IN FOCUS: AZ Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Almost All Abortions with Seth Gruber

Tonight IN FOCUS... A CIA contractor brags they can lock anyone up and chop Alex Jones off at the knees to shut him up - who's next? Establishment actors have been issued new scripts on artificial intelligence in an effort to manufacture consent from the masses for their ultimate enslavement. Plus, the Arizona Supreme Court upholds a ban on almost all abortions in the state. Dr. Naomi Wolf joins us to discuss one of her latest theories survival of the weirdest.

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds 1864 Abortion Law Banning Nearly All Abortions

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds 1864 Abortion Law Banning Nearly All Abortions

Abortion rights protesters chant during a Pro Choice rally at the Tucson Federal Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona on Monday, July 4, 2022. (Photo by SANDY HUFFAKER / AFP) (Photo by SANDY HUFFAKER/AFP via Getty Images)
Abortion rights protesters chant during a Pro Choice rally at the Tucson Federal Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona, on Monday, July 4, 2022. (Photo by SANDY HUFFAKER / AFP) (Photo by SANDY HUFFAKER/AFP via Getty Images)

OAN’s Chloe Hauxwell
12:10 PM – Tuesday, April 9, 2024

SEE:; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The Arizona Supreme Court has voted to uphold a ban on almost all abortions in the state.

On Tuesday, the court ruled that in all cases, except where the life of the mother is at risk, abortions are illegal.

The crux of the argument was the law from 1846. The 160-year-old near abortion ban pre-dates Arizona’s statehood.

The 1864 law, which was codified again in 1901 and 1913, makes performing or inducing an abortion a felony.

The ruling will not be enforceable for 14-days.

The state’s attorney general released a statement after the ruling. Kris Mayes (D-Ariz.) stated that while she’s attorney general no doctor or woman would be prosecuted.

“The decision made by the Arizona Supreme Court today is unconscionable and an affront to freedom,” Mayes said in her statement. “Make no mistake, by effectively striking down a law passed this century and replacing it with one from 160 years ago, the Court has risked the health and lives of Arizonans. The Arizona Court of Appeals decision, which the Supreme Court has struck down today, was well reasoned and aligned with how courts harmonize different legislation.”

“Today’s decision to reimpose a law from a time when Arizona wasn’t a state, the Civil War was raging, and women couldn’t even vote will go down in history as a stain on our state,” she continued. “This is far from the end of the debate on reproductive freedom, and I look forward to the people of Arizona having their say in the matter. And let me be completely clear, as long as I am Attorney General, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law in this state.”

The opinion comes as the ballot measure is set to be voted on this November. It could allow abortions up to 24-weeks of pregnancy.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here.

U.S. Supreme Court Gives Hamas-Linked CAIR a 9-0 Thumbs-Up

SEE:; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) files many lawsuits, but wins comparatively few. So when it does receive a favorable decision, its operatives crow about it loudly. In the latest example, CAIR is calling a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling in its favor a “historic milestone for American Muslims.”

However, a simple reading of the Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Bureau of Investigation et al. v. Fikre, or of any of the many media reports on that decision, shows that CAIR is overstating the victory.

See, for example, “Supreme Court Says ‘No Fly List’ Suit Can Proceed Against FBI, for Now”, by Jimmy Hoover,, March 19, 2024. In essence, the court ruled:

Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen from Sudan, can—for now—pursue his claim that the FBI violated his constitutional right to due process when it placed him on the list roughly eight years ago. He says the placement left him stranded abroad for four years and led to his torture in the United Arab Emirates.

The government had tried to have Mr. Fikre’s case dismissed as moot, since the FBI had already removed Fikre from the No-Fly list, and as a result, there was no more damage to him. However, the Supreme Court did not accept this reasoning. From FBI vs Fikre:

In May 2016, the government notified Mr. Fikre that he had been removed from the No Fly List and sought dismissal of his suit in district court, arguing that its administrative action had rendered the case moot.”

Mootness is defined in Maniar v. Mayorkas, Civil Action 19-3826 (EGS), 36 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2023), as

[a] change in factual circumstances[,] . . . such as when the plaintiff receives the relief sought.


the party urging mootness bears a heavy burden.

However, in the current case, according to FBI vs. Fikre:

The government has failed to demonstrate that this case is moot.

Were the rule more forgiving, a defendant [FBI] might suspend its challenged conduct after being sued, win dismissal, and later pick up where it left off; it might even repeat “this cycle” as necessary until it achieves all of its allegedly “unlawful ends.” Already, 568 U. S., at 91. A live case or controversy cannot be so easily disguised, and a federal court’s constitutional authority cannot be so readily manipulated. To show that a case is truly moot, a defendant must prove “‘no reasonable expectation’” remains that it will “return to [its] old ways.”

The government failed to meet its burden because the declaration did not disclose the conduct that landed Mr. Fikre on the No Fly List and did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in similar or similar conduct in the future.

Again, the court’s ruling means Fikre’s suit against the FBI can continue. But as Justice Gorsuch said in the court’s decision:

The case comes in a preliminary position, framed only by uncontested factual allegations and a terse declaration. As the case unfolds, the complaint’s allegations will be tested rather than taken as true, and different facts may emerge that may call for a different conclusion.

CAIR’s very well-established pattern of overstating the results of court decisions in its favor really should be more widely discussed.

  • When Judge Anthony Trenga ruled in CAIR’s favor, saying that the terror watch list was unconstitutional, CAIR hailed this as the greatest legal decision in the history of the country. Indeed, CAIR’s victory was widely reported in the mainstream media. However, when the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Judge Trenga’s decision, sending the case back with instructions to rule properly, there was little word from CAIR on that.
  • More recently, CAIR was very proud of a favorable ruling in the case A & R Engineering and Testing, Incorporated vs. John Scott, Attorney General of Texas. But CAIR minimized the fact that the judge’s ruling applied to just this one case, and only to the plaintiff, Rasmy Hassouna.
  • In the article “Why a Texas Court Ruling on Israel Boycott Was No Victory for CAIR” by Erielle Davidson, which appeared in The Algemeiner on February 4, 2022, there is this statement: “But CAIR is patently wrong in its legal analysis, rendering the recent victory lap is nothing short of bizarre." While the opinion does deem a fraction of the language in the Texas law unconstitutional, the opinion itself explicitly asserts that most of the language in the Texas statute — including the central element prohibiting economic boycotts of Israel — is constitutional.”

CAIR is, among other things, a public relations firm with itself as its biggest client. As a result, any event which is favorable to the organization and its goals is exaggerated out of all proportion, while incidents that do not fit a favorable narrative are whitewashed, hushed up, or simply ignored completely.

Although the FBI is certainly no friend of Jihad Watch, and the terror watch list may be a necessary evil, it does have value. Already, DHS has stopped at least 160 people on the watch list from entering the U.S.’s porous border. Additionally, Project Veritas has reported that many of the Afghan refugees on the terror watch list are roaming free in the U.S.

As Justice Gorsuch wrote in the court’s decision:

The government does not generally disclose the full reasoning for why people are placed on the list, and the Justice Department expressed concerns that allowing cases such as Fikre’s to move forward would needlessly force the government to reveal its sometimes-classified explanations.

Of course, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations appears to have absolutely no regard for the national security of the United States of America.

SUPREME COURT CORRUPTION? Is THIS why Amy Coney Barrett sided with BIDEN on the border?


The Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden administration CAN cut Texas’ razor wire at the southern border. But why would Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett side with Biden on this issue? Senator Mike Lee joins Glenn to give his thoughts: Is this all a political game? Sen. Lee also reminds listeners that this SCOTUS decision doesn’t stop Texas from doing anything — it only allows the White House to thwart Gov. Abbott’s actions? “Is the Biden administration really, seriously, with a straight face going to say, ‘cut the wires?’” Sen. Lee asks. And how should Texas and Americans react if they had to decide between securing the border and defying the rule of law?


Trump Appeals Colorado Disqualification, Asks SCOTUS To Overrule Ruling

Trump Appeals Colorado Disqualification, Asks SCOTUS To Overrule Ruling

DELAWARE, OH - APRIL 23:Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a rally hosted by the former president at the Delaware County Fairgrounds on April 23, 2022 in Delaware, Ohio. Last week, Trump announced his endorsement of J.D. Vance in the Ohio Republican Senate primary. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a rally hosted by the former president at the Delaware County Fairgrounds on April 23, 2022 in Delaware, Ohio. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

OAN’s Sophia Flores
2:30 PM – Wednesday, January 3, 2024

45th President Donald J. Trump’s legal team has filed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court ruling removing the former president from the state’s GOP primary ballot.

On Wednesday, his lawyers issued a filing stating that the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause” was not valid in this situation and urged the justices to “return the right to vote for their candidate of choice to the voters.”

“This Court should grant certiorari to consider this question of paramount importance, summarily reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, and return the right to vote for their candidate of choice to the voters,” attorneys for the former president wrote in the filing.

The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Trump from the state’s primary ballot on December 19th in a 4-3 decision.

They claimed that he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for allegedly inciting a U.S. Capitol breach on January 6th, 2021. However, presidents do not fall under the jurisdiction of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as they are not an “officer of the United States.”

Even though this is a high-profile litigation, the SCOTUS is not required to take the case. Without the highest court in the nation intervening, states are allowed to ban Trump from the ballot.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here.

Majority of Supreme Court Allows Biden Regime to Use Private Companies to Censor Speech Into 2024


Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Should a president be able to censor his political opponents? Stay tuned.

The good news is that a reckoning with the Biden administration’s policy of telling companies to censor things they don’t like is coming. The Supreme Court will take up the Louisiana ban on the administration censoring political opponents via private companies. The bad news is that Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett decided to sign on letting the Biden administration go on doing it for another year because the First Amendment is just a theory.

Read the Alito dissent on the majority issuing a stay on an order blocking the Biden administration’s censorship. (Alito was joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.)

Today, however, a majority of the Court, without undertaking a full review of the record and without any explanation, suspends the effect of that injunction until the Court completes its review of this case, an event that may not occur until late in the spring of next year. Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today’s decision is highly disturbing.

This case began when two States, Missouri and Louisiana, and various private parties filed suit alleging that popular social media companies had either blocked their use of the companies’ platforms or had downgraded their posts on a host of controversial subjects, including “the COVID–19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story.”

According to the plaintiffs, Federal Government officials “were the ones pulling the strings,” that is, these officials “‘coerced, threatened, and pressured [the] social-media platforms to censor [them].’”

… To stop this “campaign,” the injunction, as it now stands, prohibits the covered officials from doing two things. First, they may not “coerce” social media platforms to make “content-moderation decisions.” Second, they may not “meaningfully contro[l]” social media platforms’ “content-moderation” efforts. Displeased with these restrictions, the Government filed an emergency application asking us to stay the effect of this injunction pending certiorari…

Despite the Government’s conspicuous failure to establish a threat of irreparable harm, the majority stays the injunction and thus allows the defendants to persist in committing the type of First Amendment violations that the lower courts identified. The majority takes this action in the face of the lower courts’ detailed findings of fact…

At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate.

Left unsaid by Alito is that the Biden administration will be able to continue censoring opposing views into 2024 as the presidential campaign continues to get underway.

The Biden administration claimed that being unable to censor political dissent during a presidential campaign would cause “irreparable harm” while Alito argues that censoring political dissent will cause “irreparable harm”.

Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the Biden administration. That does not bode well for the actual case, but we shall see. If the Biden administration wins this one, the First Amendment effectively becomes a dead letter on the internet.

Should a president be able to censor his political opponents? Stay tuned.

A Threat to Democracy? Biden Defies the Supreme Court Again

A Threat to Democracy? Biden Defies the Supreme Court Again
AP Photo/Matt Rourke
In June, the Supreme Court ruled that Joe Biden did not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally cancel student debt. Biden had originally unveiled his student loan “forgiveness” plan in August of last year, mere months before the midterm elections.

But that has never stopped him from doing it. Since then, he’s used loopholes to gradually cancel the debt of borrowers using existing programs—a move he made again on Wednesday, canceling the debt of 125,000 borrowers, costing taxpayers $9 billion.

“President Biden has long believed that college should be a ticket to the middle class, not a burden that weighs on families,” the White House said in a statement. “That’s why from day one, his Administration has taken unprecedented steps to fix the broken student loan system, make college more affordable, and bring the promise of higher education in reach for more Americans.”

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the Biden administration has canceled $127 billion in student debt for 3.6 million borrowers.

Joe Biden has been railing against the alleged “threat to democracy” posed by Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans, yet he’s repeatedly defied the Supreme Court in order to essentially bribe Americans by canceling their student debt. To achieve this latest debt cancelation, the Biden administration made changes to income-driven repayment (IDR) and Public Service Loan Forgiveness, along with the cancelation of debt for borrowers with total and permanent disabilities.

“This is part of a pattern of the Biden administration illegally acting without congressional approval, costing the American people hundreds of billions of dollars,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the top Republican on the Senate Health and Education Committee, told the Wall Street Journal.

The United States’ national debt is over $33.4 trillion.

Related: Is the GOP Underestimating Joe Biden?

Conservative radio host Mark Levin blasted the move.

“This is an impeachable offense,” he wrote on X. “Why? Biden lost the case in the Supreme Court, which ruled he does not have the constitutional authority to make unilateral spending decisions like this. It’s called separation of powers. Congress was granted the sole power of over-borrowing, spending, and taxes. A president cannot seize this power from Congress  But that’s exactly what Biden is doing.”

Levin also lamented that Biden’s defiance of the Supreme Court and recklessness with taxpayer dollars won’t get the attention it deserves.

“Unfortunately, this will receive no attention in the popular corporate media, not only because they support Biden’s authoritarianism, but the endless headlines and discussion is now about Gaetz and the House GOP disorder,” he said.

SCOTUS May Place Independent Agencies Like Social Security and FDIC on the Chopping Block

SCOTUS May Place Independent Agencies Like Social Security and FDIC on the Chopping Block

SCOTUS May Place Independent Agencies Like Social Security and FDIC on the Chopping Block
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case with far-reaching implications. At issue is how independent government agencies are funded and whether Congress is violating the Constitution’s appropriations clause when budgeting monies for them.

The list of independent agencies that could be affected is staggering: the EPA, FCC, FTC, FEC, Social Security Administration, and dozens more. This specific case involves the agency that just won’t die — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — and its rules regarding “payday loans.”

The trade group for the payday loan industry — the Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) — is claiming that the CFPB has no authority to regulate anyone because Congress never specifically funded the agency. Congress instead took money from the Federal Reserve’s budget to fund the CFPB operations.

A lower court found in favor of the trade group, and the appeal has now landed in the lap of the high court.

Sheila Bair, former head of the FDIC, explains the risk for the agencies in question.


Essential government agencies and programs, including Social Security and Medicare, both of which are administered by independently funded bodies, would see their sources of independent funding vulnerable to challenge. The Federal Reserve, responsible for monetary policy and our payments system, would be particularly at risk, given that it runs on fees and profits from its market operations just like the CFPB. The budgets of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, responsible for regulating the nation’s largest banks, and the Federal Housing Finance Administration, responsible for overseeing housing finance, are also independent, coming from funds paid by the entities they regulate.

Requiring these agencies to seek direct Congressional approval for money to function would be particularly dangerous in times of crisis.

The conservatives’ reasoning in this case is sound. These agencies develop rules and regulations that have the force of law, so why shouldn’t their budgets be appropriated by Congress?

Ms. Bair points out that Congress has “oversight” responsibilities and sets “various limits and parameters, including for the CFPB.” In theory, she’s right. But given what some of these independent agencies have been up to when the government is more “activist” than not, it’s easy to see why simple Congressional “oversight” isn’t good enough.

For example, the National Labor Relations Board has put a heavy thumb on the scale and tilted the labor-management dynamic decidedly in the unions’ favor. The NLRB was never supposed to be an advocacy arm for organized labor. And yet in decision after decision, the NLRB has not only decided for organized labor but has also made it much easier for unions to gain a foothold in industries they historically have been unable to crack.

Would the NLRB be so enthusiastically pro-union if Congress held the purse strings?

Congress created the CFPB in 2010 and insulated it from political and industry interference in carrying out its consumer protection mandate in order to stop the kind of reckless lending that led to the financial crisis. And it worked. Today, the CFPB is a big reason why there is very little distress in mortgage finance, even as other sectors of our financial system are under pressure.

People of good will can differ on its funding structure. (I had strongly supported the CFPB but thought its funding should come from more traditional regulatory assessments.) But that’s a policy issue for Congress to decide, not the Supreme Court.

The cascade of Constitutional challenges to funding for independent federal agencies will probably not happen, although individual challenges are probable. For the CFPB, its mandate has always been far too broad and arbitrary. The rules governing payday loans, for example, sank many honest operations in addition to the crooks. The agency’s rules on home loans have put homeownership out of the reach of many and for no reason.

I think most federal agencies — independent or not — would benefit from federal oversight of their funding. And the taxpayer should be demanding it.

Biden’s DOJ Asks SCOTUS to Gut the 2nd Amendment in 67-Page Brief

Biden’s DOJ Asks SCOTUS to Gut the 2nd Amendment in 67-Page Brief

SEE:;Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, breaks down the recent DOJ Brief regarding the USA v. Rahimi. Follow Mark as we do on YouTube at The Four Boxes Diner.

In a notable development, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted a significant brief (67+ pages, embedded below) to the United States Supreme Court in the case of the United States of America vs. Zaki Rahimi. The focus of this case is the constitutionality of 18 USC 922 G8, which pertains to domestic violence restraining orders and their alignment with the Second Amendment.

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney, suggests that the DOJ, representing the Biden Administration, is arguing for extensive interpretation measures. The contention seems to be that the Second Amendment allows Congress and other legislative bodies the power to disarm individuals [aka “infringe”] deemed not “Law-abiding” or “responsible.” The criteria for such judgments, as outlined in the brief, could range from minor infractions like jaywalking to more serious criminal activities.

The broad implications of such an interpretation might leave a vast number of citizens without the right to keep and bear arms.

Central to the case is Zaki Rahimi’s incident from December 2019, where he allegedly assaulted his girlfriend and threatened a witness with a firearm. The event resulted in a restraining order against Rahimi in February 2020 after he ostensibly admitted to the accusations.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously held that the federal law in question in Zaki Rahimi’s case was in violation of the Second Amendment. Still, the DOJ’s arguments seem to lean heavily on connecting firearms with domestic violence, potentially setting a precedent for justifying ‘red flag’ laws. Their position leans on the Heller case from 2008, which identified the rights of “law-abiding and responsible” individuals to bear arms.

The DOJ attempts to spin its argument based on three main talking points, all taken out of legal and historical context:

  1. Previous court precedents distinguished between law-abiding citizens and those deemed otherwise.
  2. Historical precedents allowed for disarmament during the founding era, citing laws that existed during the period.
  3. Arguing that the majority of American states have similar domestic restraining orders suggests a national consensus.

Critics rightfully argue that simply because many states have implemented certain rules doesn’t automatically affirm their constitutionality.

This shocking 67-page brief from the DOJ would be a significant shift in interpreting the Second Amendment. Whether this unconstitutional human rights grab prevails will be determined by the Supreme Court in its upcoming deliberations.

Read Related: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Rahimi Restraining Order Second Amendment Case

Biden DOJ Legal Brief to SCOTUS in U.S. v. Rahimi

By Fred Riehl and AI tools. Note: Research behind this article was generated using AI technology and may contain some automated content aggregation and analysis.

Left Now Pushing Biden to Ignore Supreme Court Decisions

Left Now Pushing Biden to Ignore Supreme Court Decisions He Disagrees With

Left Now Pushing Biden to Ignore Supreme Court Decisions He Disagrees With



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Two radical left “scholars” have crawled from underneath the rocks where they were hiding and are now openly advocating the end of “judicial review.” That’s the theory that the Supreme Court has the last word on constitutional issues and that all must obey their decisions—including, and especially, presidents.

The doctrine dates back to the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, where Chief Justice John Marshall decided the ultimate question of power: is an act of Congress or the Constitution the supreme law of the land?

But now, Harvard law Prof. Mark Tushnet and political scientist Aaron Belkin are advocating for something they’re calling “Popular Constitutionalism” to give Joe Biden the dubious authority to ignore or disobey Supreme Court decisions.

Professor Tushnet suggested in “An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism” that sometimes a radical-left nincompoop has to do what a radical-left nincompoop has to do.

“We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations.”

If you think about this for more than two seconds, you’ll realize the incredible power Tushnet and Belkin want to place in the hands of the chief executive. Executive power plus the ability to interpret the Constitution as he/she sees fit? If the radical left could only dream of having such power.

Related: Supreme Court Stymies the Left’s Radical Agenda — and the American People Love It
Popular Constitutionalism would make the Supreme Court just another federal court. And premier constitutional scholar Ilya Somin points out some serious flaws in the concept.

In any event, the flaws in Tushnet and Belkin’s argument go far beyond their take on this particular ruling. The course of action they advocate would effectively destroy judicial review. While they urge Biden to disobey Supreme Court decisions only when it comes to  “high-stakes rulings that are based on gravely mistaken constitutional interpretations,” political partisans will predictably make such claims about every decision they strongly disapprove of. And if one president successfully gets away with defying court decisions, he and his successors are likely to use this tactic whenever they think it politically advantageous to do so. The net effect will be the gutting of judicial review, at least on issues important to the party in power.

Even if you trust Biden to scrupulously differentiate “high-stakes” cases from ordinary ones, and “grave” errors from normal mistakes, I suspect you do not have similar confidence in Donald Trump, or whoever the next GOP president might be.

Another flaw in Tushnet’s theory is that it would give a president the power to overrule any decision — not just “extreme” decisions.

The Tushnet-Belkin theory, therefore, is not confined to distinctively MAGA rulings. It implies that presidents should be able to ignore a wide range of right-of-center judicial decisions, including those rooted in longstanding mainstream constitutional theories. And, obviously, presidents with a right-wing ideological orientation can use similar reasoning to justify defying even the most mainstream left-wing judicial decisions.

As NRO’s Jeffrey Blehar points out, Tushnet is a leader of the “critical legal studies” movement (CLS). If that movement sounds suspiciously familiar, you would be correct. CLS birthed the “critical race theory,” which is now firmly entrenched in American schools, despite efforts to dislodge it.

The Harvard professor proved in 2016 to have radical Stalinist tendencies. What he wanted to do with Hillary Clinton’s “enemies” could hardly be considered anything else, as he explained in an article he wrote that appeared on the blog Balkanization after Hillary Clinton’s unexpected loss:

The culture wars are over; they lost, we won. Remember, they were the ones who characterized constitutional disputes as culture wars. [. . .] For liberals, the question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. That’s mostly a question of tactics. My own judgment is that taking a hard line (“You lost, live with it”) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all. Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.)

For those who don’t think there’s a choice in 2024, these are the kinds of people who have Joe Biden’s ear. We can’t say we weren’t warned.

Biden’s Biology And the lie that abortion is only about the woman’s body.



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

When President Joe Biden issued a proclamation on the last day of February in honor of Women’s History Month, which was then about to commence, he made abortion one of its central themes.

In doing so, he employed a misleading euphemism that has become a common cliche used by pro-abortion politicians: “their own bodies.”

“Last year,” said Biden, “the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping away a constitutional right from the American people and the ability of millions of women to make decisions about their own bodies, putting their health and lives at risk.”

This was not the first time Biden used the term “their own bodies” while advocating for abortion.

Last August, for example, Biden issued a proclamation on Women’s Equality Day, expressing a “commitment” to “protecting women’s rights.”

“This commitment is more important than ever in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and eliminate a woman’s constitutional right to choose,” Biden said.

“As states across the country strip women of their ability to make decisions about their own bodies, families, and futures, my Administration remains dedicated to protecting access to critical reproductive health care, regardless of gender, race, zip code, or income,” he said.

In May 2022, the Senate took up the Women’s Health Protection Act. “This bill,” said its summary, “prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.”

All 50 Senate Republicans and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin voted against ending debate on this bill and thus killed it.

“Republicans in Congress — not one of whom voted for this bill — have chosen to stand in the way of Americans’ rights to make the most personal decisions about their own bodies, families and lives,” Biden said in his response to the vote.

When the Senate was debating the bill, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed Biden’s rhetoric.

“Senate Republicans will face a choice: Either vote to protect the rights of women to exercise freedom over their own bodies or stand with the Supreme Court as 50 years of women’s rights are reduced to rubble before our very eyes,” he said.

Vice President Kamala Harris has also frequently used this same euphemism when discussing the killing of an unborn child.

In May, Harris spoke at a gala for EMILY’s List. On its website, this group says: “We elect Democratic pro-choice women to office.”

“You know, it seems like yesterday, but it was actually a year ago this month when we were all together at this dinner and the Dobbs decision had just been leaked,” Harris said that night. “And there were three words on my mind that night: How dare they.

“How dare they attack our healthcare system,” said Harris. “How dare they attack our fundamental rights. How dare they attack the freedom of the women of America to make decisions about their own bodies.”

Last October, Harris spoke at a Democratic Party event in Texas, where she attacked pro-life political leaders.

“And now, many of these extremist so-called leaders are calling for an abortion ban nationwide. Nationwide,” she said. “They believe government, not women, should make decisions about their own bodies. Well, we do not.”

In September 2021, Harris spoke at a White House “reproductive rights roundtable.” “The president and I are unequivocal in our support of Roe v. Wade and the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, and the right of women to make decisions for themselves with whomever they choose — about their own bodies,” said Harris. “And, needless to say, the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision; it is their body.”

But is it only “their body” that is affected by an abortion?

No. An abortion aborts a human life.

Yes, this human life is carried within the body of the mother, but it is not her own body. It is a separate and unique human being.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has collected a set of statements made in scientific publications indicating that human life begins at the moment of fertilization. One of these comes from Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, published in 1976.

“At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun,” says this scientific encyclopedia.

“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization,” says the 2003 edition of The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e. embryo).”

Do Biden, Harris, Schumer and other pro-abortion politicians not understand this basic biological fact? Or do they seek to hide it because recognizing it would destroy any argument they could make for legalized abortion — which kills an innocent human life?

Biden himself has made contradictory claims on when human life begins, while maintaining his pro-abortion position. In a 2012 debate with Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan (as this column has noted before), Biden attributed his then-belief that life begins at conception to the Catholic Church — not biological science. “With regard to abortion,” he said, “I accept my church’s position on abortion as what we call a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.”

He then said: “I just refuse to impose it on others, unlike my friend here.”

In September 2021, as president, Biden (as Newsweek has reported) expressed the opposite view.

“I respect them — they — those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all,” Biden said. “I respect that. Don’t agree, but I respect that. I’m not going to impose that on people.”

By constantly shining a light on the irrefutable fact that human life does begin at conception, pro-life political leaders can fully restore this nation’s legal respect for the right to life.

White Ethnic Flight from America’s Cities; What Moynihan understood that Sotomayor doesn’t.



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

In 1965, then undersecretary of labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan foresaw a problem that was about to undo the promise of Martin Luther King’s 1963 “I have a dream” speech, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and his boss Lyndon Jonson’s 1965 launch of the “Great Society.”

In reading her dissenting opinion last week on the affirmative action case before the Supreme Court, I got the distinct impression that Justice Sonia Sotomayor never read Moynihan’s The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, likely never heard of it, and certainly had no idea of how prescient it would prove to be.

Despite the “full recognition of their civil rights,” argued Moynihan, black Americans were growing increasingly discontent. They were expecting that equal opportunities would “produce roughly equal results, as compared with other groups,” but, added Moynihan, “This is not going to happen.” Nor did he think it ever would happen “unless a new and special effort is made.”

Nearly sixty years later Moynihan’s warning seems all the more prophetic. Herculean efforts have been made over the years to  achieve “equal results,” but none has addressed the core issue. Wrote Moynihan:

The fundamental problem, in which this is most clearly the case, is that of family structure. The evidence— not final, but powerfully persuasive—is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling. A middle class group has managed to save itself, but for vast numbers of the unskilled, poorly educated city working class the fabric of conventional social relationships has all but disintegrated.

In a Father’s Day speech in 2008 then candidate Barack Obama affirmed Moynihan’s worst fears. “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important,” Obama told the congregation at a Chicago church.

Here, Obama spoke with a candor not heard since Lyndon Johnson threw Moynihan under the bus. “But if we are honest with ourselves,” he continued, “we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing—missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

Obama started chipping away at the very idea of systemic racism as the cause of Black failure. “We know that more than half of all Black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled—doubled—since we were children. We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison.”

Like Moynihan, Obama came in for a spanking of his own. A hot mic at a Fox News studio picked up Jesse Jackson saying to another Black guest, “See, Barack been, um, talking down to Black people on this faith-based—I wanna cut his nuts out.” Here Jackson made a cutting motion with his hands and added additional commentary that I dare not repeat. Obama got the message. He never spoke forcefully on this subject again.

If nothing else, Jesse Jackson affirmed Moynihan’s prediction:

“The principal challenge of the next phase of the Negro revolution is to make certain that equality of results will now follow. If we do not, there will be no social peace in the United States for generations.”

In her contentious and confused dissenting opinion on the affirmative action case before the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor proved there is no social peace even in the highest court of the land.

“The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection,” Sotomayor scolds her colleagues, “by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.”

Where to begin?  For starters, in my new book, Untenable: The True Story of White Ethnic Flight from America’s Cities, I show the futility of any quest to achieve equity among ethnic groups either economically or academically.

Starting with no more “privilege” than any other ethnic group in my native Newark, New Jersey, Jewish students consistently outperformed all others. By mid-twentieth century, Blacks were narrowing the gap between themselves and the city’s two other dominant ethnic groups, Irish and Italian, but none of these groups would ever outperform Jews. Due to the family dissolution of which Moynihan warned, Blacks would fall further behind the other three.

Later in the century, two other ethnic groups emerged in Newark as political blocs, Portuguese and Puerto Rican. The Portuguese had an advantage: they arrived in Newark free from the tentacles of the welfare state. With strong families and minimal public assistance, they created jobs and a harmonious neighborhood that has proved an attractive destination for outsiders. The Puerto Ricans did not.

In her dissent Sotomayor speaks of a society “where opportunity is dispensed along racial lines.” The Puerto Rican Sotomayor was, of course, righter than she knew. Fifty years ago, she was accepted at Princeton despite her admittedly below par test scores. “I am the perfect affirmative action baby,” she has conceded. Her “racial” line was what got her in the front door although, in truth, “Puerto Rican” is no more a race than Mexican or American.

Sotomayor attributes the “achievement gaps” in standardized test scores to “entrenched racial inequality in K–12 education.” Sotomayor, however, attended excellent Catholic schools in New York City K-12. That she would get an affirmative action bump while the Portuguese would not is attributable solely to the political clout of the much larger “Latino” bloc. It has nothing to do with justice.

Fifty years after Sotomayor’s admission to Princeton, Puerto Ricans remain among the “underrepresented groups.” The reason why they are underrepresented, she contends, is that, “for far too long [they] were denied admission through the force of law.” This is nonsense. With logic like this, it was no wonder she tested poorly.

Even if Puerto Ricans as a cultural group were as achievement oriented as Jews and many Asian groups, their rates of fatherlessness would subvert their ambitions. In Puerto Rico, 49 percent of children live in single parent households. For Puerto Ricans in the U.S. the number is likely comparable. This would be two times higher than the rate among blacks that triggered Moynihan’s report.

Writ large, some 42 percent of “Latino” children live in single parent households today. This compares to 24 percent among non-Hispanic whites and 16 percent among Asians. For Black children, the number is 64 percent.

Given the odds at the starting gate, “equity’ will only be achieved if President Biden appoints the equivalent of what satirist Kurt Vonnegut called a “handicapper general.” In his 1961 short story “Harrison Bergeron,” Vonnegut imagined an official with the power to assure that everyone would be “equal every which way” and no one would be “smarter than anybody else.”

Sonia Sotomayor, I think, has just the right amount of imagination to do that job well.

Jack Cashill’s new book, Untenable: The True Story of White Ethnic Flight from America’s Cities, is now widely available.

Clarence Thomas Flexes All Over SCOTUS Diversity Hire Ketanji Brown Jackson in Affirmative Action Opinion

The Morning Briefing: Clarence Thomas Flexes All Over SCOTUS Diversity Hire Ketanji Brown Jackson in Affirmative Action Opinion



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Top O’ the Briefing

Happy Friday, dear Kruiser Morning Briefing friends, Shawna never failed to please the quilting bee with her Spam snacks.

The thoroughly racist policy known as affirmative action was finally given a groin kick by the Supreme Court of the United States. Once again, thank you, President Trump.

Predictably, the lefties lost their tiny minds over this. They quiver themselves into fits when their racism isn’t protected by law. They have to keep minority voters in lockstep place, after all.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (I still want to type “Jackson Brown” because I’m a kid from the ’70s) wrote a dissenting opinion that proved why she should not be on the Court. She is part of President LOLEightyonemillion’s ongoing promise to give black women high-profile jobs. For any lefties out there who want to scream, “RAAAAAACISMMMM!” I will say this: The United States of America is blessed with millions upon millions of brilliant black women. The Democrats just don’t seem to know any of them.

Joe Biden managed to do something that most thought was impossible: he nominated a woman to the Supreme Court who is dumber than Sonia Sotomayor. Props, Big Guy, that was quite the task.

Justice Brown Jackson’s dissenting opinion was absolutely torn apart by one of the greatest Americans in history: Justice Clarence Thomas. Matt wrote the story for us:

“Accordingly, JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments,” Thomas wrote. “What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.”

Oh, but he wasn’t done yet.

“JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to ‘experts’ and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race,” Thomas continued. “Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will ‘tell us [what] is required to level the playing field’ among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. […] Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to “march forward together” into some utopian vision.”


Clarence Thomas made his way to where he is solely on merit. Black American conservatives are routinely smeared by racist Democrats as “Uncle Toms” (which is completely wrong because none of them have ever read the book) and disparaged as being “race traitors.”

Don’t wander away and do whatever you want to, Minority Voter, or we’ll do everything we can to ruin you.

I don’t have much faith in our institutions anymore, but the fact that Clarence Thomas is still on the Supreme Court gives me a little hope.


Clarence Thomas SCORCHES Ketanji Brown Jackson in Concurring Opinion



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

In a long-awaited decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court declared that affirmative action policies are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As you can expect, The court was split on ideological lines. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joe Biden’s affirmative action pick for the Supreme Court, blasted the majority opinion in her dissenting opinion.

“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces “colorblindness for all” by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life,” she claimed. “And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.”

“No one benefits from ignorance,” she continued. “Although formal race-linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today’s ruling makes things worse, not better. The best that can be said of the majority’s perspective is that it proceeds (ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism.”

Jackson obviously has no problem advancing through life based on the color of her skin rather than on merit. Joe Biden promised to appoint a black female justice to the Supreme Court and followed through. He may have picked someone who doesn’t know what a female is, but he picked her nonetheless. As one could have easily assumed, she’s no different that the usual race hustlers of the radical left, and she got called out on it by none other than Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion.

“Accordingly, JUSTICE JACKSON’s race-infused worldview falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments,” Thomas wrote. “What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic worldview based on individuals’ skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.”

Oh, but she wasn’t done yet.

“JUSTICE JACKSON then builds from her faulty premise to call for action, arguing that courts should defer to ‘experts’ and allow institutions to discriminate on the basis of race,” Thomas continued. “Make no mistake: Her dissent is not a vanguard of the innocent and helpless. It is instead a call to empower privileged elites, who will ‘tell us [what] is required to level the playing field’ among castes and classifications that they alone can divine. […] Then, after siloing us all into racial castes and pitting those castes against each other, the dissent somehow believes that we will be able—at some undefined point—to “march forward together” into some utopian vision.”

Thomas went on to accuse Jackson of using race-based stereotypes in her dissent and never seemed to pull a punch to shred her dissent to pieces.

Though JUSTICE JACKSON seems to think that her race- based theory can somehow benefit everyone, it is an immutable fact that “every time the government uses racial criteria to ‘bring the races together,’ someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race.” […] Indeed, JUSTICE JACKSON seems to have no response—no explanation at all—for the people who will shoulder that burden. How, for example, would JUSTICE JACKSON explain the need for race-based preferences to the Chinese student who has worked hard his whole life, only to be denied college admission in part because of his skin color? If such a burden would seem difficult to impose on a bright-eyed young person, that’s because it should be. History has taught us to abhor theories that call for elites to pick racial winners and losers in the name of sociological experimentation.

“This vision of meeting social racism with government-imposed racism is thus self-defeating, resulting in a never-ending cycle of victimization,” his response to Jackson concluded. “There is no reason to continue down that path. In the wake of the Civil War, the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment charted a way out: a colorblind Constitution that requires the government to, at long last, put aside its citizens’ skin color and focus on their individual achievements.”

Drop that mic, Justice Thomas; you nailed it.

NJ is Playing a Game of Chicken with Supreme Court & 2nd Amendment

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a legal challenge of New Jersey’s “sensitive places” concealed carry statute have filed a response to the state’s motion for a stay in the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin.

Second Amendment Foundation is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and four private citizens.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction, and the state filed a motion to stay the order pending appeal.

Second Amendment Foundation opposes the stay, arguing the state “did not meet its burden before the district court, and it cannot meet it in this Court. Thus a stay pending appeal should be denied.”

“The state is struggling with all its might,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “in a stubborn effort to retain a literal stranglehold on the rights of New Jersey citizens. We’re challenging the ban on legal carry in parks, on beaches, and at recreation facilities, publicly owned museums and libraries, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, entertainment facilities, airports (before TSA security), public transportation hubs, and the presumptive ban on private property.

“There is no established historical tradition that could justify the restrictions included in the new law. New Jersey simply cannot criminalize licensed concealed carry virtually everywhere in the state by designating everything as a ‘sensitive area,’ nor should it be allowed to continue enforcing these restrictions pending appeal.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the state is playing a game of chicken with the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment.

“The state is burdened with showing the carry restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, and we don’t see how that is possible,” Kraut said. “The state has not provided any evidence of Founding era restrictions like it wants to enforce today, and is essentially trying to stall the inevitable for as long as possible.”

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing, and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Second Amendment Foundation



Liberal Supreme Court Justice Caught in Scandal

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Caught in Scandal



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

In recent weeks, Democrats have ramped up criticism of conservative Supreme Court justices like Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, alleging corruption and using that as a pretext for congressional oversight of the court.

However, these accusations are baseless and lack legal or ethical standing. Justice Thomas was accused of not reporting free travel expenses received from a friend that he was not even required to report and a minor technical error in income reporting. Justice Gorsuch was accused of selling land to an executive of a law firm that had business before the Supreme Court, but he actually sold the property just after being confirmed, and the buyer had no business before the court at the time.

While these incidents were much ado about nothing, the same Democrats who were calling for DOJ investigations and impeachments will no doubt sing a different tune over the revelation that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took $3.6 million from Penguin Random House publishing when the company did have business before the court, and declined to recuse herself.

For our VIP Members: The Never-ending High-Tech Lynching of Clarence Thomas

In addition to the $3.6 million advance (which Penguin Random House lost money on), the Daily Wire found that Sotomayor received payments from the company annually from 2017 to 2021, totaling over $500,000. In 2013, she voted in a decision regarding a case involving Random House despite then-fellow Justice Stephen Breyer recusing himself after receiving money from the publisher. In 2020, Sotomayor received a $10,586 check from Penguin Random House on the same day a lawsuit against the publisher appeared before the Supreme Court. The Court voted not to hear the case in February 2020, and Sotomayor received her largest-ever payment from the publisher in May of that year.

While the media has been busy attacking conservative justices for supposed financial misconduct, including failure to disclose free travel, it turns out that Justice Sotomayor herself failed to disclose six trips funded by outside groups in 2016—without being targeted by the media or enduring the wrath of outraged Democrats.

If Democrats want to prove their attacks on Thomas and Gorsuch are sincere, and that the need for congressional oversight of the Supreme Court is genuine, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) should be calling for the impeachment of Sotomayor, as she did for Thomas. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) should be calling for the Department of Justice to investigate Sotomayor, as he did for Thomas.

But you know as well as I do that they won’t. The attacks on Thomas and Gorsuch had nothing to do with ethics or corruption, but politics. They’re angry that the court doesn’t vote how they want, and they’re trying to force conservative justices out.

Guess who’s never afraid to call out the mainstream media’s hypocrisy? That’s right, PJ Media! And you can help us expose the left and its ridiculousness by becoming a PJ Media VIP member.

These days, so many media outlets rely on big-name corporate donors, but we’re independent, which means we’re beholden to no one. And that means that your support means the world to us.
PJ Media VIPs get deeper dives into important issues as well as podcasts and an ad-free experience. VIPs also have a heck of a lot of fun.

VIP Gold gives you even more of the good stuff, like access to all of the Townhall family of sites, including Hot Air, Twitchy, Townhall, Bearing Arms, and RedState, along with live chats.

PJ Media VIP membership is a tremendous value on its own, but you can use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off! What are you waiting for? Sign up today! (edited) 

‘Ivermectin Case in Supreme Court’ with Dr. Peterson Pierre with Dr. Peterson Pierre presents Daily Dose: 'Ivermectin Case in Supreme Court’ (Ep. 2184- 2.3.2023). The Real Story of Good Health ~ in 120 Seconds or Less.


1 2 3 8