Hate Trumps Free SpeechURL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/02/07/hate-trumps-free-speech/
UC Berkeley Riot / Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Monday, February 6, 2017| For pro-life news updated throughout the day, visit LifeNews.com. |
Top Stories
• Pope Francis: “Let Us Pray For the Babies in Danger of Being Aborted”
• Woman Arrested After Shoving Her Bloody Pad Into Pro-Life Advocate’s Mouth
• Planned Parenthood CEO Claims Abortion Biz is “Non-Partisan.” It Spent $30 Million for Hillary Clinton
• This Woman Received Rape Threats for Not Supporting the Pro-Abortion “Women’s March”
More Pro-Life News
• Writer: If We Called Unborn Babies “Fetal Refugees” Would Liberals Oppose Abortion?
• Pro-Life Senators Introduce Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz
• President Ronald Reagan: “No Cause More Important Than the Right to Life of All Human Beings”
• Pastor Says Church Leaders Should be Free to Counsel Women to Have Abortions
• 15-Year-Old Disney Star Rowan Blanchard is a Huge Advocate for Abortion
• Pennsylvania Senate Committee Votes to Ban Dismemberment Abortions Tearing Off Babies’ Limbs
• Are 100,000 Abortions in Canada Not Enough? Justin Trudeau Wants $600 Million to Fund More
• Minnesota: Taxpayers Forced to Pay for 77,000 Abortions, a New Bill Would Stop That
• Oregon Bill Would Allow Starving Mentally Ill Patients to Death
• Hawaii is Attempting to Pass a Law to Force Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortions
• Woman Who Had Abortion: Aborting My Baby Didn’t Bother Me But the Stigma Surrounding Abortion Did
• Emails Needed Supporting Bill to Combat Assisted Suicide in Oklahoma
• Irish Citizens Assembly Reviewing Pro-Life Eighth Amendment Stacked With Abortion Activists
Pope Francis: “Let Us Pray For the Babies in Danger of Being Aborted”
Pope Francis encouraged Catholics to pray for babies in danger of being aborted during a special pro-life message Sunday for the annual Day of Life in Italy.
Woman Arrested After Shoving Her Bloody Pad Into Pro-Life Advocate’s Mouth
A pro-abortion woman in Oregon has been arrested after an altercation in which she allegedly shoved her bloody pad into the mouth of a pro-life advocate with whom she was arguing.
Click to Read at LifeNews.com.
Planned Parenthood CEO Claims Abortion Biz is “Non-Partisan.” It Spent $30 Million for Hillary Clinton
Here is your laugh for the day.
This Woman Received Rape Threats for Not Supporting the Pro-Abortion “Women’s March”
In the past few months, political conservatives and pro-lifers increasingly are becoming targets of hostility, threats and violence.
Writer: If We Called Unborn Babies “Fetal Refugees” Would Liberals Oppose Abortion?
At one time or another, just about every pro-life advocate has been accused of not caring about babies after they are born.
Pro-Life Senators Introduce Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz
Congress approved legislation to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business last year only to see pro-abortion President Barack Obama veto it.
President Ronald Reagan: “No Cause More Important Than the Right to Life of All Human Beings”
“My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land…”
Pastor Says Church Leaders Should be Free to Counsel Women to Have Abortions
Abortion advocates have been spouting dozens of reasons why the abortion business Planned Parenthood should keep getting taxpayer funding. But Pastor Derek L. Penwell’s is a new one.
Are 100,000 Abortions in Canada Not Enough? Justin Trudeau Wants $600 Million to Fund More
Minnesota: Taxpayers Forced to Pay for 77,000 Abortions, a New Bill Would Stop That
Hawaii is Attempting to Pass a Law to Force Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortions
|
Daily Pro-Life News Report
|
Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report |
|
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2017 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Authored by 
Stewart Lawrence | Contributor | 2:20 PM 02/06/2017Donald Trump’s victory has put an end to this fantasy. Now it’s the Democrats who are facing their own “doomsday” scenario.
A recent analysis conducted by Third Way — a self-described “centrist” think tank — argues that Democrats are evolving into a “coastal” party. They have strong bases in California, New York and Massachusetts but are slowly ceding the rest of the country to Republicans.
Third Way compared 2016 election results in the two areas and found an astounding asymmetry:
In California, New York and Massachusetts, home to roughly 24 million voters, voters chose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a large margin, 65% to 35%.
But in the remaining 47 states, home to 105 million voters, voters broke for Trump by a decisive 52% to 48% margin.
The geographic concentration of the pro-Hillary vote is one reason Clinton’s supposed popular vote “victory” rings so hollow. Clinton ran up the score in a liberal state like California, where she bested Trump by some 4.3 million votes. But that single-state advantage is simply not reflective of the broader national pattern, which favored Trump, Third Way found.
Recent voting patterns in Congress point to another disastrous trend for Democrats: They are fast becoming a “two-region” party. Democrats have a 3-1 lead over the GOP in California, New York and Massachusetts and a 3-1 lead over Republicans in the Pacific Northwest and the Mid-Atlantic (also known as the “Acela Corridor”). However, those regions account for less than 20% of the total numbers of House members.
There are other powerful signs that the Democrats are losing their grip on power.
The vast majority of state legislatures — 32, a record — are in GOP hands, as are a majority of the state houses. And Democrats face enormous challenges in the U.S. Senate in 2018 because they must defend at least 10 seats in states that Trump won in 2016 — while the GOP occupies virtually none that are considered vulnerable to reversal.
One bellwether contest will be the battle of liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren for re-election in Massachusetts. A recent statewide poll found that 46% of voters would support someone else for her seat — her weakest showing yet.
Other vulnerable Senate Democrats include party stalwarts like North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, Missouri’s Claire MCCaskill, Montana’s Jon Tester, and even Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, in Virginia. One top Democratic strategist recently told Politico Magazine: “It’s going to be a disaster.”
Another major quandary for Democrats is their national leadership. Without Obama at the helm, the party has fallen prey to fierce ideological, gender and ethnic divisions. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) managed to impose herself as party leader yet again, beating back a powerful challenge from Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), who blamed Pelosi and her ardent followers, many of them dependent on her fundraising support, for leading Democrats astray.
Since then, the party has found itself increasingly divided over the nomination of Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) to become Democratic National Committee chair. Former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and more recently, former vice-president Joe Biden have joined the fray, but each supports a different candidate, further complicating the dispute. It’s becoming a race to the bottom. Ellison and his emerging rival Tom Perez, Obama’s former labor secretary, are virtual unknowns outside the party. Sanders and Biden, who might have fared better against Trump than Clinton, are too old to lead the Democrats moving forward. Warren herself will be 71 in 2024.
And then there’s the Supreme Court. Trump has just announced his candidate to replace Judge Antonin Scalia, Neil Gorsuch. A staunch conservative who once clerked for Anthony Kennedy, the leading “swing” vote on the Court, he’s hard to pigeon-hole politically. And despite threats to block Gorsuch, the Democrats have become victims of their own hubris. Under Obama, they altered the rules so that only 51 Senate votes were needed to confirm a judicial appointee. The Republicans now have 52, making Gorsuch a shoo-in.
For the GOP, regaining a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court would amount to a political crown jewel: The party will dominate every branch and level of government for the first time in modern history. For Democrats, who’ve grown accustomed to having their way in national politics, it’s like staring into the abyss.
Authored by Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / February 03, 2017URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/03/religious-freedom-advocates-urge-trump-to-sign-executive-order/
“I want to express clearly today to the American people that my administration will do everything in its power to defend and protect religious liberty in our land,” President Trump said. (Photo: Aude Guerrucci /upi/Newscom)
<!– “I want to express clearly today to the American people that my administration will do everything in its power to defend and protect religious liberty in our land,” President Trump said. (Photo: Aude Guerrucci
/upi/Newscom) –>
The draft of the executive order, reportedly called “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” tells federal agencies to accommodate religious practices “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,” would no longer require religious employers such as Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their beliefs by providing contraception and abortion-inducing drugs to employees, and prohibits penalizing employees because of personal religious views.
But after the draft leaked, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told ABC News on Wednesday, “We do not have plans to sign anything at this time but will let you know when we have any updates.”
The Nation, a liberal magazine, first reported on a leaked version of the draft, prompting some liberal and LGBT groups to attack the order.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, wrote:
Let’s make it clear to President Trump: you were not elected by gay activists, you were elected by people of faith (81 percent support among evangelicals and 52 percent among Catholics). Do not throw people of faith under the bus in order to curry favor with LGBT groups and the leftist media …
President Trump seems focused on fixing the so-called Johnson Amendment that prevents pastors from endorsing candidates and preaching about partisan politics. That’s fine as far as it goes, but this is a much smaller concern than protecting actual religious liberty and preventing people from being discriminated against by the government simply because they are pro-marriage, pro-life and live out biblical principles in their daily lives. The Johnson Amendment has never been enforced, not even by President [Barack] Obama who was openly hostile to religious conservatives and is far less of a priority.
Gregory S. Baylor, the senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious liberty legal group, strongly backs the draft order, noting that during the 2016 president campaign, Trump said that the “first priority of my administration will be to preserve and protect our religious liberty.”
Baylor said:
The president appears to be following through on that promise so that all Americans can exercise their constitutionally protected freedoms without fear of being maligned and discriminated against by the cultural and political elites. The executive order being discussed simply reaffirms the American commitment to the First Amendment and requires the government to respect its legal and constitutional obligation to ensure that Americans are free to peacefully live and work consistent with their beliefs without being punished by the government.
Trump reiterated support for religious freedom during his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday.
“I want to express clearly today to the American people that my administration will do everything in its power to defend and protect religious liberty in our land,” Trump said. “America must forever remain a tolerant society where all faiths are respected, and where all of our citizens can feel safe and secure. We have to feel safe and secure.”
In a commentary earlier this week on The Daily Signal, Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, called for Trump not to give into “fearmongering” from the left. He wrote:
But the president should not cave. He should stand up to the liberal outrage and hostility to ordinary American values that fueled his rise in the first place.
The executive order is good, lawful public policy. And it makes good on several promises then-candidate Trump made to his supporters.
In a statement Friday, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said:
It properly recognizes that religion should not be confined to a home or house of worship alone, but to ‘all activities of life,’ such as those that involve social services, education, health care, employment, obtaining ‘grants or contracts,’ or otherwise participating in the ‘public square.’ Religious expression has every right to exist in the public square as do other forms of expression … The free exercise of religion has suffered greatly under the policies and orders of President Obama. I am confident that the Trump administration will protect this first and most fundamental freedom.
Donald Trump shored up his evangelical Christian support with the choice of Pence for vice president. During the tumultuous campaign, many conservatives took confidence in the partnership the two men forged.
As President Trump said at the National Prayer Breakfast last week, “Every time I was in a little trouble with something, where they were questioning me, they’d say, ‘But he picked Mike Pence, so he has to know what he’s doing.’”
Pence is staunchly and persuasively pro-life. During the lone vice presidential debate, it was Mike Pence in his determined but gentle demeanor who cited Jeremiah 1:5 to Tim Kaine. While discussing the sanctity of life, Kaine — a practicing Catholic —attempted to justify abortion as a reproductive choice. Pence politely but forcefully said, quoting Scripture, “‘Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you.’”
A recent FaithWire article detailed a private meeting held last Wednesday evening before the Prayer Breakfast. Pence shared that the Bible verse Jeremiah 29:11 hangs above his mantle. It states, “For I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Pence grew up in an Irish-Catholic family of Democrats. It was while he was in college that he “gave [his] life to Jesus Christ and that changed everything.” He met his wife at church — they have now been married for more than 30 years — and attended Mass regularly until the mid-’90s.
He often described himself as an “evangelical Catholic,” but eventually he began referring to himself as an “ordinary Christian” instead. Regardless of his personal references, he stands for traditional Christian values — including religious freedom, pro-life causes, and traditional marriage.
At the same private gathering, Pence also shared a specific verse that means a great deal to him, both personally and for this country. The passage 2 Chronicles 7:14 reads, “If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” This is a verse of contrition, mercy, and restoration. God promises Solomon that He will remain faithful to His people, if only His people will repent.
Many reporters have commented that Vice President Pence has avoided discussing his faith in recent years. However, it appears that in such interviews Pence is merely attempting to explain in simple terms the miracle of personal conversion, which is often inexplicable. He is both a man who values his Catholic upbringing but also someone who experienced a moment of realization that he needed Christ as his Savior. And that realization altered his faith and therefore the influence his faith has had over his life and career.
In 2012, Pence told the IndyStar, “I would say that my Christian faith and my relationship with Karen are the two most dominant influences in my life today.” Pence spent his time in Congress and his years governing the state of Indiana with conviction according to his biblical beliefs. Now, as vice president, he will have the opportunity to influence the country with faith as his influence.
Katie Nations, married for 15 years, is a working mother of three young children. She lives in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Authored by | Updated 06 Feb 2017 at 9:23 AM“Although the new provisions target African-Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist,” U.S. Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote in an opinion signed by all three judges on the appeals panel. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.”
If the high court decides not to hear the case, it will leave North Carolina without a photo ID law. If the justices do take the case and adopt the reasoning of the appeals court, it could jeopardize voter ID laws elsewhere — particularly in Southern states that previously had to get advance go-ahead from the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act to make even minor changes to voting rules.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of North Carolina’s law, argues that the justices should lay down a clear marker that states are within their rights to require identification to ensure the integrity of elections.
“Voter ID works just about wherever it’s tried,” said Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for the group.
Even before the Supreme Court weighs in on the appeal, Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper could try to short-circuit the law by withdrawing the appeal. He refused to defend the law in court when he was the attorney general.
“Gov. Cooper continues to oppose this law and believes we should make it easier, not harder, for people to exercise their right to vote,” gubernatorial spokeswoman Noelle Talley told WRAL-TV in Raleigh last week. “We’re currently reviewing this case inherited from the prior administration.” Attorney General Josh Stein, also a Democrat, issued a similar statement.
Even if both pull out, though, the Republican-controlled legislature could appoint its own attorney to pursue the appeal.
Meanwhile, it is possible the federal government might switch sides, as well. The Justice Department of former President Obama had been supporting the plaintiffs. But President Donald Trump’s administration might reach a different conclusion.
The Justice Department filed its brief in support of the plaintiffs one day before Trump’s inauguration — 11 days before the deadline. It is similar to an attempt by Obama’s outgoing administration to kill a lawsuit accusing the IRS of improperly targeting conservative nonprofit groups.
In its legal brief in the North Carolina case, the Public Interest Legal Foundation argues that the appeals court applied the wrong standard in evaluating the state’s law. The judges used a standard under the Voting Rights Act that placed the burden of proof on North Carolina and other states tainted by discriminatory practices in the past to show that electoral system changes were race-neutral. But the Supreme Court struck down that portion of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, holding that the formula for determining whether jurisdictions should be subject to so-called “preclearance” was outdated.
As a result, attorneys J. Christian Adams and Kaylan Phillips argue in their brief, the appeals court should have used the legal standard that applies to every other state under the Voting Rights Act. That would have put the burden on the plaintiffs to demonstrate discriminatory intent.
“That standard requires a far more robust showing than a statistical demonstration that a given minority might be less likely to be able to vote at a certain time, use a particular voting practice more often than non-minorities, or possess certain types of documentation at different rates,” the brief states.
Churchwell, the spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, predicted the issue will not go away, even if the justices pass on taking the case. Different courts have used different standards to evaluate voter ID laws, he said. What’s more, he added, issues like redistricting that must take place every 10 years also could be affected.
“If they don’t take this case, we will continue to have that split,” he said. “This is bigger than North Carolina. It’s bigger than voter ID … If this ruling takes hold, it’s going to cause a whole lot of problems in a few years when redistricting comes along.”
Authored by | Updated 06 Feb 2017 at 9:49 AM
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who has carried out a political vendetta against Trump, led 15 other state attorneys general in a joint statement condemning what they called an “unconstitutional, un-American and unlawful executive order.” The Democratic AGs also said, “Religious liberty has been, and always will be, a bedrock principle of our country and no president can change that truth,” a curious statement from the party that targeted the Little Sisters of the Poor.
“It shouldn’t surprise anyone that pressure groups funded by George Soros are litigating to keep U.S. ports-of-entry wide open to terrorists and other people who hate America … Soros has said he wants to bring America down.”
Last August, George Soros’ son, Alex Soros, posted a picture of himself with Schneiderman on Instagram, and wrote, “Great to meet with #newyork attorney general @ericschneiderman who recognized that @realdonaldtrump was a fraud way before many and has courageously taken him on!”
/* */
Schneiderman, as well as Democratic attorneys general in Virginia and Massachusetts, intervened in existing lawsuits. The lawsuit brought by Washington State Attorney General Robert Ferguson has achieved the most success, bringing the case that blocked the order nationwide.
The lawsuit convinced a federal judge of the state’s standing on the claim the order is “separating Washington families, harming thousands of Washington residents, damaging Washington’s economy, hurting Washington-based companies and undermining Washington’s sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees.”
Judge Blocks Immigration Order Nationwide
Democrats are even raising money off the lawsuits. In a Facebook post, the Democratic Attorneys General Association said, “Stand with Attorney General Bob Ferguson and all Democratic State Attorneys General fighting for what’s right!” It added, “Chip in to support Democratic AGs fighting for progressive rights and freedoms.”
Outside of the politicians, Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which advocates for open borders, is financing several advocacy groups that initiated litigation against the order.
Leading the way in these lawsuits in several states is the American Civil Liberties Union, which has gotten at least $35.5 million from the Open Society Foundations, according to the Capital Research Center, a Washington think tank that investigates nonprofits.
Soros also gave $4.6 million to the National Immigration Law Center, which has been involved in litigation, according to the CRC; and $621,000 to the Urban Justice Center, which has an appendage known as the International Refugee Assistance Project that has jumped into the lawsuits, according to the CRC.
Judge Who Blocked Trump Action Has Activist PastRobart made a point of saying ‘Black Lives Matter’ in dispute with Seattle police, does pro bono work for refugees
“It shouldn’t surprise anyone that pressure groups funded by George Soros are litigating to keep U.S. ports-of-entry wide open to terrorists and other people who hate America,” Matthew Vadum, senior vice president of the CRC, told LifeZette. “Soros has said he wants to bring America down. Flooding the country with Muslim aliens who won’t assimilate is one way to do that.”
In a Seattle suit, separate from the Washington State case, ABC News reported the American Immigration Council, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild filed a class action complaint on behalf of lawful permanent residents that want their immediate family members that are citizens of the seven countries be able to enter the United States.
Soros’ Open Society Foundations gave $425,000 to the American Immigration Council from 2011 through 2013, according to the CRC, which shows Soros’ group also gave at least $50,000 to the National Lawyers Guild.
The fact that a lawsuit is politically motivated doesn’t mean it lacks legal merits. Republican attorneys general and conservative groups challenged the Obama administration’s executive actions. But as the media plays up emotional stories, no one should try to divorce politics from these legal maneuvers.
Posted on February 4, 2017
The left-wing group that helped organize the violent shut down of the Milo Yiannopoulos event at the University of California, Berkeley on Wednesday is backed by a progressive charity that is in turn funded by George Soros, the city of Tucson, a major labor union and several large companies.
And why shouldn’t he team up with the school? They love him so much! In 2004 they awarded Soros with the Chancellor’s Distinguished Honor Award. Warning, this might make your blood boil.
“Might does not make right, and therefore the United States has committed a tremendous mistake in using its military supremacy to force democracy on Iraq”. That was the blunt critique of the Bush Administration that billionaire financier and munificent philanthropist George Soros delivered to a packed audience at UC Berkeley last night.
The Hungarian-born Soros, whose personal experience with fascist and totalitarian regimes has informed his decades-long approach to promoting open societies around the world, has now turned his attention on his own adopted democracy. America’s recent foreign policy justifying preemptive strikes — but only those by America — has undermined the legitimacy of U.S. supremacy, Soros said, while the branding of American protesters as unpatriotic undermines the foundations of our democracy.
…
The award recognized Soros’s “tireless efforts as a philanthropist,” in particular through his Open Society Institute and other organizations that support projects in areas such as education, public health, and civil-society development.
Now we did say every protest and, to the best of our knowledge, this is true. Remember the airport riots a week ago? Yep, he has ties to those. And the ‘Women’s Protests’ you ask? Well, he has ties to not one, but FIFTY groups that participated in the march. And we all know about his ties to the election recount and BLM riots.
Looks like some liberals need to do some fact checking before they sling insults around.
@slone @washingtonpost @sarahhalzack pic.twitter.com/irzpWQmamt
— Bill Cardell (@FWSBill) February 3, 2017
American Graffiti
Open Border Radical / Political Cartoon By A.F. Branco ©2017.
While the organization attempts to market itself as dedicated to women’s health care, it seems that if a pregnant mom actually wants to keep her baby, then Planned Parenthood is not the place to go. In a new video, undercover journalists are shown calling 68 Planned Parenthoods around the country — and only three of them agree to do an ultrasound to check the health of the unborn baby.
“No, we don’t do any ultrasounds for prenatal care. We do them when we’re doing
abortions, but not for any other reason,” said a Planned Parenthood worker from Council Bluffs, Iowa.
“No. Nope. Not — not something we offer. Well, we do have to do an ultrasound with an abortion, but we don’t offer them for — we can’t do anything to make sure that the pregnancy’s fine,” said an employee at a St. Louis, Missouri, Planned Parenthood.
“We only do ultrasounds if you are terminating,” explained a staff member at a Corning, New York, Planned Parenthood.
“I anticipate Planned Parenthood will respond as it usually does by denying the findings of this investigation,” said Lila Rose, the president and founder of Live Action in a statement. “That’s why I encourage media outlets to contact any of the 68 centers that Live Action did — or any others — and ask them if they offer ultrasounds to check the baby’s health if a mother wants to carry her baby to term. The media will find results similar to ours.”
In short: It’s unclear where the lies will end when it comes to the operations of the nation’s largest abortion provider.
Authored By Cristina Marcos – 02/04/17 03:58 PM ESTThe last several days have brought a slew of victories for evangelicals, many of whom set aside their reservations about Trump to back him during the presidential campaign.
From the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, to Trump’s affirmation of support for allowing tax-exempt churches to engage in politics, to the appointment of Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. to an education task force, evangelicals are seeing the new president quickly deliver on a number of fronts.
“I never doubted his sincerity or his commitment. There were, obviously, those who did. Not just in the evangelical community or in the faith community, but more broadly,” said Ralph Reed, the chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition.
“Certainly even for those doubters, this week has laid any of those concerns to rest.”
Trump, a thrice-married business mogul who once expressed support for abortion rights, hardly fit the mold of a conventional conservative candidate. Some evangelicals were hesitant to fully embrace Trump, particularly after a leaked “Access Hollywood” video showed him bragging about using his celebrity to get away with touching women without their consent. He dismissed the tape as mere “locker room talk.”
Yet Trump won the voting bloc decisively in the election, with 80 percent of white evangelicals supporting him over Hillary Clinton, according to an exit poll conducted by NBC News.
Trump is repaying their support in spades, with promises to repeal the Johnson amendment, which prevents tax-exempt religious organizations from engaging in political activity, and his nomination of a conservative jurist to the Supreme Court.
“I think if you really go back and you look at the campaign, it’s undeniable. He received an astonishing 81 percent of the evangelical vote in no small measure because of ironclad commitments he made that were explicit and unambiguous in areas of policy and personnel,” Reed said.
Religious conservatives in Congress are eager to capitalize on having an ally in the White House. On the same day Trump reaffirmed support for getting rid of the Johnson amendment, Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) introduced legislation to do just that. While Trump declared he’d “totally destroy” the law, Hice and Scalise’s bill would allow only political activity by tax-exempt religious organizations in limited circumstances, though they would still be banned from giving to campaigns. Hice told The Hill he expects his bill to come up for a vote in the House sometime in the near future, though a specific timeline hasn’t been finalized.
“We have great momentum,” Hice, a Southern Baptist pastor, said of Trump’s support. “I think that this is going to send a great, positive message to the evangelical community throughout the country that strongly supported him.”
It hasn’t been entirely smooth sailing, however. Trump this week announced he’d uphold an Obama-era executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against workers on the basis of sexual orientation. Former President Obama’s 2014 order stirred fierce debate in the House last year when Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) offered amendments to annual spending bills to ensure the order’s enforcement. Its adoption caused one spending bill to collapse on the floor, in large part because of Republicans who opposed the amendment.
Trump, the first GOP presidential candidate to mention the LGBTQ community at a party nominating convention, made a point of emphasizing his support for gay rights when announcing he’d keep Obama’s order in place.
“President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election,” the White House said in a statement.
Conservatives expressed disappointment in Trump’s move, though they are still hopeful he will sign an executive order to ban retaliation against religious groups and businesses opposed to gay marriage.
“Trump can and should protect all Americans from violence and oppression, but he should not go along with Obama’s policies of elevating ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ to a protected class,” Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Ryan Anderson wrote.
But it’s Trump’s selection of Gorsuch for the Supreme Court that has generated the most excitement among religious conservatives. One of Gorsuch’s most notable rulings was siding with Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor in 2013, when they challenged a provision in the healthcare law requiring them to include contraceptive coverage in their employees’ insurance plans. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in a 5-4 decision a year later that closely held for-profit corporations should be exempted for the contraceptive mandate if its owners have religious objections.
“Things that he promised, he followed through on. The biggest one being this past week with the Supreme Court,” said Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), another Southern Baptist pastor serving in Congress.
“I mean, when you look at that from all rounds and all sides, especially from the professional conservative point of view, the court pick was the one that I think helped voters come through [for] Trump.”
Friday, February 3, 2017| For pro-life news updated throughout the day, visit LifeNews.com. |
Top Stories
• Nancy Pelosi Tells Adopted Woman: Your Mom Should Have Had the “Choice” to Abort You
• Senate Defeats Democrat Filibuster of Pro-Life Trump Education Secretary Nominee Betsy DeVos
• Abortion Activist Katie Couric’s Warped Science: A “Female Fetus” Can “Feel” Male
• Actress Kate Walsh Claims “Women Will Die” if the Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz is Defunded
More Pro-Life News
• Why Aren’t Abortion Activists Calling Beyonce’s Unborn Babies “Fetuses?”
• Liberal Newspaper Claims the Bible is Silent on Abortion. But It’s Wrong
• After 50 Weeks of Prayer, Pro-Life Advocate Believes Neil Gorsuch Will be God’s Champion on SCOTUS
• New York Times Leaves Pro-Life Book on Kermit Gosnell Off Its Best-Seller List
• Abortion Advocate Protesting March for Life Put Down Her Sign and Got a Pro-Life Sign. Here’s Why
• Abortionist Says It’s Time to “Make Abortion Great Again”
• This Catholic University is Hosting the “Vagina Monologues” and Donating Proceeds to Planned Parenthood
• Liberal Sierra Club Believes Abortion Helps Protect the Environment
• False. Vice President Mike Pence Did Not Say Women Would Try to Get Raped to Have Abortions
• Man Charged After Killing Wife in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia Advocates Raise Money to Defend Him
• German Parliament Honors Nazi Euthanasia Victims
• Abortion Activists Traveling Across Pro-Life Ireland to Hand Out Dangerous Abortion Drugs
Nancy Pelosi Tells Adopted Woman: Your Mom Should Have Had the “Choice” to Abort You
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has made some pretty outrageous statements about abortion in the past.
Senate Defeats Democrat Filibuster of Pro-Life Trump Education Secretary Nominee Betsy DeVos
The head of the nation’s biggest abortion businesses is warning her members that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is a threat to abortion.
Click to Read at LifeNews.com.
Actress Kate Walsh Claims “Women Will Die” if the Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz is Defunded
Katie Couric sympathizes with the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood. But when it comes to gender, she admits that the unborn can “feel.”
Abortion Activist Katie Couric’s Warped Science: A “Female Fetus” Can “Feel” Male
Katie Couric sympathizes with the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood. But when it comes to gender, she admits that the unborn can “feel.”
Why Aren’t Abortion Activists Calling Beyonce’s Unborn Babies “Fetuses?”
For anyone who hasn’t already heard, Beyonce is pregnant with twins.
Liberal Newspaper Claims the Bible is Silent on Abortion. But It’s Wrong
Some claim that because the word “abortion” or some literal statement condemning abortion isn’t in black and white in the Bible, the Bible is silent on the topic and thus abortion must be moral and acceptable.
After 50 Weeks of Prayer, Pro-Life Advocate Believes Neil Gorsuch Will be God’s Champion on SCOTUS
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump named Judge Neil Gorsuch as his Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia—a lion-hearted defender of the U.S. Constitution’s original intent.
New York Times Leaves Pro-Life Book on Kermit Gosnell Off Its Best-Seller List
A new book about abortionist and serial killer Kermit Gosnell debuted as the third bestselling book on Amazon this week and quickly sold out.
Man Charged After Killing Wife in Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia Advocates Raise Money to Defend Him
|
Daily Pro-Life News Report
|
Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report |
|
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2017 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Authored 10:00am February 2, 2017URL of the original posting site: http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/new-report-12-worst-nations-christian-persecution-look-just-made-list
Getty Images
Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org
It appears that the left has deemed insidious protected status for Muslims, not realizing no foreign national has a right to enter the United States. It is a privilege that we as Americans reserve the right to deny, and our president has the enumerated power to restrict, for concerns of the safety of our citizens. Sadly, folks like the progressive socialist left in America, along with Angela Merkel in Germany, don’t comprehend that.
Muslims — protected. Christians? Not so much. And it appears to be getting much worse very close to home.
The Christian Post reports, The United States has for the first time been named among the top 12 nations where Christians are targeted for their faith by a persecution watchdog group in its “Hall of Shame” report for 2016. www.persecution.org/persecutionnl/2017-01/ICC 2016 Hall of Shame Report.pdf
“We felt it was very important this year that we highlight three countries where religious discrimination and persecution are deemed unusual but have reached a certain threshold of concern. These are Mexico, Russia, and sadly, the United States,” explained in a press release Jeff King, president of International Christian Concern.
“While conditions in the US are in no way comparable to other countries on the list, a certain segment of the culture and the courts seem to be intent on driving faith out of the public square. There have been too many court cases with bad decisions to miss the clear trend line.”
The ICC report divides the 12 countries into three categories. Nigeria, Iraq, Syria and North Korea were listed among “the worst of the worst”. India, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt were listed as “core” countries of persecution. Finally, the U.S., Mexico, and Russia were identified as “new and noteworthy” nations where Christians are facing increased persecution.”
Another report on Christian persecution doesn’t yet include the U.S., but the list is noteworthy for another reason.
As reported by the Christian Post, “Persecution watchdog group Open Doors USA has ranked the top 50 most dangerous places for Christians in the world today in its 2017 World Watch List, with North Korea once again topping the list.
“For Christians in the West, the Open Doors World Watch List is a clear indicator that we need to advocate on behalf of those who do not have the same religious freedom privileges we do,” said David Curry, president and CEO of Open Doors USA. “We hope the Trump administration will address religious liberties in the first 100 days in office.”
Open Doors revealed that persecution rose globally for a third year in a row, with countries in South and Southeast Asia rising rapidly in danger levels, almost matching the severe persecution Christians face in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. The watchdog group estimated that close to 215 million Christians experience “high, very high or extreme persecution” in the countries that made the top 50 ranking.
Researchers with Open Doors used a points-based scale to rank the worst persecutors of Christians around the world, with the top 10 list going as follows:
1. North Korea (92 points)
2. Somalia (91 points)
3. Afghanistan (89 points)
4. Pakistan (88 points)
5. Sudan (87 points)
6. Syria (86 points)
7. Iraq (86 points)
8. Iran (85 points)
9. Yemen (85 points)
10. Eritrea (82 points)
Did you notice? Six of the seven countries listed in President Trump’s (and Barack Obama’s) executive order as “terrorist hot spots” are in the top ten worst countries for persecution of Christians…and the liberal progressive media outrage is, wait for it…crickets.
“As in past years, Islamic extremism remained the top driver of Christian persecution, and was the primary reason for the oppression of Christians in 35 out of the 50 nations listed. North Korea and its secretive government, which outlaws even owning a Bible and carries out imprisonment and executions of Christians, remained in the top spot for the 15th year.”
Authored By Jordan Fabian – 02/03/17 10:27 AM EST
US sanctions Iran for ballistic missile launch / © Getty
A veto threat from then-President Obama kept Congress from acting during the past eight years. But there are many regulations adopted in the waning days of the Obama administration that Republicans have in the crosshairs.
“On its way out the door, the Obama administration forced nearly 40 — 40 — major and very costly regulations on the American people,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. “Fortunately, we now have the opportunity to work with the new president to begin bringing relief from those burdensome regulations.”
Trump has made regulatory reform a top priority. Earlier this week, he signed an executive order requiring the repeal of two existing regulations in order to adopt a new one.
After the vote on the coal cleanup regulation, senators began debating a resolution to kill a regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission to energy companies to disclose the payments they make to foreign governments for natural resources. The Senate will vote on that Friday morning.
The regulation voted down Thursday, known as the Stream Protection Rule, included more than 400 regulatory changes under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The Interior Department finalized the changes in December. Supporters argued the rules would protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 miles of forest by prohibiting mining companies from dumping debris into nearby waters. It narrowed exceptions for a pre-existing 100-foot buffer on coal mining near water.
McConnell called it a “blatant attack on coal miners” and pointed to one study indicating that it would put up to a third of coal-related jobs at risk. He said the Kentucky Coal Association called it a “regulation in search of a problem.”
Killing Obama Energy Rules Will Help the Most VulnerableWhite House, Hill GOP move to overturn regulations that would hike home energy prices
Sen. Susan Collins, of Maine, was the only Republican to join 44 Democrats in voting “no.” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) argued that the regulation was necessary to protect the environment.
“Regardless of whether you voted for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, nobody wants to live in a dirty environment where we don’t have clean water, clean rivers, clean streams or clean air,” she said. “Once again, we’re being told to choose between a clean environment and creating jobs.”
Coal-state Democrats, though, broke with their party.
“There’s no one in West Virginia that wants dirty water or dirty air,” said that state’s Democratic senator, Joe Manchin.
The senator said he urged Obama administration officials to consult with affected states. “They did nothing. They would not reach out to us, whatsoever,” he said.
Manchin said the regulation was “excessive and duplicative,” and that it would cripple his state’s businesses and families.
“Tell me, what four hours of the day do you want your electricity to work? What four hours of the day do you want your refrigerator to stay cold?” he said. “What four hours of the day do you want to heat your home? Tell me what four hours of the day that you take for granted that you want that everything and anything you want works 24 hours a day?”
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said regulators devised the rules for the Appalachian Mountains region.
“Yet, the former administration made this rule applicable to the entire nation,” she said.
“It’s nonsense,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director at the Judicial Crisis Network, which supports Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the high court. “Anyone who’s followed the Supreme Court for more than five minutes knows that’s not true.”
Schumer’s comments suggest Democrats are prepared to dig in to fight Gorsuch’s nomination by any means necessary. A filibuster would be close to unprecedented, but Schumer attempted to make it seem par for the course.
“We Democrats will insist on a rigorous but fair process,” he said from the Senate floor. “Part of that process entails 60 votes for confirmation. Any one Democrat can require it. Many already have. It was a bar met by each of [former President] Obama’s nominations. Each received 60 votes. And most importantly, it’s the right thing to do.”
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) later picked up on Schumer’s assertion.
“I think he should be subject to the same 60-vote margin that the last few Supreme Court nominees were subjected to,” he said.
In fact, however, two sitting justices won fewer than 60 votes in their Senate confirmations. Justice Clarence Thomas received 52 votes, and Justice Samuel Alito got 58.
“It’s an arbitrary standard because they just don’t like the nominee,” said Rachel Boyard, an expert at The Heritage Foundation. “It’s wrong for Democrats to say it’s always 60.”
Typically, filibusters have been rare. Democrats tried to launch one against Alito but managed to sustain only 25 votes to keep the delaying tactics going. William Rehnquist also faced filibuster attempts when President Richard Nixon nominated him to the high court in 1971 and then again in 1986 when President Ronald Reagan elevated him to chief justice.
Only once has a Supreme Court nomination been successfully filibustered; President Lyndon Johnson withdrew the nomination of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to become chief justice after a filibuster amid an ethics scandal.
Don’t tell that to Schumer, though. He said a 60-vote threshold ensures a “mainstream” justice.
“Requiring 60 votes has always been the right thing to do on Supreme Court nominations, especially in these polarized times,” he said. “But now in this new era of the court, in this new administration, there is even heavier weight on this tradition.”
Severino said Schumer is conflating the filibuster with ordinary up-or-down votes. Democrats starting employing the tactic against lower-court judges during the George W. Bush administration. But Supreme Court nominations that have been moved to the floor have been granted votes.
“He seems to want a standard of 60 votes for a Republican nominee and 51 votes for a Democratic nominee,” she said. “They’re still throwing a hissy-fit over the election.”
Schumer argued Thursday that Gorsuch is out of the mainstream and could not be counted on to stand up to business special interests. But Severino and Boyard said it is a hard argument to make with a straight face, given the fact that the Senate confirmed Gorsuch in 2006 for a seat on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a voice vote.
It is unclear how unified Democrats will remain as the Gorsuch nomination moves forward. Many Democrats are still seething over the Republican majority’s decision to freeze out Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the seat without even holding hearings. But Boyard said she believes some Democrats will want to at least grant Gorsuch a vote, even if they vote against him.
Paul Collins, a professor and director of legal studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said Gorsuch’s credentials are impeccable. But he added that anger of the blocked Garland nomination might trigger a filibuster, nonetheless.
Neil Gorsuch: ‘Evangelicals Are Ecstatic’Reactions from the faith world to the Supreme Court nominee
“Historically, filibusters are very rare and nominees have been given an up-or-down vote,” said Collins, who co-wrote a book in 2013 on Supreme Court confirmation. “What you’re filibustering, if that’s what they decide to do, is the idea of this being a stolen seat.”
Severino said former Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid, who eliminated the filibuster for most appointments, indicated that he would not hesitate to expand that rule to cover Supreme Court nominations if necessary.
“They weren’t wringing their hands and hemming and hawing about institutionalism,” she said.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could decide to employ the so-called “nuclear option,” if Democrats won’t back down. “It will be Chuck Schumer’s fault if it happens,” Severino said.
Boyard said there is a less extreme option open to Republicans — enforcing the “two speech rule.” Under Rule 19, she said, Republicans can hold each Democrat to two speeches during the Gorsuch confirmation debate. That would mean the Democrats could drag out debate but not ultimately prevent a vote. And it would allow the Senate to keep the filibuster rule, Boyard said.
| November 10, 2016URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/how-reagan-dealt-with-sniveling-left-wing-punks-disrupting-civil-order-in-Berkeley
Authored By: Chris Pandolfo | February 02, 2017URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/cnn-anchors-outrageous-comments-about-your-constitutional-rights-are-a-snapshot-of-liberal-ignorance
Watching CNN in the office, as is my habit while I work, I heard Carol Costello repeat a common claim made by those on the Left who have zero understanding of the American founding. In this particular segment of “CNN Newsroom,” she asked her guests about something President Trump said while speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast.
The president said that the people in that room were united by their common humanity. “We are not just flesh and bone and blood, we are human beings with souls,” he said. “Our republic was formed on the basis that freedom is not a gift from government, but that freedom is a gift from God.”
And Costello found that strange.
“He said ‘it is God who gave us life and liberty’ … not, of course, the mere men who wrote the Constitution, and came up with the Constitution and our way of government.”
As is typical for the Left (and media), Costello fundamentally misunderstands the American founding — the cornerstone principles of the American republic. What exactly were those “mere men” thinking when they put the founding documents of our government together? To understand the philosophy of the United States Constitution, you must first consult the Declaration of Independence.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
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.
You see, in the social-compact theory adopted by our Founding Fathers, government does not exist to confer rights upon the people. Those rights preexist government. They are God-given — bestowed upon by the Creator.
The role of government, then, is to protect those rights. As the Declaration continues: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
As Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin wrote in his book, “Ameritopia”: “The Declaration of Independence represents the most prominent, official, consensus position of the Founders’ rationale for declaring independence and, importantly, the philosophical origin of the new country.”
The philosophy of the Declaration was put into practice in the formation of the “new country” — the United States of America. And the country was formed with the United States Constitution. Hillsdale College President Dr. Larry Arnn beautifully describes the “divine” connection between our founding documents in his book, “The Founders’ Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration and the Constitution and What We Risk by Losing It”:
A constitution is not only described in the Declaration of Independence; it is necessary to it. The Declaration claims that the people may not be governed except when they have given their consent. They must agree that some particular offices must be occupied by some particular people who may do some particular things. The Declaration describes what kinds those offices ought to be and how they should be related to one another, but it does not provide the offices themselves or any way for their occupants to be selected. A constitution like the one we have is then a necessary element of the American government.
Carol Costello’s double-plus not good idea about our founding is so commonplace that it ranks right up there with the “separation of church and state” misnomer. This is also the same tripe that leads people to think that the court-manufactured positive rights of the 20th century rank up there with the fundamental, negative ones articulated in the Declaration and Bill of Rights. These (leftist) falsehoods and myths are commonplace because they have been endorsed and articulated, fought for at every level of government for more than 100 years by the Progressive movement.
As the Claremont Institute’s Dr. John Marini wrote in an excellent essay, “The Progressive movement … had as its fundamental purpose the destruction of the political and moral authority of the U.S. Constitution.” The moral authority of the Constitution comes from understanding that the rights protected by government are not created by government. These rights are endowed to mankind by a higher moral authority. They are derived from a higher law.
The Left rejects this understanding out of necessity. For if rights are manmade, if they have no attachment to a moral force that is beyond mankind, then “rights” can simply be created out of our selfish desires. Such as the right to kill an unborn child … and have the government subsidize the exercise of that “right.” Other rights can be taken away in the name of progress, such as the right of religious conscience objections.
In his National Prayer Breakfast speech, President Trump cited Thomas Jefferson:
It was the great Thomas Jefferson who said, “the God who gave us life, gave us liberty.” Jefferson asked, “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”
For all his faults, President Donald Trump has a better understanding of America — and origin of natural rights — than all progressives.
Authored 
By: Daniel Horowitz | February 03, 2017URL of the original posting site: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/they-lied-all-along-republicans-plan-to-repair-not-repeal-obamacare
First they promised to repeal Obamacare “root and branch.” Then they promised to “repeal and replace” without explaining its meaning — other than to legitimize the premise of Obamacare as a partial force for good. Now, they are on to “repair.”
The Hill has the relevant quotes from two of the most important committee chairmen (Senator Walden, R-Ore. (F, 36%) and Senator Alexander, R-Tenn. (F, 15%)) drafting the repeal bill … which will not repeal Obamacare:
“I’m trying to be accurate on this that there are some of these provisions in the law that probably will stay, or we may modify them, but we’re going to fix things, we’re going to repair things,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), a key player on healthcare, told reporters Tuesday.
“There are things we can build on and repair, there are things we can completely repeal,” he said.
Senate Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) is sounding a similar note. […]
“I think it is more accurate to say repair ObamaCare because, for example, in the reconciliation procedure that we have in the Senate, we can’t repeal all of ObamaCare,” Alexander said. “ObamaCare wasn’t passed by reconciliation, it can’t be repealed by reconciliation. So we can repair the individual market, which is a good place to start.”
As we noted before, every word of this premise is false because the price-hiking coverage regulations are inextricably linked to the subsidies, as noted by the courts and CBO. Therefore, the regulations can be repealed through budget reconciliation. Moreover, the Senate parliamentarian doesn’t have the final say on addressing Senate precedent.
However, there is a more important point to bring out from this story. These people lied to all of us. They told a bald-faced lie. Absolutely nothing changed structurally about Obamacare from the time they made these promises during the past three elections until now. If anything, premiums went up even more than expected and there are even fewer insurers than previously predicted, making the case for repeal an easier political sell.
Likewise, nothing changed procedurally from the time they promised to use budget reconciliation to repeal at least most of the main elements of the law. Republicans always knew that they would need to get rid of the actuarially crippling regulations, which would then unfreeze the insurance market, lower costs, bring back choice and competition, and engender much less of a need for subsidies. All the while, everyone always planned to maintain the subsidies and Medicaid expansion for a one to two-year transition period while other free market health care and health insurance reforms were put in place.
Yet, Republicans, particularly those in the Senate, never had any intention of repealing it because they don’t believe or understand free markets, are owned by the big pharma/big government complex, and have no desire or ability to articulate a winning issue to the public without shooting themselves in the foot.
In 2012 and 2014, conservatives worked against Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (F, 40%) and his sitting RINO Senators (such as Thad Cochran, R-Miss. (F, 22%), Pat Roberts, R-Kan. (F, 51%) Lisa Murkowski, R-Ala. (F, 20%) and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. (F, 15%)) and his chosen challengers in open seats (such as Sens. Tillis, R-N.C. (F, 35%) and Cassidy, R-La. (F, 47%)). Voters were warned that they had no intention of repealing Obamacare. Conservatives cautioned that if Ted Cruz’s, R-Texas (A, 97%) plan to defund Obamacare at its inception was not followed, the law would never be repealed. That if we failed to build a Senate majority upon a solid foundation and stronger leadership, Obamacare would never be repealed even if we were so fortunate to control all three branches. [See my op-ed at Fox News Opinion on October 25, 2013, “Building a GOP Majority on Quicksand”]
Groups like Senate Conservatives Fund were maligned as pursuing “purity for profit” and undermining the creation of a GOP majority that would truly repeal Obamacare. Establishment voices accused the grassroots activists of needlessly creating a civil war over disagreements on strategy. Yet, we knew all along it was a disagreement over beliefs and courage, not strategy. Unfortunately, the establishment used their superior funding (from groups like the Chamber of Commerce that wanted to keep Obamacare all along) to run on repealing the law “root and branch,” as McConnell famously said. Now, some of these very senators are leading the charge to repair the law, which is not feasible.
Trump should dispatch Vice President Pence to work with the House Freedom Caucus as well as Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 52%) and ensure that the House passes the full repeal bill — along with the regulations. They should make it clear that there are no excuses for the Senate to not overrule the parliamentarian, but at the same time they should not wait around for the lords of the Senate to do the right thing. The reconciliation bill should be structured as follows:
At that point, Trump should relentlessly use his bully pulpit to name and shame the Senate into fulfilling their promise. It can be done if we actually got the momentum rolling in the House. As Reps. Mark Meadows, R-N.C. (A 94%) and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio (A, 96%) said in a statement today, “We committed to the American people to repeal every tax, every mandate, the regulations, and to defund Planned Parenthood. That’s what the American people expect us to do — and they expect us to do it quickly.”
In the meantime, conservatives should put the pressure on the Senate by launching a new round of primaries. Members like Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. (F, 50%), Bob Corker, R-Tenn. (F, 45%), Roger Wicker, R-Miss. (F, 28%), and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah (F, 33%) could be prime targets in states won by Trump.
As Bobby Jindal said, “Republicans who want to retreat from repeal to repair should be replaced.”
URL of the original posting site: http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/donald-trump-border-wall-mexico/2017/02/03/id/771869/
Image: Congressional Republicans Move to Block Mexican Wall / (AP Images)
When it comes down to the brass tacks, CNN reports congressional Republicans have one major problem with Trump’s wall – dollars and cents.
How, exactly, is Trump planning to pay for the estimated $12 billion to $15 billion it’ll take to build the wall?
“If you’re going to spend that kind of money, you’re going to have to show me where you’re going to get that money,” Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told CNN. “I don’t see how you can get a bill like that through [Congress] without offsets. I don’t see how that’s possible.”
Trump has pledged that Mexico will pay for the wall one way or another, after the fact if not before. While Mexico has repeatedly said it will not, House Republicans aren’t buying it either.
“It’s not a viable option,” Sen. John McCain told CNN.
So unless Trump’s plan carries with it spending cuts to offset the cost of the wall, Trump’s own party remains skeptical, not only on cost but effectiveness of keeping out bad hombres, too.
“I don’t want to see any spending, additional spending on anything done that is not paid for,” Sen. Bob Corker, a Trump ally and a one-time potential Cabinet nominee, told CNN.
“We have got a huge fiscal problem right now — $20.355 trillion in debt projected to add $9.7 trillion over the next 10 years. ”
The Tears of a Clown
Schumer Crying / Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Thursday, February 2, 2017| For pro-life news updated throughout the day, visit LifeNews.com. |
Top Stories
• President Trump: “Freedom of Religion is a Sacred Right.” I Will Defend Religious Liberty
• Planned Parenthood CEO Complains “Gorsuch’s Judicial History Shows an Alarming Hostility” to Abortion
• President Trump Considering Executive Order Protecting Conscience Rights of Pro-Life Groups
• Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg Donates $1 Million to Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz
More Pro-Life News
• Former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson: “I Was Ordered to Double the Number of Abortions”
• Planned Parenthood Caught Engaging in False Advertising, Removes “Prenatal” Care from Website
• She Calls Herself the “Abortion Travel Agent” and Her Job is to Help Women Abort Their Babies
• Doctor Cleared After Having Family “Hold Down” Patient While She Was Euthanized
• These Seven States Have Just One Abortion Clinic Left
• American Academy of Pediatrics Says Kids Have a “Right”to Abortion
• Iowa Senate Passes Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood Abortion Business
• Woman Loses Health Insurance for Fourth Time Under Obamacare
• Pregnancy Center Across the Street from Planned Parenthood Helps Women With Abortion Alternatives
• NYC Fashion Designer Posts “Planned Parenthood Saves Lives” Sign on the Runway
• Utah Committee Approves Pro-Life Legislation to Ban Dangerous Webcam Abortions
• Tennessee County Refuses to Fund Planned Parenthood, But the Abortion Business May Sue
President Trump: “Freedom of Religion is a Sacred Right.” I Will Defend Religious Liberty
During his speech at the national prayer breakfast this morning president Donald Trump said the nation should “never ever, ever” stop asking God for wisdom and he promised to continue protecting religious liberty in the United States.
Planned Parenthood CEO Complains “Gorsuch’s Judicial History Shows an Alarming Hostility” to Abortion
The head of the nation’s biggest abortion businesses is warning her members that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is a threat to abortion.
Click to Read at LifeNews.com.
President Trump Considering Executive Order Protecting Conscience Rights of Pro-Life Groups
A leaked draft of an executive order from the White House this week could increase religious freedom and conscience protections for individuals and groups that oppose abortion.
Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg Donates $1 Million to Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz
Another top executive at Facebook recently funneled more money to the nation’s largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood.
Former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson: “I Was Ordered to Double the Number of Abortions”
Recently, Kim Bode, a Huffington Post contributor, posted a piece challenging those who support defunding Planned Parenthood to “educate themselves.”
Planned Parenthood Caught Engaging in False Advertising, Removes “Prenatal” Care from Website
Despite a boycott by Democrats on the panel of the vote, a Senate committee voted to confirm pro-life Congressman Tom Price as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
She Calls Herself the “Abortion Travel Agent” and Her Job is to Help Women Abort Their Babies
Natalie St. Clair described herself as an “abortion travel agent.”
Doctor Cleared After Having Family “Hold Down” Patient While She Was Euthanized
Euthanasia advocates tout medicalized killing as being about autonomy.
Iowa Senate Passes Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood Abortion Business
Woman Loses Health Insurance for Fourth Time Under Obamacare
NYC Fashion Designer Posts “Planned Parenthood Saves Lives” Sign on the Runway
|
Daily Pro-Life News Report
|
Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report |
|
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2017 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Legislation by Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) includes a provision available but rarely used under existing law — suspension of visas for countries that are deemed non-cooperative in accepting their citizens who have been convicted of crimes and ordered deported. The bill also would:
“There is absolutely no reason that criminal aliens should be released back onto America’s streets, yet that is exactly what is happening by the thousands each and every year because their countries of origin refuse to take them back,” Babin said in a prepared statement.
Government data suggests it is more than a trivial problem. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials list 23 countries as “recalcitrant” when it comes to deportations. A report released in October by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) indicates that 242,772 people have final deportation orders but cannot be returned home because they come from one of those 23 countries or 62 others deemed “non-cooperative.” That is a quarter of the 953,806 illegal immigrants who had been ordered deported but remain in America.
Of the non-deportable illegal immigrants, 57,029 had been convicted of criminal offenses. And under a 2001 Supreme Court decision, ICE can hold most deportable immigrants — including those finishing prison sentences — for only six months before turning them loose. Exceptions exist only for national security and public health risks.
“Before my daughter was murdered, I had no idea how many people like me there were,” said Wendy Hartling, a Connecticut woman who lost her daughter to a murderer who had served time for an attempted murder but could not be deported because of resistance from the government in his home country of Haiti.
After Haiti objected on grounds that the citizenship of Jean Jacques could not be proven, U.S. immigration officials had no choice but to free him in January 2015 after he had completed his prison sentence. Five months later, he fatally stabbed 25-year-old Casey Chadwick in a dispute over drugs.
Historically, the federal government has been reluctant to use leverage to force compliance with deportation demands. The George W. Bush administration in 2001 threatened to deny visas allowing government officials and their families from the South American nation of Guyana to travel to the United States. The nation backed down in a deportation dispute and agreed to accept nearly all of the 112 citizens that U.S. immigration authorities wanted to boot.
But the government did not take similar action again until October when the Department of Homeland Security triggered a law forcing the State Department to revoke visas for government officials and their close relatives in the African nation of the Gambia. The United States was trying to deport nearly 2,000 Gambian citizens.
“This isn’t all on [former President Barack] Obama. It goes back to Bush, too,” said Chris Chmielenski, director of content and activism for advocacy group NumbersUSA. “If Trump follows through with his promise … countries will most likely respond swiftly.”
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, said Babin’s bill is needed. Even if Trump takes strong action, she said, a law passed by Congress would apply to future administrations. And it would have new tools with which to apply pressure, she added.
When Countries Won’t Take Back Their CriminalsFatal stabbing by illegal Haitian made possible by holes in policy, uncooperative nations
Vaughan said the Obama administration should have moved sooner and more aggressively to use the leverage it did have.
“It literally took many murders and pressure from Democrats to, late in the game, invoke it against one tiny country in Africa,” she said. “It looks like it was just a token effort to get Congress off their backs.”
Vaughan said Babin’s bill would make it clear that leverage “wasn’t put there to be window dressing; it was put there to be used.”
The prospects for Babin’s bill are unclear. He introduced it last year, but it did not get a vote in the House of Representatives. This year, 29 representatives — including Democrat Henry Cuellar of Texas — have signed on as co-sponsors.
Hartling, the Connecticut woman whose daughter was murdered by Jacques, said she welcomes any legislative effort to expel dangerous criminals from other countries.
“I’m a Democrat, and I voted for Trump,” he said. “I sincerely feel he’s going to do what he said he’s going to do.”
Authored By Mike Lillis and Rafael Bernal – 02/02/17 06:00 AM EST
Democrats plot protest for Trump’s speech to Congress / © Greg Nash
It’s a shift in tactics for Democrats, some of whom skipped Trump’s inauguration last month in protest. Democrats say there are no plans to stage a similar boycott of Trump’s speech, but they want to put him face-to-face with people who feel alienated and targeted by his controversial executive orders.
In a letter circulating on Capitol Hill, a group of liberals is urging fellow Democrats to bring guests who have made “a positive impact” on the community “despite discrimination or marginalization.”
“It is our hope that their presence in the House Gallery will remind President Trump that he is not the arbiter of patriotism,” reads the letter. “This country belongs to all of us, and his rhetoric of intolerance will not stand.”
The authors of the letter are as diverse as the crowd they’re seeking to assemble. They include Reps. Jim Langevin (R.I.), who was shot accidentally as a teen and became the first quadriplegic to serve in Congress; Michelle Lujan Grisham (N.M.), head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Cedric Richmond (La.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus; Judy Chu (Calif.), head of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; and David Cicilline (R.I.) and Jared Polis (Colo.), the co-chairman of the LGBT Equality Caucus.
“We want to send a strong message to the [president] that he cannot push these communities aside, and he cannot change the fabric of this country,” they wrote.
Some liberals are also eyeing another form of protest during the speech: When Trump walks down the center aisle of the House chamber on the way to the dais, they’re hoping no Democrats scramble to get in the picture for the traditional handshake.
“We have to have a higher standard,” Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) said.
“For sure I will not be nearby,” Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas) echoed. Trump’s campaign rhetoric was combative from the very start, and he’s brought that approach with him to the White House. Most recently, he temporarily banned all refugees from entering the U.S. — and Syrian refugees idefinitely — as well as immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries. The move sparked an outcry from Democrats and human rights groups, and drew thousands of protestors to airports and streets across the country.
It’s that spirit of protest the Democrats are hoping to sustain as Trump prepares for his speech to Congress.
“Instead of celebrating the very diversity that makes our country a beacon of inclusion and equality, he has chosen to vilify, bully and alienate women, immigrants, people of color, people with disabilities, and people of differing faiths,” the Democrats wrote in their letter.
“His rhetoric emboldens those who seek a scapegoat for the challenges this country faces.”
Posted by Leslie Eastman Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:40pm | 2/1/2017 – 10:40pmURL of the original posting site: http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/02/violent-riots-at-uc-berkeley-shut-down-milo-yiannopoulos-event/
However, his event was cancelled and massive protests and violent demonstrations broke out on campus instead.
The Breitbart News editor [Milo Yiannopoulos] was set to deliver a speech inside a UC Berkeley campus building but hundreds of protesters began throwing fireworks and pulling down the metal barricades police set up to keep people from rushing into the building. Windows were smashed and fires were set outside the building as masked protesters stormed it.
The Berkeley Police Department said people threw bricks, smoking objects, and fireworks at police officers. University police locked down all buildings and ordered a shelter in place.
“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley,” said Mike Wright, a Berkeley College Republican member said as smoke bombs went off around him. Someone threw red paint on him.
Yiannopoulous was evacuated, and assured concerned fans he was safe.
As of this report, the demonstrations were not under control.
ABC7’s reporter stated earlier that there have not yet been any attempts to put out the fire, and that police had withdrawn from the balcony above the crowd where they had previously been stationed. According to the reporter, police issued a dispersal order to the crowd, declaring it an unlawful assembly, but they have not yet attempted to move the protesters out of the plaza.
#BREAKING: UC Berkeley planned event by @Breitbart editor #MiloYiannopoulos is canceled after protest turns violent pic.twitter.com/KsTPQ2yfNG
— Kris Cruz (@rc_kris) February 2, 2017
Just toppled a light pole. Craziest protest I’ve seen in Berkeley by far. Crowd fast turning violent. pic.twitter.com/5ujFLOtA4u
— Michael Bodley (@michael_bodley) February 2, 2017
WOAH. Protestors blocked car in Berkeley. Driver ran them over. Sped off. #Milo pic.twitter.com/GeVVphFxjd
— Michael Bodley (@michael_bodley) February 2, 2017
The campus may be looking at the Mizzou effect. In the wake of #BlackLivesMatter protests and social justice activism, enrollments to the University of Missouri plummeted and donations from alumni dropped precipitously.
The tweets indicate that Americans are appalled and angry at the tactics of the demonstrators.
So this is the face of @UCBerkeley?Not impressed.U R embarrassing yourselves.Price of tuition just went down.#ucberkeley #MiloYiannopoulos pic.twitter.com/isEwVV0v56
— Miss Deplorable (@we_got_troubles) February 2, 2017
UC Berkeley – After seeing what’s been happening I would never send my kids there.
— James M. Cain (@dmcparson) February 2, 2017
@UCBerkeley #alumni & parents please stop sending funds to & take your kids out of that God forsaken 3rd world & sharia institution https://t.co/REQcWl17IF
— Cynthia (@Cynthiastruth) February 2, 2017
Berkeley 1964 v Berkeley 2017. pic.twitter.com/2Qz6j9nxz1
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) February 2, 2017
My son is slated to begin submitting college applications in about 2 years. UC Berkeley will not be among the schools to which he applies, and I will make point of sending a note the university explaining why that will include a description of this event.
Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org
UC Berkeley is known as the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement that began on American campuses in 1964. It appears that this is where it has gone to die.
Commentary by 
Ann Coulter | URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/02/01/give-me-your-tired-arguments/
The New York Times wore out its thesaurus denouncing the order: “cruelty … injury … suffering … bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating … breathtaking … inflammatory … callousness and indifference” — and that’s from a single editorial!
Amid the hysteria over this prudent pause in refugee admissions from seven countries whose principal export is dynamite vests, it has been indignantly claimed that it’s illegal for our immigration policies to discriminate on the basis of religion.
This is often said by journalists who are only in America because of immigration policies that discriminated on the basis of religion.
For much of the last half-century, Soviet Jews were given nearly automatic entry to the U.S. as “refugees.” Entering as a refugee confers all sorts of benefits unavailable to other immigrants, including loads of welfare programs, health insurance, job placement services, English language classes, and the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship after only five years.
Most important, though, Soviet Jews were not required to satisfy the United Nations definition of a “refugee,” to wit: someone fleeing persecution based on race, religion or national origin. They just had to prove they were Jewish. This may have been good policy, but let’s not pretend the Jewish exception was not based on religion.
If a temporary pause on refugee admissions from seven majority-Muslim countries constitutes “targeting” Muslims, then our immigration policy “targeted” Christians for discrimination for about 30 years. Never heard a peep from the ACLU about religious discrimination back then!
According to the considered opinion of the Cato Institute’s David J. Bier, writing in The New York Times, Trump’s executive order is “illegal” because the 1965 immigration act “banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin.”
In 1966, one year after the 1965 immigration act, immigrants from Cuba suddenly got special immigration privileges. In 1986, immigrants from Ireland did. People from Vietnam and Indochina got special immigration rights for 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War.
The 1965 law, quite obviously, did not prohibit discrimination based on national origin. (I was wondering why the Times would sully its pages with the legal opinion of a Grove City College B.A., like Bier! Any “expert” in a storm, I guess.)
In fact, ethnic discrimination is practically the hallmark of America’s immigration policy — in addition to our perverse obsession with admitting the entire Third World.
Commenting on these ethnic boondoggles back in 1996, Sen. Orrin Hatch said: “We have made a mockery” of refugee law, “because of politics and pressure.” We let in one ethnic group out of compassion, then they form an ethnic power bloc to demand that all their fellow countrymen be let in, too.
As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, described “diversity” in Der Spiegel: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
That’s our immigration policy — plus a healthy dose of Emma Lazarus’ insane idea that all countries of the world should send their losers to us. (Thanks, Emma!)
Americans are weary of taking in these pricey Third World immigrants, who show their gratitude by periodically erupting in maniacal violence — in, for example, San Bernardino, Orlando, New York City, Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, Bowling Green and St. Cloud.
The Muslim immigrants currently being showcased by the left are not likely to change any minds. The Times could produce only 11 cases of temporarily blocked immigrants that the newspaper would even dare mention. (Imagine what the others are like!)
For purposes of argument, I will accept the Times’ glowing descriptions of these Muslim immigrants as brilliant scientists on the verge of curing cancer. (Two of the Times’ 11 cases actually involved cancer researchers.)
Point one: If the Times thinks that brilliance is a desirable characteristic in an immigrant, why can’t we demand that of all our immigrants? To the contrary! Our immigration policy is more likely to turn away the brilliant scientist — in order to make room for an Afghani goat herder, whose kid runs a coffee stand until deciding to bomb the New York City subway one day. (That was Najibullah Zazi, my featured “Immigrant of the Week,” on May 1, 2012.)
Point two: I happened to notice that even the stellar Muslim immigrants dug up by the Times seem to bring a lot of 
elderly and sickly relatives with them. Guess who gets to support them?
House Speaker Paul Ryan’s driving obsession (besides being the Koch brothers’ lickspittle) is “entitlement reform,” i.e., cutting benefits or raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare. I have another idea. How about we stop bringing in immigrants who immediately access government programs, who bring in elderly parents who immediately access government programs, or who run vast criminal enterprises, stealing millions of dollars from government programs? (I illustrated the popularity of government scams with immigrants in Adios, America! by culling all the news stories about these crimes over a one-month period and listing the perps’ names.)
Point three: Contrary to emotional blather about the horrors refugees are fleeing, a lot are just coming to visit their kids or to get free health care. One of the Times’ baby seals — an Iraqi with diabetes and “a respiratory ailment” — was returning from performing his responsibilities as an elected official in Kirkuk. That’s not exactly fleeing the Holocaust.
While it’s fantastic news that most Muslim refugees aren’t terrorists, the downside is: They’re not refugees, they’re not brilliant, they don’t have a constitutional right to come here and they’re very, very expensive. Until politicians can give us more government services for less money, they need to stop bringing in the poor of the world on our dime.
Blessings From AboveURL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/02/02/blessings-from-above/
Judge Neil Gorsuch / Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017| For pro-life news updated throughout the day, visit LifeNews.com. |
Top Stories
• Planned Parenthood Slams Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: He’ll Overturn Roe v. Wade
• Nancy Pelosi Throws a Fit Over Neil Gorsuch: “He’s Hostile to Women” Because He Opposes Abortion
• Senate Committee Approves Pro-Life Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions
• Whoopi Goldberg: Defunding Planned Parenthood Makes America “Not Much Different Than the Taliban”
More Pro-Life News
• Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: “The Intentional Taking of Human Life is Always Wrong”
• Senate Committee Votes to Confirm Pro-Life Rep. Tom Price as HHS Secretary Despite Democrat Boycott
• Texas Governor Greg Abbott: “The Butchering of Unborn Babies” in Abortion is “Barbaric”
• Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Touching Tribute to Justice Antonin Scalia Will Make You Like Him Even More
• Episcopalian Priest: Christians Should Promote the Planned Parenthood Abortion Business
• Woman Writes: “I Had an Abortion Last Week Just Because I Wanted To”
• Pro-Abortion Members of Congress Introduce Bill to Force Americans to Pay For Abortions
• Woman Who Killed Her Newborn Baby Girl Minutes After Birth Won’t Go to Prison
• Totally Paralyzed Patients Use a Computer to Tell Doctors Their Thoughts, They Say They’re Happy
• New Poll: 80% of Americans Wants a SCOTUS Justice Who Interprets the Constitution as Written
• Late-Term Abortionist Resumes Doing Abortions But Does Them in the Middle of the Night
• Iowa Committee Passes Legislation to Defund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz
Planned Parenthood Slams Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: He’ll Overturn Roe v. Wade
The Planned Parenthood abortion business was quick to announce its opposition to President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.
Nancy Pelosi Throws a Fit Over Neil Gorsuch: “He’s Hostile to Women” Because He Opposes Abortion
Pro-abortion House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi threw a fit yesterday over President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Click to Read at LifeNews.com.
Senate Committee Approves Pro-Life Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved the nomination of Pro-Life Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions.
Whoopi Goldberg: Defunding Planned Parenthood Makes America “Not Much Different Than the Taliban”
Tuesday on the View, host Whoopi Goldberg led a segment based off of the ridiculous question, “Is America becoming like the Taliban?”
Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: “The Intentional Taking of Human Life is Always Wrong”
It’s what millions of Americans had been waiting for – collectively holding their breath while joyfully anticipating the outcome.
Senate Committee Votes to Confirm Pro-Life Rep. Tom Price as HHS Secretary Despite Democrat Boycott
Despite a boycott by Democrats on the panel of the vote, a Senate committee voted to confirm pro-life Congressman Tom Price as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott: “The Butchering of Unborn Babies” in Abortion is “Barbaric”
Texas is the Lone Star State for a reason. We stand apart as a model for the nation. But we must do more to establish higher standards that reflect respect for the sanctity of life.
Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Touching Tribute to Justice Antonin Scalia Will Make You Like Him Even More
Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch and the late pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia have much in common.
Pro-Abortion Members of Congress Introduce Bill to Force Americans to Pay For Abortions
Woman Who Killed Her Newborn Baby Girl Minutes After Birth Won’t Go to Prison
New Poll: 80% of Americans Wants a SCOTUS Justice Who Interprets the Constitution as Written
|
Daily Pro-Life News Report
|
Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report |
|
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2017 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Posted by Kemberlee Kaye Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 9:02pm | 1/31/2017 – 9:02pmURL of the original posting site: http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/01/army-corps-to-grant-easement-needed-to-complete-dakota-access-pipeline/
BREAKING: North Dakota senator: Acting Army Secretary directs Army Corps to grant easement to finish Dakota Access pipeline.
— Meg Kinnard (@MegKinnardAP) February 1, 2017
From local news, KFYRTV:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator John Hoeven issued the following statement after speaking today with Vice President Pence and Acting Secretary of the Army Robert Speer:
“Today, the Acting Secretary of the Army Robert Speer informed us that he has directed the Army Corps of Engineers to proceed with the easement needed to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline. This will enable the company to complete the project, which can and will be built with the necessary safety features to protect the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and others downstream.
“Building new energy infrastructure with the latest safeguards and technology is the safest and most environmentally sound way to move energy from where it is produced to where people need it.
“We are also working with the Corps, the Department of Justice, the Department of Interior and the Department of Homeland Security to secure additional federal law enforcement resources to support state and local law enforcement. On Sunday, 20 additional Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement officers arrived at Standing Rock to assist local authorities. Also, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council has asked the protesters to leave the campsite on Corps land.
“This has been a difficult issue for all involved, particularly those who live and work in the area of the protest site, and we need to bring it to a peaceful resolution.”
Representative Kevin Cramer released the following statement after Speer’s message:
“I have received word the Department of Defense is granting the easement for the Dakota Access Pipeline and Congressional notification is imminent. It’s time to get to work and finish this important piece of energy infrastructure enhancing America’s energy security and putting North Dakotans and Americans back to work. President Trump has proven to be a man of action and I am grateful for his commitment to this and other critical infrastructure projects so vital to our nation.”
The Hill provides context:
Hoeven’s statement did not say the Army Corps has actually issued the easement, a step that would allow construction to move forward. An agency official did immediately reply to a request for comment on Tuesday.
The easement in question would allow Dakota Access developers to build the pipeline under Lake Oahe in North Dakota, nearing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation in the state.
The tribe, saying the pipeline threatens its water supply and sacred sites in the area, protested against it and brought a lawsuit to block it last year. The Army Corps approved but never issued the easement under President Obama, and in November administration officials said they would not issue the easement and instead conduct an environmental impact assessment of the line. That process could delay the project for years.
Dakota Access protests cropped up around the country before that announcement, and thousands of demonstrators established protest camps against it in North Dakota.
Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye
Lie DetectorURL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/02/01/lie-detector/
Obama vs Trump Lying / Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
| For pro-life news updated throughout the day, visit LifeNews.com. |
President Donald Trump Nominates Pro-Life-Friendly Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court
President Donald Trump tonight has nominated pro-life friendly federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch has taken the pro-life side in important cases and written a book excoriating assisted suicide.
|
Daily Pro-Life News Report
|
Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report |
|
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2017 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017| For pro-life news updated throughout the day, visit LifeNews.com. |
Top Stories
• President Donald Trump Will Announce Supreme Court Nominee Tuesday: “I’ve Made My Decision”
• Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Sided With Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor
• Pro-Life Groups Praise SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch: If You Liked Justice Scalia, You’ll Like Him
• Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Sided With State Defunding Planned Parenthood
More Pro-Life News
• Planned Parenthood Caught Denying Pregnant Women Ultrasounds: We Only Use Them for Abortion
• Democrats Boycott Committee Vote to Confirm Pro-Life Rep. Tom Price as HHS Secretary
• Senate Committee Approves Pro-Life Trump Education Secretary Nominee Betsy DeVos
• Parents Reject Abortion After Ultrasound Shows Identical Twins Cuddling Each Other
• Woman With Cancer Who Was Told She Couldn’t Have Kids Gives Birth to Quadruplets
• Nearly 50 New Pro-Life Laws Have Been Introduced Since President Trump’s Election
• New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Pushes Free Abortions at Taxpayer Expense
• Lennart Nilsson, Who Took the Most Amazing Ultrasound Photos, Passes Away at 94
• 24 of the Best Pro-Life Signs From the 2017 March for Life
• British Government Bans the Term “Expectant Mother” Because It’s Supposedly “Non-Inclusive”
• Disabled Lawmaker: “People Like Me Are Facing Extinction From Abortion”
• Assisted Suicide is Antithetical to Liberal Values
• Louisiana March is the Biggest One Ever as 9,000 Pro-Lifers Flood the Streets of Shreveport
President Donald Trump Nominates Pro-Life-Friendly Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court
President Donald Trump tonight has nominated pro-life friendly federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch has taken the pro-life side in important cases and written a book excoriating assisted suicide.
Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Sided With Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor
Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor. Their names were synonymous with major Supreme Court battles to stop the Obama Administration from forcing them and others to pay for drugs that cause abortions.
Click to Read at LifeNews.com.
Pro-Life Groups Praise SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch: If You Liked Justice Scalia, You’ll Like Him
Leading pro-life organizations are already weighing in on the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Sided With State Defunding Planned Parenthood
When it comes to Planned Parenthood — the nation’s largest abortion business — states hoping to protect taxpayers from having to fund the abortion company can count on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch for a fair hearing.
Democrats Boycott Committee Vote to Confirm Pro-Life Rep. Tom Price as HHS Secretary
Apparently unable to do their jobs as members of a prominent senate committee tasked with the job of evaluating a cabinet-level official, Democrats on the Senate finance committee are boycotting a vote to confirm pro-life Congressman Tom Price as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Senate Committee Approves Pro-Life Trump Education Secretary Nominee Betsy DeVos
A Senate committee has approved the nomination of pro-life Michigan school choice advocate Betsy DeVos for education secretary.
Parents Reject Abortion After Ultrasound Shows Identical Twins Cuddling Each Other
Doctors suggested that Hayley Lampshire may have to abort one of her unborn sons after they discovered the twins shared an amniotic sac and placenta.
Planned Parenthood Caught Denying Pregnant Women Ultrasounds: We Only Use Them for Abortion
A new investigative video reveals that Planned Parenthood abortion clinics do not allow the use of ultrasound to assist pregnant women.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Pushes Free Abortions at Taxpayer Expense
Lennart Nilsson, Who Took the Most Amazing Ultrasound Photos, Passes Away at 94
British Government Bans the Term “Expectant Mother” Because It’s Supposedly “Non-Inclusive”
|
Daily Pro-Life News Report
|
Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report |
|
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2017 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Matthew 25: 35 is often quoted as a defense for immigration — legal or otherwise — among Christian groups. Jesus says, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.”
However, is that the final answer when it comes to a decision that will potentially jeopardize the security and resources of our country? Must Christians give up their own well-being as an action of faith? Is the sanctuary of others, regardless of their motivation or origin, more important than our own safety?
Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday, Jan. 27, that temporarily suspends immigration from certain countries: Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen. The order also temporarily pauses the admission of refugees into the United States until vetting processes have been bolstered to meet a stricter standard. Also, it is a temporary period of probation, not a permanent one.
First of all, the facts must be clearly evaluated and not misrepresented. Media reported that airports were filled this weekend with travelers who were stranded as they tried to return to the United States. Celebrities attempted to stir emotions with moving speeches and claims of persecution. It is certainly accurate that lives were interrupted with the abrupt executive order. It is also imperative to understand that any definitive action will inevitably offer disadvantage to some while providing an advantage to others. This isn’t necessarily fair — but neither is life. It is what is believed to be the next step taken to protect our country and our citizens.
We are instructed to obey authority, believing that God has placed individuals in the positions they retain. God is the one who first introduced the idea of law and order to mankind when He provided the Ten Commandments. This was an understanding of obedience and submission. God does not desire chaos, disorder, or anarchy. Instead, He provided an example of the need for structure, policies, and law when it comes to the creation and maintenance of a country.
“It’s not a biblical command for the country to let everyone in who wants to come, that’s not a Bible issue,” Franklin Graham, the evangelist, told The Huffington Post. “We want to love people, we want to be kind to people, we want to be considerate, but … there are laws that relate to immigration and I think we should follow those laws. Because of the dangers we see today in this world, we need to be very careful.”
Christians are not called to be naive. We must observe boundaries in order to maintain the land we have been blessed to possess in America. We need to be careful to evaluate those who come into our country but do not desire to assimilate to our way of life. At the same time, we share the desire to help the helpless and aid those in danger, utilizing our resources. Just as God is a balance of both love and justice — so our country must be governed with law and mercy.
Katie Nations, married for 15 years, is a working mother of three young children. She lives in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Authored By Alexander Bolton and Bob Cusack | 01/31/17 | 06:00 AM EST
McConnell: If GOP unites, we will win / © Greg Nash
In an interview with The Hill, the Senate majority leader said he has told his GOP colleagues not to expect any help from Democrats on an array of legislative priorities.
In contrast to past years, when McConnell had to face down rebellions from conservative colleagues — most notably Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) — the entire Senate GOP conference appears to be on the same page. How long that lasts remains uncertain, however.
“The only way you can achieve success in an environment like now, where there’s not much bipartisanship, is for us to have our act together and to work out our differences among ourselves,” McConnell said Friday.
During former President Obama’s administration, McConnell said he had to contend with “individuals” in the Senate and House who “just really enjoy the publicity associated with doing something the vast majority of Republicans didn’t agree with, and it was a great headline producer.”
After a highly unusual and charged election year, McConnell is looking forward to making new laws in 2017. Against the odds, McConnell preserved his GOP majority in November and now has a willing partner in the White House. The relationship between President Trump and McConnell was tenuous at best throughout 2016. But times have changed. McConnell, who refused to answer questions about Trump in the fall, last week compared him to President Andrew Jackson, the nation’s first populist commander in chief.
Ten Senate Democrats are running for reelection in 2018 in states that Trump won last year. McConnell is expecting that Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer(D-N.Y.) will pull out all the stops to keep them from defecting on big votes.
“We’re not anticipating much Democratic cooperation here,” he said with a laugh.
He says most Democrats are “not interested” in working with the GOP on legislation to repeal and replace parts of ObamaCare and to overhaul the tax code. As a result, Republicans are looking to pass those bills on party-line votes under a special budgetary process that protects them from filibusters.
“When you’re taking that path, you better have your people all lined up, because if you can’t get your own guys together, particularly in the Senate, you can’t get where you want to go,” he said.
Republicans have control of the White House and both chambers of Congress for the first time in a decade, and they know they have a limited amount of time to enact major legislative initiatives such as comprehensive tax reform, which was last accomplished in 1986. At that time, Democrats and Republicans worked together to revamp the tax code. McConnell, who was a backbencher back then, said such a bipartisan endeavor is just not possible now — it’s “a different era.”
Despite the high stakes and the pressure, McConnell seemed comfortable and at ease throughout The Hill’s interview. He stayed on message and calmly dodged questions about policies Republicans have not yet decided on.
McConnell in 2015 became majority leader, his dream job ever since he worked as a junior aide to late Sen. Marlow Cook (R-Ky.).
The Senate electoral map looks quite good for Republicans, who have only eight seats up for reelection in 2018, while Democrats will have to defend 25.
But McConnell, 74, says anything can happen, chuckling over the brimming confidence of Democratic colleagues last year who thought they were a lock to win back the upper chamber. Before the election, media outlets were publishing profiles of Schumer, assuming he would be the next Senate majority leader.
“I sat here and observed on a daily basis my soon-to-be counterpart, Sen. Schumer, giving interviews on his agenda, measuring the curtains,” he recalled with a wry smile.
McConnell, who has a reputation as one of the shrewdest tacticians on Capitol Hill but sometimes draws criticism even from GOP colleagues for being too focused on politics, says he’s now entirely focused on governing.
“Rather than becoming consumed about what might happen in 2018, we need to try to succeed,” he said.
McConnell, an institutionalist who reveres the Senate, said Republicans don’t work for Trump. He pointedly noted that the Senate decides its own rules when asked about pressure from the White House to strip senators of the power to filibuster Supreme Court nominees.
Over the years, conservative groups have taken shots at McConnell on a variety of issues. But they have no complaints about his decision to not vote on Merrick Garland, Obama’s 2016 Supreme Court nominee. Now, late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat will be filled with a conservative. Trump is scheduled to announce his pick on Tuesday (UPDATE: Tonight).
Trump and McConnell are both dealmakers, but they don’t see eye-to-eye on trade, Russian sanctions and other matters. What’s more important than their differences, McConnell said, is their shared desire to cut tax rates, simplify the tax code and reverse what he calls the “rampage” of overregulation under Obama. He says regulatory excess is the chief culprit responsible for the nation’s tepid economic recovery and scoffs at the Democratic narrative that frames Obama as a savior who turned around a national economy severely damaged by former President George W. Bush’s mismanagement.
“Obama didn’t have a single year of 3 percent growth, and the statute of limitations on blaming Bush ran out a long time ago,” he said.
Unlike Trump, McConnell rarely talks publicly about the stock market. But it has gone up because of Trump’s victory, McConnell said.
“Everybody I know who watches the market thinks the reason it has been booming is the expectation of regulatory relief and tax reform,” he said.
As partisan as the atmosphere is in Washington, McConnell knows that he’ll still need centrist Democrats to join him for the 115th Congress to be a success. He says that Republicans cannot entirely replace ObamaCare under reconciliation — the special budget process that empowers the majority party to enact legislation with only 51 votes. Some healthcare reforms, such as allowing companies to sell insurance across state lines or other policy changes that have a negligible budgetary impact must be adopted with 60 votes. That means winning over centrists such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), who are up for reelection next year.
“[Red-state Democrats] will be necessary,” he concedes.
After spending the past two years playing defense, when Republicans had to defend 24 Senate seats in the 2016 election cycle, McConnell — an avid sports fan — is eager to play offense.
“I’m assuming that each of them will be calculating whether it’s to their advantage to be cooperative or not,” he said of the 10 Democrats up for reelection in pro-Trump states.
“I’m hoping that frequently they will conclude that it’s actually good for them to be helpful to us,” he said.
Authored by 
Christopher Bedford | Senior Editor, The Daily Caller; Editor in Chief, TheDCNF | 8:19 PM 01/30/2017URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/30/kochs-gear-up-to-back-trump-in-supreme-court-battle/#ixzz4XNtfamIO
Left-leaning states won by Trump will be a focus, particularly those with senators who are up for re-election in 2018. “A number of those folks are going to be necessary to the [60-vote] threshold required for confirmation,” Gardner said. Despite former President Barack Obama’s inability to gain traction for his Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, the Koch representatives are confident the issue is important to activists and voters.
The plan is new so details are not concrete, but senators Americans for Prosperity (AFP) will target will depend on how senators vote, they said. As for vulnerability, “November broadened the map,” AFP Chief Operating Officer Sean Langsing said, listing Wisconsin, Montana, Michigan and New Hampshire as examples of states more in play for libertarian politics.
Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennett, who won re-election in 2016, is another potential target for pressure, despite not being up for six years. Bennett has said that he would oppose the nomination of 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch, a top contender for the nomination, AFP Director of Policy Akash Chougule said.
Held twice a year, the weekend meeting is a gathering place for the Seminar Network, a large group of wealthy donors interested in libertarian and conservative causes. The weekend’s seminar, held in the temperate desert outside of Los Angeles, was the first since Trump’s election and inauguration.
The network spent hundreds of millions on advertising and advocacy for limited-government politicians — namely, Republicans — running for the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, but notably stayed out of the presidential primaries and race. (RELATED: As Trump Presidency Dawns, Kochs Plan To Bring Hundreds Of Millions To Bear On Next Two Years)
And after scaling back early projections on their spending during the 2015-2016 cycle, the Seminar Network intends to ramp up spending on work to build grassroots networks and impact U.S. policy. That spending is expected to rise from the $250 million in the 2015-2016 cycle, to an estimated $300-400 million in the 2017-2018 cycle. (RELATED: Kochs Come Out Against Trump Travel Ban)
Despite a socially liberal trend in the donor network, Freedom Partners Vice President of Policy Andy Koenig said the they support a judge in the mold of the late Judge Antonin Scalia, a socially conservative strict constitutional constructionist whose seat has remained empty since he died unexpectedly in 2016.
At a Saturday night dinner kicking off the two-day seminar, Republican Sen. Mike Lee told gathered donors that Trump’s eventual nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court is going to be confirmed by the Senate. (RELATED: Mike Lee Is Certain The Senate Will Confirm Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee)
“It’s a fantastic list,” he said of the names floated as in the running for Trump’s nomination. “I’m very confident that whoever the president nominates is going to get confirmed…. I can tell you this: At the end of the day, any one of the people that President Trump is looking at will be confirmed by the Senate — we will make sure of that.”
Sen. James Lankford, who spoke alongside Lee, included confirming a Supreme Court justice among actions the Senate can take without 60 votes, implying that Republicans would use “the nuclear option” to pass their choice and would not need outside support. Seminar Network representatives declined to weigh in on the pros or cons of this strategy.
“We don’t want someone who is going to be legislating from the bench,” Seminar Network James Davis said. “We want someone who cares about the Bill of Rights.”
The Seminar Network is co-chaired by Charles Koch Institute President Brian Hooks and Mark Holden, general counsel for Koch Industries. Called “A Time to Lead,” the meeting was hosted at the Renaissance Indian Wells Resort and Spa, and is focused on local, grassroots initiatives Americans can take in what Hooks called “the key institutions of society”– “education, community, business and government.” (RELATED: Charles Koch Calls For Action: ‘We Might Not Have An Opportunity Again Like We Have Today’)
There are around 550 individuals included in the “principals” network meeting, which requires at least $100,000 donation to the network. In addition to these invited people, there were approximately 150 staff and speakers, Seminar Network spokesman James David told reporters. There was also a larger press presence than any previous conference has allowed.
Other elected officials in attendance included Republican Sens. Ben Sasse, Pat Toomey and David Perdue, as well as Reps. Jason Chaffetz and Marsha Blackburn. All elected officials attending the seminar were Republicans.
Editor’s Note: Christopher Bedford was a fellow at the Charles Koch Institute in 2010.
Authored by Phillip Stucky | 10:16 PM | 01/30/2017URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/30/dem-congresswoman-forced-to-face-her-own-voting-history-after-calling-trumps-travel-ban-horrifying/
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 25, 2011. REUTERS/Jim Young
Trump’s list of seven countries came primarily from the text of H.B. 158, but the executive order allows Trump to place a travel ban from any resident of those countries, excluding those with current green cards or legal residents of the United States.
Esty responded quickly, citing a Vox story that didn’t even mention the bill in question.
Esty’s press office told The Daily Caller News Foundation the congresswoman didn’t mean to assert that she didn’t co-sponsor the bill, but rather the bill didn’t do the same thing as Trump’s executive order. The office added that Trump’s order is unique because it constitutes a blanket ban, while the bill that she co-sponsored only sought to reduce the number of visas issued from the same seven countries.
The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the measure before it was signed into law.
Other followers on Twitter weren’t having any of her response. One user posted a screenshot of the bill, along with a picture of her name on the co-sponsor page.
Published January 30, 2017 | FoxNews.comURL of the original posting site: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/30/trump-signs-executive-order-to-drastically-cut-federal-regs.html
“We have to knock out a regulation for every two, but it goes far beyond that. This is a big one,” said Trump, in signing the order that makes good on his “one in-two out” campaign promise.
Trump has signed more than a dozen executive orders in his first 11 days in office.
The order Monday specifically states that prior regulations must be “identified for elimination” when a new rule is put forward. However, the 900-word order makes clear that the costs associated with new regulations each year cannot go up. So they would have to be offset by eliminating “costs associated with at least two prior regulations.”
For fiscal 2017, Trump told agency heads that the total cost of new regulations finalized this year “shall be no greater than zero” unless otherwise directed.
“It is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with federal regulations,” the document also states.
“We will begin efforts to reduce federal regulations. We’ll be reducing them big time,” Trump said in concluding a White House meeting with small business owners before signing the order.
The military, national security and foreign affairs are exempt from the order, which puts the Office of Management and Budget in charge of the changes. Agencies must present OMB with new regulations and show what is slated for elimination. However, the order offers some flexibility: allowing agencies to determine the cuts, maintaining White House input and giving the OMB director authority to make emergency exceptions.
An administration official told Fox News that a recently issued White House memo on temporary regulation freezes remains in place and that the executive order establishes the process going forward. 
Commentary by Sen. Mitch McConnell 
/ @SenateMajLdr / January 30, 2017URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2017/01/30/the-people-have-spoken-trumps-supreme-court-nominee-deserves-a-vote/
Mitch McConnell on President Trump’s pending Supreme Court nominee: “I consistently maintained that the next president would fill this vacancy. I held to that view even when nearly everyone thought the president would be Hillary Clinton.” (Photo: Olivier Douliery/UPI/Newscom)
In keeping with the Biden Rule, which states that “ … action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over, ” I have stood firm on the principle that the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. I consistently maintained that the next president would fill this vacancy. I held to that view even when nearly everyone thought the president would be Hillary Clinton.
Our friends on the left may lack the same consistency on this topic—the principle we’ve followed, after all, is not only known as the Biden Rule but also the Schumer Standard—but there is one thing from which we can expect the left not to waver: trying to paint whomever is actually nominated in apocalyptic terms.
Doesn’t matter who this Republican president nominates. Doesn’t matter who any Republican president nominates—really. The left has been rolling out the same, tired playbook for decades.
I’m serious—that’s what they said about Stevens. And Souter. And Kennedy.
We can expect to hear a lot of end times rhetoric from the left again today. In fact, we already have. The same groups on the left who always seem to say the sky is falling when a Republican president puts forward a Supreme Court nominee are saying it’s falling again. Only this time, they’re saying it before we even have a nominee.
President Donald Trump has a list of about 20 Americans who he is considering nominating to the Supreme Court. These men and women have different professional backgrounds and different life experiences. Some have distinguished themselves in state courts, others have distinguished themselves in federal court. Some are appellate court judges, others are trial court judges. Some passed the Senate without a single negative vote against their nomination. Others passed the Senate without requiring a roll call vote at all on their nomination.
The bipartisan support, the years of judicial experience, the impressive credentials—none of these appear to matter to some on the left. They say things like, “We are prepared to oppose every name on the list.” That’s right, Mr. President. Every single name on the list.
Even more troubling, some Senate Democrats are saying the same thing. My friend from New York said it was hard for him “to imagine a nominee” from Trump whom Senate Democrats “could support.” We don’t even have one yet.
I hope we can all skip past that and get down to our serious work. The election is now behind us. The president has been working to make his decision on a nominee, and we expect him to announce that decision tomorrow (UPDATE: Tonight).
The Senate should respect the result of the election and treat this newly elected president’s nominee in the same way the nominees of other newly elected presidents have been treated—and that is with careful consideration followed by an up-or-down vote.
We had two nominations in the first term of President Bill Clinton. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer both got up-or-down votes. There was no filibuster. We had two nominations in the first term of President Barack Obama: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. No filibuster. First-term presidents have received up-or-down votes.
Monday, January 30, 2017| For pro-life news updated throughout the day, visit LifeNews.com. |
Top Stories
• President Donald Trump Will Announce Supreme Court Nominee Tuesday: “I’ve Made My Decision”
• Senate Democrats Will Filibuster President Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee No Matter Who It Is
• Vice-President Mike Pence Invites Pro-Life Leaders to the White House, Obama Had Abortion Activists
• Black Pastor: “People Cry for Harambe, But They Have no Love for Babies Killed Every Day” in Abortions
More Pro-Life News
• Majority of Americans Agree With President Trump’s Decision to Stop International Abortion Funding
• Pro-Life Groups Urge Senate Committee to Confirm Pro-Life Rep. Tom Price as HHS Secretary
• Heartbreaking Video Shows You What 58 Million Babies Killed in Abortion Looks Like
• Nurse Fired Three Times Because She Wouldn’t Help Kill Babies in Abortions Files Lawsuit
• Doctor Euthanizes Patient With Dementia, Secretly Put Lethal Drugs in Her Coffee
• Pro-Life Legislator Receives Death Threats After Proposing Bill to Ban Abortions
• Miracle Twins Who Survive Birth at 23 Weeks Prompt Call to Ban Late-Term Abortions
• Networks Give Pro-Abortion “Women’s March” Three Times Move Coverage Than March for Life
• Abortion Clinic Closes After Attempting to Evade State Laws, 3rd Abortion Clinic Shut Down in 2017
• People Magazine Reported More on Pro-Abortion “Women’s March” Than President Trump Inauguration
• Netherlands Will Use $10 Million to Pay for Abortions After Trump Defunds Intl Planned Parenthood
• Abortion Doc: “Extracting a Fetus, Piece By Piece, Was Bad For My Sleep”
• Abortionist Hid Ultrasound From Patient, But Her Friend Saw It And Was Haunted Forever
• Scientists Create Human-Pig Hybrids for Organ Transplants That Could Develop Into “Monsters”
President Donald Trump Will Announce Supreme Court Nominee Tuesday: “I’ve Made My Decision”
President Donald Trump indicated today that he will announce his Supreme Court nominee on Tuesday. The president previously said he would pick a “truly great Justice.”
Senate Democrats Will Filibuster President Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee No Matter Who It Is
President Trump hasn’t even announced who his Supreme Court nominee will be and already Senate Democrats have announced their intention to use the filibuster to oppose his nomination.
Click to Read at LifeNews.com.
Vice-President Mike Pence Invites Pro-Life Leaders to the White House, Obama Had Abortion Activists
Just ahead of the March for Life, pro-life leaders received a special invitation to visit with Vice President Mike Pence at the White House.
Black Pastor: “People Cry for Harambe, But They Have no Love for Babies Killed Every Day” in Abortions
Bishop Vincent Mathews Jr. of the Church of God in Christ issued a strong call to Americans to stand up against the injustice of abortion on Friday during the March for Life.
Majority of Americans Agree With President Trump’s Decision to Stop International Abortion Funding
This past Monday, pro-life President Donald Trump made it abundantly clear the United States will no longer use taxpayer dollars to support organizations that promote the killing of unborn children in developing nations.
Pro-Life Groups Urge Senate Committee to Confirm Pro-Life Rep. Tom Price as HHS Secretary
A Senate committee will vote tomorrow on the nomination of pro-life Congressman Tom Price to be Secretary of the health and human services department.
Heartbreaking Video Shows You What 58 Million Babies Killed in Abortion Looks Like
Pro-lifers are nothing if not creative. Over the decades, they have produced thousands upon thousands of “visual aids,” from the simplest black and white one-sheeter to full-blown movies—and everything in-between..
Nurse Fired Three Times Because She Wouldn’t Help Kill Babies in Abortions Files Lawsuit
A Swedish nurse midwife who was fired three times for refusing to help abort unborn babies has not given up her legal fight to protect her conscience rights.
Miracle Twins Who Survive Birth at 23 Weeks Prompt Call to Ban Late-Term Abortions
Networks Give Pro-Abortion “Women’s March” Three Times Move Coverage Than March for Life
People Magazine Reported More on Pro-Abortion “Women’s March” Than President Trump Inauguration
|
Daily Pro-Life News Report
|
Twice-Weekly Pro-Life
News Report |
|
Receive a free daily email report from LifeNews.com with the latest pro-life news stories on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Receive a free twice-weekly email report with the latest pro-life news headlines on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Sign up here.
|
Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2017 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.
Radical Ban Saw
Radical Muslim Ban / Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.
Authored by 
Richard Pollock | Reporter | 9:21 PM 01/29/2017URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/29/flashback-when-liberal-democrats-opposed-refugees-and-even-orphans/#ixzz4XI4m1LFf
Vietnamese refugees rest in a shed while awaiting transportation at the Libyan and Tunisian border crossing of Ras Jdir after fleeing unrest in Libya February 27, 2011. People in Tunisia and Egypt are driving to the border to help those arriving from Libya, with many hosting strangers in their homes, international aid groups said on Friday. More than 30,000 people have streamed across land borders in response to violence in Libya, mainly Tunisians and Egyptians who had been working in the North African country, according to the International Organisation for Migration. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra ∧
The group, led by California’s Gov. Jerry Brown, included such liberal luminaries as Delaware’s Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, former presidential “peace candidate” George McGovern, and New York Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman.
The Los Angeles Times reported Brown even attempted to prevent planes carrying Vietnamese refugees from landing at Travis Air Force Base outside San Francisco. About 500 people were arriving each day and eventually 131,000 arrived in the United States between 1975 and 1977. These people arrived despite protests from liberal Democrats. In 2015, the Los Angeles Times recounted Brown’s ugly attitude, reporting, “Brown has his own checkered history of demagoguery about refugees.”
Back in 1975, millions of South Vietnamese who worked for or supported the U.S. found themselves trapped behind the lines when the communists took over the country. Vietnamese emigre Tung Vu, writing in Northwest Asian Weekly, recalled the hardships the Vietnamese faced in 1975 as they tried to escape the communists.
“After the fall of Saigon, many Vietnamese chose to leave by any means possible, often in small boats. Those who managed to escape pirates, typhoons, and starvation sought safety and a new life in refugee camps,” Tung wrote.
Julia Taft, who in 1975 headed up Ford’s Inter-agency Task Force on Indochinese refugee resettlement, told author Larry Engelmann in his book, “Tears Before the Rain: An Oral History of the Fall of South Vietnam,” “The new governor of California, Jerry Brown, was very concerned about refugees settling in his state.”
National Public Radio host Debbie Elliott retraced Brown’s refusal to accept any refugees in a January 2007 interview with Taft. According to a transcript, which was aired on its flagship program, “All Things Considered,” Taft said, “our biggest problem came from California due to Brown.” She called his rejection of Vietnamese refugees “a moral blow.”
“I remember at the time we had thousands and thousands of requests from military families in San Diego, for instance, who had worked in Vietnam, who knew some of these people,” she told NPR.
Taft recalled another dark reason the liberals opposed the refugees: “They said they had too many Hispanics, too many people on welfare, they didn’t want these people.”
“They didn’t want any of these refugees, because they had also unemployment,” she told NPR. “They had already a large number of foreign-born people there. They had – they said they had too many Hispanics, too many people on welfare, they didn’t want these people.”
Brown echoed his isolationist theme throughout his first term. As recounted by author Larry Clinton Thompson in his book, “Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus,” Brown said, “We can’t be looking 5,000 miles away and at the same time neglecting people who live here.” At the same time as Brown was fighting Washington, Democrats waged an anti-refugee campaign inside the nation’s capital.
Ford appealed to Congress to quickly help the refugees, who included thousands of Cambodians fleeing a genocidal campaign perpetrated by the communist Cambodian Pol Pot regime. But in Washington, Ford found himself thwarted by many high-profile Democrats.
A review of the congressional debate at the time and recounted by CQ Almanac shows New York’s Elizabeth Holtzman – who was one of the House’s most visible liberal congresswomen — opposed helping the refugees. Like Brown, she tried to pit her constituents against the refugees. She said, according to CQ Almanac, “some of her constituents felt that the same assistance and compassion was not being shown to the elderly, unemployed and poor in this country.”
Rep. Donald Riegle, a liberal representative from Michigan who later would serve as its senator, offered an amendment that would have barred funds for the refugees unless similar assistance was given to Americans. The amendment was rejected by the House, 346 to 71, according to the Almanac.
Another House Democrat even tried to slow down the airlift of Vietnamese orphans. The Almanac reported that Rep. Joshua Eilberg, the Democratic chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and International Law, accused the Ford administration of having acted “with unnecessary haste” in the evacuation of the orphans.
The emergency rescue mission, called “Operation Babylift,” was activated by the United States, Australia, France and Canada after urgent appeals were issued by humanitarian relief organizations in Vietnam. The evacuation faced tragedy on its maiden flight when a C-5A cargo plane carrying the orphans crashed after takeoff, killing 78 children along with 35 U.S. government workers and diplomats.
The Library of Congress also reported liberal congressmen tried to stall the refugee legislation, indicating “they would rather wait for the administration to formulate a plan for the care and evacuation of refugees before approving the humanitarian aid.”
Then-Sen. Joe Biden tried to slow down the refugee bill in the Senate, complaining that he needed more details about the quickly unfolding refugee problem before he would support it. He said the White House “had not informed Congress adequately about the number of refugees,” according to the Library of Congress history of the legislation.
Quang X. Pham, who was born in Saigon and later served as a Marine pilot in the Persian Gulf War, later criticized Biden in an op-ed published by the Washington Post on December 30, 2006. Quang wrote, Biden “charged that the [Ford] Administration had not informed Congress adequately about the number of refugees — as if anyone actually knew during the chaotic evacuation.”
Peace candidate Sen. George McGovern, who had lost in a landslide to former President Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential election, appeared the most heartless senator when he introduced a bill to assist those who wished to return to South Vietnam.
In the end, most of the Democrat complaints appeared to center on the fact that the refugees were escaping communism, which many liberals did not find that objectionable.
“One of the justifications that Ford gave was related to communism. He said these people are all fleeing communism, which was the same criteria that had been used for the Cubans, the Hungarians, other refugee groups that had been processed in the past,” Taft explained
Authored by | Updated 30 Jan 2017 at 8:56 AM
As President Donald Trump begins the work of transforming his “Build That Wall” campaign chant into reality, he won’t be facing a blank canvas. The United States has a hodgepodge of barriers along the Mexican border totaling some 650 miles. They include pedestrian fencing, vehicle barriers, and double-layered steel fencing with enough space for border agents in vehicles to patrol.
On the campaign trail, Trump frequently spoke of a “big, beautiful wall,” but experts contend that the final product likely will not be one solid wall stretching hundreds of miles. Trump himself said in a “60 Minutes” interview shortly after the election that fencing would be appropriate in certain areas.
Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said officials already have started the process of determining which barriers need to be strengthened, which need to be replaced, and where new construction on currently virgin territory needs to take place.
“We’re not reinventing the wheel,” he said. “We already have fencing. We’ve been through this before.”
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said barriers are not feasible or necessary in remote areas, mountainous regions, and parts of the border where water separates the countries.
Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org
“It’s not going to be a coast-to-coast wall or fencing, even,” she said.
In 1993, America completed the first 14 miles of fencing. The 10-foot-high fence was made from surplus Army steel landing mat used to make landing strips during the Vietnam War. Later, the United States added a secondary fence behind the first barrier. The two-piece barrier angles toward the south to make it more difficult to scale.
The results were stunning. In fiscal year 1992, border patrol agents had apprehended 202,173 people at the border agency’s Imperial Beach Station in San Diego and 158,952 at the Chula Vista Station about 12 miles east. A Congressional Research Service report indicates that by fiscal year 2004, apprehensions dropped to 9,122 at Imperial Beach and 9,923 in Chula Vista. Those were declines of 95 percent and 94 percent, respectively. In the rest of the San Diego Sector, apprehensions dropped from 204,456 to 119,293 over that time period.
Those regions also experienced a marked drop in crime, while crime declines in the more rural sections of the border lagged behind the national average, according to the congressional report.
“I’ve seen how effective [fencing] is in California and west Texas,” Vaughan said.
Yet for all of its success in blocking illegal immigrants from entering San Diego, there is ample evidence that the fencing simply pushed migrants to more vulnerable sections of the border. The total number of apprehensions along the southwest border in fiscal year 2004 was about 1.2 million, nearly identical to the figure in fiscal year 1992.
During that time, the U.S. Border Patrol’s busiest stations switched from San Diego to Tucson and Yuma in Arizona. Another consequence of shutting down border crossings in urban areas is that illegal immigration across the desert became more dangerous. Migrant deaths shot up from an average of 200 a year in the early 1990s to 472 in 2005.
Experts: Border Control Must Be Comprehensive
To experts, the lesson is clear: Immigration enforcement has to be comprehensive. Physical barriers are of limited utility without enough agents to police the border and detention space to hold those apprehended. Trump’s plan also accounts for those things.
“What works in Brownsville isn’t necessarily going to work in San Diego,” said Chris Cabrera, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council. “Whatever we have, you’re going to need technology to with it, as well … It can’t stand alone. You need to back it up. You need manpower.”
Cabrera said physical barriers tend to work best in urban areas. That is why the San Diego fencing was so effective, he added.
“It was more of a funnel system,” he said. “We wanted to push people from more populated areas to more rural areas where it’s easier to apprehend them.”
Over the rest of the nearly 2,000-mile border, the United States has a variety of barriers. Some sections have permanent vehicle barriers — steel posts or bollards driven five feet into the ground and encased on concrete. They are designed to stop migrants from driving across the border in rural areas.
Other spots have temporary barriers — welded metal, like railroad track, telephone polls, or piping that can be moved by forklift.
In an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel last week, Trump derided the “little toy walls” that currently exist. Judd, president of the border patrol union, agreed upgrades are need, although he added that he does not know which barriers can be improved and which ones should simply be bulldozed and replaced completely.
Trump Begins Immigration Enforcement OverhaulExecutive actions target sanctuary cities, border wall, and ‘catch and release’ policies
Cabrera said the most effective strategy in some spots is “virtual offenses” that rely on sensors to track border crossers.
“There’s particularly going to be a focus on replacing fencing that is absolutely in atrocious condition,” Judd said.
Trump has indicated a desire to move fast, beginning construction in a matter of months. Judd and Cabrera agreed that is a doable goal.
“Government is only as slow as we let it,” Cabrera said. “He [is] from a business background, which is different from a government background.”
Authored by Zachary Volkert | January 30, 2017URL of the original posting site: http://www.inquisitr.com/3926780/bill-clinton-mexico-border-barriers-and-george-w-bush-secure-fence-act-supported-by-obama-and-hillary-predate-trumps-wall-by-decades/
“Since 1992, we have increased our Border Control by over 35 percent; deployed underground sensors, infrared night scopes, and encrypted radios; built miles of new fences; and installed massive amounts of new lighting.”
“In addition to greater border security, we also need greater sanctions on employers who hire illegally in this country… to make it easier for those employers to identify who is eligible to work… and we need a plan to deal with the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here, many of whom have woven themselves into the fabric of our society.”
George W. Bush signs the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico. [Image by Roger L. Wollenberg-Pool/Getty Images]
After approval, the George W. Bush fence with Mexico continued under the presidency of Barack Obama. In 2011, the Democratic president claimed that the Border Fence Act had reached completion, but Politifact rated the statement as “mostly false.” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had later asked to modify the mandate for double fencing to include other less imposing structures in places it deemed less threatening along the border.
This modification is an important one when it comes to Trump’s recent executive order. With Bill Clinton and Bush already having laid down border fences, the DHS may be inclined to simply accept some of these structures as they stand. While the president previously promised that it would be 50 feet high and made of concrete, he only outlined that it be “a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier” in the recent executive order. Furthermore, the action gives the power to the secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, to report on what the best way to move forward with the structure is, leaving ample room for alterations.
Donald Trump’s wall with Mexico was predated by fences under both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. [Image by Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images]
Of course, there are several key difference between the Clinton and Bush fences with Mexico and the one proposed by Donald Trump. First of all, both of these presidents sought to fund the project through U.S. money. There was no promise to infringe on another country’s sovereignty by forcing them to pay for the structure, and thus, it caused nowhere near the diplomatic rift that the Trump wall has. Since the fallout, Trump has indicated that the wall may be paid for through a 20 percent tax on imports.
[Featured Image by Ralph Freso/Getty Images]
Published January 27, 2017 | FoxNews.comURL of the original posting site: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/27/officials-announce-proposal-that-would-establish-california-as-separate-nation.html
A recent poll found that one in three California residents would support a possible secession from the U.S. due to their opposition to President Trump. No mention has been made of the president in the proposal. If the proposal qualifies for the ballot and is approved by voters, it could be a step to a future vote on whether the state would break away from the rest of the nation.
Secretary of State Alex Padilla said the group behind the proposal, Yes California Independence Campaign, was cleared to begin attempting to collect nearly 600,000 voter signatures needed to place the plan on the ballot.
“In our view, the United States of America represents so many things that conflict with Californian values, and our continued statehood means California will continue subsidizing the other states to our own detriment, and to the detriment of our children,” the Yes campaign’s website says.
Similar attempts to establish California as a nation, or break it into multiple states, have failed.
The proposed constitutional amendment, titled California Nationhood, would also ask voters to repeal language that states the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law. If approved, it calls for scheduling a vote in 2019 to ask voters, “Should California become a free, sovereign and independent country?”
“America already hates California, and America votes on emotions,” Marcus Evans, vice president of Yes California told the Los Angeles Times. “I think we’d have the votes today if we held it.”
The campaign must submit the valid voter signatures by July 25 to qualify for the ballot.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5248608587001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>” href=”http://http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5248608587001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>” rel=”http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5248608587001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>”>http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5248608587001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript> aligncenter wp-image-27294″ title=”http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5248608587001&w=466&h=263<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>” src=”https://whatdidyousay.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/calexit.jpg” alt=”calexit” width=”1026″ height=”762″ />
Posted Jan 25, 2017 at 3:44 PM URL of the original posting site: http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20170125/black-panthers-planning-armed-march-in-Wilmington
A screenshot taken from event Face Book page
Mayor Bill Saffo is concerned about attendees possibly being armed, but is confident Sunday’s march will pass without incident.
“I don’t think there’s a reason to come armed to an event. … If there’s an altercation with somebody, in the heat of the moment a tragedy could happen,” Saffo said, adding, “If you want to picket or you want to demonstrate in the City of Wilmington, it’s your right to do that, but you’re not allowed to bring a gun.”
According to North Carolina general statue, it is unlawful for any person participating in, affiliated with, or present as a spectator at a parade, funeral procession, picket line or demonstration to “willfully or intentionally possess or have immediate access to any dangerous weapon.” Jim Varrone, the Wilmington Police Department’s assistant chief, explained those laws to organizers, according to a police spokeswoman.
City Councilman Earl Sheridan said the march is an example of a group demonstrating its First Amendment-protected rights to freedom of assembly and will likely take place without any problems.
“I think a lot of times when people hear that name, they have a knee jerk reaction, whatever it is,” Sheridan said.
According to the local Black Panther Party’s Facebook page, which was created Dec. 25, the events are free and open to the public. The post states that on Saturday, the group will hold a “human rights tribunal” from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the Creekwood Community Center, and on Sunday the organization has planned an “armed march against terrorism and genocide.” No location is listed for the march, but a comment on the post states that it is supposed to start at 1:30 p.m.
“I would hope it goes cleanly,” Saffo said. “Whatever they’re marching for and whatever condition they want to help fix or talk about, they have a right to be able to express themselves and say what they’re demonstrating about and why they’re demonstrating.”
Before last weekend’s Wilmington Women’s March, some protestors expressed concerns about a city ordinance requiring protesters to stand 15 feet apart. Police did not enforce the ordinance when more than 1,000 people showed up to last Saturday’s event, and it took place without any arrests or tension between protesters and law enforcement.
Cathryn Lindsay, the police spokeswoman, said the Black Panthers have notified the city of their intent to march, but have not yet submitted forms for the event.
“We don’t get permits or approve a march,” she said. “The form is a notice to picket, march or demonstrate just in case there are traffic or security concerns.”
Linda Rawley Thompson, another police spokeswoman, said Chief Ralph Evangelous would not comment on the planned march as the department was treating it like any other demonstration the city has seen.
“We are not foreseeing any problems at all,” she said. “Like any other march, we are going to provide any necessary security.”
A poster about the Black Panther march stated it is an “anti-genocide march for black-Africans murdered by police in America” and “justice for Brandon Smith, Walter Scott, Lamont Keith Scott and all the victims in North Carolina.”
Smith was wanted on charges of shooting a New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office deputy when he was shot and killed by several police officers Oct. 13 in a wooded area of Wrightsboro following a car chase and foot pursuit. The police shooting was deemed justified.
Walter Scott was shot to death on April 4, 2015 in Charleston, S.C. by a former police officer. Cellphone video taken by a bystander showed Scott being shot in the back five times. A mistrial was declared in December after a jury deadlocked in the murder trial of the former officer.
Lamont Keith Scott was killed by plainclothes officers who had gone to an apartment complex in Charlotte looking for a suspect with an outstanding warrant who was not Scott when they saw Scott in a car with a gun. In November, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg District Attorney said the officer’s actions in the killing were justified.
Reporter Hannah DelaCourt can be reached at 910-343-2075 or Hannah.DelaCourt@StarNewsOnline.com.
Posted on January 30, 2017URL of the original posting site: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/boom-cartoon-reveals-how-to-make-a-feminazis-head-explode-hilarious/
An undercover Veritas reporter attended the march with a pro-life sign and quickly saw what “liberal tolerance” looks like in person.
PV described their video on YouTube: “A Project Veritas journalist went undercover at the Women’s March. She was confronted by angry feminists who did not seem to agree with the signs that our journalist brought.”
The undercover journalist carried a sign that read: “Real feminists are pro-life.”
She was swiftly screamed at, condescended to, disrespected, insulted, etc. She noted that “they want to take a picture of me and then once they see my sign they refuse it.”
Feminists regularly claim that they are fighting for “choice” but clearly that doesn’t include the choice to protect the unborn.
The undercover journalist chanted: “real feminists are against abortion.”
One of the protesters replied, “Donald Trump likes to grab women’s pussy.”
What Did You Say? 
Written
on February 4, 2017