The long-discredited tale blaming Sarah Palin for the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was resurrected by The New York Times last week in the wake of the shooting of Majority Whip Steve Scalise. Yet it wasn’t the only highly partisan distortion of the truth by the Times on a conservative Republican. They allowed a similarly tortured effort by long time opponent of any effort to protect the integrity of elections, Ari Berman, on another leading conservative: Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Vice Chair and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
Michael Thielen | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
Michael Thielen has served as the Republican National Lawyers Association's Executive Director since 2000. He graduated from the University of California Los Angeles (B.A. History, 1989) and Pepperdine School of Law (J.D., 1993) and is a member of the California Bar. Michael worked for the Republican National Committee (RNC) from 1994 through the 1996 election. At the end of the cycle, he worked as a Senior Research Analyst for the RNC. In this position, he uncovered the connection between Arief Wiriadinata and the Clinton administration, which became the Chinese Campaign Finance scandal or the John Huang scandal. He also helped to uncover information linking the Clintons to alleged Mafia Union Boss Arthur Coia. After leaving the RNC, Michael worked for candidates for elected office in Virginia including candidates for Congress, Attorney General and the Virginia House of Delegates. In the latter, he worked for a candidate who unseated a 22-year incumbent. In addition, Michael has executed independent research projects for candidates for Federal and State office. Michael has also worked for conservative advocacy organizations.
Former FBI Director James Comey begins testifying today and all of Washington and the media will be consumed by the details. But they’ll likely overlook why his testimony is so fascinating that has nothing to do with Russia. Rather, it has to do with what then-front runner and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton found “horrifying” during the 2016 campaign: the suggestion that her opponent Donald Trump might not accept the election results. That’s right, back in October, Hillary said refusal to accept the election results would be “talking down our democracy.” She must have changed her mind because now she is leading the charge to resist and undermine the results of last November’s election.
At its best, politics is a battlefield in the war of ideas. Ideally, all sides are heard and the best, most persuasive side wins. Faced with arguments that are offensive or wrong, the answer — and one codified in our First Amendment — is more speech rather than attempts to silence the incorrect speaker.
Representative Val Demings may be the first Democrat to admit to how the left views the First Amendment. The Florida Congresswoman replied to a critical comment by saying, “My First Amendment Right is different from yours." Any honest political observer has to admit that this is a salvo in the war the left and Democrats are currently waging on free speech. They try their best to silence any speech that does not fit their dogma, and Demings, intentionally or not, just revealed the game plan.
Russia tried to interfere with our election last year. Part of that interference was the unethical release of true but confidential information from the DNC regarding how the DNC tried to rig their primary for party-insider Hillary Clinton against party-outsider Bernie Sanders. Russian interference is a matter of concern and unfortunately interference is something that adversarial countries often attempt.
Yesterday, the Senate voted to end the first ever successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee by the so-called “constitutional,” “Reid” or “nuclear” option. In other words, democracy was restored because simple majority rule was restored.
Today, Senators will begin to question Judge Gorsuch at his Supreme Court hearing. We wonder if they will remember their own standards and the standards of those they profess to admire. There are, at least, four standards that Democrats have previously applied to Supreme Court nominees.
A lot of attention has been paid to the Republican National Lawyers Association’s agreement with Mr. Trump’s statement that Democrats have tried to “rig” elections. One of the examples that has generated the most controversy is the listing of Governor Terry McAuliffe’s Executive Order earlier this year overturning 186 years of precedent in Virginia to allow 206,000 convicted felons to vote – attempted election rigging that was recently struck down by the Virginia Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, in speech at a fundraiser at a posh residence in Texas, President Obama accused the GOP of being un-American for “active efforts to prevent people from voting.” Ironically one of those so-called efforts to prevent people from voting -- maintaining accurate voter registration lists -- is backed by the president’s campaign counsel and former White House Counsel Bob Bauer, and was endorsed by the president’s own Commission on Election Administration.
The left is apoplectic about the Supreme Court’s latest effort to support our First Amendment free speech rights because it does not see its speech being protected. The Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC yesterday affirmed free speech and struck down aggregate campaign contributions. According to liberal Public Citizen: “Even after Citizens United, this case is absolutely stunning. It is sure to go down as one of the worst decisions in the history of American jurisprudence.” Yes, that’s right. According to the far left, the McCutcheon decision is as bad as Dred Scott (African Americans are not citizens) and Plessy v. Ferguson (upholding segregation).