A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
DR. STEVE TURLEY: We’re going to look at the protests that have broken out in front of Pelosi’s home, we’re going to see the backlash that’s rising up against the Democrats’ lawlessness, and stick with me to the very end of this video when I’ll reveal precisely why a civil war is breaking out on the political left; you are NOT going to want to miss this!
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
President Joe Biden’s outgoing press secretary, Jen Psaki, was asked by reporters last week to explain the president’s use of the words “abort a child” when commenting on who should make that judgment. Psaki ducked the question. She responded only that “the President’s view on a woman’s right to make choices about her own healthcare is well known, well documented, well stated.”
President Biden also said that certain basic rights, such as the right to privacy, are inherent rights. They do not come from the government, President Biden said, “but because I’m just a child of God; I exist.” He would recognize, of course, that a pregnant woman too is a “child of God” who also has an inherent right to privacy.
However, in the pregnant woman’s case, according to the expansive concept of privacy adopted in Roe v. Wade, her inherent right to privacy means that she can make the choice, in President Biden’s own words, to “abort a child.” Conversely, in this way of thinking, the aborted child does not exist as a “child of God” with the inherent right to life but is considered instead to be a throw-away body part.
Indeed, Jen Psaki refused to answer whether the president supports an unlimited right to abortion, even up until the moment of birth. “He supports the right of a woman to make choices about her own body with her doctor,” Psaki insisted.
The Declaration of Independence recognized that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
During the course of the nation’s history and Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution over time, these basic rights have been extended to all “persons” and given deeper meaning as they are applied to new circumstances.
However, it is one thing to interpret the fundamental principle of “liberty,” as that word is used in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, to include a notion of privacy in someone’s intimate personal relationships that is protected from undue governmental interference. It is quite another thing to say that the protection of one’s privacy intrinsic to one’s own liberty extends to extinguishing another living being created in the image of God.
Abortion presents complex policy issues that are better left to be sorted out by the political process in which the people have a say through their elected representatives. Creating a completely new constitutional right to “abort a child” does violence to the true meaning of unalienable, God-given rights that are considered so fundamental to ordered liberty that they are beyond lawmakers’ discretion to deny.
President Biden and his press secretary have no problem referring to the right of a “woman” to make choices about her own body, evidently assuming that everyone knows what a “woman” is. Well, not everyone, as we saw during the Senate confirmation hearing of President Biden’s choice for the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson.
"Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman?’" Senator Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked the Supreme Court justice in waiting. "Can I provide a definition? No," Ms. Jackson responded. "I can't."
Thus, after Justice Stephen G. Breyer formally steps down as an associate justice this summer, he will be replaced by a justice who could not, or would not, even provide a definition of the word “woman.” Will she refer to "pregnant people" or "birthing people” instead as the class of individuals with the right to make choices about their own bodies and "abort a child," in order not to offend transgender men?
The Biden White House is so angry about the potential overruling of Roe v. Wade that the president and his spokesperson did not speak out for days against plans by pro-abortion extremists to carry their militant protests to where conservative Supreme Court justices live and where Catholics worship.
“I think the president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, referring to the leaked draft opinion overruling Roe v. Wade written by Justice Samuel Alito.
A radical pop-up group known as Ruth Sent Us, named after the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is one of the extreme leftist organizations behind an effort to intimidate Supreme Court justices by invading their privacy at home.
Another radical group involved with coordinating protests to pressure the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade is Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights. Its website calls for people opposed to “patriarchal domination” and “female enslavement” to “resist” and “fill the streets with our fury.”
Is a replay of the disruptive anti-police protests of the summer of 2020, which led to violence in the streets, in the offing?
The Ruth Sent Us group published the residential locations of six conservative justices and urged its followers to “rise up” in protest against them “to force accountability.”
Some radical pro-abortion activists gathered outside the homes of targeted Supreme Court justices on Saturday, in one case loudly chanting “No uterus, no opinion” outside of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home.
A reporter described the pro-abortion protest scene outside of Justice Kavanaugh’s home as "one of the scariest things" he had ever witnessed. He characterized the protests as an "attempt at intimidation."
Justice Alito and his family reportedly have been moved to an undisclosed location out of concern for their personal safety.
The radicals’ raucous protests outside the justices’ homes may have violated a federal law prohibiting pickets, parades, or demonstrations “near a building or residence occupied or used by” a judge “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge…”
But don’t expect the Biden Justice Department to take any action to enforce the law. Attorney General Merrick Garland is too busy monitoring parents’ behavior at school board meetings.
On May 9th, following the protests at two justices’ homes over the weekend, with more planned for this week, Jen Psaki finally tweeted the following statement:
“@POTUS strongly believes in the Constitutional right to protest. But that should never include violence, threats, or vandalism. Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.”
The White House also put out a statement on May 9th declaring that President Biden “strongly condemns” a Molotov cocktail attack on a Wisconsin pro-life group’s office over this past weekend.
Too little too late. President Biden himself should have gotten ahead of the mounting danger to the Supreme Court justices’ safety and the risk of violence. He should have addressed pro-abortion supporters directly with an urgent message for them to stand down from taking actions intended to intimidate any justices.
President Biden failed to do so.
Instead, President Biden managed to find time last week to insult the many millions of law-abiding Americans who believe in former President Donald Trump’s America First agenda. The president degraded his office by outlandishly claiming that the “MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history — in recent American history.”
That distinction belongs to Antifa and other far-left groups prone to violence.
Pro-abortion radicals not only hate the Supreme Court justices who may overrule Roe v. Wade, as well as the institution of the Supreme Court itself. They also hate the Catholic Church.
Pro-abortion radicals have no compunctions about defacing churches with pro-abortion graffiti, which they did last week to a Catholic Church in Boulder, Colorado.
Pro-abortion radicals also have no compunctions about interfering with Catholics’ freedom of worship, as they did last Saturday when they blocked the entrance to a New York City church.
And that is not all. Ruth Sent Us also tweeted the following threat on May 7th: “Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer. We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying. We’ll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries.”
Where is the self-declared devout Catholic Joe Biden’s outrage over a threat to burn the Eucharist? President Biden found time recently to condemn Islamophobia, but he has given hatred directed at Catholics by members of the Democrats’ progressive Left base a free pass.
Leftists have a habit of demanding rights for themselves and their own causes, including freedom of speech and privacy while having no problem denying these same rights to their declared “enemies.”
The Democrats' far-left base believes in mob rule rather than the rule of law. It is past time for President Biden to repudiate them.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S. Code § 1507 states that “any individual who “pickets or parades” with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” near a federal court or “near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer (emphasis mine)” will be fined, or “imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
It’s no surprise that Joe Biden’s Department of Justice hasn’t lifted a finger to arrest anyone obviously trying to interfere with a Supreme Court decision. It’s also not particularly surprising that Joe Biden’s U.S. Marshals Service hasn’t been tasked with protecting the homes of conservative justices who are under threat.
But the biggest non-surprise of all is that Biden doing nothing about prominent Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) all but encouraging and justifying violence against the justices.
“While we have seen and heard extraordinary anguish in our communities,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said, “we have been moved by how so many have channeled their righteous anger into meaningful action: planning to march and mobilize to make their voices heard.”
In the statement, Pelosi also attacked Republicans and the Supreme Court over the expected ruling, and says that Democrats will “fight relentlessly to enshrine Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.”
“Righteous anger,” indeed.
“Republicans have made clear that their goal will be to seek to criminalize abortion nationwide,” Pelosi said. “Republican state legislators across the country are already advancing extreme new laws, seeking to arrest doctors for offering reproductive care, ban abortion entirely with no exceptions, and even charge women with murder who exercise their right to choose.”
None of those proposals have passed in any state legislature. Pelosi is dancing with strawmen to gin up outrage against the justices. And given the hysteria that Pelosi and other Democrats are generating against the justices, any such rhetorical incendiary devices could motivate some radical left crackpot to attempt to give Biden a few more Supreme Court picks.
This should concern Attorney General Merrick Garland. But the man who wanted to sic the FBI on parents protesting at school board meetings — a purely local matter — is predictably quiet when federal judges are under threat from a hysterical mob of left-wing crazies.
According to senior fellow at the National Review Institute and Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy, the Biden DOJ is being silent on this for the same reason as the White House: “They are elevating their political interest in portraying the draft Supreme Court opinion as extreme over their constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully and protect both the Court and the justices.”
“I would note that months ago, when Attorney General Garland unjustifiably dispatched the FBI to investigate parents who were protesting the inclusion of racist and anti-American materials in school curricula, Garland claimed that the Justice Department had an interest in protecting teachers and school administrators. Not only was it untrue that schools were under siege; the relationship between parents and schools is a state and local issue, not a federal one — hypothetically, if a parent were to assault a teacher, it would be a state crime, not a federal one,” continued McCarthy.
Garland is just Biden’s errand boy. He does what he’s told to do. But Pelosi’s veiled threats against the justices, claiming that some anger is justified and should be encouraged, puts the Speaker outside the lines of acceptable behavior in a volatile political atmosphere.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is keenly aware of what she did when she issued a “call to arms” to fight the Supreme Court. With all the violence in her own city, maybe it is just background noise like gunshots on a Saturday night.
The mayor, who presides over a city with the 10th highest murder rate in the country, thought nothing of turning up the flame under an already roiling mob of “protesters” who are quite literally obstructing justice by blocking the homes of Supreme Court justices.
A far-left group leaked the addresses of the justices’ homes and a map for how to get each one, and since then the mobs have begun camping outside the homes of Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito in hopes of changing votes after a leaked draft decision on Mississippi’s Dobbs case suggested that the Court would send the issue of abortion back to the states.
Lightfoot’s “call to arms” came after a news conference in which she vowed to make the Windy City a “sanctuary” for abortion for women — but not for babies.
She promised $500,000 of other people’s money to pay for “free” abortions for people who come to Chicago to take advantage of the city’s newly declared “sanctuary” status.
“Proud to stand side-by-side with fearless women leaders of Chicago,” she wrote online. “We will fight like hell to protect reproductive freedom for women here and across the country.” What she doesn’t say, of course, is that even if Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood decisions, the flawed “canon” of law untethered from the Constitution, are removed, the issue of abortion goes back to the states.
Proud to stand side-by-side with fearless women leaders of Chicago. We will fight like hell to protect reproductive freedom for women here and across the country! #JusticeForAllPledgepic.twitter.com/65caG4d4HK
Lightfoot probably didn’t read Justice Alito’s majority opinion, but if she did, she would see that he included a proviso that this decision affected life and not other jurisprudence.
But Lightfoot, like many other people, knows that the gay marriage decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which somehow found same-sex marriage in the Constitution, may also one day devolve back to the states, where marriage always has been. She doesn’t want that to happen, thus her call to arms.
In a Twitter thread, the Chicago mayor, who’s gay, said to her “friends in the LGBTQ+ community” that “the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms. We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!”
Screenshot from Twitter
Lightfoot doesn’t trust the same voters who put her into office to decide the issues of marriage and abortion.
As Michael Quinn Sullivan, the publisher of Texas Scorecard, put it, “if this isn’t a call to insurrection, what is?”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
(Natural News) With the landmark 1973 Supreme Court Ruling (Roe v. Wade) soon to get the ax, California is already preparing to become the first ABORTION TOURISM STATE. A new bill, proposed by California senators Nancy Skinner and Anna Caballero, would pay pregnant women to travel into California and terminate the life of their baby. This program would financially incentivize women to get pregnant and abort their babies, over and over again.
This new package (Senate Bill 1142) would provide pregnant women with all the funds they need for a free abortion vacation. The bill calls these abortion vacation amenities “practical support services.” These funds include money for airfare, lodging, meals, dependent childcare, gas, and other financial assistance – as long as the women commit to aborting their babies. This program can target women at any stage of their pregnancy, even when the baby is viable outside the womb.
California Democrats look to regulate the population by controlling and coercing women
California Democrats are literally trying to regulate the population of the United States by coercing women into convenient abortions, at any stage of their baby’s gestation. The state would issue abortion vacation funds to various nonprofit organizations in the form of grants. Additionally, the law would require the California Health and Human Services Agency to conduct an “educational and outreach campaign” to lure women into abortion. The Agency would be tasked with developing a website, pointing women in the direction of the nearest abortion provider. After they make travel arrangements for the abortion, the targeted women can be reimbursed for practically all expenses related to the trip.
For the Democrats, this program is obviously all about control, as they take other people’s money to dictate predatory medical procedures over a woman’s body. In the process, they degrade the woman and discard innocent human life, while providing NO assistance to help the woman or her child find healing, life, dignity, and a future together.
High-level Democrats would love to end Roe v. Wade, because it allows them to control women at the state level, using taxpayer funds to dictate a pregnant woman’s future, while shouldering her loss, shame, and guilt. Democrats do not care about a woman’s choice, or else they would provide financial assistance programs to support her baby and the woman’s mental, emotional, and spiritual health. Protecting human life is more important than ever, as predatory governments and corporations prey on women and offer no hope for their situation, their family, or their future.
California already disregards body autonomy rights in favor of coercion and death
California is already pushing abortion for women. Abortion is financially incentivized by the state’s Medicaid program. California taxpayers are forced to pay for population control, as women are coerced into violating the body autonomy rights of the most vulnerable – their own child. Private insurers are even forced to pay for abortions under state law. California legislators are trying to erase the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” from the U.S. Constitution by guaranteeing unchecked abortion rights in the state’s Constitution.
Democrats pretend to be about “women’s rights,” but their actions suggest they only care about destroying the next generation of women and men. Suddenly, in California, it’s all about “my body, my choice” – as the state disregards the basic human rights of the unborn, allowing unchecked dismembering and vacuuming of their body parts, straight from the mother’s womb.
Of course, these fetal organs are valuable in the organ trafficking industry. The vaccine industry notoriously uses fetal organs to replicate pathogens for their biologics. Perhaps the state of California is being used to keep this organ trafficking industry viable, as the vaccine industry expands. Ironically, California is the same state that has vanquished all body autonomy rights, forcing adults, children, and babies to succumb to destructive vaccine mandates and passports (that are also causing further harm and loss of life).
The Deep State has been using the supreme court to dismantle America and our civilization for generations, and this Roe vs Wade issue is sending the Deep State into a frenzy, explains The New American's Alex Newman in this episode of Behind the Deep State. Learn how the Deep State has weaponized the judiciary; the U.S. supreme court in particular promotes the murder of babies, the destruction of the family, and the breakdown of Christian civilization. Also in this episode, Alex explains what we the people can do about it. 🇺🇸 The New American: http://www.thenewamerican.com/
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Following calls last week for pro-abortion leftist foot soldiers to intimidate conservative Supreme Court justices and disrupt masses at Catholic churches on Mother’s Day, the weekend saw an escalation in illegal pro-abortion activities. Using terrorist tactics — including intimidation, threats, vandalism, and arson — criminal leftist organizations seem to have pulled out all stops as the high court appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Given that the Left’s baseless claims — repeated ad nauseam in the liberal mainstream press — that a repeal of Roe is tantamount to the outright slavery of women, it was never a stretch to imagine that true-blue leftists who believe that hollow rhetoric would turn to violence. After all, if one actually believes the left-wing conspiracy theory that Christian conservatives are seeking to enslave women, one almost could not go too far in stopping them — especially if one had no moral or religious code restraining one’s behavior.
Enter — from stage left — the pro-abortion movement’s criminal foot soldiers who are faithfully executing their marching orders without anything resembling moral constraint.
Over the weekend, roughly 100 “protesters” descended on the homes of Supreme Court justices in a naked attempt to intimidate them by threats and fear. As Breitbart reported:
Protesters have taken drastic measures, like blocking church entrances and now showing up on the doorsteps of Supreme Court Justices’ homes.
Protesters marched in front of Chief Justice John Roberts’ home and reportedly chanted, “Keep abortion safe and legal.” Other chants included, “Pro-life is a lie, you don’t care if people die.”
Protesters also drew images of hangers in chalk on the street in front of Roberts’ home.
Somehow the same people who have spent the better part of 17 months claiming that trespassing is “insurrection” now claim that trespassing — along with blocking streets, disorderly conduct, and disturbing the peace — is a form of “peaceful protest.” Of course, they always claim that whatever they do is “peaceful protest” even when — as in the Summer of 2020 — it leaves a string of burned-out buildings, police cars, and city buses, as well as dozens of dead bodies and billions of dollars in damage across more than 200 American cities.
They claim they are peaceful, but they lie; threats and intimidation are not peaceful.
Bragging that “the whole world is watching,” these miscreants proudly and nakedly attempt to terrorize conservative Supreme Court justices to cow in fear and change their vote ahead of June’s decision.
— Rafael Sánchez-Cruz (@rafasanchezcruz) May 7, 2022
At Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home — and obviously suffering from cognitive dissonance caused by the inconsistency of their own mindless mantras — the crowd who (in different circumstances) claim that men who claim to be women are, in fact, women, chanted, “No uterus, no opinion.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
But while their mental faculties may demonstrate decline, their immoral use of terrorist tactics, such as fear and intimidation, appears to be gaining steam. Another round of “protests” is scheduled for Justice Alito’s home on Monday.
And while some may offer lame excuses for employing fear and intimidation by claiming that these “marchers” are merely “peacefully protesting,” it is important to note that while one flank is working the intimidation angle at the homes of conservative justices, another flank is targeting churches. And their tactics are slightly more — shall we say — aggressive.
Late last week, Ruth Sent Us sent out a call to arms, instructing pro-abortion foot soldiers to focus on what they see as the real enemy: the Catholic Church.
Whether you’re a “Catholic for Choice”, ex-Catholic, of other or no faith, recognize that six extremist Catholics set out to overturn Roe. Stand at or in a local Catholic Church Sun May 8. #WarOnWomen#MothersDayStrikepic.twitter.com/v2vtpd12Gp
Dressed as characters from A Handmaid’s Tale, Ruth Sent Us activists showed how to disrupt services at Catholic Churches. In one video, taken prior to Mother’s Day, they are seen disrupting a Catholic mass and stating, “For 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has been an institution for the enslavement of women.”
Here again, is the claim that any woman who cannot murder her unborn child is a slave.
But beyond that, here is an example of orchestrated criminal activity. By organizing criminal trespass (which, remember, is insurrection), Ruth Sent Us is a criminal organization. And since the goal of these “protests” is to force political change, then — by the FBI’s definition — Ruth Sent Us is a terrorist organization.
Planned Mother’s Day “protests” were indeed carried out. And while — almost certainly due to the diligence of Catholic parishioners across the country who made known their diligence — there were fewer episodes of “walk-ins” than Ruth Sent Us would have liked to have seen, such disruptions did happen. As CNA reported:
In Los Angeles, the 10 a.m. Sunday Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels was disrupted just before Communion by female protesters dressed in “huge hats” and “red, hooded gowns,” parishioner Bradford Adkins, 35, of Los Angeles, told CNA. Adkins said the women were shouting and unfurled a large green banner but were escorted away, allowing the Mass to resume.
Pro abortion activists disrupt a Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in LA. pic.twitter.com/XGiTHT7co0
On Saturday, pro-abortion activists blocked the entrance of Old St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Lower Manhattan in New York City. For safety reasons, police at the scene halted plans for a pro-life procession to a nearby Planned Parenthood abortion facility, as happens on the first Saturday of the month.
At that orchestrated event, “protesters” who criminally blocked access to a church chanted, “Thank God for abortion.” And Kathryn Jean Lopez, a columnist for National Review who reported live from the “protest,” told of a woman who perhaps personifies the pro-abortion movement. Wearing a bathing suit with dolls dangling to represent her abortions, the woman danced and chanted, “God killed his kid, why can’t I kill mine?”
That hatred of God and Christ — so prevalent among the Left in general and the pro-abortion movement in particular — is not a side dish; it is the main course.
And since such people have no moral constraints, violence is inevitable.
As The New Americanreported, that violence came over the weekend:
Pro-abortion activism is getting increasingly violent across the United States. On Sunday, the headquarters of a non-profit pro-life organization in Madison, Wisconsin, were attacked by a leftist anarchist group.
According to a Madison.com report, vandals set fire to the Wisconsin Family Action (WFA) office early Sunday. Two staff returned to the office to find the office heavily damaged. There was shattered glass from a broken window covering a corner office, with books and furniture tossed over and thrown around. Graffiti written on the wall said, “If abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either.” Other graffiti apparently depicted a logo of Anarchy 1312, the organization allegedly responsible for the attack.
The pro-life center in Madison was not alone. Other acts of violence against pro-life organizations were reported n other parts of the country. From CNA:
In Denton, Texas, a pro-life pregnancy center called Loreto House was defaced with graffiti that read, “Not a clinic,” and “Forced pregnancy is murder.” In a tweet, Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth said, “Please pray for the person who perpetrated this, for their interior healing and moral conversion.”
These events come on the heels of increasing vandalism against churches — mostly Catholic — in past weeks. But with leftist groups openly advocating criminal actions in the wake of the SCOTUS leak showing that the Court likely intends to strike down Roe, more is expected.
With attempts to sway the Court through fear and intimidation as well as interfering with the ability of Americans to exercise a right protected by the Constitution — accompanied by actual criminal acts of vandalism and arson — can we call pro-abortion groups such as Ruth Sent Us and ShutDownDC terrorist organizations now?
Protests at Kavanaugh's house 'nothing short of horrifying': Douglas Blair
The Daily Signal news producer Douglas Blair argues the protests at Supreme Court justices' homes are an attempt at intimidation, saying it was 'one of the scariest things' he's ever seen.
Pro-choice activists protest at homes of Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh over draft abortion ruling
Clarence Thomas breaks silence on leaked Roe v. Wade overturn opinion protestors
Fmr. Law Clerk to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Mike Davis, reacted to Justice Clarence Thomas' comments on protests after the leak of a draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade, on Monday's "National Report."
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Speaking at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference on Friday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas observed that if Americans are unwilling to “live with outcomes we don’t agree with,” the entire judicial system is threatened. He was, of course, right; beyond that, more than just the judiciary is threatened. The Left’s furious intransigence and willingness to resort to intimidation and violence threatens the very foundations of the United States as a free society.
Thomas noted that the leak of the draft majority opinion of Justice Samuel Alito striking down Roe v. Wade may have been “one symptom of that” unwillingness to accept unfavorable outcomes. Right again, Justice Thomas: the leak was a naked attempt to initiate protests and even threats that, the leaker hopes, will intimidate one or more Justices into changing their votes and keeping Roe in place. It’s just the opposite of how the American system is supposed to work.
“It bodes ill for a free society,” Thomas added. American institutions must not be placed in the position of having to “give you only the outcome you want or can be bullied” to do so. Yet Thomas also noted that there is a “different attitude of the young,” and that “recent events have shown this major change.” Indeed, all too many young people have been indoctrinated into Leftism in America’s schools, and have no appreciation for the freedom of speech or any aspect of America’s rich heritage of liberty. The leaker, once he or she is found, will without any doubt be lionized as a hero on the Left. This is the Left that has likened violent and destructive Antifa thugs to the American heroes who stormed the Normandy beaches. This is the Left that has so much contempt for American history that it has torn down or overseen the removal of statues of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Ulysses S. Grant. This is the Left that has made it abundantly clear that it intends to “fundamentally transform the country,” as Old Joe promised to do in May 2020, echoing Barack Obama’s 2008 pledge.
Leftists today have repeatedly demonstrated their hatred for America’s heritage, laws, traditions, and Constitution. Why would they respect the time-hallowed custom of preserving the secrecy of unpublished Supreme Court documents or punish the person responsible, especially when that person’s actions have helped them further their agenda? A vote to overturn Roe v. Wade would likely be five to four; only one Justice has to be threatened or frightened into changing his or her vote for the Left’s sacrament — the centerpiece of its worship of radical individualism and personal autonomy, and its refusal to accept biological reality — to be preserved. The person who would be responsible for that Justice changing his or her vote would be hailed with more gusto and fervor than the Left hailed even George Floyd, Huey P. Newton, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, or Alger Hiss.
Even Barack Obama, a former president of the United States, has called for protests: “We’re asking you to join with the activists who’ve been sounding the alarm on this issue for years and act. Stand with them at a local protest. Volunteer with them on a campaign. Join with them in urging Congress to codify Roe into law.” The intimidation has begun.
Chief Justice John Roberts, however, has insisted that it won’t work: “To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.”
Maybe it won’t. But even if no Supreme Court Justice ends up being affected by the intimidation campaign, Thomas is right: a line has been crossed. The Court is not respected any more than the Left respects anything. It is just a vehicle for the fulfillment of the Left’s wishes until the time comes when it can be discarded.
We are in danger of entering into a period of government by threat and intimidation, in which elected officials are prompted to do the bidding of sinister forces by violent mobs showing up at their doorstep (remember, the Justices likely to vote to overturn Roe have been doxxed). Leftist leaders these days love to warn about threats to “our democracy,” by which they mean the Left’s hegemony. Plato in The Republic identified democracy as the lowest form of government and warned that it degenerated into mob rule. We’re on the verge right now of proving him right.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Chanting “Abortion Rights are Human Rights!” several dozen protesters gathered in the early evening on Saturday in front of the homes of two Supreme Court justices to protest the possible decision overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade.
The protesters milled about in front of the homes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, shouting slogans and carrying signs. “No Forced Pregnancy” and “Abortion is Healthcare,” they chanted, and “No uterus, no opinion” — which appeared to sideline transgender women from the protest.
Aside from not knowing how babies are made, there was nothing original in the protester’s demonstrations.
The protest began at a local café in Chevy Chase before they began their march to the homes of Roberts and Kavanaugh, with a flyer for the event stating that they will protest outside the houses “for reproductive freedom.”
Protesters can be heard chanting “Keep abortion safe and legal” during the protest.
Images of coat hangers could also be seen chalked on the street where the march took place.
A left-wing group called ShutDown DC is also planning on holding another protest outside of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s house on May 9.
The protest wasn’t very diverse. In fact, there was just one black person visible in the five-minute clip posted below.
“If you take away our choices, we will riot,” one protester said with a smile on her face.
The first stop, Justice Kavanaugh’s home, where chants of “No uterus, no opinion” were greeted by Montgomery County police officers.
Organizers asked the crowd to continue moving to avoid arrests and allow the flow of traffic in the residential area.
The second stop, Justice Roberts’ home where protesters yelled “the world is watching,” and where DC Metro police officers were also on standby.
For months Lacie Wooten-Holway has been holding candle light vigils, in front of Justice Kavanagh’s home but since the leak, she says the crowd has gotten bigger. “If you take away our choices, we will riot”, says Wooten-Holway who has had an abortion and is a sexual assault survivor.
The hysteria is growing, as is the danger of some kind of explosion of violence. The protesters are working themselves into a frenzy. Eventually, they will be unable to top “over the top” except with a violent outburst.
When that happens, will the White House finally condemn the violence?
Kate Dalley hosts the final hour of the Alex Jones Show and is joined live via Skype by Krisanne Hall, a constitutional attorney who exposes Roe V. Wade as the political circus it truly is.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
After two years of violent attacks on American liberties and the Constitution under the pretext of the “pandemic response,” breaking long-standing ethical norms and procedures of the nation’s top court does not seem like a big deal to leftists. A leaked draft majority opinion on the Supreme Court’s decision that overturns the purported constitutional right to abortion is already paying off and giving the Democratic Party something to run on this fall besides President Biden’s catastrophic record.
While many on the Left were outraged and frustrated by the Politico report on the draft that the Court recognized as authentic, the more pragmatic wing of the camp saw it as an opportunity to divert voters’ attention away from the economy, which was “built back better” to the point of looming food shortages, among other Biden’s “achievements.”
“2022 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION of OUR LIFETIME!” shouted Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison on Twitter, while warning voters that “attacking fundamental freedoms — a woman’s right to choose” is only a step in a lengthy process of Republicans “ravaging our rights.”
As reported by CNBC, “Hours after the draft was leaked, the Democratic National Committee, the governing body for the party, sent out a text message to potential donors highlighting the document.”
The message reportedly reads, “News shows SCOTUS is set to overturn Roe. We must hold the GOP accountable for their attacks. Rush $15 to the DNC.” The DNC has also launched ads on its Facebook page calling on people to donate to help preserve abortion “rights,” per the report.
On Tuesday, President Biden released a statement saying that his administration is strongly supporting women’s “right” to abort their children and called on the people to elect “pro-choice” officials in the upcoming mid-term elections.
So did his former boss, Barack Obama, in an ostentatious statement posted on Twitter.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) said in its own statement that “the stakes of protecting and expanding our Democratic Senate Majority that will fight to protect women’s health care [have] never been higher.”
Speaking at a ritzy gala organized by pro-abortion EMILY List on Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris urged Americans to “link arms in this fight” against “those Republicans leaders who are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women” and elect more pro-abortion legislators this November.
Democrats are also trying to invoke the boogeyman of patriarchy and remind American women that they are actually oppressed. According to The Hill, Democratic strategist Christy Setzer said, “It’s on. It’s time to get angry. It’s time to organize but mostly it’s time to tell a coherent story about what Republicans are doing to everyone that is not a straight, white Christian male in this country.” Setzer added that if the Democrats decide to make this their top message, they could change the trajectory of the elections.
Another Democratic strategist cited by the outlet, Karen Finney, called the leak a “shock to the system people needed” and “a wake-up call for women across America to understand what’s at stake.”
And it looks like this strategy is bearing fruit.
NARAL Pro-Choice America, a pro-abortion advocacy group, reported a 1,403-percent increase in donations since Politico published the SCOTUS draft on Monday night.
ActBlue, the nonprofit tech company that facilitates fundraising for left-wing groups and the Democratic Party, stated that donors had given $12 million in a little over 24 hours.
Numerous pro-abortion Democratic lawmakers used the leaked draft as an opportunity to “fundraise like crazy,” as Insiderput it. The report added that “on the Republican side, Supreme Court-themed fundraising was comparatively muted, although several conservative candidates and committees did ask for cash.”
In the meantime, Chief Justice John Roberts called the leak a “betrayal” and ordered an investigation into this stunning breach of the secrecy surrounding the Supreme Court deliberations.
The SCOTUS blog lamented that “This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin” and destroys trust among the justices and the staff.
GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell slammed the leak as “an attack on the independence of the Supreme Court” and “yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law.”
“Progressive” public figures, however, cheered for another tradition — and possibly a law — being broken in what they perceived would work to their political favor.
As reported by the Daily Caller, “Several prominent liberals took to social media to praise the anonymous individual” who leaked the draft.
Among others, Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, wrote, “Seriously, shout out to whoever the hero was within the Supreme Court who said ‘f*ck it! Let’s burn this place down.’”
As the old saying goes, “Desperate times call for desperate measures.” Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the party that faces devastating losses in the November midterms is trying to utilize whatever straw of hope they can to rally their dejected supporters around a new flag.
In other words, it looks like Democrats are using street magicians’ favorite trick — misdirection — and badly want voters to forget about the staggering inflation, corruption scandals, unprecedented border crisis, Covid mandates, and foreign-policy failures and focus on the issue of abortion instead.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Just as a wave of crucial midterm primary elections kicks off around the country this spring, the conveniently scheduled leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade became America’s new weapon of manufactured mass distraction.
Left-wing abortifa agitators descended on the Supreme Court steps in Washington, howling, “Fascist scum has got to go.”
Unhinged TikTokers called for “riots,” “gas” and “torches”; “burning it all to the ground” by targeting “all those old white men and the women who support them”; and “mayhem in the streets” that will dwarf the “global protests around George Floyd.”
One prototypical Hollywood feminist, Amanda Duarte (a self-described “barren, child-eating sex witch”), tweeted her fantasy involving the “little white daughters” of pro-life “white supremacist lawmakers” getting “raped and impregnated by black men.”
The aborticrats are not just nuts. They’re evil.
An “anarchist collective” is now instructing women (yes, all of a sudden, the left has discovered that biological women are really a thing) how to concoct “do it yourself” abortion pills with horse ulcer powder, corn syrup, and confectioners’ sugar. (Yes, these are the same types who made it a punishable offense to talk about alternative COVID-19 treatment ivermectin, the anti-malarial drug used safely for three decades around the globe by humans and animals.)
But I digress.
Right on cue, anti-Christian hatred spread like a raging Colorado wildfire across the internet, from the profane, abortion-promoting rabbi who fumed, “Shame on all who hold the cross” and, “Time to go to war” to thousands of his fellow online vigilantes posting, “F— Christians” with veiled or outright threats of violence.
Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union were at the ready in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and New York City’s Foley Square for “impromptu” protests and literal screamfests, where masses of spontaneously gathered rabble-rousers carried spontaneously printed, carbon-copy signs from the billion-dollar-funded giants of the Death Lobby. (So much for that “paper shortage” being used to justify ditching traditional paper ballot voting, right? Told you so.)
Question the timing? It would be irresponsible not to do so. Survey the political landscape. Earlier this week, left-wing NPR reported that President Joe Biden “is losing support from Gen Z.” The libs in deep-blue Massachusetts are sick of him, too, according to a new Boston Globe/Suffolk University poll. Another lib outlet, government-sponsored PBS, reported last week that “independents favor the GOP right now” because “runaway inflation is hitting everyone’s wallets and has given Republicans a political edge”; pollsters also found that “about half of parents with children under age 18 said they don’t like how [Biden] has handled COVID.”
Despite the Herculean attempts of the White House, Black Lives Matter, and woke media to gin up fear over “white supremacy” as the biggest threat to our nation, unbrainwashed citizens are revolting en masse against anti-white critical race theory in higher education and “social and emotional learning” (translation: thought control and behavior modification) in K-12 schools. BLM’s multimillion-dollar grift has now hit mainstream exposure. And the Biden Disinformation Governance Board, headed by TikTok warbling bubblehead and Hunter Biden laptop-whitewasher Nina Jankowicz, has become a laughingstock across the board.
The engineered and coordinated aborti-mania also comes at an opportune time for Biden’s Big Pharma allies. Just this week, a new study has documented more COVID-19 vaccine-induced heart infections. New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System confirms a “statistically significant increased risk for Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.” And profiteering Pfizer, which is pushing Biden to approve COVID-19 shots for children under 5, was forced to release more than 90,000 pages of jab data it tried to cover up.
Make no mistake: There are no coincidences, and conspiracies are not just theories, especially in an even-numbered election year with a crumbling, bumbling commander in chief and his minions clinging to power.
Michelle Malkin’s email address is MichelleMalkinInvestigates@protonmail.com. To find out more about Michelle Malkin and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Old Joe Biden said Tuesday that Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was “really quite a radical decision” and “a fundamental shift in American jurisprudence,” but as usual, he was lying. Alito’s decision appears to be carefully reasoned, firmly based on what the Constitution actually says, and written with full recognition of the nature and importance of judicial precedent. What is unprecedented is the leak that has allowed us to evaluate this decision before the Court has actually ruled on the case at hand, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That is the key aspect of this incident for what it reveals about the state of American public life today, the cardinal importance of abortion for the Left, and what might happen next.
As Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.” NPR legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, explained: “No fully-formed draft opinion has been leaked to the press or outside the court. Once or twice there may have been leaks that say how is something is going to turn out, or after the fact that somebody may have changed his or her mind. But this is a full-flown, Pentagon Papers-type compromise of the court’s work.” She added that while the leak wasn’t illegal, “it’s a career-ender for whoever did.”
Maybe it is. But maybe not. The leaker, once he or she is found, will without any doubt be lionized as a hero on the Left for allowing for what Daniel Greenfield called an attempt to “intimidate the Supreme Court” with “narratives, protests, and threats.” This is the Left that has likened violent and destructive Antifa thugs to the American heroes who stormed the Normandy beaches. This is the Left that has so much contempt for American history that it was torn down or overseen the removal of statues of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Ulysses S. Grant. This is the Left that has made it abundantly clear that it intends to “fundamentally transform the country,” as Old Joe promised to do in May 2020, echoing Barack Obama’s 2008 pledge.
Leftists today have repeatedly demonstrated their hatred for America’s heritage, laws, traditions, and Constitution. Why should they respect the time-hallowed custom of preserving the secrecy of unpublished Supreme Court documents, or punish the person responsible, especially when that person’s actions have helped them further their agenda? A vote to overturn Roe v. Wade would likely be five to four; only one Justice has to be threatened or frightened into changing his or her vote for the Left’s sacrament, the centerpiece of its worship of radical individualism and personal autonomy, and its refusal to accept biological reality, to be preserved. The person who would be responsible for that Justice changing his or her vote would be hailed with more gusto and fervor than the Left hailed even George Floyd, Huey P. Newton, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, or Alger Hiss.
And now Barack Obama has called for protests: “We’re asking you to join with the activists who’ve been sounding the alarm on this issue for years and act. Stand with them at a local protest. Volunteer with them on a campaign. Join with them in urging Congress to codify Roe into law.” The intimidation will begin. Chief Justice Roberts, however, insists that it won’t work: “To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way.”
Maybe it won’t. But what has happened to Roberts himself? He was placed on the Court as a conservative. In his early years, he voted with conservative stalwarts Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But over the years, something has changed. By June 2020, Roberts had essentially transformed himself into another vote for the Left on the Court. ABC News reported that Roberts “voted with the progressive wing on abortion, immigration, and Title VII,” and that consequently, “some outraged legal conservatives have accused Roberts, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, of betrayal.”
No one knows why Roberts turned, but it’s noteworthy that like so many other conservatives when they get to Washington, he did. One rarely, if ever, sees the opposite phenomenon: a prominent politician getting elected, or chosen for the Court, as a Leftist, and then moving rightward. Why? Will the intimidation and threats we will certainly see now be the first? Unlikely. Or is it simply a matter of not getting invited to the best parties in Washington, and being shunned by the in-crowd?
Whatever it is, it’s a terrible way to legislate and adjudicate. Whatever happens now, it is likely to take us to even newer lows.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
When they're not cashing in on murdered babies by selling their parts, they're doing it with fundraising.
Democrats and their affiliated outside groups have raised more than $7 million since a report first unveiled a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn the historic Roe v. Wade ruling and allow states to restrict abortions.
The donation website ActBlue, which allows donors to contribute online to Democratic campaigns, political action committees and outside groups that often support the the party’s policy goals, processed the gargantuan sum since Politico published the draft opinion Monday
And that's just ActBlue, which is massive in its own right, but far from all of it.
Some of that might be passive, sure, lefties feeling drawn to vent by sending money, but campaigns that bring in sizable amounts of cash do not pop up overnight. Even accounting for the media's function as a promotional arm for the fundraising machine, this is likely to be the result of targeted fundraising campaigns that had enough lead time to be developed and deployed.
As we've seen with this entire process, a variety of lefty special interest and activist groups were clearly tuned in and aware of what was about to happen. They had campaigns, ranging from protests to fundraising, ready to go as soon as the news went public.
And they're cashing in. $7 million is just the tip of the iceberg. Between the money that's going to flow in from megadonors (whom do you think Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are trying to impress with their public meltdowns) into dark and lighter money machines, we'll be looking at a quarter billion before long.
That's money Dems desperately need to compete in the midterms. Major donors had been shy because the odds were bad. This "leak" helps goose them.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
(Natural News) And now the demons come out for all to see.
The pro-abortion, baby murder advocates are already erupting in madness and anger over a leaked draft of a US Supreme Court decision that, if published, would overturn Roe vs. Wade and end federal protections for abortion.
Because the “right” to murder their own babies is the pillar of the violent, demonic, life-destroying Left, they are right now losing their minds over this, organizing protests and taking to the airwaves to denounce anyone who seeks to protect the life of an unborn human child.
Now, we are all getting to see the horrifying truth about the political Left in America: They are out for blood.
The political Left in America represents medical violence and murder against innocent children… by the millions
What do pedophilia, transgender genitalia mutilations, grooming, and abortion all have in common? They’re all aggressively demanded by the Left (Democrats). Just about anything that mutilates a child, rapes a child, murders a child, or disfigures a child is 100% supported by evil Leftists who absurdly call themselves “pro-choice.”
But the child gets no choice at all. If we don’t protect the life and the choice of the unborn, then we value no life at all.
And these same people pretending to be “pro-choice” demanded mandatory vaccines and mandatory masks for everyone, choice be damned.
They never believed in “choice.” They only believed in murder and violence against children. They simultaneously believe in their own “right” to murder their own unborn children while stripping away your right to say no to masks or vaccines. They are tyrants. Child-murdering tyrants.
And now they’re doubling down on that, demanding that SCOTUS alter its decision and protect the “right” to murder unborn babies in America.
Left-leaning states can still remain baby murder capitals, even if Roe is overturned
A defeat of Roe wouldn’t outlaw abortion nationwide, by the way. It would merely send the issue back to the states to decide on their own what they wish to do about the legal framework of abortion. Without any doubt, left-leaning states like California, Illinois, New York, and Maryland would double down on child murder and even become abortion tourism hubs that accept pregnant women from other states who wish to murder their own children.
What SCOTUS is simply saying in the leaked draft is that Roe vs. Wade was never passed as a law and thus was never properly debated or supported by the people and their representatives. The original 1973 decision was overreaching and smacks of the kind of judicial activism that Leftists always demand for their hot-button issues.
If states like California want to affirm the “right” of abortion factories to engage in the serial murder of human babies, they will still be able to operate as murder hubs and accomplish the demonic, ritualistic sacrifice of human children that they desire. (The abortion industry is steeped in Satanism, human sacrifice, organ harvesting, and worse…)
Naturally, all those engaged in abortion practices will one day have to answer to God, but at least with Roe overturned by SCOTUS, many pro-life states can declare themselves to be protectors of human children rather than murderers.
God’s wrath against America may be redirected only to those states that declare themselves to be baby murder factories.
Hold your ground and denounce the baby murderers… call them out for what they truly are: Demonic, murderous entities who fail the test of being “fully human”
Now is the time to take a stand and join the fight to protect the sanctity of human life in America. Stand up now and voice your support for overturning Roe vs. Wade. Denounce the delirious baby murderers and call them out for what they have truly become: Disgusting demons and Satan worshipers who harvest the organs and blood of children for everything from vaccine medical “research” to Satanic rituals that they pursue to increase their dark powers.
Remain peaceful but forceful in your courage and your voice: Call out the baby murderers and let them know that we know they are harboring demons and evil entities inside their biological shells. We know they want to end humanity and depopulate the planet, and that abortion is one of their key weapons to achieve that, right alongside vaccine clot shots, plastics chemicals in the food supply, and chemtrail geoengineering while stripping the atmosphere of CO2 which brings life to plants and crops. The Left is at war with everything that gives life to planet Earth. They are a lunatic death cult.
We are now in the final battle for the survival of the human race, and the abortion advocates have chosen to be on the anti-human side, with Satan and his minions. Let us defeat them and dismantle their murder factories once and for all. Every human life has value from the moment of conception, and organized abortion has always been a crime against humanity.
In today’s Situation Update podcast I call out the demons and Satan worshipers for what they truly are:
Taliban fighters hold their weapons as they stand atop a building at the Kart-e-Sakhi shrine in Kabul, Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Ahmad Halabisaz):
Why Are Second Amendment Cases Stalled in the Supreme Court?
In this video, Dudley Brown of the National Association For Gun Rights joins Eric to discuss possible reasons why the Supreme Court has heard a plethora of 1A cases but has turned most 2A cases away in recent years.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
After four days spent falsely accusing Justice Kavanaugh of sexual assault in high school, the Senate finally encountered a Supreme Court nominee with a horrifying sexual abuse record.
And we weren’t allowed to talk about it.
There is no way to know how many children had their lives ruined and their innocence stolen because Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson insisted on going easy on child pornography traffickers.
When Republicans tried to bring up Jackson’s horrifying actions, the media shouted them down.
The Los Angeles Times called Republicans asking Jackson basic questions about why Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to lock up pedophiles "sickening", Vanity Fair called it "vile", and Vox denounced it as "grotesque".
When sentencing one pedophile, Jackson claimed that his crimes which included possession of a video of a “pre-pubescent boy being penetrated anally and orally”, were not "particularly egregious".
227 leftists were arrested when they staged an insurrection during the Kavanaugh hearings because his high school yearbook contained a supposed coded reference to making out with a high school girl. The media “annotated” the yearbook of a man in his fifties speculating that “Orioles vs. Red Sox — Who Won, Anyway?” could be "jokes about being blackout drunk."
But we're not allowed to ask a judge who wants the top job in the country why she sentenced a violent child rapist to only 12 months with time served after he had lied about his whereabouts.
Instead of being locked up for a few years, he was out and committed another sexual assault, at which point Jackson once again went easy on him.
That didn’t happen in 1982 but in 2017. A year before the Kavanaugh hearings.
But if we talk about any of this, it’s “bigotry” and “hate”. Opposing the sexual abuse of children is the new hate. And every defender of sexually abusing children has jumped into the cause.
The Oscars, whose leading lights are responsible for more sexual assaults than an entire prison full of rapists, used their forum to attack Florida’s effort to protect children from sexual grooming in schools with the “Parental Rights Bill” which they and their media smear as, “Don’t Say Gay”.
The Left has embraced pedophilia in its Supreme Court nomination and in its opposition to parental rights. It rants that only haters would think that there’s anything wrong with going easy on pedophiles and that unrelated adults talking to kindergarteners about sex is a civil right and anyone who opposes it is a horrible bigot. No one who isn’t a pedophile or a Jackson agrees.
Even 52% to 36% of Florida Democrats support banning teachers from pushing sex on children.
Nationally, the vast majority of Republicans, Independents, Democrats, and human beings agree with the words of the bill, “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through third grade.”
Who gets to decide? As New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait put it, "DeSantis's Threats to Disney Is What Post-Trump Authoritarianism Looks Like".
Authoritarianism has now come to mean letting parents and voters, rather than a major corporation, decide whether anyone who manages to obtain a teaching license should be pushing creepy sexual agendas on school children as opposed to the public-private pedophilia partnership that is fueling the hate campaign against parental rights.
A decade ago, the Sun-Sentinel noted that over 175 Florida teachers had their teaching licenses pulled for sexual misconduct.
An elementary school teacher in Naples admitted to sexually abusing at least 19 children. Despite a little girl reporting, “Mr. Manley touches people’s private parts”, the educational system covered up for him and kept him on the job. An investigation published this year noted that "Manley began molesting children his first day on the job, and there wasn’t a single month during his employment at Parkside when he wasn’t abusing students."
A few weeks ago a Brevard County middle school teacher was busted by the South Florida Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) for soliciting nude photos.
Who thinks it’s a good idea to authorize these types of people to talk to six years old about sex?
Besides Disney, Ketanji Brown Jackson and every major celebrity with an Instagram account.
The media deems talking about this to be homophobic, transphobic, and, when discussing Jackson’s hands-off policy on pedophiles, racist. Protecting children is hateful. Standing up for their innocence is bigoted. Opposing pedophilia is almost certainly some sort of hate crime.
Jackson could not answer what a woman is, because she’s not a biologist. Nor could she answer at what age a child deserves the right to live. After generations of embracing the murder of babies as the highest form of feminism, leftists now insist that the only real women are men and that any babies they don’t manage to kill in the womb should be subjected to sexual grooming, puberty blockers, and any other monstrous tools for destroying their future.
Unlike Jackson’s decision to hand a mandatory-minimum sentence to a monster who uploaded a video of “a prepubescent girl" being sexually assaulted which is instead seen as “loving”.
If the Left actually cared about women and children, there would be 227 protesters arrested to condemn the very thought of Jackson tainting the Supreme Court with her sickening presence.
Instead, we’re lectured that Jackson’s nomination is “historic” because while there have been black men on the bench and women of all shades, she checks a box that has not yet been checked. Beyond the box of ‘pedophile enabler’ which was not born into, but honestly earned.
And we’re told that pushing sex on kindergarteners is also a wonderful form of love for them as if that weren’t the argument that every pedophile before them had made since time immemorial.
Now the Left wants pedophilia in the curriculum and on the Supreme Court as an “act of love”.
Love means fighting for the right to groom six-year-olds and to free child molesters. Hate has come to mean fighting for women and children, whether for their right to privacy and modesty or to be free of the sexual coercion and abuse that has become the Left’s signature form of love.
Leftists chorus that anyone who opposes this leftist love is practicing hate. But behind this love is the worst kind of hate. And behind what the Left falsely condemns as hate is real love.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
"Justice demands this result." That’s what Ketanji Brown Jackson said in 2011 after the U.S. Sentencing Commission knocked as much as three years off the prison terms of crack-cocaine convicts. As vice-chair of the commission, Jackson believed the nation’s drug laws were overly harsh and especially "unfair" to blacks.
A month earlier, Jackson had shrugged off Justice Department warnings that the decision -- which made more than 12,000 federal crack inmates eligible for early release -- could flood the streets with dangerous criminals who would likely re-offend.
Stephanie Rose: Former U.S. Attorney clashed with Ketanji Brown Jackson on early inmate releases and repeat offenders.
8thcirc/Wikimedia
"[B]y keeping them in longer, it doesn't seem to make a difference with regard to whether or not they recidivate," Jackson reasoned in a June 2011 commission hearing in Washington, according to transcripts reviewed by RealClearInvestigations.
Then-U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose objected: "It does protect the safety of the public, though, when they're not present to recidivate."
Unpersuaded, Jackson countered: "But the amount of time in jail doesn't affect that because there's no difference. If we keep them in jail for the extra 36 months, or whatever, they're going to recidivate at the same rate as if we released them early. So I don't see how public protection is being affected one way or the other in that scenario."
"Because during the three years they are in prison, they are not out committing new crimes — that's the difference," Rose replied, adding that the department had "public safety concerns" over cutting prison terms for so many felons at once.
Now vying for a spot on the U.S. Supreme Court, Jackson has struggled to fend off accusations that she is soft on crime. The Senate confirmation hearings have exposed a pattern: whether as a lawyer, sentencing commissioner, or judge, she has disregarded the warnings or recommendations of prosecutors and investigators while advocating or easing the punishment not just for drug dealers but also for child porn offenders and even accused terrorists.
Ketanji Brown Jackson (with Stephen Breyer, the retiring justice she would replace): "If we keep them in jail for the extra 36 months, or whatever, they're going to recidivate at the same rate as if we released them early."
White House
Jackson argues courts should have empathy for all people, no matter how egregious their behavior, and look to rehabilitate them and not just "lock them up and throw away the key."
Her supporters say she would bring a fresh new perspective to the high bench, which has been dominated by former prosecutors trained to keep criminals in prison, not out of it. If confirmed, Jackson would be the modern court's first public defender. No sitting justice has such experience.
But Republicans and other critics contend her compassion has come at a price. They say she's tended to cut criminals too much slack, putting them back on the street where they can repeat their crimes — and in many cases, some of them have reoffended and found new victims, records examined by RCI reveal.
Detractors say such leniency raises concerns about how, if confirmed, she would handle cases that may come before the high bench involving terrorism, child pornography, drug trafficking, and other serious crimes.
Although her direct impact on the case law would probably be minimal, with conservatives still commanding a solid majority in most cases, at age 51 she figures to be on the high court for a long time. And in the near term, she could write influential dissents, pulling the minority farther left, especially on criminal-justice issues. Court watchers say she could play a powerful role in resolving some major criminal-justice questions facing the bench — from the uniform application of sentencing guidelines to who is eligible for "compassionate release" from prison.
Ketanji Brown Jackson was behind a historic release of drug traffickers, and not just crack inmates.
AP
More Than 31,000 Drug-Traffickers Granted Early Release
While guiding the sentencing commission, Jackson didn’t just resist federal prosecutors' warnings that granting crack dealers early release would merely put them back in action faster. She also ignored their advice to exclude from eligibility those with firearms in their records. In the end, she sided with NAACP official Hilary O. Shelton, who called crack sentences "racially discriminatory" and demanded the commission "correct this injustice."
"People of color are being put in prison at much higher rates than their Caucasian counterparts," Shelton asserted, testifying before the commission alongside Rose.
But Jackson wasn’t satisfied with releasing only inmates locked up for dealing crack. In 2014, she helped push a proposal to slash sentencing guidelines for the full array of drug offenses. Several months later, the commission voted to let such inmates apply for the sweeping reductions retroactively -- a move that sped the release of tens of thousands more prisoners. Since drug felons make up roughly half the federal prison population, it was arguably the most consequential decision the panel has made in its 38-year history.
All told, more than 31,000 drug traffickers were granted early release, and most are now back on the streets. Studies show many of them are career criminals whose drug crimes involved guns — like Jackson's own uncle, Thomas Brown Jr., whose life prison sentence she helped get commuted around the same time.
Jackson assured the public that judges wouldn’t just dump prisoners into communities without first assessing their risk on a case-by-case basis. "Each drug offender is going to have to be evaluated individually in order to determine whether or not, as a result of dangerousness or otherwise, his or her sentence should be reduced," she said on NPR in July 2014.
In reality, more than two-thirds of all the drug traffickers who asked for early release got it, and virtually all those denied weren’t turned down because they were too dangerous to release, but because they weren’t eligible for release in the first place. An estimated 7,500-plus who received get-out-of-jail passes had used weapons as part of their underlying crimes. One of them was Washington D.C. gang leader Willie Best, sentenced in 2008 for firing a high-powered rifle at a rival drug gang member while sitting in a stolen car. Others had prior robbery, assault, and other violent convictions in their records.
Greg Forest, probation officer: "Police worked hard to put these folks away, and because of that, crime rates dropped." That was then.
LinkedIn
Federal probation officers told RCI that the releases happened so fast that their offices were overwhelmed and most of the parolees went straight to the streets without transitioning through halfway houses, which didn’t have bed space for them. They say the mass release has helped drive up crime rates across the country.
"Police worked hard to put these folks away, and because of that, crime rates dropped," said Greg Forest, chief U.S. probation officer for the Western District of North Carolina.
Partly as a result of the historic prison release engineered by President Biden’s high court nominee, cops and communities are dealing with a surge of repeat crime. So far, more than 1 in 3 — 35% — of the crack inmates released early have reoffended, according to a U.S. Sentencing Commission study conducted in 2020.
Those rearrested after incarceration didn’t just get prosecuted for drug offenses. A large share also committed violent crimes, including child abuse, rape, aggravated assault, kidnapping, weapons offenses, robbery, and even murder.
But the most violent ex-cons who reoffended soon after enjoying retroactive early release from lockup were the crack-cocaine dealers — the very group Jackson claimed had been most abused by "disparities" in drug sentencing and most deserving of release. They proved far more dangerous than inmates released early for dealing heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, or marijuana. Fully 25% of ex-crack convicts have committed new violent crimes upon release, the federal study revealed.
Jackson was carrying out President Obama’s race-based "de-incarceration" agenda. A two-time Obama appointee, she worked on Obama's 2008 campaign and also donated to it, federal campaign records show. The next year, Obama appointed her to the influential sentencing commission.
Then in 2012, he named her to the D.C. District Court bench. Four years later, Obama commuted the sentence of Jackson's uncle, Thomas Brown, who’d been serving time in Florida since 1989 for a three-strikes drug crime involving cocaine possession and trafficking, records show. (For his two earlier drug felonies, the state of Florida had given him probation, even though he also pleaded guilty to a gun charge in one of the cases.)
While sitting on the D.C. bench for eight years, Jackson personally granted a number of dangerous convicts immediate release from prison or reduced their sentences retroactively.
In 2020, for example, convicted drug kingpin Keith J. Young asked Jackson for a so-called "compassionate release" from federal prison. In 2017, Young was busted with two bricks of heroin laced with fentanyl and an arsenal of weapons, including guns with multiple extended magazines. A jury found him guilty in 2018 and he was sentenced by Jackson to the mandatory 20 years in prison.
In order to grant a compassionate release or reduction, a court must find that the defendant "is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community." Prosecutors advised Jackson that Young still posed a threat. But she nonetheless slashed his term from 20 years to 12 years, while transferring him to a lower-security facility due to "medical conditions."
When originally sentencing him in 2018, Jackson told Young she regretted the mandatory 20-year term she was forced to give him under federal law. She hoped to give him half that time. She told him that she shared his "frustration" with the law, which she found "quite frankly, upsetting," and apologized for having to follow it.
"I am sorry, mostly because I believe in second chances and because a person with your characteristics and family support would have had a real shot at turning your life around," she told the career criminal, who had a prior cocaine-distribution conviction on his record and had taken videos and selfies posing with his guns and bragging about being a drug "kingpin." She said she wanted him to be "there for your kids."
In addition to the stiff sentence, prosecutors had also wanted the judge to seize $180,000 from the drug dealer, but Jackson strenuously objected to the forfeiture. She even waived any fines in his case.
"Mr. Young, good luck," the judge said. "Thank you, your honor," he replied.
At her confirmation hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Tom Cotton accused Jackson of refusing to follow sentencing laws, which do not allow her to retroactively resentence convicts like Young to serve less time. He said she misused the compassionate-release option to sidestep the mandatory sentence she never wanted to give the drug dealer back in 2018.
"You chose to rewrite the law because you were sympathetic to a fentanyl drug kingpin whom you had expressed frustration at having to sentence him to his 20-year sentence in the first place," the Arkansas Republican said. "It was a blatant rewrite of the law so you could reduce the sentence."
"Respectfully, senator, I disagree," Jackson replied, though she admitted she had "policy disagreements" with sentencing guidelines set by Congress.
LaVance Greene, shown in the 1975 documentary: "Compassionate release" for a killer of a U.S. marshal.
YouTube
Early last year, the judge granted a "compassionate release" for LaVance Greene, who was serving a life sentence for fatally shooting a U.S. marshal in 1971 while helping his bank robber half-brother escape custody in Washington. She made the decision over the objections of the U.S. Marshals Service and federal prosecutors. Jackson argued that the 72-year-old Greene, whose release had been rejected several times by the parole board, no longer posed a "significant risk of danger," even though authorities pointed out that Greene had recently threatened prison staff with a weapon. The judge cited other evidence that Greene was a "model prisoner" who took numerous prison educational classes, including drug abuse and treatment programs.
"[T]o the extent the Government suggests that some crimes are just too egregious to warrant granting a defendant's request for compassionate release, this Court disagrees," Jackson argued in her ruling to put a murderer back on the street.
Jackson has softened sentencing for other inmates convicted of attacking law enforcement personnel. Take the D.C. case of David Jenkins. After the defendant was convicted for a third time of assaulting a police officer, who was trying to arrest him on a warrant for assault with a deadly weapon, prosecutors requested he be locked up for 30 months. His defense attorney pleaded for 21 months. In her 2015 sentencing, Jackson gave him only 18 months.
In another window into her thinking on crime and punishment, in April 2020 Jackson wrote a memo opinion addressing Sean Ray Higgins and other D.C. criminal defendants who asked for early release to home confinement due to the COVID outbreak. Higgins had pleaded guilty to a large heroin trafficking conspiracy involving high-powered weapons and was awaiting sentencing while in jail. Jackson said it was a "close call" to ever detain him in the first place. She revealed that she regretted that she couldn’t release him, along with "each and every" other inmate in district custody. She lamented that her hands were tied by the bureaucracy.
"The obvious increased risk of harm that the COVID-19 pandemic poses to individuals who have been detained in the District's correctional facilities reasonably suggests that each and every criminal defendant who is currently in D.C. DOC [Department of Corrections] custody—and who thus cannot take independent measures to control their own hygiene and distance themselves from others—should be released," Jackson said. "But the unfortunate current state of affairs is that the judiciary is limited in the steps that it can take to respond to the legitimate and pressing COVID-19-related concerns."
At the time, the D.C. Department of Corrections housed more than 1,560 inmates.
Wesley Keith Hawkins: Jackson sentenced him to three months. The prosecution sought two years.
DC Sex Offender Registry
Going Easy on Pedophiles
When she was getting her law degree at Harvard, Jackson wrote a brief in the Harvard Law Review arguing that the judicial system was unfair to people who sexually prey on children, because it sentences them to monitoring and treatment after prison, which she viewed as additional "punishment" masquerading as prevention. Although the Supreme Court has upheld such requirements, she complained that "community notification subjects ex-convicts to stigmatization and ostracism, and puts them at the mercy of a public that is outraged by sex crimes." She further worried that ordering offenders to enter mental health facilities deprives them of their "fundamental right to freedom," and she suggested that its real purpose is satisfying "the societal interest in locking sex offenders up and throwing away the key."
Her apparent empathy for such offenders has carried over into her years on the sentencing commission and federal bench.
On the commission, Jackson took a special interest in federal sentencing guidelines for child pornography, which makes up less than 2% of cases on the federal docket. She stated in hearings that she did not "necessarily" view child pornography offenders as pedophiles, and suggested that federal sentencing guidelines mandating they be locked up for a minimum of five years "may be excessively severe" — a view that once again was seemingly at odds with the Obama Justice Department, which advised the commission to "ensure that the sentences for child exploitation offenses adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes and the offenders."
Jackson’s own views manifested in a major 2012 commission report to Congress, "Federal Child Pornography Offenses," which found that current federal sentencing guidelines — including aggravating factors based on the volume of illegal porn in a defendant’s possession — were "outdated" thanks to easier access to such porn on the Internet and were therefore "too severe" for today's defendants busted for collecting child porn online, even when it includes videos of child rape. The report specifically recommended lighter sentences for such criminals.
As a result of the proposed new guidelines, critics say many judges across the country have found ways to avoid giving felons who receive or solicit child porn the mandatory minimum prison sentence. In addition, the report that Jackson spearheaded also questioned the "collateral issues" of federal courts ordering child pornographers to register as sex offenders and commit to treatment, echoing the concerns she raised in her 1996 Harvard Law Review paper.
Later, as a D.C. judge, Jackson under-sentenced defendants in every single child porn case in which she had the discretion to mete out punishment, court records show, even though some were caught with thousands of illegal images and videos of minors and one was busted with images of naked toddlers tortured by adults in sadomasochistic acts. She not only departed from federal sentencing guidelines but in many cases eschewed the recommendations of prosecutors and sometimes even probation departments, leaning instead in favor of the lighter punishments suggested by the child porn offenders and their lawyers, many of whom worked in the same federal public defender office where she once worked. In some cases, court filings show she cited U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics gathered during her tenure there to back her rulings from the bench.
Mike Davis, rule of law advocate: "Judge Jackson has gone out of her way as a law student, lawyer, commissioner and judge to advocate for more leniency for people who possess and distribute child porn."
The Article III Project
Her treatment of child pornographers is troubling to observers who worry about high recidivism rates among offenders as the amount of child porn on the Internet explodes. They say her record endangered children.
"We need more deterrence, not less," said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project, a Washington advocacy group for constitutional judges and the rule of law. "Yet Judge Jackson has gone out of her way as a law student, lawyer, commissioner, and judge to advocate for more leniency for people who possess and distribute child porn."
Added Davis: "She's been on a 25-year crusade to coddle them."
A 2003 Justice Department study found that 43% of sex offenders, including child pornographers and child molesters, were rearrested for the same or other crimes after release from custody. Three-fourths of the rearrests involved felonies.
Senators grilled Jackson for days last week about her record in this area. Jackson responded that she considered the cases she presided over "heinous" and "egregious" and imposed lengthy probation terms requiring supervision of the offenders, including monitoring their computer use. She noted she'd also ordered them to undergo treatment for porn addiction.
However, such alternatives to lengthy prison terms have failed to stop some from reoffending -- including child porn convict Wesley Keith Hawkins, a young gay black man whom Jackson sentenced to just three months in prison despite the prosecution asking for two years.
In 2013, Hawkins was busted posting videos on YouTube of "prepubescent boys engaged in sexual activity with each other, including oral and anal penetration," according to court documents. He told an undercover officer that he preferred children as young as 11 and sent him a video of a "prepubescent male masturbating." Investigators recovered 17 videos from his phone and laptop, which showed, among other things, "an approximately 11-year-old male being anally penetrated by an adult male."
In her sentencing, Jackson ruled she didn't think the volume and content of porn he had were particularly egregious and she gave Hawkins essentially a slap on the wrist — and then apologized to him for it.
"This is a truly difficult situation," she told Hawkins at sentencing. "I appreciate that your family is in the audience. I feel so sorry for them and for you and for the anguish that this has caused all of you."
Jackson then expressed sorrow over even the light sentence she handed down. "I feel terrible about the collateral consequences of this conviction," she said, explaining that "sex offenders are truly shunned in our society, but I have no control over the collateral consequences."
The sympathetic tone of her remarks again echoed those she made in her Harvard Law brief decades earlier. Senate Republicans said Jackson made it sound like Hawkins was more a victim than the children he exploited.
Unfortunately, her words of kindness did not dissuade Hawkins from continuing with his obsession.
In 2019, long after Hawkins had served his short stint in prison but while he was still under a six-year supervised release, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted him alerted Jackson that despite treatment and monitoring, Hawkins continued to seek out sexually arousing images of underage boys. Expressing concerns that Hawkins might re-offend, his probation officer recommended that he be confined to a "residential reentry center" for six months — double Jackson's original prison sentence — and subject himself to "periodic unannounced searches of any computers" he uses. Jackson concurred and signed an order toughening the terms of his probation, according to her court filing. Asked about Hawkins’ relapse at her Senate hearing, she testified she could not recall the matter.
Neil Alexander Stewart, pedophile: Jackson gave him 57 months — well short of the 97 months prosecutors had sought.
DC Sex Offender Registry
A more serious example of recidivism involved another case Jackson heard with a compassionate ear. In 2015, Neil Alexander Stewart, 31, was caught with more than 600 child sex images and videos. He confided to an undercover officer posing as a fellow predator that he was interested in "willing" children between the ages "5-11" and sought to meet at the D.C. zoo with the agent’s fictional 9-year-old daughter.
In one text cited by prosecutors, Stewart advised the undercover officer how to groom a child to have sexual intercourse, which they could later videotape. "The trick is starting with really small toys and gradually moving up until something is the same size," he texted. "And vibration."
"The public does not need to be protected from Mr. Stewart," the defense argued in a presentencing memo to Jackson, which extolled his interests in hobbies including: "Physics, Cooking, Reading, Self-Help books, Science and Gardening." "Mr. Stewart’s character and attitude indicate that he is unlikely to commit another offense."
In her 2017 sentencing, Jackson gave Stewart 57 months in jail — well short of the 97 months prosecutors had asked for. The judge also waived a $5,000 fine. Jackson set aside prosecutors’ warnings that Stewart was a risk for "hands-on" sexual abuse of children and posed a "continuing" threat to the community. At her Senate confirmation hearing, Jackson was asked if she was aware that Stewart had allegedly reoffended.
"Would it surprise you to learn that Mr. Stewart is a recidivist?" asked Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican. "He [has] warrants issued again for his arrest, just three years after your sentencing."
Replied Jackson: "You know, Senator, there is data in the Sentencing Commission and elsewhere that indicates that there are serious recidivism issues. And so among the various people that I've sentenced, I'm not surprised that there are people who re-offend, and it is a terrible thing that happens in our system."
Jackson wasn’t always afraid to throw the book at child sex criminals, an RCI review of her case history shows. In 2016, for instance, she sentenced a child molester to eight years in prison for child sexual abuse while failing to register as a sex offender in a prior case, which appeared to meet the level of punishment recommended by prosecutors. That case involved a 35-year-old man molesting an underage girl, which, unlike the porn cases, involved direct physical violence.
At Gitmo, a counterpoint to Jackson's detainee advocacy: honoring last year's U.S. terror victims in Kabul.
AP
Volunteering for the 'Gitmo Bar'
While serving as an assistant federal public defender in D.C. from 2005 to 2007, Jackson defended four suspected terrorist detainees captured after 9/11 on the battlefield in Afghanistan and locked up at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison. Among other things, she filed habeas corpus appeals to try to compel their release and transfer from Gitmo, where they were held by the U.S. military as enemy combatants, to the U.S. court system, where they could avail themselves of all the legal rights afforded American citizens.
In her petitions, Jackson argued that the suspected terrorists had been forced to suffer "abuse and agony" at the hands of their guards and that such "torture," in addition to their indefinite confinement, constituted "war crimes." She also wrote briefs challenging their classification as enemy combatants.
Strikingly, Jackson omitted the full extent of her defense of Gitmo detainees from her Senate confirmation questionnaire. She claimed she represented only a single detainee — Khiali Gul — while working at the public defender's office. In fact, she also represented detainees Tariq al-Sawah, Kudai Dad, and Jabran al-Qahtani during her tenure there, according to documents reviewed by RCI.
Although Jackson did not travel to Gitmo to personally meet with the detainees, she corresponded with them and reviewed classified dossiers and other documents concerning the suspects in a secure facility in Washington after applying for and receiving security clearance at the SECRET level. She knew, therefore, that U.S. intelligence had determined that all four of her pro bono clients were too dangerous to release.
Khiali Gul: "HIGH risk," his Gitmo dossier said.
Wikileaks
Gul was classified "HIGH risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S.," according to his Gitmo dossier. "Detainee was an intelligence officer for the Taliban" and the leader of a "terrorist cell" who had "planned and executed an attack on a U.S. [base]" in Afghanistan before he was captured.
Dad was assessed to "having direct ties to Taliban leadership" and had been arrested at an Afghan compound where Taliban commanders met, his Gitmo dossier warned.
Al-Sawah, an al-Qaeda bomb expert, also was assessed as high-risk. His military dossier said he admitted he was a member of al-Qaeda. It also said he attended terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and once met Osama bin Laden.
Al-Qahtani was viewed as a continuing threat as well: "This detainee is a member of al-Qaeda [and] has demonstrated a commitment to jihad [and] has participated in terrorist training against the U.S," according to a 2004 intelligence report on him. In fact, al-Qahtani was arrested at al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah’s safe house in Pakistan in 2002. Described as "aggressive," the Saudi national told Gitmo interrogators that if he were released, he’d return to Afghanistan and fight Americans. In 2016, military authorities warned that as a "skilled bomb maker," al-Qahtani and his electronics expertise would be in demand by terrorist organizations. They determined that he was still a threat to "reengage in hostilities."
Jackson testified she was assigned the terror cases and had a duty as a public defender to represent her clients "zealously," even though she did not necessarily agree with what she was arguing on their behalf. However, she continued to advocate for at least al-Qahtani after she left the public defender office and took a job in private practice.
In 2007, she kept representing al-Qahtani free of charge when she moved on to Morrison & Foerster LLP, a liberal San Francisco-based law firm that crusaded against Gitmo. Though Jackson left the firm in 2010, Morrison Foerster eventually succeeded in getting her client released from Gitmo.
In a 2016 detention review hearing, records show, Judson Lobdell of Morrison Foerster argued that although al-Qahtani admitted having received "weapons instruction [at] a training camp north of Kabul," he "never fired a shot in anger." And though he also admitted building bombs at the al-Qaeda "safehouse" in Pakistan, the attorney assured the Gitmo review board hearing his case that "nobody was ever harmed by a device made directly or indirectly by Mr. al-Qahtani."
Lobdell assured board members that he no longer had any "desire to be a bomb maker." All he wanted to do, the lawyer said, was to "start a family and live a quiet life" back in Saudi Arabia.
"Mr. al-Qahtani poses no threat to the security of the United States," Lobdell argued. In fact, "[he] bears no ill will towards anyone."
The Gitmo board, then comprising several Obama administration agencies, agreed to transfer him to Saudi Arabia under the condition he go through a terrorist rehabilitation program. In November 2016, he was sent to the Mohammed bin Nayef Counseling and Care Center, which has the trappings of a five-star resort along with a questionable track record for reforming jihadists.
Jackson’s other three terrorist clients have also been released from Gitmo. While there’s no clear evidence any of them have returned to jihad, there’s a 1 in 3 chance they might, based on recidivism rates for former Gitmo detainees.
According to a declassified 2020 Office of National Intelligence report, a total of 229 of the 729 detainees released from Gitmo have reengaged in terrorist activities, including conducting and planning attacks and recruiting and funding terrorists. That’s a recidivism rate of more than 31%. Some of the repeat offenders have American blood on their hands: at least 12 former detainees launched attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan and killed about a half-dozen American soldiers and civilians. The exact figure remains classified, along with the identities of most of the recidivists.
Jackson sounded oblivious about Gitmo recidivism rates when asked about them last week: "I’m not aware," she told senators.
Jackson claims she was "assigned" these cases and didn’t necessarily support the positions she was arguing. But clearly, she was proud of the work she did for Gitmo detainees. In her questionnaire prepared ahead of the Senate hearings, Jackson listed her representation of former Gitmo detainee Gul as one of the 10 "most significant" cases she's personally handled as an attorney. In her work before the Supreme Court, she cited additional Gitmo cases in which she filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of anti-Gitmo lobby groups supporting challenges to Bush-era detention policies. She did that work pro bono as well.
"When she left the D.C. office as a public defender, she didn’t have to take on any more detainees as clients. But then she went over to Morrison Foerster and went out of her way to work on more pro bono Gitmo cases," noted Davis, who previously served as chief counsel for nominations to former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley.
Jackson testified that what happened on 9/11 was "terrible." She said she has no doubt such terrorists pose a danger to the U.S., but she asserted that "I was also among the many lawyers who were keenly aware of the threat that the [response to the] 9/11 attacks had posed to foundational constitutional principles."
Brian Sullivan, a former FAA supervisory special agent who warned of holes in airport security before 9/11 and who now advocates on behalf of 9/11 families, said that Jackson’s actions were a "slap in the face to those who lost loved ones on 9/11."
"I understand she originally was assigned the Guantanamo cases as a public defender, but she seems to have gone way beyond her mandate in that regard," he said. "Her record demonstrates a disposition to be lenient or supportive of the most heinous among us." A Vow to Limit Government 'Overreach' in Punishing Criminals
Jackson insisted she couldn't possibly be soft on violent criminals when "I have law enforcement in my family." One of her uncles, Harold Ross, was a sex crimes detective in Miami, while another uncle, Calvin Ross, served as police chief of Miami. Her brother, Ketajh Brown, worked undercover for the Baltimore police on drug strings and was even shot at once while chasing a suspect through an inner-city neighborhood.
Jackson denies that she is against incarcerating or punishing terrorists and criminals. But in her testimony, she explained that incarceration is not always the best deterrent and that slapping criminals with harsh prison terms can make them feel "bitter" and "victimized" by the system, which could make them more likely to return to a life of crime when they get out. She said other judges are too quick to send defendants to the slammer — "locking people up and throwing away the key" — rather than helping them understand the consequences of their actions and treating them "fairly," no matter how bad their behavior. She said that as a judge, she has taken the time during sentencing to explain to them why their crimes hurt people. In a word, Jackson’s judicial philosophy is empathy — she believes it’s better to counsel crooks straight than to scare them straight.
Dick Durbin, Senate Judiciary Chairman: Refuses to turn over Jackson documents to Republicans.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
If confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, she vowed to limit the government’s "overreach" in punishing criminals and enforce the guarantees offered the accused under the Bill of Rights.
That said, Jackson testified, "It’s very important that people be held accountable for their crimes, so if they’re not, then it would be a problem for the rule of law."
Her idea of the best way to hold criminals "accountable" is a key issue the Senate will have to weigh as it votes to confirm her confirmation early next month.
As the count stands now, it appears she has enough votes to squeeze past an evenly divided Senate. But Republicans are pressuring Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to release documents they say shed more light on Jackson’s record on the bench, as well as on the sentencing commission. Democratic Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin refuses to turn over even redacted copies of the presentencing reports generated in the child sex offender cases Jackson presided over. He also will not release her emails and other internal correspondence from her time on the commission. The White House, moreover, is withholding an additional 48,000 pages of documents that likely include some of her commission emails.
"Why are Democrats hiding her record? What is Judge Jackson hiding?" Davis asked.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
As PJM’s Matt Margolis noted Thursday, “During her confirmation hearings, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s despicable record on sentencing child porn offenders became a key issue. Republicans pointed out that she had a pattern of giving these perverts lenient sentences, while Democrats made excuses for her and kept gushing over her status as a black woman.” And it’s even worse than we thought: investigative journalist Paul Sperry revealed Saturday that Jackson “heard horrifying details of ‘sadomasochistic’ torture of young kids — including ‘infants and toddlers’— yet challenged the disturbing evidence presented by prosecutors and disregarded their prison recommendations to give the lightest possible punishments in each case.”
Not only that but “in some cases, she even apologized to some of the kiddie-porn perverts for having to follow the statutes, which she called ‘substantially flawed.’” Jackson repeatedly “made excuses for the sex fiends’ criminal behavior and cut them slack in defiance of investigators and prosecutors — and sometimes even probation officers serving her court — who argued for tougher sentences because the cases were particularly egregious or the defendants weren’t remorseful.” This contradicts Biden’s handlers’ claims that her light sentences for child pornographers were “mainstream” and within “normal range.”
The details are stomach-churning. “In July 2020,” Sperry reports, “Jackson gave the bare minimum sentence to a defendant convicted of distributing images and videos of infants being sexually abused, and who had boasted of molesting his 13-year-old cousin, even though she knew the defendant refused ‘to take full responsibility’ for his crimes, a transcript reveals.” The offender whom Jackson ensured got off lightly had posted a nude image of a two-year-old girl and a video of sex with a prepubescent girl.
Nor was that an isolated case. In April 2021, when sentencing a man who had distributed child pornography, Jackson dismissed his crimes as not “especially egregious,” despite the fact that “among the more than 600 images prosecutors told the judge he traded were sexually explicit pics depicting bondage of infants and toddlers,” and even worse. Yet as she gave this man a light sentence, Jackson remarked: “I’m really reluctant to get into the nature of the porn. I don’t find persuasive the government’s arguments concerning why they think that this is a particularly egregious child pornography offense, which means I struggled to find a good reason to impose a sentence that is more severe in this case.”
Mike Davis of the Article III Project, which advocates for a responsible judiciary, said that Jackson “served as the tip of the spear in weakening federal sentencing policy for child pornographers as vice-chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, where she ignored the advice of expert witnesses who disputed her theory that child pornographers are somehow not pedophiles.”
Jackson even apologized to one child pornographer as she sentenced him, saying: “This is a truly difficult situation. I appreciate that your family is in the audience. I feel so sorry for them and for you and for the anguish that this has caused all of you.” This was a habit: to another, she said: “I also feel terrible about the collateral consequences of this conviction,” adding that “sex offenders are truly shunned in our society, but I have no control over the collateral consequences.”
As revolting as all this is, it doesn’t look as if it’s going to derail Jackson’s confirmation. Controlled opposition Republican Senator Susan Collins (R-Sellout) has already announced that she is going to vote for Jackson, and can Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and others be far behind? While the Democrats never, ever break ranks, they can always count on Republicans to do so and to help them further the Leftist agenda.
And that’s what Ketanji Brown Jackson is all about. She is not being put on the Supreme Court because of her qualifications. She is not even really being put on the Supreme Court because she is a black woman, although that’s why Old Joe Biden’s handlers chose her. She is being put on the Supreme Court because she will advance the Leftist agenda. She was lenient toward child pornographers, but there is no doubt whatsoever that she will be as tough as she possibly can be on one set of offenders: Jan. 6 “insurrectionists,” parents protesting at school boards against transgenderism and Critical Race Theory being taught in public schools, and the like. That’s why Ketanji Brown Jackson is being put on the Supreme Court. Once she is confirmed, as soon as a “right-wing” case comes before the Court, the world will see a new, tough, justice-must-be-done Ketanji Brown Jackson. Leniency? That’s for Leftists.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- You don’t need to be an expert Supreme Court prognosticator, legal scholar or even a tea-leaf reader to know that any potential justice for the nation’s highest court nominated by the Biden-Harris administration is going to be an anti-gun extremist.
There are some who believe there’s still not enough information about Biden’s pick, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, but I strongly disagree. While it’s true she has never ruled on a gun-rights case while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – a seat she’s held since 2013 when nominated by Barack Obama – the information is there. All you have to do is take a critical look.
During her Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked, “Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?”
Judge Jackson’s response is telling: “Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.”
She did not say the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in the Constitution. Nor did she say it’s part of our God-given right to self-defense. Instead, she believes the RKBA was “established” by the Supreme Court.
That friend is a judicial philosophy taken straight from the pages of Gun Banning 101.
There is more evidence, albeit somewhat circumstantial, why Judge Jackson’s nomination should be rejected by every Senator who supports the Second Amendment. Just look at those who nominated her. The Biden-Harris administration is the most anti-gun crew to ever occupy the White House. Biden’s campaign website is proof of his administration’s true intent.
Among other infringements, Biden wants to ban the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines, and place all existing “assault weapons” under the regulatory authority of the National Firearms Act (NFA), which currently regulates machine guns, suppressors, short-barrel rifles and shotguns and other weapons. Biden also wants to institute a mandatory “buy-back” – code for confiscation – of “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines, ban private firearm sales, and close a plethora of “loopholes,” none of which actually exist.
There has never been an administration so extreme in their anti-gun goals, which they are going to require any Supreme Court nominee to strongly support. In fact, anti-gun activist justice is crucial for their plans. To believe otherwise makes no sense.
As part of her nomination process, Judge Jackson spent hours meeting with administration officials, most likely Susan Rice, who runs Biden’s Domestic Policy Council. As part of her duties, Rice oversees a “gun violence” team, which was formed quickly after Biden took office. Common sense dictates that any Supreme Court nominee who did not voice strong support for Biden’s anti-gun agenda during these meetings would immediately have been shown the door. Furthermore, Judge Jackson was very well-coached on all key Second Amendment issues. During her confirmation hearings, she dodged and sidestepped questions easily. It was clear she had spent considerable time learning how to support Biden’s anti-gun plans, without giving too much away.
Therefore, any Senator who supports Judge Jackson’s nomination, who believes they can later claim ignorance of her intent to infringe upon our gun rights, should know this: Joe Biden’s nominee is an anti-gun extremist. While legal scholars predict an easy confirmation, the whole country will be watching and scoring the vote.
This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Senate Republicans are accusing the White House of “intentionally” withholding documents relating to Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson and her record of giving lenient sentences to child pornographers.
When the White House provided the Senate Judiciary with a list of Jackson’s child abuse cases, some were left off. One such case was U.S. v. Cane, which involved “over 6,500 files depicting children appearing to be of elementary, middle and high school ages, engaged in sexual acts or posing sexually.” The recommendation was for the defendant to be sentenced to 84 months, but Jackson sentenced him to the mandatory minimum of 60 months.
“Not only does this case, which Judge Jackson left off her list of child abuse cases, undercut her argument that she followed the probation office’s recommended sentences, but it also underscores the perils of moving too quickly in the vetting process,” a Republican Judiciary Committee aide told Fox News.
The White House claims the case was “unintentionally” left off the list given to the committee, however, that claim is contradicted by the fact that the White House leaked specific information to the media and Democrats on the committee while excluding Republicans.
Nevertheless, the White House claimed the case undermines accusations from Republicans that Jackson is soft-on-crime — however, transcripts of the sentencing prove otherwise.
“The transcripts—the only public material to address sentencing in this case—confirm that the probation office recommended a longer sentence than the minimum term imposed by Judge Jackson,” the GOP aide explained. “They also reveal the government’s arguments for enhancing the penalty, which suggests interest in a sentence longer than the term Judge Jackson handed out.”
“It’s clear from the sentencing transcript that the probation office, which Judge Jackson repeatedly referenced to justify her sentences, wanted a longer sentence in this case,” the GOP aide continued. “Moreover, Judge Jackson even pointed to a case (Cooper), where she imposed the shortest possible sentence despite the prosecutor’s higher recommendation, to justify her sentence in this case.”
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee only got the transcript for the Cane case on Friday — after the hearings had concluded. “Clearly, the White House either didn’t thoroughly vet the nominee or were aware of the record and they intentionally left it out in hopes that the nominee would be confirmed before the full record could be uncovered and reviewed,” the GOP aide insisted.
Article III Project founder Mike Davis says the White House engaged in a cover-up.
“This is a cover-up by the Biden White House and Senate Democrats,” Davis said. “They’re covering up her record. They intentionally omitted this case from less than a year ago because it did not fit their political narrative.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) agrees that the White House deliberately withheld this information to protect Biden’s nominee.
“When we first highlighted her record on child porn cases, the White House leaked information to their friends in the media and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee,” Hawley told Fox News. “They hid it from the public despite knowing Judge Jackson gives lenient sentences to criminals. The White House is still refusing to be transparent about Judge Jackson’s record.”
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
“I actually don’t know the answer to that question — I’m sorry — I don’t.”
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Joe Biden had promised black voters in South Carolina that he would put a black woman on the Supreme Court if they voted for him. After a pressure campaign aimed at the Supreme Court’s lone liberal justice who agreed to step down and make way for a black woman, Biden picked between two candidates, one backed by moderates and one backed by radical leftists.
Even while leftists wished that Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s lone black justice, would die after reports that he was hospitalized, they cheered the incredible breakthrough of the first black female, and more importantly leftist, being nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court.
The long contentious hearings had plenty of awkward moments, but the most definitive clash came from a simple question that highlighted the vast moral gap between identity politics and natural rights.
“When does equal protection of the laws attach to a human being?” Senator Kennedy asked Jackson.
“Well Senator, um… I believe that the Supreme Court… um… actually I, I actually don’t know the answer to that question — I’m sorry — I don’t,” she awkwardly replied.
The postmodern leftist notion of human rights revolves around pursuing equity for discriminated groups. Leftists like Jackson have thorough notions about what equal protection looks like for black or transgender people, but no notion of a grander principle that protects all human life.
Jackson obviously found the question uncomfortable because it addresses abortion. And yet even a militant abortion supporter like Jackson ought to be able to tackle the basic moral question of when life begins and when human rights come into play. The Framers are often attacked for refusing to grapple with the moral questions of slavery, yet they did. That they narrowly chose not to break up the country over a monstrous evil did not change the fact that they struggled to reconcile their ideals and the compromises they believed they had to make.
Leftists, like the most hard-boiled defenders of slavery, refuse to even admit that there’s an issue. Jackson’s smirking response would have befitted a Buchanan Democrat pretending not to understand that human slavery might have moral, not just economic, legal implications.
Identity politics reduces every issue to victimhood. The same worldview that makes it all too easy to blame highways and obesity on systemic racism makes it equally impossible for leftist jurists like Jackson to even conceive of life and liberty as natural rights bestowed on everyone. And yet it was this conviction that eventually overturned slavery and segregation.
“Do you have a personal belief though about when life begins?” Senator Kennedy asked Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases,” she replied.
Judges shouldn’t rule from theology, but the idea that their religious moral convictions should play no role in basic notions of rights is alien to the words of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
If religious views of human rights are things to be set aside, then what is the basis for anyone’s rights? Judicial precedent, a “living constitution” that incorporates current academic doctrines, the pursuit of equity? Those are where leftists derive their moral authority and notions of rights.
And yet without that grand conviction that human equality and rights proceed from a higher power, they remain at the mercy of judges like Jackson who can decide when to take them away. And Jackson is unable to even articulate when those rights actually begin which will make it that much more morally and intellectually easier for her to take them away, from babies and from anyone else whose existence obstructs her political ideology and personal biases.
Jackson can’t comprehend rights except in terms of equity. If a group isn’t sufficiently wealthy, healthy, or otherwise successful, the government has to step in and alter the equation. But if a group is all of the above, then the government needs to examine how it oppressed others.
This Procrustean Bed in which the government stretches some and shrinks others in pursuit of the impossible mission of making everyone equal is the only kind of rights leftists understand. And they have no notion of the origin of rights except as a mindless pursuit of leveling everyone, and an atonement for the social sins that resulted in everyone not being equally successful.
Rather than looking back to an origin point, they look forward to a secular utopian “right side of history”, a transcendentalist conviction that one day we will all be made equal, to justify everything they believe and everything they do. And so you can’t ask Ketanji Brown Jackson when rights begin, because they haven’t ended yet. The present is just an unfinished future.
Rights don’t begin with God or with our founding documents, they run backward in time from some inchoate socialist future that they intend to achieve by forcibly “equalizing” all of us.
Jackson couldn’t process the question of when universal human rights come into being, because she doesn’t view rights as universal except in the sense that everyone has the right to be made equal. To assess whether someone has rights, leftists have to know their race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, and other details that indicate where they stand on the equity spectrum. Asking them to articulate rights without reference to equity is like asking Thomas Jefferson where rights come from if there was no Creator or guiding natural order.
What rights does a baby have? According to leftists, the right to be made equal. The only real right in leftist judicial doctrine is the right to have what others have. And the amplification of whatever privileges and benefits are necessary to cut in line in order to achieve equity.
But does a baby have the right to live? That simple question whose parameters the Founders and Framers would have had no trouble understanding frustrates and infuriates leftist jurists to whom rights are not natural, but relative, and not individual, but collective. While they can amply expound on the plight of transgender Navajo Indians, they can’t offer a decision on the life of a single infant of unknown race and sex because they don’t believe in rights apart from identity.
Leftists can’t affirm natural universal rights, only compare rights relative to someone else.
Ask a leftist to compare my rights to your rights and they can easily do it. A baby can’t have innate natural rights but must have her rights compared to her mother and to society at large. Stakeholders must be consulted, and papers must be reviewed on the status of women in Colonial America to derive who is the greater victim and who is entitled to more rights.
The question of when human rights are conferred is baffling and annoying to Jackson. In her legalistic worldview, the question “when” is almost entirely irrelevant. It’s like asking “when is racism” or “when is sexism”. The dividing lines in leftist jurisprudence are not based on time or other rational metrics, but on the subjective and relative ones of who loses and who gains.
That’s why asking for firm rational metrics for anything is routinely derided as white western masculine thinking in academic circles. Leftists prefer to make decisions based on lived experience which is another way of saying anecdotal subjectivity which leaves plenty of room for personal bias, but none for any meaningful guarantee of rights beyond momentary feelings.
The Founders and Framers were certainly flawed, but they proceeded from an understanding of rights that expanded them, while leftists like Jackson can only contract and reduce them. Where our nation’s founders universalized rights, leftists use equity to de-universalize them, replacing general guarantees of human rights with situational activism through academic lenses.
They claim that they are expanding rights when all they’re doing is taking away our universal natural rights and replacing them with a ranked caste system of identity politics privileges that can bestow a “right” to a house, a car, or fat-free yogurt, but not the absolute right to live.
Where the Bill of Rights could define free speech as a universal right, leftists have dismantled the ACLU and insist that only the people who agree with them should have free speech. And so it goes for everything from the right to assemble to freedom of the press. Conservatives rightly see this as an unconstitutional double standard because it transgresses universal rights. But leftists only see universal rights as a leveling mechanism that only applies to the extent that it makes people more equal, but not when it does not. And so it’s natural for them to reject the idea that their opponents, who they argue make people less equal, should have free speech.
This is the totalitarian logic of civil rights which has slowly taken away rights from everyone.
Cancel culture is the inevitable result of the impulse to make people equal by destroying those who are perceived to stand in the way of the social activism that is the only source of equality.
Is it any wonder that Jackson can’t articulate or even grasp the concept that universal human rights exist and that they have some origin point in the process of human development?
Jackson’s incomprehension of the question reveals the moral bankruptcy of identity politics.
Identity politics is not making us a better society, more concerned with rights, it’s transforming us from a society that believed everyone had rights to a society that has no concept of rights.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Leave it to the Washington Post to find kiddie-porn convicts and portray them sympathetically.
But the Post added a special touch in its story about kiddie-porn aficionado Welsey Hawkins. It importuned the registered sex offender to say he’s sorry for the harsh questions about him that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson received from Republican senators during her confirmation hearings.
As with many of her sentences in child-porn cases, Jackson ignored the request of prosecutors for a long jail term and sentenced Hawkins to a much lesser one. So of course, the natural thing for the leftist Post to do was seeking the pervert’s opinion about it.
Wesley Hawkins, talk of the Jackson hearings, describes life after pornography sentencehttps://t.co/XGBsLq2Jbn
To its credit, before finding Hawkins, the Post published a piece about his crime.
The confessed homosexual uploaded child porn to YouTube in 2012 when he was 18 years old, and “an undercover detective soon emailed him, suggesting the two had ‘similar interests,’” the Post reported:
Hawkins emailed the agent two videos, and wrote that he was interested in boys ages 11 to 17. Authorities executed a search warrant in June, finding 17 videos and 16 images of boys on a laptop and a phone.
Hawkins cooperated with the investigation, federal prosecutors said. In court filings, they wrote that the recent high school graduate had agreed to be interviewed by detectives, admitted possession, entered a pre-indictment guilty plea and took “full responsibility for his actions.”
Although federal guidelines called for a sentence of eight to 10 years, prosecutors said that given Hawkins’s age and lack of criminal record they recommended two years. According to documents given to senators, a U.S. probation officer recommended a year and a half.
His defense attorney blamed Hawkins’ “sexual identity issue complicated by his mother’s strict religious beliefs and that his offense was prompted by a teenage sexual drive, not an intrinsic sexual attraction to significantly younger children.”
Jackson, then a federal district court judge, sentenced him to three months in prison and three months probation.
Addressing Hawkins, she said, “you were only involved in this for a few months” and that “other than your engagement with the undercover officer, there isn’t an indication that you were in any online communities to advance your collecting behavior.”
Jackson added that the age difference between Hawkins and the victims in the videos wasn’t all that great. One was eight years old.
In 2019, the Post reported, Jackson sent Hawkins to a halfway house after his probation officer told Jackson that “despite being in treatment for more than five years [Hawkins] continues to seek out sexually arousing, non-pornographic material and images of males 13 to 16-years-old.”
Sympathy for the Judge
In the piece that ensued, Hawkins confessed that what he did was a “bit monstrous.”
But the Post couldn’t stop there. It tossed in a chance for Hawkins to bash the Republicans who attack Jackson’s record on perverts.
“Of the attention his case is getting now, Hawkins noted that many in the GOP continued to support candidates who faced allegations of sexual misconduct, the Post reported:
“While I’m not defending my actions, because, again, they are undefendable, I feel that their hypocrisy should be pointed out.”
Perhaps most surprising, Hawkins said, was that he found himself feeling sympathy for the judge he had once been angry with for sending him to prison.
“I wasn’t very happy that she gave me three months, though, after reflection when I was in jail, I was hearing from other people who said it was their first time arrested and they got five years, six years.
“I feel that she chose to take into consideration the fact that I was just getting started [in life] and she knew this was going to hold me back for years to come regardless,” he said, “so she didn’t really want to add on to that.”
GOP senators presented Jackson’s record of sending child porn in some detail, and Senators Josh Hawley noted that her sympathy for perverts includes criticizing sex-offender registries.
In the case of United States v. Hawkins, the sex offender had multiple images of child porn. He was over 18. The Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of up to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the perpetrator to only 3 months in prison. Three months.
“As far back as her time in law school, Judge Jackson has questioned making convicts register as sex offenders — saying it leads to ‘stigmatization and ostracism.’” he tweeted. “She’s suggested public policy is driven by a “climate of fear, hatred & revenge” against sex offenders.”
Jackson has proposed eliminating mandatory-minimum sentences for child-porn convicts, and once said that people who possess the material “are in this for either the collection or the people who are loners and find status in their participation in the community.”
As far back as her time in law school, Judge Jackson has questioned making convicts register as sex offenders – saying it leads to “stigmatization and ostracism.” She’s suggested public policy is driven by a “climate of fear, hatred & revenge” against sex offenders pic.twitter.com/2QUcPOnWPR
Judge Jackson has said that some people who possess child porn “are in this for either the collection, or the people who are loners and find status in their participation in the community.” What community would that be? The community of child exploiters? pic.twitter.com/JDxqf9Q1AH
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
The United States Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Navy can make its own decisions on whether to deploy sailors, including SEALs, who refuse to receive a Covid shot.
The Supreme Court’s decision reverses the decisions of a district judge in Texas, where a case brought by 35 special warfare service members (26 of whom were SEALs) was originally filed, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in early January saying that the Navy must allow members of the elite special operations community to opt-out of the vaccination mandate if they have religious objections. The injunction also prohibited commanders from making any changes to the SEALs’ military assignments based on a refusal to be vaccinated.
In late February, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied an emergency stay of a preliminary injunction filed by the Department of Defense, arguing,
The Navy has not accommodated any religious request to abstain from any vaccination in seven years, and to date it has denied all religiously based claims for exemption from COVID-19…. But evidence … suggests that the Navy has effectively stacked the deck against even those exemptions supported by Plaintiffs’ immediate commanding officers and military chaplains.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who ordered all troops to get vaccinated against Covid back in August 2021, had urged the nation’s highest court to remedy what he claimed was “an extraordinary and unprecedented intrusion into core military affairs.”
A sworn declaration in the case was filed by Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral William K. Lescher. According to NPR, Lescher claimed “that the illness of even one member of a small SEAL team due to COVID-19 could compromise a mission.” He added that it would be a dereliction of duty “to allow unvaccinated personnel into an environment in which they … risk the lives of others.”
Notably, the DOD did not seek to block the part of the federal judge’s ruling that said service members cannot be disciplined or discharged as a result of refusing the Covid shot.
Still, the SCOTUS listened, with three justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas — dissenting.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion in which he said, “Under Article II of the Constitution, the President of the United States, not any federal judge, is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.” The justice concluded there was “no basis in this case for employing the judicial power in a manner that military commanders believe would impair the military of the United States as it defends the American people.”
Echoing the Biden administration’s narrative on the dangers associated with being unvaccinated, Kavanaugh also argued that “ordering unvaccinated personnel into an environment in which they endanger their lives, the lives of others, and compromise accomplishment of essential missions,” is, basically, a “dereliction of duty.”
In a dissenting opinion, Justices Alito and Gorsuch wrote that the court “does a great injustice to the 35 respondents” who “appear to have been treated shabbily by the Navy.”
The SCOTUS “essentially gives the Navy carte blanche to warehouse respondents for the duration of the appellate process, which may take years” by issuing a “partial stay” on the lower court’s order and by using the “language proposed by the government,” wrote the justices. They assumed that this decision would be “career-ending” for the plaintiffs.
To succeed, the administration must show that it can defeat the servicemen’s rights granted by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and their free-exercise claims. Yet, “it cannot make that showing,” argued Alito and Gorsuch.
The justices pointed out that “all the evidence available at this stage suggests that the Navy gave no real consideration to respondents’ requests, and the Navy had no compelling need to proceed in that fashion.” They described how the Navy established a 50-step exemption procedure, and
Only at step 35 was someone in this chain [of reviewers] told to read the exemption requests, but it appears that this individual was not given an opportunity to recommend that a request be granted.… Instead, this person’s sole task was to record pertinent information on a spreadsheet and send the package on to the vice admiral.
The result of such a procedure was “not surprising,” said Alito and Gorsuch. “Although more than 4,000 exemption requests had been submitted by February 15, 2022, not a single one had been approved when the complaint, in this case, was filed.”
Military.com notes that the SCOTUS’s Friday decision will likely impact other legal challenges against the Defense Department over the Covid vaccine mandate, “including a potential class-action suit filed in Florida by 30 unnamed officers and service members seeking relief from the order.” In that case, the judge ruled in early March that the Navy could not remove one of the plaintiffs, a destroyer commander, for refusing the shot.
In mid-February, a federal judge in Georgia issued a similar hold for an Air Force officer, arguing that the officer’s constitutional and statutory religious rights should be respected.
According to the Navy’s official website, 4,462 active components and 3,265 Ready Reserve service members remained unvaccinated as of March 23.
So far, the service has granted a total of 13 permanent medical exemptions and 220 temporary medical exemptions, while also granting zero permanent religious exemptions and nine temporary religious exemptions.
The deadline for active-duty Navy service members to be fully vaccinated was November 28, 2021. Ready Reserve Navy service members were given until December 28, 2021.
The Navy has already booted 652 servicemen for refusing the Covid shot.
According to USA Today, at least 98.5 percent of the Navy’s active and reserve members have been immunized against Covid.
REVEALED: How pedophile, 18, at the center of Ketanji Brown Jackson Senate hearing continued looking for 'sexually arousing images of children after she jailed him for three months - after he wrote a letter asking for a second chance
Jackson sentenced the young adult to three months in prison, though federal sentencing guidelines recommended 10 years and prosecutors had sought two
Wesley Hawkins, six years later, has not given up on his sick infatuation with children, according to records shared with the Washington Post
In 2019, Jackson ordered Hawkins to serve the last six months of his six-year supervision period in a halfway house
He was found to be seeking out 'sexually arousing, non-pornographic material'
He did not commit any sexual violations
After unknowingly providing child porn to an undercover cop, police raided Hawkins' apartment and found 33 images and videos of child porn
Some of the content involved children as young as eight
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Is there any crime committed by an “oppressed” identity politics monster too vile for the pro-crime media to defend?
Ever since Ketanji Brown Jackson’s decision to give a child porn offender a light slap on the wrist and apologize to him came up, the media has been frantically spinning. And now the Washington Post decided to look Wesley Hawkins up and give him a sympathetic profile.
The lowest sentence of the seven was in the case of Wesley Hawkins. He was 18 years old when he downloaded scores of videos and images containing child pornography in 2012, the New York Times reports.
The prosecutor in the case had recommended a two-year sentence, the U.S. Probation Office had recommended an 18-month sentence, and the U.S. sentencing guidelines had recommended a sentence of 97 to 121 months in prison. The defense lawyer sought a day in prison.
Hawkins pleaded guilty to downloading and trading child pornography, and Jackson sentenced him in November 2013, according to the New York Times. Jackson sentenced Hawkins to three months in prison and six years of supervised release.
In other words, nothing. And radically below the sentencing guidelines.
According to a statement of offense to which Hawkins stipulated, he downloaded and shared videos and images of prepubescent children to YouTube and a file-sharing account.
Note the prepubescent part. It’s important because one of the sexually abused children was as young as 8 years old. This is also important because Ketanji Brown Jackson will lie about it.
There were videos of 11 and 12 year olds committing sexual acts, a video of an 11-year-old being raped by an adult male, a video of an eight-year-old committing a sexual act, to name a few. Police found 17 videos and 16 images of boys on his computer and phone, many of them violent. The teen later pleaded guilty.
This is horrifying evil. And it’s what the media is now trying to clean up and justify.
In a sentencing memorandum, Hawkins’ public defender said his client initially reacted to the images that he saw with “confusion and shock rather than arousal.” He viewed more child pornography over the next several months, but he “did not amass a large collection,” the memo said.
The natural response to the “confusion and shock” was to keep consuming child porn.
“Importantly, Mr. Hawkins’ connection to the images he viewed appears to be one of identifying with his age-mates emotionally, instead of exploiting them sexually. Mr. Hawkins said he found the fellow teenagers in the photos easier to connect with than adults,” the memo said.
Again, prepubescent children. Hawkins was 18.
In imposing the sentence, Jackson acknowledged the defense claim that Hawkins should not be considered a pedophile because his age was close to that of the children depicted in the images, according to the New York Times.
And again, some more context before the media starts spinning and the Washington Post starts ginning up sympathy for a pedophile.
He later uploaded five videos of pornographic content involving children from his computer to YouTube, which is what tipped off the police. An undercover officer emailed him, suggesting the two had ‘similar interests.’ Hawkins then emailed the cop two videos, and wrote that he was interested in males age 11 to 17.
So Hawkins did share the material and solicited it. He started off with a target age range beginning with 11. That is not close to his age. And he kept on doing it.
The sealed request demonstrated that Hawkins did not commit any sexual crime or violation of his conditions, but, ‘despite being in treatment for more than five years,’ Hawkins ‘continues to seek out sexually arousing, non-pornographic material and images of males 13 to 16-years-old.’
Now on to the Washington Post’s sympathetic profile which is headlined as, “Wesley Hawkins, talk of the Brown Jackson hearings, describes life after pornography sentence”.
If the Bezos social justice paper had anything resembling a soul, it might want to do a sympathetic profile of some of the abused children, not the perpetrator.
Instead, we learn from the Washington Post that, “His mornings had been filled with looking for his next job, his afternoons rereading one of his favorite books by Jamaican novelist Marlon James, he said, and his nights bingeing his favorite Netflix series “The Last Kingdom.”
And there’s a handfed attack on Republicans that I’m sure wasn’t carefully prompted by the reporter.
“Of the attention his case is getting now, Hawkins noted that many in the GOP continued to support candidates who faced allegations of sexual misconduct. “While I’m not defending my actions, because, again, they are undefendable, I feel that their hypocrisy should be pointed out.”
But he manages to admit that she did give him a slap on the wrist.
“I wasn’t very happy that she gave me three months, though after reflection when I was in jail, I was hearing from other people who said it was their first time arrested and they got five years, six years.”
Now Hawkins’ enabler will sit on the Supreme Court and be able to protect pedophiles and all sorts of criminals she sympathizes with from there.
At his rally last night in Commerce, Georgia, former President Trump responded to Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's refusal to define the word "woman" when asked during her confirmation hearings.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
A judge who does not believe in the Constitution, but believes in critical race theory, is unfit.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
The existence of a speech by Biden’s Supreme Court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, praising Derrick Bell, the godfather of critical race theory, and citing his book, “Faces At the Bottom of a Well”, as an influence has been widely reported. Conservatives have covered Bell’s racist views, his praise for Farrakhan, his antisemitism, and attacks on America. Much of this was already hashed out during the exposure of the relationship between Barack Obama and Derrick Bell.
But it’s important to specifically focus on Jackson’s interest in “Faces At the Bottom of the Well.”
In her speech, Jackson mentions that Bell, whom along with his wife she praises throughout her speech, “wrote a book in the early 1990s about the persistence of racism in American life”.
The subtitle of the book, which few people have mentioned, is, “The Permanence Of Racism”.
Persistence and permanence are not the same things. But this is another example of Jackson subtly distorting Bell and his book in order to make their extremism seem more moderate.
Jackson goes on to say, “My parents had this book on their coffee table for many years, and I remember staring at the image on the cover when I was growing up; I found it difficult to reconcile the image of the person, who seemed to be smiling, with the depressing message that the title and subtitle conveyed. I thought about this book cover again for the first time in forty years when I started preparing for this speech.” That would have made her ten years old.
As others have pointed out, “Faces At the Bottom of the Well” was published when Jackson was in her early twenties during Bell’s tantrum against Harvard University. It’s unlikely that Biden’s Supreme Court nominee grew up with the hateful text, but it’s entirely plausible that she was influenced by the book which came out when she was at Harvard and then Harvard Law.
Since Bell began his racial strike against Harvard Law before she had completed her undergraduate degree, it’s unlikely that she had taken any of his classes, but the former member of the faculty was clearly an influence on her. Perhaps Jackson’s memory is faulty or she’s deliberately backdating the book’s influence on her childhood to make it seem more innocent. Surely no one could blame a ten-year-old for being attracted to a racialist text.
“Faces At the Bottom of the Well” is the sort of racist book that could conceivably appeal to a bright ten-year-old. Bell, despite his position, was never much of a legal or constitutional scholar, and Faces, like the preceding “And We Are Not Saved”, conveys its message that the constitution is just a facade for a white racist agenda through science fiction short stories.
Where “And We Are Not Saved” transports the protagonist back to the Constitutional Convention to denounce the Constitution, “Faces At the Bottom of the Well” indulges in more hyperbolic science fiction scenarios including the rise of a new continent of Afroatlantis and space aliens offering Americans profits in exchange for selling black people into space slavery.
While the scenarios are absurd, they’re there to illustrate Bell’s argument that the Constitution is nothing more than what benefits white people at any given time. This is the same argument that the godfather of critical race theory had repeatedly made throughout his career, contending, for example, that the ban on segregation was not a rejection of racism, only a ploy by white people to defeat the Soviet Union and Communism by showing that they weren’t racist.
(Likewise, Faces, along with a defense of Farrakhan and condemnation of Jews for opposing black antisemitism, portrays Jews as protesting against the plan to sell black people into slavery only because in the absence of blacks, “Jews could become the scapegoats”.)
Such racial conspiracy theories, ubiquitous in the work and thought of black nationalists and supremacists, who always begin and end with the premise of white evil, pervade Bell’s work.
“Faces At the Bottom of the Well” was a way to popularize and communicate this central idea at a level that even a child or a not particularly bright Harvard student, already nursing resentments, would be able to understand by depicting scenarios in which the white society and white people would cheerfully revamp the Constitution to bring back black slavery.
Thus near the end of the “Space Traders” story, Bell has the Supreme Court unanimously rule that, “if inducted in accordance with a constitutionally approved conscription provision, blacks would have no issues of individual rights for review” and tells us that, “By 70 percent to 30 percent, American citizens voted to ratify the constitutional amendment that provided a legal basis for acceptance of the Space Traders’ offer”. Behind the SciFi is the message that the majority of Americans, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution would allow black people to be enslaved again and that therefore black people should not rely on whites or the Constitution.
The Constitution, according to Bell, is merely the whim of a white agenda that serves its purposes. To the extent that the law has outlawed segregation and slavery, it did so only because it temporarily served white purposes and the moment that it would serve white purposes to enslave black people again, it would be done within the Constitution.
That is the message of “Faces At the Bottom of the Well”: the book that influenced Jackson.
Does Jackson believe that the Supreme Court would rule that black people could be sold into slavery? Like everything about her record, we know we can’t expect an honest answer.
And yet her speech, which touches not only on the racist rants of Bell and his wife but on the 1619 Project, introduces the idea that our founding documents are racially untrustworthy.
Praising the racial revisionist history of the 1619 Project, Jackson touts Nikole Hannah-Jones’ “provocative thesis that the America that was born in 1776 was not the perfect union that it purported to be” and that only black civil rights activism made America “the free nation that the Framers initially touted.”
Much like the 1619 Project, this description is rife with historical anachronisms and fundamental inaccuracies that is even less befitting a Supreme Court justice than a New York Times hack, but also implicitly echoes the critical race theory understanding that the civil rights struggle was not about upholding the Constitution, but overcoming it, that America’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were racist and remain the enemy.
In the process of her lecture, Jackson invokes critical race theory, the pernicious concept of “white privilege”, and intersectionality.
The radicalism oozes around the edges of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s talk.
The Supreme Court nominee praises Gloria Richardson who, in Jackson’s words, “took part in several protests that ended in violent clashes with white residents” and “indirectly challenged SNCC’s non-violent ideology.” She quotes Richardson as saying, “[w]hen we were attacked at demonstrations, [we women] were the ones throwing stones back at the whites.”
Gloria Richardson was a wealthy leftist organizer with political connections during the Cambridge Riots who had contemptuously dismissed Martin Luther King and asserted, “We weren’t going to stop until we got it, and if violence occurred, then we would have to accept that.”
Black nationalists hail her because she’s seen as breaking the embargo on local nonviolence in protests. And Richardson had emphasized that to the extent to which she used nonviolence was as a “tactical device”. To Jackson, most of the law seems to likewise be a tactical device.
And that’s the problem.
Absorbing the paranoid racism of the godfather of critical race theory during her formative years at Harvard makes for a bad judge and a worse justice. Bell’s approach to the Constitution, like that of black nationalists, was that it was a trick to lure black people into lowering their guard.
White people, he believed, could never be trusted and all that mattered was seizing power.
Any laws or documents made by white people would only serve them. Only black people could secure the rights of black people. Like the Nazis, the ultimate truths were race and power.
Everything else was a distraction.
If that is Ketanji Brown Jackson’s worldview, she cannot be expected to come out and say it. But the highest court in the land is the last place for racial paranoia and nationalism. The Supreme Court is charged with upholding the Constitution. A judge who does not believe in the Constitution, but believes in critical race theory, the 1619 Project, and white privilege is manifestly unfit to decide the fate of a nation and its hundreds of millions of people.
Derrick Bell and his hateful ideology believed that white racism was the only abiding truth.
There’s no room for that kind of thinking on the Supreme Court.
The school also allows 2nd graders to "explore and claim their identities in a yearlong multidisciplinary study and project," while 4th graders lead the annual Free to Be Me Assembly, which "celebrates all kinds of families, self-determination, LGBTQ+ pride, inclusion, and comprehensive belonging."
The annual Free to Be Me Assembly is one of GDS’s cornerstone assemblies and celebrates all kinds of families, self-determination, LGBTQ+ pride, inclusion, and comprehensive belonging. The virtual assembly this year, led as always by the 4th grade, facilitated the intentional inclusion of the performing and visual arts, centered and uplifted LGBTQ+ voices, and highlighted student voices. The 4th-grade students did nearly all of the talking—one kindergartener remarked, “Wow, they are doing so great. They sound like parents!”
In this episode, Dinesh evaluates Ketanji Brown Jackson not as a justice but rather as a performer, and grades how she is doing before her audience, the Senate. Danielle D'Souza Gill joins her dad to talk about Jackson's mentor, the legal activist Derrick Bell. Dinesh examines the strange appeal of "the most controversial figure in France," Eric Zemmour. Dinesh looks at how the cancellation of all things Russian now extends to his own favorite hobby, chess. Dinesh concludes his analysis of Guido da Montefeltro in Dante's circle of fraud.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., questioned Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as the Senate Judiciary Committee continued its Supreme Court confirmation hearings March 22. Blackburn focused part of her questioning on abortion. She asked Jackson about whether the constitution protects the rights of people to have an abortion. Jackson said the Supreme Court considers the right to an abortion to be an unenumerated right. Blackburn also asked about Jackson’s views on critical race theory in school and transgender athletes. Jackson said giving her own opinions on those issues are not in her purview as a judge. Jackson was nominated by President Joe Biden in February to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. If confirmed, she will be the first Black woman on the high court. After opening statements from Jackson, her colleagues, and the senators March 21, senators will spend two days questioning Jackson at length about her rulings and judicial philosophy. On the final day of the hearings March 24, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear from friends and colleagues of Jackson about her temperament and approach to the law.
(@MrAndyNgo) 
(@MQSullivan) 
