Posted on 12/03/2021 4:54:12 PM PST by jazusamo
The Supreme Court Should Overturn Roe v. Wade
Why No One Is Surprised Hillary Clinton’s Influence-Peddling Foundation Collapsed
Documents Reveal Bill Clinton’s Trip with Ghislaine Maxwell
TRIAL UPDATE: Judicial Watch Lawyers in Court Trial against California’s Gender Quotas for Corporate Boards
Judicial Watch Seeks to Depose Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot about Her Racist Interview Policy
Judicial Watch Sues on Behalf of Massachusetts Teacher Fired for Opposing Critical Race Theory
The Supreme Court Should Overturn Roe v. Wade
The rule of law and our constitutional system was undermined by the Roe v. Wade decision that led to the legalization of abortion on demand.
In this regard, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. Our brief in support of the constitutionality of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act argues that states have the right under the Constitution to regulate abortion and protect unborn life. ( Dobbs v. Jackson (No. 19-1392)).
Our brief argues that the Supreme Court should overturn Roe and restore the regulation of abortion to the states:
Despite creative judicial legislating, it is crystal clear that abortion does not involve war, peace, negotiation, foreign commerce, or taxation. Abortion fits squarely into the states’ sphere of objects that concern the “lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” Not being an enumerated power, the Roe Court did not have the authority to overturn the abortion laws of the states.
Additionally, our brief notes that Roe v. Wade didn’t provide clarity, but instead muddied the waters:
Far from creating a national consensus, Roe threw the states into a 48-year contentious legal battle. Even some abortion advocates eschew the injudicious method of federalizing abortion as short-circuiting a naturally evolving jurisprudence under state laws. As federal and state judges attempt to apply this Court’s precedents, a national landscape of inconsistent, inconclusive, and untenable rules have emerged. As a national policy, abortion jurisprudence is, in a word, a mess. Stubbornly holding on to unconstitutional precedent will never have a positive outcome. It is time to return abortion policy to the states where it belongs and where the democratic process can effectively work.
States must be able to defend life, and the disastrous Roe decision has upended our constitutional order. The Supreme Court has a chance to right a constitutional wrong in a way that will allow Americans again to protect the right to life.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule by June of next year…
Why No One Is Surprised Hillary Clinton’s Influence-Peddling Foundation Collapsed
Per usual, Judicial Watch took the lead in exposing Bill and Hillary Clinton’s shady dealings inside their “foundation,” especially in the way they used it to sell influence. Now their foundation’s fundraising is collapsing, which isn’t a surprise, as I detail in this op-ed for Daily Caller:
When one of the most recognizable nonprofits in the world loses 75% of its contributions over a four-year period, there are typically investigatory reports written into what has gone wrong. That isn’t the case with the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation received $62.9 million in 2016 but only $16.3 million in 2020, and very few people seem to have noticed.
That is because most Beltway insiders know the Clinton Foundation’s primary purpose: to serve as a platform for Hillary Clinton’s political operation while lining the Clintons’ pockets by trading influence for money. That is why donations spiked when Hillary was secretary of state and most of the world thought she was destined to become president — and why they cratered after she lost.
Kevin Thurm, the CEO of the Clinton Foundation, tried to play off the 2020 decline off as pandemic-related. In a letter, he wrote that 2020 “was a difficult year for philanthropy. Across the sector, resources were stretched thinly and fundraising activities were impacted.” This argument doesn’t explain the tens of millions the Foundation lost between 2016 and 2019 and ignores that charitable giving was up by 5.1% in America last year.
Of course, an objective observer easily understands the real reason the Clinton Foundation experienced such a sharp decline in contributions since 2016. The Foundation is an influence-peddling scheme, and the Clintons’ influence has waned. Even Obama understood the scheme. When President Obama nominated Hillary Clinton in 2009 to serve as secretary of state, she agreed to a strict memorandum of understanding to wall off the Foundation from conflicts of interest with the State Department. As Judicial Watch uncovered, the Clinton team immediately violated this agreement by using the Clinton State Department to help Clinton Foundation donors.
The Clintons also agreed that the State Department would approve Bill Clinton’s speeches. Judicial Watch investigations (in partnership with the Daily Caller) uncovered that this agreement translated into the Clinton State Department rubber-stamping virtually all of Bill Clinton’s 215 speeches, which raked in $48 million in speaking fees while his wife was secretary of state. These speeches included government-controlled entities in China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. State Department memos approving his speeches were routinely sent to Cheryl Mills, who was Hillary Clinton’s senior counsel and chief of staff – and a former Foundation board member!
The former president blurred ethical lines, routinely mixing diplomacy and Clinton Foundation fundraising. He praised Colombian President Manuel Santos’s efforts to reach out to terrorist group FARC shortly after playing golf with the president as part of a fundraising effort. In another email exchange, a Clinton Foundation official briefed the State Department on Clinton’s trip to Myanmar and his efforts to promote the Clinton Foundation.
If this wasn’t sleazy enough, emails reveal that the Clinton Foundation was influencing State Department decisions. Records show that Huma Abedin, Secretary Clinton’s close friend and State Department official, often served as a conduit between Secretary Clinton and top donors. In one case, Clinton declined to meet with Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain, but after Doug Band from the Clinton Foundation emailed Abedin, the Crown Prince ended up on Clinton’s schedule. Band also attempted to get a visa for an English soccer player with a criminal charge because Casey Wasserman, a major Foundation donor, wanted the visa approved. Similarly, Band pushed Foggy Bottom to help Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury, because Chagoury, who had donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, was “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us.”
In another instance, Band pushed Abedin to make a particular hire, arguing that it was “important to take care of [Redacted].” Abedin assured Band that “Personnel has been sending him options.” This revelation of an outside donor pushing for a political appointment through a nonprofit might seem shocking, but the Justice Department had little interest in this influence peddling scheme.
Maybe the most egregious instance of Clinton corruption is the Uranium One deal . Bill Clinton reportedly helped his billionaire pal Frank Giustra acquire uranium mining rights from the Kazakhstani dictator in the mid-2000s. Giustra then gave tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation. In 2009, when it appeared the Kazakhstani government might seize the uranium, Secretary Clinton helped approve a deal that allowed a Russian state-owned company to take over part of the company, even though she had previously opposed foreign companies controlling vital U.S. resources. Unsurprisingly, those involved in this deal donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, which tried to hide the donations.
The collapse of the Clinton Foundation might shock outsiders, but it is no surprise to those who have watched the Clintons’ machinations for years. The Foundation existed as a way for the Clintons to peddle their connections and power in exchange for money. When it became clear they’d never hold power again, donors predictably turned off the cash spigot.
But the grift game never stops, as the Obama Foundation is now on the scene. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos just gave the Obama Foundation a $100 million gift . As the Clinton money machine declines, the Obama machine rises!
Documents Reveal Bill Clinton’s Trip with Ghislaine Maxwell
Off the Wall Ping!
Contact to be added.
It’s all just “blurred ethical lines.” No legal code to prohibit or enforce. Just policies and guidelides for utilitarian ends.
Calling donations to the Clinton Foundation “philanthropy” is kind of like calling Jeffrey Epstein a mentor to homeless teenage girls.
From a web source — states that would ban abortion
Nine states have pre-Roe laws still on the books banning abortion: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Twelve states have “trigger” laws that are designed to ban abortion and only go into effect if Roe is overturned: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah. (Some states have multiple types of bans in place.)
Four states that don’t have pre-Roe laws or trigger laws nevertheless have six-week abortion bans that would go into effect: Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and South Carolina.
An additional five states, Guttmacher said, likely would pass major abortion restrictions if Roe is overturned. Those are Florida, Indiana, Montana, Nebraska and Wyoming.
One of these days scientists are going to figure out what causes pregnancy, and how to prevent It, before women have to resort to this.
If man and woman and God can figure it out, why can’t scientists? LOL!
because scientists are marching to the cash flow from the rats
Thanks for the info and link.
It’s encouraging to see many still have good old common sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.