Democrats Need a New Election Slogan as Biden’s “Unity” Message Entirely Misses the Mark

Unity pexels-photo-1679618

A recent television ad by “Unite the Country” endorsed Presidential hopeful Joe Biden. The ad, entitled “Deserve,” portrays Biden a man of unity and seeks to convince the American public that Biden is all about uniting the country. As a matter of fact, this appears to be one of the Democrats’ possible themes/slogans as the country approaches the 2020 elections. If the Democrats run on this slogan and utilize Biden as their spokesperson, they will face an uphill battle with the American public. Rather, they should turn to other slogans/themes that more accurately and honestly reflect Biden’s policies and the policies of the Party that he represents.

Biden’s conduct is anything but unifying. As reported by Fox News, in a recent interview on “The Breakfast Club,” a nationally broadcast talk show, Biden was quoted as saying, “I tell you if you’ve got a problem figuring out if you’re for me or for Trump, then you ain’t black.” This comment immediately faced backlash, leading a Biden aide to abruptly try to end the interview. This is understandable, as Biden is, in essence, telling black voters how they should behave.

Biden’s supposed quest to unify the country does not end there.

On one occasion, Biden criticized a potential voter and called him fat and a damn liar simply because the man asked a question about Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma.

On another occasion, Biden told a potential voter who asked about the issue of building new pipelines to “go vote for someone else” while pointing his finger in the man’s chest.

As reported by Townhall, Biden also dismissed an 18-year-old member of the Sunrise Movement who was concerned over Biden’s acceptance of Super Pac donations and told the young man to “Look at my record, child.”

On several other occasions, Biden encouraged potential voters to vote for someone else and/or vote for Trump after getting frustrated/agitated and/or arguing with them about various issues that were important to them.

As reported by Newsweek, Biden told an auto plant worker in Detroit “you’re full of sh*t” when the man accused Biden of actively trying to infringe on the Second Amendment and trying to take guns away from people.

Finally, in wake of recent sexual assault allegations, Biden told women not to vote for him if they believed Tara Reade

Biden’s conduct is far from unifying. Rather than bringing people together, Biden criticizes, threatens, ridicules, and/or pushes people away who tend to question his policies and/or his platform, as seen here and here.

Rather than pushing the “unity” theme/slogan, perhaps Biden and those in his campaign should consider other themes/slogans, which are more befitting. Some examples include, but are not limited to, “America: Home of the Green New Deal,” “America: The Nation of Open Borders,” “Obama 3.0,” “America: A Nation of Endless Spending,” “America: Where Your College Education is on Us,” and/or “America: Obamacare for All.” These themes/slogans are more in line with Biden’s policies and the far-left policies of the Party as a whole.

Mr. Hakim is a writer, commentator and a practicing attorney.  His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Epoch Times, The Western Journal, American Thinker and other online publications.

Twitter: @ThoughtfulGOP

Photo from:


Until Congress Acts, the Supreme Court Should Rule Against Aimee Stephens


The Supreme Court will soon issue its ruling in the case of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In doing so, the court will decide whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as it is currently written, guarantees protections to transgender people in the workplace. Based on the intent of Title VII, its current written form, and the far-reaching implications of adopting Stephens’ definition of “sex” under Title VII, the court should deny Stephens’ (whose former name was Anthony) interpretation.

In R.G., Aimee Stephens (who, sadly, recently passed away) had presented as a man when she started her job in 2007. She was subsequently fired when she announced her intention to transition to a woman and to wear women’s clothing on the job. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled for Stevens and stated that “Discrimination against transgender people was barred by Title VII.” The court opined that firing someone based on their status as a transgender person was motivated, in part, by the person’s sex. “Discrimination ‘because of sex’ inherently includes discrimination against employees because of a change in their sex,” the court stated.

There is no doubt that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. However, the Act does not include a specific reference to sexual orientation or transgender status. Relying on this point, the Department of Justice argued that the term “sex,” as used in the Act, refers to a person’s “biological sex.” In support of this “narrow” interpretation of the term “sex,” the DOJ pointed to the original intent behind Title VII in its brief:

Title VII includes statute-specific definitions of various terms, but not “sex.” See 42 U.S.C. 2000e (defining “because of sex” and “on the basis of sex” to include pregnancy-related issues but not defining “sex”). The term “sex” thus should “be interpreted as taking [its] ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” When Title VII was enacted in 1964, “sex” meant biological sex. The term “refer[red] to [the] physiological distinction[]” between “male and female.” Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language 2296 (2d ed. 1958) (Webster’s Second).

The DOJ also pointed out that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination against transgender persons based on their transgender status. Rather, “Title VII prohibits treating an individual less favorably than similarly situated individuals of the opposite sex.”

Conversely, Stephens argued that sex was a “but-for” cause for her termination because the funeral home would not have fired a female funeral director who (like Stephens) sought to dress as a female. However, this comparison is not entirely correct in that it does not compare Stephens to a similarly situated individual of the opposite sex. Rather, it compares Stephens to a biological female who seeks to dress in accordance with the dress code for her own sex.

Finally, Stevens asserted that the decision to fire her amounted to discrimination based on “gender identity.” This, she argued, was analogous to discrimination resulting from sex stereotypes based on appearance or behavior, and was, therefore, improper. In response, the DOJ asserted that the funeral home did not discriminate against Stevens based on “sex stereotypes.” Rather, she was fired because she did not comply with the sex-specific dress code, which burdened men and women equally.

The Supreme Court’s decision will not only have direct impact on the funeral home and other employers, it will also have a much broader impact. More particularly, if the court rules in favor of Stephens, and finds that the term “sex” includes ones “gender-identity,” this could extend to other venues, including sports.

One such example is the case of Selina Soule. Soule competes in track at Bloomfield High School in Connecticut. Soule was unable to qualify for regionals in the 55-meter run because two spots were taken by biological boys who identified as girls and who ran faster. As a result, Soule sought redress pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” If the Supreme Court interprets the term “sex” broadly in Stephens’ case, will that interpretation be applied in Title IX cases as well? The potential problems and obvious inequities that could flow from such a broad definition are self-evident.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a very important one. As is evident, the court’s decision will have far-reaching implications. Moreover, given the intent of Title VII and the specific language in the Act, it appears that the decision of whether to re-define “sex” under Title VII, or to afford protections based on gender-identity under the Act, belongs to Congress, not the courts.

If Congress feels compelled to do so based on evolving societal norms, it is free to do so on its own volition.

This article is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to solicit business or to provide legal advice. You should not take, or refrain from taking, any legal action based upon the information contained in this article without first seeking professional counsel.

Mr. Hakim is a political writer and commentator and an attorney.  His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Algemeiner, The Western Journal, American Thinker and other online publications.

Twitter: @ThoughtfulGOP

For the Sake of Justice, Should Flynn’s Team Seek a Writ of Mandamus?


After the Department of Justice decided to drop the case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn, it seemed like the presiding judge’s signature was a mere formality. Unfortunately, however, federal district judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order inviting third party groups with no interest in the case to file amicus briefs regarding the Department’s decision to drop the case. Given past precedent, Flynn could very well seek mandamus based on the court’s unacceptable decision to politicize Flynn’s case.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary writ. In Kerr v. United States District Court, the Supreme Court discussed this extraordinary writ. There, the Supreme Court stated:

The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations. As we have observed, the writ

“has traditionally been used in the federal courts only ‘to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.'”

And, while we have not limited the use of mandamus by an unduly narrow and technical understanding of what constitutes a matter of “jurisdiction,” the fact still remains that “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.” 

In essence, these writs are used sparingly because they seemingly make the judge a litigant by seeking immediate appellate review of a judge’s decision before final judgment has been rendered by the trial court (i.e. before the end of a case).

In Kerr, the Supreme Court set forth some conditions for issuing such a writ. First, the court stated that a person seeking the issuance of this writ must have no other adequate means to attain the relief he/she desires. In addition, the moving party has “the burden of showing that [his] right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.” Finally, the court, in its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.

While these writs are extraordinary in nature, there is controlling precedent that Judge Sullivan seemingly considered, yet ignored. More particularly, in U.S. v. Fokker Services B.V., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted mandamus when a judge refused a government charging decision. There, the court stated:

The Executive’s primacy in criminal charging decisions is long settled. That authority stems from the Constitution’s delegation of “take Care” duties, U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and the pardon power, id. § 2, to the Executive Branch. Decisions to initiate charges, or to dismiss charges once brought, “lie at the core of the Executive’s duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.” The Supreme Court thus has repeatedly emphasized that “[w]hether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor’s discretion.”

Correspondingly, “judicial authority is . . . at its most limited” when reviewing the Executive’s exercise of discretion over charging determinations. The decision whether to prosecute turns on factors such as “the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the [g]overnment’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the [g]overnment’s overall enforcement plan.” The Executive routinely undertakes those assessments and is well equipped to do so. By contrast, the Judiciary, as the Supreme Court has explained, generally is not “competent to undertake” that sort of inquiry. Id. Indeed, “[f]ew subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether to institute criminal proceedings, or what precise charge shall be made, or whether to dismiss a proceeding once brought.”

Those settled principles counsel against interpreting statutes and rules in a manner that would impinge on the Executive’s constitutionally rooted primacy over criminal charging decisions. Of particular salience, Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a prosecutor to obtain “leave of court” before dismissing charges against a criminal defendant. That language could conceivably be read to allow for considerable judicial involvement in the determination to dismiss criminal charges. But decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges—no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring—lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion. To that end, the Supreme Court has declined to construe Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement to confer any substantial role for courts in the determination whether to dismiss charges.

Rather, the “principal object of the ‘leave of court’ requirement” has been understood to be a narrow one—“to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment . . . when the [g]overnment moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.” A court thus reviews the prosecution’s motion under Rule 48(a) primarily to guard against the prospect that dismissal is part of a scheme of “prosecutorial harassment” of the defendant through repeated efforts to bring—and then dismiss—charges. So understood, the “leave of court” authority gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a)motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority. For instance, a court cannot deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution’s desire to dismiss the charges, or a view that any remaining charges fail adequately to redress the gravity of the defendant’s alleged conduct. The authority to make such determinations remains with the Executive.

In light of Fokker, Judge Sullivan’s decision in Flynn’s case is head scratching. Putting aside the apparent and grotesque scheme that led to the eventual charges against Flynn, the decision of whether or not to prosecute was the government’s, not Sullivan’s. In refusing to simply dismiss the case, Sullivan seemingly placed his subjective opinion  of the case and/or the defendant above everyone else’s, including those prosecuting the case. Not only is this against established case law (Fokker), it also appears to exceed the scope of judicial authority.

Moreover, this decision appears to politicize Flynn’s case, as does the open call for amicus briefs and the judge’s decision to appoint a retired judge to argue against dismissal and to consider whether Flynn should face a perjury charge. By calling for such briefs, Sullivan opened the flood gates whereby special interest groups and others opposing Flynn could help to “fan the anti-Flynn flames” and to continue to “tarnish’ Flynn’s good name. More importantly, as the law is quite clear regarding the judge’s discretion when the government seeks to dismiss charges, there is no real purpose for amicus briefs other than to delay this matter and to potentially force President Trump’s hand in pardoning Flynn. As reported by The Washington Times, “An amicus brief is usually submitted when a third party could be affected by the court’s decision or has unique information not previously presented in the case. It is very rare for a judge to request such motions in a criminal case.”

General Flynn deserves better than this. He was the subject of a vile and premeditated plot to incriminate an innocent man for ulterior and vindictive purposes; namely, to get to the president. Given the government’s decision to drop the charges against Flynn, his case should be immediately dismissed. If not, and although quite rare, his team could try to seek a writ of mandamus.

This article is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to solicit business or to provide legal advice. You should not take, or refrain from taking, any legal action based upon the information contained in this article without first seeking professional counsel.

Mr. Hakim is a writer, commentator, and a practicing attorney.  His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Epoch Times, The Western Journal, American Thinker, and other online publications.

Twitter: @ThoughtfulGOP

Photo from


Rather Than Criticizing Attorney General William Barr, Congressional Democrats Should Give Him The Praise That He Deserves


Last week, the Department of Justice decided to drop the case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn. As if on cue, Democrats blasted Attorney General William Barr and blamed him of politicizing Flynn’s case and catering to President Trump. Not only was their attack on Barr entirely predictable, it was also erroneous. As such, rather than criticizing Barr, Democrats should give him the praise that he very clearly deserves.

Many Democrats opine that the decision to drop Flynn’s case was a miscarriage of justice, a travesty, and deeply politicized. As reported by The Hill, “Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to federal agents about conversations he’d had with a Russian diplomat during the presidential transition.” This, according to many on the left, warrants prosecution, not a “get out of jail free” card. According to The Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated, “Attorney General Barr’s politicization of justice knows no bounds. Overruling the special counsel is without precedent and without respect for the rule of law.” House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff also slammed Barr’s decision. As reported by the Washington Examiner, Schiff stated, “This dismissal does not exonerate him. But it does incriminate [Attorney General] Bill Barr.”

Pelosi and Schiff are wrong. While Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI, he later moved to withdraw his plea based on “the government’s bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement.” More particularly, newly released documents in Flynn’s criminal case revealed that the government set him up to lie. As reported by the Wall Street Journal:

“The documents consist of two redacted email exchanges as well as one page of handwritten notes by an unidentified official that appeared to involve Federal Bureau of Investigation preparations for Mr. Flynn’s interview. In the handwritten notes, which are dated Jan. 24, 2017—the day of the Flynn interview—the author writes: ‘What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?’”

In light of this evidence, Barr’s decision to drop the charges against Flynn was legally sound and had nothing to do with politics. The Democrats’ efforts to politicize Barr’s decision is tantamount to giving the government the green light to use its power to “trick” an innocent man in an effort to “create” a crime. In Flynn’s case, Americans were witnesses to a seemingly premeditated attempted plot to incriminate an innocent man for ulterior and vindictive purposes; namely, to get to the president. It is exactly for this/these reasons why Barr called the dismissal “an easy decision.” According to The Hill, citing Barr:

“I wanted to make sure that we restore confidence in the system. There’s only one standard of justice. And I believe that this case, that justice in this case requires dismissing the charges against General Flynn.”

Barr is entirely correct. Moreover, and quite interestingly, the Democrats who are currently lambasting Barr didn’t take the same approach when the Department of Justice decided not to pursue charges against fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, despite allegations that McCabe lied under oath in violation of a federal statute. If Barr was Trump’s political “puppet,” so to speak, the Department of Justice could have pursued such charges, even if they ultimately failed. The decision against doing so frustrated the president and many Republicans, yet said a great deal about Barr, his integrity, and his ability (and willingness) to make decisions independent of what the president wants and/or political influence(s).

Of course, this is not the first time that the Democrats have attacked Barr. After Robert Mueller found no Russia collusion, some Democrats in Congress accused Barr of breaking the law and/or obstructing justice because of how he handled the release of Mueller’s report. So far, this baseless attack against Barr has gone nowhere, further disappointing Democrats.

Barr’s decision to drop the criminal case against Flynn was the right one. It was not political in nature nor was it done to appease the president. The fact that Democrats continue to attack Barr’s decisions, and his character, is also suspicious. After all, Democrats praised Barr before President Trump nominated him. As reported by People’s Pundit Daily, at the time, Joe Biden indicated that Barr was “committed to the public interest above all else.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who served as chairman of the House Crime and Criminal Justice Subcommittee at the time, also praised Barr, stating, “Mr. Barr has proven to be a capable deputy attorney general. He did a good job of helping run the department in troubled times.” Finally, Senator Patrick Leahy, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated that Barr would be “an independent voice for all Americans – not just the President.”

Barr is the same person that he was when he first served as Acting Attorney General in 1991. While Bar has not changed, the Democrats in Congress have, as has the Party as a whole. Democrats will clearly not accept any result or decision that does not align with their publicly stated goal, which is to remove and/or hurt the president’s chances for re-election. Fortunately, Barr is calm, seasoned, strong-willed, and unphased by the dog-and-pony shows that the Democrats have been orchestrating since he was first nominated by President Trump.

He should be praised.

This article is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to solicit business or to provide legal advice. You should not take, or refrain from taking, any legal action based upon the information contained in this article without first seeking professional counsel.

Mr. Hakim is a writer, commentator, and a practicing attorney.  His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Epoch Times, The Western Journal, American Thinker, and other online publications.

Twitter: @ThoughtfulGOP

Photo from:


Florida Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Proposed Amendment to Florida’s Marijuana Law

person rolling a paper with weed
Photo by Harrison Haines on

On Wednesday, the Florida Supreme Court heard arguments about a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow people to use recreational marijuana.

Proponents of the amendment, including Make It Legal Florida, are seeking to have the amendment placed on the 2022 ballot. To do so, they need the Florida Supreme Court to give the green light to the title and summary of the proposed amendment. In other words, they need the high court to approve the language/wording that is utilized in the title and/or summary of the proposed amendment. It is with this language where the debate arises.

According to Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, the proposed amendment would mislead voters. More particularly, opponents to the amendment contend that some of the language of the amendment is misleading because it appears to permit conduct that is illegal under federal law. As reported in the Miami Herald:

State Solicitor General Amit Agarwal, representing Moody, argued Wednesday that the Supreme Court should reject the proposal because it would be misleading to voters. Agarwal focused, in part, on wording in the ballot summary that says the amendment “permits adults 21 years or older to possess, use, purchase, display, and transport up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana and marijuana accessories for personal use for any reason.”

“Voters should be told the truth,” Agarwal said. “They should be given the tools that they need to make a fully informed decision on this ballot initiative. Voters right now are told, expressly and unqualifiedly, that the proposed amendment would permit something that it quite simply would not permit.”

On the other hand, proponents of the amendment assert that the amendment simply “piggybacks” on a constitutional amendment that passed in 2016 and that legalized the use of medical marijuana. This amendment, they claim, would simply reduce some of the restrictions limiting use for medical reasons. As reported by the Miami Herald, citing George Levesque, an attorney for Make It Legal Florida:

“We believe the text of our proposed amendment, and the summary that describes it, accurately, clearly and unambiguously informs the voter of what we are trying to do,” he told The News Service of Florida after the arguments. “In this case, to permit limited amounts of marijuana to be given to adults and for adults to be able to use that marijuana for any purpose that they need it for.”

The Florida Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether the language of the proposed amendment is misleading, or whether it is clear enough to defeat such a challenge. In doing so, the court will likely consider the interplay between the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution and/or federal law. More particularly, opponents to the amendment claim that the language is misleading because it permits voters to engage in conduct that is criminalized under federal law. Proponents, on the other hand, assert that Floridians have the right to amend the Florida Constitution and that there is no obligation to inform Florida voters about what it is happening with regard to federal law.

Jason Gonzalez, an attorney representing the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Floridians Against Recreational Marijuana, Save Our Society from Drugs and National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance, raised an interesting point. As reported by

Gonzalez argued that if he repeated the first few lines of the ballot summary to a client he’d be making a serious false statement, as the sale of any marijuana is [a] federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

“If I said that with no condition, I would be committing professional malpractice. I would be violating the oath of attorney and the rules of professional conduct because it’s patently false, and it would not just merely be a mild misstatement,” Gonzalez said.

Time will tell how the court ultimately rules on this interesting and important case.

This article is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to solicit business or to provide legal advice. You should not take, or refrain from taking, any legal action based upon the information contained in this article without first seeking professional counsel.

Mr. Hakim is a writer and commentator and an attorney.  His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Algemeiner, The Western Journal, American Thinker and other online publications. 

Twitter: @ThoughtfulGOP

FB: @ThoughtfullyConservative

For Some Democrats, Only Victims Who Can Implicate Republicans Are Believable

me too printed paper wall decor
Photo by Lum3n on

Former Vice-President and presumptive presidential candidate, Joe Biden, was recently accused of sexual misconduct by Tara Reade. While Reade’s claims are just accusations at this time, they have been met with deaf ears by those on the left. The existence of a double standard by Democrats is not surprising. What is concerning, however, is the message that Democrats are sending to victims of sexual misconduct; namely, your experience only matters if it can implicate a high-level Republican.

According to Reade, who recently filed a police report against Biden, she was the victim of a sexual assault. As reported by The Washington Times:

In two recent interviews with The Associated Press, Tara Reade alleged the assault occurred in the basement of a Capitol Hill office building in the spring of 1993. She filed a police report in Washington on Thursday saying she was the victim of a sexual assault by an unnamed person in 1993, a copy of which was obtained by the AP.

Despite these allegations, some Democrats have been unwilling to help Reade while others have come to Biden’s defense without calling for an investigation. For example, as reported by Townhall:

Time’s Up Legal Defense, a nonprofit designed to help women combat sexual assault struggles from a legal stand point, is said to have declined Reade’s plea for help, per The Intercept. Time’s Up allegedly told Reade that their nonprofit status, and Biden’s political stature, prevented them from helping her come forward with her story. The Intercept also pointed out that a top official at the public relations firm tied to Time’s Up is advising Biden’s campaign. Reade says that she brought her story to the campaigns of Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but was given no help.

Moreover, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently endorsed Biden for president, as did former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Alyssa Milano, a prominent #MeToo activist, also supported Biden despite Reade’s allegations.

The fact that Democrats have so quickly dismissed Reade’s claims shows an obvious double standard by those on the left. After all, many Democrats quickly called for investigations into Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing despite the fact that they were entirely uncorroborated and meritless. Some, including Kamala Harris, even called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

Aside from the obvious double standard, the Democrats’ silence and their refusal to investigate the allegations against Biden reflect a terrifying partisan approach towards purported victims of sexual assault/abuse. More particularly, Democrats believed Kavanaugh’s accuser(s) because they could serve their ultimate purpose, which was to hurt Kavanaugh, a prominent Republican. There is no other logical explanation. While some Democrats might assert that the facts in Reade’s case are not compelling enough to justify an investigation, this excuse is hardly convincing given that many of the same Democrats called for an investigation into Kavanaugh without any compelling or corroborating evidence whatsoever.

Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden must be investigated. Democrats must demand an investigation, not only because the allegations directly relate to the Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, but because they are extremely serious. The failure of those on the left to speak up and to call for an investigation into this matter also serves to politicize such allegations. Specifically, it sends a message to prospective victims of sexual abuse that their willingness to come forward will only be believed (and matter) if it aligns with the Party’s political goals and aspirations.

Mr. Hakim is a political writer and commentator and an attorney.  His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Algemeiner, The Western Journal, American Thinker and other online publications.

Twitter: @ThoughtfulGOP


The President’s Recent Executive Order Is Just What The Country Needed


This week, President Trump signed an executive order temporarily suspending immigration into the United States for 60 days by people seeking permanent residence in the country. Following the president’s announcement, Democrats immediately went on the attack. In doing so, they affirmed what some Americans have believed for quite some time now; in the minds of some Congressional Democrats, non-US citizens have more rights than American citizens.

The president’s decision to sign an order of this nature stemmed from two basic principles. First, America is facing an invisible enemy in the coronavirus and efforts to curb the spread of the virus cannot succeed if immigrants continue to enter the country. Second, given the devastating impact that the virus has had on the economy, many Americans are unemployed and struggling to make a living. Therefore, there is a need to protect American jobs so that they can be filled by American citizens, not non-US citizens coming into the country.

The president’s reasoning is sound and is in line with his primary duty and responsibility, which is to protect the well-being of the nation and its citizens. Due to the horrific virus that has plagued the United States (and the rest of the world), many American citizens are currently struggling to make their mortgage payments, put food on the table, pay for the basic necessities of life, and find gainful employment. In addition, many cannot afford to pay their employees/workers and/or are being forced to close/shut-down businesses that they worked so hard to develop.

Rather than focusing on the unfortunate and very difficult circumstances that many Americans are facing as a result of this virus, some Democrats in Congress decided to attack the president’s decision with their usual hateful and unsubstantiated rhetoric. As reported by Fox News, Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., said that Trump was looking for “someone to blame for his own failure.” According to Beyer, “Immigration has nearly stopped and the US has far more cases than any other country. This is just xenophobic scapegoating.”

Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., was also quick to attack the president. According to Fox News, Harris was quoted as saying:

“Trump failed to take this crisis seriously from day 1. His abandonment of his role as president has cost lives. And now, he’s shamelessly politicizing this pandemic to double down on his anti-immigrant agenda. Enough, Mr. President. The American people are fed up.”

Harris is right about one thing; Americans are fed up. We are fed up with the impacts that this virus has had on us and on our families. We are fed up with being stuck at home. We are fed up with being unable to work. We are fed up with being unable to provide for ourselves and for our loved ones as a result of this virus. Most importantly, we are fed up with Democrats who continue to put the rights of non-US citizens above those of American citizens.

This is not the first time that this has happened. Not too long ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi objected to Trump’s expanded travel ban that was meant to curb the spread of the coronavirus and to protect American lives. As reported by The Hill, Pelosi stated:

“The Trump Administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law. The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy.”

“With this latest callous decision, the President has doubled down on his cruelty and further undermined our global leadership, our Constitution and our proud heritage as a nation of immigrants.”

Wrong, Nancy. The president was taking steps to protect American citizens from further exposure to a highly transmittable virus. In doing so, he likely saved American lives and prevented many more Americans from being infected.

On another occasion, Pelosi gave free “advice” to immigrants who were in the country illegally and advised them how to avoid arrest and deportation by ICE agents. In other words, Pelosi was instructing people who were in the country illegally and who were not American citizens how to circumvent the law.

President Trump realizes and appreciates the difficulties that many Americans are currently facing. He knows how many Americans are currently unemployed as a result of the coronavirus and understands the very delicate balance between protecting public health and preserving/re-kindling the economy. As a matter of fact, a top DHS official told Fox News that “22 million unemployed Americans and counting due to COVID-19″ is what compelled the president to consider the use of an executive order of this nature.

The president’s executive order is not xenophobic, nor is it an attempt to cover up his purported “failures,” as some Democrats contend. Rather, it is a sign of a strong leader who is doing his best to protect the nation and to help the nation’s citizens get back on their feet. Spectator USA’s Washington editor Amber Athey succinctly explained why the president’s executive order is easily justified and so badly needed, stating, “Given tens of millions of Americans are out of work right now and we’re battling a virus that spreads through human-to-human transmission I am dying to hear one coherent argument against this.”

At this time, it does not appear that any such argument exists.

Mr. Hakim is a writer, commentator, and a practicing attorney. His articles have been published in The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, The Epoch Times, The Western Journal, American Thinker, and other online publications.

Twitter: @ThoughtfulGOP

Photo by Library of Congress on Unsplash