Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Democrats’ Pro-Life News Report Monday, July 15, 2019

Top Stories

Joe Biden Announces New Plan to Force Americans to Fund Abortions Up to Birth
Two Catholic Priests Arrested After Going Inside Clinic to Save Babies From Abortion
WATCH: Activist Uses Watermelon to Demonstrate How to Kill Babies in Abortions
Abortion Activists Threaten to Rape, Assault Pro-Lifer Lawmaker After She Votes Against Abortion

More Pro-Life News
Abortion Activists Vandalize Van Offering Free Ultrasounds to Pregnant Moms
Mother Changes Her Mind Midway Through the Abortion, Gives Birth to a Healthy Baby Boy
Former Obama Adviser Admits Voters Oppose Democrats’ Abortions Up to Birth Agenda
Woman Fined $250 for Handing Out Pro-Life Brochures, She Fought in Court and Got The Ticket Dismissed
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Joe Biden Announces New Plan to Force Americans to Fund Abortions Up to Birth

Americans have a better idea about Joe Biden’s abortion agenda after the Democratic presidential candidate unveiled his plans for national health care on Monday. Pro-Life News Report Friday, July 12, 2019

Top Stories

Nancy Pelosi and Democrats Block Bill to Stop Infanticide For 71st Time, Refuse Care for Babies Born Alive
Judge Upholds Oklahoma Law Banning Dismemberment Abortions That Tear Off Babies’ Limbs
WATCH: Feminist Arrested After Assaulting Pro-Lifers and Spray-Painting Their Signs
President Trump’s Nominee for UN Ambassador, Andrew Bremberg, is Solidly Pro-Life

More Pro-Life News
Missouri Gov. Mike Parson Signs Bill Stopping DNRs Put on Children Without Parental Consent
“Unplanned’ Movie Opens This Weekend in Theaters Across Canada Despite Pro-Abortion Threats
Trump Order to Defund International Planned Parenthood Did Not Increase Abortions
Planned Parenthood CEO Leana Wen Talks About Her Miscarriage
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Nancy Pelosi and Democrats Block Bill to Stop Infanticide For 71st Time, Refuse Care for Babies Born Alive

Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats continue to refuse a request to allow a vote on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, legislation that would stop infanticide and provide medical care and treatment for babies who survive abortions. 

Nullifying immigration law: Judge illegally puts injunction on ‘lesson plans’

Written by | July 11, 2019


TimArbaev | Getty Images

The far-Left Democrats are trying to build momentum to abolish ICE and all enforcement of our sovereignty. Politically, it would take them 100 years to accomplish that goal, if ever. But the lower courts are doing it for them overnight with no pushback from the other branches of government.

Thanks to the fecklessness of the other branches, there is literally nothing a single forum-shopped district judge can do that will be regarded as out of bounds. They have nullified all immigration laws, they have abolished the essence of the census, they have commandeered Trump’s twitter account, they have taken control over issuance of press badges at the White House, and they have appointed themselves supervisors over which lawyers DOJ can send to represent the administration in their royal courts. Now they are going after lesson plans.

On Tuesday, Ketanji Brown Jackson, a district judge in D.C. who is often touted as the next liberal SCOTUS pick, issued an injunction on two potential deportations of illegal aliens because she questioned the legitimacy of a lesson plan at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for training asylum adjudicators. She said that the new lesson plans drafted on April 30 might make it tougher for credible fear claims to be granted, even though they were implemented to actually weed out fraudulent claims. Thus, two illegal aliens from El Salvador who were ordered deported through the expedited removal process after losing their bid for asylum petitioned the judge to block the deportations, even though statute stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to review such a case.

Never mind the fact that the sole discretion for guidance in dealing with initial credible fear interviews and appeals is up to the DHS secretary and the attorney general. Beyond that, U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(C) states, “The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).”

The key issue here is that such determinations of credible fear for those placed in expedited removal are completely unreviewable by federal courts, because Congress barred courts from jurisdiction over the entire issue. As the Congressional Research Service explains of expedited removal, a statue that passed the Senate unanimously in 1996, “The jurisdictional bar applies to claims that an immigration officer improperly placed an alien in expedited removal proceedings; challenges to an immigration officer’s credible fear determination; arguments challenging the procedures and policies implemented by DHS to expedite removal; and claims contesting the expedited removal order itself.”

Those jurisdictional bars are spelled out very clearly in 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(A). Yet Judge Jackson, in an act of civil disobedience against immigration law, says she will review the case anyway because DOJ’s arguments “raise complicated questions of statutory interpretation that will require briefing and evaluation.”

But if she hasn’t determined that she even has jurisdiction to decide the case, how can she then definitively decide to issue an injunction? As Chris Hajec, director of litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, told CR, “I have never heard that this ‘jurisdiction-to-decide’ includes the jurisdiction to issue injunctions. How can a court exercise a power it hasn’t yet decided it has? In fact, staying removal doesn’t help the court decide whether it has jurisdiction to stay removal.”

The law is so clear that even the Ninth Circuit said in 2011, “Congress expressly deprived courts of jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an expedited removal order.” (United States v. Barajas-Alvarado (9th Cir. 2011))

Congress has plenary power over immigration. “Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is” over immigration (Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 792 (1977)). Congress also has plenary power over the jurisdiction of the courts. This holds true for even the Supreme Court and certainly for inferior courts, which, according to Edmund Randolph, the nation’s first attorney general, “must have slept forever without the pleasure of Congress.” There are multiple statutes added to the INA in 1996 stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear numerous cases regarding deportations. But the judge is violating the essence of the Constitution.

This is a growing pattern with the lower courts not only engaging in civil disobedience against immigration law, but blatantly violating Congress’ ironclad power to strip their jurisdiction. They did this in the case of TPS amnesty and in several deportation cases, as well as creating habeas corpus rights for illegal aliens explicitly barred by the 1996 law.

Waiting for the Supreme Court to police its own branch is no longer an option. SCOTUS allows the damage to percolate for years before considering the cases. Then, even when it overturns the lower courts, the litigators come back in 999 other cases and get the lower courts to ignore the Supreme Court. Just yesterday, a Michigan judge, Victoria Roberts, implied that she might place another injunction on Trump’s “travel ban,” even though it was categorically affirmed by the Supreme Court!

As acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli observed:

This is also yet one more reminder that those Republicans suggesting that we need new laws to fix the border are living in an alternate reality. It is impossible to pass laws stronger than the expedited removal law in 1996, which categorically kicked the courts out of these cases. If our response to courts violating the law and hearing the cases they are forbidden to touch is to pass new laws that will be ignored by the courts, we are fiddling with a futile exercise while our border burns.

Author: Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative. Pro-Life News Report Monday, July 8, 2019

Top Stories

Pro-Abortion Rep. Eric Swalwell Becomes First to Exit Democrat Presidential Campaign
Doctor and His Colleagues Won’t Abort Babies: “We Will Not be Bullied Into Performing Abortions”
Video Catches ACLU Staffer Helping Students Obtain Abortions Without Parental Notification
Pro-Abortion Group Will Spend $20 Million to Defeat President Trump and Pro-Life Lawmakers

More Pro-Life News
Over 10,000 People March Against Legalizing Abortions in Northern Ireland
Hospital is Starving This Disabled Man to Death Over His Parents’ Objections
Father Adores Daughter With Down Syndrome: “I Fell in Love With This Precious Gift God Has Given Us”
Mom Sues Doctors Over Baby Born With Down Syndrome, She Would Have Aborted Had She Known
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

Pro-Abortion Rep. Eric Swalwell Becomes First to Exit Democrat Presidential Campaign

Pro-Abortion Rep. Eric Swalwell today became the first the leave the Democrat primary election campaign. 

New Witnesses: AG Barr to Reveal MASSIVE Democrat Coverup

Written By Kevin Jackson |

#TeamKJ, #kevinJackson

It’s about to get ugly for Democrats. All those butt-munchers who participated in the Russian collusion con job will pay with their careers. Further, all those who helped sell the lie will do the same.

Understand, President Trump will get re-elected in a landslide. And to add insult to the Democrats’ injury, their attempted coup will be their undoing.

Ask yourself why Russian collusion stories have suddenly vanished. The Democrats held House hearings that yielded nothing but embarrassment for them.

And what of the screams of proof from people like Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler?

As Fox News reported,

Key witnesses sought for questioning by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz early in his investigation into alleged government surveillance abuse have come forward at the 11th hour, Fox News has learned.

Sources familiar with the matter said at least one witness outside the Justice Department and FBI started cooperating — a breakthrough that came after Attorney General William Barr ordered U.S. Attorney John Durham to lead a separate investigation into the origins of the bureau’s 2016 Russia case that laid the foundation for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.


Late-breaking information is known to delay such investigations. Horowitz’s office similarly encountered new evidence late in the process of the IG review into law enforcement decisions during the 2016 Hillary Clinton email investigation. In this case, additional FISA information came to light late in the process – including October 2016 contact (first reported by The Hill and confirmed by Fox News) between a senior State Department official and a former British spy Christopher Steele, who authored the infamous and salacious anti-Trump dossier.

I can hardly wait to see what comes of this.

This is Huge, and Here’s Why

These “whistleblowers” feared to come forward earlier. However, with the newly drained swamp, they feel safe to do so. That’s a bad sign for Democrats. These people represent the “weak links” and potential scapegoats. As soon as one of them goes rogue, others will follow.

Anybody think the Democrats really want to get to the bottom of the Mueller Report now? Ask yourself what President Trump will do with the soon to be newly reported information on the coup against him. Trump knows how to market. And during the 22-month investigation, Trump regularly sniped at Mueller from his Twitter account. The president called the investigation a “witch hunt” and accused Mueller’s team of Democratic bias against him. Understand that Republicans will certainly want to know why Mueller stacked the deck.

Later, President Trump called the report and the Democrats’ reaction a “con job”.

And what of what Congress Jim Jordan will ask of Mueller, according to Politico?

“The obvious question is the one that everyone in the country wants to know: When did you first know there was no conspiracy, coordination or collusion? How much longer did it take Bob Mueller to figure that out? Did he intentionally wait until after 2018 midterms, or what?”

Connect the Dots

By now, the bread crumbs are pretty easy to follow, particularly as it pertains to Mueller’s choice of investigators.

Disgraced former FBI Agent Peter Strzok played a key role early in the investigation. He was removed from Mueller’s team in July, 2017. Strzok tainted Mueller’s investigation when anti-Trump text messages between him and former investigator Lisa Page were discovered.

While that is old news, the use of the unverified and now completely discredited Steele dossier will be front and center. How is it possible that Mueller’s Report did not completely destroy any “evidence” based on this fake document?

Understand there is no way around this issue any longer. When AG Barr replaced John Huber with John Durham, the writing was on the wall for the Democrats. Barr, who was heavily criticized by Democrats for his handling of the public release of the slightly redacted Mueller report, has said he believes “spying did occur” on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. He confirmed that the DOJ is reviewing the origins of the Russia probe.

All we have to do now is wait for the release of the testimony from the witnesses who no longer fear stepping forward. Pro-Life News Report Friday, July 5, 2019

Top Stories

National Pro-Life Group Endorses President Trump for Re-Election: He’s “Dedicated to Advancing” Life
Kamala Harris Applauds Activist Who Celebrates Killing Her Baby in Abortion: “I’m in Awe of You”
Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” Will Pay for Both Abortions and Maternity Care Equally
Appeals Court Blocks President Trump’s Rule Defunding Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz

More Pro-Life News
Joe Biden Vows To Reinstate Obamacare’s Individual Mandate
More Pro-Life Voters Than Ever Say They Will Not Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates
Police Officers Hold Funeral for Abandoned 20-Week-Old Unborn Baby
Charges Dropped Against Woman Who Intentionally Started Fight That Killed Her Unborn Baby
Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

National Pro-Life Group Endorses President Trump for Re-Election: He’s “Dedicated to Advancing” Life

A national pro-life organization has issued its endorsement for President Donald Trump’s re-election bid, saying he has been dedicated to advancing pro-life principles as president. 

Poll: Democrats Cause Patriotism to Plummet Ahead of July 4th

Written by HARIS ALIC |

Protesters try unsuccessfully to burn an upside down US flag during a protest outside the White House in Washington, DC on November 25, 2014, one day after a grand jury decision not to prosecute a white police officer for the killing of an unarmed black teen in Ferguson, Missouri. AFP …

The number of Americans who consider themselves “extremely proud” of their country is at a record low ahead of Independence Day.

A new Gallup poll released on Tuesday found that while 70 percent of all U.S. adults say they are proud to be Americans, only 45 percent say they are “extremely” proud of their country.

This was the second consecutive year in which the number of individuals identifying as extremely patriotic fell below 50 percent. Overall the share of Americans identifying as “extremely” patriotic is now at the lowest level since Gallup began asking the question in 2001.

Gallup found the decline in patriotism to be largely driven by Democrats. Of those identifying with the party, only 22 percent said they were “extremely” proud to be Americans. Similarly “subgroups that typically identify as Democrats — women, liberals and younger adults,” also expressed lower levels of patriotism, according to Gallup.

The new polling confirms trends witnessed among Democrats since President Donald Trump took office. The share of Democrats expressing patriotism plummeted by double digits from 43 percent in 2017 to 32 percent in 2018. Although Democrats have historically reported lower levels of pride in their country, this year’s total of 22 percent is the lowest on record since Gallup began measuring the question.

Republicans, on the other hand, continue to express record levels of patriotism. Gallup found that 76 percent of individuals associated with the GOP identified as “extremely” proud to be Americans—only ten percentage points less than the group’s recorded high in 2003.

Even though Gallup shows a correlation between levels of patriotism and which party controls the White House, the level of pride among Democrats since Trump took office is exponentially low. During the administration of President George W. Bush, the percent of Democrats expressing extreme pride in their country never fell under 46 percent. In comparison, during the presidency of Barack Obama the share of Republicans identifying as extremely proud to be American never dropped below 68 percent.

Gallup, however, did find that the two parties more broadly agreed about “American economic achievements,” with 89 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Democrats expressing pride. Likewise, Republicans and Democrats showed reverence for the U.S. military, with 98 percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Democrats saying they were proud of the institution.

Gallup conducted the poll between June 3 through June 16 by surveying 1,015 adults from across the country. The poll had a margin of error of +\- 4 percentage points.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: