Marjorie Taylor Greene ad taps 1960’s anti-war movement in attack on President Biden

Gideon Rubin
April 17, 2023


Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on Monday released a new ad that taps themes from the 1960s anti-war movement and uses strikingly similar imagery from one of the most famous political ads of that era.

The far-right congresswoman’s ad titled “Stop World War III” intersperses news clips with Greene’s statements asserting President Joe Biden is bungling America into potential nuclear catastrophe.

Although the ad doesn’t specifically mention Ukraine or Russia’s unprovoked invasion, Greene refers to the conflict as “this war” that she claims Biden is mishandling.

“Our enemies see through the saber-rattling,” she said, adding that “Biden’s sanctions aren’t working. They’re just pushing Russia even closer to China.
The video player is currently playing an ad.

“Under Biden, America’s no longer in charge on the world stage,” Greene asserts.

Greene says in the ad that America's military is weakened under Biden and that “our supreme leaders in the Biden administration are so clueless that they are literally going to lead us into World War III.”

“Stop this war and bring peace,” Greene says at the end of the ad alongside images of a mushroom cloud.

The ad features hauntingly similar imagery as the 1964 “Daisy” ad President Lyndon Johnson ran that depicted his Republican opponent Barry Goldwater as a dangerous extremist who could plunge America into nuclear war.

"These are the stakes!” Johnson says in the 1964 ad.

“To make a world in which all of God's children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die.”

Watch video below or at this link.

New rule threatening Missouri library funding over ‘obscene’ kids books is approved

2023/04/17

The Kansas City Public Library has announced that it will no longer charge overdue fines as of Monday, July 1. - File photo/Kansas City Star/TNS

Despite strong opposition, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s new rule governing libraries will go into effect later this spring, threatening public libraries’ state funding over providing minors with books deemed pornographic or obscene.

Ashcroft, a Republican who recentlylaunched a campaign for governor, last fall proposed the rule, barring public library employees from granting minors access to materials without first receiving parental permission. His office received 20,000 public comments on the proposal, including criticism from librarians across the state who argue it amounts to an attack on intellectual freedom and will lead to book banning and political censorship.

“The MO govt decided to ignore its citizens’ protest in order to pass rules to censor what libraries buy and share,” the Missouri Library Association said in a tweet. “The goal was never to protect kids bc libraries ALREADY DO THAT. It’s more an attempt to get notice before election season ...”

Ashcroft’s office has pushed back, stating in the Missouri Register on Monday: “The proposed rule is not a ‘book ban.’ ... Put simply, refusing to subsidize a particular activity with public monies does not violate the First Amendment.”

Under the rule, which will go into effect May 30, libraries are prohibited from using state funds to purchase materials for minors that could be considered pornography or obscene under state law. A previous version of the rule stated funds could not be used to purchase materials that appeal to the “prurient interest of a minor,” but Ashcroft’s office revised the language after receiving criticism that it was too vague.

“It’s already illegal by state law to provide those kinds of materials to minors, and no library is making those materials available to their communities,” Cody Croan, chair of the Missouri Library Association Legislative Committee, said in an email. “So this revision leaves one to wonder what the point of the rule is in the first place since it’s already prohibited by state law elsewhere that providing such materials is illegal.”

Conservative parents and lawmakers have attempted to remove several school library books they call pornographic, ranging from classics such as Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse-Five” and Margaret Atwood’s bestselling “The Handmaid’s Tale,” to books with LGBTQ themes, including “Flamer” by Mike Curato and “All Boys Aren’t Blue” by George M. Johnson.

The rule requires libraries to adopt written collection development policies addressing the age appropriateness of materials. And libraries must allow parents to limit their children’s access to materials.

Parents are emboldened to challenge materials, displays or events if they think they’re not age appropriate. And the result of any challenge must be displayed on the library’s website.

The rule was approved as Missouri lawmakers have advanced a budget that would eliminate state funding for libraries. Missouri House Republicans last month agreed to cut the entire $4.5 million in state aid that public libraries were slated to get next year, in retaliation for Missouri librarians suing over a new state law banning sexually explicit materials from schools.

The state’s spending plan will still need to be approved by the Missouri Senate before it heads to Gov. Mike Parson’s desk. The state Senate is poised to restore the state funding for libraries.

Libraries risk losing state funding by violating Ashcroft’s rule.

After receiving criticism that a previous version of the rule would have allowed anyone to restrict children’s access to library materials, Ashcroft’s office revised it so that only a parent of a minor can limit access.

“Glad to see our efforts to protect children from obscene materials move forward,” Ashcroft said in a tweet. “We are not defunding libraries and we are not banning books, contrary to what the left and MSM say. We are merely asking our libraries to shield our kids from inappropriate content.”

Croan argued the rule creates “confusion and concern around how it will be enforced” and that “the rule could be enforced differently from one administration to the next.”

Kansas City area libraries already have policies for determining what materials go into their children’s sections. And they have processes for allowing residents to challenge materials. Kansas City Public Library, for example, has those policies already available on its website.

Librarians say they vet books based on content, publisher guidelines, maturity levels and a code of ethics, to ensure materials are age appropriate. Many say they fear prosecution and harassment in response to the rule.

“Telling libraries to choose books carefully is like telling a grocery store to sell fruit. They already do that. You don’t get to act like you won the War on Nutrition by ordering people to do what they are already doing,” the Missouri Library Association tweeted.

The association said the new rule will especially overburden small, rural libraries that do not have the funds or staff to maintain separate profiles on every child or websites to post policies.

“No library can monitor the guidelines for hundreds of individual students,” the Missouri Library Association said in a tweet. “Clearly the goal is to get us to remove any objected-to titles from the start. But that’s not how responsibility works. If YOU want to monitor what YOUR kid reads, then YOU need to monitor it. Not us.”

JoDonn Chaney, a spokesman for Ashcroft, previously told The Star that those state dollars are “generally a small portion” of a library’s budget. Librarians argue the cost to comply with the rule would be greater than the state funding received.

“We still are left in the dark on how to determine that a material is approved or not approved by the minor’s parent/guardian,” Croan said. “Either there are major costs and barriers to access involved in implementing a system for every single parent/guardian in our communities or we continue with what MO libraries have always said, that it’s the parent’s/guardian’s right and choice to be involved in what their child checks out but not that of another parent’s/guardian’s child.”

Ashcroft has promoted the new rule as GOP lawmakers push a deluge of legislation curbing LGBTQ rights, curriculum on race and diversity and equity initiatives. And it comes as conservative groups and lawmakers attempt to ban children’s books, mostly featuring LGBTQ characters or themes about race, across the state and country.

Several Kansas City area schools this fall pulled books off of library shelves, in response to a new Missouri law banning sexually explicit material from schools. Librarians or other school employees who violate the law could be charged with a misdemeanor, risking up to a year in jail or a $2,000 fine.

Missouri librarians are suing over the law, leading House Republicans to push for eliminating their entire state aid.

Locally, the Lee’s Summit school district has spent nearly $19,000 reviewing the first half of the 90 books challenged this year by a small group looking to ban library materials. The district has decided to retain all 52 books reviewed so far.

And the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri has sued the Independence school district over its book removal policy, after the school board banned the children’s book “Cats vs. Robots #1: This Is War” from elementary school libraries because it features a nonbinary character.

\-------

(The Star’s Kacen Bayless contributed reporting.)

Republican Paul Gosar promoted an antisemitic website that praised him for condemning ‘Jewish warmongers’
Jerod Macdonald-Evoy, Arizona Mirror
April 17, 2023, 6:57 PM ET

Paul Gosar (AFP)

Arizona Republican Congressman Paul Gosar on Sunday promoted an antisemitic website that denies the Holocaust, praises Adolf Hitler as “a man of valor” and features a large number of admittedly false articles.

In Gosar’s weekly newsletter to constituents, he included several links to stories about himself, one of which was titled “Congressman Gosar: Warmongers Nuland & Blinken ‘Are Dangerous Fools Who Can Get Us All Killed,’” referring to the on-going conflict in Ukraine.

But the headline of the actual article was edited by Gosar’s staff to remove obvious antisemitism. The article the congressman linked to was headlined “Congressman: Jewish warmongers Nuland & Blinken ‘Are Dangers Fools Who Can Get Us All Killed,’” and was published by a far-right website well known for publishing antisemitic content that includes Holocaust denialism and conspiracy theories around 9/11.

A review of the authors on the website by the Arizona Mirror found that one is currently promoting a book in which he claims the Holocaust was a “fraud,” and many of the site’s articles spread common antisemitic tropes.

The site is also heavily pro-Kremlin, often republishing articles from the Russian state-run propaganda websites Russia Today and Sputnik. The story shared by Gosar was originally published by Sputnik, but had its headline changed to reflect the antisemitic tone of the site.

Rory McShane, a spokesman for Gosar, said that the congressman uses a “third-party aggregating service” for headlines, and claimed that the website changed the article’s headline on April 17.

That’s the day Media Matters for America published a piece about Gosar’s promotion of the site, and the day the Mirror sought an explanation from Gosar’s camp. The article does not say it was updated on April 17, only that it was published on Feb. 26. McShane did not respond to follow up questions asking how Gosar knew it the headline was changed on April 17.

“We will not be using this website as a reference for any future articles,” McShane told the Mirror. He added that Gosar “is well known as one of the top advocates of the State of Israel and a defender of those of the Jewish faith across the world and has regularly been asked to speak to Jewish advocacy groups like the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation.”

But this is not the first time Gosar has promoted content from websites that are connected to white supremacists who traffic in antisemitism.

In 2021, Gosar promoted the work of known white nationalist Vincent James Foxx, who became the unofficial propagandist for a neo-Nazi fight club. Gosar spoke at the same white nationalist conference as Foxx a few years earlier, alongside Holocaust-denier and antisemite Nick Fuentes, the first sitting politician to do so.

That work mentioned the “great replacement theory,” the idea, popular among white supremacists, that white Americans are being replaced by immigrants. It has been seized upon by extremist groups such as the American Identity Movement and Generation Identity.

It has also inspired violence. Fears of immigrants undermining his vision of a white Christian Europe motivated Anders Behring Breivik’s murderous rampage in 2011 at a Norwegian youth summer camp.

In the U.S., the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh in 2018 was the deadliest attack against the Jewish community in United States history. Just before it took place, the killer took to right-wing social media site Gab to say he believed that immigrants were being brought in to replace and “kill our people.”

The next year in New Zealand, 51 people would be killed and 40 injured but not before the shooter would post a 74-page manifesto titled “The Great Replacement.”

Again in 2019, in El Paso, Texas, a shooter who would kill 23 in a Walmart would cite the manifesto in one of his own saying it was a response to the “hispanic invasion of Texas.” Then again in 2022 in Buffalo, New York, where a shooter killed 10 people, most of them black.

Gosar has frequently seized on meme culture used by white supremacists and neo-nazis on his Twitter account, including the #DarkMAGA movement, which has roots in accelerationist neo-Nazi meme culture and many memes related to it often express a desire for violence against perceived enemies. In many cases, they are accompanied by neo-Nazi imagery.

Gosar’s staff said they were unaware of #DarkMAGA until it was brought to their attention by the Mirror.

“Congressman Gosar continues to show us exactly who he is and what he stands for. The man has no shame, and remains a stain on Arizona’s political landscape,” Paul Rockower, executive director for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Phoenix, said in a statement to the Mirror.

Neither the Arizona Republican Party nor the Mohave County Republican Party responded to questions about Gosar’s promotion of an antisemitic website.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

Black Tennessee Democrats blast Republican meeting audio
Sam Stockard, Tennessee Lookout
April 17, 2023

Bill sponsor Rep. Scott Cepicky, R-Hohenwald, with hand raised on House floor. (Photo: John Partipilo)

Black lawmakers are denouncing secretly-recorded statements made by House Republicans, calling them “false” after the comments went public following the expulsion of two young Black legislators.

In the audio initially reported by the Tennessee Holler, Republican Rep. Jason Zachary of Knoxville said he was tired of being called a racist and “white supremacist” by Black lawmakers and telling his colleagues they and other Democrats “are not our friends.”

Black Caucus Chairman Sam McKenzie of Knoxville and Reps. Antonio Parkinson and Jesse Chism, both Memphis Democrats, targeted in Zachary’s comments, said they were “disappointed” to hear them.

McKenzie challenged all lawmakers to turn up a statement in which he called anyone a racist.

Rep. Sam McKenzie, D-Knoxville, said House Republicans were trying to “drum up their base” in making accusations of Black lawmakers during a leaked GOP caucus audio. (Photo: John Partipilo)

“You can’t find it. It didn’t happen,” McKenzie said, describing the audio as a case of a Republican lawmaker “trying to drum up their base.”

“To tell flat lies is wrong. I value my relationships, and I’ve tried to build relationship all across Cordell Hull Building, and for someone just to randomly tell a lie like that is disappointing, disingenuous and speaks to their character,” McKenzie said.

Parkinson held the same view but said he wouldn’t take the matter personally.

“It’s a little disappointing that my name was called when I’ve never called any individual in the Tennessee House a racist publicly, never,” Parkinson said. “For them to say that, it’s unfortunate, and it’s false. It’s just not the truth.”

Parkinson contends House Republicans have “some soul searching” to do after expelling two Black lawmakers and then blaming some within their caucus as well as members of the Black Caucus.

He points out the House has a long list of Republican actions that appear to be “racist in nature,” including objections to removing the bust of Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Capitol, attacking Tennessee State University and President Glenda Glover for problems with housing a student overflow, comments from Rep. Paul Sherrell about renewing “hanging by a tree” as a form of capital punishment, comments about a Black lawmaker eating fried chicken, and, finally, the expulsion of Reps. Justin Jones of Nashville and Justin J. Pearson of Memphis for starting a protest of lax gun laws on the House floor days after the Covenant School mass shooting.

Chism notes he never called anyone a racist but in a press conference by the Black Caucus gave a replay of what took place publicly.

“It came off as (having) racial undertones, even to the point where it’s kind of funny, because in the video they confirmed what I said in the press conference,” Chism said.

He recalled the emotionally draining moment two weeks ago when the House Democratic Caucus, some with tears in their eyes, led one member out of the chamber after expulsion.

“Some of their people were smiling and cracking jokes … so it did come off that way,” Chism said.

In the audio, Zachary complained about being called a racist by Black lawmakers and then contended that Republican Reps. Jody Barrett of Dickson and Bryan Terry of Murfreesboro hung them out to dry by flipping their votes and going against expelling Johnson, who survived by one vote.

In the audio, Rep. Johnny Garrett also said he thought he had all the votes lined up to expel Johnson and was “shocked” when Barrett told him he was uncertain. Garrett said he felt the three should be kicked out simply for walking to the well without permission.

Rep. Scott Cepicky of Culleoka took things further by saying if the caucus failed to unify in the aftermath, Republicans could lose a war for Tennessee, which could open the door for Democrats to take the entire Southeast.

“Even if you think it might be wrong, you gotta do what’s right, and you gotta protect the freakin’ republic here in Tennessee, or you know what, let’s all go the hell home. I’m getting gray hair sitting here listening to this bull—-,” Cepicky said.

McKenzie blasted Cepicky’s statement in which he compared the situation to a “war,” calling it inaccurate. The Republican Caucus shouldn’t have expelled the two lawmaker because their protest didn’t rise to the level of expulsion, he said.

“They’re dealing with their mistakes. Take their medicine and do better next time,” he said.

The House Republican Caucus declined to comment about the audio.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com. Follow Tennessee Lookout on Facebook and Twitter.

West Texas A&M University president faces no-confidence vote from faculty after canceling drag show

Kate McGee, The Texas Tribune
April 17, 2023, 5:13 PM ET

West Texas A&M University students rallied against the university president’s decision to cancel a drag performance on March 23, 2023. (Credit: David Bowser for The Texas Tribune)

West Texas A&M University faculty leaders have called for a vote of no confidence this week to condemn President Walter Wendler less than a month after he came under fire from students and free speech groups for canceling a campus drag show.

In a resolution obtained by The Texas Tribune, faculty senate leaders accused Wendler of abusing his role as president by running the university based on his own religious ideology. They said he has exhibited a pattern of “divisive misogynistic, homophobic and non-inclusive rhetoric that stands in stark contrast with the Core Values of the university.”

They also argued that Wendler has presented his personal opinions and religious beliefs in online blog posts as the official position of the university. Faculty leaders said those opinions go against the university’s mission, violate state and federal law, damage the university’s reputation and hurt fundraising efforts.

“We do not take this step lightly,” Ashley Pinkham, faculty senate president, wrote in a letter to all professors Monday announcing the vote. “However, we believe that the mission to provide intellectually challenging, critically reflective, and inclusive academic programs at a well-respected, high-quality institution of higher education is at jeopardy. We believe we must act now to restore the reputation of West Texas A&M University.”

The vote started Monday morning and will go through Friday afternoon. A university spokesperson confirmed the vote is in progress but declined to comment. The no-confidence vote is nonbinding and largely symbolic, but faculty hope it will send a message to the Texas A&M System Board of Regents and Chancellor John Sharp.

In a letter to the campus community last month, Wendler canceled a student drag show fundraiser and drew criticism from students when he argued that the performances are “derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny.”

Student leaders in a campus LGBTQ group sued Wendler, the university and the Texas A&M System, alleging he violated their First Amendment rights by canceling the show.

Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk denied the students’ request to immediately reinstate the student event. The case is still pending. Sharp declined to comment on the resolution, citing pending litigation.

But the no-confidence vote goes beyond the recent fracas over the campus drag show. Faculty who spoke to the Tribune and requested to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation say Wendler’s handling of the drag show was the last straw for many of them who feel he has exhibited poor leadership with other issues.

In the resolution, faculty accused Wendler of actively encouraging prospective students to avoid attending a four-year university immediately after high school and encouraging them to attend community college first, which they say has led to enrollment declines.

They point to Wendler’s “Your Community, Your University” tour, in which he visited 66 high schools in the Texas Panhandle, telling students to start at a community college first, rather than borrowing money to attend a four-year university. Faculty leaders say in the resolution that Wendler has continued to encourage prospective students to start at a community college, even as the number of community college transfers to the university has declined.

According to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, enrollment at the public university in Canyon dropped between fall 2019 and 2022 by nearly 700 students to 9,275 at the start of this academic year.

The resolution also pointed to a spring prospective student event where only 32 potential students registered, calling it a “significant decrease.”

The faculty senate argued Wendler’s actions as president are part of a larger pattern, citing issues at his prior position as chancellor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, where he was removed for a communication breakdown with university leadership.

Wendler was also criticized at the time for pushing back on the SIU Board’s decision to extend certain medical benefits to the same-sex partners of employees several years before Illinois legalized gay marriage in 2014. A Southern Illinoisan article quoted Wendler as saying the measure would encourage “sinful behavior.” In 2018, Wendler told the Tribune the quote was taken out of context.

Chicago-area protesters march in Washington for federal assault weapons ban

2023/04/17

Kitty Brandtner at her Winnetka home on July 9, 2022. 

- Chris Sweda/Chicago Tribune/

Fed up with repeated mass shootings, hundreds of people from the Chicago area took part in a march in Washington, D.C., Monday to call for a federal ban on assault guns.

Among them was Lindsey Hartman, who survived the Fourth of July mass shooting during a parade in her hometown of Highland Park last year. She and her husband threw themselves on top of their 4-year-old daughter to protect her, as people next to them were shot and killed.

The Save Our Students march was organized by March Fourth, a nonpartisan group founded by Kitty Brandtner of Winnetka.

Brandtner and her children were at the July Fourth parade in neighboring Winnetka when the Highland Park shooting occurred, and they had to run and take cover because the gunman was on the loose.

Seven people were killed and dozens injured in the Highland Park shooting.

Demands for stronger gun control have continued since, Brandtner said, including recently after a shooting in March that killed six people at a Christian school in Nashville.

“I can’t understand why we decided this was OK,” she said Monday of the repeated mass shootings. “We are simply asking for a federal assault weapons ban now.”

While Americans differ over gun control measures, marchers said, everyone wants to prevent mass shootings. Sixty-seven percent of Americans support an assault weapons ban, according to a 2018 poll by the Pew Research Center, while a Gallup poll last year put the support at 55%.

Mass shootings in the United States have been increasing in recent years, nearly doubling since 2018, to about 700 last year, GunViolenceArchive.org reported.

Gun rights advocates say the term assault weapons is vague and misleading. Proposed federal bills to ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, such as Senate Bill 25, define them by various criteria, including semi-automatic rifles and handguns that take more than 10 rounds.

Illinois lawmakers passed an assault weapons ban this year. A federal judge heard arguments last week about a challenge to the constitutionality of the law by the Illinois State Rifle Association and others. A federal judge previously upheld the law in another case.

Some state court judges have prevented the law from taking effect against more than 1,000 plaintiffs who filed suit, and one case is pending before the Illinois Supreme Court.

Also Monday, a bipartisan group of 162 mayors in the United States Conference of Mayors sent a letter to Congress urging action on gun safety legislation. Among the mayors who signed were Chicago’s Lori Lightfoot and Highland Park’s Nancy Rotering.

Todd Vandermyde of Yorkville, a former lobbyist for the National Rifle Association in Illinois, said state and federal bans are unconstitutional under previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings, because they attempt to prohibit commonly used weapons.

Socioeconomic factors, such as a lack of parents with good jobs, failing schools and poor mental health treatment, are the root causes of most gun violence, he said.

Citing long-running gun violence in the city of Chicago despite its handgun ban that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2010, Vandermyde said, “Bans don’t work.”

Christopher Koper, author of a U.S. Department of Justice report on the prior federal ban, said a new ban would not be a panacea for gun crime but could reduce some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.

____

Lindsey Hartman, a survivor of the July Fourth parade shooting, at home in Highland Park on April 16, 2023, before traveling to Washington for a gun legislation march.

 - Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/

'He needs to be investigated': Abortion case judge potentially hid law review article from Senate

Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams
April 17, 2023

Matthew Kacsmaryk

Calls for an investigation into Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk mounted Saturday after The Washington Post revealed that the U.S. judge behind a temporarily blocked ruling against an abortion medication may have taken his name off of a controversial law review article as he sought a nomination to the federal bench from then-President Donald Trump.

In February 2017, Kacsmaryk was deputy general counsel for the Christian conservative legal group First Liberty Institute and sent an application to the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee, established by U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both Texas Republicans, to vet potential nominees from their state. He was interviewed by the committee in March, the two senators in April, and White House and Justice Department offices in May.

Trump nominated Kacsmaryk to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in September—the same month that the journal Texas Review of Law and Politics, which Kacsmaryk led as a University of Texas a law student, published "The Jurisprudence of the Body," an article criticizing Obama administration protections for transgender patients and people seeking abortions,with First Liberty lawyers Justin Butterfield and Stephanie Taub listed as the sole authors.



Kacsmaryk's nomination was sent back to the White House twice, but Trump renominated him both times and the judge was eventually confirmed by Senate Republicans in June 2019. Although judicial nominees are required to disclose any publication with which they are associated, the article is never mentioned in the questionnaire that Kacsmaryk filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.


When Kacsmaryk initially submitted a draft of the article to the journal in early 2017, Butterfield and Taub's names did not appear anywhere, including in the footnotes, the Post reported. On April 11, a week after he was interviewed by the GOP senators, Kacsmaryk—whose initials are MJK—emailed an editor an updated version and attached a file titled "MJK First Draft."



Later that month, Kacsmaryk, wrote in an email that after consulting with the editor in chief, "For reasons I may discuss at a later date, First Liberty attorneys Justin Butterfield and Stephanie Taub will co-author the aforementioned article."

According to the Post:

Kacsmaryk did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for First Liberty, Hiram Sasser, said that Kacsmaryk's name had been a "placeholder" on the article and that Kacsmaryk had not provided a "substantive contribution." Aaron Reitz, who was the journal's editor in chief at the time and is now a deputy to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), said Kacsmaryk had been "our chief point of contact during much of the editing" and "was the placeholder until final authors were named by First Liberty."

On Saturday, after this story was first published, Sasser provided an email showing that Stephanie Taub, one of the people listed as an author on the published article, was involved in writing an early draft.


But one former review editor familiar with the events said there was no indication that Kacsmaryk had been a "placeholder," adding that this was the only time during their tenure at the law review that they ever saw author names swapped. The former editor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal, provided emails and several drafts of the article.

Butterfield and Taub, who still work at First Liberty, did not respond to requests for comment, but Sasser told the Post that "Matthew appears to have not gotten to the project so Stephanie decided to do a first draft that Justin edited."

"It appears Matthew provided some light edits," Sasser added.

After the article was published, "Sasser sent what he said were emails showing that Taub, who was then associate counsel, was involved in writing the article as early as December 2016," the Post reported. "She sent an outline to Kacsmaryk, according to the emails provided by First Liberty, and then a first draft one month later."


As the newspaper noted:

When Kacsmaryk requested the authorship switch, the editor familiar with the events said they raised the issue with Reitz, the law review's editor in chief. The lower-ranking editor asked why Kacsmaryk was making the request.

Reitz smiled, the editor recalled, then said, "You'll see."

Reitz did not address the exchange with the editor in his statement to the Post. But he said that "because of their work on the article, Mr. Butterfield and Ms. Taub rightfully received credit as authors."


As a judge, Kacsmaryk has issued key decisions on both reproductive and trans rights. Earlier this month, he struck down the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 2000 approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs often taken in tandem for abortions, though his "junk science" ruling was temporarily halted by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.

In response to the revelations Saturday, Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) urged Kacsmaryk to step down, tweeting: "Why did Judge Kacsmaryk mislead the American people during his confirmation hearing about his abortion views? Because he knew he wouldn't be confirmed if people found out he was a religious zealot. Judge Kacsmaryk made a mockery of the confirmation process and must resign."

U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), an attorney who served as lead counsel in Trump's first impeachment trial, called for a probe: "The judge hand-picked by the GOP to enjoin mifepristone withdrew his name from a law review article denouncing medication abortion *during* his confirmation process—and did not disclose the article. He needs to be investigated."

Federal judges serve lifetime appointments unless they retire or are removed from the bench—which requires being impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

"Unless there is some really surprising and persuasive innocent explanation for the sudden authorship swap, this is grounds for impeachment and removal," New York University School of Law professor Christopher Jon Sprigman said of Kacsmaryk.

Given that the House is currently controlled by Republicans, the reporting provoked some calls for a probe by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)—who has openly criticized Kacsmaryk's mifepristone ruling and this week pledged to soon hold a hearing on "the devastating fallout" since the U.S. Supreme Court overruledRoe v. Wade last June.

"A functioning Senate Judiciary Committee could investigate this," declaredThe Nation's Jeet Heer.

Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law professor and reproductive rights activist David S. Cohen agreed, arguing: "The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to call him in to testify and explain. Now."

Alex Aronson, a former chief counsel to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who questioned Kacsmaryk during his confirmation hearing, told the Post that not disclosing such an article is "unethical" and raises concerns about "the candor and honesty of the nominee."

"The Senate Judiciary questionnaire requires nominees to disclose all 'published materials you have written or edited,'" Aronson tweeted. "It's not a close call. Kacsmaryk needed to disclose this article he ghostwrote. What else did he bury?"

This post has been updated with information about emails that First Liberty Institute spokesperson Hiram Sasser shared with The Washington Post after the initial article was published.

The story of the Waco siege -- from the lawyer who got inside

2023/04/17

The Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas seen in March 1993 -- the 51-day siege cost the lives of nearly 80 people

Waco (United States) (AFP) - Blood had already been spilled during the armed standoff between US agents and the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas, when lawyer Dick DeGuerin got a phone call.

The worried mother of cult leader David Koresh said her son needed legal help. She hired DeGuerin.

He was the first outsider to pass through the security cordon and enter the Mount Carmel compound, where the Davidians were holed up.

DeGuerin came face to face with a badly wounded Koresh, and was in position to try to broker an end to the stalemate.

Three decades later, as the story pours forth from the 82-year-old lawyer, he remains convinced that the 51-day siege could have ended peacefully without the deaths of nearly 80 people.

DeGuerin's account strikes a chord in today's deeply polarized United States, where some see Waco as a symbol of government overreach.

Even now, a memorial at the scene to those killed draws hundreds of visitors a month.

When DeGuerin got the call from Koresh's mother, he knew that the case was of a "magnitude" beyond anything he'd ever faced.

"I had handled some big cases, but nothing like this," DeGuerin recalled from his office in Houston. "The world was watching."
Talking to Koresh

The Branch Davidians were founded in 1959 as a splinter from the Seventh Day Adventist church. They believed in the imminent return of Jesus, and Koresh emerged as their charismatic leader in the 1980s.

In 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) accused the group of stockpiling weapons, and obtained an arrest warrant for Koresh and a search warrant for the compound, where there were also allegations of child abuse.

On February 28, ATF agents raided the complex, a gun battle erupted, several people died, and a tense weeks-long standoff set in.

As he prepared to enter the compound in late March, DeGuerin thought he had worked out a deal with Texas Rangers law enforcement officers to manage Koresh's surrender.

FBI agents took the lawyer close to the compound in the back of a tank, stopping about 100 yards away.

"My handler said, 'Would you like some body armor?' I said, 'No, I'm not afraid of the Davidians... I just don't want you FBI snipers shooting at me.'"

DeGuerin didn't know what to expect, but said he found Koresh, 33, to be intelligent and articulate, and could see he had gunshot wounds to his torso and wrist.

Koresh was "very angry" at the siege by the FBI and ATF agents.

DeGuerin saw it as his mission to get Koresh out of the compound and into court "without anybody else dying."

"I told him, of course, that the law is the law and he had to obey the law even though it might conflict with his religious beliefs. He understood that," he said.
Wait or 'rush in'

As negotiations ground on, DeGuerin returned to the compound with another lawyer, Jack Zimmerman, who represented one of the other cult members.

Patience was wearing thin, particularly among federal agents.

"There were the negotiators that wanted it to end peacefully. And then there were the tactical people that just wanted to rush in and kill anybody and arrest him," DeGuerin said. "The tactical people won."

As a final showdown loomed, DeGuerin sought to go back and make a final appeal for Koresh to surrender to authorities.

But he was turned away.

"This FBI agent told me, 'We don't need you anymore.'"

On that day -- April 19, 1993 -- FBI agents in armored vehicles smashed into the compound buildings and pumped in tear gas.

The causes of the subsequent fires are still disputed, but the compound burnt to the ground, claiming more than 70 lives, including some 20 children.

Investigations cleared law enforcement of wrongdoing, but Waco became a rallying cry for Americans accusing their government of abuse of authority, and it spurred growth of militias across the country.

In 1995, on the second anniversary of the raid, Timothy McVeigh, who had driven to Waco to witness the siege, carried out the Oklahoma City bombing killing 168 people.

For DeGuerin, 30 years on, the lessons of Waco are clear.

The federal agents had grown convinced that Koresh "was fooling them again" and would not surrender, he said.

"They didn't wait. I believe if they'd waited, it would have ended peacefully. But it didn't."

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas hit with new financial disclosure allegations

2023/04/17

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses for an official portrait at the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court building on Oct. 7, 2022, in Washington, DC. - Alex Wong/Getty Images North America/TNS

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was hit with new financial disclosure allegations as reports Monday said he plans to resubmit previous forms that omitted property sales to a GOP mega donor.

In the latest ethics blow for the conservative jurist, Thomas reportedly has claimed that he was paid between $50,000 and $100,000 annually by a Nebraska real estate company set up by his controversial wife, Ginni Thomas.

But the company went out of business in 2006, the Washington Post reported. It was replaced by a new company that took over its land-leasing business, but Clarence Thomas continued to report income from the previous company.

The new allegation came as Thomas reportedly has told associates he will file amended disclosure forms to cover blockbuster revelations in recent days about his financial ties to billionaire Republican mega donor Harlan Crow, CNN reported Monday.

Thomas failed to report sales of three properties, including his elderly mother’s home in Savannah, Ga., to Crow a decade ago. As previously revealed, the judge also failed to report that Crow paid for the Thomases’ lavish vacations, including a $500,000 private plane-and-yacht junket to Indonesia.

Crow, a Texas real estate magnate, denounced the reports Monday as “a political hit job” in an interview with the Dallas Morning News.

Thomas last put out a rare statement claiming he had been told the vacations weremere “personal hospitality” that did not need to be reported to the IRS.

He has not responded to reports about the property sales. Federal law require judges and other officials to disclose all property sales except for homes that they live in.

Congressional Democrats have demanded investigations into the allegations against Thomas, whom they portray as a serial violator of ethics rules.

“There is at least reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas intentionally disregarded the disclosure requirement to report the sale of his interest in the Savannah properties in an attempt to hide the extent of his financial relationship with Crow,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said in a joint statement.

They want Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to launch an investigation and have asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to look into whether Thomas violated federal ethics laws.

The lapses have shined a spotlight on the virtually nonexistent oversight of Supreme Court justices, who mostly are left to police their own behavior.

Aside from his disclosure failings, Thomas has refused to recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 election even though his wife is a prominent ally of former President Donald Trump who pushed for him to overturn President Joe Biden’s win.

He was the lone dissenter in an 8-1 decision that forced the handover to the congressional Jan. 6 committee of emails and text messages about the insurrection effort from Trump allies, including several from Ginni Thomas.

© New York Daily News

Senate Democrats want to bring Clarence Thomas before an ethics hearing: report

Matthew Chapman
April 17, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. (Photo by Preston Keres/USDA)

Senate Democrats are considering asking Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to come before an ethics hearing following a series of financial scandals, reported POLITICO on Monday.

"Democrats on the Judiciary Committee met Monday evening in Chair Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) office to discuss details of the hearing, which is still in the planning stages," reported Katherine Tully-McManus and Burgess Everett. "'We’re going to have hearings. This work period, I hope. Maybe even in the next few weeks,' Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said after the meeting. Rather than making the politically explosive move of subpoenaing Thomas, Blumenthal said he hoped the justice would answer committee members’ questions voluntarily."

"'We’re going to have hearings. This work period, I hope. Maybe even in the next few weeks,' Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said after the meeting," said the report. "Rather than making the politically explosive move of subpoenaing Thomas, Blumenthal said he hoped the justice would answer committee members’ questions voluntarily."

Reporting from ProPublica revealed that Thomas, one of the Court's most far-right members, has been accepting hundreds of thosuands of dollars in luxury travel and accommodations from billionaire GOP megadonor Harlan Crow. A follow-up report indicated that Crow also bought real estate from Thomas. None of this was disclosed.

Thomas claimed that ethics laws were vague and he didn't believe disclosure of these transactions were necessary — which legal experts broadly disagree with. He updated his disclosures to reflect the real estate purchase.

"'What he did is really unprecedented, the magnitude of the gifts and luxury travel but the money changing hands and the nondisclosure,' said Blumenthal," the report continued. "Senators are still hoping that the Supreme Court will take its own action, but Durbin said his panel was also open to discussing proposals to impose a formal code of ethics on the court."

Unequal Justice: Clarence Thomas isn't going anywhere

Bill Blum, The Progressive
April 16, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at Stetson University College of Law. (Credit: Stetson University)

The problem with Justice Clarence Thomas isn’t just that he’s reactionary or morally bankrupt. It’s that he isn’t going anywhere any time soon.

Thomas is in his thirty-first year on the high court, placing him twelfth on the list of longest-serving Supreme Court justices in history. While he will turn seventy-five in June, he appears in reasonably good physical health, and has no intentions of stepping down.

In 1993, Thomas told two of his law clerks that he planned to serve on the court until 2034, and that until then he would do his utmost to make the lives of liberals “miserable.” If his plans hold, Thomas will eventually become the longest-tenured Justice of all time, surpassing William O. Douglas, who stayed on the panel for thirty-six years and 209 days.

Earlier this month, Thomas again made good on his pledge to own the libs—and further erode the stature of the Supreme Court in the process, when he issued a statement denying any wrongdoing in response to a bombshell ProPublica article. The investigation revealed a stunning array of secret gifts that Thomas and his wife Ginni Thomas, the crackpot uber-right election denier, have received from Texas billionaire and Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow over the past twenty years.

Crow is a founder of the conservative nonprofit Club for Growth. He also sits on the board of the American Enterprise Institute, an aggressive rightwing think tank with a long track record of publicizing and promoting amicus briefs in pending Supreme Court cases. The institute’s roster of affiliated scholars over the decades has included the likes of Newt Gingrich, Dinesh D’Souza, and Robert Bork. Crow also reportedly houses a signed copy of Mein Kampf and two paintings by the Führer himself in the art collection that he maintains at his Highland Park mansion in Dallas County, Texas.

On April 6, ProPublica reported that the Thomases took a 2019 trip to Indonesia on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet, followed by a nine-day island-hopping cruise aboard Crow’s superyacht. ProPublica reporters valued the junket at more than $500,000 dollars, nearly double Thomas’s annual salary of $285,000.

The Indonesia excursion was only one of many trips for which Crow has picked up the check on the Thomases’ behalf. Thomas and his wife regularly take summer vacations at Crow’s rustic resort in the Adirondack Mountains of New York, and have been hosted at Crow’s ranch in East Texas. Crow also paid for Thomas to attend a one-week retreat at the exclusive all-male Bohemian Grove in California. And to top off his beneficence, in 2011, Crow gave half a million dollars to a Tea Party group founded by Ginni Thomas, who received a $120,000 salary from the group.

On April 13,ProPublica updated its reporting to add that in 2014, Crow purchased the two-bedroom home in Savannah, GA, where Thomas’s mother lived, along with two nearby vacant lots, for $133,363. The home was jointly owned by Thomas, his mother, and the family of the Justice’s late brother. Expensive improvements were subsequently made to the property, where a source told ProPublica Thomas’s mother still resides.

Thomas’s rejoinder to the original ProPublica story (he has not as yet replied to the update), was released by the court’s public information office. It is a work of evasion and artifice, reading in full:

Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years. As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them. Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable. I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines. These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future.

That last sentence refers to new guidelines adopted in March by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the administrative arm of the federal courts that modestly tightens the financial disclosures federal judges must make each year for themselves and their spouses under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act (EGA) to safeguard against conflicts of interest.

The new regulations require judges to disclose gifts in excess of $415 from people other than relatives, any complimentary transportation, and any free stays at commercial properties. There is a giant loophole, however, in both the new and old regulations that Thomas has exploited: Free lodging at the personal residences or properties owned by individuals (rather than corporations) is exempt under a “private hospitality exception,” and need not be reported.

The loophole is outrageous, but not as wide as Thomas apparently thinks. Even if he had no obligation to report his sojourns on Crow’s ranch and Adirondack summer playground, Thomas still had a duty to disclose other goodies such as the purchase of his family’s Savannah home, his trip to Bohemian Grove, his numerous rides on Crow’s private jet, and his Indonesian cruise.

“When a Justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” Virginia Canter, the chief ethics counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told ProPublica for its initial article. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.”

Thomas’s official statement is also rife with hypocrisy. In a 2020 documentary film about his life, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, Thomas can be seen on-screen, quipping, “I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States. I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer that—I prefer being around that.” The documentary was bankrolled in part by—you guessed it—Harlan Crow.

Like Thomas, Crow has released a statement denying any improprieties in his relationship with the Justice.

The ProPublica revelations are by no means Thomas’s first brush with ethics issues. Scandals and controversy have long dogged Thomas, dating back to his raucous 1991 Senate confirmation hearing, when he was credibly accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill and other female colleagues while he was the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In 2011, amid an outcry from Common Cause and other watchdog groups, he was forced to amend thirteen years of disclosures for failing to report his wife Ginni’s income from the Heritage Foundation, Hillsdale College, and other employers. Thomas claimed at the time that he that he had misunderstood his reporting responsibilities, and simply checked the wrong boxes on his disclosure forms, an odd response from a Supreme Court justice, let alone a lawyer.

In 2021 and again in 2022, Thomas arguably crossed ethical lines once more when he failed to recuse himself in cases involving the January 6 insurrection and Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, despite Ginni’s prominent role as an organizer of the “Stop the Steal” campaign. Thomas’s participation in such cases may have violated the federal recusal statute.

As veteran legal commentator Adam Cohen noted in a recent op-ed in The New York Times, Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined forces fifty-four years ago to demand that Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas resign as a result of alleged financial improprieties that pale in comparison to those involving Thomas.

Although Thomas is a clear-cut candidate for impeachment or at the very least an investigation by the Senate Judiciary committee, there is no chance today of a similar bipartisan move against Thomas. The Republican Party of 2023 loves Clarence Thomas, and as long as it does, he isn’t going anywhere.

Watch: Protesters disrupt GOP hearings with chants to indict 'traitor' Jim Jordan

Travis Gettys
April 17, 2023

Congressman Jim Jordan speaking with attendees at the 2021 AmericaFest. 

(Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Protesters tried on Monday to disrupt a House Judiciary Committee hearing on violent crime in New York City.

The demonstrators packed into a hallway outside the hearing room with signs calling to indict committee chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), who they called a "traitor," reported Punchbowl News correspondent Mica Soellner.

The hearing will highlight violent crime in Manhattan, where district attorney Alvin Bragg is prosecuting Donald Trump on dozens of business fraud charges, and his office dismissed the hearing as a political stunt.

Several witnesses, including the mother of a homicide victim, a bodega clerk who was charged with murder that was later ruled self-defense and an anti-crime activist, are scheduled to testify.

The hearing was organized after Trump was indicted.

Watch the video below.

Watch: Nicolle Wallace nails Jim Jordan over his 'circus' hearing in Manhattan

Sarah K. Burris
April 17, 2023

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace criticized Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) for his "circus" hearing, bringing the House Judiciary Committee to Manhattan to attack District Attorney Alvin Bragg for what he said was a high rate of violent crime in the city.

"Whether all of this is really what Republicans should be doing with their time even in front of their own viewers and voters they got an authentic New York City welcome today in that they were routinely shouted at in the hallway," Wallace said. "Something Jim Jordan could have avoided if he had chosen a different location — like one with higher crime rates if that was his ostensible point today, for instance. Or maybe traveling just south of Jordan's own district, Columbus, Ohio, perhaps where the crime rate is about three times that of New York City."

She said that the "clown show" on display in New York wasn't about violent crime there or solving any other problems that Congress typically manages.

"It was about keeping their boss Donald J. Trump happy about showing him, Donald J. Trump, that no political stunt is too idiotic or illogical or unjustified to appease his badly damaged ego," she said.

The whole hearing was broadcast live on Fox News.

"There were witnesses called by the House Republicans, who, most of them are outspoken critics of Alvin Bragg. Many of them have actually really horror stories," said Luke Broadwater, New York Times congressional reporter. "You know, a loved one who was killed in the city or a relative who was the victim of an anti-Semitic attack, things like this. But they have since become outspoken critics of Alvin Bragg. So, they were chosen for those reasons. And that did present some times where Democrats were saying essentially, we feel your pain, we understand your case.

"You've been through a lot, but you are being used here. You are being used as pawns in a political game and that did prompt some backlash from some of the witnesses who went back and forth with some of the Democrats. But this was set up, as you said, with a single purpose to, you know, vilify Alvin Bragg to make him look bad for as long as they could keep it on television. And to support Donald Trump. You know, they definitely got some hours and hours of that in."

See the full conversation about the hearings below.

Wallace encourages Jim Jordan to explore cities with greater violent crime like his districtyoutu.be