Category Archives: Uncategorized

How much are we sacrificing in this impeachment?

I cannot believe the recklessness of the Democrats in their illogical pursuit of impeachment.

Tensions ran high 20 years ago as we stood in the well of the Senate before Chief Justice William Rehnquist, all 100 senators and the nation. As House impeachment managers, we presented our case against President Clinton. We were somber but confident, knowing that we had afforded Mr. Clinton every due-process right to defend himself.

Now we find ourselves on the verge of another presidential impeachment. But this time the process is so fundamentally unfair that justice cannot be served. For the past two months, House Democrats, led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, have conducted a sham investigation with predetermined conclusions. It will do unthinkable damage to the credibility of the House and to the nation.

Since President Trump took the oath of office, Mr. Schiff has led a quest to overturn the 2016 election. We have both worked with Mr. Schiff on the Judiciary Committee, and one of us (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has managed two judicial impeachments (of Samuel B. Kent and G. Thomas Porteous Jr.) alongside him. While in those cases he was fair and reasonable, here he has let his blind hatred of the president poison his conduct and destroy his credibility.

For more than two years, Mr. Schiff misled the public about having clear evidence that Mr Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election. Special counsel Robert Mueller found no such evidence. Mr. Schiff then set his eyes on the next “scandal.” A seemingly too-good-to-be-true report appeared, accusing the president of improper action. Mr. Schiff took to cable news to propagate the new narrative, but it soon began to crumble. We learned that the biased “whistleblower” had contacted Mr. Schiff’s committee before filing his report, and Mr. Schiff lied about it.

Nevertheless, Speaker Nancy Pelosi decreed the House to have begun an impeachment inquiry and Mr. Schiff launched three weeks of closed-door hearings. He played judge and jury, selectively leaking private testimony to fuel a smear campaign. In blatant disregard of congressional practice, he has prevented elected members from asking certain questions of his “star witnesses.”

We were on the House prosecution team. Unlike Pelosi and Schiff, we safeguarded due process.

The American people saw through this charade, and Mrs. Pelosi brought the rules for this process up for a vote last week. But it’s too little and too late.

The rules resolution falls woefully short of the Constitution’s due-process standard. Every American has the right to hear all evidence presented against him, face his accuser directly, and mount a defense. We made sure to afford Mr. Clinton these rights in 1998-99.

The president’s counsel must have the right to participate in all impeachment proceedings. The congressional minority must have an equal right to call witnesses, subpoena documents and cross-examine witnesses.

Last week’s resolution is an absolute failure to protect those rights. It permits Mr. Schiff to continue with his closed-door depositions, and it grants him sole authority to decide which information is relevant, which witnesses can testify and which evidence will be transferred to the Judiciary Committee. When the Intelligence Committee turns over the proceedings to the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Jerry Nadler will then have the authority to deny the president’s counsel access to evidence, the ability to cross-examine witnesses and the full ability to participate in other ways. It’s laughable to claim that’s fair or impartial.

Americans should be concerned about the denial of fundamental constitutional rights to the president of the United States. If it can happen to him, whom can’t it happen to?

From day one, the Democrats have had their sights set on impeachment and have charted a process that could only lead to that end. By denying due process to this president, Democrats have delegitimized the House and its constitutional powers, and have done irreparable damage to the country.

Messrs. Sensenbrenner and Chabot, both Republicans, represent Wisconsin’s Fifth and Ohio’s First congressional districts, respectively.


Identity politics, at the gates

It is almost beyond belief what prestigious universities are coming to. Well, in light of the lack of integrity of their admission programs, perhaps we are not to be surprised.  Administrations have absolutely, yes, ABSOLUTELY no idea how to use life’s events as teaching moments.

And where is that great agent of ‘change’, President Obama? He doesn’t even seem able to lead from behind anymore.

It is shockingly sad.  And does not bode well for our future, either.


Harvard has opened an investigation into law professor Ronald Sullivan, who earlier this year joined Harvey Weinstein’s criminal-defense team. Some undergraduates complained that Mr. Sullivan’s decision to represent Mr. Weinstein, who is charged with rape in New York, puts them at risk. By taking the complaint seriously, Harvard puts its commitment to identity politics above the core tenets of due process.

Student backlash was immediate when the New York Post reported in late January that Mr. Sullivan would be representing Mr. Weinstein. A visual and environmental studies major started an online petition to remove Mr. Sullivan from his position as faculty dean of Winthrop House, one of Harvard’s 12 undergraduate residential houses. Mr. Sullivan’s choice of client was “deeply trauma-inducing,” and shows that Mr. Sullivan doesn’t “value the safety of students,” the petition announced. Would Winthrop residents “really want to one day accept [a] Diploma,” the petition asked, from someone who “believes it is okay to defend” Mr. Weinstein?

Six Harvard dorms held “listening sessions” attended by emissaries from the university’s Office for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, whose website urged trau- matized students to seek mental-health services and other help from Harvard’s massive Title IX bureaucracy. Harvard’s dean of students and its lead Title IX coordinator attended a student protest outside the main administration building, where the ubiquitous Office for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response doled out hot chocolate.

Still-unidentified vandals spray-painted #MeToo slogans such as “your silence is violence” on Winthrop House. The record reveals no condemnation from Harvard officials and requests for comment were not returned at press time. The Association of Black Harvard Women complained that Mr. Sullivan (who is black) had “failed” female African-Americans at Harvard and had compromised his ability to support “survivors . . . as they deal with their trauma.”

This student agitation could have been an opportunity for a lesson in the values of Western democracy. Harvard’s administrators could have explained that a lawyer who defends someone accused of a crime doesn’t thereby condone crime. Rather, he is upholding the principles that all defendants, even guilty ones, have a right to legal representation and that the state may criminally punish someone only after proving his guilt in a rigorously contested adversarial process.

History shows that without such a requirement, state power slides toward tyranny, Harvard’s adults could have said. Mr. Sullivan’s representation of Mr. Weinstein embodies the highest ideals of the law—that every accused person, no matter how reviled, is entitled to a defense in court.

Instead, the administration kowtowed to hysterical students. Rakesh Khurana, dean of Harvard College and a business school professor, launched a review of “concerns about the community’s overall climate” at Winthrop House. As part of the investigation, Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research would administer an anonymous survey, and a former freshman dean would speak privately with Winthrop House residents.

The fact of the climate review is bad enough. It validates the idea that there is something to investigate in Mr. Sullivan’s decision to represent an unpopular client. And the administration’s rhetoric smacks of a re-education camp. The Harvard Crimson reported that Mr. Khurana was “actively” communicating to Mr. Sullivan what he was hearing from “members of the community and what they’re describing their needs [sic] so that Professor Sullivan can adjust to those needs.” Mr. Khurana said he has also “communicated that the College believes that more work must be done to uphold our commitment to the well-being of our students.” In reality, Mr. Sullivan has done nothing to jeopardize the well-being of Harvard’s students.

The dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Claudine Gay, was ominously noncommittal regarding Mr. Sullivan’s ability to rehabilitate himself. Mr. Sullivan’s efforts to date to reassure the community about his commitment to its safety have been “insufficient,” said Ms. Gay, who is also a government and African-American studies professor. Echoing Mr. Khurana, Ms. Gay asserted that “there’s more work that needs to be done,” and hopes for a conversion: “I am hopeful that Professor Sullivan is prepared to be a partner in that work.”

The anonymous climate survey arrived in Winthrop House members’ email boxes this month. Predictably, it asked if the house was “racist” or “homophobic” and whether it has a “strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Harvard might as well close up shop if there is any doubt in 2019 that the answers to these questions are no and yes, respectively. And what do racism and homophobia have to do with the Weinstein case anyway?

In a twist of identity-politics delirium, Mr. Sullivan is now playing the race card against the administration. In a New Yorker interview, he said of the climate survey: “It’s absolutely never happened before, and I do not believe that it would happen again to any non-minority faculty dean.” That racism allegation is as preposterous as the claim that Winthrop House residents are unsafe because of Mr. Sullivan’s criminal-defense work.

The victimhood ideology Harvard is stoking is inimical to education. The zealotry of the Believe Survivors movement, the insistence that identity-based victims uniquely possess the truth, the claim that testing such truth in the marketplace of ideas or a court of law constitutes further victimization—all work against the so-called critical thinking that colleges such as Harvard pride themselves in fostering.

The Sullivan episode represents the toxic union of identity politics with the consumerist model of education, whereby the student is a customer and therefore is always right. Even if Mr. Sullivan ultimately keeps his job at Winthrop House—or at Harvard—Harvard’s graduates will carry with them into the world a profound ignorance of the principles that safeguard American liberties. As they assume positions of power and influence, that will put everyone’s freedom at risk.

Ms. Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.”


Another “Kavanaugh”

“Brett Kavanaugh’s ordeal resembles the sham trial of Tom Robinson in Harper Lee’s classic novel.”
WSJ 10/4/2018
By Allysia Finley

If you read Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” in high school, you probably recall it as a parable of racial injustice in the Jim Crow South. It was more than that. The novel chronicles the persecution of an innocent man by a bigoted and bloody-minded town. Amid the left’s crucible of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Lee’s enduring lessons about due process merit reflection.

The story is set in the sleepy fictional backwater of Maycomb, Ala., in 1935. A black man, Tom Robinson, stands accused by 19year-old Mayella Ewell and her father—lower-class whites who live on relief— of rape, a capital offense. Atticus Finch is Tom’s defense lawyer, and the trial turns into a public spectacle—“a gala occasion”—as all the townspeople flock to the county courthouse.

Mayella alleges that after she asked Tom for help breaking down a dresser in her house, he took advantage of the situation to violate her. Tom claims that Mayella aggressively propositioned him, and he resisted her advances as well as he could without hurting her. In Tom’s account, Mr. Ewell, witnessing his daughter’s lewd behavior from the window, blew his top and shouted at Mayella: “I’ll kill ya.”

“The only thing we’ve got is a black man’s word against the Ewells’,” Atticus notes. “The evidence boils down to you-did—Ididn’t.” But through cross-examination, he is able to poke holes in the Ewells’ testimony.

It is revealed that Mr. Ewell didn’t call the doctor after the purported rape. Mr. Ewell also turns out to be left-handed. Mayella’s injuries were on her right side, suggesting a left-handed assailant. Tom’s left arm is crippled.

When Atticus cross-examines “the fragile-looking” Mayella, she bawls and accuses him of bullying. She then contradicts herself: “No, I don’t recollect if [Tom] hit me. I mean yes I do, he hit me.” Asked for clarification, she replies: “Huh? Yes, he hit— I just don’t remember, I just don’t remember . . . it all happened so quick.”

Apart from the Ewells’ eyewitness accounts, the prosecutor can produce no evidence that Tom raped Mayella. He claims that a prior disorderly- conduct citation is evidence of Tom’s criminality, though people who know him well “say he kept himself clean.” In his testimony, Tom resists calling Mayella a liar. “She’s mistaken in her mind,” he says.

“This case is not a difficult one, it requires no minute sifting of complicated facts, but it does require you to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant,” Atticus tells the jury in his closing. The state is relying on hearsay from two unreliable witnesses in “the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted, confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption— the evil assumption—that all Negroes lie, that all Negroes are basically immoral beings, that all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women.”

He concludes: “Thomas Jefferson once said that all men are created equal” but “there is a tendency in this year of grace, 1935, for certain people to use this phrase out of context, to satisfy all conditions. . . . But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal,” and that is before the law. “Our courts are the great levelers.”

Overcoming the jury’s prejudices proves too great a challenge for Atticus Finch. As the trial judge remarks, “People generally see what they look for, and hear what they listen for.” Mayella’s accusation is deemed credible because she is a white woman. “In the secret courts of men’s hearts Atticus had no case,” Lee writes. “Tom was a dead man the minute Mayella Ewell opened her mouth and screamed.” Lynching was not uncommon in the Jim Crowera South, so Tom was relatively fortunate to receive even an unfair trial and conviction. He is later shot while trying to escape prison. With its unsettling ending, Lee’s tale underscores how the presumption of guilt based on prevailing prejudices threatens American justice.

Despite high praise from people who have known him for decades, liberals presume Judge Kavanaugh guilty on the basis of his race and sex. “Brett Kavanaugh’s indignation was the sound of privileged white male entitlement,” read one newspaper headline.” What difference does it make that after excavating his past for weeks, liberals in the Senate and the media have failed to produce a shred of corroborating evidence of any wrongdoing?

Unlike in Tom’s case, there is no physical evidence that Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers are lying. But Democratic senators assert that a woman’s testimony should not be doubted regardless of its inconsistencies. If they prevail in the absence of additional evidence, Brett Kavanaugh was a dead man the moment Christine Ford opened her mouth.

Ms. Finley is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.


The Legacy of a Nuclear Bomb

Yeh, yeh. Tell me the rest of the story…

What happened to the radiation that  lasts thousands of years?



image002 image001 image001-1

We all know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed in  August 1945 after the explosion of atomic bombs. However, we know little about the progress made by the people of that land during the past 67 years.


Hiroshima2 Hiroshima1 Hiroshima3 Hiroshima4 Hiroshima5 Hiroshima6


What has caused more long term destruction  – the  A-bomb, or Government  welfare programs created to buy the votes of those  who want someone to take care of  them?

Detroit7 Detroit5 Detroit4 Detroit3 Detroit2 Detroit1

Japan does not have a welfare system.  Work for It, or do without.

These  are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and  all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot  legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the  wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person  receives without working for, another person must work  for without receiving.

3. The government cannot  give to anybody anything that the government does not  first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot  multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of  the people get the idea that they do not have to work  because the other half is going to take care of them,  and when the other half gets the idea that it does no  good to work because somebody else is going to get what  they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any  nation.

Can you think of a good reason for not sharing  this?  Neither could I.