Free speech victory: 9th Circuit rules that Seattle’s rejection of AFDI anti-terror ad violates First Amendment

/in , , /by

An important victory for the increasingly embattled freedom of speech. Read Pamela Geller’s reaction and background on this case here.

“AFLC Victory Over Government Apologists for Islamic Jihad: Ninth Circuit Unanimously Rules that King County’s Rejection of ‘Faces of Global Terrorism’ Ad Violates the First Amendment,” American Freedom Law Center, September 27, 2018:

Seattle, Washington (September 27, 2018) — Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that King County’s rejection of a “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad submitted by Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and their organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), violated the First Amendment.

In it ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the County’s rejection of the ad based on its disparagement standard was viewpoint discrimination and that its rejection of the ad based on its disruption standard was unreasonable, all in violation of the First Amendment.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of Geller, Spencer, and AFDI.

The ad at issue was modeled after an advertisement submitted by the federal government and accepted for display by the County in 2013.  The State Department ad depicted the “Faces of Global Terrorism” in an effort to “stop a terrorist” and “save lives.”  The advertisement offered an “up to $25 million reward” for helping to capture one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists.

The terrorists identified in the ad were also found on the FBI’s most wanted global terrorists list, which is posted on the FBI’s website.  At the time, this list included pictures and “wanted posters” for thirty-two terrorists.  Of the thirty-two listed terrorists, thirty were individuals with Muslim names or were wanted for terrorism related to organizations conducting terrorist acts in the name of Islam.

According to news reports, the federal government terminated its “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad campaign after receiving complaints from politicians and advocacy groups that took offense that the list of wanted global terrorists pictured in the ad appeared to include only Muslim terrorists.

Shortly after the government pulled the ad, Geller and Spencer, on behalf of AFDI, submitted an ad to the County that included the same pictures, names, and message as the government’s earlier display.  The County transit authority refused to run the ad in part because it claimed the ad was not wholly accurate about which government agency ran the rewards program and the amount of the awards, prompting AFLC to file this lawsuit.

After the courts agreed with the County, AFDI submitted a revised ad, this time making certain the ad was presented in such a way that removed the inaccuracy argument.  The County still refused to run the ad on the grounds that it was disparaging to Muslims and that it would be disruptive to the transit authority.

The trial court once again ruled in favor of the County.  AFLC appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that “[b]ecause neither of the [County’s] reasons for rejecting Plaintiffs’ revised ad withstands First Amendment scrutiny, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for Plaintiffs on this claim.”

AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise commented:

“This is an important victory for free speech.  Too often we are seeing government officials restricting speech based on claims that it is demeaning, disparaging, or offensive.  The First Amendment does not allow such censorship, as the Ninth Circuit’s opinion makes clear.  Under the First Amendment, the government is not permitted to impose special prohibitions on speakers who express views on disfavored subjects or on the basis of hostility towards the messenger or the underlying message expressed.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, added:

“It is clear from the record and the Ninth Circuit’s decision that King County, which initially accepted the federal government’s ad only to have the feds pull the ad for fear of offending Muslims, is suffering from the debilitating disease of political correctness.  And there is little doubt that County officials also dislike the messenger—our clients—who are doing a great service by alerting all Americans to the dangers of sharia and its followers.”

AFLC has represented Geller, Spencer, and AFDI successfully in federal lawsuits across the country, most notably in New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., where the courts have ordered the transit authorities to run AFDI’s anti-terrorism ads.  In each of those cases, the transit authorities were forced to pay substantial legal fees to AFLC.  In Chicago, the transit authority initially refused to run an AFDI “anti-jihad” ad, only to capitulate after stating in a letter that while transit authority officials considered the ad “morally reprehensible,” they were aware of AFLC’s successful litigation.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured image is a comparison of the FBI and AFDI ads.

Kavanaugh at the Tip of the Smear

/in , , , , /by

Appearing before the U.S. Senate, Brett Kavanaugh was supposed to be a judge — not a defendant. Now, after three of the worst weeks of his life, he and his family are finding out that the path to a Supreme Court appointment is a costly one. And while it may be the pinnacle of his profession, getting there exacts a price no American should have to pay.

In his opening statement Judge Kavanaugh said “the confirmation process has become a national disgrace.” Beyond the destruction and pain it’s caused his family, he lamented the impact that this vicious attempt to block his nomination would have on the entire nation. “You sowed the wind. For decades to come, I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind.”

He concluded his lengthy remarks with “My family and I intend no ill will toward Dr. Ford or her family, but I swear today under oath before the Senate and the nation, before my family and God, I am innocent of this charge.”

It was difficult not to be moved by the earlier testimony of Dr. Ford, which was shaky at times and halted by tears. No one could deny just how emotional she seemed during her testimony. But most conservatives are not suggesting that she was never assaulted. There are just too many inconsistencies in the story — and in the Democrats’ handling of it — to suggest that Kavanaugh was the one responsible. As Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) pointed out, today’s testimony only “repeat[ed] what we already knew, which is she believes something happened. She believes it was Brett Kavanaugh but everybody she claims was in the house denies having any knowledge of it. There is no corroboration.” He’s right. None of the boys at the party remember it happening. Even Dr. Ford’s friend, Leland Ingham, denies it. In the 36 years since that night, this is the first time anyone (apart from Dr. Ford’s therapist) has even heard of it.

That doesn’t mean Dr. Ford wasn’t attacked. Republicans just talked to a man this week “who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of [the] complaint.” And while Christine insists that with complete certainty that Kavanaugh was responsible, even cognitive scientists have learned that “people can be 100 percent certain of their memories… and 100 percent wrong.”

The crime of sexual abuse is real and life-altering, but it does beg the question: how far back and in how much detail do we look at any nominee? Because, as former Assistant United States Attorney Sidney Powell reminded everyone on last night’s “Washington Watch,” “there but for the grace of God goes one of us. I mean, who has not made a mistake at some point in their lives? … I don’t think we should judge people by erroneous acts in high school and college. That’s why we prosecute people as juveniles and seal the record. Their brains aren’t even fully formed.”

Obviously, no one is excusing this kind of behavior, but it’s a legitimate point. How far back do we go? Junior high? Elementary school? Daycare? At what point do we realize that people grow up, make mistakes, and move forward? As far as Brett Kavanaugh is concerned, there’s been nothing to suggest in his past confirmation hearings that he’s ever mistreated women. And that’s after six FBI background checks. As Sidney explains,

“They literally go back to the area in which you were born and canvass neighbors. I’ve been through FBI background checks when I was a federal prosecutors for 10 years… I mean, the neighbors in my home and elementary neighborhoods were asked about me and my character. So it’s absolutely astonishing that not a peep of any of this came up until right now.”

“On top of that, Dianne Feinstein has done a gross disservice to absolutely everybody involved, including her fellow citizens and Dr. Ford, by sitting on this until the last minute. Because if they really wanted an investigation and this were really about getting to the truth, they would’ve raised it from the get-go and had it investigated quietly before anyone’s name was dragged through the mud — including Dr. Ford’s.”

As Andrew McCarthy points out, it isn’t the Senate’s job to solve crimes. It’s not to psychoanalyze witnesses. It’s to advise and consent on the president’s nomination. And if it were a trial, he pretends? The case is so weak, it would be “thrown out of court.”

What we do know without a shadow of a doubt is this: the Left must have the court in order to advance their agenda in America. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) admitted it. They couldn’t get Congress or state legislatures to redefine marriage or impose abortion on demand. They had to go to the courts. They can’t get open borders in this country. They have to go to the courts. That’s what this entire smear campaign is about. This is not — and never has been — about Brett Kavanaugh. It’s about the shift that will begin to take place when a committed constitutionalist replaces Kennedy

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Kavanaugh Rips Democrats: “You’ve Destroyed My Family” But “I Will Not be Intimated Into Withdrawing”

Giving Credit Where Babies Are Due

A World on Fire in Myanmar

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Lindsey Graham remarks at Ford/Kavanaugh hearing.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Tony Perkins Washington Update. It is republished with permission.

Thank You, Senate Democrats.

/in , , , , , /by

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.

Thanks again, Senate Democrats.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Malpractice? Appears Ford’s Attorneys May Have Misled Her About Testimony

Grassley Borrows Trick from Dems, Unveils Game-Changer Hours Before Ford Appears

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Lindsey Graham remarks at Ford/Kavanaugh hearing.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Papers. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Facebook pageThe featured image is from the .

Obama-Appointed Judge’s Ruling Is Actual Election Meddling

/in , , , /by

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?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Bonnie Kittle on Unsplash.

Mobs on the Menu for Cruz

/in , , , , , /by

Politics, chef Fabio Trabocchi said, are like elbows — “best left off the dining table.” Tell that to the zealots on the Left, who seem bent on taking their beef with Republicans to every restaurant in the union.

Two nights ago, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined a club no Republican wants to be a part of: the target of dining flash mobs. Unfortunately for him and his wife, Heidi, this wild new form of protest — chasing conservatives away from their meals — is becoming the norm for Trump’s opponents. Like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Neilsen, White House advisor Stephen Miller, state attorney general Pam Bondi (R-Fla.), and Governor Rick Scott (R-Fla.) before them, the Cruzes just wanted to eat in peace. Instead, they couldn’t even sit down at D.C.’s Fiola after a dozen raving Trump opponents encircled them and started yelling about his support of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

“We believe survivors!” a dozen voices screamed in unison. “Fascist, racist, anti-gay!” one said. Another called him a “piece of filth.” On a video the group called “Smash Racism” proudly posted, you can see the restaurant staff looking on in shock. “We’re not trained to deal with this,” Fiola’s co-owner, Maria Trabocchi, later told the Washington Post. “How do you deal with things like this? It’s crazy times.” Employees called the police, but not before the Cruzes endured a barrage of insults. “God bless,” Cruz told the crowd. “Can you let my wife through?”

Trabocchi said the restaurant has served both parties proudly for years — and will continue to do so. But he does worry: what will happen if things turn violent? That’s a legitimate concern now after the group released this statement: “This is a message to Ted Cruz, Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump and the rest of the racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic right-wing scum… You are not safe. We will find you. We will expose you. We will take from you the peace you have taken from so many others.”

The rallying cry of Democratic leaders — “to get up in the face of some congresspeople” as Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) — isn’t shaming the Right, it’s exposing the viciousness of the Left. How many conservatives disrupted former Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s dinner after she issued the HHS mandate? Or pushed around DOD Secretary Ash Carter when his social policies jeopardized the military? How many conservatives turned congressional baseball practices into gun fights — or walked into a liberal organization with enough ammunition to kill the whole staff?

If you’re looking for the real hate — it’s on your Left!

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Hyatt of Hypocrisy: Banning Gosnell

Conservatives Looking for Justice in Kavanaugh

RELATED VIDEO: Protesters ambush Senator Ted Cruz.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Tony Perkins Washington Update. It is republished with permission.

Conservatives Looking for Justice in Kavanaugh

/in , , , , , /by

Becoming a Supreme Court justice is an attorney’s dream. It’s getting there, Brett Kavanaugh will tell you, that’s a nightmare. The father of two girls has endured more than his share in a vicious confirmation fight that ought to scare everyone about the state of American politics.Senate Democrats have resorted to mudslinging, harassment, and now lawsuits to get their way on a confirmation pick that the American people knowingly handed to the president in the election of 2016. Kavanaugh’s family has had to sit through horrible allegations about a man who’s been widely considered one of the most respected people in the legal profession. Still, liberals, still angry about the courage Majority Leader Mitch McConnell showed in not considering Merrick Garland, are out for blood — and they’ll do anything to stop Kavanaugh from becoming the court’s next justice.

Earlier today, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) took the circus to a whole new level, announcing his intent to sue the Democrats’ way to success in stopping the Kavanaugh vote. “The unprecedented obstruction of the Senate’s advice and consent obligation is an assault on the separation of powers and a violation of the Constitution.” It’s the latest in a series of ridiculous stunts the Left is willing to try in blocking a good judge from the promotion he deserves.

Yesterday, on “Washington Watch,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could only shake his head at the absurdity of it all. “I’ve been a lawyer most of my adult life,” he told our listeners. “I’ve been a judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney, and here’s what I can say without any doubt: The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are 35 years old. They can’t identify the time they happened or the location, and the people who were supposedly there denied that it happened. And with that fact pattern, you couldn’t get a warrant, much less take this to court.”

Like most Republicans, he’s promising an open mind when Kavanaugh’s accuser comes to testify this week.

“I will take the allegation, scrutinize it, and be respectful of the accuser — but [h]ere’s what I’ve learned. If you’re a creep, you’ve abused women, if you’re a sexual predator — it happens a lot throughout your life. You don’t just do it for a little period of time and quit… Kavanaugh… has been in legal circles at the highest levels of government for 20 years. Not one woman has said he’s done anything inappropriate toward them when he was in charge of their careers… There would be more accusations about his workplace behavior [if this were true] and it’s not.”

But, he warned, just look at what happened to Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. “There’s a pattern here,” he warned. “If you want to destroy someone, it doesn’t matter what you do and how you do it.” What’s more outrageous, Senator Graham points out is the Democrats’ double standard. “I voted for Sotomayor and Kagan because I thought they were qualified. I would not have chosen them if I’d been president. But elections matter — except when it comes to us. When we win, it doesn’t matter. You can do anything to our people. I’ve never been more disgusted with the committee than I am right now. The games they play to put us in this box are unconscionable.”

But if it’s voters Democrats are trying to appeal to with these shenanigans, strategist Chris Wilson explained later, they’re blowing it. “This entire situation has become a net-plus for Republicans,” he said. “The sheer audacity of the Democrats… what it is showing the American people and voters is exactly who the modern Democratic party is… What it’s doing is putting one of the biggest drivers of 2016 — [the courts] — back into play as a key issue.” They see it as a manufactured controversy — the same kind the media uses against President Trump. They’re sick of it. If anything, Chris said, it’s “creating a turnout enthusiasm for Republicans.”

“Democrats have seriously overplayed their hand on this.” But unfortunately for Brett, the Kavanaughs are paying the price.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Hyatt of Hypocrisy: Banning Gosnell

Mobs on the Menu for Cruz

CHINESE CITIZEN ARRESTED BY FBI FOR SPYING ON U.S.: A case that highlights the nexus between immigration and espionage.

/in , , , , , /by

On September 25, 2018 the Justice Department issued a press release, Chinese National Arrested for Allegedly Acting Within the United States as an Illegal Agent of the People’s Republic of China.

That Chinese national was identified as Ji Chaoqun, a 27 year old Chinese citizen who had been residing in Chicago was arrested by the FBI for allegedly acting as an illegal agent of the Chinese government.

The Criminal Complaint provided in the press release provides additional information, but this excerpt from the press release lays out the Justice Department’s allegations concerning Chaoqun:

Ji worked at the direction of a high-level intelligence officer in the Jiangsu Province Ministry of State Security, a provincial department of the Ministry of State Security for the People’s Republic of China, according to a criminal complaint and affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago. Ji was tasked with providing the intelligence officer with biographical information on eight individuals for possible recruitment by the JSSD, the complaint states. The individuals included Chinese nationals who were working as engineers and scientists in the United States, some of whom were U.S. defense contractors, according to the complaint.

According to the complaint, Ji was born in China and arrived in the United States in 2013 on an F1 Visa, for the purpose of studying electrical engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. In 2016, Ji enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves as an E4 Specialist under the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program, which authorizes the U.S. Armed Forces to recruit certain legal aliens whose skills are considered vital to the national interest. In his application to participate in the MAVNI program, Ji specifically denied having had contact with a foreign government within the past seven years, the complaint states. In a subsequent interview with a U.S. Army officer, Ji again failed to disclose his relationship and contacts with the intelligence officer, the charge alleges.

I have written several articles and commentaries about my concerns that while China has acted as an adversary of the United States last year more than 150,000 Chinese students were admitted into the United States to study the STEM (Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics) curricula.

China is on a rampage, developing large numbers of warships and military aircraft that often bear a strong resemblance to U.S. planes, ships and other such military assets.

China has constructed and militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea and has threatened military action if ship or aircraft of the U.S. or any other county gets too close. flexing its growing military muscles.

In some instances China has been able to enhance its military capability through the  acquisition of our military technology through espionage while at the same time, our best universities are providing these students with first-rate educations.

Once enrolled in school in the United States foreign students are entitled to accept employment to attain practical training.  All too often this displaces American workers and also provides opportunities for those students.

The Chinese government and entities within the Chinese military hack into American computers as frequently as humming birds beat their wings.  They hack into private computers, corporate computers, military compute networks.  However, America trains Chinese programmers.

The growing presence of Chinese students and Chinese influence on U.S. college campuses and elsewhere in the United States was the focus of my August 21, 2018 article, China Ratchets Up Its U.S. Spying Programs.

As I noted in that article, frustration with this situation has caused some U.S. security experts to refer to this wholesale espionage by China against the United States as “Chinese Takeout.”

The next element of this unfolding case involves Mr. Chaoqun being able to enlist in the U.S. military under the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) program that was described above.

This gets us back to the nonsense that we frequently hear from politicians from both political parties, that somehow it makes sense to permit illegal aliens to enlist in the military to then qualify for a pathway to U.S. citizenship.

Awhile back a common quote stated that “All roads lead to Rome.”  Today, where “solutions” to the immigration crisis is concerned, you might say that “All roads lead to a pathway to U.S. citizenship (or at least lawful status).”

This is as absurd and naive as it gets!

Chaoqun entered the U.S. legally as a student.  His ability to join the US. military facilitated his goal of attempting to recruit spies for China.  It must be presumed that he was vetted before he was able to join the MAVNI program, however the vetting process must be carefully reviewed to find out if his alleged connections with Chinese espionage could have been determined before he was able to join the U.S. military.

Military bases are among the most sensitive locations in the United States.  Those bases contain weapons, highly classified materials and members of the U.S. armed forces.

It is dangerous to provide foreign nationals with access to our military bases, when we are unable to effectively vet those foreign nationals.

Our political leaders who are often clueless about the how background investigations are conducted often refer to such investigations as “Background Checks.”

A “Background Check” is superficial and often only requires that a name an fingerprints are run through databases to search for known information.  This process takes just minutes and if the person assumes a false identity and his/her fingerprints are not known to that system, the system will essentially give that individual a clean “bill of health.”

Background investigations, on the other hand, are far more comprehensive and complete.  They are time consuming and require investigations be conducted the old fashioned way, by interviewing many people, showing photographs and checking myriad databases.  If those interviewed, for example claim that the person being investigated has use alternate identities, or other such major discrepancies are uncovered, then those new leads must be run down to gain a total picture.

Simply running names and fingerprints are nearly worthless and not likely to uncover fraud.  These concerns were the predication for an extensive article and a booklet I wrote under the common title, Immigration Fraud, Lies That Kill.

The immigration system, and the system by which visas applications are adjudicated are so overwhelmed that it is easy for a bad actor to slip through the cracks.

It is extremely fortunate that in the case that predicates my article today, that Chaoqun’s alleged nefarious actions were discovered.  However, he is hardly the only foreign national who is engaged in such activities.  Just as only a tiny percentage of motorists who speed ever get caught, it must be presumed that while some spies are caught, others are not caught and they can do truly irreparable damage to U.S. national security.

In point of fact, because this is apparently such a common practice that China refers to its efforts to spy on the United States as employing the principle of “A thousand grains of sand.”  Under this principle there are so many individuals who engage in this sort of espionage that all that each one needs to do is send back to China a very few parts to the puzzle where military aircraft, ships, weaponry or other sensitive information is concerned.  Once all of the pieces of the puzzles are in China it is relatively easy for them to create a mosaic to gain the entire picture by connecting each “grain of sand.”

As we can clearly see, the policies of the Trump administration to finally address the economic conflict between the United States and China represents the tip of a huge iceberg.  This economic conflict served as the predication for my article, Fears About Chinese “Trade War” Are Late And Dumb.  As I noted in that article, China has been waging economic war against the U.S. for decades.

Hope is not a strategy.  The United States must move swiftly to protect its security and the security of its citizens from all threats.

America’s borders are its first line of defense and last line of defense.

President Trump’s welcome calls for national sovereignty sum up that which would be in the best interests of America and Americans in this dangerous and turbulent era.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Silence Over A Potential Chinese Spy In Feinstein’s Office Is Deafening

Explain the Chinese spy, Sen. Feinstein

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. Reprinted with permission.

‘You Are Not Safe’: Antifa Group Threatens Ted Cruz After Disrupting Dinner With His Wife

/in , , , /by

The Washington, D.C., chapter of Antifa sent a message to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, early Tuesday morning after chasing him out of a restaurant, telling him that he is “not safe.”

Cruz was dining Monday night with his wife, Heidi, when a large crowd of protesters flooded the restaurant, shouting, “We believe survivors.” They were referring to allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nominee, who Cruz supports. Cruz and his wife promptly left.

A recording of the incident soon was tweeted by Smash Racism DC, a branch of Antifa based in Washington, with the hashtag “#CancelKavanugh.” Hours later, Smash Racism DC doubled down on its harassment of the senator.

“No—you can’t eat in peace—your politics are an attack on all of us. You’re [sic] votes are a death wish. Your votes are hate crimes,” Smash Racism DC wrote.

“Tonight Senator Ted Cruz arrived at Fiola, an upscale restaurant mere steps from the White House, to enjoy a hearty Italian dinner,” the group wrote. “He could have dined on a lavish four course meal for only $145 while millions of Americans struggle to buy groceries. He might have sampled from the top shelf wine list as migrant children languish in cages.”

The comment was seemingly about President Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy that separated juveniles from their parents after they illegally crossed into the United States. However, Cruz proposed legislation to keep illegal immigrant families together.

The Antifa group wrote of Cruz:

He’d have laughed with his wife while women and members of the LGBTQ community collectively gasp in horror as Senator Cruz pushes forward on Bret [sic] Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. At least he could have had activists not interrupted his evening just as he was being seated. Instead, activists from Smash Racism DC, Resist This, DC IWW, members of DC Democratic Socialists of America, Anarchists, women, sexual assault survivors, and members of the LGBTQ community interrupted Ted Cruz’s peaceful meal.

Smash Racism DC defended the disturbance, writing that it “does not compare in scale to the interruptions his actions as a Senator have had on millions of American lives.”

The group then sent a threat directly to Cruz, Kavanaugh, and Trump:

The comment was seemingly about President Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy that separated juveniles from their parents after they illegally crossed into the United States. However, Cruz proposed legislation to keep illegal immigrant families together.

The Antifa group wrote of Cruz:

He’d have laughed with his wife while women and members of the LGBTQ community collectively gasp in horror as Senator Cruz pushes forward on Bret [sic] Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. At least he could have had activists not interrupted his evening just as he was being seated. Instead, activists from Smash Racism DC, Resist This, DC IWW, members of DC Democratic Socialists of America, Anarchists, women, sexual assault survivors, and members of the LGBTQ community interrupted Ted Cruz’s peaceful meal.

Smash Racism DC defended the disturbance, writing that it “does not compare in scale to the interruptions his actions as a Senator have had on millions of American lives.”

“This is a message to Ted Cruz, Bret [sic] Kavanaugh, Donald Trump and the rest of the racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic right-wing scum: You are not safe. We will find you. We will expose you. We will take from you the peace you have taken from so many others.”

The series of tweets was signed “Sincerely, Some Anti Fascist Hooligans.”

COLUMN BY

Molly Prince

Molly Prince is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @mollyfprince.

RELATED ARTICLE: Alert: Ted Cruz, Wife Attacked — Escape After Staff Struggle With Door

VIDEO: Protesters ambush Senator Ted Cruz.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

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 of our original content, contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image of Sen. Ted Cruz, pictured in 2015 addressing a crowd in Columbia, South Carolina. (Photo: Richard Ellis/Zuma Wire/Newscom)

VIDEO: The Aborting of Judge Kavanaugh

/in , , , , /by

Tom Trento, National Security Expert, Director of The United West.

Tom Trento comments on the obvious attacks on Judge Brett Kavanaugh because he may agree on the issues of abortion with the other four Justices on the Supreme Court.

THE ABORTING OF JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH

Have you ever witnessed an abortion…or seen the graphic, disturbing photos? Well, today, you are front & center to the full-throated, scorched earth aborting of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. It aint pretty, in fact abortion is society’s ultimate example of man’s crass inhumanity to his fellow man.

One group of Elitists target another human because that person somehow stands in the progressive way of the Elitist. Save your breath with empty, non-scientific platitudes or logically indefensible legal theories.

BOTTOM LINE – A successful abortion DESTROYS another human being.

As you witness the transparent aborting of Judge Kavanaugh – understand –the Democrat Party has elevated abortion to a political art-form of human destruction, but today, their target is not a growing little girl in her mothers womb, but a fully- grown man, a man the progressive elites believe may obstruct their unfettered access to the alter upon which they worship.

If a group of godless people can harden their heart to clear science, obvious morality and instead endorse, proclaim, fight for the wholesale destruction of unborn children, can not those same people target a Godly gentleman who just may stand in the defense of those innocent boys and girls?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Jon Tyson on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Judge Kavanaugh and His Wife Ashley Stand Strong in First Public Interview

/in , , , , , /by

Fox News published a September 24, 2018 Martha MacCallum interview with Judge Brett Kavanaugh on its YouTube channel. Fox News posted:

Full Interview | Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley speak out in their first television interview since Dr. Christine Blasey Ford levied accusations that derailed Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. Judge Kavanaugh faces questions on Ford’s allegations and how this has impacted him, his family, and his future as a Supreme Court nominee.

In The Daily Signal column titled “Kavanaugh Assails Accusations as ‘Smears, Pure and Simple,’ and Won’t Withdraw” Rachel del Guidice reports:

In a letter sent Monday to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking member Dianne Feinstein, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh categorically and unequivocally rejected a pair of accusations of sexual misconduct.

“[Sunday] night, another false and uncorroborated accusation from 35 years ago was published,” Kavanaugh wrote in response to the newest allegation, by a Colorado woman. “Once again, those alleged to have been witnesses to the event deny it ever happened. There is now a frenzy to come up with something—anything—that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring.”

“These are smears, pure and simple,” he added. “And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.”

[ … ]

“As I told the committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure,” Kavanaugh said. “That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process.

“The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed,” he said.

Kavanaugh also thanked the many women who have supported him and vouched for his character.

Saul Alinsky had 13 Rules for Radicals. Two of these rules apply to the tactics being used by Congressional Democrats to attack Judge Kavanaugh:

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

It appears that the Democrats have been fully implementing rule number 13 but are violating rule number 7. Their tactic of smearing Judge Brett Kavanaugh has now become a drag on the Democrats and their Socialist allies.

PODCAST: The Problems With the Kavanaugh Allegations.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

New Kavanaugh Hit Piece Falls Apart After NYT Investigates

Hearing in Doubt? Christine Ford’s Lawyer Rips Senate Plan to Have Prosecutor Ask Questions: Not ‘Fair and Respectful’

DNCC Deputy Chair Ellison on his #MeToo Moments: “Women can make things up!”

Kavanaugh Second Accuser Was George Soros Open Society Fellow

The Media’s War on Brett Kavanaugh Hits Another Low

Five Imperatives For Seeking Truth At The Kavanaugh-Ford Hearing

#MeToo Women We Are Onto You Now!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured screen shot is courtesy of Fox News.

How the Janus Decision Could Vastly Improve Public Education

/in , , , , /by

Two new pieces of research give us reason to be encouraged by the Janus decision.

On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the plaintiff in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (AFSCME). Dry as it sounds, this was a landmark ruling; the Court said that public sector unions could not force non-members to pay fees to them. Furthermore, in the future employees will have to “opt in” to pay fees; their consent cannot be assumed.

What is likely to happen to teachers and students in the wake of Janus v. AFSCME? Typically, teachers unions have argued that weakening their power to collectively bargain would hinder both students and teachers. Fortunately, however, two new pieces of research give us reason to be encouraged by the Janus decision.

The first is a paper titled “The Labor Market for Teachers Under Different Pay Schemes,” by economist Barbara Biasi.

The vast majority of districts pay teachers according to similar lock-step schedules. This means that all teachers with the same education degree and years of experience are paid exactly the same amount, regardless of their effectiveness, their skills, or the demand for their labor. There is often little variation in these schedules across all districts within a state, owing to pattern bargaining, facilitated by the state’s teachers’ union, one of those services allegedly at risk following the Supreme Court’s decision.

Biasi’s paper asks, “If allowed to set pay in a more flexible way, could school districts improve the quality of the teaching workforce?”

Data from Wisconsin allow Biasi to address this question. In 2011 the Wisconsin legislature passed Act 10. The law limited collective bargaining over teachers’ salary schedules in the state. Previously, Wisconsin had seen strict adherence to lock-step schedules, which were negotiated between each school district and its teachers’ union. Act 10 gave districts full autonomy to decide on compensation, allowing them to negotiate salaries with individual teachers using any criteria the two sides desired.

The result, according to Biasi, was that “Teacher quality increased in these districts [which adopted flexible pay schedules] relative to those with seniority pay, due to a change in workforce composition and an increase in effort.”

A switch away from seniority pay [SP] towards flexible pay [FP] in a subset of Wisconsin districts, following the interruption of [collective bargaining] on teachers’ salary schedules mandated by Act 10 of 2011, resulted in higher-quality teachers moving to FP districts and lower-quality teachers either moving to SP districts or leaving the public school system altogether. As a result, the composition of the teaching workforce improved in FP districts compared with SP districts. Effort exerted by all teachers also increased.

In short, the labor market for teachers in Wisconsin worked much as you’d expect. There was more movement, better teachers earned more money, and teachers were encouraged to work harder.

The second paper is “The Long-run Effects of Teacher Collective Bargaining” by economists Michael Lovenheim and Alexander Willén. They investigate how teacher collective bargaining, one of the key services offered by their unions, “impacts student outcomes.”

The authors focused on “duty-to-bargain (DTB) laws, which require districts to negotiate with teachers’ unions in good faith.” These laws have been shown to increase union membership and the likelihood that a district elects a union to bargain collectively. Lovenheim and Willén use the timing of the passage of DTB laws between 1960 and 1987 and data on educational and labor market outcomes among 35-49 year-olds to investigate how teacher collective bargaining impacts a broad array of long-run outcomes.

They find, among male past students, “negative effects of exposure to teacher collective bargaining laws on the long-run labor market outcomes of students who grew up in states with these laws. These results are consistent with the “rent-seeking” hypothesis of teacher unionization.”

This hypothesis, according to the authors, states that “unions lead to a re-allocation of resources towards teachers while also making educational resources less productive.” Specifically, Lovenheim and Willén find that ten years of exposure to collective bargaining reduces annual earnings by $2,134.04 (or 3.93%) and weekly hours worked by 0.42 (or 1.09%). These individuals are also 1 percentage point less likely to be employed, are 0.8% less likely to be in the labor force and find themselves in lower-skilled occupations.

Furthermore, the negative effects of collective bargaining are particularly pronounced among black and Hispanic males. Here, ten years of exposure to collective bargaining lower annual earnings by $3,246 (9.43%), hours worked per week by 0.72 (2.18%), and the likelihood of being employed by 1.3 percentage points. All told, the authors concluded the following:

A back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates these laws reduce total labor market earnings by $213.8 billion per year, which suggests our findings have large implications for earnings in the US due to the prevalence of duty-to-bargain laws…In total, our estimates indicate that state duty-to-bargain laws have sizable, negative labor market consequences for men who attended grade school in states with these laws.

The teachers’ unions might be correct that the Janus vs AFSCME verdict will compromise their ability to effectively offer its membership such services as collective bargaining. But, on the basis of these two new pieces of research, it is unclear that its other warnings stack up. They suggest that teacher pay will be more closely related to their output and that students—particularly black and Hispanic boys—will be better off.

Whenever a representative of producers, like teachers unions, claims to be motivated by a concern for the welfare of their consumers, students, it might be more appropriate to raise a quizzical eyebrow. This new research suggests that, contra union claims, it is they who will be negatively impacted by Janus vs AFSCME. Students and even teachers may well be better off thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision.

John Phelan

John Phelan

John Phelan is an economist at the Center of the American Experiment and fellow of The Cobden Centre.

Five Imperatives For Seeking Truth At The Kavanaugh-Ford Hearing

/in , , , /by

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.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act. The featured image is by Siora Photography on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Judicial Watch Statement on Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing

/in , , , , , , /by

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement in response to the latest efforts to delay Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the Senate:

Let’s be clear, Leftists are trying to blow up the Senate confirmation process in this latest attack on Kavanaugh. This latest gambit is about delaying the nomination past the elections. There is no legitimate reason that these last-minute allegations can’t be summarily evaluated, and a Judiciary Committee vote taken within days. There is no reason to further delay Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Leftist lawbreaking, rule-breaking, violence, and disruption marred the public Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. One can only imagine the disruptive show trial Leftists plan with the Kavanaugh accuser. The Senate should shut this circus down and move the Kavanaugh confirmation along.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton addresses the Left’s attempt to destroy Judge Kavanaugh in the Judicial Watch Weekly Update:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Sebastian Pichler on Unsplash.

Light Shining on Hidden Things

/in , , , /by

Carlos Caso-Rosendi on accusations of sex-abuse coverups made against Pope Francis while Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The Enemy is in the Church.

In the last month or so, various Catholic news outlets have asked me to research the veracity of various accusations made against Pope Francis while he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Did he cover up wrongdoing? Was he involved in financial scandals? What was his level of collaboration, if any, with the corrupt Kirchner administration?

The German magazine Der Spiegel, one of Europe’s most prestigious publications and generally supportive of liberal positions, found reasons to believe that scores of abuse victims may have been kept from speaking with Cardinal Bergoglio. In addition, he seems to have taken a central role in defending at least one abuser, and perhaps others.

Der Spiegel made this claim – and several sharp complaints about ways that Pope Francis had divided the Church – in this week’s cover story, under the title: Du sollst nicht lügen, Der Papst und die Kirche in ihrer größten Krise (“Thou shalt not lie: The pope and the Church in their greatest crisis”).

If true, these charges could provoke a greater explosion than the 11-page Testimony by the former nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.

Many uncertainties, of course, surround such charges. Given the present state of affairs in Argentina, it is hard to find unbiased answers to questions. But one thing is certain: “there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.” (Luke 8:17)

In fact, light is now shining on many once-hidden things.

The lack of official response and the vicious attacks on the reputation of Viganò have had a clarifying effect. (Just this week Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández, a figure very close to the pope and his sometimes ghostwriter, described Viganò as suffering from a delusional mental illness “marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.”) He did not seem to care whether Viganò’s allegations, even if the ravings of a madman, are true.

I have the impression that we are living days like those described by St Paul in 2Timothy. The Church – infiltrated by her enemies – is now being shaken in her very structure.

Pope Paul VI said in 1972: “the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God through some crack in the wall.” Through years of surreptitious action, seducers “made their way into the household” of God and began to hold sway over the weak. Homosexuality among the clergy has now “become plain to everyone,” as honest prelates, the media, and government investigators uncover the ugly truth.

As undeniable evidence piles up, it should not surprise us if evil is exposed even in the highest echelons of the hierarchy. We should not be confounded if “wicked people and impostors . . . go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived.” We’re at a point of no return.

Last Judgment by Giotto (di Bondone), c. 1305 [Scrovegni Chapel, Padua]

Not content with having introduced false pastors among the clergy, the enemy is now trying to introduce a false religion. He wants to destroy the Church by destroying the faith. He needs to replace the Catholic religion with a counterfeit version.

The false spirit of that “counterfeit faith” produces many pseudo-commandments, interfaith gestures, ceremonies, and liturgical shows of unity. There’s plenty of praise for the disobedient and the heretic “holding to the outward form of godliness” but rejecting the doctrinal truth and the sacramental integrity of the true faith.

Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture, the Catechism, and even Natural Law are attacked:

You must understand this, that in the last days distressing times will come. For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid them! (2 Timothy 3:1-9)

This is a very dangerous time because many souls may be lost. Many may walk away, disgusted by all that filth. That is why we have to reflect on the causes of the crisis, so we can counter that evil effectively. All the lies and half-truths taught to the faithful in this age of darkness are the result of bad Catholic formation.

The first part of the devil’s attack consisted in eliminating good catechesis. For the near future, the teaching of the true faith may have to rest with a handful of people remaining loyal to God. That is why we must be busy creating ways to develop a rapid, deep, and precise knowledge of the faith.

False pastors will not deceive well-formed Catholics. In fact, the folly of those false pastors will become evident as the light of the true faith shines on their wicked ways. It is true that “they will not make much progress” because they are the “wicked servants” of Jesus’ prophetic parable.

It is up to us to keep the faith by being “good servants” minding the counsel of Christ:

Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. . . .But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, “My master is staying away a long time,” and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 24:45-51)

Are the accusations against Pope Francis while he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires true? All I can say is that no one can stop God from revealing the truth. Wise men will work with God, lest they end up working for the father of lies.

© 2018 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Carlos Caso-Rosendi

Carlos Caso-Rosendi

Carlos Caso-Rosendi is an Argentine-American writer. A convert, he was received in the Catholic Church in 2001. He is the founder of the Spanish website Primera Luz and his own blog in English, Carlos Caso-Rosendi. His books include Guadalupe: A River of Light, Ark of Grace – Our Blessed Mother in Holy Scripture, and A Vademecum of Catholic Apologetics. He lives in Buenos Aires.

RELATED ARTICLE: Der Spiegel heavily criticises Francis’s papacy in 19-page report: The German magazine says the Pope ignored abuse survivors in Argentina

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of the cover of Der Spiegel appeared in Catholic Herald magazine.Photographer unknown.

Bongino: Sen. Mazie Hirono Obviously Has Never Heard of the Biden Rule [Video]

/in , , , , , /by

“Because Mazie Hirono has a difficult time with the Biden Rule and the Democrats’ unprecedented obstruction, they now want to ruin the life of Brett Kavanaugh? Is this guy not entitled to defend himself?” —Dan Bongino

RELATED VIDEOS:

Venezuela’s Dictator Dines With Salt Bae While His People Starve

“The Week’s” Matthew Walther Wants To Disarm Police Officers