VIDEOS: Why Socialist Andrew Gillum is “Unfit to Lead” Florida

/in , , , , , /by

The Republican Party of Florida (RPOS) in support of Republican Ron DeSantis for Governor has launched a series of ads concerning the record of Socialist Andrew Gillum’s record as Mayor of Tallahassee, Florida. In the past week the Gillum campaign saw a 9 point lead vanish. The RPOS shows why Gillum is “unfit to lead” the state of Florida.

In an email the DeSantis campaign states:

The Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) today launched two new ads titled “Unfit to Lead” that will be airing television statewide.

The spots, which feature Tallahassee residents who were left without power following Hurricane Hermine, expose Andrew Gillum’s failed leadership and his refusal of assistance during the recovery efforts.

Here are the RPOF ads:

RELATED ARTICLE: Gillum Aligns With Groups That Support Boycotts of Israel

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Andrew Gillum is from Facebook.

A Month Ago, Levi’s Wanted Your Guns. Now They Want You To Elect People To Take Them

/in , , , , , /by

Levi Strauss is a clothing company with an agenda. It has a “1” ranking in all five of 2ndVote’s categories where it takes corporate action and just a month ago launched a million-dollar anti-gun campaign.

Now it’s pushing an ad to get out the vote — and we know from their corporate actions which way they want voters to go:

“Levi’s is all about authentic self-expression,” said Jen Sey, senior VP and chief marketing officer of Levi Strauss & Co. in a statement. “And there is no purer form of self-expression than voting.”

Levi’s left-wing values can’t be hidden by its ad’s blue-collar workers. Levi’s matches corporate donations to Planned Parenthood and has aligned its company to get approval from the Human Rights Campaign. It backs environmental policies which harm U.S. workers and do scant good for the environment, like cap-and-trade.

In short, Levi’s is part of the same movement as the demagogues in Congress who are right now smearing Judge Brett Kavanaugh as a sexual assailant. These folks are so fixated on their dangerous ideologies that they can’t even see how they are standing against traditional American values.

2ndVote shoppers, we need you to act. Click the button below to tell Levi’s to stop sticking its nose into politics. And be sure to consider shopping at Eddie Bauer, Carhartt, Anthropologie, Tommy Hilfiger, J. Crew, and Van Heusen — all neutral companies which focus on impressing you, the customer, not a few loud liberal talking heads.

Send Levi Strauss an Email!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Bogdan Glisik on Unsplash.

See Who’s Funding The ACLU’s Claim That Kavanaugh Is Just Like Weinstein, Clinton, & Cosby

/in , , , , , /by

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a mainstay of left-leaning civil rights advocacy. Its stories history used to include defending the First Amendment rights of Nazis, of all people. It has abandoned those free speech principles in recent years, suing a Washington State florist on behalf of a gay couple and suing to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions and contraceptives.

This week, it gave up all pretense at not being an arm of the Democratic Party. The following ad compares Brett Kavanaugh to Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Bill Clinton:

Got that? According to the ACLU, Kavanaugh is as bad as Bill Cosby — who was recently convicted of sexual assault. He’s as bad as Harvey Weinstein — a man accused of decades of sexual assaults, harassment, spying on women, and more who was arrested in May on charges. And he’s as bad as Bill Clinton, who used his power as first governor and then president to have his way with women. Clinton has also been credibly accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick.

These (Democratic Party) men’s behavior is atrocious, immoral, and illegal. The evidence backing their accusers is enormous, and accusers’ stories frequently have corroboration. Compare that to the accusations against Kavanaugh, which are a) politically motivated, b) new, c) uncorroborated, d) full of holes, and e) refuted by those who know Kavanaugh best.

The facts are clear. Kavanaugh is nothing like these (Democratic Party) men. Yet the ACLU is putting one million dollars behind this ad to target five Senators they believe can be convinced to oppose Kavanaugh.

This hit job cannot be allowed to stand. 2ndVote conservatives can make their voices heard by demanding the ACLU’s corporate backers stop funding this new arm of the Democratic Party. Specifically, we recommend telling Bank of America, Walgreens, Lyft, Yahoo, and Verizon to demand the ACLU return to its civil rights roots — or these corporations will lose you as customers.

Help us continue creating content like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image by Shutterstock and column originally appeared on 2nd Vote. Republished with permission.

The Secret’s Out: Corporate America Is Standing With Soros & Steyer Against American Values

/in , , , , , , /by

George Soros and Tom Steyer are two of conservative America’s biggest boogeyman. Each has donated untold millions to various liberal groups — including election efforts — to turn America against its core values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But corporate America is just as bad. For just one example, Levi Strauss — the iconic designer of jeans for blue-collar, hard-working Americans — launched a Get Out The Vote ad. It was bad enough that their 2ndVote rank is “1” in the five areas where they engage in politics. It was worse when they put $1 million to push gun control. Now they’re outright telling Americans to vote for Levi’s liberal agenda.

The ACLU has likewise become part of the Democratic Party/left-wing smear machine. Rather than stick to their historically left-leaning civil rights principles, they put $1 million into an ad accusing Brett Kavanaugh of being a sexual predator like Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, and Harvey Weinstein. That ad went into five states to target five Senators the ACLU believes could be persuaded to vote against Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is only one solution to stopping the Soros-Steyer-Corporate left-wing charge, and that’s to create a culture of informed 2ndVoters. Tell your family, friends, and neighbors how their shopping habits have real economic and political power. Urge them to use that power by backing good companies and abandoning bad ones.

Corporate America and allegedly “non-partisan” non-profits like the ACLU think they’re pulling a fast one on the American people. Let them know they’re wrong today, tomorrow, and after election day with your network’s 2ndVote power.

Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

Trump’s new counterterrorism strategy singles out ‘radical Islamists’

/in , , /by

Bolton says: “Radical Islamist terrorist groups represent the preeminent transnational terrorist threat to the United States, and to United States’ interests abroad. The fact is the radical Islamic threat that we face is a form of ideology. This should not be anything new to anybody. King Abdullah of Jordan has frequently described the terrorist threat as a civil war within Islam that Muslims around the world recognize, and he is, after all, a direct descendent [sic] of the Sharif [inaudible], the keepers of the holy cities. If that’s how King Abdullah views it, I don’t think anybody should be surprised we see it as a kind of war, as well.”

The idea that there is a significant pushback to the jihad ideology within the Islamic world is a trifle overstated. The concept of jihad as meaning warfare against unbelievers in order to establish Islamic law’s hegemony over them is deeply rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, as well as in Islamic law. Nonetheless, in 2011 the Obama Administration removed all mention of Islam and jihad from counterterror training; this is a strong step in the right direction, toward once again enabling counterterror analysts to study and understand the motivating ideology of the enemy.

“New White House Counterterrorism Strategy Singles Out ‘Radical Islamists,’” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, October 4, 2018:

The Trump administration is implementing a new, government-wide counterterrorism strategy that places renewed focus on combatting “radical Islamic terrorist groups,” marking a significant departure from the Obama administration, which implemented a series of policies aimed at deemphasizing the threat of Islamic terror groups.

In releasing the first national counterterrorism strategy since 2011, the Trump administration is working to take a drastically different approach than that of the former administration, according to senior U.S. officials.

While the Obama administration sought to dampen the United States’ focus on Islamic terror threats, the Trump administration has made this battle the centerpiece of its new strategy.

National Security Adviser John Bolton acknowledged in remarks to reporters Thursday afternoon that the new strategy is “a departure” from the former administration’s strategy, which has been characterized as a failure by Republican foreign policy voices due to the increasing number of domestic terror attacks and plots across the United States

“Radical Islamist terrorist groups represent the preeminent transnational terrorist threat to the United States, and to United States’ interests abroad,” Bolton said.

“The fact is the radical Islamic threat that we face is a form of ideology,” Bolton said. “This should not be anything new to anybody. King Abdullah of Jordan has frequently described the terrorist threat as a civil war within Islam that Muslims around the world recognize, and he is, after all, a direct descendent [sic] of the Sharif [inaudible], the keepers of the holy cities. If that’s how King Abdullah views it, I don’t think anybody should be surprised we see it as a kind of war, as well.”

“One may hope that the ideological fervor disappears, but sad to report, it remains strong all around the world, and even with the defeat of the ISIS territorial caliphate, we see the threat spreading to other countries,” Bolton added.

The Trump administration strategy also shifts the focus to Iran, characterizing the country as the foremost state sponsor of terror across the globe.

“The United States faces terrorist threats from Iran, which remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism that, really, the world’s central banker of international terrorism since 1979,” Bolton said. “And from other terrorist groups. Iran-sponsored terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic jihad, continue to pose a threat to the United States and our interests.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured photo is by Sophie Keen on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Moms for Kavanaugh

/in , , , , , , /by

The below video was published by CatholicVote.org:

This says it all.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Zach Lucero on Unsplash.

Three ‘Green’ ballot initiatives to shut down fossil fuels this November

/in , , , , /by

Three initiatives are on the ballot this November in Colorado, Arizona, and Washington State, all aimed at severely restricting fossil fuel use and development within these states’ borders.

With the Trump administration putting a stop to aggressive action on climate change at the federal level, environmentalist groups across the nation are trying to achieve their goals through action on the state level.

In Colorado, Proposition 112 seeks to increase the “setback” requirement for new oil and gas activity on non-federal land – increasing it from 500-ft to 2,500-ft from designated structures and vulnerable areas. In laymen’s terms, this means that there can be no new drilling within 2,500 feet of essentially any structure – whether it is a house, fire station, garage, or whatever — on non-federal land.

Colorado Rising, the group pushing for the enactment of Proposition 112, says that the 2,500 feet setback is necessary “…based on peer-reviewed health studies indicating that health impacts are greatest within a half mile of a ‘fracking’ site.” In fact, the group even hints that this distance is not far enough. “Some studies indicate that a more appropriate minimum setback should be 1 mile, and the average evacuation distance for a well blowout is 0.8 miles.”

But such statements are rebutted by numerous other studies, including a four-year long one carried out by President Obama’s EPA which found that fracking created no adverse impact on water quality.

The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Coalition (COGCC), a Colorado State government agency, also provided a report showing that at least three of the top five oil and gas producing counties in Colorado would be significantly impacted by the measure. The initiative would make it almost impossible to develop oil and gas east of the Rockies.

Also, according to an analysis performed by a coalition of the Colorado Association of Realtors, the Colorado Bankers Association, Colorado Concern, Common Sense Policy Roundtable and Denver South Economic Development Partnership, the definitions of what the language in the measure refer to is very unclear. Proposition 112 says that there will be no new drilling within 2,500 feet of an “occupied structure and any area designated for additional protection.”

The analysis states that “it is likely that ‘Occupied Structure’ would encompass far more buildings than ‘High Occupancy’ thus increasing not only the distance of new oil and gas activity from structures but also increasing the number of structures subject to setback.”

Bob Schaffer, a former congressman from the state, wrote an op-ed in the Coloradan against Proposition 112, formerly known as Initiative 97. He said, “85 percent of Colorado’s non-federal land would be off-limits to new natural-gas harvesting. A restriction of Initiative 97’s magnitude, according to a June analysis released by the Colorado Alliance of Mineral and Royalty Owners, could cost our state an unfathomable $26 billion in lost revenues, and legal takings claims.”

In Arizona, Proposition 127 would amend the Arizona State Constitution to mandate that 50% of power derived from public utilities must come from renewable resources by 2030. Nuclear power is not counted as a “renewable” option under the measure.

Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Committee claims passage of this initiative will create “thousands of good jobs.” They claim that the number of jobs in Arizona’s solar industry is diminishing when compared to the national average, and Proposition 127 is needed to reverse that trend. Few specific data are referenced.

In contrast, analysis performed by the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University paints a starkly different picture. Their research found that Proposition 127 would hardly be an economic boon to the Grand Canyon State – in fact it would cause disposable personal income to plummet by a hefty $23.0 billion in the coming decades (2018-2060). In addition, the study also found that Prop 127 would cause some 305,000 “job years of employment” to be lost, and the Arizona economy as a whole would lose a whopping $36.8 billion in Gross State Product.

Added to this are other concerns. According to group “NO on 127,” the ballot measure would also cause the Palo Verde nuclear power plant to close by 2025, costing the State $55 million in property tax revenue annually.

In Washington State, Initiative 1631 proposes to enact a “fee” on carbon emissions of $15 per ton, starting in 2020, which then goes up $2 per ton every single year. The Atlantic reports that in 2035, the fee is projected to reach $55 per ton. At that point state lawmakers will have the option to either freeze the cost in place or continue to let it increase by $2 per year.

The reason proponents are calling this a “fee” and not a “tax” is because the revenues generated by this Initiative can only be spent on projects relating to climate change, carbon emissions, and transitioning from fossil fuels. Lawmakers would thus be unable to use the money generated for other purposes. A 15-member board would be in charge of deciding how to spend the funds. It remains unclear, however, exactly how this roughly $1 billion in new revenue every year would be spent by the board.

Dana Bieber, spokeswoman for the “No on 1631 Coalition” said, “This very powerful 15-member panel will be responsible for doling out billions upon billions of dollars … I think when we are talking about the greatest challenge of our time — and that’s climate change — I don’t think we should leave it in the hands of 15 unelected people.”

The Atlantic further explains that supporters of Initiative 1631 claim the measure will only cost residents $10 a month in a “worst-case scenario.” But opponents say this is unrealistic.

The Seattle Times reports that Puget Sound Energy, which relies on coal and gas for 60% of its power generation, would be hit much harder by this policy than Seattle City Light, which is supported by hydroelectricity in the region. When utilities pass the cost of the fee onto consumers, some ratepayers will be hit much harder than others.

Monty Anderson, the Executive Secretary of the Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council, which represents some 20,000 workers, is opposed to Initiative 1631. “It’s just a large gas tax. That’s the way we see it, and that’s the problem,” Anderson said. “And I don’t think they are going to stop investing in alternative energy just because we don’t have a special gas tax here.”

The voters of Colorado, Arizona, and Washington State will be making important choices this November. Their decisions will either inspire, or deflate, future efforts by environmentalist groups to continue pushing radical green policies at the state level.

About the Author: Adam Houser

Adam Houser coordinates student leaders for CFACT’s collegians program and writes on issues of climate and energy.

EDITORS NOTE: This column and image originally appeared on CFACT. Republished with permission.

Puerto Rican Governor Spinelessly Stabs His Greatest Advocate In The Back: Rick Scott.

/in , , , /by

It seems a week doesn’t go by where I am not astounded at the level of ungratefulness and hypocrisy in politics. This week, the Ungrateful Backstabber Award goes to Puerto Rican Governor Ricardo Roselló for having endorsed Senator Bill Nelson in his reelection bid against Governor Rick Scott.

Why? You ask. To be sure, a Democrat endorsing another Democrat is no shocking development.  But here’s the thing: no national public figure has been more active in bringing assistance to Puerto Rico nor done more to accommodate displaced Puerto Ricans than Governor Rick Scott.

Hurricane María hit the island territory on September 20, 2017.  Although the initial casualty figures were amazingly low, everyone knew the true scope of the devastation and humanitarian crisis was going to be colossal.  This was an island far removed from the mainland that had essentially lost the totality of its power grid.  There was no drinkable water for its 3,327,917 inhabitants. Its roads were blocked or destroyed.  There was no ground access to the island’s interior.  No access to the rural, poorer communities far from Puerto Rican harbors and docks.  There were no schools for kids, and countless roofless homes stood as irregularly shaped remnants stripped of their abilities to provide protection or comfort from the elements.

By September 21, 2017, it was clear that Puerto Rico was America’s greatest humanitarian challenge.  Of course, the federal government helped, eventually approving $2.2 billion of aid.  Cargo ships made their way to the beleaguered island to drop off supplies and personnel. The U.S. military set up around-the-clock operations inclusive of countless helicopter sorties to send water and food into the island’s interior.  And, of course, President Trump visited the island on October 3.

But consider the actions of Governor Scott.  On September 28, a mere eight days after the hurricane hit, Governor Scott, at Roselló’s request, traveled to Puerto Rico, not for a show of support, but to coordinate the island’s response and recovery efforts!  Let’s not forget, Scott was already juggling Florida’s response to Hurricane Irma, the largest natural disaster to have ever hit the state, from a mere ten days earlier.

On October 5, through the actions of Governor Scott, Florida became a FEMA host-state for Puerto Rico, the only state to do so.  Throughout the month of October, Scott traveled to Washington, D.C to meet with the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Congressman Michael McCaul, and the Chair of the House Appropriation Committee, Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, among countless others, to advocate, not just for Florida, but for Puerto Rico.

Scott sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget pleading for assistance for Floridians and Puerto Ricans.  He sent a contingency of utility workers to Puerto Rico to help in the infrastructure reconstruction efforts.  He aided Puerto Rican families that had been displaced by the effects of the hurricane by activating Florida’s Emergency Response Team.  He adjusted Florida’s school requirements to accommodate displaced Puerto Rican children and insisted that the legislature provide funding to accommodate for the influx of these students.  And on January 11, 2018, Scott met with Puerto Ricans, in a town hall in Puerto Rico, with Governor Rosselló at his side to discuss the status of the island’s ongoing relief efforts.

Truly, the list of documented, selfless and life-saving activities by Governor Scott in support of people not in his jurisdiction who were suffering from the devastating effects of a massive natural disaster while responding to his own state’s challenges cannot be recorded.

Of course, Senator Nelson did his part.  He visited Puerto Rico on October 16, 2017. During his visit, he flew with Roselló in a helicopter to go inland.  And while speaking in San Juan, he encouraged displaced Puerto Ricans to register to vote in Florida because “they have been very embracing of my public service.” Of course, he clarified that he was not encouraging them to depart forever.

Nelson also assured Puerto Ricans that FEMA would do its part while again noting that he has a close tie to Puerto Rico because he lives in Orlando. And, of course, Nelson stood out by supporting the delivery of aid to the island at the federal government’s expense, along with every other member of the United States Senate.

One would think that in light of the colossal work Governor Scott has done on behalf of Puerto Rico, work that is unparalleled by any other national figure and truly stands as being beyond the call of duty, that Puerto Rico’s own governor would demonstrate some semblance of gratitude towards him.  But instead, what Roselló did on Monday was to deploy the political knife, sharpen it, and insert it into the back of Puerto Rico’s greatest advocate and champion, Governor Rick Scott.

But that’s par for the course for Democrats today.

Even Roselló has recognized his own hypocrisy by clarify that, in his opinion, both Nelson and Scott are “great people running for office,” and that, “In no way should one take this as a negative toward somebody. It’s a positive for somebody.  This might fall on deaf ears, but we need to steer away from, in every contest, to see who the villain is and the superhero is. In many cases we have find folks running for office.”

Indeed! And in the world of political endorsements one’s position in such circumstances is to stay out of it.

The truth is that Governor Roselló’s endorsement isn’t going to make a hill of beans of difference to the outcome of Florida’s senatorial race.  But in supporting Nelson, Roselló has made a resounding statement about his lack of values, integrity, and loyalty.  The big loser in this endorsement exercise is not Governor Scott, who Roselló was aiming to injure, but Roselló himself who has cheapened the value of his word and demonstrated himself to be a political hack.

Clearly, in this case, Roselló’s best option was to simply shut up.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages.

The Political Pasts of the Lawyers Representing Kavanaugh Accusers

/in , , , , , /by

The lawyers for the three women accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct all have been on the legal battlefields of either celebrity or politics.

One ran for office multiple times as a Democrat. Another was a federal appointee of both Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Still another defended the alleged misconduct of Democrat politicians.

Kavanaugh has denied allegations made by each woman.

Here’s a look at the political pasts of the lawyers representing the accusers in one of the most politically charged Supreme Court confirmation processes in recent times.

From Iran Contra Prosecutor to McCabe Advocate

Michael Bromwich is one of the lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford. Bromwich and another lawyer, Debra Katz, sat on either side of Ford during the Sept. 27 hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ford claims that in the early 1980s, during a small gathering of teens, a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and forcefully tried to remove her clothing.

Before going into private practice, Bromwich was a prominent federal prosecutor.

In the 1980s, he served as associate counsel for the Office of Independent Counsel during its investigation of the Iran-contra affair.

He was one of three courtroom lawyers leading the prosecution against Lt. Col. Oliver North, then a National Security Council aide. North’s conviction was overturned on appeal in 1990.

In 1994, Clinton nominated Bromwich and the Senate confirmed him as inspector general for the Justice Department. The Office of Inspector General acts as the internal watchdog to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse, and in some cases, make a criminal referral.

A little over a decade later, Obama tapped Bromwich to lead an effort to reform the Minerals Management Service in response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010 off the Gulf of Mexico.

Bromwich oversaw reorganization of the agency to eliminate conflicts among its different missions, which included establishing safety standards, regulating industry compliance, and collecting royalties, according to the Obama White House.

Starting this year, Bromwich began representing Andrew McCabe, who had been deputy FBI director under James Comey since 2016 and, for a short time after President Donald Trump fired Comey, was the acting FBI director.

McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, ran an unsuccessful campaign for state Senate in Virginia, receiving about $500,000 from a political action committee run by then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a political ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Bromwich, the Justice Department’s former inspector general, represented McCabe as he was under a probe by the current Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General that determined he was not honest with investigators.

The FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommended that McCabe be fired. Attorney General Jeff Sessions followed up by firing him.

Bromwich consistently has contributed to Democrats, including Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. He also has made donations to the Democratic National Committee.

Bromwich did not respond to email and phone inquiries.

Defender of Al Franken and Bill Clinton

Debra Katz has hit the talk show circuit, speaking up for Ford’s allegations more than Bromwich has. And she is no stranger to commenting for the media.

Last year, Katz provided commentary defending Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., before he resigned in disgrace after multiple reports of groping women.

“Context is relevant,” Katz said about Franken. “He did not do this as a member of the U.S. Senate. He did this in his capacity of someone who was still functioning as an entertainer.”

In the 1990s, Katz was also a strong defender of Bill Clinton amid charges of sexual harassment made by Paula Jones.

In April 1999, Katz said on “CBS Evening News”:

Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim.

Katz also talked about the Jones case to The New York Times in March 1998.

“If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment, I would probably tell her that I’m sorry, it’s unfair, but you don’t have a case,” Katz told the Times.

Clinton eventually settled his case with Jones, and was found in contempt of federal court.

In a follow up point in the Times, Katz continued: “If it’s one time, it has to be severe, almost a sexual assault, not just a touching of somebody’s breast or buttocks or even forceful kissing.”

Katz is a donor to Obama’s presidential campaigns and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, and to numerous Democratic congressional candidates across the country.

In a Facebook post in March 2017, Katz, referring to a Hillary Clinton line during the campaign, said of advisers to President Donald Trump: “These people are all miscreants. The term ‘basket of deplorables’ is far too generous a description for these people who are now Senior Trump advisors.”

Katz did not respond to phone and email inquiries.

He Has an Eye on 2020

While most of the lawyers involved in the Kavanaugh accusations have a past in politics, Michael Avenatti hints at a significant political future.

Avenatti already has asserted that he is considering running for president in 2020.

Over the past year, he has built a high-profile legal resume to raise his name recognition, making well more than 100 TV appearances.

One of his clients, Julie Swetnick, made the most serious accusation against Kavanaugh—one that the nominee and current D.C. Circuit Court judge called a farce.

Swetnick claims in an affidavit that when she was a young adult, she was present at multiple parties where Kavanaugh, as a high school student, participated in gang rapes.

She said that she eventually was gang-raped at one of the parties she attended. She said she couldn’t remember whether Kavanaugh was one of her attackers—only that he was present at that party.

Avenatti also represents porn star Stormy Daniels, a stage name for Stephanie Clifford, who has said she had a consensual one-night stand with Trump in 2006. Daniels was trying to get out of a nondisclosure agreement that she signed shortly before the 2016 election.

While in college and later in law school, Avenatti worked for Rahm Emanuel’s Democratic-affiliated opposition research firm the Research Group. Emanuel is now mayor of Chicago.

However, most of Avenatti’s career has been with the entertainment industry in Los Angeles, where he once sued businessman Trump.

Avenatti wasn’t a major political donor, but contributed to the presidential campaign of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Kerry’s presidential campaign, and at least one of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s campaigns.

Democratic Candidate

Deborah Ramirez claims that as a college freshman Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a party when they were both students at Yale.

The two lawyers representing her, according to reports, are Stan Garnett and John Clune, both of Colorado.

Garnett is a former district attorney for Colorado’s 20th Judicial District in Boulder County, an elected office he held for about a decade, according to an online biography.

In 2010, Garnett was the Democratic nominee for Colorado attorney general. He lost the race to Republican John Suthers.

In private practice during 2003, Garnett represented Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., in his capacity as an individual in the case of Salazar v. Davidson, which led to a court’s striking down a redistricting plan approved by a Republican-led state legislature.

He contributed to Democratic congressional candidates across the country, and also to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

High-Profile Cases

Clune, also an attorney for Ramirez, hasn’t been as transparently political as most of the other lawyers involved in the allegations against Kavanaugh.

Many of his high-profile cases involve sexual assault, however.

Clune has represented students and families on campus rape and Title IX matters.

Clune represented clients alleging sexual assault in civil litigation against pro basketball’s Kobe Bryant, as well as in a civil lawsuit against pro baseball’s Johan Santana and several actions against schools alleging Title IX violations.

In 2009, Clune co-founded and served as the first legal director for Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center, a pro-bono nonprofit organization dedicated to enforcing the rights of crime victims, according to an online biography.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Sen. Flake, I Was Assaulted by a Stranger. Here’s Why I Want Kavanaugh Confirmed.

I Was a Crime Reporter in Maryland in the Early ’80s. I Never Heard of Teen Gang-Rape Parties

The Daily Signal Podcast: The Media’s Shameful Handling of Kavanaugh Accusations

Harvard Students Want Kavanaugh Banned From Public Life, Because of #MeToo

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with all images was republished with permission. The featured image of Christine Blasey Ford is joined by her lawyers, Debra Katz, left, and Michael Bromwich as she testified Sept. 27 before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Katz and Bromwich both have partisan pasts. (Photo: Win McNamee/Zuma Press/Newscom)

Why is the anti-Florida farmers ‘dark money’ group Bullsugar.org endorsing Senator Bill Nelson?

/in , , , /by

According to PR Newswire:

In the race for US Senate Bullsugar.org endorsed Nelson for his public acknowledgement that Florida’s flawed water management has fueled toxic algae and red tide blooms on both coasts, and for Nelson’s support for solutions that protect the health and safety of waterside communities, as well as the health of Everglades National Park and Florida Bay.

Who is Bullsugar.org?

This is a questions that two Florida newspapers have tried to answer.

TC Palm, part of the USA Today Network, in an article titled “Editorial: Bullsugar should be sweeter on transparency” wrote:

If Bullsugar.org didn’t exist, someone would have to invent it.

The group was formed in 2013, but it came to prominence this past summer as blue-green algae choked our waterways.

[ … ]

Judy Sanchez, spokeswoman for Clewiston-based U.S. Sugar, suggests it’s because Bullsugar and other Everglades environmental groups are working in tandem, likely all funded by the same “out-of-state hedge fund billionaire” (Paul Tudor Jones II) in an effort to push their “anti-farming, anti-rural communities agenda.

[ … ]

And its critics are complaining, we suspect, because Bullsugar has drawn rhetorical blood in its criticism and its activism.

Nonetheless, the secrecy doesn’t reflect well on Bullsugar’s cause. Given the severity of this summer’s algae crisis, it might have been tempting to fight fire with fire, to counter the sugar industry’s political donations funneled through myriad PACs, “grass roots” organizations and, yes, “dark money” groups with similar tactics.

Politico in an article titled “Targets of Bullsugar.org’s criticism wonder where group gets its funding” noted:

Who is Bullsugar.org?

The group supporting a water reservoir to divert and store discharges from Lake Okeechobee has brought harsh rhetoric to the debate on Everglades issues this past year after being formed just two years ago.

Group members have criticized politicians who have received donations from the sugar industry. But the group would not provide a list of its donors when requested by POLITICO Florida.

“OK, so, I can’t really give you a list of our donors,” co-founder Kenan Siegel said. “I don’t think they’d really want to be named.”

Bullsugar.org is a 501(c)(4) organization, which means it doesn’t have to reveal its donors. Such organizations in political circles often are called “dark money” groups.

The Nelson for Senate Campaign in an email stated:

Friends – our campaign has been outspent 5-to-1, and right now our fundraising is falling behind. If we let Rick Scott buy this seat, Democrats have NO chance to take back the Senate.

He and his right-wing allies have already spent more than double what my campaign spent in 2012, and recent polls show this race within a single point – that’s why this fundraising deadline is so important.

Perhaps Florida’s Senator Bill Nelson should come forward and ask Bullsugar to reveal from where it gets its funding in the name of honesty and transparency? Who is buying whose seat?

Why Did Gillum’s Campaign Share a Building with a Taxpayer-Funded Solar Project and His Consulting Firm?

/in , , , , /by

TALLAHASSEE, FL- Andrew Gillum recently moved his campaign headquarters, and as reported by the Tallahassee Democrat, Gillum has yet to pay rent for the new space. Perhaps Gillum is getting another sweetheart deal in Tallahassee, but as with most stories about Andrew Gillum, it gets worse.

As noted in the Democrat story, Gillum’s campaign was previously located at 1550 Melvin St. in Tallahassee, the same address shared by three other entities with questionable ties to Gillum: P&P Communications, People for the American Way Foundation, and Solar Distributors of America.

Why was a company who is a direct beneficiary of millions of taxpayer dollars registered at the same address as Gillum’s other interests?

  • In 2011, as a Tallahassee City Commissioner, Andrew Gillum voted to give $5.4 million in taxpayer money to Sunnyland Solar for a solar farm project that failed shortly afterwards. That solar farm project is now a direct target of the FBI’s investigation into corruption in Tallahassee’s city government.
  • A company called Solar Distributors of America partnered with Sunnyland Solar and was the purchasing entity for the property that the solar resided on. Solar Distributors of America is registered at 1550 Melvin St. in Tallahassee. At the time, 1550 Melvin Street was also the address of the following:
    • Andrew Gillum’s campaign headquarters
    • P&P Communications
    • People for the American Way Foundation

Why did Gillum’s alleged PR firm receive rent money from his campaign? How is this not a violation?

  • After leaving his job with the People for the American Way Foundation ahead of his run for Florida governor, Mayor Andrew Gillum joined P&P Communications, a PR Firm in Tallahassee founded by longtime Gillum supporter Sharon Lettman-Hicks.
  • P&P Communications was located in the same building, owned by Lettman-Hicks, as the People for the American Way Foundation.
  • As noted by the Tallahassee Democrat: “The building was home to the PFAW Foundation for years until its lease expired in February 2017, just as Gillum was about to launch his gubernatorial campaign. After PFAW moved out, Gillum’s campaign moved in the following month, Lettman-Hicks said.”
  • Gillum’s campaign paid P&P rent, from which Gillum takes an over $70,000 a year salary from.
  • P&P, an alleged PR Firm, has no listed clients, no website, and virtually no trace of existence other than its registration.

The people of Florida deserve answers:

  • Why would a company who is a direct beneficiary of millions of taxpayer dollars be registered at the same address as Gillum’s other interests?
  • After voting to allocate over $5 million in taxpayer money, and the project collapsed, where did that money go? And why was one of the companies with ties to the project located at his campaign HQ?
  • What does P&P Communications do? If they truly are a PR Firm, where is their website? Who are their clients? Why were they receiving rent money from his campaign? How is this not a violation?

SOURCES

  • City Commission Meeting Summary, TalGov.com, p. 30
  • Jeffrey Schweers, “‘Setup for failure’: How fortunes dimmed for Sunnyland, a company under FBI scrutiny (UPDATE),”Tallahassee Democrat, 6/27/2017
  • Jeff Burlew and Jeffrey Schweers, “Andrew Gillum’s other job: P&P Communications shares building with campaign HQ,”Tallahassee Democrat, 8/1/2018
  • “Mayor Andrew Gillum Paid by PR Firm with No Website, Will Not Identify Clients,” Tallahassee Reports, 7/30/2018

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by rawpixel on Unsplash.

Will Hyatt actually comply with Sharia law by banning groups that criticize Islam?

/in , , , /by

Muslim groups have won their first major victory in censoring Judeo-Christian and patriotic groups that hold meetings in hotels.  Hyatt plans to ban certain “hate groups” after Muslim Advocates pressed hotels to stop doing business with them.   Such a ban follows the Sharia tenet which calls for strong punishment of anyone who criticizes Islam or Muhammad.  Sharia law, which is a combination of the Quran and fatwas, calls for punitive treatment of people who insult Islam.

Latimes.com published an article titled Hyatt hotels won’t rent to hate groups, CEO says; Muslim group claims a victory.  The article states in part:  Hyatt Hotels Corp., one of the nation’s largest hotel companies, announced it will no longer host hate groups at its nearly 800 properties, a move that was praised by a Muslim advocacy group.   Act for America, a strong advocate for preserving America’s constitutional republic, was the subject of heavy Muslim contention reported in the LA Times article.  Act for America opposes the infiltration of Sharia law into America public policy and law.

DCist.com reports in part that CAIR wants Corporate America to ban associations with groups that openly criticize Islam.  DCist.com reports in part:

Derrick Morrow, Hyatt’s area vice president and general manager of the Hyatt Crystal City, implied to HuffPost that it would be illegal for the hotel to discriminate against the group by declining to hold their conference.

Robert McCaw, government affairs director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, tells DCist that isn’t true. He points to Airbnb’s decision to boot white supremacists from their platform before “Unite the Right 2.” And last year, white supremacist Richard Spencer had so much trouble booking a hotel for his conference that he had to hold it in his office in Alexandria.

McCaw argues that the Hyatt, and other hotels and event spaces, should treat this group the way they would any other hate group.  “I wouldn’t see the Hyatt providing rooms to the Ku Klux Klan,” McCaw says. “So why are they providing it to these guys?”

Latimes.com further reported:  It was not clear from Hyatt’s statement how the hotel company planned to determine which groups promote hate, but it added:

“This is a complex and emotional issue, but what we’ve concluded is that we need to commit to a higher level of vetting such that groups using hate speech, primarily seeking to disparage or demean a particular group, are not welcome in our hotels.”

The Council on American Islamic Relations has hundreds of articles posted on its news release web page that openly and aggressively attack government officials, companies, teachers, professors, candidates for office and individuals who dare say anything negative about Islam, Sharia law or Muhammad.

Where is Hyatt’s concern about the people CAIR attacks?

CAIR pushes an Islamist agenda which includes forcing Corporate America and Government Agencies to recognize various tenets of Sharia law.   Many tenets of Sharia law are antithetical to the rights afforded all Americans under the United States Constitution.

Reverend Franklin Graham

There are dozens of organizations and thousands of churches across American that openly express concerns about the Islamist political agenda and Islamic terrorism.

Muslim activists recently called on the United Kingdom Parliament to ban Reverend Franklin Graham entrance into Great Britain because he called Islam “evil” and “wicked.”

Will Hyatt ban groups led by Reverend Franklin Graham?

Given CAIR’s radical history, links to terrorism and hostility towards opponents of Islam it is outrageous that Hyatt has adopted such an anti-First Amendment, anti-America public policy.  Will Hyatt actually enforce its ban against groups that criticize Islam, oppose Sharia law and counter the Islamist political agenda?

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to express concern to Hyatt officers and directors about its policy to ban groups that criticize Islam, oppose Sharia law and counter the Islamist political agenda.  Please feel free to change the Subject line and Email Content.

Click here to send your email to express concern to Hyatt officers and directors about its policy to ban groups that criticize Islam, oppose Sharia law and counter the Islamist political agenda.

For contact information click here.

New Supreme Court Session Shows Need For Legislative Override

/in , , /by

With the advent of October, comes the start of the Supreme Court’s session. As the Court enters the session with only eight members, there is no tiebreaker. If there is an equal vote, then the lower court’s decision will stand.

And there is no shortage of cases awaiting it.

Weyerhauser Co. v. US Fish and Wildlife questions the Endangered Species Act and the owner’s right to challenge the designation of private land as critical habitat. In Madison v. Alabama, the court is asked whether the Eighth Amendment allows for a state to execute a prisoner who can’t remember his or her capital offense because of mental disability. And Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, asks whether the ruling in Williamson County Regional Commission v. Hamilton Bank requiring that property owners exhaust state court remedies prior to being reviewed in federal court should be overturned.

Overall, there are 20 cases slated for consideration in the October docket. Many of these cases will have a big impact on our rights, our liberties, and upon the future interpretation of our Constitution and statutes.

While most of us enter this latest Supreme Court session with thoughts of the impending judicial nomination, the circus it has become, and the impact these proceedings will have on the Court’s future, the greater question remains unaddressed; namely the role of the Court and the checking of its power.

In a discussion with Judge Gregory Maggs hosted by the Supreme Court Fellows Program, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke of his conscious effort at checking his own ability to influence the future interpretation of the Constitution by reminding himself that it was someone else’s Constitution he was writing on. Christopher Scalia, the late-Justice Antonin Scalia’s son, related his father’s concerns of how much of what the modern Court does rightfully belongs in the legislature. And Sen. Ben Sasse echoed the sentiment in between circus performances at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Hearing last week.

Once again we enter a Supreme Court session under the effects of the Court’s power grab in Marbury v. Madison. Indeed, Justice John Marshall’s determination that it was up to the Supreme Court to decide what was constitutional and what was not is at odds with the views of many of the Framers.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned of the importance of changing the Constitution through the amendment process and not by usurpation as the latter was the “the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” And Thomas Jefferson (who was not a Framer of the Constitution) warned that allowing judges to be the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy,” and cautioned that such an arrangement would have never been accepted by the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

So, we enter another session with the balance of power skewed in the direction of the judiciary. To a great extent, every law passed by Congress is essentially a trial balloon floated to see if it passes muster before a board of appointed reviewers. Literally, the nature of our liberties hangs at the unchecked hands of the Court, which in today’s environment is able to overturn practically any rule, statute, ordinance, or law at its whim, and when it does so on constitutional grounds, there is nothing the other branches can do about it other than capitulate.

Such a power is at the very least disconcerting and inconsistent with a government that is designed under the construct calling for a balance of powers between three co-equal branches of government.

And once again, we are faced with the question of what to do about it. Yes, one answer is to get better judges. But hiring great people to work within a certain branch of government is not a check on that branch’s power. The real solution is to create an external impediment on the branch. In this case, it is a step that should have been implemented in the nineteenth century in direct response to Marshall’s opinion.

The most logical correction is a legislative override amendment.

Under this provision, a supermajority of the legislature would be able to override an opinion of the Court and keep a statute operational. The override provision has been adopted by Canada, Israel, the European Union, and Australia, among others, and it is one proposed by Madison himself to Thomas Jefferson when the latter penned a draft of the Virginia Constitution.

In a nutshell, once the Court issues an opinion, Congress would have four years to override it through a supermajority vote of about 60%. In such instances, the law would remain operational despite the opinion of the Court. At the very least, such a provision would have a chilling effect on activist judges. It would send legislation back to Congress for consideration and debate, and it would allow a ruling inconsistent with the will of the vast majority of the American people to be nullified.

If there is one thing the Kavanaugh nomination proceedings teach us is that the Supreme Court is as political a body as any other. Knowing this, then why ought it be given full reign on the interpretation of the nation’s governing document?

The question we must be asking ourselves is, to whom does the Constitution belong?

If the Constitution of the United States belongs to the Supreme Court, then we have no right as citizens to tinker with the Court’s opinion on the document’s interpretation. But if the Constitution belongs to we the people, which I believe it does, then we must demand an instrument by which we may overrule the opinions of errant judiciary, i.e. a legislative override.

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

Trump Proves To Be The Greatest Weapon For The American Worker

/in , , , , , /by

President Trump’s first and most enduring promise has been kept, and the American worker can rejoice.

A deal experts said was dead in the water materialized last weekend when Canada announced it had reached an agreement with the United States to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The deal came about as a frustrated Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called a late night meeting with his cabinet. Indeed, the materialization of an agreement serving to improve America’s trade position in North America would not have occurred were it not for the negotiating prowess and vision of President Donald Trump.

The workings of the trade deal date back to before President Trump’s election; actually from before he even started his campaign. For years, Trump voiced his frustration at the United States’ involvement in deals that were hurting the American worker. Calling them “bad deals,” Trump expressed his befuddlement at how politicians could agree to such catastrophic trade deals. NAFTA quickly became a centerpiece of Trump’s campaign for president and the object of his ridicule. But it should be remembered it was also a centerpiece of his speeches long before he came down the elevator.

Upon assuming power, President Trump wasted no time threatening the stability of NAFTA by announcing his intention to pull the United States out of it. Predictably, the naysayers took to the airwaves, arguing that NAFTA was a creator of jobs. Investor Dennis Gartman called such a move, “egregiously stupid,” and CNBC proudly published his opinion. Meanwhile at Forbes Magazine, Professor J. Bradford DeLong called the prospect of leaving NAFTA, “a disaster” while Stuart Anderson, the author of the article, mocked Trump by stating that visual aids were needed to teach the President why leaving NAFTA was a bad idea. Anderson held nothing back when he concluded, “Donald Trump does not know much about the trade agreement he has so frequently criticized.”

Undeterred, President Trump continued to place his disapproval of NAFTA at the center of public discourse. Recognizing his greater advantage over Mexico, he then pealed America’s southern neighbor into a separate agreement that did not include Canada calling it a “terrific agreement for everybody.”

With the Mexican trade deal solidified, Trump turned his attention to Canada, this time suggesting that he might leave Canada out of the deal if it did not negotiate.

Canada remained defiant. “We will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class,” said a spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland. For Canada, there were a number of sticking points to a new deal. First the NAFTA dispute resolution process that protected the cultural exemptions was “fundamental.” This “exemption” protected Canadian artistic products, including media outlets. Understandably, Canadians feel threatened that American networks might buy Canadian media affiliates and essentially control their media coverage. Further, the abandonment of Canada’s tariffs on American dairy products was considered too great a threat to be acceptable.

But President Trump remained undeterred. He imposed an Oct. 1 deadline upon Canada, insisting that if it did not provide the text for a new trade deal to the United States Congress by that time he would move ahead with the deal with Mexico and exclude Canada.

Trudeau did the only thing he could and called for “common sense to prevail.” He appealed to Canada’s partners, including the European Union, to ramp up their pressure on the United States. But the reality was that Canada could ill afford to be kept out of a new North American trade agreement. The Canadian dollar was weakening, and the prospect of Canada continuing without a treaty seemed like a doomsday scenario for its economy; and for Trudeau’s impending reelection.

With negotiations seemingly hopelessly stalled as recently as late September, Canadian negotiators went to work. And by Sunday, Sept. 30, the two countries agreed to terms.

The new agreement, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is nothing short of revolutionary. Among other provisions, the USMCA curbs Canada’s high tariffs and low quotas on American dairy product; drops the percentage of a car needing to be manufactured in China that would still allow it to be considered “North American;” includes provisions that help NFL advertising; and forces Canada and Mexico to respect American drug patents for 10 years. And Canada gets to keep its cultural resolution process exemption.

In a very real sense, the trade deal vindicates President Trump — and the wisdom of the American worker supporting him. He identified a palpable problem in North American trade and placed his political capital on the line to see it terminated. As a result, Trump emerged much stronger, an important perception at a time when he is knee deep in trade negotiations with China. But more importantly, President Trump’s priority of protecting the American worker and improving the environment for American businesses prevailed.

There is also the glaring realization that these new agreements would have never come to fruition without President Trump. The events leading to Sunday’s breakthrough would never have been possible without Trump’s aggressive, even bombastic style. Most importantly, when President Trump said he would walk away from the deal, he was believable, forcing all players to look hard at the possibility of having no deal at all.

Say what you want about President Trump, but he has become America’s greatest weapon in international negotiations, much to the joy of the American worker.

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

Why Leftists Feel Entitled to Block Highways, Shut Down Speakers, and Harass Public Officials

/in , , , , , /by

When I was in graduate school, I learned a lot about the left.

One lesson was that while most liberals and conservatives abide by society’s rules of order and decency, most leftists do not feel bound to live by these same rules.

I watched the way leftist Vietnam War protesters treated fellow students and professors. I watched left-wing students make “nonnegotiable demands” of college administrations. I saw the Black Panthers engage in violence—including torture and murder—and be financially rewarded by leftists.

Today, we watch leftist mobs scream profanities at professors and deans, and shut down conservative and pro-Israel speakers at colleges. We routinely witness left-wing protesters block highways and bridges, scream in front of the homes of conservative business and political leaders, and surround conservatives’ tables at restaurants while shouting and chanting at them.

Conservatives don’t do these things.

They don’t close highways, yell obscenities at left-wing politicians, work to ban left-wing speakers at colleges, smash the windows of businesses, etc.

Why do leftists feel entitled do all these things? Because they have thoroughly rejected middle-class, bourgeois, and Judeo-Christian religious values.

Leftists are the only source of their values. Leftists not only believe they know what is right—conservatives, too, believe they are right—but they also believe they are morally superior to all others. Leftists are Ubermenschen—people on such a high moral plane that they do not consider themselves bound by the normal conventions of civics and decency. Leftists don’t need such guidelines; only the non-left—the “deplorables”—need them.

In August 2017, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax wrote a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer in defense of middle-class values. She and her co-author cited a list of behavioral norms that, as Wax put it, “was almost universally endorsed between the end of World War II and the mid-1960s.”

They were:

“Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.”

She later wrote in The Wall Street Journal,

“The fact that the ‘bourgeois culture’ these norms embodied has broken down since the 1960s largely explains today’s social pathologies—and re-embracing that culture would go a long way toward addressing those pathologies.”

For her left-wing colleagues at Penn Law School, this list was beyond the pale. About half of her fellow professors of law—33 of them—condemned her in an open letter. And Wax wrote in the Journal, “My law school dean recently asked me to take a leave of absence next year and to cease teaching a mandatory first-year course.”

The Pennsylvania chapter of the left-wing National Lawyers Guild condemned her for espousing bourgeois values and questioned “whether it is appropriate for her to continue to teach a required first-year course.”

As regards traditional Jewish and Christian codes of conduct, just read the left’s contempt for Vice President Mike Pence’s religiosity. They fear him more than President Donald Trump solely for that reason.

One would think that leftists, as sensitive as they are to sexual harassment of women, would admire Pence’s career-long policy of never dining alone with a woman other than his wife. On the contrary, they mock him for it.

With such high self-esteem and no middle-class, bourgeois, or Judeo-Christian values to guide them, many leftists are particularly vicious people.

The opening skit of “Saturday Night Live” this past weekend—Matt Damon’s mockery of Judge Brett Kavanaugh—provided a timely example.

It is unimaginable that a prominent conservative group or individual would feature a skit mocking Kavanaugh’s accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Indeed, Kavanaugh noted his 10-year-old daughter’s prayer for his accuser, and a political cartoonist promptly drew a cartoon with her praying that God forgive her “angry, lying, alcoholic father for sexually assaulting Dr. Ford.”

Is there an equally prominent conservative public figure on the right who has ever said “F— Obama!” on national television just as Robert De Niro shouted, “F— Trump!” at the recent Tony Awards?

Now, why would De Niro feel he could shout an obscenity at the president of the United States with millions of young people watching him? Because he is not constrained by middle-class or Judeo-Christian moral values.

In Nietzsche’s famous words, De Niro, like other leftists, is “beyond good and evil,” as Americans understood those terms until the 1960s.

In 2016, at a Comedy Central roast of actor Rob Lowe, the butt of the jokes was Ann Coulter, not Lowe. They mostly mocked her looks, and if there is something crueler than publicly mocking a woman’s looks, it’s hard to identify. For example, “Saturday Night Live” cast member Pete Davidson said, “Ann Coulter, if you’re here, who’s scaring the crows away from our crops?”

There surely are mean conservatives—witness some of the vile comments by anonymous conservative commenters on the internet. And it is a moral scandal that Ford has received death threats.

The difference in left-wing meanness is the meanness of known—not anonymous—people on the left. They don’t hide behind anonymity because they do not feel bound by traditional notions of civility, for which they have contempt.

Now you can understand why the left hates Pence, a man who has, by all accounts, led a thoroughly honorable life. He—and other evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews—tries to live by a code that is higher than him.

That ethic is what Ubermenschen seek to destroy. They are succeeding.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Star Wars Resistance’ actress Rachel Butera’s Twitter account deleted after she mocked Christine Blasey Ford

WATCH: Abortion Activist Brutally Assaults Pro-Life Woman

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Featured Photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters /Newscom.