Wednesday, February 8, 2017


  clifton-canby-friedland AP
 Even a ‘bad high school student’ would rule in my favor. 
Trump Says Travel Ban ‘Done For The Security Of Our Nation’
Published on Feb 8, 2017
Trump to federal judges: Even a ‘bad high school student’ would rule in my favor. Trump Says Travel Ban ‘Done For The Security Of Our Nation’

US President Donald Trump speaks to members of the law enforcement at the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) Winter Conference in Washington, U.S., February 8, 2017.

US President Donald Trump sought to lend his own legal argument for his executive order banning travel from certain Muslim-majority countries on Wednesday, discounting a legal challenge to the order as anti-security.

Contending that a US President has wide powers to control who comes into the country, Trump said that even a “bad high school student” would rule in his favour, CNN reported.

“This isn’t just me. This is for Obama, for Ronald Reagan, for the President. This was done, very importantly, for security,” Trump said.

“It was done for the security of our nation, for the security of our citizens, so people don’t come in who are going to do us harm. That is why is was done. It couldn’t have been written more precisely,” he said.

Trump said his executive order was “written beautifully” and fully within the bounds of US statute.

“We’re in an area that, let’s just say, they’re interpreting things differently than probably 100 per cent of people in this room,” Trump told a group of major city police officers and sheriffs in Washington.

“We want security,” Trump said.

On Tuesday evening, a federal appeals court heard arguments in the legal battle over the travel ban. The California-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide soon whether to reinstate the executive order.

The top legal officials in 16 states, including Pennsylvania and Iowa which voted for Trump, filed a memorandum in support of efforts to halt the travel ban.

The state attorneys general from these states argued that they have standing as the executive order inflicts harm on states, including disruption at state universities and medical institutions.

President Donald Trump is asserting that he had the right to enact his travel ban, saying it was “done for the security of our nation.”

Speaking to the Washington, D.C. conference of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents sheriffs and heads of large police forces around the country, the president said the order was written “beautifully” and was within his executive authority.

“A bad high school student would understand this,” he said of the ban. “It’s as plain as you can have it and I was a good student. I understand things, I comprehend things very well.”

Trump said one of the reasons he was elected president was “because of law and order and security.”

“I think it’s a sad day. I think our security is at risk today and it will be at risk until such time as we are entitled and get what we are entitled to,” he said.

Trump also read parts of his order aloud, saying it allows the chief executive the ability to suspend the “entry of all aliens or of any class of aliens” into the country, CBS News reported.

“You can suspend, you can put restrictions, you can do whatever you want,” he said. “You’re the chiefs, you’re the sheriffs, you understand this.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is weighing the appeal of Trump’s executive order on immigration, including a temporary travel ban on those from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The appeals court challenged the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but it also questioned an attorney’s argument that it unconstitutionally targeted Muslims.

While awaiting a decision, Trump said “courts seem to be so political.”

“They are interpreting things differently than probably 100 percent of people in this room,” the president said. “I never want to call a court biased, so I won’t call it biased.”

He added “it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right.”

Earlier Wednesday morning, the president tweeted: “If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!”
 Democrats Get Trumped By Law
 Published on Feb 8, 2017
While politicians and pundits on the left continue to claim President Trump acted illegally with the travel ban, President Trump reads the law proving them wrong.
 Trump Destroys Leftist Judges by Reading Law Word-For-Word
Open border activists rewriting law from the bench
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Trump Destroys Leftist Judges by Reading Law Word-For-Word 
  President Trump addressed a law enforcement conference in 
Washington D.C. where he expressed his shock and dismay at leftist 
judges blocking the border security policies set forth in his  
recent executive order.
 Trump read language from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 
which clearly grants the President express powers to control the entry 
of non-citizens into the United States on virtually any basis, but 
specifically as a duty to protect the citizens from potentially 
dangerous groups of foreigners.
“Now we’re in an area that… they are interpreting things differently than probably 100% of the people in this room,” began Trump, referring to the judges involved in blocking his orders. “This was done for the security of our nation, the security of our citizens, so that people who come in who aren’t going to do us harm – and that’s why it was done.”
“It couldn’t have been written anymore precisely… A bad high school student could understand this,” continued
He proceeded to read from the U.S. Code on “Inadmissible Aliens” –

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
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 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 non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
“I watched last night in amazement, and I heard things that I couldn’t believe, things that really had nothing to do with what I just read,” said the President, referring to the presumably convoluted arguments of lawyers and judges in deliberation.
“I don’t ever want to call a court biased… but courts seem to be so political,” he continued. “It would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right – and that has to do with the security of our country, which is so important.”
“Right now, we are at risk because of what happened.”
President Trump went to on make clear why the executive order went into place so suddenly, saying that he had proposed a notice period of either one month or one week – which his advisors shot down.
He distilled their explanation: “‘You can’t give a notice. If you give a notice that we’re going to be really tough one month from now, or in one week from now – then people are going to pour in before the… restrictions,’” to which the crowd of law enforcement and security specialists applauded.
He circled back to the previous night’s hearings: “I want to tell you – I listened to a bunch of stuff last night on television that was disgraceful.”
A recent poll conducted by Investor’s Business Daily shows that a majority of Americans (51%) support Trump’s executive order.
Additionally, a poll of nearly 10,000 Europeans from around the continent revealed that over 55% want immigration from Muslim-dominated countries halted completely.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Trudeau Sets Up ‘War Room’ To Monitor Trump,” by David Krayden, Daily Caller, February 6, 2017:
President Donald Trump has so unnerved Justin Trudeau that the Canadian prime minister has set-up a “war room” within his office to monitor what Liberal government insiders are calling “the unpredictable U.S. president” and to respond at a moment’s notice.
The team is led by long-time Liberal advisor Brian Clow, formerly chief of staff to foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland, and is designed to provide advice and quick responses to Trump’s trade policy, especially with regard to NAFTA.
Greg MacEachern, a senior vice-president at Environics Communications and former Liberal staffer told The Hill Times, “There’s not been a unit like this set up within the PMO to the best of my knowledge,” said MacEachern. “Obviously, the prime minister wants to be keeping a very close eye on this. … It’s an unprecedented situation in the U.S. we’re watching.”
MacEarchern says Trudeau is continuing his “campaign” to impress American decision-makers with experienced foreign policy and trade negotiators who can relate to their American counterparts while trying to keep all departments coordinate their activities and messages with the government’s overall trade objectives….


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Spurious moral equivalence employed in order to divert attention from the real threat. 
My latest at The Geller Report:
It was reported Friday that “a trio of House Democrats say President Trump is making a mistake pushing for counter-extremism efforts to focus only on radical Islam….Friday’s letter was signed Democratic Reps. Bennie Thompson (Md.), Eliot Engel (N.Y.) and John Conyers (Mich.).”
Thompson, Engel and Conyers wrote: “Such a move is wrongheaded insofar as persons who commit acts of violent extremism are inspired by diverse political, religious and philosophical beliefs, and are not limited to any single population or region.”
In reality, there have been over 30,000 murderous jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. What other political, religious and philosophical beliefs have been responsible for any comparable number? A widely publicized study purporting to show that “right-wing extremists” have killed more people in the U.S. than Islamic jihadis, and thus pose a greater threat, has been debunked on many grounds.
These representatives also wrote: “Changing the name to ‘Countering Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism’ would have damaging effects to our national security by feeding into the propaganda created by terrorist groups and child domestic and international diplomatic relations. Additionally, it could further alienate and create distrust with the Muslim-American communities when the program depends on close cooperation with law enforcement.”
Islamic jihadis routinely cite the texts and teachings of Islam to justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. The idea that Muslims who reject jihad terror will be enraged if the U.S. government takes note of this is absurd. If they reject jihad terror, they won’t embrace it because officials are saying things they don’t like; in fact, if they really reject it, they should welcome and cooperate with efforts to identify its causes and eradicate them. These Congressmen are recommending that we curtail our speech to avoid criticizing Islam, which is a Sharia blasphemy provision that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been trying to foist upon the U.S. by means of “hate speech” laws for years. That the statements of Thompson, Engel and Conyers are simply today’s conventional wisdom is one indication of how successful these efforts have been.
Critics of President Trump’s plan have complained: “The program, ‘Countering Violent Extremism,’ or CVE, would be changed to ‘Countering Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,’ the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.”
Indeed, but the white supremacist threat has been wildly exaggerated by Soros-funded groups (which exaggerations have been pushed by Soros-funded media) that downplay and deny the jihad threat. Reuters’ equivalence here also ignores the fact that the jihad is an international movement set on destroying the U.S. and found on every continent; white supremacism is not.
What Trump is really doing here is reversing Obama’s bow to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in scrubbing counter-terror training materials of all mention of Islam and jihad. On October 19, 2011, Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates delivered a letter to John Brennan, who was then the assistant to the president on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism. The letter was signed by the leaders of virtually all significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” Khera complained specifically about me, noting that my books could be found in “the FBI’s library at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia”; that a reading list accompanying a slide presentation by the FBI’s Law Enforcement Communications Unit recommended my book The Truth About Muhammad; that in July 2010 I “presented a two-hour seminar on ‘the belief system of Islamic jihadists’ to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Tidewater, Virginia”; and that I also “presented a similar lecture to the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, which is co-hosted by the FBI’s Norfolk Field Office.”
These were supposed to be terrible materials because I was supposedly bigoted and hateful. However, many of the examples Khera adduced of “bigoted and distorted materials” involved statements that were simply accurate. The only distortion was Khera’s representation of them.
For instance, Khera stated:
A 2006 FBI intelligence report stating that individuals who convert to Islam are on the path to becoming “Homegrown Islamic Extremists,” if they exhibit any of the following behavior:
“Wearing traditional Muslim attire”
“Growing facial hair”
“Frequent attendance at a mosque or a prayer group”
“Travel to a Muslim country”
“Increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political cause”
The FBI intelligence report Khera purported to be describing didn’t actually say that. Rather, it included these behaviors among a list of fourteen indicators that could “identify an individual going through the radicalization process.” Other indicators included:
“Travel without obvious source of funds”
“Suspicious purchases of bomb making paraphernalia or weapons”
“Large transfer of funds, from or to overseas”
“Formation of operational cells”
Khera had selectively quoted the list to give the impression that the FBI was teaching that devout observance of Islam led inevitably and in every case to “extremism.”
Despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining, the Muslim groups signing the letter demanded that the task force, among other actions:
“Purge all federal government training materials of biased materials.”
“Implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training.”
They wished to ensure that all law enforcement officials ever learn about Islam and jihad would be what the signatories wanted them to learn — and Brennan was amenable to that. He took Khera’s complaints as his marching orders.
In a November 3, 2011, letter to Khera that — significantly — was written on White House stationery, Brennan accepted Khera’s criticisms without a murmur of protest and assured her of his readiness to comply. He detailed specific actions being undertaken, including “collecting all training materials that contain cultural or religious content, including information related to Islam or Muslims.” In reality, this material wouldn’t just be “collected”; it would be purged of anything that Farhana Khera and others like her found offensive. Honest, accurate discussion of how Islamic jihadists use Islamic teachings to justify violence would no longer be allowed.
The alacrity with which Brennan complied was unfortunate on many levels. Numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam and jihad were purged. Brennan was complying with demands from quarters that could hardly be considered authentically moderate.
This Obama policy of the U.S. government ensured that numerous jihadists simply could not be identified as risks. The Obama administration was bound, as a matter of policy, to ignore what in saner times would be taken as warning signs. Now we can hope that Trump will reverse all that. Indeed, it is our only hope of defeating this scourge.


 Published on Feb 7, 2017
Alex Jones breaks down the dangers of vaccines and how the elite have contaminated them and now they may do more harm than good.
  ALEX JONES: Contaminated Vaccines Destroyed 
My Grandmother's Life 
 Published on Feb 7, 2017
Alex Jones discusses his late grandmother and how bad vaccines left her paralyzed.


Europeans Reject Muslim Immigration 
In HUGE Numbers
 Published on Feb 8, 2017
A Swedish court sentenced a Muslim migrant to only two months in jail after being convicted of anally raping a 13-year-old girl. Now a second a police officer has come forward, exposing how police have been told to implement a “Code 291” procedure in order to cover-up information about crimes committed by migrants.

That same cover-up agenda has made it's way to the U.S.

A man arrested for sexually assaulting a Texas mother in front of her child was not identified as a criminal illegal immigrant by local media, despite the man being previously deported following a homicide conviction. This is due to the fact Austin is embroiled in controversy over attempts to be classified a Sanctuary City.
  Finnish European Local to USA: 
Refugee Chaos In My Town
 Published on Feb 8, 2017
Finnish woman talks to Infowars about the militant asylum seeking population flooding into her small town.


 Top Clinton Lawyer Joins Soros Super PAC to Stop Voter ID
 Campaign to target Voter ID laws across the country
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 The top lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential 
campaign has joined a Soros-linked Super PAC to challenge Voter ID laws 
across the country.
Marc Elias, a partner at the D.C.-based Perkins Coie law firm and the head lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, has joined the board of directors for Priorities USA Action, a Super PAC heavily funded by globalist billionaire George Soros.
Priorities USA Action will also absorb Every Citizen Counts, a nonprofit founded by Priorities USA Action chief strategist Guy Cecil dedicated to mobilizing African-American and Hispanic voters, as it shifts its efforts to challenging state Voter ID laws.

Led by Elias in his capacity as a partner with the Perkins Coie law firm, Every Citizen Counts spent $17 million on legal challenges to voting laws in North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin during the 2016 general election. The lawsuits were financially supported by Soros as well.
Priorities has also indicated their intent to build a database “that’s intended to serve as a one-stop inventory of restrictive voting measures which will be shared with other progressive organizations.”
“We need to take a clear and aggressive stand that we’re going to do everything we can,” said Cecil.
Priorities USA Action received nearly $157 million in contributions during the 2016 campaign, including three contributions totaling $9.5 million from George Soros; his son, Alexander, donated $1 million as well.
“Looking purely at his record of achievements in the 2016 cycle, this is not the best ‘get’ for Priorities USA,” said Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation. “He took millions of Soros dollars to tilt at voter ID and early voting reform windmills in Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina and largely failed across the board.”
“He didn’t even shift public opinion.”
Soros’s support for legal challenges to laws making it more difficult to commit voter fraud are unsurprising given his stated goal of enlarging the electorate by 10 million people by 2018.
A 220-page guide detailing the plan from a 2014 meeting of the Open Society Foundation was among more than 2,500 documents released by DC Leaks in August, 2016.



 Dems are publicly organizing illegals and others to vote fraudulently & repeatedly!
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Those opposing vigorous and truthful examination of voter fraud in the United States are advancing a narrative asserting there is “no proof of voter fraud” in recent years.
This past weekend, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, said on CNN’s “State of the Nation” program that he does not want to spend federal funds to investigate President Trump’s claims of massive voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election because “there’s no evidence that [election fraud] occurred in such a significant number that it could have changed the presidential election.”
While McConnell may be right, there is evidence that would suggest voter fraud prevented Trump from winning the popular vote, as well as the electoral vote.

Democratic Party operatives and their supporters in the Democratic Party-sympathetic main stream media originally crafted and advanced this meme in a transparent effort to ward off all responsible efforts to enact the type of Voter ID laws that would largely rule out or dramatically reduce the possibility of systematic Democratic Party voter fraud.
Today, while no American can board an airplane today without showing TSA employees a valid government-issued ID, the far-left screams “voter suppression” and brings lawyers affiliated with the Democratic Party to court to litigate every time efforts are made to pass voter ID laws.
A truthful examination provides ample evidence President Trump is right in asserting Democratic Party fraud accounts for between 3 to 5 million illegal votes to be cast, enough to cost him the popular vote.
In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton with 65,853,625 votes won the popular vote by some three million over Donald Trump, who got 62,985,105 votes.  The three million vote margin needed to have swung the popular vote victory to Trump could have been obtained had Democratic Party fraud amounted to only 2.5 percent of the total votes cast.
While the Washington Post, in an article published on Dec. 1, 2016, claimed that there were just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election, the newspaper restricted its “proof” to only those cases in which someone was caught and faced possible criminal prosecution after being caught voting twice, voting illegally as a non-citizen or a criminal felon or voting for someone already deceased.
The available voter fraud evidence suggests voter fraud in precincts controlled by the Democrats around the country could easily top 2.5 percent of the total votes cast, provided we do not restrict, as the Washington Post did, the “evidence of voter fraud” to cases where fraudulent voters are caught.
The issue of voter fraud, properly stated, involves the type of systematic Democratic Party fraud that eludes detection precisely because Democratic Party politicians and election officials take active steps to encourage illegal voting that they have no intention of reporting, investigating or prosecuting.
Truthfully, we need look no further than the 2016 Michigan recount demanded by Green Party candidate Jill Stein find clear evidence of systematic Democratic Party voting fraud.
2016 Michigan recount finds voter fraud in Detroit
In the Michigan recount, instead of swinging the election to Clinton, the recount found evidence of massive voter fraud in Wayne County, pointing to Democratic Party voter fraud in Detroit, where Michigan’s largest city in Michigan’s largest county had voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, as noted by Roger Stone in his recent book, Making of the President 2016, on pages 296-298.
Stone reported voting machines in more than one-third of all Detroit precincts registered more votes that the number of people recorded having voted.
Overall, state records showed 10.6 percent of the precincts in the state’s 22 counties could not be recounted because Michigan state law bars recounts for unbroken precincts or precincts submitting ballot boxes with broken seals.
The Detroit news reported the problems were the worst in Detroit where officials could not recount votes in 392 precincts, or nearly 60 percent of the total, with two-thirds of these precincts having too many votes.
The newspaper further noted Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly prevailed in Democratic-controlled Detroit, while Republican President-elect Donald Trump won Michigan by only 10,704 votes, or by 47.5 percent to 47.3 percent.
The voting fraud found in Detroit as a result of the 2016 Michigan recount suggests recounts in the Democratic-controlled precincts in other rust-belt cities, including, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, as well Newark, New Jersey, bear rigorous recount investigations to see if similar patterns of Democratic Party voting fraud can be validated.
A study published by the Pew Center on the States in February 2012, entitled “Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgraded,” documented that approximately 24 million – one of every eight – voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate, with more than 1.8 million deceased individuals listed as voters, and approximately 2.75 million people with registrations in more than one state.”
While the Pew Center on the States does not prove that voter fraud caused someone to vote for all the deceased on voter registration rolls, or that a large proportion of those registered in more than one state voted in more than one state, the 2016 presidential election provides evidence Democrats in various states have exploited registration problems that could be solved with a Voter ID system at the center of rigorous enforcement of voting laws throughout the United States.
The lack of rigor in U.S. voting registration rolls is unlikely to be rectified as long as the Democratic Party resists every and all efforts to enact for voting the type of Voter ID laws that the TSA demands for those seeking to board commercial aircraft in the United States.
Non-citizens and felons vote
In 2016, an investigation in Virginia by the public Interest Legal Foundation, PILF, and the Virginia Voter’s Alliance, VVA, showed that in a small sample of the eight Virginia counties responding to the investigators’ public inspection requests, 1046 illegal aliens were found registered to vote.
“The problem is most certainly exponentially worse because we have no data regarding aliens on the registration rolls for the other 125 Virginia localities,” the Virginia investigators concluded. “Even in this small sample, when the voting history of this small sample of alien registrants is examined, nearly 200 verified ballots were cast before they were removed from the rolls. Each one of them is likely a felony.”
In 2016, Virginia’s Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe, a long-time Clinton associate, cleared 13,000 Virginia felons to vote in the presidential election, after the State’s Supreme Court struck down his earlier “sweeping order” automatically restoring many felons’ voting rights in a move that would have provided clearance for some 206,000 Virginia felons to vote, despite their criminal records as murders, rapists, sex offenders, kidnappers, child abusers, arsonists, drug traffickers, and other dangerous criminals, as noted by Breitbart in an article published on Aug. 22, 1016.
In April 2015, McAuliffe vetoed House Bill 1315, a state law that would have required jury commissioners to retain individuals not qualified to serve as jurors for reasons that would also disqualify them from voting, including finding out that a prospective juror was not a citizen of the United States.
In August 2011, the Fairfax County Electoral Board notified the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, as well as the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department in Washington, of possible voter fraud by non-citizens.
An Electoral Board study conducted in conjunction with the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles discovered that 278 registered voters, when they got their drivers licenses, admitted they were not U.S. citizens.  Almost half of them, 117, were subsequently found to have registered to vote and to have voted in Virginia.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation studied a case where 86 non-citizens registered to vote in Philadelphia since 2013, with almost half (46) known to have voted in at least one recent election, asked for their names to be removed from voter registrations.
“This is just the tip of iceberg,” concluded Joseph Vanderhulst, an attorney with the foundation. “Who knows how may are on and don’t ask to be taken off.”  Research indicated Philadelphia makes no effort to proactively remove from voter registration rolls non-citizens or incarcerated felons that are ineligible to vote under Pennsylvania law.
“Election fraud, whether it’s phony voter registrations illegal absentee ballots, shady recounts or old-fashioned ballot-box stuffing, can be found in every part of the United States, although it is probably spreading because of the ever-so-tight divisions that have polarized the country and created so many close elections lately,” concluded journalist John Fund in his 2004 book entitled “Stealing Elections.”
Project Veritas documents Democratic Party voter fraud
In my 2012 book examining the 2012 presidential elections entitled “What Went Wrong?”  I found a series of undercover voters taken by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas were particularly damaging to Democrats claiming there is no proof of voter fraud.

O’Keefe’s videos showed Democratic Party campaign workers and volunteers being willing to advise voters how to commit voter fraud, including how to register and vote in more than one state. The videos also demonstrate how difficult it is to get your name removed from the voter registration rolls after you have moved, and how easy it is to get an absentee ballot to vote in a second state, even if the second state is registered in a different name than the person’s current legal name.
One video demonstrated states like North Carolina that do not require voter ID how easy it was for illegal immigrants non-citizens to vote, or for persons to vote after showing up at a voting poll after stealing the identity of registered voters who are dead. Also exposed by O’Keefe’s undercover video cameras were students voting for Obama in the state where they were attending college, as well as voting by absentee ballot in their home state.
 A clear point of O’Keefe’s videos is that early voting statutes provide ample time to explore and implement voter fraud statutes.  O’Keefe exposed judges and state voting officials who imposed lax voter registration processes because the favored the type of “open election” procedures favored by Democrats who charge voter ID laws are racist by-nature, supported and enacted by Republicans who want to suppress the votes of African-Americans and Hispanics.
   O’Keefe’s videos caught salaried employees of the DNC working for the Obama campaign in Organizing for America offices advising undercover Project Veritas reporters on how to vote twice, including in more than one state – clearly demonstrating the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign were engaging in voter fraud in 2012.


 Published on Feb 5, 2017
Infowars reporter Millie Weaver discusses how the Antifa reign of terror has spread from not only trying to shut down free speech at conservative speaking events, as we saw at UC Berkeley in California, but they're now threatening a woman reporter and her child on Twitter.


Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 Published on Feb 7, 2017
MSNBC reporter Katy Tur is concerned that President Trump may start having reporters assassinated for saying negative things about him. This is all a coordinated strategy of the liberal media to paint Trump as a dangerous dictator in order to encourage the radical Leftists to keep up their protests and riots.


 Published on Feb 7, 2017
Infowars Reporter Millie Weaver covers the latest in child trafficking busts which, once again, point towards the nefarious operations of the Clinton Foundation in Haiti. Just this weekend, and a little over one day prior to a major child trafficking bust in Haiti, the Clinton Foundation announced that it would be cutting operations in Haiti. This followed soon after the announcement that Federal Prosecutors are seeking child porn charges against disgraced Democratic Representative Anthony Wiener, the ex-husband of Clinton's former chief of staff and vice chairwoman for the Hillary Clinton Campaign, Huma Abedin. Less than a week ago, 474 arrests were made in a Statewide Human Trafficking bust in California which rescued 28 children and 27 adults that were victims of sexual exploitation.
 Human Trafficking Modern Day Slavery Exposed
 Published on Feb 7, 2017
Infowars Reporter Millie Weaver speaks with Anti-Human Trafficking advocate Amanda Seymour ( about how to spot trafficked individuals and how the Super Bowl exacerbates the problem of Human Trafficking.




Hate Trumps Free Speech


SEE: (contemplative). EXCERPT: "St. John’s Contemplative Evensong Service encourages us to also be prayerful without words.  The chanted prayers and psalms, as well as the hymns and sacramentals, help prepare us for longer periods of silence where one might simply rest in the presence of God." 
"Compline is a 1500-year-old tradition that developed in the early monastic communities. It is the final office of the day in the Christian tradition of canonical hours.
The English word “Compline” is derived from the Latin word “completorium” meaning completion, since Compline completes the liturgy of the day. As is characteristic of monastic offices.  The sanctuary is dark and quiet; there are candles, but no cell phones, no responses to have to follow, no preaching. It’s short: just 30-35 minutes. People are free to sit on the floor, sit up around the altar, or even lie down and allow the music to wash over them."
Congregation’s Rapid Response Network: "This network would be activated as significant bills are introduced that relate to guns."


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
By Kelleigh Nelson
February 8, 2017
Our young are so full of innocence and capabilities that are not yet known. Why would anyone want to destroy that through abortion? One of the most absurd pro-choice claims is that those who are pro-life do not like or care for the baby after he or she is born. In fact, pro-lifers find equal importance of life inside and outside of the womb. The gravity in a baby’s eyes, showing such extreme happiness for life, is one of the most beautiful things in the world. —G. K. Chesterton
I am overjoyed that Donald J. Trump is our 45th President, and I’m thrilled with 95% of his nominees. Nevertheless, unlike the sycophants who supported Obama and Hillary, when I am in doubt, I’m going to let my readers know about it.
The Lord said in Deuteronomy to Choose Life! When those of us who hate Roe v. Wade think of the suffering of millions of little babies in their mothers’ wombs when abortion is chosen, we cry out for it to come to a screeching halt. We know too what happens to those little murdered bodies. It is why our 45th President has promised to put pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. We can thank God Hillary Clinton is not nominating a justice.
My first choice would have been Judge Charles Canady from Florida. While he was in Congress, Canady was credited for coining the term "partial-birth abortion" while developing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. He has proven to be stellar on pro-life issues.
Neil Gorsuch and Antonin Scalia
When introducing Neil Gorsuch, our President said, “I took the task of this nomination very seriously. I have selected an individual whose qualities define, really, and I mean closely, define what we’re looking for. Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support.” He added that Gorsuch’s resume was as good as he’s ever seen.
As he searched for a nominee to ultimately take Scalia's empty seat, Trump said he spoke "regularly" with Scalia's wife, Maureen McCarthy Scalia, according to Kellyanne Conway. Mrs. Scalia has been a rock throughout this entire process," Conway said. "She has been somebody who the President has talked to regularly throughout this process and he has very much enjoyed his time with her in person and over the phone."
Gorsuch is better than half of those on the list who really don’t see much that can be done in stopping abortion. He does have sterling credentials, and in theory believes in the Constitution. However, no one can truly say whether or not he’d vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is ultimately the definition of pro-life.
Gorsuch and Scalia were friends, and obviously had enjoyed time together in Colorado as the signed photo suggests.
The insignia reads, “To Neil Gorsuch, Fond memories of a day on the Colorado. With warm regards, Antonin Scalia.
After President Trump’s announcement of Neil Gorsuch as his nominee, Gorsuch met Mrs. Scalia and chatted amiably with her and her son, Fr. Paul Scalia.
Gorsuch and Hobby Lobby
Many believe Gorsuch is pro-life because he ruled for the Christian Hobby Lobby stores against Obamacare’s demand (via Secretary Sebelius) that this Christian for-profit organization provide all contraceptive funding in their insurance. The left would have you think that Hobby Lobby was against all contraception for women, which is untrue. The reality is that the FDA approved 18 forms of female contraception, and Hobby Lobby took offense to only the ones that killed an already fertilized egg, Plan B "morning-after pill," Ella "morning-after pill," and two hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs). They didn’t object to most birth control pills, sponges, condoms and even sterilization.
The key issue on appeal in the 10th was whether or not a “for-profit corporation” may be considered a "person exercising religion" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which came into play in the decision for Hobby Lobby from the lower court. The case was about religious freedom, not about abortion per se. Gorsuch sided with the Little Sisters of the Poor in a similar religious freedom case involving Obamacare.
In the Supreme Court decision, Justice Alito wrote that, "The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients."
According to ABC News, Gorsuch “is a defender of the ‘Free Exercise Clause,’ which says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As such, he has also championed the rights of religious groups to display their religion in public places. And that’s a big Amen.
Gorsuch and Assisted Suicide
Gorsuch disagreed with Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Posner has written in favor of permitting physician-assisted suicide, arguing that the government should not interfere with a person's decision to take his or her own life, especially in cases where the patient is terminally ill.
Gorsuch rejected that view, writing it would "tend toward, if not require, the legalization not only of assisted suicide and euthanasia, but of any act of consensual homicide." Posner's position, he writes, would allow "sadomasochist killings" and "mass suicide pacts," as well as duels, illicit drug use, organ sales and the "sale of one's own life."
Gorsuch concludes his book by suggesting that the law could allow for terminally ill patients to refuse treatments that would extend their lives, while stopping short of permitting intentional killing.
In his book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (2006), Gorsuch praised the pro-abortion ruling that upheld Roe v. Wade as follows: “The plurality in Casey expressly sought to provide a firmer basis for the abortion right and to shore up the reasoning behind Roe’s result.” (p. 79) This is extremely troubling, as no one who is pro-life would ever assert that there is a “firmer basis” and better “reasoning” that can support the horrifically unjust result of abortion-on-demand.
Citing the Judge’s book as proof that he is pro-life is not valid inasmuch as pro-abortion supreme court judges have ruled against physician assisted suicide in the past.
Gorsuch and Stare Decisis
Gorsuch also clings to bad precedent, and is an extreme supporter of stare decisis, both of which are excuses for upholding Roe v. Wade rather than overturning it. “Our duty to follow precedent sometimes requires us to make mistakes,” Gorsuch declared in ruling against the Second Amendment rights of a man before his court. United States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch, J. concurring).
What is stare decisis? It is Latin for “to stand by things decided,” and is the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833. The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. Consequently, stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents.
Although courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable. In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to overrule precedent; however, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously. (Cornell University Law School)
Gorsuch Nominated by George W. Bush
“Not a single Democrat opposed #NeilGorsuch’s confirmation in 2006,” tweeted Mitch McConnell on February 1st. Both Bush families stated they were pro-choice after they were out of office. It is likely the Democrat Senators knew the families were really pro-choice and thus confirmed their nominee. Here’s the list of the leftists who confirmed him.
Gorsuch and the CFR
Neil Gorsuch was a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, listed in the 2008 CFR Annual Report Membership Roster. He is not listed in the 2017 Annual Report, but is listed as a member in his 2006 nomination by President George W. Bush. (See part 8)
Aside from his stint at Harvard Law, can we conjecture that his term membership in the CFR might have influenced him with the One-World-Socialist-Police-State-under-the-United-Nations goals of the CFR? Here is a short tutorial on the CFR. You can also purchase a booklet about the CFR.
Because of his membership, will he will be a shoe-in for the post, as he was in 2006? Other CFR Members of the Court are Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
The only way you can find out about CFR Membership rosters is to obtain the CFR Annual Reports through purchase from Amazon for a nominal fee. (Hat tip to Sue.)
Gorsuch’s Pro-Abortion Church
Neil Gorsuch and his wife attend the apostate St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado, that has a woman rector, Rev. Susan Springer, who considers homosexuality as acceptable, and who believes that women have the right to kill their unborn babies. Springer also promotes climate control and gun control. [Link]

Homosexuals have had union blessing ceremonies in the church. Here is an article written by Rev. Susan Springer in 2010 supporting homosexuals and their behavior.

In 1994, as the anti-abortion movement mobilized to restrict reproductive freedom of American women, the Episcopal Church added this resolve:

“The Episcopal Church expresses its unequivocal opposition to any legislative, executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy or that would limit the access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision.”

From this article in Huffington Post, it appears Gorsuch is also pro-gay marriage, and unlikely to ever change Roe v. Wade.

Gorsuch’s membership in an Episcopal church in Boulder, Colorado, whose female senior pastor attended the Women’s March in Colorado, and has been associated with other liberal causes, gives great pause to most pro-life conservatives.
Lobbyist Influence
The influence, primarily by the pro-abortion Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation lobbyists, over the Supreme Court decision by our President was unprecedented. Why did Trump lock himself into only 21 names given by these organizations?
According to media accounts Trump considered only candidates whom the Federalist Society recommended, and no others. Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady is pro-life and more qualified than Gorsuch, but apparently, Trump never even interviewed Canady. Other prominent pro-life candidates, both on and off the list, who Trump cited during his campaign, were also not seriously considered.
If this were merely the first time that a Supreme Court nominee was supposedly pro-life, but was actually pro-choice, then perhaps a “wait and see” approach might be reasonable. However, unborn children have been sacrificed time and time again by this deception. President Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor, who was supposed to be pro-life but wasn’t, and then likewise for Anthony Kennedy. The first President Bush appointed David Souter, who was also supposed to be pro-life, but became stridently pro-abortion instead.
As well, the pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage billionaire Koch brothers have thrown their weight behind Judge Gorsuch. [Link] They launched a digital campaign urging senators to confirm Gorsuch, and they plan to mobilize the network’s 3.2 million activists to put pressure on lawmakers.
Gorsuch on Other Issues
In an analysis by Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, he pointed out that Gorsuch joined an opinion that adhered to the anti-gun view that “concealed weapons create an immediate and severe danger to the public.” United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481, 490 (10th Cir. 2013).
On the transgender issue, Gorsuch joined an opinion holding that “it is unlawful to discriminate against a transgender (or any other) person because he or she does not behave in accordance with an employer’s expectations for men or women.” Kastl v. Maricopa Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 325 F. App’x 492, 493 (9th Cir. 2009).
 Where will Gorsuch come down on in the issue of whether men, who claim to be women, may enter women’s public bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. His opinion would affect children in public school facilities. Will he even be questioned on this issue by senators during his hearing proceedings? 

Unfortunately for us, Gorsuch’s views on abortion are not well defined. In his book, he wrote, “In Roe, the Court explained that, had it found the fetus to be a “person” for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, it could not have created a right to abortion because no constitutional basis exists for preferring the mother’s liberty interests over the child’s life.”

For the sake of the unborn babies in America, I pray that Gorsuch truly is pro-life.
Like Joe Friday of Dragnet, I’m just giving you the facts, the decision is yours.
 USU Panel Discusses Gay Marriage, Faith
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Representatives from seven faiths discussed same-sex marriage on Nov. 2 as part of the Center for Women and Gender lecture series at Utah State University. Titled, ““Gays and Marriage: Religious Perspectives,” the panel discussion was open to students, faculty and members of the general community.
Panel members included the Rev. Susan Springer of St. John’s Episcopal Church; Michael Sowder, associate professor of English and a practicing Buddhist; Dr. Vikram Garg, gastroenterologist and internist who practices the Hindu tradition; Harrison Kleiner, adjunct assistant professor of philosophy and Roman Catholic; William Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation and member of the Church pf Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Eldon Peterson, pastor of the Cache Valley Bible fellowship; and Rabbi Ilana Schwartzman of the congregation Kol Ami in Salt Lake City.
“We realize we don’t have all possible religions represented and many will argue that we should have had an atheist on the panel,” said director for the Center for Women and Gender Ann Austin. “But this panel is an important step in understanding the diverse points of view around this very sensitive topic.”
The panel was organized by Philip Barlow, USU’s Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture, and Camille O’Dell, director of the School Counseling program in USU’s Department of Psychology.
Rev. Springer said all voices are important to such a discussion and, as a society, it is necessary that they are made public.
“Currently, the Episcopal Diocese of Utah permits the blessing of same gender unions, but not every Episcopal diocese in this country permits them,” Springer said. “Unlike, for example, the Roman Catholic and LDS churches, Episcopalians have no central figure or group that is our doctrinal authority.”
“We endeavor to be a safe place and to be welcoming,” Springer said. “We’re not perfect, we don’t always succeed, but that’s our goal.”
Duncan said the controversy over the Proposition 8 measure in California – which was overturned by a San Francisco judge – demonstrates that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious liberties.
Duncan’s group was formed a year after a Massachusetts Court decision which declared banning gay marriage as unconstitutional with a mission of “reaffirming the legal definition of marriage as the union of a husband and wife.”
“Increasingly, groups are seeking to harness religion along with other social institutions, such as family and church, to accomplish their aims of cultural reconstruction,” Duncan said.
Duncan said that many saw opponents to interracial marriage in the ’60s as bigots.
“Just because the LDS Church does not believe in same-sex marriage does not mean Latter-day Saints are prejudiced,” he said.
Peterson said Christians do not condone same-sex marriage and likened the debate to “what color the grass is … there’s only one definition of same-sex marriage.” He said he wishes gays would “take responsibility” for their orientation and not “claim to be a victim.”
Sowder said that Buddhism has no central religious authority but largely welcomes gays as it would welcome anybody. He quoted the Dalai Lama, who said that homosexuality is considered “sexual misconduct,” but that the Tibetan stance of gay marriage is “subject to change.”
“Compassion is the ultimate ideal in Buddhism,” Sowder said. “Why is sexuality such a highly charged issue in religion? I think that’s why we have this focus on it, it freaks us out.”
Kleiner said Catholics believe “marriage was founded for man.”
“We are most complete as organisms when we join with opposite flesh.”
He said he does not believe gay marriage is a choice: “You can’t choose how you feel but you can choose how you act.”
Garg said that Hinduism, currently,  has no one leader who would stand up for gay marriage, though there is no reference to it in scripture.
“Love, in Hinduism, means a devotion between two people, whether it is romantic or platonic,” Garg said. “There’s really no information in religious scriptures about marriage and same sex.”
He said for some it is a challenge to accept gay marriage since males play a dominant role in a heterosexual marriage.
Schwartzman said the Torah “is divinely inspired, not divinely written,” so more Jewish people are becoming accepting of same-sex marriage and that even the more conservative members are “teetering” on whether or not to fully embrace the concept of same-sex marriage.
Springer ended the panel saying she felt discussions such as this panel are necessary to moving forward.
 EXCLUSIVE: A rector who marched against Trump, (is for) gay blessings, gun control, Muslim outreach and ‘climate crisis’ solar panels on the roof: Meet Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s ultra-liberal church
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
St. John’s Episcopal Church is led by a pastor who proudly attended the anti-Trump Women’s March in Denver the day after the President’s inauguration
Rev. Susan Springer has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same-sex couples
Another member of the clergy is outspoken about the need for gun control
The church’s Rev. Ted Howard also signed a letter slamming the ‘disrespectful rhetoric’ directed at Islam as Trump floated a ban on Muslim immigrants
Church authorities also appear to be strongly in favor of environmental initiatives and added solar panels to the roof because of ‘climate crisis’
If Gorsuch is confirmed, he will renew the Supreme Court’s Christian majority and join as the only non-Catholic member

By Ruth Styles In Boulder, Colorado
6 February 2017
He has been described as ‘the heir to Scalia’ and is a religious conservative whose appointment to the Supreme Court was greeted with jubilation on the pro-gun, anti-abortion Right.
But can reveal that Neil Gorsuch’s own church, in Boulder, Colorado, is a hotbed of liberal thinking – and is led by a pastor who proudly attended the anti-Trump Women’s March in Denver the day after the President’s inauguration.
Another member of the clergy at St. John’s Episcopal Church is outspoken about the need for gun control, and helped organize opposition to a gun shop giveaway of high-capacity magazines in the run-up to a 2013 law that banned them from the state of Colorado.
In December 2015, shortly after the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Rev. Ted Howard, 74, also put his name to a public letter slamming the ‘criticism and disrespectful rhetoric’ directed at Islam – just as President Trump was floating a total ban on Muslim immigrants.
And in a twist that may surprise religious conservatives who welcomed Gorsuch’s appointment, church leader Rev. Susan Springer, 58, has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same sex couples.
The church, which trumpets its ‘inclusive’ ethos on its website, also operates a homeless outreach program that includes an LGBT center and a sexual health clinic in a pamphlet setting out the best places for those in need of help.
Church authorities also appear to be strongly in favor of environmental initiatives – even adding solar panels to the roof in January last year saying it was because of the ‘climate crisis’.
Gorsuch, 49, moved to Colorado with his British wife Louise and daughters Emma, 18, and Belinda, 16, a decade ago after being appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by President George W. Bush.
The judge, who grew up in Denver but relocated to Washington DC as a teenager, has been a member of the congregation ever since and regularly volunteers as an usher.
Gorsuch was brought up as a Catholic by his mother Ann, and attended an elite all boys Catholic school in Washington D.C. run by the Jesuit order.
The Rest…HERE


EXCERPTS:  Prior to joining Garrison, Levin-Epstein in 2011, Josh worked at a large corporate firm in Washington, DC, and interned at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) in Boston

Former Law Clerk for Supreme Court Nominee Says Gorsuch Supported His ‘Gay Marriage’

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 WASHINGTON — Discussion is stirring over 
how Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch might rule on issues such 
as homosexuality and abortion should he be confirmed. His former law 
clerk told reporters last week that Gorsuch was supportive of his “gay 
marriage,” but reports also note that Gorsuch outlined over a decade ago
 that he does not believe the courts are the place to effect social 
Joshua Goodbaum served as a clerk for Gorsuch in 2009, and now works as an attorney. He told Reuters on Friday that on the week of his 2014 “wedding” with his partner, Gorsuch expressed his support.
“He said, ‘This is a wonderful thing. You’ll see how your relationship grows,'” Goodbaum recalled.
“I have never felt the least whiff from him of homophobia or intolerance toward gay people,” he added.
 As previously reported, Gorsuch is an Episcopalian, and attends St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. St. John’s identifies itself as “inclusive” on its website and is led by female minister Susan Springer. All of its deacons are also female.
In 2013, Springer expressed her support for same-sex “marriage.”
“I don’t think anybody in my faith tradition is out to destroy marriage between a man and a woman,” she told the Daily Camera. “I think we are out to find a way to offer the same blessing and the same sense of inclusion to same-sex couples. And I think we stand as prophetic witness, that same-sex couples ought to enjoy the same legal benefits, if you will, as heterosexual couples."

However, in 2005, Gorsuch penned an article for the National Review, where he opined that issues such as same-sex nuptials and others should be battled in the ballot box rather than in the courts.
He pointed to the writings of Washington Post columnist David von Drehle, who remarked that pushing agendas through the court system damages progressive purposes. Gorsuch said that liberals would do well to heed those sentiments.
“von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education,” he wrote.
“Liberals may win a victory on gay marriage when preaching to the choir before like-minded judges in Massachusetts. But in failing to reach out and persuade the public generally, they invite exactly the sort of backlash we saw in November when gay marriage was rejected in all eleven states where it was on the ballot,” Gorsuch noted.
He reiterated that letting the American people sort out matters in elections is the best way to solve social arguments rather than placing issues in the hands of judges.
“During the New Deal, liberals recognized that the ballot box and elected branches are generally the appropriate engines of social reform, and liberals used both to spectacular effect—instituting profound social changes that remain deeply ingrained in society today,” Gorsuch wrote. “It would be a very good thing for all involved—the country, an independent judiciary, and the Left itself—if liberals take a page from David von Drehle and their own judges of the New Deal era, kick their addiction to constitutional litigation, and return to their New Deal roots of trying to win elections rather than lawsuits.”
But Gorsusch has weighed in on social issues at times. As previously reported, Gorsuch is the author of the book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he concludes that “human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong.”
Gorsuch is also known for ruling in favor of the popular craft chain Hobby Lobby, which had sued the Obama administration over its abortion pill mandate. The company had sued to retain the right not to cover contraceptives that it considers to be abortifacients, such as the morning-after pill. Gorsuch pointed to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in his ruling.
“It is not for secular courts to rewrite the religious complaint of a faithful adherent, or to decide whether a religious teaching about complicity imposes ‘too much’ moral disapproval on those only ‘indirectly’ assisting wrongful conduct,” he wrote in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. “Whether an act of complicity is or isn’t ‘too attenuated’ from the underlying wrong is sometimes itself a matter of faith we must respect.”
Gorsuch was likewise a part of a ruling in favor of the Roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor, which had also sued the Obama administration over the abortion pill mandate.
Gorsuch is stated as being much like the late Antonin Scalia in that he is an originalist, that is, he seeks to interpret the Constitution in the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Scalia, however, noted during his tenure that he opposes both the complete abolition of abortion, as well as requiring legalization. He said that the Constitution does not require a state to ban abortion as he believes the 14th Amendment only applies to those who have been born.
“I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade,” Scalia outlined in a 2002 Pew Forum. “You know, both sides in that debate want the Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. One [side] wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong.”
“And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong,” Scalia further explained in a 2008 60 Minutes interview. “I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.”
The Trump administration, while identifying as pro-life with exceptions, has also expressed its support for the homosexual agenda. As previously reported, during his RNC acceptance speech in July, Trump told those gathered that he would work to protect homosexuals if elected.
“As president, I will do everything in my power to protect LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology,” he declared, being met with applause.
“And, I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said,” he said in response.
Trump had also declared at a fundraiser in June that he is the best candidate for the “gay community.”
“So you tell me, who’s better for the gay community, and who’s better for women than Donald Trump? Believe me!” he said.
In February, he replied in the affirmative when asked by a lesbian reporter if the nation can expect “more forward motion” on homosexual issues if elected president.