Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘House Judiciary Committee’

Court Docs: Democrats Still Hope to Impeach Trump over Russia


Filed by Joel B. Pollak | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/23/court-docs-democrats-still-hope-to-impeach-trump-over-russia/

Komrade Trumpov impeachment rally balloon (Joel Pollak / Breitbart News / 

House Democrats are still hoping to impeach President Donald Trump over allegations resulting from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report earlier this year into “Russia collusion,” though Mueller found none existed.

The House Judiciary Committee reportedly told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday that it still wanted former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify even though Trump has already been impeached, because his impeachment could reveal that Trump obstructed justice in the Russia investigation.

Democrats voted last Wednesday to impeach the president for “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” in claims related to his dealings with Ukraine. But the text of the articles of impeachment cited Trump’s alleged “previous invitations of foreign interference,” referring to debunked allegations that he sought to collude with Russia in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Democrats pursued McGahn’s testimony at the time the Mueller Report was released because they were determined to find any evidence that Trump obstructed justice, even though he had made every witness and document available to investigators and declined to exercise executive privilege. Mueller did not refer Trump for prosecution, nor did he  “exonerate” the president, but both Attorney General William Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.

Nevertheless, Democrats continued to look for evidence of obstruction, even trying to obtain the grand jury materials that Mueller had used, which Barr was prohibited, by law, from providing to Congress (which found him in contempt anyway).

The White House, which had previously cooperated with Mueller, balked at allowing the president’s counsel to testify before Congress after the Mueller inquiry ended, citing legal privileges and constitutional boundaries.

But Democrats persisted.

In the Judiciary Committee’s report accompanying the articles of impeachment, which it cited in its court filing Monday, Democrats hinted that they included Trump’s so-called “obstruction of justice” in the Russia investigation in their “obstruction of Congress” article of impeachment, though they did not specifically charge him with obstructing justice (footnotes removed):

The Second Article of Impeachment impeaches President Trump for obstructing Congress with respect to the House impeachment inquiry relating to Ukraine. Yet, as noted in that Article, President Trump’s obstruction of that investigation is “consistent with [his] previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.” An understanding of those previous efforts, and the pattern of misconduct they represent, sheds light on the particular conduct set forth in that Article as sufficient grounds for the impeachment of President Trump.

These previous efforts include, but are not limited to, President Trump’s endeavor to impede the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 United States Presidential election, as well as President Trump’s sustained efforts to obstruct the Special Counsel after learning that he was under investigation for obstruction of justice.

However, a footnote at the end of the first paragraph above suggested that the committee would seek to interview McGahn to obtain evidence for use in a Senate trial on existing articles of impeachment, not new ones:

This Committee has undertaken an investigation relating to the Special Counsel’s report. That includes inquiring into President Trump’s obstruction of the Special Counsel, as well as a review of other aspects of the Special Counsel’s underlying work that the President obstructed. As part of this investigation, the Committee has sought to compel testimony by former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II, and to review certain grand jury materials relating to the Special Counsel’s report. Should the Committee obtain the information, it would be utilized, among other purposes, in a Senate trial on these articles of impeachment, if any. The Committee, moreover, has continued and will continue those investigations consistent with its own prior statements respecting their importance and purposes.

The DC Circuit is scheduled to hear the case on January 3. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has refused to turn over the articles of impeachment to the Senate because she says she is awaiting a guarantee of a “fair trial” — though the Constitution suggests that the Senate could hold a trial anyway.

She may, however, also be awaiting the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on the McGahn case, which would almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by either side.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Democrats Tell Court: More Impeachment Articles, Maybe, if Trump Lawyer Testifies


Filed by Joshua Caplan | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/23/democrats-tell-court-more-impeachment-articles-maybe-if-trump-lawyer-testifies/

WASHINGTON, DC – DECEMBER 18: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) delivers remarks alongside Chairman Jerry Nadler, House Committee on the Judiciary (D-NY) and Chairman Eliot Engel, House Foreign Affairs Committee (D-NY), following the House of Representatives vote to impeach President Donald Trump on December 18, 2019 in Washington, … Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images

The House Judiciary Committee told a federal appeals court Monday that it still wants former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify as it could potentially lead to the introduction of “additional articles of impeachment” against President Donald Trump over his contacts with Ukraine.

In a brief submitted to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the panel’s counsel Doug Letter argued its subpoena of McGahn, who departed the White House last year, is not moot despite the House’s approval of two impeachment articles — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — in a partisan vote on Wednesday evening.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” the brief reads.

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), subpoenaed McGahn in March for its investigation into whether President Trump or senior White House officials obstructed justice during special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into now-debunked collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

The Trump White House requested McGahn refuse to comply with the subpoena, citing “absolute immunity” that has long shielded top advisers from testifying before Congress.

Late last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of previous ruling directing McGahn to testify. The court said it would consider granting a longer stay and scheduled a hearing for oral arguments on January 3.

In a ten-page filing, the Department of Justice argued the House’s impeachment vote “eliminate[d] the need” for McGahn to answer congressional questioning and “underscore the reasons why this Court should dismiss or deny the Committee’s suit without adjudicating the subpoena’s validity.”

“Indeed, if this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial,” DOJ lawyer wrote. “That would be of questionable propriety whether or not such a judicial resolution preceded or post-dated any impeachment trial.”

My Own Two Cents


Listening to this socialist trial of President trump, under the transparent guise of being an impeachment inquiry, I am left with many questions.

  • The Leftist are proceeding with a hearing to impeach a dully elected President based on presumptuous, manufactured, taken out of context, spun and manipulated farce they represent as facts. This is more proof of their socialistic mindsets because socialist conduct all trials this way. The verdict is predetermined. The accused is doomed to a guilty verdict. Here’s the question: If given the control of all three of the divisions of The Federal Government, what will stop them from treating all people of the United States the same?
    • Rival politicians?
    • Judges?
    • Governors?
    • Any person whose speech they don’t like?
    • , etc., etc.?
  • What would stop the socialist left from telling the American people that their interpretation of the Constitution is the ONLY correct one?
  • Would these socialist outlaw the Electoral College making all national elections based on who got the most votes removing all possibility that a Conservative/Republican would ever be elected?
    • How long would it take to take over control of the states?
  • How long before our Constitution would be done away with and replaced with a socialist supported document?
  • Where would this stop?

Adam Schiff Gives Democrats Only 24 Hours to Sign Impeachment Report


Written by Joel B. Pollak | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/01/adam-schiff-gives-democrats-only-24-hours-to-read-impeachment-report/

WASHINGTON, DC – NOVEMBER 4: U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) speaks to reporters following a closed-door hearing with the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees at the U.S. Capitol on November 4, 2019 in Washington, DC. On Monday, House investigators released the first transcripts from … Drew Angerer/Getty Images

House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is giving members of his committee just 24 hours to read and sign off on his report recommending articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. As Breitbart News reported Friday, House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler has previewed the report, and suggested it will include claims of “collusion” with Russia — as well as Ukraine, Russia’s enemy.

And as reported Saturday, Schiff will provide the full report to committee members on Monday, who must sign off on Tuesday in time for the first hearing in Nadler’s committee on Wednesday, which will discuss the supposed constitutional and legal basis for impeachment.

It is a foregone conclusion that Democrats will sign off on Schiff’s report. Evidence does not seem to be the top priority for Democrats: a majority favored an impeachment inquiry by August 1, eleven days before the so-called “whistleblower” sent a letter to Schiff complaining about Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.

However, as the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York has noted, Democrats are in such a rush that they are leaving potential facts out of their examination. For example, they could wage a court battle to force former National Security Adviser John Bolton to testify. Bolton reportedly disapproved of the role played by U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani in relations with Ukraine. He could be a key witness. However, Democrats did not want to wait to hear what he had to say.

As York noted recently in a column titled “Why the rush toward impeachment?”, Democrats “are racing to get the job done by Christmas. They’re not even trying to hear from some key witnesses, like former national security adviser John Bolton, because they don’t want to take the time to go to court over it.”

York notes that Democrats are fearful of letting impeachment drag into the 2020 presidential primary, when it will pull several U.S. Senators off the campaign trail. And they are also worried about the fact that public support for impeachment is stagnant at best, and slipping at worst, after lackluster public hearings last month.

But the rush has been a feature from the very beginning. On the day that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry, the president had already announced that he had declassified the transcript (or “readout”) of the phone call with Zelensky, and that it would be published the next day. Pelosi did not want to wait for the evidence: her decision was driven by political factors.

Likewise, the Intelligence Committee has rushed its proceedings before all of the evidence was available to most members of Congress, or the public. It often published lengthy transcripts of closed-door depositions on the eve of public hearings, and only released the most exculpatory transcript after public hearings were over.

Nadler has given Trump until Friday to respond to a request to participate, either directly or through his counsel, in the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment proceedings.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

House Passes “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” Bill


Posted by GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com | on January 13, 2018

In a statement published by House Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives has passed the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” bill, which is a big NRA victory. The Vote stood at 231-198 . This piece of legislation will allow any concealed-carry permit holders to transport their firearms over state lines. Senate Democrats, however, are expecting to block this.

Read the full statement below:

Washington, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee today approved two bills to protect the Second Amendment and curb gun violence, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 and the Fix NICS Act of 2017. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) applauded today’s Committee approval of these bills in the statement below.

Chairman Goodlatte: “Today the House Judiciary Committee took action to protect Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms and enhance public safety. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act ensures that law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right does not end when they cross state lines. Citizens with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit, or individuals who are citizens of states that do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm, should not have to worry about losing these rights when entering another state that may have different rules and regulations.

“Further, the Fix NICS Act strengthens our nation’s existing laws by ensuring criminals are reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Tragically, our nation has all too often witnessed heinous acts of violence by criminals who should never have been able to purchase a firearm. We must ensure that both federal and state authorities are properly and accurately reporting criminals to NICS so that we prevent crime and protect lives.

“I thank Representatives Hudson and Culberson for their work on these important bills and look forward to the House of Representatives taking them up in the coming weeks.” 

The House Judiciary Committee first approved by a vote of 19-11 the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), sponsored by Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.). This bill allows people with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit, or individuals who are citizens of states that do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm, to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry, as long as the individual follows the laws of that state.

“My bill is a simple, common sense solution to the confusing hodgepodge of concealed carry reciprocity agreements between states,” said Representative Hudson on today’s Committee vote on H.R. 38. “It will affirm that law-abiding citizens who are qualified to carry concealed in one state can also carry in other states that allow residents to do so. I am pleased to see such strong support in committee, and I look forward to continuing this momentum and bringing the bill to the House floor as soon as possible.”

The Committee also approved by a vote of 17-6 the Fix NICS Act of 2017 (H.R. 4477), sponsored by Representative John Culberson (R-Texas). This bipartisan, bicameral bill ensures federal and state authorities comply with existing law and report criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Fix NICS Act also penalizes federal agencies that fail to report relevant criminal records to the FBI, incentivizes states to improve their reporting, and directs federal funding to make sure domestic violence records are accurately reported to the FBI. Further, the bill requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics to report to Congress within 180 days the number of times that a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime in the United States.

“Had existing law been enforced, the terrible tragedy in Sutherland Springs, Texas would have never occurred,” said Representative Culberson. “There is simply no excuse for the ongoing negligence of criminal history reporting into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I’m greatly encouraged by this bipartisan effort to ensure federal and state authorities enforce existing law. I urge my colleagues in Congress to support this lifesaving piece of legislation.”

This is wonderful news! Hopefully Senate Republicans can prevent any blocks from the Democrats. Obama wanted common sense gun laws, so here you have it!

 

House Passes “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” Bill


Posted by GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com | on December 6, 2017

In a statement published by House Judiciary Committee, the House of Representatives has passed the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” bill, which is a big NRA victory. The Vote stood at 231-198 .

This piece of legislation will allow any concealed-carry permit holders to transport their firearms over state lines. Senate Democrats, however, are expecting to block this.

Read the full statement below:

Washington, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee today approved two bills to protect the Second Amendment and curb gun violence, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 and the Fix NICS Act of 2017. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) applauded today’s Committee approval of these bills in the statement below.

Chairman Goodlatte: “Today the House Judiciary Committee took action to protect Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms and enhance public safety. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act ensures that law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right does not end when they cross state lines. Citizens with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit, or individuals who are citizens of states that do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm, should not have to worry about losing these rights when entering another state that may have different rules and regulations.

“Further, the Fix NICS Act strengthens our nation’s existing laws by ensuring criminals are reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Tragically, our nation has all too often witnessed heinous acts of violence by criminals who should never have been able to purchase a firearm. We must ensure that both federal and state authorities are properly and accurately reporting criminals to NICS so that we prevent crime and protect lives.

“I thank Representatives Hudson and Culberson for their work on these important bills and look forward to the House of Representatives taking them up in the coming weeks.”

The House Judiciary Committee first approved by a vote of 19-11 the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), sponsored by Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.). This bill allows people with a state-issued concealed carry license or permit, or individuals who are citizens of states that do not require a permit to carry a concealed firearm, to conceal a handgun in any other state that allows concealed carry, as long as the individual follows the laws of that state.

“My bill is a simple, common sense solution to the confusing hodgepodge of concealed carry reciprocity agreements between states,” said Representative Hudson on today’s Committee vote on H.R. 38. “It will affirm that law-abiding citizens who are qualified to carry concealed in one state can also carry in other states that allow residents to do so. I am pleased to see such strong support in committee, and I look forward to continuing this momentum and bringing the bill to the House floor as soon as possible.”

The Committee also approved by a vote of 17-6 the Fix NICS Act of 2017 (H.R. 4477), sponsored by Representative John Culberson (R-Texas). This bipartisan, bicameral bill ensures federal and state authorities comply with existing law and report criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Fix NICS Act also penalizes federal agencies that fail to report relevant criminal records to the FBI, incentivizes states to improve their reporting, and directs federal funding to make sure domestic violence records are accurately reported to the FBI. Further, the bill requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics to report to Congress within 180 days the number of times that a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime in the United States.

“Had existing law been enforced, the terrible tragedy in Sutherland Springs, Texas would have never occurred,” said Representative Culberson. “There is simply no excuse for the ongoing negligence of criminal history reporting into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I’m greatly encouraged by this bipartisan effort to ensure federal and state authorities enforce existing law. I urge my colleagues in Congress to support this lifesaving piece of legislation.”

This is wonderful news! Hopefully Senate Republicans can prevent any blocks from the Democrats. Obama wanted common sense gun laws, so here you have it!

Gianna Jessen Asks Congress “If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine?”


waving flag

Posted in Abortion and Life Issues by

URL of the original posting site: http://julieroys.com/gianna-jessen-asks-congress-if-abortion-is-about-womens-rights-then-what-were-mine

blog_graphics_jessen2

“If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine?” Gianna Jessen asked a House Judiciary Committee that question today — and with good reason. Thirty-eight years ago, Jessen miraculously survived a saline abortion. This morning, she told her remarkable story to a House Judiciary Committee investigating Planned Parenthood’s practice of harvesting and selling the body parts of aborted babies — even from those that may have been born alive. Fellow abortion survivor Melissa Ohden also shared her own gripping testimony. Below are the video and transcript of Jessen’s testimony, including some photographs she submitted as evidence. Listen and weep, and pray that God ends this evil.

pp

how many body parts

Transcript of Gianna Jessen’s Testimony to the House Judiciary Committee

Good morning,

My name is Gianna Jessen, and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. My biological mother was seven and a half months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood, who advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.

Screen Shot 2015-09-09 at 4.19.06 PMThis method of abortion burns the baby inside and out, blinding and suffocating the child, who is then born dead, usually within 24 hours. 

Instead of dying, after 18 hours of being burned in my mother’s womb, I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles on April the 6th, 1977. My medical records state: “Born alive during saline abortion” at 6 am.

Thankfully, the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die. Instead, a nurse called an ambulance, and I was rushed to a hospital. Doctors did not expect me to live.

I did. I was later diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy, which was caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving the abortion. I was never supposed to hold my head up or walk. I do. And Cerebral Palsy is a great gift to me.

I was eventually placed in foster care and later adopted. I forgive my biological mother. Within the first year after my birth, I was used as an expert witness in a case where an abortionist had been caught strangling a child to death after being born alive.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said the following: “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” – Margaret Sanger, “Woman and the New Race”

RELATED: 10 Reasons to De-fund Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood is not ashamed of what they have done or continue to do. But we will have to give an account as a nation, before God, for our apathy and for themurder of over 50 million children in the womb. Every time we falter in courage as individuals and fail to confront this evil, I wonder how many lives have been lost in our silence, while we make sure we are lauded among men and do not offend anyone? How many children have died, and been dismembered, and their parts sold, for our ego, our convenience, and our promiscuity? How many Lamborghini’s were purchased with the blood of innocent children? The blood that cries to the Lord from the ground, like that of the blood of Abel. Not one of them is forgotten by Him.

I would ask Planned Parenthood the following questions:

If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine? You continuously use the argument, “If the baby is disabled, we need to terminate the pregnancy,” as if you can determine the quality of someone’s life. Is my life less valuable due to my Cerebral Palsy?

You have failed, in your arrogance and greed, to see one thing: it is often from the weakest among us that we learn wisdom – something sorely lacking in our nation today. And it is both our folly and our shame that blinds us to the beauty of adversity.

Planned Parenthood uses deception, the manipulation of language and slogans, such as “a woman’s right to choose,” to achieve their monetary aims.

I will illustrate how well they employ this technique with the following quote: “The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.” – Adolf Hitler

RELATED: Survivor of botched abortion, Melissa Ohden, tells Congress: Planned Parenthood makes sure “failures” like me don’t happen

We often hear that if Planned Parenthood were to be defunded, there would be a health crisis among women without the services they provide. This is absolutely false. Pregnancy resource centers are located nationwide as an option for the woman in crisis. All of their services are free and confidential, and they can be reached by texting: “HELPLINE” to 313131. There is access to vital exams for women other than Planned Parenthood. We are not a nation without options.

Planned Parenthood receives $500 million dollars of taxpayer money a year, to primarily destroy and dismember babies. Do not tell me these are not children. A heartbeat proves that. So does 4-d ultrasound. So do I, and so does the fact that they are selling human organs for profit. Do not tell me this is only a woman’s issue. It takes both a man and a woman to create a child. And to that point I wish to speak to the men listening to me: You are made for greatness, not passivity. You were born to defend women and children. Not use and abandon us, nor sit idly by while you know we are being harmed. I am asking you to be brave.

In conclusion, let me say, I am alive because of the Power of Jesus Christ alone. In Whom I live, move, and have my being. Without Him I would have nothing; with Him, I have all.

Abortion monster 95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Obama scheme gives Democrats ‘power for all time’


waving flagPosted By Greg Corombos On 07/07/2015

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to original article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/obama-scheme-gives-democrats-power-for-all-time

illegal_aliensIllegal Immigration Giant

A conservative congressman says the murder of a San Francisco woman by an illegal immigrant deported five times is a microcosm of the border security dereliction of the Obama administration and liberal city leaders choosing to reward criminal behavior. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, also addressed the fierce debate within the Republican presidential field, taking care to avoid characterizing any candidate but leaving no doubt what he thinks the GOP’s policy position ought to be. The immigration debate took on a more personal dimension over Independence Day weekend, as 32-year-old Kate Steinle was randomly murdered by 45-year-old Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. The killer, who has since confessed, has been convicted of seven felonies and deported five separate times. Gohmert said similar stories have played out far too often as the Obama administration effectively waves illegals across the border.obama-border-is-open-378x257

“It’s very easy to explain when you have a president who does not believe in the rule of law, who has pandered to people who are illegally in the country,” Gohmert said in an interview with WND and Radio America. “All we can figure is, he thinks that if they can just get people who are illegally the right to vote before they understand the responsibilities of trying to keep a democratic republic, then it will give the Democrats all power for all time.”Only Reason

According to Gohmert, the Steinle murder is hardly an isolated incident. He said the House Judiciary Committee, of which he is a member, received very disturbing numbers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement on the extent of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants in Fiscal Year 2014 alone. “These individuals have been convicted of 79,059 crimes, including 175 homicides, 373 sexual assaults, 186 kidnappings (and) 14,014 impaired driving offenses. It just goes on and on. This is making America less safe,” he said, noting both the federal government and city governments must stop rewarding criminals.

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas:

 radio

“If the president’s going to protect America, if our city leaders are going to protect America, the cities can’t be this haven for people who broke the law and would kill a beautiful young lady like we had in San Francisco,” Gohmert said. “And the federal government has got to stop encouraging illegal immigration.”

The congressman said the Steinle murder struck close to home for him, and he said the policy of San Francisco and other “sanctuary cities” needs to be revisited right away. “Having three daughters, I’m particularly sensitive to these things. But to have her shot so senselessly, randomly, right there in front of her parents, would never have happened if San Francisco were not a city that just welcomed people who violated our immigration laws. It is a sanctuary city,” said Gohmert, meaning San Francisco and other cities have laws refusing to hold people whose only known offense is coming to the U.S. illegally.

Lopez-Sanchez has seven felonies on his record. San Francisco and the federal government are now engaged in a blame game over which isIllegal Immigration White House responsible for the killer being loose in the first place. The federal government asserts Lopez-Sanchez was in custody and about to be deported for a sixth time when he was handed over to the city to face a drug charge and should never have been released when those charges were dropped. San Francisco officials say it was the federal government’s job to have a warrant ready to go when the drug case concluded.

Shocker: See how the left plans to win in 2016! Strategy could bring Democrats to power – but also bring down the country

Gohmert said illegal aliens create trouble for law-abiding citizens, even when there is no violent crime involved. He contends a recent account from a teenage constituent is a perfect example. “She and her single mom were trying to make ends meet. An illegal alien hit her car,” he said. “He had no driver’s license, no insurance. He was allowed to drive off in his car. Hers was totaled. It just made things crazy for these poor girls. It’s just outrageous that this president would not be more sympathetic to the plight of Americans dealing with crime in America.”

Just as maddening to Gohmert as what he sees as the Obama administration refusing to enforce immigration law is the president’s insistence that border security is operating at record efficiency. “It may just be because our president doesn’t know enough about our history,” he said. “I’m sure they didn’t teach it in Indonesia, but the fact is, when he says nobody has done more to secure the border than I have, or words to that effect, it’s simply not true.”

The congressman said the border was far more secure after President Woodrow Wilson (not a favorite of Gohmert’s) effectively sealed the border after Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa conducted numerous murderous raids into the United States. On Wilson’s orders, thousands of forces clamped down on the southern border. “The border was secure,” Gohmert said. “Nobody came in unless we wanted them to.

th3RGD0MRS“This president could do more. Of course, you remember (former Homeland Security Secretary) Janet Napolitano just announced one day, ‘Hey, the four billion dollars or so that was appropriated by Congress for virtual fence? I’m not going to do that. I’m going to spend the money elsewhere.’ This administration not only encourages people to violate our immigration law but it violates the laws regularly themselves.”

The killing of Kate Steinle poured rhetorical gasoline onto an already combustible debate within the 2016 Republican presidential field over the issue of illegal immigration.

Billionaire real-estate developer Donald Trump immediate stirred the pot in announcing his White House bid. “[Mexico is] sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some I assume are good people,” said Trump on June 16. AMEN

Several other GOP hopefuls have denounced Trump both for his language and for his alleged inaccuracy. “He’s doing this to inflame and to incite and to draw attention, which seems to be his organizing principle of his campaign,” said former Gov. Jeb Bush, R-Fla. “He doesn’t represent the Republican Party or its values.”Reality 2

Gohmert is not wading into the back-and-forth between candidates, but he said he trusts the assessment of the U.S. Border Patrol, and its assessment is sobering. “Many of them have told me there is not a single mile of the U.S.-Mexico border that is not under the auspices of some drug lord. And you don’t cross that border into the United States without permission from that drug lord. If you do, they’ll find you in the United States and kill you,” said Gohmert, who added that many illegals come across and claim they are refugees from deadly gang violence in their home countries.M13 Gang Members

After a brief interrogation, it is usually discovered that gangs are not the reason for their illegal migration but the means for shuttling them across the border.

The congressman said the proper approach for Republicans should be obvious. First, he said there should be nothing but admiration for Hispanic families who come here legally, since they value the intact family as high as this country did in the past. “It’s a generalization, but it’s a pretty good generalization that Hispanics love God, are devoted to God, love family, are devoted to family and they have a hard work ethic,” Gohmert said. “Those are the kind of things that made America great. We need more of that. We need more of what the Hispanic can bring before we co-opt it and teach them other ways.” However, he said, that admiration has to be tempered by a strict adherence to the law. “They have to come in legally,” he said. “To just disregard the rule of the law makes us like the countries in central America or Mexico that they’re fleeing.”

Opposition to legal status or even a pathway to citizenship for those illegally in the U.S. has long been described as unrealistic, and now Republicans and Democrats accuse people who hold that position of being hateful or even racist. Gohmert flatly rejects the label. “It’s ridiculous to say it’s racist if you want people who commit crimes to be punished for those crimes,” he said. “Having been a former felony judge, many times people accused me of being mean, but I followed the law. I was fair across the board, and that’s what we have to do. It’s part of the price of maintaining this democratic republic, as (Benjamin) Franklin said, if we want to keep it.”Republic if you can keep it.

What do YOU think? Is the U.S. becoming inhospitable for Americans? Sound off in today’s WND poll


freedom combo 2

Know this guy?


waving flagYou’ve probably seen this one before

He is someone you definitely should know about, if not remember well. Read on to learn why.

!cid_welKhi5PigYuJgaT7Qb9

 

 

 

 

 

 

He is Edward “Ed” Mezvinsky, born January 17, 1937. Then you’ll probably say, “Who is Ed Mezvinsky?” 

  • Well, he is a former Democrat congressman who represented Iowa’s 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977. 
  • He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon. 
  • He was outspoken saying that Nixon was a crook and a disgrace to politics and the nation and should be impeached.
  • He and the Clintons were friends and very politically intertwined  for many years. 

Ed Mezvinsky had an affair with NBC News reporter Marjorie Sue Margolies and later married her after his wife divorced him. In 1993, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, then a freshman Democrat in Congress, cast the deciding vote that got President Bill Clinton’s controversial tax package through the House of Representatives.

 In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraudEd Mezvinsky embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a Ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams. 

  • He was found guilty and sentenced to 80 months in federal prison.
  • After serving less than five years in federal prison, he was released in   April 2008 and remains on federal probation. 

To this day, he still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

About now you are saying, “So what!”

Well, this is Marc and Chelsea Mezvinsky. !cid_p9XkharxkXOLD4tLcMqd

That’s right; Ed Mezvinsky is Chelsea Clinton’s father-in law.

Now Marc and Chelsea are in their early thirties and purchased a 10.5 million dollar NYC apartment (after being married in George Soros’ mansion). Has anyone heard mention of any of this in any of the media?

If this guy was Jenna or Barbara Bush’s, or better yet, Sarah Palin’s daughter’s father-in- law, the news would be an everyday headline and every detail would be reported over and over.

And yet say there are no double standards in political reporting. And people are already talking about Hillary as our next President! And then there is possibly Chelsea for president in our future! 

The cycle never ends! Lying and corruption seem to make Democrat candidates more popular. Clinton Democrat Party

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

~ Thomas Jefferson ~

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

~ Abraham Lincoln ~

PS:  SNOPES SAYS THE ABOVE IS “TRUE”

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/mezvinsky.asp

freedom combo 2

House Passes Pro-Life Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions After 20 Weeks


 

waving flagReported by Steven Ertelt   May 13, 2015, Washington, DC

Should the Senate approve the bill, President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat. But pro-life groups hope to use the measure as an election tool in 2016 in an attempt to wrest control of the White House and approve a pro-life president who will sign it into law.

During the debate today on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, Congressman Sean Duffy gave what may be one of the most passionate defenses of the pro-life position ever seen on the floor of Congress. Duffy took on the claim often made by Democrats who support abortion saying they stand for the defenseless and voiceless.

“I’ve listened to the floor debate day after day .. about how they fight for the forgotten, they fight for the defenseless, they fight for the voiceless. And they pound their chest and stomp their feet. You don’t have anyone in our society that’s more defenseless than these little babies,” he said. “And we are not taking — I believe in conception. I know my colleagues can’t agree with me on that. Can’t we come together and say we are going to stand with little babies that feel pain, that survive outside the womb? Ones that don’t have lobbyists and money? Don’t we stand with those little babies?”Picture15 Picture14

“If you stand with the defenseless, with the voiceless, you have to stand with little babies. Don’t talk to me about cruelty in our bill — when you look at little babies being dismembered, feeling excruciating pain, if we can’t stand to defend these children, what do we stand for in this institution?” he added.

The vote for the bill came on the anniversary of the conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who killed babies in a live-birth abortion process.

“Two years ago today, Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder, conspiracy to kill and involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment,” Congressman Chris Smith said.

“Even though the news of Gosnell’s child slaughter was largely suppressed by the mainstream media, many of my colleagues may remember that Dr. Gosnell operated a large Philadelphia abortion clinic where women died and countless babies were dismembered or chemically destroyed often by having their spinal cords snipped—all gruesome procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim,” he added. “The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is needed now more than ever because there are Gosnells all over America, dismembering and decapitating pain-capable babies for profit.”

“Fresh impetus for the bill came from a huge study of nearly 5,000 babies—preemies—published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine. The next day, a New York Times article titled: “Premature Babies May Survive at 22 Weeks if Treated” touted the Journal’s extraordinary findings of survival and hope,” Congressman Smith continued. “Thus the babies we seek to protect from harm today may survive if treated humanely, with expertise and compassion—not the cruelty of the abortion.”oct172014 02

This is the second time the House has voted for the legislation — having approved it in May 2013. The bill was then blocked by pro-abortion Democrats who controlled the U.S. Senate. During the hearing on the last bill, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became pro-life following the tragic automobile accident of his child.

Another bombshell dropped during the hearing came from Dr. Maureen Condic, who is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She testified that the unborn child is capable of reacting to pain as early as 8-10 weeks. This is when most abortions in America take place.

Americans strongly support legislation that would ban late-term abortions and protect babies who are capable of feeling intense pain during an abortion.

24weekunbornbaby

The vast majority of Americans are still very uncomfortable with abortion, according to a January Marist University poll. The survey finds support for abortion restrictions among both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” supporters. Despite the strong support, President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the pro-life bill.

According to the national survey, 84% of Americans want significant restrictions on abortion, and would limit abortions to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy. This includes almost 7 in 10 (69 percent) who identify themselves as “pro-choice” who support such abortion limits and oppose late-term abortions. The same percentage (84 percent) also says that laws can protect both the well-being of a woman and the life of the unborn. In addition, by more than 20 points (60 percent to 38 percent), Americans say abortion is morally wrong.

Other national polls also show strong support nationwide for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and stopping late-term abortions. A poll conducted for the liberal Huffington Post find Americans support the ban on late-term abortions starting at 20-weeks of pregnancy by almost a 2-1 margin. A national poll by The Polling Company found that, after being informed that there is scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of feeling pain at least by 20 weeks, 64% would support a law banning abortion after 20 weeks, unless the mother’s life was in danger.   Only 30% said they would oppose such a law.burke

A November 2014 poll from Quinnipiac found that 60 percent of Americans support legislation limiting abortions after 20 weeks, including 56 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Democrats. The bill relies on the science of fetal pain to establish a Constitutional reason for Congress to ban abortions late in pregnancy. The science behind the concept of fetal pain is fully established and Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for it. He has testified before Congress that an unborn child could feel pain at “eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier” and that a baby before birth “under the right circumstances, is capable of crying.”Ki;lling a baby with poison

He and his colleagues Dr. Vincent J. Collins and Thomas J. Marzen  were the top researchers to point to fetal pain decades ago. Collins, before his death, was Professor of Anesthesiology at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois and author of Principles of Anesthesiology, one of the leading medical texts on the control of pain. “The functioning neurological structures necessary to suffer pain are developed early in a child’s development in the womb,” they wrote. “Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensation are in place as early as 8 weeks, but certainly by 13 1/2 weeks of gestation. Sensory nerves, including nociceptors, reach the skin of the fetus before the 9th week of gestation. The first detectable brain activity occurs in the thalamus between the 8th and 10th weeks. The movement of electrical impulses through the neural fibers and spinal column takes place between 8 and 9 weeks gestation. By 13 1/2 weeks, the entire sensory nervous system functions as a whole in all parts of the body,” they continued.

With Zielinski and his colleagues the first to provide the scientific basis for the concept of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand has provided further research to substantiate their work. One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand at the University of Tennessee, stated in his expert report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice, “It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children.”

“The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies,” explains Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics.

Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, Assistant Professor, Division of Neonatology at Northwestern University in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in May 2012 said, “[w]hen we speak of infants at 22 weeks LMP [Note: this is 20 weeks post fertilization], for example, we no longer have to rely solely on inferences or ultrasound imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving, reacting, and developing right before our eyes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.”

“In today’s medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth and development. Medical advancement and technology have enabled us to improve our ability to care for these infants…In fact, standard of care for neonatal intensive care units requires attention to and treatment of neonatal pain,” Dr. Malloy testified. She continued, “[t]hus, the difference between fetal and neonatal pain is simply the locale in which the pain occurs. The receiver’s experience of the pain is the same. I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection.”mommy can you feel me

Other provisions in H.R. 36 include:

  • An Informed Consent Form including the age of the child; a description of the law; an explanation that if the baby is born-alive, he or she will be given medical assistance and transported to a hospital; and information about the woman’s right to sue if these protections are not followed.  Women deserve this information.
  • The woman is empowered with a Civil Right of Action, so she may sue abortion providers who fail to comply with the law. Parents are also given a civil right of action if the law is not followed with regard to their minor daughter.Let God

H R 36      RECORDED VOTE      13-May-2015      5:32 PM
QUESTION:  On Passage, Yes is a Pro-Life Vote, No is Pro-Abortion
BILL TITLE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

 

Ayes Noes PRES NV
Republican 238 4 1 1
Democratic 4 180 4
Independent
TOTALS 242 184 1 5

—- AYES    242 —

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

—- NOES    184 —

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cárdenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutiérrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O’Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

—- ANSWERED “PRESENT”    1 —

Hice, Jody B.

—- NOT VOTING    5 —

Barletta
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Capps
Hinoj

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: