Ethics and Public Policy Ctr

==

see pjt 2025

ed whelan brett k fail

see pill mifepristone

eliot abrams death squad ethical?

dobbs amicus

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY CENTER IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS AND REVERSAL

RICHARD W. GARNETT NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL 3117 Eck Hall of Law Notre Dame, IN 46556 (574) 631-6981 rgarnett@nd.edu

CHARLES J. COOPER Counsel of Record PETER A. PATTERSON BRIAN W. BARNES JOHN D. OHLENDORF COOPER & KIRK, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 220-9600 ccooper@cooperkirk.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae July 29, 2021

---

BS

The Brilliant Legal Mind of John Sauer - Ethics & Public Policy Center

The Brilliant Legal Mind of John Sauer NO APPARENT IRONY

Published August 24, 2023

The Epoch Times

By Aaron Kheriaty

*Commentary

On July 20, our attorney John Sauer—a brilliant legal mind and a force of nature in the courtroom—testified before a Congressional hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Government. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Emma-Jo Morris, the journalist who originally broke the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was subsequently censored under pressure from the FBI, also testified. In a “you can’t make this stuff up moment,” one committee member began this hearing—a hearing on the topic of government censorship—by calling for a vote to censor the hearing itself, shielding it from public view and removing it from the public record.

You can watch the entire hearing here (Sauer’s testimony begins at minute 48). For those who prefer to read, I’ve included below the text of John Sauer’s five-minute oral testimony. For those who want a deeper dive, scroll down to his more detailed written testimony, which summarizes our case’s findings related to unconstitutional government censorship

Oral Testimony of D. John Sauer

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee:

On July 4, 2023—Independence Day—Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Louisiana entered an historic injunction against White House and other federal officials to prevent them from “urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.” Ex. 2, at 4.

Judge Doughty’s opinion contains 82 pages of detailed factual findings, supported by 577 citations of the record evidence, drawn from roughly 20,000 pages of the federal Government’s own emails and communications with social-media platforms, and the sworn testimony of senior federal officials in six full-length depositions. Ex. 1, at 4–86.

The Department of Justice filed an “emergency” stay motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals to block this injunction. Notably, in its stay motion, the Government hardly disputed a single factual findingfrom Judge Doughty’s opinion. These facts—supported by overwhelming evidence drawn from federal officials’ own mouths—are irrefutable.

The Court of Appeals has not granted this stay motion, but it has entered a “temporary administrative stay” and granted expedited briefing and oral argument on August 10. Contrary to some recent suggestions, a temporary administrative stay in such cases is “routine practice” in the Fifth Circuit and does not reflect a prejudgment of the merits. In re Abbott, 800 F. App’x 296, 298 (5th Cir. 2020).

The Louisianaopinion demonstrates that federal officials have covertly injected themselves into the content-moderation decisions of major social-media platforms, through a years-long campaign of threats, “unrelenting pressure,” collusion, and deceit. This campaign targets specific speakers and viewpoints, and it also affects platforms’ content-moderation policies.

Today, I offer seven observations drawn from the Louisianaopinion:

First,the Louisianacourt found, based on overwhelming evidence, that federal officials causethe censorship of disfavored viewpoints. The Government frequently claims that social-media platforms, acting on their own, would censor all the targeted speech anyway. This is demonstrably false. Again and again, the Louisianacourt found the platforms would not suppressthe speech that federal officials target absent their intervention; federal officials causethe additional censorship. The deplatforming of Alex Berenson, the throttling of Tucker Carlson’s content, the silencing of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen,” the de-boosting of so-called “borderline” content on Facebook, the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and much more—all were suppressed because offederal officials’ efforts.

Second,the scope and reach of federal censorship is staggering. As Louisianafound, it affects “millions” of social-media speakers and posts across America. It affects virtually any American who reads, listens, engages, or posts on social media about hotly disputed social and political questions.

Third,federal censorship is ongoing and shows no signs of stopping. The Louisianaopinion cites undisputed evidence demonstrating that federal officials’ censorship efforts are in full swing, and they are expanding to new frontiers. Left unchecked, federal censorship will reach virtually any disputed social and political question over which federal officials want to impose their power.

Fourth,the Louisianaopinion shows that federal officials are most eager to silence truthfulspeech, and to muzzle the most influential critics of the Administration and its policies. Tucker Carlson, Alex Berenson, and others were censored because they were the most effective speakers opposed to the Administration and its policies. Federal officials try to justify censorship as protecting innocent Americans from supposed “misinformation” and “disinformation.” This defense is false. Censorship is not about truth. It is about power—preserving and expanding the power of the censors and the political narratives they favor.

Fifth,federal officials are deeply intertwined with the “Censorship-Industrial Complex.” The Louisianacourt made detailed findings about the close connections and cooperation between federal national-security officials and the mass-surveillance and mass-censorship enterprise calling itself the “Election Integrity Partnership” and the “Virality Project.” Not just CISA officials, but also White House, State Department, and Surgeon General officials have deep ties to this enterprise. As Louisianafound, “CISA and the EIP were completely intertwined.”

Sixth,federal officials not only dictate the outcomes of specific content-moderation decisions. They also directly induce changes to content-moderation policiesat major social-media platforms to ban disfavored viewpoints in advance. As the Louisianacourt held, federal officials used “the power of the government to pressure social-media platforms to change their policiesand to suppress free speech.”

Seventh,the federal Censorship Enterprise has succeeded in transforming online discourse throughout America by rendering entire viewpoints virtually unspeakable on social media—the “modern public square.” It also directly interferes with another cherished First Amendment freedom—the right of citizens to organize to petition the government for redress of grievances. This ongoing distortion of the most fundamental American freedom, the right to free speech, is intolerable under the First Amendment.

Written Testimony of D. John Sauer

My name is D. John Sauer. I serve as a Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, and I serve as litigation counsel in the case Louisiana, et al. v. Biden, et al., No. 3:22- cv-01213-TAD (W.D. La.) (“Louisiana”). I testified before this panel on March 30, 2023, regarding the status of discovery in that case. My previous testimony is attached as Exhibit 3. I speak here today in my individual capacity, and not on behalf of any of my clients.

On July 4, 2023—Independence Day—Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana entered a historic injunction in Louisiana v. Biden. See LouisianaDocs. 293, 294 (attached as Exhibits 1 and 2). The injunction prevents federal officials from the White House and several federal agencies from “urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.” Ex. 2, at 4.

The injunction is based on 82 pages of detailed factual findings supported by 577 citations of evidence in the record, which includes over 18,000 pages of federal officials’ own documents and communications with social-media platforms, and six full-length depositions of senior federal officials with firsthand knowledge of federal censorship practices. In short, the judgment is based on overwhelming evidence drawn from federal officials’ own mouths.

...

Conclusion: Two Visions of Freedom

This struggle over federal censorship reflects two competing visions of freedom in America. First, as the Louisianacourt emphasizes, CISA Director Jen Easterly aptly summarizes the federal officials’ view: “She … stated, ‘We live in a world where people talk about alternative facts, post-truth, which I think is really, really dangerous if people get to pick their own facts.’” Ex. 1, at 77. She also stated, “[W]e’re in the business of protecting critical infrastructure, and the most critical is our ‘cognitive infrastructure.’” Id.

Thus, Easterly’s view—reflected in federal censorship activity—is that the American “people” cannot be trusted “to pick their own facts,” and that the governmentshould pick our facts for us. Id.She believes that the federal government—armed with the weapons, authority, and the domestic surveillance capacity of the national-security state—should police our “cognitive infrastructure.” Id.As the Louisianacourt found, “cognitive infrastructure” means that “the CISA Defendants believe they had a mandate to control the process of acquiring knowledge.” Id.at 110.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s watershed First Amendment opinions express a radically different view of freedom. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). “Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.” United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 723 (2012) (plurality op.).

The Louisianacase is one part of a titanic struggle between these two visions of freedom. The former view—the view reflected in the actions of federal censorship agents like Jennifer Psaki, Rob Flaherty, Andy Slavitt, Dr. Vivek Murthy, Carol Crawford, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Jen Easterly, Matthew Masterson, Brian Scully, Alex Stamos, Rene DiResta, Kate Starbird, Elvis Chan, Laura Dehmlow, and a host of other federal censors—is terrifying and tyrannical, and its power is expanding rapidly. But the latter view is the vision enshrined in the plain text of our Constitution and deeply engrained in our traditions of liberty. I am profoundly hopeful that this latter vision of freedom will prevail.

Aaron Kheriaty, MD, is a Fellow & Director of the Bioethics, Technology and Human Flourishing Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is a physician specializing in psychiatry and author of three books, including most recently, The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State (2022).*}:

---

---

Right-wing media and anti-abortion groups are using a “seriously flawed” study on medication abortion to claim it’s not safe

In reality, mifepristone is a “safe and effective method of terminating pregnancies in the early stages”

Special ProgramsAbortion Rights & Reproductive Health

Written by Chloe Simon

:{Published 05/08/25 mma

A recent study released by the conservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center claimed that “one in ten” patients using the mifepristone abortion pill experiences a “serious adverse event.” Doctors and women’s health care experts criticized the report, arguing that the study is based on faulty methodology and is “highly questionable.”

Despite criticism from the medical and health care field, anti-abortion groups and right-wing media have glommed onto the study’s findings to back up their claim that medication abortion is “poison” and “dangerous,” insisting that the Food and Drug Administration should “revoke” approval for or “investigate” the mifepristone abortion pill.

The report claiming “serious adverse effects” from mifepristone has been criticized by medical professionals and health experts}:

• • On April 28, the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center published an independent study titled “The Abortion Pill Harms Women: Insurance Data Reveals One in Ten Patients Experiences a Serious Adverse Event.”The study claimed that “10.93 percent of women experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event within 45 days following a mifepristone abortion.” It also asserted that “the real-world rate of serious adverse events following mifepristone abortions is at least 22 times as high as the summary figure of ‘less than 0.5 percent’ in clinical trials reported on the drug label.” Ethics and Public Policy Center, [4/28/25]

• • Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) wrote to the Food and Drug Administration that the study shows “the safety risks of the chemical abortion drug, mifepristone, are far greater than the FDA currently acknowledges.”Hawley continued, “The time to act is now. It is time to revisit and restore the FDA’s longstanding safety measures governing mifepristone.” Hawley.Senate.gov, [4/28/25]

• • Hawley also wrote an op-ed for The Federalist arguing that the study revealed “astounding, jaw-dropping numbers, and they have been largely hidden from the public.” He added: “The rate of serious health events revealed by the EPPC study is some 22 times greater than the numbers reported on the FDA-approved drug label.” The Federalist, [5/5/25]

• • Anti-abortion groups have launched an effort reportedly named “Rolling Thunder” that aims to use the EPPC data study to “convince the FDA, Congress and courts to crack down on their [abortion pills] use.” According to Politico, anti-abortion activists are “counting on” the EPPC’s mifepristone study to “light a fire under those in power.” On a Zoom call that included the EPPC among other anti-abortion groups, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America’s President Marjorie Dannenfelser said, “Right away it is very clear that the release of this data … has gotten attention at the highest levels in the administration and on Capitol Hill.” Politico, [5/7/25]

• • Substack author Jessica Valenti argued that the data offered in EPPC’s report “sounds terrifying” until “you actually look at what the so-called researchers … are calling a ‘serious adverse event.’”Valenti wrote, “Out of the 94,605 patients they say were seriously harmed by abortion pills, 40,960 simply visited an emergency room. Not treated at the emergency room, but visited. Tellingly, while the EPPC claims they ‘followed the official FDA definition of a “serious adverse event,” the FDA does not define an ER visit alone as one. So right off the bat, they’re full of shit.” Substack, [4/28/25]

• • Reason magazine senior editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown noted that EPPC’s methods were “highly questionable.”Nolan wrote that “there's a clear pattern in the study, in which the very specific or clearly dire categories of adverse events occurred in a relatively small number of patients, while the categories that make up the bulk of adverse events flagged are vaguely defined and may represent minor or even benign situations.” She also pointed out that the “fact that so much of this study was worded so vaguely should give everyone pause.” Reason, [5/5/25]

• • Agence France-Presse’s fact-checking department wrote that experts say the study’s findings are based on “faulty methodology.”The fact check explained: “American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and women's health experts told AFP the findings are based on faulty methodology and do not supplant years of studies indicating the medication is safe when used as prescribed.” ACOG President Stella Dantas said the study is “seriously flawed” and “manipulates data to drive a myth that medication abortion isn't safe.” University of California-San Francisco associate professor Lauren Ralph also argued that “research has consistently found that the rate of serious adverse events is 0.3 to 0.5 percent -- far lower than the figures pushed by EPPC.” AFP Fact Check, [5/5/25]

• ## Abortion pills are overwhelmingly safe, yet access is under threat at the national and state levels

• • The abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol are incredibly safe and effective forms of medication. A CNN data analysis showed that abortion medication is “safer than penicillin and Viagra,” as both medications “have higher death rates than mifepristone and misoprostol.” Salon also noted that medication abortion “has a mortality rate of .0003%, which is 1 in every 377,000 cases. (Out of 377,000 women who give birth, in contrast, 83 will die.)” A National Institutes of Health study said medication abortion “is a safe and effective method of terminating pregnancies in the early stages” and in the case of “pregnancies that are 49 days or less, the success rates range from 92% to 98%.” CNN, [6/13/24; Salon, 9/19/24; National Institutes of Health, 10/3/23]

• • Medication abortion is under threat on a national and state-level basis. The Guttmacher Institute reported in February that at least six states are considering bills reclassifying abortion pills as “controlled substances” following Louisiana’s reclassification of the pills, while other states are “seeking to subvert environmental laws to regulate medication abortion.” Anti-abortion groups have also pushed for the federal government to use the Comstock Act, which Guttmacher describes as “antiquated federal legislation from the 1800s that they argue makes it unlawful to send medication abortion in the mail.” Guttmacher Institute, [2/25/25]

• ## Anti-abortion organizations are using the EPPC study to argue that abortion pills are “poison” and urge the FDA to investigate mifepristone

• • Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life wrote that EPPC’s “alarming new report” provides “fresh evidence of the significant dangers of abortion drugs, which the Biden administration recklessly ignored.”The organization’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, also urged ”the FDA under new leadership to take a fresh, hard look at the data and reinstate strong safeguards for women and girls." Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life, [4/28/25]

• • Conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom wrote: “1 in 10 patients suffered serious adverse events from the FDA-approved abortion pill, mifepristone. How much longer will this be ignored?”It also referred to the contents of the study as “shocking.” Twitter/X, [4/28/25; Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed 5/6/25]

• • Anti-abortion group PRI: People First posted that the EPPC “has exposed the true dangers of the abortion drug mifepristone.”Twitter/X, [5/3/25]

• • In response to the report, anti-abortion law firm Americans United for Life released a “policy guide to aid enforcing chemical abortion laws and regulations.” The group also described the report as a “new groundbreaking study,” saying it “confirmed what many in the pro-life movement have been warning about - that abortion pills HARM women at a rate that we now know is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than what the FDA claimed.” Americans United for Life, [5/1/25; Twitter/X, 4/29/25; Library of Congress, accessed 5/6/25]

• • Americans United for Life’s Steven H. Aden called the report “just the beginning of an earthquake started by EPPC.”Aden claimed it will “upend the foundation of misinformation and half-truths the abortion industry’s been standing on since chemical abortion was approved 25 years ago!” Twitter/X, [4/28/25]

• • Anti-abortion organization Live Action News wrote that a “new study reveals nearly 11% of women suffer ‘serious adverse events’ after taking the abortion pill, including: ➡️ Sepsis ➡️ Infection ➡️ Hemorrhaging.”The outlet also claimed that “this makes Mifepristone 22x more dangerous than the FDA warning label claims” and that the “abortion industry will try to bury this story because the abortion pill is big business.” Twitter/X, [5/3/25, 4/30/25]

• • Live Action President Lila Rose penned an op-ed for The Daily Caller titled “The Abortion Pill Is Poison, Not Medicine,” in which she claimed the EPPC study proved mifepristone is “gravely harming the women it claims to help.”Rose went on to allege that “the abortion pill is not safe. It never has been.” The Daily Caller, [5/2/25]

• • Christian nonprofit Family Research Council called the study “comprehensive” and urged the FDA “to protect women and unborn children — investigate mifepristone and repeal the drug's approval.”Twitter/X, [4/28/25; Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed 5/6/25]

• ## Right-wing media also jumped on the study, claiming that it proves “women have been sold a lie” on the safety of medication abortion

• • Newsmax host Carl Higbie interviewed American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Dr. Donna Harris about the report, and he called its allegation that “11% of people are going to the hospital” from using medication abortion “an insane statistic.”Harris said “This shouldn't be surprising because the FDA has taken away almost all of the safety precautions that were in place when the drug was first approved, and that was done in 2016.” Harris also claimed that patients receiving medication abortion are “not being told what the dangers are. They're just being given these pills.” Newsmax, *Carl Higbie Frontline*, [5/2/25]

• • One America News host Riley Lewis claimed the EPPC report shows that the consequences of medication abortion affect “tens of thousands of women all across the country, all over the U.S.,” adding that “reports of these events seem to be rising each and every year, without much consternation from the legacy media.”Guest Doug Truax, whose organization Foundation for Restoration of America commissioned the EPPC study, also blamed Democrats for being “hell-bent on increasing abortion all over the country” and creating “a situation where we have thousands and thousands of women who are being harmed by this and didn't know it going in.” OAN, *The Real Story with Riley Lewis,* [4/29/25; The Daily Wire, 4/29/25]

• • OnFox & Friends Weekend, co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy claimed that the report showed an “over 500% increase in emergency room visits” and that “under Obama and Biden, they made it so women don't even have to see a doctor before or after taking this, which is very dangerous.”Charles Camosy, a bioethicist and adviser for the anti-abortion organization Equal Rights Institute, also complained that the report “hasn't got as much coverage as many of us would have hoped.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends Weekend*, [5/4/25; Equal Rights Institute, accessed 5/6/25]

• • Fox News reporter Alexandria Hoff: “According to this research, the frequency of adverse side effects is about 22 times higher than what is currently recognized by the FDA.” Hoff also added that while “the study on mifepristone was conducted by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which is a conservative, faith-forward think tank,” the “scale of this research speaks for itself.” Fox News, *America Reports*, [4/28/25]

• • The Washington Examiner titled an article on the study “Severe abortion pill complications 22 times higher than FDA discloses.” The piece also referred to the study as “one of the largest real-world studies on mifepristone to date.” The Washington Examiner, [4/28/25]

• • In discussing the EPPC study, right-wing podcaster Laura Loomer posted that “women have been sold a lie that the ‘abortion pill’ is painless and safe.” Loomer also claimed that “many gynecologists and women’s health clinics advertise that they prescribe these abortion pills like candy.” Twitter/X, [4/28/25]

• • Just the News published a piece titled “New abortion pill complication research challenges FDA commissioner's disinterest in restrictions.”The piece went on to criticize FDA Commissioner Marty Makary for speaking too soon “when he told the Semafor World Economy Summit last week he has ‘no plans’ to restrict pregnancy-ending mifepristone, which must be followed by misoprostol to expel the aborted fetus, in light of new research on severe adverse events following chemical abortion.” Just the News, [4/29/25]

• • BlazeTV’s Liz Wheeler posted: “FDA claims abortion pill is ‘safe.’ FALSE. REAL data show 22x higher danger than FDA says.” Wheeler further asserted that the “FDA must revoke approval.” Twitter/X, [4/28/25]

//

mma

1. ### Anti-abortion figures attack ProPublica stories about two women who died seeking care for their miscarriages under Texas’ abortion bans

11/05/24 11:37 AM EST

2. ### How Fox News has been misinforming its viewers about abortion

11/04/24 1:34 PM EST

3. ### Inside Project 2025's attack on reproductive rights: Mifepristone and alternative abortion pills

06/24/24

---

off bs

founded in 1976, the Ethics and Public Policy Center is Washington, D.C.’s premier institute working to apply the riches of the Judeo-Christian tradition to contemporary questions of law, culture, and politics, in pursuit of America’s continued civic and cultural renewal.

EPPC Scholars

Ryan T. Anderson

President

Erika Bachiochi

Fellow

Nathanael Blake

Postdoctoral Fellow

James Bowman

Resident Scholar

Patrick T. Brown

Fellow

Jennifer Bryson

Fellow

Eric Cohen

Adjunct Fellow

Alexandra DeSanctis

Fellow

Natalie Dodson

Policy Analyst

Theresa Farnan

Fellow

Mary FioRito

Cardinal Francis George Fellow

Gabrielle Girgis

Postdoctoral Fellow

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry

Fellow

Devorah Goldman

Tikvah Visiting Fellow

Josh Good

Faith Angle Forum Director

David Gortler

Fellow

Carrie Gress

Fellow

Mary Rice Hasson

Kate O’Beirne Senior Fellow

Aaron Kheriaty

Fellow

Eric Kniffin

Fellow

Stanley Kurtz

Senior Fellow

Brad Littlejohn

Fellow

Francis X. Maier

Senior Fellow

Noelle Mering

Fellow

Clare Morell

Senior Policy Analyst

Rachel N. Morrison

Fellow

Lance Morrow

Henry Grunwald Senior Fellow

John D. Mueller

The Lehrman Institute Fellow in Economics

Henry Olsen

Senior Fellow

Jennifer Patterson

Senior Fellow

Aaron Rothstein

Fellow

Luma Simms

Fellow

Carter Snead

Fellow

Carl R. Trueman

Fellow

Algis Valiunas

Fellow

Andrew T. Walker

Fellow

George Weigel

Distinguished Senior Fellow and William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies

Edward Whelan

Distinguished Senior Fellow and Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies

Stephen P. White

Fellow

In Memoriam

Bruce Cole

In Memoriam, 1938-2018

Michael Cromartie

In Memoriam, 1950-2017

Ian Lindquist

In Memoriam, 1986-2022

Roger Scruton

In Memoriam, 1944-2020

Hey, Mr. Spaceman

Francis X. Maier

The best of science fiction is implicitly theological.

Articles

The Catholic Thing / July 6, 2023

The Long March Through the Soul

Noelle Mering

In a ravaged post-Christian landscape, faith and family emerge as fallout shelters.

Articles

The American Mind/ July 6, 2023

The Decline Of American Manufacturing Inevitably Means An Empty Wartime Arsenal

Nathanael Blake

One of the obvious lessons from the tide of the war in Ukraine is that globalist economics has defeated globalist interventionism.

Articles

The Federalist/ July 6, 2023

Synod 2023: Reversing Vatican II?

George Weigel

The first words of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church—one of the council’s two most important texts—signaled a decisive development in Catholic self-understanding.

Articles

Syndicated Column / July 5, 2023

BOOM: Yesterday In Court We Landed a Major Blow Against the Censorship Leviathan

Aaron Kheriaty

On Independence Day (fittingly), the court granted our petition in Missouri v. Biden for a temporary injunction against the government censors.

Articles

Human Flourishing / July 5, 2023

Yes, Trans Exhibitionists Showing Their Junk To Kids Is Directly Downstream Of Redefining Marriage

Nathanael Blake

Indulging and endorsing falsehoods about the nature of marriage and sex only leads to more lies and more injuries.

Articles

The Federalist/ June 29, 2023

A LABORIOUS, AND VACUOUS, INSTRUMENT

George Weigel

It would not be quite accurate to describe the Working Document for the October 2023 Synod (its Instrumentum Laboris, or IL) as “disappointing.”

Articles

Syndicated Column / June 28, 2023

Revival in Thought, Word, and Deed

Francis X. Maier

Ideas and scholarship at the end of an age.

Rebellion, Not Retreat

Aaron Kheriaty

Blueprints for flourishing in the midst of a decaying civilization.

Articles

The American Mind / June 27, 2023

The Virtues of Mary Wollstonecraft

Erika Bachiochi

In Modern Virtue: Mary Wollstonecraft and a Tradition of Dissent, Emily Dumler-Winckler looks beyond the moderns to show Wollstonecraft’s kinship with ancient and medieval thinkers, especially Aristotle and Aquinas. It’s in the rich Christian tradition especially that Wollstonecraft finds the dynamic resources to treat her “modern” subjects (abolition and women’s education, in particular).

Articles

The Public Discourse / June 26, 2023

Toe The Government Line Or Lose Your Kids

Carl R. Trueman

As biology has faded as a stable basis for definition, so a functional definition of “parent” has risen in prominence. Thus now, with psychological categories coming into play, the way is open for “parent” to be defined ideologically by the state.

Articles

First Things / June 22, 2023

The Devil, You Say

Francis X. Maier

See the film. Preferably in the daylight. Preferably with a friend.

Articles

The Catholic Thing / June 22, 2023

https://www.republicreport.org/2018/who-kavanaugh-is-really-for-big-corporations/

ref

Brett Kavanaugh now faces a credible charge of sexual assault, as well as powerful evidence that he repeatedly lied to the Senate to conceal, among other bad deeds, his improper use of stolen documents as a Bush White House aide. Even religious conservatives and others at the grassroots who have supported Kavanaugh should take this moment to reconsider whether this particularly nominee is worth fighting for. Because, although as a Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh might well vote to advance the social conservative agenda, his real specialty as a judge has been supporting large corporations and harming the interests of American workers and consumers. And the millions of dollars supporting his candidacy are coming from a network of Washington lobbyists and big business interests.

Here are some of the key figures in the corporate special interest network that’s aiming to put Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court:

— C. Boyden Gray is the D.C. swamp personified. He’s a corporate lobbyist who was the White House counsel under President George H.W. Bush. He has been a central player in pushing GOP judicial nominees for decades, while also serving the interests of some of America’s wealthiest corporations. Gray published an essay this month arguing that Kavanaugh should be confirmed in part because he will protect the rights of small businesses over those of big business and big government. But the argument hardly seems credible coming from Gray, whose own business is based on trading on the relationships he developed as a top Washington insider to advance the interests of clients in the oil and chemical industries and other monied special interests.

Gray, a wealthy heir to the R.J. Reynolds tobacco fortune, has served on the board of the corporate-backed legal group the Federalist Society as well as of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a business group that was founded by the billionaire oil and chemical industry Koch brothers and later morphed into the Koch advocacy mega-operation Americans for Prosperity. Gray invited President Trump to his fancy Georgetown home earlier this year for a dinner with wealthy Republican donors, including other lobbyists and oil and banking executives, as part of efforts to raise $100 million this year, mostly in big donations, to support Trump and GOP candidates.

—The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) is the conservative advocacy group that is leading a multi-million dollar public campaign, with heavy TV advertising, to confirm Kavanaugh. JCN is guided by Leonard Leo, who is also the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, and the man who has Trump’s ear when it comes to picking judges. The “dark money” JCN doesn’t reveal its donors, but it’s tied to the political network of the Koch brothers, Boyden Gray, and mysterious wealthy contributors. JCN was launched with seed money from real estate magnate Robin Arkley II — who has made big money foreclosing on the homes of working people.

— Jon Kyl was, until recently, a lobbyist at the DC mega law firm Covington & Burling, which has represented big tobacco’s Philip Morris, oil giant BP, retailer Wal-mart, energy and construction titan Halliburton, and other big corporations. Last year, the Judicial Crisis Network paid Kyl, who had been a U.S. senator from Arizona, to push the nomination of Trump’s previous Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch. The Trump administration this year hired Kyl to shepherd the Kavanaugh nomination, a role that ended when Arizona’s governor tapped Kyl to return to the Senate to take John McCain’s seat and, presumably, to vote to confirm Kavanaugh for the high court.

— Lisa Blatt wrote an article last month entitled, “I’m a Liberal Feminist Lawyer. Here’s Why Democrats Should Support Judge Kavanaugh,” and she introduced Kavanaugh at his Senate hearing. Each time, in vouching for Kavanaugh as a person of integrity and empathy, Blatt stressed her liberal credentials as well as her impressive background as a lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court more times than any other woman. What Blatt failed to explain is that she’s a partner at the big DC corporate law firm Arnold & Porter, where she represents giant tobacco and pharmaceutical interests seeking to defeat claims by workers and consumers.

We haven’t heard from the feminist Blatt in the wake of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her during high school, but a group of D.C. Republican women have spoken out on his behalf. As Politico reports, there are a lot of lobbyists for big corporations, like Dow Chemical and Citigroup, in this band of women for Kavanaugh.

—The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) is running a “Confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh!” campaign on its website. State attorneys general frequently represent their states before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the concept of a group of them lobbying for their own Supreme Court justice is ethically concerning. But it’s worse when you consider that RAGA’s activities are funded by big corporations. RAGA’s biggest donor — providing $2.9 million in 2017 and $1.7 million already in 2018 — is the Judicial Crisis Network. It also gets money from numerous large corporations including Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Monsanto, Facebook, Altria, Coca Cola, Wal-Mart, Mastercard, Johnson and Johnson, UPS, and Murray Energy, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association (RAGA’s second largest donor in 2017).

— The Ethics and Public Policy Center is a Washington think tank whose president,Edward Whelan, briefly shook up the Kavanaugh debate Thursday night when he played Twitter Sherlock Holmes and accused a Kavanaugh classmate by name as the possible assaulter — only to delete his thread and apologize the next morning for “an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment.”Whelan is a**close friend of :{Leonard Leo :(style="background-color:#ff6600;"):}:and of Brett Kavanaugh**,with whom he worked in the George W. Bush White House. In devising this Twitter rollout, Whelan was advised by the big DC PR firm CRC Public Relations; CRC’s clients include the Judicial Crisis Network ($3 million from JCN to CRC in 2016), the Federalist Society, and the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperity, as well as corporations:{ including Chevron, Visa, and Microsoft. UPDATE 09-22-18 11:30 am: Garrett Ventry, a Grassley Judiciary Committee communications aide on leave from CRC, :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[resigned this morning:{ after it was reported that he left his previous job amid a charge of sexual harassment.] The Ethics and Public Policy Center has received}:funding:{ from the family foundations of the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers as well as other wealthy interests.}:

Why are all these corporations and swampy DC lobbyists fighting so hard for Brett Kavanaugh? They have important interests, every year, in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court — cases that decide whether companies can bust unions and discriminate against workers, whether banks must treat customers honestly, whether companies must treat investors fairly, whether big tech companies can charge tolls to use the Internet and can spy on customers, whether predatory for-profit colleges can get away with deceiving students, whether makers of defective products and dangerous pharmaceutical can get away with harming consumers, and whether companies can create monopolies that allow them to control markets and jack up prices.

While a range of Americans are focused on the impact of a five-justice conservative bloc on issues like civil rights, reproductive choice, and other political values, perhaps the most powerful and unifying feature of such a bloc would be its deference to the interests of big business over workers and consumers.

Brett Kavanaugh’s record as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shows that he has usually sided with big business interests — like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute — in cases involving protection of labor, consumers, health, safety, and the environment.

That’s why big money and big corporations want so badly to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, despite enormous questions about his honesty and integrity.

==

suspended from bs CTT

Ethics and Public Policy Center announced Sunday that its president, Ed Whelan, “will take a leave of absence” from the conservative Washington think tank after peddling a conspiracy theory on social media last week related to a sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Following a special phone-in meeting of the EPPC board on Friday after Whelan’s Twitter screed, he offered to resign “in light of what he described as an ‘appalling and inexcusable’ error in posting online a series of comments that he has now deleted and for which he promptly publicly apologized,” the organization said in a statement. The board declined Whelan’s offer to step down permanently, according to the statement, and the EPPC’s vice president, Yuval Levin, “will be in charge” during Whelan’s time away.

“The board will meet in a month to review the situation,” the statement said.

Later Sunday, Whelan released a statement of apology.

“I apologize deeply and sincerely to all those whom I have harmed by my appalling and inexcusable tweet thread last week — above all, the person whose name I wrongly made public,“ he said.

**LAW AND ORDER**

Ed Whelan’s Troubles Might Be Just Beginning

By JOHN CULHANE

Referencing Christine Blasey Ford, he added: “I also apologize to victims of sexual assault and to Dr. Ford for these and other tweets that did not address with respectful consideration the difficult question of how to assess allegations of sexual assault. I do not believe that all such allegations must be accepted as true, and I believe further that the usual inquiries into motivation, cognition, memory and other matters that apply to other charges properly apply to these as well. But my tweets did not advance the discussion in a constructive way.“

Whelan became the target of swift bipartisan criticism on Thursday evening after offering an unsubstantiated alternative explanation for Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh forced himself on her at a drunken high school party more than three decades ago.

His conjectures, laid out in a series of tweets, included floor plans of the house in which Whelan said the alleged assault may have taken place. It also featured the name and photo of a high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s whom Whelan identified as a potential suspect and posited that Ford may have misremembered as the federal judge.

POLITICO _{reported on Friday}_ that CRC Public Relations, a prominent firm based in Alexandria, Va., assisted Whelan in coordinating the rollout of his attempt to discredit Ford’s account and exculpate Kavanaugh.

https://nacla.org/news/2019/04/15/call-conscience-committee-takes-aim-elliott-abrams

March 21, a cold, rainy day in Washington, DC, María Luisa Rosal stood under an umbrella before a small crowd outside of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, telling the story of her father’s disappearance by the Guatemalan military in 1983. When it happened, she was nine months old, and her mother was three months pregnant with her younger brother. María Luisa had been born, in Guatemala, under the dictatorship of General Efraín Ríos Montt, who was convicted in 2013 of genocide and crimes against humanity by the Supreme Court of Guatemala, for his role in directing the genocide of Mayan peoples in the country between 1982 and 1983.Elliott Abrams, then-Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs under the Reagan administration, “fully supported” Ríos Montt, Rosal noted in her speech. According to information obtained via FOIA request, Abrams also personally inveighed against the application by María Luisa and her mother for asylum in the United States.

In addition to serving as the Trump administration’s special envoy for Venezuela, Abrams today sits on the Committee on Conscience of the Holocaust Museum’s Center for the Prevention of Genocide, whose stated mandate is “to alert the national conscience, influence policy makers, and stimulate worldwide action to confront and work to halt acts of genocide or related crimes against humanity.” María Luisa, along with others affected by the brutal Abrams-Reagan policies in Central America in the 1980s, a rabbi, members of Jewish organizations like the anti-Israeli occupation group IfNotNow, academics, and allies were out on that dismal, rainy day to hold a press conference organized by the Call to Conscience Committee, which is demanding the Holocaust Museum drop Elliott Abrams from its Committee on Conscience (with #DropElliottAbrams as the campaign’s social media hashtag).

Prior to the press conference, Call to Conscience sent the United States Holocaust Memorial Council (USHMC) and Center for the Prevention of Genocide a letter from family members of victims both of the Nazi Holocaust and of the Guatemalan genocide and other atrocities in Central America in the 1980s. And the campaign intends to continue until Abrams is dropped from the Committee on Conscience. Abrams, an ongoing figure in U.S. foreign policy, has a staggering legacy of infamy when it comes to his policies in Latin America.

A Litany of Atrocities

elliott Abrams started his career working for hawkish Democratic senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Daniel Moynihan. But he left the Democratic party after Jimmy Carter proved to Abrams to be an insufficient Cold Warrior for his liking in comparison with then-ascendant Ronald Reagan. After joining Reagan’s administration near its outset, he began the series of positions he’d hold at the State Department as Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. Shortly after the horrifying December 11, 1981 massacre of between 800 and 1,200 civilians (including children and infants) in the village of El Mozote, El Salvador by the U.S. Army School of the Americas-created and trained Atlacatl Battalion, Abrams quickly got to work downplaying or dismissing this U.S.-abetted war crime. In a February 1982 Senate Foreign Relations Committee aid certification hearing, he described this slaughter as “an incident which is at least being significantly misused, at the very best, by the guerrillas.” When, in 1993, a UN-sponsored Truth Commission issued a report detailing atrocities committed by the U.S.-backed forces during the Salvadoran civil war—including the El Mozote massacre—Abrams told the Washington Post that the administration’s record in El Salvador was a “fabulous achievement.”

In 1983, in the wake of the most intense stage of the Guatemalan genocide perpetrated by Gen. Ríos Montt, the "bloodiest period in Guatemala’s history,” Abrams went on news programs to promote ending the embargo on arms sales to the Ríos Montt dictatorship. “The amount of killing of innocent civilians is being reduced step by step,” he said. “We think that kind of progress needs to be rewarded and encouraged.” Abrams emphasized that the person making this “progress” was Ríos Montt, under whom Abrams said “policies really changed” regarding the mass slaughter of Indigenous and small farmer Guatemalans. Among a broad body of evidence, the Guatemalan Supreme Court’s genocide and crimes against humanity verdict against Ríos Montt demonstrated that the opposite was true.

A few years later, as Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (1985-1989), Abrams played a central role within the Reagan administration in illegally funding the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, who committed widespread human rights atrocities and used CIA-proscribed terrorist tactics. In 1991, Abrams, though he remains seemingly unrepentantabout his defense of the Contras, pled guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress about the scheme to illegally sell arms to Iran and divert the profits to the Contras. He was later pardoned by George H. W. Bush.

After having stated in 1986 that Panamanian military strongman, drug trafficker, and CIA asset Manuel Noriega had been “very helpful” to the U.S., Abrams helped push the 1989 invasion of Panama, saying the country "should not be run by a general.” Evidently for Abrams, genocidal General Ríos Montt being in charge in Guatemala had constituted “progress,” but in the context of Cold War détente, Noriega could not remain. And, as in many such regime change operations, civilians paid a considerable price in life and livelihood. An independent commission and other observers reported that some 3,000 or more civilians were killed during the invasion. Additionally, as historian Greg Grandin has noted, it paved the way for future U.S. regime change wars justified by its preemptive unilateralism and arguments of “democracy” and “freedom.”

Abrams also defended U.S. support for brutal regimes and would-be coup leaders in the Western Hemisphere outside these more often-cited cases. He called the highly repressive Uruguayan military junta a “friendly government,” and said that “evidence we have seen” didn’t support the well-documented historical fact that a hallmark of the dictatorship was its denial of civil and human rights. Abrams also supported former Gen. Oliver North in calling for leniency for then-exiled former Honduran Gen. José Bueso Rosa—an accomplice to U.S. support for the Contras—after the FBI infiltrated Bueso’s 1984 plot, which was to be funded by a $10 million cocaine deal, to assassinate then-President of Honduras Roberto Suazo.

A decade after his pardon by the elder President Bush, George W. Bush appointed Abrams as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations at the National Security Council, where he had advance knowledge of, and "gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup”against President Hugo Chávez in 2002.

Pushing Back Against Abrams

there’s something of an establishment bipartisan consensus that looks favorably on Abrams’ career, but many lawmakers—even some conservatives—were furious when the Trump administration floated the idea of nominating Abrams as Assistant Secretary of State. The administration also faced pushback for its appointment of Abrams to lead Venezuela policy for Trump. Abrams and his history of supporting injustices in Latin America were thrust back into the spotlight in February when Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN), questioning Abrams in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that went viral,interrogated his capacityto not abet war crimes in Venezuela, given his track record regarding Central America. The congressperson referenced the El Mozote Massacre in particular, bringing back into the public consciousness an atrocity that left twice as many victims as the infamous My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War.

Rep. Omar’s pointed line of questioning for Elliott Abrams hadn’t occurred in such an official forum for quite some time. But throughout the decades since his misdeeds in Central America, Abrams has been admonished and condemned from a number of angles. In 1997, the DC Court of Appeals Bar publicly sanctioned Abrams over his false testimony regarding the Iran-Contra affair, stopping just short of disbarring him, which several of the court’s judges recommended, due to questions about his presidential pardon. Faith-based groups, including prominent Catholic publications, decried Abrams’ appointments by the younger President Bush. Grassroots antiwar groupCODEPINK, which was conspicuous in the—including its disruption—of Abrams’ February appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has been railing against Abrams for many years, calling for him to be tried in the International Criminal Court.And apart from his dogged pursuit by CODEPINK and others since the early 2000s, there have been at various conferences and other events.

However, up to the point of the Call to Conscience Committee’s formation, it seems there hasn’t been a concerted campaign to lay bare Elliott Abrams’ bloody and criminal record by appealing to one of his affiliated entities—which include the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Georgetown University—elite institutions that have abetted in the whitewashing of his image....

==

GOLDWATER INST

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/6/1640698/-New-Student-Protest-Bans-disguised-as-Campus-Free-Speech-are-Backed-by-the-Koch-Network

Ralph Wilson for UnKoch My Campus.

UPDATED 3/9/2017.

In the past month, state lawmakers across the country coordinated an effort to file “campus free speech” bills. These bills make it illegal for students to protest in a way that “disrupts” the speech of anyone who has been invited onto campus.

In a familiar twist, the free speech being protected is that of private donors and corporations, rather than students.

So far, bills have been filed (in some form) in:{ :(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:CO,:{ :(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:NC,:{ :(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:VA,:{ :(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:TN,:{ :(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:ND,:{ :(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:UT, IL, and WI, with:{ :(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:FL possibly next. These bills have found bipartisan support, and very little resistance, sailing smoothly through committee after committee. In Utah and Colorado, the ACLU has come out in support of the bills.

Most appear unaware of the origins or expressed intent of this legislation. It is based on a model bill, the “Campus Free Speech Act,” developed by two organizations affiliated with the Koch network; the Goldwater Institute and the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

See the model bill language here.

Punishing Protesters for “interrupting”

Despite a provision that appears to protect protests and free speech, this bill actually bans protests. It is not a defense of free speech:

Any person lawfully present on campus may protest or demonstrate there. Such statement shall make clear that protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity shall not be permitted and shall be subject to sanction. (Section 1.4)

This would prohibit a plethora of protected expressive acts, for example, a chant, or a song that could be construed as infringing. The authors claim "[t]his means no more shouting down of visiting speakers, and no more obstruction of legitimate meetings and events." The model bill stipulates that student demonstrators "shall be subject to sanction." Not only would disruptive protestors be removed as they are now, they would face legal and academic sanctions:

the bill would authorize a range of disciplinary sanctions for those who interfere with the speech of others, with particularly strong penalties for anyone who commits a second offense.

On campuses that are already overly militarized, this bill calls for harsher policing of students protesters.

The “Milo Bill”

In another provision that more clearly demonstrates the intended effect of the bill, it would "prevent administrators from disinviting speakers, however controversial, whom members of the campus community wish to hear from."

The announcement of the model bill was:{ :(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:released the morning that Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley. Supporters of the Tennessee bill have called this the MILO bill, and even read a statement from Yiannopoulos at:{ :(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:a press conference:

We are winning the war. And we will continue to win as long as students, and now defenders of free speech within the government, stand up to ivory tower intellectuals and left-wing administrators intent on shutting up any speech they don’t find convenient.

The authors of the model legislation describe how it is meant to eradicate campus safe spaces, citing how “trigger warnings” and “speaker disinvitations” are the reason that “the core constitutional value of free speech is now under siege.”

The authors characterize safe spaces as “idea-free zones staffed by thought police, where disagreement is prohibited,” while their bill literally exemplifies their own criticism.

The Money Trail

Milo was not a student, nor faculty at UC Berkeley. His talk was sponsored by David Horowitz's Freedom Center (in Los Angeles).Interestingly, there is a large overlap between the funders of the Freedom Center and the two groups who developed the model legislation; the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the Goldwater Institute.

DONORSTRUST/DONORS CAPITAL FUND

According to 990's, between 2002 and 2014, the Goldwater Institute received $2,357,112 from the Koch network’s DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, while the Ethics and Public Policy Center has received $873,000. The Freedom Center who sponsored Milo’s UC Berkeley talk received $628,000

BRADLEY FOUNDATION

The second largest common donor involved was the Bradley foundation, which gave $25,000 to the Goldwater Institute, $7,964,210 to the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and $8,438,000 to Horowitz Freedom Center.

KOCH FAMILY FOUNDATIONS

The Goldwater Institute received $75,000 from Koch family foundations (since 2004), while the Ethics and Public Policy Center has received $199,124 (since 1997).

Goldwater is also a member of the State Policy Network, and has received $149,349 from SPN, which itself has received $100,361 from Koch foundations since 1997.

Paid Speech vs. The First Amendment

The bill’s sponsors use a  flawed assessment where free speech is no longer a universal right, in direct contradiction to the U.S. Bill of Rights. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our freedom of speech, as well as peaceful freedom of assembly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Much like a campus version of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, these bills bend the definition of free speech to favor corporate funded speech (campus speakers sponsored by outside groups, or corporate funded student groups). Spontaneous protest will be pre-empted by sponsored speakers.

Texas A&M made it clear that white supremacist Richard Spencer was invited to campus by an anonymous private citizen, rather than by faculty or students:

To be clear, Texas A&M University – including faculty, staff, students and/or student groups - did not invite this speaker to our campus nor do we endorse his rhetoric in any way. In fact, our leadership finds his views as expressed to date in direct conflict with our core values.

Private citizens are permitted to reserve space available to the public as we are a public university as is the case here. Public groups must cover all rental expenses so that state resources are not burdened.

He was allowed to speak. Spencer’s publication Alternative Right has called for its readers to consider “black genocide” as a solution to conflict between Black people and White people.

Or in Vermont, at Middlebury College, where the political science department is standing by an invitation to Charles Murray, a white nationalist most well known for his book, The Bell Curve, which argues that the intelligence of white people is genetically superior to that of minorities.

Murray, a favorite guest of Charles Koch's donor summits, was invited by a student group run by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI, also a favorite of Koch's donor summits and Charles Murray's current employer, AEI has received over $1,807,999 from the Koch foundation, and $25,626,714 from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund since 2002.

Since the proliferation of these "Milo" bills, the conservatives behind them have been less than tolerant, ironically disinviting Milo from speaking at a recent meeting of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee).

:{Thursday, Mar 9, 2017 · 4:47:51 PM PST:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: · :{UnKochMyCampus:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:

After speaking with the ACLU in Colorado, I learned that an amended version of the bill removed the controversial provision of legally punishing students for disrupting other speaking events. Here are the different versions of CO SB 17-062, the most recent of which was passed out of the House Committee on State, Veteran’s and Military affairs yesterday.

I have not heard back from the ACLU in Utah, but their support does NOT appear to have anything to do with the punishment provision, because that provision was not included in UT HB54 as introduced, nor as currently amended.

==

Whelan may have just crossed a line he can’t jump back over.

Yesterday, Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank and an assertive supporter of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, took to Twitter to lay out a Hardy Boys-inspired scenario, suggesting that Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Kavanaugh of attempted rape in high school, might have been mistaken about the identity of her alleged sexual assaulter. Using a mashup of yearbook photos, Zillow information, Google Maps and Facebook, Whelan laid out a “case” that another man, a former classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Prep—whom he named and provided a current photograph of—might have been the person Ford has in mind. After his wild theory received widespread criticism, Whelan deleted the tweets and tried to walk back the accusation this morning. But, if it’s false, it’s already too late to protect him against a possible defamation claim.

The common law of defamation isn’t that complicated. To be liable, the defendant must make an intentionally or negligently false statement about the plaintiff that tends to cause reputational harm, and harm must actually ensue.

The requirement that the statements Whelan made about the “mystery man” (whom we’ll not reidentify here) be false might be the most difficult requirement to satisfy. The first question courts ask is whether a reasonable person would think the defendant was saying something that would be taken as the truth—because a statement can only be “false” if compared to a true one. Generally, opinions are not actionable, if the defendant sets forth the basis for them and doesn’t claim them to be true. Whelan might argue that he himself was publishing an opinion, as one of the last tweets in the storm has this disclaimer: “I have no idea what, if anything, did or did not happen in that bedroom at the top of the stairs.”

But that may not be enough to insulate Whelan, given that he also wrote of “compelling reasons to believe” Kavanaugh’s denial, and then launched into a tweetstorm examination of what he clearly presents as evidence in support of his “theory.” A reasonable person might well think he was making a claim about what “really” happened. The case he builds reads much more like a series of factual, evidence-based claims than an opinion. The mystery man, though, will have the burden of proving that the statement Whelan made was false, and would be reasonably taken that way.

In addition to showing the statement was false, the Kavanaugh look-alike will have to show that Whelan was at fault in making it. In a series of decisions dating back to 1964, the Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech under the First Amendment requires public figures making a defamation claim to show the defendant was guilty of more than “mere” negligence—they have to convince the jury that the defendant either published the statement knowing it to be untrue, or showed reckless disregard for whether the statement was true or false. Otherwise, the Supreme Court reasoned, defendants might fear liability for a less serious error and would be tempted to refrain from publishing controversial statements about public figures at all. In that case, the public’s right to know would be compromised.

But the alleged assailant Whelan named isn’t a public figure,and the court has declined several chances to expand the recklessness requirement to private citizens who don’t do anything to place themselves in the public eye. In cases involving matters of public interest but private plaintiffs, such as the Whelan Twitter thread, only a showing of negligence is required. For the “mystery man” to prove Whelan was negligent, he must show that a reasonable person would have investigated further before setting out his theory on Twitter. That seems clear in this case, and is underscored by Whelan’s deletion of the entire thread.

Of course, nothing stops the Supreme Court from changing its own rules; no interpretation of the Constitution is really ever “settled.” And because the Supreme Court has no rules in place to determine when a justice must recuse himself from sitting on a case, there’s a chance that Kavanaugh could provide a crucial fifth vote in a precedent-setting decision making it harder for the Kavanaugh look-alike to win a defamation claim. Perhaps the court will apply the “recklessness” standard to all cases involving matters of public interest; several justices have argued for that position over the years.

Whelan can’t jump back across the defamation line through his retraction, either. While his mea culpa and tweet deletions will make it harder for people to find the assailant’s identity, it’s not that hard. (It took me exactly four seconds.) In any case, the law is clear that the defamation is actionable once “published”—meaning, made known to at least one other party. Here, of course, the whole Twitter-verse watched, agape, as Whelan pumped out his “what if” account.

Whelan’s retraction could still be relevant, though, in another way. The law presumes that, at least in cases of libel (written defamation, which includes Twitter), the plaintiff has suffered harm, so recovery of damages is possible even if no calculable damages—such as the loss of one’s job—are proved. But since the jurors have a good deal of discretion in fixing the amount of the award, they are quite likely to award less compensation in cases, like this one, where there’s been a retraction and an apology.

Some have mentioned another possible claim. A number of states recognize a claim with less stringent requirements than defamation against anyone who places the plaintiff in a “false light” that would be “highly offensive to a reasonable person.” The claim is subject to strict Supreme Court rules that balance the plaintiff’s interest in not being placed in a “light” that would be offensive with the public’s right to know, but it has a further, more serious limitation: The tort isn’t even recognized in many states, including Virginia, whence the tweets might have emanated. Even if the action is brought under the law of a state that does recognize it, in the case of Whelan’s statements, the conduct, if believed true, would certainly be defamatory—so the false light tort doesn’t have any real purpose, even if its requirements could technically be met.

Is this all beside the point, though? Will Kavanaugh’s supposed evil twin even sue? He signed a letter attesting to his former classmate’s good character in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past summer. Of course, he might not care about that as much as what he might reasonably perceive as an assassination of his own character—and by the time he might decide to sue, the whole Kavanaugh nomination circus will have left town (one way or the other).

If Kavanaugh’s former schoolmate does decide to try to hold Whelan to account, the effect could be much greater than simply wringing damages out of him. There’s talk (including from former Republican strategist Steve Schmidt) suggesting that Whelan didn’t act alone, but was supported by actors within the U.S. government. A civil lawsuit could get to the bottom of that claim. While a finding of involvement by other actors wouldn’t absolve Whelan of liability, it might lead to other civil suits, or, perhaps more important in our current political moment, embarrassing revelations that could have electoral implications. As I’ve written in the context of the Stormy Daniels litigation, tort claims can often serve the broader purpose of turning up information about wrongdoing—not only by the defendant, but by others who are not even parties to the lawsuit. The discovery process, by which both sides are routinely required to turn over a blizzard of documents, emails and other materials related to the central claim, can make life miserable for those trying to conceal their wrongful conduct. Just ask the people who ran the tobacco industry in the 1990s.

For now, Whelan’s voice has gone silent. Whether that will continue for long is impossible to predict, but we can safely say that the Kavanaugh nomination debacle will continue to provide the worst kind of train-wreck fascination.

==

http://www.alternet.org/education/right-wing-billionaires-are-funding-cynical-plot-destroy-dissent-and-protest-colleges

As s far-right speakers face loud student opposition at their university speaking gigs, conservative lawmakers in several states are introducing legislation that cracks down on protesters. As uncovered by UnKoch My Campus’ Ralph Wilson, numerous states have borrowed their so-called “campus free speech” bills from the rightwing Goldwater Institute, which is funded by conservative plutocrats including Charles Koch and the Mercer family.

The intent of these bills isn’t to protect student speech; it’s actually to suppress it in favor of guest speakers who, at times, support white nationalism, LGBTQ discrimination and other hateful worldviews. By funding the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, wealthy conservatives are enabling the promotion of hate speech while stifling student dissent. Whether or not Koch, for example, agrees with the hate speech he indirectly sponsors, he certainly benefits from a more friendly academic environment for far-right ideologues who often deny climate change and praise his extreme brand of tax- and regulation-free capitalism.

The Goldwater Institute’s model bill allegedly ensures “the fullest degree of…free expression,” but it explicitly states that “protests and demonstrations that infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity shall not be permitted and shall be subject to sanction.”

It goes on to say, “Any student who has twice been found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others will be suspended for a minimum of one year, or expelled.”

Under this code, imagine that a student protests a climate change denier and gets a brief suspension. Then the College Republicans group brings in a full-on white nationalist. Will this student do what she thinks is right and protest a racist who’s given a platform at a respected university, or stay home because she's risking expulsion? This campus "free speech” legislation is essentially an attack on student speech and an elevation of ultra-conservative ideas that many people in university communities think have no place in American society.

“These laws would create a chilling effect on students who reject the idea that white supremacists or climate deniers are simply representing an ‘opposing viewpoint’ that should be tolerated, and who are rightfully relying on their first amendment freedoms to stop the rise of fascism and prevent global climate catastrophe,” Wilson, UnKoch’s senior researcher, told AlterNet. The group has been conducting research into Charles Koch’s considerable ideological donations to higher education, most of which goes toward free-market programs.

Charles Koch Foundation representatives say that conservative views are underrepresented in higher education, and the foundation’s massive university donations—which fund free-market academic centers, professorships, grad students and lecture series—are necessary for academic freedom. This view is shared by other conservative billionaires and higher ed donors including Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who recently said to the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference, “The education establishment [tells you] what to think…the real threat is silencing the First Amendment rights of people with whom you disagree.”

What the Kochs and their allies really want, by amplifying the voices of far-right professors and guest speakers, is to steer society towards a tax- and regulation-free plutocracy. Charles and David Koch, who together are worth nearly $97 billion, have been working toward this goal for over 40 years.

In 2014, Virginia passed the nation’s first law banning so-called “free speech zones,” which restrict protected speech to designated areas often far away from events that students want to protest. The following year, Missouri enacted a Campus Free Expression Act forbidding “free speech zones” without imposing punitive measures.

But while more recent legislation bans free speech zones as well, it also restricts student free speech in scenarios where, lawmakers claim, free speech is protected.

The protest crackdown

Legislators in some states including Illinois and Tennessee have introduced bills in 2017 that explicitly mention sanctions on student protesters. Illinois’ bill, proposed by two Republicans, lifts this language, and additional passages, nearly verbatim from the Goldwater model. Also sponsored by Republicans, the bill in Tennessee—nicknamed the “Milo Bill” after an event at the University of California at Berkeley featuring the racist “alt-right” icon Milo Yiannopolous was canceled due to protests—directs universities to enact free speech policies that include “sanctions for anyone under the jurisdiction of the institution who interferes with the free expression of others,” and it gives faculty “the right to regulate class speech.”

In North Carolina, Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest intends to work with legislators on a Restore Campus Free Speech Act, which would create “a discipline policy that would punish students who shout down visiting speakers or deprive others of their right to free expression, a tactic commonly known as the ‘hecklers’ veto.'"

Last year,Forest floated a measure calling on the University of North Carolina’s board of governors to create a system-wide policy that would impose harsh penalties, including expulsion, on students, staff and faculty members who disrupt classes, public meetings or events. The Koch-funded Generation Opportunity lauded the effort at the time. Forest has said that yelling at a guest speaker “has never been free speech,” and he’s calledcampus protest methods “terrorist tactics.” No one introduced a free speech bill that year.

Other proposed laws, like North Dakota’s, which was introduced by six Republicans, omit sanctions provisions but state that a university may restrict student speech if it blocks entrances to buildings, obstructs traffic or interferes with events. Much of the North Dakota bill comes directly from the text of the Goldwater model legislation. A large group of most Republican legislators in Virginia has a new bill in play that includes much of the Goldwater language but stays away from restrictions on students.

Additional campus free speech bills have been introduced this year in Colorado (sponsored by two Republicans and one Democrat) and Utah (sponsored by 14 Republican state representatives). Florida could be next. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has a "free speech" provision in his proposed budget.

Big money driving campus 'free speech’ efforts

One of the model bill’s authors, Stanley Kurtz, is a longtime fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Ethics and Public Policy Center,which applies “the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy,”according to its website. The center has received millions of dollars in donations from the foundations of the conservative Bradley, Scaife, Olin and Earhart families, as well as hundreds of thousands from two vehicles for wealthy right-wing donors, Donors Trustand Donors Capital Fund.

Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch are responsible for more than $9 million in contributions to the two groups from 2006 to 2015, according to the website Conservative Transparency and additional research by this author. Much of the $6.3 million that went to Donors Trust came in 2015. A now-defunct Koch nonprofit, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, donated $190,000 to the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the Charles Koch Foundation has given over $9,000.

The Goldwater Institute’s James Manley, senior attorney, and Jonathan Butcher, education director, also co-authored the “campus free speech” model legislation. The institute took in nearly $2.5 million from Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund from 2002-2015, according Conservative Transparency and additional research. The Charles Koch Foundation has pitched in $75,000. Manley formerly worked at the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the two Donors funds. Butcher was a research assistant at the heavily Koch-funded Heritage Foundation from 2002 to 2006.

Says Wilson, “These bills take Koch's academic presence to the next level, creating protected space to reveal the white supremacist roots of Koch's free market crusade, like Koch's close friend and white nationalist Charles Murray who has taken to campuses to espouse the genetic superiority of white males.”

Another Koch-funded think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, reportedly has student groups at nearly 80 colleges and universities. These groups bring in AEI fellows like theeugenicist Murrayto speak on their campuses. Recently, Murray attempted to give a lecture at Middlebury College in Vermont but was stymied by vociferous protests. He had to end his speech early, and he and a liberal professor were attacked on their way out.

Students at UC Berkeley and area residents protested Yiannopoulos, whom the College Republicans had invited to speak. The protests led to fires, vandalism, and reportedly, fights. Until recently, Yiannopoulos was an editor at Breitbart News, known as the online “platform of the alt-right,” which happens to be funded by Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, the far-right mega-donors who are major Donald Trump backers and whose family foundation has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Goldwater Institute. The younger Mercer was even a member of Trump’s transition team. Violence against a speaker, a professor or an onlooker is certainly unacceptable. So is inviting a white supremacist to speak at an institution of higher learning, and so is preventing students and faculty from protesting such a speaker. Plenty of right-wing billionaires likely don’t agree with white nationalist ideas, and by funding these so-called campus free speech bills they’re trying to advance free-market principles. But regardless of motivation, this campus "free speech" movement is spreading the hate of white nationalism, the racist “alt-right,” Islamophobia and homophobia—not to mention climate change denial and economic policies that benefit only the very wealthy—on campuses filled with young students. Conservative, corporate millionaires and billionaires are at fault.

==

Abrams Key Denier of Human Rights Abuses by Salvadoran Government

Of the Romero assassination, Abrams told the Washington Post in 1993 [9] that "anybody who thinks you're going to find a cable that says that Roberto d'Aubuisson murdered the archbishop is a fool." But as the Post noted in that same article, the U.S. Embassy sent at least two such cables to Washington fingering d'Aubuisson -- the December 21, 1981 cable, for example, describes: "A meeting, chaired by Maj. Roberto d'Aubuisson, during which the murder of Archbishop Romero was planned. During the meeting, some of the participants drew lots for the privilege of killing the archbishop."

Memorial at El MozoteBut Abrams is perhaps best known for denying one of the worst atrocities of the war, the massacre at El Mozote, where in December 1981 U.S-trained government soldiers marched into a village and murdered around 800 civilians, many of whom were women and children. The men were tortured before being shot, and girls as young as 10 were raped before having their throats slit. Abrams, who at the time was Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, dismissed reports published in the New York Times and Washington Post about the massacre, telling a Senate committee tasked with certifying the Salvadoran government's human rights record that the reports of deaths "were not credible" and suggesting the guerrillas had "significantly misused" the stories for propaganda. The U.N. Truth Commission later confirmed the newspapers' reports on the massacre, and the Salvadoran government (which elected its first left-wing president ever in 2009) officially apologized for the event in December of last year.

These and other denials helped justify another ten years of United States funding for the Salvadoran military and its death squads.The tiny country would receive$6 billion from the U.S. over the course of its civil war, making it the second-highest recipient of U.S. aid behind Israelduring that period, despite mounting death tolls and continued atrocities.

Elliot AbramsAbrams has remained unrepentant about U.S. policy in El Salvador, calling it [9] "one of fabulous achievement." He was convicted in 1991 of two misdemeanors for unlawfully withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal but was pardoned by the first President Bush.

Abrams, Neocons Passing the Torch to VP Pick Ryan

This week,The Daily Beastfirst reported [10] that Abrams' latest act is advising Republican GOP candidate Ryan on foreign policy. Abrams told the website Ryan "knows more about foreign policy than people may think, in view of his concentration on the economy." Other right-wing foreign policy experts told The Daily Beast that despite Ryan's professed fiscal conservatism, he, like Reagan, supports spending billions or trillions to preserve U.S. military power and international influence. 

Ryan has long been mentored by neoconservative Republican leaders who advanced U.S. policy in El Salvador. His first job in D.C. was as an aide to Sen. Bob Kasten of Wisconsin, a cheerleader for sending billions to El Salvador's brutal military government and who in the 1980s chaired the Senate foreign operations appropriations subcommittee responsible for approving those funds.

After Kasten lost his seat to Russ Feingold in 1992, Ryan became a speechwriter for the right-wing think tank Empower America, which was founded by Jeane Kirkpatrick and Jack Kemp. As a foreign policy adviser to Reagan in 1980 Kirkpatrick famously defended the rape, murder, and torture of four American Catholic missionaries (three of whom were nuns and one a lay missionary) at the hands of El Salvador's government forces, claiming "the nuns were not just nuns. The nuns were also political activists." Kirkpatrick went on to become Reagan's UN Ambassador. Kemp, who Ryan recently identified [11] as a key mentor, was also a major supporter of U.S. funding to El Salvador's military government.

==

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/cdffbc08-75e4-4617-9c4b-349e3a65627f/696c2ab079d78fcc157fb75f46ec6283

In 1973 two young congressional aides, Edwin Feulner and Paul Weyrich, quit their jobs to start the Heritage Foundation. Three years later a longtime Brookings fellow, Ernest Lefever, started the Ethics and Public Policy Center. In 1977 a group of libertarians started the Cato Institute. The Committee on the Present Danger was founded nine days after Carter's election. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, which had existed quietly since its creation in 1962 by David Abshire, a retired Army officer (now ambassador to NATO), sensed its moment. Liberal consultancies had found their causes in poverty, energy, and the environment; the new think tanks would find bankable issues in the windfall-profits tax, the SALT II treaty, the nuclear freeze, Star Wars, industrial policy, and comparable worth.

sw

The Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, "is one of several [organizations] devoted to improving public appreciation of the role of business in what it terms a 'moral society.' It was founded by Ernest Lefever, who expressed his concern that 'U.S. domestic and multinational firms find themselves increasingly under siege at home and abroad. They are accused of producing shoddy and unsafe products, fouling the environment, robbing future generations, wielding enormous power, repressing peoples in the third world, and generally being insensitive to human needs. We as a small and ethnically oriented center are in a position to respond more directly to ideological critics who insist the corporation is fundamentally unjust.'"[1]

According to the EPPC website the organisation was "established in 1976 to clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public debate over domestic and foreign policy issues." [2]

In Tom Barry has this to say about EPPC:

Created in 1976, EPPC was the first neocon institute to break ground in the frontal attack on the secular humanists. For nearly three decades, EPPC has functioned as the cutting edge of the neoconservative-driven culture war against progressive theology and secularism, and the associated effort to ensure right-wing control of the Republican Party. It explicitly sought to unify the Christian right with the neoconservative religious right, which was mostly made up of agnostics back then. A central part of its political project was to "clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public debate over domestic and foreign policy." Directed by Elliott Abrams from 1996-2001, EPPC counts among its board members well connected figures in the neocon matrix including Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Neuhaus, and Mary Ann Glendon.

—Tom Barry, op. cit.

Board of Directors and personnel

• Jeane Kirkpatrick – Chairwoman
• Elliott Abrams – former President
• Hillel Fradkin – President [3]
• Michael Cromartie – Acting Director [4]
• Ernest W. Lefever – Senior Scholar, Founder and first president

Fellows and Scholars

• Ed Whelan, President
• Michael Cromartie, Vice President
• George Weigel, Senior Fellow
• Eric Cohen, Director, Biotechnology & American Democracy Program
• Christine Rosen, Fellow
• Timothy Samuel Shah, Director South Asian Studies Program, Research Fellow
• Wilfred M. McClay – Senior Fellow and co-director of the Evangelicals and Civic Life program
• Michael Cromartie – Acting Director and co-director of the Evangelicals and Civic Life program
• Rick Santorum, Senior Fellow and Director of EPPC's America's Enemies program.

Funding

Between 1985 and 2001, the Center has received $9,190,704 in 114 separate grants from only eight foundations:

• Castle Rock Foundation
• Earhart Foundation
• Koch Family Foundations (Claude R. Lambe Foundation)
• John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
  • Between 2001 and 2010, the Ethics and Public Policy Center received almost $3 million from the conservative Bradley Foundation^[1].

• Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
• Smith Richardson Foundation[5]

EPPC has also received three grants from the Pew Charitable Trusts:

• In December $925,000.00 over 3 yrs was granted to support "a seminar series for journalists on the role of religion in American public life." [6]
• in September 1999, $1,350,000.00 over 3 yrs was granted "to examine the role of Evangelicals in American public life." [7]
• in December 2001, $430,000.00 over 2 yrs was granted to "strengthen the national media's reporting on the impact of religious conviction and religiously grounded moral argument in American political and public life." [8]

Other SourceWatch Resources

• Think tanks

��

External links

• "Contra-Intuitive" by Mary McGrory, Washington Post, July 8, 2001; re Elliott Abrams, president of the EPPC as of June 2001.
• David Corn, "Elliott Abrams: It's Back!:The most generous of rehabilitations", The Nation, June 14, 2001.
• Media Transparency, "Ethics and Public Policy Centre", accessed February 18, 2004.
• Media Transparency, "Funding matrix: Ethics and Public Policy Centre", accessed February 18, 2004.
• Tom Barry, "Elliott Abrams: the Neocon's Neocon", CounterPunch, February 9, 2005.

Contact

We: http://www.eppc.org

America's Enemies is a program directed by former Republican Senator Rick Santorum and hosted by the Washington, D.C. think tank, the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The program, EPPC states, is to "identify, study, and heighten awareness of the threats to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces and states that increasingly cast a shadow over our future and that violate religious liberty around the world." [1]

In a media release announcing his role with the project, Santorum stated "in these perilous and uncertain times, I believe it is critical that we define the threats that confront America ... Without a clear definition and precise understanding of our enemies we cannot fight effectively and our own citizens become divided. It is my hope that the America's Enemies program at EPPC will help the American people -- including our leaders -- understand and communicate with clarity, honesty, and consistency the enemies we face and the complex and enormous threat that they pose to our lives and the freedoms we all enjoy." [2]

Melissa Anderson, a former member of Santorum's Senate staff, will be associate director of America’s Enemies.

Personnnel

• Rick Santorum, Director
• Melissa Anderson, Associate Director

Contact Details

Web: http://www.eppc.org/programs/enemies/programID.42/default.asp

External links

• Ethics and Public Policy Center, "Rick Santorum Joins Ethics and Public Policy Center, Establishes Program on America's Enemies", Media Release, January 9, 2007.
• "Santorum's gets new job with think tank", Pittsburg Tribune-Review, January 9, 2007.
• John J. Miller, "Rick’s Return: Life after the Senate for Santorum", NRO Online, January 9, 2007.
• "Santorum Lands a Job with Think Tank", New York Times, January 10, 2007. (This is based on material from Congressional Quarterly).
• Bill Berkowitz, "Santorum leads ousted Republicans' move back to conservative philanthropy supported think tanks: At ironically named 'Ethics and Public Policy Center' former senator will track 'America's Enemies'", Media Transparency, January 11, 2007.

Categories: Think tanks | United States