Muslim Legal Fund of America features wife of Orlando Pulse Nightclub Jihad Mass Murderer

Noor Salman was the wife of Omar Mateen, who murdered 49 people in a jihad massacre that he said was for the Islamic State. The Orlando Sentinel reported on March 30, 2018 that “the foreman of the Noor Salman jury contacted the Orlando Sentinel with a statement about what the three days of deliberations were like for the 12 people who acquitted the widow of the Pulse shooter, Omar Mateen.” The foreman’s statement:

As foreperson of the jury in the Noor Salman trial I felt it important that I present a juror’s perspective of the verdicts. I am giving you my perspective, and not speaking for the entire jury. My initial inclination was not to communicate with the news media at all, however once I returned home a watched the news coverage of the reactions to the verdicts I felt compelled to at least clarify several misconceptions….

…I want to make several things very clear. A verdict of not guilty did NOT mean that we thought Noor Salman was unaware of what Omar Mateen was planning to do. On the contrary we were convinced she did know. She may not have known what day, or what location, but she knew. However, we were not tasked with deciding if she was aware of a potential attack. The charges were aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice. I felt the both the prosecution and the defense did an excellent job presenting their case. I wish that the FBI had recorded their interviews with Ms. Salman as there were several significant inconsistencies with the written summaries of her statements. The bottom line is that, based on the letter of the law, and the detailed instructions provided by the court, we were presented with no option but to return a verdict of not guilty.

But Keith Ellison, Hamas-linked CAIR’s Hassan Shibly, and “Islamophobia” propagandist Hatem Bazian can appear at this “black tie charity gala” alongside Noor Salman, knowing that they will suffer no fallout as a result, because the establishment media will cover for them. Imagine if a foe of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women appeared at an event with the wife of someone who had killed 49 people in the name of any other cause: these same people — Ellison, Shibly, Bazian — would be leading the charge to defame and destroy that foe of jihad terror as a result. But this? No problem.

Details at Facebook here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar call for high Muslim voter turnout to outvote Trump ‘hate’ and ‘bigotry’

Syracuse imam: ‘No such thing as a Muslim girl living alone’ because women are ‘easily tricked and deceived’

India: Three madrassa teachers arrested in Jammu and Kashmir after 13 students join jihad terror group

RELALTED VIDEO: Osama bin Laden’s Post 9/11 Safe Haven in Iran.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Elections Chairman Resigns After He And His Wife Are Accused Of Removing And Defacing Trump Signs

A chairman of a board of elections in South Carolina resigned after he and his wife were accused of removing and defacing multiple Donald Trump campaign signs from someone’s yard, numerous sources reported.

A resident of Pawleys Island reported to the Georgetown County Sheriff’s Office Tuesday that Trump campaign signs were disappearing from his yard. A deer camera the resident placed in his yard caught the offender on Oct. 4 taking his signs and defacing another by writing “dump” over the Trump name on the sign, Coastal Observer reported.

An incident report identifies the offender as Dean Smith, who was seen on camera driving away with his wife, the report says according to WPDE. Smith resigned after serving on the elections board for 15 years Wednesday, two days after Republican Party officials filed a complaint with the sheriff’s office accusing him of helping his wife deface the campaign sign.

Rita Smith, Smith’s wife and a HOA president, said she did deface the sign, but said the circumstances were different from those described to the sheriff’s office, according to Coastal Observer. She alleges she received a complaint from a property owner in September about a resident with a Trump flag on his garage, in violation of HOA rules.

The home owner refused to take down the Trump flag from his garage and yelled at Rita and another board member “in a political tirade,” she said according to Coastal Observer.

Dean released a statement in response to complaints, according to WPDE.

“This is actually an HOA issue. We have regulations against the signs. The people that reported this, put a sign on someone else’s property without their knowledge, and they insulted and attacked my wife who is the HOA president and asked them to get rid of the signs. The camera that took our picture was also put on someone else’s property.”

“Our emotions got the better of us,” Rita said, adding that the issue wasn’t the content of the sign but the sign itself, the Coastal Observer reported.

“It was because we were angry with the other resident,” Dean said.

People questioned whether Dean could lead the commission in conducting an impartial election after the incident, according to the Coastal Observer. He had been considering stepping down, remarking that he “didn’t want it to end like this.”

“I’ve always prided myself that when I walk in that door I’m not a Republican or Democrat. I’m just an American and a Georgetown County citizen.”

COLUMN BY

MARLO SAFI

Culture reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Large Trump Sign Taken Down After Appearing Along Major Freeway In LA

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Florida Man Takes His AR-15 To Disney

A 43-year-old Florida resident from Palm Beach was found bringing an AR-15 and a handgun into Disney World Resorts while on vacation with his family, due to fears about Black Lives Matter protesters, according to a Wednesday report from Newsweek.

The man was seen carrying the weapons inside of the Polynesian Village Resort using a large tennis bag. Once noticed, authorities were called and the police arrived, Newsweek wrote. However, this individual was not arrested due to having the needed firearm permits.

Even though the man was not arrested, Disney confiscated the guns because of their strict policy against weapons on their premises.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office was notified of this incident by the manager, who stated that the guns were originally noticed by one of the bellmen that carried the tennis bag containing the guns, according to Newsweek.

When asked by police why he brought the guns, the man explained that it was in self-defense in case of any Black Lives Matter protests or riots. There have been no recorded instances of protests on the resort itself according to Newsweek.

COLUMN BY

JOE MILLER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Disney Star Brings Gun To Airport

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

DUMB AND DUMBER: Is Hunter Biden really that stupid to drop off his laptop computer and fail to pick it up?

UPDATE TWEET:


Hunter Biden, the son of Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, did something nearly every American would never do. Hunter took his laptop to John Paul Mac Isaac, who owns The Mac Shop in Wilmington, Delaware a computer repair store and then left it there. Hunter never paid for the repairs to his laptop and therefore the laptop became the property of the store owner. When the store owner saw what was on Hunter Biden’s laptop he immediately turned it over to the FBI but kept a copy of what was on the hard drive.

Now the story gets interesting.

The FBI never got back to the computer store owner. So then Mr. Isaac sent a member of Congress and a nonprofit website copies of what was on Hunter Biden’s laptop. Again, like the FBI, both did nothing with the information provided. Finally, the information was sent to Rudy Giuliani, a former U.S. Attorney and mayor of New York City, who then turned it over to the New York Post. The New York Post then published a story titled “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad.

What was on Hunter Biden’s laptop was damning to both himself and his father Joe.

Once the New York Post story, complete with emails and videos from the laptop, got into the public arena big tech, i.e. Twitter and Facebook, stepped in quickly to suppress the information. In the minds of Twitter and Facebook, the American people have no right to know the truth about Hunter and Joe Biden’s quid pro quo dealings with foreign governments and companies to enrich themselves.

RELATED TWEET:

WATCH: Tucker Carlson Drops NEW Hunter Biden Emails

AND WATCH: How did a repair shop obtain Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop?

All we can say is like father, like son!

©Dr. Rich Swier, Ed.D. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Repair Shop Owner Breaks Silence on Biden Laptop

Giuliani: You’ve Only Seen Five Percent of What’s on Hunter Biden’s Hard Drive

RELATED TWEETS:

Kamala Harris Is Getting Advice From Hamas-Linked CAIR

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has always had friends in high places, and could conceivably (if the polls are right, which seems unlikely, and ol’ Joe gets the 25th) soon have the ear of the president of the United States: the Washington Free Beacon reported Tuesday that “as California’s attorney general and then as U.S. senator, Harris forged a relationship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), one of the nation’s top anti-Israel groups and advocates for boycotts of the Jewish state.”

CAIR is not just anti-Israel. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman, Omar Ahmad, as well as its chief spokesman, Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper, have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.)

Even worse, CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government. CAIR’s national outreach manager is an open supporter of Hamas.

Nonetheless, according to the Free Beacon, “CAIR advised Harris on community issues during her time in California politics.” In 2018, Harris wrote to CAIR: “Please accept my gratitude and admiration for your tireless work to promote peace, justice, and mutual understanding.”

The Harris/CAIR association goes back years before that as well: “As California’s top cop, Harris partnered with local CAIR officials and relied on them to advise her about community matters. In 2015, for instance, Harris hosted CAIR for an interfaith community event following a deadly terrorist attack in San Bernardino. In 2016, as Harris ran for the Senate, CAIR’s political action committee donated $1,750 to boost her campaign.”

CAIR’s careful cultivation of Harris has been part of a long-term strategy that also involves electing Muslims to offices at all levels, federal, state, and local. Another Islamic advocacy group in the U.S., the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), called upon Muslims to “invest in building power for Muslims in politics” in a May 23, 2020, tweet that featured a photo of a smiling Salam al-Marayati, MPAC’s President and co-founder, with the notorious Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Impeachment). “We ensure that Muslim voices are heard by decision-makers in Washington, DC,” the tweet also says, “and we work diligently with policymakers like Rep. Adam Schiff to advocate for legislation that protects our communities.”

To those who are aware of Adam Schiff’s central role in the attempt to frame President Trump for an impeachable offense and railroad him out of office, MPAC’s upbeat declaration of civic engagement was hardly reassuring. Even more disturbing was the fact that the stated goal was not something to the effect of “Help Muslims begin to participate in the American political process,” much less anything such as “Encourage Muslims to assimilate and adopt American values,” but “invest in building power for Muslims in politics.”

Building power. It is not unreasonable to surmise from this language that MPAC, at very least, appears to be aiming toward establishing a Muslim bloc in American politics, one that will wield power and influence with its Muslim identity at the forefront, contending for candidates and policies that it deems to be in line with Islamic teachings and values.

While there are many organizations in the United States defending their own group’s interests, MPAC’s endeavor is different from the others in that Islamic law, Sharia, is authoritarian by nature, denying the freedom of speech, as well as aggressive, expansionist, and supremacist. In its classic formulations, Islamic law denies equality of rights to women and non-Muslims, and allows for a host of practices that are incompatible with American principles and customs in numerous ways; discussion of these issues, however, has been effectively silenced by charges of “Islamophobia” and “bigotry,” not least from al-Marayati and MPAC itself.

Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch asked pointed questions in November 2019, after CAIR sent out a press release celebrating the large number of Muslims who had just been elected to various offices. “One might wonder,” Corcoran wrote, “as I did here in 2007 why if refugees and Muslim migrants of all stripes were eager to assimilate did they need to place their people (representing their religion) into local, state and federal government? And, just imagine, I asked then, if we would blatantly say—we want Catholics, Jews, other Christians as our leaders—wouldn’t all hell break loose in the media? Yet, no one seems to care if CAIR says we are electing our people, Muslims, everywhere we can!”

And when they’re not electing their own people, they’re ensuring that pols such as Kamala Harris are willing servants of their agenda. In a sane society, a group with demonstrable ties to a terrorist organization would be nowhere near a candidate for the second-highest office in the land. But America today is not exactly a sane society.

RELATED ARTICLES:

100 Rabbis: The SPLC Makes Life More Dangerous for Jews by Covering for Radical Islam

Anti-Israel Hamas-Linked CAIR Pressures Charities to Blacklist Conservative Nonprofits

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FLORIDA: School Districts Don’t want Parents to Know About the ‘HOPE Scholarship’

Have you, as a parent living in Florida, ever heard about the “Hope Scholarship?”


FLORIDA PARENTS PLEASE CLICK HERE TO LEARN ABOUT THE HOPE SCHOLARSHIP


If you, as a parent of a public school student, believes your child is being harassed, intimidated or threatened by a teacher, administrator or another student then you are eligible for an up to $8,000 HOPE Scholarship to attend a private school. All you have to do is fill out a short online form available here.

WATCH: The Florida Commissioner of Education explains the HOPE Scholarship.

According to the Florida Citizens Alliance website:

Every parent wants a rewarding, effective and safe learning environment for the children. Sadly, bullying happens and every incidence of bullying matters. Florida Statute 1002.40 recognizes that no student should suffer from bullying! Get help for your student by immediately reporting the incident to the principal. Any incidence of ‘battery, harassment, hazing, bullying, kidnapping, physical attack, robbery, sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual battery, threat or intimidation, or fighting at school, at a school sponsored activity, riding on the school bus or waiting at the bus stop should be reported right away.’

WATCH: HOPE Scholarship Helps Victims of School Bullying in Florida.

NOTE: “harassment”, “threat” and “intimidation” are very expansive in terms of their defined scope!

Once a parent reports the incident, it becomes the school’s responsibility to solve the problem to their satisfaction. At the same time, the school must notify the parent of the 2 Hope Scholarship options: a transportation stipend to move their student to another public school or a scholarship to move their child to a private school. The school will likely investigate the incident, but the student’s eligibility for a Hope Scholarship is absolute and does not depend on the outcome of any investigation. Additionally, Chancellor Oliva’s March 1, 2019 letter sent to every superintendent makes it very clear that that the student is eligible simply by reporting the incident.

Quote “PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE SUBSTANTIATION IN ORDER FOR THE DISTRICT TO NOTIFY THE PARENT OF THE PROGRAM, and any district that is adding this requirement is in violation of the statute and administrative rule and will be dealt with according to the law.”

TO APPLY FOR A HOPE SCHOLARSHIP FOR YOUR CHILD PLEASE CLICK HERE

©Dr. Rich Swier, Ed.D. All rights reserved.

Biden Democrats Post Online Guide to ‘Disrupting’ the Country if Election is Close

This final act that will be suicide. America has had it with these destroyers.

Left-wing Radicals Post Online Guide to ‘Disrupting’ the Country if Election is Close

By: Breitbart, October 12, 2020:

An organization of radical left-wing activists has posted an online guide to “disruption” that outlines a plan to shut down the country and force President Donald Trump from power in the event that the 2020 election is too close to call.

The guide, “Stopping the Coup,” available as a Google doc, is being circulated by a group called ShutDownDC. It casts its plan for disruption as a response to an imagined “coup” by the president in the case of a close election.

In an email promoting the guide, ShutDownDC declares: “Preventing Donald Trump from stealing the election and remaining in office is likely to take mass, sustained disruptive movements all over the country.” The guide is a manual to that “disruption.”

Parts of the guide are committed to ensuring a “fair election.” Parts of it, however, read like a manual for staging a coup rather than a guide to preventing one:

In the context of a coup or highly contested election we need to be clear that our actions must directly affect the structures and pillars of power.  Our largest asset in this regard utilizes the ideas of non-compliance through massive, broad based direct action.  Where we can, we need to be in the streets, on the highways, or at the sites of power and power holders. In our jobs and lives we must refuse to allow those taking control the legitimacy of the power they seek through strikes, slowdowns, and boycotts, and public refusal to accept an illegitimate ruling party.

Another section urges activists to stop American life from continuing if the election does not go their way (original emphasis):

In order to really win we will need to force some pillars of power (business, military, media, or other major institutions) to decide to side with the people, or at least get out of the way.  If everyday life goes on, a despot will not leave power, and so there will be no incentive for real systems change. You want to think about what it might take to stop business-as-usual.

The guide also says that activists plan on “physically protecting the vote count from counter-protestors, federal agents, or white supremacist militias.”

The guide indicates that activists intend to “demand that no winner be announced until every vote is counted,” and that they will launch “mass coordinated action” to that end.

The signal for action will be if President Donald Trump is declared the winner on Election Night:

Trump may try to declare himself the victor before the votes are counted, or Fox News might call the race. Those who can should be prepared to take action against those who are feeding into the stolen election narrative, including social media companies that are letting falsehoods or incitements to violence spread.

The guide imagines a number of bizarre nightmare scenarios — such as Attorney General William Barr trying “to seize all mail-in ballots and invalidate them” — and uses them to motivate readers and justify plans for “direct action.”

One section says that in the case of a contested election, “we must take action” (original emphasis):

In the end, the actual electorate might be split, half truly believing that Trump was elected legally, and half knowing that he was not.

It is in this muddied context of legal and political wrangling that we must take action. We cannot wait to see how the chips fall. That will only ensure more power for the violent white supremacist machine that is the Trump administration and its supporters.

We want to be clear here, though: we are not a group of Biden supporters. This is not about ensuring that the Democrats win, but actually preparing for the possibility that white supremacist violence will continue.

The guide also suggests that activists will continue their “disruption” regardless of who wins the election: “We’re absolutely not saying the election is useless, but rather the reactivity of the right and the white supremecist [sic] will be present no matter who wins.”

The guide also links to a variety of other documents, such as one devoted to preparing for the threat of violence, and another that lists allied organizations. All of the documents seem to benefit from professional-level skills in writing, layout, and design.

The document appears to be the product of a group called the Disruption Project, whose website describes itself as “dedicated to supporting uprisings, resistance and mass direct action.”

It suggests a revolution in the United States — “nonviolently”:

Our belief is that when mass numbers of people stand up and take action against the unjust systems of racial capitalism, the heteropatriarchy, white supremacy and settler colonialism, we have the ability to force ruptures and dismantle these systems. In other countries we have seen uprisings nonviolently topple dictatorships and illegitimate governments.

ShutDownDC’s website indicates that it expects Trump to be “forced from office,” adding: “We are not seeking a ‘return to normalcy,’ because we know that returning to ‘normal’ means returning to a system that was built on oppression. Rather, we see this as the time to rise up against the current crisis and move forward to dismantle the interlocking systems of oppression that have plagued this land for centuries.”

The website is somewhat evasive on the topic of violent tactics. It says: “We do not want to reproduce the same violences we are committed to dismantling; thus, we are committed to anti-oppressive principles, transformative justice, and sustainable organizing.”

However, it also says that it will not make “value judgments about the tactical approaches other people and organizations may choose to embrace.”

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump ridicules Biden for saying he’s running ‘for the Senate,’ forgetting Romney’s name

Biden On 56% Of Americans Saying They’re Better Off Now Than 4 Years Ago: They ‘Probably Shouldn’t’ Vote For Me

NYC at the Abyss

Antifa rioters who targeted Portland cafe ‘solidified’ his Trump vote

Biden Democrats Post Online Guide to ‘Disrupting’ the Country if Election is Close

Twitter Fined For Multiple Campaign Finance Violations

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Amy Coney Barrett Responds to ‘Cruel’ Comments About Her Children

CatholicVote posted the following comment and video titled Barrett Responds to ‘Cruel’ Comments About Her Children.

“Deeply hurtful…”

©CatholicVote. All rights reserved.

FLORIDA: Democrat Candidate for State Attorney Lied about Her Trial Experience — BIG Time

Amazing, simply amazing, isn’t it?

The mere thought that a Democrat candidate would LIE about her experience, then, try to blame the lie on somebody else… Well… doesn’t that seem a bit strange, to you…?

I mean, really…?… You’re kidding, right?… I’m shocked. SHOCKED!

The Ed Brodsky for State Attorney in Sarasota campaign in an email stated:

My opponent embellishes her trial record by 500%

Make no mistake about it, my opponent embellished her trial record by 500%, claiming she had done more than 150 jury trials, when the actual number is just more than 30.

“Integrity is fundamental to serving as the elected state attorney. The entire judicial system – from our courts to our juries, judges and defendants – relies on the integrity of the State Attorney’s Office. Betsy Young chose to launch her campaign with a lie intended to cover up her significant lack of trial experience, which is required to lead an office across three counties. She inflated her trial record by 500%, and also posted it on her website in private practice to mislead potential clients, In court, we call this a fraud upon the court. In the public, we call this a fraud upon the voters.”

Here is a link to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Story.

©Tad MacKie. All rights reserved.

VIDEO REPORT: Obama, Biden and Hillary Conspired With Iran to Kill Entire SEAL Team 6

On Sunday, October the 11th, 2020, documents, and tapes along with audio were delivered to a U.S. Congressman along with several conventional media outlets demonstrating that President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conspired and developed a sophisticated cover-up in the matter of Seal Team 6 and the purported killing of Osama Bin Laudon.

Furthermore, the $1.2 Billon dollar Obama sent to Iran was part of a black mail by Iran to Obama to keep the secret that Osama Bin Laudon was killed, when he was not! Furthermore…a sophisticated cover-up ensued to protect Obama, Biden, Clinton including involvement by the John McCain Foundation and the Clinton Foundation. Further participants include, but are not limited to: Leon Panetta, John Brennan, and the architect Hillary Clinton. These documents have been verified by several intelligence professionals along with a former high ranking U.S. General. The documents have been released yesterday to President Trump.

WATCH:

©Lyle. J. Rapacki, Ph.D. All rights reserved.

Man Caught on Video Stealing Mail, Voting Ballots From California Mailboxes

Video captured a man stealing absentee ballots while walking through a neighborhood in Escondido, California, a local news outlet reported.

Surveillance cameras from David Sprouse, a local resident, captured a man stealing mail from his home and houses nearby last week, Fox 5 San Diego reported.

“It was a younger looking man, [who] happened to come down the sidewalk. He was wearing a ball cap, face mask, gloves. He carefully opened up our mailbox and took out all of our mail,” Sprouse told Fox 5.

The thief then continued to search through the mail of additional houses, Sprouse said.

No arrests have been made as of Thursday evening, Fox 5 reported.

Sprouse said that he didn’t realize his mail had been tampered with until the next morning, and that this was the first time in at least a decade that somebody had stolen his mail.

“There are two offenses going on here,” San Diego County Registrar of Voters Michael Vu told the local outlet. “Number one, you cannot steal anyone’s mail. That’s already a crime under the laws of the U.S. Postal Service. But then this is a federal election [crime] as well.”

Though widespread voter fraud is rare, experts say, the surge in mail-in voting due to the coronavirus pandemic has raised logistical concerns and fears that the results of the presidential election may be delayed since they take longer to tally.

COLUMN BY

Andrew Trunsky

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. 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 this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘Natural Inheritor of Justice Scalia’s Legacy,’ Conservatives Say of Barrett

The first day of confirmation hearings for federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the Supreme Court showed clearly how conservative women are treated differently than their liberal counterparts, Sen. Marsha Blackburn said Monday.

“You know there is a double standard when it comes to how the left and the media treat conservative women, as opposed to how they treat liberal women,” Blackburn, R-Tenn., a conservative  member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said after the hearing at a virtual press conference sponsored by Heritage Action for America.

“You’ve had 164 American citizens who have stood before that committee to be a Supreme Court justice. That’s throughout our nation’s entire history,” Blackburn said. “Today was only the fifth time that an American citizen has been a female judge.”

“Look at how they are treating her,” she added. “Just as the media treats conservative women differently, they are doing the same thing to Judge Barrett. They want to send a signal, if you are pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-business, pro-military, they do not think your voice counts, because you are not in agreement with what the left says should be ‘women’s issues.’”


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Blackburn was joined by other members of Congress, along with a number of conservative leaders.

President Donald Trump nominated Barrett, now a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for the high court on Sept. 26  to fill the vacancy of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had died eight days earlier.

Blackburn also noted that Barrett, if confirmed, would be the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the high court.

Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action for America, expressed appreciation for Blackburn’s point.

“For all working moms, this means so much for us today,” Anderson said at the virtual press conference. “She represents so many of us that have children and are also pursuing a career.”

Anderson went on to note her strong “incredible, impeccable record” as a jurist.

“She is an originalist, a constitutionalist, and we are all eager to see her move forward, first with the Senate judiciary and second to the Senate floor,” Anderson said.

Since then, some Democrats and some in the media have attacked Barrett’s Catholic faith.

Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, said opponents of Barrett are embracing a risky strategy with what she called their “bigoted ‘handmaid’ claims.”

Some Democrats and liberal commentators likened Barrett’s membership in a Christian organization to women being handmaids similar to the Margaret Atwood novel and Hulu TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale,” a dystopian tale in which women are property of their husbands.

“We believe it is time for a woman of faith, for a working mom to be on the court and represent our perspective,” Nance said. “I’m reminded that Ruth Bader Ginsburg felt very strongly that women were to serve on juries because she thought correctly that for us to be able to judge other women, that our perspective was needed. I will say that as well about the Supreme Court. There has never been a conservative constitutionalist woman on the Supreme Court. We are, as conservative women, an underrepresented group on the court and in government.”

Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., chairman of the conserative Republican Study Committee in the House, said he had previously suggested Trump nominate Barrett because she is “the natural inheritor of Justice [Antonin] Scalia’s legacy.”

Barrett clerked for Scalia, who was known for his originalism and served on the high court from 1986 until his death in 2016.

“I’ve spoken to the president on multiple occasions over the past couple of years that she should indeed be the nominee for the next vacancy on the court,” Johnson said.

“When I had a few minutes to talk to him about Amy Coney Barrett over the last couple of years, I said, ‘You know, Mr. President, she is the natural inheritor of Justice Scalia’s legacy.’ President Trump had committed to the American people that he would nominate someone like Scalia,” Johnson said. “I said, ‘Mr. President, you can’t find a better person because she clerked for him. She studied the Constitution under him, the great master that we all revere him to be. She’s cut out of the same mold. You know exactly what you will get with this jurist. She will be an originalist. She will adhere to the original intent.’”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

9 Takeaways From Day 1 of Barrett Confirmation Hearings

Opening Day: Sens. Blackburn, Ernst on Barrett Hearing

What to Watch for During Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate Confirmation Hearings

4 Women Who Clerked or Studied Under Her Share How They View Amy Coney Barrett


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Replacing RBG with ACB – Delinquent Democrats Deserve No Quarter

There is a bitter & infuriating irony in the fact that it was the Democrats themselves, who committed the very transgressions they endeavored to attribute to their Republican adversaries.


… it is necessary for a prince, wishing to hold his own, to know how to do wrong…he need not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without which the state can only be saved with difficulty, for if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity –Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), The Prince, Ch. XV.

Politics is the art of the possibleA statesman…must wait until he hears the steps of God sounding through events; then leap up and grasp the hem of his garment.– Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898).


Prologue

As this is a significantly longer essay than my usual “INTO THE FRAY” column, I have decided to provide a list of the sections headings as a brief “overview” guide for the readers. Accordingly, this rather lengthy—and extensively researched—piece will be composed of the following 200-300 word sections).

1.     The pot calling the kettle black 10.   The pot calling the kettle black …once again?
2.     “Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility…” 11.  Chaotic kaleidoscope of corruption
3.     Dubious deals & corrupt contributions? 12.  Down the rabbit hole?
4.     The dubious & the corrupt (cont.) 13.  Rabbit hole? (cont.)
5.     “No reasonable prosecutor…” Really?? 14.  A withering Senate report
6.     The need to condemn but not convict 15.  Visceral, vicious and vindictive
7.     When “extreme carelessness” is not “gross negligence” 16.  “…a terrible & profoundly immoral dirty trick”
8.     An iniquitous impeachment over invented infractions 17.  “Nothing is off the table…”
9.     Impeaching the unimpeachable?  

As the end of September approached, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who passed away just a week earlier, to the US Supreme Court.

The pot calling the kettle black

The nomination sparked an eruption of apoplectic protest and incandescent rage from Trump’s political rivals in the Democratic party—particularly as near the end of the Obama incumbency, the GOP prevented the confirmation of then-Democratic nominee, Merrick Garland, as a Supreme Court justice.

There is no doubt that several reasoned arguments can be raised against the Trump administration exploiting the opportunity that the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has created, to advance a Trump nomination to replace her on the bench of the US Supreme Court.

They all should—indeed, must—be ignored!

After all, in light of the long, loathsome litany of vile, venomous villainy that has characterized the (mis)conduct of the Democratic Party over last half-decade and more, its members have little moral right to expect any quarter from their GOP adversaries. Indeed, their sustained malice and misdeeds have left an abysmal trail of needlessly ruined lives, tarnished reputations and squandered public resources.

Indeed, there is a bitter—and infuriating—irony in the fact that it was the Democrats themselves who, irrefutably and incontrovertibly committed the very transgressions they endeavored to attribute, with such blatant disingenuity to their political opponents in the Republican Party. (This sense of rage—and outrage—is intensified by the stunning news involving recently declassified documents showing profound complicity of the previous administration and sympathetic senior CIA and FBI officials, to undermine the Trump campaign and subsequent administration.)

“Tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility…”

Take for example, the allegations of collusion with Russia, something Trump and his associates have been accused of, virtually from the time he first announced his candidacy for the 2016 presidential elections. Yet, years previously (March, 2012), while attending the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, Democratic President Barack Obama, was overheard inadvertently in conversation with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, assuring him of enhanced coordination—read “cooperation”, read “collusion”—on an array of issues in dispute between the two countries.

Thus, Obama pledged “greater flexibility” on these topics—particularly regarding a planned NATO missile defense system in Europe, which had been a sticking point in relations between the two nations for some time, and to which Russia was strongly opposed.

The widely reported conversation, which took place shortly before the reelected Vladimir Putin was to take over the presidency from Medvedev, went as follows:

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: “… I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you …”

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin].”

Clearly, it is hard to interpret this exchange as anything but an expression by Obama of his far-reaching willingness to accommodate Russia’s concerns—despite those of NATO allies—once he was no longer answerable to the American voter and constrained by the US electorate.

Unsurprisingly, publication of the Obama-Medvedev exchange sparked sharp criticism from political rivals in the Republican Party, but perhaps the most telling came from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who mused: “I’m curious: how many other countries has the president promised that he’d have a lot more flexibility the morning he doesn’t have to answer to the American people?”

Dubious deals & corrupt contributions?

Indeed, when it comes to collaboration with the Russians, the conduct of the Democrats is far more substantive, substantial—and questionable—than that of the Trump team.

After all, while Hilary Clinton was Secretary of State (2009-2013), the Clinton Foundation received around 150 million dollars in donations, while Bill Clinton himself received a half-million dollar fee for a Moscow lecture—just prior to the US government confirmation of a sale (December 2010) entailing transfer of control of around 20% of US uranium resources to Uranium One, a subsidiary of a State owned Russian company, Rosatom. (Also see Cash flowed to Clinton-Foundation as Russians pressed for control of uranium company, New York Times, April 23, 2015.)

Although an FBI investigation of the events surrounding this incident, known as the “Uranium One Episode”, did not result in any criminal indictments, numerous troubling questions continue to enshroud the affair.

These questions were aptly catalogued by The Wall Street Journal editorial board member, Holman W. Jenkins Jr., in a 2018 piece, Uranium One Is A Curious Case. He writes: “…it [is] interesting that the FBI, under its then-chief Robert Mueller, appears to have sat on the case—only getting around quietly to announcing a plea deal with the Russian executive five years later, in 2015…The FBI handled the Uranium One matter in a manner that avoided making immediate trouble for the policy and political interests of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.” 

The dubious & the corrupt (cont.)

He asks acerbically: “What if it had been known that the FBI was sitting on a case involving demonstrable malfeasance (bribery and kickbacks) by the Russian company’s U.S. arm? What if an eyewitness who had helped crack the case told the FBI (as he now claims he did) that Russian uranium executives had spoken openly of currying favor with the Clinton Foundation to advance their U.S. business?”

In the same caustic tone, he continues: “Would it have been embarrassing for the Obama policy if it were known that the uranium assets the Russian government sought to buy had been accumulated by…entrepreneurs working closely with Bill Clinton? That the Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledged contributions from people associated with these transactions? That Mr. Clinton had been paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow?

His unequivocal answer was: “Yes. It would have raised political difficulties for Mr. Obama’s Russia policy. It would have harmed the reputation of his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.” 

Expressing his skepticism as to the efficacy of the FBI investigation, he remarks in reference to Hillary Clinton’s email scandal: “…if the FBI didn’t find a basis to charge her aides with obstruction and evidence tampering, it’s only because it didn’t want to [sic].”

“No reasonable prosecutor…” Really??

Of course, there are solid grounds for Jenkins’s cynicism regarding the performance of the FBI—particularly with regard to the Clinton email scandal.

Indeed, any fair-minded observer of the then-FBI Director, James Comey, in his testimony before House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on this matter, would almost certainly be astonished by the stunning contradiction between the substance of his testimony and his recommendation not to file criminal charges against anyone involved in the affair.

Nowhere was this more evident than when Comey was questioned by then-South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy. Gowdy pressed Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.

During the exchange, Comey was repeatedly forced to admit that Clinton has lied as to the handling of her emails, which in effect constituted “false exculpatory statements”. By his own admission, Comey conceded that such statements are generally used “Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.”

Gauged against these responses of his, Comey’s earlier almost oxymoronic public statement is—to be charitable–profoundly mystifying: “Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” 

The need to condemn but not convict 

Accordingly, it is not difficult to understand Gowdy’s exasperation and frustration in his closing statement: “So you have a rogue email system set up before she [Clinton]took the oath of office. Thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time.…And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent.”

All this brings us back to Holden Jenkin’s previously cited assessment: “…if the FBI didn’t find a basis to charge her aides with obstruction and evidence tampering, it’s only because it didn’t want to.” 

Solid corroboration for this assertion comes from a report by CNN—hardly a bed of Rightwing conspiracy theories. The report, citing a well-placed source, stated that “Comey and his FBI colleagues were ‘playing with the language throughout’ the process”, and believed that they “needed to condemn Clinton’s handling of classified information while asserting they would not bring charges.” 

Thus, again contrary to his admission in the exchange with Gowdy, Comey claimed: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” 

When “extreme carelessness” is not “gross negligence” 

Significantly, the CNN report explains why Comey insisted on using the term “extremely careless” while studiously avoiding use of the term “grossly negligent”, which was dropped after appearing in an earlier draft of Comey’s memo on the Clinton email affair.

According to the CNN report: “‘Grossly negligent,’ the language dropped from the draft, is a term that carries with it legal ramifications. ‘Extremely careless,’ the term Comey ended up using, does not [sic].” Indeed, as “The Hill” points out “…federal law states that gross negligence in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time…

All this prompted Gowdy’s stern reproach of Comey: “…my real fear is this…[the] double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to…[to] understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be.”

An iniquitous impeachment over invented infractions

The same unscrupulous and unprincipled ruthlessness was reflected in the Democrats doomed attempt to impeach Trump over invented infractions—the very infractions that that irrefutably were committed by the former Democratic Vice-President and present Democratic candidate for President, Joe Biden. (See here min 02.31.)

Without delving into the depth of the details surrounding the episode, readers will recall that the impeachment initiative was launched on the basis of two purportedly incriminating telephone calls between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky.

According to an unidentified whistleblower(s), reportedly employed in the intelligence community, the calls provided evidence that Trump threatened to withhold US aid to Ukraine as leverage to induce the Ukrainian government to provide incriminating material on Joe Biden, a political rival, and on Biden’s son, Hunter—who, shortly after having been discharged from the Navy, after testing positive for cocaine use, was appointed to the board of a large Ukrainian energy company, Burisma—despite having no obvious experience for the job or the lucrative payments it entailed… and a long record of previous drug and drink addiction.

For transcripts of the Trump-Zelensky talks, declassified and released by the White House, see here & here.

Personally, I would be intrigued to learn how any remotely impeachable act could be gleaned from the contents of the transcripts and would be grateful for any persuasive guidance in this regard.

Impeaching the unimpeachable?

Indeed, the Democrats impeachment initiative raises several troubling questions.

For instance, are the Democratic instigators seriously suggesting that the US President should not be concerned as to conditions of governance in a country that is the recipient of US aid? If he should, then surely nothing could be more appropriate than to inquire as to those conditions and seek to investigate whether or not US citizens are, in anyway, playing a detrimental role in them.

Accordingly, then, should Biden snr. and his family members be immune to such investigation just because, at the time, he happened to be a possible candidate in an upcoming presidential race?? For if so, would the request for an investigation be unimpeachable (pardon the pun), if it related to someone who is not a political rival of the President—leaving his rivals free to engage in whatever nefarious activity they may choose?

The pot calling the kettle black…once again?

Of course, the jaw-dropping truth is that Joe Biden himself engaged, by his own admission, in precisely the act for which Trump was impeached: Using foreign aid as a lever for furthering personal interests.

Thus, in December 2015, Joe Biden, then-U.S. Vice President, warned Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian President that, if he did not fire Viktor Shokin, then Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, he would block the transfer of a billion dollars of US aid to the country. Biden snr. boasted openly about getting Shokin fired. During a 2018 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, he proudly proclaimed he withheld $1 billion in loan guarantees for Ukraine in order to force the government to address the problem with its top prosecutor. (Also see here min. 52.30-53.15.)

In Biden snr’s own words: “I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said…I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

Chaotic kaleidoscope of corruption

Interestingly, the individual that Biden snr. referred to as “solid”, was Yuriy Lutsenko , who several years previously was sentenced to four years in prison for embezzlement and abuse of office (with confiscation of his property).

Of course in the chaotic, kinetic kaleidoscope of corruption that is Ukrainian politics, it is difficult to know when, and if, the state organs of law and order have been exploited to settle political scores—and Lutsenko’s conviction was criticized by many as political persecution. Thus, despite doubts in this regard, it is interesting to note that the liberal/left leaning “New Yorker” commented: “Lutsenko, sometimes referred to simply as “the corrupt prosecutor general” of Ukraine, has been portrayed, hardly without reason, as an unscrupulous politician prone to telling lies to further his personal ambitions.” A similar assessment was expressed by former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, a central witness in the impeachment process against Trump, in a closed-door deposition, describing Lutsenko as an “opportunist” who “will ally himself, sometimes simultaneously, with whatever political or economic forces he believes will suit his interests best at the time.

This characterization of Lutsenko appears rather accurate.

Indeed, there is a bitter irony in the fact that it was Lutsenko, who reportedly fed damaging information to Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, Rudy Giuliani—which in itself seems to raise doubt as to judgement of the former vice-president, in view of his earlier characterization of Lutsenko as “solid”.

Down the rabbit hole?

The revelation of Biden snr’s use of US aid to coerce the Ukrainians over conduct of the investigation of corruption in the country, including into a company of whose board Biden jnr. was a member, sent the Democrats scrambling to concoct unlikely unconvincing accounts as to the real motivation behind the then-Vice-President’s strongarm tactics.

According to this version, the purpose of Biden snr’s demand to replace the then-Ukrainian prosecutor was to beef up investigation into corruption including into Burisma—thus exposing Biden jnr. to greater scrutiny, rather than covering for him.

For example, James Risen of “The Intercept” wrote: Joe Biden …was not trying to protect his son — quite the reverse. The then-vice president issued his demands for greater anti-corruption measures by the Ukrainian government despite the possibility that those demands would actually increase – not lessen — the chances that Hunter Biden and Burisma would face legal trouble in Ukraine.

There are good reasons for treating this version with a healthy dose of skepticism.

On the one hand, as Pulitzer laureate Adam Entous reveals in Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign?, members of Biden’s staff found him highly sensitive—even intimidating—with regard to any criticism of his family. A former Biden adviser told Entous, “Everyone who works for him has been screamed at”, and a business associate remarked that having difficult conversations with Biden about his family seemed like “…really touching a very fragile part of him.”

On the other hand, as Entous writes elsewhere: “Hunter, who had long struggled with severe drug and alcohol problems, had almost no expertise in the region or in energy, and many U.S. and Ukrainian officials suspected that Zlochevsky [Burisma’s founder /owner] had put Hunter on the [Burisma]board in the hope of protecting himself from prosecution.”

Rabbit hole? (cont.)

According to Entous: “Some White House and State Department officials disapproved of Hunter’s role at Burisma, concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest, but they mostly avoided discussing the matter with Joe Biden. The Vice-President had an unwritten “Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy when it came to his family members’ business decisions. The issue seemed too sensitive to raise…”

Accordingly, given: (a) Joe Biden’s extreme sensitivity regarding any adverse criticism of members of his family and their business dealings; (b) the fact the Burisma and its founder were the focus of ongoing corruption investigations; (c) the concern voiced both in Washington and Kiev over Hunter Biden’s presence on the Burisma board; the record of Hunter Biden’s “problematic past”, to which option would an unbiased adjudicator attribute greater credence:

  • That which maintains that the purpose of Joe Biden’s strongarm action was to protect his son from greater scrutiny by the Ukrainian authorities; or
  • That which maintains that the purpose of Joe Biden’s threats of punitive action was to expose his son to greater scrutiny by the Ukrainian investigators?

Clearly, under the specified circumstances, there seems very little reason to believe that the wish to institute greater scrutiny was a more plausible motive than the desire to protect—and every reason to believe the converse.

Accordingly, the latter should be assumed to be the true version of events–i.e. the US foreign aid was used to further personal interest—precisely the purported foundation for the Democrats impeachment initiative against Trump…on the basis of far more tenuous grounds.

A withering Senate report

Indeed, in September 2020, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs published a withering report into the allegations of corruption against Hunter Biden in Ukraine vis-à-vis his dealings with Burisma.

This official US Senate Report strongly underpins the validity of the notion that Biden snr. would have been very loath to expose Biden jnr. to enhanced scrutiny (See for example “Key Findings pp. 4-6).

A few selected citations from the almost 90-page document will illustrate the point.

In the executive summary (p.3), we read: “On April 16, 2014, Vice President Biden met with his son’s business partner, Devon Archer [recently convicted for securities fraud and conspiracy], at the White House. Five days later, Vice President Biden visited Ukraine, and he soon after was described in the press as the ‘public face of the administration’s handling of Ukraine.’

The report continues: “The day after his visit, on April 22, Archer joined the board of Burisma. Six days later, on April 28, British officials seized $23 million from the London bank accounts of Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Fourteen days later, on May 12, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma, and over the course of the next several years, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for their participation on the board.”

The BBC cites from the reports, noting: “Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine… Biden relatives ‘cashed in on Joe Biden’s vice presidency’ ..‘Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board cast a shadow over the work of those advancing anticorruption reforms in Ukraine…creating criminal financial, counterintelligence and extortion concerns’”. 

The report ends with the following disturbing statement: “The…investigation has faced many obstacles from the [Democratic] minority and from executive agencies that have failed to comply with document requests. Accordingly, there remains much work to be done.

Visceral, vicious and vindictive

The malevolent malfeasance of the Democrats was on stark display in mid-2018 with the nomination, and later appointment, of Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court Justice.

As readers will recall, Democrats endeavored to derail Kavanaugh’s conformation by raising flimsy allegations regarding a purported over-amorous teenage episode, involving one, Christine Blasey Ford, today a psychology professor, which supposedly took place almost 40 years in the past, when both were minors—as if that had any bearing on Kavanaugh’s attitude, aptitude and/or acumen as a full-grown adult…almost four decades later. In their fervor to block Kavanagh’s appointment, the Democrats showed they would baulk at nothing, however underhand and meanspirited, and that they had no compunction in trying to destroy his good name, and professional standing, regardless of the cost on his family.

Significantly, although Blasy Ford claimed to recall the alleged attack itself in some detail, she somehow could not remember any other potentially corroborative details—such as where the incident supposedly took place, how she got there and how she got back home. Moreover, no corroborating witnesses could be located and those named as such by Blasy-Ford, such as Leland Ingham Keyser, did not substantiate her accusations—even claiming to have been pressured by Blasy-Ford sympathizers to falsely implicate Kavanaugh.

“…a terrible & profoundly immoral dirty trick”

It is thus difficult to disagree with David French, who referred to the Democratic initiative as “a terrible and profoundly immoral political dirty trick”.

He writes: “What Dianne Feinstein [the Democratic Senator whom Blasy-Ford initially contacted] has done to Brett Kavanaugh is unconscionable. She sat on a vague, anonymous accusation for months, refused to question Kavanaugh about it, refused to demand further substantiation, and then actually had the audacity to publicly refer it to law enforcement without providing a single shred of evidence that the referral was warranted. This is character assassination on a grand scale.”

It was hardly surprising, therefore, that Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who chaired the Judiciary Committee during Kavanaugh’s bitter confirmation process, voiced grave disapproval at the shameful tactics adopted by the Democrats and the motley collection of Kavanaugh accusers that emerged in their wake, several of whom he referred for criminal investigation by the Dept. of Justice. He commented: “When individuals intentionally mislead the committee, they divert important committee resources during time sensitive investigations and materially impede its work. Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators. It is illegal to obstruct committee investigations.”

Grassley also expressed his concern for future judicial confirmation hearings, warning that false allegations simply bog down the committee and squander its resources.

He urged: “The next Supreme Court nominee should not have to defend himself or herself against baseless and fabricated allegations, and committee staff should not have to spend valuable time investigating them”, which brings us back full circle to the issue with which we began this essay—the upcoming confirmation hearing for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s replacement on the bench of the Supreme court—Amy Cony-Barrett.

“Nothing is off the table…”

The placement of Supreme Court justices is arguably one of the most impactful and indelible actions an incumbent president can perform. It is precisely because of this reason that the Democrats oppose it with such vehement passion.

Thus, even before Trump had nominated Cony Barrett, the Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer (D., NY), warned that if the confirmation procedure goes ahead “nothing is off the table”. He underscored: “Our No. 1 goal must be to communicate the stakes of this Supreme Court fight to the American people,”—which is, of course, exactly why the Republicans must press on regardless.

Indeed, in light of the long—yet far from exhaustive—litany of loathsome conduct of the Democratic Party, showing scant regard for personal lives of political adversaries or respect for national institutions, the Republicans must be relentless in pushing forward with the upcoming confirmation hearing of Amy Cony Barrett.

In this regard, they must unequivocally show that “everything, indeed, is on the table”.

©Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

VIDEO Exposé: Kamala Harris’ Support of Selling Baby Parts by Planned Parenthood

This is a 5:00 minute video I recommend all should watch Kamala Harris and her abuse of power as California District Attorney defending illegal activities of Planned Parenthood!

I know I’m preaching to the choir but here are the Conclusions:

  1. Harris used her office as CA DA to defend PP against fetal trafficking of body parts.
  2. She is a huge threat to our 1st Amendment rights and civil liberties if she becomes V.P. and inevitably President if Biden wins & turns totally senile.
  3. If we don’t work hard enough to re-elect POTUS Trump, Harris will use her POWER to abuse and punish anyone with different views other than her own radical Marxist views.

Thanks to www.conservativewomensforum.com for this video.

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The New York Times is Now on Notice

I have a big announcement to share with you.

Due to the fact that The New York Times has become the epicenter of Fake News, especially when reporting on Project Veritas, I have decided to take legal action against their defamatory tactics.

In their latest piece on Project Veritas, “journalist” Maggie Astor attacked our Minnesota Ballot Harvesting investigation claiming it was a “coordinated disinformation campaign.”

You bet I have a response to that. Watch it here:

This isn’t the first time The New York Times has come after us, but I guarantee you: they will think twice next time they consider defaming our work.

Just curious, Maggie Astor, what in our Minnesota video was “deceptive?” Can you name ONE “deceptive” edit, you HACK?

Also, “probably” part of a coordinated disinformation effort? What the hell does that even mean? Is this what The New York Times considers journalism?

The New York Times constantly deceives its audience, and then people like Astor think they have the moral authority to judge our journalistic ethics. Pathetic.

If all of that weren’t bad enough, Astor then fabricates this conspiracy theory [CLICK HERE].

So, let me get this straight – The New York Times is using some random Stanford researchers to give credence to their conspiracy theories?

Just so you know, Ms. Astor, Project Veritas had decided on releasing our Minnesota investigation DAYS BEFORE Sunday.

Nobody at Project Veritas had any idea that your so-called publication would be launching a story about President Donald Trump’s taxes on the same day.

After Astor’s story was published, other corrupt media outlets wasted no time in parroting The New York Times narrative:

This is why good people don’t want to do what Project Veritas does. The media hacks work with each other to besmirch and defame anyone who steps in the way of their political agenda.

I just can’t stand by and let The New York Times get away with this.

Friend, that is why we are going to sue them.

And oh, by the way, we are UNDEFEATED in litigation:

Nobody at Project Veritas is scared of The New York Times. That’s because we know we will prevail in the fight for truth.

The New York Times hasn’t seen anything yet.

Be Brave,

James

©All rights reserved.