RUTHFULLY YOURS

“The [American Bar Association] wants to do exactly what the text calls for: limit lawyers’ expression of viewpoints that it disapproves of. … state courts and state bars should resist the pressure to adopt it.” — Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor and Washington Post columnist.

The language of Resolution 109 is “so broad it could mean anything… a kind of a speech code that restricts perfectly acceptable speech… anything you say might offend someone and therefore you can be punished for it.” — Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute.

The ABA declined to answer questions for this article, as did the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU, which calls itself “our nation’s guardian of liberty,” and touts itself as fighting for “your right… to speak out – for or against – anything at all,” has not issued any statements or press releases about the model rule revision.

The struggle between free speech and speech codes that are intended to prevent harassment and discrimination appears set to leap from college campuses to law offices around the United States.

On August 8, 2016, the American Bar Association (ABA) approved resolution 109, which curtails freedom of speech. The approved resolution amended its model rule of professional conduct 8.4. It prohibits

“conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.”

The official comment explains:

“discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others. Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct.”

The model rule is non-binding, but has potentially great influence on professional conduct rules that state courts require lawyers to follow. Should state courts adopt the change, lawyers found to violate it could be sanctioned and possibly disbarred. Because professional rules are legally binding on lawyers, the prospect that states may regulate “verbal conduct” implicates First Amendment concerns.

The ABA declined to answer questions for this article, as did the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU, which calls itself “our nation’s guardian of liberty,” and touts itself as fighting for “your right… to speak out – for or against – anything at all,” has not issued any statements or press releases about the model rule revision.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/a-soldiers-soldier
A Soldier’s Soldier by Colonel Kenneth Allard (U.S. Army, Ret.)

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/soldier-down-general-vessey-rest-in-peace?f=commentary
Soldier Down . . . General Vessey, Rest in Peace. by Ambassador Henry F. Cooper

Not quite seventeen, this “soldier’s soldier” volunteered to become a Minnesota National Guardsman and received an Anzio battlefield commission in World War II and the Army’s second highest medal for valor, the Distinguished Service Cross, in Viet Nam. He led the U.S. and U.N. Forces in Korea and opposed withdrawing U.S. Forces which cost him the Army Chief of Staff post under President Jimmie Carter-an implicit rebuke cast aside when President Ronald Reagan appointed him as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and after his retirement and return to Minnesota into other important posts. President George H.W. Bush awarded Gen. Vessey the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. A life of service with unquestionable integrity.

Two Muslim immigrants who lived in Maine were killed fighting for ISIS and each left a wife and children here on welfare. The second, Adnan Fazeli, was revealed last week by the Portland Press Herald, but how many people realize there was at least one other? And, are there any more? If so, that information would be kept under wraps as long as possible.

The first was Abdirahmaan Muhumed, aka Abdifatah Ahmed, about whom I wrote in January, 2015. He was born in Somalia, raised in Minnesota, lived in Lewiston, and became a US citizen in South Portland, Maine. His Maine wife divorced him because he wanted multiple wives. He was killed in Syria in 2014 and it’s worth mentioning that he also worked at the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport. Think about that next time you board a plane.

Last week’s Press Herald headline on Fazeli read: “Documents: Freeport man died fighting for Islamic State in Lebanon.” Was he a “Freeport man”? By whose definition? He was an Iranian who professed, at one time at least, a desire to become American. To be a “Freeport man” one must be an American. Nowhere in the article does it say Fazeli was a citizen. It said he became radicalized in Maine by watching ISIS videos and converting to Wahhabism, which the PPH called an “austere” version of Islam. That’s like calling the KKK an austere version of Christianity. Wahhabism is radical Islam. It’s jihadism calling for the destruction of the west. Maine State Police Detective George Loder said: “Fazeli’s change in behavior alienated him from many of his Shia and moderate Sunni friends in the area. However, there were a few local Sunnis who supported his [radical Islamist] fervor and treated him with a great deal of respect.”

The article said Fazeli was a “refugee” brought to Portland by Catholic Charities in 2009. He was born in Iran and raised a Shia Muslim, but “self-identified” as Arab and not “Iranian.” What a suspicious phrase that is. Was he born Persian, which is a different, majority-ethnic group in Iran? Faze also identified as a Sunni Muslim, a branch of Islam which comprises about 9% of Iran’s population, but he was afraid of being arrested so he “fled” to Syria, a puppet state of Iran where a civil war was raging between Sunnis and Shiites. How does that make sense? Syria would be the last place to go for “refuge.” Was he perhaps interested in joining Sunni terrorists like ISIS and al Qaida which were fighting the Shia in Syria?

Then he “fled” Syria, arriving as a “refugee” in Philadelphia in 2009, and “came to the Portland area through Catholic Charities Refugee and Immigration Services,” according to the Press Herald. The article goes on to say: “Catholic Charities in Portland said Fazeli tried to receive social services [welfare] from the organization but was told that because he had come to Maine from another U.S. city after he’d immigrated to the U.S., he was not eligible…”

Health officials are bowing to political correctness instead of taking obvious steps to protect New York residents from the Zika virus.

New York has more Zika cases – 579 so far – than any other state. Officials warn pregnant women and their sexual partners not to travel to Zika-infested regions, because the virus causes horrific birth defects. But babies aren’t the only ones in danger. New research suggests adults may also suffer permanent brain damage after being bitten by a mosquito carrying Zika.

That’s reason enough to avoid travel to and from the Dominican Republic, the source of more than half the cases, or Puerto Rico, which is also Zika-infested.

So can New Yorkers feel safe by staying home and avoiding sex with a partner who’s been to a Zika-troubled region? For the moment, yes – but that could change with a single mosquito bite. The danger is that a tiger mosquito – local to the New York area – bites one infected person and then spreads the virus by biting other people.

That hasn’t happened yet, as far as we know. But more people coming to New York infected with Zika increase the risk local tiger mosquitoes will bite them and begin spreading the infection.

Epidemiologists say that risk is “considerable,” meaning 50-50. So why aren’t city health officials trying to slow the pace of Zika-infected arrivals?

Political correctness. “It won’t serve New Yorkers well if we create the impression that Zika is a Dominican problem or a Puerto Rico problem or a Guyana problem,” says Health Commissioner Mary Bassett.

Oh really? The goal should be to keep it from becoming a New York City problem.

Just to be clear, race and ethnicity have nothing to do with it. It’s geography. American citizens who travel to Zika hot spots as tourists put us in as much danger on their return as immigrants bringing it in. About 5 percent of those entering the United States who get tested for Zika test positive.