Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

THE DARK MONEY THAT FUNDED ‘DARK MONEY’

Saturday, October 20th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Dark Money That Funded ‘Dark Money’

Liberal groups sponsor a documentary faulting conservative groups that sponsor political advocacy.

By Scott Walter    Mr. Walter is president of the Capital Research Center
October 17, 2018
Left-wing interests are raving about the documentary “Dark Money.” Airing this month on PBS, “Dark Money” purports to expose the effects of right-wing political spending in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Los Angeles Times calls the film a “political thriller.” NPR lauds it for revealing the “assault on the American electoral and judicial process by corporations whose agenda is nothing less than the dismantling of government itself.”

There’s one problem: This attack on conservative-funded political advocacy is itself liberal-funded political advocacy. The proof? The end credits listing the film’s funders.

Top billing goes to the Ford Foundation, the third-largest private political-advocacy philanthropy in the U.S. Its sheer size—$12.4 billion in assets—isn’t unique on the left. Even before hedge-fund billionaire George Soros injected $18 billion into his Open Society Foundations, eight of America’s 10 largest private foundations (ranked by giving as of 2013) were aligned with the political left.

Nominally nonpartisan but actually liberal foundations and nonprofits spend three or four times as much as their conservative peers on “education” and advocacy, as the Capital Research Center documents.

(more…)

Share

NO TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Saturday, October 13th, 2018

 

We don’t hear much about the International Criminal Court but it is extremely important that we do not allow it to overrule our Supreme Court and to prosecute our citizens.  Nancy
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
AMERICANS’ RIGHT TO SELF-RULE
By Clifford D. May  Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times. September 25, 2018

 

In a stern and defiant speech earlier this month, National Security Adviser John Bolton made clear that the United States will not join the International Criminal Court, will not cooperate with it, nor provide it assistance.

What will the United States do instead? “We will let the ICC die on its own,” Mr. Bolton said. “After all, the ICC is already dead to us.”

Denunciations were soon flying from academics, “human rights” groups and the major media.

On the front page of The New York Times, a “news” story pronounced: “On War Crimes Court, U.S. Sides with Despots, Not Allies.” In an editorial, The Washington Post charged that Mr. Bolton was harping on a “pet peeve” and “personal bugaboo,” raising issues that are “essentially irrelevant.”

These elite opinions could not be more wrong-headed.

The Trump administration has had one consistent and overriding foreign policy theme: Defending American sovereignty. In his address to the U.N. General Assembly a year ago this month, President Trump used that word — as well as “sovereign” — more than two dozen times.

Sovereignty was succinctly defined by President Lincoln in 1861. He said it implies “a political community, without a political superior.” In other words, it’s central to the question that is — and always has been — at the heart of politics everywhere: Who rules?

There are those who consider it imperative that the United States remain a political community without a political superior, that Americans rule themselves, that no institutions wield power over them without their consent, and that the U.S. Constitution be regarded as the supreme law of the land.

There also are those who believe such ideas are outmoded. They hope for change, and they’re working hard to achieve it. A fancy term for them is “transnational progressives.” A less fancy term: Globalists — proponents of global governance.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – BLUE COLLAR LOGIC

Friday, October 12th, 2018

 

VIDEO  BLUE COLLAR LOGIC (WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING )

Share

COSKO IS NOT AN UNPAID INTERN !

Monday, October 8th, 2018

 

Cosko Is Not An Unpaid Intern

By Julie Gunlock|  (see bio below article)   October 6th, 2018

amgreatness.com/2018/10/06/cosko-is-not-an-unpaid-intern/

Capitol Police on October 3 arrested 27-year old congressional staffer Jackson Cosko for posting on Wikipedia the private addresses of three members of  the Senate Judiciary Committee—what’s known as “doxxing” (a word derived from the shorthand for “document”). Cosko is facing serious charges that include illegally posting private information of public figures, witness tampering, threats, identity theft, and unlawful entry.

In the mainstream media, Cosko is being portrayed as a hapless overzealous intern who didn’t even have the smarts to cover up his criminal act. His former boss— Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) has denied she knew anything about Cosko’s activities. In a press conference held this week, Jackson-Lee explained that she fired Cosko and is cooperating with officials investigating the crimes. (Interestingly, cameras recorded Jackson-Lee passing an envelope to Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer just before her testimony got underway.)

Many Questions, Few Answers So Far
Yet, Jackson-Lee still has some explaining to do. While she claims Cosko was an “unpaid intern” in her office, the Washington Post reports that Cosko was actually a “fellow.” This was confirmed by Cosko’s lawyer, who said his client was a “fellow” in Jackson-Lee’s office and that he was being paid by an “outside institution.”

What “outside institution” paid for Cosko’s fellowship? Did that entity know about his illegal activities? What other fellowships does this “outside organization” pay for? What other House or Senate offices are hosting fellows paid by this organization?

(more…)

Share

EXCELLENT INFORMATION: HOW TRUMP IS CHANGING OUR COURTS

Monday, October 8th, 2018

 

 

How Trump is changing the balance of some of the most powerful courts in the U.S.
Reuters

Republican President Donald Trump has made transforming the federal judiciary one of his top priorities. Now in his second year of office, Trump has appointed 26 judges to the U.S. appeals courts — a record pace. Read the full story


Shared from Apple News



Share

EX-BOYFRIEND OF FORD EXPOSES HER STATEMENTS UNDER OATH

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2018

 

Christine Blasey Ford’s Ex-Boyfriend Told Senate Judiciary He Witnessed Her Coach A Friend On Polygraphs

An ex-boyfriend of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford told Senate investigators he witnessed her coach a friend on how to take a polygraph, contradicting her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

In a sworn statement provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a man who claims to be an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford says that he personally witnessed Ford coach a friend on how to take a polygraph exam. If true, it would mean Ford provided false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week when she claimed she had never had any discussions with anyone about how to take a polygraph.

The troubling allegations about Ford’s polygraph history and potentially false testimony were revealed Tuesday in a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, to attorneys for Ford. Ford and her attorneys have thus far refused to provide all polygraph-related documents and media to the Senate for review.

“The full details of Dr. Ford’s polygraph are particularly important because the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford’s, stating that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations,” Grassley wrote. “When asked under oath in the hearing whether she’d ever given any tips or advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph, Dr. Ford replied, ‘Never.’”

“This statement raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results,” he continued. “The Senate therefore needs this information.”

(more…)

Share

KAVANAUGH THE COLD ANGER AND THE RECKONING

Friday, September 28th, 2018

 

Kavanaugh, Cold Anger and The Reckoning….

They’ve gone too far.  “Donald Trump’s supporters are angry“, or “uneducated”, or “unenlightened”, or (fill_In_The_Blank). This hate-filled sentiment is clear within the latest vile,… nay,… evil and horrific smears directed toward Judge Brett and Ashley Kavanaugh and their cherished children.  Now the media narrative controllers are fully engaged along with their political brethren.  Do not look away.

The vulgar lies and filth are now extreme as the ideological entities utilize their microphones in a brutal attempt to tear down the Kavanaugh family.

As we bear witness, anyone trying to convince us this entire assembly of our union is headed in the right direction, well, they might want to revisit their proximity to the 2018 election ballpark. Because they’re not just out of the city – they’re also out of the same state the election ballpark is located in….. Then again, the media know that.

David Mamet had a famous saying, essentially: …‘in order for democrats, liberals, progressives et al to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things’… By pretending ‘not to know’ there is no guilt, no actual connection to conscience.  Denial of truth allows easier trespass.

This hate-filled Democrat ideology relies on your willingness to reconcile their presentations and grant benefit within their seeds of doubt. Do not look away.

(more…)

Share

THE PRESUMPTION OF GUILT – KAVANAUGH

Tuesday, September 25th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Presumption of Guilt

The new liberal standard turns American due process upside down.

Share

LETTER FROM SENATOR GRASSLEY TO SENATOR FEINSTEIN RE KAVANAUGH ACCUSER

Thursday, September 20th, 2018

 

The Senate Judiciary committee hasn’t even seen the original letter…only a “redacted” version???!!!
Share

ROBERT BORK’S PROUD LEGACY AND THE SENATE’S SHAMEFUL ONE

Wednesday, September 5th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
ROBERT BORK’S PROUD LEGACY AND THE SENATE’S SHAMEFUL ONE

His defeat taught interest groups to demonize judicial nominees based solely on their worldview.

September 1, 2018
by Mark Pulliam Mr. Pulliam, a contributing editor at the Law and Liberty website, blogs at MisruleOfLaw.com. This article is adapted from the Summer issue of City Journal.
  Judge Robert Bork is sworn in for his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill, Sept. 15, 1987.PHOTO: JOHN DURICKA/ASSOCIATED PRESS

When Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in June, liberal interest groups were apoplectic. Many Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, vowed to oppose any nominee and kept their promise when President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Liberal groups rail against him for transparently political reasons: They don’t like the way they think he will vote, as if he were a legislator.

The confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees hasn’t always been so contentious and partisan. The Senate used to evaluate nominees based on qualifications and temperament. As recently as 1986, the upper chamber unanimously confirmed Justice Antonin Scalia. But things changed the following year, when a Democratic Senate denied confirmation to perhaps the most qualified candidate ever nominated to the court: Robert Bork.

Despite Bork’s unsurpassed credentials, liberals opposed him solely because of his conservative judicial philosophy. They succeeded and in the process coined a new verb, “to bork.” The confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees has been corrupted ever since.

The Bork saga has begun to recede from public consciousness, so it’s worth recalling those events and the man at the center of them. Bork had an illustrious legal career. After graduating from the University of Chicago, where he obtained both his undergraduate and law degrees, he practiced law with the prestigious firm Kirkland & Ellis, where he became a partner. He joined the faculty of Yale Law School—generally considered the nation’s best—in 1962, specializing in antitrust and constitutional law.

Bork left his tenured position at Yale to serve in the Nixon and Ford administrations. From 1973-77, he served as solicitor general, the third-ranking official in the Justice Department, representing the federal government before the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Warren Burger rated Bork the most effective advocate to appear before the court during his tenure.

 

Following a brief return to Yale, in 1982 Ronald Reagan appointed Bork to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The American Bar Association gave him its highest rating, “exceptionally well qualified,” and in February 1982 the Senate unanimously confirmed his nomination.

Share
Search All Posts
Categories