SANDERS SUPPORTED MARXIST TOTALITARIANS IN NICARAGUA

SANDERS SUPPORTED MARXIST TOTALITARIANS IN NICARAGUA 
How the self-identified socialist tried to undermine Reagan’s foreign policy in the 1980s.
BY DISCOVER THE NETWORKS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
In recent weeks, leftwing media outlets – after decades of giving Bernie Sanders a free pass -- have finally begun to explore the Vermont senator’s long and well-documented history as an apologist for, and an admirer of, Communist regimes around the world. The media’s sudden decision to focus on Sanders’ very obvious affinity for communism, is motivated by strictly political concerns. In short, they fear that if the senator were to win the Democratic presidential nomination, his pro-communist history would be fully exposed by the Trump campaign. This, in turn, might awaken and frighten large numbers of Americans who thus far have been under the false, benign impression that Sanders is merely a committed “liberal” or “democratic socialist.” Thus, the media have decided that the better strategy would be to try to derail Sanders’ campaign right now, rather than allow him to make it to the November election. The dirty little secret, however, is that there is scarcely a hairsbreadth of difference between the social and economic policies of Bernie Sanders on the one hand, and those of his Democrat rivals on the other. But those rivals are generally much more careful to frame their socialist, totalitarian agendas with the rhetoric of “liberalism.” In this article, Discover the Networks examines how Sanders consistently praised the Marxist-Leninist leaders of Nicaragua during the 1980s, and how he sought to undermine the Reagan administration’s efforts in that region. In 1985 Sanders traveled to Managua, Nicaragua to speak at the sixth anniversary celebration of the revolution by which the Marxist-Leninist Sandinistas had taken power from an American-backed leader, Anastasio Somoza, and had instituted a revolutionary socialist government. The “Sandinista Creed” was unambiguous in its intentions: “I believe in the doctrines and struggles of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Che, the great teachers and guides of the working class, which is the productive and true driving force of the class struggle which will bury forever the dehumanized, anti-Christian exploiting class. I believe in the building of the Marxist-Leninist socialist society.” In the course of his 1985 speech, Sanders said: “[I]n the last 30 years, the United States has overthrown governments in Guatemala, [the] Dominican Republic, they murdered Salvador Allende in Chile, they’ve overthrown the government of Grenada, they attempted to overthrow the government of Cuba, they overthrew a government in Brazil, and now they are attempting to overthrow the government of Nicaragua.” He also denounced the U.S. for “dominating weak nations and poor nations.” In a letter which he addressed to the people of Nicaragua, Sanders denounced the anti-Communist activities of the Reagan administration, which he said was under the control of corporate interests. Assuring the Nicaraguans that Americans were “fair minded people” who had more to offer “than the bombs and economic sabotage” promoted by President Reagan, he declared: “In the long run, I am certain that you will win, and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.” Following his trip to Nicaragua, Sanders reported that he had been “treated in a special way” by his Nicaraguan hosts. He praised the living conditions under that country’s Communist regime:
  • “Many of the things that we saw were impressive. There’s a tremendous sense of energy.
  • “I was impressed by their intelligence and by their sincerity. These are not political hacks.”
  • “No one denies that they are building health clinics. Health care in Nicaragua is now free…. Infant mortality has been greatly reduced.”
  • “[The Nicaraguan government is] giving, for the first time in their lives, real land to farmers, so that they can have something that they grow. Nobody denies that they are making significant progress.”
  • “Sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country [like Nicaragua] is because people are lining up for food [e.g., bread lines]. That’s a good thing. In other countries, people don’t line up for food. The rich get the food, and the poor starve to death.”
Praising the Nicaraguan government’s seizure of private farms and businesses, Sanders said: “In terms of land reform, giving, for the first time in their lives, real land to farmers. And people of Nicaragua, the poor people, respect that. Rich people, needless to say, are used to having a good life there, are not terribly happy.” In an August 8, 1985 television interview, Sanders characterized Daniel Ortega as “an impressive guy” while criticizing then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan. “The Sandinista government, in my view, has more support among the Nicaraguan people, substantially more support, than Ronald Reagan has among the American people,” said Sanders. “If President Reagan thinks that any time a government comes along, which in its wisdom, rightly or wrongly, is doing the best for its people, he has the right to overthrow that government, you’re going to be at war not only with all of Latin America, but with the entire Third World.” Notably, Sanders did not mention the fact that by 1985, watchdog organizations had exposed the Sandinistas as perpetrators of enormous human-rights violations, including mass executions, the persecution of indigenous peoples, and the unexplained disappearance of hundreds of citizens each month. Accusing the American media and the Reagan administration of deliberately covering up the good news of a successful socialist society, Sanders said: “Many of us get depressed about what’s [supposedly] going on in Nicaragua today, the absolute lies that are coming out of the White House. In fact, we have a right to be very exhilarated.” He praised the Sandinistas for “talking about a transformation of society, giving power to the poor people, to the working people.” Lauding “the type of example Nicaragua is setting for the rest of Latin America,” Sanders responded to critics of the Sandinistas by saying: “Is [the Sandinistas’] crime that they have built new health clinics, schools, and distributed land to the peasants? Is their crime that they have given equal rights to women? Or that they are moving forward to wipe out illiteracy? No, their crime in Mr. Reagan’s eyes and the eyes of the corporations and billionaires that determine American foreign policy is that they have refused to be a puppet and banana republic to American corporate interests.” Sanders had no problem with the Sandinistas’ war against La Prensa, a daily newspaper renowned for its criticism of the Daniel Ortega dictatorship. When asked to comment on the Sandinistas’ heavy-handed censorship of Nicaraguan media outlets, Sanders stated that undemocratic measures were sometimes necessary in times of war. In 1987 Sanders hosted Sandinista politician Nora Astorga in Burlington. Astorga was a woman who, as the publication The Daily Beast puts it, was “notorious for a Mata Hari-like guerrilla operation that successfully lured Gen. Reynaldo Perez-Vega, a high-ranking figure in the Somoza dictatorship, to her apartment with promises of sex. Perez-Vega’s body was later recovered wrapped in a Sandinista flag, his throat slit by his kidnappers.” When Astorga died of cancer in 1988, Sanders publicly praised her as “a very, very beautiful woman” and a “very vital and beautiful woman.” He also speculated that her illness may have been brought about by the stress she felt as a result of American policies toward Nicaragua. “I have my own feelings about what causes cancer, and the psychosomatic aspects of cancer,” said Sanders. “One wonders if the war didn’t claim another victim; a person who couldn’t deal with the tremendous grief and suffering in her own country.” At one point in the Eighties, Sanders asked a group of University of Vermont students to consider how “we [the United States] deal with Nicaragua, which is in many ways Vietnam, except it’s worse. It’s more gross.” To help offset the effects of America’s many alleged transgressions against Nicaragua, Sanders sought to raise money and material support for the Sandinista revolution; he also established a sister city program in Nicaragua, like he did in the Soviet Union and attempted (without success) to do in Cuba. In 1991 a sympathetic biographer wrote that Sanders “probably has done more than any other elected politician in the country to actively support the Sandinistas and their revolution.” To view a comprehensive profile of Bernie Sanders’ political career and agendas, click here.
_______________________________________________________________
SEE: https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/bernie-sanders/

DISNEY-PIXAR FILM “ONWARD” CENTERS ON NECROMANCY; FEATURES LINE WHERE CYCLOPS SUBTLY REVEALS SHE’S LESBIAN

DISNEY-PIXAR FILM “ONWARD” CENTERS ON NECROMANCY; FEATURES LINE WHERE CYCLOPS SUBTLY REVEALS SHE’S LESBIAN
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
The new Disney-Pixar animated film “Onward,” which has main themes centering on wizardry and a magic “visitation spell” to temporarily conjure a father up from the dead, also features a line where a cyclops police officer — voiced by a homosexual screenwriter — subtly reveals to viewers that she is a lesbian.
“Onward” tells the story of two elf brothers, Ian and Barley Lightfoot, who received a wizard’s staff gifted to them by their late father, Wilden, who died before Ian was born and when Barley was a small child. The staff comes with a spell that has the ability to bring him back for just 24 hours.
“Dear Ian and Barley, long ago, the world was full of magic. Over time, magic faded away, but I hope there’s a little magic left in you,” a letter from Wilden reads. “And so I wrote this spell so I could see who my boys grew up to be.”
However, in using the spell, Mr. Lightfoot only appears from the waist downward, and his sons scramble in finding out how to conjure him up in totality before the 24 hours expires.
According to Collider, director and screenwriter Dan Scanlon wrote the story based on his own loss of his father as an infant.
“When I was a year old, my father passed away. I don’t remember him and neither does my brother, who was three at the time,” he revealed at a D3 event. “I have always wondered who my father was, and that question became the blueprint for this movie.”
In addition to the theme of using sorcery to meet a deceased father, a number of outlets have noted that “Onward” features a character who subtly reveals her homosexuality.
In one scene, Officer Specter, a purple cyclops voiced by screenwriter and producer Lena Waithe (known for “Bones,” “Master of None” and “Dear White People”) and her law enforcement partner, Officer Gore, pull over a driver, who explains that he was distracted because his girlfriend’s children were acting up.
Specter then empathizes, stating, “My girlfriend’s daughter got me pulling my hair out.”
“It just kind of happened,” producer Kori Rae told Yahoo Entertainment of the line. “The scene, when we wrote it, was kind of fitting and it opens up the world a little bit, and that’s what we wanted.”
Scanlon likewise outlined, “It’s a modern fantasy world, and we want to represent the modern world.”
Waithe is a lesbian and had previously been “married” to another woman before separating two months later. In speaking to NPR in 2018, Waithe was asked if her lesbianism was a concern to her mother.
“Not really. It wasn’t a huge thing,” she replied. “Look, I always say that my family is made up of lazy Christians, and that’s because they believe and they taught me to believe, but they got to church when they could. But we definitely went every Easter.”
“They can’t quote the Bible to save their lives. It’s the reason why I can’t. I seriously — I cannot give you a Bible verse,” Waithe continued. “But I’m a huge believer in God, and Jesus Christ, and that God made me and all those things. And I try to just be a good person. I think that is the base of my religion — is to be good, is to be honest.”
Screenshot from trailer. Click to enlarge.
As previously reported, Disney, known for its “Magic Kingdom,” has been recognized for decades for its focus on magic and sorcery, from its early production of “Fantasia” and “Snow White” to the more recent “Maleficent” and “Frozen.”
It has more recently also been inserting homosexuality into its television and film productions, from the subtle inclusion in its live-action remake of “Beauty and the Beast” to the more blatant depiction in the final season of “Andi Mack” and the same-sex kissing scene during its cartoon “Star vs. the Forces of Evil.” 
Deuteronomy 8:9-13 reads, “When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.”
“For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God.”
Revelation 21:8 also warns of the coming final judgment, “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Scripture states that God offers mercy in the here and now for those who would repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, outlining in Isaiah 65:2, “I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts.”

APOSTATE TEXAS “CHURCH” ANNOUNCES HOMOSEXUALS ALLOWED TO LEAD, PASTORS CAN OFFICIATE SAME-SEX CEREMONIES

ANOTHER “CHURCH” BITES THE DUST
WHEN THE “SPIRIT” LEADS, 
IT’S NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT!
PURSUING “UNITY OVER UNIFORMITY”
APOSTATE TEXAS “CHURCH” ANNOUNCES HOMOSEXUALS ALLOWED TO LEAD, PASTORS CAN OFFICIATE SAME-SEX CEREMONIES
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
KYLE, Texas — A now former Assemblies of God (AG) “church” in Texas has announced that its elder board has decided to allow practicing homosexuals to serve in all capacities, including as pastors, and that pastors will be permitted to officiate same-sex ceremonies if so desired. The district office of the AG says it “moved swiftly” when it learned of the decision, and that the church is no longer affiliated with the denomination.
Dan Matlock, who leads Eikon Church in Kyle, presented several messages throughout the month of February in a “Clarity” series, where he also explained to the congregation that he himself had come to “a place of full affirmation” of homosexuals in the Church.
“We felt led by the Spirit this direction,” he claimed during his Feb. 6 message, asserting that he saw “bad fruit” coming from “unaffirming theology.”
He outlined that in 2018, two lesbian women who attend Eikon approached him and asked unabashedly if he would officiate their same-sex ceremony.
“I realized that if I were to tell them, ‘No, theologically, I’m bound by my conscience. I can’t do the wedding. I can’t do that,’ they would have been devastated. They would have been blindsided,” he stated. “They would have felt, ‘Wait, you’ll take my attendance, you’ll take my money, you’ll take my service, but you won’t take me in this pivotal moment of [my] life?'”
“That would have been so harmful to them because they didn’t expect that,” Matlock continued. “But I realized that at the same time, had I responded, ‘Sure! Absolutely. I’d love to do your wedding. Where is it?’ and then I were to perform said wedding, and then word would get out about the wedding … it would not have gone well. Right? Let’s be honest. There’d be a lot of people in the church who’d be going, ‘What? Dan did [what]? Excuse me?'”
He said that he realized that Eikon had not been clear on where it stood to those on either side of the issue.
Matlock then told those gathered that there is disagreement among professing Christians about homosexuality, but opined that he finds it “unhealthy” both for Christians who view homosexuality as sinful to be labeled as “haters” and for those who affirm same-sex relationships to be considered apostate. He explained that even leadership has varying views on the matter.
He presented a chart featuring a “spectrum” of beliefs about homosexuality and asked those present to contemplate which category corresponds to them.
Matlock also told those gathered that he believes those who affirm homosexuals have not thrown out the Scriptures, but simply view the text as referencing some other practice, such as temple prostitution or pedophilia, as it does not “clearly” condemn homosexuality.
In further presenting the views of those who are affirming, Matlock said that other issues in the New Testament are viewed by some as only cultural and not for modern times, such as Paul’s words on women in church leadership, or short hair on ladies, or exhortation about slaves obeying their masters. Matlock stated that Jesus said that remarriage following divorce is a sin, and most Christians don’t view remarriage as being tantamount to adultery.
“We have to acknowledge this: It’s not that Christians with a traditional view just don’t love gay people. They came to those beliefs very honestly. And at the same time, people with this more affirming bend, they didn’t come to that place just because they don’t care what the Scriptures say. Many of them came to this place honestly,” he asserted. “And it doesn’t make either one true or not true, but it’s helpful to understand how these people came to the conclusions they did.”
Matlock pointed to Romans 14, noting that Jews and Gentiles in the early Church were locked in various disagreements, that Christians today should “pursue unity over uniformity” in the midst of disagreement about the sinfulness of homosexuality.
“We all think very differently. We don’t believe the same thing about everything. Are you kidding me?” he said. “I’ve talked to people who have problems with how we do communion or when we do communion or how often we do it, about baptism — there’s lots of things that we’re not uniformity over. But in spite of those things, we say we want to have unity.”
He asserted that despite varied beliefs, the church had to reach a conclusion on what would be its “consistent practice,” however. Matlock advised that he went to the elder board last year and said that the church needed to be clear on what its practices will be, which launched nearly a year of discussion as to whether or not Eikon would be “fully inclusive” of homosexuals.
“That means they can serve in any capacity in the church from a greeter in the parking lot to a pastor on staff,” he outlined, adding that the board also contemplated whether leadership should be allowed to officiate same-sex ceremonies, if desired, and whether they could speak about their beliefs on the issue.
“On Sept. 8, 2019, elders of Eikon church decided that yes, Eikon church will be a fully inclusive church for the LGBT community,” Matlock said to some applause.
He then acknowledged that while the decision would please homosexual members and their advocates, it would also disturb other members of the congregation.
“You have to understand that to that community, this is a big deal for them — that they finally have a place where they can really be welcome in every area, not with an asterisk,” he said. “But I also recognize the confusion that you might be feeling, the tension that you might be feeling. That as excited as they are that they got a church, you’re realizing ‘I may have lost my church.'”
“I get it. I understand. And I’m sorry,” Matlock stated.
He then outlined to those gathered that he himself wrestled with the issue of homosexuality in 2015 and 2016, but that he “landed in a place of full affirmation.”
“I do believe that God can and does bless same-sex relationships, that God can and does bless same-sex marriages,” Matlock claimed.
According to the site Juicy Ecumenism, Eikon has now parted ways with the Assemblies of God denomination as a result of its decision.
“Dan Matlock has announced that he and Eikon Church will no longer be affiliated with the Assemblies of God,” Assemblies of God Senior Director of Public Relations and Communications Mark Forrester told the outlet. “The North Texas District moved swiftly and in accordance with processes outlined in the General Council Bylaws when first aware of the departure from the Assemblies of God’s position on marriage, sexual orientation, and gender identity — which is the only permissible stance for Assemblies of God churches and ministers.”
“The North Texas District is committed to helping members of Eikon Church find church families that continue to embrace the biblical views consistent with statement of faith originally embraced by Eikon Church,” he said.
As previously reported, while a common argument among those who struggle with homosexual feelings is that they were “born this way,” the Bible teaches that all are born with the Adamic sin nature, having various inherent feelings and inclinations that are contrary to the law of God, and being utterly incapable of changing by themselves.
“All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned every one to his own way,” Isaiah 53:6 reads, “and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
It is why Jesus came: to “save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).
Scripture outlines that Jesus came to be the propitiation for men’s sins (1 John 2:21 John 4:10), a doctrine in Christianity known as substitutionary atonement, and to save men from the wrath of God for their violations against His law (Romans 4:25Romans 5:9Romans 5:16), a doctrine known as justification.
The Bible also teaches about regeneration, as in addition to sparing guilty men from eternal punishment, Christ sent his Holy Spirit to make those who would repent and believe the gospel new creatures in the here and now, with new desires and an ability to do what is pleasing in the sight of God by His indwelling and empowerment (Ezekiel 11:192 Corinthians 5:17Titus 3:5).
Jesus said that men must be born again, and be transformed by the Spirit from being in Adam to being in Christ, or they cannot see the Kingdom of God (John 3:3-8).
“A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you. And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them,” Ezekiel 36:26-27 reads.
In regard to marriage, Jesus also outlined in Mark 10:6-8, “But from the beginning of the Creation, God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh.”
_______________________________________________________________
VIDEOS, NUMBER 1 TO 3:

SENATOR SCHUMER THREATENS SUPREME COURT JUSTICES GORSUCH & KAVANAUGH OVER PENDING ABORTION CASE~CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS TELLS HIM HIS COMMENTS ARE “DANGEROUS”

SCHUMER: “I’M FROM BROOKLYN. WE SPEAK IN STRONG LANGUAGE.”
WAS IT JUST CODE? FOR WHAT?

SENATOR SCHUMER THREATENS SUPREME COURT JUSTICES GORSUCH & KAVANAUGH OVER PENDING ABORTION CASE
BY DEAN WEINGARTEN
SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/03/senator-schumer-threatens-supreme-court-justices/#axzz6FvYEifdUrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

U.S.A. (Ammoland.com)- Democrat Minority leader in the Senate, Charles Schumer, publicly threatened justices of the Supreme Court today in front of the Supreme Court. The threats were recorded and published on Twitter.
The above tweet, with the recording, was published by Steve Scalise, Republican Whip in the House. Representative Scalise was nearly killed in an assassination attempt on Republican members of Congress by a Democrat follower of Bernie Sanders.
This is not the first time Democrat Senators have threatened the Supreme Court.  On August 12, 2019, less than seven months ago, five Democrat senators, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin, and Kirsten Gillibrand, submitted an amici curae brief to the Supreme Court on the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. NYC case. The brief was very close to a direct threat to the court.
The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.

The implication is obvious: Nice little Court you have there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it. Rule the way we want, and you may keep your Court.

Ever since the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration, the court has become more and more politicized. The court has found rights no one ever knew existed, while studiously ignoring rights specifically protected in the Constitution, such as the Second Amendment. It has expanded federal power through the commerce clause to virtually every action in the United States, rendering the commerce clause meaningless.  A federal government limit to regulate interstate commerce is meaningless when all activity is defined as interstate commerce, or, even more encompassing, affecting interstate commerce, and therefore subject to federal regulation.
Constitutionalists, believing in the necessity of the rule of law, have patiently worked to overcome the lobbying of Progressives, who do not believe themselves bound by the Constitution.  Over decades, in the face of direct, obvious political opposition to the Constitutional rule of law by leftists, Constitutionalists have finally been able to have a bare majority of originalist and textualist justices appointed to the Supreme Court. This is the first time an originalist and textualist majority has existed on the court for at least 80 years.
This has enraged Senator Schumer and like-minded progressives, who apparently believe there should be no limits on government power, except what they create, based on their desire to remain in power.
Senatore Schumer believes the Constitution does not limit what infringements can be made on the right to keep and bear arms; he believes the federal government has the Constitutional power and authority to limit the laws the states may pass to regulate abortions.
Decades of judicial activism may be undone if the Constitution is faithfully interpreted and followed.
Second Amendment rights may finally be enforced by the Court.
Legal discrimination in favor of leftist groups could be ruled invalid under equal protection under the law.
States might be allowed to check voters for eligibility.
Illegal immigrants might be ruled as not entitled to more political favors than citizens.
Federal District courts might not be able to override presidential executive actions.
All of which means less power for leftist politicians.
In Senator Schumer’s mind, such a result seems to be completely unacceptable.
Chief Justice Roberts felt compelled to respond to such a direct threat.  From nationalreview.com:
“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter,” Roberts said.

About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.


____________________________________________________________
Chuck Schumer’s ‘disgusting’ attack on Supreme Court! Full Comments
_____________________________________________________________

Schumer Threatens Gorsuch, Kavanaugh on Abortion Case: “You Will Pay the Price”

BY JAMES MURPHY
SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/35050-schumer-threatens-gorsuch-kavanaugh-on-abortion-case-you-will-pay-the-pricerepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Speaking to a group of pro-abortion protestors outside the U.S. Supreme Court, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh that they would face severe consequences should they fail to rule the “correct” way on a challenge to a Louisiana abortion law that the court is currently hearing.
“I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer told the rabid crowd on Wednesday.
“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer added.
A Schumer spokesman said that his comments were a “reference to the political price” Republicans will pay for putting the two Trump nominees — Gorsuch and Kavanaugh — on the court.
But it sure sounded like a direct threat to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
In an extremely rare occurrence, Chief Justice John Roberts scolded the New York senator, calling his comments “dangerous.”
“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter,” Roberts said on Wednesday.
And as he is wont to do, President Trump took to Twitter to let his feelings be known on Schumer’s threat against the two justices: “This is a direct and dangerous threat to the U.S. Supreme Court by Schumer. If a Republican did this, he or she would be arrested, or impeached. Serious action MUST be taken NOW.”
Some believe that Schumer was not just spouting off and saying something provocative to play to an abortion-friendly audience, but that he purposefully used such charged language because he wanted — perhaps even needed — strong reactions from the president and the GOP in order to make abortion a major campaign issue in 2020. 
If true, the tactic sure worked, as numerous GOP congressmen and senators have called Schumer to task for his inflammatory language. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) plans to introduce a motion to censure Schumer in the Senate. And even pro-abortion GOP senator Susan Collins from Maine came to the Court’s defense on Twitter. “I agree with Chief Justice Roberts,” Collins wrote. “These statements by Senator Schumer are outrageous.”
Faced with the increased certainty that their nominee will be either avowed socialist Bernie Sanders or the doddering gaffe machine Joe Biden, the Democrats need to bolster their chances to keep the House of Representatives and retake the Senate. Not to mention somehow taking the presidency from Trump.
But what’s this Louisiana law that’s causing all the ruckus?
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court took up the case of  June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, a case challenging a 2014 Louisiana law that requires physicians who perform abortions in the state to have admitting privileges at local hospitals — something many abortionists do not have.
Pro-abortion forces claim the law will effectively close all but one abortion clinic in the state. Roughly 10,000 abortions are performed per year in Louisiana.
Introduced by Democrat State Senator Katrina Jackson, the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act simply makes the abortion procedure subject to the same standard of other outpatient procedures. Jackson considers the bill “a health standard law” and believes that it is “very common sense.”
“Basically, Louisiana, unknowingly to us, had a lower standard of care for women who elected to have abortions in some places,” Jackson said. “And so what we did was make sure that the standard of health care that we established in Louisiana for years also applied to abortion.”
The law sure sounds innocuous enough. The case is not even a direct threat to Roe v. Wade, but a measure meant to ensure the safety of women who undergo medical procedures by “circuit riding” abortionists who pop into town for a night or two to do some abortions and are then on to the next town. 
But the health of women (and the health of the unborn, for that matter) is not something that Schumer or his party have very much interest in. The Democrats have always believed that abortion is a winning issue for them, that’s all. And maybe that’s what Schumer wanted all along; something the party could point to in this election year besides their flailing and flawed presidential candidates.
The House of Representatives impeached President Trump on nothing more than a fairy tale whipped up by Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and a yet-to-be-named (officially) whistleblower. The least the GOP could do is censure the minority leader for his reckless and foolhardy threat against the judiciary.
_______________________________________________________________
Kelly discusses Schumer’s threats against Supreme Court Justices on Fox & Friends
14 REPUBLICAN SENATORS WILL CENSURE SCHUMER
NO DEMOCRAT SENATORS WILL
———————————————————————–

Sen. Schumer: SCOTUS Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh ‘Won’t Know What Hit’ Them if They Restrict Abortion

EXCERPTS:
According to Fox News, Schumer’s office claimed that the senator’s words were “deliberately misinterpreted” by the “right wing.” It expressed disappointment that Roberts followed suit.
Schumer apologized in part on Thursday, stating that “I should not have used the words I used” and “[T]hey did not come out the way I intended to.”
He added, “My point was that there would be political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a woman’s right to choose. Of course, I didn’t intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise.”
“I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language,” Schumer asserted. “I shouldn’t have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing.”