Dr. Ford Passionate Assertions Don’t Match What Can be Proved


John R. Houk

© September 28, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford, left, and Brett Kavanaugh during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Sept. 27, 2018 on Capitol Hill. (Left: Melina Mara/Pool/The Washington Post; right: Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

If you watched the Dems inquisition of Brett Kavanaugh yesterday you should have noticed the Dems trying to get Kavanaugh to call for an FBI investigation to prove his innocence. Senator Grassley had to remind the Dems – over and over and over again – that the FBI does not draw conclusions in background investigations. The FBI merely finds facts and allows the government agency to decide if there are any red flags to prevent trust.

 

Kavanaugh was actually investigated by the FBI SIX TIMES with ZERO red flags EACH TIME. Obviously the Dem interview of Kavanaugh was merely to entice Kavanaugh to slip up. To the Dem frustration, Kavanaugh NEVER FELL FOR DEM BAITING!

 

One of the things that bothered me was the Dem aim to vilify Kavanaugh because of his High School portrayal of a rascally social life. Surprise – Surprise. Kavanaugh and buddies participated in juvenile antics that included – GASP – beer drinking.

 

Today, I am a committed Conservative Christian upholding the moral values of the Bible. HOWEVER, if my High School Yearbooks revealed the amount of keggers I participated in – especially as a Senior – and revealed it to my Church and expected the Church leadership to treat me accordingly in the present, I would be ostracized or given the left-foot of fellowship.

 

Vilifying the Kavanaugh of today – who has had a stellar law career for decades (unlike say porn lawyer Avenatti) – based on the antics of a popular teenage boy-Kavanaugh, was simply idiotic!

 

But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Real Clear Investigations has dug up some facts of teenage girl-Christine Blasey Ford based on her mysteriously internet-scrubbed High School Yearbook. And shock of all shocks! The teenage Christine Blasey ALSO participated in adolescent antics on an equal level (if not even higher hijinks) to Kavanaugh’s teen days. AND TODAY, I get the impression the adult Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has also developed a stellar and respected career in her field.

 

It bugs the tar out of my that the Dems outrageously tried to equate Kavanaugh’s teen past to his accomplished adult present while absolutely ignoring the same scenario for Dr. Ford. And it really bugs me that the GOP side of yesterday’s hearing let Dr. Ford’s Yearbook antics go totally unexamined as a comparison.

 

[Click to enlarge] Scribe Yearbook from Natural News

 

After watching Dr. Ford’s treated with kid gloves testimony, it was my opinion she came across as quite believable. For a moment my opinion that was a liar changed to she was mistaken. You can’t call Kavanaugh a liar because he has witnesses that he was never at such a party as described by Ford. Ford’s best friend has sworn Ford’s account never took place which was given under oath with the penalty of perjury if lied.

 

Dr. Ford has NO sworn backing for her account of being sexually assaulted. So, if it happened, she is mistaken about whom she accuses as perpetrator. BUT if you examine her High School antics, I find it possible she was coached into making a fabrication merely to prevent an Originalist Justice to serve on the Supreme Court. AND if that’s the case, Dr. Ford is a WICKED EVIL partisan Democrat.

 

Interestingly the blog CULT OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT – a source of cached Yearbook photos – was removed from Blogger. The Free Republic has a cross post of the removed blog less the photos.

 

 

 

 

 

JRH 9/28/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

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

Suppressed Blasey Ford Yearbooks Reveal Fast Times at Holton-Arms

 

By Paul Sperry

September 27, 2018

Real Clear Investigations

 

Democrats plan at Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to use the high school yearbooks of embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, which they say imply he and his prep school pals regularly got drunk and boasted of sexual conquests, to discredit what they call his “choir boy defense” against sex-assault charges leveled by Christine Blasey Ford.

 

But Ford, whose story suffers from significant gaps in her memory, wasn’t exactly a choir girl. In fact, congressional sources say her own yearbooks, among other things, present a potential issue for her and her character, and Republicans are prepared to cite them in questioning her story through the female sex-crimes expert they’ve hired.

 

A committee staffer told RealClearInvestigations, “We have her yearbooks,” which had been mysteriously scrubbed from the Web prior to Ford coming out with her allegations. “She will not make a good witness.”

 

The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that the annual class books feature a photo of an underage Ford attending at least one party, alongside a caption boasting of girls passing out from binge drinking. Her yearbooks also openly reference sexually promiscuous behavior by the girls, including targeting boys at Kavanaugh’s alma mater, Georgetown Prep, an all-boys school in the affluent Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C. Ford attended neighboring Holton-Arms School, an all-girls academy.

 

While congressional sources say Ford’s yearbooks could be an exhibit at the hearing, longtime Capitol Hill watchers caution that going after her reputation could backfire on Republicans.

 

“That’s a minefield, especially given the #MeToo movement,” one said.

 

A spokesman for Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley’s office declined to comment.

 

Other evidence indicates Ford, a popular cheerleader at the time, was immersed in an alcohol-fueled party culture and no stranger to “keg parties” in the D.C. area — or the “bar scene” along the Maryland and Delaware coast. In fact, Ford was known as a “party girl” on the Delaware shore during summer breaks, another source with direct knowledge of the congressional investigation said.

 

One report, moreover, recounts how Ford once got caught in “a romantic triangle” at Dewey Beach that ended with the two men getting into a fistfight over her.

 

At Holton-Arms, the source added, she was known by classmates, and even some parents, by a sexually derogatory nickname playing off her maiden name Blasey, suggesting she was promiscuous.

 

“She was not the wholesome Catholic girl they’re trying to portray her as,” the source said, making her claims of victimization at the hands of Kavanaugh “harder to believe.”

 

Ford and her attorney did not respond to requests for comment. But they have cast a much different narrative, suggesting Kavanaugh and other boys from Georgetown Prep aggressively targeted Ford and other reluctant girls from her school while plying them with alcohol. Specifically, Ford alleges Kavanaugh and another older boy took advantage of her at a house party somewhere in the Chevy Chase or Bethesda area of Maryland in the early 1980s.

 

She says she has suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from the alleged attack, which she says involved an inebriated Kavanaugh forcefully groping her on a bed over her clothes while clapping his hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming for help. She added that she has had to seek therapy and other medical treatment to deal with “panic attacks” and “anxiety” from the incident, which she did not report to authorities.

 

Ford cannot remember key details from that night, including the location of the house or the date of the party, while claiming to have consumed just “one beer” there. She says she told no one about the “assault” at the time, not even her close girlfriend, who she says was with her at the party, or her mother.

 

Ford claims the reason she didn’t tell her parents about almost being “raped” is that she didn’t want to get “in trouble” for drinking at a party.

 

“I did not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys,” she said.

 

But classmates said the former cheerleader, who was known as “Chrissy,” was part of the underage drinking tradition that was no secret among Maryland prep schools in the early 1980s, when the drinking age was 18.

 

Her own school yearbooks (in which parents took out paid ads) celebrated “boys [and] beer” and pictured beer bottles and beer cans and scenes of boys and girls drinking at parties. One published a photo of Ford and other girls at a Halloween party alongside a caption boasting of “pass[ing] out” after playing “Quarters” and other binge-drinking games. Her father, Ralph Blasey, was president of the local country club.

 

Neither her parents nor her two siblings have come out to voice support for Ford, and they did not sign a family letter of support for her and her claims circulated by her husband.

 

The Holton-Arms yearbooks in question, which cover her sophomore, junior and senior years, are titled “Scribe ’82,” “Scribe ’83” and “Scribe ’84.”

 

Among other things, the annual books objectified men and even talked about hiring male strippers, including one in a “gold G-string,” for sweet 16 parties. They also featured the young Holton coeds dressed as Playboy bunnies and posing seductively atop desks, school-uniform skirts hiked up.

 

One section, “While the Parents Were Out,” talked about partying with boys at area house parties where kids got so drunk they “ruined” their parents’ “heirloom Persian rugs” with vomit.

“The tenth grade taught us how to party,” the girls bragged in another section. And, “Loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene.”

 

A caption on another page talked about girls having “their choice of men” at the neighboring boys schools, including Georgetown Prep: “No longer confining ourselves to the walls of Landon and Prep, we plunged into the waters of St. John and Gonzaga with much success.”

 

Jay Martin, who went to school in the area at the time, asserted that Holton-Arms girls back in the 1980s were hardly innocent “victims” of Georgetown Prep boys.

 

“I am her age,” he said of Ford. “I went to high school next to Prep and knew lots of Holton-Arms girls. This is pure false memory syndrome.”

 

Added Martin: “One of my best women friends had Kavanaugh ask her out [and] she said he was ‘one of the nice ones.’ His mom was a judge. I mean, seriously?”

______________________

Dr. Ford Passionate Assertions Don’t Match What Can be Proved

John R. Houk

© September 28, 2018

______________________

Suppressed Blasey Ford Yearbooks Reveal Fast Times at Holton-Arms

 

© 2016 RealClearInvestigations.com. All Rights Reserved.

 

This and all other original articles created by RealClearInvestigations may be republished for free with attribution. (These terms do not apply to outside articles linked on the site.)

 

We provide our stories for free but they are expensive to produce. Help us continue to publish distinctive journalism by making a contribution today to RealClearInvestigations.

 

What is the Actual Dem Resistance to Kavanaugh?


Phone, FAX or Email your Senator to CONFIRM!

 

John R. Houk

© September 26, 2018

 

Breaking News as I was constructing this post

 

Julie Swetnick

 

A “Julie Swetnick” is now accusing Brett Kavanaugh not of sexual assault but of being one of many High School contemporaries of Kavanaugh of being a member of gang rape gangs.

 

AGAIN no corroboration or witnesses just Switnick’s word who is being represented by lawyer sleaze Michael Avenatti. The same Avenatti losing legal battles representing Stormy Daniels the porn actress who broke her nondisclosure agreement which she pocketed Trump cash. The same Avenatti who has his own legal and financial problems.

 

Even CNN (should be acronym for Communist New Network) brings up Avenatti’s criminal past in a story to potential financial involving $$$ MILLIONS:

He’s a convicted felon whose rap sheet is 15 pages long and spans four decades, according to court records. He served time in prison in the early 90s and was arrested on domestic violence charges as recently as February. (He pleaded not guilty and the case is awaiting trial). (Exclusive: How a ‘nobody’ ex-con pushed Avenatti law firm into bankruptcy; By Maeve RestonScott GloverSara Sidner and Traci Tamura; CNN; 6/1/18 Updated 8:12 PM ET)

And now as the Dems & Leftist MSM hops on the crucify Kavanaugh Train, Swetnick’s propensity for mental illness is being brought up:

In the wake of the 3rd Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick’s identity becoming public through her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, The Kuhner Report received a call from a man who identified himself as “Thomas in Boston,”  whose family knew the Swetnicks “Well” in Maryland, and discussed the known “Issues of Substance abuse,” and “Mental Issues from Julie.”   He detailed a phone call from his sister this morning, who still lives in Maryland, where she said “Can you imagine a more delusional whack job is the one that came forward against Kavanaugh?”

“Thomas” also went on to describe the[y] are where they grew up in Montgomery Village, “Quite a distance from Bethesda” and that the “Social circles” would not have interacted.  He refutes that during High School “No way that she would have encountered these same social circles, certainly not during High School.”

He did say the information he received was “Second hand,” as it came from family members, but, he also offered details of the Swetnicks and his own family that lend credence to his story.

You can hear “Thomas in Boston” below: [i.e. on WRKO-AM 680 – The Voice of Boston page toward bottom] (Family Friend” of Julie Swetnick Details Her “Issues”; posted by Kuhner Report; WRKO-AM 680; 9/26/18)

 

What we have going on here is lie after lie by Dems trying to prevent Kavanaugh’s Confirmation.

 

+++****+++++****

Steven Ahle writing at DavidHarrisJr.com, lists 10 Republican Senators who have not committed to vote for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s  confirmation to SCOTUS.

 

The Republican Party is supposed to stand for Conservative principles of governing. AND YET these GOP Senators will not go on the record to confirm Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh represents an Originalist view of the U.S. Constitution. This is as opposed to the official stand of the Dem Party that places its political principles on the so-called Living Conservative.

 

A brief description of Living Constitution:

 

In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, “living” document. Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism. [Bold text Editor’s]

 

A brief description of the Originalist Constitution or Originalism:

 

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the constitution. It is based on the principle that the judiciary is not supposed to create, amend or repeal laws but only to uphold them. The term originated in the 1980s but the concept is a formalist theory of law and a corollary of textualism. Today, originalism is popular among some political conservatives in the U.S., and is most prominently associated with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. However, some liberals, such as Justice Hugo Black and Akhil Amar, have also subscribed to the theory. Originalism is an umbrella term for two major theories, principally: ⁕The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. ⁕The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is with this view that most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated. [Bold Text Editor’s]

 

Both descriptions are from Definitions.net. It may be my imagination but it seems Definitions.net interpretation of Originalism though accurate in my opinion, is slightly dismissive. That annoys me. And so an affirmative analysis of Originalism comes Conservapedia:

 

Originalism is a method of constitutional interpretation that focuses on how a provision of a constitution would have been understood at the time of its ratification.[1]

 

The most common form is so-called “original meaning” originalism. This form that focuses on how ordinary people at the time would have understood the language of the constitutional provision. A largely-discarded form of orginalism [sic] is so-called “original intent” originalism, which focuses on what the authors of the constitution might have meant.

 

The philosophical basis of originalism is that a constitution only has force because it was approved by the people when it was ratified. Thus, the understanding of the constitution by the people who ratified it is the only valid interpretation.

 

Originalists reject the “evolving standards of decency” approach to constitutional interpretation that allows judges to effectively amend the constitution based on their own views of what the constitution “should” say. Instead, originalism is anchored in one certain interpretation. READ THE REST for even more details

 

Hmm… The concept of “evolving standards of decency” rather than a concept of “We The People” decide the rule of law by the vote is the fear that a Kavanaugh confirmation will ignore. Since Dems and Leftists in generals cannot stand that THE PEOPLE can comprehend what is good for them, Dems and Leftists would rather decide what is good for PEOPLE and what is good for society in general.

 

AND THAT IS WHY Dems in the Senate will do ANYTHING – lie, fabricate and/or rewrite laws via judicial activism – to prevent an Originalist to become a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

OBVIOUSLY fabricating accusations of rape on Judge Brett Kavanaugh is the Dem process of doing ANYTHING to transform Constitutional Interpretation away from Originalism to Living Constitution is the purpose of the incredulous character assassination happening now.

 

Kavanaugh has already gone through SIX FBI investigations in his Federal journey of working for WE THE PEOPLE. In the confirmation process Kavanaugh experienced for the Federal Judiciary and Appellate Judiciary met hardly any Dem resistance. THEN he is nominated for SCOTUS and suddenly and mysteriously a couple of ladies with a sudden memory resurgence think it might have been teen Kavanaugh in High School and his Freshman year in college involved in their sexual assault that neither women reported to the police OVER 35 FREAK’IN YEARS AGO!

 

Only an idiot or an infected Leftist ideologue could believe such accusations. Are you an idiot are a mind-diseased Leftist Ideologue?

 

Think about your state of mind when you realize that there are actually TEN Republican Senators who haven’t made up their own minds on confirming Kavanaugh for SCOTUS.

 

Below Steven Ahle lists those ten Senators including their official phone numbers. MY GOD! If you are a constituent of one of these Senators call their office to demand Kavanaugh’s confirmation!

 

  1. Susan Collins:

 

Collins Contact:

 

ph: (202) 224-2523

fax: (202) 224-2693

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.collins.senate.gov/contact

 

  1. Senator Bill Cassidy:

 

Cassidy Contact:

 

Ph. 202-224-5824

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/contact

 

  1. Senator Bob Corker:

 

Corker Contact:

Main: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-0566

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailme

 

  1. Senator Jeff Flake:

 

Flake Contact:

P: 202-224-4521
F: 202-228-0515

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-jeff

 

  1. Wyoming Senator Michael Enzi:

 

Enzi Contact:

Phone: (202) 224-3424
Fax: (202) 228-0359
Toll-Free: (888) 250-1879

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-senator-enzi

 

  1. Senator John Kennedy:

 

Kennedy Contact:

 

Phone: (202) 224-4623

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/email-me

 

  1. Senator James Lankford:

 

Lankford Contact:

 

Phone: (202) 224-5754

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.lankford.senate.gov/contact/email

 

  1. Senator Jerry Moran:

 

Moran Contact:

 

Phone: (202) 224-6521
Fax: (202) 228-6966

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-jerry

 

  1. Senator Lisa Murkowski:

 

Murkowski Contact:

 

Phone: (202)-224-6665
Fax: (202)-224-5301

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/contact/email

 

  1. Senator Ben Sasse:

 

Sasse Contact:

 

Phone: 202-224-4224

Constituency Contact Form: https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-ben

 

Here is an example email from what I sent to my Senator in Oklahoma according to the Steven Ahle list:

 

Senator Lankford,

It has come to my attention that you as a Conservative Republican have not committed to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to SCOTUS (https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/ten-senators-who-havent-committed-to-kavanaugh-yet/). I find this quite shocking as a Conservative! The only basis I can think of for any hesitation are the alleged sexual assault claims from ladies with very vague memories from over 35 years ago. AND IF Kavanaugh was a frisky teenage boy in High School and as a Freshman at Yale, can you not remember you were once a teenage boy. Even the most stellarly behaved teenage boy at very least has raging hormones that as more responsibility arises in life, more focus on mature life issues grow.

Surely you recognize that the sudden memory recovery of ladies that never reported a heinous crime of sexual assault when the alleged incident occurred are untrustworthy in their accusations. I have been doing some reading on sexual assault on women. In spite of MSM and/or Democratic Party assertions otherwise, sexual assault leave an indelible memory of revulsion and personal violation. Are you seeing this from Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers?

Dear God in Heaven Senator Lankford as a Conservative from Oklahoma, you should feel compelled to honor your constituents and confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Sincerely,

John R. Houk

Feel free to amend and place your Senator and name to an email or FAX.

 

JRH 9/26/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

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

Ten Senators Who Haven’t Committed To Kavanaugh Yet

 

By STEVEN AHLE

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

DavidHarrisJr.com

 

There is one thing you have to admire about Democratic Senators. They stick together and move forward, public opinion be damned. I really wish Republican Senators would do the same. If they mess up the Kavanaugh nomination, it will cost them on November sixth. They try to please the Democrat voters who will never vote for them regardless, so why do they even try? Currently, 10 out of 51 Republican Senators are not committed to Kavanaugh. They are:

 

  • Maine Senator Susan Collins -office number 202-224-2523

 

  • Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy – office number 202-224-5824

 

  • Tennessee Senator Bob Corker office number 202-224-3344

 

  • Arizona Senator Jeff Flake – office number 202-224-4521

 

  • Wyoming Senator Michael Enzi – office number 202-224-3424

 

  • Louisiana Senator John Kennedy – office number 202-224-4623

 

  • Oklahoma Senator James Lankford – office number 202-224-5754

 

  • Kansas Senator Jerry Moran – office number 202-224-6521

 

  • Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski – office number 202-224-6665

 

  • Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse office number 202-224-4224

 

Look at all the RINOs. Jeff Flake has already said that he may vote against Kavanaugh because of the bogus accusations against him. But the truth is, Flake hates Trump more than he likes his constituents.

 

From The Gateway Pundit

 

Creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti is set to roll out Kavanaugh’s 3rd alleged accuser in the next 48 hours–Michael Avenatti took his grotesque attacks to the next level and informed the Senate he is accusing Kavanaugh and witness Mark Judge of getting women intoxicated at parties with drugs and alcohol so they could be gang raped by a “train” of men.

 

Call these Republican Senators and tell them enough is enough!

 

Mitch McConnell blasted Democrats earlier Monday from the Senate floor.

 

McConnell said the resistance has become a smear campaign aided and abetted by members of the U.S. Senate.

 

 

 

To stay up to date with David’s No Nonsense News, make sure to subscribe to his news letter on his website at www.davidharrisjr.com and follow him on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr

 

He has also just announced that his book “Why I Couldn’t Stay Silent” is available for pre-order! Click the tab “Book” on the Home Page on his website. Over 600 books have already been ordered! He has increased the signed pre-orders to the first 700 books! Pre-order yours today and it will be signed by David!

________________________

What is the Actual Dem Resistance to Kavanaugh?

Phone, FAX or Email your Senator to CONFIRM!

 

John R. Houk

© September 26, 2018

_____________________

Ten Senators Who Haven’t Committed To Kavanaugh Yet

 

Copyright © David Harris Jr. All Rights Reserved.

 

ABOUT DAVID

David James Harris Jr & Wife Jennifer

 

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 as many individuals as possible. David has been an entrepreneur for over 20 years launching his first business at just 20 years old. It became a multi-million dollar company within two years. He’s also tasted of life’s setbacks and chooses to seek for growth opportunities in every downfall. David has overcame many of life’s obstacles, both personally and professionally.

 

David is crazy in love with his high school sweetheart, Jennifer… The girl of his dreams and often in his dreams. They are about to celebrate 23 years of marriage this year. They have two amazingly talented and beautiful daughters Corbin, 20 and Skyler, 18 who’s passion for life and love for others are contagious. They each chose to start off on the road to adulthood by attending Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry in Redding, Ca, seeking to lay down a spiritual foundation before tackling all that life has to offer.

 

He is openly a lover of God, having had an encounter that he describes like unto that of Saul in the bible. His perspective on life, himself, and his reason for existence was eternally altered from these encounters, which led to him referring to God as… “Daddy”. He seeks to be a light in a dark world, operate a business that helps people achieve their goals in mind and body, while bringing messages of hope and love that enhance the spirit. Join him on a journey through life, filled with hope and enduring love…

 

Choose Pro-Life for Justice Kennedy’s Replacement


Justin Smith makes an excellent case for President Trump to nominate a Pro-Life and Constitutional Originalist to SCOTUS. Justin specifically posits the nomination to be Appellate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

 

JRH 7/9/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Choose Pro-Life for Justice Kennedy’s Replacement

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/8/2018 8:41 PM

 

Under our God-given rights, Our Founders saw the law as a tool to preserve liberty and freedom for all, through the Western and Judeo-Christian principles and virtues that made the U.S. Constitution and our bicameral system possible. They did not see liberty under the law as anybody’s right to do anything, regardless of its reprehensible nature, and they certainly never intended to place America on a path where evil is called “good”, as the nation witnessed with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v Wade. The Court was never supposed to be the final arbiter of law, becoming a tyrannical entity that seemingly answers to no one and places itself above all.

 

In this sense and in conjunction with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s impending retirement, President Trump is wrong not to question potential Supreme Court nominees regarding their position on Roe v Wade and whether or not they would overturn it, if given the opportunity. Any reluctance to do so is from a political concern and ignores the fact that Roe v Wade was given the force of de facto law by a Supreme Court that enforced its will and did not judge the case on any actual constitution basis, since the so-called “right” to abortion did not exist in the Constitution and they manufactured it out of thin air.

 

President Trump suggested that it somehow wouldn’t be “appropriate” to question his nominees on this. So, is murdering over 60 million unborn children since 1973 appropriate?

 

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), an overt progressive, stated that she could not support any candidate who might be willing to overturn the despicable Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling. She suggested that many years of “precedents” must somehow be viewed as “set law” as she parroted Democrat talking points and the likes of progressive Democrat activist Justices, such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

What about the hundreds of years of precedents that upheld the sanctity of life and protected life well prior to Roe V Wade?

 

Any person who views overturning the activist decision of Roe v Wade as a “big mistake is essentially willing to usurp an unborn child’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. They are either horribly ignorant or terribly callous in turning a blind-eye to the murder of a human person, committed in each abortion; but in either case, they are taking the position that protecting innocent life is not a moral good.

 

If Supreme Court precedents are set law, why isn’t Plessy v Ferguson and Lum v Rice still the law of the land? If these cases had not been overturned, America would still have segregation under the “law”. These were overturned by a later Court, because the Supreme Court is fallible.

 

However, ever since Marbury v Madison (1803) and the Court’s assumption that it was the primary interpreter of the Constitution, America has seen the Supreme Court define its own power, and increasingly and regularly, America has seen the Supreme Court usurp power and act as if it is dominant over Congress and the Office of the President, which is contrary to the Founders’ Original Intent. Marbury has been cited by the Court to invalidate laws in over 200 cases, even though Marbury v Madison does not contain any actual assertion that the Court has exclusive authority to bind other parts of government.

 

Thomas Paine, one of our Founders, once noted, “All power exercised over a nation … must be either delegated, or assumed … All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.”

 

The rights Thomas Jefferson lists in the Declaration of Independence are certainly open to interpretation, but according to our Founders, their metaphysical basis, found in nature itself, is not. However, activist Justices have now long impressed their notions of what they believe the Constitution should say, upon all America. As a result, America was handed rulings that removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from schools, pornography on demand, abortion and homosexual “marriage”.

 

Some call retiring Justice Kennedy a “moderate” because he voted along conservative lines fifty-seven percent of the time, but how anyone reaches this conclusion is disturbing, especially once one looks at some major cases. Kennedy voted too often to advance the deviant and perverted homosexual agenda in America, although this segment of society represents only a mere 3 to 4 percent of the population. Kennedy knocked down Texas’s sodomy laws, the upheld Roe v Wade twice and he voted in favor of homosexual “marriage”, aiding in making a mockery of traditional marriage and the only true meaning of marriage — the union between one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony before God. This is not a “conservative” or a “moderate”.

 

By the time this is released, Pres. Trump will have made his pick for the Supreme Court. Let us all pray that he chooses Amy Coney Barrett, the 46 year old Justice of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,  who is a pro-life Catholic mother of seven and a strong Constitutionalist. Ms. Barrett was also awarded the top student award from Notre Dame Law School in 1997.

 

President Trump cannot deny, that these illiberal anti-Constitution proponents of abortion stand firmly opposed to the conservative philosophy, which is the protector of America’s founding ideas, those ideas of life and liberty so many American patriots have died defending. As such, President Trump and Congress should unabashedly state that they will move to place a pro-life nominee on the Supreme Court, such as Amy Barrett, because modern Justices no longer seem capable of just determining the constitutionality of any particular law, in accordance with the Founders’ Original Intent; rather, they seek to wield the Supreme Court like a club to meet the demands of whatever political agenda at hand at any given moment, during a time that the anti-Constitution progressive Democrats have certainly made no secret that defending baby murder is an integral part of their fight to accept or reject any candidate for the Supreme Court.

 

As Christians, we are bound to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and to reject the lies and the evil of an abortion industry that murders the image of God approximately 1.5 million times a year in America. No one should ever call such a heinous crime a “right”.

 

And in the meantime, America must put forth the necessary effort and work to reign in an out-of-control Supreme Court, as the admonishment and prophesy of Brutus, one of the great anti-Federalists guiding the Constitution’s ratification debate, has become our present-day reality: “The Supreme Court under this Constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no controul … There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under Heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of Heaven itself.” [Italic bold by Editor]

 

America must stop un-elected Supreme Court Justices from arbitrarily exercising power over the entire nation, our federal and state governments, in a manner that abrogates part of the Constitution itself, as it sets forth to define good and evil from the high court. And America must stop the reprehensible abortion industry and overturn Roe v Wade, and right the historic wrong that has perpetrated the worst mass murder in history, upon a nation that purportedly seeks to be blessed by God.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Kavanaugh Great SCOTUS Conservative Credentials, BUT…


John R. Houk

© July 6, 2018

Cliff Kincaid has been using his political pulpit to warn Conservatives that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a bad choice for a nomination to SCOTUS. On a personal level I say further investigation is warranted before I join Kincaid’s warning.

 

Kincaid’s warning centers around Kavanaugh’s association in the death of Vince Foster. Officially Foster death was ruled a suicide. Detractors of the suicide label believe Foster was murdered to look like a suicide to protect the Crooked Clintons.

 

Here is an excerpt on Vince Foster’s death written by Cliff Kincaid for AIM in 2016:

 

Donald J. Trump has brought up the case of the mysterious death of former Clinton aide Vincent Foster, calling it “fishy.” Trump is right. Foster is the man who knew too much. He had knowledge of various Clinton scandals, including Travelgate, the Waco tragedy, and possibly some illegal activities involving national security. His body was found in a Virginia park on July 20, 1993, and the media accepted the verdict of suicide.

 

But as AIM founder and late chairman Reed Irvine and I reported on the case, there were so many anomalies that the Special Division of the Court of Appeals ordered an appendix added to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s report on the death of Vincent Foster. The appendix exposed serious flaws in the report that cast strong doubt on the suicide finding. These anomalies included:

 

  • No bullet was ever found in Fort Marcy Park, even though Foster supposedly shot himself there.

 

  • The gun that was found in his hand has never been positively identified as his.

 

  • Foster’s fingerprints were not found on the gun.

 

Many people in the media claim that numerous investigations confirmed it was a suicide. Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post says there were “five official investigations into Foster’s death, conducted by professional investigators, forensic experts, psychologists, doctors and independent prosecutors with unlimited resources.” CNN’s Jake Tapper says it is “shameful” for Trump to question these findings.

 

But the official government investigations, including the one run by ardent “Republican” Kenneth Starr, were flawed. Nobody knew this better than Miguel Rodriguez, the lead investigator of Foster’s death for Independent Counsel Starr. He uncovered evidence that Foster had not committed suicide. However, Rodriguez, the prosecutor in charge of the grand jury investigation of Foster’s death, resigned because of interference with his investigation. As Irvine noted, “If he had been permitted to complete the grand jury investigation, he would have exposed the many lies that were told to cover up Foster’s murder.” Irvine exposed many of these lies in a 2001 edition of the AIM Report.

 

 

Some other critical facts:

 

  • Foster’s car, a 1989 gray Honda, was not at Ft. Marcy Park when he died.

 

  • The .38 revolver found in his hand was not the gun that killed him. It was not his gun. The caliber of the gun was too large to be consistent with the small hole in the side of Foster’s neck. A memo by Rodriguez found at the National Archives stated that “the corpse was staged with the revolver brought by” investigators.

 

  • Foster’s so-called suicide note was a forgery. It said nothing about suicide. Handwriting experts say the note, which had no fingerprints on it, wasn’t even written by Foster. The note was found in a briefcase that had previously been searched.

 

Yes, something was, and is, very fishy in the case of the death of Vincent Foster. READ ENTIRETY (Something Stinks: The “Fishy” Vince Foster Case; By Cliff Kincaid; AIM; 5/26/16)

 

Kavanaugh was on a SCOTUS list in 2017 that eventually went to Justice Gorsuch. Joseph Farah wrote a report then about Kavanaugh’s link to a cover-up in the Foster death:

 

 

… the White House noted the following credentials: “Brett M. Kavanaugh is a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before his appointment in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary, and was a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office and in the Solicitor General’s Office. Judge Kavanaugh also served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States, to Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Kavanaugh is a cum laude graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School.”

 

Conspicuously not mentioned in that biography is Kavanaugh’s role in leading the badly flawed investigation into the death of Vincent Foster in July 1993.

 

In fact, Kavanaugh took over that investigation when his predecessor, attorney Miguel Rodriguez, resigned, saying in a letter to Kenneth Starr dated Jan. 17, 1995, because evidence was being overlooked in a rush to judgment in favor of suicide and closing the grand-jury investigation, WND reported last year.

 

The smoking-gun information was reported by WND exclusively early in the 2016 presidential campaign in the form of two documents: a two-page letter of resignation and a 31-page memo both written by Rodriguez, Starr’s original lead prosecutor.

 

 

Rodriguez refers in his letter to photographs showing a wound on Foster’s neck – a wound that did not exist according to accounts in Starr’s official government report.

 

The obvious questions: How could a suicide victim be found with two wounds – a .38-caliber gunshot into the mouth that exited through his head and another wound on the right side of his neck that one of the paramedics described as a small-caliber bullet hole? And why would government investigators go to great lengths to cover it up?

 

 

The Rodriguez letter blows holes in the government’s conclusion that Foster’s body had a single self-inflicted gunshot wound.

 

 

Rodriguez went on to cite 12 ways the investigation was compromised.

 

Witness statements had not been accurately reflected in official FBI reports, he told Starr.

 

Even more troubling was the treatment of death-scene photographs.

 

 

Rodriguez concluded that he believed there was sufficient evidence “to continue the grand jury inquiry into the many questions surrounding Foster’s death.” Instead, he was told the grand-jury probe would be abruptly ended and his work would be placed under review.

 

Rodriguez concluded that he believed there was sufficient evidence “to continue the grand jury inquiry into the many questions surrounding Foster’s death.” Instead, he was told the grand-jury probe would be abruptly ended and his work would be placed under review.

 

READ ENTIRETY (IS TRUMP RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING ‘VERY FISHY’ IN FOSTER DEATH? By JOSEPH FARAH; WND; 11/20/17 7:42 PM)

 

Kavanaugh took over the Vince Foster death investigation after Rodriguez’s resignation:

 

 

The press publicized the search of Fort Marcy Park for the fatal bullet to give the public the impression Starr was doing a thorough investigation.  The bullet was never found because it remained in Foster’s head.  Rodriguez discovered that the FBI, with the assistance of Doctor James Beyer, had destroyed the evidence that showed the bullet remained in Foster’s brain.  People asked Rodriguez if exhuming Foster’s body for an X-ray could reveal the bullet trajectory.

 

THE GREY HONDA

 

The conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide depends on yet another provable lie – that Foster drove his children’s gray Honda to Fort Marcy Park.

 

Supreme court candidate Brett Kavanaugh previously of the Independent Counsel discussed the problem with the brown car with Reed Irvine of Accuracy in Media.

 

Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh admitted that “all the police and medical personnel that were in the park also described [the car] as brown.”  Vincent Foster’s car was NOT BROWN.

Foster did not drive to the crime scene at Fort Marcy Park, contrary to press reports. On October 10, 1997, when the 137-page official report, vol 1vol 2, was released to the public, the American press concealed the evidence of the cover-up, and only reported on the existence of the first 114 pages of the report.

 

Narrator

 

Kavanaugh’s statement that people clearly saw Foster’s car is not true.  Descriptions of a brown car are not descriptions of Foster’s gray car.  How does Kavanaugh resolve the problem?

 

Brett Kavanaugh

 

So, people were screwed up on the colors, period.

 

Narrator

 

Brett Kavanaugh called eyewitnesses “screwed up” because what they saw did not agree with the desired result.

 

But Kavanaugh slipped up.  He admitted that all of the police and medical personnel saw a brown car.

 

Brett Kavanaugh

 

Well it all comes down to that brown car issue, right?   Ah, all the police and medical personnel that were in the park also described it as brown.

 

Narrator

 

The conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide depends on yet another provable lie – that Foster drove his children’s gray Honda to Fort Marcy Park.

 

Reed Irvine asks Associate Independent Counsel Brett Kavanaugh what evidence he has that Vince Foster’s car was at Fort Marcy Park when Foster was already dead.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Supreme candidate Kavanaugh, from the deep state, led murdered Vince Foster coverup; By Bunkerville; BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades! 7/3/18)

 

Now for the Cliff Kincaid email where I place the video he refers to at the bottom.

 

JRH 7/6/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The Kavanaugh Cover-Up

 

By Cliff Kincaid

Sent July 5, 2018, 2:06 PM

Sent via America’s Survival

 

To ASI Supporters:

 

Watch the media closely. If you see no coverage of the Foster case, then you can safely assume who is calling the shots. Pardon the pun.

 

Kavanaugh Still Favored For Supreme Court

 

Time is running out. My old friend, John Gizzi, one of the best political journalists in the country, says President Trump is on the verge of naming Foster cover-up artist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

 

Brett Kavanaugh & Murder of Vincent Foster

 

Here’s what John is reporting:

 

With barely four days to go before President Trump makes official his choice to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, the favorite remains D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has an advantage because he has the most consistent conservative judicial track record of the known candidates — one that mirrors Trump’s views on several key issues, including immigration, trade deals, abortion and gun rights, according to two sources familiar with the current White House selection.

 

This would be a major catastrophe. What my old friend leaves out of his piece is Kavanaugh’s involvement in the Foster cover-up.

 

If Kavanaugh is nominated, the Deep State wins. Our video explains how Kavanaugh went along with the cover-up because he wanted to play ball and be a member of the team, so he could move “up the ladder.” This is how the Swamp operates.

 

Remember that President Reagan was tricked into nominating Anthony Kennedy. And Kavanaugh was a law clerk for Kennedy!

 

Everywhere you turn in the “conservative media,” you are getting endorsements of Kavanaugh – without any mention whatsoever of the Foster case.

 

We have also learned that Kavanaugh is the preferred choice of White House counsel Don McGahn. He is pushing Trump to nominate him for the Supreme Court. “McGahn’s backing helped Kavanaugh secure a spot on Trump’s existing Supreme Court list last November, when the president added five names,” Politico said.

 

Watch our video. Decide for yourselves. Everything we have is documented.

 

Official FBI photograph of the black gun placed in Foster’s hand at Fort Marcy Park to stage the crime scene.

 

Thanks to those of you who have responded with donations. But we need your help more than ever.  If you haven’t helped, please consider a donation.

 

Rather than nominate Kavanaugh, Trump should order a new investigation of the “fishy” Foster death. That’s the way to get to the bottom of the way the Deep State operates.

 

If Trump wants to save his presidency, he must investigate the Deep State, not capitulate to it.

 

Give me your thoughts at: Kincaid@comcast.net

 

For America’s Survival,

Cliff Kincaid, President

 

Donate to America’s Survival

 

VIDEO: Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the Murder of Vincent Foster

 

Posted USA Survival

Published on Jul 4, 2018

 

Possible Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “is part of the ongoing cover-up of the murder of the [Clinton] White House deputy counsel” Vincent Foster. So charges researcher and journalist Hugh Turley. In this explosive video, learn how the Swamp operates in bipartisan fashion to cover up crimes, including murder, and how Deep State agents are deployed to intimidate witnesses and alter evidence. Turley worked with AIM’s Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid on this case for years, only to face a cover-up from the liberal AND conservative media.

__________________

Kavanaugh Great SCOTUS Conservative Credentials, BUT…

John R. Houk

© July 6, 2018

_________________

The Kavanaugh Cover-Up

 

© America’s Survival, Inc

 

About America’s Survival

 

America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) is recognized as a 501 (C) 3 educational organization. ASI President Cliff Kincaid is editor of the ASI web sites www.usasurvival.orgwww.leninandsharia.com  and www.religiousleftexposed.com ASI  is on Facebook and Twitter and has a YouTube channel featuring videos from ASI conferences and other events. We have an app for smart phones and operate a TV channel on Roku called “America’s Survival TV.”

 

ASI specializes in exposing the United Nations, international organizations and extremist movements.

 

Office telephone: 443-964-8208

Email: Kincaid@comcast.net

 

Mailing Address:
America’s Survival. Inc.
P.O. Box 146
Owings, MD 20736

 

5 Justices Stick to Constitutional Originalism


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2018

 

Well-Well. It looks like five Justices of the Supreme Court still adhere to the U.S. Constitution. At the same time it is evident there are four Justices that take to the fallacy of a Living Constitution, meaning activist Judges can interpret the Constitution according Leftist ideology rather than the Original Intent of the letter of the law.

 

  1. SCOTUS rules Pro-Life facilities cannot be forced to share information of State options to kill unborn babies.

 

  1. SCOTUS rules that the Office of President has the Constitutional ability to limit travel from nations that a National Security issue is apparent.

 

Both decisions were decided by a 5-4 vote.

 

Below are two Fox News stories with the details.

 

JRH 6/26/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Supreme Court rules in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law

 

By Adam Shaw

June 26, 2018

Fox News

 

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that counsel pregnant women to make choices other than abortion, invalidating a California law requiring them to prominently post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion.

 

The court, in a 5-4 ruling, said the state law likely violates the First Amendment. The court also cast doubts on similar laws in Hawaii and Illinois.

 

The state regulations, targeting centers that provide counseling-related services with the goal of helping women make choices other than abortion, demanded such centers prominently post information on how to obtain abortion and contraception.

 

The law also required unlicensed, non-medical facilities to inform clients that they are not licensed medical providers. If pregnancy centers fail to comply with the law, they’re fined $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense, according to the law.

 

Pro-life groups had challenged the regulations, arguing that they violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment. Supporters of the law said that it was necessary since many women were unaware of the options available to them.

 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected both arguments and upheld the law — arguing that the state could regulate professional free speech and the law protects public health interests. The Supreme Court reversed that judgement.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas said in his majority opinion, “California cannot co-opt the licensed facilities to deliver its message for it.” He also called the regulations for unlicensed facilities “unjustified and unduly burdensome.”

 

Thomas was joined by fellow conservative justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Dissenting were liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

Breyer, in his dissent, said among the reasons the law should be upheld is that the high court has previously upheld state laws requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions about adoption services. “After all, the law must be evenhanded,” Breyer said.

 

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra called the ruling “unfortunate.”

 

“When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women — regardless of their economic background or zip code — deserve access to critical and non-biased information to make their own informed decisions,” Becerra said in a statement.

 

“Today’s Court ruling is unfortunate, but our work to ensure that Californians receive accurate information about their healthcare options will continue.”

 

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Madeline Farber and The Associated Press contributed to this report

Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics for Fox News. He can be reached here.

 

++++++++++

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

 

By Bill Mears

June 26, 2018

Fox News

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s controversial travel ban affecting several mostly Muslim countries, offering a limited endorsement of the president’s executive authority on immigration in one of the hardest-fought battles of this term.

 

The 5-4 ruling marks the first major high court decision on a Trump administration policy. It upholds the selective travel restrictions, which critics called a discriminatory “Muslim ban” but the administration argued was needed for security reasons.

 

In a written statement, Trump called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution.” As critics continued to decry the policy as “xenophobic,” Trump described the court decision as “a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

 

 

At issue was whether the third and latest version of the administration’s policies affecting visitors from five majority Muslim nations – known as travel ban 3.0 – discriminates on the basis of nationality and religion, in the government’s issuance of immigrant visas.

 

CLICK TO READ THE DECISION

 

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the conservative majority opinion, wrote that the order was “squarely within the scope of presidential authority” under federal law.

 

“The sole prerequisite set forth in [federal law] is that the president find that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The president has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here,” he wrote.

 

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among the court’s four liberals that wrote a dissent.

 

“This repackaging does little to cleanse [the policy] of the appearance of discrimination that the president’s words have created,” she said. “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

 

She and Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading their dissents from the bench.

 

While the policy was upheld, the case was sent back to the lower courts, which were told to rely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of executive authority.

 

It was the first significant legal test so far of Trump’s policies and power and could lead to a precedent-setting expansion on the limits of presidential authority, especially within the immigration context.

 

Federal appeals courts in Virginia and California in recent months had ruled against the administration. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court last December concluded Trump’s proclamation, like the two previous executive orders, overstepped his powers to regulate the entry of immigrants and visitors.

 

But the justices had allowed the current restrictions to be enforced at the Justice Department’s request, at least until the case was fully litigated.

 

The Trump administration also seemed to enjoy a favorable reception before the court during arguments in April. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, during those April arguments, noted that of the 50 or so mostly Muslim majority countries, only five were on the current banned list.

 

The White House had framed the issue as a temporary move involving national security.

 

A coalition of groups in opposition called the order blatant religious discrimination, since the countries involved have mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chad was recently removed from the list after the administration said that country had beefed up its information-sharing.

 

A major sticking point for the justices was navigating how much discretion the president really has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

 

A 1952 federal law — the Immigration and Nationality Act, passed in the midst of a Cold War fear over Communist influence — historically gives the chief executive broad authority.

 

It reads in part: “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

 

The administration strongly denies this is a “Muslim ban,” but federal judges across the country cited statements by then-presidential candidate Trump and his advisers, including a December 2015 campaign press release calling for such restrictions and citing “hatred” by “large segments of the Muslim population.”

 

The high court’s majority downplayed Trump’s campaign statements as a major factor in its decision.

 

“The issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements,” wrote Roberts. “It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”

 

Sixteen state leaders led by Texas were among a number of coalitions backing the Trump administration. But Hawaii officials, who filed the appeal contesting all of the president’s orders, said the president’s policies violate the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom:

 

“Any reasonable observer who heard the president’s campaign promises, read his thinly justified orders banning overwhelmingly Muslim populations, and observed his administration’s persistent statements linking the two, would view the order and each of its precursors as the fulfillment of the president’s promise to prohibit Muslim immigration to the United States.”

 

Trump’s first executive order was issued just a week after he took office, and was aimed at seven countries. It triggered chaos and protests across the U.S., as some travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and others detained at airports for hours. Trump modified the order after a federal appeals court refused to allow the ban to be enforced.

 

“This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe,” the president said on Jan. 29, 2017.

 

The next version, unveiled weeks later, dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and made it clear the 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen didn’t apply to those travelers who already had valid visas. It also got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics said the changes did not erase the legal problems with the ban.

 

When that second temporary travel ban expired in Sept. 24, it was replaced with Proclamation 9645 — what the administration said was a country-by-country assessment of security and cooperation with the U.S.

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

______________________

5 Justices Stick to Constitutional Originalism

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2018

____________________

Supreme Court rules in favor of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in fight over California law

 

And

 

Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban on some Muslim-majority nations

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2018 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not ask permission to share the Fox News posts. If requested I will remove them.]

 

FACEBOOK BLOCKS FUNDING FOR MAJOR PRO-LIFE MOVIE


Facebook is using censorship to block the publicity of the Pro-Life movie exposing the nefarious behind the scenes lies and manipulation that was behind the Supreme Court making unborn baby-murder (abortion) on demand legal via Roe v. Wade in 1973. The flick is called ROE v. WADE the Movie.

 

VIDEO: ROE v. WADE The Movie INDIEGOGO CAMPAIGN

 

Posted by Roe v. Wade The Movie

Published on Jan 8, 2018

 

Indiegogo Campaign for “Roe v. Wade” Launches January 10, 2018.

[Blog Editor: You can donate to the cause with this link:] https://tinyurl.com/yaz6zehk

 

I’m running with the WND story on Facebook censorship, but should note that Breitbart claims Facebook is backing off on the censorship if “crowdfunding” for the movie. However, the Breitbart story shows how Facebook took crowdfunding page down, then restored the page and then took it down again. Ergo, as of this post, who knows how many times Facebook will remove and restore.

 

JRH 1/13/18

Please Support NCCR

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

FACEBOOK BLOCKS FUNDING FOR MAJOR PRO-LIFE MOVIE

Theatrical drama to tell ‘true story’ of Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood

 

By ART MOORE

January 12, 2018

WND

 

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger

 

A crowdfunding site for a theatrical drama in production that promises to tell the “true story” of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a “right” to abortion has been blocked by Facebook.

 

The movie’s producer, Nick Loeb, told WND the content of the pro-life movie, which exposes Planned Parenthood’s roots in the eugenics movement, clearly is the reason for the censorship.

 

Actor and producer Nick Loeb

“They have even blocked people sharing the ads I paid for,” Loeb said.

 

“This is stealing or fraud.”

 

Facebook has not responded to requests for an explanation.

Loeb told WND he and his colleagues are looking for a lawyer to take on the case.

 

Learn the tested and proven strategies to defeat the abortion cartel in “Abortion Free: Your Manual for Building a Pro-Life America One Community at a Time.”

 

The executive producer of the movie is Alveda King, a niece of Martin Luther King Jr. and the head of the group Civil Rights for the Unborn.

 

The film features Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight as a Supreme Court justice.

 

On the film’s Indiegogo crowdfunding page, the makers describe it as “the real untold story of how people lied; how the media lied; and how the courts were manipulated to pass a law that has since killed over 60 million Americans.”

 

“Many documentaries have been made, but no one has had the courage to make an actual feature film, a theatrical movie about the true story.”

 

The producers, calling it the “most important pro-life movie in history,” say Hollywood “only wants you to hear their version of the story,” noting there are three movies in development that take a pro-abortion stance.

 

“But you shouldn’t be surprised. Hollywood has always had an agenda to influence Americans to accept abortion, even if they have to re-write history to do it.”

The movie opens with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, speaking about her “Negro project” initiative aimed at reducing the growth of African-American population in the United States.

 

It continues as abortionist Bernard Nathanson joins with famed feminist-activist Betty Friedan and Planned Parenthood to recruit for a legal case “a broke girl with a 10th grade education named Norma McCorvey,” who became known as “Jane Roe.”

 

The opposition to the activists seeking to legalize abortion is led by the film’s protagonist, Mildred Jefferson, the first African-American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, who believed “that she became a doctor to protect life, not destroy it.”

 

Later, Nathanson, through the help of new sonogram technology, “realizes he is killing babies, confesses to all the lies and becomes a leading activist in the pro-life movement,” and McCorvey, realizing she had been manipulated, also joins the pro-life cause.

 

Internet freedom

 

WND reported last month censorship of Christian and conservative speech online by tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple is the target of an initiative called Internet Freedom Watch, launched by the National Religious Broadcasters.

 

The initiative has established a website, InternetFreedomWatch.org, to document cases, including Twitter’s removal of an ad by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., in October and Facebook’s removal of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s post supporting Chick-fil-A in 2012.

 

NRB, which has published a chart with more than 30 instances of Internet censorship, said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and a former Federal Communications Commission commissioner have endorsed the effort.

 

FCC chairman Ajit Pai has accused Twitter and other tech companies of being disingenuous by arguing for a free and open Internet while they “routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.”

 

NRB also wants Congress to hold hearings on the “severe problem of viewpoint censorship on the Internet.”

 

In a recent case noted by Internet Freedom Watch, PJ Media D.C. editor Bridget Johnson was suspended from Twitter with no warning or explanation.

 

WND reported in August that days after the launch of a book arguing fascism and Nazism are ideological spawns of the left, author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza and his promotion team were locked out of his Facebook page by hackers.

____________________

DONATE TO WND

© Copyright 1997-2018. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Challenging Activist Judge & NAF


Troy Newman & Judge William Orrick

 

John R. Houk

© August 5, 2017

 

On July 14, 2015, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released its first undercover Planned Parenthood video, blowing the whistle on the abortion industry’s practice of illegally harvesting and selling the body parts of aborted babies.

 

Just 17 days later, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) filed a lawsuit against CMP and ultimately secured a preliminary injunction against lead investigator and CMP founder David Daleiden. The injunction prohibited him from releasing any footage obtained during NAF conferences and meetings, which David had attended undercover with the goal of exposing illegal activity by the abortion industry.

 

Fast forward almost two years—and the lawsuit is still ongoing. Meanwhile, Daleiden’s footage from the NAF conference remains under lock and key, leaving some to wonder what secrets NAF is trying to hide. (Abortion Industry’s Interests Should Never Outweigh Public Concerns or First Amendment Rights; By Marissa Mayer; Alliance Defending Freedom; 4/21/17)

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick violated the First Amendment Rights of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) by gagging all undercover videos exposing the murderous intent by National Abortion Federation (NAF) in trafficking aborted and live birth baby parts for profit. Planned Parenthood was stung the same way. Leftists in law enforcement are doing their best to cover-up these nefarious murders and felonious activities with baby part trafficking.

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who granted the preliminary injunction in favor of the National Abortion Federation to halt the release of the videos, ordered any links to the video to be removed after it was published by the Center for Medical Progress on Thursday.

 

Judge Orrick also ordered CMP lead investigator David Daleiden and his attorneys to appear in court June 14, The Associated Press reported, for a hearing where he will consider holding them in contempt for releasing the footage.

 

Mr. Daleiden has been charged with 15 felonies in California stemming from his undercover investigation into the abortion giant. His attorneys have called it a “witch hunt” that flies in the face of the First Amendment.

 

YouTube has not responded to a request for comment.

 

The three-minute video showed top Planned Parenthood executives joking about severed fetus heads, admitting to altering abortion procedures to preserve fetal organs and conceding that clinics have a financial incentive to sell the human remains from abortions. (YouTube removes latest Planned Parenthood video on judge’s order; By Bradford Richardson; Washington Times; 5/26/17)

 

Judge Orrick took advantage of the 9th Circuit Appellate Court’s unfavorable ruling to make that gag order.

 

The abortion industry has desperately tried to suppress and delegitimize the work of CMP, including through the use of litigation. We represent former CMP board member Troy Newman – who is also the President of Operation Rescue – in lawsuits filed by the National Abortion Federation (NAF) as well as Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and numerous Planned Parenthood affiliates, and we recently filed briefs in both cases.

 

In the NAF case, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the defendants from publishing videos or materials relating to NAF conferences, or sharing such information with anyone, including state Attorneys General or local law enforcement officers, while the case moves forward. The defendants have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit, and we recently filed a reply brief (under seal by court order) that emphasizes that government investigators, and the general public, have a compelling interest in being able to review the videos and materials themselves.

 

In the PPFA case, we recently filed a reply brief supporting our motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Our brief explains that all of the claims – such as wire fraud, racketeering, and breach of contract – are meritless, so the case should be dismissed. (Two Briefs Filed in Fight to Expose Illegal Abortion Practices; By ACLJ.org; 7/2016)

 

One of the founders of CMP, Troy Newman, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to win back the First Amendment Right to expose the crimes of Planned Parenthood.

 

Here is the Press Release that I first received in my Inbox from Operation Rescue; however, I’m cross posting the PR from ChristianNewsWire.com.

 

JRH 8/5/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Newman Files Petition with Supreme Court Challenging Gag Order that Bans Sharing Evidence with Law Enforcement

 

PRESS RELEASE

August 4, 2017

ChristianNewsWire.com

 

Contact: Troy Newman, President, 316-683-6790 ext. 111; Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Vice President , 316-516-3034; both with Operation Rescue,  info.operationrescue@gmail.com   

 

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4, 2017 /Christian Newswire/ — Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue and a founding member of the Center for Medical Progress, filed a petition yesterday to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the Constitutionality of a preliminary injunction that prohibits the release of undercover videos recorded at National Abortion Federation (NAF) meetings – even to law enforcement when they contain evidence of crimes.

 

The petition, captioned Newman v. National Abortion Federation, states:

 

This Petition stems from an injunction forbidding the voluntary disclosure to law enforcement agencies, other governmental bodies, and the general public of recordings and other information that the enjoined individuals and entities-as well as Congressional investigators-believe are evidence of widespread criminal, illegal, and unethical conduct, including felonies.

 

Newman is represented by Jay Sekulow, who leads Newman’s team of attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

 

During Newman’s tenure on the Board of the Center for Medical Progress, the NAF, and later Planned Parenthood, filed suits in a San Francisco Federal Court against Newman and others in an effort to prevent the release of further undercover videos that exposed the illegal trade in aborted baby body parts.

 

And it is little wonder that the NAF would not want the videos released.

 

Newman’s Supreme Court Petition notes that Congressional investigations conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives referred members of the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies for criminal investigation and prosecution.

 

Newman argues that the enjoined recordings corroborate the determination of the two Congressional investigations, which found evidence that NAF members (including several Planned Parenthood organizations) were engaged in the following criminal conduct:

 

  • Profiting from the sale of fetal organs;

 

  • Altering abortion procedures for financial gain;

 

  • Performing illegal partial-birth abortions;

 

  • Killing newborns who survived attempted abortions;

 

  • Failing to obtain informed consent for fetal tissue donations;

 

  • Violating federal regulations regarding Institutional Review Boards (IRBs); and

 

  • Fraudulent overbilling practices.

 

Newman’s petition further states:

 

It has long been a tenet of Anglo-American jurisprudence that individuals who believe that they have information concerning criminal or illegal activities should be permitted, and encouraged, to voluntarily provide such information to government authorities. Similarly, investigative journalism concerning matters of public concern, including the uncovering of illegal, unethical, or troubling activities, is a constitutionally protected, venerable undertaking.

 

Newman’s unsuccessful appeal to the Ninth Circuit was joined by state 14 Attorneys General, led by Arizona, who are seeking to review the evidence contained in the recordings.

 

As the most important abortion case currently under litigation, Newman v. NAF could have profound implications on the future use of undercover investigative techniques and the ability of law enforcement to gather evidence in criminal investigations.

 

Read the Petition in Newman v. NAF

 

Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation and has become a strong voice for the pro-life movement in America.  Click here to support Operation Rescue.

____________________

Challenging Activist Judge & NAF

John R. Houk

© August 5, 2017

__________________

Newman Files Petition with Supreme Court Challenging Gag Order that Bans Sharing Evidence with Law Enforcement

 

About Operation Rescue

 

Who We Are

 

History

 

Endorsements

 

What Others Say About Us


Contact

 

© Christian Newswire 2017. All Rights Reserved. | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW – Washington – DC – 20006 | 202-546-0054 

 

Christian Newswire Services:

 

Christian Newswire is the most used and most recognized distributor of religious content news releases in the nation.

 

Over 2100 public policy groups, government agencies, PR firms, religious organizations, think-tanks, watchdog groups, advocacy groups, coalitions, foundations, colleges, universities, activists, politicians, and candidates use Christian Newswire to distribute their news releases.   Click to see our client list. 

 

How much does it cost?

 

$75 is what we charge to transmit your 400-words-or-less(‡) news release to our exclusive national media list.  Our competitors charge from $295 to $395, yet they do not have the direct contact with reporters and news producers that we have.

 

You do not need to use a credit card.  We will send you a bill.  It is that easy.  Just email us your news release, or use the form on this website and tell us to send it out.  No membership fee. You are not required to purchase any additional services.

 

Want to know more about where your news release will go and who will see it?

 

National list of over 2500 reporters and news producers whose beat is “conservative & family issues” ($75 for up to 400 words‡)  These are TV, radio, wire-service, and print reporters/producers that cover family and conservative issues, that READ THE REST