Last year, Michael Farris, homeschool advocate and founder of the powerful Home School Legal Defense Association, was instrumental in blocking the ratification<\/a> of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), despite its complete irrelevancy<\/a> to homeschooling issues. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is now\u00a0bringing the treaty back to the Senate<\/a>, hoping to ratify it in this current session. Last week, Michael Farris was a witness for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, testifying on why he thinks this treaty would be bad for the U.S.<\/p>\n You probably didn\u2019t watch Farris\u2019s testimony last week, and his followers probably didn\u2019t either. In fact, Michael Farris is banking on them not having seen it. You see, Michael Farris hopes they will accept his description of the hearing<\/a>, of how mean and unbalanced it was, and how vicious the \u201cDemocrat\u201d senators are. Farris hopes his followers will call their senators and demand that they vote no on the treaty. And of course, Farris hopes his followers will donate money to HSLDA in their outrage!<\/p>\n The problem is that Michael Farris\u2019s description does not match up with reality. While Farris told his followers that the Democratic senators sought to \u201cvilify and destroy\u201d him, in actual fact many of Farris\u2019s legal analyses were respectfully addressed and effectively countered by the other witnesses and the senators. Furthermore, Farris\u2019s demeanor throughout the hearing was aggressive and at some points incredibly rude and disrespectful. And the \u201cpetty, silly, and personal attack\u201d that Farris decries was, in fact, a response to Farris\u2019s appeal to his own authority, one which he has used both here and previously to brush off criticism of his legal analysis.<\/p>\n In this post I will examine Farris\u2019s description of the hearing, what actually happened, and some of the issues involved.\u00a0I will look at Farris\u2019s exchanges with Senators Boxer, Durbin, and Menendez, and contrast what actually took place with how Farris portrayed what took place in a fundraising letter he sent out to HSLDA members later that day.\u00a0In my next post I will delve more into the legal issues at hand. I believe that this is an issue you should care deeply about, because the political power that Farris has is predicated on his position as leader of HSLDA, and his rejection of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is entirely consistent with the philosophies he\u2019s built his political base around\u2014and also because there are compelling reasons for the U.S. to sign the CRPD<\/a>.<\/p>\n Of course, you don\u2019t have to take my word for any of this. You can watch and read Farris\u2019s testimony for yourself and judge whether or not my description is accurate. First, you can watch the Senate hearing here<\/a>\u00a0(or here<\/a>). Second, you can read my own transcription<\/a>, which I made while watching it, my curiosity piqued by Sarah Jones\u2019 description<\/a>\u00a0(my transcription is not perfect and may have some flaws or typos). I was not able to transcribe the entire two-and-a-half hours of the panel, and therefore I have not included all of the arguments or debate on the CRPD, but I was able to cover all of Farris\u2019s testimony, as well as his back-and-forth conversations with Senators Corker, Boxer, Durbin, Johnson, Menendez, and Coons.<\/p>\n Before I dissect Farris\u2019s arguments and his back and forth with the various senators, I want to lay out some basic, noncontroversial, unchallenged facts about the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD):<\/p>\n While Farris has characterized the pro-treaty side as being \u201cDemocrat\u201d and \u201cleft\u201d, this is not actually the case. The CRPD has bipartisan support in the Senate, with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all being in favor of the treaty. While Farris noted that two of the witnesses were \u201csitting senators\u201d, he neglected to note that both Mark Kirk (IL) and Kelly Ayotte (NH) are sitting Republican senators, or that the other pro-treaty witnesses included Tom Ridge, a Republican who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, and Richard Thornburgh, a Republican who served as Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush. The Americans with Disabilities Act, on which the CRPD is based, was signed in 1990 by President Bush and passed the House by a vote of 377 to 28 and the Senate with a vote of 91 to 6. Several of the\u00a0at the committee hearing made note\u00a0of the remarkably bipartisan nature of this bill, and made it clear that supporting the rights of the disabled and of veterans is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue, but a human rights issue. Farris\u2019s characterization of the treaty as a plot by \u201cthe left\u201d is thus both fundamentally dishonest and a cheap ploy to get donations from people who dislike the \u201cDemocrat\u201d party.<\/p>\n With this background, we now turn to the substance of Farris\u2019s characterization of his interactions with three Senate Democratic committee members. Farris described his back-and-forth by Senator Boxer this way:<\/p>\n After we gave our introductory remarks, the personal attacks began. Senator Barbara Boxer (CA), the second most senior Democrat senator on the committee, asked me if HSLDA or ParentalRights.org has ever raised money during our battle against UN control over children and families with disabilities. Instead of asking her if she had ever raised money during her campaigns for U.S. Senate, or whether any of the pro-UNCRPD organizations raise money for their fight, I explained that HSLDA is funded by you, our members. ParentalRights.org is funded solely by donations.<\/p>\n Senator Boxer\u2019s attack, however, was not really against me or HSLDA. It was against you, and every other homeschool family who has ever supported HSLDA because you believe in our mission to defend the God-given right of parents, not faceless bureaucrats, to care for and educate our children. Senator Boxer thinks that your membership in HSLDA and your support of our critical work to defend homeschooling, support widows and single parents through the Home School Foundation, and the work of ParentalRights.org to pass a constitutional amendment makes you an evil special interest that must be vilified and defeated.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Contrast this description with what was actually said during the two minutes that Senator Boxer spent addressing Farris. You can view the relevant video here<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0read the transcript as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Boxer:<\/strong> \u201cNow, Dr. Farris, you say that you\u2019re speaking for the disabled, but your statements are directly contradicted by organizations that work every day, 24\/7, to protect disabled kids, like the United States International Council on Disabilities<\/a> who states, quote, \u2018this treaty protects parental rights and highlights the important role of parents in raising children with disabilities.\u2019<\/a> Unquote. And TASH<\/a>, you know that organization<\/a>, says quote, \u2018nothing included in this treaty prevents parents from homeschooling. This treaty embraces the spirit of the Individuals with Disability Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and all disability non-discrimination legislation.\u2019 But you, Dr. Farris, argue the opposite. You once even said, and I quote, \u2018the definition of disability is not defined in the treaty and so my kids \u2013 my kid wears glasses, now they\u2019re disabled. Now the UN can get control of them.\u2019<\/a> Well, I have to say in my opinion, that is nonsense that if a child wears glasses [Boxer touches her own glasses], then the child is considered disabled. So I wonder what is behind your fight. And I just ask this question for the record. Have you ever tried to raise funds by telling parents this treaty will limit their ability to decide what is best for their children?\u201d<\/p>\n Farris:<\/strong> \u201cSenator, our organization is funded by membership dues, not by contributions.\u201d<\/p>\n Boxer:<\/strong> \u201cSo you\u2019ve never sent out an e-mail asking for funds to fight\u2014\u201d<\/p>\n Farris:<\/strong> \u201cNo, the Homeschooling Legal Defense Association, um, is associated also with a group called ParentalRights.org. Parentalrights.org has indeed sent out fundraising emails\u2014\u201d<\/p>\n Boxer:<\/strong> \u201cThank you very much.\u201d<\/p>\n Farris:<\/strong> (overlapping) \u201cBut, Senator, the substantive answer is, the treaty doesn\u2019t ban homeschooling. What the treaty does is shift the decision-making power from the parent to the government. That is what the meaning of the best interests standard is.\u201d<\/p>\n Boxer:<\/strong> \u201cWell, that is not something that I agree with, nor do any of the organizations.<\/p>\n Farris:<\/strong> (overlapping) \u201cWell\u2014\u201d<\/p>\n Boxer:<\/strong> \u201cThank you very much.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Farris lied when he categorized Boxer\u2019s questioning as an attack on HSLDA families. Boxer was not attacking, or even coming close to attacking, any HSLDA family. She simply asked Farris a question\u2014whether he was using his opposition to the CRPD as a fund-raising cash cow\u2014that he was embarrassed to answer. She never used the words \u201cevil special interest\u201d\u2014an interesting choice of words by Farris, given that he has done more than anyone else to turn homeschooling families into a special interest group. Perhaps Farris, flushed in his residual embarrassment after his performance, accidentally admitted his private categorization of HSLDA families.<\/p>\n What Senator Boxer was actually getting at was Farris\u2019s practice of issuing bald-faced lies about the implications of the CRPD in order frighten homeschooling parents so as to raise money for his organizations. And the fact that Farris turned around and sent this letter out\u2014including a P.S. asking for money (\u201cFinally, even though Senator Boxer doesn\u2019t want you supporting the battle against the UNCRPD and for U.S. sovereignty, you can donate if you wish\u201d)\u2014is an example of his inability to understand either what Senator Boxer was getting at or that what he is doing is fearmongering and wrong.<\/p>\n For the record, this very e-mail reveals that Farris is officially sending fundraising e-mails from HSLDA.org in order to fund \u201cthe battle against the UNCRPD and for U.S. sovereignty\u201d\u2014the exact thing he denied doing just hours earlier in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when he claimed that he only sent out such emails from ParentalRights.org. Senator Boxer was onto something. Farris is indeed making inflammatory and incorrect assertions about what happened in order to raise money. Ironically, his attack on Senator Boxer justifies her line of questioning.<\/p>\n Next came Farris\u2019s mischaracterization of Senator Durbin, the Democratic senator from Illinois. Here is Farris\u2019s description of their interaction:<\/p>\n Next, Senator Dick Durbin (IL), another senior Democrat on the committee, falsely argued that HSLDA\u2019s position is that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is the threat to homeschool freedom. The fact is that HSLDA strongly supports the ADA and other laws advancing the freedom and dignity of persons with disabilities which our democratically elected representatives have passed. What\u2019s more, the UNCRPD would actually threaten parental rights which are enshrined in the IDEA [the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act]. I explained to him that it was the UNCRPD, not the ADA, which was the threat. He ignored me and persisted in stating that HSLDA believes the ADA was the threat. Logic teachers call this a straw man argument, which is used by people who do not wish to debate the merits of an issue.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Again, Farris\u2019s recollection is simply incorrect.\u00a0You can view the relevant video here<\/a>, or read the transcript as follows:<\/p>\n Durbin:<\/strong> \u201cI am just stopped cold with this argument by Mr. Farris that the Americans with Disabilities Act is going to put an end to homeschooling in America. Is that your position?\u201d<\/p>\n Farris:<\/strong> \u201cThat\u2019s not my position. My position is that the treaty changes the, the legal requirements in this country that it\u2019s just not correct to say that there is no duty to change American law in accordance with the treaty. So, since I believe there will be required to be, uh, an implementation act that complies with the requirements of the treaty I think that at that point in time that\u2019s when the problems will arise.<\/p>\n Durbin:<\/strong> \u201cMr. Farris\u2014\u201d<\/p>\n Farris:<\/strong> (overlapping) \u201cNot under the ADA itself.\u201d<\/p>\n Durbin:<\/strong> \u201cMr. Farris, the fact that the administration is not asking for an implementation act and made it clear that it\u2019s not seeking it because the Americans with Disability Act already is controlling, and has been extensively litigated, sets disability standards in our country higher than any in the world, you don\u2019t find that convincing.\u201d<\/p>\n Farris:<\/strong> \u201cThat\u2019s the same administration that\u2019s prosecuting the homeschooling family to try to expel them from the United States who came here\u2014\u201c<\/p>\n Durbin:<\/strong> \u201cUnder the ADA? Under the Americans with Disabilities Act?\u201d<\/p>\n Farris:<\/strong> \u201cNo, they came here under our law of asylum. But the question of the case is\u2014that case is also pending before the Supreme Court, and the question is\u2014\u201d<\/p>\n Durbin:<\/strong> \u201cWell, Let me just say Mr. Farris\u2014\u201d<\/p>\n Farris:<\/strong> \u201cI guess you don\u2019t want me to answer the question.\u201d *flounces back in his seat*<\/p>\n Durbin:<\/strong> \u201cI don\u2019t think you can answer because you want to talk about something other than the American Disability Act or the convention on disabilities, and that\u2019s what we\u2019re here to discuss.\u201d<\/p>\n Farris:<\/strong> \u201cThe convention with disabilities has a different legal standard than the ADA.\u201d<\/p>\n Durbin:<\/strong> \u201cI can tell you\u2014\u201c<\/p>\n Farris:<\/strong> (overlapping) \u201cThere are numerous disability organizations that say so. I include their citations in my written testimony. I\u2019m not the only one that says that. The CRPD committee agrees with me.\u201d<\/p>\n Durbin:<\/strong> \u201cAnd I would just say to you, Mr. Farris, that if we\u2019re going to have a battle of the organizations supporting or not supporting this, I think we\u2019re going to prevail. Because we have the mainstream disability organizations across America who are supporting the adoption of this convention on disabilities. And I\u2014I just, I struggle with this notion that we are somehow going to stop this effort, this effort to extend the rights to the disabled around the world for fear of something which you can\u2019t even clearly articulate when it comes to homeschooling. [\u2026] This is not going to affect homeschooling, it\u2019s very clear that it will not. And the Americans with Disabilities Act for twenty years has not affected homeschooling. I yield back my time.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Far from \u201cstating that HSLDA believes the ADA was the threat\u201d, Durbin is very clear: because the US is already bound by the ADA, which holds the US to a higher standard than the CRPD would hold the US, there will be no changes required in US law should the US ratify the CRPD. As Farris originally got involved with this treaty obstensibly in order to prevent changes in homeschooling law, this is not an irrelevant point that Durbin is making.<\/p>\n (Farris actually talks quite a bit about the Romeikes, a German family that is trying to get asylum in the U.S. on the basis of Germany\u2019s essential ban on homeschooling. I personally don\u2019t see the relevance of the Romoike family to the CRPD, and connecting the two seems to fall under the slippery slope fallacy. You can read more about the Romeike family here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n It is also clear from the video and transcript that Farris is not exactly acting with the proper decorum expected in a senate hearing. He is rude, interrupts the senators multiple times, and, when frustrated, resorts to mouthing off. Once I got over my initial shock, I found myself full of questions. Personally, I was not homeschooled, nor have I ever participated in any type of moot court<\/a>. Is this kind of display in this sort of formal setting considered acceptable for homeschooled students? For participants in moot court? Wouldn\u2019t judges dock points for display of temper? Surely Farris knows that when giving testimony as an expert witness, it is advisable not to behave like a lawyer on \u201cThe Good Wife\u201d?<\/a><\/p>\n But let us not let this distract us from Farris\u2019s legal disrespect of Durbin\u2019s very sound arguments. Durbin, a former trial lawyer, makes numerous strong legal points that poke holes in Farris\u2019s flimsy argument. For example, a large part of Farris\u2019s argument relies on the assumption that US law will need to change in order to accommodate the new treaty. As the treaty is non-self-executing, this would have to be accomplished with an Implementation Act passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. However, as Durbin pointed out, this is not necessary in the case of the CRPD. This is corroborated by the UN website<\/a> on the Treaty on Disabilities:<\/p>\n Except in the rare case that the laws in a country already conform fully to the requirements of the Convention, a State party will normally have to amend existing laws or introduce new laws in order to put the Convention into practice.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As Durbin states, the US is exactly that \u201crare case\u201d that the laws already conform to the requirements of the Convention\u2014because the Convention was based on our current disabilities law! Perhaps Farris should consider this an example of American exceptionalism in action?<\/p>\n It is also incredibly ironic that Farris describes Durbin as using a logical fallacy (\u201cstraw man argument\u201d) when in fact a large part of part of Farris\u2019s own argument against ratifying the CRPD relies on a logical fallacy\u2013the slippery slope fallacy. See for example what Farris said in response to a question by Senator Menendez about whether or not Farris views this treaty as a \u201cwedge issue\u201d (you can also view the video here<\/a>):<\/p>\n \u201cI believe that, uh, this treaty would be the first in a\u2014in a line of human rights treaties that would be coming before this treat\u2014before this committee. The committee\u2014the convention on the rights of the child\u2014Senator McCain misspoke, I\u2019m sure, earlier\u2014we have not ratified that treaty. And so, I think that would be coming next. The convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, that would be coming after that. I think that, that this treaty is the first of many treaties that would be in this, in this range, that is what is intended by that comment.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As Farris should be well aware, a slippery slope fallacy is often \u201cused by people who do not wish to debate the merits of an issue.\u201d Perhaps he would agree that it is used only by those who lack the ability to make more substantive arguments.<\/p>\n This leads us to discuss Senator Menendez\u2019 questions. Although Menendez\u2019s questioning of Farris lasted over eight minutes (you can view the full video here<\/a>), Farris seems to have only remembered a brief snippet of the exchange (which you can watch here<\/a>). In Farris\u2019s own words:<\/p>\n And finally, near the end of the hearing, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (NJ) said, by way of dismissing HSLDA\u2019s legal arguments about how the UNCRPD is binding under international law, \u201cI appreciate that you have an LLM from London which is as I understand from a distance learning course\u2026.\u201d The room packed with supporters of the treaty burst out in rude and loud laughter, forcing Chairman Menendez to gavel the room to order.<\/p>\n Again, while this was a personal attack aimed at me intended to sideline my arguments, Chairman Menendez was admitting that he had no response to HSLDA\u2019s arguments about the dangers of the UNCRPD and international law. He showed that he will resort to petty, silly, and personal attacks rather than substance.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Let me first say that I find it repugnant for anyone, regardless of where they obtained their education, to dismiss anyone else solely on the basis of their education. It is a sad truth that access to education is not equally distributed across the world, and very often access is limited to people who are already relatively privileged in money, time, and social status. Distance learning courses and degrees can be used to change this: in fact, it is very likely that due to <\/span>Article 24 of the CRPD<\/a>,<\/span> on educational rights of persons with disabilities, would lead to the increasing availability of distance-learning courses and degrees such that \u201cpersons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n However, I do not believe that this was an attempt by Senator Menendez to attack Farris in order to distract from \u201csubstance.\u201d Rather, I believe that Senator Menendez\u2019s comment about Farris\u2019s degree is justified by Farris\u2019s earlier attempt at credentialism and, in yet another logical fallacy, an appeal from authority.<\/p>\n In his opening statement, Farris said to the committee (view the video here<\/a>):<\/p>\n Turning to the issue of homeschooling, uh, I\u2019ve been criticized by many in the press for, uh, fearmongering on this topic. But I have never seen anyone write a legal analysis. It\u2019s just simply conclusions, just assertions that I have incorrectly analyzed the lawness. I have an LLM in International Law from the University of London, I have coached six\u2014excuse me, seven\u2014national championship moot court teams that debate constitutional law, I have written the legal analysis and I dare anyone to read my legal analysis and answer it with legal analysis, not conjecture and raw assertion.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Farris is the one who introduced his credentials\u2014the only person testifying to do so, and in my opinion a rather gauche move\u2014as his authority for making this legal argument. Farris, while mentioning that he did receive his LLM from the University of London, notably did not include the fact that it was from the distance-learning program, leading the casual viewer to believe that Farris attended the University of London in-person, rather than through the distance-learning program.<\/p>\n In fact, this is something of a pattern for Farris. His bios on both HSLDA.org and ParentalRights.org mention the LLM from the University of London but do not indicate that it was a distance learning program. He also represented himself this way to a reporter from the Boston Globe<\/a>:<\/p>\n Farris, meanwhile, stood by his assertion that he understood the treaty better than Republican supporters such as Thornburgh. Farris, a graduate of Gonzaga University School of Law, said he has better legal training when it comes to treaties.<\/p>\n \u201cI have an LLM in international law from the University of London,\u201d Farris said, referring to a postgraduate degree that is similar to a master\u2019s program. Asked for details, Farris said he didn\u2019t go to London for the degree; it came in a \u201cdistance learning\u201d course and culminated in a proctored exam at a local community college.<\/p>\n \u201cHe is just flat wrong,\u201d Farris said of Thornburgh\u2019s sworn testimony that the treaty won\u2019t change US law. \u201cIf he wrote that on an international law exam, at any law school, he would fail.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Farris is misrepresenting himself and his law degree in public all the time, and yet he uses this misrepresented law degree as the authority backing his legal opinions. Does Farris believe that there is a distinction between \u201cUniversity of London\u201d and \u201cUniversity of London, distance learning program\u201d? If not, why does he continually forget to mention the type of program he went through?<\/p>\n In short, I believe that contrary to Farris\u2019s account, Menendez was not making fun of Farris\u2019s degree at all. He was instead making fun of Farris\u2019s appeal to authority. If Farris was honest about the provenance of his degree, if he did not so frequently use it as a justification for his legal theory, then Farris would not be able to be so easily and frequently embarrassed by anyone pointing out the actual program he attended. And if Farris\u2019s legal arguments were stronger, he would not need to resort to the fallacies of credentialism and appeals from authority at all\u2014which is, by the way, yet another fallacy.<\/p>\n (As a side note, Farris complained on his Facebook account after the hearing that \u201cthey attacked me personally for \u2018fear-mongering,\u2019 misrepresentation, fund-raising, political motives, and having earned an LLM through distance learning.\u201d As I listened to the video of the entire conference, I kept count: the only reference to \u2018fearmongering\u2019 made during this Senate hearing was the above reference made by Farris himself. That said, I myself prefer to interpret this as Farris accusing himself of fearmongering.)<\/p>\n Perhaps it\u2019s because he was so embarrassed with the jibe about his degree, but Farris does not seem to have understood any of Menendez\u2019s actual legal points, some of which will be discussed in my next post. As a matter of fact, Menendez actually states Farris\u2019s position more clearly than Farris is able to articulate it: \u201cyou argue that the treaty creates obligations others do not see, and then you suggest that the United States must follow your interpretation as in terms of ratifying the treaty.\u201d In short, Menendez does<\/em> engage with Farris\u2019 legal arguments and legal reasoning.<\/p>\n Menendez goes on to say:<\/p>\n \u201cI think that where we have a fundamental disagreement here, is that under the Constitution, the President and the Senate determine our obligations under international treaties and therefore the reservations, understandings, and declarations are the resolution and consent\u2014are what are binding.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Farris is welcome to all the opinions he likes\u2014that\u2019s his Constitutional right as an American. But his opinion of legal theory is not considered binding. The Senate determines the boundaries of the reservations attached to the treaty\u2014this is its Constitutional duty under Article II, Section 2<\/a>. In Farris\u2019s attempt to protect the United States from encroachments on its sovereignty by the UN, he seems to be ignoring the parts of the Constitution which guarantee the American people freedom from him<\/em>.<\/p>\n But don\u2019t just let Senators Boxer, Durbin, and Menendez convince you that Farris\u2019s arguments are ridiculous. I may not have a law degree, but I\u2019m willing to do a little bit of legwork when it comes to research. Farris claims again and again that his opponents have attacked his motives or his degrees rather than attacking his actual evidence\u2014a claim that is false, as we have seen. Farris also continually pads his arguments with citations from other legal scholars, using these experts as a buoy to support his claim that his interpretation of the CRPD is the correct one. In my next post, I will do what Farris urges<\/a>\u2014but what I don\u2019t think he actually expects anyone to do. I will read the experts he cites to back up his interpretation\u2014and I will do so in their original context.<\/p>\n If you live in one of these states, please call your senator and ask them to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). As long as the US refuses to ratify the CRPD, we look silly and backward and provide other nations with an excuse for refusing to sign the treaty or refusing to implement it. We need to lead by example, and ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is part of setting that example.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/166\/2013\/11\/Michael-Farris.png\" "\\"Michael")
<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\nBackground<\/h2>\n
\n
Barbara Boxer\u2019s \u201cAttack\u201d<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/166\/2013\/11\/Boxer.png\" "\\"Boxer\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
Senator Durbin\u2019s \u201cMisunderstanding\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/166\/2013\/11\/Durbin.png\" "\\"Durbin\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Senator Menendez\u2019s \u201cDismissal\u201d\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/166\/2013\/11\/Menendez.png\" "\\"Menendez\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Call Your Senators!<\/strong><\/h2>\n