“I’m going to Washington on a fateful, even historic, mission,” he said as he boarded his plane in Tel Aviv. “I feel that I am an emissary of all Israel’s citizens, even those who do not agree with me, and of the entire Jewish people,” ~Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu (Reuters)
spoken March 1st, 2015 as Benjamin “Bibi“ Netanyahu was boarding his plane from Israel to the United States in order to give a highly important speech Tuesday morning to our United States Congress.
Bibi’s speech before Congress will air on FoxNews Channel Tuesday morning. Check your local cable network for details
Mr. Netanyahu will be speaking on a topic of historic importance regarding Iran obtaining Nuclear weapons capabilities and Iran’s hostile intent to use those weapons to destroy Israel and even reach The United States of America. The Obama administration has been aiding and abetting Iran and other Islamic nations and entities such as IS by not even speaking of the existence of radical Islam, Islamic Jihad or Iran and other Islamic nations to establish a one world order global Islamic Caliphate at the behest and approval of all 57 Islamic States who are members of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) not loosely, affiliated with the UN (United Nations).
For the very first time in the history of our two nation’s allegiance, The President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, the 44th, has refused to meet with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Christian Broadcasting Network wrote of the historic significance of Israel’s Prime Minister, Netanyahu’s arrival and the apocalyptic Toranical and biblical timing of Bibi’s speech on the eve of Purim, a Holy day of Fasting and prayer for Jews and Christians who celebrate Holy Days in both of their faiths united by the Word.
In the days ahead, Jews around the world will celebrate Purim, a festival the Bible directs us to remember, when the Jewish people were delivered more than 2,000 years ago in Persia (modern day Iran) from an evil anti-Semite –Haman — who had manipulated the king into issuing a decree that would annihilate the Jews.
According to the biblical account, Esther, a Jew, and her cousin, Mordecai, who raised her, were the instruments of deliverance.
This Tuesday, just hours before the Purim holiday begins, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address the U.S. Congress, at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner, to explain why his country cannot tolerate the threat from another group of evil anti-Semites in Iran to annihilate the Jews: the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Ayatollah Khamenei and his government…
In the meantime, the gravity of the world situation and the daily reports of the persecution and murder of Christians and Jews has focused the attention of millions of Christians, as well as Jews, on what Netanyahu has to say. Many will pray and intercede, and others will fast, as Esther and her people did in biblical times.
We will pray for Israel, for Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s leaders, for wisdom for our own leaders, and for discernment to navigate the dangerous waters ahead. Who knows whether, as in the days of Esther and Mordecai, the address wasn’t appointed “for such a time as this…
Choice words and phrases excerpted and proper attribution given to authors/publishers and the rest (article portions not in block quotes) written by M. Katherine Orts & Pastor David A. Orts founders of USDefenseLeague.com “Pushing Back Tyranny With Truth“ for The Glory of God IJN+ #USA #ProIsrael #ShalomJerusalem
There seems to be a stealth master plan of sorts to utilize a variety of Federal Government agencies for nefarious purposes aimed at diminishing or, removing altogether, the rights of the average hard-working, tax paying American citizen. Every State in the union should be on high alert that they might be next for Federal mandated selection by any variety of Federal ‘tools’ such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to selectively pinpoint Americans staying true to the US Constitution and to Liberty within it’s well defined text as stated in The Declaration of Independence. We here at USDefenseLeague challenge all 50 States to immediately re-claim all non-ceded, or previously ceded lands and territories back from the increasing usurper of rights and freedoms the US Federal Government. We, like the Bundy’s believe that every State in our US Republic is sovereign. We are Federalists. That means we believe in State’s rights trumping Federal rights as per the 10th Amendment in our US Constitution.
So we begin, at the beginning, with environmentally micro-focused and extraordinarily mis-aligned executor of all things Federal, the current US Senate Majority Leader (D-Nevada) Harry Reid. Senator Reid’s pet projects just can’t get any wilder or should we say carnivorous! Just look here: read more
America is the midst of an epidemic of racial mob violence and the media absolutely refuses to report it.
The solution however is not merely reporting on it, it is taking action in a visible, out in front of the crest of the wave, the danger zone which is the sweet spot where real progress (progressiveims) which is regresses societal change,
In the book, “White Girl Bleed a Lot,” author Colin Flaherty documented hundreds of examples of black mob violence in more than 70 cities big and small throughout the country
Many of the episodes are on YouTube. He also documented how the media and public officials ignore, condone, excuse and even lie about this wave of lawlessness.
There is a deep hatred that is manifested at anyone or anything these misguided, hatefilled thugs think is weaker, like this kid Walter Easly Twitter @SuckMy_Walt
There is nothing here but opportunity for the race card players AKA Democrats. USA is better than this.
God Bless the Borellis for speaking capital “T” truth to power.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. strongly condemned “stand your ground” laws Tuesday, saying the measures “senselessly expand the concept of self-defense” and may encourage “violent situations to escalate.”
The National Rifle Association was not pleased with Holder’s statements and released the following to Fox News:
Chris W. Cox, executive director NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, claimed Holder went too far in extending the debate to “stand-your-ground” laws.
“The attorney general fails to understand that self-defense is not a concept, it’s a fundamental human right,” he said in a statement. “To send a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame is unconscionable, and demonstrates once again that this administration will exploit tragedies to push their political agenda.”
We applaud Mr. Donald Trump in pointing out the obvious. That political correctness has been eating away at USA’s Security at home and abroad via censoring free speech and preventing usage of common sense and US Constitutional principles to all things Islam or Muslim. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann revealed in her letter to Rep. Keith Ellison that USA has been and is, in grave danger of Radical Islam warring a Grand “Civilization Jihad” within our WH and US Government on US Soil at home and abroad! We wanted to revive an old clip of Mr. Donald Trump speaking to CBN News. In 2011, CBN News interviewed former Presidential nominee Donald Trump on his views pertaining to Islam and Muslims in particular. Mr. Trump told CBN news and had also told The O’Reilly Factor, that “There is a Muslim problem.” We also love that Dennis Miller gave Donald Trump a verbal High Five to Trump on O’Reilly! -PBN read more
God Bless Former Congressman Allen West! There is indeed no separation of church and state in the US Constitution, The Federalist Papers or The Declaration of Independence. The well known, yet gravely misused and grossly abused mantra, is all based upon a letter from the Danbury CT Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson asking for clarification on the churches standing with the State. Jefferson assured the Baptist Association there would be a separation between the church and the state meaning the State Head would not also be the Church Head. The Triune Judeo Christian Church was FREE to worship as they desired without the State telling them how and when and where to Worship. So America, do you see, now, in the present time how this verbiage has been so completely twisted from its original explanatory intent? And one more thing, USA is still a Christian nation. Islam is a government and is not a religion. It is a Political Militant Ideology bent on usurping all of Western Civilizations Freedoms. Islam never grants Freedom, to its followers or its opposition, only death, to its Sharia compliant Islamic Extremist Jihadist followers and those who happen to be in their path. We are indeed in a Global War on Terror and all true Believers in The Way must stand and “Be Strong & Courageous” as Joshua. -PBN
UPDATE: Obama and his masses conducting evil against the states.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration has delayed a decision on TransCanada Corp’s rerouted Keystone XL oil pipeline until after March, even though Nebraska’s governor on Tuesday approved a plan for part of the line running through his state.
“We don’t anticipate being able to conclude our own review before the end of the first quarter of this year,” said Victoria Nuland, a spokeswoman at the State Department, which had previously said it would make a decision by that deadline. Full post
God Bless Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman! TransCanada just got final approval to build its pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta all the way to the Gulf Coast of Texas. Done.
Obama rejected the broader[Keystone XL] plan, saying the pipeline needed to be rerouted around Nebraska’s sensitive Sand Hills region. For that project, TransCanada needs presidential approval because it crosses an international border. The shorter portion only requires permits from state and federal agencies. TransCanada said the final of three permits it needed from the Army Corps of Engineers had been approved. The line from Cushing will help relieve a bottleneck at the Oklahoma refinery.
The governor approved a revised route for the Canada-to-Texas pipeline which his office said would avoid environmentally sensitive areas.
“Construction and operation of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, with the mitigation and commitments from Keystone would have minimal environmental impacts in Nebraska,” he wrote in a letter to Obama and Clinton.
The decision on final approval now rests with the Obama administration. The State Department is expected to decide within the next few months whether to permit the project to go forward — Heineman’s approval puts Obama in a difficult political spot.
The president had previously cited the Nebraska’s concerns about the pipeline as a key obstacle to approving the pipeline. At the same time, the president was able assuage the concerns of major environmental groups who not only voiced concern about the potential impact of a spill but also the emissions created by extracting and refining oil from what are known as oil sands in Canada.
After Obama in his inaugural address pledged to take action on climate change, the Sierra Club said it was “heartened” by Obama’s remarks and again urged the administration to reject “the dangerous tar sands pipeline.”
But supporters — including some in the president’s own party — have downplayed the environment impact and stressed the economic benefits the pipeline could bring. The pipeline is backed by the unions, and has been heavily promoted by Canadian officials. In Heineman’s letter, the governor said construction in Nebraska would yield $418 million in economic benefits.
Asked about the Nebraska governor’s decision Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney noted the State Department was still reviewing the issue.
“There are stages in this process. … I don’t want to get ahead of that process,” Carney said.
There are other hurdles beyond the federal government’s approval — needed because the pipeline crosses the U.S.-Canada border. A state court case has challenged the law that gives Heineman the power to approve such plans.
The American Petroleum Institute hailed the Nebraska decision Tuesday as a major step.
“Another major hurdle has been cleared,” API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin said. “With the approval from Nebraska in hand, the president can be confident that the remaining environmental concerns have been addressed.”
The governor said the new route would avoid the sensitive Sand Hills region, though would “cross” a vital aquifer. The governor expressed confidence that enough protections were in place to allow the project to go forward.
Publisher’s Note: 40 years and over 55,000,000 life ending murders aka “abortions” ago Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton both became victims of fraud. An anniversary should be a joyous celebration, sadly they are not always. It is not a celebratory memory, but it does mark the anniversary of tens of millions of murders of the most precious of us. This marker is a reminder of how vile and evil the blood lusting liberal left are. Monsters do exist. Liberals have made murder of the most innocent “legal” by fraud and lies. You will find at the center of liberal’s evil goals, two pawns, two innocent pro life women who never sought abortions.
It is also the Anniversary of a continuing Farce & Denigration of Our US Constitution and the manipulation of our Supreme Court Judicial System.
How and why?
Due to two false precedents, illegal ones at that. It is indeed a historical fact, though incredulously still not a widely disseminated one, that both the plaintiffs in Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton proceeded on with their pregnancies and gave birth to their babies prior to the courts rulings on their matters making the Supreme Court’s decisions irrelevant and moot. In addition, the plaintiffs’ attorney(s) in both cases allegedly used their names and previous conditions (pregnancies) to obtain standing without their knowledge or consents. “Roe” didn’t learn of the case’s outcome until reading it two years later in the newspaper and “Doe” had no knowledge that a case had even been filed, heard and ruled on, using her name! They are both Pro-Life and are Proponents of the Right to Life for ALL unborn children.
Roe’s attorney Coffee and Weddington never had her appear in court or for that matter explain that an abortion would end the life of the unborn baby. Norma McCorvey (Roe) was duped. The story of Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) here.
Mary Doe was Sandra Cano she says, “Little did I know, going to the Legal Aid was going to result in being a Plaintiff in abortion, which is something I’ve never been for, I’ve been against, I never sought an abortion, never sought to be a plaintiff in this case. I was in the dark about it for a long, long time. I think the public knows more about the case than I do. I was never a participant.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling in both cases were based upon cases which no longer existed and which were brought about via fraudulent and dubious means. Both cases rulings resulted in the violation of the most basic Constitutional Right of any future child’s right to exist, not for those two children but for the millions who never had a chance to be heard. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Charters of Freedom here.If you’re pregnant or know someone who is and are thinking about an abortion, do some research, talk to some people, we hope these links will help, may God bless you.-PBN
Good afternoon, Chairman Brownback and Senator Feingold, and thank you very much for inviting me to testify before you and your subcommittee on this important subject.
I am Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The Ethics and Public Policy Center is a think tank that for three decades has been dedicated to exploring and explaining how the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and this country’s foundational principles ought to inform and shape public policy on critical issues.
The Ethics and Public Policy Center’s program on The Constitution, the Courts, and the Culture, which I direct, explores the competing conceptions of the role of the courts in our political system. This program focuses, in particular, on what is at stake for American culture writ large—for the ability of the American people to function fully as citizens, to engage in responsible self-government, and to maintain the “indispensable supports” of “political prosperity” that George Washington (and other Founders) understood “religion and morality” to be.
1. Why re-examine Roe v. Wade?
Why are we here today addressing a case that the Supreme Court decided 32 years ago, that it ratified 13 years ago, and that America’s cultural elites overwhelmingly embrace? The answer, I would submit, is twofold.
First, Roe v. Wade marks the second time in American history that the Supreme Court has invoked “substantive due process” to deny American citizens the authority to protect the basic rights of an entire class of human beings. The first time, of course, was the Court’s infamous 1857 decision in the Dred Scott case (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)). There, the Court held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in the northern portion of the Louisiana Territories, could not constitutionally be applied to persons who brought their slaves into free territory. Such a prohibition, the Court nakedly asserted, “could hardly be dignified with the name of due process.” Id. at 450. Thus were discarded the efforts of the people, through their representatives, to resolve politically and peacefully the greatest moral issue of their age. Chief Justice Taney and his concurring colleagues thought that they were conclusively resolving the issue of slavery. Instead, they only made all the more inevitable the Civil War that erupted four years later.
Roe is the Dred Scott of our age. Like few other Supreme Court cases in our nation’s history, Roe is not merely patently wrong but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship. Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people. Roe prevents all Americans from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states. Roe imposes on all Americans a radical regime of unrestricted abortion for any reason all the way up to viability—and, under the predominant reading of sloppy language inRoe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, essentially unrestricted even in the period from viability until birth. Roefuels endless litigation in which pro-abortion extremists challenge modest abortion-related measures that state legislators have enacted and that are overwhelmingly favored by the public—provisions, for example, seeking to ensure informed consent and parental involvement for minors and barring atrocities like partial-birth abortion. Roedisenfranchises the millions and millions of patriotic American citizens who believe that the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life—warrants significant governmental protection of the lives of unborn human beings.
So long as Americans remain Americans—so long, that is, as they remain faithful to the foundational principles of this country—I believe that the American body politic will never accept Roe.
The second reason to examine Roe is the ongoing confusion that somehow surrounds the decision. Leading political and media figures, deliberately or otherwise, routinely misrepresent and understate the radical nature of the abortion regime that the Court imposed in Roe. And, conversely, they distort and exaggerate the consequences of reversing Roe and of restoring to the American people the power to determine abortion policy in their respective States. The more that Americans understand Roe, the more they regard it as illegitimate.
Reasonable people of good will with differing values or with varying prudential assessments of the practical effect of protective abortion laws may come to a variety of conclusions on what abortion policy ought to be in the many diverse states of this great nation. But, I respectfully submit, it is well past time for all Americans, no matter what their views on abortion, to recognize that the Court-imposed abortion regime should be dismantled and the issue of abortion should be returned to its rightful place in the democratic political process.
2. Roe v. Wade
In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court addressed the constitutionality of a Texas statute, “typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century,” that made abortion a crime except where “procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Id. at 116, 118.The seven-Justice majority, in an opinion by Justice Blackmun, ruled that the Texas statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”). The Court ruled that the Due Process Clause requires an abortion regime that comports with these requirements that the Court composed:
“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
“(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
“(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Id. at 164-165.
Merely describing Roe virtually suffices to refute its legitimacy. One of the two dissenters, Justice Byron White—who was appointed by President Kennedy—accurately observed that Blackmun’s opinion was “an exercise of raw judicial power” and “an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review.” 410 U.S. at 222 (combined dissent from Roe and Doe v. Bolton).
Here are typical criticisms of Roe—from liberals who supporta right to abortion:
“What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.” John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L.J. 920, 935-937 (1973).
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” Laurence H. Tribe, The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 7 (1973).
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.” “Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years sinceRoe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” Edward Lazarus, The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them, Oct. 3, 2002 (at http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html). (Mr. Lazarus was a law clerk to Blackmun and describes himself as “someone utterly committed to the right to choose [abortion]” and as “someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”)
“[Roe’s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” Archibald Cox,The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government 113-114 (1976).
Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” Benjamin Wittes, Letting Go of Roe, The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.
The defects of Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roeare manifest and legion. A brief review of lowlights is nonetheless warranted:
Blackmun’s rambling world-history tour of “man’s attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries,” 410 U.S. at 117, wanders from the ancient Persian Empire to the position of the American Public Health Association in 1970 and of the American Bar Association in 1972. Yet, even apart from how unreliable and misleading Blackmun’s tour has been shown to be, it fails to address squarely the most relevant history—the state of abortion regulation at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. As then-Justice Rehnquist’s dissent points out, as of 1868 “there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion,” including the Texas statute the Court struck down in Roe. See 410 U.S. at 174-175 & n. 1.
Blackmun’s opinion modestly states:
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” 410 U.S. at 159.
But while feigning not to decide the question of when a human life begins—a question that is in fact rather simple as a matter of biology—the Court in essence ruled illegitimate any legislative determination that unborn human beings are deserving of protection from abortion.
A critical step in Roe is the bare assertion, unsupported by any argument or authority, that the “right of privacy” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” 410 U.S. at 153.
In explaining the abortion regime that he was inventing, Blackmun stated:
“This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day.” 410 U.S. at 165.
This language openly reveals that Roe is a policymaker’s balancing of considerations, not an authentic judicial interpretation of the Constitution.
3. Doe v. Bolton
The same day that the Court decided Roe, it rendered its decision in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). As the Court said in Roe, Roe and Doe “are to be read together.” Roe,410 U.S. at 165. Doe presented the question whether Georgia’s abortion legislation, patterned on the American Law Institute’s model legislation, was constitutional. 410 U.S. at 181-182. Among other things, the Georgia statute provided that an abortion shall not be criminal when performed by a physician “based upon his best clinical judgment that an abortion is necessary because [a] continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the pregnant woman or would seriously and permanently injure her health.” Id. at 183. In the course of upholding this provision against a challenge that it was unconstitutionally vague, Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion determined that the
“medical judgment [as to health] may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.” Id. at 192.
It is not entirely clear what Blackmun’s garbled discussion is intended to mean. The predominant assumption appears to be that Blackmun was construing the Georgia statute’s health exception in accord with what he regarded as its natural legal meaning (or, alternatively, in a way that he thought necessary to salvage it from invalidation on vagueness grounds). Under this reading, the authority thatRoe purports to confer on states to “regulate, and even proscribe, abortion” after viability is subject to the loophole ofDoe’s health exception. See, e.g., Women’s Medical Professional Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 209 (6th Cir. 1997)(“Roe’s prohibition on state regulation when an abortion is necessary for the ‘preservation of the life or health of the mother’ must be read in the context of the concept of health discussed in Doe” (internal citation omitted)). Because the practical meaning of this loophole would appear to be entirely at the discretion of the abortionist, it would swallow any general post-viability prohibition against abortion.
Under an alternative reading, Blackmun’s language should be understood merely as construing the Georgia statute and not as speaking, directly or indirectly, to the meaning of the post-viability health exception in Roe. See, e.g., Voinovich v. Women’s Medical Professional Corp., 523 U.S. 1036, 1039 (1998) (opinion of Thomas, joined by Rehnquist and Scalia, dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (“Our conclusion that the statutory phrase in Doe was not vague because it included emotional and psychological considerations in no way supports the proposition that, after viability, a mental health exception is required as a matter of federal constitutional law. Doe simply did not address that question.” (emphasis in original)).
4. Myths about Roe
Myths about Roe abound, and I will not strive to dispel all of them here. One set of myths dramatically understates the radical nature of the abortion regime that Roe invented and imposed on the entire country. Roe is often said, for example, merely to have created a constitutional right to abortion during the first three months of pregnancy (or the first trimester). Nothing in Roe remotely supports such a characterization.
A more elementary confusion is reflected in the commonplace assertion that Roe “legalized” abortion. At one level, this proposition is true, but it completely obscures the fact that the Court did not merely legalize abortion—itconstitutionalized abortion. In other words, the American people, acting through their state legislators, had the constitutional authority before Roe to make abortion policy. (Some States had legalized abortion, and others were in the process of liberalizing their abortion laws.) Roe deprived the American people of this authority.
The assertion that Roe “legalized” abortion also bears on a surprisingly widespread misunderstanding of the effect of a Supreme Court reversal of Roe. Many otherwise well-informed people seem to think that a reversal of Roe would mean that abortion would thereby be illegal nationwide. But of course a reversal of Roe would merely restore to the people of the States their constitutional authority to establish—and to revise over time—the abortion laws and policies for their respective States.
This confusion about what reversing Roe means is also closely related to confusion, or deliberate obfuscation, over what it means for a Supreme Court Justice to be opposed toRoe. In particular, such a Justice is often mislabeled “pro-life.” But Justices like Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Thomas who have recognized that the Constitution does not speak to the question of abortion take a position that is entirely neutral on the substance of America’s abortion laws. Their modest point concerns process: abortion policy is to be made through the political processes, not by the courts. These Justices do not adopt a “pro-life” reading of the Due Process Clause under which permissive abortion laws would themselves be unconstitutional.
5. Planned Parenthood v. Casey
In 1992, the Supreme Court seemed ready to reverse Roeand to end its unconstitutional usurpation of the political processes on the abortion question. Instead, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992),Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter combined to produce a joint majority opinion so breathtaking in its grandiose misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s role that it makes one long for the sterile incoherence of Blackmun’s opinion inRoe.
In Casey, the Court relied on the combined force of (a) its “explication of individual liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause and (b) staredecisis to reaffirm what it described as (c) the “central holding” of Roe. 505 U.S. at 853. Each of these elements warrants scrutiny.
The core of the Court’s explanation of the liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause is its declaration, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” 505 U.S. at 851. This lofty New Age rhetoric should not conceal the shell game that the Court is playing. What the Court’s declaration really means is that the Court is claiming the unconstrained power to define for all Americans which particular interests it thinks should be beyond the bounds of citizens to address through legislation.
Even with this infinitely elastic standard, the authors of the joint opinion are not ready to assert that Roe was correctly decided. Instead, they rest their reaffirmation of Roe on an understanding of stare decisis, and of the role of the Court generally, that betrays a remarkably profound confusion. I cannot quote the full discussion, but these passages are all too typical:
“Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roeand those rare, comparable cases, its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” 505 U.S. at 866-867.
“To all those who will be so tested by following [the Court], the Court implicitly undertakes to remain steadfast, lest in the end a price be paid for nothing. The promise of constancy, once given, binds its maker for as long as the power to stand by the decision survives and the understanding of the issue has not changed so fundamentally as to render the commitment obsolete.” 505 U.S. at 868.
“Like the character of an individual, the legitimacy of the Court must be earned over time. So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Their belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals. If the Court’s legitimacy should be undermined, then, so would the country be in its very ability to see itself through its constitutional ideals. The Court’s concern with legitimacy is not for the sake of the Court but for the sake of the Nation to which it is responsible.” 505 U.S. at 868.
It is probably not possible to improve on Justice Scalia’s devastating responses to the joint opinion’s bizarre assertions:
“The Court’s description of the place of Roe in the social history of the United States is unrecognizable. Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, by elevating it to the national level where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve. National politics were not plagued by abortion protests, national abortion lobbying, or abortion marches on Congress, before Roe v.Wade was decided. Profound disagreement existed among our citizens over the issue—as it does over other issues, such as the death penalty—but that disagreement was being worked out at the state level.” 505 U.S. at 995.
“Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since. And by keeping us in the abortion umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any pax Roeana, that the Court’s new majority decrees.” 505 U.S. at 995-996.
“The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges—leading a Volk who will be ‘tested by following,’ and whose very ‘belief in themselves’ is mystically bound up in their ‘understanding’ of a Court that ‘speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals’—with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.
‘The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . .’ The Federalist No. 78.
“Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration … with the more democratic views of a more humble man:
‘[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’ A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861).” 505 U.S. at 996-997.
While abandoning Roe’s trimester framework, the Caseyjoint opinion then reaffirmed what it characterized as Roe’s central holding: “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.” 505 U.S. at 879. It also stated that it reaffirmed Roe’s holding (which, as discussed above, apparently was to be read with Doe’s malleable definition of health) that even after viability abortion must be available “where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Id. In addition, it adopted a subjective and amorphous “undue burden” standard for assessing incidential abortion regulations before viability. Id. at 878.
6. Stenberg v. Carhart
The Supreme Court’s decision in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, provides special insight into the Court’s abortion regime. That case presented the question of the constitutionality of Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion.
This case crossed my mind five months ago as my daughter was being born and her head was first starting to emerge.
Pardon me as I briefly describe what partial-birth abortion is: It’s a method of late-term abortion in which the abortionist dilates the mother’s cervix, extracts the baby’s body by the feet until all but the head has emerged, stabs a pair of scissors into the head, sucks out the baby’s brains, collapses the skull, and delivers the dead baby.
According to estimates cited by the Court, up to 5000 partial-birth abortions are done every year in this much-blessed country.
In the face of a division of opinion among doctors over whether partial-birth abortion is sometimes safer than other methods of abortion, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, deferred to the view of those who maintained that it sometimes is and invalidated the Nebraska statute banning it.
I don’t have much else to say about this case. I don’t dispute at all that its result can reasonably be thought to be dictated by Roe and Casey. And I certainly don’t contend that what partial-birth abortion yields—a dead baby—is any different from what other methods of abortion yield.
I would instead merely submit that this case ought to make manifest to any but the most jaded conscience the sheer barbarity being done in the name of the Constitution in a country dedicated—at its founding, at least—to the self-evident truth that all human beings “are endowed by their Creator” with an unalienable right to life.
Despite the fact that the abortion issue was being worked out state-by-state, the Supreme Court purported to resolve the abortion issue, once and for all and on a nationwide basis, in its 1973 decision in Roe. Instead, as Justice Scalia has correctly observed, the Court “fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics” ever since. In 1992, the five-Justice majority in Casey “call[ed] the contending sides [on abortion] to end their national division by accepting” what it implausibly claimed was “a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” Thirteen years later, the abortion issue remains as contentious and divisive as ever.
As Justice Scalia suggested in his dissent in Casey, Chief Justice Taney surely believed that his Dred Scott opinion would resolve, once and for all, the slavery question. But, Scalia continued:
“It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved—an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation—can be ‘speedily and finally settled’ by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be.… Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.
“We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.” 505 U.S. at 1002.
As increasing numbers of observers across the political spectrum are coming to recognize, Justice Scalia’s prescription in Casey remains entirely sound, both as a matter of constitutional law and of judicial statesmanship. If the American people are going to be permitted to exercise their authority as citizens, then all Americans, whatever their views on abortion, should recognize that the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional power grab on this issue must end and that the political issue of whether and how to regulate abortions should be returned where it belongs—to the people and to the political processes in the states.
Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. Luke 12:3
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is convening an emergency meeting Monday of his cabinet and others from the Supreme National Security Council over WND’s revelation of the Islamic regime’s secret nuclear facility.
According to a source in the Revolutionary Guards intelligence unit with access to Iran’s nuclear program, Iran is scrambling to find out who leaked the information. The regime is concerned about international ramifications of yet another secret site being exposed amid pressure and sanctions by the West and the International Atomic Energy Agency ‘s request for inspection and clarification over illicit nuclear activities. The source is the same person who revealed the site’s existence.
The regime has twice been caught red-handed with its covert nuclear activity – in 2002 when its Natanz enrichment facility was exposed and in 2009 with the exposure of the Fordo underground nuclear facility near the city of Qom.
Upon the revelation of the Khondab site on WND, Ahmadinejad issued two directives, according to the source – one to Heydar Moslehi, the head of the Ministry of Intelligence, and another to Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani, the head of the regime’s Atomic Energy Organization – requesting immediate investigation into the leak.
The source added that the Intelligence Ministry, which oversees the activity of all employees in the Iranian nuclear program, has begun questioning workers in Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization through its Herasat, an internal security force.
The regime fully knows, the source said, that any revelation of its secret nuclear activity under current circumstances will destroy its claim of peaceful nuclear activity and will embolden Israel’s position internationally that the regime is lying about its activity and that it needs to be confronted immediately.
According to the source, the Khondab facility houses over 2,000 centrifuges that are enriching uranium for Iran’s nuclear bomb program. More cascades of centrifuges are being made operational to add to its capacity.
DigitalGlobe images of the site have been given to organizations that specialize in Iran’s illicit nuclear program for further analysis. However, a retired imagery analyst who cannot be named has looked at two of the images and confirms that the imagery shows “a large surface installation showing characteristics of supporting a co-located underground facility.”
Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a former CIA analyst and executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board to Congress, said, “The imagery clearly shows some kind of highly sensitive and fortified installation supporting a deep underground facility inside the mountain.”
DigitalGlobe Sept. 2012 – Entrances to the underground facility
The Atomic Energy Organization’s Abbasi-Davani, in a memorial ceremony on Jan. 10 for the assassinated Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, said the regime continues to enrich uranium to the 20-percent level at both Natanz and Fordo. The 20-percent enriched stock could within weeks be further enriched to weaponization grade.
“We will not accept anything beyond the (Non-proliferation Treaty) framework,” Abbasi-Davani said. “We will not answer undocumented claims. We will (only) respond to the documents we get from them that we find acceptable.”
The IAEA, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, has for months requested access to Iran’s Parchin military site, where it is believed that tests took place on the trigger for an atomic bomb. Regime officials have so far refused, even as satellite images show that Iran has for months started cleaning up the test site.
The latest IAEA report last November stated that the regime has expanded its enrichment program, with over 10,000 centrifuges enriching uranium at Natanz and over 2,700 centrifuges at Fordo.
Though Iran is under severe sanctions by the United Nations, United States and the European Union for its illicit nuclear program, it currently has enough enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs if further enriched and is working with North Korea on its intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Meanwhile, WND’s source said Syria has started shipping uranium from Syria to Iran. And according to a Reuters report, Western and Israeli security experts indicate that Syria may have as much as 50 tons of unenriched uranium.
Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).
Obama’s Presidential Inaugural Committee has zero tolerance to traditional heterosexual and scriptural Biblical points of view. It appears that the inaugural committee appointed by Obama is only willing to accept Pro Gay pastors for their inaugural pastor selections. -PBN
The evangelical pastor chosen to give the benediction at President Barack Obama‘s inauguration withdrew from the ceremony Thursday after remarks surfaced that he made two decades ago condemning the gay rights movement.
The Rev. Louie Giglio of Passion City Church in Atlanta said in a statement he withdrew because it was likely that the “prayer I would offer will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration.”
Addie Whisenant, a spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee, said the committee had chosen Giglio because of his work to end human trafficking. Giglio organizes the Passion evangelical conferences that draw tens of thousands of young people.
“We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural,” Whisenant said in a statement.
The liberal website ThinkProgress posted audio of the sermon Wednesday. In the talk, which the pastor said he gave 15 or 20 years ago, Giglio cited Scripture and called same-sex relationships sinful and an abomination. He warned congregants about what he called the “aggressive agenda” for acceptance of the “homosexual lifestyle.” And he recommended the writings of an advocate for therapy that aims to convert gays and lesbians into heterosexuals. Repeatedly in the sermon, Giglio urged congregants to welcome gays and lesbians to the church and said God loves them.
“Speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past 15 years,” Giglio said, in announcing he would withdraw. He framed the conflict over his participation as a question of religious freedom.
“The issue of homosexuality … is one of the most difficult our nation will navigate,” he wrote on his church blog. “However, individuals’ rights of freedom, and the collective right to hold differing views on any subject is a critical balance we, as a people, must recover and preserve.”
Obama’s inaugural planners have put an emphasis on reflecting diversity in the festivities, including the participation of conservative Christians and gay Americans. Obama personally selected Richard Blanco, whose work explores his experience as a Cuban-American gay man, as the inaugural poet. And the Lesbian and Gay Band Association of St. Louis was one of the first selections to march in the inaugural parade.
An inaugural official said the Presidential Inaugural Committee vetted Giglio. But their statement said they didn’t know about that particular sermon. Whisenant said the committee was considering others to deliver the benediction at the Jan. 21 event.
Ross Murray, the faith program director for the gay advocacy group GLAAD, urged the committee to choose someone for the role who reflects “the growing sentiment in the U.S. and in faith communities that LGBT people are full and equal parts of society.”
Several evangelical leaders called such demands evidence of liberal intolerance.
“Some are wondering if those who hold to traditional evangelical beliefs on homosexuality are no longer welcome in the public square,” wrote Ed Stetzer, head of the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, on his blog.
Obama faced a similar uproar in 2009, when he chose prominent pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural benediction as an olive branch to evangelicals, who overwhelmingly vote Republican. Warren had compared gay relationships to incest and pedophilia. He had also urged congregants at his Saddleback Church in California to support the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage on the 2008 state ballot. Despite pressure from gay rights advocates for Warren to bow out, the pastor gave the benediction.
Associated Press writer Nedra Pickler contributed from Washington.
Public sector unions appear to be determined to convince us all how useless and dangerous they have become. -PBN
You know how it is in politics, right? You win some, you lose some. If a vote doesn’t go your way, you’re disappointed, but you pick yourself up, dust yourself off and move on. You don’t cling to your anger like grim death because that’s pointless and only prolongs your bitterness.
Ha ha! Just kidding. Right-to-work may now be a settled issue in Michigan, but just because the unions lost and that’s that doesn’t mean that will be that. It must be understood: Cross the unions and you will pay a steep price, and you will never stop paying. Hence the chant: “No union, no peace.”
The only problem is that not a single Republican lawmaker took the bait and walked past the hissy-fitters, save for this one guy who didn’t look like anyone. He was only Dick Posthumus, the former Republican Senate Majority Leader, 2002 Republican nominee for governor and current top-level advisor to Gov. Rick Snyder. The union thugs didn’t recognize him. They also gathered at the wrong entrance to the Capitol Building, apparently not realizing that most lawmakers enter the back door because it’s adjacent to their parking lot. Ah well. Too bad because look at what they missed:
Before the noon start of today’s ceremonial session, members of We are Michigan, who organized the demonstration, plan to deliver fresh cookies to lawmakers who opposed right-to-work and “broken cookies for broken promises” to those who opposed it.
Demonstrators chanted, “No union, no peace,” and carried signs with message such as “RTW, Wrong for Michigan,” and placards with photos of Republican lawmakers with the word “Shame” stamped across their faces.
Broken cookies? What kind? Were they still fresh? Hey, they break in your mouth anyway.
I do like the whole “shame” thing. It’s almost as if the unions see themselves like that kid on the playground who gets picked on by a bigger kid, and then the playground monitor comes up and whoops the bully saying, “You should be ashamed of yourself! Look how much bigger you are than him!”
I really think, deep down, that’s how they see themselves. They really don’t think they can make it in life but for the benevolent advocacy of their unions, aided by pro-union legislation, and any action that tilts the playing field even slightly in favor of someone other than them is cause for shame because these salt-of-the-earth working people are helpless without these legal guarantees. It’s the same thinking that justifies their use of violence and just general hissy fits in response to anyone who opposes their agenda.
“What do you expect us to do? Function in the free market? You know we haven’t got it in us to succeed at that.”
They won’t admit that’s what they think of themselves. They bluster about how union-made products are so superior and everything else is cheap crap, etc. But they know it’s not true. Many of them would be fired in a minute if their union didn’t protect them, and that’s what they really fear when the union is weakened by right-to-work laws.
NEW YORK — A New York police detective shot and killed an unarmed man, whose hands, a witness said, were on the steering wheel of his Honda, after he had been pulled over early Thursday for cutting off two police trucks on the Grand Central Parkway in Queens, the authorities said.
The shooting, which occurred at 5:15 a.m., was the latest in a series of episodes in which police officers fatally shot or wounded civilians. While the Police Department had explanations in the other instances, it could not immediately provide one for the shooting on Thursday.
The detective, Hassan Hamdy, 39, a 14-year veteran assigned to the Emergency Service Unit, fired one bullet through an open window of the car, which his squad had just pulled over with the help of a second police vehicle. The bullet struck the driver, Noel Polanco, 22, in the abdomen. He was declared dead less than an hour later at New York Hospital Queens.
Hassan Hamdy is a Muslim name. Family, friends and authorities are still trying to determine why an NYPD detective fatally shot and killed an unarmed driver on the Grand Central Parkway on Thursday.
Detective Hassan Hamdy, identified by police as the officer who fatally shot Noel Polanco, 22, was one of several officers named in a 2007 brutality lawsuit by a Queens grandmother and her grandson who said they were terrorized by police after being subjected to an illegal search of their home. The suit was settled for $235,000.
Fred Lichtmacher, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said the NYPD moved swiftly to settle the case out of court. Under the terms of the settlement, the officers admitted no fault or liability for the incident.
“The city was very anxious to get rid of this,” Lichtmacher told The Huffington Post. “I never got to see what the cops’ records were like.”
Attempts to reach Hamdy for comment were unsuccessful.
A spokeswoman for New York City’s legal department said Hamdy did not appear to be a “major player” in the Queens brutality case. But the city also said that Hamdy was named in another civil rights complaint that the city settled for $291,000 in 2001, and that details of that case were not immediately available.
According to police officials, Hamdy was one of two officers who approached Polanco’s car after he was pulled over at around 5 a.m. Thursday for speeding and driving erratically near LaGuardia Airport. After Hamdy approached the driver’s side, he fired his gun into the car, striking Polanco in the abdomen. Polanco died about an hour later after being taken to a nearby hospital.
Polanco had been a specialist in the New York Army National Guard since 2008, according to a military spokesman.
Initial statements by the police indicated that Polanco was shot after he ignored a command to keep his hands in the air and reached under his seat. No weapon was recovered from the car.
But Diane DeFerrari, a bartender sitting in the front passenger seat of Polanco’s car, has contradicted the police account, telling news outlets that Polanco had his hands on the steering wheel at all times during the stop.
DeFerrari described the officers who made the traffic stop as aggressive, saying they screamed obscenities and extended the middle finger toward the car before Polanco pulled over. She said Polanco had no time to reach under the seat before being shot.
“All you had to do was pull him over, ask for license and registration and take him to jail. There was no reason for this innocent kid to be killed,” she told CBS News.
A third passenger, off-duty police officer Vanessa Rodriguez, 29, was asleep in the backseat, police said.
The shooting is under investigation by Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown and the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Division. “The public can be assured that the investigation will be full, fair and complete,” Brown said in a statement.
Brown said his office would not comment on the specifics of the case until the investigation was concluded.
Court records do not indicate whether Hamdy was disciplined by the NYPD for his involvement in the 2007 brutality incident.
But according to Dorothy Garcia, 74, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Hamdy was one of several officers who broke down her front door in pursuit of her grandson, who they mistakenly believed was involved in a violent crime.
Garcia identified Hamdy after being shown his photograph by reporters on Friday.
“They stormed up. They were screaming,” Garcia said. She answered the door and the officers demanded to see her grandson, Tyrell Garcia, who was then 23.
When Ms. Garcia refused to let them in her house without a warrant, Hassan and the other officers began forcing their way into the house, she said. The officers broke down the door and chased after Tyrell, who hid in a neighbor’s garage.
According to the lawsuit, the teen surrendered and walked out of the garage peacefully, but was thrown to the ground and beaten by officers. A police dog was allowed to bite him repeatedly, the complaint said.
Several minor criminal charges were filed against Garcia for fleeing the police, but were later dropped, said Lichtmacher, the attorney. Garcia was cleared of any involvement in the crime that prompted the initial search.
“They were extremely aggressive with very little information,” Lichtmacher said. “They had no warrant. It was a very strange incident.”
Lichtmacher, who frequently represents plaintiffs in brutality cases against the NYPD, said he was unaware of Hamdy’s specific role in the 2007 incident. But he said it was unsurprising to see Hamdy involved in another event involving allegations of unjustified use of force.