Justice Ignored is Justice Denied

One day after striking down a portion of a pro-life law in Texas the supreme Court has made a second anti-life decision. This time the court refused to hear an appeal from the Stormans family in Washington State who are challenging a state law forcing them to sell  abortion-causing drugs that violate their conscience as Christians.

In 2007, abortion activists convinced the Washington Board of Pharmacy to pass regulations that force pharmacists in the state to dispense abortion causing drugs and the state adopted a new law making referrals for reasons of conscience illegal. The bill was signed into law by then-Governor Christine Gregoire.

The family eventually filed a lawsuit against the state for violating their First Amendment rights. After a twelve-day trial, a federal court in February 2012 struck down the law as unconstitutional, finding “abundant evidence” that the law forced religious pharmacists and pharmacy owners to violate their faith.

But last July, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, upholding the law. That resulted in a legal battle which made its way to the Supreme Court, but the court refused to take the case — making it so the law stands.

Justices Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from the denial, writing:

“[Yet] the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this Court does not deem the case worthy of our time. If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern…”

So say your prayers – if you’re inclined – while there’s still time.

Advertisements

High Court Ruling Further Erodes Constitution

This past Monday, the supreme Court handed down a 6-2 ruling that a person convicted of ‎domestic abuse can lose their ‎Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms.” The case, Voisine et al v. United States, involves two Maine residents, under state law a decade ago of committing domestic violence and later charged for violating federal law for owning guns.

The only justice who seemed to care about the Second Amendment was Justice Clarence Thomas and seeing that the case had Constitutional ramifications, he asked one of the prosecuting attorneys: “Ms. Eisenstein, just one question: can you give me — this is a misdemeanor violation, it suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

The question left Eisenstein stumped.

In the end, Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion, “We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly. At oral argument the Government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable only by a fine.”

“I have little doubt that the majority would strike down an absolute ban on publishing by a person previously convicted of misdemeanor libel,” he added. “In construing the statute before us expansively so that causing a single minor reckless injury or offensive touching can lead someone to lose his right to bear arms forever, the Court continues to ‘relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right.’”

The supreme Courts’ decision not only validated the removal of Second Amendment protections, but it has now expanded the reasons for removing them as well.

Hillary Clinton Builds Legacy on American Deaths

The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final report comprising it’s of investigations and conclusions. It shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration was derelict in their duty to protect American diplomats and how the Obama administration contrived to misinform the public about the cause of the attack.

Despite all of this the Progressive media is crowing that the report has found no ‘new evidence’ of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton. And worse yet, this woman could very well become our next President of the U.S.

Let’s go through the first 150 pages or so…

During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid(ing) a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” (pg. 9)

Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real-time.

The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli.

There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks– one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died — said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. (pg. 28)

The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning…Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” (pg. 39)

Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” (pg. 44)

The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points.

The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred before the attack on September 11. (pg. 47)

According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call.

While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. (pg.98)

A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.”

That small but vital difference — from Cairo to Benghazi — had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. (pg. 52)

The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. (pg. 60)

When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. (pg. 74)

In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. (pg. 77)

Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. (pg. 96)

In August 2012 — roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks — security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” (pg. 99)

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. (pg. 107)

With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “(i)f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “(w)ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” (pg. 115)

After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” (pg. 128)

Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur before the Benghazi attacks. (pg. 129)

Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.”

The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH (White House) very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” (pg. 132)

On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS (Secure Video Teleconference) group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” (pg. 135)

Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. (pg. 141)

The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. (pg. 144)

None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. (pg. 150.) Finally, a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. (pg. 154)

As I wrote on September 16, 2012: “A southern Nevada man is one of those killed in Libya during the Benghazi attack on the U.S. Embassy.  Tyrone Woods most recently lived in San Diego before moving to Henderson…” and sadly it seems everyone has forgotten those who died because of this administration’s dereliction of duty and building Hillary’s so-called ‘legacy,’ heading into 2016 presidential election cycle.

The High Court Side-steps the Real Argument

The U.S. supreme Court struck down one of the nation’s toughest restrictions on abortion, a Texas law that women’s groups and our Progressive media continue to claim, “would have forced more than three-quarters of the state’s clinics to shut down.” This is only a part of what the legal battle was over though.

There were two provisions of the law at issue and neither were over the direct closure of these so-called ‘health clinics.’ The first said that doctors had to have local admitting privileges at nearby hospitals; the second said clinics had to upgrade their facilities to hospital-like standards.

But Justice Stephen Breyer, who is so deeply ensconced in the fundamental destruction of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. as a whole, couldn’t see his way clear to see these two provisions as he demonstrates in his majority opinion:

“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.”

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it state access to abortion is a right? It doesn’t!

We no longer have a supreme Court, instead it’s a bench filled with a rubber-stamping Progressive legislative body.

Seventy-five Things Bigger than Brexit

While the news about Brexit flooded across all the various news agencies, there is one news item that is more important and it is being completely ignored — the Associated Press discovered that Hillary Clinton held dozens of meetings with political donors and other operatives during her time as secretary of State and that they were left off of her official schedule.

Documents show at least 75 meetings with longtime backers of her political efforts, the Clinton Foundation and other interests that were not included on her official calendar or whose names were not disclosed. This includes at least 114 nongovernmental officials.

The AP found the so-called ‘discrepancies’ between Clinton’s schedule and her 1,500-page official calendar by comparing notes compiled by Clinton’s aides each day. The omissions won’t amount too much are an example of excessive secrecy and a questionable mix of government business with outside interests.

We already know Hillary Clinton was enriching her personal interests through things like donations from foreign governments; a $55 million State Department grant to a university which paid her husband $16 million; and Wall Street speeches, which she’s attempting keep private as well.

Now, these 75 off-the-record meetings show dealings with financiers and CEOs of major companies, as well as major political donors, who also lobbied the government and donated to Clinton’s personal interests. This misuse of her political position to line her many pant-suit pockets should disgust any American who is awake and still values integrity.

SCOTUS Sets Obama’s Amnesty Legacy Back

The supreme Court did nothing to halt President Obama’s illegal amnesty push. The program would have shielded as many as five million illegal aliens from deportation while allowing them to legally work in the U.S.

The case, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, concerned a 2014 executive action by the president to allow as many as five million illegal’s who are the parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents to apply for a program that would keep them from deportation and give them work permits. Texas Governor Greg Abbott called Obama’s action “an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution.”

In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Federal District Court in Brownsville, Texas entered a preliminary injunction shutting down the program. The government appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans affirmed the injunction.

In their briefs, Texas claimed that the president ‘had wide authority over immigration matters’, telling the justices that “the executive does have enforcement discretion to forbear from removing aliens on an individual basis.” Their problem, they argued, was with what they called a blanket grant of “lawful presence” to millions of illegals entitling them unfunded benefits.

But since the supreme Court split its opinion, the lower court opinion stands, which ought to mean the States have control over the enforcement immigration laws — specifically deportations. This would also mean the States are the only entities authorized to enforce the federally established Rules of Uniformed Naturalization.

This is all contingent on their operating constitutionally, which unfortunately, they don’t. And if the federal government operated constitutionally there would be no “exceptions” to the Uniformed Rules of Naturalization.

The solution is so simple: follow the U.S. Constitution word for word and quit trying to interpret it, forcing it to fit some agenda, as it is not a play-thing.

Where the Law Doesn’t Matter

Clark County Eighth Judicial District Court Judge Stefany Miley has denied a Las Vegas woman’s motion for a preliminary injunction after she received a one-year trespass notice from the Las Vegas-Clark County Library District as a result of openly carrying her .38-caliber pistol. Michelle Flores was given the notice at the Rainbow Library on March 16.

Her arrest lead to a meeting with Henderson Police officer Zane Simpson, and a couple of months later the Henderson library staff received a notification that read: “Generally, a person has the right to carry a gun openly, and he/she is not required to verify legal status with paperwork of any kind.”

Since then, Henderson Libraries has complied with the law. However they tried to argue that the district falls under NRS.265, which says a person shall not carry or have a dangerous weapon while on the property of the Nevada System of Higher Education, a private or public school or child care facility, or while in a vehicle of a private or public school or child care facility.

They found out they were wrong.

But not to be deterred, the district quickly changed the argument from the right to ‘open carry’ to ‘disruptive conduct.’ And yet, as the districts own lawyer admits, a security guard told Flores that she was not allowed to bring her firearm into the library upon return visits and furthermore, the trespass notice given to Flores by library staff did not state that as the reason for her one-year ban.

Despite all this, Judge Miley somehow concluded that the evidence indicated that the trespass notice was a result of her disruptive behavior agreeing with the library’s attorney who went on to claim about Nevada’s open carry gun law, “The law at issue applies to counties, towns and cities. This is a library district. It is not a city, it’s not a town, (and) it’s not a county.”

But according to the law, the district isn’t permitted to restrict the open carry of firearms as noted in part by Senate Bill 175, signed into law last year: “…expanding the rights and powers reserved for the Legislature relating to the regulation of firearms and ammunition; requiring the governing bodies of certain political subdivisions of this State to repeal certain ordinances and regulations; authorizing a person adversely affected by the enforcement of such an ordinance or regulation to seek declarative and injunctive relief and damages; providing that such a person is entitled to certain damages , which reserves the authority to regulate the possession of firearms solely to the state Legislature.”

Yet, somehow Judge Miley claims a simple posting on the library door reading, ‘firearms prohibited’ “clearly indicates” openly carried guns in a publicly funded building is unlawful and that such signage supersedes Nevada state law.