Revolting: Ketanji Brown Jackson Even Gave Light Sentences to Men Who Tortured Babies

Paul Sperry Deep Dive – Ketanji Brown Jackson | The Radio ...



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

"Justice demands this result." That’s what Ketanji Brown Jackson said in 2011 after the U.S. Sentencing Commission knocked as much as three years off the prison terms of crack-cocaine convicts. As vice-chair of the commission, Jackson believed the nation’s drug laws were overly harsh and especially "unfair" to blacks.

A month earlier, Jackson had shrugged off Justice Department warnings that the decision -- which made more than 12,000 federal crack inmates eligible for early release -- could flood the streets with dangerous criminals who would likely re-offend.

Stephanie Rose: Former U.S. Attorney clashed with Ketanji Brown Jackson on early inmate releases and repeat offenders.

"[B]y keeping them in longer, it doesn't seem to make a difference with regard to whether or not they recidivate," Jackson reasoned in a June 2011 commission hearing in Washington, according to transcripts reviewed by RealClearInvestigations. 

Then-U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose objected: "It does protect the safety of the public, though, when they're not present to recidivate."

Unpersuaded, Jackson countered: "But the amount of time in jail doesn't affect that because there's no difference. If we keep them in jail for the extra 36 months, or whatever, they're going to recidivate at the same rate as if we released them early. So I don't see how public protection is being affected one way or the other in that scenario."

"Because during the three years they are in prison, they are not out committing new crimes — that's the difference," Rose replied, adding that the department had "public safety concerns" over cutting prison terms for so many felons at once.

Now vying for a spot on the U.S. Supreme Court, Jackson has struggled to fend off accusations that she is soft on crime. The Senate confirmation hearings have exposed a pattern: whether as a lawyer, sentencing commissioner, or judge, she has disregarded the warnings or recommendations of prosecutors and investigators while advocating or easing the punishment not just for drug dealers but also for child porn offenders and even accused terrorists.

White House
Ketanji Brown Jackson (with Stephen Breyer, the retiring justice she would replace): "If we keep them in jail for the extra 36 months, or whatever, they're going to recidivate at the same rate as if we released them early."

Jackson argues courts should have empathy for all people, no matter how egregious their behavior, and look to rehabilitate them and not just "lock them up and throw away the key."

Her supporters say she would bring a fresh new perspective to the high bench, which has been dominated by former prosecutors trained to keep criminals in prison, not out of it. If confirmed, Jackson would be the modern court's first public defender. No sitting justice has such experience. 

But Republicans and other critics contend her compassion has come at a price. They say she's tended to cut criminals too much slack, putting them back on the street where they can repeat their crimes — and in many cases, some of them have reoffended and found new victims, records examined by RCI reveal.

Detractors say such leniency raises concerns about how, if confirmed, she would handle cases that may come before the high bench involving terrorism, child pornography, drug trafficking, and other serious crimes.

Although her direct impact on the case law would probably be minimal, with conservatives still commanding a solid majority in most cases, at age 51 she figures to be on the high court for a long time. And in the near term, she could write influential dissents, pulling the minority farther left, especially on criminal-justice issues. Court watchers say she could play a powerful role in resolving some major criminal-justice questions facing the bench — from the uniform application of sentencing guidelines to who is eligible for "compassionate release" from prison. 


Ketanji Brown Jackson was behind a historic release of drug traffickers, and not just crack inmates.
More Than 31,000 Drug-Traffickers Granted Early Release

While guiding the sentencing commission, Jackson didn’t just resist federal prosecutors' warnings that granting crack dealers early release would merely put them back in action faster. She also ignored their advice to exclude from eligibility those with firearms in their records. In the end, she sided with NAACP official Hilary O. Shelton, who called crack sentences "racially discriminatory" and demanded the commission "correct this injustice."

"People of color are being put in prison at much higher rates than their Caucasian counterparts," Shelton asserted, testifying before the commission alongside Rose.

But Jackson wasn’t satisfied with releasing only inmates locked up for dealing crack. In 2014, she helped push a proposal to slash sentencing guidelines for the full array of drug offenses. Several months later, the commission voted to let such inmates apply for the sweeping reductions retroactively -- a move that sped the release of tens of thousands more prisoners. Since drug felons make up roughly half the federal prison population, it was arguably the most consequential decision the panel has made in its 38-year history.

All told, more than 31,000 drug traffickers were granted early release, and most are now back on the streets. Studies show many of them are career criminals whose drug crimes involved guns — like Jackson's own uncle, Thomas Brown Jr., whose life prison sentence she helped get commuted around the same time.

Jackson assured the public that judges wouldn’t just dump prisoners into communities without first assessing their risk on a case-by-case basis. "Each drug offender is going to have to be evaluated individually in order to determine whether or not, as a result of dangerousness or otherwise, his or her sentence should be reduced," she said on NPR in July 2014.

In reality, more than two-thirds of all the drug traffickers who asked for early release got it, and virtually all those denied weren’t turned down because they were too dangerous to release, but because they weren’t eligible for release in the first place. An estimated 7,500-plus who received get-out-of-jail passes had used weapons as part of their underlying crimes. One of them was Washington D.C. gang leader Willie Best, sentenced in 2008 for firing a high-powered rifle at a rival drug gang member while sitting in a stolen car. Others had prior robbery, assault, and other violent convictions in their records.

Greg Forest, probation officer: "Police worked hard to put these folks away, and because of that, crime rates dropped." That was then.

Federal probation officers told RCI that the releases happened so fast that their offices were overwhelmed and most of the parolees went straight to the streets without transitioning through halfway houses, which didn’t have bed space for them. They say the mass release has helped drive up crime rates across the country.

"Police worked hard to put these folks away, and because of that, crime rates dropped," said Greg Forest, chief U.S. probation officer for the Western District of North Carolina.

Partly as a result of the historic prison release engineered by President Biden’s high court nominee, cops and communities are dealing with a surge of repeat crime. So far, more than 1 in 3 — 35% — of the crack inmates released early have reoffended, according to a U.S. Sentencing Commission study conducted in 2020.

Those rearrested after incarceration didn’t just get prosecuted for drug offenses. A large share also committed violent crimes, including child abuse, rape, aggravated assault, kidnapping, weapons offenses, robbery, and even murder.

But the most violent ex-cons who reoffended soon after enjoying retroactive early release from lockup were the crack-cocaine dealers — the very group Jackson claimed had been most abused by "disparities" in drug sentencing and most deserving of release. They proved far more dangerous than inmates released early for dealing heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, or marijuana. Fully 25% of ex-crack convicts have committed new violent crimes upon release, the federal study revealed.

Jackson was carrying out President Obama’s race-based "de-incarceration" agenda. A two-time Obama appointee, she worked on Obama's 2008 campaign and also donated to it, federal campaign records show. The next year, Obama appointed her to the influential sentencing commission.

Then in 2012, he named her to the D.C. District Court bench. Four years later, Obama commuted the sentence of Jackson's uncle, Thomas Brown, who’d been serving time in Florida since 1989 for a three-strikes drug crime involving cocaine possession and trafficking, records show. (For his two earlier drug felonies, the state of Florida had given him probation, even though he also pleaded guilty to a gun charge in one of the cases.)

While sitting on the D.C. bench for eight years, Jackson personally granted a number of dangerous convicts immediate release from prison or reduced their sentences retroactively.

In 2020, for example, convicted drug kingpin Keith J. Young asked Jackson for a so-called "compassionate release" from federal prison. In 2017, Young was busted with two bricks of heroin laced with fentanyl and an arsenal of weapons, including guns with multiple extended magazines. A jury found him guilty in 2018 and he was sentenced by Jackson to the mandatory 20 years in prison.

In order to grant a compassionate release or reduction, a court must find that the defendant "is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community." Prosecutors advised Jackson that Young still posed a threat. But she nonetheless slashed his term from 20 years to 12 years, while transferring him to a lower-security facility due to "medical conditions."

When originally sentencing him in 2018, Jackson told Young she regretted the mandatory 20-year term she was forced to give him under federal law. She hoped to give him half that time. She told him that she shared his "frustration" with the law, which she found "quite frankly, upsetting," and apologized for having to follow it.

"I am sorry, mostly because I believe in second chances and because a person with your characteristics and family support would have had a real shot at turning your life around," she told the career criminal, who had a prior cocaine-distribution conviction on his record and had taken videos and selfies posing with his guns and bragging about being a drug "kingpin." She said she wanted him to be "there for your kids."

In addition to the stiff sentence, prosecutors had also wanted the judge to seize $180,000 from the drug dealer, but Jackson strenuously objected to the forfeiture. She even waived any fines in his case.

"Mr. Young, good luck," the judge said. "Thank you, your honor," he replied.

At her confirmation hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Tom Cotton accused Jackson of refusing to follow sentencing laws, which do not allow her to retroactively resentence convicts like Young to serve less time. He said she misused the compassionate-release option to sidestep the mandatory sentence she never wanted to give the drug dealer back in 2018.

"You chose to rewrite the law because you were sympathetic to a fentanyl drug kingpin whom you had expressed frustration at having to sentence him to his 20-year sentence in the first place," the Arkansas Republican said. "It was a blatant rewrite of the law so you could reduce the sentence."

"Respectfully, senator, I disagree," Jackson replied, though she admitted she had "policy disagreements" with sentencing guidelines set by Congress.

LaVance Greene, shown in the 1975 documentary: "Compassionate release" for a killer of a U.S. marshal.
Early last year, the judge granted a "compassionate release" for LaVance Greene, who was serving a life sentence for fatally shooting a U.S. marshal in 1971 while helping his bank robber half-brother escape custody in Washington. She made the decision over the objections of the U.S. Marshals Service and federal prosecutors. Jackson argued that the 72-year-old Greene, whose release had been rejected several times by the parole board, no longer posed a "significant risk of danger," even though authorities pointed out that Greene had recently threatened prison staff with a weapon. The judge cited other evidence that Greene was a "model prisoner" who took numerous prison educational classes, including drug abuse and treatment programs.

"[T]o the extent the Government suggests that some crimes are just too egregious to warrant granting a defendant's request for compassionate release, this Court disagrees," Jackson argued in her ruling to put a murderer back on the street.

Jackson has softened sentencing for other inmates convicted of attacking law enforcement personnel. Take the D.C. case of David Jenkins. After the defendant was convicted for a third time of assaulting a police officer, who was trying to arrest him on a warrant for assault with a deadly weapon, prosecutors requested he be locked up for 30 months. His defense attorney pleaded for 21 months. In her 2015 sentencing, Jackson gave him only 18 months.

In another window into her thinking on crime and punishment, in April 2020 Jackson wrote a memo opinion addressing Sean Ray Higgins and other D.C. criminal defendants who asked for early release to home confinement due to the COVID outbreak. Higgins had pleaded guilty to a large heroin trafficking conspiracy involving high-powered weapons and was awaiting sentencing while in jail. Jackson said it was a "close call" to ever detain him in the first place. She revealed that she regretted that she couldn’t release him, along with "each and every" other inmate in district custody. She lamented that her hands were tied by the bureaucracy.

"The obvious increased risk of harm that the COVID-19 pandemic poses to individuals who have been detained in the District's correctional facilities reasonably suggests that each and every criminal defendant who is currently in D.C. DOC [Department of Corrections] custody—and who thus cannot take independent measures to control their own hygiene and distance themselves from others—should be released," Jackson said. "But the unfortunate current state of affairs is that the judiciary is limited in the steps that it can take to respond to the legitimate and pressing COVID-19-related concerns."

At the time, the D.C. Department of Corrections housed more than 1,560 inmates.

DC Sex Offender Registry
Wesley Keith Hawkins: Jackson sentenced him to three months. The prosecution sought two years.
Going Easy on Pedophiles

When she was getting her law degree at Harvard, Jackson wrote a brief in the Harvard Law Review arguing that the judicial system was unfair to people who sexually prey on children, because it sentences them to monitoring and treatment after prison, which she viewed as additional "punishment" masquerading as prevention. Although the Supreme Court has upheld such requirements, she complained that "community notification subjects ex-convicts to stigmatization and ostracism, and puts them at the mercy of a public that is outraged by sex crimes." She further worried that ordering offenders to enter mental health facilities deprives them of their "fundamental right to freedom," and she suggested that its real purpose is satisfying "the societal interest in locking sex offenders up and throwing away the key."

Her apparent empathy for such offenders has carried over into her years on the sentencing commission and federal bench.

On the commission, Jackson took a special interest in federal sentencing guidelines for child pornography, which makes up less than 2% of cases on the federal docket. She stated in hearings that she did not "necessarily" view child pornography offenders as pedophiles, and suggested that federal sentencing guidelines mandating they be locked up for a minimum of five years "may be excessively severe" — a view that once again was seemingly at odds with the Obama Justice Department, which advised the commission to "ensure that the sentences for child exploitation offenses adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes and the offenders."

Jackson’s own views manifested in a major 2012 commission report to Congress, "Federal Child Pornography Offenses," which found that current federal sentencing guidelines — including aggravating factors based on the volume of illegal porn in a defendant’s possession — were "outdated" thanks to easier access to such porn on the Internet and were therefore "too severe" for today's defendants busted for collecting child porn online, even when it includes videos of child rape. The report specifically recommended lighter sentences for such criminals.

As a result of the proposed new guidelines, critics say many judges across the country have found ways to avoid giving felons who receive or solicit child porn the mandatory minimum prison sentence. In addition, the report that Jackson spearheaded also questioned the "collateral issues" of federal courts ordering child pornographers to register as sex offenders and commit to treatment, echoing the concerns she raised in her 1996 Harvard Law Review paper.

Later, as a D.C. judge, Jackson under-sentenced defendants in every single child porn case in which she had the discretion to mete out punishment, court records show, even though some were caught with thousands of illegal images and videos of minors and one was busted with images of naked toddlers tortured by adults in sadomasochistic acts. She not only departed from federal sentencing guidelines but in many cases eschewed the recommendations of prosecutors and sometimes even probation departments, leaning instead in favor of the lighter punishments suggested by the child porn offenders and their lawyers, many of whom worked in the same federal public defender office where she once worked. In some cases, court filings show she cited U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics gathered during her tenure there to back her rulings from the bench.

The Article III Project
Mike Davis, rule of law advocate: "Judge Jackson has gone out of her way as a law student, lawyer, commissioner and judge to advocate for more leniency for people who possess and distribute child porn."

Her treatment of child pornographers is troubling to observers who worry about high recidivism rates among offenders as the amount of child porn on the Internet explodes. They say her record endangered children.

"We need more deterrence, not less," said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project, a Washington advocacy group for constitutional judges and the rule of law. "Yet Judge Jackson has gone out of her way as a law student, lawyer, commissioner, and judge to advocate for more leniency for people who possess and distribute child porn."

Added Davis: "She's been on a 25-year crusade to coddle them."

A 2003 Justice Department study found that 43% of sex offenders, including child pornographers and child molesters, were rearrested for the same or other crimes after release from custody. Three-fourths of the rearrests involved felonies.

Senators grilled Jackson for days last week about her record in this area. Jackson responded that she considered the cases she presided over "heinous" and "egregious" and imposed lengthy probation terms requiring supervision of the offenders, including monitoring their computer use. She noted she'd also ordered them to undergo treatment for porn addiction.

However, such alternatives to lengthy prison terms have failed to stop some from reoffending -- including child porn convict Wesley Keith Hawkins, a young gay black man whom Jackson sentenced to just three months in prison despite the prosecution asking for two years.

In 2013, Hawkins was busted posting videos on YouTube of "prepubescent boys engaged in sexual activity with each other, including oral and anal penetration," according to court documents. He told an undercover officer that he preferred children as young as 11 and sent him a video of a "prepubescent male masturbating." Investigators recovered 17 videos from his phone and laptop, which showed, among other things, "an approximately 11-year-old male being anally penetrated by an adult male."

In her sentencing, Jackson ruled she didn't think the volume and content of porn he had were particularly egregious and she gave Hawkins essentially a slap on the wrist — and then apologized to him for it.

"This is a truly difficult situation," she told Hawkins at sentencing. "I appreciate that your family is in the audience. I feel so sorry for them and for you and for the anguish that this has caused all of you."

Jackson then expressed sorrow over even the light sentence she handed down. "I feel terrible about the collateral consequences of this conviction," she said, explaining that "sex offenders are truly shunned in our society, but I have no control over the collateral consequences."

The sympathetic tone of her remarks again echoed those she made in her Harvard Law brief decades earlier. Senate Republicans said Jackson made it sound like Hawkins was more a victim than the children he exploited.

Unfortunately, her words of kindness did not dissuade Hawkins from continuing with his obsession.

In 2019, long after Hawkins had served his short stint in prison but while he was still under a six-year supervised release, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted him alerted Jackson that despite treatment and monitoring, Hawkins continued to seek out sexually arousing images of underage boys. Expressing concerns that Hawkins might re-offend, his probation officer recommended that he be confined to a "residential reentry center" for six months — double Jackson's original prison sentence — and subject himself to "periodic unannounced searches of any computers" he uses. Jackson concurred and signed an order toughening the terms of his probation, according to her court filing. Asked about Hawkins’ relapse at her Senate hearing, she testified she could not recall the matter.

DC Sex Offender Registry
Neil Alexander Stewart, pedophile: Jackson gave him 57 months  — well short of the 97 months prosecutors had sought.
A more serious example of recidivism involved another case Jackson heard with a compassionate ear. In 2015, Neil Alexander Stewart, 31, was caught with more than 600 child sex images and videos. He confided to an undercover officer posing as a fellow predator that he was interested in "willing" children between the ages "5-11" and sought to meet at the D.C. zoo with the agent’s fictional 9-year-old daughter.

In one text cited by prosecutors, Stewart advised the undercover officer how to groom a child to have sexual intercourse, which they could later videotape. "The trick is starting with really small toys and gradually moving up until something is the same size," he texted. "And vibration."

"The public does not need to be protected from Mr. Stewart," the defense argued in a presentencing memo to Jackson, which extolled his interests in hobbies including: "Physics, Cooking, Reading, Self-Help books, Science and Gardening." "Mr. Stewart’s character and attitude indicate that he is unlikely to commit another offense."

In her 2017 sentencing, Jackson gave Stewart 57 months in jail — well short of the 97 months prosecutors had asked for. The judge also waived a $5,000 fine. Jackson set aside prosecutors’ warnings that Stewart was a risk for "hands-on" sexual abuse of children and posed a "continuing" threat to the community. At her Senate confirmation hearing, Jackson was asked if she was aware that Stewart had allegedly reoffended.

"Would it surprise you to learn that Mr. Stewart is a recidivist?" asked Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican. "He [has] warrants issued again for his arrest, just three years after your sentencing."

Replied Jackson: "You know, Senator, there is data in the Sentencing Commission and elsewhere that indicates that there are serious recidivism issues. And so among the various people that I've sentenced, I'm not surprised that there are people who re-offend, and it is a terrible thing that happens in our system."

Jackson wasn’t always afraid to throw the book at child sex criminals, an RCI review of her case history shows. In 2016, for instance, she sentenced a child molester to eight years in prison for child sexual abuse while failing to register as a sex offender in a prior case, which appeared to meet the level of punishment recommended by prosecutors. That case involved a 35-year-old man molesting an underage girl, which, unlike the porn cases, involved direct physical violence.

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
At Gitmo, a counterpoint to Jackson's detainee advocacy: honoring last year's U.S. terror victims in Kabul.
Volunteering for the 'Gitmo Bar' 

While serving as an assistant federal public defender in D.C. from 2005 to 2007, Jackson defended four suspected terrorist detainees captured after 9/11 on the battlefield in Afghanistan and locked up at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison. Among other things, she filed habeas corpus appeals to try to compel their release and transfer from Gitmo, where they were held by the U.S. military as enemy combatants, to the U.S. court system, where they could avail themselves of all the legal rights afforded American citizens.

In her petitions, Jackson argued that the suspected terrorists had been forced to suffer "abuse and agony" at the hands of their guards and that such "torture," in addition to their indefinite confinement, constituted "war crimes." She also wrote briefs challenging their classification as enemy combatants.

Strikingly, Jackson omitted the full extent of her defense of Gitmo detainees from her Senate confirmation questionnaire. She claimed she represented only a single detainee — Khiali Gul — while working at the public defender's office. In fact, she also represented detainees Tariq al-Sawah, Kudai Dad, and Jabran al-Qahtani during her tenure there, according to documents reviewed by RCI.

Although Jackson did not travel to Gitmo to personally meet with the detainees, she corresponded with them and reviewed classified dossiers and other documents concerning the suspects in a secure facility in Washington after applying for and receiving security clearance at the SECRET level. She knew, therefore, that U.S. intelligence had determined that all four of her pro bono clients were too dangerous to release.

Khiali Gul:  "HIGH risk," his Gitmo dossier said.
  • Gul was classified "HIGH risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S.," according to his Gitmo dossier. "Detainee was an intelligence officer for the Taliban" and the leader of a "terrorist cell" who had "planned and executed an attack on a U.S. [base]" in Afghanistan before he was captured.
  • Dad was assessed to "having direct ties to Taliban leadership" and had been arrested at an Afghan compound where Taliban commanders met, his Gitmo dossier warned.
  • Al-Sawah, an al-Qaeda bomb expert, also was assessed as high-risk. His military dossier said he admitted he was a member of al-Qaeda. It also said he attended terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and once met Osama bin Laden.
  • Al-Qahtani was viewed as a continuing threat as well: "This detainee is a member of al-Qaeda [and] has demonstrated a commitment to jihad [and] has participated in terrorist training against the U.S," according to a 2004 intelligence report on him. In fact, al-Qahtani was arrested at al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah’s safe house in Pakistan in 2002. Described as "aggressive," the Saudi national told Gitmo interrogators that if he were released, he’d return to Afghanistan and fight Americans. In 2016, military authorities warned that as a "skilled bomb maker," al-Qahtani and his electronics expertise would be in demand by terrorist organizations. They determined that he was still a threat to "reengage in hostilities."

Jackson testified she was assigned the terror cases and had a duty as a public defender to represent her clients "zealously," even though she did not necessarily agree with what she was arguing on their behalf. However, she continued to advocate for at least al-Qahtani after she left the public defender office and took a job in private practice.

In 2007, she kept representing al-Qahtani free of charge when she moved on to Morrison & Foerster LLP, a liberal San Francisco-based law firm that crusaded against Gitmo. Though Jackson left the firm in 2010, Morrison Foerster eventually succeeded in getting her client released from Gitmo.

In a 2016 detention review hearing, records show, Judson Lobdell of Morrison Foerster argued that although al-Qahtani admitted having received "weapons instruction [at] a training camp north of Kabul," he "never fired a shot in anger." And though he also admitted building bombs at the al-Qaeda "safehouse" in Pakistan, the attorney assured the Gitmo review board hearing his case that "nobody was ever harmed by a device made directly or indirectly by Mr. al-Qahtani."

Lobdell assured board members that he no longer had any "desire to be a bomb maker." All he wanted to do, the lawyer said, was to "start a family and live a quiet life" back in Saudi Arabia.

"Mr. al-Qahtani poses no threat to the security of the United States," Lobdell argued. In fact, "[he] bears no ill will towards anyone."

The Gitmo board, then comprising several Obama administration agencies, agreed to transfer him to Saudi Arabia under the condition he go through a terrorist rehabilitation program. In November 2016, he was sent to the Mohammed bin Nayef Counseling and Care Center, which has the trappings of a five-star resort along with a questionable track record for reforming jihadists.

Jackson’s other three terrorist clients have also been released from Gitmo. While there’s no clear evidence any of them have returned to jihad, there’s a 1 in 3 chance they might, based on recidivism rates for former Gitmo detainees.

According to a declassified 2020 Office of National Intelligence report, a total of 229 of the 729 detainees released from Gitmo have reengaged in terrorist activities, including conducting and planning attacks and recruiting and funding terrorists. That’s a recidivism rate of more than 31%. Some of the repeat offenders have American blood on their hands: at least 12 former detainees launched attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan and killed about a half-dozen American soldiers and civilians. The exact figure remains classified, along with the identities of most of the recidivists.

Jackson sounded oblivious about Gitmo recidivism rates when asked about them last week: "I’m not aware," she told senators.

Jackson claims she was "assigned" these cases and didn’t necessarily support the positions she was arguing. But clearly, she was proud of the work she did for Gitmo detainees. In her questionnaire prepared ahead of the Senate hearings, Jackson listed her representation of former Gitmo detainee Gul as one of the 10 "most significant" cases she's personally handled as an attorney. In her work before the Supreme Court, she cited additional Gitmo cases in which she filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of anti-Gitmo lobby groups supporting challenges to Bush-era detention policies. She did that work pro bono as well.

"When she left the D.C. office as a public defender, she didn’t have to take on any more detainees as clients. But then she went over to Morrison Foerster and went out of her way to work on more pro bono Gitmo cases," noted Davis, who previously served as chief counsel for nominations to former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley.

Jackson testified that what happened on 9/11 was "terrible." She said she has no doubt such terrorists pose a danger to the U.S., but she asserted that "I was also among the many lawyers who were keenly aware of the threat that the [response to the] 9/11 attacks had posed to foundational constitutional principles."

Brian Sullivan, a former FAA supervisory special agent who warned of holes in airport security before 9/11 and who now advocates on behalf of 9/11 families, said that Jackson’s actions were a "slap in the face to those who lost loved ones on 9/11."

"I understand she originally was assigned the Guantanamo cases as a public defender, but she seems to have gone way beyond her mandate in that regard," he said. "Her record demonstrates a disposition to be lenient or supportive of the most heinous among us."
A Vow to Limit Government 'Overreach'
in Punishing Criminals

Jackson insisted she couldn't possibly be soft on violent criminals when "I have law enforcement in my family." One of her uncles, Harold Ross, was a sex crimes detective in Miami, while another uncle, Calvin Ross, served as police chief of Miami. Her brother, Ketajh Brown, worked undercover for the Baltimore police on drug strings and was even shot at once while chasing a suspect through an inner-city neighborhood.

Jackson denies that she is against incarcerating or punishing terrorists and criminals. But in her testimony, she explained that incarceration is not always the best deterrent and that slapping criminals with harsh prison terms can make them feel "bitter" and "victimized" by the system, which could make them more likely to return to a life of crime when they get out. She said other judges are too quick to send defendants to the slammer — "locking people up and throwing away the key" — rather than helping them understand the consequences of their actions and treating them "fairly," no matter how bad their behavior. She said that as a judge, she has taken the time during sentencing to explain to them why their crimes hurt people. In a word, Jackson’s judicial philosophy is empathy — she believes it’s better to counsel crooks straight than to scare them straight.

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Dick Durbin, Senate Judiciary Chairman: Refuses to turn over Jackson documents to Republicans.

If confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, she vowed to limit the government’s "overreach" in punishing criminals and enforce the guarantees offered the accused under the Bill of Rights.

That said, Jackson testified, "It’s very important that people be held accountable for their crimes, so if they’re not, then it would be a problem for the rule of law."

Her idea of the best way to hold criminals "accountable" is a key issue the Senate will have to weigh as it votes to confirm her confirmation early next month.

As the count stands now, it appears she has enough votes to squeeze past an evenly divided Senate. But Republicans are pressuring Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to release documents they say shed more light on Jackson’s record on the bench, as well as on the sentencing commission. Democratic Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin refuses to turn over even redacted copies of the presentencing reports generated in the child sex offender cases Jackson presided over. He also will not release her emails and other internal correspondence from her time on the commission. The White House, moreover, is withholding an additional 48,000 pages of documents that likely include some of her commission emails.

"Why are Democrats hiding her record? What is Judge Jackson hiding?" Davis asked.




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

As PJM’s Matt Margolis noted Thursday, “During her confirmation hearings, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s despicable record on sentencing child porn offenders became a key issue. Republicans pointed out that she had a pattern of giving these perverts lenient sentences, while Democrats made excuses for her and kept gushing over her status as a black woman.” And it’s even worse than we thought: investigative journalist Paul Sperry revealed Saturday that Jackson “heard horrifying details of ‘sadomasochistic’ torture of young kids — including ‘infants and toddlers’ — yet challenged the disturbing evidence presented by prosecutors and disregarded their prison recommendations to give the lightest possible punishments in each case.”

Not only that but “in some cases, she even apologized to some of the kiddie-porn perverts for having to follow the statutes, which she called ‘substantially flawed.’” Jackson repeatedly “made excuses for the sex fiends’ criminal behavior and cut them slack in defiance of investigators and prosecutors — and sometimes even probation officers serving her court — who argued for tougher sentences because the cases were particularly egregious or the defendants weren’t remorseful.” This contradicts Biden’s handlers’ claims that her light sentences for child pornographers were “mainstream” and within “normal range.”

The details are stomach-churning. “In July 2020,” Sperry reports, “Jackson gave the bare minimum sentence to a defendant convicted of distributing images and videos of infants being sexually abused, and who had boasted of molesting his 13-year-old cousin, even though she knew the defendant refused ‘to take full responsibility’ for his crimes, a transcript reveals.” The offender whom Jackson ensured got off lightly had posted a nude image of a two-year-old girl and a video of sex with a prepubescent girl.

Nor was that an isolated case. In April 2021, when sentencing a man who had distributed child pornography, Jackson dismissed his crimes as not “especially egregious,” despite the fact that “among the more than 600 images prosecutors told the judge he traded were sexually explicit pics depicting bondage of infants and toddlers,” and even worse. Yet as she gave this man a light sentence, Jackson remarked: “I’m really reluctant to get into the nature of the porn. I don’t find persuasive the government’s arguments concerning why they think that this is a particularly egregious child pornography offense, which means I struggled to find a good reason to impose a sentence that is more severe in this case.”

Mike Davis of the Article III Project, which advocates for a responsible judiciary, said that Jackson “served as the tip of the spear in weakening federal sentencing policy for child pornographers as vice-chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, where she ignored the advice of expert witnesses who disputed her theory that child pornographers are somehow not pedophiles.”

Related: The Disturbing Details About Biden’s SCOTUS Pick Just Keep on Coming

Jackson even apologized to one child pornographer as she sentenced him, saying: “This is a truly difficult situation. I appreciate that your family is in the audience. I feel so sorry for them and for you and for the anguish that this has caused all of you.” This was a habit: to another, she said: “I also feel terrible about the collateral consequences of this conviction,” adding that “sex offenders are truly shunned in our society, but I have no control over the collateral consequences.”

As revolting as all this is, it doesn’t look as if it’s going to derail Jackson’s confirmation. Controlled opposition Republican Senator Susan Collins (R-Sellout) has already announced that she is going to vote for Jackson, and can Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and others be far behind? While the Democrats never, ever break ranks, they can always count on Republicans to do so and to help them further the Leftist agenda.

And that’s what Ketanji Brown Jackson is all about. She is not being put on the Supreme Court because of her qualifications. She is not even really being put on the Supreme Court because she is a black woman, although that’s why Old Joe Biden’s handlers chose her. She is being put on the Supreme Court because she will advance the Leftist agenda. She was lenient toward child pornographers, but there is no doubt whatsoever that she will be as tough as she possibly can be on one set of offenders: Jan. 6 “insurrectionists,” parents protesting at school boards against transgenderism and Critical Race Theory being taught in public schools, and the like. That’s why Ketanji Brown Jackson is being put on the Supreme Court. Once she is confirmed, as soon as a “right-wing” case comes before the Court, the world will see a new, tough, justice-must-be-done Ketanji Brown Jackson. Leniency? That’s for Leftists.

Biden to Lift Title 42 Expulsion Policy~Officials: Border Agents to Encounter 18,000 Illegals Daily

Biden to Lift Title 42 Expulsion Policy. Officials: Border Agents to Encounter 18K Illegals Daily



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

It appears that the Biden administration is preparing to finish off what’s left of the U.S. border with Mexico.

The Associated Press has reported that Biden will stop using Title 42, the immigration law that permits the government to deport illegals for health reasons. Since President Trump implemented the law in 2020 to keep out China Virus carriers, it has served as something of a seawall against the “migrants,” who have splashed against the border with the force of waves whipped up by a Category 6 hurricane.

“Invasion” is not an overstatement. Early this week, administration officials said they expected border agents to be confronted with 18,000 illegals every day. That’s more than double the number they handle now.

Americans had better brace themselves. A crime wave is ahead, along with the financial burden of feeding, housing, and educating them.

May 23, the Invasion Begins

Leftists and top Democrats have been pushing Biden to lift the Title 42 deportation policy for some time, and for an obvious reason: Lifting the order that triggered the law means importing millions of new Democrat voters.

And it appears those open-borders subversives have succeeded.

“The decision, not yet final, would halt use of public health powers to absolve the United States of obligations under American law and international treaty to provide haven to people fleeing persecution, and would apply to all asylum-seekers,” AP reported:

Ending the limitations in May would allow for time to prepare at the border, the people said. But the delay runs against the wishes of top Democrats and others who say COVID-19 has long been used as an excuse for the U.S. to get out of asylum obligations.

It also raises the possibility that more asylum-seeking migrants will come to the border at a time when flows are already high. The Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday that about 7,100 migrants were coming daily, compared with an average of about 5,900 a day in February and on pace to match or exceed highs from last year, 2019 and other peak periods.

And as if that news isn’t bad enough, officials predict utter disaster when Biden does the unthinkable: literally opens the border to the Third World.

During a phone call with reporters this week, administration officials predicted an influx of 18,000 illegals a day.

Or at least that’s what they’re preparing for.

That puts the U.S. on pace to record more than 200,000 arrests for March, the highest monthly total in at least 22 years, and more than a million for the first six months of the government’s fiscal year, Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz said at a conference in San Antonio on Tuesday.

The administration, through a task force it set up last year called the Southwest Border Coordination Center, is planning for several scenarios in which daily border crossings climb even higher, to as many as 18,000 per day, officials told reporters on a Tuesday call.

They are preemptively strengthening government contracts for transportation and medical care, the officials said, and adding more staff to handle increased arrivals. Gen. Glen VanHerck, the head of U.S. Northern Command, said at a Senate hearing last week the administration was weighing sending additional troops to the border.

“Strengthening government contracts,” of course, means U.S. taxpayers will pay the bill. And once they are in the country, Biden and immigration subalterns start shipping the illiterates into a town near you.

It’s Not Incompetence

As The New American has repeatedly observed, the disaster at the border — from Biden’s refusal to enforce the law to busing and flying illegals into unsuspecting towns, to permitting 12,000 Haitians to wander into the country — is no accident. It is not the result of “incompetence.” It is not a “failure.”

As the latest on Title 42 shows, Biden is purposely flooding the nation with illegals, knowing they will become citizens and vote the right way.

And Biden has freed more than 300,000 illegals caught at the border or internally to roam the country, about 40 percent of the illegals border agents have apprehended.

If that rate of release continues after he rescinds the application of Title 42 and agents apprehend 18,000 per day, Biden will free 7,200 per day to colonize the country.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is Anti-Gun



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. –-( You don’t need to be an expert Supreme Court prognosticator, legal scholar or even a tea-leaf reader to know that any potential justice for the nation’s highest court nominated by the Biden-Harris administration is going to be an anti-gun extremist.

There are some who believe there’s still not enough information about Biden’s pick, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, but I strongly disagree. While it’s true she has never ruled on a gun-rights case while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – a seat she’s held since 2013 when nominated by Barack Obama – the information is there. All you have to do is take a critical look.

During her Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked, “Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?”

Judge Jackson’s response is telling: “Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.”

She did not say the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in the Constitution. Nor did she say it’s part of our God-given right to self-defense. Instead, she believes the RKBA was “established” by the Supreme Court.

That friend is a judicial philosophy taken straight from the pages of Gun Banning 101.

There is more evidence, albeit somewhat circumstantial, why Judge Jackson’s nomination should be rejected by every Senator who supports the Second Amendment. Just look at those who nominated her. The Biden-Harris administration is the most anti-gun crew to ever occupy the White House. Biden’s campaign website is proof of his administration’s true intent.

Among other infringements, Biden wants to ban the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines, and place all existing “assault weapons” under the regulatory authority of the National Firearms Act (NFA), which currently regulates machine guns, suppressors, short-barrel rifles and shotguns and other weapons. Biden also wants to institute a mandatory “buy-back” – code for confiscation – of “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines, ban private firearm sales, and close a plethora of “loopholes,” none of which actually exist.

There has never been an administration so extreme in their anti-gun goals, which they are going to require any Supreme Court nominee to strongly support. In fact, anti-gun activist justice is crucial for their plans. To believe otherwise makes no sense.

As part of her nomination process, Judge Jackson spent hours meeting with administration officials, most likely Susan Rice, who runs Biden’s Domestic Policy Council. As part of her duties, Rice oversees a “gun violence” team, which was formed quickly after Biden took office. Common sense dictates that any Supreme Court nominee who did not voice strong support for Biden’s anti-gun agenda during these meetings would immediately have been shown the door. Furthermore, Judge Jackson was very well-coached on all key Second Amendment issues. During her confirmation hearings, she dodged and sidestepped questions easily. It was clear she had spent considerable time learning how to support Biden’s anti-gun plans, without giving too much away.

Therefore, any Senator who supports Judge Jackson’s nomination, who believes they can later claim ignorance of her intent to infringe upon our gun rights, should know this: Joe Biden’s nominee is an anti-gun extremist. While legal scholars predict an easy confirmation, the whole country will be watching and scoring the vote.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams


The Price of Incompetence: State Department Says ‘Dozens’ of Americans Still Stuck in Afghanistan



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Last fall, the Biden State Department kept insisting that all Americans who wanted to get out of Afghanistan were able to leave. Then, as several planeloads of Americans left Afghanistan after that statement was made, we were told every U.S. citizen who wanted to get out of Afghanistan was offered help with leaving.

Now we’re told that there are dozens of Americans still in Afghanistan who appear to be held hostage by the Taliban even though the word “hostage” hasn’t been used.

Today, two of those American hostages were released.


The Biden administration on Friday secured the release of Safi Rauf, 27, an Afghan-American Naval reservist who was doing humanitarian work in Kabul and who had been in captivity under the Taliban since December.

Rauf and his brothers, all former Afghan refugees, founded the Human First Coalition, which, along with others in the “Digital Dunkirk” movement, worked to evacuate those desperately trying to flee after Kabul fell. The organization’s work soon turned to humanitarian aid for Afghans, and Rauf put medical school on hold to go to Kabul to try to provide crucially needed aid.

Rauf and his brother Anees Khalil were captured by the Taliban in December. The date is significant because it was in December that the Taliban began making nice with the international community in a bid to wangle humanitarian aid. It’s perfectly in keeping with the Taliban strategy to talk peace while seizing negotiating assets like hostages.

Related: Obama’s DHS Secretary Calls Biden Border Crisis ‘Unsustainable’

“Safiullah Rauf and Anees Khalil were released after being unjustly detained in Afghanistan,” Ned Price, a State Department spokesman, said Friday. “They are now in Qatar before traveling home. We are grateful for the efforts of all those who worked to secure their release but more work remains. Unjustly holding Americans captive is always unacceptable, and we will not stop until every American who is being unjustly held against their will is able to hug their families once again.”

It’s unclear what the administration gave up to get the brothers released. From what we know about the Taliban, weapons and cash were probably part of the deal. But why isn’t the media all over this story demanding to know why dozens of Americans were left behind in Afghanistan after the bug-out?

The release of the Rauf bothers comes as the Taliban continues to seek recognition as Afghanistan’s legitimate government from the United States and other Western nations. Since sweeping back into power in August 2021 as the Biden administration withdrew all US troops from Afghanistan, the Taliban has detained at least eight Westerners, CNN reported in February, including the Rauf brothers.

During the US withdrawal, they worked alongside the Taliban amid a chaotic evacuation of foreigners and Afghans from Kabul. Since then, US officials have been in regular communication, but there are still dozens of Americans in Afghanistan who have wanted to leave the country but have been unable to because there have not been regular evacuation flights.

This is the price of incompetent, cowardly leadership refusing to own up to their errors. We should hope that if the GOP gains control of Congress, this entire, sorry debacle will be thoroughly investigated.

“Made in the Image of God”: Biden Pushes Trans Agenda With Focus on Children



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Thursday, celebrating the “Transgender Day of Visibility”, the Biden administration released a series of documents promoting non-reversible “gender-reassignment” surgeries and hormone treatments for minors, among other measures.

Marking the occasion, President Joe Biden posted a video in which he praised transgender people and reaffirmed his administration’s strong support for them. The president said,

To everyone celebrating Transgender Day of Visibility, I want you to know that your president sees you — Jill [Biden], Kamala [Harris], Doug [Emhoff], our entire administration sees you — for who you are: made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect and support.

Without naming any names, the president went on to slam the “onslaught” of “hateful bills” that “attack” transgender people and their families. The Biden administration has been a vocal critic of the Florida legislation that prohibits classroom instruction about sexuality and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, and laws in states including Arizona and Oklahoma that prohibit biological males from competing in girls’ and women’s sports.

“This administration is standing up for you against all these hateful bills,” Biden said. “And we’re committed to advancing transgender equality in the classroom, on the playing field, at work, in our military, and [in] our housing and health care systems — everywhere, simply everywhere.”

The president continued, “To parents of transgender children, affirming your child’s identity is one of the most powerful things you can do to keep them safe and healthy.”

Biden ended the video by saying, “You’re so brave. You belong and we have your back.”

Indeed he does. The Fact Sheet released by the White House contains a slew of actions aimed at supporting “transgender” people.

Legal protection

According to the fact sheet, the Department of Justice sent a letter to all state attorneys general, saying that discrimination against “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, nonbinary, or otherwise gender-nonconforming” people is unconstitutional — as Biden’s DOJ sees it.

For example, the letter says that “intentionally erecting discriminatory barriers to prevent individuals from receiving gender-affirming care implicates a number of federal legal guarantees.” That means that legally prohibiting children from receiving non-reversible surgeries that mutilate them for life and may have detrimental effects on their physical and psychological well-being is unlawful in the view of Biden’s DOJ.

“Transgender” Children

Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched  a new website that offers “resources for transgender and LGBTQI+ youth, their parents, and providers,” the goal of which is to “affirm an LGBTQI+ child.” When children and adolescents claim that their “gender identity” does not match their biology, the administration is happy to “reaffirm” that with mental health “councils.” 

But that’s not all. HHS also released a document that describes what it sees as appropriate treatments for “transgender” adolescents. That includes “top” surgery, which creates a “male-typical chest shape or enhanced breasts;” and “bottom” surgery, or surgery on genitals or reproductive organs. The department also recommends using “facial feminization,” puberty blockers, and prescribing testosterone for girls and estrogen for boys.

The HHS also recommends “social affirmation,” which includes “gender-affirming hairstyles, clothing, name, gender pronouns, and restrooms and other facilities.”

The department warns that “lack of such support can result in rejection, depression and suicide, homelessness, and other negative outcomes.”

On the same day, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) National Child Traumatic Stress Network — another division of the HHS — released a parallel document.

In it, the administration stresses that the younger the child, the better the “outcomes” of “gender-affirmation,” which is achieved, among other measures, with hormones and puberty blockers.

The document contains information for providers “confirming that providing gender-affirming care is neither child maltreatment nor malpractice.” In other words, the administration is encouraging healthcare providers to prescribe meds and perform surgeries on young children because it “won’t harm them.” On the contrary, such medical interventions will benefit the children, claims the document.

The language of the document is seemingly a response to the legal battles in Texas over puberty blockers. “Gender-reaffirming” surgery is considered a form of child abuse, per the Texas Department for Family and Protective Services. 

Access to Federal Services and Benefits 

From now on, “transgender” people will not have to show proof of identity such as doctor’s notes in order to update their gender information in their social security record by the fall of 2022.

When filing an employment discrimination complaint, applying for federal student aid, or scheduling a visit to the White House, the option “X” for gender will be available on the questionnaire.

Among other initiatives, Biden included $10 million in funding for data collection on LGBTQ+ people in his FY 2023 budget proposal.


The administration is dedicated to improving the travel experience of transgender people. For that reason, beginning April 11, 2022, all U.S. citizens will be able to select an “X” as their gender marker on their U.S. passport application.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will implement a number of additional measures aimed at ensuring comfortable travel for trans people. For instance, the DHS will implement so-called Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) body scanners that will save transgender travelers the trouble of undergoing additional security checks.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has already updated its Standard Operating Procedures to remove gender considerations when validating a traveler’s identification at airport security checkpoints.

The TSA is also updating its PreCheck and CBP Trusted Traveler Programs enrollment to include “X” gender markers.

florida governor DeSantis Suggests Ending Disney’s Special Self-Governing Status



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Back in 1967 when Disney World was just a gleam in Mickey’s eye and states around the country were vying for Walt Disney’s approval to build his second theme park, the Florida legislature passed the Reedy Creek Improvement Act, which gave the Walt Disney Company a special carve-out, making it a self-governing enclave.

The Act gave Disney “the ability, the power to build a nuclear power plant, an airport manufacturer, distill and distribute alcoholic beverages and lots of other things,” said Dr. Richard Foglesong, author of Married to the Mouse in an interview with a Florida TV station last year.

Related: Disney Cast Members Who Don’t Buy Into the LGBTQ Agenda Make Their Voices Heard

Disney has since become an extraordinarily powerful media conglomerate and is now using that power to advance an agenda at odds with the beliefs and values of a large percentage of its customer base. So many Florida Republicans, sick and tired of Disney’s nauseating virtue signaling, want to strip Disney of its special status, making the company subject to reasonable oversight from Orange County.

Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor and potential GOP candidate for president in 2024 hasn’t yet given the plan his full endorsement, but he’s sending a clear message to Disney to stick to making kids smile and entertaining families—and stay the hell out of politics.

Fox News:

DeSantis continued, “I think what has happened is there’s a lot of these special privileges that are not justifiable, but because Disney had held so much sway, they were able to sustain a lot of special treatment over the years.”

DeSantis said that Disney has “lost a lot of the pull that they used to have” over the company’s reaction to the parental rights law and said he thinks that’s a “good thing for our state because the state should be governed by the best interest of the people.”

“I would say any special privileges that are in law I would like to get rid of generally,” DeSantis added. “I think in this particular case with Disney, I just don’t think you have very many people in the legislature anymore who are going to be able to defend a lot of what has been done over many years to really have them almost govern themselves in some of these things. That was probably never appropriate to start, but is certainly not appropriate now at this point.”

There’s a reason that DeSantis is tiptoeing around the issue of Disney self-governance: The Walt Disney Company is the largest GOP donor in the state of Florida. For that reason and others, the author of Married to the Mouse thinks the threat by Republicans to revoke Disney’s self-governing status is political “March Madness.”


“If you ask me whether it’s politically possible to take these privileges away from the Disney company, I don’t think so,” Foglesong said. “I think that cooler minds will prevail and that this is really a shot across the bow to try to bring the Disney company, Mickey Mouse if you will, into line with Governor DeSantis. I thought it was more of March Madness of the political kind, the thought that the Republican Party, which used to be the party of business, would want to take on of their biggest donors.”

Even the threat of revoking their self-governing status has to be giving Walt Disney Company board members a case of the willies. But at least the company has been put on notice that there are limits to DeSantis’s patience with their woke advocacy, and if they’re not careful, Disney customers and fans are going to be taking their business elsewhere.


DeSantis Stands Firm on Parental Rights Law, Even as White House Threatens to "Monitor" Law's Implementation

DeSantis Stands Firm on Parental Rights Law, Even as White House Threatens to “Monitor” Law’s Implementation



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

As Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis continues to stand firm on the Sunshine State’s Parental Rights in Education bill that he recently signed into law, the Biden administration has announced it will “monitor” how Florida implements the new law.

The law — which mainstream media and Democrats pejoratively refer to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill — prohibits “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity” for “kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

In Tuesday’s daily White House press briefing, White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield made a surprise appearance to announce that “The Department of Education … will monitor this law upon implementation to evaluate whether it violates federal civil rights law.”

In her time at the press briefing, Bedingfield referred to a statement by President Biden, saying, “The president also put out a statement [Monday] about the tragic impact of this kind of law on an incredibly vulnerable population.” She added, “And he said that by signing this bill, the governor has chosen to target some of Florida’s most vulnerable students and families, all while under the guise of parents’ rights.”

One is left to wonder about the “incredibly vulnerable population” of “transgender” kindergartners who are suffering under the “tragic impact” of a law that simply prohibits them from being sexualized in the classroom.

As Townhall pointed out, “Education Secretary Miguel Cardona has said the same”:

And Biden is doubling down. In a brief video message commemorating Transgender Day of Visibility Thursday, Biden described bills such as Florida’s as “hateful” and said his administration is “standing up” for transgender Americans threatened by them. He said:

The onslaught of anti-transgender state laws attacking you and your families is simply wrong. This administration is standing up for you against all these hateful bills. And we’re committed to advancing transgender equality in the classroom, on the playing field, at work, in our military and our housing and health care systems.

He said the policy of “inclusion” of “trans” rights — a euphemism in this case for the sexualization of young children — will be “Everywhere. Simply everywhere.”

However, even with the White House implicitly threatening to bring the full weight of the Department of Education down on Florida — and both Biden and Cardona spouting slanders that DeSantis is “targeting” vulnerable children — the Florida governor is not backing down. In a statement he released, DeSantis said:

Parents’ rights have been increasingly under assault around the nation, but in Florida we stand up for the rights of parents and the fundamental role they play in the education of their children. Parents have every right to be informed about services offered to their child at school, and should be protected from schools using classroom instruction to sexualize their kids as young as 5 years old.

One has to ask since the Parental Rights in Education law actually only prohibits “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity” for “kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards” — an idea that Americans overwhelmingly support — why is the establishment so hell-bent on pushing what this law prohibits?

In a previous article, this writer quoted DeSantis as addressing that question:

While some critics have not read the bill and are merely regurgitating talking points given by others, DeSantis said that “leftist politicians, corporate media outlets, some of these activist groups” are different, because “they actually have read the bill” and are deliberately dishonest about what is in it, because they “are opposed to providing protections for parents and enforcing parents rights.”

In that same article, DeSantis addressed Disney’s attacks on the law, saying Hollywood types “who held up degenerates like Harvey Weinstein as exemplars” are coming out against a common-sense measure to protect children, and adding, “if those are the types of people opposing us on parents rights, I wear that like a badge of honor.”

So, Hollywood, mainstream media, and the White House are all worked up in a lather to oppose a law that simply protects children from being sexualized in the classroom. And none of them minds stooping to new lows of dishonesty and smear tactics to do it. That should just about explain who is who in this battle in the culture war.