Discussion in 'The Signs of the Times' started by garabandal, Oct 17, 2017.
They should create some kind of new prize just for Tom Fitton!
BREAKING: Federal Court Orders Deposition of Hillary Clinton on Emails, Benghazi Attack Records After Prior Faulty Testimony
Judicial Watch founder and President Tom Fitton dropped a bomb on Monday morning.
In September a federal judge granted Judicial Watch SIGNIFICANT new discovery on the Hillary Clinton email and Benghazi scandals.
Tom Fitton reported on this at the time.
Hillary Clinton back in court! Federal judge grants SIGNIFICANT new discovery to @JudicialWatch on Clinton email AND Benghazi scandal! Court wants us to "shake this tree" on Clinton email records! New witness testifies today. https://judicialwatch.org/tom-fittons-weekly-update/court-grants-new-discovery-on-clinton-emails/ …
Today Tom Fitton posted an update to the story.
A federal court just ordered a deposition of Hillary Clinton on her emails and Benghazi attack records.
This is HUGE news!
BREAKING: Federal Court Orders Deposition of Hillary Clinton on Emails and Benghazi Attack Records. Rules prior testimony "left many more questions than answers." https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1174665340707627008 …
etoa, Maybe Tom Fitton could be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom at some point in the future.
I just heard that Amy Klobuchar is out and she will be backing Biden tonight and so will Mayor Pete, future candidate for VP? (I pray not.)
Media Barely Hides Disdain For Prayer After Trump, Pence Photos
President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence had separate moments of prayer over the course of last week, and the media could barely hide its disdain.
First, images emerged of Trump being prayed over by a group of black Trump-supporting and conservative notables on Feb. 27. Former NFL player Jack Brewer told Trump that he was “the first black president” during the roundtable discussion. Then, Pence was seen praying with his coronavirus emergency team on March 1.
Reporters appeared to mock the decision to pray, taking particular offense to Pence’s photos.
“They’re treating this disease with the seriousness and urgency they bring to gun violence…” contributing writer for New York Times Magazine Thomas Chatterton Williams tweeted.
Mike Pence and his coronavirus emergency team praying for a solution. We are so screwed.
Playboy White House correspondent and CNN political analyst Brian Karem wrote that the administration is in over its head, citing the prayer photos as proof.
“Clear that @VP [Pence] and @realDonaldTrump are in over their heads,” Karem tweeted. “POTUS is literally praying for a miracle to make coronavirus go away.”
Jordan Uhl, the former campaign director for the left-wing activist group Media Matters for America, mocked Trump’s decision to put Pence in charge of the coronavirus task force. He suggested that Pence’s place would involved “praying [that] god protects us.”
“As coronavirus concerns have heightened, in the past 24 hrs Trump has met w/ the actors of a low budget play about the Deep State, met w/ pro-Trump African American leaders and celebrities including Diamond and Silk, left for a political rally and resumed troll tweeting 2020 Dems,” Sam Stein, politics editor at the Daily Beast, tweeted.
News publications also struggled to hide their disdain over the decision to pray, with many of them framing negative articles around Pence’s pictures. The same publications largely chose to ignore Trump’s pictures depicting black notables praying over him.
Upon hearing that Trump pegged Pence to oversee the government’s response to coronavirus, publications such as NBC News and Vox were quick to point out Pence also said he would pray in 2015 following an HIV outbreak in Indiana.
The New York Times published an article with all of the late-night hosts who slammed the administration’s response to the virus, including quotes mocking Pence for praying. The same publication published an op-ed, written as a letter to the editor from a reader, titled “Mike Pence vs. the Coronavirus.”
“A reader cites the vice president’s response to previous health emergencies like AIDS, when he urged prayer,” the article reads.
Supreme Court To Hear First Major Abortion Case Since Kavanaugh’s Confirmation. Here’s What To Know
The Supreme Court will take up June Medical Services v. Russo Wednesday in its first abortion case in four years.
Opponents of the law argue that abortion providers shouldn’t have to have admitting privileges in hospital as Louisiana law states.
Advocates of the argue it only makes women safer from improperly performed procedures.
“Abortion is extremely safe,” the Center for Reproductive Rights maintains.
The United States Supreme Court will hear an abortion case for the first time in Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s tenure as a Louisiana abortion business challenges a state law that defendants say protects women.
The court will take up June Medical Services v. Russo Wednesday, a case in which an abortion provider challenges a 2014 Louisiana state law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility. These admitting privileges would allow a woman to go directly to the hospital if she needs urgent care.
Pro-abortion opponents say that the law, the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act or Act 620, would hinder and potentially eliminate abortion access in Louisiana. About 10,000 abortions were performed in the state in 2017, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argue on behalf of June Medical Services, say there are only two abortion providers who have admitting privileges in the state.
“There is no medical justification for requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges, as abortion is extremely safe,” the Center for Reproductive Rights said in an October 2019 press release. CRR originally filed June Medical Services v. Gee in August 2014.
“Hospitals frequently deny admitting privileges to doctors who provide abortions for reasons ranging from ideological opposition to the fact that too few of their patients will ever need hospital care,” the CRR press release adds.
The organization did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry maintains that the law does not force clinic closures, citing the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that “there is no evidence that any of the clinics will close as a result of the Act.” Louisiana abortion providers will be able to obtain admitting privileges if they are providing competent care, Landry said in a February press release
“Louisiana abortionists have gone to extraordinary lengths to block Act 620 – a bipartisan law that promotes the well-being of women and protects minor girls who may find themselves in the hands of incompetent providers and under unsafe conditions,” the AG’s office said in a statement.
Pro-life advocates argue that the Louisiana law protects women from abortion doctors who fail to properly and safely perform abortions. They also argue that abortion providers have no place to be suing the state on behalf of the very women whom the Louisiana law seeks to protect.
Americans United for Life President and CEO Catherine Glenn Foster notes that particularly in Louisiana, “abortion facilities and abortion practitioners have a long history of professional disciplinary actions and substandard medical care” as well as “a record of ‘generally unsafe conditions and protection of rapists.'”
“It is impossible for abortion facilities and practitioners to share or represent the interests of these patients and assert third-party standing when they strive to eliminate the very regulations designed to protect their patients’ health and safety,” she wrote in a February SCOTUSblog post.
“A supermajority of Americans support Louisiana-style patient protection laws that ensure abortion practitioners meet the same medical standards as any normal physician,” Foster told the DCNF. “All Americans deserve patient protection laws like Louisiana’s, and every woman deserves the protection that clear health and safety standards provide.”
The Americans United for Life president added that abortionists in Louisiana are “actually fighting to abandon their patients.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case gives them the opportunity to address the inherent conflict between abortion businesses and women,” Foster explained.
The case will mark the first time the Supreme Court has reviewed an abortion case since Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court justice’s confirmation was marked by anxiety from the pro-abortion movement that Kavanaugh would rule favorably for pro-life policies.
He was accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford, whose lawyer Debra Katz said Ford’s accusations were motivated by putting “an asterisk next to” Kavanaugh’s name before “he takes a scalpel” to Roe v. Wade.
“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court,” Katz says in a video exclusively obtained by the DCNF in September 2019.
“He will always have an asterisk next to his name,” Katz continues. “When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”
Foster notes that this will be both Kavanaugh’s and other new Supreme Court members’ first chance to “meaningfully rule on abortion.”
“We are confident that their decision will be consistent with the U.S. Constitution and will affirm life,” she told the DCNF.
MSNBC Chris Matthews resigns. Next.
Biden Taps Beto to 'Take Care of the Gun Problem with Me'
By Tyler O'Neil March 3, 2020 https://pjmedia.com/election/biden-...urke-to-take-care-of-the-gun-problem-with-me/
Twitter screenshot of Joe Biden praising Beto O'Rourke.
No fewer than three former 2020 Democrats rallied around former Vice President Joe Biden on Monday: former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn), and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas). Beto dropped out of the presidential race after becoming ever more radical and foul-mouthed, to no avail. Among other things, he promised to uproot Americans from their homes and to strip the tax-exempt status of churches that disagree with him on same-sex marriage. Yet his most notorious statement came last September, when he said, "Hell yes, we're gonna take your AR-15."
If Joe Biden really were the moderate candidate the Democrat establishment and legacy media bill him as, you might expect him to minimize Beto's radical past. Perhaps he'd accept the endorsement, say some kind words about anything other than Beto's claim that he was "born" to run for president, and rush the radical off the stage.
But if you're expecting that, you don't really know Joe Biden. When it comes to digging himself out of holes, he seems to have a compunction to just dig deeper and deeper.
Right after Beto introduced Biden at the rally on Monday, the former VP effectively endorsed O'Rourke's gun confiscation plan in all of its divisive glory.
"I want to make something clear. I’m going to guarantee this is not the last you’ve seen of this guy. You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me, you’re going to be the one who leads this effort," the establishment Democrat declared.
He continued to sing Beto's praises, perhaps forgetting just what an obnoxious radical he was physically and rhetorically embracing.
"I’m counting on you, I’m counting on you. We need you badly, the state needs you, the country needs you, you’re the best," Biden said.
Sure, some of this is hyperbole. Biden was accepting Beto's endorsement, after all.
Some of this is smart political calculation. The establishment Democrats' chosen messiah knows that he needs to placate some of the radicals to chip away at Bernie Sanders' support.
Even so, this is terrifying. Biden said that a candidate who wants to use the IRS to ram a government religious belief on marriage down church's throats is "the best" and "badly" needed for Texas and for America. He said that a candidate who insisted on a "right" to live close to work — which involves forcibly removing Americans from their homes in pursuit of social justice — is a needed political leader.
Worst of all, he said that the Democrat who clearly threatened to take guns away from law-abiding Americans is "the best" — and the right person to "lead" the effort on "the gun problem." He said this a few months after good parishioners with guns took down a shooter at a Texas church last December, once again illustrating that guns themselves are not the problem.
Biden may not really be a radical. He may not believe everything he has been saying for the past few years — although it's dangerous to assume he's lying. He may really be a moderate in extreme leftist's clothing. But that doesn't really matter if he's going to be selecting the most radical former 2020 candidates to lead up major "reforms" like gun confiscation.
Rather than taking a truly moderate tack, the former vice president has lumped himself in with one of the most radical candidates in the 2020 cycle. Sure, Biden didn't honeymoon in the Soviet Union or say nice things about Fidel Castro, but he seems to be working hard to minimize any difference between himself and the open socialist he's running against.
The Trump campaign has already seized on the footage, and if Biden becomes the nominee, this is almost certain to become a powerful campaign ad against him.
[I think that our country is so divided right now that any future Trump ad displaying the above footage won't make an impact against Biden, unfortunately.
And Biden, Buttigieg and O'Rourke are Catholic. ]
Wait until the Warning. Wait until the Last Judgment. They will not be mocking then. Or maybe they will, still.
Thank you for breaking this down for us.
Trump demands even lower rates less than an hour after Fed's first emergency cut since 2008
President Trump on Tuesday morning finally got what he wanted from the Federal Reserve: an interest rate cut, the biggest since the 2008 financial crisis as fears mounted over the economic fallout from the coronavirus.
Yet less than an hour on after the unexpected move from the Fed, he demanded even lower rates.
"The Federal Reserve is cuting but must further ease and, most importantly, come into line with other countries/competitors. We are not playing on a level field," Trump tweeted. "Not fair to USA. It is finally time for the Federal Reserve to LEAD. More easing and cutting!"
The Fed slashed rates by 50 basis points in a unanimous vote, putting interest rates between 1% to 1.25%.
"The fundamentals of the US economy remain strong. However, the coronavirus poses evolving risks to economic activity," the Federal Open Market Committee said in a statement.
It also said that it was "closely monitoring developments and their implications for the economic outlook and will use its tools and act as appropriate to support the economy."
Economists worldwide had shaved down projections of economic growth in recent days as the coronavirus shutters factories and disrupts global supply chains amid its global spread. There has been a surge of new cases in Iran, Japan, and Italy.
On Monday, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said the virus had put the world economy in its "most precarious position" since the financial crisis just over a decade ago.
The death toll from COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the virus, has surpassed 3,000 people, and the virus has infected over 90,000 - mostly in China. There are 100 reported cases in the US.
Trump had repeatedly called on the Fed to slash interest rates at the first sign of economic trouble - and he stepped up criticism of the central bank as his reelection campaign kicked into high gear.
Yet there are concerns over the Fed's ultimate ability to limit the ensuing economic damage from a public health crisis. Business Insider's Bob Bryan recently wrote that it may not matter what the Fed does, as "the tools it has to help the economy aren't made to deal with a coronavirus-type shock."
Of course many believe, w/ good reason, that CJ Roberts was compromised in some way by Obama in order to get O's "signature" policy passed....O'care. Pray that by now Roberts' conscience will rule rather than any ongoing coercion. "Oh what a wicked web we weave......" And then there are those "Trump prophecies" that speak to Roberts' getting caught in some kind of scandal and being removed.
Chief Justice John Roberts heading down collision course with himself
One of my favorite stories about Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is from one of his train trips to Washington. Holmes forgot his ticket but the train conductor reassured him, “Do not worry about your ticket. We all know who you are. When you get to your destination, you can find it and just mail it to us.” Holmes responded, “My dear man, the problem is not my ticket. The problem is, where am I going?”
Chief Justice John Roberts may have the same uncertainty this week as he finds himself on track to two decisions that will define him and the court. Once heralded as a reliable conservative, Roberts became the swing vote with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Now conservatives are unsure if Roberts will deliver or deflect a coup de grâce with decisions on ObamaCare and abortion. In both cases, he will grapple with his previous views that would push him to vote for decisions with sweeping impacts. For a chief justice who gets sticker shock at such moments, Roberts may find himself evading his prior self in shaping the future court.
Affordable Care Act
The Supreme Court earlier this week accepted an appeal from various states that are controlled by Democrats who seek the reversal of lower courts striking down the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act. In 2012, Roberts saved ObamaCare as the fifth vote in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Kathleen Sebelius. In my view, it was one of his weakest opinions as chief justice.
Roberts sided with the conservative justices that requiring individuals to buy insurance was a flagrant violation of federalism guarantees, a view I shared. But in what read like a last minute addition, he voted with the four liberal justices in declaring that none of that matters because he viewed the individual mandate as a tax. It was a surprising turn, since both sides had denied that this was a tax. But by declaring the individual mandate an exercise of the taxing authority of Congress, Roberts saved the law. He insisted the individual mandate was the thumping heart of ObamaCare, which could not survive without its tax revenue from the healthy young citizens who would pay more into the system than they took out.
His decision, refashioning the mandate as a tax, appeared artificial and opportunistic to many of us. It also sowed the seeds of its own destruction by not just resting the survival of ObamaCare on the existence of the tax but by insisting that the law could not survive without it. Congress called his bluff by zeroing out the tax, which was the very thing that Roberts had said was needed to sustain ObamaCare as a constitutional matter.
The case is now headed to Roberts again. The lower courts had quoted him and relied on his reasoning to declare the provision unconstitutional. The district court struck down the entire law based on his 2012 decision. The appellate court left open the possibility that the entire law could be struck down but remanded that question back to the district court.
Roberts is well known for resisting dramatic social or political changes in opinions. However, he will now be faced with a determined protagonist in himself. In order to save ObamaCare again, he will have to brush aside his own analysis from 2012, fueling objections that the 2012 rationale was a convenient and transparent ruse to avoid the need to strike down the law. The case of California v. Texas presents the question in the sharpest relief. The tax fallacy is now evident, but Roberts could still declare “long live ObamaCare” based on a federal tax that brings in no revenue.
Roe v. Wade
The Supreme Court this week will also return again to the long simmering debate over the ability of states to limit abortions or abortion services. As with critics of ObamaCare, pro-life advocates have long viewed Roberts as, at best, a fair weather friend and, at worst, a furtive foe on the issue of abortion. The case of June Medical Services v. Stephen Russo will again be forced into the open on a key constitutional question.
There is not a lot of room left to avoiding declaring whether a state like Louisiana can impose conditions on abortion services, such as requiring that physicians have admitting privileges at a local hospital. What is most striking about the case is that it involves very similar issues as in Whole Woman’s Health v. John Hellerstedt in 2016, but it will be argued to a different court. Roberts voted in the minority when there was no chance the Supreme Court would open up abortion to state limitations.
Kennedy, a critical swing vote for pro-choice advocates, was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was controversial because of his perceived hostility toward the foundation of Roe v. Wade. The vote was five to three because Justice Antonin Scalia had passed and Justice Neil Gorsuch had not yet been confirmed. With Scalia or Gorsuch, the vote might have been five to four. With Kavanaugh, however, the result would flip.
The Louisiana case presents that same type of restrictions as the Texas case and comes from the same circuit. In the Texas case, the fear was that limitations would dramatically reduce the number of abortion clinics. In the dissent that Roberts joined, Justice Samuel Alito rejected claims of a causal link between such limitations and the reduction of the number of clinics. Critics of the Louisiana law argue that same causal link, with a bigger potential to cut the number of clinics in the state to one.
Roberts will have to vote on a Supreme Court that can clearly deliver a victory for states' rights and pro-life advocates. There are technical “off ramps” with both cases, but he will have to work hard to evade this clear vote. Clarity is something that Roberts likely does not relish in either area. On both ObamaCare and abortion, he would have to reject his own prior analysis to vote against the position of his conservative colleagues. So conservatives may not like the new destination of the chief justice if he decides to jump the track on both of his prior landmark decisions.
Interesting now that Super Tuesday has solidified the DNC's support behind status quo Biden over Marx that the US stock markets are up today. Big surprise.
I think Trump was right and the huge market volatility was due in large part to the Dem candidates and specifically the DNC playing games with the upcoming election.
Evil is exploding within its minions.....the minions are cracking up as the arrows are coming back at them! Nothing like selling your soul for the sake of a political position.
Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, “You Will Pay the Price! You Won’t Know What Hit You!” (Video)”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) threatened two conservative Supreme Court justices as he spoke at a pro-choice rally in front of the Supreme Court Wednesday as the Court heard a Louisiana case on restricting abortion, June Medical Services v. Russo, described by ScotusBlog, “Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.”
Schumer gives the thumbs down as he mentions Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Schumer turned and pointed at the Supreme Court building behind him and menacingly screamed as he shook his fist:
“I want to tell you Gorsuch! And 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…”
YouTube video by the Center for Reproductive Rights cued to Schumer’s speech:
Short version with just the threat posted to Twitter by MRC Latino’s Jorge Bonilla (at link below):
Schumer prefaced his threat noting the case being heard Wednesday was the first major abortion rights case taken up by the Court since Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined the bench.
He is calling down a curse upon himself and on the steps of the Supreme Court, heaven help us upon the country. Justice..
 Well doth he rise early who seeketh good things; but he that seeketh after evil things shall be oppressed by them.  He that trusteth in his riches shall fall: but the just shall spring up as a green leaf.  He that troubleth his own house, shall inherit the winds: and the fool shall serve the wise.
Prayer for these justices
BREAKING: Chief Justice Roberts Condemns Chuck Schumer For Threatening Gorsuch and Kavanaugh
It will be interesting to see how Roberts votes on the upcoming abortion and O'care cases.....will he still fear the DS and continue to go their way?
Big question. Schumer really is out of control.
“I want to tell you Gorsuch! And 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…”
I had an inner vision of the Archangel Michael with a sword upheld, standing behind Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. They are protected.
Prayers for these Supreme Court Judges.
Thanks for sharing this with us, Booklady.
Yes, that is the impression I have. Not just Schumer, but I get the same feeling from Speaker Pelosi. Their world is collapsing before their eyes, and there is nothing they can do. Everything they have tried, which has worked in the past, fails with President Trump and this administration. Now they are only able to curse and bluster more like rabid bullies than leaders. Americans are waking up to the evil that has been perpetrated by our elites.
Separate names with a comma.