UCLA Professor Hannah Appel has accused the school of human rights violations amounting to “torture” in the treatment of pro-Palestinian protesters. The reason is the denial of water and food from being brought into a building being unlawfully occupied by protesters, even though the students were free to leave at any time.
Appel teaches in the anthropology department in the areas of “transnational capitalism and finance,” “the economic imagination,” and “anti-capitalist and abolitionist social movements.”
She is also a member of Faculty for Justice in Palestine at UCLA. The Daily Bruin reports that a brief sit-in protest was held at the campus’s Dodd Hall. The students were soon cleared from the building. In the interim, Appel made her accusation of torture tactics. In a video posted on X, Appel is seen declaring “even if this is unlawful which, of course, I don’t think it is […] you cannot deny people to send in water in an effort to get them to do something against their will.” While the students were free to leave at any time, Appel objected that “you cannot use a mechanism of torture” to force people to leave. In another video Appel objects that she and other faculty were not allowed to bring food and water to the encampment demonstrators. Notably, Appel repeats a threat from faculty at various schools that they may withhold their grades in protest to pressure schools to drop any charges or allegations against protesters: “When the university sees that folks are withholding grades, they get scared. They’re scared because we’re flexing our collective power, and optimally, that fear drives them to the bargaining table, and then we win.”
Such threats have already worked as universities have caved to demands at schools like Northwestern or dropped charges against students. Yet, these professors are using the grades of students to coerce universities. It is grossly unfair to students who were not involved in the protests or may oppose these protests. They have right to their grades and these professors have a contractual obligation to supply them. They should not be a tool for faculty protests.
Professors were free to join these students in occupying university buildings so long as they were willing to bear the consequences for their actions. To withhold grades to achieve political ends should be treated as a serious violation of faculty rules of conduct.
As for the torture allegation, Appel is dead wrong. There was no denial of food or water. The students had access to both, outside of the building. Unlawful occupation of a building does not create an obligation on the part of the university to support the occupiers. To call this a human rights violation is to belittle the deprivations of true victims of torture and other abuses.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – No one, as of yet, really knows the full implications of A.I. and how it will affect millions around the globe. Millions of jobs in all areas could evaporate. Clerical, creative, service, engineering, and data processing, to name a few, could shrink the middle class to catastrophic economic levels.
‘Godfather of A.I.’ Reverses Course, Quits Google to Warn About “Dangers” of Artificial Intelligence
By Brian Lupo – May 1, 2024
Proclaimed the “Godfather of Artificial Intelligence”, 75-year old Turing prize winner Geoffrey Hinton joins several other tech pioneers and notables in warning of the impacts of artificial intelligence. Hinton was partially responsible for the development of the AI technology that is used by the biggest companies in the tech industry according to the New York Times.
On Monday, Hinton, a decade-long Google employee, tweeted “In the NYT today, Cade Metz implies I left Google so that I could criticize Google. Actually, I left so that I could talk about the dangers of AI without considering how this impacts Google. Google has acted very responsibly.” READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco Cartoon—This is a memorial for those we lost in uniform, who gave their lives so that we, as a country, could remain free. We as a country have to do our part to keep it free from those who seek to destroy our freedom by making sure we vote against the domestic enemies who promote the very ideals our fallen heroes fought and died to prevent, such as Communism, fascism, and an all-powerful decentralized big intrusive Government that fights against the will of the people. Courtesy of Americans for Limited Government.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Many forget what this 3-day weekend of BBQs, friends, and family cost. Veterans who laid down their lives so we could enjoy the freedom and prosperity this could have to offer. It’s not a day of celebration but a day of remembrance for our fallen vets.
Feds Ban Memorial Day Event to Honor Fallen Heroes From National Cemetery, Call it a ‘Demonstration’
By Margaret Flavin – May 22, 2024
Since the 1960s, the Knights of Columbus have held a Memorial Day event at the Poplar Grove National Cemetery in Petersburg, VA. For the last two years, however, The National Park Service (NPS) has refused permission for the event due to a new policy prohibiting “religious services” and calling the ceremony to honor this nation’s fallen heroes a “demonstration.” The park service has instead said the event must take place in a nearby “free speech zone.”
The Knights and their attorneys say the decision by park officials violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco Cartoon—Once again, Biden bends the knee to people who hate America and do not respect the constitutional foundations that protect our individual rights and freedoms. Some say he’s trying to work both sides of the fence for purely political reasons.
Dem Strategists Agree Biden is TOAST in November if He Loses in Michigan
By Mike LaChance – May 8, 2024
Some top Democrat strategists are sweating Joe Biden’s chances in Michigan in November, a state they agree is a must-win for Democrats. Trump won Michigan in 2016 and he can certainly win there again. A recent poll has Trump ahead of Biden in the state by a whopping 15 points. Biden has multiple problems in Michigan, including people who are angry about his (weak) support for Israel and union workers who are rightly, very concerned about the economy. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump. READ MORE…
I’ve been telling you all for years what Islam teaches, and adheres to, and we get very little feedback. Here are two X I found this morning that confirms everything we’ve said, fromt the mouths of two Palestinian mothers.
Watch: Wife of Hamas leader, Umm Osama, explains how Palestinian mothers sacrifice their children's souls for Allah (God of Islam), by raising them as suicide bombers to kill Jews and die as martyrs. During this interview on TV, she challenges Palestinian mothers to hate the Jews… pic.twitter.com/WXuov0pJ2H
pic.twitter.com/Zo6kxlENT9 Watch: Palestinian mother from Gaza brought her baby to an Israeli hospital and let Jewish doctors to save his life by treating his rare congenital heart defect. While her son was recovering from the surgery, she told a journalist about her hope to…
Top Stories • Woman Goes Viral With Video Claiming “My Fetus Dancing Right Before It Was Aborted” • Biden Forced to Back Down After Lawsuit, Allows Catholic Group to Hold Mass at National Cemetery • Pro-Life Activist Biden Put in Prison is Mistreated, Denied Medical Care • Huge Kansas Abortion Biz Stops Killing Babies After 10 of 16 Abortionists Resign
More Pro-Life News • After Putting Pro-Life Advocate Lauren Handy in Prison for Protesting Abortion, Biden’s Targeting Her Again • Support for Harrison Butker’s Pro-Life, Pro-Family Message Has Been Amazing • Pro-Life Group Sues Joe Biden for Trying to Put Pro-Life Hero Mark Houck in Prison • Gavin Newsom Signs Bill Allowing Arizona Abortionists to Kill Babies in California • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
As the House voted Thursday to bar foreign nationals from voting in local Washington, D.C. elections, Democrats and their public-relations team in the corporate media have rolled out the big guns in attacking such election integrity efforts. They’re painting the legislation that ensures noncitizens cannot vote in elections as the next so-called “Big Lie,” sticking to their well-worn narrative that noncitizens already are prohibited from voting in U.S. elections and that such violations “don’t exist.”
But one of the fiercest opponents of the election integrity legislation has said the quiet part out loud, as Democrats are wont to do.
‘Alien Suffrage’
As Fox News reported, U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., wrote a full-throated defense of “Alien Suffrage” in a 1993 paper for the American University Washington College of Law, where he serves as Professor of Law Emeritus. Raskin is ranking member of the House’s Oversight Committee, which, among other things, has constitutional oversight of the District of Columbia.
“In this Article, I will argue that the current blanket exclusion of noncitizens from the ballot is neither constitutionally required nor historically normal,” Raskin wrote. “Moreover, the disenfranchisement of aliens at the local level is vulnerable to deep theoretical objections since resident aliens — who are governed, taxed, and often drafted just like citizens — have a strong democratic claim to being considered members, indeed citizens, of their local communities.”
A top Democrat leader unveils liberal plans to give illegal immigrants right to vote in local, state, and federal elections.
Writes that illegals “have a strong democratic claim to being considered members, indeed citizens”. https://t.co/k3u4bVlyb9
Not surprisingly, Raskin was among 143 Democrats voting against the Republican-led bill blocking illegal immigrants and other foreign nationals from voting in elections in the district, over which Congress has ultimate authority. Interestingly, 52 Democrats joined Republicans in passing the measure — because the vast majority of Americans believe only U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in local and U.S. elections. Taking the opposing view is not a smart reelection strategy for politically vulnerable liberals.
Several cities in Raskin’s home state have allowed foreign nationals to vote in local elections for years. Takoma Park, Maryland in November celebrated its 30th anniversary “of the first non-US. Residents” voting in the Washington, D.C. suburb.
“Even if it’s only a handful voting in elections—and it’s more than that—it’s a huge step forward for democracy,” said Seth Grimes, a leftist community organizer, in an official city press release. “Non-citizens have a stake in civic affairs, and everyone should have a voice in who governs them.”
Polling shows an overwhelming number of Americans don’t share Grimes’ point of view, or the one expressed in Raskin’s law school report. A national poll conducted last year for Americans for Citizen Voting by RMG Research, Inc., found 75 percent of respondents were opposed to allowing foreign nationals to vote in their local elections.
In his 1993 paper, Raskin argued that the “emergence of a global market and the corresponding dilution of national boundaries, would invite us to treat local governments as ‘polities of presence’ in which all community inhabitants, not just those who are citizens of the superordinate nation-state, form the electorate.”
“Alien suffrage would thus become part of a basic human right to democracy,” the now-congressman wrote.
Does Raskin still feel that way? His office did not return The Federalist’s request for comment.
Media: Alien Voting Doesn’t Happen and It’s Fine When It Does
After Thursday’s vote, it’s not a leap to suspect many of Raskin’s fellow Democrats support foreign nationals voting in local elections. If they were against it, they would have voted for the D.C. election integrity measure.
Corporate media, of course, have been running interference for Democrats in the weeks since former President Donald Trump, the GOP’s presumed presidential nominee, and Speaker Mike Johnson announced the rollout of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The SAVE Act is aimed at shoring up glaring holes in the 30-year-old National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) passed during a simpler time, when politicians believed in borders. The bill would amend the 1993 “Motor Voter” law to require individuals to provide proof of citizenship before they are automatically registered to vote at state departments of motor vehicles and other agencies. It also requires states to remove foreign nationals from their voting rolls, something too many state election officials have been loath to do. The NVRA does not require direct proof of citizenship for voter registration.
Republicans say the legislation is crucial in the wake of the millions of illegal immigrants that have poured through the U.S. southwest border since Joe Biden took the presidential oath of office in January 2021.
“There is currently an unprecedented and a clear and present danger to the integrity of our election system, and that is the threat of noncitizens and illegal aliens voting in our elections,” Johnson said at a Capitol press conference earlier this month announcing the bill.
But the accomplice media, while conceding foreign nationals have been caught voting in federal elections, assert the act is extremely rare. Besides, the left’s messengers contend, what illegal alien in his right mind would risk committing a felony just to vote in a federal election? The New York Times accused Republicans of “Sowing [a] False Narrative.” The Associated Press asserts“Noncitizen voting isn’t an issue in federal elections,” while it acknowledges that it does happen.
“To be clear, there have been cases of noncitizens casting ballots, but they are extremely rare. Those who have looked into these cases say they often involve legal immigrants who mistakenly believe they have the right to vote,”AP admits.
So much for the idea that any illegal vote dilutes the validity of an election. Again, the corporate media like to put qualifiers on fraud, forced by the facts to acknowledge its existence but insisting it isn’t “widespread.”
“They’ve used ‘widespread’ for years as a way of downplaying any concern about it,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission and Senior Legal Fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “We don’t have ‘widespread’ bank robberies but we have enough of them that we take very detailed security precautions to prevent them. Election fraud is exactly the same.”
Hans Von Spakovsky points out: “We don’t have ‘widespread’ bank robberies, but we have enough of them that we take very detailed security precautions to prevent them. Election fraud is exactly the same.”https://t.co/xKMn3uRBxFpic.twitter.com/erB4hxK2cQ
Raskin isn’t the only Democrat who has defended foreign nationals voting in elections. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat, has been very vocal in his support for aliens voting in New York local elections. His New York congressional colleague, leftist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has suggested the Republican-controlled House’s bill to bar foreign nationals from voting in D.C. is reminiscent of the days of slavery.
“They’re singling out the residents of the District of Columbia and expanding in the history of disenfranchisement that goes all the way back to the legacy of slavery,”she said last year.
James Comer, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, said the bill aims to rectify the D.C. City Council’s decision to “recklessly allowed non-citizens to participate in elections in our nation’s capital.”
“This move by the Council was irresponsible and subverts the voices of American citizens,” Comer said in a statement. “Today, Congress took action and I applaud the passage of legislation that will now prohibit non-citizens from voting in District of Columbia elections.”
The House bill pertaining to D.C. elections and the SAVE Act aren’t going anywhere this year with a Democrat-controlled Senate and a president who appears to be running a Democrat Party future recruitment drive. But Americans, many of whom don’t support illegal aliens and other foreign nationals voting in U.S. elections, know where the party stands heading into the November election.
“Rep. Raskin is okay with the ‘dilution of national boundaries.’ I am not. And neither are the majority of United States citizens,” said Jack Tomczak, national field director for Americans for Citizen Voting, which is leading a growing national effort to amend state constitutions to include citizen-only voting language.
Matt Kittle is a senior elections correspondent for The Federalist. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
Former President Donald Trump managed to pull off a campaign miracle with a wildly successful rally in South Bronx on Thursday night.
The Bronx is the poorest borough in New York City, and South Bronx is the poorest area. Most residents are black or brown, and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. No Republican presidential candidate has gone anywhere near the area in decades.
On Thursday morning, heavy rains flooded the park where the rally was to be held. Bronx-based Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., tweeted “God is good” upon seeing the weather, believing it would keep Trump crowds away. She also taunted Trump for being the victim of Democrat lawfare, saying he had to rally in the Bronx because he was in the “legal version of an ankle bracelet.”
God is good regardless of political outcomes, of course. In this case, He dried Crotona Park in the Bronx before a raucous crowd of thousands poured in to hear one of Trump’s best campaign speeches yet.
“Certainly, a bigger crowd than I think Democrats would like to see, particularly given this is one of the bluest counties in the entire country,”one CNN reporter conceded upon seeing the crowds.
Trump barely mentioned the NYC show trial he’s being subjected to and mixed campaign staples with a declaration of love for New York City and the country at large. He seemed truly happy and at home.
“I was thrilled to be back in the city I grew up in, the city I spent my life in, the city I HELPED BUILD, and the city WE ALL LOVE — THANK YOU!” Trump said on Truth Social. Trump grew up in Queens but officially moved to Florida in 2019. His effusive praise for New York shows a remarkably positive attitude from the former president, given that the city and state are currently part of a Democrat campaign plot to bankrupt and imprison him.
Trump reflected on lessons from his success in New York City real estate, doling out career advice along the way, during his hour-and-a-half speech. A parade of local politicians and activists announced endorsements and support of Trump. When he discussed his economic and immigration policy proposals for getting the country back on track, he argued that his policies would help everyone in the country. It’s part of a concerted effort by the Trump campaign to drive up votes from black and Hispanic voters who traditionally vote Democrat.
“It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or brown or white or whatever the hell color you are — it doesn’t matter. We are all Americans, and we are going to pull together as Americans!” Trump said.
The contrast with President Joe Biden couldn’t be starker. In three decidedly non-raucous speeches within the last week or so, Biden leaned into racial grievance politics. At a speech at the National Museum of African American History and Culture last Friday, Biden claimed America was beset by “forces trying to deny freedom of opportunity for all Americans.” He claimed there was an “insidious” resistance and an “extreme movement” led by his political opponent to hurt black people. In another disaster of a speech to the NAACP, the White House later had to make 10 corrections to it.
The same day as the NAACP speech, Biden gave the commencement address at Morehouse College, a historically black men’s school in Georgia. In a self-centered speech riddled with some of his familiar falsehoods about his life and family, Biden painted a picture of a racist and evil country. He said the country was under the “poison of white supremacy” and falsely claimed Americans were trying to put forth a national book ban to harm black people.
It’s “natural to wonder if democracy” actually works, he said. “What is democracy if black men are being killed in the street? What is democracy if a trail of broken promises still leave black — black communities behind? What is democracy if you have to be 10 times better than anyone else to get a fair shot?”
Biden also falsely claimed Georgia doesn’t allow anyone to drink water in voting lines and that black election workers are being constantly attacked.Biden’s message is that the country is evil, racist, and full of hatred and that he will fix it by emptying the Treasury to buy votes.
Trump, who has the benefit of having already had one very successful term as president, acknowledges the very real economic, social, and foreign policies the country faces. But unlike Biden, his optimistic campaign speeches show a man who seems to love the country, love its cities, love its people, and want the country to return to health.
Whether Biden’s race-baiting rhetoric or Trump’s unbridled multi-ethnic optimism will win the day remains to be seen. The speech in South Bronx showed how successful the latter can be.
Aid access to the Gaza Strip is extremely limited with less than 1,000 truckloads of humanitarian assistance entering the enclave since May 7, after Israel began a military operation in southern Gaza’s Rafah area, the United Nations said on Friday. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said that between May 7 and May 23, only 906 truckloads entered the enclave of 2.3 million people, where a famine looms amid the war between Israel and Palestinian militants Hamas. U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said about 800 of those truckloads were food supplies.
OCHA said 143 truckloads passed through the Israel-controlled Kerem Shalom crossing in Gaza’s south, while in Gaza’s north 62 passed through the Erez crossing and 604 via Erez West. It said 97 truckloads have come through a U.S.-built floating pier in central Gaza that began operating a week ago.
The Rafah crossing from Egypt into Gaza has been closed since Israel began stepping up its military operation in the area, creating a backlog of aid in Egypt where some of the food supplies have begun to rot.
Israel and the United States had called on Egypt, which is also concerned about the risk of Palestinians being displaced from Gaza, to reopen the border. Egypt had said it was closed due to the threat posed to aid work by Israel’s military operation.
On Friday, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi agreed with U.S. President Joe Biden by phone to temporarily send humanitarian aid and fuel to the U.N. via the Kerem Shalom crossing, the Egyptian presidency said. Aid shipments could begin as soon as Friday evening, said Egyptian security sources, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The United Nations welcomes the move, Dujarric said. On Thursday he said: “There are a lot of doorways into Gaza. … Whether by land or by sea, we don’t control those doorways, but we want them all to be open.”
OCHA said on Friday its figures do not include commercial trucks because the U.N. has been unable to observe private-sector deliveries through Kerem Shalom crossing due to insecurity.
“Additionally, just over 1 million liters of fuel have entered the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the military operation in Rafah,” OCHA said in an update posted online.
“This represents an average of 29% of fuel allocations that would have been received under arrangements in place prior to 6 May, further affecting the functioning of bakeries, hospitals, water wells, and other critical infrastructure,” it said.
The U.N. says at least 500 trucks a day of aid and commercial goods need to enter Gaza. In April, an average of 189 trucks entered a day – the highest since the war started in October.
Israel is retaliating against Hamas, which rules Gaza, over an Oct. 7 attack by the Palestinian militants in which more than 1,200 people were killed and over 250 taken hostage, according to Israeli tallies. Nearly 130 hostages are believed to remain captive in Gaza.
Israel launched an air, ground and sea assault on the blockaded Palestinian territory, killing more than 35,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities. (Reporting by Michelle Nichols; editing by Jonathan Oatis)
Recently, it became public that Kevin Morris, the entertainment lawyer who has subsidized the expenses and bought the art of Hunter Biden, had stopped his funding of Biden. Morris has paid off Hunter’s IRS debts and reportedly lent him a total of $4.9 million for housing, car payments, legal fees, and other possible costs.
The so-called “sugar bro” is “tapped out” according to media reports. (For full disclosure, Morris previously threatened me with a defamation lawsuit over my writing about his representation of Hunter). Now the House has confirmed prior stories that whistleblower records indicate that the CIA prevented the Justice Department from questioning Kevin Morris as a witness in its probe of Hunter Biden.
Morris has maintained that he lent Hunter millions for “no ulterior motive” and continued to support him out of friendship. Yet, when investigators started to look into the payments and the relationship, they were told that Morris had some relationship with the CIA in August 2021. According to previously unreleased information, IRS special agent and current whistleblower Gary Shapley documented the bizarre intervention of the spy agency.
During a recurring prosecution team conference call, in or around late August 2021, Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Lesley Wolf told the team that she and DOJ Tax Attorney Jack Morgan had recently returned from the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where they had been summoned to discuss Kevin Morris.
AUSA Wolf stated that they were provided a classified briefing in relation to Mr. Morris and as a result we could no longer pursue him as a witness. Investigators probed AUSA Wolf, but since her briefing was classified and she was apparently sanitizing it to an unclassified form to share over an open phone line, she did not elaborate with more information. She reiterated more than once that they were summoned to the CIA in Langley concerning Mr. Morris, and that because of the information provided there, he could not be a witness for the investigation. AUSA Wolf proudly referenced a CIA mug and stated that she purchased some CIA “swag” at the gift shop while she was there.
It is unclear how the CIA became aware that Mr. Morris was a potential witness in the Hunter Biden investigation and why agents were not told about the meeting in advance or invited to participate. It is a deviation of normal investigative processes for prosecutors to exclude investigators from substantive meetings such as this.
It is a testament to the level of bias in the mainstream media that this story is not the sole focus of every media outlet in America. Imagine if the CIA intervened to stop an investigation into a donor maintaining one of the Trump children and supporting his effort to blunt any investigation into corruption. MSNBC would make it ongoing special programming with its own time slot.
This is an agency that is supposed to avoid domestic interventions into politics as well as other areas. It is accused of pulling in a prosecutor to tell her to close part of a criminal investigation involving the financial supporter of the president’s son. Even if Morris was an asset, the question is why shut down the inquiry into his payments to Hunter Biden. The work of Morris with the CIA could be protected or redacted. Instead, the line of inquiry was shut off and Wolf reportedly left Langley with CIA swag and an empty bag of evidence.
Below is my column on Fox.com on the closure of the government and defense cases in the Trump trial. It is clear that the government is going to achieve its objective in avoiding a direct verdict and giving this matter to the jury, which it hopes that the paucity of direct evidence of a crime will be overcome with an abundance of hostility to Donald Trump. As I previously have written, I am still hopeful that these jurors will vindicate the New York legal system with at least a hung jury. In the end, we will see if a Manhattan jury will exercise blind justice or willful blindness.
Here is the column:
With closing arguments scheduled for Tuesday, May 28, the prosecution of former President Donald Trump will finally head to a jury. Judge Juan Merchan has refused every opportunity to bring an end to this politically manufactured prosecution. Now it will be up to 12 New Yorkers to do what neither the court nor the prosecutors were willing to do: adhere to the rule of law regardless of the identity of the defendant.
Merchan has allowed the government to bring back into life a dead misdemeanor and convert it into 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. To accomplish this legal regeneration, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has vaguely referenced a variety of crimes that Trump allegedly was trying to conceal through the business record violations.
The problem is that he has left the secondary crime mired in uncertainty to the point that experts on various networks are still debating what the underlying theory is in the case.
Indeed, Bragg is expected to finally state with clarity what he is alleging… at the closing arguments of the case.
In the meantime, the prosecution is pushing to make it easier for the jury to convict. First, they have vaguely referenced a variety of possible offenses from tax to election violations. Bragg initially laid out four possible predicate crimes. It is down to three – a tax crime and violations of state or federal election law.
Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what crimes were being covered up so the jury could literally have three different views of what happened in the case and still convict Trump.
Prosecutors are also seeking to effectively shorten the playing field by allowing the jurors to convict on a lower standard of proof for the key term in using “unlawful means.” The defense wants the jury instructed that it must find that such use of “unlawful means” was done with willful intent.
The prosecutors do not want to use that higher standard. For the defense, it is effectively reducing the field to the end zone to make it easier for the prosecution to score.
In the last few days, the Bragg strategy has come into sharper focus in one respect. Bragg is not counting on the evidence or the law. He is counting on the jury. Call it the Lawrence O’Donnell factor.
After Michael Cohen imploded on the stand in the trial, even experts and hosts on MSNBC and CNN stated that his admissions and contradictions were devastating. Cohen is not only accused of committing perjury in his testimony, but he matter-of-factly detailed how he stole tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump organization.
After being disbarred and convicted as a serial perjurer, Cohen waited for the statute of limitations to run on larceny to admit that he stole as much as $50,000 by pocketing money intended for a contractor.
Liberal commentators acknowledged the fact that Cohen had committed a far more serious offense than the converted misdemeanor against Trump (but was never charged). Yet, one figure stepped forward to assure the public that all was well.
MSNBC host O’Donnell said that he watched the testimony, and that Cohen did wonderfully. Keep in mind that Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche asked Cohen point blank: “So you stole from the Trump organization, right?” Cohen answered unequivocally: “Yes, sir.”
O’Donnell, however, rushed outside to declare that Cohen was merely acquiring a bonus that he thought that he deserved as a type of “self-help”:
“Cohen [was trying] to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserved. And it still came out as less than the bonus he thought he deserved and the bonus he had gotten the year before.”
In other words, he first determined that his employer should pay him more and then elected to lie to his employer and steal the money. It is akin to New Jersey Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez claiming, in his nearby trial, that the gold bars and cash found in his home were just his effort to secure a well-deserved bonus for his public service.
O’Donnell was widely mocked for his galactic spin. However, he reflects the greatest danger for the Trump team. O’Donnell was showing a type of willful blindness; a refusal to acknowledge even the most shocking disclosures in the trial.
Some of the jurors admitted that MSNBC is one on their news sources and they exhibit the same all-consuming O’Donnell obsession with Trump. If so, they could listen to contradiction to contradiction and simply not recognize them like the MSNBC host. For some, Cohen could burst into flames on the stand, but their eyes will not move from the person behind the defense table.
Many viewers have been raised in an echo chamber of news coverage where they avoid opposing facts on both the left and the right. They actively tailor their news to fulfill a narrative or viewpoint. A jury of O’Donnell’s peers would convict Trump even if the Angel Gabriel appeared at trial as a defense character witness.
It is the ultimate jury instruction not from the court but from the community. With jurors “back in the world” for six days and going to holiday cookouts and events, they will likely hear much of that social judgment and the need to “rebalance” the political ledger through this case.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney. He is a Fox News contributor.
Top Stories • Pro-Life Group Sues Joe Biden for Trying to Put Pro-Life Hero Mark Houck in Prison • Days After Putting Pro-Life Americans in Prison, Biden is Targeting More Pro-Life Advocates • Joe Biden Packing the Courts is Another Reason to Vote for Trump • Republican Party Must Never Abandon the Pro-Life Cause
More Pro-Life News • Americans Give Biden Worse Marks as He Pushes Abortion Instead of Helping America • Record High 252,122 Babies Killed in Abortions in UK • Pope Francis Condemns Euthanasia: Killing People is a “Failure to Love” • Joe Biden Shuts Down Catholic Mass at National Park • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
Joe Biden has been criticized for his policies and statements throughout the course of his long political career, but these criticisms have never been expressed as loudly or with such angst as they were yesterday in Lake Tahoe.
It appears that many people who attended the event were not impressed by what Biden had to say (not to mention how he has been flying the nation into a blackhole since day one) and felt it necessary to voice their displeasure with him publicly.
This isn’t the first time that Biden has faced criticism from ‘We, The People’. He was harshly criticized for supporting certain trade agreements during his time as Vice President under Barack Obama’s administration and for backing certain foreign policy initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan while he was in office. But yesterday’s boos seemed louder than any other criticism that he has received before.
It is possible that some of the attendees were members of President Trump’s base or supporters of Donald Trump Jr., both of whom have made no secret of their dislike for Joe Biden. However, I believe there may have been more to it than just political differences between Biden and some members of the crowd.
After all, there is no denying that Joe Biden has made some controversial decisions during his tenure in government over the past several decades. The average American is living with the consequences of Joe’s terrible policies every day we roll out of bed. Quite frankly, we are PISSED!
Hey Joe, if you don’t want to be booed stop trying to end the United States as we know it. Get inflation under control, stop letting people secularize children, respect science … you get the idea.
It sure looks like America is now WIDE awake to the train wreck that is our 46th president. If Joe runs again and the media tries to tell us that he got more legal votes than Obama did during his two elections for POTUS or Trump did … remember these clips, factor in how many people you have met who support Biden and you’ll realize something does not compute …
Political commentator and elections analyst Nate Silver suggested President Joe Biden consider “stepping aside” for November’s White House election if he’s still “struggling” by August. In a “Risky Business” podcast, Silver said Biden’s pulling out of the Commission on Presidential Debates and agreeing separately to two debates with former President Donald Trump —one in June and one in September — signals trouble for the president’s campaign.
“Basically, Biden traded three debates after Labor Day for one debate after Labor Day and then one on CNN, the cable network, that will happen in the middle of June that probably everyone will forget about by the time the conventions happen in July and August,” Silver said.
He also pointed out Biden’s team knows “their candidate is too old” and remarked it may trigger Democrats to “fold for a better hand.”
Silver also weighed in with a post on X, formerly Twitter, doubling down down on a recommendation that Biden step aside before the Democratic Party’s convention if he’s still “struggling” in polls.
A recent New York Times/Siena College survey and a Bloomberg/Morning Consult found Trump leading Biden in most swing states. Biden also faced a protest movement within his own party over his support of Israel in its pursuit to wipe out the terror group Hamas. In some swing states, activists voted “uncommitted” in primary elections to protest Biden’s Israel policy.
Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who was a member of former President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, told Newsmax in April that Biden’s mental and physical condition “puts the entire country at risk.”
“If Biden is still struggling in August he needs to consider stepping aside,” Silver wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “It’s not a great situation for Ds either way, but you have to do due diligence on the question. It’s an important election, obviously. It shouldn’t be taboo to talk about.
“They know their candidate is too old,” Silver said on the podcast. “You have to fold for a better hand.”
Members of the New York State Senate in Albany, New York, vote on June 17, 2019, on a so-called Green Light bill to allow illegal immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. Opponents of licensing illegal aliens say that makes it much easier for the noncitizens to also register to vote illegally. (Photo: Lori Van Buren/Albany Times Union/Getty Images)
A new study has revealed that roughly 10% to 27% of noncitizens living in the U.S. are illicitly registered to vote, which could result in up to 2.7 million illegal votes being cast in the November elections. Experts say the significant amount of potential illegal votes could be enough to alter election results.
The study, released last week by the research institute Just Facts, notes that the 2022 U.S. census recorded approximately 19 million adult noncitizens living in the country. “Given their voter registration rates, this means that about 2 million to 5 million of them are illegally registered to vote,” the report observes. “These figures are potentially high enough to overturn the will of the American people in major elections, including congressional seats and the presidency.”
On Tuesday, James Agresti, president of Just Facts, joined “Washington Watch” to discuss the scope of noncitizens casting ballots and the implications of the study’s findings.
“[T]here are very broad openings for noncitizens to vote,” he explained, adding:
In no state in the nation are they required to provide proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote. Now, a couple of states like Arizona tried to enact that requirement, but they were blocked by a court ruling supported by the Obama administration.
And if you look at the federal voter-registration form, it says you can submit all different forms of ID to register. That could be a Social Security number; it could be a driver’s license number; or it could just be a utility bill. I mean, these are things that anyone can get by living here. They do not prove you’re a U.S. citizen.
And more than that, a lot of noncitizens have faked Social Security numbers, especially illegal immigrants. That’s what they do to work. A recent estimate by the Social Security Administration tallied 2.5 million noncitizens who had Social Security numbers gained by using fake birth certificates or stealing those numbers from somebody else.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and board member of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, concurred. (Heritage founded The Daily Signal in 2014.)
“[T]he problem is, states aren’t doing very much to verify citizenship, so it’s extremely easy for someone who’s not a citizen to register to vote and to vote in elections,” he remarked during Monday’s edition of “Washington Watch.”
“And when that is discovered, oftentimes nothing is done about it.”
Agresti went on to point out the effect that lax enforcement of citizen verification could have in November. “[B]ased on the latest available data, approximately 1 million to 2.7 million noncitizens are going to vote in the upcoming presidential election unless something changes. And that is more than enough to tip the results of congressional races, Senate races, and yes, the U.S. presidency.”
Von Spakovsky echoed Agresti’s concerns. “[I]t doesn’t matter whether they’re black or white, Asian or Hispanic. It doesn’t matter which political party they support. Every time an alien illegally votes, that alien is voiding, negating the vote of a citizen, no matter which political party they support,” he contended. “And the Democrats just don’t seem to want to understand that or to basically ignore it.”
Agresti further reflected on the motivations behind the Democrats’ opposition to efforts to improve election integrity.
“[I]t’s always hard to read people’s minds, but I can tell you this: The vast bulk of these noncitizens are voting for Democrats. According to the best data we have, about 80% of them will vote for Democrats when they vote illegally. And Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any kind of checking of people’s citizenship. It does benefit them. Is that their reasoning? It’s an obvious incentive, but I can’t read their minds.”
Earlier this month, House Republicans attempted to address the issue by introducing a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and would remove noncitizens from existing voter rolls. But Agresti expressed doubt about the bill’s chances of passage. “My guess is it will move in the House and die in the Senate, but that’s just an educated guess. And again, even if somehow it got through the Senate, there’s no way [President] Joe Biden’s signing that bill.”
“However,” he added, “I do think in the aftermath of the election, and we hate to have a repeat of 2020, that there should be some accountability, some lawsuits that demand proof that people are who they say they are in tight races. None of that was secured in the last round of election lawsuits, and it needs to be there.”
Agresti concluded by urging candidates involved in tight elections to demand verification that only citizens voted. “A candidate has to make a plea and say, ‘Hey, I want this data to prove that these people who are registered and voted actually are citizens.’”
Looters steal Gaza aid delivered via a U.S.-built floating pier, raising concerns about aid to Palestinians and regional security. Pictured: This handout image shows U.S. soldiers and sailors working with Israeli troops May 16 to erect the temporary pier on the Gaza coast. (Photo: U.S. Central Command/ Getty Images)
Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand, contributing both news and commentary from a biblical worldview.
It took far longer for Americans to build a floating pier on the Gazan coast to deliver aid for civilians caught in the Israel-Hamas war than for the aid to be looted.
President Joe Biden announced the pier project during his State of the Union address March 7. After delays, the pier was in place by May 7. However, due to “high winds and high sea swells,” as deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh described it, no aid could be delivered immediately.
The first 10 truckloads of food aid were landed on the floating pier last Friday and were subsequently delivered to a warehouse for the U.N. World Food Programme 8 miles away. On Saturday, 16 more trucks landed with aid. However, “11 of those trucks never made it to the warehouse,”said Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general. “Crowds had stopped the trucks at various points along the way.” The Associated Press reported gunfire erupting at the scene, leaving at least one man dead.
“There was, you know, what I think I would refer to as ‘self-distribution,’” Dujarric said.
In response to the looting, the U.S. military halted further aid deliveries Sunday.
Due to a lack of specific reporting, it’s not clear who was responsible for plundering the aid caravan.
U.N. officials planted the suggestion that the aid was looted by Palestinian civilians, brought to the brink of starvation by Israel’s blockade in its war with Hamas, the terrorist organization that governs the Gaza Strip and massacred some 1,200 civilians Oct. 7 in Israel. Following this lead, most media reports have attributed the “self-distribution” simply to “crowds.”
However, it would be strange if civilian crowds in Gaza had enough firearms to cause a shootout over aid. This is Gaza, not Chicago.
Since its bloody coup in 2007, Hamas has governed the territory with an iron fist, brutally eliminating any perceived threat to its control. It’s hard to believe that any Palestinian in the Gaza Strip has firearms besides Hamas and its allied terrorist groups.
Perhaps the U.S. military drew the same conclusion. Perhaps it suspected the supplies plundered from aid trucks eventually wound up in the hands of terrorists—even if the terrorists happily used crowds of hungry civilians to stop the caravan initially. Perhaps that’s why the U.S. military halted further aid deliveries.
Meanwhile, of the food aid that made it through to the U.N. warehouse, U.S. officials say they believe none has been distributed to those in need. When asked Tuesday whether aid had reached Gaza residents, Pentagon press secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder responded: “I do not believe so.”
That makes two problems with the American military’s Gaza food delivery mission.
First, international and nongovernmental aid organizations on the ground aren’t effective at distributing aid to those in need. Second, once aid enters Gaza, it’s hard to prevent it from falling into the hands of nefarious actors.
🚨 Breaking: Assisted by @UNRWA, Hamas terrorists again take control of aid trucks today before they reach civilians 👇
Civilians in Gaza are starving despite hundreds of aid trucks entering every day. Meanwhile most Hamas terrorists are obese. pic.twitter.com/YKUcCWFxuY
Any U.S. aid delivery strategy that fails to account for these two problems is doomed to misfire. Biden promised no U.S. military “boots on the ground” in Gaza (are boots on a floating pier anchored to the ground much different?). This means the U.S. must, at some point, hand off the aid to groups already handling it so ineffectively and insecurely. When asked Tuesday “who was responsible for security” of the looted aid trucks, the U.N.’s Dujarric admitted, “There is no—we don’t have any armed security.”
The current U.S. plan to get the pier’s terminal up and running again is for the aid convoys to travel to the World Food Programme warehouse by “new routes.” This, obviously, solves none of the problems.
This new plan is likely to last only as long as it takes for the same “crowds” to ambush a convoy on its new route. If the crowd still has guns and the men in the trucks don’t, it’s hard to imagine any other outcome but more looting.
Neither problem should have surprised the Biden administration, if officials were willing to listen to America’s close friend and ally, Israel. Israel has known all along that Hamas commandeers confiscate aid shipments and that Gazan aid organizations are ineffective. As of Tuesday, Israeli border guards had outworked international aid agencies to the point that “650 truckloads [were] waiting for collection and distribution … on the Gazan side of the crossings,” according to an Israeli agency, Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories.
“Crossings” is plural because Israel worked to open a second border crossing to aid trucks May 1, after Hamas damaged the crossing in its Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in southern Israel. Meanwhile, Hamas stole the first convoy of aid to enter the Gaza Strip through the newly restored crossing under the coordination of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.
In February, a U.S. diplomat denied that Hamas seized any aid shipments into Gaza, but he also acknowledged that Hamas could “shape where and to whom assistance goes.” America’s difficulties delivering aid to the Gaza Strip underscore who is the villain and who is the hero in this story.
Reporting from international and mainstream media outlets would convince you that Israel is out to maximize the suffering of people in Gaza, including by starving them to death. The International Criminal Court recently issued “preposterous” indictments against Israeli leaders, “saying that Israel has starved Gazans to death,” as Eugene Kontorovich, director of the Center for Middle East and International Law at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School, said on “Washington Watch.”
“It’s not clear that anyone has starved in Gaza,” Kontorovich said. But, he added, “to the extent there’s a problem with food supplies there, it is well known that Hamas steals and plunders all the civilian, all the humanitarian supplies that are coming in. So, it’s not clear why it’s Israel rather than Hamas that is being accused of this.”
The International Criminal Court has no official jurisdiction, so it “can’t really do anything directly against Israel,” Kontorovich said. The charges nevertheless are “blood libel against the Jews,” he said, a classic example of antisemitism that will be used “in a further diplomatic campaign to delegitimize Israel.”
But the claim that Israel is trying to starve Palestinian civilians by not allowing aid into Gaza is simply false. Since the beginning of the war, Israel has allowed 19,981 truckloads of food, 1,752 truckloads of water, 4,213 truckloads of shelter equipment, 2,002 truckloads of medical supplies, and 1,784 truckloads of mixed supplies into Gaza, as well as 297 tanks of fuel and 541 tanks of cooking gas. That adds up to 572,300 tons of humanitarian aid on 29,746 trucks. (Meanwhile, Gaza’s other neighbor, Egypt, has closed its border crossing and is allowing no aid into the strip.)
Israel has done this, even though it knows much of the aid will end up in its enemy’s hands, to alleviate the suffering of Gazan civilians. The Israelis have delivered thousands of leaflets, broadcast their targets in advance, and otherwise sacrificed operational efficiency in countless ways to spare Palestinian lives. Israel has done all this, and then the international community blames it when Hamas, a terrorist organization, steals humanitarian aid from civilians and uses those civilians as human shields.
No country in the world is doing more to help the people of Gaza than the nation of Israel. Yet Biden’s decision to build a floating pier on the Gaza coast was essentially a rebuke to our ally, a declaration that Israel isn’t doing enough. It took only two days of real-world interactions for the Biden administration to discover that Gaza aid delivered through an American port of entry faces all the same barriers as aid delivered through an Israeli port of entry—none of which are Israel’s fault.
Biden’s floating pier is an inefficient, costly alternative to Israeli border crossings. U.S. officials claimed the pier initially could handle 90 trucks per day, possibly up to 150 trucks. Yet only a couple dozen trucks have left the pier since its completion two weeks ago. For comparison, 403 aid-bearing trucks entered Gaza on Monday alone, nearly all through Israel.
The floating pier involved the labor of 1,000 U.S. servicemembers and a price tag of $320 million, Reuters reported.
“The administration got what it wanted” out of the pier, speculated National Review’s senior political correspondent, Jim Geraghty, “which was a couple of ‘U.S. military starts delivering aid to Gaza through floating pier’ headlines this past weekend.”
But for the civilians of Gaza, the Biden administration has delivered next to nothing.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has long maintained that he is a completely apolitical figure who only follows the law. Critics have challenged that claim on key cases, including those related to Hunter Biden. However, Garland may now face one of the clearest tests of his claim in his tenure. The House committees have issued a public report alleging three different instances where Hunter Biden allegedly committed perjury. The question is now what Garland is prepared to do about it.
When Hunter testified, I wrote columns suggesting that he might take the Fifth Amendment to remain silent because the risk was too great that he might lie or mislead investigators in his answers. With months of preparation, he decided to run the gauntlet and now appears to have exposed himself to the possibility of additional criminal charges.
Hunter Biden has still not responded to the specific allegations, but on their face they appear strong. Notably, the Justice Department spent considerable time and money to pursue false statements against figures like Michael Flynn over just one statement describing a meeting with Russian diplomats. These are instances where Hunter was under oath, prepared for months, and had counsel present.
One of the instances concerns the controversial WhatsApp message where Hunter not only threatened a Chinese businessman to send him massive amounts of money but said that his father was sitting next to him at the time. Millions were later sent to the Bidens. The infamous WhatsApp message stated in part:
“I am sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
The response of Hunter to questions about the message was curious and evasive. Hunter said that he had only two things to say about that message. He denied that his father was sitting next to him despite saying that he had no memory of sending the message. Second, and most importantly, he stated “the Zhao that this is sent to is not the Zhao connected to CEFC” who “had no understanding or even remotely knew what the hell I was even Goddamn talking about.”
The Committee staff maintains that Biden’s WhatsApp account shows that he only ever communicated with one Zhao – Raymond Zhao – and that he most certainly did not know what he was “talking about.”
Another alleged lie was Hunter’s denial that he ever helped people associated with Burisma secure visas. He told Congress that he was unwilling to provide “any work as it related to visas that they needed” and that he would “never pick up the phone and call anybody for a visa.” The Committee has produced an email in which Hunter’s associate Devon Archer references the revoking of Burisma CEO Nikolay Zlochevsky’s visa. It states that “Hunter is checking with Miguel Aleman to see if he can provide cover to Kola on the visa…Please send Hunter an email with all Kola’s passport and visa documents and evidence and copy me. We’ll take it from there.”
Hunter also swore that he had no part in shell companies that received foreign payments. Yet, Archer testified that he and Hunter had an equal stake in Rosemont Seneca Bohai and the Committee has evidence from the IRS whistleblowers showing that Hunter received benefits as owner of the entity’s associated bank account.
The most damning evidence may be a document reading “I, Robert Hunter Biden, hereby certify that I am the duly elected, qualified and acting Secretary of Rosemont Seneca Bohai, LLC.” He used that document as part of his contract with Porsche Financial Services for a sports car.
Those would seem pretty clear and well-founded allegations for a referral to the Justice Department. After fast-tracking false statement claims against Trump officials, the question is whether Garland will even submit the matter to a grand jury. He could also give the matter to the Special Counsel prosecuting Hunter.
Ordinarily, a prosecutor pursuing a defendant in two different felony cases would jump at any alleged illegality. You would not want to stand between him and a grand jury. However, Special Counsel David Weiss has been accused of minimizing charges against the President’s son and attempting to push through a notorious sweetheart deal that collapsed in court.
Now Garland faces an unavoidable choice in treating this referral as he did Trump cases (in sending this to a grand jury) or scuttling alleged perjury made by the son of the President before Congress. It is far less challenging legally than it is politically for Merrick Garland.
If the rule of law still governs at the Justice Department, Hunter Biden could be facing a third front in his ongoing legal struggles.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Big talker Biden Challenged Trump to debate “Any time, any place” but with a load of stipulations that don’t favor Trump. No live audience: Trump’s Mic is Muted while Biden speaks, No RFK, only hosted by Left-wing media and moderated by a Democrat-aligned reporter. But not to worry, Trump likes those odds.
BREAKING: Biden and Trump Accept CNN’s Invitation to Debate on June 27 – Trump Takes the Gloves Off and RIPS “Crooked Joe Biden”
By Cristina Laila – May 15, 2024 Joe Biden and President Trump on Wednesday accepted an invitation from CNN for a debate on June 27. Trump also accepted ABC News’ invitation to debate Biden on September 10. “It is my great honor to accept the CNN Debate against Crooked Joe Biden, the WORST PRESIDENT in the History of the United States and a true Threat to Democracy, on June 27th. Likewise, I accept the ABC News Debate against Crooked Joe on September 10th. Thank you, DJT!” Trump said on Truth Social Wednesday morning. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Pro-Life Advocate Heather Idoni Thrown in Prison for 24 Months for Protesting Abortion • Kansas City Chiefs Coach Andy Reid Defends Harrison Butker • Kansas City Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes Defends Harrison Butker: “He’s a Good Person” • Kentucky Reports 0 Abortions as Abortion Ban Saves Babies
More Pro-Life News • NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell Walks Back Criticism of Harrison Butker: “We Treasure Diversity of Opinion” • Georgia Supreme Court Justice Andrew Pinson Defeats Radical Abortion Activist • Liberal Writer Defends Harrison Butker’s Freedom of Speech to Defend Motherhood • Pro-Life Group Condemns Biden for Targeting Pro-Life Americans • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
Last week Rep. Nancy Pelosi made the mistake of engaging in a debate about populism at Oxford Union. Without scripted talking points and a friendly press corps, it was a setting in which Pelosi was likely to tell the world what she really thinks. She didn’t disappoint.
About halfway through the debate, Pelosi uttered the following:
We’ve seen demagogues come down the pike [and] destroy the press. What is it that Republicans say? Fake news. So, they’re diminishing [the press] in the eyes of these poor souls who are looking for some answers. We’ve given them [answers], but they’re blocked by some of their views on guns. They have the three Gs, guns, gays, God. And the cultural issues cloud some of their reception, reception [to] an argument that really is in their interest.
Perhaps realizing how damaging those remarks were, Pelosi claimed, “We don’t accuse people of not knowing what they’re doing. They know what their personal interest is. We respect that.” But if you state that certain people hold views that block them from seeing what is in their best interest, then you are saying that they don’t know what they are doing. And using the “three Gs” the way Pelosi did is not a sign of respect.
Noted economist Thomas Sowell examined at length the attitude displayed by the likes of Pelosi in his book The Vision of the Anointed. That vision is the notion among many in politics, academia, and the media “who believe that third parties can make better decisions than people can make for themselves.” The Anointed exist on a higher moral plane, exemplified by, among other things, their compassion for the poor, support of the oppressed, and concern for the environment. Those who do not share the vision are not just wrong, but they are mean-spirited, and “the ‘real reasons’ behind their arguments and actions must be exposed.” If they continue to prove recalcitrant, then they must be “nullified and superseded by the views of the anointed, imposed via the power of government,” Sowell wrote.
A populist like Donald Trump doesn’t merely have different ideas about what is best for society. He is, Pelosi claimed, a “snake-oil salesman” who sells the vulnerable “a bill of goods.” His real aim was to pass “a tax bill that [gave] 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent.” That benefited his “big, dark, rich, billionaire donors who don’t want to pay taxes.”
More of Pelosi’s Accusations
Pelosi also accused populists of cruelty. They want to suppress “the vote in our country,” “take away … health care,” and let the fossil fuel industry “suffocate the airways,” she said.
This is not the first time Pelosi has expressed this attitude. During the fight over Obamacare, she said, “You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill … I don’t know if you have heard that it is a legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America … but we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it. Away from the fog of the controversy.”
Pelosi was, in effect, saying: “The arguments against Obamacare are just a distraction. And for those that oppose Obamacare, you can trust us to do what’s best for you because we are smarter and more moral.”
Biden Administration as Anointed
Most politicians, whatever their stripe, possess the Vision of the Anointed to some degree. But some are more possessed than others. From student loans to health insurance subsidies to massive spending bills, the Biden administration has shown no compunction about substituting its judgment for those of ordinary Americans. The problem is that the Anointed like Biden and Pelosi do not suffer the direct consequences of their decisions. Those tend to fall on the people for whom the decisions are being made.
Biden’s Green New Deal is perhaps the harshest example of that. Part of Biden’s green agenda included shutting down new oil drilling on federal land. Taxpayers have picked up the tab for the higher gasoline prices and heating costs required to keep the presidential limousine moving and the White House cozy in the winter. Those same taxpayers will have to fund their higher gas prices and heating bills on their own.
Adults are best suited to make their own decisions. They pay the cost if they are wrong, and that gives them much greater incentive to make good decisions than the Anointed. Come November, it is crucial to remember that many politicians have no respect for that.
President Biden may not appear on the ballot in Ohio come Election Day, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose warned Tuesday. The Ohio Democratic Party has received weeks of warnings from both LaRose’s office and the state legislature saying that Biden is on track to miss the state’s deadline for filing as a candidate. LaRose, a Republican, says the Democratic Party has yet to offer a solution that fits with existing law.
Biden’s problems arise from Ohio’s requirement that parties certify their presidential candidates at least 90 days before Election Day. The Democratic Party won’t certify Biden until its national convention in Wisconsin, which is scheduled for Aug. 19, just 75 days before the election.
“I’ve said from here to Colorado that it’s in the best interest of voters to have a choice in the race for president. I’m also duty-bound to follow the law as Ohio’s chief elections officer,” LaRose said in a statement Tuesday.
President Biden may not appear on the ballot in Ohio come election day, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose warned Tuesday. (AP Newsroom)
“As it stands today, the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee will not be on the Ohio ballot. That is not my choice. It’s due to a conflict in the law created by the party, and the party has so far offered no legally acceptable remedy,” he continued.
“The Ohio House speaker said today there won’t be a legislative solution, so I’ve sent a letter to Ohio Democrats’ chair seeking (again) a solution that upholds the law and respects the voters. I trust they’ll act quickly,” he finished.
Biden is on track to miss Ohio’s deadline for filing as an official presidential candidate. (Paul J. Richards/AFP via Getty Images)
Ohio Democrats had previously argued that Ohio could accept a “provisional certification” for Biden’s candidacy, but LaRose says state law makes no such allowances.
LaRose said either the state legislature needs to change the law to allow Biden’s certification, or the Democratic Party needs to change its plans. Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens, also a Republican, says lawmakers won’t bail Biden out.
“There’s just not the will to do that from the legislature,” Stephens told reporters.
Ohio Republicans say Biden must be on the ballot in November, but the Democratic Party must act to make it happen. (Michael M. Santiago/PoolAFP via Getty Images)
His Democratic counterpart, Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo, had the same message when speaking to reporters on Tuesday.
“We’ve seen the dysfunction here in this place,” she said. “And I think we’ve seen that folks have not been able to put aside partisanship and hyper-partisanship and infighting.… I think at this point, you’re probably going to see either, you know, some sort of inner party effects or perhaps court action.”
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, another Republican, assured voters that Biden would be on the ballot come November, arguing that if the legislature doesn’t act, then it’s “going to be done by the court.”
Ohio Democrats have yet to respond to LaRose’s Tuesday letter.
Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to Anders.Hagstrom@Fox.com, or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.
Senate Republicans have united to block a bipartisan border security deal that many previously supported.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., plans to hold a vote on the bill Thursday but no Republican senators have expressed support, according to The Hill. The bill was endorsed by the National Border Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Schumer’s plan was a gimmick and he told President Joe Biden the GOP would not vote for it. McConnell previously called the bill a “huge success,” according to the report.
“I said to him,” McConnell told The Hill, “‘Mr. President, you caused this problem. There’s no legislation that allows the problem to be fixed. Why don’t you just allow what the previous administration was doing.'”
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., who negotiated the bill and voted for it in February, said the vote was political theater designed to protect vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection.
“This is not trying to accomplish something,” Lankford said. “This is about messaging now. This is trying to poke Republicans rather than try to actually solve a problem.”
The legislation would reform the nation’s asylum laws and give the president power to shut down the border if migrant crossings average 4,000 per day.
Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mitt Romney, R-Utah — who supported the bill in February — told The Hill they were undecided on how they would vote.
Schumer blamed Republicans of caving to former President Donald Trump, who opposed the bill, because Schumer claims Trump wants to make the border an issue going into the presidential election.
“This is the same bipartisan bill Republicans pushed for, then backed away when they got orders from President Trump [and] made an about-face turn and then voted no,” Schumer told The Hill.
Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif. said he would oppose the bill. Padilla also opposed the bill in February, because it did not offer any assistance to migrants.
The Trump Organization, whose logo is displayed here on a smartphone screen, enjoyed a 12.4-point increase in trust from independents in a new Axios/Harris Poll 100 that measured public perceptions of brands’ trust, character, ethics, and vision, among other things. (Photo illustration: Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/Light Rocket/Getty Images)
Brands that tend to lean conservative experienced significant corporate reputational improvement because of increased trust from independents, as well as from some Democrats, according to a poll published on Wednesday.
Corporate reputations have plunged to their lowest point since before the COVID-19 pandemic, but conservative-leaning companies ranked among the highest, according to the Axios/Harris Poll 100.
Close to two-thirds of the 100 companies had decreased reputation scores, which reflect a brand’s trust, character, ethics, vision, citizenship, growth, and products and services, while three of the 15 companies that rose over half a point were Hobby Lobby, the Trump Organization, and Fox Corp., according to Axios.
“Many independents, and even some Democrats, in this year’s survey are drifting rightward, which accounts for the boost in reputations of many of the more traditional or conservatively-leaning companies,” Harris Poll CEO John Gerzema told Axios. “There seems to be a move to the center on attitudes toward companies and their role in society. I feel this could be an important finding because swing voters are going to determine the outcome of the election, and as of yet are hard to pin down.”
The Trump Organization saw a 12.4-point increase in trust from independents, while Hobby Lobby experienced an eight-point rise in trust among Democrats, according to Axios. A greater number of independents and Democrats believe Fox Corp. and Hobby Lobby align with their values.
🚨🚨Important Exclusive Data – Companies ride a red wave ahead of election – backlash against cultural activism https://t.co/ZHWhv78PY7
Americans of all political backgrounds appear to be significantly skeptical of left-wing corporate agendas, such as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), according to the poll. Bud Light’s parent company, Anheuser-Busch, which briefly collaborated with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in 2023, experienced a six-point drop, while Target’s reputation declined after backlash to selling an LGBT “Pride” collection.
Many corporations are cutting back on or rebranding their DEI initiatives to evade scrutiny as conservatives have pushed back on these programs with legal efforts. Their concern about legal scrutiny ratcheted up after the Supreme Court struck down race-based admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina in June 2023.
The rankings were based on a survey of 16,500 Americans, which was conducted between March 6 and 18.
The Trump Organization, Hobby Lobby, and Fox Corp. did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Today I will have the pleasure of participating in a debate titled Civil Disagreements: Presidential Self Pardons. I will be debating Professor Brian Kalt, who believes that the presidents do not have the authority to pardon themselves. I will be taking the opposing position. The debate will be held entirely online. The debate is sponsored by Reform for Illinois, the American Bar Association, the Chicago Chapter of the American Constitution Society, and the Chicago Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society
I have long maintained that presidents do have the authority to grant self-pardons. That does not mean that I approve of the practice as a policy matter, but the question, in my view, rests with a president in using the authority granted under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which defines the pardon power as allowing a president to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
I value the effort of these two legal groups to foster civil and substantive dialogue on these questions and look forward to the debate with Professor Kalt.
The debate will begin at 1pm (ET) and participants can register here.
In another victory for the mobocracy, Dickinson College canceled the commencement address of CNN host Michael Smerconish after liberal and pro-Palestinian students objected. The school decided to forego any speaker rather than risk the ire of radical students and groups. The greatest loss was not to Smerconish but to the college and the students. These graduates could have heard from one of the brightest legal minds in media and a person who has been a powerful and unflagging champion of free speech.
The decision was an unparalleled act of cowardice by President John Jones, who cited “overwhelming opposition” to Smerconish in a recent statement. Somehow Jones viewed yielding to the mob to be a virtuous act and announced that “with the support of our Board of Trustees, I have decided to rescind the honorary degree and invitation to speak at Commencement.”
That certainly offered clarity to the question and the solution: Jones and the board should resign.
The very touchstone of higher education is a diversity of viewpoints. We have seen a growing orthodoxy on our campuses with little tolerance for dissenting views, particularly when it comes to conservative or libertarian voices. That is most evident in the selection of commencement speakers. It is now routine to invite far left commencement speakers, including at my own university. Speakers like MSNBC host Jen Psaki this year at GW are treated as ideal choices while the selection of more moderate or conservative speakers would trigger protests and cancel campaigns.
Commencements are now an extension of echo chambers on our campuses where faculties have largely purged conservatives from their ranks.
We previously discussed how surveys at universities show a virtual purging of conservative and Republican faculty members. For example, last year, the Harvard Crimson noted that the university had virtually eliminated Republicans from most departments but that the lack of diversity was not a problem. Now, a new survey conducted by the Harvard Crimson shows that more than three-quarters of Harvard Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences faculty respondents identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 2.5% identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
Likewise, a study by Georgetown University’s Kevin Tobia and MIT’s Eric Martinez found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools. Notably, a 2017 study found 15 percent of faculties were conservative. Another study found that 33 out of 65 departments lacked a single conservative faculty member.
Compare that to a recent Gallup poll stating, “roughly equal proportions of U.S. adults identified as conservative (36%) and moderate (35%) in Gallup polling throughout 2022, while about a quarter identified as liberal (26%).”
Targeting Smerconish is particularly maddening. I have known Michael for many years, and I hold him in the highest respect. He remains one of the most intelligent and principled figures in the media. He is also one of the most consistent and committed figures in the media in his defense of the rule of law and constitutional values.
Critics have focused on excerpts from the journalist’s 2004 book “Flying Blind: How Political Correctness Continues to Compromise Airline Safety Post 9/11.” They charge that the book supports “racial profiling.” The truth is that Smerconish is one of the most outspoken civil libertarians in the country and has routinely defended groups stereotyped or targeted simply for their race or national origin.
In a statement on his website, Smerconish explained how his writings have been “grossly distorted.” He added how he wished Jones would have done “the honorable thing” and called to “explain his inability to control the unjustified campus sentiment.”
He is certainly correct, but such integrity is increasingly rare in higher education where administrators and educators have remained silent as their colleagues are targeted, investigated, and sometimes fired for their views. Most Dickinson College professors have remained silent or voiced support for the cancelation in the wake of this decision.
Jones and the Dickinson board took the path of least resistance when confronted by the academic mob. In doing so, they have abandoned the core values that define higher education. This act of surrender is particularly glaring at a college founded in 1783 by the great Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and champion of individual rights.
It is named for John Dickinson, another founding father who refused to sign the Declaration on Independence in seeking a peaceful resolution with Great Britain. Dickinson was a person of tremendous courage and principle despite his false depiction in the musical 1776.
Dickinson stood up to tremendous pressures in maintaining his position and wrote “My conduct this day, I expect will give the finishing blow to my once too great and, my integrity considered, now too diminished popularity.” Yet, he would enlist with the patriots and fight in the war for independence. He was only one of two Framers to do so. Even his political adversary John Adams praised him for his stalwart commitment to principle and refusal to yield to pressure.
Dickinson is a worthy model for those who believe in free speech and the need to protect a diversity of viewpoints. Indeed, he was an early target of a cancel campaign by those who refused to understand the reason for his opposition to the declaration. Now, the college named for Dickinson has become the very thing that he fought to resist in his life.
Michael Smerconish will remain a voice for tolerance and free speech. He is the very embodiment of the ideals that led to the establishment of Dickinson College.
Top Stories • Biden Admin Files Charges Against More Pro-Life Americans After Putting a Dozen People in Prison • Trump Confirms He Won’t Restrict Contraception, Will “Never Advocate Restrictions on Birth Control” • Biden Admin Undercounted Number of Babies Killed in Abortions on Military Bases • CVS Pharmacy Forced to Settle After Firing Christian Nurse for Being Pro-Life
More Pro-Life News • Pro-Life Women Denied Crucial Medical Care After Biden Puts Them in Prison • Pearl Jam Singer Eddie Vedder Trashes Harrison Butker: “He’s a F—— P—-“ • Florida Abortion Businesses Caught Paying Women to Seek Out-Of-State Abortions • Pro-Life MP Who Faces “Hate Speech” Charges for Quoting Bible Defends Herself in Court • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Republican legislators on the State Emblems Redesign Commission say they will author a minority report criticizing the process for being too short and not including enough public input.
New flag set to fly across Minnesota
Republican legislators on the State Emblems Redesign Commission say they will author a minority report criticizing the process for being too short and not including enough public input.
Thirteen residents of Minnesota appointed to redesign the state’s flag voted to approve a final rendition on Tuesday of what is likely to begin flying across the state in May. But even as they did, two Republican legislators who sit on the committee as non-voting members said they plan to issue a minority report that reflects their opinion that the process was rushed and did not include enough public input.
The State Emblems Redesign Commission made a relatively significant modification to the submission they chose last week from among three finalists. That winning submission was designed by Andrew Prekker, a 24-year-old designer from Luverne, Minn. Prekker is a recent alumnus of Minnesota West Community and Technical College, the same school in Worthington where commission vice chair Anita Gaul (a former DFL candidate for state senate) is an instructor. Prekker’s design was chosen following a winnowing process of more than 2,000 entries submitted to the commission in October. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
In a growing environment of left-wing activism in schools, especially related to LGBT ideology, parents who have not been able to influence curriculum have had the option of opting their kids out of classes. Not any longer, at least according to a federal appeals court in a Maryland case of three families suing for the right to religious freedom for their elementary school-aged children in public schools.
In August of 2023, three families — one Muslim, one Christian, and one Jewish — brought a case against the Montgomery County Board of Education for a recent policy change removing the opt-out option for curriculum. Previously, parents received advanced notice of materials that would be read to their children and could opt out. The school board announced that parents would no longer receive advanced notice of materials, and they could no longer opt out of readings or lessons.
A year prior, according to the case, “In the spring of 2022, the School Board had determined that the books in its English language arts curriculum were not sufficiently representative because they did not include LGBTQ characters.” Maryland law requires schools to give parents the opportunity “to view instructional materials to be used in the teaching of family life and human sexuality objectives.” The school board also has an opt-out policy for religious exemptions in place.
However, there is a clause that states that “if such requests become too frequent or too burdensome, the school may refuse to accommodate the requests. Schools are not required to alter fundamentally the educational program or create a separate educational program or a separate course to accommodate a student’s religious practice or belief.” Deciding that LGBT inclusion in the curriculum was fundamental to the educational program and the requests were too burdensome, the school board simply declared parents could not opt out of LGBT content any longer.
Judge’s Ruling
Last week, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman dismissed the parents’ concerns and noted that every court that has reviewed similar mandatory public-school curricula has found that “mere exposure in public school to ideas that contradict religious beliefs does not burden the religious exercise of students or parents.”
She insisted, “The parents still may instruct their children on their religious beliefs regarding sexuality, marriage, and gender, and each family may place contrary views in its religious context.”
“No government action prevents the parents from freely discussing the topics raised in the storybooks with their children or teaching their children as they wish,” Boardman wrote in Thursday’s order.
The decision was upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Their reasoning was that the parents could not demonstrate how the LGBT-themed books would be used in the classroom and therefore could not determine if they would infringe on their beliefs.
Contrary to the First Amendment
Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued, “That runs contrary to the First Amendment, Maryland law, the School Board’s own policies, and basic human decency.”
“Parents should have the right to receive notice and opt their children out of classroom material that violates their faith,” he added.
In contrast to the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning, reviewing the Montgomery County Public Schools website makes it clear why these books are in the classroom. The website has a dedicated LGBT section stating, “We have welcoming, affirming schools, classrooms, teams, and clubs. We value all of our children, youth, teachers, staff, and parents.” The section provides an extensive list of LGBT content, resources, and “How to” guides for students, staff, and parents.
Students are provided a Coming Out as YOU! guide that instructs them on how to come out, including a “safety plan,” which tells the students to make sure they have a safe place outside their home to stay; someone, seemingly besides their parents, that they can trust; and to “Consider letting a friend know that you’re planning on coming out and if you don’t text them by a certain time you might need help because your safety might be in danger.” The guide tells students they should decide what they identify as daily, which can change day by day.
The school’s Culturally Responsive Supplemental Elementary ELA Collection is the biggest concern point for parents, as it details the content students will be provided. Students grades kindergarten to second grade are provided more than eight separate LGBT titles, half of which are trans-focused. One book, titled Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, states in its description, “Penelope knows that he’s a boy. (And a ninja.) The problem is getting everyone else to realize it.”
Three books focus on a character named Max, a transgender-identifying elementary school-aged student who dedicates time to educating friends, teachers, and parents about what being transgender means. Several books are focused on same-sex relationships: one about a prince and a knight who fall in love, one about a child’s gay uncle getting married, and a book for 4- to 8-year-olds titled Love, Violet, about an elementary-aged girl who falls in love with another girl.
Not being subtle, another title for this age group is IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All, a book on intersectional feminism that teaches kids how to be activists, and a book titled Let’s Eat Bugs! for fifth graders provides recipes on eating insects. The school also offers an LGBT club for elementary school students.
The Obvious Purpose
The school system’s agenda is pretty obvious.
Is it any wonder that religious parents would be concerned about their children — again, kindergarten to fifth grade — being exposed to extreme LGBT ideology? Critics pretend kids are just being told stories that include LGBT characters and that only bigots would oppose kids learning about different types of people. The first judge dismissed the parents saying they “failed to show that the lack of an opt-out policy would result in the ‘indoctrination of their children’ or ‘coerce their children to violate or change their religious beliefs.’”
However, these are books designed to teach kids about being LGBT themselves, not simply about LGBT experiences, history, or health education. This is an environment where kids are heavily encouraged to explore sexuality and gender ideology, with expansive resources, instruction guides, and clubs. Of course, religious parents would consider this to be an invasive level of activism and indoctrination.
It should be obvious to anyone that forcing parents to accept this instruction for their children violates their religious freedom, and the obnoxious dismissal from a judge that parents can simply undo whatever their kids learn in school further mocks these sacred rights. Left-wing, LGBT activists simply want full control over children’s education and have constructed a system that not only excludes parents but intentionally isolates their children from them in school.
LGBT activists believe they know best for all students, and that all students need to learn about LGBT ideology in an open, proactive, and affirming way, and if parents oppose this instruction, they don’t need to know about it, or worse, have no power to stop it. Unfortunately, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just strengthened this abuse of power by school systems, degrading parental rights and religious freedom even further.
Chad Felix Greene is a senior contributor to The Federalist. He is the author of “Surviving Gender: My Journey Through Gender Dysphoria,” and is a social writer focusing on truth in media, conservative ideas and goals, and true equality under the law. You can follow him on Twitter @chadfelixg.
Former President Trump’s legal team was slated to call on a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission to testify in the NY v. Trump case, but the expert’s testimony was not heard after the presiding judge curbed the scope of what he could discuss before the jury.
“Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance,” former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith posted on X on Monday.
“But the Federal Election Campaign Act is very complex. Even Antonin Scalia – a pretty smart guy, even you hate him – once said ‘this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out.’ Picture a jury in a product liability case trying to figure out if a complex machine was negligently designed, based only on a boilerplate recitation of the general definition of ‘negligence.’ They’d be lost without knowing technology & industry norms,” he continued.
Smith is an election law expert who Trump has called the “Rolls-Royce” of experts in his field, but he will not testify after Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Smith could speak before the court on the basic definitions surrounding election law but not expand beyond that scope.
Former President Trump sits in the courtroom during his trial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City on May 21, 2024. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in the case. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg must prove to the jury that not only did Trump falsify the business records related to payments to former porn actress Stormy Daniels but that he did so in furtherance of another crime: conspiracy to promote or prevent election.
Smith served as an FEC commissioner and chair between 2000 and 2005. The FEC is the U.S. agency dedicated to enforcing campaign finance laws. His testimony was slated to shed light on prosecutors’ allegations that Trump falsified business records, which is a misdemeanor that has already passed the statute of limitations, in order to cover up an election violation.
Smith wrote on social media that while the prosecution’s star witness, Michael Cohen, was allowed to go “on at length about whether and how his activity violated” the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), he was barred from broadening the scope of his previously anticipated testimony, which “effectively” led to the jury getting “its instructions on FECA from Michael Cohen!”
Bradley Smith was supposed to be a defense witness in the NY v. Trump case. (Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images/File)
Smith spoke with the Washington Examiner on Monday and discussed what he would have said in court if he testified.
“Judges instruct the juries on the law,” Smith told the outlet. “And they don’t want a battle of competing experts saying here’s what the law is. They feel it’s their province to make that determination. The problem, of course, is that campaign finance law is extremely complex and just reading the statute to people isn’t really going to help them very much.”
Smith said he anticipated “to lay out the ways the law has been interpreted in ways that might not be obvious” while noting election laws are very complicated matters.
Michael Cohen is questioned by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger on redirect during former President Trump’s criminal trial in New York City on May 20, 2024. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)
“You read the law, and it says that anything intended for the purpose of influencing an election is a contribution or an expenditure,” Smith said. “But that’s not in fact the entirety of the law. There is the obscure, and separate from the definitional part, idea of personal use, which is a separate part of the law that says you can’t divert campaign funds to personal use. That has a number of specific prohibitions, like you can’t buy a country club membership, you can’t normally pay yourself a salary or living expenses, you can’t go on vacation, all these kinds of things. And then it includes a broader, general prohibition that says you can’t divert [campaign funds] to any obligation that would exist even if you were not running for office.”
“We would have liked to flag that exception for the jury and talk a little bit about what it means,” Smith said. “And also, we would have talked about ‘for the purpose of influencing an election’ is not a subjective test, like, ‘What was my intention?’ It’s an objective test.”
Michael Cohen and former President Trump (Getty Images)
The case surrounding Trump’s payments is one that both the Justice Department and FEC rejected to prosecute in recent years. The Justice Department in 2019 “effectively concluded” its investigation into Trump’s payments. While in 2021, the Federal Elections Commission announced that it had dropped a case looking into whether Trump had violated election laws for the payment to Daniels.
Smith has previously joined Fox News, where he also noted that the “Federal Election Commission chose not to act on this.”
Bradley Smith testifies during a House subcommittee hearing on lobbying reform on March 1, 2007. (Bill Clark/Roll Call/Getty Images)
“DA Bragg in this case waited, I think it was almost a year, before even bringing the charges. And I think that’s because the charges were flimsy. And as you point out, they’ve been, you know, the prior DA had said, ‘No, we’re not going to bring this.’ The DOJ said no. The Federal Election Commission said no. And when he got increased political pressure, he brought the case,” Smith told Fox News host Mark Levin earlier this year before the trial kicked off.
Smith also wrote an opinion piece published by The Federalist last month, when the trial kicked off, arguing that Bragg’s office had “one big problem” with the case.
Former President Trump sits in the courtroom in New York City on May 21, 2024. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
“The [prosecution’s] theory is that Trump’s payments to Daniels were campaign expenditures and thus needed to be publicly reported as such. By not reporting the expenditure, the theory goes, Trump prevented the public from knowing information that might have influenced their votes,” he wrote in the opinion piece.
“There is one big problem with this theory: The payments to Daniels were not campaign payments.”
He said political candidates frequently act in ways that could be interpreted as serving a “purpose of influencing an election,” that politicians could get their teeth whitened or buy a new suit with campaign funds to look snappy on the campaign trail.
Rhona Graff testifies as former President Trump watches during his criminal trial in New York City on April 26, 2024. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)
“That’s because, in campaign finance law, these types of expenditures are known as ‘personal use.’ FECA specifically prohibits the conversion of campaign funds to personal use, defined as any expenditure ‘used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign,’” he wrote.
Smith continued on X on Tuesday that Bragg’s case hinges on prosecutors proving that Trump tried to influence an election through “unlawful means,” but the office has to rely on their own evidence as the DOJ and FEC both denied pursuing the case.
Judge Juan Merchan (AP Photos/File)
“If that’s the case, isn’t it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury’s fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won’t allow that in,” he wrote. “He will, though, allow in numerous references to Cohen’s guilty plea, and allow Cohen to testify as to how he thinks he and Trump violated FECA – though it appears that Cohen is a dunce about campaign finance laws.”
The defense team rested Tuesday, with Merchan dismissing the jury until after Memorial Day. Closing arguments are anticipated to kick off next Tuesday following the holiday.
Joe Biden is running out of excuses. While many Democrats have urged him to end his re-election bid, including friendly columnists like the New York Times’ Ezra Klein and Washington Post’s David Ignatius, it has been the conventional wisdom that Biden could not do so, fearful that an even less popular Kamala Harris would replace him as the 2024 Democratic candidate for president.
That is changing. Vice President Harris has been out on the stump, performing the kind of all-out energetic campaigning that the president cannot manage. She meets almost daily with women’s groups talking about abortion and Black groups talking about racial justice.
She travels incessantly to swing states to hand out money and programs, crediting the Biden-Harris White House – emphasis on Harris – with passing the enormous spending bills at the heart of the administration’s campaign.
She also frequently entertains important Democrats at her home in Washington, getting to know the important power brokers. Quietly, off the radar, even as she is being virtually ignored by Republican analysts and commentators, Harris’ efforts are paying off.
Harris’ overall approval ratings of 38% (net 11% disapproving) on average today are slightly better than those of her boss (net 17% disapproving), and they have improved since the beginning of the year, when her net disapproval was above 17%. Biden’s have not. Importantly, recent surveys show she is more popular with Black voters – where Biden has suffered a serious swoon – than the president.
Harris can make a solid case that she can carry on the Obama/Biden agenda and that she is healthy and fit to serve four more years. If a large portion of Biden’s unpopularity is due to his age, Harris would be a significant upgrade.
Harris’ improved posture comes at a pivotal time in the campaign and for the president. Scheduling the first of two presidential debates on June 27, way earlier than usual in the election calendar, has triggered renewed speculation about Democrats dumping Biden at the convention. Some think that the timing of the face-off with Donald Trump, many weeks ahead of the Aug. 19 gathering in Chicago, is intended to give Democrats some optionality. If the debate is a complete disaster, it is thought, the party will have enough time to regroup and consider an alternative before their convention.
If a large portion of Biden’s unpopularity is due to his age, Harris would be a significant upgrade.
Recent polls showing former President Trump leading in critical swing states promise disaster in November, not only for Biden but possibly for down-ballot candidates as well. Vulnerable Senate candidates in toss-up states like Pennsylvania and Nevada are reportedly distancing themselves from the president, fearful of being dragged down by the top of the ticket.
But what about all those primaries? Is it even possible to ditch Biden? The answer is yes; during the Democratic convention, the party could technically decide to pick another candidate if Biden withdrew from the race or if the majority of delegates was persuaded that the president was not up to the task.
There are some 4,000 delegates who will elect the party’s nominee, and roughly 700 so-called Super Delegates who step in only if there is no apparent winner on the first round of voting. There is no legal obligation for any of those delegates to back Biden. In the event of some calamity – a health problem, for instance, or a humiliating defeat in the debate – the majority could choose someone to replace the president.
Or the party could finally persuade Biden to step aside. Some political analysts have expected him to do so for months, considering his age, infirmity and declining popularity. Despite considerable pressure, Joe has hung on, perhaps knowing he can best protect his son Hunter from the Oval Office, because his wife Jill has encouraged him to run again or maybe because of Harris’ weak standing.
For the first three years of his presidency, Biden outshone Harris, who repeatedly got tangled up in hilarious word salads but more importantly, was tagged with accomplishing little and, especially, doing nothing about the open border.
Though Harris’ approval ratings are still poor, she is arguably more capable than Joe. If Democrat bosses decide to open up the convention to other candidates, in order to keep the party from splitting wide open, Vice President Harris is likely to prevail. That is what happened in 1968.
When Lyndon Johnson announced he was withdrawing from the presidential race on March 31, 1968, his approval rating was about 36%, according to Gallup, only slightly worse than Biden’s today. LBJ knew his chances were dim, given anger about the Vietnam War, and took himself out of contention. At the Democratic convention that year, delegates picked Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, to succeed him as the 1968 candidate, despite many within the party seeking an anti-war candidate.
President Richard M. Nixon dedicates his new administration to the cause of “peace among nations” as former President Lyndon Johnson, left, listens to the inaugural speech Jan. 20, 1969, in Washington. Seated at right is Vice President Spiro Agnew. (AP Photo)
Humphrey was not popular – only 34% of the country supported him on the eve of the convention, compared to 40% backing Richard Nixon and 17% leaning toward the segregationist (former Democrat) George Wallace, who ran as an independent. But, nominating Humphrey was the least contentious of possible outcomes; in the end, Democrat power brokers opted for harmony. The decision did not go well; Humphrey lost that year to Richard Nixon in a tight election.
The reality for Democrats is that if they open up the convention to considering other candidates, Kamala Harris will likely emerge the nominee. She will not leave the game without a fight; and, like Humphrey, the vice president would be the least contentious of alternatives.
For sure, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and others might throw their hats in the ring, but neither has done the coast-to-coast politicking so necessary to build their case. And, Black leaders, who put Joe Biden in the Oval Office, would almost certainly prefer Harris.
Gov. Gavin Newsom talks about the future UCLA Research Park, California’s new global hub for innovation, being built at the former Westside Pavilion in Los Angeles on Jan. 3, 2024. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Humphrey lost, but he went from basement-level approval ratings to nearly winning. It’s possible that Harris could do the same. Democrats may have no other choice.
Liz Peek is a Fox News contributor and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company. A former columnist for the Fiscal Times, she writes for The Hill and contributes frequently to Fox News, the New York Sun and other publications. For more visit LizPeek.com. Follow her on Twitter @LizPeek.
The prosecution in Donald Trump’s legal expenses trial “has not proven a crime,” but Judge Juan Merchan is going to force the trial to the jury, Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Newsmax.
“I don’t think the judge is going to do the right thing,” Leavitt told Tuesday’s “National Report.” “If he had done the right thing, he would have recused himself from this case from the very beginning because he is a highly conflicted, partisan judge.
“He’s a Democrat who voted for Joe Biden. He should have never been overseeing this case in the first place, but our defense team is 100% right to file this motion to dismiss the charges.”
“They’ve spent 20 days on the stand, and they never proved a crime,” she continued. “They didn’t even come close to proving the 34 felony counts that they are charging President Trump with, and it’s because President Trump never committed the crimes that they are alleging. The prosecution has known this all along.”
Leavitt, who has been in the courtroom with Trump several times during the course of his trial, said that Tuesday is “just another sad day to watch President Trump back in that courtroom, talking to the media and not really able to fully speak about the case because he has an unconstitutional gag order that is hampering his ability to really talk about what’s going on in that courtroom.”
“I can’t even get into that with you guys either because of the unconstitutional gag order, which is just, it’s a travesty of justice,” she said. “As you mentioned, legal experts on both sides of the aisle, even on CNN and MSNBC, which I’m sure kills them to admit it, but it’s the truth: The prosecution has not proven a crime and we expect this case to rest very soon, and it will ultimately be in the hands of the jury, and we hope that they do the right thing based on the evidence, based on the law, and also for this country.
“This is a witch hunt, and our country has never seen anything like it.”
Trump’s lawyers rested their defense Tuesday without the former president taking the stand to testify. Members of the jury were sent home until May 28, when closing arguments are expected.
The jury could begin deliberating as early as next week to decide whether Trump is guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal legal payments to Michael Cohen to allegedly silence Stormy Daniels’ allegations of an extramarital affair.
The former president has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing in the case.
Nicole Wells, a Newsmax general assignment reporter covers news, politics, and culture. She is a National Newspaper Association award-winning journalist.
U.S. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke attends an event marking the 70th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision at the Justice Department on May 14. Clarke has been leading the DOJ’s legal charge against pro-life activists. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Following the announcement of prison sentences for pro-life activists last week, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on Monday against seven pro-life activists and two pro-life organizations. The DOJ’s lawsuit alleges that the pro-life organizations, Citizens for a Pro Life Society and Red Rose Rescue, as well as activists Laura Gies, Lauren Handy, Clara McDonald, Monica Miller, Christopher Moscinski, Jay Smith, and Audrey Whipple, violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act when they sought to stop abortions from taking place at Ohio abortion clinics.
Notably, the DOJ does not use the word “abortion,” but rather “reproductive health services”—except in a statement from U.S. Attorney Rebecca C. Lutzko for the Northern District of Ohio.
“Obstructing people from accessing reproductive health care and physically obstructing providers from offering it are unlawful,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, the head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement.
Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke on May 14 delivers remarks at the Justice Department during an event ahead of what was Friday’s 70th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision of the Supreme Court. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
“Congress passed the FACE Act 30 years ago this month in response to acts of violence, threats of violence and physical obstruction at reproductive health clinics in our country,” she added. “The Civil Rights Division is committed to enforcing federal law to protect the rights of those who seek and those who provide access to reproductive health services.”
The DOJ’s complaint seeks “compensatory damages, monetary penalties and injunctive relief as provided by the FACE Act.”
Handy, one of the activists mentioned in the release, was sentenced to 57 months in prison for trying to stop abortions at a Washington, D.C., abortion clinic. Clarke similarly issued a statement last week celebrating news that Handy and six other pro-life activists would spend time in prison for attempting to stop abortions from taking place.
The FACE Act is a 1994 law that supposedly protects both abortion clinics and pregnancy resource centers, but has been heavily enforced by President Joe Biden’s DOJ against pro-lifers since the June 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Pro-life activist Lauren Handy was sentenced last week to 57 months in prison for FACE Act violations. (Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The enforcement of the FACE Act is led by Clarke, who, following a report from The Daily Signal, recently admitted that she hid an arrest and its subsequent expungement from investigators when she was confirmed to her Justice Department post.
The president’s critics have accused Biden and the DOJ of weaponizing the FACE Act against pro-lifers while failing to charge pro-abortion criminals for the hundreds of attacks on pregnancy resource centers since the May 2022 leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion indicating that Roe would soon thereafter be overturned.
Some, among them Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, have called for the repeal of the FACE Act, arguing that it serves no purpose but to target pro-life activists.
“The Biden administration is using the FACE Act to give pro-life activists and senior citizens lengthy prison terms for nonviolent offenses and protests—all while turning a blind eye to the violence, arson, and riots conducted on behalf of ‘approved’ leftist causes,” Lee told The Daily Signal in a Tuesday statement.
“Unequal enforcement of the law is a violation of the law,” he added, “and men and women who try to expose the horrors of abortion are being unjustly persecuted for their motivations.”
Mary Margaret Olohan is a senior reporter for The Daily Signal and the author of “Detrans: True Stories of Escaping the Gender Ideology Cult.” She previously reported for both The Daily Caller and The Daily Wire. Email: marymargaret.olohan @dailysignal.com.
A male athlete who identifies as female dominates a high school girls race in Oregon, sparking new debate over fairness in women’s sports. (Photo illustration: Tony Anderson/Getty Images)
A male athlete took first place in a race for high school girls over the weekend at an Oregon state championship. Sophomore Aayden Gallagher, who identifies as female, beat seven girls in the 200-meter dash at the Oregon School Activities Association 6A State Championships, held at the University of Oregon in Eugene. Gallagher also took second place in the 400-meter. He tallied 18 points for McDaniel High School in Portland, leading the girl’s team to win fourth place overall in the championship.
Gallagher has dominated his races all season. He qualified to compete at the state championship by beating females for first place in the 200-meter May 9. He also took first place in the event at meets May 1 and April 17.
The crowd booed as Gallagher crossed the finish line Saturday, a video shows.
Male athletes are participating in, and dominating, girls track and cross-country events across the country. Lizzy Cohen Bidwell, a Connecticut resident whose name at birth was Lucas, qualified in mid-March for the national meet by taking first in the girls high jump in a regional competition. In Maine, another male who identifies as female, Soren Stark-Chessa, went from the middle of the pack in boys events to win an award for Fastest Sophomore Girl in the state’s largest high school cross-country race.
“We’ve just watched another male take away a state championship from a hardworking girl,” Paula Scanlan, ambassador for the Independent Women’s Forum, told The Daily Signal.
Scanlan, a former University of Pennsylvania swimmer, competed on a girls’ team that included Lia Thomas, a male who identifies as female. Scanlan now campaigns to save women’s sports. Supporters of women’s and girls’ sports can’t keep allowing male athletes to displace female athletes, she said.
“Him competing and winning shows the other girls that they are not worthy of fair competition,” Scanlan said, “and if we continue to allow this, it will discourage young girls from competing altogether.”
After his disastrous testimony in Manhattan, Michael Cohen lost even hosts and legal analysts at MSNBC and CNN. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin described Cohen as a “fabricator, liar or forgetful person.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper discussed how the testimony was “devastating for Michael Cohen’s credibility.” CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig said that Cohen had his “knees chopped out” by the defense. All of that was before Cohen admitted that he committed grand larceny in stealing tens of thousands from the Trump company. Most analysts honestly expressed disgust at the admission and expressed shock that he was not prosecuted. The question is whether anyone could find a way to excuse grand larceny to spare viewers in the echo chamber. That is when host Lawrence O’Donnell stepped forward.
So, to recap. Here is what Cohen said under oath under questioning by Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche:
Blanche: “So you stole from the Trump Organization, right?”
Cohen: “Yes, sir.”
Not much ambiguity but Cohen went on to explain that he intentionally inflated costs to just pocket tens of thousands of dollars. He admitted it was theft, plain and simple.
For O’Donnell, it is not that simple. He rushed outside to assure MSNBC viewers that everything is fine and that this is just a form of what Cohen laughingly called “self-help.”
“Cohen [was trying] to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserved, & it still came out as less than the bonus he thought he deserved & the bonus he had gotten the year before.”
It would have been more convincing if O’Donnell, a self-proclaimed socialist, had just called it a redistribution effort from the super-rich to the rich. However, there was a sense of desperation in O’Donnell’s interview in offering viewers an assuring alternative explanation. Larceny did not fit with the past coverage lionizing Cohen. For many viewers, O’Donnell’s account relieved them of the need to question the basis for the prosecution of Trump.
We will have to wait to see if O’Donnell’s defense is picked up in the nearby trial of Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.). It appears that taking those gold bars and other gifts may have been just an effort of Menendez to secure a bonus that he believed was warranted from his public service. It would also mean that anyone who was denied a bonus or received less from their employer can simply steal the difference.
There is a serious aspect to the O’Donnell statement. It is not clear if O’Donnell actually believes that Cohen was justified in stealing this money. However, he does show the level of self-delusion or denial that is common with many citizens who cannot see beyond the identity of the defendant. These are the same citizens who elected candidates like Letitia James as state attorney on a pledge to bag Trump for something, for anything. These are the same citizens who voted roughly 90 percent against Trump in Manhattan. These are the same citizens that are likely represented by some on this jury.
That may explain why the Trump team decided to take the risk of a “kill shot” witness like Robert Costello. Some of us believe that this case is already fatally flawed and that no reasonable jury could convict Trump. Indeed, I cannot see how any reasonable judge could deny a directed verdict. However, the Trump team does not want to wait for a long appeal. Costello comes with a risk of opening up issues on cross examination, particularly the involvement of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
The fact is that the jury has MSNBC viewers and some who likely hold the same bias as O’Donnell. For them, what most of us see unfolding in Manhattan may not be what they see. They may only see one person in the courtroom, and it is not any witness.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the meltdown of Michael Cohen on the stand in the Manhattan trial of former President Donald Trump. In a trial careening out of control, Judge Juan Merchan seemed to be furiously working to just get the matter to the jury as fast as possible. Judge Merchan seems in open denial of the legal farce playing out in his courtroom. He is only the latest person pulled into the vortex of the swirling corruption around Michael Cohen.
Here is the column:
The completion of the testimony of Michael Cohen left the prosecution of Donald Trump, like its star witness, in tatters. In the final day of cross-examination, Cohen admitted to committing larceny in stealing tens of thousands of dollars from his client. Even more notably, he admitted to the larceny on the stand — after the statute of limitations had passed. There will be no dead felony zapped back into life against Cohen, as it was for Trump. Cohen clearly has found a home for his unique skill as a convicted, disbarred serial perjurer.
It was not the first time that prosecutors looked the other way as Cohen admitted to major criminal conduct: In a prior hearing, Cohen admitted under oath that he lied in a previous case where he pleaded guilty to lying. If that is a bit confusing, it was just another day in the life of Michael Cohen, who appears only willing to tell the truth if he has no other alternative. The result is truly otherworldly. You have a disbarred lawyer not only casually discussing lies and uncharged crimes, but prosecutors who proceeded to get him to remind the jury that he is not facing any further criminal charges.
If any one of those jurors had stolen tens of thousands of dollars, they would be given a fast trip to the hoosegow. Yet Cohen then matter-of-factly said he plans to run for Congress due to his “name recognition” — the ultimate proof that it does not matter whether you are famous or infamous, so long as they spell your name right.
As a legislator, Cohen would have the unique ability to say he will not be corrupted by Congress — because he came to Congress corrupted. While most members wait to take office to commit felonies, Rep. Cohen would show up with a self-affirming criminal record. He could then take one of the few oaths that he has not previously violated as the Honorable Rep. Michael Cohen.
Prior witnesses testified that Trump’s payments to Cohen were designated as “legal expenses” not by Trump but by his accounting staff. Moreover, Cohen admitted that he worked for Trump for years in his murky capacity as a fixer. References to payments as a retainer were approved by Allen Weisselberg, a retired executive with the Trump Organization. The “legal expense” label was a natural characterization for a lawyer who was paid monthly and was on-call as Trump’s personal counsel.
In any other district, this case would never have been allowed in trial. It certainly now should be facing a directed verdict by the court. Indeed, with any other defendant, a New York jury would be giving a Bronx cheer in derision. Even CNN hosts and experts have admitted that this case would never have been brought against another defendant or in another district. That is what Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is counting on.
The biggest problem facing the defense is not the evidence, but the judge: Judge Juan Merchan seems to be channeling George Patton’s warning, “May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.”
Merchan has not given any indication that he is seriously considering a directed verdict, which he should clearly grant before this goes to the jury. Merchan’s rulings have largely favored the prosecution, including some rulings that left some of us mystified. Judge Merchan continues to allow the jury to hear references to campaign-finance violations that do not exist.
After gutting any use of a legal expert to testify on the absence of any such violations, the judge allowed the jury to hear Michael Cohen state that the payments to Stormy Daniels were clearly campaign violations. All that Merchan would offer is a weak instruction telling jurors not to take such statements as proof of a violation.
The alleged campaign-finance violations allowed Cohen to try to implicate Trump. However, it is doubtful that Trump could have been convicted on such a charge in any other venue.
It is precisely what the Justice Department tried and failed to do with John Edwards, a Democratic candidate. After that unmitigated failure, the Justice Department dropped this theory of hush money as a campaign contribution. Indeed, after reviewing the Trump payments, not only did the Justice Department decline any charges but the Federal Election Commission did not even seek a civil fine.
On Monday, Judge Merchan’s orders became even more inexplicable when Cohen’s former attorney Robert Costello took the stand. Merchan immediately started to sustain a flurry of prosecutors’ objections as Costello basically accused Cohen of multiple acts of perjury. At one point, Costello — one of the most experienced lawyers in New York and a former prosecutor — exclaimed that one of the judge’s rulings was “ridiculous.” The judge chastised Costello and even challenged him: “Are you staring me down?”
In fact, it was hard not to stare. What is happening in the courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan is anything but ordinary.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
A.F.Branco Cartoon – When Pope Francis said, “Conservatism is a suicidal attitude,” he insulted millions of Christians around the world, both Protestants and Catholics. As a known socialist/Communist, one wonders if he isn’t lending his ear to darker spiritual forces.
Commie Pope Francis Tells 60 Minutes that Conservativism Is “A Suicidal Attitude” (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft – May 17, 2024
During his homily, Red Francis preached that “sharing ownership is not communism but is pure Christianity.” Of course, that was complete nonsense. Sharing ownership is exactly the definition of communism.
In January 2022 Pope Francis lectured to tax authorities that taxation is “a necessary tool for wealth redistribution.” Rush Limbaugh was right way back in 2013 when called this pope a Marxist. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Kansas City Chiefs Owner Tavia Hunt Supports Harrison Butker: “Defending Motherhood is Not Bigoted” • Lauren Handy’s Attorney: “We Will Vigorously Pursue an Appeal” • Trump Says He Would Consider Pro-Life Conservative Ken Paxton for Attorney General • Pro-Life Group Launches Initiative to Keep Republican Party Platform Pro-Life
More Pro-Life News • Democrats: We’ll End Filibuster to Legalize Abortions Up to Birth Nationwide • Premature Baby Born at 22 Weeks, Size of Her Father’s Hand, Celebrates Her First Birthday • Judge Upholds South Carolina Abortion Ban: I Don’t Make the Law • Benedictine College Student Defends Harrison Butker’s Speech: Family is Vitally Important • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio delivered a masterclass Sunday on how Republicans should respond when media partisans ask them to prematurely commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election. NBC News’ Kristen Welker asked Rubio if he would “accept the 2024 election results no matter what happens.”
“No matter what happens? No! If it’s an unfair election, I think it’s going to be contested by each side,” Rubio said.
“No matter who wins, Senator? No matter who wins?” Welker asked.
“You’re asking the wrong person! The Democrats are the ones that have opposed every Republican victory since 2000. Every single one. Hillary Clinton…”
“No Democrat has refused to concede,” Welker interjected. “Hillary Clinton conceded. Senator, will you accept the election results?”
“Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen from her, and that Trump was illegitimate. Kamala Harris agreed,” Rubio said. “By the way, there are Democrats serving in Congress today who, in 2004, voted not to certify the Ohio electors because they said those machines had been tampered with. And you have Democrats now saying they won’t certify 2024 because Trump is an insurrectionist and ineligible to hold office. So you need to ask them.”
Rubio then pointed out that having “over 500 illegal dropbox locations” in Wisconsin, for example, is something that legitimately undermines confidence in elections.
Rubio’s answer was excellent because he understands the insidiousness of such a question: Republicans are being goaded to relinquish their right to question problematic election administration. Instead of being bullied into agreeing with Welker’s presuppositions, he immediately went on the offensive.
When will the media start asking democrats if they will accept the outcome of the 2024 election if Trump wins? pic.twitter.com/9kGf9O3sTF
Left-wing corporate media have already smeared Rubio and other conservatives as election “deniers” for refusing to play into the media’s trap. It’s a cheap trick designed to silence legitimate concerns about election administration by painting them as threats to “democracy.”
When Republicans treat the question as anything but a cheap trick, they put themselves immediately on the defensive by assuming the question’s dishonest premises. That’s exactly what South Carolina senator and potential vice-presidential pick Tim Scott did during a recent interview of his own with Welker. When goaded as to whether he would accept the results of the 2020 election, Scott chose to side-step the question.
“At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump,” he said.
When asked again, Scott responded “That is my statement” and “I look forward to President Trump being the 47th president — the American people will make the decision.”
Scott’s answer was abysmal because he was obviously afraid of the question. But no Republican should be afraid to refuse to play along with corporate media partisans’ bad-faith “gotcha” questions. What’s more, there’s nothing wrong with refusing to resoundingly affirm the results of an election that has not yet taken place, especially at a time when Democrats are deploying everything from weaponized lawfare to unconstitutional attempts to federalize elections via “Bidenbucks” to rig elections in their favor.
Besides, as Rubio pointed out, the 2020 election was far from the first to face scrutiny. Democrats called Republican George Bush’s election in 2000 “fraudulent,” said his 2004 victory was “stolen,” and objected to the certification of Trump’s 2016 election while claiming he had colluded with Russia to steal the presidency.
In the 1960 presidential election, some electors declared Richard Nixon the winner of Hawaii’s electoral votes before a recount eventually led to John F. Kennedy’s electors’ votes being certified. Should Kennedy have resigned his right to question the incorrect initial results prior to the election?
Of course not — yet that’s what Republicans are being asked to do now. They should understand the question as the unserious hackery it is and answer accordingly.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.
Richmond, Virginia business owner Ajay Brewer and Georgia independent voter Bernadette Wright respond to Biden’s most recent pitch to Black voters. Black voters reacted to President Biden’s commencement address at Morehouse College in Atlanta over the weekend, accusing him of “race baiting” while his support in the Black community continues to dissipate ahead of November.
New York resident Lou Valentino reacted to Biden’s remarks during “Fox & Friends,” accusing him of trying to set Black Americans back after his controversial speech.
“Race baiter,” Valentino told Lawrence Jones on Monday. “It’s tough to hear that because imagine you going to college for four years… ready to… hit the world, start a career, and… this guy is trying to set you back literally, I don’t know, civil rights. I don’t know what’s going on with the Democrats. This role that they’re trying to play, instead of… pulling up and saying, well, ‘Here we go. This is your time. Congratulations. Let’s kill it. Let’s do our best.’ Nah, you know what, Lawrence? They don’t love you like that.”
Speaking at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Biden questioned whether American democracy would work for the African-American graduates.
“You missed your high school graduation. You started college just as George Floyd was murdered, and there was a reckoning on race. It’s natural to wonder if the ‘democracy’ you hear about actually works for you. What is democracy? That Black men are being killed in the street,” Biden told Morehouse graduates on Sunday.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA – MAY 19: U.S. President Joe Biden receives Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Morehouse College during the 2024 140th Morehouse College Commencement Ceremony at Morehouse College on May 19, 2024 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by Paras Griffin/WireImage) (Getty Images)
He continued, “What is democracy? The trail of broken promises still leaves Black communities behind. What is democracy? You have to be ten times better than anyone else to get a fair shot. Most of all, what does it mean? As you’ve heard before, to be a Black man who loves his country even if it doesn’t love him back in equal measure.”
Virginia business owner Ajay Brewer reacted to Biden’s remarks during “Fox & Friends First,” echoing Valentino’s sentiment while accusing the Democrats of stifling the freedom of Black voters.
“It’s hopelessness, man… it’s the party of hopelessness,” Brewer told Carley Shimkus on Monday.
“I could say that… I was a Democrat my entire life until I opened my business… It’s like a drug… victimhood, and, ‘We can do this for you,’ and to be honest with you the Black folks I surround myself with just want government to get out of the way.”
“We don’t need folks to do things for us. We don’t need people to baby us,” he continued. “It’s kind of disturbing… that they pander to us in this manner because they can depend on us at a clip of 90% plus, but I think that’s going to change this election.”
According to a new Fox News poll, Biden’s support with Black voters has declined 7% since October 2020, while Trump’s support has spiked 9% in the same time frame.
“America is changing and people are becoming more sensitive to what’s affecting us as individuals, as business owners, as parents. Not just because we’re Black, not just because we’re women, not just because we’re men. They can’t keep putting us in these race baskets,” Georgia independent voter Bernadette Wright told “Fox & Friends First” Monday.
“Accountability season is here, and America is ready for someone who’s ready to lead from a place of understanding that you’re going to have to meet with the states, and you’re going to have to meet with the local government if you want to affect individual communities on a micro level.”
“When it comes to me as an African American, I need you to pay attention to what’s going on with my business,” she continued. “It’s not always just about, ‘Oh, you’re Black, so you must need this in your community. They don’t even know who we are at this point. We’re just looking for somebody to come to the middle and lead.”
Biden had also been accused of using the speech to cater to Black voters. After he was announced as commencement speaker in April, students and professors quickly called on the college to cancel the speech.
During the speech, a smattering of Morehouse students and faculty also protested Biden’s speech by turning their backs on him. The protest was not widespread, however, and those participating did not disrupt his address beyond showing their backs. The small protest was a reminder of the continued unrest at college campuses across the country, however, where anti-Israel protests have forced some universities to cancel their commencement ceremonies altogether.
Fox News’ Lindsay Kornick contributed to this report.
Former President Donald Trump leads President Joe Biden by 6 points nationally in a hypothetical head-to-head race, according to a Harvard-Harris survey released Monday. Trump topped Biden 49% to 43%, while 8% of respondents were undecided.
When undecided voters were pushed to select the candidate they leaned toward and included with the rest of the sample, Trump led 53% to 47% — a 2 point increase from April, when he led Biden 52% to 48%, Breitbart reported.
With “leaners” included, Trump garnered the support of 95% of GOP voters, while Biden had 91% of Democrats. Nearly 1 in 10 Democrats broke for Trump; 1 in 20 Republicans supported Biden, Breitbart reported.
Other survey findings showed:
69% have made up their minds on who they’ll vote for; 31% are still weighing the choices.
46% of participants said Biden is mentally fit; 54% said they have doubts.
49% say Biden is getting worse as president.
55% say Trump has committed crimes for which he should be convicted; the same number say Democrats are using the legal system in a biased way to take out a political opponent.
50% of voters say Trump’s legal cases make it impossible for him to be a viable candidate for president,
79% want Biden and Trump to debate each other; 63% say the debates will provide valuable information.
63% say Biden’s pubic lapses are more frequent these days.
59% say questions about a president’s age, memory or lapsed concentration are dangerous; 41% say fears are overblown politically.
The poll’s margin of error was 2 percentage points.
President Joe Biden greets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they meet on the sidelines of the 78th U.N. General Assembly in New York City last Sept. 20. On Monday, a highly politicized International Criminal Court announced its decision to seek arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant in connection with the Israel-Hamas war. (Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
Brett is the Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. Read his research.
For more than two decades, supporters of the International Criminal Court have urged the U.S. to ratify the Rome Statute and join the court. But multiple U.S. administrations of both parties refused, concerned that the ICC lacks safeguards against political manipulation and violates national sovereignty by claiming jurisdiction over the nationals and military personnel of non-party states.
The politicization of the ICC and other international organizations regarding the Israel-Palestinian situation is not new. It’s part of a broad-based effort by the Palestinian Authority to weaponize international organizations in its dispute with Israel and seek recognition absent a negotiated peace.
In the case of the ICC, the Palestinians submitted a declaration to it in 2009 accepting the court’s jurisdiction in its “territory.” The ICC rejected the declaration because it was not a state recognized by the United Nations. Rather than negotiate with Israel and achieve statehood through a peace process, the Palestinians sought recognition in the United Nations. After the Security Council rejected a Palestinian bid for U.N. membership in 2011, the General Assembly granted the “State of Palestine” nonmember observer state status in 2012 over the opposition of the United States.
The U.S. has opposed efforts by the Palestinians to become full members of the U.N. because, as reiterated this month, “We also have long been clear that premature actions here in New York, even with the best of intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people.”
Nonetheless, based on its elevated status in the U.N. General Assembly, the ICC recognized Palestine as a state and accepted its accession to the Rome Statute in 2015. That opened the door to an ICC investigation of “past, ongoing and future crimes within the court’s jurisdiction” within the territory of the “State of Palestine,” which the court sought to define as “the Palestinian Territory occupied in 1967 by Israel, as defined by the 1949 Armistice Line, [which] includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”
The ICC opened an official investigation into the situation in Palestine in 2021.
The ICC prosecutor confirmed it would cover “crimes committed since 13 June 2014 in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. It is ongoing and extends to the escalation of hostilities and violence since the attacks that took place on 7 October 2023,” adding:
In accordance with the Rome Statute, my Office has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a State Party and with respect to the nationals of States Parties.
The U.S. opposed the investigation, asserting that the ICC lacks jurisdiction because Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and because the Palestinians “do not qualify as a sovereign state and therefore, are not qualified to obtain membership as a state in, participate as a state in, or delegate jurisdiction to the ICC.”
In addition, the prosecutor’s statement is objectionable as it implicitly endorses Palestinian territorial claims outside of a negotiated agreement with Israel.
There’s also the principle of complementarity, under which the ICC is supposed to investigate only if national authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute genuinely. Israel has demonstrated repeatedly, including during the current conflict in Gaza, that it will investigate and punish its soldiers for crimes or negligence.
In defiance of this evident willingness of Israel to hold its soldiers accountable, the ICC yielded to pressure from the Palestinians, nongovernmental organizations, and a few other governments to issue arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. This is the latest stratagem in a multipronged—multilateral, bilateral, rhetorical, military, economic, and legal—effort to pressure Israel to end the current conflict and make concessions to the Palestinians.
The ICC also issued warrants for Hamas leaders relating to the killing, raping, and kidnapping of hundreds of Israeli civilians on Oct. 7. But the ICC ignores Hamas’ responsibility for much of the suffering of Palestinian civilians due to the theft of humanitarian aid, use of civilians as human shields, and misusing civilian and U.N. facilities, including hospitals and schools.
Instead, the court accuses Israel of willingly causing suffering and starvation even though Israel has gone to extraordinary lengths to evacuate Palestinians from harm’s way and facilitate humanitarian aid, including more than 500,000 tons of food, water, medical supplies, and shelter.
In short, the ICC has enabled Palestinian lawfare efforts against Israel, damaged prospects for peace by recognizing Palestinian statehood (and, implicitly, its territorial claims), asserted jurisdiction over Israeli citizens even though Israel has rejected ICC jurisdiction, and ignored Israel’s demonstrated ability and willingness to investigate crimes.
Of course, the ICC has not just targeted Israel. The ICC has also launched an investigation into American actions in Afghanistan. Like the Israel investigation, the court proceeded even though the U.S. is not a party to the Rome Statute and has rejected its jurisdiction. In response, the U.S. sanctioned ICC officials and applied political pressure that contributed to the ICC deciding to deprioritize its investigation into alleged U.S. crimes and, instead, focus on alleged crimes committed by the Taliban and the Islamic State-Khorasan.
The U.S. should be willing to similarly protect its ally Israel. A condemnation by President Joe Biden falls woefully short. Legislation introduced in Congress would apply sanctions to ICC officials if the court is conducting a preliminary examination or investigation against the U.S. or allies that have not consented to ICC jurisdiction or is pursuing charges against a U.S. persons or protected persons from U.S. allies that have not consented to ICC jurisdiction.
At a minimum, the U.S. should cease all cooperation with and support of the ICC and its investigations.
Additionally, however, the U.S. should not neglect the instigator: the Palestinians. Annual appropriations legislation includes a provision to suspend Economic Support Fund aid to the Palestinians if they “initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians.”
Although imprecise language allowed previous administrations to dodge this requirement, it’s past time to apply this prohibition.
Rewarding bad behavior ensures more of it. To protect sovereignty and preserve incentives for future peace negotiations, the U.S. should signal its strong objection to this illicit attempt by the ICC and the Palestinians to hobble Israel’s efforts to defend itself.
Below is my column in The Hill on the curious claim of executive privilege over the audiotape from President Joe Biden’s interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur. It is the first time that I know of where the content of a presidential conversation was treated as unprivileged, but the audio of the conversation claimed as privileged. It is also an invocation on answering questions about alleged criminal acts committed while a private citizen. It is, in my view, entirely without merit but Attorney General Merrick Garland appears more interested in running out the clock than prevailing on the claim.
Here is the column:
While all eyes were focused on a Manhattan courthouse for Donald Trump’s trial, a curious thing happened in Washington. President Joe Biden invoked executive privilege in defiance of Congress. It is not the invocation that is particularly unusual. What is curious is that Biden is withholding the audiotape of his own interrogation by Special Counsel Robert Hur, even though the transcript has been released as unprivileged.
It appears that Joe Biden is “he who must not be heard.”
The invocation of privilege over the audiotape is so transparently political and cynical that it would make Richard Nixon blush. Multiple committees are investigating Biden for possible impeachment and conducting oversight on the handling of the investigation into his retention and mishandling of classified material over decades. Classified documents were found in various locations where Biden lived or worked, including his garage. The mishandling of classified material is uncontestable. Broken boxes, unprotected areas and lack of tracking are all obvious from the photos.
The comparison to the Trump case in Florida is both obvious and disturbing. Where Trump was charged with a litany of charges, including mishandling and retention of documents (in addition to obstruction), Hur decided not to charge Biden at all. His reason was outright alarming: The president is an elderly man with failing memory.
Biden made the situation even worse with a disastrous press conference in which he attacked Hur and misrepresented his findings. Biden told the public that the special counsel did not find willful retention of material. This was untrue — Hur not only found that Biden had done this, but repeatedly detailed such violations in the report.
Biden also claimed that he had not shown classified material to third parties, even though Hur specifically found that he had and established that there is a witness to that violation.
Biden also attacked Hur for bringing up the death of Beau, his son who passed away in 2018. In showing why Biden could use his diminished faculties as a defense, Hur had noted that Biden got the date wrong of his own son’s death.
In the press conference, Biden angrily asked “How in the hell dare he raise that?” Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business.” It was later shown that it was not Hur but Biden himself who raised his son’s death, which he often does in speeches.
Hur’s view that Biden’s diminished cognitive abilities would undermine any prosecution left many dumbfounded. After all, the man who is too feeble to prosecute is not only running a superpower with a massive nuclear arsenal but running for reelection to add four more years in office.
From impeachment to oversight to the 25th Amendment (allowing the removal of a president for incapacities), there are ample reasons for Congress to demand information and evidence from the government on these questions. Congress is also interested in looking at repeated omissions for “inaudible” statements. Under this sweeping theory that Biden can legitimately withhold these recordings under executive privilege, any president could withhold any evidence of incapacity or criminality.
The House is poised to find Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for refusing to release the audiotapes. It is a cynical calculation. Garland knows that his own department will never prosecute him for contempt of Congress. Obama Attorney General Eric Holder was clearly in contempt of Congress and abused executive privilege arguments to shield embarrassing details tied to Operation Fast and Furious. His department refused to even submit the matter to a grand jury.
Garland also knows that it will take months to get any ruling on the matter once Congress can file with a court. That will push any decision and release until after the election. While the administration and liberal legal analysts insisted that courts should expedite any and all trials of Donald Trump before the election, they are not eager for the public to know this information about whether Biden seemed feeble or confused under questioning.
A court may be a tad confused as to why a president’s answers are not privileged, but the actual audio recording of those answers can be privileged.
White House counsel Edward Siskel added to the dubious basis for the claim in a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio.) and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) on Thursday. He suggested that, if there were a compelling reason for the audiotapes, it might be different.
“The absence of a legitimate need for the audio recordings lays bare your likely goal—to chop them up, distort them, and use them for partisan political purposes,” wrote Siskel. But that is not a basis for an executive privilege assertion. How material would be treated is not relevant to whether Congress has a right to the information.
Past presidents have routinely over-extended privilege claims for political purposes. Nixon had his own tapes in the Watergate scandal. Of course, he was denying access to all of the information on the tapes. Yet, in a strange way, that may have been more compelling, since Nixon was arguing that the disclosure would compromise the content of privileged conversations.
Biden is not claiming the actual conversations as privileged; only how he sounded and spoke the words that are already in available transcripts.
For the Justice Department itself, these pendulum swings between being a contempt hawk and dove are enough to give a judge vertigo. The department just prosecuted Trump officials for refusing to appear or supply evidence to Congress. Likewise, arguments of privilege by former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows have been rejected. Yet privilege is now being asserted for this conversation between Hur and Biden, concerning potentially criminal conduct committed when Biden was a private citizen — neither vice president nor president.
In other cases, federal and state prosecutors have argued that Trump’s statements on Jan. 6 were criminal, made in relation to private interests and not protected under executive privilege or immunity. Notably, unlike in Biden’s case, these were statements made while Trump was president and concerned matters raised during Trump’s term. Likewise, prosecutors rejected claims that Trump has any protection over his call with Georgia officials over the demand for a recount. Imagine if Trump had argued that it was privileged to hear his voice, but not to read his words in the call.
Biden’s Voldemortian theory of privilege is unlikely to succeed legally, but that is not the point. Garland knows that it is likely to succeed politically. With generally favorable judges in Washington, the Biden administration hopes to run out the clock on the election. If Biden wins the election or the Democrats win the House, there may be no ongoing investigation or justification to support the demand in court. Of course, unlike Voldemort, who simply did not want to be named, Biden wants to remain “he who must not be heard” outside of short, carefully controlled settings.
What Hur heard could therefore remain a privilege of office.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
In higher education, there is a virtual cottage industry of academics declaring everything from math to meritocracy to be forms of white supremacy and racism. Now, it appears romance will be added to the list. University of California Santa Barbara Black Studies Professor Sabrina Strings has written how romance promotes white supremacy and “global pigmentocracy.”In The End of Love: Racism, Sexism, and the Death of Romance, Strings recounts having “endured” her own bad relationships and maintains that “Romance is an old white cultural institution that began in the Middle Ages.” In an interview with The Current, Strings explains that “I am only one of the millions of Gen X-to-Gen Z women who have endured a seemingly endless array of miserable relationships with men.” In viewing romance through her own lens, Strings comes up with distinctly different views of literature and famous relationships. For example, many people have read the story of Lancelot and Guinevere, a story of forbidden love that introduced disharmony and disaster to King Arthur’s Round Table. It is a story of love and eventual betrayal. It is both irresistible and irrational. Many accounts show Lancelot rescuing Guinevere and, torn by their mutual loyalty to King Arthur, the couple finally succumbs to the inexorable pull of love to each other. It is a tragedy of love and loyalty that leaves everyone in ruin. Arthur would die of wounds in the later battles, Guinevere would die in a convent, and Lancelot would, according to some accounts, die as a hermit. It is a powerful tale of how love can overwhelm all other considerations and shatter every other bond.
That is not exactly how Professor Strings sees it. She says that the tale is really about how a man of lower status is trying to secure greater power and prestige by seducing a higher class European Christian woman: “Love is very much about generosity, but romance is very much about what you can get from somebody, especially if you’re a man who is social climbing.”
Professor Strings zeros in on the beauty and whiteness of Guinevere. She notes that the queen was viewed as irresistibly attractive and pale in complexion:
“We can easily recognize these features today as those representing the apex of whiteness, even though race did not exist at the time of Troyes’s writing. Nevertheless, to the extent that some of these representations occurred before the seventeenth century dawn of race science, they have what historians have called a ‘proto-racist’ bent. Indeed, scholars have shown that the preference for light skin, hair, and eyes existed prior to the advent of racism, and that these characteristics were co-opted by it and enlisted for the purpose of installing a global pigmentocracy.”
The “whiteness” could also simply reflect the racial makeup of the historical characters as opposed to any “global pigmentocracy.” Yet, according to Professor Strings, romance is about “women who are not peak white or are ‘insufficiently white’ are subject deservedly to deceit, manipulation, assault and rape.”
Professor Strings previously wrote a 2019 book about how “fatphobia” is rooted in racism.
In today’s academic environment, there often seems a rush to racialize common practices, customs, or terminology. Publications clamor for such articles and discovering another hidden racist element in society can bring academic accolades. However, others have already staked out many areas such as mathematics, astrophysics, statistics, meritocracy, climate change, dieting, tipping, skiing, chess, and organized pantries. Most recently, the American Psychological Association declared that merit-based hiring may be racist. Even robots are now declared to be part of the supremacist menace because they are often made of white plastic. Indeed, it now appears that both romance and marriage are vehicles for white supremacy. We previously discussed the writings of George Mason Professor Bethany Letiecq on how marriage advances “White, heteropatriarchal supremacy in America.” Nevertheless, the Strings book has met with acclaim and praise from many. Ms. Magazinepraised the book as espousing the foundations of romance in “the white supremacist cishetallo patriarchy. Personal, historical, rigorous and readable, this is a fresh and essential feminist analysis on sexism, whiteness and toxic masculinity.” Other reviews note that Strings “challeng[es]readers to accept the end of love as they know it and to embrace more queer and feminist ideas of love, equity and partnership.”
We are now exactly one month from the release of my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. I am happy to share the reviews from writers, academics, journalists, and civil libertarians of the book, which is available for pre-order here. Those ordering now will have the first prints shipped to them on June 18th.
I am deeply grateful to these early reviewers for their generous comments about the book. It is meant to offer a comprehensive look at the meaning, history, and current threats to free speech in America. While it may displease or discomfort others in these fields, it is offered as a foundation for restoring this truly indispensable right.
Reviews of the Turley book:
“Jonathan Turley’s magnum opus should be required reading for everyone who cares about free speech—certainly including anyone who questions or criticizes strong free speech protection. This a unique synthesis of the historical, philosophical, artistic, and even physiological bases for protecting free speech as a right to which all human beings are inherently entitled, and Turley provides riveting accounts of the courageous individuals, throughout history, who have struggled and sacrificed in order to exercise and defend the right. The Indispensable Right is an indispensable book.” —Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union
“Brilliant and intellectually honest, Jonathan Turley has few peers as a legal scholar today. With The Indispensable Right, he has given us a robust reexamination and defense of free speech as a right. Rich with historical content and insight, this superbly-written book calls out both the left and the right for attacks on free speech while offering in the final chapter a path forward.” —William P. Barr, former Attorney General and author of the No. 1 New York Times bestseller One Damn Thing After Another.
“This efficient volume is packed with indispensable information delivered with proper passion. Jonathan Turley surveys the fraught history of “the indispensable right” and today’s dismayingly broad retreat from its defense. He is especially illuminating on how the concept of “harm” from speech has been broadened to serve the interest of censors.” —George F. Will, Pulitzer Prize winner and Washington Post columnist.
“The First Amendment has consumed Jonathan Turley for more than thirty years. Lucky for us that he waited until now, amidst a climate of unprecedented rage rhetoric, to deliver a master class on the unvarnished history of free speech in America. The Indispensable Right is enlightening and engaging. It is also a cautionary tale against state overcorrection of the often acrimonious, free exchange of ideas that are an essential part of the human experience.” —Michael Smerconish, host of CNN’s “Smerconish”
“During these often-bitter times, Jonathan Turley is my “go-to” commentator for smart, clear and honest analysis on any difficult legal controversy.” —Jim Webb, former Democratic U.S. Senator, Secretary of the Navy, and bestselling author
“Jonathan Turley’s book is the rarest of accomplishments: a timely and brilliantly original yet disciplined and historically grounded treatment of free speech. He dispels the view that our current social turmoil is ‘uncharted waters’—from the 1790’s Whiskey Rebels to the 1920’s Wobblies to the 1950’s communists, we’ve been here before—and argues persuasively that free speech is a human need and that we must resist the urge to restrict speech as ‘disinformation’ or ‘seditious’ or offensive to ‘woke’ sensibilities.” —Michael B. Mukasey, former Attorney General and U.S. District Judge
“Jonathan Turley is one of the most astute and most honest analysts of the intersection of politics and law. Thirty years in the making, this book brilliantly proposes means for preserving the most important Constitutional right: the right to free speech. Elegantly written, exhaustively researched, and passionately argued, Turley has given us a superb and necessary tract for our time.” —Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History Emeritus, Northwestern University School of Law
“Jonathan Turley recognizes free speech as an essential good—an activity that is central to our very nature as human beings. This is in sharp contrast with those who defend free speech as merely instrumental to some other value, like democracy or the pursuit of truth; rationales that are then used to justify limiting speech in ways that obstruct human flourishing. In this important book, he explains why free speech has historically come under threat during periods of rage and proposes policies that will protect freedom of speech from those who would today destroy this indispensable right.” —Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
“The Indispensable Right is a courageous, provocative case by one of America’s most prolific public intellectuals for resurrecting natural law or embracing an autonomous basis for the protection of free speech. Not all First Amendment defenders will be persuaded––but one needn’t sign on to Turley’s robust view of free speech to appreciate the unique clarity and deep historical research he brings to his argument. Read this insightful book to understand the peril of today’s broad-based assault on free speech.”
—Michael J. Glennon, Professor of Constitutional and International Law, Tufts University, author of Free Speech and Turbulent Freedom: The Dangerous Allure of Censorship in the Digital Era.
“Extraordinary and needed.”
—Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell professor of politics at Princeton University
A vigorous defense of free speech, a right enshrined but often hobbled or outright abrogated. A smart book that invites argument—civil argument, that is, with good faith and tolerance.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – House Republicans cry foul as Speaker Hortman cuts off debate over a paid leave tax hike -Democracy dying in Democrat darkness.
House Republicans cry foul as Speaker Hortman cuts off debate over a paid leave tax hike
By Hank Long – May 16, 2024
Can anything good happen after midnight? That adage was tested in both legislative chambers at the Minnesota Capitol in the early hours of Thursday morning. As state lawmakers run out of hours in the remaining three days of session to tackle supplemental budget spending, bonding legislation and a few DFL signature policy bills that are drawing Republican ire, chaos broke out on the House floor just after midnight Thursday. Boisterous calls for House Speaker Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, to recognize Republicans wishing to speak bellowed through the chamber after the top-ranking Democrat abruptly cut off a lengthy debate over a bill that would increase the payroll taxes on a new state-managed paid leave program that has yet to be implemented. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Bernie Sanders says Israel is exercising genocide for trying to eliminate the Hamas terrorists that murdered 1700+ of their people on October 7, 2023. Calls for a halt to U.S. weapons support to Israel.
Trump Blasts Biden for Threatening Arms Embargo Against Israel If It Invades Rafah to Finish Off Hamas in Gaza
By Kristin Taylor – May 9th,2024
President Trump blasted Joe Biden in a Truth Social post early Thursday after Biden threatened to withhold offensive weapons (bombs and artillery shells) to Israel over Israel’s plans to invade the southern Gaza city of Rafah to finish off Hamas in the terror group’s last stronghold. Biden is opposed to the military incursion by Israel because he says Palestinian civilians will be killed. Biden also confirmed that he has withheld a shipment of 2,000 lb. bombs to Israel. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
Top Stories • Joe Biden Issues Proclamation Celebrating Abortion, Promoting Abortions Up to Birth • Biden Used 100 Year-Old Law Targeting KKK to Put Pro-Life Americans in Prison • Here’s Harrison Butker’s Full Speech Celebrating Pro-Life Christian Values • Biden Lawyer Tried to Get Judge to Silence Attorney Defending Persecuted Pro-Life Americans
More Pro-Life News • Gracie Hunt, Daughter of Kansas City Chiefs Owner, Defends Harrison Butker From Woke Mob • Doctors Will Euthanize Healthy 28-Year-Old Woman Just Because She’s Autistic • If the NFL Truly Values Inclusion, It Should Include Harrison Butker’s Christian Views • NFL Partners With Nike, Which Uses Slave Labor, But Slams Harrison Butker • Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories
Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2024 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved. For information on advertising or reprinting news from LifeNews.com, email us.
A federal Justice Department attorney expressed concerns to a Michigan judge about conservative media coverage suggesting that President Joe Biden’s administration is persecuting Christians and pro-lifers for their beliefs. The discussion took place during a March pre-trial conference in USA v. Zastrow, in which the federal government brought Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act charges against eight pro-life individuals who tried to stop abortions of unborn babies from taking place at Michigan abortion clinics.
Those pro-life activists are Calvin Zastrow, Eva Zastrow, Chester Gallagher, Heather Idoni, Caroline Davis, Joel Curry, Justin Phillips, and Eva Edl (a communist death camp survivor who recently spoke with The Daily Signal).
The FACE Act is a 1994 law that prohibits individuals from obstructing the entrances of both abortion clinics and pregnancy resource centers, although it has been heavily enforced by Biden’s DOJ against pro-lifers since the June 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade.
During the pre-trial motion hearing, according to a transcript obtained by The Daily Signal, DOJ attorney Laura-Kate Bernstein raised concerns that “there’s a great deal of press about this case and the case in Nashville recently.” Bernstein was referring to a case in Tennessee where six pro-lifers were praying outside of an abortion clinic in 2021 and were charged with FACE Act violations.
Bernstein did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“Where?” questioned Judge Matthew Leitman. “I haven’t seen any.”
Bernstein explained that she was referring to online media “like Mike Huckabee’s show or Laura Ingraham’s show, and those sorts of sources, and some written sources, too, in which at least one of the defense attorneys is making very acerbic statements about the government’s case and the legitimacy of the laws at stake, and that the Biden regime is persecuting Christians.”
WATCH:
“My concern is one of the jury pool,” she continued. “My concern is that as these national media reach more and more people, including people in the district, that they may be tainted with a preconceived notion of the Biden regime’s persecution of Christians and be unable to try the case as neutral jurors.”
The DOJ attorney said that she was not asking the court to do “something in particular,” but then told the judge that it is the court’s “affirmative, constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity.”
Leitman, after asking for clarification on her question, noted that he could ask the jurors whether they had read anything about the case. But he said that Bernstein’s question seemed to be rooted in “important political speech.”
“It seems to me that your first statement, the Biden administration is persecuting Christians … that’s pretty core, important political speech, whether you agree with it or not,” the judge said. “I mean, I’d be hard pressed to tell somebody not to say that.”
The DOJ attorney then pushed back, saying she was referring to interviews in which the pro-lifer’s attorney said that “this case is a war on pro-lifers, that the Department of Justices is using the FACE Act as a weapon against pro-lifers,” or that “the clients are victims of political persecution.”
She also pushed back against the idea that “there’s a two-tier justice system, one for friends of the administration who go free and one for people who are on the wrong spiritual side of the administration.”
“There’s also extremely inflammatory language undermining the legitimacy of the laws to be implied in this case, that you’ve already ruled on—the constitutionality of it—whether reproductive health care includes abortion, as the statue defines it,” she continued. “And because the court has this affirmative, constitutional duty, we wanted to bring it to your attention.”
Bernstein then asked the judge to admonish Thomas More Society attorney Steve Crampton “about speaking about this case in inflammatory and acerbic ways that might taint the jury pool.”
“This isn’t about trying to, you know, interfere with any of his First Amendment rights,” she followed up, noting that Crampton is “of course” free to speak about his clients. “It’s about trying to protect the due process rights in this trial and the government’s right and the public’s right to a fair trial.”
Crampton clarified to the court that Bernstein was referring to Tennessee pro-life activist Paul Vaughn’s interview on the “Mike Huckabee Show,” in which Vaughn made such comments “only after the jury verdict” was entered in his case.
In January, a federal jury convicted Vaughn and five other defendants of a felony conspiracy against rights and a FACE Act offense for trying to stop abortions from taking place at a Mount Juliet, Tennessee, abortion clinic in March 2021.
BREAKING: Six pro-life activists were just found guilty in federal court after being prosecuted by Biden's DOJ under the FACE Act for protesting outside a Nashville abortion clinic.
Here's a snippet of the protest, which occurred on March 5, 2021.
“Any reference to United States against Zastrow and this case were, at best, minimal to nonexistent,” the Thomas More Society attorney said. “So, I think the government, perhaps, is overreacting to the press coverage of the Nashville case. Nobody’s called any press conference regarding this case, and we certainly have no intention of doing so.”
This week, seven pro-life defendants have been sentenced to prison time on DOJ FACE Act charges related to their attempts to stop abortions from taking place at a Washington, D.C., abortion clinic. That abortion clinic is run by Cesare Santangelo, an abortionist who has been accused of allowing babies to die if they survive his botched abortions.
The District of Columbia does not have laws restricting abortion.
The DOJ said in a release Wednesday: “Lauren Handy was sentenced to 57 months in prison, John Hinshaw was sentenced to 21 months in prison, and William Goodman was sentenced to 27 months in prison,” adding that “Jonathan Darnel was sentenced to 34 months in prison, Herb Geraghty was sentenced to 27 months in prison, Jean Marshall was sentenced to 24 months in prison, and Joan Bell was sentenced to 27 months in prison.”
Those efforts are led by Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, the head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, who just admitted, following a report from The Daily Signal, that she hid an arrest and its subsequent expungement from investigators when she was confirmed by the Senate to her Justice Department post.
“Violence has no place in our national discourse on reproductive health. Using force, threatening to use force, or physically obstructing access to reproductive health care is unlawful,” said Clarke in a statement accompanying this week’s DOJ release.
“As we mark the 30th anniversary of the FACE Act, it’s important that we not lose sight of the history of violence against reproductive health care providers, including the murder of Dr. David Gunn in Florida—tragic and horrific events that led to passage of the law,” she added. “The Justice Department will continue to protect both patients seeking reproductive health services and providers of those services. We will hold accountable those who seek to interfere with access to reproductive health services in our country.”
Mary Margaret Olohan is a senior reporter for The Daily Signal and the author of “Detrans: True Stories of Escaping the Gender Ideology Cult.” She previously reported for both The Daily Caller and The Daily Wire. Email: marymargaret.olohan @dailysignal.com.
Here’s why 13 federal judges, all appointed by Donald Trump, pledge not to hire Columbia University graduates over the school’s response to anti-Israel demonstrations on campus. Pictured: Police arrest a pro-Palestinian protester April 22 at the gates of Columbia University in New York City. (Photo: David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
John G. Malcolm is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for the Institute for Constitutional Government and also directs Heritage’s Meese and Simon centers.
Is it proper for federal judges to boycott hiring students who attend a particular university? Thirteen federal judges, all of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump, have announced that they are going to do just that. In a May 6 letter to Minouche Shafik, president of protest-rocked Columbia University, the 13 judges referred to “recent events” there and informed her that, “absent extraordinary change,” they would “not hire anyone who joins the Columbia University community whether as undergraduates or law students—beginning with the entering class of 2024.”
The recent events, of course, are the campuswide anti-Israel demonstrations that resulted in the occupation of a school building (Hamilton Hall), multiple arrests, and a smaller-than-usual commencement ceremony punctuated by ongoing protests.
Such antisemitic protests, of course, have been taking place on dozens of campuses, but things seem to have been particularly bad at Columbia.
In addition to occupying a Columbia University building and assaulting maintenance workers, protesters accosted and assaulted Jewish students, shouting “F— Israel” and “Israel is a b—-” and telling them that they would be Hamas’ “next targets” and should “Go back to Poland!” (This last was a thinly veiled reference to Auschwitz, Treblinka, Majdanek, Belzek, Sobibor, and Chelmno, the horrific extermination camps for Jews that existed in German-occupied Poland during World War II.)
Many protesters at Columbia were joined by sympathetic faculty members (hundreds, according to The Guardian), who linked arms and formed a protective wall around the anti-Israel encampments. Among these supportive faculty members was Joseph Massad, who said Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in Israel, which left over 1,200 dead and 250 hostages taken, was “awesome” and a “stunning victory of the Palestinian resistance.”
The situation became so dicey that one rabbi associated with Columbia said Jewish students should go home and remain there because the school could not guarantee their safety.
Columbia Law School was not exempt from this activity. The editors of the Columbia Law Review—presumably among the best and the brightest students—said that they, like most of their classmates, were “irrevocably shaken” by what was happening on campus and demanded that the school cancel final exams and simply pass all students.
What judge could have faith in the integrity and academic rigor of any institution teaching future lawyers that this is an appropriate response to disturbing events?
As someone with a long family history at Columbia (my grandfather taught at the medical school and I went to Columbia, as did my father and my daughter), these hits close to home.
In their letter to Shafik, the 13 federal judges wrote that they had “lost confidence in Columbia as an institution of higher education” and that the school had “become an incubator of bigotry.” To restore academic freedom and reclaim a “once-distinguished reputation,” the judges stated, Columbia should do three things at a minimum:
1) See to it that students and faculty members who violated the school’s rules and disrupted campus life, including by threatening Jewish students, suffer serious consequences.
2) Ensure that in the future the university protects free speech and enforces rules of conduct in a neutral and nondiscriminatory fashion.
3) Make “[s]ignificant and dramatic change[s] in the composition of its faculty and administration” to promote viewpoint diversity.
Two of the judges who signed the letter are appellate judges, namely James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Elizabeth Branch of the 11th Circuit. Also signing: eight District Court judges from Texas (Alan Albright, David Counts, James Hendrix, Matthew Kacsmaryk, Brantley Starr, Jeremy Kernodle, and Drew Tipton), a District Court judge from Georgia (Tilman Self), a District Court judge from North Dakota (Daniel Traynor), a judge on the Court of Federal Claims (Matthew Solomson), and a judge on the Court of International Trade (Stephen Vaden).
The federal judges noted that the anti-Israel demonstrations on the Columbia campus had made it clear “that ideological homogeneity throughout the entire institution … had destroyed its ability to train future leaders of a pluralistic and intellectually diverse country,” and that it was equally “clear that Columbia applies double standards when it comes to free speech and student misconduct.”
The judges cited abortion as an example, stating that they had “no doubt” that the response of Columbia administrators would have been “profoundly different” had religious conservatives on campus who “view abortion as a tragic genocide” engaged in an uprising.
I also have no doubt that this is true, and could cite many other examples: Protest racial preferences in admissions policies or the establishment of black-only housing on campus? Rally against biological males being allowed to compete in women’s sports? Galvanize a petition drive against being forced to refer to students by their preferred personal pronouns? Raise a ruckus over the legality and morality of same-sex marriages? Gather a crowd and give a speech claiming that the 2020 presidential election was stolen?
Not a chance! Any student group that did any of those things would be subjected to discipline for engaging in “hate speech.” But wear a mask and carry placards proclaiming, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” (with its implicit message that Israel must and will be eliminated)? Well, then, “It depends on the context.”
There are those, including Columbia Law grad Dan Abrams (whom I recently debated on this subject on his NewsNation show) and MSNBC columnist Jessica Levinson, who say this is a dramatic overreaction tantamount to guilt by association that punishes innocent students who didn’t participate in anti-Israel protests.
Levinson goes so far as to say that the 13 judges are engaging in extortion and blackmail of Columbia. Other commentators, such as Berkeley Law School professor Orin Kerr, say they believe that “judges as judges do not have an important role to play in our society beyond the work they do in the courtroom or in chambers … , and they shouldn’t be trying to help American society solve problems like anti-Semitism, in any kind of official capacity.”
Still others, less thoughtful or kind, have stated that the judges who vow not to hire Columbia graduates are engaging in a performative protest designed to appeal to “their chosen audience of wackjobs.”
One wonders whether these critics would respond the same way if a university or college, and especially a law school, were to foster a hostile environment, replete with threats to students by mask-wearing fellow students and faculty members, for female, black, or LGBTQ students?
Are there students who will suffer the consequences of this hiring boycott even though they had nothing to do with, and may well have disapproved of, the campus protests? Certainly. But the same could be said of any boycott.
When a group chooses to boycott a product or restaurant chain because of some corporate policy or practice, those who produce that product or work in that restaurant inevitably will suffer the consequences and may well lose their jobs, even though they had nothing to do with formulating the policy or implementing the practice that the protesting group finds objectionable. Boycotts are a blunt but often effective tool designed to bring about systemic change from the top. And change is certainly needed here.
Many of our elite universities, including Columbia, pay far less attention than they should to teaching students how to think and far more attention than they should to teaching students what to think. Overwhelmingly liberal faculty members and administrators divide the world into “oppressors” and “oppressed,” indoctrinate students in left-wing ideology, and “cancel” any contrary views in the process.
It shouldn’t be surprising that some campus activists (supplemented by well-funded outside agitators), used to getting their way with the administration and utilizing a “heckler’s veto” to drown out views they don’t like, occasionally resort to mass protests, threats, and violence when they don’t immediately get their way.
Those who have observed and decry these developments have the right, if not the duty, to use what leverage they have to promote change. Alumni, for example, can cease donating to their alma mater, which I did several years ago and some far-bigger donors are threatening to do now.
And judges have considerable leverage too in the form of desirable and highly prized clerkships in their chambers that can serve as launching pads for a promising legal career. Judges have a special role to play in promoting civil discourse in society, respect for the rule of law, and making sure that students (and future lawyers) are taught the skills they need to engage with an inquiring and open mind in a critical analysis of various texts and arguments, legal and otherwise.
Such things should be the bread and butter of every university, but, sadly, that is not the case today.
Columbia University professes to provide a top-notch education in an environment that is welcoming to all people and all views. Its law school no doubt touts the fact that its students, including conservative students, have a leg up in terms of obtaining prestigious federal clerkships. Although the latter is certainly true, the former is subject to serious doubt—and these 13 judges are letting everyone know it in a public way.
If enough bright, conservative-leaning students who might wish to clerk for one of these judges decides to go to another university or law school that is more welcoming of their views, Columbia may suffer reputational harm. And that might prompt some much-needed change.
This isn’t the first time some of these judges have announced a boycott. Ho and Branch, the two appeals court judges who signed the letter, previously announced that they were going to boycott hiring law clerks out of Yale Law School and Stanford Law School. Both schools have long histories of liberal activism.
In March 2022, over 100 students disrupted an event at Yale Law School hosted by the Federalist Society featuring a panel including Kristen Waggoner, then general counsel and now also president and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, a public interest law firm that litigates religious liberty cases—and quite successfully too.
The students stood, waved signs, blocked the only exit, threatened to beat up event organizers, shouted profanities, and grabbed and jostled two Federalist Society members who attempted to leave. When Yale Law professor Kate Stith told these budding lawyers attending an elite law school that they should “grow up,” 417 students signed a letter condemning her.
In March 2023, 5th Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan was subjected to similar treatment by over 100 law students at Stanford Law School. Only this time Tieren Steinbach, the school’s associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion, who was supposed to be the adult in the room, egged on the students by saying that Duncan’s work had “caused harm” and questioning his judgment for having accepted an invitation to speak on campus, given some of his more controversial (at least to the riotous students) views on the law.
Duncan responded: “You are all law students. You are supposed to have reasoned debate and hear the other side, not yell at those who disagree.”
An impressionable and thoroughly misguided future advocate responded, telling the federal judge: “You don’t believe we have a right to exist, so we don’t believe you have a right to our respect or to speak here.”
When the dean of Stanford Law School apologized to Duncan for the students’ opprobrious behavior, she was greeted by hundreds of masked students dressed all in black and lining the halls, and found that her classroom had been vandalized.
Was the boycott by these two distinguished federal appellate judges effective? (Or, to quote the subsequently ousted Steinbach: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”)
It may be too early to tell, but the initial signs are quite promising.
Earlier this year, the American Bar Association announced that it would require all accredited law schools “to adopt a policy that would allow faculty, students and staff ‘to communicate ideas that may be controversial or unpopular, including through robust debate, demonstrations or protests,’ and would forbid activities that disrupt or impinge on free speech.” The ABA’s new policy also applies to speakers invited by student groups.
At Stanford, Steinbach was placed on leave and ultimately resigned. Administrative staff was reminded that their job is to ensure that campus rules are followed and events are not to be disrupted. They were told they would receive additional training and that school policies would be revised and “clear protocols” provided.
The students who participated in hectoring Duncan were not disciplined, as they should have been. However, they were required to attend mandatory educational programming.
Stanford administrators also announced that, in the future, all students would attend a mandatory, half-day session “on the topic of freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession.”
At Yale Law School, the dean issued a strong statement that the students’ behavior at the Federalist Society event was “unacceptable” and “violated the norms” of the law school. She wrote that Yale Law School “is an institution of higher learning, not a town square, and no one should interfere with others’ efforts to carry on activities on campus.” She punctuated the point by adding that “this is not how lawyers interact.”
Yale Law School also revised its disciplinary code and developed an online resource providing guidance on free speech and respectful engagement. Ho and Branch were invited to speak. Waggoner also was invited back to speak, this time without disruptions.
More recently, Yale Law School hired two prominent conservative scholars, including a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito who worked for him when Alito wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
So, it seems that the organized bar, Yale, and Stanford were paying attention after all and are implementing some positive changes.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
By 
By 
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.