…Julian Assange is seeking permission to appeal against a decision to extradite him to the United States…
Rare proof of a politician following through with their promises
Posted BY: Jasmine| NwoReport
A flashback video clip going viral online following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Roe v Wade abortion ruling shows President Trump accurately predicting the future.
During a 2016 presidential debate, then-candidate Trump said, “If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that’s what will happen, and it will happen automatically in my opinion, because I’m putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this. It will go back to the states and the states will then make a determination.”
Trending: Mark Taylor Prophecy Roe v Wade Overturned Comes True: Video made 6-24-2017 Roe vs Wade overturned 6-24-2022
The 45th president did what he promised, and his debate night prediction came true even after he had the presidency stolen from him.
Mark this down as another win for Trump and an even bigger win for humanity!
Prior to the Supreme Court decision earlier today, the majority of polls showed the Democrats losing by a landslide in November. The massive popular uproar in the hours since the decision (see Crowd Grows Quickly Outside Supreme Court Protest Update) suggests this decision may prove extremely beneficial to the Democratic Party in the midterm elections – at least if the mainstream corporate media gets its way. I am frankly dismayed at the total lack of context, ie the omission of legal and historical facts, conveniently overlooked in all the media hysteria.
1) No mainstream outlet seems to question how the supposedly liberal Democratic Party can support a woman’s right to choose if she is pregnant but not if she chooses to not to take a dangerous experimental gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine.
2) No mainstream outlet tries to examine exactly where the Constitution guarantees the right to abortion. I sure can’t find it. In fact, it’s my view that any federal guarantee of legal access to abortions must be legislated by Congress, not by the courts. I also believe the Democrats have essentially abandoned working women by failing to pass a federal law guaranteeing abortion rights during numerous periods (over the last 50 years) when they enjoyed super majorities in both houses of Congress.
3) Also omitted in all the mainstream coverage is that poor American women lost guaranteed access to pregnancy termination over 40 years ago – when Congress passed the 1980 Hyde Amendment, barring the use of federal Medicaid funding to pay for abortions.
4) In all the media hype I’ve seen so far, there’s a consistent failure to examine what the SCOTUS actually decided, namely to allow Mississippi to ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. First trimester abortions are still perfectly legal, even in the state of Mississippi.
Though I personally support a woman’s right to choose (especially in the case of rape or when underage girls are impregnated by manipulative older men), I also believe pregnancy termination would be unnecessary in a just society where 1) young women have full and free access to safe birth control and 2) where public policies guarantee the financial security of all babies and children, rather than condemning the majority of single mothers to a life a poverty.
Posted BY: Joe Hoft
After the 2020 Election was stolen there was much effort to cover it up. Big Media and Big Tech never reported on the steal and censored those who did. But in addition to that, bad actors inserted themselves on the GOP side to attempt to destroy President Trump with false information on the steal. The “Italian Job” was one of these efforts…
The US Senate has passed a gun control bill – the most significant firearms legislation in nearly 30 years…
Millions of women in the US will lose the constitutional right to abortion, after the Supreme Court
overturned a 50-year-old ruling that legalised it…
…While the exact price of the sales to India is unknown, “the discount of Urals to Brent crude [the global benchmark] remains at around $30 per barrel”, says Matt Smith, an analyst at Kpler…
By Neenah Payne Julian Assange is an Australian editor, publisher, and activist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006. WikiLeaks is a site created for whistleblowers to… New Book Warns Julian Assange Is… Go to Source Author: Activist Post… Read more
After 11 months, nearly 100
subpoenas and more than 1,000 interviews, the congressional committee
investigating the 6 January, 2021, attack on the US Capitol will step
out from behind closed doors and hold a series of public hearings to
present its findings. The first one is on Thursday.
Alan Dershowitz, the famed legal mind who is the Felix Frankfurter professor of law, emeritus, at Harvard Law School, is charging the Joe Biden Department of Justice with acting illegally in indicting and arresting Peter Navarro, a former adviser to President Trump.
At the Gatestone Institute, where he is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow, he explained, “The indictment of Peter Navarro for contempt of Congress violates several provisions of the Constitution and should be dismissed.”
Navarro was targeted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s partisan committee assigned to “investigate” the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.
It’s partisan because Pelosi refused to seat GOP members the minority party nominated, and instead picked a couple of Republicans who long have adamantly opposed Trump and his agenda, his accomplishments, and his ideas.
Dershowitz, explaining Navarro “has a strong claim of executive privilege that should be decided by the courts,” pointed out, “Either the Justice Department or Congress should seek a judicial ruling that Navarro’s claim of executive privilege is invalid. ”
He explained, “If the court rules that it is invalid and orders him to respond to the congressional subpoena, Navarro should have an opportunity to comply. If he fails to comply with a judicial order, he can either be indicted or held in contempt by the court. But absent a judicial order, he cannot lawfully be indicted for invoking executive privilege and refusing to reveal arguably privileged material just because a committee of Congress, controlled by Democrats, has voted that he should.”
He explained it isn’t enough to allow him to appeal after the fact, because information that has been revealed cannot later be erased.
His decision to claim privilege is not a crime, Dershowitz explained. “It is the constitutionally correct action.”
He explained the constitutional violations include due process, fair warning and executive privilege.
“It also violates the separation of powers, under which the courts have the authority to resolve conflicts between the legislative and executive branches over claims of executive privilege in response to legislative subpoenas.”
He warned, “The Biden Justice Department knows the law and it should not be acting lawlessly to make political points.”
“I do not support the events of January 6, 2021, as do many Americans. Congress has the right to investigate them and issue appropriate subpoenas, but they must comply with the Constitution,” he explained to Democrats running Congress.
“Legitimate ends do not justify illegitimate means, and issuing an indictment of a former executive decision without first obtaining a judicial order is an illegitimate tactic.”
He said the proper course for now is for Navarro to move to dismiss the indictment and the court to grant that.
He called for fairness and equal justice.
“The Bible admonishes judges not to ‘recognize faces.’ That command is the origin of the blindfolded statue of Lady Justice. But in our age of pervasive partisanship, too many judges peek out their blindfolds and rule differently based on the faces and political affiliations of the litigants. Every ruling and decision – whether by a judge or Justice Department official – must pass the ‘shoe on the other foot test,’” he said.
“It must be the same regardless of face, name, race, ethnicity, religion, gender or political affiliation. So the question must be asked: would this Justice Department have indicted a Democratic former executive official who claimed executive privilege in response to a Congressional subpoena?”
He suggested that question may be answered soon … “if the Republicans gain control of either house later this year and start issuing subpoenas for officials in the Biden White House.”
He said the Democrats’ actions under Pelosi’s direction also are a threat to ordinary citizens.
“Consider a citizen who refuses to answer congressional questions about conversations with her priest or medical doctor — or a lawyer who refuses to disclose confidential information he received from a client. If this indictment is allowed to stand, these citizens too could be indicted before their claims of privilege were adjudicated by a court. A dangerous precedent indeed — to the rule of law, the Constitution and the rights of all Americans,” he said.