Daily Archives: July 17, 2022

Opinion: This Democrat hopes for the restoration of a healthy Republican Party. – The Colorado Sun

Posted: July 17, 2022 at 9:17 am

In the past couple of weeks, Congress Select Committee has presented persuasive, unrebutted evidence that Donald J. Trump, the duly-elected 45th President, refused to abide by the will of the People. He knew, full well, that he had lost both the popular vote and the determinative Electoral College vote, by a substantial margin, and that there was absolutely no evidence of even slight irregularities much less widespread fraud in the conduct of the election. His own Justice Department and faithful Attorney General told him so, in no uncertain terms.

And yet, Trump refused to do as every other unsuccessful presidential candidate had done since the founding of our nation he refused to peacefully transition power to the Peoples choice.

Buttressed by a relatively small group of loyal co-conspirators, Trump sought, quite literally, to overthrow the government of the United States and to install himself in office. Concerned that his scheme to install a set of fake electors from several swing states was not going to be carried out by Vice President Mike Pence, and informed that some of those marching to the U.S. Capitol on his orders were armed with military assault weapons, Trump told his minions that he wished the protest at the Capitol to proceed, and he urged removing the security scanners in place to detect firearms.Told that those whod overcome the Capitol Police by force were shouting Hang Mike Pence! as they ran through the corridors of the Capitol, Trump stated that perhaps Pence deserved that fate.

READ:Colorado Sun opinion columnists.

So committed was Trump to cling to power that he was willing to watch dozens, perhaps hundreds, of our fellow citizens, including members of Congress and the Vice President, die in the violent assault on the Capitol.

As an attorney, I know and believe that Trump and his co-conspirators are entitled to the presumption of innocence in courts of law, and can be found guilty of crimes only by a jury of ordinary U.S. citizens. Until a jury returns a verdict, likely years down the road (if he lives long enough to face trial), he cannot be imprisoned or otherwise punished by our government. In this great land, we dont allow the victors in political skirmishes to lock her up simply because she lost the election.

But what do we, American citizens, do now?

Look: Im a registered Democrat. I voted for Hillary, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale and Carter. If any of those losing candidates had sought, as Trump did, to overthrow our system of government, I would not support them. Indeed, I would actively denounce them and call for their prosecution. Its not about party affiliation, its about standing up for the rule of law, and the peaceful transition of power that is the hallmark of our democracy.

To my fellow U.S. citizens Republicans I respect you, I believe you have equal rights to vote, to protest, to advocate for your views and to support candidates who pledge to implement the public policies you prefer, whatever they may be. Please continue doing so, forcefully but peacefully, because a functioning democracy cannot survive without competing viewpoints on all matters of the day.

What I am urging my Republican friends and colleagues to do, now, immediately, is to publicly denounce Donald J. Trump and his co-conspirators. Only your voice will be heard by the Republican National Committee, which has officially described the deadly assault on the Capitol as legitimate political discourse. No matter how much you may share and support the espoused policies of Trump and his co-conspirators, you must stand and defend the very principles upon which this great nation was founded: We The People are the governors; those we elect to hold public office are our servants, responsible to us. No man is above the law. No person may defy the will of the people, support a violent overthrow of our democracy, and be allowed to hold public office ever again.

I urge you, please: Let your voice be heard. Standing idly by, in silence, in the hopes that the system will miraculously correct itself only perpetuates the status quo, where those who knowingly lied about the election and embraced violence as the means to retain power are permitted to continue participating in the political process.

Please, do the right thing, the patriotic thing speak out. Loudly. Repeatedly. Tell the leaders of the Republican Party that you will not support any candidate who has sought to overthrow our government. No political party should tolerate in its ranks anyone who commits such fundamentally anti-American acts.

Steven D. Zansberg is an attorney in private practice in Denver.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Suns opinion policy and submit columns, suggested writers and more to opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

We believe vital information needs to be seen by the people impacted, whether its a public health crisis, investigative reporting or keeping lawmakers accountable. This reporting depends on support from readers like you.

Continue reading here:

Opinion: This Democrat hopes for the restoration of a healthy Republican Party. - The Colorado Sun

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Opinion: This Democrat hopes for the restoration of a healthy Republican Party. – The Colorado Sun

Amid soaring inflation, CNN’s John King tells critics to give Democrats ‘some grace’: ‘Governing is hard’ – Fox News

Posted: at 9:17 am

CNN host John King claimed that critics need to go easier on Democrats over inflation.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

On Friday, CNN Inside Politics host John King urged critics to give Democrats "some grace" because their jobs are "hard."

Kings urging for easier treatment of Democratic lawmakers came specifically in response to a Republican attack ad criticizing Senator Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., for his reckless spending and accusing him of contributing to the current inflation woes impacting the U.S.

The anchor stated, "It is much easier to be the opposition party give the Democrats some grace. Governing is hard, especially when you have tiny margins."

He added, "Butbut thats the challenge for Democrats, they need to get on the same page because the Republicans are just going to hammer with that."

TUCKER CARLSON: BIDEN IS COGNITIVELY UNABLE TO SERVE AND DEMOCRATS HAVE KNOWN THIS FOR YEARS

Inflation is currently at a 40-year high. (istock)

CNN Capitol Hill reporter Melanie Zanona agreed with King, warning that Republicans are "seizing" on high inflation and see political victory using the issue. "Republicans are really seizing on this. They have spent twice as much on campaign ads as Democrats have, really hammering Democrats over this issue."

Though Zanona claimed that the GOP "dont really have a specific answer" on inflation themselves, "privately they say we don't need to, we can just continuously beat Democrats over the head with this.'"

Kings comments appeared to be an attempt to stave off a wellspring of criticism thats been aimed at Democrats, particularly at President Joe Biden. Notably much of this criticism has come from Bidens own party.

Recently former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman stated, "My guess is that the negative views about inflation are so deeply baked in that nothing can change in the next few months to change them."

In addition, the general outlook for Democrats is bleak, and not just in Republican circles.

According to a recent New York Times-Siena College poll, 64% of Democrats would prefer a different presidential candidate for their party in 2024. In addition, it indicated that only 13% of Americans think the country is on the right track.

President Joe Biden has low approval even among members of his own political party. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

The poll also revealed that only 1% of young voters "strongly approve" of Bidens leadership.

MEDIA SLAMS LATINA POLITICIANS AS HISPANICS FLEE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: CONCHA

Conservatives on Twitter remarked on Kings urging for soft treatment of Democrats. Chad Gilmartin, a communications staffer for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., tweeted, "I look forward to the day CNN gives the Republican Majority some grace," reminding viewers that CNN would have never gone easy on the Trump administration.

Fellow McCarthy communications aide Michele Perez Exner agreed: "Yes, because CNN is known for giving Republicans the same grace they are quick to provide their Democrat allies..."

Republican pollster Logan Dobson observed: "I do not remember cable news being so full of grace in 2017-2018! What a nice development!"

Townhall.com columnist Mike LaChance tweeted the same point, asking, "Remember when CNN said to give Trump and Republicans a break? Neither does anyone else."

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

The Spectator contributing editor Stephen L. Miller shared the video to his account and commented a seemingly sarcastic "Ah," as though King was making a reasonable request even though inflation is at a 40-year-high.

The NewsBusters Twitter account wrote, "Now that Democrats are in power, CNN's John King suddenly believes in giving them a break because governing is hard. He had a very different opinion during the Trump era."

And NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham replied to Kings statement with a GIF of SpongeBob SquarePants character Mr. Krabs playing the "worlds smallest violin," mocking King's appeal for sympathy for Democrats.

On Friday, even Congresswomen Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., slammed Democratic Party leaderships messaging on inflation, saying the party is putting a "spin" on things and that voters dont "like it."

U.S. Representative Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., is one of several Democratic Party leaders who have criticized the White House's inflation narrative. (Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

Gabriel Hays is an associate editor at Fox News. Follow him on Twitter at @gabrieljhays.

Read the original post:

Amid soaring inflation, CNN's John King tells critics to give Democrats 'some grace': 'Governing is hard' - Fox News

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Amid soaring inflation, CNN’s John King tells critics to give Democrats ‘some grace’: ‘Governing is hard’ – Fox News

Eddie Bernice Johnson: an insult to not have Democrat running Texas – The Dallas Morning News

Posted: at 9:17 am

U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson received a fond farewell at her final Texas Democratic Convention representing Dallas 30th Congressional District.

Johnson, who is retiring from the House at the end of her term, received a standing ovation as she took the stage.

Im retiring from Congress in January, but if the Lord lets me live, Im not retiring from the Democratic Party, she said.

Fellow Democrats presented the longtime Dallas leader with the Eddie Bernice Johnson Trailblazer Award.

Johnson, who has represented Dallas in Congress since 1993 and as a state representative before that, spoke about the legacy of former President Lyndon Baines Johnson. The late presidents daughter, Luci Baines Johnson, spoke earlier in the night.

That Democratic president was responsible for equal education, open housing, Medicare and Medicaid, voting rights, civil rights, Johnson said. There has been no greater president.

Its an insult to have anybody but a Democrat in charge of this state.

State Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Dallas won the Democratic runoff to replace Johnson and is heavily favored to win the district in November.

1/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke (right) listens to the Grandmother of Juneteenth, Opal Lee, at Jaxon Beer Garden in Downtown Dallas. Beto was taking photos with supporters following his speech at the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

2/99Grandmother of Juneteenth, Opal Lee (right) looks at Steve Foxs photos of his son at the Juneteenth memorial in Galveston during a convention after-party at Jaxon Beer Garden in Downtown Dallas. Lee was there with Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke who was taking photos with supporters following his speech at the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

3/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke delivers his speech to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

4/99Luci Baines Johnson, daughter of President Lyndon Baines Johnson, cheers on Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke as he delivers his speech to delegates and guests at 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

5/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke walks on-stage to deliver his speech to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

6/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke delivers his speech to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

7/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke delivers his speech to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

8/99Delegates and guests cheers on Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke as he delivers his speech during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

9/99Delegates and guests cheers on Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke as he delivers his speech during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

10/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke delivers his speech to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

11/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke delivers his speech to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

12/99A delegate throws up a sign to Fix the Damn Grid as Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke delivers his speech to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

13/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke walks on-stage to deliver his speech to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

14/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke delivers his speech to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

15/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke gives his wife Amy a kiss after delivering his speech to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

16/99Outgoing U.S. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas (center) is recognized with the Texas Democrats Trailblazer Award by Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa before she spoke during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. U.S. House Texas District 30 candidate Jasmine Crockett (left) as U.S. Representative Al Green of Houston appeared on stage with them.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

17/99Outgoing U.S. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas (second from right) delivers her speech during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Joining her onstage is Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa (left) Democratic U.S. House Texas District 30 candidate Jasmine Crockett, U.S. Representative Al Green of Houston and U.S. Representative Marc Veasey.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

18/99Outgoing U.S. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas (second from right) recognizes Democratic U.S. House Texas District 30 candidate Jasmine Crockett (second from left) as she speaks during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa (left) and U.S. Representative Al Green of Houston appeared on stage with them.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

19/99U.S. House Texas District 32 Representative Colin Allred speaks to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

20/99U.S. House Texas District 32 Representative Colin Allred speaks to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

21/99U.S. House Texas District 32 Representative Colin Allred speaks to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

22/99Delegate Hazel Weathers and others cheer U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston who recognized WNBA basketball player Brittney Griner during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Griner is jailed in Russia.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

23/99Delegates Hazel Weathers (center) and Sheena King (left) and others cheer U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston who recognized WNBA basketball player Brittney Griner during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Griner is jailed in Russia.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

24/99Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Chris Turner spoke after being recognized by Luci Baines Johnson (right) for leading Democrats out of Texas when voting rights were under attack in Austin. He spoke to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

25/99Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Chris Turner speaks after being recognized for leading Democrats out of Texas when voting rights were under attack in Austin. He spoke to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

26/99Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Chris Turner speaks after being recognized by Luci Baines Johnson for leading Democrats out of Texas when voting rights were under attack in Austin. He spoke to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

27/99Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Chris Turner spoke after being recognized by Luci Baines Johnson (right) for leading Democrats out of Texas when voting rights were under attack in Austin. He spoke to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

28/99Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Chris Turner (left) receives a hug from Luci Baines Johnson after being recognized for leading Democrats out of Texas when voting rights were under attack in Austin. He spoke to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

29/99Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Chris Turner was recognized with the Texas Democrats President Lyndon B. Johnson Lifetime Service Award by Luci Baines Johnson. Turner led Democrats out of Texas when voting rights were under attack in Austin. He spoke to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

30/99Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Chris Turner was recognized with the Texas Democrats President Lyndon B. Johnson Lifetime Service Award by Luci Baines Johnson. Turner led Democrats out of Texas when voting rights were under attack in Austin. He spoke to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

31/99Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins speaks to delegates and guests gathered for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

32/99Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins speaks to delegates and guests gathered for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

33/99(From lelt) Texas Young Democrats President & ECtor Co Chair Hannah Horick leads a panel discussion with former DNC Rural Council Chair Betty Richie, Midland Co Chair Cathy Broadrick and Bowie Co Chair Zebrina Robertson during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

34/99During a Q&A game, Democratic U.S. House Texas District 30 candidate Jasmine Crockett (center) reacts with her answer after being asked if theyd ever cussed out a Republican during a panel discussion at the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. U.S. House Texas District 35 candidate Greg Casar (left) and U.S. House Texas District 15 candidate Michelle Vallejo (right) show their answers as well. Former presidential candidate Julin Castro moderated the kickoff-off reception event.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

35/99U.S. House Texas District 32 representative Colin Allred spoke to delegates and guests during the kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

36/99Democratic U.S. House Texas District 30 candidate Jasmine Crockett reacts during a panel discussion at the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

37/99Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa speaks to delegates and guests during the kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

38/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke meets Ramona Torres of El Paso as he arrives to the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

39/99Wearing Ranchers for Beto cowboy hats, Sandy Emmons of Waxahachie, Texas and her husband Andy Don Emmons wait in line to meet Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke at his 2022 Texas Democratic Convention booth at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

40/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke listens to Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins (right) during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

41/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke and his wife Amy (second from right) cheers supporters they took photos with at their 2022 Texas Democratic Convention booth at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

42/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke said he needs more cowbell as he poses for photos with his staff at his 2022 Texas Democratic Convention booth at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

43/99Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins (left) gives Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa a hug as they visited with Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke (right) during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

44/99A cutout of Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke rises above the crowd gathered to see the candidate (right) during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

45/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke (right) is greeted by his supporters as he arrives to a rally at his booth during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

46/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke (right) visits with former presidential candidate Julin Castro during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

47/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke applauds his supporters as he took photos with them at the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention booth at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

48/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke greets Monica Florence of Frost, Texas as he met with supporters at his 2022 Texas Democratic Convention booth at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

49/99A cutout of Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke rises above the crowd gathered to see the candidate (right) during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

50/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke (right) visits with former presidential candidate Julin Castro during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

51/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke listens to Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins (not pictured) during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

52/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke (left) and his wife Amy (second from right) posed for photos with Pro Abortion supporters at their 2022 Texas Democratic Convention booth at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

53/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke greets Vietnam War Army veteran Frank Gilmore of Copperas Cove, Texas as he met with supporters during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

54/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke huddles up his staff and cheers at his 2022 Texas Democratic Convention booth at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

55/99Wearing a Ranchers for Beto cowboy hat, Andy Don Emmons of Waxahachie, Texas waits in line to meet Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke at his 2022 Texas Democratic Convention booth at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

56/99Democratic gubernatorial challenger Beto O'Rourke cheers supporters as they took photos with them at their 2022 Texas Democratic Convention booth at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022. Beto is expected to be the main speaker during the general session later in the night.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

57/99Delegate Vickie Willoughby of San Antonio cheers alongside her husband David Willoughby and others during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

58/99State Senator Royce West speaks to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

59/99Delegate Frances Rizo of Duncanville bows her head in prayer as the invocation is delivered during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.S he is part of the Tejano Democrats.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

60/99State Senator Royce West speaks to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

61/99(From lelt) Texas Young Democrats President & ECtor Co Chair Hannah Horick leads a panel discussion with former DNC Rural Council Chair Betty Richie, Midland Co Chair Cathy Broadrick and Bowie Co Chair Zebrina Robertson during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

62/99Delegates and guests stand for the national anthem as the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention general session kicks off at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

63/99State Senator Royce West speaks to delegates and guests during the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 15, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

64/99During a Q&A game, Democratic U.S. House Texas District 30 candidate Jasmine Crockett (center) reacts with her answer after being asked if theyd ever cussed out a Republican during a panel discussion at the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. U.S. House Texas District 35 candidate Greg Casar (left) and U.S. House Texas District 15 candidate Michelle Vallejo (right) show their answers as well. Former presidential candidate Julin Castro moderated the kickoff-off reception event.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

65/99During a Q&A game, Democratic U.S. House Texas District 30 candidate Jasmine Crockett (center) reacts with her answer after being asked if theyd ever cussed out a Republican during a panel discussion at the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. U.S. House Texas District 35 candidate Greg Casar (left) and U.S. House Texas District 15 candidate Michelle Vallejo (right) show their answers as well. Former presidential candidate Julin Castro moderated the kickoff-off reception event.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

66/99John Denson of Pflugerville, Texas wore a campaign hat in the style of Abe Lincoln to a kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. He said he couldnt find a brim to go along with it.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

67/99A woman supporting the LGBTQ community wore a flag in her hair during the kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

68/99Delegates and guests applaud as the kick-off reception wraps up on Day 1of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. Former presidential candidate Julin Castro moderated the kickoff-off forum.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

69/99Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa speaks to delegates and guests during the kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

70/99Kim Olson (center), who is competing for the Texas Democratic Party Chair, visits with delegates and guests attending the kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

71/99Delegates and guests gather to listen to U.S. House Texas District 30 candidate Jasmine Crockett following her panel discussion at the kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

72/99U.S. House Texas District 30 candidate Jasmine Crockett (center) visited with delegates and guests during the kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

73/99Former presidential candidate Julin Castro spoke to delegates and guests before moderating a panel discussion during the kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

74/99Democratic U.S. House Texas District 30 candidate Jasmine Crockett participated in a panel discussion at the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

75/99Delegates and guests listen to U.S. House Texas District candidates at a kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. Former presidential candidate Julin Castro moderated the kickoff-off forum.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

76/99U.S. House Texas District 15 candidate Michelle Vallejo visits with delegates following the the kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

77/99A delegate records a video of U.S. House Texas District candidates on a panel discussion at a kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. Former presidential candidate Julin Castro moderated the kickoff-off forum.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

78/99U.S. House Texas District 32 representative Colin Allred spoke to delegates and guests during the kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

79/99Former presidential candidate Julin Castro spoke to delegates and guests before moderating a panel discussion during the kick-off reception for the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

80/99Mike Nichols of Tyler, Texas sports a cap full of Beto ORourke buttons during the SDEC (State Democratic Executive Committee) meeting on opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

81/99Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa (third from right) visits with delegates following the SDEC (State Democratic Executive Committee) meeting on opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

82/99Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa (left) and Adoneca Fortier listen to concerns voiced by those attending the SDEC (State Democratic Executive Committee) meeting during opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

83/99Steven Spainhouer (left) of McKinney, Texas takes a photo of his big voting sign he brought to the SDEC meeting on opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

84/99Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa (center) leads the SDEC (State Democratic Executive Committee) meeting in the pledge of allegiance during opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

85/99Reyes Garcia of Edinburg, Texas waves a cutout of former Texas Governor Ann Richards as he greets delegates on opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

86/99Reyes Garcia of Edinburg, Texas waves a cutout of former Texas Governor Ann Richards as he greets delegates on opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

87/99Delegates pick up their credentials during the opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

88/99Delegates stand and applaud during the SDEC (State Democratic Executive Committee) meeting on opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

89/99Staffer Chrissy Kleberg hangs up Beto For Texas t-shirts at his booth as the team set up on opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

90/99Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa (center, at podium) leads the SDEC (State Democratic Executive Committee) meeting with the Texas pledge during opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022.(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

91/99Steven Spainhouer brought a big voting sign to the opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

92/99Volunteers sell convention lanyards to delegates after theyve picked up their credentials during the opening day of the 2022 Texas Democratic Convention at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, July 14, 2022. (Tom Fox / Staff Photographer )

Link:

Eddie Bernice Johnson: an insult to not have Democrat running Texas - The Dallas Morning News

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Eddie Bernice Johnson: an insult to not have Democrat running Texas – The Dallas Morning News

Democrat Beto O’Rourke Pushes Progressive Platform, Polls Show Gap Closing in Texas Governor’s Race – The Epoch Times

Posted: at 9:17 am

O'Rouke blasts incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott on border policies, tightening election laws, and outlawing abortions

Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto ORouke told fellow party members on Friday that his coffers are full and his poll numbers are up, giving his campaign a much-needed boost against Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

ORouke, the keynote speaker at the Texas Democratic Convention in Dallas, said he raised $27.6 million from late February to June 30 and is up 10 points in the polls against Abbott, much to the delight of delegates.

Greg Abbott is chaos; he is corruption; he is cruelty, and he is incompetence, ORouke said during the convention.

The convention, which began July 14 in Dallas, will allow delegates across Texas to vote on the partys platform and elect party leadership. Democratic leaders at the convention focused on their plans of winning more state and national seats by running on progressive ideas. Democrats are also working to keep Latinos in South Texas voting blue.

While ORoukes fund-raising efforts broke a record, Abbott has nearly matched him by hauling in $24.9 million over the same period, according to his campaign.

Abbot had $45.7 million cash on hand as of June 30, while the ORourke campaign did not disclose their figure. Most polls estimate ORouke gaining ground on Abbott, with several showing Abbott with a mere 5- or 6-point lead.

ORourke opposed what he called voter suppression legislation supported by his opponent. He endorsed a policy platform for open borders, pushed expansion of government health care, and championed gun control, abortion rights, and transgender rights for children.

His position on gun control made him the darling of liberals in 2019 during his presidential bid. At the time, ORourke said: Hell yes, were going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

In his speech to delegates, he accused Abbott of turning his back on police officers by allowing Texans to carry guns in the open under Constitutional carry.

More cops have been gunned down in this state than in any other, he said.

ORouke has also made it clear in the past that he favored defunding police and once praised Black Lives Matter for their efforts to do so.

ORouke is now also making the Texas electricity grid a campaign issue. He wants green energy to replace oil and gas in Texas.

During his speech, he blasted Abbot for the Texas electrical grids failure during Winter Storm Uri last February. His solution is to connect Texas independent grid to the national grid. He wants to transition to high-paying union jobs in green energy and eliminate Texas oil and gas jobs.

However, during the storm, part of the problem was caused by frozen wind turbines, which stopped producing power. Texas gets more than 20 percent of its energy from wind power.

ORouke also attacked Abbott on border stunts, such as using the states national guard to help secure the Texas border. He added that Texas is a state of immigrants who make the state a better place.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun Texas and other border states after Biden eliminated former president Trumps stay-in-Mexico policy.

Abbotts campaign literature says his opponent wants to all but eliminate the detention of illegal immigrants and grant citizenship to those illegal immigrants who are already in the country. Republicans speculate that Bidens open border policy is designed to capture for the Democratic party more immigrant votes, mainly from Hispanics, as the partys policies more easily award migrants, including those who enter illegally, citizenship.

ORourke will be heading out on the campaign trail ahead of the November election. Abbott plans on hounding his opponent with the Beto Truth Response Unit, which was in Dallas during the Democratic Convention.

Follow

Follow this link:

Democrat Beto O'Rourke Pushes Progressive Platform, Polls Show Gap Closing in Texas Governor's Race - The Epoch Times

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Democrat Beto O’Rourke Pushes Progressive Platform, Polls Show Gap Closing in Texas Governor’s Race – The Epoch Times

Heres when Democratic meddling in GOP primaries worked best and when it backfired – Washington Examiner

Posted: at 9:17 am

Democrats have been awfully active in the 2022 Republican primaries. Thats right, GOP nominating contests, which are usually decided by the partys most faithful, fervent, and consistent voters.

Democrats see a batch of political opportunities in the 2022 midterm elections in helping to choose who ends up being nominated by Republicans in a range of contests, based on the logic that these flawed GOP office-seekers would be the easiest to beat in November. All the while, Democrats are on defense over President Joe Bidens sinking approval ratings, the worst inflation in 40 years, spiking gas prices, and a range of other political problems.

ANGRY ANTI-BIDEN LIBERALS MAY BE DEMOCRATS' ONLY HOPE TO AVOID MIDTERM ELECTION WIPEOUT

The Democrats' handiwork is clear in a batch of contests. In the Pennsylvania Republican gubernatorial nomination fight, Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro's campaign ran ads aimed at boosting state Sen. Doug Mastriano, known for bolstering former President Donald Trump's false claims of 2020 election fraud. The gambit has worked so far, as Mastriano easily captured the GOP nomination on May 17, but trails Shapiro in the polls.

The GOP governor primary in Maryland saw similar Democratic efforts to promote the candidacy of state Del. Dan Cox in the Aug. 2 gubernatorial primary, over the more centrist Kelly Schulz. Cox is widely seen as too conservative to win statewide in deep blue Maryland. He's best-known clashes with retiring Gov. Larry Hogan, a fellow Republican, over COVID-19 restrictions.

In the Colorado Republican Senate primary, state Democrats tried to elevate Ron Hanks, who supported former Trumps baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Hanks would have been a tough sell in November to an electorate that's increasingly Democratic. But GOP primary voters weren't having it, choosing instead construction company owner Joe O'Dea, a more traditional business-minded conservative.

And the Arizona Democratic Party is disparaging a Republican gubernatorial candidate, Karrin Taylor Robson, in an apparent attempt at helping Trump-endorsed GOP rival Kari Lake, figuring the latter would be easier to beat in November.

Theres nothing particularly new about the tactic. Democrats have, sporadically for decades, tried to ensure the weakest Republican nominee emerged to fight in the general election. And Republican hands aren't totally clean either, having at times tried to prop up seemingly weak Democratic general election candidates.

After all, the Watergate scandal that drove President Richard Nixon from office in 1974 was based in part on efforts by him and his cronies to ensure the weakest possible 1972 Democratic nominee. Targets of "dirty tricks" (or the earthier "rat-f***ing" as it's known in the campaign business) included Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine, who was knocked out of the Democratic primary process early. Nixon and Co. got their man in Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota, a liberal Democrat who won a scant 17 Electoral College votes (Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.) to incumbent Nixon's whopping 520.

While the meddling has sometimes worked, it can also backfire. The nominee deemed to be the weakest fall opponent can turn out to be unexpectedly strong on the campaign trail. Also, rivals doing the primary meddling can look ham-handed and clumsy in trying to engineer their fall opponents.

Along those lines, here are some of the greatest hits and misses when Democrats have tried to choose Republican nominees.

Notable wins

California governors race, 2002: Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and his team knew they could be in for a tough ride for reelection after cruising into the governorship in 1998. The self-admitted charisma-challenged veteran of state government saw the biggest Republican threat in former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan.

Riordan was a popular former mayor of the nations second-largest city. His amiable, grandfatherly demeanor set him apart from his main Republican gubernatorial primary rival, investor Bill Simon. Riordan was to Simon's left on a range of social issues. Davis, meanwhile, suffered from low approval ratings amid rolling blackouts across the state and a broader energy crisis.

But Riordans political fortunes began to plummet when Daviss campaign pumped as much as $10 million into a blitz of television commercials that portrayed the former mayor as changing his positions on abortion, the death penalty, and other issues. That gave an opening to his Simon, son of the late William E. Simon, a treasury secretary in the Nixon and Ford administrations. Simon ran as an ardent social conservative and, as a first-time campaigner, committed a series of gaffes his campaign was frequently forced to defend.

The Davis team's political instincts proved spot-on. Elevating Simon helped ensure a Davis reelection win, though relatively narrow. The Democratic incumbent won 47% to 42%, suggesting he might very well have lost had Riordan been the Republican nominee.

But the victory for Davis was short-lived. Within a year, Davis faced a statewide recall, with actor and former bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, as the leading choice to replace him. This time, there was no GOP alternative for Davis to promote, and he was tossed from office, making him only the second governor to be recalled in American political history.

Missouri Senate, 2012: Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskills reelection bid won a place in the annals of strategic campaigning by touting Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri in his competitive Republican primary. McCaskill and her campaign team knew Akin had a penchant for verbal self-inflicted wounds, but even they likely didnt imagine how well their audacious political gamble would pay off.

McCaskill, a veteran of Missouri state politics, narrowly beat a Republican incumbent in the 2006 Democratic wave. Six years later, with Missouri moving rightward, McCaskill faced a tough reelection challenge.

Several prominent Republicans had lined up for the right to oppose McCaskill, including Akin, who was first elected to the House in 2000 and known for his anti-abortion fervor going back to his days in Jefferson City as a state legislator.

Democrats believed that Akin would be the weakest Senate Republican nominee. To that end, the McCaskill campaign ahead of the Aug. 7 primary ran ads calling Akin too conservative, which were a form of thinly veiled support for Akins nomination in a red-trending state. Akin won the Republican nomination with a plurality in a close three-way race, with the McCaskill ads widely credited as having boosted his candidacy.

Less than two weeks after Akins Republican primary win, the congressman in an interview with St. Louis television station KTVI-TV, made the claim that women victims of what he described as legitimate rape rarely experience pregnancy from rape.

Not surprisingly, Akin was put on the defensive over his remarks. And McCaskill, who favored abortion rights, wasnt shy about pointing out the comment to voters. She went on to crush Akin 55%-39%, even as President Barack Obama, elected to a second White House term, lost Missouri to Republican nominee Mitt Romney 54% to 44%.

Meddling that backfired

California governors race, 1966: Its nearly unimaginable now, but San Francisco, known as Americas largest liberal city, once had a string of Republican mayors. The last one was George Christopher, who was in office from 1956 to 1964. Like other San Francisco mayors, Christopher had statewide ambitions and sought Californias governorship in 1966.

First, though, Christopher had to get through the Republican primary against a political rookie coming off a Hollywood career named Ronald Reagan. Democratic Gov. Pat Brown was seeking a third term, after eight years in office presiding over Californias rapid growth. Brown and his strategists wanted to get the more centrist Christopher out of the way so the governor could instead face Reagan, the conservative political newcomer the incumbent thought would be weaker.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

So, Democratic operatives dug up Christophers old conviction for violating milk-pricing law from the days when the former San Francisco mayor owned a dairy. Democrats leaked it to a friendly columnist. Though the matter had been used against Christopher in previous campaigns, it stuck. Reagan went on to win the Republican nomination by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

And soon after, Democrats realized they had created a political monster. Reagan proved a much more formidable candidate than Brown and Democrats had expected. Reagan ran on a tough-on-crime platform and promises to crack down on college campus protests, among other issues. Reagan beat Brown 58%-42%, setting him on the road to winning the presidency 14 years later.

Original post:

Heres when Democratic meddling in GOP primaries worked best and when it backfired - Washington Examiner

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Heres when Democratic meddling in GOP primaries worked best and when it backfired – Washington Examiner

Democrats should use 14th Amendment insurrection clause to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 – The Hill

Posted: at 9:17 am

After the testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, is there any doubt that Donald Trump fomented the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021?

There are no longer any innocent explanations for what he did that day. Select Committee testimony has demonstrated that he knew he had no good factual or legal basis for his claim that the election was stolen, that he knew Vice President Mike Pence was not going to save him and that his only chance to remain in the White House was to stop the final ratification by Congress on Jan. 6. The testimony has also demonstrated that he knew some in the crowd assembled to hear him speak were armed, that a mob was heading to the Capitol, and that it was clearly in his power to call off the insurrection but instead of trying to stop the violence, he chose to do nothing.

The question is: Can anything be done, short of a criminal conviction, to prevent Trump from seeking to recapture the presidency?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies a person from being president who, while holding a federal office, participated in an insurrection against the United States.

That prohibition must surely apply to Donald Trump, and that is what the House sought to establish in Trumps second impeachment; however, because the impeachment trial was held before a full investigation of the insurrection charge had taken place, much of the most damning evidence uncovered by the Select Committee was not available. Thus, while the House will not get a second chance, there are other means of achieving Trumps disqualification, although they have never been tested in a court before now.

Whether President Biden runs in 2024, it is certain that there will be a Democrat on the ballot, and thus the Democratic Party, on behalf of all of its candidates, could bring suit in federal court right now, seeking a ruling that Donald Trump participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection and an order precluding him from even being a candidate for president.

Trump would first have to decide whether to fight the lawsuit, which would mean saying whether he was running in 2024, something he would prefer to announce at a time and place of his choosing, not when and where he is sued.

After making some procedural motions in an effort to have the case dismissed, the former president would then have to respond to discovery, including being subjected to a deposition in which he would have to answer questions under oath. Unlike the situation with the Select Committee, he would have no arguable claims of presidential privilege, so that if he refused to answer questions, the court could draw adverse inferences against him from his refusals, meaning he could no longer argue that his conduct was justified if he would not provide a factual basis for his repeated assertions that the election was stolen.Moreover, ifthe suit were filed now, there would be plenty of time for discovery, a trial, and an appeal before the primaries start in early 2024.

Like every other American, Trump would have the option of claiming the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. That path would be rather awkward for any candidate for public office, but especially for him in light of what he said during the 2016 campaign about employing that tactic:The mob takes the Fifth If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

Unlike most laws, section 3 provides a special means to avoid disqualification, which the Democrats might like as much as the trial: Two thirds of each House can vote to grant him amnesty that would require Republican Senators and Representatives to go on the record on whether Trump should be entitled to be a candidate for president, despite having been found to have been part of the insurrection.

Will this lawsuit succeed? No one can know for sure, but it seems as if there is nothing to lose, or at least not if the Department of Justice does not indict Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Alan B. Morrison is an associate dean at George Washington University Law School where he teaches constitutional law.

Read more here:

Democrats should use 14th Amendment insurrection clause to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 - The Hill

Posted in Democrat | Comments Off on Democrats should use 14th Amendment insurrection clause to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 – The Hill

How to Fix the Bias Against Free Speech on Campus – The Atlantic

Posted: at 9:15 am

A recent investigation of eight abortion-rights supporters at American University, in Washington, D.C., offers yet more evidence that college administrators and diversity-and-inclusion bureaucratssome of whom undermine free speech as if their job duties demanded itneed new checks on their power.

This matter began in May, shortly after the Supreme Courts draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization leaked, prompting numerous law students at American to join an online chat about the impending diminution of abortion rights. One student fretted about whether conservatives would overturn other precedents conferring rights to buy contraception, or to marry a partner of the same sex or of a different race. What are they going to go after next? the student wrote. Griswold? Obergefell? Loving?

A classmate replied, As a Republican, I find it insulting that conservatives would be thought of as overturning peoples civil rights. After another classmate interjected, Can we shut the fuck up about personal opinions while people process this? the Republican student responded. I find it interesting how the call to silence our personal opinions happens after I defended my deeply-held religious beliefs and yet nobody has mentioned that same sentiment about the pro-abortion posts. The discussion was deeply offensive to both me and my Greek Orthodox faith, he declared. On a campus that adequately valued students free speech, thats where the matter would have ended, with everyone having expressed their opinion.

Instead, the offended Republican student filed a harassment complaint. Then the Office of Equity and Title IX at American sent a formal letter to eight students alerting them that all were under investigation for allegedly harassing a classmate on the basis of his political affiliation and religious beliefs, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free-speech-advocacy group that took up the accused students cause.

Conor Friedersdorf: Why I cover campus controversies

Cases like this underscore the problem with administrators, often operating within or in conjunction with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) bureaucracies, who investigate speech on behalf of any complaining party no matter how weak their underlying claims. Some of the most easily offended university students in America have become adept at characterizing any speech they dislike as if it creates an unsafe, discriminatory, or hostile climate, or else constitutes harassment or even violence; and many of the accused find that being investigated in such cases is a punishment in itself.

Thats why, last month, I proposed a way to rein in such investigations: Universities should empower their faculty to check administrators and DEI staffers who undermine freedom of speech. If professorsor perhaps representatives chosen by professorscould sanction and, in extreme cases, terminate anyone who violates First Amendment rights or free-expression policies, administrators would have a powerful new incentive to avoid speech-chilling excesses. Administrators and DEI officials can, of course, be disciplined or fired by higher-ranking university bureaucrats, but they are essentially unaccountable to the scholars and students whose expression they are stifling. Faculty members are more likely than bureaucrats to understand that free speech is essential to academic freedom. On many campuses, when administrators have infringed on faculty or student rights, professorsespecially law professors steeped in First Amendment lawhave been unafraid to speak up.

Conor Friedersdorf: Professors need the power to fire diversity bureaucrats

A spokesperson at American argued in an email to me that universities are legally required to review all discririmination complaints and added that during the fact-finding process, no adverse action is taken by the university against any individuals. He went on to say that Americans Office of Equity and Title IX reviews only those matters related to a viable claim of discrimination and does not investigate matters related solely to disagreements based in speech.

But Alex Morey, a FIRE attorney who wrote to the university on the accused students behalf, lambasted Americans approach. This is absurd, he stated. Theres nothing even approaching harassment or discrimination in the chat. American cannot let its process for investigating actual discrimination and harassment be weaponized to investigate students opinions, but thats exactly whats happening. One of the accused students, Daniel Brezina, was similarly incredulous. I cant believe American is investigating us for having a frank discussion about abortion access, he said in a statement released by FIRE. This is going to have a massive chilling effect on honest discussions at the school. What good could possibly come of that? The investigation dragged into July before the students were told that they were not ultimately found responsible and would escape punishment.

Genevieve Lakier: The great free-speech reversal

When students can be investigated on the thinnest of pretexts and risk punishment for poorly defined transgressions, the safe approach is to self-censor rather than engage in exchanges on any sensitive subject. College administrators are seldom, if ever, punished for violating free-speech rights, even as they face significant incentives to expand the size and scope of their bureaucracies and to placate the aggrieved to avoid protests or negative publicity.

In recent weeks, Ive discussed my proposed solution to this problem with a variety of people in higher educationsome of whom, I should note, reject it entirely. I must disagree with the grounding premise that DEI administrators are serving to squash free speech and expression of University faculty members, Maria Dixon Hall, the chief diversity officer at Southern Methodist University, told me by email, noting that more senior administrators are typically calling the shots. She added, Inclusion is challenging to operationalize and enforce. But unfortunately, DEI Officers are made scapegoats by those on each side who feel we have too much power or not enough.

I say that the Princeton professor Robert George has it right. In an email to me, he noted that universities have rules, some of which protect free speech. University officials who violate those rules by trampling others free expression should not be exempt from punishment, he suggested.

George wrote,

Their rule-breaking should be treated no differently than the rule-breaking of faculty members, students, or anyone else in the community. Whats more, freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression are so foundational and central to the mission of universities that violations of peoples rights in this area need to be treated as extremely serious offenses subject to sanctions in line with those typically imposed on students and faculty for plagiarism, for example, or other serious acts of academic dishonesty.

At present, few institutions, if any, recognize overzealous speech investigations as serious transgressionsincluding in instances when courts rule that college administrators violated the legal rights of faculty, students, or members of the public.

Even among college professors who find the status quo unsatisfactory, there are doubts about whether empowering faculty to discipline administrators is a viable or optimal solution. Michael Behrent, a history professor at Appalachian State University, in North Carolina, believes diversity is an important goal, and that diversity officials can be useful, but that their current approach does result in efforts to undermine academic freedom. I think your basic idea is correct, namely, that there should be a mechanism for holding administrators accountable so that they respect academic freedom and free speech rights, he told me in an email. The problem is that what you propose is almost completely unrealistic in the current university environment in the US Its virtually inconceivable to imagine a modern university that would grant faculty the kind of authority you describe. I cant even imagine such a proposal lending itself to discussion. It would be rejected outright. This is not reflective of your proposal, but of the current situation in higher education.

Others feared that if my proposal were put into practice, faculty members might ally with administrators against free speech, or fail to protect free speech. Professors have incentives to avoid antagonizing the university brass. DEI officials, after all, are part of a sprawling administrative bureaucracy that, as Dan Eisenberg, a University of Washington professor, notes, has substantial powers in many different areas of campus, such as deciding where money goes to support raises, new hires, teaching assistants, research, retention, and lab space. If an administrator lies, cheats or steals, I might not want to go after them to the fullest extent the system permits, Eisenberg explains. I might get the particular administrator to have to publicly admit their wrongdoing and face some consequences, but if they or their allies stay in power, I might lose more over the long term. Many academics spend decades at the same institution.

Conor Friedersdorf: The threat to free speech, beyond cancel culture

Any effort to empower scholars against university bureaucrats would need to take account of those potential pitfalls. But all thats required to test out my approach is one institution willing to experiment, probably over the objection of administrators. In California, where I live, reform of the flagship state university system could be achieved by state legislators, the University of California Board of Regents, or a ballot initiative. I would urge the UC system to create an Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech and Expression Commission, which might be composed of, say, 15 First Amendment experts chosen by the law faculties of UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Hastings, UC Irvine, and UC Davis.

Any time administrators wanted to open an investigation into the speech of a faculty member or student based on someone elses complaint, they would need approval from the commission. Members would analyze the speech in question to determine if the speecheven if accurately described by the complainantwould nevertheless be allowed under the First Amendment or university policy. If so, the matter ends there, and administrators are denied permission to act. As Morey told me, When its painfully obvious that the only issue is a matter of students exercising their expressive rights, the only appropriate response is to stop any proceedings lest they chill speech. Even notifying students theyre being investigated for protected speech can chill them from expressing themselves in the future.

If this approach works for the UC system, other universities might well mimic it. The commission could also review complaints from faculty or students who allege that University of California administrators or staff abrogated their freedom of expression or academic-freedom rights, with any faculty member serving on the commission recusing themselves on any matter that originates on their home campus to safeguard against perverse incentives. Administrators would be subject to investigation and sanction for violating the law or policy, enjoying due process and appeals rights as strong as whatever they offer students.

Of course, any public-university system could try a similar approach. And any private college could experiment with variations adapted to its size and needs. I wish several institutions would try different experimental variations, because new threats to intellectual freedom keep emerging.

At the University of Washington, for example, the computer-science professor Stuart Reges is suing administrators, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by encouraging faculty to include land acknowledgments in course syllabi and then punishing him when they disagreed with the viewpoint that he expressed. (Reges, who views land acknowledgments as empty and performative, wrote, I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.) If a court finds in Regess favor, wouldnt it be better if representatives of the faculty had some way to sanction the relevant administratorsas compared with a system where administrators can violate a persons rights without themselves suffering any professional consequences?

Im not suggesting that sanctioning misbehaving administrators and diversity bureaucrats should be a scholarly communitys only defense against excessive investigations. The academics whom I consulted proposed a range of alternative or complementary measuressuch as faculty unionization and the careful cultivation of ties with the press and First Amendment lawyersby which professors can at least protect their own academic freedom and at best promote a broader culture of free expression.

Do professors want to be newly empowered, or continue ceding control over the university to administrators? That, to me, is the biggest question about the approach I propose: not whether faculty could eventually win a fight to wield some check on free-speech violations by administrators, but rather, whether faculty care enough to claw back power. When it comes to free speech, do enough members of the professoriate care to do the work?

Link:
How to Fix the Bias Against Free Speech on Campus - The Atlantic

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on How to Fix the Bias Against Free Speech on Campus – The Atlantic

Universities are in denial over the free-speech crisis – Spiked

Posted: at 9:15 am

Like most rules, free speech rules are better when shorter. The ideal would be one sentence, which says You can say what you like. The University of Oxfords statement on the importance of free speech does not go that far, but what it does say is pretty robust: Recognising the vital importance of free expression for the life of the mind, a university may make rules concerning the conduct of debate but should never prevent speech that is lawful.

But it seems not everyone likes this liberal approach. The Telegraph reports that a group of five Oxford colleges has banded together to create something called the Oxford Free Speech Forum, which is currently trying to rewrite Oxfords free-speech principles. And tellingly, it is doing so at the same time as the government prepares to pass its Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, which aims to prohibit censorship on campuses. According to the Telegraph, the forum, which has already held two meetings this year, wants to replace Oxfords commitment to free speech with a framework to effectively and respectfully tackle difficult discussions on issues such as race and gender.

The forum is being led by David Isaac, provost of Worcester College and former chair of LGBT+ charity Stonewall. At the inaugural meeting of the forum in March, a recording of which the Telegraph has obtained, Isaac is alleged to have said that he does not recognise the description of left-leaning universities as places that censor or discourage open discussion. Nor, apparently, does he see the need for freedom of speech to be imposed upon universities, as per the governments Free Speech Bill.

Isaacs alleged denial of a free-speech crisis in universities is reminiscent of that phrase attributed to Labour prime minister Jim Callaghan in the middle of the Winter of Discontent: Crisis? What crisis?

It is virtually impossible to deny with a straight face that there is a free-speech problem at universities. We have seen numerous cancellations of speakers and events; the internal and external regulation of lawful speech on campus; the distortion of the syllabus to respect religious sensitivities; university administrations taking political sides on contentious issues; a university starting disciplinary action against a student for saying that women are born with vaginas; and attempts by activists to intimidate a feminist professor to the point where she needed a bodyguard in lectures. There is so much more where all that came from.

I have attended conferences on the Gender Recognition Act that have had to be held in secret locations on university premises, unadvertised, with a closed guest list. I have met academics who live in daily fear of violence for expressing a widely held scepticism about Stonewall and their universities do nothing to protect them. I know of 18-year-olds being ostracised within weeks of starting at university because someone dug up something they had written questioning this or that orthodoxy. All of this is happening in universities in Britain today.

Isaac argues against the Free Speech Bill on the grounds that universities do not want or need free speech imposed upon them. But the bill is not about imposing free speech on universities it is about protecting the free speech of individual academics and students. This ought to be the job of university authorities, but they are just not stepping up at the moment, hence the government has intervened.

There is a simple way for every vice-chancellor in the country to stop anything from being imposed on their universities by the Free Speech Bill. All they need to do is stop the McCarthyite persecution of people on campus who hold the wrong views for instance, those women who dare to say that biological sex is real, something which seemed obvious to everyone until about 15 minutes ago.

Another speaker at the first meeting of the Free Speech Forum in March is reported to have said that free speech is not always a sincere expression of trying to expand thoughtful consideration about the world weve inherited and can often act to preserve existing power structures.

That is true. Not everyone is engaged in thoughtful consideration about the world weve inherited. Some do indeed say and write shocking things to draw attention to themselves. But this is hardly an argument against free speech. Nor is the argument that free speech can be used to preserve existing power structures. Of course free speech can be used to support, say, the power of the state to enforce lockdown. But free speech is also the principal means by which we can challenge power. As Ira Glasser, the former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, once observed: The real antagonist of speech is power.

There will always be speech in defence of existing power structures. But speech that opposes these power structures can only exist when and where it is free. That is why academics, perhaps especially those who claim to be standing up to power, must defend free speech at any cost.

Arif Ahmed is a lecturer in philosophy at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Read more here:
Universities are in denial over the free-speech crisis - Spiked

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Universities are in denial over the free-speech crisis – Spiked

Who Really Benefits From the First Amendment? – Tablet Magazine

Posted: at 9:15 am

As a political liberal and civil liberties crusader since my student days in the 1960s and 70s, I have long defended freedom of speech across the ideological spectrum. I continue to adhere to the longstanding liberal principle that Evelyn Beatrice Hall famously formulated in her 1906 biography of Voltaire, and which the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently enforced since the 1960s as the viewpoint neutrality principle: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Or, as Oscar Wilde spun it: I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make anass of yourself.

Liberals like me have long assumed that political and classical liberalism go hand-in-hand, and that for those of us on the political left, support for free speecheven for the thought that we hate, in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famous phraseis a defining value, or at least a more important value than it is for those on the right. After all, former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, arguably the courts most influential liberal in modern history, hailed the viewpoint neutrality principle as the First Amendments bedrock.

Yet in recent times, as were all well aware by now, this core tenet has come under heavy fire from left-leaning individuals and groups, including student activists, academics, journalists, cultural leaders, and Democratic politicians, many of whom have advanced the argument that words can be a form of violence itself. The question is: What accounts for this shift? Why has the political and cultural left in Americaof which I understand this magazine to see (or have seen) itself as a partappeared to turn so decisively against the First Amendment?

Perhaps its best to begin by considering whether this is such a new phenomenon after all. In 1992, the liberal journalist Nat Hentoff, a longtime Village Voice columnist, wrote the aptly titled book Free Speech for MeBut Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other, demonstrating that the differences between the American left and right concerning free speech were almost never over whether speech should be censored, but only about which speech should be censored. Hentoffs book resonated deeply with me at the time, and has continued to do so, since it reflects my own long-standing experience in various leadership roles at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

In 1977-78, when the ACLU defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazis in Skokie, Illinois, whose population included many Holocaust survivors, our position was opposed in the courts by another organization that had typically been our ally: the Anti-Defamation League. Even a full 15% of ACLU members at the time resigned their membership in protest. Also in the late 1970s, so-called radical feminists began advocating government restrictions on pornography, the term they used for sexual expression that is demeaning or degrading to women.

Starting in the 1980s, many liberals sought to restrict several types of controversial language in popular media, stressing child-protection rationales. Tipper Gore, for examplethen-wife of then-Sen. Al Gore, D-Tenn., and mother to an 11-year-old daughter who had acquired a copy of Princes Purple Rainspearheaded regulation of music lyrics that were deemed violent or sexist, leading to the now-ubiquitous Parental Advisory labels known as Tipper Stickers. Democratic lawmakers around this time also sponsored measures to restrict depictions of violence on television, and soon after access to the internet became widespread, the Clinton administration championed a law that criminalized indecent and patently offensive online expression. In 1997, after the conservative Rehnquist court overturned these key provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act on First Amendment grounds, the prominent First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams wrote a blistering New York Times Magazine article titled Clinton vs. the First Amendment, concluding that it has become the norm, not the exception, for Clinton Administration lawyers to find themselves minimizing First Amendment interests and defending laws or policies that maximize threats to free expression.

Liberal advocacy of wide-ranging restrictions on expression about sex or gender on the rationale that it constitutes sexual harassment is another old story. Likewise, since the 1980s, many liberals have advocated campus hate speech codes that are invariably too broad, punishing and chilling all manner of expression about various categories of personal and group identity. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, many liberals in government and civil society have supported restrictions on extremist or terrorist speech, whose inevitably vague contours have actually had negative human rights repercussions, including by making it difficult for human rights activists to accurately document terrorist atrocities.

Nor has it been the case that the more politically liberal an administration is, the more it respects the freedom of the press, as indicated by the Clinton administrations record. In 2013, in response to revelations that the Obama Justice Department had secretly seized the phone records of a large number of journalists for The Associated Press and the chilling effect of the Obama administrations leak investigationsincluding the ramped-up criminal prosecution of those who provide information to the press, then-Public Editor of The New York Times Margaret Sullivan charged the Obama administration with unprecedented attacks on a free press.

Given this historywhich of course is the mirror image of an equally extensive history on the political rightshould we be surprised that todays political left is determined to censor disinformation, extremism, and hate, and to advance the belief that offensive language is the same as not only violent language, but also physical violence ?

Lets examine the words are violence phenomenon a little more closely, as it appears to be increasing in salience and influence on the left, perhaps posing even more of a threat to a robust free speech culture than right-wing attempts to shut down speech that conservatives deem hateful to, for example, American history, traditional values, or certain religious holidays. While these attacks from the right are generally reflected in government policies, which are therefore vulnerable to First Amendment challenges, the cultural pressures that shapeand limitdiscourse in academia, journalism, and other key private sector institutions are not subject to First Amendment constraints.

read more by nadine strossen

In the 1980s, as I said, left-leaning professors and students on U.S. college campuses launched the movement for campus hate speech codes, which sought to punish individually targeted racist slurs. Similarly, in the same time period, radical feminists sought to legally equate the depiction of sexual violencefor example, in works of art and journalismwith real sexual violence in the physical world. In the intervening decades, these initiatives have expanded in both support and scope. Today, accusations of hate speech and violent speech shut down even good-faith discussions of public policy options that are deemed inconsistent with the perceived consensus at that moment, even if such consensus is neither broadly held nor static. Worse yet, individuals who are accused of engaging in such expression have been fired from positions in culturally influential fields such as academia, journalism, and publishing, suppressing their speech across the board with literally incalculable chilling impacts on the speech of countless others.

Even though courts have consistently enforced the cardinal viewpoint neutrality principle to bar official suppression of ideas solely on the ground that any listeners consider them hateful or violent, powerful private sector forcesincluding social media mobshave been increasingly successful in suppressing disfavored ideas by invoking the false and dangerous equation between free expression and physical violence. This strategy has prevailed on many college campuses, where free speech is especially important, given the special truth-seeking and educational missions of universities. Surveys consistently show that substantial majorities of American college students and faculty members now engage in self-censorship across a spectrum of important political topics, both in the classroom and in social settings, to avoid the risk of retaliation.

Because many campus communities skew overwhelmingly liberal or progressive, and because progressive views tend to disproportionately dominate fields that favor workers with academic degrees, self-censorship is particularly acute among nonprogressives: conservatives, libertarians, moderates, the politically indifferent, and even old-style liberals. Empirical evidence confirms, moreover, that fears of retaliation are rational, given numerous documented instances of retaliatory measures ranging from social ostracism, to online and in-person bullying, to the denial of extracurricular leadership positions, recommendation letters, and career opportunities. Many left-leaning members of campus communities explicitly admit (or boast) that they would deny employment and other professional opportunities to academics with conservative views about public policy issues.

Beyond encouraging self-censorship, much of the political left has also embraced more coercive modes of censorship. Contrary to important free speech principles, the hecklers veto has become a favored tool for suppressing disfavored ideas or expression in many campus contexts, ranging from student newspapers to guest speaker presentations.

When a speaker conveys ideas that some audience members find offensive, no rights have been violated. Nor have any rights been violated when some audience members nondisruptively protest by conveying ideas that are offensive to the speaker and to other audience members. But disruptive protests, which effectively veto the event, violate both the speakers right to convey information and ideas and the listeners right to receive them.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), on whose Advisory Board I serve, recently published a compilation of reported campus cancellation incidents targeting faculty members between 2015 and 2021. FIRE documented a total of 563 attempts to sanction faculty members for expression that was constitutionally protected but controversial in the campus community. In a full two-thirds of these cases, the faculty member was subject to some form of punishment; in one-fifth of cases the faculty member was fired; and most alarmingly, 30 tenured professors were fired for constitutionally protected speech. Of the total number of documented incidents, FIRE reports that 345 (61%) involved the expression of views that were suppressed by individuals and groups to the left of the targeted faculty member. Notably, the evidence indicated that a significant number of these 345 incidents may well have targeted liberal views espoused by liberal professors, which were attacked by campus factions even further to the left. As the FIRE report stated: [W]e think a significant number of these incidents involve a scholar who identifies as somewhat or slightly liberal being targeted by those who identify as very or extremely liberal. Furthermore, a substantial number of the total documented incidents202, or 35%targeted the expression of views that were suppressed by those to the right of the targeted faculty member.

People concerned about such developments are frequently told that cancel culture isnt real, or at least that it is grossly exaggerated. The FIRE numbers refute these claims while helpfully underscoring that the political left has far less of a monopoly on cancel culture than is typically understood. This evidence demonstrates that the viewpoint neutrality principle continues to serve as an essential safeguard for all people and persuasions, including those on the left. Contrary to prevalent left-leaning rhetoric, free speech is far more than a right-wing fig leaf for hate or violence, even if in certain cases it might be opportunistically exploited as such.

Every movement now considered progressiveabolition, womens suffrage, gender equality, reproductive freedom, labor rights, social democracy, civil rights, opposition to war, LGBTQ+ rightswas at one time supported only by a minority, and viewed as dangerous or worse. Unsurprisingly, many of these movements only began to flourish and progress toward the previously unattainable goal of majority consensus after the Supreme Court started to strongly enforce the free speech guarantee (including the core viewpoint neutrality principle) in the second half of the 20th century. The lesson many on the left seem to have forgotten is that in a democracy, there is a constant danger that minority groupswhether defined by identity, ideology, or otherwisewill be subject to the tyranny of the majority. The specific purpose of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendments free speech guarantee, is to ensure that the majority cannot deny basic rights to any minority, no matter how small or unpopular. Powerful people and popular ideas dont need First Amendment protections; marginalized people and unpopular ideas do. The resulting beneficiaries are not only the exponents of ideas that are unpopular in their time and place, but also our overall society. As George Bernard Shaw observed more generally, All great truths begin as blasphemies.

Leaders of every equal rights movement in U.S. history have testified to the essential role that free speech played in advancing their cause. In 1860, Frederick Douglass famously declared that Slavery cannot abide free speech. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South. The great civil rights champion and longtime Georgia Congressman John Lewis memorably commented that Without freedom of speech, the Civil Rights Movement would have been a bird without wings. In 2019, law professor Dale Carpenter, a prominent champion of LGBTQ+ rights, wrote that [T]he First Amendment created gay America [G]ay cultural and political institutions ... would have been swept away in the absence of a strong and particularly libertarian First Amendment. No other [constitutional right] helped us more.

Powerful people and popular ideas dont need First Amendment protections; marginalized people and unpopular ideas do.

Facebook

Email

To this day, advocates for equal rights and social justice are subject to censorial measures that seek to stifle their free expression. Government officials in the United States and other Western democracies have been enforcing many measures to curb the free association rights of peaceful protesters, and police have deployed speech-suppressive tactics, including unjustified force and arrests. Multiple U.S. states have imposed restrictions on K-12 and campus curricula concerning race and gender, and public schools and libraries have been subject to record levels of book bansin many cases targeting books by and about Black and LGBTQ+ Americans. Fortunately, free speech advocates have been mounting strong legal challenges to these repressive measures, but this is only thanks to the same robust free speech principles that also protect the expressive rights of people with opposing views.

It should therefore go without saying that any argument in favor of censorship, in addition to being questionable on the basis of principle, is strategically unwise. Every pro-censorship argument currently being made by the left and the right can and will be coopted by the other side once it has or regains sufficient power. In the 1980s, right-wing crusaders against sexual expression they viewed as inconsistent with traditional family valuesincluding speech in favor of feminism, reproductive freedom, and LGBTQ+ rightsopportunistically parroted the rhetoric of the radical anti-pornography feminists who were also active at that time; the Meese Pornography Commission under President Ronald Reagan bolstered its calls to censor sexual expression by invoking the radical feminists claims that certain sexual expression leads to discrimination and violence against women. Today, conservative Republican school boards, state legislatures, and governors are enacting laws that ban teaching about such vital topics as race and gender on the grounds that it might be divisive or make students uncomfortable. What progressive in good conscience could not recognize that this censorial rhetoric and rationale has deep roots in their own movement?

Cherian George, a fellow free speech scholar and advocate who was born in Singapore and teaches in Hong Kong, has discussed with me what he considers the bizarre phenomenon of the American lefts eagerness to suppress or punish speech. In 2018, after he spent three months teaching a seminar on censorship to Ph.D. students at the University of Pennsylvania, Georges conclusion was that members of the American left ... take the countrys freedoms for granted. As he commented:

Given the assaults against free speech that progressives suffer even in America, this is a risk they cant afford to take either.

Continued here:
Who Really Benefits From the First Amendment? - Tablet Magazine

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Who Really Benefits From the First Amendment? – Tablet Magazine

Legal Eagle: Is free speech abused to flout others rights? – Free Press Journal

Posted: at 9:15 am

The regulating of social media after the future Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was criticised for indicting former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma for her blasphemous statements of the holy Prophet of Islam is a direct outcome of vituperative speech. The apex court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala refused to club all the FIRs registered against Nupur Sharma and told her to approach the high courts, observing she did not even respect the magistrates by directly approaching the Supreme Court.

Advocates and activists who support Nupur Sharma have committed contempt of the Supreme Court by attributing motives to Justice Surya Kant and approaching the Chief Justice of India N V Ramana to have Justice Surya Kants oral remarks expunged without realising that judges have absolute freedom to say what they want within their courtrooms.

The first amendment of the US Constitution is the exact opposite of the first amendment to the Indian Constitution, because it guarantees absolute free speech to all citizens and the media whereas in India, Jawaharlal Nehru added public order, incitement to an offence and friendly relations with foreign states to the then existing five restrictions of defamation, contempt of court, security of the state, sovereignty and integrity of India and decency and morality.

This further curtailed free speech, which is necessary because unbridled freedom can be abused by the likes of Nupur Sharma and Canada-based filmmaker Leena Mahamekalai who has depicted the Goddess Kali with a cigarette. Articles 19 (1) (a) which guarantees free speech and Article 25 which guarantees the right to practice, profess and propagate any religion supplement each other because you cannot propagate any religion without exercising freedom of speech and expression. Our founding fathers borrowed the idea of the right to free speech from the Irish Constitution and the rest of the fundamental rights from constitutions such as the U.S. and French Constitutions.

Justice Surya Kants indictment of Nupur Sharma for creating turmoil in India is justified because 12 countries belonging to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) have blasted India for alleged Islamophobia. Kuwait immediately removed Indian goods from its shelves in its supermarkets, whereas a tailor, Kanhaiya Lal was beheaded at Udaipur in Rajasthan on June 28 and a chemist, Umesh Kolhe, was earlier stabbed to death at Amravati in Maharashtra for forwarding posts about Nupur Sharma.

To go back to 1950, two weeks after the Constitution came into force, two magazines, Cross Roads and the RSS-backed Organiser published inflammatory articles and were banned from being circulated in Madras and Delhi respectively. The Supreme Court struck down these bans. In 1950, the founder of the Jan Sangh, Syama Prasad Mookherjee had reportedly delivered a speech that Pakistan wanted war with India and to reunify the two partitioned countries into an Akhand Bharat (reunified India), war was necessary.

The then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru asked Lokmanya Tilak what action could be taken to which Tilak replied that Mookherjee enjoyed freedom of speech which could not be curtailed under the existing restrictions. A Patna high court judge, Justice Sarjoo Prasad, declared in his judgment in 1950 known as the Shaila Bala Devi case that even incitement to murder was protected by Article 19 (1) (a). But the Supreme Court later reversed this ominous verdict, stating Justice Sarjoo Prasad showed a lack of understanding of the law.

These were the reasons for Nehru to introduce the irrational head of friendly relations with foreign states with two other headsincitement to an offence and public orderbecause Pakistan had protested against Mookherjees speech of an Akhand Bharat. The irrational head of friendly relations with foreign states does not find place in any other Constitution of the world. When Nehru criticised Justice Vivian Bose as lacking in intelligence during a press conference in 1951 for a judgment which he (Nehru) found repugnant, he later wrote to the then CJI apologising for it. The CJI wrote back accepting the apology and asking if Nehrus letter could be released to the media. Nehru acquiesced.

The point here is that freedom of speech can be abused by the likes of Nupur Sharma and film-maker Leena Manimekalai in Canada. Sharma denigrated the holy Prophet whereas Leena showed Kali smoking a cigarette. What is astounding is that an advocate of the apex court wrote to the CJI asking for Justice Surya Kants remarks against Nupur Sharma to be expunged because what she said was based on the hadith; ipso facto, her statements were truthful.

Religion and reason are incompatible because there is something irrational in every religion but if any religion is denigrated, it will give rise to unrest and fragmentation of the country. Judges do not deliver judgments based upon public opinion or vox populi, meaning the voice of the people, which is quite often unreasonable and fuelled by media debates. Judges have to strictly uphold the Constitution whereas the legislature enacts laws based upon public sentiment. The judiciary is charged with striking down laws which violate the fundamental rights.

We demand freedom of speech to compensate for freedom of thought, which we seldom use while abusing free speech.

Dr Olav Albuquerque holds a PhD in media law and is a senior journalist-cum-advocate of the Bombay High Court

(To receive our E-paper on whatsapp daily, please click here.To receive it on Telegram, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)

Read more:
Legal Eagle: Is free speech abused to flout others rights? - Free Press Journal

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Legal Eagle: Is free speech abused to flout others rights? – Free Press Journal