2016 Debate Flashback: Trump Told Hillary He’d Select Pro-Life Justices & Roe v Wade Would Be Overturned – Nwo Report


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!

Will the Roe V Wade Decision Save the Democrats in November? | The Most Revolutionary Act


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.

Supreme Court gun ruling likely won’t affect Texas’ regulations | The Texas Tribune

Comment by tonytran2015: The cost of tragedies versus the risk of tyranny has to be properly evaluated.


The high court found that
states can’t require people to show “proper cause” for a gun permit. Texas allows people to carry handguns without a permit.

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy.

    Browse all newsletters at texastribune.org/subscribe.

    Is Melatonin Dangerous? – Freedom Is Just Another Word…


    Gimme a damn break. This is just big pharm pushing bought off politicians to force regulation on supplements.
    Can’t have us taking natural supplements and remedies big pharm can’t profit off of!


    New Book Warns Julian Assange Is Being Tortured

    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

    So You Say You Want a Revolution? President Biden Continues to Talk Revolution if the Court does not Rule as Demanded – JONATHAN TURLEY


    “So you say you want a revolution.” When they sang those lines, the Beatles could well have been talking about Democratic leaders today. Revolution seems much in the minds and the rhetoric of politicians who are continuing to threaten swift responses to the Court if it rules against their wishes. The latest armchair revolutionary is President Joe Biden himself who went on Jimmy Kimmel to do the first sit down interview in months. To his credit, Biden was promising only a “mini-Revolution.”

    Others have gone full revolutionary. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., joined the growing ranks of members of Congress in issuing a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or else. The “else” varies from promises to pack the Court to personal accountability for justices. For Shaheen, it is a promise of “revolution.”

    Clearly, these leaders are using over-heated rhetoric and do not support violence. They no more want true revolution than Sen. Chuck Schumer was calling for the killing of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch when he declared on the steps of Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Calling for revolutionary change in politics is as common as calling on people to “fight” political opponents or legislative actions. For example, with rioting continuing in Brooklyn Center, Minn. and around the country, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, went to Minnesota and told the protesters that they “gotta stay on the street” and “get more confrontational.” However, these same politicians have insisted that such references are literal when made by their opponents. Notably, Democrats are holding hearings this week on how Republicans bear responsibility for the Jan. 6th riot due to their calls to “fight” against certification of the 2020 election. On that day, there is no question that Trump whipped the crowd into a frenzy. I was critical of the speech while he was giving it. However, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” There is little attention to how such rhetoric has been common on the left. Of course, having leaders like Biden and Shaheen channeling revolutionary rhetoric is more vapid than violent. You can put on a beret and chomp on a cigar but it does not make you Che Guevara. It is clear that he meant a political revolution, but the President was engaging in the same ultimatum and saber rattling. It is the underlying message that is worrisome. It is part of a long series of threats to the Supreme Court that it must yield on the interpretation of the Constitution or face radical changes to the institution. The President is not alone in presenting the Court with this yield-or-else choice. Last year, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others stood in front of the Supreme Court to announce a court packing bill to give liberals a one-justice majority. This follows threats from various Democratic members that conservative justices had better vote with liberal colleagues . . . or else. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, is not willing to wait and has called to pack the Court. She denounced the court for voting wrongly on decisions and, perish the thought, against “widely held public opinion.” The attacks on the institution have become attacks on the members of the institution. Law professors like Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinksy have called the justice “partisan hacks” while others have supported targeting the individual justices at their home. Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.” Such calls can take on a more menacing meaning in the twisted minds of some who may think that “more aggressive tactics” include showing up at a justice’s house with a Glock handgun, zip ties, and burglary tools. Again, that is not the intention of such remarks but the endorsement of targeting justices at their homes shows a complete collapse in our sense of decency and responsibility. Sixties Radical Abbie Hoffman once said that the “first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.” It remains to be seen if the public will allow these politicians to get away with it and support calls for changing the Court or retaliating against individual members. With the support of many in the media and academia, the reckless rhetoric is likely to continue.

    However, there should be no question about the import of the underlying message that it is appropriate for politicians to pack or legislatively change the court if it does not rule the way that they and “public opinion” demand. Such proposals would destroy one of the core institutions of our constitution system.

    That is why “when you talk about destruction” of our traditions of judicial review, as the Beatles declared in 1968, “you can count me out.”

    Disinformation Panels, Corrupt FBI Activity, Govt Control over Speech in Social Media, The J6 Propaganda Effort, it is One Long Continuum | Centinel2012


    Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 9, 2022 | Sundance

    Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; instead, what they did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so the weapons only targeted one side of the political continuum. This point is where many people get confused, it is also the most critical element that Washington DC must hide in the aftermath.

    The systems of government were retooled during the administration of Barack Obama to fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between government and the American people. Their success in that objective is the discomfort you see, feel and deal with every day.

    The people who created the Fourth Branch of Government used every tool in their arsenal to outlast and remove Donald Trump; then they turned to the one cognitively challenged candidate who would not be a threat to the construct, Joe Biden, and installed him through fraud and mail-in ballots. Everything is downstream from this construct…

    Biden urges ban on assault-style weapons and gun age limits – BBC News

    Comment by tonytran2015: Without the 2nd Amendment, USA may become an authoritarian state and a Tiananmen Square protests and massacremassacre will kill more people every year.


    President Joe Biden has said the US should ban assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines to
    tackle the “carnage” of gun violence.