We Hear You: Jussie Smollett, Judicial Activism, and Abortion Survivors
Ken McIntyre /
Editor’s note: We begin with some reaction from The Daily Signal’s audience to Chicago’s about-face in the strange case of a TV actor, then on to some responses to news not covered elsewhere. Join in by writing to [email protected].—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal: I look at the photo of actor Jussie Smollett accompanying your podcast transcript of the interview with Cully Stimson and I see the face of arrogant privilege and diabolical narcissism (“A Former Prosecutor Explains How Jussie Smollett Could Still Be Charged”).
It appears that the only way to get rid of such people is to stop patronizing any of their endeavors. By supporting Smollett, folks give him a platform and power.
How interesting that the Obamas have shown their contempt for the rule of law again. Will we ever be free of them? It appears not. Nice sunglasses and smirk. That’s where nice ends.—Joseph Badame
***
That Chicago is corrupt is the most poorly kept secret on earth. That the Trump Justice Department has the chance to break the pattern of prosecuting only GOP folks will hopefully come to fruition.
Smollett apparently broke federal law, and Chicago can’t protect him in Washington.—Anthony Alafero
This travesty of justice cannot be allowed to stand. We can’t have a two-tiered system of justice in this country, or respect for the rule of law will evaporate into anarchy.
We have seen far too much of this type of justice denied in Washington. Our new attorney general needs to get down and dirty on this and introduce the criminals to Lady Justice with her scales.
I believe that if Jeff Sessions had acted like an attorney general we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I firmly believe that all of it began with Obama. Hopefully time will tell.—Randy Leyendecker, Kerrville, Texas
***
Chicago always has had problems with its administrators. The citizens, both black and white, have underwritten or allowed this for upward of a century now.—Rex Whitmer, Elfrida, Ariz.
***
About Cully Stimson’s commentary, “Unanswered Questions in the Jussie Smollett Case”: Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx campaigned on the promise that she would stop prosecuting minorities for nonviolent crimes because of racial imbalance in the prison population. This is what Chicago voted for.
If Jussie Smollett had convinced police that his story was true and two white guys happened to show up on camera that night, those whites would have had their lives destroyed and could have faced years in prison for a hate crime.
The punishment for the hoax should be as severe, as the punishment would have been for some poor, innocent guys who might have been blamed. Would Smollett have fessed up if someone else had been charged, or was he willing to let someone go to jail on false charges?—Anna Clare
***
To hell with the $130,000 sought by the city. Smollett should be given the choice of admitting his guilt and apologizing to the Chicago police, or going to trial and being prosecuted before a judge and jury.—Drew Page
Judges Who Thwart the Trump Agenda
Dear Daily Signal: Regarding the story by Fred Lucas on federal judges thwarting President Trump, the problem is that we don’t have a real chief justice in John Roberts (“Federal District Judges Have Blocked Trump Actions 30 Times, a Record Rate”). Roberts is supposed to rein in federal judicial overreach, but he does not.
Some judge out in Washington state does not have the legal authority to block a temporary immigration ban from nations that U.S. intelligence has determined to be terror threats.
What is worse, the “damage” the judge cited was to the hiring in Washington state colleges. What? He blocked a foil to possible terrorism because of hiring issues?
As the top judge on the Supreme Court, Roberts should have had one of his people contact the judge and say, “No. Drop it, or I will.” —Anthony Alafero
***
So Senate Democrats are worried about whether this judge, once seated, would recuse herself when appropriate?
Where was their concern when Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan felt it was OK to judge the Affordable Care Act case, when she assisted in writing the law? I guess conflict of interest doesn’t apply to Democrats.—Allie Davis
***
What we should do is investigate the investigators, because all of them have done or said something in their past that we could use to our benefit.
The Republicans need to stop their bowing down to the liberals. It is time to go on the offense instead of being on defense all the time.
Why do we lock our doors at night? To prevent a criminal from walking in. Is that so difficult to understand?—Liz Lemus
***
Maybe we should’ve asked all the liberal judges if they’d recuse themselves from issues they are not prepared to deal with, such as the right to life.
As far as women protecting themselves from rape, the same thing goes for anyone. You don’t go into a convenience store late at night in a questionable part of town, or any part of town, and flash a load of cash. You probably will get robbed.
You don’t head off into bear country slathered in bacon grease and stumbling along a trail at night and expect that no bear will be interested.
The left’s ideology may be wonderful, but it is wholly unrealistic and just plain stupid. You are responsible as much as possible for your own safety; do not make yourself a target.
Gosh, what common sense. But liberals have lost the idea of common sense, and certainly they don’t subscribe to personal responsibility.—Timothy Dayton
An Abortion Survivor’s Story
Dear Daily Signal: Thank you for Ginny Montalbano’s story about the woman who survived an attempt by an abortion doctor to snuff out her life (“Why This Abortion Survivor Had to Thank President Trump”).
Thank God this lady survived. Unfortunately, for every child like her there are many, many more who have a chance to be born, but the results are not the same.
I pray that more stories like this will continue to come out. This evil of abortion has got to end. Stories like this, I believe, will help toward that end. —Jim Love
***
Thanks to Ginny Montalbano for a very informative article. I hope she will continue to inform your readers about the reality of late-term abortions.
It appears that many politicians, and even nonpoliticians, have convinced themselves that aborting even at the moment of delivery is perfectly normal.—Gregory Scime
***
Thank you to Ginny Montalbano for touching me with this amazing story about the abortion survivor. I’m trying to type this email with tears in my eyes. God bless you.—Elaina Burdo
***
For Planned Parenthood to say the abortion survivors bill targets people of color is ludicrous. Planned Parenthood was founded on that very idea—to target people of color. Wasn’t it founded to get rid of those so-called “undesirables?”
Why is this fact not brought up and made widespread public knowledge?
Also, to give Planned Parenthood money for any reason frees up money for them to commit abortions. I say totally defund them.—Karen Maney, Barnardsville, N.C.
***
I’m an 82-year-old lifelong Democrat who is disgusted by what the Democrat Party has become.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., recently started a speech by saying, “I’m a new mom.” What kind of mom, new or old, would support killing newborn babies?
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently pardoned a lot of illegal immigrants; four of them behind bars for murder.
When I went into the military, I took an oath that included the words “domestic enemies.” It’s obvious our country is infested with these domestic enemies that support no wall, open borders, and sanctuary cities to hide the illegals and criminals.
I think it was Nikita Khrushchev who predicted the Soviets would take over our country without firing a shot. They’re doing it by throwing rocks at our border guards.—Marty K., Hamburg, N.Y.
***
The rest of the world watches CNN and sees America through its lens, unfortunately, is my thought about your recent podcast about abortion (“Podcast: The Left’s Abortion Extremism”).
What they see is babies born when parents decide the babies meet their specifications: no defects, hair and eye color must be correct, plus any other criteria required. If the child doesn’t meet the standards established, the parents may approve the doctor or mid-wife to eliminate said defective adult burden.
Of all the poor political decisions made by elected officials and enforced by the judicial system, abortion has to be the one viewed with the most disdain by a large segment of world society. They don’t get exposed to my small community or others like it across the country that still try to maintain some semblance of civility and respect for each other and apply common sense to our lives.
What they see is large metropolitan areas that appear to only have bad habits and poor judgment. Places like New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Chicago, and even smaller communities such as Savannah, Ga. The mainstream media doesn’t report the good in the aforementioned communities, but accentuates the worst because it’s there to be seen and heard.
Short of abstaining from producing a child you don’t want, you still have a myriad of other choices. Most importantly is that it’s between you and your deity (whoever or whatever that might be). You do hold something or someone in high esteem, but that’s your choice to make in a free society.
Where the line should be drawn is the expectation that taxpayers’ money be used for the barbaric practices of self-indulgence. The choices we make should be about how we live and so should that of a newborn. I hope we seek a new direction.—Brannen Edwards, Savannah, Ga.
What the Left Wants to Know About Judges
Dear Daily Signal: Judicial nominee Neomi Rao should have asked Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., if his disdain for white people affects his ability to do his job (“Democrat Senator Asks Judicial Nominee to Answer Whether Gay Marriage Is ‘Sinful’”).
Isn’t it remarkable that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who was the most religious high court judge in modern times, was approved unanimously?
Yeah, he was approved by real Democrats, not today’s radicals masquerading as Democrats.—Anthony Alafero
***
Because this subject has been broached in a congressional hearing, are we then free to query a prospective employee with the same question?
Or another: “Do you believe in a living God who will judge us after we leave this life?”
Sen. Cory Booker is reaching for anything that would make the judicial candidate feel threatened (bullying) or uncomfortable in the questioning process.
Inquisition is a better term for his line of questioning. That, along with grandstanding.—Jane Sieveking
***
Cory Booker needs to dust off his pocket Constitution. The question is clearly answered by the document itself: There cannot be a religious test for office.
It seems that the Senate Democratic leadership, elected by other serving Democrats, want to stack the courts with atheists.
Would they ask the same question of a Muslim? Of course not, because that would be politically incorrect.—William Downey, Boston
***
The proper response would be to suggest that Cory Booker consult the Bible, which defines quite clearly what behaviors are “sinful.”
The correct answer to Booker’s questions is “yes.” The Bible defines homosexual activity as sinful, but goes on to include any sexual immorality, including sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.
In fact, a number of other things are sinful. Not my rules, God’s rules. And I would caution Booker not to mock them. Mocking God is not healthy for anyone’s future.—Wayne Peterkin
***
Liberals do not know what the words of the Constitution mean, let alone what liberty is.—Ginny Murrell, Rancho Murieta, Calif.
Socialism, Medicare for All, and Green New Deal
Dear Daily Signal: Rachel del Guidice did a great, well written and informative report on the true results that socialism has on the people that choose it for their form of government (“Medicare for All Would ‘Result in Care for None,’ Doctor-Turned-Lawmaker Says”).
So many young people who I know have fallen for the false hope and lies of the socialist honey pot. Even when I point out all of the countries that have tried it and failed, they say, “Oh, they just didn’t do it right.”
Thank you for all of the hard work and dedication to the cause of freedom of conscience, liberty, and love of family and country. My best wishes for Rachel’s journalistic future.—A.R. Bicker
***
If I were interested in a planned disaster, I’d know right where to go. The Green New Deal is a well-thought-out plan by liberals, progressives, Democrats, socialists, and communists to take away our freedoms, and place the entire country under government control of and for everything.
The Green New Deal is nothing but a race to socialism. Now, where in the world has that ever worked? Nowhere.
And what may be even more disturbing is how many Democrats, yearning to be president, are lusting to steer what would be a rudderless ship right onto a reef.
New energy sources, all in good time. This bit about the world is going to end in 10 to 12 years is nonsense and a huge pile of manure. There is zero serious data to point the world in this direction.
Maybe we should start with a close-up look at the Democrats and see how many have solar panels on their roof or a wind turbine in their backyard or neighborhood.
To set a 10-year goal on all of this is stupid. It cannot be done. Period. And the cost would be gihugic.
Since we don’t live in a bubble, nothing really changes. We have made significant progress doing our part to clean up the planet. Let’s just continue to make progress with these initiatives and develop alternative energy sources as the technology dictates, not throw 326 million people under the bus.—Robert Patrick, McCormick, S.C.
***
As a former independent, now conservative, I see what is happening in our America. I don’t agree with the left’s Green New Deal, but the Republican Party needs to have a counter deal.
How about “the Real Deal,” not to destroy our energy independence but to save our food supply?
Einstein said that if the bee disappears off the face of the earth, man would have four years to live. Guess what? Bees are dying at alarming rates, and we need to stop the chemical companies from promoting neonicotinoid insecticides to treat agricultural crops.
We need to stop genetically modified organisms and promote bee health as they do in the Netherlands, where bees are rebounding. We need to make biodegradable packaging and use only recyclables.
This can create jobs and save our planet. I am tired of Republicans being seen as anti-environment.—Deb Rickman, Beachwood, N.J.
Why We Sometimes Build Walls Instead of Bridges
Dear Daily Signal: Despite their public pronouncements, I’m sure Democrats know quite well that walls are effective, as Peter Parisi writes in his commentary (“The Truth About Border Walls’ Effectiveness”). That’s precisely the reason they don’t want one.—Charles Burge
***
Today’s left is so devoid of good ideas that they find it necessary to lie about everything. The Democrats have all of the stats on this, but instead choose to deceive the people.
If that was illegal (fraud), as I would like to see, it would be a different political world. President Trump may lie regularly, but lies about the size of your crowd is very different from intentional fraud.
If the people are made to believe that walls don’t work, they won’t want them. If they knew the truth, they would. It’s that simple.—Anthony Alafero
***
I don’t want to minimize examinations on the effectiveness of walls, but the truth is we all know that erecting physical barriers (walls, fencing, whatever) along the border would cut over 90 percent of foot traffic.
And that is the real reason Democrats don’t want it. The last thing Democrats want is actually to stop illegal immigration.—Gabriel C. L. Maldonado
***
Every rational person knows walls work. Are walls infallible? No, but they are far more effective than no walls at keeping people out of where they shouldn’t be. Anyone who denies this is either a fool or a liar, or both.—Drew Page
***
If walls and fences didn’t work, there would be no need for farmers to have them, let alone the rich and famous.—Estell Newton
***
By far most illegal immigrants come by airplane and overstay their visas. Five times as many people on terrorist watch lists are stopped at the Canadian border than at the Mexican border.
By far, most drugs that come into the U.S. do so through legal ports of entry. Fewer violent crimes are committed by illegal immigrants than among those born here. The rate of illegal immigration through the southern border has been declining over the last decade.
Literally none of the reasons Trump uses to justify the wall applies. And he’s asking for only 20 percent of a wall anyway. Ask a cattle rancher how much good 20 percent of a fence does.—Edward Buatois
***
Schumer and Pelosi have a bad habit of twisting facts for political expediency, to the detriment of the American people. By doing so, they are aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States who for decades have used South America as a launching point for infiltrating the United States.
Once this current crisis is quelled, the wall must be erected immediately. The time for political posturing has come to an end and the work of the people must begin.—R. Jeffrey Savlov
This and That
Dear Daily Signal:Nice job by Kevin Mooney in writing about George Washington’s battlefield charge on Jan. 3, 1777 (“Re-Enactors Show How a Militia Ensured Washington’s Revolutionary Charge at Princeton”).
Most of my reading of history has been about the Civil War, but it also covers other wars we have been involved in.
It seems to me the American Revolution would have never happened if the British had not been so arrogant toward the colonies. I wonder what history would have happened if the British had taken mostly legitimate complaints seriously?—Bob Driscoll
***
Active-duty military personnel are the silent minority; military retirees like me, not so much.
We in the armed forces are trained to salute the flag and get it done. That doesn’t mean we aren’t abused by civilian leadership, rightly or wrongly.
Historically, we do more with less. It’s said that we have done so much for so long, now we can do everything with nothing at all.
The military integrated and addressed race relations long before the general population. The service academies admitted women without debate at midnight. Our combat training is often used for foreign police actions.
Troops are committed, mission creep occurs, and politicians hinder disengagement. We deal with “don’t ask, don’t tell” and transgender policies that affect morale and unit cohesion.
Now, President Trump uses troops at the border to string concertina wire and baby-sit the southern border fence. Trump threatens to use military construction funds to build the barriers. Misuse of those scarce funds for other than the purpose intended would harm military personnel and their dependents.
A month ago, I proposed a solution to President Trump (through White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; I forwarded my suggestion to news outlets and politicians during the government shutdown. All to no avail.
My suggestion preserves their political pronouncements and moves the ball to the goal line. Here it is:
Using a procurement process of lease-design-build-lease would allow the Department of Homeland Security to design and customize the wall/fence to meet unique geographic sector/border needs on an accelerated timeline without the large traditional capital expenditures that come with building and owning a federal wall/fence.
Homeland Security first acquires right-of-way leases to the land, then leases the property for up to 99 years to a select design-build contractor. The developer designs and builds a customized wall/fence to specification, then leases it to Homeland Security.
Under this procurement process, DHS never owns the structure. As a result, line-item dollars from Congress are not required. Such arrangements are treated as operating leases (using operations and maintenance funds) and not capital leases. Problem solved and both sides can declare victory.—J. Dee
***
Disgraced and disbarred former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen originally was scheduled to testify against the president weeks earlier before the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
Mysteriously, Cohen succumbed to physical issues that warranted cancellation of those proceedings. testimony was conveniently rescheduled to the week when the president traveled to Hanoi for a summit meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
All that can be said of the Oversight Committee machinations is that these House Democrats, from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Rep. Elijah Cummings to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are nothing but cheap-shot artists. And of course we must not exclude the committee’s mainstream media buddies, who relentlessly attack and vilify the president on a 24/7 basis.
Cohen’s so-called truthful public testimony about the president’s past was a sham. As Cohen admits his past lies, he continues to pontificate that he is not a liar. Yet he is going to prison within weeks for perjury, fraud, and lying to Congress.
The sanctimoniously posturing Democrats on the committee had the nerve to bring a man to testify who labels the president a racist and con man who hates America. What a bunch of sniveling backstabbers in charge of this once great Democrat Party, who laid in wait until the president left for Vietnam.
What a circus we have in today’s Washington power circles from those who possess positions of national authority and who retain these seats of power for reasons unrelated to legislative knowledge, skill, ability, leadership qualities, and competence.—Earl Beal, Terre Haute, Ind.
How Are We Doing?
Dear Daily Signal: Thank you for covering a wide array of topics each morning. I appreciate the update on various policy topics that do not normally get covered by Fox or NPR podcasts.
Your policy-based approach to the news is refreshing, and I wish that more media outlets would embrace it.
Second, there are two topics that I would love to hear more about. One would be an investigative report into whether the United States is footing the cost for the world in regards to pharmaceutical research.
According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. pays inflated drug prices while the rest of the world mandates what pharmaceutical companies can charge their citizens.
Additionally, I would love to see a case argued or research done on the plausibility of using a Fourth Amendment “border exception argument” to the acquisition of land on the southern border to construct a wall.
I support property rights as they are fundamental to our country, but I think the argument for the seizure of this land mirrors then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s argument in favor of the exception.—Joe Endicott
***
Thank you for reaching out to the folks to get their views on various issues.
I noted with interest the hypocrisy of the left when I saw the fences erected in Hollywood to “protect” the Academy Awards.
If walls, or fences in this case, don’t work or are immoral, why did they see it necessary to put up those “walls”?—Jim Dick, Agoura Hills, Calif.
Sarah Sleem and Courtney Joyner helped to compile this edition of “We Hear You.”