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

 

Did Illegal Surveillance Pass Laws in USA?


John R. Houk

© July 14, 2017

 

I realize there are a lot of unsubstantiated Conspiracy Theories out there. Because of this Conspiracy Theories are much like the old story of a Boy who Cried Wolf. In this day and age of television, video games, laptops, etc.; parents may not share classic stories like Aesop’s Fables that end with a learning moral. The moral of the Boy who Cried Wolf is if you tell an alarming lie all the time, when you tell the alarming truth, no one will believe you.

 

Deciphering the credible from the incredible Conspiracies brings up the Boy who Cried Wolf scenario in believability. I have unappreciated disagreements with Conspiracy Theory enthusiasts about the credible and incredible.

 

The current Deep State conspiracy to bring down the Trump Administration by any lying means necessary is remarkably credible hence believable.

 

The sad thing about this anti-Trump conspiracy is that a huge swath of Americans that ONLY get their information from the primary Mainstream Media (MSM), televised or print, are probably duped into believing President Trump is a corrupt criminal. The problem is the MSM is a part of the Deep State cabal conspiring against President Trump and the agenda he was elected to perform.

 

Ergo, if the MSM actually tells the truth about some info, their dishonesty has been so pervasive, I can’t believe them. AND YOU shouldn’t believe their wolf crying either.

 

Thanks to the Winning America Now e-newsletter, I have discovered some Deep State info that Chief Justice John Roberts may have been blackmailed into being the deciding Justice in validating Obamacare.

 

What was the possible dirt collecting method against Chief Justice Roberts? Illegal surveillance by the CIA and/or NSA perpetrated by the Obama Administration.

 

In full disclosure of the credibility/incredibility scale, one of the sources involved in making this public is former Sheriff Joe Arpaio who nearly convinced me that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii. Arpaio made some very credible assessments of Obama’s Birth Certificate validity. **

 

** On a personal level of opinion, I believe Obama was indeed born in Hawaii rather than Kenya. However, sometime between Hawaii to Indonesia and back to Hawaii, something hinky happened with Obama’s citizenship status. It is my opinion that Obama’s citizenship records were thus messed up in the travels that may have even gotten him into Occidental College as a foreign exchange student. For me this explains the suspicious Birth Certificate and the reasons Obama school records from childhood through college have been sealed from public exposure. That’s my conjecture and not a proven fact.

 

Below is the illegal Obama surveillance story that if true, should cause a huge Constitutional crisis with Obama forcing an unconstitutional law into constitutional validity via clandestine blackmail.

JRH 7/14/17

Please Support NCCR

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

EVIDENCE: Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Was ‘Hacked’ By Obama Officials

 

By Patrick Howley, Editor-in-Chief

July 12, 2017 8:07 am EST

Big League Politics

 

Evidence shows that John Roberts, chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, was “hacked” by a Deep State surveillance operation overseen by Obama administration CIA director John Brennan and Obama director of national intelligence James Clapper.

 

Roberts, the Bush appointee who made the decisive vote to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare before the 2012 election, was allegedly the victim of the same Deep State surveillance program that spied on President Donald Trump.

 

Tapes released by Federal Judge G. Murray Snow — preserved on a Whistleblower Soundcloud page — show real estate billionaire Timothy Blixseth explaining Brennan and Clapper’s surveillance program to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and detective Mike Zullo. The existence of this surveillance program has been corroborated by Wikileaks’ “Vault 7” release and by the public comments of former CIA and NSA contractor Dennis Montgomery, who says he worked on the program for Brennan and Clapper.

 

Montgomery has gone public with his claims exposing how the program was used to spy on President Donald Trump when he was a private citizen. Montgomery has gained immunity and desperately wants House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes or other lawmakers to call him to testify about what he knows.

 

On the explosive tapes, Blixseth walks Arpaio and Zullo through the details of the program on a computer screen. At one point, the three begin pulling up specific names of targeted individuals.

 

“You know who that guy is? That’s the head of the FISA court they hacked into, Reggie Walton,” Blixseth tells the investigators.

 

“John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, was hacked,” Blixseth tells Arpaio and Zullo.

 

LISTEN TO THE TAPE HERE (18:00 Minute Mark)

 

Insiders have always been skeptical of Roberts’ motives for siding with President Obama on the 2012 Obamacare case. While there’s still no available evidence that Roberts was blackmailed, the allegation that he was “hacked” by Obama officials provides some more context into the justice’s controversial career.

 

As Big League Politics reported, former FBI director James Comey seized and buried volumes of information that demonstrated this wide-ranging government surveillance operation targeting Donald Trump before he became president.

 

Larry Klayman, attorney for former NSA and CIA contractor and whistleblower Dennis Montgomery, delivered to the FBI 47 hard drives and data amounting to more than 600 million pages of documentation on the surveillance scheme. Then-FBI director James Comey’s general counsel James Baker took the data into his possession, according to multiple sources. But despite possessing Montgomery’s bombshell whistleblower revelations, Comey never acted on or publicized the information.

 

Additionally, Comey’s former firm Lockheed Martin granted entry to Montgomery to one of its facilities to help him work on the alleged mass surveillance program, which was allegedly overseen by Obama administration officials John Brennan and James Clapper and specifically targeted Trump.

 

“This guy showed me 900 million phone calls. And I see myself in there. I see people I know. I see Donald Trump in there a zillion times, and Bloomberg is in there,” Blixseth said on the tape, referring to information that Montgomery allegedly showed him.

 

“We don’t have any comment,” the FBI told Big League Politics when questioned about the existence of the program.

 

“I provided to the FBI seventeen businesses of Donald Trump, including the Trump Tower, the Trump leasing programs, all of these different programs, and including Trump himself and the various family members that had been wiretapped under these programs,” Montgomery said in a recent interview. “There has been a wiretap on Trump for years.”

 

“I started by going to Maricopa County and showing that Sheriff Arpaio himself was wiretapped under the Obama administration,” the whistleblower said.

 

“I was a CIA contractor both under John Brennan and under James Clapper and these individuals were running domestic surveillance programs in the United States collecting information on Americans. This isn’t political. They were collecting information on Republicans and Democrats. But they collected everything they could find. Bank accounts, phone numbers, chats, emails, and they collected a massive amount of it under the Obama administration,” Montgomery said.

_____________________

Did Illegal Surveillance Pass Laws in USA?

John R. Houk

© July 14, 2017

__________________

EVIDENCE: Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Was ‘Hacked’ By Obama Officials

 

© 2017 Big League News

 

About Big League Politics

 

Big League Politics is a fast-paced news site led by a team of top-level investigative reporters, filmmakers, and citizen journalists all over the country. We challenge powerful politicians in both the Republican and Democratic Parties. We are not conservative. We are not liberal. We are road warriors fighting the good fight for journalism. How did this happen? It happened because the mainstream media and corporate journalism outlets are bought off by shady interests and they don’t tell the truth. We got sick and tired of it. That’s why most of our writers are completely incapable of getting a job anywhere else.

 

Our Ethics

 

  1. All stories on Big League Politics are factually accurate.

 

  1. All stories on Big League Politics are in the public interest. We don’t suck up to politicians. We expose corruption and give people the best information on the politics of the day. If we’re reporting it, then it’s important.

 

  1. No target is too big or too small. If someone has broken the public trust, we will be there in his/her face with a video camera.

 

  1. We let our writers have a voice. It is not our job to agree with everything that our writers say. But free speech is under attack at most publications and we think that’s wrong. At Big League Politics, censorship is READ THE REST

 

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:


SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

 

Here is a quote that rings true about Lower Federal Courts striking down President Trump’s Executive Order travel ban from Islamic terrorist ridden nations or areas:

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law”.

 

The quote comes from journalist author Douglas V. Gibbs at the Canada Free Press speculating with some positive certainty that SCOTUS will strike down the Lower Courts to President Trump’s favor.

 

Gibbs’ positivism comes from the plain English of the U.S. Constitution. Ergo Gibbs posits that SCOTUS will uphold the rule of law spelled out in ink in the Constitution.

 

I pray Gibbs is correct. We are about to find out of a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court was worth waiting to elect him as President.

 

There are roughly two trains of thought on Constitutional interpretation: Original Intent of the Founders and the Living Constitution which can loosely interpreted to fit the Secular Humanist’s view of what society is or will be.

 

President Trump’s EOs ran into Left-Wing Activist Judges committed to the Living Constitution interpretation.

 

The Activist Judges struck down President Trump’s Travel Ban Eos by interpreting Donald Trump’s campaign speeches as being anti-Islam and so the EOs were aimed at discriminating against Muslims rather protecting American citizens.

 

If a majority of SCOTUS Justices follow the Living Constitution methodology of interpretation you can kiss Separation of Powers goodbye in the separate but equal Checks and Balances that Civics so often affirmed as a constitutional doctrine of the U.S. Government.

 

WHY?

 

Because a Living Constitution Judicial Branch becomes the dictator of laws made by man rather than the rule of law. A Judicial dictatorship was one of the great concerns of the Founding Fathers of the constitutionally created Judicial Branch:

 

“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- Thomas Jefferson [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Charles Hammond

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: August 18, 1821

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. (Thomas Jefferson – It has longQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

The Judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. (The JudiciaryQuotes Database)

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Judge Spencer Roane

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: September 6, 1819

The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. (The ConstitutionQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments. (And it ProvesQuotes Database)

 

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 47

Categories: Separation of Powers

Date: January 30, 1788

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. (The Accumulation of all PowersQuotes Database)

 

These are just a few quotes by the Founding Fathers on concerns of one Branch dominating the others thus promoting tyranny. To do a little reading on your own about the concerns of dominant Branch tyranny go to Quotes Database category Separation of Powers Quotations.

 

My concern currently is Judicial Tyranny which the concept of the Living Constitution enables. And it was Judicial Tyranny stemming from Living Constitution ideology that struck down the Executive Orders of President Trump.

 

The President has asked SCOTUS to expedite a decision on those Executive Orders. How SCOTUS rules will either strengthen Living Constitution Judicial Tyranny a take an important step toward Constitutional Supremacy.

 

Here is some further reading:

 

Why Judicial Supremacy Isn’t Compatible with Constitutional Supremacy; By RAMESH PONNURU; National Review; 9/10/15 4:00 AM

 

Living Constitution, fancy words for judicial tyranny; Posted by Dstarr; News from the Northwoods; 2/15/16 3:22 PM

 

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny; By Tenth Amendment Center; 6/4/12

 

A ‘Living Constitution’ for a Dying Republic; By Mark Alexander; The Patriot Post; 9/16/05

 

JRH 6/4/17

 Please Support NCCR

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

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

By Douglas V. Gibbs

June 4, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

In Trump’s Travel Ban Executive Order, the laws he is executing with the order are listed.  Among them is a law that gives the President the ability to prohibit persons from entering the United States if he believes they may be a danger to the national security of this country.

 

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws prohibiting persons from “migrating” into the United States with legislation.

 

Based on the original intent of the United States Constitution, Trump’s travel ban regarding a few Muslim-majority countries who have proven they are sponsors of terrorism, and are willing to harbor terrorists, is completely constitutional.

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law.

 

There is no authority granted to the courts to strike down executive orders in the U.S. Constitution, so the actions of these judges have no foundation in constitutional law.

 

If President Trump understood all of these things, then he would simply tell the lower court judges to kiss off, and he would execute his travel ban, anyway.  The courts have no enforcement arm, and have no authority over his executive branch agencies.

 

However, the president decided to let the courts decide, and the next stop within days will likely be the United States Supreme Court.  A ruling is expected soon that would, based on their “opinion” and the current misguided view of the Constitution, lift a temporary stay on President Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

Immigration in the sense of who can cross the border, as per Article I, Section 9, is a federal issue.  The 1st Amendment’s religious clauses only disallow the Congress from making law establishing a state religion, or writing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion within our jurisdiction.  It has nothing to do with the religion of who is entering (if Islam is a religion at all in the first place), and Article I, Section 9 does not mention that a religious test cannot be used in connection with which migrants can be prohibited.  It also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments because this is regarding people who aren’t even citizens of the United States.  As for the alleged ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law, all Congress has to do is repeal that law, and replace it with a new one.

 

The Democrats have somehow equated the rejection of Islam by conservatives as being akin to how Germany treated the Jews while under the NAZI regime prior to, and during, World War II.  The reality is, Islam is not a religion, it is a political system and full way of life that calls itself a religion, and it has more in common with the NAZIs than it does with the persecuted Jews.

 

As Commander in Chief, among his primary functions, the President must protect the country (national security), and that is what his travel ban executive order seeks to accomplish.  Despite what one may think, the reality is that terrorism runs rampant in Islam, and in the countries listed.  If Islam doesn’t want us fearing them, and having the inclination that all Muslims are either terrorists, or support terrorist activity, then Islam needs to clean its own house (if that is even possible).  The problem is, like the Germans who were not NAZIs in Germany, the moderate Muslims are a moot point.  The violent jihadists are the ones driving the message of Islam, so that is what we have to address, despite the alleged notion that the poor moderate Muslims are not in agreement with the violence.

 

We, as a nation, have the right to protect ourselves from any potential enemy, no matter what they choose to call themselves (regime, government, or religion).

 

While there is no timetable on how quickly the Supreme Court will issue a final ruling in the case (again, I am not a supporter of the unconstitutional concept of judicial review, but as the system is thought to be now, this is the last resort the President has. . . aside from ignoring the courts, and carrying out his duties despite their opinions), there are other lower court decisions also brewing regarding the issue.  Two federal appeals courts are also currently considering the issue, and a ruling from the 9th Circus is still pending.  Trump’s Justice Department, however, has asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the issue now.

 

According to Fox News:

 

“The justices have the discretion to wait indefinitely to decide the broader merits of the case, but will issue an order in the meantime on whether the ban can be temporarily enforced. The federal government asked the high court to allow the order to go into effect now, and proposed oral arguments be held in October.”

 

The White House frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security, as they should.  Bureaucrats and men in black robes should not be able to interfere with the duties of the President as Commander in Chief.  His job to protect the United States, while on some fronts are dependent upon Congress (such as when it comes to funding), is his to prosecute, and for judges to abandon the rule of law and act in a manner based on ideology regardless of the law is disgusting, and unconstitutional.

 

The executive order is the second one.  Rather than fight for the first one, the language was changed in a manner that was considered to be “bullet proof,” and then was issued March 6.  The revision, in addition to the added “bullet proof” language, also removed Iraq from the list of countries.

 

Officials say the new executive order only applies to foreign nationals outside the U.S. without a valid visa.

 

The appeals court said its decision was based on what Trump said on the campaign trail about “banning Muslims.”

 

Chief Judge Roger Gregory called it an “executive order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

 

Intolerance?  The Islamic culture has declared war on the United States, and the liberal left Democrats are treating this like it is a slight misunderstanding.  What about Islamic intolerance?  How about we ban mosques in the United States until Muslim countries start welcoming the building of churches and synagogues on their lands.  Did you know if you fly into a Muslim country, if they search you and discover you have a Bible, it will be destroyed onsite?  What about the genocide against Christians occurring in Muslim-majority countries?  Is that tolerance?
During World War II, would these judges have considered a ban against persons from the axis powers intolerant?

 

By the way, the law that started this thing about the President’s authority to prohibit immigration began with the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, which gives the president the allowance to restrict immigration into the United States if he believes the persons to be a danger to our national security.  It was passed during a time when we as a country were worried about communist infiltration.  Some Democrats weren’t too happy back then, either, despite the reality that it was a Democrat sponsored law.  Carter, Reagan and Obama all used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including from nations such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, but you don’t remember the courts worried about Obama’s use of it, do you?

 

The court’s attacks against the executive order has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with who wrote the executive order. Congress should drag these activist judges before Congress and make them answer to the legislative branch for their unconstitutional rulings, and then impeach each and every one of them for their bad constitutional behavior.  Congress should also pass law nullifying each and every one of those unconstitutional rulings (a power they have according to Article III’s “Exceptions Clause”).

 

The problem, in short, is not that the courts are misbehaving, but that Congress and the President are letting them.

 

The judicial branch is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches.  They are not supposed to be a check against Congress or the President, other checks exist (or existed) to take care of that.  The judicial branch’s job is clear.  Their job is simply to apply the law to the cases they hear.  If they believe the law is unconstitutional or unjust, then they can issue an opinion so that Congress may reconsider the law.  What they are doing now has nothing to do with applying the law, or the rule of law.  These leftist judges are simply ruling against the president for political reasons, and then are misinterpreting the law to make it sound like their rulings are within the law.

 

They all need to be thrown off their benches, and either replaced, or those particular inferior courts need to be dismantled and the regions absorbed by another court – again, an authority that Congress has, but has been unwilling to wield.

________________

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:

SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

________________

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks.  Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator.  Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.

 

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com