Democratic Senator Tries To Corner Neil Gorsuch On Dark Money Interests, Fails Miserably (And The NYT Wasn't Much Better)

Matt Vespa, March 23, 2017



Senate Democrats are trying to grill Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch, but it’s been a rather embarrassing spectacle. If these salvos are the best they’ve got, the might as well call it a night and accept reality: Gorsuch will be confirmed. But they won’t do that because Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) needs to know if Gorsuch knows the dynamics of the dark and surreptitious ad campaign being waged in support of his nomination. News bulletin, Senator: organizations can do this—and it’s not like it’s a secret that conservatives like Gorsuch and want him on the Court.



What do you know about it?” asked Whitehouse. Gorsuch said that all he knows is what he’s read in the news. It’s the typical dark money in politics narrative that liberals are obsessed with, which circles us back to the Citizens United decision; a ruling that the Left is fighting to overturn. The Supreme Court nominee also said that both sides are spending money in this effort. Whitehouse was skeptical.

Whitehouse tried to used dark money to attack Gorsuch, which is quite interesting since he’s worked with left wing groups who do pretty much what the Right does concerning their issues. And yes, there are lefty groups, like Indivisible, CREDO Action, and People for the American Way, who are working to derail Gorsuch’s nomination.

Even The New York Times tried to smear Gorsuch on dark money, saying the jurist had ties to a billionaire energy executive Philip F. Anschutz. Gorsuch acted as a lawyer for Anschutz in a series of lawsuits while acting as a private attorney. In 2006, Anschutz wrote a letter to then-President Bush recommending him for a federal judgeship. Gasp! Collusion! Well, like Alex Griswold of the Washington Free Beacon wrote, Gorsuch was never a direct employee of Anschutz, but Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) was the managing director of Anschutz Investment Co. for years. So, this whole line of attack is dotted with hypocrisy and friendly fire (via Washington Free Beacon):

The New York Times published a front-page story Wednesday on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch and his ties to a "secretive billionaire," despite never devoting equal coverage on a Democratic senator who had even more direct ties to the same tycoon.
The billionaire is Philip F. Anschutz, who built an empire out of an oil and gas firm. Anschutz and Gorsuch both share Colorado as a home state, and Gorsuch, whose father was a well-known Colorado Republican, was "drawn into [Anschutz's] orbit," according to the Times.
The Times reports that Gorsuch represented Anschutz in several federal court cases while working for a private law firm in Washington, D.C. starting in 2004. In 2006, Anschutz sent a letter to the Bush administration recommending Gorsuch–who was then in the Justice Department–for an open federal judgeship. Gorsuch also co-owns a log cabin retreat with two Anschutz executives.
But Gorsuch was never a direct employee of Anschutz or a key executive in his empire, unlike Democratic Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet. From 1997 to 2003, Bennet served as managing director of Anschutz Investment Co.



Freeing Religion from Government’s Grip

Robert Knight, March, 23, 2017

On Feb. 2, at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump said, “My administration will do everything in its power to defend and protect religious liberty.”

Right now, he has a golden opportunity. He can sign an executive order that has been on his desk since early February that would halt some of the ongoing attacks on religious conscience all over the country.

The directive, reportedly called “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” would protect religious organizations’ right to their mission and beliefs when contracting with government, provide conscience protection from the Obamacare abortifacient and contraceptive mandate, and protect from penalties or coercion anyone who believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

You’ve probably heard about the Christian bakers, photographers, florists and wedding planners who have been fined heavily or put out of business for declining to service same-sex ceremonies. And the Little Sisters of the Poor, who have been threatened with ruin for declining to pay for abortions.

But did you hear about the law signed on September 30th by California Gov. Jerry Brown that singles out religious colleges? They have to jump through hoops that other institutions are spared, simply because their beliefs are suspect in the eyes of the government.

An earlier draft would have victimized mostly minority students by barring Cal Grants to schools that failed to fly the flag of sexual anarchy. Public outrage killed this provision, but the law is still abhorrent – and unconstitutional.

SB 1146 puts government in charge of religion, judging what is sin, love, moral, biblical, or proper,” says Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a pro-religious liberty group. “[It] begins the process of government taking over religion, a very dangerous precedent in a free society.”

Government red tape is already a nightmare for businesses and schools, but SB 1146 puts the religious-based institutions in the sixth circle of the bureaucrats’ version of Dante’s Inferno. That’s the place reserved for heretics, and, make no mistake, that’s how progressives in California see Bible-believing Christians.

The law’s anti-privacy provisions “would force California’s religiously-affiliated colleges and universities to report four times a year on every expulsion and suspension of a student, and the reasons for the discipline,” according to the Becket Fund.

The law also requires “religious colleges to use government-dictated language to communicate their religious beliefs to their students, faculty, and communities,” Becket warns.

If that sounds more like North Korea than sunny California, it should.  This is communist in spirit and substance.

In Madison, Wis., a city ordinance forces creative professionals to promote beliefs with which they disagree or face penalties. On March 7, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) sued the city on behalf of photographer/blogger Amy Lynn, who says she conducts her business only in ways that glorify God. This means she thinks that marriage is the union of the two sexes and that abortions take human lives, and she reflects this in her blog posts and her provision of client services.

ADF attorneys note that the law is so broad and absurd that a Madison-based speechwriter who opposes President Trump could be punished for refusing to write a speech for him.

In Phoenix, Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, who met at a Bible study, decided in January 2015 to open Brush & Nib Studio, creating hand-drawn art for weddings and businesses. Six months later, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex “marriage,” unleashing an avalanche of legal tools to crush Christian businesses under the heel of “tolerance.”

A Phoenix ordinance could require Brush & Nib to create invitations and other art for same-sex ceremonies. The law forbids them from explaining to customers and the public why they choose not to create art that violates their beliefs. If charged, for every day they defy the law, they’d be fined $2,500 and face six months in jail.

In March 2015, the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics accused Ruth Neely, a municipal judge and part-time circuit court magistrate, of judicial misconduct and recommended sacking her from both positions. Her crime? She told a reporter that she believes in traditional marriage and so she could not preside over same-sex ceremonies.

As the ADF, which represents her, points out, “Judge Neely has never been asked to solemnize a same-sex marriage, no law requires magistrates to serve as a celebrant for any marriage, magistrates may decline to perform weddings for a host of secular reasons, and Judge Neely has an unblemished record of integrity, impartiality, and scrupulous compliance with the law in her more than 21 years of judicial service.”

Meanwhile, Liberty Counsel, a Christian civil liberties group, has represented Christian “Good News Clubs” at public schools and has defended public officials against the ACLU’s attacks on Ten Commandments displays.

There are many more incidents of harassment against people of faith, including several cases in the armed forces, which still harbor leftover Obama apparatchiks intent on weeding out Christians.

But let’s move on to solutions. President Trump should sign the executive order guaranteeing religious freedom. He should also overturn Mr. Obama’s order that discriminates against federal contractors who won’t bow to sexual anarchy. And, his new Defense Secretary, James Mattis, should issue a directive stopping cold the persecution of chaplains and others who are trying to live out their faith.

Given Mr. Trump’s own declarations and the support he received from evangelical Christians, 80 percent of whom voted for him, plus a majority of Catholics, none of this should be considered heavy lifting.

Besides, putting bullies in their place (Hollywood, the media) is actually quite freeing.


Editors Corner

The liberal media is not going to let up on bending the truth, they can't afford too.  Their readership and viewership would dry up in their eyes.  Remember these media bases are based in the liberal left populated areas of this country.  To keep the revenue flowing you print and say what they the liberal left wants to see and hear.  There are cracks in their influence to script their world as they want it played out.  The Internet with its independent minded thinkers are ripping away at the lies the mainstream media tries to foster on the American public.  Everyday the strangle hold lessens and more and more truth is brought forth.