Prayers to God for the United States and its Leaders–6 Requests

 

We are urged by God, through the Apostle Paul, to pray for everyone, especially for all those in authority over us (1 Tim. 2:1-2).  Here are six points of prayer for our leaders and for our country.

1. For Boarder Security

  • For the thousands of migrant people gathering on the southern boarder: that they would go back home, because they (as a group) have already demonstrated their bad behavior, and so they have already ruined their opportunity to enter.
  • For especially those migrants who have demonstrated their criminal intentions, that they would be prosecuted and sent back home.
  • That all innocent migrants (who need asylum) would eventually have their needs met, that God would deal favorably with them and would show them what to do.
  • For ICE, the National Guard, and the U.S. military: for wisdom and strength and courage while they defend the boarder.
  • That our government would quickly come up with the money to build the boarder wall.
  • To get more people to process all those who are applying for asylum, in order to speed up the process. If people are asking for asylum we should be able to quickly process them and give it to all those who qualify. But many will not qualify.
  • To find a way to educate those who are seeking to come and work in our country legally. To show them how to enter legally.

2. For President Trump

For strength, health and wisdom as he is doing the important work of the county. Pray also that he will have extra patience and resilience to face all the verbal attacks and unjust investigations against him.

 

3. For the Trump Administration

Strength and endurance to continue the fight against those who are resisting our government. To fight for truth and justice in all areas of government. That all people who are seeking to do harm to this administration would be weeded out and fired. To quickly find replacements for those fired.

 

4. “God, End the Mueller investigation”

It is a witch hunt and unjust. Also, any others who are planning more investigations against Trump; that they would be frustrated in their attempts and all such attempts would be abandoned.

 

5. For the office of the Attorney General

  • For our temporary AG, that his work would be effective for as long as he is in office.
  • Pray that we would find a good new AG that will serve our country well and carry out his duties with courage and righteousness.

 

6. For Crimes against the United States

Pray that all those who have committed crimes against the U. S. and against this administration would be quickly prosecuted. “Let NO guilty person go unpunished!”

Romans 13:1-2

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

 

Advertisements
Posted in immigration, prayer for trump and country, US Government/Politics/White House, US News | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

George Washington’s Proclamation Of Thanksgiving Day—To Be A Day Of Thanksgiving And Prayer To God.

Many may be surprised to find in this proclamation by Washington such praiseful and exalted words toward God. Also, he actually declared that it was the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God and to obey Him and be grateful to Him. And how many of you know that this day was declared not only to be a day of thanksgiving to God but to be a day of prayer to God.

Most surprisingly, both Houses of Congress requested Washington to make this proclamation. Oh how we have changed! I want to invite you to read and think about this proclamation. Our country most certainly began as a Christian nation. And we must continue in that direction.

 

Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be– That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions– to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Posted in Faith and Freedom in America, prayer for trump and country, US News | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jerusalem Post lead story — “Saudi Crown Prince to Evangelicals: Khashoggi murder was terrible ‘heinous act.’” Israeli newspaper publishes first in-depth article on what MBS told us behind closed doors in the Palace in Riyadh. — Joel C. Rosenberg’s Blog

(Jerusalem, Israel) — On Wednesday, The Jerusalem Post published the first in-depth story on our Evangelical Delegation to Saudi Arabia, why we went, and what the Crown Prince told us behind closed doors. As I told editors Yaakov Katz and Seth Frantzman in the Post’s offices yesterday, the entire meeting in the Royal Palace was […]

via Jerusalem Post lead story — “Saudi Crown Prince to Evangelicals: Khashoggi murder was terrible ‘heinous act.’” Israeli newspaper publishes first in-depth article on what MBS told us behind closed doors in the Palace in Riyadh. — Joel C. Rosenberg’s Blog

Quote | Posted on by | Leave a comment

How to Enter the U. S. Legally – 7 Steps

 

I feel sorry for all the people coming in the caravan to the United States. Many seek a better life in what they think is the “Promised Land.” They are walking over a thousand miles in dangerous territory. Many women are being abused and even raped on the way. Some are saying that terrorists are among the group. What can be done with them? Well, it’s a hard thing to say, but they must come in legally like everyone else. They must go through a legal process.

Like President Trump has said many times, we welcome immigrants to come and live and work in the U. S., but they must come in legally.  It is unfair to all those who are presently going through the process of legal immigration for us to allow people to come in through the back door—illegally.  All must come in legally through the legal process.

Through the internet one can get all the information necessary to enter the U. S. by just looking up How to Enter the U.S.  In this blog I want to simplify all the information and give it to you in just seven points. Of course, if you are serious about coming and living in the United States you will want to actually go to the government website I mentioned above for more details.

 

7 Steps to Legally Enter and Live in the United States

 

Step 1. Go to the U. S. embassy in your country to apply for an Immigrant Visa. Please be aware that there are all kinds of Visa’s. If you want to come and live in the U. S. permanently you must apply for an Immigrant Visa.

United States Embassy in Honduras

This is a very important first step. Once you find and enter the U. S. embassy I’m sure there will be people there to help you: to answer many of your questions and to help you through the application process.

Step 2. After you get to the embassy you must begin the Immigrant Visa application by submitting a Petition. Here is what you must do to submit a petition:

  • Get a U. S. citizen to sponsor you. This sponsor must either be a citizen relative, a U. S. lawful permanent resident, or a prospective employer.
  • That sponsor must file a petition with the U. S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS). It is best for the sponsor to file the petition in the U.S.
  • When your immigrant petition is approved by the USCIS it will be sent to the National Visa Center (NVC) for processing. You will soon receive a letter or email from the NVC telling you that they have received your approved petition and that you must now begin the National Visa Processing.

Step 3. National Visa Processing. This processing involves the following six steps (click on each one for more detailed information):

Step 4. Prepare for Interview. All applicants will be given information and instructions for the interview. If you have not read the information and do not bring the required documents your case will be delayed or denied.

After NVC schedules your visa interview appointment, they will send you, your petitioner, and your agent/attorney (if applicable) an email or letter noting the appointment date and time.  After you receive an interview appointment letter from NVC, you must take the following steps BEFORE the interview date (Click on links for more detailed information).

Step 5. Interview. On the scheduled date and time of your interview appointment, go to the U.S. Embassy or Consulate. A consular officer will interview you (and accompanying family member beneficiaries) and determine whether or not you can receive an immigrant visa. As part of the interview process, ink-free, digital fingerprint scans will be taken.

You, your spouse, and any qualified unmarried children immigrating with you, must participate in the interview.  All applicants required to participate will be named on the interview appointment letter you receive from the NVC.

If your spouse and/or qualified unmarried children will immigrate at a later date and travel separately from you, they are not required to participate in your interview. They will be scheduled for a separate interview appointment. You should contact the U.S. Embassy or Consulate directly to arrange separate interviews, if needed.

Your sponsor/petitioner does not attend the visa interview.

The applicant is responsible to bring all required original civil documents, and photocopies of the original civil documents, to the visa interview. Failure to bring all required original civil documents and the photocopies to the interview may cause delay or denial of the visa.  The following documents must be available at the interview (Click on links for more detailed information):

Step 6. Visa approval or denial. At the end of your interview the consular officer will inform you whether your Visa application is approved or denied.

Step 7. Instructions if approved. When you are approved for your Immigrant Visa you will be given all kinds of instructions regarding your passport, when you should travel, Immigrant fees, vaccination records, X-rays, entering the United States, U. S. laws, and your Social Security number.

 

How long will it take to get my Immigrant Visa? This is a very good question, without a good answer. I would say that it will depend on a lot of things, such as…

  • How long the waiting list is
  • How good your sponsors are
  • What kind of a job you have waiting for you
  • How well you were able to fill out all the forms
  • How well you were prepared for the interview
  • How well the interview went

 

 

Posted in immigration, US Government/Politics/White House, US News | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How to Pray about the Caravans from Central America

 

The imminent caravan of over 4000 people coming from Central America to America is a big problem. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, this last April, called the caravan “A deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system.” (Migrant Caravan, After Grueling Trip, Reaches U.S. Border. Now the Really Hard Part. Kirk Semple and Miriam Jordan, New York Times, April 29, 2018)

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said of the April caravan, “This caravan, like those who have gone before, is also rightly understood as a deliberate attempt to undermine the laws of this country and the sovereignty of the United States.” (Migrant caravan remains stalled at US-Mexico border AZ Central, April 30, 2018)

 

Here is some info about these caravans:

According to the Wikipedia article, Central American migrant caravans,

The Viacrucis del Migrante (Way of the Cross), also known as the Central American migrant caravan,[2] are annual migrant caravans of Central Americans organized by Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People without Borders). Viacruciscaravans have usually been organized since 2010 by the migrants themselves, who set off during Holy Week.

 

Here are questions with some answers:

Are caravan people being paid by Democrats to come to America? New York Times says No. No evidence. But I wonder.

When did these yearly caravans start? These caravans have been coming every year from Central America since 2010. Obama did nothing about it. And they are getting bigger every year.

Why do they come? What do they expect? Jobs. Better life. To escape poverty.

Do they know that if they are able to get past our boarder that they will be entering in illegally? I think they must know that, but since many have gotten by in the past, they disregard our laws.

Why do some people want them to come despite the fact that they will be coming illegally? The Democrats want their votes, that simple.

Besides it being illegal, what is the problem with their coming? (1) Many are criminal; (2) many are bringing drugs; (3) too many are coming in and overwhelming our system—too many to process; (4) many of them do not regard or respect our laws; some even come carrying their own countries flags.

 

How can we pray?

Pray for the safety of the people coming in caravans. It is a long hard journey.

Pray for the good sense of the people; that many would choose to go back to their own county, choosing rather to come in legally—and show them how to do it.

Pray for the wisdom of our government and President Trump.

Pray for the funds needed to build the southern boarder wall.

Pray for Mexico to cooperate with our government and to stop the flow of caravans, because they are illegal!

 

Posted in immigration, US Government/Politics/White House, US News | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Glory to God for all the President’s Accomplishments

Some people say that President Donald J. Trump has more accomplishments in his first two years in office than any other President in history.

We can certainly be proud of our President. But at the same time we all need to give glory to God for all of the President’s good works. For at such a time as this, God has gifted and called Donald J. Trump to serve Him in this office. Let all people see that he is in the service of God for His purpose and glory.

 

Matthew 5:16

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Posted in About Trump, prayer for trump and country | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Russia Hoax by Gregg Jarrett – A Short Summary

 

My first few reading sessions of the book were quite enjoyable. I mean, it read like a fictitious novel, where all kinds of corruption and mystery is taking place. I had to remind myself constantly that all this crime actually happened—and is still happening. I was especially appalled by Hillary Clinton’s blatant disregard for the law.

About midway through the book, though, I started getting bored with it. I was tired of hearing, over and over again, about so much corruption. So much talk of corruption can get you down. I suppose it would be different if I was hearing it for the first time; but I have been keeping up with the news every day, so it is all review to me. Nevertheless, it is good to have this book as written evidence of what has actually happened. And it is all thoroughly documented.

This book would be best for liberal Democrats to read—if they ever believed what they were reading. Most would probably reject it. Twenty years from now some may read this book and think it is all fiction; that those things written here could never happen. This book makes the saying, “the truth is stranger than fiction” believable.

In the very last couple paragraphs of the book, Gregg Jarrett gave a good synopsis of the actual truth of the Russia hoax. Here is the quote:

There was never any plausible evidence that Trump or his campaign collaborated with Russia to win the presidency. The FBI had no legal basis to initiate its investigation. Facts were invented or exaggerated. Laws were perverted or ignored. The law enforcers became law breakers. Comey’s scheme to trigger the appointment of his friend as special counsel was a devious maneuver by an unscrupulous man. His insinuation that the president obstructed justice was another canard designed to inflame the liberal media. Sure enough, they became witting accessories.

When power forces in government abuse their positions of trust to subvert the legal process, and when the media acts in concert to condone or conceal corrupt behavior, democracy is threatened. Reverence to the rule of law is lost.

Posted in About Trump, Book Reviews, Russia, The Russia Hoax, The Russia Hoax by Gregg Jarrett, US News, World News by Countries | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Susan Collins Gives the Speech of Her Life to Confirm Brett Kavanaugh

 

 

The following speech by Susan Collins is historic and will be remembered for a long time. The speech is very thorough and leaves nothing out. Though I disagree with her on abortion, I think she did a marvelous job. You could tell she really did her homework. As she was very concerned that Roe V. Wade would not be overturned, she was convinced by her conversations with Kavanaugh that he would not try to overturn it—as he said to her that precedence of the law is very important.

I heard her speech on the radio on Sean Hannity, 1130 AM. He also praised the speech and said it was historic. Well, here is the entire speech.

 

Mr. President, the five previous times that I have come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the United States Supreme Court, I have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion.

But today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.

The President nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th. Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn’t even bother to fill in the Judge’s name on its pre-written press release – they simply wrote that they opposed “Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.” A number of Senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee’s identity was even known.

Since that time, we have seen special interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial record. Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines which, although debunked hours later, continue to live on and be spread through social media. Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination.

Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than thirty years. One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom.

Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual Senator to decide what the Constitution’s “advice and consent” duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the President has broad discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought.

I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I have never considered the President’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, who were nominated by President Obama, and Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump.

So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. Nineteen attorneys, including lawyers from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge’s extensive record. I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the Committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And, I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions.

I have also met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents, regarding Judge Kavanaugh. One concern that I frequently heard was that Judge Kavanaugh would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. I disagree with this contention. In a dissent in Seven-Sky v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full. Many experts have said his dissent informed Justice Roberts’ opinion upholding the ACA at the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh’s approach toward the doctrine of severability is narrow. When a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain intact.

This was his approach in his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (PPH v. CFPB). In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued for “severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.” Given the current challenges to the ACA, proponents, including myself, of protections for people with pre-existing conditions should want a Justice who would take just this kind of approach.

Another assertion I have heard often is that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the President were to come before the Court. The basis for this argument seems to be two-fold. First, Judge Kavanaugh has written that he believes that Congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. Mr. President, I believe opponents miss the mark on this issue. The fact that Judge Kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the President does not have such protection currently.

Second, there are some who argue that given the current Special Counsel investigation, President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. That argument ignores our recent history. President Clinton, in 1993, nominated Justice Ginsburg after the Whitewater investigation was already underway. And she was confirmed 96-3. The next year, just three months after Independent Counsel Robert Fiske was named to lead the Whitewater investigation, President Clinton nominated Justice Breyer. He was confirmed 87-9.

Supreme Court Justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. Perhaps most notably in United States v. Nixon, three Nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him.

Judge Kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. He has stated that Marbury v. Madison, Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer and United States v. Nixon are three of the four greatest Supreme Court cases in history. What do they have in common? Each of them is a case where the Court served as a check on presidential power. And I would note that the fourth case that Judge Kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was Brown v Board of Education.

One Kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. He wrote the opinion in Hamdan v. United States, a case that challenged the Bush Administration’s military commission prosecution of an associate of Osama Bin Laden. This conviction was very important to the Bush Administration, but Judge Kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the DC Circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bush’s White House, ruled that the conviction was unlawful. As he explained during the hearing, “We don’t make decisions based on who people are, or their policy preferences, or the moment. We base decisions on the law….”

Others I met with have expressed concerns that Justice Kennedy’s retirement threatens the right of same sex couples to marry. Yet, Judge Kavanaugh described the Obergefelldecision, which legalized same gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent. He also cited Justice Kennedy’s recent Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion for the Court’s majority stating that: “The days of treating gay and lesbian Americans or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the Supreme Court.”

Others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control. In one case, Judge Kavanaugh incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections. Although his critics frequently overlook this point, Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception. In fact, he wrote that the Supreme Court precedent “strongly suggested” that there was a “compelling interest” in facilitating access to birth control.

There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me.

To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article III of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent “is not just a judicial policy … it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent.” In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration; it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance, and fairness. There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, correcting a “grievously wrong” decision–to use the judge’s term–allowing racial inequality. But, someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is “grievously wrong” or “deeply inconsistent with the law.” Those are Judge Kavanaugh’s phrases.

As Judge Kavanaugh asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight such that precedent can’t be trimmed or narrowed simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.

Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago, and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.

Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy, on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptives. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to Roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as “settled law,” Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s, Meyer and Pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, describing it as “precedent on precedent.” When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no.”

Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe. The Republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. During this time, Republican presidents have appointed Justices O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. These are the very three justices—Republican president appointed justices—who authored the Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe. Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously opposed each of these justices’ nominations. Incredibly, they even circulated buttons with the slogan “Stop Souter Or Women Will Die!” Just two years later, Justice Souter coauthored the Casey opinion, reaffirming a woman’s right to choose. Suffice it to say, prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.

These same interest groups have speculated that Judge Kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologues, despite his record of judicial independence. I asked the judge point blank whether he had made any commitments or pledges to anyone at the White House, to the Federalist Society, or to any outside group on how he would decide cases. He unequivocally assured me he had not.

Judge Kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament. The American Bar Association (ABA) gave him its highest possible rating. Its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary conducted an extraordinarily thorough assessment, soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. The ABA concluded that “his integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence met the highest standard.”

Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history, testified: “By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.” “His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair….” Ms. Blatt, who clerked for and is an ardent admirer of Justice Ginsburg, and who is, in her own words, “an unapologetic defender of a woman’s right to choose,” said that Judge Kavanaugh “fit[s] in the mainstream of legal thought.” She also observed that “Judge Kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession.”

That Judge Kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93 percent of the cases that they heard together. Indeed, Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96 percent of the majority opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.

Despite all this, after weeks of reviewing Judge Kavanaugh’s record and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate’s advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford. The confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault, and lied about it to the Judiciary Committee.

Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.

Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.

In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.

The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred; none of the individuals Professor Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night.

Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. PJ Smyth, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. Professor Ford’s life-long friend Leland Keyser indicated that, under penalty of felony, she does not remember that party. And Ms. Keyser went further. She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.

In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say, “I was at the party that night.”

Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that, because of the distance, she would have needed a ride – yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one that drove her home or were in the car with her that night. And Professor Ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying goodbye and distraught, none of them called her the next day – or ever – to ask why she left – is she okay – not even her closest friend, Ms. Keyser.

Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance as to how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. It leaves that decision up to each Senator. This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of “more likely than not” as our standard.

The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night – or at some other time – but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the “more likely than not” standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Court.

Let me emphasize that my approach to this question should not be misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is not a serious problem in this country. To the contrary, if any good at all has come from this ugly confirmation process, it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the pervasiveness of this terrible problem.

I have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is rejected, the Senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every person—man or woman–who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect. The #MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed. And it is long overdue. We know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault. On average, an estimated 211,000 rapes and sexual assaults go unreported every year. We must listen to survivors, and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many. We owe this to ourselves, our children, and generations to come.

Since the hearing, I have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. Many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. Some were friends I have known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, I had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks. I am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward, and I hope that in heightening public awareness, they have also lightened the burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years. To them, I pledge to do all that I can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences.

Over the past few weeks, I have been emphatic that the Senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. I called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I also pushed for and supported the FBI supplemental background investigation. This was the right thing to do.

Christine Ford never sought the spotlight. She indicated that she was terrified to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and she has shunned attention since then. She seemed completely unaware of Chairman Grassley’s offer to allow her to testify confidentially in California. Watching her, Mr. President, I could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well-being.

Professor Ford testified that a very limited number of people had access to her letter. Yet that letter found its way into the public domain. She testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released. And yet, here we are. We are in the middle of a fight that she never sought, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially.

One theory I have heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague, Senator Feinstein, leaked Professor Ford’s letter at the eleventh hour to derail this process. I want to state this very clearly: I know Senator Diane Feinstein extremely well, and I believe that she would never do that. I knew that to be the case before she even stated it at the hearing. She is a person of integrity, and I stand by her.

I have also heard some argue that the Chairman of the Committee somehow treated Professor Ford unfairly. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chairman Grassley, along with his excellent staff, treated Professor Ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. And that is the way the Senator from Iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service.

But the fact remains, Mr. President, that someone leaked this letter against Professor Ford’s express wishes. I suspect, regrettably, that we will never know for certain who did it. To that leaker, who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect, but who also trusted you to protect her – and you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting. My only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate – and indeed all Americans – to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court nominees. If that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded Professor Ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences.

Mr. President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination had reached a fever pitch even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction.

We live in a time of such great disunity, as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates. It is not merely a case of different groups having different opinions. It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them. In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans. When some of our best minds are seeking to develop ever more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify.

This would have alarmed the drafters of our Constitution, who were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people. Indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the Constitution, the one that they put first was the formation of “a more perfect Union.”

Their vision of “a more perfect Union” does not exist today, and if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it. It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principal guardian of our shared constitutional heritage, is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.

Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and counter charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father. Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our Judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

 

Posted in Bret Kavanaugh, US Government/Politics/White House | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Destroying Presumption of Innocence

 

A very damaging thing that has come out of the recent me-too movement has been the insistence that we must always believe a woman’s allegations that someone (a man she has accused) has committed a sex crime against her—even if she cannot produce any evidence. This is not only unjust for the accused, but it sets an unlawful precedent. For our laws declare that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This is our presumption of innocence law that we have for a long time held to. Now that law is being challenged.

This challenge is being demonstrated at this very moment by the democrats and many angry liberals against Bret Kavanaugh because of what happened to Dr. Ford 36 years ago, according to allegations against him.  But she has no evidence to prove her case!

Yet, because of what happened to her we (all people) are told that we must believe her story. We must believe that Judge Kavanaugh committed this violent act as she has described it—even without any proof.

We can’t allow our sacred principles to be thrown out the window by a few angry women and by liberal democrats—who we know are acting according to their own political purposes. For if they were really for women’s rights, they would not let Keith Ellison of Minnesota off the hook, or Bill Clinton.

Also, with presumption of innocence off the law, think of what this will do to our justice system. Lawlessness!

 

Posted in US News | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

3 Reason Why Democrats and Ford are Obstructing Justice

As time goes on, we have seen more and more that the allegations by Christine Ford against Bret Kavanaugh is a well contrived evil plot by key Democrats, together with Ford, to delay and eventually shut down the election of Bret Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court  Judge. I say this for a these reasons.

1. Four Republican senators are now saying that unless Ford and Kavanaugh can be heard they probably will not vote for Kavanaugh—and the Dems knew this all along.

Bob Corker of Tennessee

Susan Collins of Maine

Jeff Flake of Arizona

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska

 

2. Ford originally stated that she would be willing to come and testify before a Senate hearing, but now she is saying that she will not, unless the FBI investigates the matter. But I think she is saying that only because she knows the FBI will not investigate. She is clearly obstructing justice. It is clearly a stall tactic.

3. This stall and obstruction tactic is clearly an evil plot to sway the four senators from voting for Kavanaugh and then also to keep three key Democrats from voting for Kavanaugh.

Joe Donnelly

Heidi Heitkamp

Joe Manchin

What should be done?

Christine Ford, Diane Feinstein, and the Democrat party has clearly plotted against Bret Kavanaugh and the Trump administration. They have got us against the ropes and we don’t know what to do!

Urgent prayer is needed!

We are in a desperate situation!

Urgent prayer is needed!

Should we pray that Ford will come and testify?

Or should we pray that Bret Kavanaugh’s testimony will be enough to shed light on the truth and convince all voters that he is telling the truth?

Overall, I think we should pray strongly that the seven senators—Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Joe Donnelly—will see the truth and will decide to vote for Bret Kavanaugh. Whether Ford decides to come and testify or not, this is my prayer, that these senators will see the truth.

Posted in US Government/Politics/White House, US News | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment