Federal judges on Monday lifted restrictions Texas, Ohio and Alabama imposed on abortion during the coronavirus pandemic in decisions that could have repercussions for several more Republican-led states that have deemed the procedure non-essential during the crisis.
In Texas, District Court Judge Lee Yeakel sided with abortion clinics and granted a temporary restraining order through April 13 while arguments on the underlying legality of the state’s order play out.
In Ohio, District Court Judge Michael Barrett similarly sided with Planned Parenthood and other groups challenging the state’s ban and issued a two-week temporary restraining order.
In Alabama, District Court Judge Myron Thompson ordered the suspension of the state’s abortion ban until he can hear arguments in a video conference on April 6.
“The State’s interest in immediate enforcement of the March 27 order — a broad mandate aimed primarily at preventing large social gatherings — against abortion providers does not, based on the current record, outweigh plaintiffs’ concerns,” he said.
Iowa, Mississippi and Oklahoma are among the other states that recently moved to suspend access to the procedure as the pandemic intensified, arguing it would preserve desperately needed medical supplies. Texas’ order was one of the strictest, threatening a $1,000 fine or 180 days of jail time on abortion providers who violated the ban.
Yeakel agreed with Texas clinics who argued that women who need an abortion can’t live with a weeks- or possibly months-long delay. Clinic operators told reporters Monday that they’ve already had to cancel hundreds of appointments since the ban took effect last week.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has argued that the state exercised proper discretion in halting the procedures because abortions are not “immediately medically necessary” or needed to save the life or health of the mother.
“Regarding a woman’s right to a pre-fetal-viability abortion, the Supreme Court has spoken clearly. There can be no outright ban on such a procedure,” wrote Yeakel, an appointee of President George W. Bush who has sided with abortion providers in several previous cases.
“This court will not speculate on whether the Supreme Court included a silent ‘except-in-a-national-emergency clause’ in its previous writings on the issue,” he added.
A divided panel of the appellate court on Tuesday put on hold a lower court opinion that blocked Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order — requiring that health care providers “postpone all surgeries and procedures that are not immediately medically necessary” to preserve a patient’s life or condition — from applying to elective abortions. The lower court had published its opinion on Monday.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had specified that “any type of abortion that is not medically necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother” was included in the order, prompting a challenge from state abortion providers and national abortion rights groups last week.
In Tuesday’s 2-1 decision, the appeals court said it wants to give itself “sufficient time” to consider an emergency petition filed by Paxton. Judge Jennifer Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, and Judge Kyle Duncan, a Donald Trump appointee, voted to freeze the lower court opinion.
Judge James Dennis, a Bill Clinton appointee, dissented from the order. He noted that the lower court had already concluded that “irreparable harm would flow” from allowing the executive order to go into effect as it applies to abortions.
The court has ordered more briefings in the case.
Paxton praised the court’s ruling on Tuesday, asserting that the temporary stay “justly prioritizes supplies and personal protective equipment for the medical professionals in need.”
But supporters of abortion rights accused Texas of playing politics.
“Let’s be clear, it is never the right time to play politics, but doing so in the wake of Covid-19 is a despicable low,” Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said in a statement.
Texas’ case is the first such challenge to a coronavirus state order to reach the appeals court, but several others may follow.
Americans keep hearing about the need to self-quarantine and to practice so-called “social distancing” during the coronavirus outbreak, but there are other things to consider.
“Number one, are you getting good quality sleep?” asks Dr. Bret Nicks, professor of emergency medicine at Wake Forest Baptist Health and spokesperson for Christian Medical Association. “Are you getting appropriate exercise? Are you eating well under the current situation where you may have limitations with access to food and specific activities?”
He adds that those who are able to go outside and get some fresh air and sunshine should do so.
“Keep in mind that social distancing is a very, very important issue, so I’m not saying to go to a location where there’s ten or more people spending time together,” he advises. “But if you are one who is either told by your workplace to go home and work from home and to distance yourself, then get outside, feel the value of the sunshine, and get some exercise.
Most of the U.S.-based missions organizations have empty offices due to the virus outbreak, but OneNewsNow was able to talk to Amy Glass of Georgia-based Mission to the World – a group affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America.
Glass says they have been in contact with their missionaries. “We do have recommendations that we’ve asked them to follow, which follow the CDC travel recommendations,” she shares. “And … we’re asking them to not travel in or through Level 3 or Level 2 countries.”
Most are staying put, she adds, and are following the CDC recommendations to prevent spread or contracting the virus. But Glass says missionaries are continuing to preach the gospel in their adopted countries.
Elected officials throughout the country are reacting to the virus by limiting gatherings, in some cases to six people, closing restaurants and theatres and so forth to curb the spread of the virus. But Planned Parenthood is keeping its facilities open, having personnel on duty and providing abortions.
“This is really quite scary,” says Matt Lamb is with Students for Life. “What’s really, really telling is that all along they’ve been saying they’re about health care, they’re about health care. Well then, why don’t they cancel their appointments – and then they could focus on the so-called health care that they say is most of what they do?”
Those health services have been dwindling for years while Planned Parenthood abortions have increased. Students for Life suggests the abortion mills close down.
At first, it seemed all things were stacked in favor of the Democrats
When this coronavirus scare began, it seemed that things were on the “normal” track (where Texas laws on trying to make abortionists as safe as the local outpatient surgery center were being ruled unconstitutional). The only abnormal factor was the ever-hyped, but never defined risk posed by the coronavirus. So, in response, work-a-day guys like me took to washing our hands every time we became aware of touching a common object.
Also, there were a few occasions where my wife and I helped out the elderly neighbor. However, as Christians, most of our outward ministry took the form of obedience to rulers who weren’t necessarily friendly to Christians (that being the Democrats in the county government that botched elections and pulled other tricks).
However, it has occurred to me that, in stark contraposition to their support for abortion, the recent hyperventilation on the coronavirus has taken away from the Democrats’ narrative that life is expendable. Rather, their closing of counties, schools, and other institutions suggests something quite conservative. With all of their acts to close down society, they are saying that life is precious.
I cannot agree more; however, I wonder if Lina Hidalgo even knows that she has made such a statement against Planned Parenthood.
Simultaneously, National Review quotes the Planned Parenthood view of “Forget Coronavirus, the Abortions Must Go On”
As the number of cases of COVID-19 across the U.S. has begun to rise in recent weeks, some insist that now is the time to focus on . . . abortion.
NARAL board member and abortionist Daniel Grossman weighed in on the matter today, tweeting, “Abortion is NOT an elective medical procedure. It’s essential healthcare and must be available during the pandemic. It can’t be delayed. Patients can’t wait until an undetermined later date to get an abortion. We need to make access available throughout the pandemic.”
Texas and Ohio have identified abortion as one of the non-essential medical procedures that should be delayed amid the coronavirus outbreak, fueling the debate over abortion rights in states that have already sought to restrict them.
But now that advice has intersected with the battle over abortion rights, while advocates warn that women seeking abortions might not be able to wait weeks for treatment.
“We must work together as Texans to stop the spread of COVID-19 and ensure that our health care professionals and facilities have all the resources they need to fight the virus at this time,” Texas Attorney General Paxton said in a statement, after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the postponement of all surgeries and procedures that are “not immediately, medically necessary.”
“No one is exempt from the governor’s executive order on medically unnecessary surgeries and procedures, including abortion providers,” Paxton said. “Those who violate the governor’s order will be met with the full force of the law.”
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost also ordered clinics to stop performing abortions, defining non-essential abortions as “those that can be delayed without undue risk to the current or future health of a patient,” the Columbus Dispatch reported.
Abortion providers in Texas filed a lawsuit against Gov. Greg Abbott (R) on Wednesday challenging his statewide ban on abortions during the coronavirus outbreak.
Abbott’s administration last week directed health providers in the state to pause all surgeries that aren’t immediately necessary in order to conserve medical supplies for health workers on the frontlines of the coronavirus epidemic.
Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said on Monday that directive included abortions, essentially ending access to the procedure in the state for the time being.
“Groups were forced to go to court today after Gov. Abbott used the COVID-19 crisis to block access to essential, time-sensitive abortion procedures,” Planned Parenthood said in a statement.
“Instead of addressing this crisis, Abbott and Attorney General Paxton are spending valuable time and resources scoring political points by trying to further restrict abortion access which has already been pushed out of reach for many Texans.”
The global shortages of masks and gloves is a major concern for health workers who need to stay healthy to treat the influx of coronavirus patients that are expected in the coming weeks and months.
But supporters of abortion rights argue the procedure is essential and time-sensitive.
“There are people in Texas who need an abortion today. Now. They cannot wait a delay of 30 days or even less,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood on a call with reporters Wednesday night.
Planned Parenthood’s clinics in the state have stopped providing surgical abortions. Providers have also stopped providing medication abortions because it is not clear whether those are permissible under Abbott’s executive order.
Amy Hagstrom-Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, which runs three abortion clinics in Texas, said it had to cancel 150 appointments this week after Paxton’s announcement.
“Attorney General Paxton’s conclusion that abortion care is not an essential medical service that is needed by our community during this pandemic has already created a health crisis on top of a health crisis,” she said to reporters.
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing abortion providers in the suit, said they are seeking a temporary restraining order against the ban, and eventually a permanent injunction.
“Texas is abusing the state’s emergency powers,” she said.
A twice-deported illegal alien, accused of murdering three men in the sanctuary state of California, has been arrested by law enforcement officials.
Jose Luis Torres Garcia, a 33-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, was identified this week by Riverside County Sheriff’s Office in Southern California for allegedly murdering three men execution-style, as Breitbart News reported. The victims include 50-year-old Jaime Covarrubias Espindola, 38-year-old Jose Maria Aguilar-Espejel, and 28-year-old Rodrigo Aguilar-Esepjel.
Garcia had been on the run, fleeing to Cheyenne, Wyoming, but was arrested by local authorities there when he was pulled over for a traffic stop. During his arrest, police found 15 pounds of marijuana in his vehicle.
Had the sanctuary state of California cooperated with ICE, the three victims would be alive
These three individuals (Jaime Espindola, Jose Maria Aguilar0Espejel, and Rodrigo Esepjel) might have been law-abiding Americans. However, if they were instead illegal aliens (a crime that does not carry a death penalty — unless you are attempting to break into North Korea), they should have been doubly protected in a “sanctuary city.”
Nonetheless, due to liberals ignoring the enforcement of law against those who would break our immigration laws, now three people are dead.
Judge stabbed by illegal alien who had been released three times
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) logged three immigration detainer requests for an illegal alien accused of repeatedly stabbing Adams County Magistrate David Blackett in Denver last year, according to reports. Jose Armenta-Vazquez, 39, is accused of stabbing the judge in the magistrate’s east Denver home back in August.
One month before the nearly-fatal stabbing, Armenta-Vazquez was released by the Denver Sheriff’s Department for the third time despite active immigration detainers logged against him in each case. According to Breitbart News, the illegal alien has been arrested 36 times on a wide range of charges, including child abuse, car theft, assault and traffic violations. ICE announced the Mexican citizen was first ordered to be removed from the United States back in Mar. 1999.
It’s not clear when Vazquez became a suspect in the stabbing of the judge, but the criminal alien was again arrested in October, after the judge’s stabbing, and released the same month in defiance of a fourth immigration detainer logged by the agency. Vazquez was again apprehended in December on suspicion of menacing with a deadly weapon related to a separate incident. He was finally charged for the Blackett attack on Jan. 15, 2020, according to CBS4 News in Denver.
Guatemalan citizen Yoni Cruz-Lopez may only be 24 years old, but he’s already racked up three DUI convictions over the past five years in a country that he’s not even supposed to be in. Cruz-Lopez was under the legal drinking age when he picked up at least one of those convictions. Democrats in Illinois thought it was more important for the illegal alien to get back on the road again rather than to turn the dangerous criminal alien over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. In 2017, a federal immigration judge ordered Cruz-Lopez to be removed from the United States after he failed to show up at his immigration hearing, as many immigrants are wont to do.
ICE filed a detainer with the Illinois Department of Corrections in Jan. 2019, after the illegal immigrant racked up a felony DUI conviction earlier that year. But on Wednesday, Illinois authorities released the drunk-driving alien back into the community. Thankfully, before Cruz-Lopez could get behind the wheel of a car again, ICE agents sprang into action and arrested the felon at Union Station in Chicago that same day.
“I want the public to know that this is an example of the type of dangerous person sanctuary policies protect – an aggravated felon,” Robert Guadian, field office director for ERO Chicago, said in a statement. “This targeted enforcement action was made in one of the country’s busiest transit terminals, possibly putting commuters and travelers at risk. This arrest should have been made in the secure confines of a jail.”
Everyone has a mother. Therefore, the first reaction of journalists for atrocities like this was formerly to shove a microphone in front of first a grieving mother and then a representative of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.
Now, since the main stream media is hip deep in supporting the cause of “immigrants” (of course, this is a code word for those who break our laws to enter the nation), these “journalists” hardly have time to put a report on the last 15 seconds of the 10 o’clock news (or the online version of the paper).
FAIR: ‘No constituency’ in U.S. for criminal aliens
An immigration reform organization deems it “unforgiveable” that “sanctuary jurisdictions” continue to protect illegal alien criminals who prey on innocent members of the community.
During his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Trump touted the progress his administration has made in regaining control of the southern border through the exercise of executive authority. But he lambasted the Democratic-controlled Congress for its refusal to carry out its responsibility to ensure long-lasting solutions to illegal immigration, including funding a border wall and closing loopholes that have led to large-scale asylum abuse.
“Congress is just too polarized at this point,” he explains. “But the president did lay out an agenda that most Americans probably would share. They believe that these criminal aliens should not be protected by local governments and then put back out on the streets to prey on people again. There is no constituency in this country for criminal aliens.”
And Mehlman says the presence of Jody Jones in the House chamber, whose brother was murdered by an illegal alien, was a poignant reminder to Congress, state and local officials, and the American people of the devastating human cost of “sanctuary” policies.
“Rocky Jones, in their opinion, was just collateral damage in their political effort to basically obliterate U.S. immigration laws and the enforcement of them,” Mehlman laments. “And unfortunately, that is not a unique story. That’s been happening for a long time all across the country. That is simply unforgiveable.”
Legally, there is no leg to stand on when arguing against the FAIR stance
However, in the court of public opinion, the rule of law has little sway. Try arguing this logical stance against a Democrat who has been carrying the emotional water for the local lackie of leftie policy (all built on that lackie’s rhetoric, never mind their real voting record).
In the event that you take on such an argument, you might find yourself arguing against generalities and vague accusations. For example, you might hear:
Christians are all so Islamophobic. (Never mind that you have no Muslim acquaintances. Never mind that, in the market place of ideas, the central concepts of Christianity and Islam should be in competition [while, oddly, failure to capitulate to a Muslim constitutes Islamophobia to this liberal]. Also never mind that missionary organizations send Christian doctors to Islamic lands without expectation of compensation from the indigenous peoples.)
So, if you do find yourself in such a debate, just be aware of this: in my experience, I have found that I was debating the sub-conscience and their drive to dominate an unknown force. You cannot win against this lack of logic. …
Granddaughter of 92-year-old killed by illegal alien speaks out
While addressing members of the National Border Patrol Council on Friday, President Trump invited on stage the granddaughter of an elderly New York woman who was raped and slain last month by, allegedly, a known criminal alien recently released into the community under New York’s dangerous sanctuary city policies.
In January, New York City police arrested a 21-year-old illegal immigrant from Guyana, Reeaz Khan, for the murder and sexual assault of Maria Fuertes, a 92-year-old grandmother living in Queens. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have blamed NYC’s sanctuary city laws for releasing the known criminal alien back into the community following Khan’s previous arrest for assault and criminal possession of a weapon in Nov. 2019. The elderly Fuertes was found unconscious, her body partially exposed, lying behind a vehicle close to her home just after midnight on Jan. 6. Ms. Fuertes later died from her injuries.
Towards the end of his address on Friday, President Trump invited Ms. Fuertes’ granddaughter, Daria Ortiz, to say a few words about her grandmother, described as a beloved figure in her local community.
“I’d like to take this moment to say my grandmother was very generous and educated,” Ortiz began. “She was a woman who dedicated her time to taking care of others. Before coming to America, she worked as a secretary for the president of her native country, the Dominican Republic. She’s a shining example of when people come legally to this country, work hard, and do the right thing and are law-abiding citizens. My grandmother raised her children and her grandchildren while working hard to give us a future. ”
Again, every one of these officials must be fired and arrested. Every last one.
A Mexican immigrant who was released by Chicago authorities despite ICE telling them not to ‘went on to rape a three-year-old girl in a McDonald’s bathroom as she cried ”daddy, daddy”.’
Christopher Puente, 34, is accused of sexually assaulting the girl at the restaurant on 600 N. Clark St. in the River North area of the city at around 8am on February 19.
The alleged attack happened while the girl’s father was in another stall with her brother, who had had an accident in the restaurant.
However ICE had requested that police continue detaining the previously deported felon – who had convictions for forced-entry burglary and forgery.
Despite his background, Chicago declined ICE’s June 2019 request to detain Puente.
ICE have said this is an increasingly common battle, with the agency reporting that Cook County, which includes Chicago, denied more than 1,000 detainer requests in 2019 alone.
Puente’s bond hearing in Cook County heard the little girl’s mouth was covered as she began whimpering ‘daddy, daddy’ – before her father pulled her legs from under the door to get her to safety.
The horrific ordeal was relayed in court where the accused rapist appeared for the first time.
Robert Guadian, field office director of Chicago Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), blamed ‘irresponsible lawmaking’ for Puentes release.
‘How many more victims must there be before lawmakers realize that sanctuary policies do not protect the innocent?’ Guadian said.
‘Puente should have been in ICE custody last year and removed to his home country. Instead, irresponsible lawmaking allowed him to walk free and prey on our most vulnerable,’ he told Fox News. [Daily Mail]
We’re not doing enough to stop this before it happens. We’re “reacting” to these crimes with outrage, but what we should be doing is shutting these sanctuary policies down by demanding that these officials be held responsible.
Just as with the case of Reeaz Khan, someone will defend Christopher Puente
Someone will stand outside the court (or, in the court of public opinion) tell those who object to the rape of 3-year-olds that we are anti-immigrant or anti-Hispanic or some other liberal sob line. You can bank on it.
Undocumented Population Up In Texas, Despite Nationwide Decline
According to Houston Public Media, the illegal alien population in Texas has risen while the nationwide population has declined.
Texas’ undocumented immigrant population grew 5% over the last seven years, according to information provided by the Center for Migration Studies.
While this article dates to 2019, most main stream outlets gave it no play
Because the article above goes against the Democrat narrative that says nothing has changed with the invasion occurring through our Southern border, it got no play through the main stream media. Therefore, most Democrats will react with skepticism when confronted with the truth.
Earlier this month, O’Reilly blamed White and Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt for the actions of Pasadena resident Joe Horn, who shot to death two illegal immigrants from Colombia who had burglarized his neighbor’s home.
“These two illegal aliens are dead because of Houston’s sanctuary city policies,” O’Reilly said during an interview segment on his cable TV show. “That’s why they’re dead.”
White couldn’t disagree more.
“It’s a blatant untruth that Houston is a sanctuary city,” White said in an interview last week.
Hurtt agreed, blaming O’Reilly’s “erroneous reporting” for the sanctuary controversy. Still, the debate shows no signs of diminishing locally or nationally. Even the definition of what constitutes a sanctuary city is hotly contested.
Recently, the term has become a kind of political hand grenade, lobbed around in the GOP presidential debates to make opponents appear soft on illegal immigration. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly been accused by his opponents of running New York as a sanctuary city.
Considering that Texas now has a law governing sanctuary governments within Texas (where officials can sent to jail if illegals are released to cause harm to citizens and where funds can be withheld to governments that do not comply), this article almost seems prophetic
In the way liberals then wanted to blame the conservative for defending himself,
In the way liberals would latch on to a then-undefined term and use it as if it held an understood meaning,
In the way that the liberal appealed to emotion (even going so far as to make an unsupported suggestion that “Giuliani has repeatedly been accused by his opponents of running New York as a sanctuary city”) while the conservative appealed to logic
It was for the abuses suffered at the hands of both illegals and libersls — along with these types of arguments — that the Texas law on sanctuary governments was signed into law on Sunday, 7 May 2017.
2020 Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said Sunday that he will not be “lectured on family values” by the likes of radio host Rush Limbaugh or Trump supporters.
The former South Bend, Indiana, mayor spoke on “Fox News Sunday” with anchor Chris Wallace, who brought up separate comments Limbaugh and “America First” host Sebastian Gorka made on Feb. 12 about Buttigieg’s stances on abortion and electability.
“A gay guy, 37 years old, loves kissing his husband on debate stages. Can you see [President Donald] Trump have fun with that?” Limbaugh asked, while Gorka questioned, “Why is a homosexual man lecturing us about the sanctity of life in the womb? Just a little curious there, strange.”
“What is your reaction to those comments?” Wallace asked Buttigieg.
The gay presidential candidate responded: “I am in a faithful, loving, committed marriage. I’m proud of my marriage, and I’m proud of my husband.”
And I’m not going to be lectured on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or anybody who supports Donald J. Trump as the moral as well as political leader of the United States. America has moved on, and we should have politics of belonging that welcomes everybody. That’s what the American people are for. And I am saddened for what the Republican Party has become if they embrace that kind of homophobic rhetoric.
This seems like a return to the times before the Israelite kings and the times of the Proverbs
This does seem like a return to the times of the Septuagint. You see, in the days before the kings, “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6 NASB). Likewise, Solomon observed this binary nature of the paths we can take:
Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the hearts. (Proverbs 21:2 NASB).
Like the men of those earlier times, Mayor Pete only wants to do things his way. He would rather ignore the counsel of both the Old and New Testaments concerning homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Mark 10:6-9; Romans 1:26-28; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Timothy 3:2-3; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; and Jude 1:5-8). Likewise it seems that he would ignore the verses limiting marriage to one man and one woman (such as Matthew 19:4-6). Like many others, Buttigieg would like to focus on a a message that offers the love and forgiveness of God without requiring repentance. Sorry to say, but that adulterates the entire message of the Bible. Therefore, this has become one step too far.
You might ask why anyone would bother pointing out this discrepancy. Normally, politicians build coalitions based on shared goals of various groups they may claim allegiance. In this case, Buttigieg claims to be a Christian. Mind you, this type of Christianity falls outside of most Christian orthodoxy. Nonetheless, it would seem that an aspiring politician would do everything to build commonalities between himself and the large groups. Not so in this case, which does not seem so wise — which brings up back to Solomon.
Solomon also reminded us:
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid. (Proverbs 12:1 NASB).
It seems to me that Mayor Pete might want to listen to someone who does not exactly mirror his own views.
At a Fox News town hall appearance on Sunday Democrat presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, IN, read out of his party anyone who supports the rights of the unborn and who disdains infanticide.
He instead hoped they could work together on other issues, he responded to a pro-life Democrat who queried him on the matter.
Democrats for Life of America leader Kristen Day said on Fox & Friends on Tuesday, “But I would first of all say that when I asked him the question, I didn’t ask him where he stood on abortion. And the fact that he took that opportunity to double down and sort of alienate pro-life Democrats even further just showed me that he did not — he does not want our vote. And, you know, I’m willing to discuss platform language with, but…he could say that and reinforce that he is pro-choice and…let’s find ways that we can work together,” Day also said.
“The people will have to go to the polls and decide, but I know for sure a lot of Democrats did not go out and vote for Hillary Clinton because of her extreme stance on abortion,” Day concluded.
If Buttigieg and Bernie want to turn their backs on pro-life votes, there is room elsewhere
If Mayor Pete and Senator Sanders would like to make commitment to abortion a Democrat litmus test, then I wish them all the power they need. There is room in the conservative ranks for debate on various issues and we can welcome any degree of pro-life supporters that want to join.
Media Ignores Buttigieg Refusing To Say He Does Not Support Infanticide
The Daily Caller points out how other outlets have ignored Mayor Pete’s refusal to say he does not support infanticide.
Establishment and liberal media failed to cover a presidential candidate refusing to say he does not support infanticide.
2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg refused to come out against late-term abortion or infanticide Thursday, speaking to The View’s Meghan McCain. Yet establishment and liberal media, including CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, HuffPost and Vox, did not cover Buttigieg’s remarks. None of these publications responded to requests for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
McCain reminded Buttigieg that he once suggested unborn babies can be aborted up until they draw their first breath, and offered Buttigieg a chance to walk back the statement.
Buttigieg said “it shouldn’t be up to a government official to draw the line. It should be up to the woman.” When McCain pressed him on this, specifically asking if he would be comfortable with a situation where a “woman wanted to invoke infanticide after a baby was born,” Buttigieg still didn’t distance himself from infanticide.
The LGBTQ community in San Francisco isn’t happy with former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. They feel as though he fails to represent their community. On Friday, two protestors were booted from a fundraiser at the National LGBTQ Center for the Arts for attempting to ask him a question. When it became obvious that they were protestors, supporters began chanting “Boot-Edge-Edge! Boot-Edge-Edge!”
“I’m definitely proud of the fact that a gay candidate has made it thus far, but it’s hard to enjoy or appreciate when his stances are so middle of the road and speak to a predominantly white, upper class audience,” Celi Tamayo-Lee, one of the women who was kicked out of the event, told The Guardian.
Those who feel he’s too moderate take issue with Buttigieg not supporting Medicare for All, free college tuition, his issues with the black community and his ties to billionaire donors. There are issues that don’t impact the LGBTQ community as a whole but impact individuals who are also queer.
While I have seen the purity test play out in the Tea Party, I have seen it even more in liberal groups
Over the past few years, it seems that many liberal groups have called for ideological purity (refer to Bernie’s call and Buttigieg’s call for abortion purity). Hence, I expect this to continue and certain groups to tear themselves apart.
To those who find themselves victims, please hear this: every person was made in the image of God. All of us have messed something up, but each of us can be forgiven when we ask for that forgiveness.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) won the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, but he fell far short of his 2016 performance.
Sanders, who had been leading in the polls ahead of the first in the nation primary, only bested former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg by less than two percentage points when the race was called with 80 percent of precincts reporting. Sanders beat Buttigieg, garnering more than 64,000 to the former mayor’s less than 62,000.
The numbers stand in stark contrast to 2016 when the Vermont septuagenarian bested former Secretary of State Hillary by double digits in New Hampshire. In that contest, Sanders garnered more than 152,000 votes, compared to just a little over 95,000 for Clinton. Overall, Sanders carried New Hampshire by more than 22 percentage points during that cycle.
The 2016 victory was made possible by high turnout and little competition—two luxuries Sanders did not have this time around. According to exit polls conducted by NBC News, turnout appeared to be lower across New Hampshire than in prior presidential primary cycles. The biggest dropoff seems to have come from new and young voters. In particular, according to one exit poll, only 11 percent of New Hampshire voters were younger than 29 on Tuesday, down from 19 percent in 2016.
Complicating matters for Sanders is that the same exit polls showed that half of New Hampshire primary voters found his position too liberal, while only 40 percent thought they were a good fit.
As many reports have been made on Bernie’s NH win, no other addressed the smaller support he received since 2016
The way Bernie proclaimed that he would beat President Trump, I wonder whether he knows that his own support has decreased since 2016. Maybe nobody had enough courage to mention the falling numbers to the angry old socialist.
Sanders: ‘Being pro-choice is an essential part’ of being a Democrat
2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders said Saturday that “being pro-choice is an essential part” of being a Democrat.
The Vermont senator spoke Saturday morning at the “Our Rights, Our Courts” presidential forum in New Hampshire. Demand Justice Initiative, Center for Reproductive Rights, NARAL Pro-Choice America and MSNBC cosponsored the event.
Sanders discussed whether Democrats must be pro-choice. “I think in the Senate’s, probably 95% of the Democrats are pro-choice, the other few are not — in the House, maybe even a higher percentage,” he said.
“So that’s kind of what my view is. I think by this time in history, I think when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added.
This comes from the party of “inclusion” and “diversity”
So, to be a Democrat according to Comrade Sanders, you need to goose-step to his tune. Of course, this comes from the party where all of the front runners are white. At least they got away from the requirement that they all be white and 70+.
A conglomerate of pro-abortion groups, including NARAL Pro-Choice, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Demand Justice, held a forum in New Hampshire on Saturday focusing on abortion.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) made it very clear he believes that in order to be a Democrat a person must be pro-choice, a clear jab at pro-life Democratic voter Kristen Day. She was the one who asked former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg if he supported the Democratic Party changing its platform to be more inclusive of pro-life Democrats.
“Is there such a thing as a pro-life Democrat in your vision of the party?” NBC News’ Stephanie Ruhle asked.
“I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” he replied to audience cheers. “If you’re asking me – and I think I may be wrong on this – I think in the Senate, probably 95 percent of the Democrats are pro-choice, the other few are not. In the House, maybe even a higher percentage. So that’s kind of what my view is.”
“I think, by this time in history, I think when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is essentially an essential part of that,” Sanders concluded.
Later in the forum, he discussed Medicare for All and how, under his version of the plan, abortions would be funded by the taxpayers.
Once we knew that Sanders would limit Democrats to the pro-abortion view, we should expect that the socialist would require us to participate in abortion
Never mind the Supreme Court decisions on freedom of religion. This angry old socialist will shout down any opposition to abortion. If he can, he will likely be the one to require Christians stand before firing squads (considering his past views on Christians in office).
Poll says Americans do not accept Bernie’s socialism
Townhall comments in a 15 February 2020 article on a poll that suggests that America has not developed a taste for Bernie’s brand of socialism.
Well, this should make for some good talking points against Sen. Bernie Sanders’ agenda to transform America into a socialist utopia. The Vermont senator is running on one of the most radical agendas in recent memory. It’s decidedly left-wing. Its supporters are decidedly left-wing. The energy that is has channeled has forced the Democratic Party to lurch to the left, much to the annoyance of the establishment. You see that with the Democratic National Committee pretty much changing the rules so that former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg can be on stage. Sanders supporters will only see this as yet another time the Democratic National Committee interfered in a primary contest to screw over Sanders. Still, there is this poll to deal with that shows a majority of Americans would not vote for a socialist for president (via Fox News):
The results of a new Gallup poll suggest that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., may face a big challenge winning the White House if he succeeds in capturing the Democratic Party’s nomination for president.
The survey, conducted from Jan. 16-29 among 1,033 adults, found 53 percent said that they would not vote for their party nominee if they were a, “generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be socialist.”
Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, went into the New Hampshire Democratic primary on strong footing Tuesday night, after he nearly tied former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg in the Iowa Caucuses.
The Gallup poll showed Democrats are most willing to support a socialist, with 76 percent saying they would vote for a candidate with that political ideology. Only 45 percent of Independents and 17 percent of Republicans said they would do the same.
This is by no means a silver bullet that could end Sanders’ agenda. Or could it? Seventy-six percent of your party’s voters is not a strong showing from the base. Yet, let’s not take Sanders out of the realm of the possible, which is one of the reasons why Trump won; Democrats simply couldn’t fathom him winning. Keep this trend in your back pocket. Yet, what is does show is that all-in-all Americans know what far-left policies yield: equal suffering.
One wonders whether the 76% of Democrats supporting socialism have looked at Venezuela
It seems that the line that gets toed is whatever the Democrat leadership says calls it. If the Democrat leadership says abortion-to-birth constitutes the Democrat line, then almost 80% of the Democrat faithful sidle up to that line. If San Fran Nan and Bernie say that capitalism sucks (even though just about every Democrat in Congress for more than a term has amassed a fortune), then the Democrat faithful fall in line with socialism.
The House Judiciary Committee’s final report accompanying its articles of impeachment misquotes President Donald Trump — again — talking about his powers under Article II of the Constitution.
As Breitbart News reported during the Judiciary Committee’s hearings earlier this month, Democrats repeatedly misquoted Trump as claiming that Article II of the Constitution entitles him to do “whatever I want” as president.
The context of Trump’s remark, which he has made several times, was clearly his power under Article II to hire and fire executive branch employees, specifically Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was investigating so-called “Russia collusion.”
Yet Democrats — including Judiciary Committee counsel, and Democrat donor, Barry Berke — played deceptively-edited video of Trump that suggested, falsely, he believed he had absolute power under Article II of the Consitution.
On Tuesday in Washington, D.C., at Politico’s Women Rule Summit, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) admitted the impeachment process of President Donald Trump has been going on for “two and a half” years.
When asked about criticisms of “the speed” of the House Democrats impeachment, Pelosi replied, “Speed? It’s been going on 22 months—two and a half years, actually.”
She continued, “I think we are not moving with speed. Was it two a half years ago they initiated the Mueller investigation? It’s not about speed. It’s about urgency. One of the charges against the president of the United States—saying he was violating the oath of office by asking for government to interfere in our election undermining the integrity of our elections.”
She added, “If we did not hold him accountable, he would continue to undermine our elections. Nothing less is at stake than the central point of our democracy, of a free and fair election not to be disrupted by foreign powers.”
This admission invalidates any claim that the impeachment is based on misdeeds during a phone call in July 2019
If any Representative claims to vote for impeachment because “nobody is above the law,” they are lying. Beside the fact that no instances of lawbreaking were cited during the impeachment hearings in the House, the fact that work on impeachment goes back to the first quarter of 2017 shows that this impeachment has no basis in fact. …
FISA Court Rebukes FBI Abuse, Sets January Deadline for Reforms
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surveillance warrants on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page said in an order on Tuesday that the FBI’s handling of the warrant applications was “antithetical” to its “heightened duty of candor.”
The order, issued in response to reports the FBI provided false information to the Justice Department and withheld information that went against their case, stated, “When FBI personnel mislead NSD in the ways described above, they equally mislead the FISC.”
The order described the process in which the FISC grants Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, stating that it was “useful” to understand the requirements in getting a FISA warrant “in order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications.”
The FISC judge must determine whether the government’s application provides probable cause to believe the proposed surveillance target is a “foreign power” or an “agent of a foreign power,” the order said. It added that Congress intended that the judge act as an “external check on executive branch decisions to conduct surveillance” to protect U.S. persons’ rights.
House Democrats voted to impeach President Donald Trump Wednesday, making Trump the third president in American history to be impeached by the House of Representatives.
The House passed article one of H.R. 755, which charges Trump with abusing the office of the presidency.
Article one passed on mostly partisan lines, 230-197, with Republicans united against the resolution. Two Democrats, Reps. Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ), voted against the resolution.
The second article of impeachment, which charges that Trump obstructed Congress, passed the House with 229-198 votes. Three Democrats, Reps. Van Drew, Peterson, and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) voted against the resolution.
Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI), a former Republican, voted in favor of article one of impeachment.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, voted present for article one of impeachment. She also voted present on the resolution establishing the rules surrounding the impeachment bill.
(Read Breitbart to see the balance of things Republicans need to do to the next Democrat president)
Nancy Pelosi calls President Trump a coward & then invokes God
As reported by Yahoo News on 6 December 2019, Nancy Pelosi reacted violently to a question from James Rosen of Sinclair News. Possibly in response to the observed Trump Derangement Syndrome observed by the reporter, that reporter asked, “Do you hate President Trump?” In response, the following came:
I think the president is a coward when it comes to helping our kids who are afraid of gun violence.
I think he is cruel when he doesn’t deal with helping our “Dreamers.” I think he’s in denial about the climate crisis. However, that is about the election. Take it up in the election. This is about the Constitution of the United States and the facts that lead to the president’s violation of his oath of office.
As a Catholic, I resent you using the word “hate” in a sentence that addresses me. I don’t hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president. And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.
So she says that she does not hate; however, what do her actions say?
First, take the actions within this presser
Even if we limit our attention to this presser, we see that she called the President a “coward” for not accepting gun control measures. In truth, no gun control law has made people more safe (otherwise, Chicago would be one of the safest cities in the nation — rather than one of the leading murder capitals). Therefore, her calling the President a “coward” was nothing but an empty insult.
Regarding empty insults, Jesus said (but the emphasis is mine):
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘ You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (Matthew 5:22 NASB)
In addition to endangering herself of fiery hell by assigning an empty insult to the President, Ms. Pelosi went on to mix in several lies. First, she accused him of cruelty regarding “our Dreamers.” The problem is that the last President originally repeatedly said that he could not change immigration law. Then he changed it by executive fiat (also known as abuse of power). No laws were passed to accommodate this new class of non-citizens (although Trump offered a deal that the Democrats and Pelosi rejected). Hence, she cannot honestly claim that Trump alone has acted cruelly toward the Dreamers.
Consider her actions for and against the powerless
By asking you to consider her actions regarding the powerless, I primarily speak of the unborn. Her side calls them “fetuses” and uses other euphemisms. However, more to the point, her party has recently promoted full-term abortion. And though we cannot blame her for the over 45 million babies killed in the US between 1973 and 2015, Democrats cannot be held blameless. Therefore, for Pelosi to claim her Catholic faith while not renouncing her commitment to abortion means denying the core of the following Biblical mandates:
You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; (Exodus 22:22-23 NASB)
You have seen it, for You have beheld mischief and vexation to take it into Your hand. The unfortunate commits himself to You; You have been the helper of the orphan. (Psalms 10:14 NASB)
A father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows, Is God in His holy habitation. God makes a home for the lonely; He leads out the prisoners into prosperity, Only the rebellious dwell in a parched land. (Psalms 68:5-6 NASB)
The Lord protects the strangers; He supports the fatherless and the widow, But He thwarts the way of the wicked. (Psalms 146:9 NASB)
Open your mouth for the mute, For the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy. (Proverbs 31:8-9 NASB)
Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17 NASB)
Honor widows who are widows indeed; (1 Timothy 5:3 NASB)
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (James 1:27 NASB)
but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6 NASB)
By asking you to consider her actions regarding the powerless, I also could be talking about her lack of action in support of the poor of America. That is, the people who the Democrats have forgotten in their headlong rush to accommodate illegal aliens. Admittedly, while we will always have poor in America, opportunities for the poor have reduced with the Democrat’s drive to aid the illegal aliens through sanctuary cities, Democrat policies, and other initiatives.
Nancy Pelosi dictatorially proclaimed an impeachment inquiry instead of holding a vote on the impeachment inquiry (as with the Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton impeachments). If she were as much of a loving Christian as she claims, would this unfairness be the case?
Under current Democrat rules, the President does not have the right to face his accuser. In other words, an unknown person (who may not exist) can make accusations against the President and he has to defend himself. In all other American courts, Americans have due process rights. If Nancy were a Christian, would she allow this?
That is, she could make a difference if she were a true follower of the Church.
Give the devil his due, she does make one right references
Pelosi does correctly note that Christians should pray for their leaders, for we are told:
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. (1 Timothy 2:1-2 NASB)
However, as we know of Satan when he came to tempt Jesus, he came misquoting and then ignoring the central points to scripture (Mark 4:1-11).
Additionally, while we know that Christians are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9), we also know that faith without works is worthless (James 2:18-26). Therefore, Nancy Pelosi’s proclamation of Christian love, prayer, and faith without any proof of it within her professional life seems pretty useless.