GoFundMe’s suspension of millions to support protesting truckers in Canada shocked many, particularly when the company initially announced its intention to distribute the money to other charities. It was less of a surprise for those of us who have criticized the company for years over its use of the platform to target and block funds for conservative and libertarian causes. Indeed, the company has revised an old practice known as the “Nag’s Head light” in luring the unsuspecting into what has become a liberal lockbox on funds. Continue reading “GoFundMe and the Nag’s Head Light: How Crowdfunding Has Become The Latest Battleground Over Free Speech”
Category: Politics
It may be time for Joe Biden and the media to go out for another ice cream scoop. Hunter Biden is back in the news in a big way.
A newly released email from the State Department shows that former U.S. embassy official George Kent raised concerns about how Hunter Biden’s influence peddling would “undercut” anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine. The email contradicts President Joe Biden’s repeated assurances that no one has accused his family of doing anything wrong as well as his claims as a key figure in anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine. Continue reading “Report: Diplomat Complained that Hunter Biden was Undercutting Anti-Corruption Efforts in Ukraine”
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the former Director for European Affairs for the National Security Council, has filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of his civil rights by Donald Trump, Jr.; attorney and Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani; former Deputy White House Communications Director Julia Hahn; and former White House Director of Social Media and Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Daniel Scavino, Jr. He alleges a “conspiracy” to intimidate him and to retaliate against him as a witness against Donald Trump during his first impeachment proceedings. It claims that this conspiracy has left “a stain on our democracy.” The lawsuit is novel and would create new law, if successful. However, after reading the filing, I remain skeptical of the legal basis for the action. Continue reading ““A Stain on Our Democracy”: Vindman Sues Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Others for Witness Intimidation”
Below is my column on the campaign to cancel Joe Rogan and his podcast. Various celebrities and artists have joined the movement for censoring Joe Rogan, including Mary Trump. The White House has called for even greater action from Spotify to limit or remove content. We have also heard the same false narrative that, since the First Amendment only covers government action, this is not by definition a free speech issue. The argument is entirely divorced from any understanding of free speech. As we have previously discussed, the First Amendment is not the full or exclusive embodiment of free speech. It addresses just one of the dangers to free speech posed by government regulation. Many of us view free speech as a human right. Corporate censorship of social media clearly impacts free speech, and replacing Big Brother with a cadre of Little Brothers actually allows for far greater control of free expression. When it comes to media, information or social media platforms, corporate censorship can have a devastating impact on free speech.
Here is the column:
A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in 2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it would have been better for public health to have this debate than to shut down any opposing views in the name of science.
Continue reading “Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality”
We have previously discussed how the Biden Administration appears to be withholding the conclusions of investigations into Border Patrol agents that President Joe Biden accused of whipping migrants from horseback. Now, members of Congress are raising concern over an account from an anonymous DHS official that they now do not believe that they will release the report.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) this week opposed a model law being introduced in over a dozen states. That is not itself uncommon. The ACLU historically opposed laws that denied free speech and other rights under the Constitution, a legacy that I have long cherished and supported. However, this is a transparency law that simply requires teachers and schools to post the educational materials used in classes online. It is meant to assist parents in tracking the education of their students and the priorities of their school systems. Yet, the ACLU has declared the law to be so threatening and chilling that it has officially opposed its enactment in any state.
Below is my column the the Hill on the early controversies over President Joe Biden’s first nomination for the Supreme Court. Call it confirmation bias but the fighting has already begun before any nominee is even named. President Biden triggered a debate over the use of racial and gender criteria to limit consideration to black female candidates. Notably, a new ABC poll shows 76 percent of Americans oppose such an exclusionary process. While supported by Democratic senators, Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) has objected to the rule as has others in Congress. In addition, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) has made controversial comments over her desire to have the next nominee rely not just on the law but the nominee’s life experiences to reach the right result in court cases.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Confirmation Bias: The Fighting Has Already Begun and Biden Hasn’t Even Named a Nominee”
We have been discussing the controversial pledge of President Joe Biden two years ago that he would only consider black women for the first vacancy to the Supreme Court. While past presidents have said that they wanted to appoint nominees who were female or black, they all considered a diverse set of candidates and had “short lists” that included different races and genders. Biden has promised that he will not consider males or non-black candidates. Now, an ABC News/Ipsos poll shows that 76 percent of Americans reject such a threshold exclusionary rule based on race or gender. Continue reading “ABC/Ipsos Poll: 76 Percent of Americans Oppose Biden’s Pledge Only To Consider Black Women for Court Vacancy”
On Wednesday, I ran a column in the Wall Street Journal noting that President Joe Biden was imposing a race and gender qualification for the Supreme Court that has been rejected as either unconstitutional or unlawful by the Court for schools and businesses. While I noted that Biden could have made diversity a preferential rather than an exclusionary rule, the response was furious as commentators claimed that other presidents made the same pledge. Specifically, they claimed that Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump also confined their choices for seats to women. In fairness, both presidents did make public comments on the expected gender of their possible nominees. However, as I wrote later, the underlying claims are false. Now commentators have claimed President George H.W. Bush did the same thing with the appointment of Clarence Thomas. That is also untrue. Indeed, it is an even weaker historical defense.
With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, President Joe Biden was immediately challenged by Democratic members to make good on his pledge during the 2020 presidential campaign to only consider black females for his first vacancy on the Court. When he made that pledge, some of us raised concerns that he was adopting a threshold racial and gender qualification for the Court that the Court itself has found unconstitutional or unlawful for admissions to schools or private employment. I raised the same concern with Breyer’s announcement in a column that was immediately challenged by some (including the New York Times) who insisted that Ronald Reagan made the same pledge to only consider a woman for his first vacancy. While it is always interesting to watch liberals citing Reagan as authority, the claim is misleading and indeed the Reagan example shows why Biden’s pledge was both unprecedented and unnecessary. Continue reading “The Gipper Model? Biden’s Pledge to Appoint a Black Female Justice Has Liberals Citing Reagan”
Below is my column in the Hill on the Supreme Court accepting two cases dealing with racial preferences in college admissions. As with the pending abortion and gun rights cases, these two cases have the makings of yet another major reframing of a long-contested area.
Here is the column:
Last night, Laura Ingraham asked Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Ark.) about the options in dealing with the influx of undocumented persons over the southern border. Sen. Cotton raised the possibility of impeachment. I have had this question raised with me on a number of occasions in the last year. I believe that President Joe Biden can be legitimately blamed for his handling of the crisis at the border but I do not believe that he could be legitimately impeached for those failures.
Continue reading “No, President Biden Should Not Be Impeached For Lax Border Security”
Below is my column in the Hill on the defamation lawsuit facing actor Alec Baldwin. Where Baldwin famously adopted the persona of Trump for Saturday Night Live, he will now likely adopt his actual legal defense to fend off the family of a Marine killed in Afghanistan. If you found it hard to tell the difference between the two personalities, it is going to get a lot worse in McCollum v. Baldwin.
Here is the column:
Nina Totenberg slammed Kelly McBride, the ombudsman for National Public Radio (NPR), for concluding that she should rewrite her story accusing Neil Gorsuch of refusing to wear a mask to protect his colleague, Sonia Sotomayor. McBride did not suggest a correction but merely a “clarification.” Totenberg responded to The Daily Beast and declared that McBride “can write any goddamn thing she wants, whether or not I think it’s true.” Now, days after rare public denials by all three referenced justices, many in the media who denounced Gorsuch have followed suit. They also refuse to clarify or address their own attacks on the justice in light of the denials from the Court. Notably, Gorsuch was the subject of another false story connected to the same oral argument. Many also did not correct that reporting. (For full disclosure, I testified before the Senate in support of Gorsuch’s confirmation).