Half of Senate Confirms Kavanaugh to Supreme Court, 50-48; Controversy Over Kavanaugh and Abortion, Blasey Ford

File Photo of Portion of U.S. Capitol Dome and U.S. Flag, adopted from .gov image by Steven C. Welsh

#Senate #Kavanaugh #SupremeCourt #Abortion #BlaseyFord #Trump

Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, on Oct. 6, 2018, was confirmed to a seat as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court by a Senate vote of 50-48.

One Senator voting “present,” indicating that, while she would have voted “no,” she was pairing her vote, presumably as a courtesy, was pairing her vote with another Senator who was absent for his daughter’s wedding.



There was recurring bedlam from the Senate gallery, with Vice President Mike Pence repeatedly instructing the Sergeant at Arms to restore order.

So Kavanaugh was not actually confirmed by a majority of the Senate itself, but merely a slight majority of those Senators present. Had one vote changed to the negative, Pence could have broken the tie in favor of confirmation. Apparently if all Senators had been present, the Senator attending the wedding, and the Senator pairing her vote with him, would have made the total 51-49, also resulting in confirmation.

Supreme Court Facade with Parkland and Blossoming Trees, adapted from image at supremecourt.govThe Kavanaugh nomination drew controversy on multiple counts. Some proponents of decriminalized abortion suggested that Kavanaugh might become the deciding vote on the Court to scale back or reverse past decisions blocking prosecutions for abortion, while others suggested the Kavanaugh would actually uphold abortion.



The author of this article repeatedly raised concerns about Kavanaugh’s association with outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Kavanaugh’s ongoing publicly professed admiration for Kennedy.

Kennedy is one of the main architects of judicially spawned abortion in the United States, as well as a major architect of judicially fostered homosexual jurisprudence. Kennedy was the deciding vote and co-author of the Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey decision in 1992 that carried forward decriminalized abortion when it essentially upheld but modified Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy within a year or so of that decision.

Kennedy would later vote, and co-author, Supreme Court jurisprudence promoting the idea of sodomy, homosexuality and homosexual “marriage” as Constitutional rights.

Kavanaugh updated and reaffirmed his association with Kennedy during Kavanaugh’s nomination process by declaring Kennedy to be a champion of liberty, leaving a legacy of liberty. As pointed out by the author, that position defies the notion that the first liberty is the right of the innocent not to be deprived of life, as well as the concept that a government’s legitimacy is grounded up its defense of human life, one of the tenets of other basic principles such as justice and peaceful social order.



Meanwhile, however excruciating or involved the confirmation and investigative process might have become, there appeared to be no definitive resolution of questions raised about past alcohol-related criminal sexual wrongdoing by Kavanaugh, alleged by psychology professor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, or other issues raised by Ford or others. One might wonder why, and how, a process that became so intrusive and so involved did not manage to get to the bottom of what actually did, or did not, happen.

In the past, a scholar of evidence raised the point that, regardless of a generalized American concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” in law, itself, there are different standards of proof for different frameworks and different purposes. For example, a criminal proceeding aimed at depriving life or liberty requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while a civil proceeding considering financial compensation only requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Even within a civil proceeding, there are different levels of proof for such steps as summary judgment, dismissal, the awarding of legal fees against a frivolous claim, and so forth.

In the case of a confirmation hearing, the issue is not whether to deprive the nominee of life or liberty, or of extracting money damages. The issue is whether to abstain from providing a position of great power. So, even though the subject matter relates to allegations of criminality and allegations of tortious misconduct, the standard of proof, and the willingness to remain neutral by not moving forward with confirmation, presumably could be different than the standards of proof for a criminal trial or civil proceeding.







 

SCW RUSSIAWIRE: “Russian spies accused of targeting watchdog investigating UK chemical attacks, probe into MH17 crash[; U.S. indicts Russian military intelligence figures” – Fox News

File Image of Stylized Eye Surrounded by Binary Code, adapted from image at ornl.gov

“Russia’s military spy service has been behind a wave of massive cyber attacks … with targets ranging from the international chemical weapons watchdog group to the probe into the downing of a Malaysian Airlines plane over Ukraine, officials said Thursday. … the [UK] National Cyber Security Centre … [indicated] that Russia’s GRU has engaged in ‘indiscriminate and reckless’ cyber attacks … target[ing] ‘political institutions, businesses, media, and sport.’ * * * ‘… demonstrat[ing] their desire to operate without regard to international law or established norms … with a feeling of impunity and without consequences,’ U.K. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said. … [T]he cyber attacks … [are said to] include the 2016 hack of the [DNC] … published … by WikiLeaks, and the leaking of top athletes’ medical records. Also on Thursday, the U.S. Justice Department charged seven Russian military intelligence officers with hacking anti-doping agencies and other organizations either remotely or … ‘on-site’ ….

[The] indictment … said that the GRU targeted … hacking victims … [for] support[ing] a ban on Russian athletes … and … condemn[ing] Russia’s state-sponsored … doping …. Prosecutors said the Russian spies also targeted a Pennsylvania-based nuclear energy company and an international organization … investigating chemical weapons in Syria and the poisoning of a former GRU officer.”

Click here for: “Russian spies accused of targeting watchdog investigating UK chemical attacks, probe into MH17 crash” – Fox News



Kremlin and St. Basil's at Night





SCW NEWSWATCH: “Exit Strategy: Rule of Law and the U.S. Army [Excerpt and Link]” – U.S. Army War College/ Shima D. Keene/ September 2018

File Photos of Law Books and Gavel, adapted from image at fjc.gov

[text provided for informational purposes or to spur reflection and debate; inclusion does not imply specific or particular endorsement]
 
[Click here for: “[PDF] Exit Strategy: Rule of Law and the U.S. Army [Excerpt and Link]” – U.S. Army War College/ Shima D. Keene/ September 2018]

“CONCLUSION

The importance of establishing rule of law in post-conflict states has been recognized as key in delivering stability in fragile states in the short, medium, and long term. This is in the interest of the U.S. Army and its partners not only from a [counterinsurgency] COIN perspective, but also to protect U.S. security interests both at home and abroad. To that aim, assistance is required to ensure that in post-conflict environments, the management and maintenance of security is successfully transferred to civilian organizations such as the police and the justice system more generally. It is only when this successful transition occurs and sustainable rule of law has been established that military commitments can cease. As such, it is essential that the end state to a successful civilian handover form part of a plan for disengagement after an intervention.
 

However, one key challenge for organizations (such as the police) emerging from conflict is the requisite to transition from a combat function to a more traditional policing function. This is difficult due not only to a lack of the necessary skill sets, but also because of the need for a fundamental change in mindset about the purpose of policing. The U.S. Army can play an important role in facilitating the establishment of effective rule of law institutions and practices in post-conflict states in many ways. Additionally, a lack of appreciation of the importance of civilian institutions and their role in establishing rule of law will lead to an exacerbation of the problem.
 
Delivering rule of law interventions is a complex task involving multiple stakeholders. Numerous challenges exist, each of which can prevent the establishment of effective and sustainable rule of law institutions. This in turn is likely to lead to a requirement for further military support from the U.S. Army resulting in even longer term deployments in what can become an unending conflict. In order to avoid unintended consequences which will have the impact of undermining rule of law interventions carried out by the U.S. Army and its partners more broadly, the following recommendations should be considered in shaping future U.S. Army interventions relating to establishing rule of law as part of its future COIN and state building missions. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: Contextual Understanding Develop a broad understanding of the rule of law landscape in the post-conflict state in question, and identify key challenges which may deter the establishment of effective and sustainable rule of law institutions.
 
Recommendation 2: Unintended Consequences Consider the potential unintended consequences of U.S. Army interventions in training local police forces and other rule of law interventions, and determine how can these be mitigated or avoided.
 
Recommendation 3: Strategic Objectives Reevaluate objectives to ensure that expectations are realistic in terms of what is to be achieved and the timescale in which to achieve them. Consider the impact of short-term mission objectives in attempting to achieve medium to long-term objectives. Recommendation 4: Sustainability Ensure that rule of law interventions are sustainable after withdrawal of troops and form part of U.S. Army exit strategies. Ensure that these are integrated into post-conflict planning before intervention is considered.
 
Recommendation 5: COIN versus State Building Address the existing confusion between the combat element of COIN operations and state building missions, and understand how this conflict can undermine both operations.
 
Recommendation 6: Police Training Determine the role that the U.S. Army should play in facilitating a transition from military to civilian rule of law, and exercise particular attention to challenges relating to corporate culture.
 
Recommendation 7: Skills Shortages Determine when and how rule of law mechanisms and advisors should be integrated into stability operations and consider how the U.S. Army could better utilize its Reserve Forces to provide capacity and specialist skills to facilitate civilian transition.
 
Recommendation 8: Corruption and Human Rights Abuses[:] Adopt a zero-tolerance policy toward corruption and human rights abuses and provide remedial education where such practices may have become institutionalized.
 
Recommendation 9: Management and Oversight: Provide management and oversight of third party contractors through deployment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi neers to ensure that construction projects relating to rule of law interventions are completed to the required specifications.
 
Recommendation 10: International Liaison Highlight other partner institutions the U.S. Army could or should be engaging with to ensure a coordinated approach to the establishment of effective rule of law institutions and practices in the host country.” 

[Click here for: “[PDF] Exit Strategy: Rule of Law and the U.S. Army [Excerpt and Link]” – U.S. Army War College/ Shima D. Keene/ September 2018]

[more publication information set out further below on this webpage]





[original publication, at https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/download.cfm?q=1387 contains the following notice:

“Shima D. Keene
September 2018

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Authors of Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and U.S. Army War College (USAWC) Press publications enjoy full academic freedom, provided they do not disclose classified information, jeopardize operations security, or misrepresent official U.S. policy. Such academic freedom empowers them to offer new and sometimes controversial perspectives in the interest of furthering debate on key issues. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.
∗∗∗∗∗
This publication is subject to Title 17, United States Code, Sections 101 and 105. It is in the public domain and may not be copyrighted.”]





If You Are Prolife, You Need to Oppose the Kavanaugh Nomination

File Photo of Portion of U.S. Capitol Dome and U.S. Flag, adopted from .gov image by Steven C. Welsh

Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was one of the architects of Abortionism as the deciding vote and co-author of the 1992 Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey decision that modified Roe v. Wade yet carried forward the decriminalization of abortion.

Yet, within a year, current Donald Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh signed on as a law clerk for Anthony Kennedy. Rather than repudiate that decision and apologize, during his nomination process, Kavanaugh instead has ratified and updated his association with Kennedy by calling Kennedy a champion of liberty, saying Kennedy has left a legacy of liberty.



So Kavanaugh clerked for a pro-abortion Justice who was the deciding vote keeping abortion going, and now promotes the pro-abortion Justice as a “champion of liberty.”

If you are prolife, you need to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination. And, if you do not, it calls into question whether you were ever pro-life to begin with.

Kavanaugh additionally allowed pro-abortion Condolleeza Rice to help introduce him before the Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh’s association with powerful, celebrity pro-abortion figures implies a shocking lack of moral conscience and poor judgment.

Abortion is the biggest human rights violation of our time, and he has associated himself with it by his actions and his remarks.



Human life, and the right of the innocent not to be killed, is the most fundamental of liberties, making abortion one of the biggest enemies of liberty. Protection of innocent human life also is one of the foundations of legitimate government, one of the excuses government has for existing in the first place. Yet Kavanaugh has associated himself with enemies of the right to life and persons who thereby have set themselves against the defense of American lives.

Working for a pro-abortion judge, alone, is enough to make Kavanaugh unfit. Yet calling a pro-abortion judge a champion of liberty means that Kavanaugh is a person who stands liberty upside-down and someone whose analytical intellect is either wholly unfit or twisted by self-serving dishonesty.

One can only speculate as to Kavanaugh’s motives, then and now.

Yet one of the biggest problems with abortion today is the risk that something horrific and unthinkable, the deliberate taking of defenseless human life, has become “business as usual” or routine. Kavanaugh’s casual attitude towards saluting Kennedy contributes to a climate of human life being regarded as cheap and expendable.

Kavanaugh’s flippant, oblivious attitude stands in the way of the necessary readjustment of public attitudes about this widespread human rights violation.

As such, Kavanaugh might even be responsible for deaths already. Women in difficult situations, pressured into confused acquiescence with the killing of their child, might back their way into because some segments of society wish to blur over the nature of the situation. Kavanaugh has added to the blur.

Given his origins as a local Washingtonian child of privilege, we have no idea to what extent Kavanaugh is a self-serving social climber who decided to “go along to get along.” We know that, amidst accusations of drunken, underaged, psychopathic, criminal behavior, Kavanaugh, in a sometimes emotionalistic set of responses, blurted out defensive remarks about his high school class rank — as if that piece of data had any relevance whatsoever to the charges.

Now, Kavanaugh did not even go to the best school for boys in the Washington area. That would be Saint Anselm’s Abbey Academy, traditionally one of the top-10 schools in America for SAT scores. Kavanaugh went to a different school that presumably is respectable academically, yet is more of a posh, country-club-like school. Yet if, all these years later, as a would-be grown-up, aKvanaugh still gets excited about his class rank, to the point that he apparently thinks it helps deflect accusations of criminality, just how important was it to him to climb the social ladder, such as with Yale, plumb judicial clerkships and so forth.

Kavanugh is somebody who was made a partner at Kirkland & Ellis less than a decade out of law school, with no law firm experience, based solely on his judicial clerkships, a brief stint with the Solicitor General and his work for Special Prosecutor Ken Starr.

Did Kavanaugh really not care about the mass murder of innocent American babies in the womb, if being oblivious to that horror meant fluffing his resume with a Supreme Court clerkship, instead of rejecting involvement with a human rights violator?

Is his desire to fluff his credentials now so great, that he wants to continue gliding along in the giddy heights of legal profession and Washingtonian elites, by fantasizing that the clerkship was something impressive, with a champion of liberty, rather than a black mark on his record that should bar him from his own judicial appointment?

In any event, his current posture makes him morally and intellectually unfit for judicial office.

If you, yourself, want to be known as prolife, you cannot support him. If you do support him, you are making it “open season” to expose yourself as not being prolife.

And that goes for the big-money anti-abortion groups that have decided to endorse Kavanaugh personally instead of simply addressing the broader issue. With roughly 60 million surgical abortions in the United States and counting, it would be silly to refer to anything like a “pro-lif establishment.” Yet, to the extent that some big-money nonprofits have tainted themselves by endorsing a troubled nominee like Kavanaugh, they also have exposed themselves as not being a good source of insight or leadership, as not being authentically prolife; and as not being an appropriation destination for financial gifts.

Again, if you, yourself, want to be known as prolife, you cannot support Kavanaugh. If you do support him, you are exposing yourself as not being prolife.





Brett Kavanaugh’s Association with Pro-Abortion Anthony Kennedy Renders Him Unsuitable for the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Facade with Parkland and Blossoming Trees, adapted from image at supremecourt.gov

Brett Kavanaugh’s association with, and ongoing endorsement of, pro-abortion former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy as a champion of “liberty,” reveals Kavanaugh’s lack of moral compass and judicial and intellectual incompetence.  As such, any loyal American and any person with respect for human life should oppose his confirmation to the Supreme Court and call for his removal from the judiciary.

The biggest threat to American lives, for four decades, has been so-called “abortion,” the deliberate taking of human life in a mother’s womb. Sixty million surgical abortions alone since the Roe v. Wade decision blocked prosecutions for abortion make it a bigger killer of Americans than all wars combined.  On average, abortion is nearly like having 9/11 occur every single day.



In 1992, abortion was kept decriminalized by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, with Anthony Kennedy serving as the deciding vote and co-author of the main opinion.

Yet, despite Kavanaugh’s supposed affiliation with the Catholic Faith, and despite his supposedly elite education, Kavanaugh was willing to serve as a law clerk for Anthony Kennedy within a year of Kennedy’s human rights violation as a perpetrator of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

If Kavanaugh had repudiated his past association with Kennedy, and attributed it immaturity, or a lack of awareness of the horrific scope and nature of abortion within less than two decades of Roe v. Wade, there still would be cause to reject his nomination.

Yet, right up until the present, and throughout his nomination process,  Kavanaugh has aggravated his wrongdoing, updated his association with Kennedy, and made it even more egregious by referencing Anthony Kennedy as having a legacy of liberty or being a champion of liberty.

That places Kavanaugh in the position of praising and admiring one of the architects of some of the most massive and atrocious human rights violations in human history.



Additionally, the scope of abortion as, literally, a direct threat and attack on the American population, calls for charges of de facto treason, and calls into question Kavanaugh’s patriotism and loyalty to the United States.

These facts alone would require a rejection of his nomination.

Defense of human life is the cornerstone of a national government’s right to exist, its justification for being a government.

Yet to associate an architect of decriminalized abortion with liberty, a cornerstone value of the American Republic, not only reveals Kavanaugh as an anti-American hypocrite, it calls into question his competency to engage in rational thought and honest intellectual analysis, and therefore calls into question his capacity to serve on the bench.

The most fundamental liberty, and first liberty interest mentioned in the nation’s founding Declaration of Independence, is the right to live and not be killed.

Abortion, the deliberate taking of defenseless human life, is the opposite of liberty.



Indeed, it is the defenselessness of the targeted victim that helps defines abortion. If a child in the womb had the capacity to defend herself, there would be no abortion.

Moreover, abortion’s scope is not only an existential threat to America, it is an existential threat to American democracy and the legitimacy of the American government.  It is not simply the the case that government justifies its existence on its ability to defend human life, but embraces the taking of human life on a massive scale.

Decriminalized surgical Abortion has killed roughly the same number of persons necessary to get elected to the Presidency.  One of the major political parties is in a position where it cannot form a legitimate government, because roughly as many Americans have been killed, in their mothers’ wombs, as the number of votes that party gets in presidential elections.  It would be like Hitler murdering 6 million Jews, getting 6 million votes from Nazis, and claiming that he was duly elected by the nation as a whole.

And, in addition to some Republicans being pro-abortion themselves, lukewarm Republicans mouthing anti-abortion positions but tepidly failing to take action to remedy the situation, call into question their own weak leadership and legitimacy.

Yet, on the level of intellect and rational analysis, Kavanaugh’s lauding of the person most responsible for decriminalized abortion as a champion of “liberty” is not simply treasonous.

It is, to put it simply, stupid.

Since getting killed is the opposite of liberty, Kavanaugh lauding an architect of the mass-killing of innocent American lives makes Kavanaugh sound like a manipulative liar and an intellectually stunted buffoon.



Additionally troubling is the context of Kavanaugh as a Washingtonian child of privilege, raising the prospect of him “going along to get along,” putting status and prestige, and resume-filling, ahead of right and wrong and ahead of loyalty to the nation.  His continued malfeasance in praising Kennedy raises the prospect of Kavanaugh of putting the desire to be “in with the in-crowd,” whether in Washington or in the troubled would-be “legal” profession ahead of moral and intellectual sanity, and ahead of the duty to protect American lives.

Any loyal American should oppose the Kavanaugh nomination.

Any person wanting to respect human life should oppose the Kavanaugh nomination.

Andy would-be “anti-abortion” group or individual, or would-be “conservative” group or individual that endorses Kavanaugh should be dismissed as contrary to their supposed mission; should be denied donations or honors; and should be rejected as a would-be voice for pro-life or traditional values.

Any legislator promoting the Kavanaugh nomination should be rejected and voted out.  If such a person has been posing as pro-life or traditional values or conservative, that might help explain why decriminalized abortion has malingered on for four decades — because someone flying a “false flag” took up space in the body politic that should have gone to someone who actually holds those values.

Of course, another reason that decriminalized abortion has malingered on has been Congress going AWOL, committing dereliction of duty and drawing their salary under false pretenses, by failing to carry out their Constitutional duty to impeach and remove renegade judges — renegade judges and justices committing crimes against the Constitution and associating with the treasonous mass-killings of Americans in their mother’s wombs.



The Constitution provides measures for its own amending.  A renegade judge or justice amending the Constitution in violation of that provision — such as by judicial fiat, by a vote of less than ten politically lawyers serving as justices — has committed an illegal act.

A renegade judge doing so, with the foreseeable and known result of the mass-murder of Americans, should be regarded as treasonous.

The Constitution does not have a gap allowing such a thing to happen; the Founding Fathers did not have a lack of foresight to fail to provide for such a contingency.  The Constitution provides for the removal of judges, by action of Congress.  Failure to carry out that Constitutional duty makes the weak, derelict legislators accessories by omission.

If we see that the same people pushing the Kavanaugh nomination also have failed to carry out their Constitutional duties of office, if we see that they have failed to take steps to remove renegade judges, then their involvement with Kavanaugh provides a useful filter calling for their exposure and removal —  a fresh reminder that they need to be rejected as failed leaders and removed from office, and replaced with actual leaders who will do their jobs and be loyal to America.



Of course, an added factor is that President Donald Trump also has praised Anthony Kennedy.

As long as Trump remains in office, it is up to Americans to send the nomination back to Trump, and tell him to “get it right’ this time by rejecting Anthony Kennedy’s anti-American legacy and nominating a proper nominee instead of Kavanaugh.

Meanwhile, Trump has added further disgrace by appointing a pro-abortion Republican, Rudolph Giuliani, to a key White House post.

If there is an effort to “Dump Trump,” these embarrassing missteps should prompt such a movement now, while there is still time before the next Presidential election.

A Republican failure to do so would further expose, as fraudulent “cocktail conservatives,” any Republicans who additionally demonstrate a disrespect for the nation by attempting to push forward the troubled Kavanaugh nomination.





U.S. Capitol file photo

Brett Kavanaugh, Trump Supreme Court Nominee, Clerked for Pro-Abortion Anthony Kennedy, Year After Kennedy Cast Deciding Pro-Abortion Vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Supreme Court Facade with Parkland and Blossoming Trees, adapted from image at supremecourt.gov

For the second time in a row, President Donald Trump has nominated to the Supreme Court someone who chose to clerk for pro-abortion Justice Anthony Kennedy not long after Kennedy cast the deciding vote to keep abortion decriminalized, despite abortion being the biggest threat to American lives and one of the most grotesque human rights violations of this era.



Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which modified yet, nevertheless, reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, was argued April 22, 1992 and decided on June 29, 1992.

Trump’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, signed on to be a law clerk for Kennedy for the October term of 1993, according to Kavanaugh’s public biography on the D.C. Court of Appeals web site.

By comparison, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is listed as having clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy in 1993 and 1994.  (Gorsuch’s path was a bit more circuitous.  He was hired as a kind of retirement benefit for a newly retired Justice White, similar to former presidents being provided a secretary.  While on the scene, he benefited from the opportunity for such “clerks” to also be added to the work done for actual, active Justices.)



The willingness to clerk for a pro-abortion jurist, especially so soon after Kennedy cast the deciding vote to keep abortion alive as judicial precedent, would ordinarily call into question the moral compass of a legal professional; his commitment or lack thereof to respect for human life; or his willingness to sacrifice moral principles for the sake of wealth, status and advancement.

Many questions remain — is Kavanaugh himself pro-abortion; does he simply not care that much about the matter; is he willing to “go along to get along” to gain wealth and status.  He later became a partner at the prominent Kirkland and Ellis law firm with little or no apparent law practice experience, with his main resume points being the Supreme Court clerkship and several years of assisting Ken Starr’s special prosecutor activities.



Any temptation to seek to minimize the significance of Kavanaugh’s actions because of the passage of time or his comparatively younger age would have to ignore the fact that he already was a grown man a few years out of law school, with other judicial clerkship experience already behind him.

Yet most glaring is his willingness, like Gorsuch, to ratify and make current his moral failing by saluting Anthony Kennedy in his remarks at the White House during the announcement of his own nomination to the Supreme Court.

With that action, his moral apathy and lack of a properly formed moral conscience was not simply part of a career stepping stone in his twenties.  It was updated to become part of his reality today.

Given the mind-boggling, and therefore treasonous scope of so-called abortion, apparently nearing 60 million Americans dead in their mother’s wombs from surgical abortions alone since Roe v. Wade, the logical response should be to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination and begin the process of replacing Trump.

Trump still has time to reverse course and find a more appropriate nominee.  Yet there is little indication that he would do so, especially considering his insistence of repeating his praise of his own mistaken choice of Gorsuch.

Even though Trump promised to “drain the swamp” and assist a Culture of Life, two times in a row he has nominated a former Washingtonian insider child of privilege who clerked for the same pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice.  He has done so in a climate of moral quietism that tries to treat the unthinkable horror of abortion as “business as usual” or settled law.

For thinking Americans who care about American lives, right and wrong and a solid national foundation in rule of law, the best choice is to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination and begin the process of replacing Trump with someone more suitable.







Pray for Ireland to Respect Human Life and God’s Law in Abortion Referendum

Ireland Satellite Image adapted from image at nasa.gov

Ireland, on May 25, 2018, votes in a referendum to potentially amend the Irish constitution for potential legislative action relaxing restrictions on abortion.

A “yes” vote would make it easier to allow murder, as long as the victim was not yet born. Prenatal child-killing often is described as so-called “abortion,” to recast what is deliberate killing as a kind of artificial miscarriage.  A number of abortions also are essentially death by torture, carried out against helpless victims who can feel pain.  There are additional issues raised by the harm abortion causes against the physical, mental and spiritual health and well-being of the mother, as well as female babies being targeted for killing at a higher rate than males.



Ireland needs our prayers, that the Irish people will respect human life and respect God by saying “no” to murder, including saying “no” to abortion.  Ultimately those who promote and participate in abortion not only are unbalanced in their thinking and a danger to the potential murder victims.  They also imperil their very souls by involving themselves with an evil that could result in their being condemned to hell, and likely would absent some unusual act of Divine Mercy prompted by some factor calling into question the perpetrator’s capacity.

So-called abortion is the most widespread human rights abuse on earth, and is often a leading cause of death for various groups or in some locales.



As murder, abortion grotesquely violates God’s Law, to the point where procurement of abortion brings automatic excommunication in the Catholic Church, and the Code of Canon Law.

Given that fact, it is curiously perverse that Ireland would be targeted for a referendum on abortion, given that Ireland is so predominantly Catholic, roughly 88% according to the U.S. State Department.

Those promoting abortion in Ireland not only are looking to kill more Irish, they are looking to get more Irish excommunicated in the process, and to implicate as much of the country as possible through the referendum.  Those voting in favor of abortion are, in the process, making themselves co-conspirators to murder and falling into some spectrum of grave sin, barring themselves from receiving Communion.  Any nominal Catholic publicly promoting abortion would be guilty of public scandal, and thereby barred from Communion until they publicly repented.  So, all around, it is if those promoting the abortion change are not only interesting in promoting killing.  In what is likely a diabolical matter, they are interested in corrupting the soul of a nation, and the souls of individuals, driving a wedge between them and God; driving a wedge between them and the Faith and Sacraments; and seeking to send more people to hell.





First time buyer SPECIAL - Free Shipping + Free Gifts

NEWSWATCH: “Hunt for Golden State Killer Suspect Used Genealogy Websites; Ancestry and 23andMe say they weren’t involved in probe that tapped genetic profiles online” – Wall Street Journal/Zusha Elinson

DNA file image, adapted from image at nnml.gov

“After more than 40 years … investigators looking for the elusive Golden State Killer … got their big break [using] genealogy websites …. Police say [72-year-old former police officer Joseph James DeAngelo] was responsible for at least 12 homicides and 45 rapes … between 1976 and 1986. Investigators us[ing] DNA from one of those crime scenes … compar[ing] it with genetic profiles on online genealogy sites …. found a relative of the suspect …. then looked at online family trees to narrow down the suspect ….”

Click here for: “Hunt for Golden State Killer Suspect Used Genealogy Websites; Ancestry and 23andMe say they weren’t involved in probe that tapped genetic profiles online” – Wall Street Journal/Zusha Elinson

 





NEWSLINK: “Southern Poverty Law Center Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities; Left-wing nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to top management”

File Photo of Arms and Hands of Man in Business Suit Taking Cash from Envelope, adapted from image at fbi.gov

“The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a liberal, Alabama-based 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization that has gained prominence on the left for its “hate group” designations, pushes millions of dollars to offshore entities as part of its business dealings, records show.

Additionally, the nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to its top directors and key employees while spending little on legal services despite its stated intent of ‘fighting hate and bigotry’ using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy.’ … “

Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court Nomination Marred by Association With Pro-Abortion Anthony Kennedy

Supreme Court Facade with Parkland and Blossoming Trees, adapted from image at supremecourt.gov

“… Justice Kennedy was incredibly welcoming and gracious … he taught me so much. I am forever grateful. … These judges brought me up in the law. Truly, I would not be here without them. Today is as much their day as it is mine. …” — Judge Neil Gorsuch, at the White House, Jan. 31, 2017

Neil Gorsuch was willing to clerk for pro-abortion Anthony Kennedy within roughly a year after Kennedy’s aggressive pro-abortion stance manifested itself in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), in which Kennedy was one of multiple coauthors of the Court’s decision. Kennedy apparently was the only active Justice that Gorsuch actually clerked for, part-time while Gorsuch used his status as a token clerk for retired Justice Byron White as a back door into the world of Supreme Court clerkships.

Even just last year, Kennedy abused his power on the Supreme Court to tip the balance in favor of attacking Texas requirements aimed at protecting women’s health, with Kennedy acting in favor of looser access to abortion instead.

Not only has Gorsuch failed to repudiate his past association with Kennedy, he spoke favorably of Kennedy, within the past two months, when accepting Donald Trump’s nomination of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.



All of these facts raise serious questions about Gorsuch’s moral compass, judgment, analytical capacity and overall lack of suitability for a judicial position in the United States.

The issue is not simply how to parse some of Gorsuch’s words, in a dry, static, narrowly construed legalistic manner; the issue is what his words, posture and failure to speak, say about his thinking, abilities and character, past and present, against the backdrop of an underperforming, morally questionable legal profession and wholesale slaughter of vulnerable Americans in the womb.

Interestingly enough, the White House does not seem to make it easy to find Gorsuch’s full comments from January in text, even though they are included on the White House video.  According to a transcript from the Denver Post, Gorsuch asserted:

“‘I began my legal career working for Byron White, the last Coloradan to serve on the Supreme Court, and the only justice to lead the NFL in rushing. [Laughter] He was one of the smartest and most courageous men I’ve ever known. When Justice White retired, he gave me the chance to work for Justice Kennedy, as well. Justice Kennedy was incredibly welcoming and gracious, and like Justice White, he taught me so much. I am forever grateful. And if you’ve ever met Judge David Sentelle, you’ll know just how lucky I was to land a clerkship with him right out of school. [Waves] Thank you. These judges brought me up in the law. Truly, I would not be here without them. Today is as much their day as it is mine. …'”

The comments seem somewhat manipulative from the beginning, given the seeming implication that Gorsuch was trying to portray himself as having started out as a regular Supreme Court law clerk, only to scramble to continue helping the institution after his employer retired.  The facts seem to indicate that he actually started out, from the beginning, working for a retired Justice as a kind of token retirement benefit accorded the retired Justice, and, having inserted himself onto the scene, also took part-time work with Kennedy, as his only work for an active Justice.  Left out is whether Gorsuch even attempted to work for a more conservative or moderate Justice, or why it is he ended up with a human rights violator like Kennedy.  Additionally concerning is whether, with Trump failing to appoint a non-lawyer to the Supreme Court, he has ended up a lawyer so neck-deep in the artificial world of the legal profession that he “cannot see the forest for the trees.” One is left to wonder whether a status-hungry, resume-filling Gorsuch, lost in the arcane world of lawyers, decided that the pedigree of working for an active Justice was more important than the millions of American lives being snuffed out, and Rule of Law being undermined, by the anti-constitutional human rights violator that he was associating with when he worked for Kennedy.

There reportedly have been roughly 59 million surgical abortions in the United States since the Supreme Court began blocking prosecutions for abortions in 1973.

The Supreme Court’s decisions obstructing abortion prosecutions, seeking to enshrine prenatal child-killing as a would-be “right,” are illegal and an abuse of power.

The Constitution provides an explicit mechanism for amending the Constitution, including to account for shifts in public values.  A simple majority vote by an aggressive Supreme Court is not that mechanism.

Kennedy’s actions promoting abortion are an shockingly overt attack on, and violation of, the Constitution.

Under centuries of political theory, the core duty of any government, and any government’s core justification for existing, is the defense of innocent human life.

A democracy, in particular, rests its government’s legitimacy on serving the will and interests of its people, including protecting the rights of minority portions of the population, including safeguarding and respecting the rights of all persons living within the nation.  The most fundamental right, recognized since the founding of the republic, is the right to live and not be killed.



Kennedy and his pro-abortion confederates essentially have declared a civil war against an enormous, and most vulnerable, portion of the American population.  In the process Kennedy and his pro-abortion confederates have launched an assault on human life, an assault on Rule of Law, an assault on the American Way of Life and Americans themselves, and a relentless drive to arrogate to mere lawyers with political connections a fanciful self-proclaimed status of philosopher king.

Moreover, a key element of pro-abortion Supreme Court judicial ideology is to define, condemn and doom the victims precisely because of their helplessness, saying that it is because a victim is helpless (or lacking so-called independent “viability”) that members of that class of persons may be killed, on a massive scale, without cause, without due process, using methods that are almost unimaginably vicious and painful.  There are methods by which abortion is death by torture, ripping apart the bodies of living persons who can feel pain, while they are defenseless in their mothers’ wombs.

There are, of course, other issues of concern surrounding the troubled tenure of Anthony Kennedy.  However, so-called abortion is numerically the biggest threat to American lives, and, by that measure, on that basic level, the country’s biggest de facto national security threat.

Given that abortion is killing millions of Americans, Kennedy and his pro-abortion confederates are also essentially guilty of de facto domestic treason, and conspiracy to murder or conspiracy to become accessories to murder. Even if the mechanism for the mass-killing includes intermediate steps by a multitude of others, by comparison, if Kennedy simply issued a decree requiring sticks of dynamite to be made available to terrorists, to suggest that Kennedy would not share responsibility for the resulting deaths would be absurd.  The same is true of his efforts to “tee up” millions of abortions.

Kennedy and his pro-abortion confederates should be impeached and removed on that basis.  Congress has been remiss in failing to carry its duty in that regard, as a last line of defense placed upon Congress by the Constitution and the many Americans who have laid down their lives over two centuries to defend that Constitution and the American Way of Life, sacrifices for which Kennedy and the weak-willed Congress have demonstrated repeated contempt.



Additionally, abortion is racist and sexist, with a disproportionate impact on racial minorities and females, giving rise to concern over other severe moral and constitutional defects.  There also have been charges of abortion being used to cover up evidence of other crimes.

Yet instead of repudiating his association with Kennedy, Gorsuch observes:

“‘… Justice Kennedy was incredibly welcoming and gracious … he taught me so much. I am forever grateful. … These judges brought me up in the law. Truly, I would not be here without them. Today is as much their day as it is mine. …'”

There is a stark backdrop formed by the Kennedy ideology, and the horrific nature and mind-boggling magnitude of the harms Kennedy has helped impose upon America. Against that backdrop, one should call into question Gorsuch’s moral compass, judgment, intelligence, analytical ability and honesty, when observing Gorsuch’s lapse into a lassitude of “go along to get along, let’s celebrate the superficial feel-good status-building bullet-points in my resume,” given the irrational, unlawyer-like evils of Kennedy and Gorsuch’s recent ratification of his association with Kennedy.

To put it simply, to celebrate ties to Kennedy does not just mean Gorsuch is unfit for the bench, and should not have been confirmed for a federal court of appeals.  It means Gorsuch lacks leadership, is a weak figure and is not a very good thinker.

The scandal should be regarded as an embarrassment to Donald Trump.  Trump embarrassed himself by picking Gorsuch and by himself, Trump, praising Gorsuch’s past without caveats.

Even worse, Trump was supposed to be a highly capable outsider who was going to “play things straight” and “drain the swamp,” including giving a top priority to his duties as Commander-in-Chief to defend American lives.

Yet, instead of picking a non-lawyer who would help correct the low intellectual and moral standards of the legal profession, Trump picked a legal profession insider with an apparent “go along to get along attitude” even in the face of 59 million American dead.

Already Trump, the wealthy businessman who never really built much more than resorts, casinos and TV rating, is watering himself down.



There is the curious fact that the abortion issue had tipped the balance in recent presidential elections, with the prolife, traditional values majority apparently having a reflex to be tepid in the face of the Republican Party’s attempt to water down its nominees’ credentials.

In contrast, George W. Bush, despite not really being thoroughly prolife, managed to put together a prolife agenda with a specific big-picture focus, pulling in the prolife majority.  He did so largely by focusing on Supreme Court nominations, banning partial-birth infanticide and banning funding for prenatal killing, building a common ground on all those major points.  For example, while a majority of Americans are prolife, a vast super-majority support a ban on partial-birth infanticide.

John McCain and Mitt Romney, already raising questions and causing the traditional values majority to step back and wonder about their political fiber, failed to articulate the same kind of focus (and as a running mate Paul Ryan even allowed himself to articulate a modified pro-abortion view, openly admitting that his ticket supported abortion in some circumstances, an offensive and unbelievably impractical act that undoubtedly weakened the resolve of his potential base to expend greater energy in his behalf).

Trump, however, despite questions about his past views or values credentials, started to regain some focus on the specific practical major themes of the abortion issue and the big-picture steps he would need to take as President.  And Trump even drove his opponent to openly expose herself as an extreme radical on abortion and infanticide, out of step with all but a small portion of the electorate.

With Gorsuch, however, Trump begins to lose that focus.  He has failed to find the right nominee.  That Gorsuch could serve for three decades or more makes the situation even worse.

In the face of the Gorsuch nomination, there is, indeed, a need to avoid lassitude and complacency among the majority of Americans who consider themselves prolife.  One of the reasons four decades of mass-killing has rolled on is the willingness of portions of the prolife majority to tolerate weak efforts and compromised, watered down values posing as something more.

Americans who love their country and want to rebuild respect for Rule of Law should oppose Gorsuch, seek the impeachment and removal of Kennedy and his confederates and demand that Trump step up, do a better job and “get it right.”



Links & Resources

“Neil Gorsuch the Law Clerk” – SCOTUSblog

“Transcript: Neil Gorsuch’s full remarks after accepting the U.S. Supreme Court nomination; President Donald Trump introduced Gorsuch, a judge for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on Tuesday” – Denver Post 1.31.17

“President Donald J. Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court” – White House 1.31.17

“BIO: Judge Neil Gorsuch” – Fox News

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) – FindLaw

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) – IIT Chicago-Kent School of Law

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) – Justia

“Anthony Kennedy on Abortion” – OnTheIssues

“Supreme Court Strikes Down Modest Abortion Restrictions, Highlights 2016 Election Stakes” – Breitbart 6.27.16



 

NEWSLINK: “Neil Gorsuch the Law Clerk” – SCOTUS Blog

File Photo of Neil Gorsuch and U.S. Flag, adapted from image at whitehouse.gov

“… White had retired from the court in the spring of 1993. According to some accounts at the time, White had not hired a full slate of law clerks for the term that would start in the fall of 1993 because he had an inclination to retire. It is unclear whether #Gorsuch was aware of this when White hired him.

Following a tradition among retired justices, who are assigned one law clerk, White agreed to share his clerk with an active justice. Gorsuch thus became a part-time member of Justice Anthony #Kennedy’s chambers.

The #SupremeCourt heard arguments in 99 cases during Gorsuch’s clerkship, issuing 93 full opinions.The most high-profile merits cases that term involved protest buffer zones around abortion clinics, the use of gender-based peremptory challenges in jury selection and whether a rap song incorporating parts of a Roy Orbison song constituted fair use under copyright law.

Whether Gorsuch played any significant role in advising Justice Kennedy on the term’s merits cases remains a private matter. And the amount of time he devoted to the needs of the newly retired Justice White isn’t widely known. …”

NEWSLINK: “BIO: Judge Neil Gorsuch” – Fox News

Supreme Court Facade with Parkland and Blossoming Trees, adapted from image at supremecourt.gov

“CURRENT POSITION: U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, from 2006-present

LEGAL EXPERIENCE:

  • Clerk for Judge David Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1991-92.
  • Clerk for United States Supreme Court Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy, 1993-94.
  • Attorney at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel in Washington, D.C., 1995-2005; partner.
  • Deputy associate attorney general, Department of Justice, 2005-06 …”

NEWSWATCH: “List of #Trump’s executive orders” – Fox News

White House file photo

“… An order that directs federal agencies to ease the ‘regulatory burdens’ of ObamaCare. … ‘… on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.’ * * * An order imposing a hiring freeze for some federal government workers …. This excludes the military, as Trump noted at the signing. * * *  a notice that the U.S. will begin withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. * * *  … the … ‘Mexico City Policy’ … ban on federal funds to international groups that perform abortions or lobby to legalize or promote abortion. …”



Click here for “List of Trump’s executive orders” – Fox News





NEWSWATCH: “Planned Parenthood’s Legal Fight To Kill Babies With Down Syndrome” – Daily Signal

Supreme Court file photo

As … Hillary #Clinton and #Hollywood continue to deceitfully prop up #PlannedParenthood … under the guise of women’s ‘health,’ the #abortion mill is … pursuing a legal battle … to kill unborn babies with Down Syndrome. … team[ing] up with the American Civil Liberties Union to try to have an Indiana law signed by Governor Mike Pence, which prohibits abortion for reasons of #race, #sex or genetic defect such as #DownSyndrome, thrown out. … [to be] heard by pro-abortion Obama-appointee Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. In July, Pratt granted the abortion mill’s request and blocked the law from being enforced. … House Bill 1337 also requires aborted or miscarried babies’ bodies to be disposed via humane practices of cremation or burial. …

Click here for Daily Signal Wire: “Planned Parenthood’s Legal Fight To Kill Babies With Down Syndrome”

[featured image is file photo]



NEWSWATCH: “Planned Parenthood’s Legal Fight To Kill Babies With Down Syndrome” – Daily Signal

Supreme Court file photo

As … Hillary #Clinton and #Hollywood continue to deceitfully prop up #PlannedParenthood … under the guise of women’s ‘health,’ the #abortion mill is … pursuing a legal battle … to kill unborn babies with Down Syndrome. … team[ing] up with the American Civil Liberties Union to try to have an Indiana law signed by Governor Mike Pence, which prohibits abortion for reasons of #race, #sex or genetic defect such as #DownSyndrome, thrown out. … [to be] heard by pro-abortion Obama-appointee Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. In July, Pratt granted the abortion mill’s request and blocked the law from being enforced. … House Bill 1337 also requires aborted or miscarried babies’ bodies to be disposed via humane practices of cremation or burial. …

Click here for Daily Signal: “Planned Parenthood’s Legal Fight To Kill Babies With Down Syndrome”

[featured image is file photo]



 

NEWSLINK Daily Wire: “Three Things You Need to Know About Hillary #Clinton’s Record on #Abortion”

Hillary Rodham Clinton file photo, during raid on Bin Laden

“Next to Barack #Obama, Hillary #Clinton may be the most pro-#abortion presidential candidate in American history. Clinton, and the Left in general, attempt to mask the heinous nature of the procedure they support by employing euphemisms such as “reproductive health” and “choice,” but in reality what they’re championing is the termination of innocent life, even at the latest stages of development. …”

NEWSLINK Daily Telegraph: “Child rape victim comes forward for the first time in 40 years to call #Hillary #Clinton a ‘liar’ who defended her rapist by smearing her, blocking evidence and callously laughing that she knew he was guilty”

Hillary Rodham Clinton file photo, during raid on Bin Laden

“‘Hillary Clinton is not for women and children,’ says Kathy Shelton, 54, who was 12 years old when she was raped by Thomas Alfred Taylor in Arkansas … Clinton was the rapist’s defense lawyer, pleading him down to ‘unlawful fondling of a minor’ … The 41-year-old drifter served less than a year in prison … The plea came after Clinton was able to block the admission of forensic evidence that linked her client to the crime … Shelton says she’s furious that Clinton has been portraying herself as a lifelong advocate of women and girls on the campaign trail … Clinton accused Shelton of ‘seeking out older men’ in the case and demanded that she undergo a grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination … The presidential candidate later laughed while discussing aspects of the case in a recently-unearthed audiotaped interview from the 1980s … “

NEWSWATCH: “Judge puts hold on plan to open California lands to fracking” – AP/U.S. News & World Report

Artist's Rendition of Fracking

A federal judge … tentatively rejected a plan by the federal Bureau of Land Management to open more than 1,500 square miles of lands in central California to oil drilling and fracking. … U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald …. The process, formally known as hydraulic fracturing, uses high-pressure mixtures of water, sand and chemicals to extract oil and gas from rock. … the BLM must provide more study on the effects fracking will have in the area. He gave the agency’s attorneys until Sept. 21 to argue why he should not issue an injunction …. The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by a pair of environmental groups … The land involved … is about 1.1 million acres of public lands and federal mineral estate in the mostly agricultural central valley, the southern end of the Sierra Nevada, and parts of the central coast.

Click here for AP/U.S. News & World Report “Judge puts hold on plan to open California lands to fracking”