Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson

When I see these three in a story or decision it crosses my mind that the 19th amendment (guarantees American women the right to vote) might have been a mistake. Women achieved so much through the struggle and protests and then let it all go to waste after 1920.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justice-sotomayor-says-supreme-court-just-countered-decades-of-precedent/ar-AA1GYqeA?

Every Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sits Out Decision in Rare Move - Newsweek

A day for the Democratic appointees on SCOTUS — but what does it mean?

Justices Sotomayor and Jackson slam idea that U.S. is ‘colorblind’ in affirmative action dissents

Remember what they've put us through--Trump's first term

From Thomas DeVore FB post.

For the last 4+ years, the Democrats went scorched earth. Good thing almost 80 million of us have memories longer than a hamster.

We remember the women’s march (vagina hats and all) the day after the inauguration.
We remember the 4 years of attacks and impeachments.
We remember “not our president” and the “Resistance…”
We remember Maxine Walters telling followers to harass us in restaurants.
We remember the Presidents spokesperson being kicked out a restaurant.
We remember hundreds of Trump supporters physically attacked.
We remember Trump supporters getting Doxed, and fired from jobs.
We remember riots, and looting.
We remember “a comedian” holding up the President’s severed head.
We remember a play in Central park paid with public funding, showing the killing of President Trump.
We remember Robert de Niro yelling “F" Trump” at the Tony’s and getting a standing ovation.
We remember Nancy Pelosi tearing up the State of the Union Address.
We remember the total in the tank move on the mainstream media.
We remember the non-stop and live fact checking on our President and his supporters.
We remember non-stop in your face lies and open cover-ups from the media.
We remember the President and his staff being spied on.
We remember five House members being shot on a ballfield.
We remember every so-called comedy show turn into nothing but Trump hate fest.
We remember 95% negative coverage in the news.
We remember the state governors asking and getting everything they ask for and then blaming Trump for their problems.
We remember a Trump top aid verbally assaulted in two DC restaurants.
We remember people banging on the Supreme Court doors.
We remember that we were called every name in the book for supporting President Trump.
We remember that Hollywood said they would leave after Trump was elected but they stayed.
We remember being called Nazis
We remember being called Deplorables
We remember being called Fascists
We remember trying to put our President in prison.
We remember trying to bankrupt our President.

 
And yes, we remember trying to assassinate our President twice.

 
The Democrats having been on the attack for over 4 long years do not get a free pass with me

Biden and the Constitution

I have a copy of the Constitution of the United States (and with Index, and The Declaration of Independence) c. 2009, 2012--in my hand. Every American should own one and read it occasionally. Especially the part about 3 branches of government. It's hard to imagine how powerful and historic such a small booklet can be--although it's not the print or the pages, but what it represents. And yet, Biden (and Harris/Walz) are willing to destroy it, with the most recent attack against SCOTUS. Biden should be on his knees smoothing their robes for their decision to clarify immunity for the president. There is so much crime, evil and malfeasance in his administration that sooner or later some clever lawyer/prosecutor just might string a few laws together that show it all started at the top. The Biden years are an insult to that precious document.

Biden Announces Plan to Radically Alter the Supreme Court Because He Didn't Like Trump Ruling (westernjournal.com)

Supreme Court Justice issues stern words on Biden's plans for huge overhaul | Daily Mail Online

https://nypost.com/2024/07/29/us-news/biden-formally-unveils-plan-to-overhaul-scotus-with-focus-on-limiting-trumps-powers/

What Kamala Harris believes

 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-kamala-harris-believes-c1136006

What Kamala Harris Believes

The Vice President’s political record reveals the views of a California progressive.

---

By The WSJ  Editorial Board

Democrats are rapidly unifying behind Kamala Harris as their party nominee, yet the Vice President remains relatively unknown to most Americans. That means it’s important to look at her record to see what she believes.

As VP she’s closely identified with the Biden agenda, for better or worse, and she embraced that record in remarks on Monday. She said President Biden’s first term has “surpassed the legacy” of most Presidents who have served two.

So mark her down as endorsing the spending blowouts that caused inflation, the Green New Deal, entitlement expansions and student loan forgiveness. Until she says otherwise, we should also assume she’s in favor of Mr. Biden’s $5 trillion tax increase in 2025.

The Vice President’s four years as a Senator from California are another window on her worldview. She sponsored a bill to create a $6,000 guaranteed income for families making up to $100,000. Another Harris proposal: A refundable tax credit that would effectively cap rents and utility payments at 30% of income. Liberal economists panned the subsidy because it would drive up rents.

She co-sponsored legislation with Bernie Sanders that would pay tuition at four-year public colleges for students from families making up to $125,000. This is more honest than the Administration’s back-end student loan cancellation. But it would cost $700 billion over a decade and encourage colleges to increase tuition.

Another Bernie mind-meld: Single-payer healthcare. Ms. Harris co-sponsored his Medicare for All legislation paid for by higher income taxes. She tweaked Bernie’s plan when running for President in 2019 by extending the phase-in to 10 years from four and exempting households making less than $100,000 from the “income-based premium.” But it would still put government in charge of all American healthcare over time.

As a San Francisco Democrat, Ms. Harris shares the state’s hostility to fossil fuels. She used her power as California Attorney General to launch an investigation into Exxon Mobil over its carbon emissions. In 2019 she endorsed a nationwide ban on oil and gas fracking, which would cost tens of thousands of jobs and cause power outages like those that often occur in her home state. Expect this to be a GOP talking point in Pennsylvania.

One question to ask is whether the Vice President wants to restructure the Supreme Court. She said in 2019 she was “open” to adding more Justices, but that idea doesn’t poll well. Does she agree with Mr. Biden’s mooted plan to endorse “reforms” to the High Court that would make the Justices subject to Congressional supervision?

Mr. Biden famously put Ms. Harris in charge of border policy, and we know how that has turned out. Rather than push for border policy changes, her first instinct was to blame the rush of migrants on “root causes” in developing countries, including corruption, violence, poverty and “lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience.”

Climate change makes the U.S. border a sieve? Apparently so. “In Honduras, in the wake of hurricanes, we must deliver food, shelter, water and sanitation to the people,” Ms. Harris declared. “And in Guatemala, as farmers endure continuous droughts, we must work with them to plant drought-resistant crops.” These “root causes” take decades to address, and in the meantime she had nothing to say about actual border security.

Ms. Harris’s foreign policy views aren’t well known, or perhaps even well formed, apart from promoting Mr. Biden’s policies. While she has backed the Administration’s military assistance to Ukraine, she has equivocated about support for Israel. In March she chastised Israel for not doing enough to ease a “humanitarian catastrophe.” Leaks to the press say officials at the National Security Council toned down her speech’s criticism of Israel.

She lambasted the Trump Administration for killing Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani, claiming it could lead to bigger war in the Mideast. The killing chastened Iran’s rulers instead, at least until the Biden Administration began to ease sanctions and tried to repeat the 2015 nuclear deal.

It will be especially important for the press to ask Ms. Harris about her national security views. If her handlers control her as much as White House advisers have Mr. Biden, we’ll know they’re afraid that the Vice President might not be able to handle the scrutiny.

A fair conclusion from all of this is that Ms. Harris is a standard California progressive on most issues, often to the left of Mr. Biden. Perhaps as she reintroduces herself to the public in the coming weeks, she will modify some of those views. She would be wise to do so if she wants to win.

Given the rush by Democrats to anoint Ms. Harris as their nominee, the press has a particular obligation to tell the public about who she is and what she really thinks. Does she believe California is a model for the country?

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Democrats are not getting the memo. They are rubbing their hands with glee even though the majority of Americans agree they shouldn't be discriminating against Asian Americans, who [shock and awe] are not "one" group. Harvard has always had quotas for certain groups and it always will. It's been women, or Jews, or Asians. They look for work arounds, like the word "diversity" in Powell's opinion in the Bakke decision 45 years ago. That one word which now means the opposite of what it meant opened the door to sneak in DEI at every level from kindergarten to grad school as a "positive." They claimed to end quotas and affirmative action with "diversity." Then among themselves they agreed to not look at cello or violin accomplishments or nerdy computer hobbies so they could eliminate students with immigrant parents who work for Google in favor of one who produced hip hop videos with a millionaire dad.

 
I'd give you a good link, except this crazy AI Chat-gpt keeps trying to write my argument. So this will remain an opinion, mine and thousands of others.

Tip:  Save anything you have in print.  It is lost forever on the internet, especially with the AI and as we librarians say, To the victor belong the archives.

Just say No

Being able to say "No it's against my religion" is part of the First Amendment.

Should a vegan restaurant be required to serve meat?

Should a Muslim fashion mall kiosk be required to stock lascivious outfits for non-Muslims?

Should a Wiccan bookstore be required to stock "I found Jesus" books?

 
Should a MAGA political merch store be required to distribute pamphlets advocating mutilating children?

The "Bake that cake or else. . ." nonsense will continue. They are not "real" customers--the issue (pizza, flowers, bakery, web designer) is shopped until a small conservative Christian entrepreneur who can't afford the legal costs is found. Then all the coffers are opened with the money left over from the marriage campaign. This is not about fairness, it's about destroying the Constitution.

Supreme Court sides with Colorado web designer in blow to LGBTQ protections : NPR

A week to celebrate, or not?

Churches across the nation should have been celebrating today for the First Amendment victories this past week. But that probably didn't happen because so many congregations have members who only listen to MSNBC, CNN and NPR lie to the nation. The rest have jaded members (like me) who already know that it's a game of whack a mole with the colleges and universities. Their massive DEI bureaucracies for racism in academe won't give up and the "shop for a judge" political hacks will continue to sue the little baker and candlestick maker who doesn't have the resources to fight back.

Freedom of religion (establishment and free exercise) is first among the Firsts. Without it, nothing else matters, and the founders knew it.

 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In 21st century America the bureaucracy just gets a non-government agency to deprive people of their Constitutional rights.

Happy July 4.

Biden v. Nebraska (22-506)
The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers. I won't need to pay off someone's student loans.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (20-1199)
The admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Asians being discriminated against; end of affirmative action supposedly.

GERALD E. GROFF, PETITIONER v. LOUIS DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL
Mr. Groff, a Christian, not required to work on Sunday.

CREATIVE LLC ET AL. v. ELENIS ET AL. (21-476)
Lorie Smith, graphic artist, Christian, does not need to serve same sex couples in wedding celebration.

Gorsuch speaks out on lockdown, fear, declared emergencies, civil liberties

Statement of GORSUCH, J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARIZONA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 22–592.

Decided May 18, 2023

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-592_5hd5.pdf

. . . Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes.13 They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private.14 They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on.15 They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too.16 They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct.17 They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.18 Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide.19 They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans.20 They threatened to fire noncompliant employees,21 and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement.22 Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.23 While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmakingby-litigation. Doubtless, many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat. A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force. We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes. We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.24 But maybe we have learned another lesson too. The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government. However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process.25 Decisions produced by those who indulge no criticism are rarely as good as those produced after robust and uncensored debate.26 Decisions announced on the fly are rarely as wise as those that come after careful deliberation. Decisions made by a few often yield unintended consequences that may be avoided when more are consulted. Autocracies have always suffered these defects. Maybe, hopefully, we have relearned these lessons too. In the 1970s, Congress studied the use of emergency decrees.27 It observed that they can allow executive authorities to tap into extraordinary powers.28 Congress also observed that emergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them; some federal emergency proclamations, Congress noted, had remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed.29 At the same time, Congress recognized that quick unilateral executive action is sometimes necessary and permitted in our constitutional order.30 In an effort to balance these considerations and ensure a more normal operation of our laws and a firmer protection of our liberties, Congress adopted a number of new guardrails in the National Emergencies Act.31 Despite that law, the number of declared emergencies has only grown in the ensuing years.32 And it is hard not to wonder whether, after nearly a half century and in light of our Nation’s recent experience, another look is warranted. It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level. At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another. Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.

Pro-life pediatricians attacked

Although I don't like politics and social issues preached from the pulpit, I do believe churches need to support inquiries into movements and political agendas that go against the teachings of Christ and Christians trying to follow his justice, truth and mercy. Churches preach about friendship, brotherhood and family yet ignore the divisions in their own congregations on life issues, whether that is abortion, euthanasia, trans abuse of children, war or the growing racial divides encouraged by the Marxists among us.

"Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, pro-life institutions and individuals have faced sustained attacks. The militant group Jane’s Revenge vandalized pregnancy resource centers, the FBI arrested pro-life father Mark Houck in Pennsylvania, and a deranged pro-abortion man plotted an assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh. These unrelenting attacks show no sign of abating. Look no further than the latest assault on the American College of Pediatricians, also known as ACPeds."
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/05/05/hackers-target-pro-life-pediatricians-in-unrelenting-cyberattack/

It would have been different if Trump were President

 If Trump were still President of the United States

We would not have raging inflation

Putin would not have invaded Ukraine

China would not be threatening Taiwan

The Department of Justice would not be surveilling parents of schoolchildren

The death toll for xxxxx would not be over one million

Therapeutics for xxxxx would have been available to save lives in early 2021

Doctors, nurses, police, military and truckers would still be on the job

Department of Disinformation definitely not needed; we’ve got Twitter and CNN for that

American businesses would not have been locked down

American businesses would be encouraged to restore loss to China industries

American businesses and consumers would have enough products from fossil fuel

Europe would be able to buy fuel without fear of Russia cutting them off

A billionaire from South Africa not needed to restore right to free speech

No leftist mobs would be intimidating Supreme Court Justices against the law

Teachers’ unions would not be corrupting your children and grandchildren

Fewer drugs would be crossing the border to kill Americans

Less sex and child trafficking at the border

Fewer xxxxx infections crossing the border to infect Americans

Honest and safe elections for all states

A Biden gaff--he told the truth. He called the unborn baby a "child"

“I mean, so the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think, goes way overboard.”-  Joe Biden, (May 3, 2022)

***
Did I say “a child”?....(I’m sorry!)
That’s not what I meant to say!
Heaven knows …what WAS I thinking?
Please forgive me…PLEASE I pray!!!

* * *

We uphold Self-contradiction.
It’s now codified to Law.
It’s the “virtue” we’re most proud of
(And delusion's gaping maw.)

 
Self-deception’s been upgraded
To a value we adore.
It’s the cornerstone of madness,
And we’re clamoring for more.

It’s the Fruit of Deconstruction.
It’s the snakebite from of old.
It’s The Lie that we all fell for,
And we love to have and hold.

It’s “the life” here East of Eden,
Where true up is known as down.
Where true truth's considered nonsense,
And the darkness is profound.

Used with permission. Tom Graffagnino. His book “No Border Land”, was published in 2020 and is available at Amazon. It is a book of poems and brief commentary dealing with cultural/secular issues that confront us from a Bible-believing perspective. https://www.amazon.com/No-Border-Land-Finding-Amazing/dp/1625861575

I'm so old I remember when Joe Biden was a pro-life Catholic!

 https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251129/roe-wade-biden-when-life-begins-abortion

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the Catholic Church’s pro-life position has remained consistent from the beginning. St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century drew from Aristotle, including his theory that the rational human soul is not present at the start of pregnancy, the USCCB says. But, at the same time, the saint rejected abortion as gravely wrong at every stage, calling it a sin “against nature” to reject God's gift of life. “Quickening” refers to the stage when a woman is first able to notice her baby moving in the womb.

Biden also referred in his remarks to the baby in the womb as a "child," a term abortion supporters generally avoid.

“The idea that we’re going to make the judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think, goes way overboard,” Biden said."

Joe slipped up and told the truth--that is a child he wants to kill.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54003808  Compares Trump and Biden positions during 2020 campaign. Worded to favor Biden, however, show the huge gulf between the two parties and candidates.

Mandates for public health or loss of freedom and growth of totalitarianism?

Supreme Court to hear oral arguments on challenges to Biden vaccine mandates | Fox News

"The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in two separate challenges to President Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

The Court announced Wednesday [Dec. 22] it will hear oral arguments challenging both Biden's vaccine mandate for businesses with over 100 employees and for healthcare workers at facilities receiving Medicaid and Medicare funding."

Louisiana federal judge blocks Biden vaccine mandate for health care workers nationwide | Fox News

"A federal judge in Louisiana issued a nationwide preliminary injunction Tuesday [Nov. 30] against President Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers.

Judge Terry A. Doughty in the U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana ruled in favor of a request from Republican Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry to block an emergency regulation issued Nov. 4 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that required vaccines for nearly every full-time employee, part-time employee, volunteer, and contractor working at a wide range of healthcare facilities receiving Medicaid or Medicaid funding."

OSHA suspends enforcement of COVID-19 vaccine mandate for large businesses | Fox News

"The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is abiding by a court order and suspending enforcement of the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandate on large private businesses.

In a statement shared to OSHA's website, the agency said, "The court ordered that OSHA 'take no steps to implement or enforce' the [Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS)] ‘until further court order.’" [published Nov. 17]

Power, abortion and the beltway crowd

If Roe v. Wade collapses because it is bad, made up law by SCOTUS in 1973 usurping Congress, it won't stop abortions. It simply moves the responsibility to the states. So why do Democrats become so hysterical about it? They can still kill babies. Power. Power shifts from DC to the state capitals. This has always been about power.

End Roe v. Wade: It's Time to Defederalize Abortion Policy | Mises Wire

What overturning Roe v. Wade could mean for Ohio - Axios Columbus

California Planning To Skirt Federal Law, Declare Itself A Sanctuary State If Roe v. Wade Overturned - FYI.com

States That Will Be Most Affected If Roe v. Wade Is Repealed | Stacker  (This is very pro-abort, and uses the term "pregnant person" which immediately flags the piece for what it is, but may contain useful information about states)

Abortion: U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments challenging Roe v. Wade - Deseret News

President Trump’s proclamation on the value of human life, 2021

I’m a one issue voter. Everything else will fall in line if America respects life.  Today I am praying, and I ask you to join me, that through the efforts of the pro-life movement that all will be converted to the Gospel of Life, especially Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

President Trump as one of his final duties last Sunday issued a presidential proclamation recognizing Friday, January 22 as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. May Biden and Harris be some day that strong to base their decisions on the sanctity of life. "As a Nation, restoring a culture of respect for the sacredness of life is fundamental to solving our country's most pressing problems." Donald J. Trump

As it was issued from the White House, and all that will be taken down, here's the full text.

NATIONAL SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE DAY, 2021

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Every human life is a gift to the world. Whether born or unborn, young or old, healthy or sick, every person is made in the holy image of God. The Almighty Creator gives unique talents, beautiful dreams, and a great purpose to every person. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we celebrate the wonder of human existence and renew our resolve to build a culture of life where every person of every age is protected, valued, and cherished.

This month, we mark nearly 50 years since the United States Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. This constitutionally flawed ruling overturned State laws that banned abortion, and has resulted in the loss of more than 50 million innocent lives. But strong mothers, courageous students, and incredible community members and people of faith are leading a powerful movement to awaken America's conscience and restore the belief that every life is worthy of respect, protection, and care. Because of the devotion of countless pro-life pioneers, the call for every person to recognize the sanctity of life is resounding more loudly in America than ever before. Over the last decade, the rate of abortions has steadily decreased, and today, more than three out of every four Americans support restrictions on abortion.

Since my first day in office, I have taken historic action to protect innocent lives at home and abroad. I reinstituted and strengthened President Ronald Reagan's Mexico City Policy, issued a landmark pro-life rule to govern the use of Title Ten taxpayer funding, and took action to protect the conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor. My Administration has protected the vital role of faith-based adoption. At the United Nations, I made clear that global bureaucrats have no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that protect innocent life. Just a few months ago, our Nation also joined 32 other countries in signing the Geneva Consensus Declaration, which bolsters global efforts to provide better healthcare to women, protect all human life, and strengthen families.

As a Nation, restoring a culture of respect for the sacredness of life is fundamental to solving our country's most pressing problems. When each person is treated as a beloved child of God, individuals can reach their full potential, communities will flourish, and America will be a place of even greater hope and freedom. That is why it was my profound privilege to be the first President in history to attend the March for Life, and it is what motives my actions to improve our Nation's adoption and foster care system, secure more funding for Down syndrome research, and expand health services for single mothers. Over the past 4 years, I have appointed more than 200 Federal judges who apply the Constitution as written, including three Supreme Court Justices -- Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. I also increased the child tax credit, so that mothers are financially supported as they take on the noble task of raising strong and healthy children. And, recently, I signed an Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children, which defends the truth that every newborn baby has the same rights as all other individuals to receive life-saving care.

The United States is a shining example of human rights for the world. However, some in Washington are fighting to keep the United States among a small handful of nations -- including North Korea and China -- that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks. I join with countless others who believe this is morally and fundamentally wrong, and today, I renew my call on the Congress to pass legislation prohibiting late-term abortion.

Since the beginning, my Administration has been dedicated to lifting up every American, and that starts with protecting the rights of the most vulnerable in our society -- the unborn. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we promise to continue speaking out for those who have no voice. We vow to celebrate and support every heroic mother who chooses life. And we resolve to defend the lives of every innocent and unborn child, each of whom can bring unbelievable love, joy, beauty, and grace into our Nation and the entire world.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 22, 2021, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. Today, I call on the Congress to join me in protecting and defending the dignity of every human life, including those not yet born. I call on the American people to continue to care for women in unexpected pregnancies and to support adoption and foster care in a more meaningful way, so every child can have a loving home. And finally, I ask every citizen of this great Nation to listen to the sound of silence caused by a generation lost to us, and then to raise their voices for all affected by abortion, both seen and unseen.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fifth.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Contact the Supreme Court

“I am very concerned about how this election was handled especially on November 4 and later with mail in votes and found ballots all for Biden.  There has been a lot of fraud, and each charge needs to be investigated. Using Covid as an excuse for mail in should not be permission to cheat.   I am a supporter of President Trump and Vice President Pence.  Our election system has become a disgrace and embarrassment.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

A beautiful family reflecting American values

What a lovely family. Democrats are fund raising on hate for this woman and her values--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, rights given to us by our Creator. Democrats have booed and belittled our Creator, and can't offer any of those values, especially not life. They offer no liberty, only subservience to the government, and they want guarantees and equity, not pursuit.

SCOTUS decision on LGBT and Title VII

This was a bad decision, not because workers with special sexual interests and behaviors should be fired without cause, but because SCOTUS redefined the clear meaning of a law passed over 50 years ago.  It’s a terrible precedent.  Sex meant biology and gender meant grammar when Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed; orientation was an introduction to college or a new job.  Now sex means anything I want it to mean. With this ruling, SCOTUS can reach back and change the clear intent of a law while keeping it.

What if other aspects of law like contract law, or property law, membership law or education law, or health law or family law also becomes, “Your truth is not my truth.”  What if Elizabeth Warren really can decide on her own truth about her tribal heritage? Why should her truth she’s believe all her life be less important than tribal membership laws? What if you demand Catholic communion/eucharist because today you’re feeling Catholic instead of Methodist?  What if you decide age restriction for sexual relationships are meaningless if a child appears to be a different age?  What if you claim residency outside your school district even though you don’t pay taxes there, but today you believe  you are a resident?  These “what ifs” are no more ridiculous than denying biology, the original intent of Title VII was to protect women and minorities.

And the ruling provides no religious protection, which is in the Bill of Rights and should take precedent over the ever changing societal mores and fascination with all things sexual. The ruling leaves open the can of worms on whether transgender individuals who have not had gender-reassignment surgery or counseling can be considered members of the opposite sex — an issue at the forefront of women’s athletics. In fact, this ruling can destroy the gains and protections women have won the last 50 years.

This is an issue that belongs in Congress, where they make laws, not in the Supreme Court.

Clinton on Kavanaugh

Hillary Clinton claims that a SCOTUS justice who follows the constitution will return the country to the 1850s. Wow. I'm so thrilled I made the right choice for president. Maybe she should read her party's platform of 1856:

"That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions. "
1856 Democrat Party Platform

The left hates the Constitution of the United States, guest blogger Michael Smith

Deviations from the Constitution will always end in disaster. It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson quote from his letter to Samuel Kercheval in 1816:

"A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [the war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man."

The left hates the Constitution of the United States. They have since the days of Woodrow Wilson. They believe it is a dusty old parchment dreamed up by old slave owning cis-gendered white men to preserve white supremacist patriarchy.

You don't have to believe me - just listen to them when they say the Second Amendment is invalid because there is no way the founders could have foreseen the invention of the AR-15 or when it comes to the radical social engineering they favor, engineering that cannot stand without the coercive force of government being applied.

So, just imagine my chagrin when these same people -people who hate the Constitution - hold up signs saying they want to "defend the constitution" from an "un-American president".
They believe when some leftist justice finds a convoluted way to create some "right" from whole cloth - that is what the Constitution is. It isn't.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78 that "...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."

Hamilton also argued that the "Necessary and Proper" clause of the Constitution did not mean the federal government powers were unlimited, that Congress could only enact laws necessary to support the powers enumerated in the Constitution itself.

Boy, I can't imagine the look on old Alex's face if he could see what has happened to his "least dangerous" branch. He had an inkling how despotism could come about - reading a bit further down in Federalist #78, we find this:

"It equally proves that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty can never be endangered from that quarter: I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and executive; for I agree that “there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and the executive powers.” And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but it would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments."

If we take an honest look at the Supreme Court, over the past century, in addition to its power to interpret the laws, it has assumed the power of the Executive to enforce and the power of the Legislative to regulate. Rather than creating a "union with either of the other departments" the SCOTUS usurped those powers and is shielded from retribution by the idea of "judicial supremacy", a concept twisted from John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803), elevating the Supreme Court to the single and sloe arbiter of that which is constitutional.

But Marshall's opinion said none of that. Marshall never expressed that SCOTUS should be the ultimate arbiter - he simply held that Congress could not extend the jurisdiction of the Court beyond that which the Constitution had provided. President's all the way through Lincoln saw the three branches as equal in interpretation of the Constitution - essentially saying that the judiciary could be overridden by the other two branches.

The first moves to politicize the courts gained momentum under Woodrow Wilson and continued with FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court when the Republican majority ruled many of his New Deal actions unconstitutional. Conservatives wanted to strengthen the court against FDR's machinations and in doing so, set the stage for things to come.

The first real expression of "judicial supremacy" came about in the Warren court in 1958 when the justices claimed that Marbury v. Madison had “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in its exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.”

The Warren Court went a long way toward politicizing and weaponizing the court system and setting SCOTUS up as a super-legislative body that is not co-equal to the other branches but one that sits above them. . . and that is why the progressive left sees control over the Supreme Court as a matter of life or death. For their ideology, it is.