Beyond a Sad Day In America


Justin Smith addresses the immorality of various States passing abortion laws allowing the murder of full term babies. God have mercy on America.

 

JRH 2/4/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

******************

Beyond a Sad Day In America

The Monstrous Abortion Laws 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/2/2019 8:00 PM

 

Deuteronomy 30:19 ~ I have set before you Life and Death and Cursing; therefore Choose Life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

 

It is beyond a sad day in America, when we witness illegitimate “laws” and infanticide, that allow a full term baby capable of living outside the womb to be murdered on its way through the birth canal, if a woman so chooses for any reason. We’re witnessing a deliberative body of several state legislatures, swayed by radical, demonic abortionists in the Democratic Party, from New York to Virginia and Rhode Island to Vermont, among many others, make conscious, premeditated decisions to legalize murder, and, as a rule, they prefer to sign a baby’s death warrant rather than seek alternatives that protect both the unborn child and the woman, the mother to be.

 

The Democratic Party and its followers seem to have taken a page from the writings of Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, Josef Mengele, Margaret Sanger and the March 1st 2012 Journal of Medical Ethics, that I noted on March 12th 2012 in ‘Choose Freedom … Choose Life’. Abortion has long been used to destroy family units to ensure government power and control, and today we are seeing Malthusian eugenics make a resurgence, along with the monstrous suggestion that a child, any child, does not have a moral right to life AFTER its birth.

 

Thankfully, Virginia’s infanticide bill failed, and in the course of events, a video of delegate Kathy Tran explaining  how her bill would allow abortion, as the expectant mother was in the middle of contractions, ignited fiery controversy. Tran later acknowledged that her law would have run afoul of existing anti-infanticide laws.

 

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, further inflamed America with his comments days after New York Andrew Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act that allows late term abortion “at any time” to “protect a patient’s life or health”. The RHA also repealed protections for born babies that survive failed abortions, and other states, like Rhode Island are following suit and introducing bills that would repeal bans on partial-birth abortion.

 

Yes. Don’t let a little thing like the baby actually exiting the mother’s womb stop anyone from murdering it.

 

On January 30th, Governor Northam spoke with DC’s WTOP Radio, in reference to failed abortions. According to Northam, the baby is out of the womb, the umbilical cord cut, and lying on a table next to the woman’s bed, and after a discussion between the doctors and the woman, the baby could be killed in the same manner a full-term baby is killed in a partial birth abortion. The baby’s brains are sucked out through a vacuum until her head collapses, even though just moments earlier she was crying, instinctively longing to be held and fed.

 

Medical experts such as Dr. Omar Hamada recently stated, “There’s absolutely no reason to kill a baby before delivery in the third trimester”.

 

It is a shame that the majority of abortionists don’t have the same epiphany as Dr. Anthony Levatino had years ago. His testimony on May 17th 2012, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) should be required reading for all high school youths. He spoke of the Sopher clamp with its ragged rows of jagged teeth made for clamping and crushing tissue and of the white fluid that leaves the woman’s cervix after the baby’s brain has been crushed — a procedure he had performed over 1200 times between 1981 and 1985. And then, he tells how his adopted daughter, Heather, was hit by a car and killed on June 23rd 1984, which prompted him to reject doing any more abortions.

 

Dr. Levatino, encouraged by a Catholic bishop, now tells everyone: “When you lose a child, life is different. Everything changes … the idea of a person’s life becomes very real. It is not an embryology course anymore … it’s your child buried … I couldn’t even think about a D&E abortion anymore.”

 

Continuing his Congressional testimony, he gives one example of saving a woman’s life by “terminating her pregnancy” through a Cesarean section; mother and baby did well afterwards. And he ends his testimony noting: “During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by ‘terminating’ pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.

 

Leftist abortionists can tout baby murder as in the interest of women’s health all they wish, but the facts and their own contradictions belie their assertions. These new laws, like New York’s, allow non-physicians to perform abortions; they dismiss research that reveal the physical and psychological damage women incur from abortions; they refuse to inform young women about the risks associated with an abortion, and they do not counsel them on the option of adoption. These abortionists cloak their true agenda in the euphemism of “choice”.

 

No question exists that a partially delivered baby is a human being, although some will argue that it’s not so cut and dried early on in the pregnancy. At forty weeks, there is absolutely no reason to prevent the UnBorn Child from claiming his or her God-given right to life, which supersedes the woman’s vacuous right to privacy.

 

The Leftist position is morally repugnant, and goes against the grain and most Americans’ belief in protecting innocent life. They believe baby murder to be perfectly acceptable in their defense of abortion rights, and even so, they try to pretend they hold the moral high ground. Surely a viable baby is innocent, too.

 

These latest laws are atrocious to human beings, and they are nothing short of eugenics, nothing less than infanticide manifested in evil human selfishness in the ugliest way imaginable, and a fundamental shift in America’s conscience. The red radical Democratic Party makes a big show of empathy for the weak and marginalized, and yet, few if any shed a tear for the slaughter of millions of UnBorn Children, the most vulnerable among us. And this is the most tragic and complete denigration of America’s founding spirit of righteousness.

 

Roe v Wade is only an activist ruling made by the Supreme Court. It is not “the law of the land” as many Leftists suggest, and it is certainly not settled “law”.

 

On the federal level, Americans must stop allowing any majority of activist Black Robes to circumvent the U.S. Constitution by finding “new rights” within the Constitution that require a flight of fancy to discover. Only Congress can actually make law, and Congress needs to restrain the Court to its proper role and ignore Roe v Wade and also move to make abortion illegal across the country, except, in the most rare of circumstances, when a young mother’s life is truly endangered by the pregnancy, and she already has small children.

 

“There are times which we attempt to compromise in order to bring two opposing sides together for the benefit of all concerned.

 

There are other times when we are presented with a clear and distinct watershed. The opposition has as its only purpose to impose their will on all without compromise, without apology, and without recourse to the opposed.

 

It is at these times we must be courageous, stand firm, and fight. That time is now!” ~ Francis Schaeffer / ‘The Great Evangelical Disaster’

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The Baby Murder Act


Abortion is a horrendous act of murder perpetrated on an unborn life PRIMARILY for the purpose preventing unwanted pregnancies from promiscuous consensual sex.

The only potential caveat for an acceptable abortion is to save the life of the mother for whatever the legitimate medical reason in existence. There are other caveats that are a matter controversy among Pro-Lifers related to rape, incest, physical/mental disabilities and/or other unborn maladies I can’t think of. BUT those controversial matters for abortion are miniscule compared to the downright genocidal taking of unborn life for the sake of unwanted pregnancy due to promiscuous copulation (92% in the USA).

 

Pro-Life Biblical Perspective:

 

 

 

 

With this in mind, Justin Smith addresses New York State’s full term genocidal unborn baby-murder act.

 

JRH 1/28/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

*********************

The Baby Murder Act

New York Mandates a Culture of Death

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/27/2019 8:13 PM

 

Abortion is nothing less than the murder of Unborn Children, Babies, and on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, January 22nd 1973, the Empire State of New York has just passed its abominable Baby Murder Act, the “Reproductive Health Act“, that attempts to give legitimacy to this abominable, heinous and horrific practice, by calling abortion a “fundamental right”. This act stands in direct contravention of the virtues and principles, that built America, often referenced as a “shining City on the Hill”, and there are consequences for these actions, which are unacceptable under any set of circumstances. We must protect the lives of the Unborn Children.

 

New York was already doing a fine job of slaughtering the innocent Unborn, under its “archaic abortion law, as described by the secular Leftist media, as it aborted twice the number of babies as the national average — one baby aborted for every two that were born with more black babies murdered in the womb than brought to birth. Only a blood lust could demand such a heinous law be expanded.

 

Shortly after passage, Sarah [née] Ragle Weddington, an attorney who represented Norma “Jane Roe” McCorvey in the original case, excitedly exclaimed, “To see New York pass a bill so that right is protected is just a dream come true.” Curiously and ironically, one never hears the Leftstream media mention that Norma McCorvey became Pro-Life in 1995 and dedicated her life to opposing Roe v Wade.

 

In celebration of their demonic act and their hate for life, that allows a baby to be murdered the very day up to its birth, a full 9 months, Governor Andrew Cuomo and his fellow Democrats lit the One World Trade Center in a bright neon pink light, as they delighted and cheered along with their mainstream media tools.

 

One World Trade Ctr lit pink to honor NY Abortion Law (flickr-governorandrewcuomo – Fox News)

 

Must I state the obvious. Taking the lives of a babies right up until the day they could be delivered alive IS NOTHING TO CELEBRATE. IT IS PURE EVIL.

 

Charlie Daniels tweeted: “The NY legislature has created a new Auschwitz dedicated to the execution of a whole segment of defenseless citizens. Satan is smiling.”

 

As Lifesite noted: “Declaring abortion a ‘fundamental right’ opens the door to invalidating ‘any limits on abortion’ and ‘mandating’ that everyone take part in the culture of death … and [having] the effect of ‘authorizing infanticide’ …”.

 

Bishop Edward Scharfenberger of the Albany Diocese observed that the law appears to be a step toward criminalizing anyone who does not subscribe to the Democratic Party’s Anti-Life platform. How will this illegitimate “law” affect Pro-Life nurses and doctors and health facilities and maternity services? The Good Bishop offered: “If abortion is deemed a fundamental right … I shudder to think of the consequences this law will wreak … Will being pro-life one day be a hate-crime in the State of New York?”

 

Although all abortions are wrong, I and many other Americans would offer this caveat. Young women surviving rape and mothers with young children at home and truly endangered by their pregnancy can be forgiven, for choosing this path. I would hope and pray that in the former case, a woman might be strong enough to want her baby, or at least let the baby live and place it for adoption.

 

The moral bankruptcy of New York’s new law is fully exposed in the last phrase of this sentence: “An abortion may be performed by a licensed … practitioner within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

 

Does this mean that any woman can now have an abortion if the day before delivery of her baby she feels that she can’t handle the stress of raising a child?

 

In New York, it was already the law that doctors and nurse practitioners could abort babies through nine months to save a mother’s life. “Health” has been added to this act only to ensure that women have a greater access to abortion, should they desire one for any reason. Based on political jargon, the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with “reproductive health” and it fundamentally devalues the life of any Unborn Child.

 

It’s the child’s mere existence, not the pregnancy, that poses the alleged health risk. The pregnancy can be concluded by delivering the baby alive, rather than murdering him or her. One should be able to see the glaring sophistry in the argument for abortion.

 

Lifesite expands the discussion with this explanation: “The bill is also part of a broader trend of left-wing states codifying a ‘right’ to abortion in anticipation of a future Supreme Court ruling that could reverse Roe, restoring states’ ability to ban abortion themselves and automatically banning it in the handful of states with pre-Roe bans still on the books.”

 

If You’ve never heard any former abortionists speak on the topic, the baby is injected with a poison directly into his little skull or body, and his developed nervous system allows him to feel and suffer through an agonizing and painful death. After writhing and suffering in agony, sometimes it is discovered at the next day ultrasound that the baby hasn’t died, and he is injected again. He’s soon delivered dead by the woman who has no claim to the word “mother”. [Blog Editor: Various graphic methods of abortion]

 

Abortion has never been about “reproductive health”, rights or freedom. It is about self-centered feminist women who want to walk away “clean” from an unwanted pregnancy just as some worthless men can physically walk away. However, the women are the ones left to deal with the physical and mental trauma of miscarriage and abortion, and even though many women think abortion is crucial to their cause, they and their children are the ones most hurt by atrociously immoral bills, like New York’s.

 

America must not allow loosely constructed laws that contain “health” undefined to deceptively use a multitude of reasons, like mental and emotional stability, age and family situation as factors in any abortion. If such is now the case, a depressed woman who loses her job and her boyfriend or husband at nine months pregnant can now easily get an abortion in New York, if she so desires. No problem. This cannot stand.

 

The One World Trade Center should have been lit up Blood Red.

 

By Justin O Smith

________________________

Heads up: Justin submits posts at numerous websites & blogs with suggested titles for Editors to choose from. There is an excellent chance you will run into the same post with a different title or editing format.

 

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links and text embraced brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Shoelaces Because He Might Strangle You


There is nothing more American than the Right to protect oneself with a gun. With that in mind I discovered a Gun Rights post on the G+ Community Conservative posted by pseudonymous Sheepdog SpecOps. In no uncertain terms (maybe a little bit of a rant) stipulates any concept of gun control has zero value in self-protection.

 

Sheepdog’s thoughts were inspired by a post entitled, “Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals” by Peter Kasler on the FireArmsAndLiberty.com website. I am cross posting both the Sheepdog thoughts and the Kasler essay on this blog.

 

JRH 1/23/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Shoelaces Because He Might Strangle You

 

Posted by Sheepdog SpecOps

January 23, 2019 7:01 AM

G+ Community Conservative

 

“Shoelaces because he might strangle you” That is perfect!

But, let’s face it. Most criminals purchase their firearms on the black market, yet, the gun control laws affect the law-abiding citizens of the United States.

 

Originally shared by marcus easterling

Gun control B.S.

 

My thoughts on background checks, huge waste of taxpayers’ money.

Thomas Jefferson said, ” no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms “. If a person is so dangerous that he cannot have a firearm then he needs a CUSTODIAN! Period! Like in prison or an asylum. If a person who is so dangerous that he cannot have a firearm but is free to roam to and fro unabated. The person can purchase or make without a background check; axes, machetes, knives, bows, crossbows, spears, any kind any amount of chemicals, any kind any amount of fuel, he can drive a semi tanker full of fuel or a car, ammo, brass, bullets, gun powder, a reloader, a complete upper, a 80 % lower, magazines, triggers, an on an on an on etc. Picture a cartoon caricature all armed up. He has access to infinite arms and you’re going to pick one tool that is going to be restricted (put a minor impediment, a minor restriction, some words on paper, on one inanimate object out of an infinite arsenal) and deem yourself safe??? That is irrational. It’s delusional. You might as well have picked his shoelaces because he might strangle you. To pick one tool out of an infinite arsenal then deem yourself safe? Really. And especially to place restrictions on the tool that is most useful for self-defense?

 

Almost all the others require you put yourself in more danger by having to actually come in contact with the person.

The police department didn’t even exist until the late 1800s. And then only in a couple of large cities. And they were an auxiliary force to the people. Not pursuing criminals but as a deterrent.

 

The Founders were against such a force as they considered it a standing army. Even today the supreme Court says you are responsible for your safety. Check it out:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

So you’ve picked one tool, one inanimate object that you wish to restrict, now you’re safe? Lol, I have to ask, are you the one responsible/entrusted with your (your family’s) safety (plan)? Lmoa! [Blog Editor: For the Social Media slang challenged – like me.]

By the way, governments have killed way-way-way more people than criminals, after disarming their citizens. Check it out. (you know history) http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
(I find the one where they rounded up all the educated people and killed them, interesting & sad)

So it can’t happen to you and you’re betting your life on it, huh?

There is no such thing as safety, it does not exist in nature nor among men.

Gun control, background checks etc. do absolutely nothing. They are for blithering idiots to “feel” good. Facts not feelings.

Kings, Emperors, Caesar wasn’t safe, with their high walls, castles, armies & guards. Safety does not exist.

Being unprepared, disarmed doesn’t make you safe.

Where’s Waldo? Being able to magically predict who’s going to flip their nut & when they are going to flip their nut is also DELUSIONAL. There are literally infinite numbers of reasons for people to flip their nut. The very same reasons that a gazillion other folks have been through or worked out, that didn’t flip their nut over. It is just impossible to predict out of infinite reasons & infinite time.

Laws/consequences are for people not inanimate objects. (A gun wielding a deranged man shot…. lol!) The person should be held accountable for his actions. And cannot be dealt with till he performs those actions. He is a murderer not a shooter, the blame is on him (murderer) not the gun (shoot). The media calls them shooters. Look back before the 1960’s, the media called them murderers.

The law up until the early 1900’s was about personal injury/death. And personal property, damage/theft. Nowadays you have the government going around pretending to be the “injured party” in order to collect taxes revenue & control the people. Instead of the people controlling the government.

Ultimately you are responsible for your safety, your protection. Your spiritual fitness, getting yourself right with God.

 

Police Have No Duty to Protect Individuals

firearmsandliberty.com

+++++++++++++++++

Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals

 

By Peter Kasler

FireArmsAndLiberty.com

 

Self-Reliance For Self-Defense — Police Protection Isn’t Enough!

 

All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of “Officer Friendly” to the very last time we saw a police car – most of which have “To Protect and Serve” emblazoned on their doors – we’re encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn’t always been that way.

 

Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens – even in large cities – were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded “standing army.”

 

England’s first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens’ right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.

 

Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:

 

Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. [1]

 

Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today’s society. Police and Sheriff’s departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department “dropped” [2]157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day. [3]

 

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.

 

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

 

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

 

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

 

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as “the civil rights act”). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties’ federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

 

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.[6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged “special relationship” between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had “specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,” [7] but failed to remove him from his father’s custody.

 

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a “special relationship,” concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. “The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.” [8]

 

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a “special relationship” existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a “special relationship” to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a “special relationship” can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

 

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California’s Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: “Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.”

 

It is painfully clear that the police cannot be relied upon to protect us. Thus far we’ve seen that they have no duty to do so. And we’ve also seen that even if they did have a duty to protect us, practically- speaking they could not fulfill it with sufficient certainty that we would want to bet our lives on it.

 

Now it’s time to take off the gloves, so to speak, and get down to reality. So the police aren’t duty-bound to protect us, and they can’t be expected to protect us even if they want to. Does that mean that they won’t protect us if they have the opportunity?

 

One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.

 

Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York’s high court wrote in his opinion: “What makes the City’s position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.” [12]

 

Instances of police refusing to protect someone in grave danger, who is urgently requesting help, are becoming disturbingly more common. In 1988, Lisa Bianco’s violently abusive husband was finally in jail for beating and kidnapping her, after having victimized her for years. Ms. Bianco was somewhat comforted by the facts that he was supposedly serving a seven-year sentence, and she had been promised by the authorities that she’d be notified well in advance of his release. Nevertheless, after being in only a short time, he was temporarily released on an eight-hour pass, and she wasn’t notified. He went directly to her house and, in front of their 6- and 10- year old daughters, beat Lisa Bianco to death.

 

In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff’s 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: “What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?” Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another.

 

But certainly no cop would stand by and do nothing while someone was being violently victimized. Or would they? In Freeman v. Ferguson [13] a police chief directed his officers not to enforce a restraining order against a woman’s estranged husband because the man was a friend of the chief’s. The man subsequently killed the woman and her daughter. Perhaps such a specific case is an anomaly, but more instances of general abuses aren’t at all rare.

 

In one such typical case [14] , a woman and her son were harassed, threatened and assaulted by her estranged husband, all in violation of his probation and a restraining order. Despite numerous requests for police protection, the police did nothing because “the police department used an administrative classification that resulted in police protection being fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim has no domestic relationship, but less protection when the victim is either: 1) a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or boyfriend, or 2) a child abused by a father or stepfather.” [15]

 

In a much more recent case, [16] a woman claimed she was injured because the police refused to make an arrest following a domestic violence call. She claimed their refusal to arrest was due to a city policy of gender- based discrimination. In that case the U. S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that “no constitutional violation [occurred] when the most that can be said of the police is that they stood by and did nothing…” [17]

 

Do the police really harbor such indifference to the plight of certain victims? To answer that, let’s leave the somewhat aloof and dispassionate world of legal precedent and move into the more easily understood “real world.” I can state from considerable personal experience, unequivocally, that these things do happen. As to why they occur, I can offer only my opinion based on that experience and on additional research into the dark and murky areas of criminal sociopathy and police abuse.

 

One client of my partner’s and mine had a restraining order against her violently abusive estranged husband. He had recently beaten her so savagely a metal plate had to be implanted in her jaw. Over and over he violated the court order, sometimes thirty times daily. He repeatedly threatened to kill her and those of use helping her. But the cops refused to arrest him for violating the order, even though they’d witnessed him doing so more than once. They danced around all over the place trying to explain why they wouldn’t enforce the order, including inventing numerous absurd excuses about having lost her file (a common tactic in these cases). It finally came to light that there was a departmental order to not arrest anyone in that county for violating a protective order because the county had recently been sued by an irate (and wealthy) domestic violence arrestee.

 

In another of our cases, when Peggi and I served the man with restraining orders (something we’re often required to do because various law enforcement agencies can’t or won’t do it), he threatened there and then to kill our client. Due to the vigorous nature of the threat, we went immediately to the police department to get it on file in case he attempted to carry it out during the few days before the upcoming court appearance. We spent hours filing the report, but two days later when our client went to the police department for a copy to take to court, she was told there was no record of her, her restraining order, her case, or our report.

 

She called in a panic. Without that report it would be more difficult securing a permanent restraining order against him. I paid an immediate visit to the chief of that department. We discussed the situation and I suggested various options, including dragging the officer to whom Peggi and I had given the detailed death threat report into court to explain under oath how it had gotten lost. In mere moments, an internal affairs officer was assigned to investigate and, while I waited, they miraculously produced the file and our report. I was even telephoned later and offered an effusive apology by various members of the department.

 

It is true that in the real world, law enforcement authorities very often do perpetuate the victimization. It is also true that each of us is the only person upon whom we can absolutely rely to avoid victimization. If our client in the last anecdote hadn’t taken responsibility for her own fate, she might never have survived the ordeal. But she had sufficient resolve to fend for herself. Realizing the police couldn’t or wouldn’t help her, she contacted us. Then, when the police tried their bureaucratic shuffle on her, she called me. But for her determination to be a victim no more, and to take responsibility for her own destiny, she might have joined the countless others victimized first by criminals, then by the very system they expect will protect them.

 

Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren’t), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don’t, a fact brought home to millions nationwide as they watched in horror the recent events in Los Angeles), most often there wouldn’t be time enough for them to do it. It’s about time that we came to grips with that, and resolved never to abdicate responsibility for our personal safety, and that of our loved ones, to anyone else.

###

 

  1. Guns, Murders, and the Constitution (Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1990).

 

  1. A “dropped” call in police dispatcher parlance is one that isn’t handled for a variety of reasons, such as because it goes unanswered. Calls from people who get tired of waiting on hold and hang up are classified as “drops” as well.

 

  1. KGO Radio (Newstalk 810), 6:00 PM report, 09-26-91, and a subsequent personal interview with the reporter, Bernie Ward.

 

  1. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

 

  1. See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

 

  1. 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989).

 

  1. “Domestic Violence — When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?” Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin January, 1991.

 

  1. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.

 

  1. 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990).

 

  1. 110 S.Ct. 975, 984 (1990).

 

  1. Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958).

 

  1. Riss, Ibid.

 

  1. 911 F.2d52 (8th Cir. 1990).

 

  1. Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F.Supp.1521 (D.Conn. 1984).

 

  1. “Domestic Violence — When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?” Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin January, 1991.

 

  1. McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas, 877 F.2d409 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct.727 (1990).

 

  1. McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas, Id. at 413.

 

______________________

Shoelaces Because He Might Strangle You

Edited by John R. Houk

_____________________

Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals

 

COPYRIGHT – 1992 – Peter Alan Kasler

 

FISA Warrant to Spy on Trump Illegal


John R. Houk

© January 17, 2019

 

Glenn Simpson (left), Christopher Steele, Bruce and Nellie Ohr

 

One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to comprehend the FBI/DOJ pursuit to get a FISA warrant to spy on Donald Trump based on the Steele Dossier hoax was known by those Obama Administration Departments to be illegal.

 

BUT since the Dem Party has had a history of breaking the law and getting away with it AND under the belief Crooked Hillary would win election to POTUS on Election Day 2016, the Dems undoubtedly felt safe in lawbreaking spying on then candidate Trump. Even with proof, the Dem machine in government (aka the Deep State) under Barack Hussein Obama felt above the law.

 

I’m not certain as yet how John Solomon uncovered proof connected to an illegal FISA warrant used against Trump, but he has. Solomon has found Bruce Ohr warned FBI/DOJ the Steele Dossier was tainted and those powers-that-be proceeded anyway to get the FISA spy warrant.

 

Last night’s Hannity interviewed John Solomon, Sara Carter and Gregg Jarrett on this illegal FISA spy warrant. The general consensus was laws were broken. If laws were broken, the Dem history of zero accountability implies no prosecutions will follow.

 

If the Trump DOJ ignores the Obama Deep State plants and grows a pair, perhaps a jury formed from WE THE PEOPLE can decide guilty or not-guilty.

 

VIDEO: Ohr Warned Steele Dossier Lacked Credibility

 

Posted by John Houk

Published on Jan 17, 2019

 

Below The Gateway Pundit fills in details.

 

JRH 1/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

******************

HUGE: Top DOJ Officials Were WARNED ‘Biased’ Dossier Was Connected to Hillary – Corrupt DOJ Officials Then Went to Work For Mueller

 

By Cristina Laila

January 16, 2019

The Gateway Pundit

 

Bruce Ohr

 

According to a new report out by award-winning investigative journalist John Solomon, former top DOJ official, Bruce Ohr warned FBI and DOJ officials that Steele’s dossier was connected to Hillary Clinton and cautioned them it may be biased — weeks BEFORE they obtained a FISA warrant on Carter Page.

 

Twice-demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr briefed FBI and DOJ officials in July and August of 2016 and cautioned them about Steele’s connection to Hillary’s camp and warned them about political bias.

 

Two of the top DOJ officials, Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad then migrated to Mueller’s team to hunt down President Trump!

 

This crucial information provided to the FBI by Bruce Ohr was omitted weeks later from the FISA warrant application that the FBI submitted to the court to spy on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign through advisor Carter Page.

 

John Solomon of The Hill reported:

 

Ohr’s activities, chronicled in handwritten notes and congressional testimony I gleaned from sources, provide the most damning evidence to date that FBI and DOJ officials may have misled federal judges in October 2016 in their zeal to obtain the warrant targeting Trump adviser Carter Page just weeks before Election Day.

 

They also contradict a key argument that House Democrats have made in their formal intelligence conclusions about the Russia case.

 

Since it was disclosed last year that Steele’s dossier formed a central piece of evidence supporting the FISA warrant, Justice and FBI officials have been vague about exactly when they learned that Steele’s work was paid for by the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

 

Last year, the House Intel Committee released a 2-page FISA memo showing the dossier formed an essential part of the initial and three subsequent renewal FISA application against Carter Page.

 

The FBI claimed it was “unaware of any derogatory information” about Christopher Steele, that Steele was “never advised … as to the motivation behind the research” but that the FBI “speculates” that those who hired Steele were “likely looking for information to discredit” Trump’s campaign.

 

Bruce Ohr’s testimony to congressional investigators last summer revealed FBI and DOJ officials had no reason to speculate. Ohr told investigators that he explicitly warned the FBI officials that Christopher Steele was biased against Donald Trump and was working on a project connected to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

 

John Solomon continues:

 

“I certainly told the FBI that Fusion GPS was working with, doing opposition research on Donald Trump,” Ohr told congressional investigators, adding that he warned the FBI that Steele expressed bias during their conversations.

 

“I provided information to the FBI when I thought Christopher Steele was, as I said, desperate that Trump not be elected,” he added. “So, yes, of course I provided that to the FBI.”

 

When pressed why he would offer that information to the FBI, Ohr answered: “In case there might be any kind of bias or anything like that.” He added later, “So when I provided it to the FBI, I tried to be clear that this is source information, I don’t know how reliable it is. You’re going to have to check it out and be aware.”

 

Investigative reporter Sara Carter has the exchange between Trey Gowdy and Bruce Ohr during Ohr’s testimony revealing the names of the top DOJ officials:

 

Under intense questioning from former North Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, Ohr named the officials he informed about his contact with Steele.

 

“I spoke with some people in the Criminal Division, other career officials who dealt with some of these matters,” Ohr told Gowdy.

 

“Yes,” said Ohr. “So, I was about to tell you. One of them was Bruce Swartz, who is the counselor for International Affairs in the Criminal Division; a person who was working with him at the time, working on similar matters in the Criminal Division was Zainab Ahmad; and a third person who was working on some—some of these matters I believe was Andrew Weissmann.”

 

John Solomon points out that Bruce Ohr’s testimony about his contacts with top DOJ officials in the summer of 2016 destroys Adam Schiff’s junk counter-memo where he argued that Bruce Ohr’s contacts with the FBI began “weeks after the election and more than a month after the Court approved the initial FISA application.”

 

The FBI is required to present exculpatory evidence to the FISA court so by omitting this information, it is clear that Obama’s corrupt FBI/DOJ abused the FISA system.

_______________________

FISA Warrant to Spy on Trump Illegal

John R. Houk

© January 17, 2019

____________________

HUGE: Top DOJ Officials Were WARNED ‘Biased’ Dossier Was Connected to Hillary – Corrupt DOJ Officials Then Went to Work For Mueller

 

© 2019 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

 

Time to Remember the Forgotten Jihadist Beheader in Oklahoma Now Cleared for Execution


Prison converted Muslim Alton Nolen after asked if regretted beheading Colleen Hufford at an Oklahoma food plant:

 

“There wasn’t nothing but a trial for me. I passed it because, like I said, I felt oppressed. I knew for sure that, if I was to die right then, I was going to heaven.” He added: “I feel, you know, you know what I’m saying, if I was to die in five or 10 minutes, I’m going to heaven. That’s all that matters to me.”

 

This scum of a Muslim had his last appeal to avoid the death penalty rejected by SCOTUS on 10/1/18. Clearing the way NOT for him to go to a Muslim heaven of carnal pleasures with eternal virgin Houri hookers, but to suffer in the fires of hell where all unrepentant murderers are headed.

 

Revelation 21: 6-8 AMP:

 

And He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the one who thirsts I will give [water] from the fountain of the water of life without cost. [a]He who overcomes [the world by adhering faithfully to Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior] will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But as for the cowards and unbelieving and abominable [who are devoid of character and personal integrity and practice or tolerate immorality], and murderers, and sorcerers [with intoxicating drugs], and idolaters and occultists [who practice and teach false religions], and all the liars [who knowingly deceive and twist truth], their part will be in the lake that blazes with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

 

JRH 1/1/19

Please Support NCCR

****************

Time to Remember the Forgotten Jihadist Beheader in Oklahoma Now Cleared for Execution

 

By TODD BENSMAN

December 31, 2018

Middle East Forum

(also at The Federalist)

 

THE SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 ATTACK IN OKLAHOMA IS SOMEWHAT NOTABLE IN THE ANNALS OF MANY OFFICIALLY UNCALLED TERRORIST STRIKES IN THAT HE EMULATED A FAVORITE ISIS DEATH TACTIC NO DOUBT LEARNED ONLINE. 

 

This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially cemented the execution of America’s least known Islamic terrorist. Jihadist convert Alton Nolen is now set to be put to death in Oklahoma, likely by nitrogen gas inhalation.

The Supreme Court’s October 1, 2018 rejection of Nolen’s final death penalty appeal went unremarked upon by any news media and so, partly as a result, even I missed it. But the Nolen case is very much worth remembering along with all religiously motivated attacks that occur on U.S. soil, if not just for the victims and their survivors but for lessons that can and must be learned.

 

Nolen on death row, the forehead mark from frequent praying in his Islamic faith. Photo: Oklahoma State Penitentiary 2017

 

The September 24, 2014 attack in Oklahoma is somewhat notable in the annals of many officially uncalled terrorist strikes in that he emulated a favorite ISIS death tactic no doubt learned online: he fully beheaded a co-worker – the very beloved wife, mother and grandmother Colleen Hufford – inside the Moore, Oklahoma food processing plant where they both worked. Shouting “Alluah Akbar” throughout the attack, Nolen was using the same oversized butcher knife on the neck of a second co-worker, Tracy Johnson, when the company’s chief operations officer, a reserve law enforcement officer named Mark Vaughn, burst in with an AR-15 rifle. He shot and wounded Nolen as Nolen disengaged from his second victim and charged at him with the bloody knife.

 

Such an attack must feel a particular horror to its witnesses and, when Nolen is finally put to death, one should keep in mind what Colleen Hufford must have experienced in her last moments.

Rather than to charge this attack under federal terrorism statutes and ascribe a religious motive to it, President Obama’s U.S. Department of Justice let the local district attorney charge Nolen under state murder statues (and as an assault and battery against survivor Traci Johnson). The whole disgusting affair was quickly forgotten by the rest of the nation, government and all but those involved and some locals.

But make no mistake; This was a jihadist attack on American soil, motivated by interpretations of the Quran that are commonly preached in Wahabi mosques and cited by killers across the globe.

Some have argued that earmarking attacks aggrandize and gratify the killers. There is something to be said for that. But the Nolen attack – as well as events such as the Supreme Court’s rejection of his appeal and, one day, the execution itself – warrants our full national attention and should be properly memorialized until all related matters are finally resolved, not least for any comfort doing so can still bring the victim, survivors, and witnesses. Government acknowledgement of a repetitive motivation for killings like this, and media treatment of it, can encourage the nation to comfort those who were there and help them close the emotionally important loop of knowing WHY loved ones and innocents died, who did it and for what Cause.

But calling out Islamist religious motivation for murder portends practical benefits too. It can open the throttle on investigations that identify co-conspirators and foreign connections. Public acknowledgement and remembrance can spur suspicious activity reporting from the general public, which can roll up other cocked and loaded extremists before they too kill.

Also importantly, identification of repetitive Islamist motivation for violent acts helps homeland security authorities look inward to determine if intelligence failures occurred. Homeland security professionals learn from those what not to repeat and how to fix broken processes, to reduce the chances of future law enforcement intelligence failures, which invariably lead to funeral processions.

The Obama administration decided not to involve itself in a prosecution under federal terrorism statutes, even though Nolen, a prison convert to Islam, had filled his Facebook page with hideous ISIS propaganda and openly praised the death cult’s rise to global prominence through constant blood-letting. Nolen had just been suspended after co-workers rejected his Islamist proselytizing and demands for religious accommodations at the company, Vaughan Foods. This gave those already predisposed to downplay Islamist motivations for attacks the excuse needed to suggest workplace violence and mental illness was somehow at play, instead.

Proof of Motivation Overflowed at Trial

The 2017 trial, which received only some highly localized Oklahoma TV news coverage, decisively showed this was neither mental illness nor workplace tension drove Nolen to do what he did.

Taped police interviews of Nolen and other evidence showed Nolen was motivated by Quranic scripture and the very same well-worn extremist ideology we have seen cited for attacks across the globe, to include the 9/11 attacks. Nolen has proven unrepentant.

On September 29, 2017, a jury rejected defense arguments that Nolen was insane after hearing the evidence.

Right after the attack, for instance, police asked a very calm and collected Nolen if anyone told him to behead unbelievers. He responded that the Qur’an gave him the idea. (Qur’an 47:4 states that “When you meet the unbelievers, strike their necks.) Nolen answered: “Uh, no. I read the Qur’an. Like I say, the Qur’an is easy to understand. No one guides me but Allah.”

When asked why he beheaded Hufford, he answered: “I just feel like…I did what I needed to do. What Allah says in the Qur’an to do. Oppressors don’t need to be here. You know the Muslim is somebody who submits their will to Allah…Whatever he wants done, that’s what we do…And you know he wants us to get the oppressors out of this place.”

When asked if he regretted murdering Hufford, Nolen answered: “There wasn’t nothing but a trial for me. I passed it because, like I said, I felt oppressed. I knew for sure that, if I was to die right then, I was going to heaven.” He added: “I feel, you know, you know what I’m saying, if I was to die in five or 10 minutes, I’m going to heaven. That’s all that matters to me.”

Nolen also confirmed that he screamed “Allahu akbar” as he beheaded Hufford.

Traci Johnson testified that she ran into the next room after hearing screaming and saw Nolan standing over Hufford with a bloody knife. “When I saw the defendant, I was frozen. I couldn’t move. And I saw the knife with the blood on the knife, and he made a mad dash toward me and pushed me up against the wall and held me up with his forearm against the wall and just started splicing my neck. He was just going back and forth like he was just cutting a piece of meat.”

The hero of this tragedy is Mark Vaughan, then COO of Vaughan Foods and an Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office Reserve Deputy. When the call came that a knife attack was underway, Vaughan suited up with his weapon, ammo and first aid on a vest. Vaughan testified that he and another employee entered the building where the attack was underway and saw Nolen on top of Johnson. He testified that he called for Nolen to stop. Nolen jumped up, ran around a corner and charged Vaughan at full speed. Vaughan said he fired three rounds.

Nolen leaned against a wall and fell to the ground. Vaughan then held Nolen at bay until police arrived and took the suspect away.

Execution Date Unclear But Deserves Right-Of-Passage National Acknowledgement and Coverage

Although Nolen’s execution warrants national notice, no solid date was readily available. Oklahoma has been caught up in political wrangling with death penalty opponents and shut down the state’s supply of lethal injection drugs. Most of the state’s executions are awaiting a resolution over state plans to start using nitrogen gas. Earlier this year, the state announced it was working to develop a new execution protocol making nitrogen hypoxia the preferred method.

When this is all sorted out, politically and legally, Nolen’s turn will come and bring the state’s only possible final resolution to this episode so we can all properly move on. And when that resolution is at hand, I hope somehow the world finds out about it.

Todd Bensman is a Texas-based senior national security fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies. For nearly a decade, Bensman led counterterrorism-related intelligence efforts for the Texas Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division. Follow Todd Bensman on Twitter: @BensmanTodd

____________________

© 2019 THE MIDDLE EAST FORUM

 

MEF About

 

MISSION

 

The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats.

 

The Forum sees the region — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, corruption, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, we urge bold measures to protect Americans and their allies.

 

In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with the great advances of anarchy.

 

At home, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, activists, and publishers; and works to improve Middle East studies.

 

METHODS

 

The Middle East Forum realizes its goals through three main mechanisms:

 

Intellectual:

 

The Forum provides context, insights, and policy recommendations through the Middle East Quarterly, staff writings, public lectures, radio and television appearances, and conference calls (see below for details).

 

Operational:


The Forum exerts an active influence through its projects, including Campus Watch, Islamist Watch, Legal Project, Washington Project, Apartheid Monitor, and Shillman/Ginsburg Writing Fellowship Program (see below for details).

 

Philanthropic:


The Forum annually distributes US $1.5 million in earmarked donations through its Education Fund, helping researchers, writers, investigators, and activists around the world.

 

READ THE REST

 

YES!!! JUDGE REFUSES TO THROW LAWSUIT AGAINST MUELLER FOR CORRUPTION OUT


In this June 21, 2017 file photo, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the special counsel probing Russian interference in the 2016 election, departs Capitol Hill following a closed door meeting in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

 

Jerome Corsi filed a lawsuit against Robert Mueller for “illegal surveillance and leaking” in relation to Corsi (I’m confident Corsi isn’t the only person whose Rights were impugned). The DOJ tried to have the lawsuit tossed or at least delayed due to the government shutdown.

 

EPIC FAIL ! The presiding Judge would have none of it.

 

Here’s the story pedigree as to how I came across it: I read about on a MeWe Group OFFICIAL TEA PARTY USA (12/28/18 12:31 PM), who got it from David J Harris Jr. via Facebook (12/28/18 10:30 AM), who posted from his (i.e. Harris) website DavidHarrisJr.com though attributed to Steven Ahle (12/28/18), who excerpted from the Washington Times (12/27/18).

 

Below I am cross posting the details from the DavidHarrisJr.com website.

 

JRH 12/28/18

Please Support NCCR

********************

YES!!! JUDGE REFUSES TO THROW LAWSUIT AGAINST MUELLER FOR CORRUPTION OUT

 

By Steven Ahle

December 28, 2018

DavidHarrisJr.com

 

Jerome Corsi

 

The good guys finally won one. The DOJ tried to get the corruption lawsuit against Robert Mueller tossed out. The judge even refused a delay and said the trial will go on as originally planned. The DOJ insisted that the trial be put off because of the partial shutdown, but since the Mueller investigation isn’t being halted, that motion was nothing more than a joke. Mueller must now answer for his illegal surveillance and leaking to the media. Jerome Corsi, who brought the lawsuit applauded the judge’s ruling and says he plans to be in court for the proceeding.

 

From The Washington Times

 

Lawyers for the Justice Department requested the stay on Wednesday, potentially delaying next week’s court date indefinitely.

 

“The Department does not know when funding will be restored by Congress,” James Gilligan, acting director of the federal programs branch of the Justice Department’s civil division, wrote in the motion. “Absent an appropriation, Department of Justice attorneys are generally prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances,” Mr. Gilligan added, including “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.”

 

Mr. Corsi’s lawyer, conservative watchdog Larry Klayman, cried foul in a response filed in court within hours.

 

“Defendants’ motion is, in practice, proffered tactically for delay,” argued Mr. Klayman. “Indeed, the so called ‘government shutdown’ is only partial, and Defendants Robert Mueller and the Office of the Special Counsel, which is an integral part of the U.S. Department of Justice, is excepted in any event. Thus, Special Counsel Mueller’s prosecutors and legal counsel can, at a minimum, be present at the hearing on January 3, 2019.”

 

To stay up to date with David’s No Nonsense News, make sure to subscribe to his newsletter on his website and follow him on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr

 https://davidharrisjr.store/products/book-why-i-couldnt-stay-silent

He has also just announced that his book “Why I Couldn’t Stay Silent” is available! You don’t want to miss it! Click the tab “Book” on the Home Page on his website.

___________________

Copyright © David Harris Jr. All Rights Reserved.

 

ABOUT DAVID

 

David James Harris Jr. is a passionate pursuer of life, love, and hope, and seeks to use his platform as Founder/CEO of Uncorked Health & Wellness, Inc. to help individuals across the world lead happier, healthier lives. David has been an entrepreneur for over 20 years, launching his first business at just 20 years old. Within two years, he had turned it into a multi-million dollar company. However, he has also had a taste of the many setbacks life can bring, both personally and professionally. From this, he has learned to seek growth opportunities in every downfall that arises.

 

David is READ THE REST

 

Still a Shining City on a Hill?


John R. Houk

© December 27, 2018 – Updated 12/28/18

 

If there is a tragedy in American history, it should be a look back on the criminality that exists amidst the Democratic Party. The Dems are transforming America at all costs away from our nation’s Founding Principles and the Christian Heritage that has been the essence of a moral backbone. The Dems have committed crimes excused by the MSM to perpetuate a transformed America. The transformation tarnishes any light inspiring immigrants to become Americans based on self-reliance. Rather the Dem paradigm is to attract immigrants inspiring socialist handouts & government dependence.

 

The former moral backbone once led President Reagan to call American Heritage a shining city on a hill.

 

President Reagan spoke of people coming to America to work hard to become a part of American success and NOT promote a Socialist government dependency. The Dem transformation increasingly dims the light that has made America great. An extinguished light on a hill merely transform America into a government by ruling elitists instead of by WE THE PEOPLE.

VIDEO: Shining City Upon A Hill

 

Posted by 2Corinthians317

Published on Oct 1, 2012

 

Speech: Ronald Reagan’s Farewell Address from the Oval Office, 1/11/89

 

Music: Thomas Bergersen’s “Remember Me”.

 

“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.” — Matthew 5:14 (KJV)

 

I also like this quote writing about President Reagan:

 

Central to this hope and faith in the American people was Reagan’s belief in American exceptionalism. He restored that concept to the national vocabulary in a time when many Americans—and certainly the nation’s political, educational, and cultural elites—had lost sight of it.

 

In his election eve address in 1980, the day before he would be elected president, Reagan described his vision of America by referring to the aims of the Puritans who settled Massachusetts in the 1600s:

 

I have quoted John Winthrop’s words more than once on the campaign trail this year—for I believe that Americans in 1980 are every bit as committed to that vision of a shining “city on a hill” as were those long-ago settlers….

These visitors to that city on the Potomac do not come as white or black, red or yellow; they are not Jews or Christians; conservatives or liberals; or Democrats or Republicans. They are Americans awed by what has gone before, proud of what for them is still … a shining city on a hill.

For Reagan, as for the Puritans, exceptionalism was more than just a natural process or a product of the nation’s history and geographical position. As far back as 1952, presenting the commencement address to William Woods College, Reagan invoked the idea of America as a nation chosen by God for a special purpose: “I, in my own mind, have always thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land.”

 

Winthrop, it is crucial to note, was not saying that America is by nature great. Quite the contrary, Winthrop’s point was that the American colonies, having been explicitly founded as free, Christian states, bore a responsibility, indeed a burden, unique among the nations of the world:

 

For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God’s sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going. (RONALD REAGAN’S AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM; By S.T. Karnick; The Heartland Institute; 2/6/17)

 

AND YET America’s Dems and their duped supporters have come severely close into turning America into a cesspool of criminal elitists who have placed themselves above the rule of law.

 

The ONLY way I see a reversal of this normalized crime-ridden political curse is to at least have the Dem criminals face the decision of a jury.

 

BEGINNING WITH but not limited to Crooked Hillary and clan. The Gateway Pundit reporting on Tom Fitton’s quest to find the truth points out that President Trump’s DOJ and State Department are actively thwarting the discovery of the truth.

 

President Trump needs to step up to the 2016 campaign rhetoric and clear the way to “lock her up”. The Mainstream Media (MSM) clears little for the truth because they have shown themselves to be the propaganda wing of the criminal Dems.

 

NO MATTER how President Trump proceeds, he will be castigated by the MSM and once loyal Dem Party members in Congress. I can just say, “Screw’em and proceed President Trump!”

 

JRH 12/27/18 (Hat Tip TeaParty.org)

Please Support NCCR

**********************

BREAKING: DOJ Colluding With Clinton Email Scandal Witnesses to Thwart Court-Ordered Discovery Efforts by Judicial Watch

 

By Cristina Laila

December 26, 2018

The Gateway Pundit

 

Crooked Hillary

 

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch revealed on Wednesday that the DOJ is colluding with Hillary Clinton email scandal witnesses to thwart court-ordered discovery to stop the watchdog’s efforts to gather evidence. 

 

Judicial Watch appeared in a DC federal court last month on a motion to compel more testimony from Hillary Clinton as well as to make public video recordings of depositions of top Clinton aides such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.

 

The court ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer more questions about the setting up of her private server.

 

Hillary Clinton arrogantly answered that she set up the private server out of “convenience.”

 

Earlier this month, a federal court blasted the DOJ and State Department on Hillary Clinton’s emails and ordered a discovery plan in 10 days as to whether Hillary’s private email system was intentionally set up to evade FOIA requests and lawsuits.

 

Judge Lamberth said Hillary Clinton’s private server was “One of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

 

Specially, Lamberth ruled:

 

… the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to plan discovery into (a) whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; (b) whether the State Department’s attempts to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and (c) whether State has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests.

 

Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:

 

Although Judicial Watch refuses to back down, the Justice Department is actively working to stop the watchdog’s efforts to gather evidence in federal court.

 

Tom Fitton was furious that the DOJ is working to block their discovery efforts.

“Outrageously, this Justice Department is colluding with Clinton email scandal to stop our efforts to gather evidence in federal court. President Trump should ask this Justice Department why it’s still protecting Hillary Clinton,” Tom Fitton said Wednesday.

 

VIDEO via Judicial Watch YouTube:

 

UPDATE: DOJ Colluding with Clinton Email Scandal Witnesses!

 

Posted by Judicial Watch

Published on Dec 26, 2018

 

READ THE FULL STORY: http://jwatch.us/7QXHHT

Donate today! ►https://www.judicialwatch.org/donate/thank-youtube/

 

READ THE REST

 

You can support Tom Fitton and the Judicial Watch team by clicking here.

 

This is a breaking story…please [go to TGP] page for updates.

______________

Still a Shining City on a Hill?

John R. Houk

© December 27, 2018 – Updated 12/28/18

_____________

BREAKING: DOJ Colluding With Clinton Email Scandal Witnesses to Thwart Court-Ordered Discovery Efforts by Judicial Watch

 

© 2018 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.