Joe Biden Blames Senate ‘Bunch of White Guys’ for Failing Anita Hill

Former Vice President Joe Biden blasted the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings for being “white” and failing to understand the accusations of abuse brought by Anita Hill at the time.

Biden said that Hill paid a “terrible price” for coming forward and testifying against Thomas during his confirmation hearings.

“I also realized there was a real and perceived problem the committee faced. They were a bunch of white guys. No, I mean it sincerely. A bunch of white guys hearing this testimony on the Senate Judiciary Committee,” he said. “So when Anita Hill came to testify she faced a committee that didn’t fully understand what the hell it was all about.”

Biden spoke about Hill on Tuesday night at the Biden Courage Awards in New York City, as he focused on the scourge of sexual abuse and harassment. . .

In the ’90s, Biden faced criticism from the left for his infamous handling of the Anita Hill hearings, allowing his Senate colleagues to cross-examine her with embarrassing questions and failing to allow three other women accusers to testify. (Read more from “Joe Biden Blames Senate ‘Bunch of White Guys’ for Failing Anita Hill” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

2 U.S. Soldiers Killed by Taliban Amid Peace Talks

By Breitbart. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) over the weekend identified the two American soldiers killed on Saturday by an alleged “Taliban insider” donning an Afghan military uniform as the United States and the narco-jihadi group continue peace negotiations to end the more than 17-year-old war in Afghanistan. . .

Citing Afghan officials on the day of the incident, the New York Times (NYT) reported that a “Taliban insider” in Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) attire “deliberately provoked the attack” by opening fire from a security checkpoint on the late U.S. Green Beret, EOD tech, and their Afghan special forces counterparts around 3 a.m. on Saturday.

The incident triggered a firefight between U.S. troops and Afghan soldiers stationed at the nearby outpost the Times learned from Mohammed Ibrahim, the commander of Afghan Local Police in Kunduz Province, “who described it as an accident set off by the insider who first opened fire.” ANDSF troops include military and police units.

“The combined Afghan and coalition ground force was fired on by an unknown assailant at close range from the checkpoint as well as from two other directions,” Sgt. 1st Class Debra Richardson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. military in Afghanistan told the Times. “The fire from the enemy was indiscriminate and came from multiple directions.” (Read more from “2 U.S. Soldiers Killed by Taliban Amid Peace Talks” HERE)

______________________________________________________

DOD Identifies Army Casualties

By U.S. Department of Defense. The deceased are:

Spc. Joseph P. Collette, 29, of Lancaster, Ohio. Collette was assigned to the 242nd Ordnance Battalion, 71st Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group, Fort Carson, Colorado.

Sgt. 1st Class Will D. Lindsay, 33, of Cortez, Colorado. Lindsay was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Carson, Colorado.

(Read more from “DOD Identifies Army Casualties” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Senate Passes Bill to Ban Most Abortions Once Fetal Heartbeat Is Detected

The Georgia Senate passed legislation Friday to ban abortion on most babies once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, albeit with more exceptions than the version originally introduced in the state House.

House Bill 481’s original language states that “no abortion is authorized or shall be performed if the unborn child has been determined to have a human heartbeat,” except to save a mother from death or “serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” or if the pregnancy has been deemed “medically futile” (i.e., the child would die shortly after birth). The bill specifies that mental or emotional conditions do not qualify.

Earlier this month, Georgia Right to Life president Ricardo Davis called the measure, which was introduced alongside a trigger bill to automatically ban most abortions once Roe v. Wade is overturned, a “hopeful step toward the ultimate goal of adopting a ‘personhood’ amendment to the state constitution that will protect all innocent human life from fertilization through natural death.”

The measure passed the House 93-73 earlier this month, and a version passed the Senate on a 34-18, party-line vote Friday. The vote followed four hours of contentious debate, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

“I applaud the members who supported the heartbeat bill’s passage for protecting the vulnerable and giving a voice to those who cannot yet speak for themselves,” Republican Gov. Brian Kemp said. But despite Kemp’s campaign-trail pledge to enact the “toughest abortion laws in the country,” the Senate version is notably weaker than both the original House version and the heartbeat laws of other states. (Read more from “Senate Passes Bill to Ban Most Abortions Once Fetal Heartbeat Is Detected” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Inferior Courts Have Crowned Obama President Forever. Will We Let Them?

If nothing else, the Trump administration will at least countermand the policies of the Obama administration that were enacted without Congress, right?

Well, not if we, as a body politic, agree to the Democrat judicial game of “heads we win, tails you lose.”

How would you describe this political dynamic? Even in the best-case scenario, with Republicans winning control of all branches of government, they won’t pass a single good piece of legislation that will have a meaningful effect on a single important issue. They will not fight on the must-pass budget bills because that would risk a government shutdown, which “Democrats always win.” Thus, a Republican president, Donald Trump in this case, is left with the items he can accomplish executively. But then any lower court at any time can shut that down and even force the president to continue the lawless policies of his Democrat predecessor, even when the Supreme Court recently ruled differently. And that is the outcome when Republicans are in charge.

I call that political checkmate. Excuse of 60-vote threshold + RINO leaders in Congress + unlimited royal powers accorded to any one of the 673 district judges = the Left winning all the important policy outcomes in the long run.

As conservatives continue to celebrate the Mueller victory, which clears an obstacle in the path of President Trump, it’s important to begin questioning what is it we ultimately hope and expect to accomplish during the next two to six years. The dream scenario for 2020 would be Republicans retaking the House and President Trump winning re-election. But unless conservatives change tactics, nothing will be different from the first two years of the Trump administration. Republicans will still be nowhere near 60 votes in the Senate, and at least half the GOP senators don’t support meaningful conservative ideas, Trump’s campaign promises, or both.

So that leaves us with executive actions taken pursuant to Trump’s inherent constitutional authority or delegated authority under statute. Well, the courts have “struck down” 63 administrative policies for anything meaningful Trump has tried to do … except for banning bump stocks, of course.

OK, so Trump can’t use his lawful authority to plow new ground, but he can at least countermand executive policies of his predecessors?

No, not if we continue to agree there is legitimacy in lower court universal injunctions. The courts have been allowed to indefinitely nullify numerous actions where Trump was merely rescinding Obama’s power grabs, from immigration and environment to labor and education. Just last week, the D.C. district court blocked the administration from issuing oil and gas leases for drilling on 300,000 acres of land because in the view of an Obama judge, the administration didn’t take into account “climate change.” So now the courts are codifying Obama’s drilling moratorium into law.

What this also demonstrates is that, even when Republicans are in charge, it’s not just that we are failing to make progress on the issues. We are sliding backwards. If we continue to agree to even lower court judicial supremacism, the courts will codify the Green New Deal, Medicare for all, and open borders into law long before Democrats have the political clout to implement them legislatively. And that way, Democrats won’t even face electoral reprisal for them, like what we saw following passage of Obamacare or what would likely happen if they pass amnesty. We now have almost all of Obama’s energy, environmental, education, and immigration policies codified into our case law, which will only grow in the courts over time.

On immigration, we have more of an open border than even under Obama, thanks to the courts. Illegal aliens will soon have more rights than Americans, and we will be stripped of any and every tool to preserve our border unless we reject lower court supremacism.

Nor is “appointing better judges” going to help. So long as the Left can go to any district court and shut down national policy, no matter the issues of standing, no matter the precedent, no matter the consequences, we are done as a nation. The Roberts Supreme Court has already shown its reluctance to rein them in, and even when they do, the Left comes back with new injunctions with slight nuances, or, in the case of a judge ordering Trump to accept transgender people in the military, downright defying the Supreme Court.

This creates a legal, policy, and political velocity for the Left to win 50-year cultural, fiscal, and social battles overnight in the courts.

What’s more, the most important circuit – the federal circuit in D.C. – is in Democrat hands for the next generation. Democrats have an 11-3 majority at the district level and a 7-4 majority at the appellate level. Most of the younger judges on the active bench are Obama appointees. Almost every single regulatory case dealing with Trump’s discontinuation of past administrative power grabs is routed to this circuit.

Just take the Department of Education, for example. Not only have Republicans, with full control, increased the Department’s funding levels to record levels, the courts are continuing all of Obama’s power grabs. As Politico reported last week:

Judges have rebuffed DeVos’ attempts to change Obama policies dealing with everything from student loan forgiveness to mandatory arbitration agreements to racial disparities in special education programs.

As a result, the Education Department is being forced to carry out Obama-era policies that the Trump administration had been fighting to stop — stymying DeVos’ efforts to quickly impose a conservative imprint on federal education policy over the past two years.

What this essentially means is that anything a Democrat president ever does is immutable, and the few things a Republican tries to do are pretty much toast, including those acts that merely reverse the Democrat policies. Checkmate.

There is nowhere for conservatives to run or hide. There are no clever tricks left to avoid the fight we need to have over judicial supremacy. Even if we are reluctant to push back against Supreme Court supremacism, eliminating the supremacism of lower courts, which stand below the political branches, not at all on equal footing with them, would solve most of the problems. Unless we are willing to pick that fight, everything conservatives fear about Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be implemented without a fight. It’s just a question of when. (For more from the author of “The Inferior Courts Have Crowned Obama President Forever. Will We Let Them?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Next Big Challenge to Roe v. Wade Is Brewing

Now that Donald Trump’s nominees have shifted the makeup of the Supreme Court, we’re starting to see what the next legal challenges to Roe v. Wade might look like.

Last week, federal judges blocked two Kentucky pro-life bills: one banning abortion based on sex, race, or a disability diagnosis (otherwise known as eugenics) and the other a heartbeat law. Also last week, a federal judge blocked an Ohio law banning dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion procedures. Indiana’s eugenics abortion ban was blocked by a federal judge and is still waiting to hear back from the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, other states are passing and considering new pro-life legislation at an impressive pace. Mississippi recently enacted a heartbeat law, banning most abortions after the fetal heartbeat can be detected, at about six weeks of pregnancy. Iowa put one in place last May. One is working its way through the Georgia legislature, along with others in Tennessee and Missouri. Utah’s governor recently signed a bill banning abortion based on a Down syndrome diagnosis, while a similar Arkansas measure is working its way up in Little Rock. A dilation and evacuation ban bill is being deliberated in North Dakota.

And, naturally, whenever a new pro-life bill becomes law, the abortion industry mounts a new legal offensive. When you’ve got multiple legal challenges in different circuits, you increase the chance that there’s going to be disagreement among the courts and therefore increase the likelihood that the issue will be taken up by the Supreme Court.

Between the number of heartbeat laws, anti-eugenics abortion bills, and D&E bans, the real question is which issue will get the chance to chip away at Roe v. Wade first.

With Justice Brett Kavanaugh now sitting in the seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the unborn Americans’ odds at the Supreme Court are better than they’ve been in decades, though some serious pro-life concerns about Chief Justice John Roberts are now cropping up.

At National Review, David French makes the argument that now is the time to bombard the judicial branch with legal challenges to Roe v. Wade like these: “it’s time to throw down the gauntlet, declare to the world (and to the Court) that the era of incrementalism is over, and show that the people are ready to embrace life.”

The number of new laws passing may well signal that bombardment is under way. (For more from the author of “The Next Big Challenge to Roe v. Wade Is Brewing” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Constitution Forced Mueller’s Hand

The Mueller Report is complete, and Donald Trump has been absolved of collusion with the Russians.

Mueller stopped short of saying that his investigation exonerated the president. However, if I were suspected of something, if my antagonists publicly predicted I would “die in jail,” and if I were investigated for 675 days, and they raided my personal lawyer and read everything on his hard disk, and leaned on my closest associates to incriminate me, and then had to admit the evidence didn’t support a legal accusation, much less a conviction, I would feel exonerated.

If I were one of the people who falsely accused a man on a daily basis, I would feel great shame and contrition now. But this is not in the Democrats’ repertoire. They merely shift their innuendo to Mueller, accusing him of a betrayal.

MSNBC Democrat Chris Matthews was scandalized that Mueller never interrogated the president. But nobody accused of a crime in America, since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, has been obligated to give testimony against himself. After some initial bluster, the president wisely decided not to match wits with head-hunting prosecutors.

Perhaps he respected his attorneys’ advice. Or maybe he saw for himself the landscape littered with the bleached skeletons of defendants who were a little too cavalier about about the Fifth Amendment. The fact that you are innocent doesn’t mean you have nothing to fear from testifying under oath, or interrogation by prosecutors.

His first National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, was convicted of lying to the FBI. The interview was so casual that Flynn had no legal counsel present, and the FBI agents didn’t give the usual warning about penalties for lying. He was not under oath. But from the moment he lied about an arcane United Nations matter, the prosecutors owned him.

The sentencing judge, who apparently wasn’t paying very close attention, berated him in court for representing a foreign country’s interests while serving in the White House. But Flynn’s contract with that country ended the previous year, before Trump appointed him National Security Adviser.

The judge stunned onlookers when he used the term “treason,” an embarrassing misstatement for a federal judge who ought to be familiar with the elements of the only crime that is defined in the U.S. Constitution. It can only be surmised that the judge believed Flynn guilty of much greater crimes than the prosecutors accused him of. This is the risk you run when you agree to casual interviews with the FBI.

The granddaddy of all perjury traps may have been in the Lewis “Scooter” Libby trial. Libby was Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. He was accused of exposing a clandestine CIA agent’s cover.

A journalist testified that Libby had told her a State Department civilian overseas was in fact a CIA agent. She later wrote in her memoir that it was a misunderstanding, and that she may have helped convict an innocent man. A senior State Department official later admitted it was he who blew the CIA agent’s cover.

But Libby was convicted of making false statements to investigators, perjury in the grand jury, and obstruction of justice in an attempt to impede the investigation. It ruined his life. All he needed to do was to refuse to talk to people who wanted him to rot in jail.

The downside of the Fifth Amendment is that criminals can use it to frustrate investigations and avoid conviction. Government officials in the IRS and EPA have used it to prevent legislative oversight. But it’s a price that the Founders were willing to pay. It’s a firewall against tyrannical prosecution and wanton harassment.

In this case, it has helped force investigators to stick to the subject. Despite winning several confessions to unrelated crimes such as lying on loan applications, the investigation has been forced back onto the central question: did the President, or did he not, collude with the Russians to interfere in our elections?

There would be no cleverly designed perjury traps for Trump, no rabbits pulled from a hat. The investigation was forced back on track. And it was a successful investigation. We have our answer.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Israel, Palestinian Militants Trade Fire as ‘Truce’ Appears to Unravel

The Israeli army on Tuesday bombed several targets in the Gaza Strip as Palestinian militants responded with a new barrage of late-night rocket fire, demonstrating that a truce with Hamas rulers showed signs of unraveling.

Tuesday night’s airstrikes came in response to a lone rocket attack. The military said it hit a Hamas military compound and a weapons manufacturing warehouse in southern Gaza. Militants responded by firing another rocket. Israel said both projectiles landed harmlessly in open areas.

The violence, less than two weeks before Israel holds national elections, is likely to become a major theme in the final stretch of a tight reelection campaign for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who indicated the election would not deter him from acting.

Netanyahu cut short a visit to the U.S. and rushed back to Israel on Tuesday to deal with the crisis. After meeting with Netanyahu, Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi, ordered an additional troop buildup along the border.

Netanyahu had been scheduled to give a speech in Washington to the AIPAC pro-Israel lobbying group. Instead, he addressed the group by satellite, telling them that over the past 24 hours Israel had pounded militant sites in Gaza on a scale not seen since a 2014 war with Hamas. (Read more from “Israel, Palestinian Militants Trade Fire as ‘Truce’ Appears to Unravel” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Alaska Man Can Use Hovercraft While Moose Hunting, Supreme Court Says

Justice’s on the nation’s highest court reportedly sided unanimously with an Alaskan moose hunter on Tuesday, overturning the rulings of lower courts in his battle with the National Park Service (NPS). . .

The Supreme Court’s ruling stemmed from a 2007 incident when Sturgeon, of Anchorage, Alaska, made use of a hovercraft while hunting moose along the state’s Nation River, which runs in the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, The Associated Press reported.

But Sturgeon was reportedly notified by multiple Park Service rangers at the time that using the hovercraft was unlawful. The agency had banned hovercraft in other states.

In siding with Sturgeon, the Supreme Court said the agency was wrong in prohibiting the use of an amphibious vehicle on a river through a national preserve.

In their decision, Justices cited the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act that in 1980 set aside 162,500 square miles of land for preservation purposes, the outlet said. The law reportedly created 10 new national parks, preserves and monuments but said agency rules would not apply on state or private land within the conservation units that are not federally owned. (Read more from “Alaska Man Can Use Hovercraft While Moose Hunting, Supreme Court Says” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Pregnant California School Teacher Repeatedly Stabbed, Carjacked

Five suspected gang members have been accused of attempted murder and other charges after investigators said the group attacked, stabbed and carjacked a pregnant Catholic school teacher in Southern California last week.

Tanya Nguyen, 33, was parking her car in front of her house on March 20 when she was attacked by 20-year-old Christian Reyes, 19-year-old Andrew Bran and 18-year-old Jesus Morales, investigators alleged. In dashcam footage made public Monday, Nguyen could be heard screaming and pleading with her attackers, at one point telling them, “I’m pregnant!”

Despite her pleas, Nguyen was stabbed nearly a dozen times — including in her face — suffering a punctured lung and losing her front teeth in the process, Fox 11 reported. The attackers then took off in Nguyen’s car, striking other vehicles as they tried to leave the scene.

Reyes, Bran, Morales and two other suspected accomplices — Christina Luna, 24, and Monica Gomez, 25 — were arraigned Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. All five were charged with one count each of attempted murder, carjacking, second-degree robbery and misdemeanor hit-and-run driving resulting in property damage. Reyes faced a separate count of aggravated mayhem and an allegation of personal use of a deadly and dangerous weapon.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office said Reyes’ bail had been recommended at $1.9 million, with $1.4 million for the other four defendants. All five face a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted.

(Read more from “Pregnant California School Teacher Repeatedly Stabbed, Carjacked” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Southern Poverty Law Center, Which Frequently Targets Conservatives, Reels From Harassment, Intolerance Claims

Amid a departure of top executives at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a new report details allegations of sexual misconduct and racial discrimination against those very individuals at the progressive nonprofit which frequently has targeted conservative groups.

A report from the New York Times on Monday detailed several complaints by both current and former employees that indicated a “climate of intolerance” in the workplace — complaints including sexual harassment and a lack of diversity based on race and gender.

In recent years, the center has drawn criticism from Republicans and conservatives who have accused the SPLC of unfairly labeling people and groups with conservative viewpoints as bigots. Republican lawmakers have also questioned the working relationship between the SPLC and the FBI.

On Friday, SPLC President Richard Cohen announced he would be stepping down from the civil rights organization amid the harassment and diversity allegations.

“We’re going through a difficult period right now, and I know that we’ll emerge stronger at the end of the process that we’ve launched with Tina Tchen,” he said speaking of the Chicago-based attorney and onetime chief of staff for former first lady Michelle Obama who is conducting a review of the nonprofit. (Read more from “Southern Poverty Law Center, Which Frequently Targets Conservatives, Reels From Harassment, Intolerance Claims” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE