My girl, who was raised to be politically liberal, has defected, and become somewhat of a "Republican activist." Having accompanied her to a few events, I've eaten spaghetti, met a few Republican candidates (rather ordinary people, about half were women) and their campaign managers (one was married to a drummer for local rock bands) and their supporters (a somewhat older crowd).

Although they're mostly nice people, and I'm sure we had many things in common, the biggest difference I noticed was this: There was lots of talk about lower taxes, and government intrusion into business. And I think that's important -- but I'm far more interested in the social questions: how government keeps the poor poor, how government-funded programs divide people up and put them at each other's throats, how affirmative action destroys hopes of minorities, how our very freedom of speech and thought is currently under relentless attack.

Meanwhile, I've also been honored that a few people from "the opposite side" at work have taken the chance to enter into non-hateful political dialog. Both my regular readers know that I crave the chance to get into substantial, principled conversations with my political opposites, to better understand where they're coming from and how they see things.

I had mentioned human trafficking as an issue where non-/bi-partisans support was important and expected. My friend remarked that if I was against human trafficking, I should be opposed to local (Colorado) Republican Congressional candidate Bob Schaffer. (Other than knowing the Republicans I'd met supported him, I didn't know the first thing about Schaffer.)

"Look up Bob Schaffer and Palau", my friend hinted. (I'm now pretty sure he actually meant "Saipan" -- part of the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands (CMNI).) My friend implied Schaffer had defended and protected human trafficking and forced abortions because he was paid off by Jack Abramoff. If I cared about human trafficking, there's no way I should support Bob Schaffer. I promised him that I would look into those allegations.

After having done so -- having read quite a bit from both sides -- I now wonder how much he himself looked into it. Indeed, as I read evidence each side presented, I realized I was witnessing a textbook smear operation.

First, the charges:

The Denver Post followed up, noting that in 1999, Schaffer and his wife went on a "fact-finding" trip to the Mariana Islands, which was arranged at least in part by the firm of currently-jailed former lobbyist Abramoff, whose clients included the textile factory owners who have long fought efforts to reform labor and immigration laws on the U.S. Commonwealth....

"Schaffer and his wife stayed for free at a palm-studded beach resort and, besides factories, also toured historical sites and met with clients of Preston-Gates, Abramoff's firm," according to the Post, citing congressional records. The congressman and his wife also went parasailing.

Which brings us to this week. After multiple stories appeared about Schaffer's holding the Mariana Islands guest worker program up as the ideal, he claimed during a press conference that he was "disgusted" by the tone and tenor of the Post's coverage of his trip (the conservative Republican didn't go into his positions on the well-documented incidents of forced abortions, child prostitution and slum conditions on the island).

(More charges here, here, and here, for those who might be deeply interested.)

As someone once said, every charge sounds good until you hear the other side (here, here and here, or just google "bob schaffer saipan") and that's when it all began to unravel.

To make a fairly long and involved story short: Bob apparently went to the island to investigate charges of forced abortions and prostitution. Yes, he freely admits the flight arrangements were made by a lobbying firm named Preston-Gates who, yes, at the time did employ Jack Abramoff. (Who would, years later, while at a completely different firm, engage in unethical practices.)

His critics helpfully scanned in his five-day itinerary (pages 1, 2, and 3) which, if you read it (did they???), actually begins to testify against their charges. For one, contrary to the account I quoted above, which implied exactly otherwise, there are numerous meetings with local workers, local community and church leaders, visits to a camp of "illegal Chinese migrants", and a meeting with the local US Department of the Interior representative. And since some of the charges of human rights violations were alleged to have come from the Catholic church in the area, it's also important to note that he appears to have tried to arrange a meeting with the local Catholic Bishop.

Ross Kaminsky looked further into the story:

It has been confirmed to me by multiple sources that Schaffer explicitly refused to follow a schedule of factory visits proposed by the CNMI government or the garment industry. Schaffer did his own research on garment factories on Saipan and set his own schedule, particularly trying to visit factories where trouble might be found....

Because Schaffer and his team intentionally went to factories without giving them advance warning, one factory initially refused to allow Schaffer and his wife in, not believing Schaffer to be who he claimed. They relented after a phone call verified Schaffer’s identity.

Additionally, according to notations made by Schaffer, he met with an attorney representing plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against garment companies, as well as meeting with the workers themselves and following up on their complaints. According to Schaffer, he also “tracked down workers who had participated in an anti-CNMI public demonstration” so he could speak with them about their grievances.

Isn't that precisely what a person investigating such charges should do?

the problem here was apparently that Schaffer, in the end, failed to agree with those who had charged that the factories were forcing workers to have abortions, holding them as slaves, and forcing them to engage in prostitution. (Indeed, as Kaminisky points out, since Schaffer is a devout Roman Catholic, it would be very strange for him to be working hard to defend forced abortion and prostitution!)

Kaminisky also reports about another concerned citizen who went to CMNI to investigate the same charges (as related to her by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI). After obtaining a translator, and meeting with many groups of workers, she also could find no evidence of such.

According to Lafferty, after learning more of the business issues surrounding the CNMI’s garment industry, “it dawned on me – this is all about minimum wage and unions. It really ticked me off that Akaka’s staff tried to play us like that.” She told Akaka’s legal counsel that “this was a minimum wage issue and he was less than honest.” Lafferty recognized that “they tried to send me on a wild good chase. But I was smart enough to find a translator I could trust.” She also noted, with a bit of social conservative irony, that “you had to stop in Hawaii on the way back from the CNMI. I couldn’t believe how many hookers there were on the streets in Honolulu, right under Akaka’s nose. What a perfect end to the trip.”

And yes, Schaffer did stay one extra night beyond his planned itinerary, and did stay at a nice resort that one evening. I frankly admit I would have too -- and suspect you, my reader would have as well, given the chance. As long as it's not a majority of the stay (it wasn't), and as long as it wasn't paid for improperly (I see no charges to that effect), I find nothing wrong with such. (And I find it a particularly ironic charge, given Democrat's ongoing disinterest in Charlie Rangels' involvement with tropical resorts.)

Finally, what of the individuals who originated the charges of human trafficking?

The Post article notes a “U.S. Interior Department investigation” pointing toward workers being forced to get illegal abortions or lose their jobs. Beyond the lack of evidence found by Schaffer to support these claims, I will show in a later article in this series that the relevant section of the Interior Department at that time was staffed by partisan political activists who were referred to the Justice Department for prosecution for their illegal partisan activities aimed at attacking CNMI’s labor laws and helping Democratic political organizations campaign against Republicans.

The Congressmen who really didn't care about human trafficking weren't those who went out to investigate it firsthand. They're those who remained home and comfortably went with the flow -- as if human trafficking could really be solved by passing a minimum wage law! (What -- they're holding people as slaves, but would immediately comply with another Federal regulation???) Schaffer seems to have tried to do the right thing here, yet was portrayed in the exact opposite light in the press.

The charges appeared to be part of a desire to mandate minimum wage laws in CMNI. And I understand that some people think that's a good thing (I don't, as significant wage increases would leave the islanders unemployed) but it shocks me they'd resort to such tactics to accomplish their political aims. Furthermore, such tactics diminish the importance of human trafficking, just a woman who falsely cries "rape" helps wrongly discredit the testimony of other real rape victims.

This, in nutshell, is why the modern left disturbs me so. It isn't enough to merely argue for minimum wage: one has to lie about what's going on, and defame one of the people who actually tried to do the right thing about the charges.

I hate being lied to, so I started to distrust those who lied to me time and again. This incident is just another among so, so, many I encounter; a seemingly unending flow of lies, deception, and personal destruction.

I only wish that my many Democratic friends and relatives would do likewise.