Ronny Jackson: I Am Willing to Assess Biden’s Cognitive Ability


OBAMA'S EMAIL: "That’s why I have to express my disappointment at the cheap shot you took at Joe Biden via Twitter. It was unprofessional and beneath the office that you once held. It was also disrespectful to me and the many friends you had in our administration. You were the personal physician to the President of the United States as well as an admiral in the U.S. Navy. I expect better, and I hope upon reflection that you will expect more of yourself in the future," Obama told Jackson.

“I have made a point of not commenting on your service in my successor’s administration and have always spoken highly of you both in public and in private. You always served me and my family well, and I have considered you not only a fine doctor and service member but also a friend,” Obama wrote in the email.

“That’s why I have to express my disappointment at the cheap shot you took at Joe Biden via Twitter. It was unprofessional and beneath the office that you once held. It was also disrespectful to me and the many friends you had in our administration. You were the personal physician to the President of the United States as well as an admiral in the U.S. Navy. I expect better, and I hope upon reflection that you will expect more of yourself in the future,” Obama told Jackson.



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.

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


Ketanji Brown Jackson Puts the Moral Poverty of Identity Politics on Display



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

“I actually don’t know the answer to that question — I’m sorry — I don’t.”

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Joe Biden had promised black voters in South Carolina that he would put a black woman on the Supreme Court if they voted for him. After a pressure campaign aimed at the Supreme Court’s lone liberal justice who agreed to step down and make way for a black woman, Biden picked between two candidates, one backed by moderates and one backed by radical leftists.

Even while leftists wished that Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s lone black justice, would die after reports that he was hospitalized, they cheered the incredible breakthrough of the first black female, and more importantly leftist, being nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court.

The long contentious hearings had plenty of awkward moments, but the most definitive clash came from a simple question that highlighted the vast moral gap between identity politics and natural rights.

“When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?” Senator Kennedy asked Jackson.

“Well Senator, um… I believe that the Supreme Court… um… actually I, I actually don’t know the answer to that question — I’m sorry — I don’t,” she awkwardly replied.

The postmodern leftist notion of human rights revolves around pursuing equity for discriminated groups. Leftists like Jackson have thorough notions about what equal protection looks like for black or transgender people, but no notion of a grander principle that protects all human life.

Jackson obviously found the question uncomfortable because it addresses abortion. And yet even a militant abortion supporter like Jackson ought to be able to tackle the basic moral question of when life begins and when human rights come into play. The Framers are often attacked for refusing to grapple with the moral questions of slavery, yet they did. That they narrowly chose not to break up the country over a monstrous evil did not change the fact that they struggled to reconcile their ideals and the compromises they believed they had to make.

Leftists, like the most hard-boiled defenders of slavery, refuse to even admit that there’s an issue. Jackson’s smirking response would have befitted a Buchanan Democrat pretending not to understand that human slavery might have moral, not just economic, legal implications.

Identity politics reduces every issue to victimhood. The same worldview that makes it all too easy to blame highways and obesity on systemic racism makes it equally impossible for leftist jurists like Jackson to even conceive of life and liberty as natural rights bestowed on everyone. And yet it was this conviction that eventually overturned slavery and segregation.

“Do you have a personal belief though about when life begins?” Senator Kennedy asked Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases,” she replied.

Judges shouldn’t rule from theology, but the idea that their religious moral convictions should play no role in basic notions of rights is alien to the words of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

If religious views of human rights are things to be set aside, then what is the basis for anyone’s rights? Judicial precedent, a “living constitution” that incorporates current academic doctrines, the pursuit of equity? Those are where leftists derive their moral authority and notions of rights.

And yet without that grand conviction that human equality and rights proceed from a higher power, they remain at the mercy of judges like Jackson who can decide when to take them away. And Jackson is unable to even articulate when those rights actually begin which will make it that much more morally and intellectually easier for her to take them away, from babies and from anyone else whose existence obstructs her political ideology and personal biases.

Jackson can’t comprehend rights except in terms of equity. If a group isn’t sufficiently wealthy, healthy, or otherwise successful, the government has to step in and alter the equation. But if a group is all of the above, then the government needs to examine how it oppressed others.

This Procrustean Bed in which the government stretches some and shrinks others in pursuit of the impossible mission of making everyone equal is the only kind of rights leftists understand. And they have no notion of the origin of rights except as a mindless pursuit of leveling everyone, and an atonement for the social sins that resulted in everyone not being equally successful.

Rather than looking back to an origin point, they look forward to a secular utopian “right side of history”, a transcendentalist conviction that one day we will all be made equal, to justify everything they believe and everything they do. And so you can’t ask Ketanji Brown Jackson when rights begin, because they haven’t ended yet. The present is just an unfinished future.

Rights don’t begin with God or with our founding documents, they run backward in time from some inchoate socialist future that they intend to achieve by forcibly “equalizing” all of us.

Jackson couldn’t process the question of when universal human rights come into being, because she doesn’t view rights as universal except in the sense that everyone has the right to be made equal. To assess whether someone has rights, leftists have to know their race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, and other details that indicate where they stand on the equity spectrum. Asking them to articulate rights without reference to equity is like asking Thomas Jefferson where rights come from if there was no Creator or guiding natural order.

What rights does a baby have? According to leftists, the right to be made equal. The only real right in leftist judicial doctrine is the right to have what others have. And the amplification of whatever privileges and benefits are necessary to cut in line in order to achieve equity.

But does a baby have the right to live? That simple question whose parameters the Founders and Framers would have had no trouble understanding frustrates and infuriates leftist jurists to whom rights are not natural, but relative, and not individual, but collective. While they can amply expound on the plight of transgender Navajo Indians, they can’t offer a decision on the life of a single infant of unknown race and sex because they don’t believe in rights apart from identity.

Leftists can’t affirm natural universal rights, only compare rights relative to someone else.

Ask a leftist to compare my rights to your rights and they can easily do it. A baby can’t have innate natural rights but must have her rights compared to her mother and to society at large. Stakeholders must be consulted, and papers must be reviewed on the status of women in Colonial America to derive who is the greater victim and who is entitled to more rights.

The question of when human rights are conferred is baffling and annoying to Jackson. In her legalistic worldview, the question “when” is almost entirely irrelevant. It’s like asking “when is racism” or “when is sexism”. The dividing lines in leftist jurisprudence are not based on time or other rational metrics, but on the subjective and relative ones of who loses and who gains.

That’s why asking for firm rational metrics for anything is routinely derided as white western masculine thinking in academic circles. Leftists prefer to make decisions based on lived experience which is another way of saying anecdotal subjectivity which leaves plenty of room for personal bias, but none for any meaningful guarantee of rights beyond momentary feelings.

The Founders and Framers were certainly flawed, but they proceeded from an understanding of rights that expanded them, while leftists like Jackson can only contract and reduce them. Where our nation’s founders universalized rights, leftists use equity to de-universalize them, replacing general guarantees of human rights with situational activism through academic lenses.

They claim that they are expanding rights when all they’re doing is taking away our universal natural rights and replacing them with a ranked caste system of identity politics privileges that can bestow a “right” to a house, a car, or fat-free yogurt, but not the absolute right to live.

Where the Bill of Rights could define free speech as a universal right, leftists have dismantled the ACLU and insist that only the people who agree with them should have free speech. And so it goes for everything from the right to assemble to freedom of the press. Conservatives rightly see this as an unconstitutional double standard because it transgresses universal rights. But leftists only see universal rights as a leveling mechanism that only applies to the extent that it makes people more equal, but not when it does not. And so it’s natural for them to reject the idea that their opponents, who they argue make people less equal, should have free speech.

This is the totalitarian logic of civil rights which has slowly taken away rights from everyone.

Cancel culture is the inevitable result of the impulse to make people equal by destroying those who are perceived to stand in the way of the social activism that is the only source of equality.

Is it any wonder that Jackson can’t articulate or even grasp the concept that universal human rights exist and that they have some origin point in the process of human development?

Jackson’s incomprehension of the question reveals the moral bankruptcy of identity politics.

Identity politics is not making us a better society, more concerned with rights, it’s transforming us from a society that believed everyone had rights to a society that has no concept of rights.

Child-porn Convict Whom SCOTUS Pick Ketanji Jackson Sentenced to Three Months Objects to GOP Questions

WASHINGTON POST Finds, Interviews, Wesley Hawkins, Who Got ...



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

Leave it to the Washington Post to find kiddie-porn convicts and portray them sympathetically.

But the Post added a special touch in its story about kiddie-porn aficionado Welsey Hawkins. It importuned the registered sex offender to say he’s sorry for the harsh questions about him that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson received from Republican senators during her confirmation hearings.

As with many of her sentences in child-porn cases, Jackson ignored the request of prosecutors for a long jail term and sentenced Hawkins to a much lesser one. So of course, the natural thing for the leftist Post to do was seeking the pervert’s opinion about it.

YouTube Porn

To its credit, before finding Hawkins, the Post published a piece about his crime.

The confessed homosexual uploaded child porn to YouTube in 2012 when he was 18 years old, and “an undercover detective soon emailed him, suggesting the two had ‘similar interests,’” the Post reported:

Hawkins emailed the agent two videos, and wrote that he was interested in boys ages 11 to 17. Authorities executed a search warrant in June, finding 17 videos and 16 images of boys on a laptop and a phone.

Hawkins cooperated with the investigation, federal prosecutors said. In court filings, they wrote that the recent high school graduate had agreed to be interviewed by detectives, admitted possession, entered a pre-indictment guilty plea and took “full responsibility for his actions.”

Although federal guidelines called for a sentence of eight to 10 years, prosecutors said that given Hawkins’s age and lack of criminal record they recommended two years. According to documents given to senators, a U.S. probation officer recommended a year and a half.

His defense attorney blamed Hawkins’ “sexual identity issue complicated by his mother’s strict religious beliefs and that his offense was prompted by a teenage sexual drive, not an intrinsic sexual attraction to significantly younger children.”

Jackson, then a federal district court judge, sentenced him to three months in prison and three months probation.

Here’s the reason, the Post reported:

Addressing Hawkins, she said, “you were only involved in this for a few months” and that “other than your engagement with the undercover officer, there isn’t an indication that you were in any online communities to advance your collecting behavior.”

Jackson added that the age difference between Hawkins and the victims in the videos wasn’t all that great. One was eight years old.

In 2019, the Post reported, Jackson sent Hawkins to a halfway house after his probation officer told Jackson that “despite being in treatment for more than five years [Hawkins] continues to seek out sexually arousing, non-pornographic material and images of males 13 to 16-years-old.”

Sympathy for the Judge

In the piece that ensued, Hawkins confessed that what he did was a “bit monstrous.”

But the Post couldn’t stop there. It tossed in a chance for Hawkins to bash the Republicans who attack Jackson’s record on perverts.

“Of the attention his case is getting now, Hawkins noted that many in the GOP continued to support candidates who faced allegations of sexual misconduct, the Post reported:

“While I’m not defending my actions, because, again, they are undefendable, I feel that their hypocrisy should be pointed out.”

Perhaps most surprising, Hawkins said, was that he found himself feeling sympathy for the judge he had once been angry with for sending him to prison.

“I wasn’t very happy that she gave me three months, though, after reflection when I was in jail, I was hearing from other people who said it was their first time arrested and they got five years, six years.

“I feel that she chose to take into consideration the fact that I was just getting started [in life] and she knew this was going to hold me back for years to come regardless,” he said, “so she didn’t really want to add on to that.”

GOP senators presented Jackson’s record of sending child porn in some detail, and Senators Josh Hawley noted that her sympathy for perverts includes criticizing sex-offender registries.

“As far back as her time in law school, Judge Jackson has questioned making convicts register as sex offenders — saying it leads to ‘stigmatization and ostracism.’” he tweeted. “She’s suggested public policy is driven by a “climate of fear, hatred & revenge” against sex offenders.”

Jackson has proposed eliminating mandatory-minimum sentences for child-porn convicts, and once said that people who possess the material “are in this for either the collection or the people who are loners and find status in their participation in the community.” 

Washington Post Runs Sympathetic Profile of Child Porn Offender Protected by Ketanji Brown Jackson

WASHINGTON POST Finds, Interviews, Wesley Hawkins, Who Got ...


REVEALED: How pedophile, 18, at the center of Ketanji Brown Jackson Senate hearing continued looking for 'sexually arousing images of children after she jailed him for three months - after he wrote a letter asking for a second chance

  • Jackson sentenced the young adult to three months in prison, though federal sentencing guidelines recommended 10 years and prosecutors had sought two
  • Wesley Hawkins, six years later, has not given up on his sick infatuation with children, according to records shared with the Washington Post
  • In 2019, Jackson ordered Hawkins to serve the last six months of his six-year supervision period in a halfway house
  • He was found to be seeking out 'sexually arousing, non-pornographic material'  
  • He did not commit any sexual violations
  • After unknowingly providing child porn to an undercover cop, police raided Hawkins' apartment and found 33 images and videos of child porn 
  • Some of the content involved children as young as eight 

Hawkins wrote a letter to Judge Jackson, telling he hoped his crime would not 'end my life before it starts'



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

Is there any crime committed by an “oppressed” identity politics monster too vile for the pro-crime media to defend?

Ever since Ketanji Brown Jackson’s decision to give a child porn offender a light slap on the wrist and apologize to him came up, the media has been frantically spinning. And now the Washington Post decided to look Wesley Hawkins up and give him a sympathetic profile.

Before the Washington Post gets started, let’s look at a quick recap of the case.

The lowest sentence of the seven was in the case of Wesley Hawkins. He was 18 years old when he downloaded scores of videos and images containing child pornography in 2012, the New York Times reports.

The prosecutor in the case had recommended a two-year sentence, the U.S. Probation Office had recommended an 18-month sentence, and the U.S. sentencing guidelines had recommended a sentence of 97 to 121 months in prison. The defense lawyer sought a day in prison.

Hawkins pleaded guilty to downloading and trading child pornography, and Jackson sentenced him in November 2013, according to the New York Times. Jackson sentenced Hawkins to three months in prison and six years of supervised release.

In other words, nothing. And radically below the sentencing guidelines.

According to a statement of offense to which Hawkins stipulated, he downloaded and shared videos and images of prepubescent children to YouTube and a file-sharing account.

Note the prepubescent part. It’s important because one of the sexually abused children was as young as 8 years old. This is also important because  Ketanji Brown Jackson will lie about it.

There were videos of 11 and 12 year olds committing sexual acts, a video of an 11-year-old being raped by an adult male, a video of an eight-year-old committing a sexual act, to name a few. Police found 17 videos and 16 images of boys on his computer and phone, many of them violent. The teen later pleaded guilty.  

This is horrifying evil. And it’s what the media is now trying to clean up and justify.

In a sentencing memorandum, Hawkins’ public defender said his client initially reacted to the images that he saw with “confusion and shock rather than arousal.” He viewed more child pornography over the next several months, but he “did not amass a large collection,” the memo said.

The natural response to the “confusion and shock” was to keep consuming child porn.

“Importantly, Mr. Hawkins’ connection to the images he viewed appears to be one of identifying with his age-mates emotionally, instead of exploiting them sexually. Mr. Hawkins said he found the fellow teenagers in the photos easier to connect with than adults,” the memo said.

Again, prepubescent children. Hawkins was 18.

In imposing the sentence, Jackson acknowledged the defense claim that Hawkins should not be considered a pedophile because his age was close to that of the children depicted in the images, according to the New York Times.

And again, some more context before the media starts spinning and the Washington Post starts ginning up sympathy for a pedophile.

He later uploaded five videos of pornographic content involving children from his computer to YouTube, which is what tipped off the police. An undercover officer emailed him, suggesting the two had ‘similar interests.’ Hawkins then emailed the cop two videos, and wrote that he was interested in males age 11 to 17. 

So Hawkins did share the material and solicited it. He started off with a target age range beginning with 11. That is not close to his age. And he kept on doing it.

The sealed request demonstrated that Hawkins did not commit any sexual crime or violation of his conditions, but, ‘despite being in treatment for more than five years,’ Hawkins ‘continues to seek out sexually arousing, non-pornographic material and images of males 13 to 16-years-old.’    

Now on to the Washington Post’s sympathetic profile which is headlined as, “Wesley Hawkins, talk of the Brown Jackson hearings, describes life after pornography sentence”.

If the Bezos social justice paper had anything resembling a soul, it might want to do a sympathetic profile of some of the abused children, not the perpetrator.

Instead, we learn from the Washington Post that, “His mornings had been filled with looking for his next job, his afternoons rereading one of his favorite books by Jamaican novelist Marlon James, he said, and his nights bingeing his favorite Netflix series “The Last Kingdom.”

And there’s a handfed attack on Republicans that I’m sure wasn’t carefully prompted by the reporter.

“Of the attention his case is getting now, Hawkins noted that many in the GOP continued to support candidates who faced allegations of sexual misconduct. “While I’m not defending my actions, because, again, they are undefendable, I feel that their hypocrisy should be pointed out.”

But he manages to admit that she did give him a slap on the wrist.

“I wasn’t very happy that she gave me three months, though after reflection when I was in jail, I was hearing from other people who said it was their first time arrested and they got five years, six years.”

Now Hawkins’ enabler will sit on the Supreme Court and be able to protect pedophiles and all sorts of criminals she sympathizes with from there.


Critical race theorist Derrick Bell on racism

African American Legends: Derrick Bell, New York University

Taped: 04/03/1995




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

A judge who does not believe in the Constitution, but believes in critical race theory, is unfit.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

The existence of a speech by Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, praising Derrick Bell, the godfather of critical race theory, and citing his book, “Faces At the Bottom of a Well”, as an influence has been widely reported. Conservatives have covered Bell’s racist views, his praise for Farrakhan, his antisemitism, and attacks on America. Much of this was already hashed out during the exposure of the relationship between Barack Obama and Derrick Bell.

But it’s important to specifically focus on Jackson’s interest in “Faces At the Bottom of the Well.”

In her speech, Jackson mentions that Bell, whom along with his wife she praises throughout her speech, “wrote a book in the early 1990s about the persistence of racism in American life”.

The subtitle of the book, which few people have mentioned, is, “The Permanence Of Racism”.

Persistence and permanence are not the same things. But this is another example of Jackson subtly distorting Bell and his book in order to make their extremism seem more moderate.

Jackson goes on to say, “My parents had this book on their coffee table for many years, and I remember staring at the image on the cover when I was growing up; I found it difficult to reconcile the image of the person, who seemed to be smiling, with the depressing message that the title and subtitle conveyed. I thought about this book cover again for the first time in forty years when I started preparing for this speech.” That would have made her ten years old.

As others have pointed out, “Faces At the Bottom of the Well” was published when Jackson was in her early twenties during Bell’s tantrum against Harvard University. It’s unlikely that Biden’s Supreme Court nominee grew up with the hateful text, but it’s entirely plausible that she was influenced by the book which came out when she was at Harvard and then Harvard Law.

Since Bell began his racial strike against Harvard Law before she had completed her undergraduate degree, it’s unlikely that she had taken any of his classes, but the former member of the faculty was clearly an influence on her. Perhaps Jackson’s memory is faulty or she’s deliberately backdating the book’s influence on her childhood to make it seem more innocent. Surely no one could blame a ten-year-old for being attracted to a racialist text.

“Faces At the Bottom of the Well” is the sort of racist book that could conceivably appeal to a bright ten-year-old. Bell, despite his position, was never much of a legal or constitutional scholar, and Faces, like the preceding “And We Are Not Saved”, conveys its message that the constitution is just a facade for a white racist agenda through science fiction short stories.

Where “And We Are Not Saved” transports the protagonist back to the Constitutional Convention to denounce the Constitution, “Faces At the Bottom of the Well” indulges in more hyperbolic science fiction scenarios including the rise of a new continent of Afroatlantis and space aliens offering Americans profits in exchange for selling black people into space slavery.

While the scenarios are absurd, they’re there to illustrate Bell’s argument that the Constitution is nothing more than what benefits white people at any given time. This is the same argument that the godfather of critical race theory had repeatedly made throughout his career, contending, for example, that the ban on segregation was not a rejection of racism, only a ploy by white people to defeat the Soviet Union and Communism by showing that they weren’t racist.

(Likewise, Faces, along with a defense of Farrakhan and condemnation of Jews for opposing black antisemitism, portrays Jews as protesting against the plan to sell black people into slavery only because in the absence of blacks, “Jews could become the scapegoats”.)

Such racial conspiracy theories, ubiquitous in the work and thought of black nationalists and supremacists, who always begin and end with the premise of white evil, pervade Bell’s work. 

“Faces At the Bottom of the Well” was a way to popularize and communicate this central idea at a level that even a child or a not particularly bright Harvard student, already nursing resentments, would be able to understand by depicting scenarios in which the white society and white people would cheerfully revamp the Constitution to bring back black slavery.

Thus near the end of the “Space Traders” story, Bell has the Supreme Court unanimously rule that, “if inducted in accordance with a constitutionally approved conscription provision, blacks would have no issues of individual rights for review” and tells us that, “By 70 percent to 30 percent, American citizens voted to ratify the constitutional amendment that provided a legal basis for acceptance of the Space Traders’ offer”. Behind the SciFi is the message that the majority of Americans, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution would allow black people to be enslaved again and that therefore black people should not rely on whites or the Constitution.

The Constitution, according to Bell, is merely the whim of a white agenda that serves its purposes. To the extent that the law has outlawed segregation and slavery, it did so only because it temporarily served white purposes and the moment that it would serve white purposes to enslave black people again, it would be done within the Constitution.

That is the message of “Faces At the Bottom of the Well”: the book that influenced Jackson.

Does Jackson believe that the Supreme Court would rule that black people could be sold into slavery? Like everything about her record, we know we can’t expect an honest answer.

And yet her speech, which touches not only on the racist rants of Bell and his wife but on the 1619 Project, introduces the idea that our founding documents are racially untrustworthy.

Praising the racial revisionist history of the 1619 Project, Jackson touts Nikole Hannah-Jones’ “provocative thesis that the America that was born in 1776 was not the perfect union that it purported to be” and that only black civil rights activism made America “the free nation that the Framers initially touted.”

Much like the 1619 Project, this description is rife with historical anachronisms and fundamental inaccuracies that is even less befitting a Supreme Court justice than a New York Times hack, but also implicitly echoes the critical race theory understanding that the civil rights struggle was not about upholding the Constitution, but overcoming it, that America’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were racist and remain the enemy.

In the process of her lecture, Jackson invokes critical race theory, the pernicious concept of “white privilege”, and intersectionality. 

The radicalism oozes around the edges of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s talk.

The Supreme Court nominee praises Gloria Richardson who, in Jackson’s words, “took part in several protests that ended in violent clashes with white residents” and “indirectly challenged SNCC’s non-violent ideology.” She quotes Richardson as saying, “[w]hen we were attacked at demonstrations, [we women] were the ones throwing stones back at the whites.”

Gloria Richardson was a wealthy leftist organizer with political connections during the Cambridge Riots who had contemptuously dismissed Martin Luther King and asserted, “We weren’t going to stop until we got it, and if violence occurred, then we would have to accept that.” 

Black nationalists hail her because she’s seen as breaking the embargo on local nonviolence in protests. And Richardson had emphasized that to the extent to which she used nonviolence was as a “tactical device”. To Jackson, most of the law seems to likewise be a tactical device.

And that’s the problem.

Absorbing the paranoid racism of the godfather of critical race theory during her formative years at Harvard makes for a bad judge and a worse justice. Bell’s approach to the Constitution, like that of black nationalists, was that it was a trick to lure black people into lowering their guard. 

White people, he believed, could never be trusted and all that mattered was seizing power.

Any laws or documents made by white people would only serve them. Only black people could secure the rights of black people. Like the Nazis, the ultimate truths were race and power.

Everything else was a distraction.

If that is Ketanji Brown Jackson’s worldview, she cannot be expected to come out and say it. But the highest court in the land is the last place for racial paranoia and nationalism. The Supreme  Court is charged with upholding the Constitution. A judge who does not believe in the Constitution, but believes in critical race theory, the 1619 Project, and white privilege is manifestly unfit to decide the fate of a nation and its hundreds of millions of people.

Derrick Bell and his hateful ideology believed that white racism was the only abiding truth.

There’s no room for that kind of thinking on the Supreme Court.






The school also allows 2nd graders to "explore and claim their identities in a yearlong multidisciplinary study and project," while 4th graders lead the annual Free to Be Me Assembly, which "celebrates all kinds of families, self-determination, LGBTQ+ pride, inclusion, and comprehensive belonging."

Free to Be Me Assembly 2021



The annual Free to Be Me Assembly is one of GDS’s cornerstone assemblies and celebrates all kinds of families, self-determination, LGBTQ+ pride, inclusion, and comprehensive belonging. The virtual assembly this year, led as always by the 4th grade, facilitated the intentional inclusion of the performing and visual arts, centered and uplifted LGBTQ+ voices, and highlighted student voices. The 4th-grade students did nearly all of the talking—one kindergartener remarked, “Wow, they are doing so great. They sound like parents!” 

    … Free to Be Me Assembly 2021 Jun 9 The annual Free to Be Me Assembly is one of GDS’s …
    … free-to-be-me-assembly-2021-1.jpg 20210609_free-to-be-me-assembly-2021-2.jpg 20210609_free-to …
    … free-to-be-me-assembly-2021-1.jpg 20210609_free-to-be-me-assembly-2021-2.jpg 20210609_free-to …
    … record and send one now! Please note, the Lower School Free to Be Me Assembly will also take place virtually …
    … record and send one now! Please note, the Lower School Free to Be Me Assembly will also take place virtually …
    … Free to Be Me Assembly 2021 Jun 9 The annual Free to Be Me Assembly is one of GDS’s …



Black Women Leaders In The Civil Rights Movement Era And Beyond
 Ketanji Brown JacksonUniversity of Michigan Law School MLK Day Lecture January 20, 2020


Dinesh D’Souza Podcast: ketanji brown jackson, THE PERFORMER, trojan horse & pawn of Biden & his handlers

In this episode, Dinesh evaluates Ketanji Brown Jackson not as a justice but rather as a performer, and grades how she is doing before her audience, the Senate.  Danielle D'Souza Gill joins her dad to talk about Jackson's mentor, the legal activist Derrick Bell. Dinesh examines the strange appeal of "the most controversial figure in France," Eric Zemmour. Dinesh looks at how the cancellation of all things Russian now extends to his own favorite hobby, chess. Dinesh concludes his analysis of Guido da Montefeltro in Dante's circle of fraud. 

Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee questions Jackson in Supreme Court confirmation hearings

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., questioned Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as the Senate Judiciary Committee continued its Supreme Court confirmation hearings March 22. Blackburn focused part of her questioning on abortion. She asked Jackson about whether the constitution protects the rights of people to have an abortion. Jackson said the Supreme Court considers the right to an abortion to be an unenumerated right. Blackburn also asked about Jackson’s views on critical race theory in school and transgender athletes. Jackson said giving her own opinions on those issues are not in her purview as a judge. Jackson was nominated by President Joe Biden in February to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. If confirmed, she will be the first Black woman on the high court. After opening statements from Jackson, her colleagues, and the senators March 21, senators will spend two days questioning Jackson at length about her rulings and judicial philosophy. On the final day of the hearings March 24, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear from friends and colleagues of Jackson about her temperament and approach to the law.

SOROS Dark Money Behind PUSH for Ketanji Brown Jackson for supreme court!!!

Yep, you guessed it, it appears that none other than George Soros is behind the push to get Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed as Supreme Court Justice!

In this video, we’re going to untangle the web of dark money that’s pushing this confirmation, we’re going to see Soros’ role in all of it, and stick with me to the very end of this video when I’ll reveal why all of this is actually evidence that the left is actually panicking, you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Grassley Presses KBJ On Whitehouse and ‘Dark Money'

'Troubled By Her Far-Left Dark Money Fan Club': McConnell On Ketanji Brown Jackson

ONE YEAR AGO: Senator Whitehouse Gives Presentation On 'Dark Money' Influence On Supreme Court Nomination

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse used his time at the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to give a presentation about how "dark money" was playing a role in the Supreme Court nomination process. Aired on 10/13/2020.


"President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson serves on the board of trustees of an elite, private Washington, D.C., high school that promotes critical race theory and other progressive ideals.

Fox News reported Tuesday that Jackson since 2019 has been a board member at Georgetown Day School, which is pursuing an "antiracism action plan" and recommends to families literature on critical race theory and racial intersectionality."

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Favorite Book is a Racist Critical Theory Text That Says Racism is Permanent~SHE doesn’t know when life begins; pro-abortion



Biden’s SCOTUS Pick: “I Don’t Know” When Life Begins



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

The path from Ketanji Brown Jackson to critical race theory and racism it turns out is a very short straight line. This has turned out to be a pattern with Biden nominees and that’s no coincidence. Obama was also a big fan of Derrick Bell. 

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s interest in critical race theory has been highlighted before, but this focuses in on Derrick Bell.

In a 2020 lecture, Jackson highlighted Derrick Bell, “the godfather of critical race theory,” saying that her family had Bell’s book “on their coffee table for many years.”

Bell’s 1993 book “Faces At The Bottom Of The Well: The Permanence Of Racism” has been lauded as “a pioneering contribution to critical race theory scholarship.”

Bell believed that “the Constitution was like ‘roach powder,’ that whites might commit ‘racial genocide,’ and that his motto was ‘I live to harass white folks.’”

The same lecture also has Jackson gushing over BLM riots.

“And I will finish with what might be my favorite civil rights photograph of modern times. This iconic image, which was taken by Reuters photographer Jonathan Bauchman during a 2016 protest of the police-involved fatal shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, has won several awards and has a name: it is called “Taking a Stand in Baton Rouge.” The picture features a nurse from Pennsylvania named Leshia Evans, who had traveled to Louisiana to attend her first protest. She was arrested by the two heavily armed officers you see in that photograph, and spent the night and most of the following day in jail.”

During her lecture, Jackson mentions, “Professor Derrick Bell, who was a civil rights lawyer and the first tenured African-American professor at Harvard Law School, wrote a book in the early 1990s about the persistence of racism in American life that he entitled “Faces At the Bottom of the Well”. My parents had this book on their coffee table for many years, and I remember staring at the image on the cover when I was growing up; I found it difficult to reconcile the image of the person, who seemed to be smiling, with the depressing message that the title and subtitle conveyed. I thought about this book cover again for the first time in forty years when I started preparing for this speech.”

As Christopher Rufo points out, Derrick Bell was a racist who hated America. And  “Faces At the Bottom of the Well” reflected that.

“Smart and super articulate, Minister Farrakhan is perhaps the best living example of a black man ready, willing, and able to ‘tell it like it is’ regarding who is responsible for racism in this country,” Bell has said.

There’s also the antisemitism.

Bell denounced Henry Louis (Skip) Gates for writing a New York Times op-ed condemning black anti-Semitism: “I was furious. Even if everything he said was true, it was inexcusable not to mention what might have motivated blacks to feel this way, and to fail to talk about all the Jewish neoconservative racists who are undermining blacks in every way they can.”

The very same interview began as follows: “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.” Khalid Muhammad was Farrakhan’s right hand, who made a name for himself referring to Jews as, among many other things, “bloodsuckers” whose “father was the devil.”

This is what Biden wants embedded in the highest court in the land.




Biden’s SCOTUS Pick: “I Don’t Know” When Life Begins



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

President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, revealed to the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday that she does not know when human life begins. The next day, Jackson said that she “did not want to speculate” about a preborn baby’s viability.

During committee hearings Tuesday, Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) questioned D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jackson about the Supreme Court’s role in deciding rights and laws and asked her one of the most fundamental questions of constitutional jurisprudence.

“When does life begin, in your opinion?” asked the senator.

It took Jackson a couple of seconds to force out herself, “Senator, uhm…” She shook her head, looking puzzled. “I don’t know,” Jackson finally replied with a nervous chuckle.

“Ma’am,” Kennedy followed up, “Do you have a belief?”

Jackson replied that she has “personal, religious, and otherwise beliefs that have nothing to do with the law, in terms of when life begins.” When asked about her personal beliefs, Jackson specified that she has a “religious belief” which she “sets aside” when ruling on cases.

Then Kennedy asked the Supreme Court Justice wannabe another question that Jackson did not have an answer to.

“When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?” he inquired.

“Well Senator, uhm… I believe that the Supreme Court, uhm… Actually, I actually don’t know the answer to that question,” Jackson said. “I’m sorry. I don’t.”

Here, Jackson, as pro-abortionists typically do, tried to separate theological beliefs — “my personal religious belief” — from the actual science.

Americans have already learned that biology is not Judge Jackson’s strongest skill. During hearings on Tuesday, she failed to answer the question, “What is a woman?” and excused herself by stating that she was “not a biologist.”

Just as in the case of the definition of sex, science is settled on when human life begins, and it is surprising, at best, that such a well-educated and experienced judge as Jackson does not know it.

LifeSite News points out,

Long-settled biological criteria and mainstream medical textbooks establish that a living human being is created upon fertilization and is present throughout the entirety of pregnancy. Many abortionists and abortion defenders have admitted as much; in 2019, University of Chicago Department of Comparative Human Development graduate Steve Jacobs found that 96% of more than 5,500 biologists he surveyed agreed, despite overwhelmingly identifying as “liberal,” “pro-choice,” and Democrats, and a majority identifying as “non-religious.”

According to an article posted in the National Journal of Medicine in 2004,

Life, in a true sense of the word, begins when the chemical matter gives rinse, in a specific way to an autonomous, self-regulating, and self-reproducing system.

At the same time, one could assume that Judge Jackson wouldn’t consider anyone any less than alive for not self-regulating or reproducing. A man or woman is not any less alive if he or she is unable to have children. Likewise, a person with impaired motor skills or an inherited metabolic disorder is equally alive as someone able. Logically, if a person is not autonomous, it does not mean he is not alive.

As an expert in the law, which she is supposed to be, Jackson must also know that law and science are closely connected. For example, 38 states have written and passed laws against fetus homicide. Of those, 29 have distinguished that life exists even during the early stages of gestation. Therefore, killing a pregnant woman is viewed as a double homicide in many states throughout the nation.

During the hearings on Tuesday, Jackson was asked by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) about her thoughts on Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two Supreme Court rulings that established the right to abortion without an undue burden.

Roe and Casey are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy. They have established a framework that the court has reaffirmed,” Jackson said.

She added, “in order to revisit, as Justice Barrett said, the Supreme Court looks at various factors because stare decisis is a very important principle.”

On Wednesday, Jackson was questioned about her understanding of fetal viability, or the point at which a preborn child can survive outside the womb, by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas). Cornyn wondered if the Supreme Court could repeal its cases over time. The senator implied that today, with medical and scientific advancements, a baby can survive at much earlier stages than in 1973, when the SCOTUS ruled on Roe.

“I hesitate to speculate,” Jackson responded, “I know that it [fetal viability] is a point in time that the court has identified in terms of when the standards that apply to the regulation of the right.”

She yet again reiterated that she was “not a biologist.”

Asked the same day by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) if she knew that a 20-week-old pre-born baby can feel pain, she said she did not know.

As reflected in her background, Jackson’s stance on the matter isn’t surprising.

As an attorney, she co-wrote an amicus brief in 2001 for pro-abortion organization NARAL Pro-Choice America in favor of free-speech “buffer zones” outside of abortion clinics. In that document, she described pro-life protesters at the abortion clinics as “hostile,” “noisy,” and “in-your-face.”

As a judge, Jackson ruled against President Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) effort to limit federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

If confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, Jackson will almost certainly be a “yes” vote for the expansion of women’s access to abortion.


JUDGE Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearing before the senate




Real America's Dan Ball With Dr. Carol Swain On Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (3/21/22)

Senator Marsha Blackburn: Americans Deserves Answers From Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

"WHAT IS YOUR SECRET AGENDA?" - Smart GOP Senator SILENCE Ketanji Brown during Heated Questioning

HANNITY: Ted Cruz reveals Ketanji Brown Jackson's 'disturbing' rulings

Ted Cruz: ‘Our Democratic Colleagues Want the Supreme Court To Be Anti-Democratic’

WATCH: Sen. Ted Cruz questions Jackson in Supreme Court confirmation hearings

WATCH: Sen. Ted Cruz presses Ketanji Jackson Brown on critical race theory

WATCH: Sen. Ted Cruz questions Ketanji Brown Jackson on sentencing for child pornography cases

Sen. Cornyn Discusses the Judiciary Committee’s Hearings on Judge Jackson’s Supreme Court Nomination

Lindsey Graham clashes with Ketanji Brown Jackson on the third day of hearings

REAL AMERICA’S Dan Ball WITH Project 21’s Stacy Washington ON Biden’s SCOTUS Pick JACKSON, 2/28/22

Sen. Blackburn: People don't want an activist on the Supreme Court





"Jackson then quoted Nikole-Jones verbatim: 

We are raised to think about 1776 as the beginning of our democracy. But when that ship arrived on the horizon … in 1619[, the] decision made by the colonists to purchase that group of 20 to 30 human beings — that was a beginning, too.

And it would actually be those very people who were denied citizenship in their own country, who were denied the protections of our founding documents, who would fight the hardest and most successfully to make those ideals real, not just for themselves, but for all Americans."

Biden’s Supreme Court Pick, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Once Claimed Judicial System ‘Unfair’ to Sex Offenders

Sen. Blackburn: People don't want an activist on the Supreme Court








"Jackson then quoted Nikole-Jones verbatim: 

We are raised to think about 1776 as the beginning of our democracy. But when that ship arrived on the horizon … in 1619[, the] decision made by the colonists to purchase that group of 20 to 30 human beings — that was a beginning, too.

And it would actually be those very people who were denied citizenship in their own country, who were denied the protections of our founding documents, who would fight the hardest and most successfully to make those ideals real, not just for themselves, but for all Americans."

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

Old Joe Biden picked Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson because she is Leftist, black, and female, not because she is the most qualified candidate (which she may be, but again, that’s not why she was picked) or because of anything she has said or done. Accordingly, Biden’s handlers may not even know that back in 1996, Jackson wrote a “Note” for the Harvard Law Review claiming that convicted sex offenders were treated unfairly in the courts. Even if they do know, it is unlikely that they care. They’d gleefully use this “Note” as ammo against a conservative pick for the high court, but Jackson is one of their own, a reliable Leftist. Nothing she has said or done could derail her unless it is discovered that she has a MAGA hat in her closet and voted for the hated Trump.

The “Note,” which is embedded below, was anonymous, but Jackson revealed that she had written it on a Senate Judiciary Committee “Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees” when Barack Obama nominated her to be a U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia. Jackson’s “Note,” unearthed by the American Accountability Foundation, calls on judges to “change their analytical framework for evaluating the constitutionality of certain state sex offender statutes.”

Jackson wrote that “in the current climate of fear, hatred, and revenge associated with the release of convicted sex criminals, courts must be especially atten­tive to legislative enactments that ‘use[ ] public health and safety rhetoric to justify procedures that are, in essence, punishment and detention.'”

Jackson argued that existing sex offender regulations were overly harsh: “Although many courts and commentators herald these laws as valid regulatory measures, others reject them as punitive enactments that violate the rights of individuals who already have been sanctioned for their crimes.” She maintained that “even in the face of understandable public outrage over repeat sexual predators,” a “principled prevention/punishment analysis” would evaluate “the effect of challenged legislation in a manner that reinforces constitutional safeguards against unfair and unnecessarily burdensome legislative action.” In other words, go easy on the poor lambs.

This in itself ought to be enough to disqualify Jackson from a seat on the Supreme Court. The public has been outraged enough by the irresponsible actions of Leftist judges who coddle criminals, leaving innocent law-abiding citizens to pay the price. If this “Note” reflects Jackson’s judicial philosophy, and there is no reason to think that her views have changed in the intervening years (if they had, she wouldn’t have been nominated), her rulings on the high court will put Americans in danger.

Related: Sex Offenders in Colorado Will No Longer Be Called ‘Sex Offenders’

It’s time to stand up and say, “Enough! No more judicial activism.” Americans have had much more than enough of the philosophy of treating criminals as the true victims of crime, and the police as rogue agents who must be restrained. Everywhere the Left actually implemented its daft “Defund the Police” slogan, crime skyrocketed. Anyone with even the most superficial understanding of human nature could have predicted that. It is not the time to talk about convicted sex offenders suffering from a “climate of fear, hatred, and revenge.” No one should be subjected to vigilante violence, but the focus of law enforcement and judicial authorities ought to be on the climate of fear and hatred that the victims of crime must endure.

The Left has virtually untrammeled hegemony today over the executive and legislative branches of government, the establishment media, the educational system, the entertainment industry, and the popular culture. That’s a primary reason why we’re in the fix we’re in, along with a figurehead in the White House fronting for far-Left forces that have erased our Southern border, sent prices skyrocketing, and drastically weakened our nation in the eyes of the world. More and more people are waking up to what is happening and turning away from the road to disaster that Leftists insist on traveling. Ketanji Brown Jackson represents this old order, desperately clinging to and trying to reinforce its hegemony at a time when Americans increasingly demonstrate that they can no longer be fooled. She will almost certainly be confirmed to the Supreme Court, but that will not change the fact that she represents an old, failed order that is passing from the scene. How much damage it will do before it is gone altogether, however, remains to be seen.

AAF Harvard Law Review by PJ Media on Scribd



Biden to Nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson for Supreme Court

Biden’s Supreme Court Nominee Has Far-Left Record

Sen. Blackburn: People don't want an activist on the Supreme Court





Dan Ball W/ Project 21's Stacy Washington, Biden's SCOTUS Pick, 2/28/22

"Jackson is also related, by marriage, to former Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan."

“Our politics may differ, but my praise for Ketanji’s intellect, for her character, for her integrity, it is unequivocal,” Ryan told the Senate Judiciary Committee of Jackson in 2012. 

"While Jackson has served in her current position for less than a year, her earlier rulings as a district judge “comported with those of a liberal-leaning judge,” The New York Times reported."

"Those include “blocking the Trump administration’s attempts to fast-track deportations, cut short grants for teen pregnancy prevention and shield a former White House counsel from testifying before Congress about President Donald Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia investigation.”"

"As the head of Americans United for Life, Catherine Glenn Foster highlighted that abortion groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood applauded Jackson as the nominee “tragically, and literally within seconds of President Biden’s announcement.”"

"“Although Kentanji Brown Jackson has not yet explicitly stated her views on Roe or abortion, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other abortion activists see in her an ally for the moral crime of abortion,” she stressed in a statement."




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

(Decision) On Feb. 25, President Joe Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former public defender and current federal appeals judge in Washington, D.C., to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

Jackson, 51, had served as one of Breyer’s law clerks during the 1999-2000 term.

If confirmed, Jackson will be the first black woman ever to sit on the Supreme Court, fulfilling a promise Biden made during the 2020 presidential campaign ahead of the South Carolina primary to further diversify the high court.

“For too long, our government and our courts haven’t looked like America,” Biden said while formally announcing Jackson’s nomination at the White House.

Biden’s selection sets in motion what is likely to be a polarized confirmation process in the 50-50 Senate.

Jackson has been a federal judge for nine years and was appointed last year by Biden to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. During her confirmation hearings last spring, Jackson faced a barrage of questions from Senate Republicans, of whom only three voted in her favor.

Jackson’s addition to the Supreme Court would not fundamentally shift its 6-3 conservative majority balance. But if she proves to be ideologically to the left of Breyer, it could reshape the three-member liberal minority and alter the court in more subtle ways.

Among those praising her nomination was the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s most powerful LGBTQ advocacy group, as well as abortion-rights groups.

Kevin Roberts, president of the conservative public policy think tank Heritage Foundation, alluded to as much in his reaction to Biden’s choice.

“There are few decisions more important for a president than the selection of a Supreme Court nominee,” he posted to Twitter. “In this Biden has utterly failed, starting with his criteria for making this appointment. Judges should play a limited role in our government, yet Jackson’s far-left supporters want her to impose a political agenda that invents new rights or erases rights she doesn’t like. Based on the information we already know, senators should reject her for this lifetime appointment.”

The pro-life organization March for Life also opposed Biden’s nomination of Jackson for the U.S. Supreme Court based on her “record of judicial activism.”

“We expect her to be a reliable vote for the far left and the Biden administration’s radical abortion agenda,” the organization wrote.

In 2001, Jackson co-authored a “friend of the court” brief in the case of McGuire v. Reilly, in which she supported a Massachusetts law that created a floating “buffer zone” around pedestrians and cars approaching abortion clinics. Jackson’s clients included the Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts, the League of Women Voters, the Abortion Access Project of Massachusetts, and NARAL Pro-Choice America. Later, NARAL and the pro-abortion National Women’s Law Center strongly supported her nomination to the D.C. Circuit.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List, said in a press release: “Joe Biden is fulfilling his promise to only appoint justices who support the Roe v. Wade regime of abortion on demand up to birth—a policy so extreme only a handful of countries in the world hold it, including North Korea and China,” “Ketanji Brown Jackson is backed by many of America’s most radical pro-abortion groups. She is on record opposing the free speech rights of pro-life advocates pleading to save lives outside abortion centers and supporting the false claim that abortion is ‘health care.’ We have no doubt she will work with the most pro-abortion administration in history to enshrine abortion on demand nationwide in the law.”


Planned Parenthood Statement on Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court 


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

Washington, D.C. — Today, Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, released the following statement after President Biden announced the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, currently serving on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to serve as a Supreme Court justice.

Statement from Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America: 

“We celebrate the historic nomination of Judge Jackson to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Judge Jackson brings a wealth of knowledge, expertise, and meaningful experience after years of service as a federal judge on both the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and as a public defender earlier in her career. Beyond her record of remarkable achievement, it is clear that she has a deep commitment to public service and pursuing equal justice under the law, including safeguarding individual rights and liberties. And as the first Black woman ever named to the Supreme Court, this historic nomination is long overdue. 

“This nomination arrives as our freedoms and civil liberties are in crisis. We are currently awaiting a Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that challenges a blatantly unconstitutional ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Court could rule to overturn nearly 50 years of precedent, established by Roe v. Wade, and decimate abortion access in states across the country. Already, Texans have spent nearly six months with a ban on abortion at six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know they’re pregnant. Now more than ever, we need a Supreme Court justice who understands the impact of the court's rulings on people — particularly on reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights — and the importance of protecting individual liberties for generations to come.

“Judge Jackson will play a crucial role in the direction the court takes in the future. As the Senate considers her nomination, we must not lose sight of how meaningful this moment is for this country, and for Black women. Far too often, we don’t see ourselves represented in the highest seats of government. This nomination is also part of essential work to rebuild our courts and protect our health and rights. We call on the Senate to swiftly consider Judge Jackson’s nomination.”"


Biden to Nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson for Supreme Court



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

President Joe Biden on Friday will nominate federal appeals court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, the White House said, making her the first Black woman elected to serve on the high court.

In Jackson, Biden delivers on a campaign promise to make the historic appointment. He has chosen an attorney who would be the Supreme Court’s first former public defender, though she also possesses the elite legal background of other justices.

Jackson would be the current court's second Black justice — Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, is the other — and just the third in history.

Biden planned to introduce Jackson in remarks at the White House Friday afternoon, where Jackson was also expected to speak, the White House said.

She would also be only the sixth woman to serve on the court, and her confirmation would mean that for the first time four women would sit together on the nine-member court.

The current court includes three women, one of whom is the court’s first Latina, Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Jackson would join the liberal minority of a court that is weighing cutbacks to abortion rights and will be considering ending affirmative action in college admissions and states' voting laws.

Biden is filling the seat that will be vacated by Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, who is retiring at the end of the term this summer.

Jackson, 51, once worked as one of Breyer’s law clerks early in her legal career. She attended Harvard as an undergraduate and for law school and served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the agency that develops federal sentencing policy, before becoming a federal judge in 2013.

Her nomination is subject to confirmation by the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority by a razor-thin 50-50 margin with Vice President Kamala Harris as the tiebreaker. Party leaders have promised swift but deliberate consideration of the president’s nominee.

The next justice will replace one of the more liberal justices, so she would not tip the balance of the court, which now leans 6-3 in favor of conservatives.

The news comes two years to the day after Biden, then struggling to capture the Democrat presidential nomination, first pledged in a South Carolina debate to nominate a Black woman to the high court if presented with a vacancy.

"Everyone should be represented," Biden said. "We talked about the Supreme Court — I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court to make sure we in fact get everyone represented."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin said in a statement that the panel will "begin immediately" to move forward on the nomination and that Jackson is an "extraordinary nominee." Senators have set a tentative goal of confirmation by April 8, when they leave for a two-week spring recess. Hearings could start as soon as mid-March.

That timeline could be complicated by a number of things, including the ongoing developments between Russia and Ukraine and the extended absence of Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., who suffered a stroke last month and is out for several weeks. Democrats would need Lujan's vote to confirm Biden's pick if no Republicans support her.

Once the nomination is sent to the Senate, it is up to the Senate Judiciary Committee to vet the nominee and hold confirmation hearings. After the committee approves a nomination, it goes to the Senate floor for a final vote.

The entire process passes through several time-consuming steps, including meetings with individual senators that are expected to begin next week. While Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed just four weeks after she was nominated ahead of the 2020 election, the process usually takes several weeks longer than that.

Biden and Senate Democrats are hoping for a bipartisan vote on the nomination, but it's unclear if they will be able to win over any GOP senators after three bitterly partisan confirmation battles under President Donald Trump.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of three Republicans who voted to confirm Jackson to the appeals court last year, had pushed Biden to nominate a different candidate from his home state, Judge J. Michelle Childs. He said earlier this month that his vote would be "very problematic" if it were anyone else, and he expressed disappointment in a tweet Friday that Biden had not nominated his preferred choice.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said he looks forward to meeting with Jackson and "studying her record, legal views, and judicial philosophy." But he also appeared to express skepticism, noting he voted against her a year ago.

Jackson was on the president's shortlist as a potential nominee even before Breyer retired. Biden and his team spent weeks poring over her records, interviewing her friends and family, and looking into her background.

Biden has said he was interested in selecting a nominee in the mold of Breyer who could be a persuasive force with fellow justices. Although Breyer's votes tended to put him to the left of center on an increasingly conservative court, he frequently saw the gray in situations that colleagues were more likely to find black or white.

"With her exceptional qualifications and record of evenhandedness, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a Justice who will uphold the Constitution and protect the rights of all Americans, including the voiceless and vulnerable," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.. "The historic nomination of Judge Jackson is an important step toward ensuring the Supreme Court reflects the nation as a whole."

As part of his search process, Biden, a longtime chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also interviewed Childs and California Supreme Court Judge Leondra Kruger, according to a person familiar with the matter. He also consulted with a wide range of legal experts and lawmakers in both parties and delved deeply into the finalists' legal writings before selecting Jackson for the post.

Jackson serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a position that Biden elevated her to last year from her previous job as a federal trial court judge. Three current justices — Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and John Roberts, the chief justice — previously served on the same court.

On Friday morning ahead of the announcement, Jackson took part in scheduled arguments before the circuit court.

Jackson was confirmed to that post on a 53-44 Senate vote, winning the backing of three Republicans: Graham, Maine's Susan Collins and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski.

Graham, in a tweet, indicated displeasure with the nomination, saying, "I expect a respectful but interesting hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee."

Bipartisanship is important to Biden, who has often said he was reaching for GOP support as he closed in on a nominee. Another GOP connection: Jackson is related by marriage to former House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

In one of Jackson's most high-profile decisions, as a trial court judge, she ordered former White House Counsel Don McGahn to appear before Congress. That was a setback to Trump's efforts to keep his top aides from testifying. The case was appealed, and a deal was ultimately reached for McGahn’s testimony.

Another highly visible case that Jackson oversaw involved the online conspiracy theory "pizza gate," which revolved around false internet rumors about prominent Democrats harboring child sex slaves at a Washington pizza restaurant. A North Carolina man showed up at the restaurant with an assault rifle and a revolver. Jackson called it "sheer luck" no one was injured and sentenced him to four years in prison.

Jackson has a considerably shorter record as an appeals court judge. She was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in December against Trump’s effort to shield documents from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Jackson was born in Washington, D.C., and grew up in Miami. She has said that her parents, Johnny and Ellery Brown, chose her name to express their pride in her family’s African ancestry. They asked an aunt who was in the Peace Corps in Africa at the time to send a list of African girls’ names and they picked Ketanji Onyika, which they were told meant "lovely one."

Jackson traces her interest in the law to when she was in preschool and her father was in law school and they would sit together at the dining room table, she with coloring books and he with law books. Her father became an attorney for the county school board and her mom was a high school principal. She has a brother who is nine years younger who served in the Army, including in Iraq, and is now a lawyer.



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

Michael Jackson’s 22-year-old daughter, Paris Jackson, will play a gender-bending Jesus Christ in the upcoming movie Habit. She will portray the religious figure wearing a traditional robe, tousled hair including a single accent braid, and a nose ring.

The actress and musician will star in the indie film opposite Bella Thorne, who will play a street-smart girl with a Jesus fetish who masquerades as a nun while trying to escape the consequences of a violent drug deal. Other confirmed cast members include a handful of singers such as rocker Gavin Rossdale.

One of the film’s producers, Donovan Leitch, told Entertainment Weekly that music will also play a central role in the film: “We intentionally stacked the film with rock stars and will have a very rocking soundtrack.”

This sacrilegious movie Habit mocks Christianity and ridicules people of faith. Elevated Films represents the US rights to the project. Elevated Films has obviously gone too far. The company would never, in a million years, produce a film that defamed Muhammad in a similar fashion.

Habit, directed by first-time feature director Janell Shirtcliff, was already filmed before the coronavirus pandemic and is currently in post-production. The film does not yet have a release date or a distributor.

One Million Moms needs to make sure this film is not released. 1MM needs your help to convince Elevated Films not to release Habit – not now, not ever.


Sign our petition to Elevated Films now, urging it to cancel all plans to release the blasphemous film Habit.



Complaint Filed Against Jackson Township Police Dept. For Violating NJ Gun Laws
BY Alexander Roubian, NJ2AS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
New Jersey – -( Regardless of what anyone thinks about the Second Amendment, we should all agree that the job of law enforcement is to uphold and enforce the law. Many law enforcement officers do just that. Some, like Jackson Township Chief of Police Matthew Kunz, have decided to place their personal feelings and agenda above the law and the Constitution.
Our citizen advocates have alerted us that Chief Kunz is arbitrarily requiring firearm applicants to submit their fingerprints for a handgun permit if it has been more than two years since they last provided them. Chief Kunz is brazenly not following New Jersey state law, administration code and guidelines and undermining the Second Amendment freedoms of the people he exists to serve and protect. And we are going to hold him accountable.
On May 21, the New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS) filed a formal complaint to Ocean County Prosecutor Bradley Billhimer and the New Jersey Attorney General's office, urging them to investigate the Jackson Township Police Department for violating state law and take action. You can read the complaint to the NJ Attorney General by clicking here, and click here to read the complaint to the Ocean County Prosecutor. It is intolerable for law enforcement to break the law and we need your help to hold Mr. Kunz accountable.
New Jersey law (NJ Statutes Annotated 2C:58-3, NJ Administrative Code 13:54-1.4 or in the New Jersey State Police Firearms Applicant Investigation Guide) is clear about the process for obtaining a firearms identification card and handgun permit. You can read acomplete summary here, but the basic process is:
  • Fill out the STS-33 application,
  • Consent to a mental health background check,
  • Provide two references, and
  • Submit fingerprints once.
In fact, the law includes clauses specifying that applicants “need not be fingerprinted again” and “no additional requirements” shall be imposed. We clearly spelled out the law and rules in our complaints, something Chief Kunz swore he would uphold.
For some Jackson Township residents, being forced to undergo additional fingerprinting may just be the latest outrage of exercising their Second Amendment rights in the state of New Jersey. But for others the additional requirement may be a life-and-death delay on their ability to protect themselves.
Low-income residents may not be able to afford the $52+ average fingerprinting cost. Others may not be able to take time off work to make a fingerprinting appointment. But hey, as one of the highest paid Chiefs in New Jersey, with a salary of over $200,000, that is pocket change for Chief Kunz.
 Jackson Township Chief of Police Matthew KunzJackson Township Chief of Police Matthew Kunz
Regardless of how much of a burden it imposes, Jackson Township’s requirement is simply not required and added to deter people from exercising their constitutional right. If Chief Kunz merely required applicants to touch their nose in order to obtain a permit, it would be illegal.
Sadly, Chief Kunz is the latest in a long line of New Jersey bureaucrats who think they are above the law and who are limiting the constitutional rights of their citizens to obtain a firearm and defend themselves.
And we are going to hold him accountable. Will you help us?
Want to go even further and stand up to bureaucrats like Chief Kunz? Join the New Jersey Second Amendment Society by clicking here and count yourself among thousands of patriots across the state. New Jersey bureaucrats can try to bully us, but we have strength in numbers. Please join today and help us expose the bullies and hold them accountable.
About the New Jersey Second Amendment Society:New Jersey Second Amendment Society
New Jersey Second Amendment Society – Our mission is to promote the free exercise of Second Amendment rights within the community and Legislature of New Jersey, to educate the community regarding the enjoyable, safe, and responsible use of firearms, and to engender a sense of camaraderie and fellowship among the members and their families. Visit:
UPDATE MAY 30, 2019:

NJ2AS Delivers Victory for Jackson Township Residents! 

Is Your Town Next? ~ VIDEO



Donald Trump Is (Slightly) Wrong About
Harriet Tubman And The 20 Dollar Bill

Americans Petition to Ban Cash and Issue New Digital Dollar for a Cashless Society

Why The Fed Wants To Memory Hole Andrew Jackson

Published on Apr 20, 2016
It has been announced that Andrew Jackson will be replaced on the $20 by Harriet Tubman. Regardless of whose face we use, it’s the Federal Reserve that needs to go. We look at why the faces on our money are there, why Hamilton is not being removed as originally announced and what Andrew Jackson’s Bank War tells us about the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court and the Constitution in our time. 

$20 Bill is About Creating Racial Division

Published on Apr 21, 2016
Jackson needs to come off because he owned slaves? Jackson saved his country from slavery to the British, from slavery to the Central Bank slavery and from slavery to the dictates of the Supreme Court. Do you realize YOU’RE the slave of the Federal Reserve and Obama? 


Andrew Jackson, Who Fought Central Bank, Removed From $20 
As “Public Concern For Liberty” Erased
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The War on Cash has many fronts.
The latest battle is for the face of the currency itself, and the central bankers, who control the front anyway, have imposed a symbolic defeat against the leaders in America’s past who have fought against the stranglehold of the money makers.
Naturally, there are liberal politics at play, fighting for every inch of ground in the war for ideological re-engineering. History is being whitewashed, various figures of antiquity rolling in their graves….
At stake is a dispute for the powers of government even better than the more famous duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, of whom we also speak.
The iconic $20 bill, with the face of President Andrew Jackson, and the $10 bill, with the face of the nation’s first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, have long pitted two ideological extremes against each other as they pass along as some of the most used denominations in circulation.
But now, the money powers at the Treasury Department have decided that it is time to add a woman’s face to the money supply as well.
As such, the powers-that-bank have decided to oust Andrew Jackson from the line up, and with it, part of his legacy.
It will be “removed in favor of a female representing the struggle for racial equality,” according to CNN, while an early proposal to remove Alexander Hamilton’s bill will be scrapped, though the proposal includes a redesign on the backs of his and several other notes with scenes from the Woman’s Suffrage Movement, Susan B. and all the gals.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is expected to announce this week that Alexander Hamilton’s face will remain on the front of the $10 bill and a woman will replace Andrew Jackson on the face of the $20 bill, a senior government source told CNN on Saturday.
Dramatically, it seems that there was a backlash to counter the coup against Hamilton, including support from former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke:
The decision to make the historic change at the expense of Hamilton drew angry rebukes from fans of the former Treasury Secretary. The pro-Hamilton movement gained steam after the smash success of the hip-hop Broadway musical about his life this year.
Those pressures led Lew to determine that Hamilton should remain on the front of the bill.
And there’s a reason for Bernanke’s bias towards Hamilton.
It was Hamilton, who from the early days of the nation clamored for a central bank and a strong interventionist federal government.
I have quoted Thomas DiLorenzo on the evil Hamilton before:
Hamilton was a compulsive statist who wanted to bring the corrupt British mercantilist system — the very system the American Revolution was fought to escape from — to America. He fought fiercely for his program of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, public debt, pervasive taxation, and a central bank run by politicians and their appointees out of the nation’s capital….
Hamilton complained to George Washington that “we need a government of more energy” and expressed disgust over “an excessive concern for liberty in public men”…
The Philadelphie Federal Reserve publication. A History of Central Banking in America, reports:
Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, urged Congress to also assume the war debts of the individual states and then create a national bank to help refinance all these debts. Hamilton’s proposal faced major opposition. Critics said that Hamilton’s bank was unconstitutional, would be a monopoly, and would reduce the power of the states. Although Hamilton won, the bank’s charter was limited to 20 years.
And that’s right where Andrew Jackson’s legacy with the banks picks up.
With the charter of the first “Bank of the United States” ending, Jackson was determined to stop the charter of the second “Bank of the United States” and famously stated:
“You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.” (Andrew Jackson, to a delegation of bankers discussing the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States, 1832)
President Jackson likened their agents to the hydra-beast, with its many heads, and even survived an assassination attempt, by staving off an attacker personally.
jackson-banks-vipersThe bankers, and the powerful families including the Rothschilds who supported it, wanted a “national bank” because they could load the board with “their” guys and outweigh the will of the people and the normal channels of government.

You’ll be kicking yourself for not picking up silver at these prices (Ad)

jackson-route-bankers-national-bankOf course, the same exact state of affairs has been going on today for more than a century with the Federal Reserve, which is run by the successors to the same exact banking interests, including the still immensely-powerful Rothschild family.
The struggle is depicted well in The Money Masters, which spans several centuries of history with the threat of banking powers over individual sovereignty in stark contrast. To be sure, there is an important and nefarious plot afoot to ensnare you, your family and everyone on the block with debt.
There is a line, and you should figure out what side of it you’re going to be on.
Jackson narrowly succeeded in staving off banker domination of the U.S. during his day.
Of course, Andrew Jackson, who was the United States’ seventh president, was also a complete controversy his entire lifetime. It is no surprise that the same people who took down the Confederate flag from the South on the back of a mass shooting tragedy are now trying to tear down the image of a particularly controversial and intriguing figure from the American past.
Jackson was a recalcitrant and unyielding general and war hero, and later an outsider riding a wave of populist support into the White House, bringing in sometimes unscrupulous companions, and plenty of Masons. Many of his backers were diametrically opposed to the entrenched power of New York bankers and speculators, as well as patrician politicians who dominated the first phase of politics in the nation’s history. Jackson played a nasty role in the Trail of Tears affairs with Indians, too, and with the South and Western expansion of slave-friendly territories. Many shades of grey.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes in the founding days of this country, Alexander Hamilton, an advocate of strong central government, and maneuvered on behalf of his banker masters to collectivize the war debt from the states and create a central bank to control the financial strength of the country, and ingrain the early United States with the mindset of the British masters they had just fought to shake off.
After the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, and the crisis and consolidation of wealth during the Great Depression, and ever since the 2008 economic collapse, the rule by bankers has become a foregone conclusion, though there will be more chances to shake off their yoke of control. (BitCoin is one possible avenue; Congressionally-controlled greenbacks another; gold and silver yet another…)
Erasing Andrew Jackson from the faces of the fiat funny-money that is passed around by an increasingly ignorant and dependent society (which itself has adopted digital currency as the new norm) will further cut off the past from the masses, and ensure their enslavement.
Read more:


Tubman’s Replacement of Jackson Highlights Currency Changes

Tubman’s Replacement of Jackson 

Highlights Currency Changes

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Harriet Tubman (shown) was an escaped slave who became a major leader in the Underground Railroad — the organized effort to help escaping slaves in the early part of the 19th century. The Underground Railroad used “safe houses” and a network of anti-slavery activists. Tubman died in 1913. After the abolition of slavery, Tubman turned her attention to women’s suffrage. Now, she will become the first person of black African ancestry on American currency, but not the first woman. That honor was held by Pocahontas. The last woman’s whose image appeared on American paper money was Martha Washington.
Tubman replaces Andrew Jackson, who first made it onto a $20 Federal Reserve Note in 1936 (the 100th anniversary of his election as president). Jackson will remain on the back of the note, sharing space with an image of the White House.
Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew announced that Tubman will appear on the $20 bill and added that the $10 and $5 bills are also scheduled to have updates, as well. Presently, the Lincoln Memorial is on the back side of the $5 bill. Now, the $5 bill will be redesigned to highlight certain events that took place there, including the famous “I have a dream” speech by Martin Luther King. But Alexander Hamilton, considered the father of American central banking, and Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s 16th president, will continue to grace those denominations of money.
The $10 note had been the next bill scheduled for an overhaul, with the plan to replace Hamilton, but that plan met with a great amount of resistance. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke contended that Hamilton, as the father of the First Bank of the United States, had a better claim than any other person to be on American currency.
Predictably, any mention of Andrew Jackson includes the obligatory derogatory comments that he was a slave owner and, in the words of the LA Times, his polices “led to the deaths of countless Native Americans.”
Cherokee Chief Bill John Baker weighed in, praising the selection of Tubman, adding that Jackson’s legacy “was never one to be celebrated, and his image on our currency is a constant reminder of his crimes against Natives.”
Certainly, “Old Hickory” is now reviled by the “politically correct” crowd and cast as a man of almost unbelievable evil. The image now perpetuated in the popular American culture, the media, and in academia is more like a comic book villain rather than a real flesh-and-blood human being with many flaws — and many heroic features.
A little perspective is in order.
Andrew Jackson’s role in the Indian removals is certainly part of a dark chapter in American history. He carried out the will of Congress in negotiating resettlement treaties with various tribes. These treaties were overwhelmingly approved by the American public. If we are going to erase the other positive contributions of Jackson to American history because of this, then it is only fair to spread the blame to Congress — and to the people themselves who were alive at the time. And Jackson was not even president for all of the removals. The Cherokee removals actually took place after Jackson was living in retirement at the Hermitage in Tennessee. The Indian removal was an indefensible policy, but Jackson did not even originate the idea of moving the indigenous tribes west of the Mississippi River. After Thomas Jefferson and Congress purchased the Louisiana Territory from the French in 1803, Jefferson urged Native American tribal chiefs to voluntarily move west.
Jefferson was troubled by continued westward expansion, which was leading to the destruction of the Indians’ tribes and culture. As farms moved westward, forest lands, so critical to the tribal economy, were diminished. After Jefferson, others, notably Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, advocated Indian removal. Had public opinion polls been conducted at the time, there is little question that removal would have received strong majority support — whether that removal was effected through voluntary or involuntary means.
Though the Indian removals were certainly a prime example of “democracy in action” (of course, our country was founded as a republic, not a democracy), the back side of the new $5 bill will honor events at the Lincoln Memorial that, in the words of the folks at the Treasury Department, “helped to shape our history and our democracy.”
As Americans pushed up against, and even into, Indian lands, pressure was brought for the government to purchase more and more land from the indigenous tribes. With increasing reluctance, tribes signed away land, extracting promises that the federal government would keep white settlers off the remaining Indian land.
But once again, “democracy” won out. Jackson, a military man, saw firsthand the difficulty in enforcing these promises. Before he removed the Indians, he removed whites — from Indian lands. Then they would return. Any president who actually cracked down on settlers violating tribal sovereignty would face the settlers’ wrath at the polls. These poor settlers may not have had much wealth, but they did have the vote. And they were not afraid to use it.
By the time Jackson took the White House in 1828, it was clear that either Jackson would remove the Indians in the east, or the people would elect a different president who would accomplish the removal of the Indians.
Jackson’s removal of the Indians is certainly a blot on his reputation. But if we are going to delete every person off the currency who has flaws, Federal Reserve Notes would have no portraits.
And Jackson never said, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” In fact, Jackson and his wife, Rachel, adopted a little Creek Indian orphan boy.
To say that Jackson is not alone in having done some things wrong is not an argument for keeping him on the $20 bill. So, what did he ever do to deserve his place on American currency in the first place?
Jackson certainly has significant achievements. On January 8, 1815, leading a rag-tag army composed of frontier militia, pirates, and allied Indians, Jackson annihilated the British army at the Battle of New Orleans — an army that had just bested Napoleon. Had he lost, the city might very well not be part of the United States today. Historical illiterates often comment that the battle was actually fought after the War of 1812 was over. Their contention is that the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war, was signed in Belgium several days earlier. Such an assertion does not consider that the treaty was as yet unratified by Parliament, and therefore not yet in effect. Had the British won at New Orleans, it is doubtful the Parliament would have ratified the Treaty of Ghent, and then simply handed the city back to the United States.
Before Jackson became the seventh president, the Republican Party launched by Thomas Jefferson had drifted into adopting many of the policies of the rival Federalist Party, led by Hamilton. While Jefferson had begun his Republican Party largely to oppose Hamilton’s Bank of the United States, regarded by Jefferson as unconstitutional, it was his own party that later chartered a Second Bank of the United States in 1816.
This was a major complaint of the “Old Republicans,” who wanted to restore the party to its constitutionalist roots. The movement needed a popular man who could attract enough voter support to regain control of the government.
That man was Andrew Jackson. In 1832, in an effort to stop Jackson from winning reelection, Nicholas Biddle, the president of the Second Bank of the United States, brought up its 20-year charter for a renewal vote four years early. The opposition Whig Party thought if Jackson dared to veto the measure, he would lose the election to Henry Clay. If he signed it, their central bank was safe for another 20 years.
Jackson vetoed the bill, leading to the eventual demise of America’s second central bank. In his veto message, he argued that the bank was an unconstitutional granting of a monopoly by Congress (much as Jefferson had argued against Hamilton’s bank many years earlier). He believed it was an example of the wealthy and powerful elites using the power of the federal government to achieve an unfair advantage — much like the “crony capitalism” of today — and was a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of that elite.
The Federal Reserve System, created in 1913, was, in effect, America’s third central bank. Some have wondered if the decision to put Jackson on a Federal Reserve Note — paper money of the sort that was despised by Jackson — was some little joke against the man who had once snuffed out the life of central banking in the United States.
Certainly, Andrew Jackson did both good and bad as president. But Jackson’s victory over the British in 1815, and his killing of central banking in 1832 are certainly both great achievements. While there are other Americans who, it could be argued, have made even greater positive contributions to the country than Jackson (as well as the others who are presently the faces of our currency), there would certainly not be very many.
Jackson would have, no doubt, approved of his removal from a note issued by a central bank in exchange for the abolition of the central bank itself, known in America as the Federal Reserve System.
And as long we are talking about changes to the currency, perhaps we should note that the biggest and most devastating change to the currency has already occurred — making it fiat currency (money not back by a precious commodity such as gold) that can be created out of thin air at a whim, causing inflation.
That was the very thing that Jackson tried to prevent with his great veto, killing central banking in 1832. Hopefully, we will have another president again who will have Jackson’s courage to kill the Federal Reserve Bank — and with it, restore the soundness to American currency, making it once again as good as gold.


Congresswoman Lee:

Drafting Executive Orders “Number One Agenda”

“Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) told a meeting of the new Congressional Full Employment Caucus January 29 that the chief job of Congress in the coming months should be to draft executive orders for President Obama to sign instead of Congress passing laws themselves, as required by the U.S. Constitution and its separation of powers doctrine.”
1 2 3 12