Monday, March 18, 2019

11 YEAR OLD “DRAG QUEEN” BOY ALLOWED TO DANCE IN GAY BAR FOR “TIPS”. SURPRISED?




By Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq.

How about the fact that Child Protective Services found this action to be both perfectly legal and not in any manner endangering to the child (physically or psychologically)? The goal could not be clearer - the sexualization and sexual exploitation of our children.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mom-whose-11-year-old-dances-in-drag-at-gay-night-clubs-cleared-by-child-protective-services

CHILD ABUSE? WHERE IS THE MORAL OUTRAGE?

By Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq. 

Not to long ago, 10-year-old Canadian boy Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden was featured in a photo with the Season 7 winner of "RuPaul's Drag Race," Violet Chachki. In the shocking photo, Violet is wearing nothing but a pair of heels and a small piece of fabric covering his genitals, as seen in the screenshot below. 



So this is now acceptable behavior? Parents can allow their small children to engage in these sexually suggestive photo shoots? I am the father of two beautiful girls and simply cannot believe that parents are not freaking out right about now all over the country when seeing images like this one. 

This is the kind of thing that the LGB-T lobby is now trying to shove down society's collective throats, as young public school children all around the country (including New Jersey) are being indoctrinated into celebrating the LGB-T lifestyle as morally virtuous, despite their family’s objections arising from their deeply held religious beliefs. 

To our collective shame as a country, this image is likely marginally legal when using the 6 criteria Dost Test because it only meets 2 of the 6 standards used by the test to establish what is a pornographic image. This, of course, does not make it any less morally reprehensible. 

The image arguably meets these 2 of the 6 criterias outlined in the Dost Test:
5. Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity.
6. Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

Though shocking and highly troubling, I'm using the full image in our blog in the hope that it will help to stir up the moral outrage and opprobrium the image and the parents of this child deserve. 

Monday, February 25, 2019

POLITICIANS NOW EMBRACING INFANTICIDE


POLITICIANS NOW EMBRACING INFANTICIDE
Nay votes on today's Anti-Infanticide Sasse Bill - Senate Bill S.311
ONLY THREE DEMOCRATS voted for life and human decency. All other Democrats voted to refuse medical assistance to critically ill dying babies.
The apostle Paul wouldn’t have it. Publicly stripped, beaten with rods and then severely flogged, he was thrown into an “inner prison” where his feet were placed in the stocks having been denied his rights as a Roman Citizen. After the abuse, they tried to get rid of him quietly – through the back door. Paul wouldn’t have it. He made it a point to publicly expose their unacceptable, illegal behavior by forcing the magistrates to fess up to their crimes, demanding they escort him out personally.
I have never taken any partisan position in the past. My aim has always been and remains to represent Christ and Christ alone. I draw the line when it comes to killing babies born alive. These cowards masquerading as politicians who care for our lives will not be allowed to secretly walk out the back door today.
This bill was simple. It condemned infanticide and DEMANDED medical treatment for surviving victims – innocent babies BORN ALIVE but NEEDING emergency medical help to have a fighting chance at life. I’ve placed the TEXT OF THE ACTUAL BILL for the skeptics reading this blog below so there is no question as to the truth of what I'm saying here. No back-peddling. No denying or squirming out of culpability.
Anyone voting against this bill has compromised their morality and basic humanity to an unconscionable degree. Their actions are inhuman, supporting horrific acts against the most vulnerable human life that they would likely never condone be done to dogs. By voting Nay, these politicians have voted to allow living human beings needing emergency medical intervention to be abandoned while their cries are ignored as they are heartlessly allowed to die.
Only these three (3) Democrats decided to WALK AWAY from their party’s macabre position promoting infanticide and voted on the side of life and human decency. They should be lauded for their brave action in this matter in light of anticipated opprobrium they will receive from their Democrat peers:
Bob Casey (D-PA), Yea
Doug Jones (D-AL), Yea
Joe Manchin (D-WV), Yea
The following Republicans TURNED THEIR BACKS on life, refusing or neglecting to vote to protect innocent life and humanity. Though we still would not have had enough votes to pass the legislation with only 56 votes, Republicans would at least have spoken with a unified voice. These Republicans should NEVER hold public office:
Cramer (R-ND), Not Voting
Murkowski (R-AK), Not Voting
Scott (R-SC), Not Voting
ALL OTHER DEMOCRATS voted to support abandoning innocent, hurting, human beings to their tragic deaths, joined by the following heartless independents who also are not fit for office:
Angus Stanley King (I-ME), Nay
Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Nay

*****[Text of Bill]******
U.S. SENATE BILL S. 311
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 31, 2019
Mr. Sasse (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Braun, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lankford, Mr.McConnell, Mr. Moran, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Portman, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Romney, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Wicker, Mr.Young, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Sullivan) introduced the following bill; ‘
which was read the first time February 4, 2019
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.
(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.
SEC. 3. BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION.
(a) Requirements Pertaining To Born-Alive Abortion Survivors.—Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:
Ҥ 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors
“(a) Requirements For Health Care Practitioners.—In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive:
(1) DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED; IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL.—Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—
“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and
“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.
(2) MANDATORY REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS.—A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.
(b) Penalties.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
(2) INTENTIONAL KILLING OF CHILD BORN ALIVE.—Whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
(c) Bar To Prosecution.—The mother of a child born alive described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted for a violation of this section, an attempt to violate this section, a conspiracy to violate this section, or an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a violation.
(d) Civil Remedies.
(1) CIVIL ACTION BY A WOMAN ON WHOM AN ABORTION IS PERFORMED.—If a child is born alive and there is a violation of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate relief.
(2) APPROPRIATE RELIEF.—Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes—
“(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of subsection (a);
“(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the abortion or attempted abortion; and
(C) punitive damages.
(3) ATTORNEY’S FEE FOR PLAINTIFF.—The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection.
(4) ATTORNEY’S FEE FOR DEFENDANT.—If a defendant in a civil action under this subsection prevails and the court finds that the plaintiff’s suit was frivolous, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff.
(e) Definitions.—In this section the following definitions apply:
(1) ABORTION.—The term ‘abortion’ means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device—
“(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or
“(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than—
“(i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive; or
“(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
(2) ATTEMPT.—The term ‘attempt’, with respect to an abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an abortion.
(3) BORN ALIVE.—The term ‘born alive’ has the meaning given that term in section 8 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’).”.
(b) Conforming Amendments.—
(1) The table of sections for chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors.”.
(2) The chapter heading for chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS” and inserting “ABORTIONS”.
(3) The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to chapter 74 and inserting the following:
• “74. Abortion 1531”.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect one day after the date of enactment.
60 Votes Required: Vote – Yeas 53, Nays 44, Not Voting 3
(Good) Democrats voting Yea:
Bob Casey (D-PA), Yea
Doug Jones (D-AL), Yea
Joe Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Republican Not Voting:
Cramer (R-ND), Not Voting
Murkowski (R-AK), Not Voting
Scott (R-SC), Not Voting
Non-Democrat Nays:
King (I-ME), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay

TRUMP'S PRO-FAMILY/LIFE HHS TITLE X REFORM IS NOW IN PLACE AND A BLESSING.


Health and Human Services Title X reform requires changes that hopefully will cripple the legislatively condoned, Planned Parenthood headed child mutilation machine. Many innocent lives will now be saved.
While Trump says (and tweets) dumb things pretty much constantly, this Title X update is an example of how his pro-family efforts are being established into administrative law; efforts that will save countless innocent lives.
Here are some great highlights - The New DHHS publication makes changes:
"Requiring clear financial and physical separation between Title X funded projects and programs or facilities where abortion is a method of family planning."
"Requiring clinics to encourage meaningful parent/child communication – and, as required by federal law, to encourage family participation, especially in a minor’s decision to seek family planning services..."
"It protects Title X healthcare providers so that they are not required to choose between participating in the program and violating their own consciences by providing abortion counseling and referral."
This move by the Trump administration should be applauded.
Below is full text:

DHHS Releases Final Title X Rule Detailing Family Planning Grant Program

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today issued the final rule to revise the regulations governing the Title X family planning program, which focuses on serving low-income Americans.
The final rule ensures compliance with statutory program integrity provisions governing the program and, in particular, the statutory prohibition on funding programs where abortion is a method of family planning. The final rule amends the Title X regulation, which had not been substantially updated in nearly two decades, and makes notable improvements designed to increase the number of patients served and improve the quality of their care.
A proposed rule regarding the Title X program was published in the Federal Register on June 1, 2018, with a 60-day public comment period. The Department received and carefully reviewed more than 500,000 comments, and made certain changes to the final rule as a result of its consideration of the comments.
The Title X program annually serves approximately 4 million people, and the updated rule seeks to ensure a holistic and health-centered approach, safeguarding the short- and long-term family planning needs of more women, men, and adolescents in need of services. Key elements of the final rule include:
  • Requiring clear financial and physical separation between Title X funded projects and programs or facilities where abortion is a method of family planning. This separation will ensure adherence to statutory restrictions, and provide needed clarity for the public and for Title X clinics about permissible and impermissible activities for Title X projects.
  • Prohibiting referral for abortion as a method of family planning. The final rule does not bar nondirective counseling on abortion, but eliminates the requirement that Title X providers offer abortion counseling and referral. It protects Title X healthcare providers so that they are not required to choose between participating in the program and violating their own consciences by providing abortion counseling and referral.
  • Improving program transparency by requiring more complete reporting by grantees about subrecipients and more clarity about informal partnerships with referral agencies, to ensure provision of quality family planning services and compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.
  • Protecting women and children who have experienced child abuse, child molestation, incest, sexual abuse, rape, intimate partner violence, and trafficking by:
    • Requiring that Title X clinics provide annual training for staff and have a site-specific protocol in place to protect victims/survivors of sexual assault.
    • Requiring compliance with State and local laws on reporting or notification of these crimes.
    • Requiring counseling for minors on how to resist attempts to coerce them into sexual activities.
  • Requiring clinics to encourage meaningful parent/child communication – and, as required by federal law, to encourage family participation, especially in a minor’s decision to seek family planning services – and to provide practical ways to begin (and maintain) such communications.
  • Maintaining the confidential relationship between patients and medical professionals within the statutory requirements.
  • Clarifying that individuals may be considered for Title X services if they are unable to obtain employer-sponsored insurance coverage for certain contraceptive services due to their employer’s religious beliefs or moral convictions and the limitations of their own financial resources.
  • Providing high quality comprehensive family planning services to those currently unserved or underserved, while ensuring the integrity of the Title X program, consistent with statutory requirements.

STATE & LOCAL TAX DEDUCTION MUST BE REINSTATED NOW.

Supplemental Tax Reform Needed.
The new Trump tax deal, though generally beneficial to residents where state and local taxes are low nationwide, is DEVASTATING to people living in high tax states. This includes New Jersey residents, a state with the highest real estate taxes in the nation. If Trump expects to be re-elected, he MUST reinstate the deduction. Tax returns are down 16.7% this year overall under the new tax plan, and high tax state residents (NY, NJ, CA) are being killed. This tax hike is laser targetting the middle class, precisely the people Trump needs for re-election. On a related point, Trump must grant permanent status to current DACA recipients and reform immigration law now. Many Republicans have a problem with this. They must "get over it" if they expect independents to come alongside them.


Monday, February 18, 2019

AUTOPSY OF A DEAD COUP



This article was so on point that I felt I had to republish it in my Blog. Make no mistake about it, WE ARE WITNESSING THE LARGEST SCANDAL IN AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY.

During the Obama administration, Hillary Rodham Clinton and both the FBI and CIA were likely the most corrupt government agents/agencies ever to have taken part in our government. As an attorney myself familiar with the legal issues surrounding what took place, I can say that what we saw in the fake email investigation overseen by the now disgraced James Comey was the stuff of Hollywood. The closing of nvestigations into the Clinton Foundation and the Foundation's dissolution is an obvious attempt at starting the clock to the destruction of all of their corporate records within 7 years. It's simply idiotic to think otherwise. The idea is simple: If they can buy enough time, they will be able to legally destroy all the evidence of the blatant selling of our government to foreign powers through this organization. None of these foreign governments who gave millions to the Clinton Foundation did so out of some sense of philanthropy. To anyone but those with serious mental issues, this was just buying influence - pure and simple. This is why the donations suddenly stopped once Hillary was out of office (or potential office). In terms of Hillary's criminality, the FBI contorted statutory interpretation suggesting required "intent" and changed words used for the simply purpose of saving her from sure jail time.

Consequently, any sense of justice and decency was literally thrown out the window during this administration. The Justice Department, IRS, FBI, and the CIA were weaponized for partisan interests and have suffered incredible and irreversible harm in the eyes of the public they are sworn to serve. The most recent statements by Andrew McCabe in his infamous "60 Minutes" interview are proof positive of how corrupt and just low our FBI sunk. The FBI was acting like more of a "mafia" than a law enforcement agency.

David really does a great job at summarizing several aspects of this historic scandal in the article below. Read it and weep - Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., J.D., Esq.

*****

Picture by Kevin Dietsch/Pool | Getty Images

Article by Paul Victor Davis Hanson

The illegal effort to destroy the 2016 Trump campaign by Hillary Clinton campaign’s use of funds to create, disseminate among court media, and then salt among high Obama administration officials, a fabricated, opposition smear dossier failed.

So has the second special prosecutor phase of the coup to abort the Trump presidency failed. There are many elements to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president.

Preparing the Battlefield
No palace coup can take place without the perception of popular anger at a president.

The deep state is by nature cowardly. It does not move unless it feels it can disguise its subterranean efforts or that, if revealed, those efforts will be seen as popular and necessary—as expressed in tell-all book titles such as fired FBI Directors James Comey’s Higher Loyalty or in disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s psychodramatic The Threat.

In candidate and President Trump’s case that prepping of the battlefield translated into a coordinated effort among the media, political progressives and celebrities to so demonize Trump that his imminent removal likely would appear a relief to the people. Anything was justified that led to that end.

All through the 2016 campaign and during the first two years of the Trump presidency the media’s treatment, according to liberal adjudicators of press coverage, ran about 90 percent negative toward Trump—a landmark bias that continues today.

Journalists themselves consulted with the Clinton campaign to coordinate attacks. From the Wikileaks trove, journalistic grandees such as John Harwood, Mark Leibovich, Dana Milbank, and Glenn Thrush often communicated (and even post factum were unapologetic about doing so) with John Podesta’s staff to construct various anti-Trump themes and have the Clinton campaign review or even audit them in advance.

Some contract “journalists” apparently were paid directly by Fusion GPS—created by former reporters Glen Simpson of the Wall Street Journal and Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post—to spread lurid stories from the dossier. Others more refined like Christiane Amanpour and James Rutenberg had argued for a new journalistic ethos that partisan coverage was certainly justified in the age of Trump, given his assumed existential threat to The Truth. Or as Rutenberg put it in 2016: “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place?”

I suppose Rutenberg never considered that half the country might have considered the Hillary Clinton presidency “potentially dangerous,” and yet did not expect the evening news, in 90 percent of its coverage, to reflect such suspicions.

The Democratic National Committee’s appendages often helped to massage CNN news coverage—such as Donna Brazile’s primary debate tip-off to the Clinton campaign or CNN’s consultation with the DNC about forming talking points for a scheduled Trump interview.

So-called “bombshell,” “watershed,” “turning-point,” and “walls closing in” fake news aired in 24-hour news bulletin cycles. The media went from fabrications about Trump’s supposed removal of the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office, to the mythologies in the Steele dossier, to lies about the Trump Tower meeting, to assurances that Michael Cohen would testify to Trump’s suborning perjury, and on and on.

CNN soon proved that it is no longer a news organization at all—as reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, and Lex Harris all trafficked in false rumors and unproven gossip detrimental to Trump, while hosts and guest hosts such as Reza Aslan, the late Anthony Bourdain, and Anderson Cooper stooped to obscenity and grossness to attack Trump.

Both politicos and celebrities tried to drive Trump’s numbers down to facilitate some sort of popular ratification for his removal. Hollywood and the coastal corridor punditry exhausted public expressions of assassinating or injuring the president, as the likes of Jim Carrey, Johnny Depp, Robert de Niro, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, Madonna, Snoop Dogg, and a host of others vied rhetorically to slice apart, shoot, beat up, cage, behead, and blow up the president.

Left wing social media and mainstream journalism spread sensational lies about supposed maniacal Trump supporters in MAGA hats. They constructed fantasies that veritable white racists were now liberated to run amuck insulting and beating up people of color as they taunted the poor and victimized minorities with vicious Trump sloganeering—even as the Covington farce and now the even more embarrassing Jussie Smollett charade evaporated without apologies from the media and progressive merchants of such hate.

At the same time, liberal attorneys, foundations, Democratic politicians, and progressive activists variously sued to overturn the election on false charges of rigged voting machines. They sought to subvert the Electoral College. They introduced articles of impeachment. They sued to remove Trump under the Emoluments Clause. They attempted to invoke the 25th Amendment. And they even resurrected the ossified Logan Act—before focusing on the appointment of a special counsel to discredit the Trump presidency. Waiting for the 2020 election was seen as too quaint.

Weaponizing the Deep State
During the 2016 election, the Obama Department of Justice warped the Clinton email scandal investigation, from Bill Clinton’s secret meeting on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to unethical immunity given to the unveracious Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, to James Comey’s convoluted predetermined treatment of “likely winner” Clinton, and to DOJ’s Bruce Ohr’s flagrant conflict of interests in relation to Fusion GPS.

About a dozen FBI and DOJ grandees have now resigned, retired, been fired, or reassigned for unethical and likely illegal behavior—and yet have not faced criminal indictments. The reputation of the FBI as venerable agency is all but wrecked. Its administrators variously have libeled the Trump voters, expressed hatred for Trump, talked of “insurance policies” in ending the Trump candidacy, and inserted informants into the Trump campaign.

The former Obama directors of the CIA and National Intelligence, with security clearances intact, hit the television airways as paid “consultants” and almost daily accused the sitting president of Russian collusion and treason—without cross-examination or notice that both previously had lied under oath to Congress (and did so without subsequent legal exposure), and both were likely knee-deep in the dissemination of the Steele dossier among Obama administration officials.

John Brennan’s CIA likely helped to spread the Fusion GPS dossier among elected and administrative state officials. Some in the NSC in massive and unprecedented fashion requested the unmasking of surveilled names of Trump subordinates, and then illegally leaked them to the press.

The FISA courts, fairly or not, are now mostly discredited, given they either were willingly or naively hoodwinked by FBI and DOJ officials who submitted as chief evidence for surveillance on American citizens, an unverified dossier—without disclosure that the bought campaign hit-piece was paid for by Hillary Clinton, authored by a discredited has-been British agent, relied on murky purchased Russian sources, and used in circular fashion to seed news accounts of supposed Trump misbehavior.

The Mueller Investigation
The Crown Jewel in the coup was the appointment of special counsel Robert Muller to discover supposed 2016 Trump-Russian election collusion. Never has any special investigation been so ill-starred from its conception.

Mueller’s appointment was a result of his own friend James Comey’s bitter stunt of releasing secret, confidential and even classified memos of presidential conversations. Acting DOJ Attorney Rod Rosenstein appointed a former colleague Mueller—although as a veteran himself of the Clinton email scandal investigations and the FISA fraudulent writ requests, Rosenstein was far more conflicted than was the recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Mueller then packed his investigative team with lots of Clinton donors and partisans, some of whom had legally represented Clinton subordinates and even the Clinton Foundation or voiced support for anti-Trump movements.

Mueller himself and Andrew Weissmann have had a long record of investigatory and prosecutorial overreach that had on occasion resulted in government liability and court mandated federal restitution. In such polarized times, neither should have involved in such an investigation. Two subordinate FBI investigators were caught earlier on conducting an affair over their FBI-issued cell phones, and during the election cycle they slurred the object of their subsequent investigation, ridiculed Trump voters, and bragged that Trump would never be elected. Mueller later staggered, and then hid for weeks the reasons for, their respective firings.

The team soon discovered there was no Trump-Russian 2016 election collusion—and yet went ahead to leverage Trump campaign subordinates on process crimes in hopes of finding some culpability in Trump’s past 50-year business, legal, and tax records. The point was not to find who colluded with whom (if it had been, then Hillary Clinton would be now indicted for illegally hiring with campaign funds a foreign national to buy foreign fabrications to discredit her opponent), but to find the proper mechanism to destroy the presumed guilty Donald Trump.

The Mueller probe has now failed in that gambit of proving “collusion” (as even progressive investigative reporters and some FBI investigators had predicted), but succeeded brilliantly in two ways.

The “counterintelligence” investigation subverted two years of the Trump presidency by constant leaks that Trump soon would be indicted, jailed, disgraced, or impeached. As a result, Trump’s stellar economic and foreign policy record would never earn fifty percent of public support.

Second, Mueller’s preemptive attacks offered an effective offensive defense for the likely felonious behavior of John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and a host of others. While the Mueller lawyers threatened to destroy the lives of bit players like Jerome Corsi, George Papadopoulos, and Roger Stone, they de facto provided exemption to a host of the Washington hierarchy who had lied under oath, obstructed justice, illegally leaked to the press, unmasked and leaked names of surveilled Americans, and misled federal courts under the guise of a “higher loyalty” to the cause of destroying Donald J. Trump.

The Palace Coup
All of the above came to a head with the firing of the chronic leaker FBI Director James Comey (who would lie to the president about his not being a target of an FBI investigation, lie to House investigatory committees by pleading amnesia and ignorance on 245 occasions, and repeatedly lie to his own FBI bureaucrats).

In May 2017, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe took over from the fired Comey. His candidate wife recently had been a recipient of huge Clinton-related campaign PAC donations shortly before he began investigating the Clinton email scandal. McCabe would soon be cited by the Inspector General for lying to federal investigators on numerous occasions—cynically stooping even to lie to his own New York FBI subordinates to invest scarce resources to hunt for their own nonexistent leaks as a mechanism for disguising his own quite real and illegal leaking.

The newly promoted McCabe apparently felt that it was his moment to become famous for taking out a now President Trump. Thus, he assembled a FBI and DOJ cadre to open a counterintelligence investigation of the sitting president on no other grounds but the fumes of an evaporating Clinton opposition dossier and perceived anger among the FBI that their director had just been fired. In addition, apparently now posing as Andrew McCabe, MD, he informally head counted how many of Trump’s own cabinet members could be convinced by McCabe’s own apparent medical expertise to help remove the president on grounds of physical and mental incapacity under the 25th Amendment. This was an attempted, albeit pathetic, coup against an elected president and the first really in the history of the United States.

At one point, McCabe claims that the acting Attorney General of the United States Rod Rosenstein volunteered to wear a wire to entrap his boss President Trump—in the manner of Trump’s own attorney Michael Cohen’s entrapment of Trump, in the manner of James Comey taking entrapment notes on confidential Trump one-on-one meetings and leaking them to the press, and in the manner of the Department of Justice surveilling Trump subordinates through FISA and other court authorizations.

McCabe was iconic of an utterly corrupt FBI Washington hierarchy, which we now know from the behavior of its disgraced and departed leadership. They posed as patriotic scouts, but in reality proved themselves arrogant, smug, and incompetent. They harbored such a sense of superiority that they were convinced they could act outside the law in reifying an “insurance policy” that would end the Trump presidency.

The thinking of the conspirators initially had been predicated on three assumptions thematic during this three-year long government effort to destroy Trump:

One, during 2016, Hillary Clinton would certainly win the election and FBI and DOJ unethical and illegal behavior would be forgotten if not rewarded, given the Clintons’ own signature transgressions and proven indifference to the law;

Two, Trump was so controversial and the fabricated dossier was so vile and salacious, that seeded rumors of Trump’s faked perversity gave them de facto exemptions to do whatever they damned pleased;

Three, Trump’s low polls, his controversial reset of American policy, and the general contempt in which he was held by the bipartisan coastal elite, celebrities, and the deep state, meant that even illegal means to continue the campaign-era effort to destroy Trump and now abort his presidency were felt to be moral and heroic acts without legal consequences, and the media would see the conspirators as heroes.

In sum, the Left and the administrative state, in concert with the media, after failing to stop the Trump campaign, regrouped. They ginned up a media-induced public hysteria, with the residue of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s illegal opposition research, and manipulated it to put in place a special counsel, stocked with partisans.

Then, not thugs in sunglasses and epaulettes, not oligarchs in private jets, not shaggy would-be Marxists, but sanctimonious arrogant bureaucrats in suits and ties used their government agencies to seek to overturn the 2016 election, abort a presidency, and subvert the U.S. Constitution. And they did all that and more on the premise that they were our moral superiors and had uniquely divine rights to destroy a presidency that they loathed.

Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal and moral reckoning.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact [email protected].

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

LAW SCHOOL CASE SUMMARY OF ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)


Below please find my law school case summary of Roe v. Wade. I thought it would be great to share this with people who have not had the opportunity to read the actual case law. It also breaks down the case from a legal point of view giving the reader a look into a lawyer's perspective of the case. 

[Right to Unencumbered First Trimester Abortion] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

[Appellant Jane Roe, a pregnant mother who wished to obtain an abortion, sued on behalf of all woman similarly situated in an effort to prevent the enforcement of Texas statutes criminalizing all abortions except those performed to save the life of the mother.]


STATUTES THAT MAKE CRIMINAL ALL ABORTIONS EXCEPT WHEN MEDICALLY ADVISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF PRIVACY.

Facts: Texas statutes made it a crime to procure or attempt an abortion except when medically advised for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. Appellant Jane Roe sought a declaratory judgment that the statutes were unconstitutional on their face and an injunction to prevent defendant Dallas County District Attorney from enforcing the statutes. Appellant alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant and that she was unable to receive a legal abortion by a licensed physician because her life was not threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy and that she was unable to afford to travel to another jurisdiction to obtain a legal abortion. Appellant sued on behalf of herself and all other women similarly situated, claiming that the statutes were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Issue: Do the Texas statutes improperly invade a right possessed by the appellant to terminate her pregnancy embodied in the concept of personal liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, in the personal marital, familial, and sexual privacy protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, or among the rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment?
Holding – Disposition: The right to personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but the right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Roe wins – the district court judgment is affirmed.
Hallford loses – the district court judgment is reversed.
The Roes lose – the district court judgment is affirmed.

Rationale: Court opined – “The Constitution DOES NOT explicitly mention any right of privacy. [But] the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have … found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in the 4th and 5th Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights [Griswold]; in the 9th Amendment [id.]; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment [Meyer]. These decisions make it clear that only PERSONAL RIGHTS that can be DEEMED “FUNDAMENTAL,” or “IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY,” [Palko] are included in this GUARANTEE of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation [Skinner], contraception [Eisenstadt], family relationships, and child rearing and education [Pierce; Meyer].

·      This “right of privacy,” whether it be founded in the 14th amendment’s concept of personal liberty as we feel it is, or as the District Court determined, in the 9th , is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
·      Blackmun went on to opine that there were inherent difficulties in the court’s “denying choice altogether,” including the effects such a ruling would have on the physical and psychological well-being of the mother.
·      [In light of the inherent difficulties], “… appellants and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this, we do not agree. [A] state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and IN PROTECTING POTENTIAL LIFE… At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
·      “All this… persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn” - [Texas argues] that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. [If so], the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. Use of the term “person” in section 1 of the 14th Amendment, as well as in other parts of the Constitution, only use the term postnatally [duh]. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible “pre-natal” application.
·      “The State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman [and] it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct…. Each grows as the woman approaches term, and at a point during pregnancy, each becomes ‘compelling.’”

When does the interest become “compelling” for…
The mother? “[In light of present medical knowledge] It becomes compelling approximately at the end of the first trimester – until this point, mortality in abortion is less than that in childbirth.”
The unborn child [fetus]? “The compelling point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside of the mother’s womb, [the protection having] both logical and biological justifications.”

Three reasons have been advanced for the historical enactment of criminal abortion laws.

(1)   The first is that the laws are the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct, but this argument has been taken seriously by neither courts nor commentators.
(2)   The second reason is that the abortion procedure is hazardous, therefore the State’s concern is to protect pregnant women. However, modern medical techniques have altered the situation, with abortions being relatively safe particularly in the first trimester.
(3)   The third reason is the State’s interest is in protecting the prenatal life. However, this is somewhat negated by the fact that the pregnant woman cannot be prosecuted for the act of abortion.

Court’s Bottom Line on State’s Interests over the Fetus

If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period [period starting upon the viability of the fetus], except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Measured against these standards, “the Texas law sweeps too broadly and cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.”

Court Holding in Roe v. Wade Based on Fetus’ Stages of Development

Legal Stage 1 - For the stage prior to the approximate end of the first trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician, and may not be criminalized by statute.

Legal Stage 2 - For the stage subsequent to the approximate end of the first trimester, the State may regulate abortion in ways reasonably related to maternal health based upon the State’s interest in promoting the health of the mother.

Legal Stage 3 - For the stage subsequent to viability, the State may regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life, BASED UPON THE STATE’S INTEREST in the potential of the potential life of the unborn child.

Concurrence - Justice Stewart [other concurrences filed by Douglas and Burger.]: “The Griswold decision [in some manner resurrecting the doctrine of substantive due process killed in Ferguson v. Skrupa] can be rationally understood only as a holding that the Connecticut statute substantively invaded [“liberty”]. “The liberty protected by [due process] covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights. [In Eisendadt], we recognized ‘the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.’ That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Dissent – Justice White, joined by Justice Rehnquist: Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.

Dissent – Justice Rehnquist:
·      A transaction resulting in an operation as this is not private.
·      Though the concept of “liberty” encompasses more than rights explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, deprivation of that liberty is only precluded if executed without “due process of law.”
·      Social and economic legislation [such as the one in question] is tested by analyzing whether the law challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective.
·      Court’s sweeping invalidation of a first-trimester abortion is impossible to justify under “Lee Optical” test.

·      As in Lochner and similar cases applying substantive due process standards to economic and social welfare legislation, the adoption of the compelling state interest standard will inevitably require this Court to examine the legislative policies and pass on the wisdom of these policies in the very process of deciding whether a particular state interest put forward may or may not be “compelling.”