taleb sitting to the left of the imam giving the Eid prayer at the HHRD orphan aide event in Sarasota:
Monzer Taleb was an unindicted Co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial, identified by Federal prosecutors as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, a covert U.S. MB organization with a responsibility for supporting and financing Hamas. Taleb was identified in a captured Palestine Committee document as a member of organization.As a member of the Al Sakhra Band, Taleb helped to raise funds for Hamas at fundraisers thrown by the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) and the Islamic Association for Palestine. (IAP), two organizations created by the Palestine Committee to support Hamas, according to evidence provided by the federal government.
[ … ]
Monzer Taleb appears to remain active in the fundraising business, raising funds for Helping Hands for Relief and Development (HHRD), a charity accused of having close ties to a Pakistani organization known to have financed Hamas. Taleb is additionally listed as a member of HHRD-Jordan. Taleb also fundraises for the Islamic Association of North Texas (IANT), which runs Dallas Central Mosque, which was closely associated with the Holy Land Foundation, and has long been identified as having ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. [Emphasis added]
Ruta would have voters believe that she is an all American girl and that Islam does not impede her in any way. The New Muslim Guide has a section titled “The Conditions Islam Stipulates Regarding the Wife” which states:
The wife must be Muslim, Jewish or Christian, believing in her religion. However, Islam encourages Muslim men to choose devout Muslim women for this purpose because a practising Muslim will be a good mother who will give her children the best possible upbringing and help her husband adhere to the teachings of Islam. As the Prophet ﷺ said, “Marry a devout Muslim woman and you will prosper.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhaaree: 4802; Saheeh Muslim: 1466)
She must be a chaste woman, as it is forbidden to marry a woman known for her lewdness and immorality. As the Qur’an states, “It is lawful for you to marry the chaste believing women and the chaste women of the people who were given the Book before you.” (Soorat Al-Maa’idah, 5:5)
She must not be one of those women whom he is never permitted to marry at any time in his life whatsoever (mahram) (See page 206), nor must he marry two sisters at the same time or a woman and her aunt at the same time.
Ruta was a Catholic before converting to Islam.
EDITORS NOTE: The photo of Ruta Maria Jouniari is from Twitter.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Ruta-Maria-Jouniari.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-09-25 11:39:482018-10-15 13:41:45Who is Sarasota County Commission District 2 Candidate Ruta Maria Jouniari?
(In the run-up to the 50th anniversary of consolidation, we have written several columns on the history of that local political miracle.)
During the heated process of bringing about consolidation, one of the lesser known parts was played by Pat Caddell.
Today, Caddell is known as a polling genius who has worked for a number of liberal Democrats.
In the late 1960s, however, Caddell was a high school math whiz in Jacksonville.
He began predicting election results very accurately, calling politicians before the election to tell them whether they would win or lose. One of those he called was Fred Schultz, banker and legislator, and later a member of the Federal Reserve.
Schultz was impressed by the youngster and after talking to him hired him as an adviser to the Duval Legislative Delegation.
The fact that Schultz was to become House Speaker while Sen. John Matthews was to become Senate president made those two Jacksonville legislators the most powerful politicians in Florida, and had a lot to do with the city’s charter being written in a way that would gain favor with voters, ensuring the city-county consolidation Oct. 1, 1968.
Caddell’s major contribution was to solve the thorny problem of drawing district boundaries for the new City Council that would be found acceptable by everyone, including black politicians who were a bit nervous about the plan.
Mary Singleton and Sallye Mathis had become the first blacks elected to the old City Council, in 1967.
Caddell managed to draw overnight a map that preserved the districts of both without obvious gerrymandering or making the other districts unacceptable to the voters or candidates, a puzzle that had stumped the much older legislators.
Just eight years later, Caddell was working for Jimmy Carter, and was credited for developing the strategy that helped Carter become president. He also was the one who told Carter ahead of the election results in 1980 that his presidency was over.
In recent years, Caddell seemingly has evolved. He has been very critical of Democrats and especially of the effort to unseat President Donald Trump, whose campaign he had advised.
“Let me tell you, as a person who has been in seven presidential campaigns, the notion that the FBI or the CIA had informants in a campaign to give information to government agencies is incredible and unheard of and frightening,” he said on a radio show recently.
Caddell is now loathed by Democrats, especially after he said that the Democratic Party “has become no longer a party of principles, but has been hijacked by a confederacy of gangsters who need to take power by whatever means and whatever canards they can.”
But he has not lost his touch. He was one of the few to predict the Trump victory on Nov. 8, 2016.
Regardless of his views today, as a young prodigy Caddell was one of those who made it possible to form the consolidated government of Jacksonville.
ABOUT LLOYD BROWN
Lloyd was born in Jacksonville. Graduated from the University of North Florida. He spent nearly 50 years of his life in the newspaper business …beginning as a copy boy and retiring as editorial page editor for Florida Times Union. He has also been published in a number of national newspapers and magazines, as well as Internet sites. Married with children. Military Vet. Retired. Man of few words but the words are researched well, deeply considered and thoughtfully written.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/wink-eye-on-jacksonville-e1537878673405.jpg360640Eye On Jacksonvillehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngEye On Jacksonville2018-09-25 08:33:192018-09-25 08:35:10Polling genius, Consolidation expert & Jax native Pat Caddell: ‘Dems hijacked by a confederacy of gangsters’
Supporters of Senator Ted Cruz in Dallas, TX. Photo: Lloyd Marcus.
Hello America! My wife Mary and I are in Texas with the Conservative Campaign Committee working to reelect Senator Ted Cruz.
Frustrated local Cruz supporters say they are seeing Cruz’s opponent, Beto O’Rourke signs everywhere and very few Cruz signs. Included in the mission of our Conservative Campaign Committee team is to fill the void, providing a boots-on-the-ground visual presence for Sen Ted Cruz.
Thus far, democrats have poured $23 million of anti-Trump money into flooding the airwaves with O’Rouke TV ads. The race continues to tighten, Cruz leads from 1% to 9% in the latest Quinnipiac Poll. A recent Reuters poll has O’Rourke ahead by 2%.
The good news is Cruz continues to gain support. He is endorsed by President Trump, the NRA, Tea Party Express, Conservative Campaign Committee and numerous other conservatives. The key is voter turnout. We must get every Texan who wants to keep Texas red to the polls.
Folks, I must tell you that the evil coming out of the democrat party is hideous. Cruz’s democrat opponent, Beto O’Rourke outrageously said Law Enforcement is “the new Jim Crow”.
When democrats lie to black Americans telling them that cops routinely assault and murder them, innocent people die. Cops are ambushed and assassinated. O’Rourke is vile, irresponsible, insidiously divisive and evil for making such a hate and violence inciting lie. The fact that O’Rourke is willing to spew lies, in essence, sacrificing the lives of police officers to win the votes of extreme leftists and angry blacks confirms O’Rourke must never be allowed anywhere near a seat of power. In my opinion, this is everything we need to know about this operative of socialism and racial division.
Despite proof that black repeat criminal Michael Brown was shot while assaulting a police officer, democrats and fake news media continue to irresponsibly promote the lie that Brown was shot by a white racist cop while trying to surrender with his hands up. Research confirms that police are really the greatest defenders of black lives. And still, a majority of my black relatives still believe democrats’ and fake news media’s lie that cops unfairly target and gun-down blacks. How can democrats and fake news media sleep at night knowing their lie to further the cause of liberalism is directly responsible for the murder of cops; separating fathers from their children?
Beto O’Rourke rabidly supports NFL players disrespecting our flag, military and National Anthem. O’Rouke boldly stated that given the opportunity, he would vote to impeach Trump. O’Rourke is an extreme leftist who seeks to disarm not only Texans, but all Americans. Getting rid of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is another O’Rourke extreme leftist position.
I cannot express enough the importance of our side getting out the vote for Ted Cruz. Fueled with Trump resistance hatred and rage, democrats are highly motivated to find votes for O’Rourke; be they from illegals, dead people or elsewhere. The American left seeks to halt Trump’s America-First agenda by any means necessary; at any and all cost.
As I stated, pure evil is fueling the American left’s deplorable political schemes and fake news media’s deceptive reporting. Watching TV in my hotel room here in Texas, leftists’ attempts to high-tech lynch Brett Kavanaugh, a good, decent and honorable man, is testimony of the depths of the American left’s evil. Not only do leftists seek to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, they seek to totally destroy his character, life and family.
The evil force driving the democrats is real. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12
Hijacked by leftists, the democrat party has become at war with all things wholesome and good; attacking our nation as founded, our traditions, principles and values; attacking God’s original plan for marriage, family and sexuality. In a nutshell, if God’s Word says something is good, democrats hate it. Democrats are hellbent on criminalizing speaking biblical truths and opposing leftist’s socialist/progressive agendas.
We know democrats’ modus operandi is to pull every illegal, immoral and lie-based dirty trick under the sun to destroy Conservative/Republican candidates. This is why it is so frustrating when wimpish Republicans allow democrats/leftists to twist or ignore the law to defeat and destroy the lives of our candidates.
Ted Cruz is an awesome conservative warrior and hero; one of the truly brilliant good guys. Trump desperately needs Cruz to remain on his team in Washington, D.C. Please go online and show your support for Senator Cruz at his website.
You can also follow breaking news on his re-election bid via his Twitter feed: at @TedCruz
Here’s a little Conservative Campaign Committee team inside info folks. Like the “Mission Impossible” movie teams, our executive director compiles a team with varying skills and expertise from around the country. For our Reelect Ted Cruz campaign, Mary and I along with other select team members were flown into Dallas. We piled into an SUV and rode 7 hours to Amarillo. Friday, we rode 7 hours back to Dallas for the Cruz/O’Rourke debate. I hate the long car rides, but love my country. While we were in the SUV, a team member received a phone call from her husband who was back home comforting a dear friend of their family who is in hospice. It was touching overhearing our team member saying her final goodbye to their friend.
Our CCC team joined local Cruz supporters to wave signs outside of the debate hall building. We chanted, “Six more years! Six more years!”
The Senate Judiciary Committee and Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, have reached an agreement to hold a hearing on Thursday. Although it has been said that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has laid out terms unfair to Ford and insensitive to the plight of women, in reality the truth of the matter cannot be sought without these conditions, and Ford should welcome Grassley’s conditions as it will help to ensure her credibility; provided of course, she is being honest.
If the committee is seeking the truth of what may or may not have happened, there are five imperatives that must take place.
NUMBER 1
First, it is imperative that Ford speak under oath. The charge against Kavanaugh is extremely serious, about as serious as it gets. Thus every effort must be made to ascertain the veracity of the information provided. Recall there is no corroborating evidence, no witnesses having first hand knowledge of the situation (or second hand for that matter), no forensic evidence, and no physical evidence. In short, this case comes down to the strength of Ford’s word against that of Kavanaugh’s, making it crucial that the veracity of Ford’s comments be established.
Placing Ford under oath is the only way society has to help guarantee the veracity of her testimony. Without the weight of an oath, Ford would be free to say anything she wants without legal consequences. Her testimony could be a complete work of fiction, and no one would know any better, nor would there be any legal ramifications to her having delivered it.
But when Ford is placed under oath, she is legally ascertaining the information she gives is true to the point of being subject to perjury should she fail to tell the truth. Although, as a lawyer, I advise anyone to not voluntarily place himself or herself under oath (even when that person is innocent) here Ford must place herself under oath if she is to be believed.
Ford is not under investigation, so no charges should be placed against her so long as she tells the truth. On the contrary, she is calling for an investigation of another under circumstances where no other evidence exists. She must, therefore, deliver her testimony under oath if her charges have any hope of sticking. The protections for her lie in the limitations of the scope of the inquiry, the topics to be covered.
NUMBER 2
The second imperatives is that all topics and subtopics regarding the Kavanaugh allegations must be on the table, inclusive of any social media posts, whether they be favorable or unfavorable. Obviously, it would be reasonable to demand that no other topics, such as Ford’s finances, or matters that would subject her to possible litigation in other arenas, be examined, as she ought not be placed in a situation where she self-incriminates. But, if Ford’s accusations are sincere, then Ford should welcome the opportunity to tell her story under oath rather than resist it.
For this reason, it would also be prudent for Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, to be present at the hearing so she may object to inappropriate questions. Although Chairman Grassley would be the ultimate arbiter of whether the question stands or not, Ford ought to be able to refuse to answer, the consequence of her doing so in the face of a valid question is the undermining of her credibility.
NUMBER 3
The third imperative is Grassley’s requirement that Ford deliver her testimony first. This is as important as speaking under oath, and it is the only logical sequence of events if we are to assume that Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty. Absent such a chronological sequence the judge has no concrete understanding of the charges before him and would be unable to appropriately defend himself.
NUMBER 4
The fourth imperative is that the accusation ought to be made before Judge Kavanaugh. This is not an intimidation tactic, nor is it merely a hypothetical issue. Being required to appear before the person one is accusing serves as an added check upon the veracity of the testimony as it is much more difficult, at least for many of us, to falsely accuse someone when doing so in the accused’s presence.
NUMBER 5
The fifth and final imperative is the opportunity for questioning by the members of the committee. In law, the most effective tool in deciphering the truth of the matter asserted is the opportunity to cross-examine a witness; under oath. Yes, in the Senate Judiciary Committee there is no provision for a real cross examination, but the inquiries of the full members of the committee, many of whom are lawyers, should at least partly make up for that and ought to be effective at revealing any inconsistencies, if any, in Kavanaugh’s and Ford’s testimonies. It is impossible to tease out the facts without it.
Yes, it is important that Ford be heard. However, it is even more important that the truth be ascertained. Such a goal, the only one that matters, may only be accomplished if Grassley insists on the conduct of a hearing in a manner designed to elicit the truth. Grassley ought to stick to his guns on these provisions, and Ford ought to welcome them. Otherwise, better not to hold the hearing at all.
A sham is worth than nothing — if truth is the goal.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/siora-photography-768481-unsplash-e1537812292848.jpg395640Dr. Julio Gonzalezhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Julio Gonzalez2018-09-24 14:05:052018-09-24 14:08:56Five Imperatives For Seeking Truth At The Kavanaugh-Ford Hearing
Voter fraud is an ongoing problem in America. For those who doubt, look no further than a new case out of New Jersey.
On Thursday, federal officials charged a New Jersey woman with “promoting a voter bribery scheme.” Lizaida Camis allegedly offered Hoboken voters $50 in exchange for applying to receive mail-in ballots, and then casting them in favor of candidates for whom Camis worked.
Camis’ alleged fraud took place in 2013, but the filing of charges offers a timely reminder of the pressing need to ensure the integrity of our elections.
According to the complaint against her, Camis approached at least three voters with her offer of money for votes. New Jersey law permits mail-in voting, provided that voters complete an application and submit it to county officials.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey concluded that Camis brought those applications to voters and then delivered the completed forms to the county clerk’s office.
Camis went to the voters’ homes after they received their mail-in ballots, in some cases explicitly instructed them to vote for specific candidates, and then collected the ballots. Camis then told the voters they could pick up a $50 check from the Hoboken office of a company that, per the complaint, “purportedly provided payroll services” to local campaigns.
Federal investigators examined bank records, which revealed that the three voters cited in the complaint all received checks. None worked for any campaigns that year.
The current mayor of Hoboken, Ravi Bhalla, condemned the scheme: “Voting by mail is a tool that is intended to aid voters, but instead has been rampantly abused by corrupt political campaigns.”
Bhalla went on to point out that the charges against Camis prove “what we’ve known for years—candidates and campaigns will do anything, including bribing voters” to win elections—a sad reality that he said “undermines our democracy.”
It should be noted that Camis has not been convicted of any crime, and is therefore entitled to the presumption of innocence. Nevertheless, Bhalla’s critique is spot on: Election fraud damages the public’s faith in the democratic process, and mail-in and absentee voting are particularly easy avenues to achieving fraudsters’ illicit goals.
As Heritage Foundation election law expert Hans von Spakovsky has warned, “absentee ballots are extremely vulnerable to voter fraud.”
The evidence certainly bears that out, and Camis’ alleged fraud is far from the first effort to bribe, coerce, or intimidate voters into casting absentee ballots for specific candidates or to support particular causes.
For example, Ben Cooper, the former mayor of Appalachia, Virginia, and 14 co-conspirators went to prison in 2004 for the largest voter fraud conspiracy in the state’s history. Cooper and his accomplices traded beer, cigarettes, and pork rinds for votes. They also stole absentee ballots out of the mail.
Eight years later another former mayor, Ruth Robinson, attempted to rig her own re-election in Martin, Kentucky. Robinson and several family members targeted poor and disabled residents in particular, threatening voters who lived in public housing or in properties Robinson owned with eviction if they did not sign absentee ballots Robinson had already filled out.
The cabal was convicted in 2014, and Robinson was sentenced to 90 months’ imprisonment.
These are just two cases from The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database. The database contains more than 1,140 other proven instances of fraud, which have taken place in nearly every state and impacted elections at all levels of government.
As alarming a figure as 1,140 is, it may be the tip of the iceberg. The real scope of voter fraud in American elections is unknown, and likely far larger.
Unfortunately, getting to the bottom of that question is not so easy. Activists and politicians on the left deny, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that voter fraud even occurs.
Thanks to their hyperbolic rhetoric falsely claiming that election integrity measures are secretly about voter suppression, reasonable measures like voter identification laws have been transformed into highly contentious, partisan issues. As a result, many states do not have in place the commonsense policies needed to secure our elections against fraud.
They even object to something as mundane as states removing voter registrations that are outdated or wrong.
The Pew Center on the States estimated in 2012 that 24 million voter registrations, one out of every eight, were inaccurate—a serious threat to election integrity.
Fortunately, this year the Supreme Court rightly affirmed that states can indeed clean up their voter rolls—a major win for election integrity, for voters, and for common sense.
Activists can bury their heads in the sand if they want, but voters headed to the polls deserve better. Americans should be able to cast a ballot certain in the knowledge that their vote will count, and that the results will accurately reflect the will of lawful voters.
When election fraud occurs—and particularly when it happens because lawmakers and elections officials have shirked their responsibility to properly police elections—it tarnishes the democratic process itself. That’s something no voter should tolerate.
Jason Snead is a policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research. Twitter: @jasonwsnead.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/parker-johnson-779902-unsplash-e1537787216326.jpg380640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-09-24 07:05:172018-09-24 07:08:17This New Jersey Woman Was Charged With Buying Votes
Women! We are onto you now. Your days of lying and deceit are over. The #MeToo bullsh*t is over.
I can hear you wail, “But now women who have been victimized won’t be believed!” No, probably not…and whose fault is that, you ask? Do not despair. This is not so much your fault as it is the work of a half century or more of liberal politics, but you pushed the envelope. You backed every illegitimate story of sexual impropriety without asking for one scintilla of evidence. You demanded that she be believed, “because she’s a woman.” You bought into the lie and now, you are the little boy who cried wolf and now nobody is listening.
Yours is an age old story that began in the Garden of Eden, and since that time our history has become replete with false accusations and lies about men, but the fault is not entirely yours because you have been cloaked with tremendous power through a millennium of a weak kneed jurisprudence that has deemed you to be the fairer and weaker of the sexes and that somehow has morphed into a belief system that you are to be believed…no matter the circumstances.
The powers that you enjoy have been a staple in the divorce courts across America. Young fathers are now hesitant to bathe their own children for fear that it may one day be used against them or that somehow it is inappropriate for a father to be anywhere near the genitals of their own infant son or daughter and thereby fostering generation after generation of children who do not know that a man can be loving and gentle yet strong, honorable and dependable.
The confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court is a prime example of the usurious power that has been afforded women. One unsubstantiated accusation…..one sentence….just a few words, and the foundation of an entire Republic is placed on hold with a dark shadow of doubt about a Jurist with an unimpeachable record in the Nation’s second highest court. Ironically, Judge Kavanaugh has become a victim of the very institution that he has so dearly loved and worked so very hard to achieve such a stellar reputation in.
Between the sexes, the game is rigged and the cards are stacked. It’s time that we demand what women themselves have demanded for so very long…parity! Let the accuser come forward and make her claim and let the accused have his day in the very court where Judge Kavanaugh himself resides, and if the preponderance of evidence weighs in a woman’s favor, let the accused face the consequences, but if there is not a preponderance of evidence to support that claim, let there also be equal and fair consequences for the accuser. Lady justice, let her truly be the bellwether of right and wrong. For remember…the lady who holds the scale of justice is also blindfolded and therefore cannot see whether you are a man or a woman.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/mihai-surdu-415698-unsplash-e1537732400672.jpg396640Kevin Schmersalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngKevin Schmersal2018-09-23 15:53:292018-09-24 08:01:24#MeToo Women We Are Onto You Now!
The anti-American, anti-Semitic activist jihada, Linda Sarsour, was a scheduled speaker at the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), in Houston, Texas. Last year, she called for jihad against President Trump and this year, she warns her “sisters and brothers” to avoid the trap of “humanizing” the Jews.
Born and raised in a shame-honor culture by “Palestinian” parents who made hijra to Brooklyn, New York, her messages, unsurprisingly, are directed against America and Israel. Regarding the former, her words, “it is not our job to assimilate,” received applause from the audience. Regarding the latter, she insists that only extermination will suffice. Her diatribe was designed to shame the attendees into vigorously supporting the Palestinian cause for the total destruction and Islamic replacement of Israel. Any dialogue is discredited as an indication of weakness and perfidy towards Allah. Islamic ideology specifies that holy war is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim Mission and their obligation to convert everybody to Islam by either persuasion or force. Sarsour’s purpose and rhetoric, intolerance and death, are as old as Islam itself.
To be adequately alerted to Sarsour’s fanatical beliefs, we must familiarize ourselves with an important aspect of her culture’s vocabulary and modus operandi. Just as the Inuit (Eskimo) people have more than 50 words for snow because that is how they live, so the Muslims have a variety of words for lying because that is how they live. Briefly, they include:
Takiyya – Saying something untrue about the Muslim identity. Mohammed used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with Meccans, allowing him access to their city while he secretly prepared for a takeover. From Mohammed to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslims are non-binding.
Kitman – Lying by omission, as when Muslims quote verse 5:32, that if anyone kills, “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind,” while omitting the rest of the mandate to murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”
Tawriya – Intentionally creating a false impression, such as “Hiding Faith,” when Sarsour bills herself as progressive, and claims that gays, women, and religious minorities need not worry about sharia; and the deceptive Muslim outreach programs to local citizenry.
Muruna – “Blending in” by secreting some practices of Islam and sharia in order to advance others. The 9/11 hijackers visited bars and drank alcohol to throw off suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad.
To the devout tyrannical Islamic belief system, where the majority of their people is kept illiterate and underdeveloped in terror- or trauma-bonding, Israel’s accomplishments and prosperity during the same 70 years (since Israel’s statehood, 1948) are seen as an affront, an ever-present reminder of Islam’s deficiency. They are humiliated for not being self-sufficient, of relying on booty for wealth and on others, including the despised Israel, for funds, utilities, water, and jobs. In their shame-honor social order, they project the fault on others and feign ownership of what is not theirs. This is a people that took their “Arabic” numerals from the Hindu numerical system, cryptography from Egypt, and their coveted arches from Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans. Ignorance and envy have led to self-deception and the desire to deceive the rest of the world, like the dying Pharaoh who resented others the joy of living.
The invention of the term, “Islamophobia,” is a potential game-changer. Developed by the Muslim Brotherhood developed “Islamophobia” in the early 1900s to hide their misdeeds and to ensure that the world – the host government, protective forces, academia and media – would never articulate their atrocities out of fear of humiliation, so that the Islamists could seize control without having to reveal their true nature. We have nevertheless come to understand much about their modus operandi, due to extensive research and reporting by psychoanalyst and counter-terrorism expert, Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin. The jihadi’s accusations against others are an effort to separate themselves (splitting their persona) from their criminality, and to project onto others the terrors they acquired from their childhood.
Dalia Mogahed, a speaker at the same event, accepted no Islamic responsibility for 9/11, and blamed Americans for the excessive attacks on Muslims, yet FBI statistics show that of the 1,584 religious hate crimes registered in 2016, 54.4 percent were motivated by anti-Jewish bias. The Religion of Peace website (on 9/11/18) lists 16 suicide blasts, 860 people killed and 804 injured in 162 attacks in 27 countries during August, 2018, were committed by Muslims, and 33,825 (9/16/18) deadly terrorist attacks were committed by Muslims worldwide since 9/11/01.
Sarsour plumbed the depths of envious loathing when she admonished her co-religionists to not “humanize” Jews, ironically using a term that perfectly defines the differences between Judaism and Islam. It was Jews, some two thousand years before Islam was invented, who brought humanity to the world through monotheism when the rest of humankind lived in lawlessness and chaos. It is expressed in Hillel’s expression of the ethic of reciprocity or “Golden Rule,” “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah: the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” This is embodied today, through the Israeli IDF medics and the civilian social workers who rush to volunteer in earthquake zones, at terrorist attack sites, and in the aftermath of natural disasters like tsunamis and floods. It is seen as Israel brings her unparalleled expertise in water technology to arid countries, helping Africans grow their own food, start schools for their children, and become self-sustaining. And it is seen as Israel’s Basic Law: Human dignity and Liberty, which guarantee, among others, the right of all to basic dignity. These are the people that Sarsour consider dehumanized, imitating the Nazis in the 1930s.
The current situation necessitates an honest comparison between Islam and Judaism.
Where Judaism is empowered by moral purpose, the dignity of man and the sanctity of free will, Islam is driven by fear, vengeance, greed, and conquest, enforced by prayers issued five times daily, and dedication to an oppressive god. Within Islam, a man may decapitate the apostate, homosexual and intellectual; flog and imprison the woman who is raped; stone his wife for accusations of adultery; sell his young daughter into marriage with a sexual predator; and take up to four underage girls into the modernized, legalized slave harem, renamed “marriage.” Under Islam, girls may be deprived of schooling and hospitalization, and such funding, along with what is earmarked for research and laboratories, is more likely used to build mosques and support terrorism.
Nearly 40% of the Islamic world, mostly women of the hundreds of millions of illiterates of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), can neither read nor write. Under Islam, the female is so cruelly undervalued that her offspring become the severely emotionally disturbed jihadi terrorists. ThesePalestinian children are exploited and trained to be fighters and suicide bombers and a recent study revealed that more teenagers are eager to take on terror attacks for suicidal greatness and glory. Sarsour’s use of “humanity” may be explained as a trait that was never permitted to emerge. It may be defined as “projection,” a defense mechanism, whereby the hostile traits of the speaker are attributed to another. It allows the accuser to project (transfer) the responsibility for her people’s faults and misdeeds on the other. It permits the Muslim to be cleared of the guilt, the toxic chaos, the blood, guts, explosives, and suicides that keep the jihadi in his (or her) maternal attachment.
This is the culture that Linda “we will not assimilate” Sarsour would impose upon America.
Of all the attributions noted by Sarsour, choosing “humanity/humanizing” is a textbook case because she knows, at least psychologically, that the Jews and Israelis are particularly motivatedby moral purpose, so she paints them as the reverse. But she is a product of her upbringing and history, and honor-bound to carry forth the mindset of lies, abuse, torture and extermination for which Islam is known. There is not a modicum of evidence to show any difference between Islam’s horrific past and Islam today.
Sarsour may be ignored, but the applause she received must alert us to vigilance.
On Friday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh denied an unproven accusation that he and a friend sexually assaulted a woman in high school. As the Senate decides how to react to the accuser’s claims, Planned Parenthood is jumping on the bandwagon to claim that Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination process should be halted.
The replies to these Tweets lay out the case that Planned Parenthood is simply being a left-wing attack dog. More importantly, however, is their absolute hypocrisy when it comes to treatment of women who are sexually assaulted.
2ndVote readers are familiar with Live Action’s excellent work uncovering Planned Parenthood’s widespread protection of sex abusers. Are you also aware of the time a Mobile, Alabama Planned Parenthood center gave two abortions to a 14-year old girl in four months, but concluded that she wasn’t being sexually assaulted? The center also did not report the girl’s condition to the state, in violation of health care reporting laws.
That official said that a LifeSiteNews summary of the situation was “true,” but it “would be much better” if LifeSiteNews framed its coverage favorably. It was subsequently clarified with this official that “essentially, your department was satisfied [Planned Parenthood] had acted in good faith, and not intentionally hid this information” from child protective services.”
This official also told LifeSiteNews that Planned Parenthood had previously investigated the 14-year old’s circumstances, and determined she was not being abused. However, the spokesperson LifeSiteNews spoke with on Monday said that there are no state requirements for what questions Planned Parenthood asked of the 14-year old to determine her four pregnancies were not due to abuse.
Got that? The state health department believed Planned Parenthood “accidentally” broke state law, so it gave them a slap on the wrist. No wonder Planned Parenthood’s national spokespersons believe they can continue to flout sex abuse, baby sales, and other laws with impunity. And no wonder Planned Parenthood believes it can claim to #BelieveWomen about sexual assault despite its own poor record on that front.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Shutterstock.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_549156802-990x556-e1537644244810.jpg3596402ndvote .comhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png2ndvote .com2018-09-22 15:24:392018-09-22 15:27:46Planned Parenthood: Pro-Sexual Assault Until It Hurts Their Narrative
It happened in the early hours of 12 September. The cries of pain of a Senegalese citizen were heard throughout the neighbourhood of Santa Teresa Street in the town of Reus, shortly after midnight.
Local police arrived and found the man writhing in pain gesturing to his crotch. A local resident explained to the police how the African became wounded shortly before they arrived.
The witness said that the man kicked the dog of a local resident and the dog then retaliated. The dog clamped his teeth on the attacker’s penis and then his hand as the man tried to push the animal away.
Comrades penises are way up in the news, no pun intended. CNN’s Jake Tapper did an entire segment on the penis of Donald J. Trump. Watch:
According to an unnamed CNN source,
Jake Tapper is investigating if the dog that bit off the penis of a migrant was once owned by a member of the Trump family. It is clear that the racist Trump hates immigrants.
This may be a new secret Trump administration effort to castrate DACA, no pun intended. Without penises undocumented migrants (a.k.a. illegal aliens) coming to America can’t claim to have children. Without children there’s no DACA!
Conspiricy theory? Not when we at CNN publish it!
Noted author and porn star Stormy Daniels was asked to respond to this incident in Spain of a Senegalese citizen losing his penis. Ms. Daniels spokes person, a gender neutral term, who was on set doing her new Netflix Original movie “Donald’s Dick and Me”, in a brief statement noted:
It is not the policy of Ms. Daniels to comment on penises unless it is the penis of Donald J. Trump.
The animal rights group PETA found itself between a migrant’s penis and a dog, the proverbial rock and a hard place (no pun intended). PETA in conjunction with its Adopt an “undocumented” mutt today! campaign wants to sponsor the penis less man to come to the United States and help promote bringing illegal alien dogs across the border.
Ad courtesy of PETA.
A PETA spokes person (a gender neutral term) noted, “A dog’s life is hard enough, no pun intended.”
EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column by Russian Bot originally appeared in Dick Shaming magazine. The feature photo is by James Barker on Unsplash.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/james-barker-560319-unsplash.jpg402653Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-09-22 07:39:422021-10-08 01:46:23Migrant loses penis after kicking dog in Spain — CNN’s Jake Tapper, Porn Star Stormy Daniels and PETA respond
Gun control advocates often use some version of the phrase “if it saves one life” in order to justify their ineffective proposals. This week, the anti-gun editorial page of the Chicago Sun-Times offered a different take. Fearful that the Right-to-Carry was getting too much good publicity in the wake of an Illinois concealed carry permit holder’s heroic actions, the Sun-Times editorial board felt it necessary to lecture its readers, “One brave rescue of a Cicero cop doesn’t justify concealed guns.”
According to a news report from the Sun-Times, on September 13, Cicero Police Officer Luis Duarte and his partner were attempting to pull over a vehicle when the driver sped off. Officer Duarte and his partner gave chase and were able to immobilize the suspect’s car. Trapped, the driver retrieved a gun and fired at the officers, striking Officer Duarte four times.
As the officers and the suspect exchanged gunfire, a nearby motorist, and Right-to-Carry permit holder, exited his vehicle and came to the aid of the officers, firing at the gunman. The gunman was struck during the exchange and was later taken to the hospital in serious condition.
Following the incident, Cicero Police Superintendent Jerry Chlada praised the armed citizen, noting, “We were lucky enough to have a citizen on the street there who’s a concealed-carry holder, and he also engaged in gunfire.” Cicero town President Larry Dominick offered similar appreciation for the carry permit holder, stating, “He got out and started helping the police, which is something I’ve got to be proud of.” Illinois became a Right-to-Carry state in 2013, making it one of the more recent states to adopt a shall-issue permitting regime, and the last to adopt a system by which a citizen can be licensed to carry a gun for self-defense.
All of this commendation for the selfless act of an armed hero proved too much for the Sun-Times. Lamenting the support the incident might provide for the Right-to-Carry, the paper huffed, “Hang your argument on a single anecdote, and you can defend almost anything.” Going further, the editors argued that “one brave deed does not justify bad public policy.”
First, Right-to-Carry is not bad public policy. Right-to-Carry permit holders have proven themselves to be exceptionally law-abiding. Repeated examinations of Right-to-Carry permit holder revocation data in large states like Florida and Texas has shown that concealed carry permit holders are among the most law abiding demographic in the country.
Second, instances of private individuals using firearms to defend themselves and others go well beyond the anecdotes that make the press. In his most recent analysis of the data on defensive gun uses, Florida State University Criminologist Gary Kleck determined that Americans use firearms for self-defense about 1 million times per year. Some of the Sun-Times’ ignorance on this matter might stem from the Center for Disease Control’s failure to report this information to the public.
To be sure, gun rights supporters enjoy individual stories of armed citizens confronting criminals – and there is no shortage of them. The Armed Citizen column, and before that Guns & Bandits, has been a staple of The American Rifleman since 1932. In 1996, NRA-ILA published a special compilation booklet of armed citizen stories where ordinary Americans had directly assisted law enforcement officers in their fight against crime.
The Sun-Times’s denigration of the Right-to-Carry and denial of defensive gun uses is nothing out of the ordinary. It’s the way they dismissed gun owners that is interesting.
Decades of anti-gun messaging has told the American public that if a gun control measure “saves just one life” any infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners is justified.
For example, in early 2013, President Barack Obama implored Congress to enact gun control by stating, “If there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if even one life we can save, we have an obligation to try it.” Vice-President Joe Biden reiterated the president’s sentiment, noting, “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.”
A pair of older, Chicago-related examples occurred in the 1990s. In 1994, the Cook County Board of Commissioners passed a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Upon passage, Commissioner John P. Daley told the Sun-Times, “If this legislation saves one life, so be it.” In 1998, Mayor Richard M. Daley touted the Windy City’s frivolous lawsuit against the gun industry and other gun control measures in an op-ed for the Sun-Times. Demanding action, the mercurial mayor wrote, “One life lost is one too many.”
Coupled with the messaging of their anti-gun allies, the Sun-Times appears intent on creating a can’t-lose scenario for gun control. This holds that if even one life may be saved by a particular gun control measure, it must be adopted. However, if a measure permitting access to firearms for self-defense may save one life, it is not adequate justification to condone such freedom. Gun rights supporters should give this latest evolution in gun control rhetoric the same consideration as its traditional iteration: none.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/man-reading-paper-e1537611363774.jpg360640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2018-09-22 06:17:452018-09-22 06:17:45Gun Control Twist: Saving One Life “Does Not Justify” Right-to-Carry
