Thursday, June 30, 2022

Guess Who Leads in the Generic Ballot After the Dobbs Decision?


AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

Remember after the draft majority opinion of Dobbs was leaked, when some people predicted the ruling would help Democrats in November? Those were good times. Unfortunately for them, polls at the time showed that it had virtually no impact. Oops. Oh well.

Nevertheless, now that the final opinion has been released, the same voices are once again predicting that the Dobbs decision will change the trajectory of the 2022 midterm elections.

Well, they’re about to be disappointed. Again. According to a new YouGov/Economist poll conducted after the Dobbs decision was released, 45% of voters say they’d vote for their Republican congressional candidate, compared to 40% who will vote for their Democrat candidate.

Oh, and just like last time, the GOP’s standing improved over the previous generic poll.

Sorry, Dems…you’re still screwed.

BREAKING: SCOTUS Reins in the Power of the EPA


AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib

On Thursday the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that will significantly curtail the power of executive agencies to control entire sectors of the economy through promulgating rules.

While some commentators view this decision narrowly as a determination of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to promulgate regulations to address climate change, in practice, it sets a precedent that will limit the ability of all executive agencies to make regulations that shift entire industries without specific congressional authority to do so.

According to legal expert Jonathan Turley, “it will be much more difficult for President Biden to order sweeping environmental changes without congressional approval” in the wake of this decision.

The case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, originated during the Obama administration. It challenged the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, a set of regulations that required all energy producers to transition coal-fired power plants to natural gas. The Obama EPA relied on its powers under the Clean Air Act to make the mandate.

A group of states led by West Virginia and coal industry associations sought a stay on the Clean Power Plan in 2015. The plaintiffs argued the plan exceeded the EPA’s mandate under the Clean Air Act and violated states’ rights to regulate electrical power. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs a stay in January 2016. When the plaintiffs appealed the issue to the Supreme Court, the justices issued the stay, pending the outcome of all litigation.

This stay on implementing regulations was the first granted by SCOTUS before a review by the federal court of appeals. Many SCOTUS watchers felt this ruling signaled that the court might be interested in rolling back Chevron deference or narrowing the power of executive agencies through the major rules doctrine.

Chevron deference is SCOTUS’s legal test to determine when the court should defer to an executive agency’s answer or interpretation of the law when authoring regulation. This deference was appropriate when the agency’s response was reasonable and Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue in question. Applying the major rules doctrine would require Congress to speak on substantive issues through legislation before an administrative agency could act. The current court used this reasoning twice during COVID, ending the CDC’s eviction moratorium and preventing Biden’s vaccine mandate for private employers.

Other commenters thought it was a sign the court would be willing to prevent agency overreach until litigation settled all legal questions. Regulations can do significant damage while parties argue a case when an administration begs for forgiveness in the courts after knowingly sidestepping Congress. The Obama administration lost more lawsuits with a 9-0 majority at the Supreme Court than any modern president.

The issues in the case remained unresolved when President Trump took office in January of 2017. As part of easing regulations on the energy industry, Trump’s EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan and implemented the Affordable Clean Energy rule. The new rule required coal-fired plants to upgrade their equipment to burn coal more efficiently. On the evening of January 20, 2021, the D.C. Court of Appeals struck down the Trump EPA regulation. It said the EPA’s revocation of the Obama plan was invalid based on a misinterpretation of the Clean Air Act. Joe Biden was inaugurated the next day.

Instead of quickly implementing the Obama-era regulation, Biden’s EPA decided to try its hand at writing a new rule. The plaintiffs weren’t waiting to resolve the issue. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency asked SCOTUS to overturn the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on the Trump-era plan. Specifically, it urged SCOTUS to review whether a regulation that is so substantial it affects an entire industry violates the major questions doctrine. It also asked the court to rule on provisions of the Clean Air that may violate the nondelegation clause of the Constitution.

In the decision, the majority found the court had the jurisdiction to decide the case without a new rule from the Biden administration. The plaintiffs’ claim asked SCOTUS to issue what some, including Justice Elena Kagan in the dissent, see as an advisory ruling. The court made an advisory opinion when it ruled in favor of the plaintiffs seeking an injunction against New York’s gathering limits on religious services. When SCOTUS issued the decision, the restrictions no longer applied to the religious organizations that filed the suit. SCOTUS took a similar advisory approach here.

The majority opinion, authored by Chief justice John Roberts, concludes (emphasis added):

Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This wording appears to be a significant blow to the Chevron deference and a nod to the major questions doctrine. It will impact cases that allege executive overreach and may be the first of many steps the court will take to make the legislative branch of government do its job.

BREAKING: SCOTUS Reins in the Power of the EPA – PJ Media

Wednesday, June 29, 2022

Texas-Mexico border chaos: 51 migrants found dead in San Antonio inside 18-wheeler, reports say

 By Louis Casiano , Griff Jenkins , Bill Melugin , Lawrence Richard | Fox News

Police block the scene where a semitrailer with multiple dead bodies were discovered, Monday, June 27, 2022, in San Antonio. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Police block the scene where a semitrailer with multiple dead bodies were discovered, Monday, June 27, 2022, in San Antonio. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Arrests and deportations of migrants have plummeted under the Biden administration as it faces pressure from states like Texas over immigration policy

At least 51 undocumented migrants were found dead in a tractor-trailer in San Antonio, Texas and more than a dozen were hospitalized, authorities said. 

Two of those taken to a hospital later died, officials said, bringing the total death toll to 48 by Monday night. An updated figure was released Tuesday afternoon. 

Crews were at the 9600 block of Quintana Road where an 18-wheeler containing up to 100 migrants inside was found abandoned, Fox San Antonio reported. The discovery is part of what is believed to be a human smuggling operation. 

"This is nothing short of a horrific human tragedy," San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg said Monday night near the location where the tractor-trailer was found.

Authorities at the scene initially confirmed 46 individuals were found deceased, none of which were children. Officials did not say whether the individuals had migrated from Mexico or elsewhere.

"The plight of migrants seeking refuge is always a humanitarian crisis but tonight we are dealing with a horrific human tragedy," the mayor added. 

Sixteen individuals from the tractor-trailer were transported to the hospital, including 12 adults and four children.

"We hope those responsible for putting these people in such inhumane conditions are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," the mayor said. 

San Antonio Police Department Chief William McManus said a nearby worker notified authorities about the tractor-trailer shortly before 6 p.m. Upon arriving at the scene, officials found dozens of deceased inside the back of the transport vehicle.

"This is now a federal investigation," McManus said. The police chief also said at least three people were in custody but did not specify if the individuals were suspects in the investigation.

All the deceased victims had evidence of heat-related causes of death and the survivors who were transported to the hospital were similarly suffering heat stroke, exhaustion and dehydration, he said.

McManus clarified the tractor-trailer was refrigerated, however, the refrigeration system was not functioning. 

He also said there was no drinkable water found inside the trailer. 

Fox News has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security.

The San Antonio Fire Department similarly described a nightmarish scene.

"We’re not supposed to open up a truck and see stacks of bodies in there," an official said.

Rep. Tony Gonzales, a Republican who represents Texas, tweeted about the incident.

"Today in San Antonio it was 102 degrees. Imagine being abandoned inside an 18-wheeler left to die - 42 people died today - will @AliMayorkas even mention their names?" 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott put the death on President Biden, who has been criticized for not doing enough to secure the southern border. 

"At Least 42 People Found Dead Inside Truck Carrying Migrants In Texas. These deaths are on Biden," Abbott tweeted Monday evening. "They are a result of his deadly open border policies. They show the deadly consequences of his refusal to enforce the law."

Pro-Abortion Demonstrators Unleash Weekend Of Arson, Vandalism, And Insurrection After Dobbs

 By Beth Whitehead | The Federalist

Vandals and insurrectionists attempted to breach the Arizona capitol, torched pregnancy clinics, and shut down freeways.

Left-wing violence predictably erupted over the weekend after the Supreme Court ruled 5-3-1 on Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade. While pro-life advocates celebrated at the Supreme Court building, the weekend opened with a series of attacks, protests, and arson from pro-abortion radicals. Abortionists attacked state capitol buildings, burned pro-life pregnancy clinics, and even stopped freeway traffic, accosting cars that kept driving with sticks — all on the heels of weeks of attacks on pro-life pregnancy clinics, intimidation campaigns outside justices’ houses, and even an assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s life.

The decision, though it eliminates Roe‘s concocted “right” to abortion, does not make abortion illegal as the abortionist narrative spins. However, it’s enabled state legislators to outlaw abortion if they see fit. Any laws restricting abortion on the books are now enforceable, and Utah, Alabama, South Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kentucky outlawed abortion the day of the decision. Six other states are due to follow with standing abortion bans that have a month to go into effect.

Losing the bulwark of control they’ve had since 1973 is proving a stroke too far for the baby-killing movement, and it didn’t take long for abortionists to make the jump to anarchists. The night of the decision, thousands of abortion supporters attempted to breach the Arizona capitol building, beating the doors and windows. The police deployed tear gas into the crowd and no one breached the building, AZ Central reported. Four were arrested on Saturday but released on Sunday.

While the Department of Homeland Security highlighted concerns over potential targeting of state and federal officials, according to a memo obtained by NBC News, pro-abortion radicals are using a map created by two University of Georgia professors to target pro-life pregnancy clinics. The “Crisis Pregnancy Center Map” gives the very street address of pro-life pregnancy clinics throughout the country, Fox News reported. An anarchist group in Washington state posted a link to the map, encouraging viewers to “find your nearest fake abortion clinic on the Crisis Pregnancy Map.”

In Longmont, Colo., a Christian pregnancy clinic was torched on Saturday morning. Officers arrived on scene around 3:20 a.m. to flames and graffiti messages. “If abortions aren’t safe neither are you,” one message threatened, with an anarchy symbol next to it.

Early Saturday morning in Lynchburg, Va., a pro-life pregnancy center was vandalized and its windows smashed. Four people were visible damaging the building on the security camera.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Younkin condemned the crime in a tweet Saturday evening, saying, “There is no room for this in Virginia, breaking the law is unacceptable. This is not how we find common ground. Virginia State Police stands ready to support local law enforcement as they investigate.”

In Portland, Ore., on Saturday, the night after the ruling, a black-garbed crowd of 100 or more set out on the street at 10 p.m., vandalizing and destroying what lay in their path. A flier announcing the march read, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either,” OregonLive reported. A pregnancy clinic was vandalized and several businesses had their windows smashed in until the demonstrations subsided around 10:45 p.m.

The night of the decision in downtown Los Angeles, a pro-abortion supporter reportedly threw a flame thrower at a police officer during a protest. The officer, one of four to be injured that night, was treated for burns, and his assailant is being charged with attempted murder.

Also in Los Angeles, a group of pro-abortion demonstrators shut down the highway on Friday, stopping cars and beating those that didn’t stop with sticks.

Pro-Aborts Spread Arson, Vandalism, And Insurrection After Dobbs (

Tuesday, June 28, 2022



I tuned in for quite a bit of today’s January 6 committee hearing with “surprise” witness Cassidy Hutchinson, and it was gripping viewing indeed. Many of the things she related in her videotaped deposition (excerpted liberally in her committee room appearance) sounded plausible, such as alleged statements by Trump on January 6. And Hutchinson seemed a credible witness.

But second thoughts ought to grow in the aftermath of her appearance. Most of her direct testimony was about her interactions with chief of staff Mark Meadows for whom she served as an assistant (save this thought). And I did note that in her videotaped deposition she kept referring to a notebook in front of her, suggesting that her answers were prepared ahead of time. I don’t think that’s how depositions are supposed to go, even for congressional committees.

But I was really brought up short when she related the story (heard second-hand) of President Trump attempting to grab the wheel of the presidential SUV when the driver refused to take him to the Capitol after his speech on the Mall, and then trying to choke Secret Service agent Bobby Engel after the driver or Engel supposedly swatted the President’s hand away. Something about this scene defies credibility. Was Trump riding shotgun in the SUV after the speech? Of course not. Surely he was sitting in the back, where reaching for the steering wheel is likely an impossibility. I believe even the presidential SUVs (he didn’t use the usual limo that day) have considerable partitions between the passenger section and the driver’s compartment at the front. Where was agent Engel sitting if Trump tried to choke him?

And why hasn’t this story leaked out before now if it is true (or even if—especially if—it isn’t)? Ditto for her other stories of Trump throwing plates of food on the wall at the White House. We’ve heard plenty of stories of Trump’s temper tantrums—I’ve heard a few first hand from individuals on the receiving end of them—but nothing like this.

This is where the lack of an actual Republican on the January 6 committee comes into play, because any amount of cross-examination would raise these questions in public and require some kind of explanation.

Then there’s this, from NBC News White House correspondent Peter Alexander:

P.S. If Trump was consciously trying to incite a riot, why would he want to be in the middle of that at the Capitol? Not sure this doesn’t undermine the J-6 crusade if you think about it in a calmer frame of mind.  I suspect what Hutchinson’s testimony is really intended to do is break down the resistance of Mark Meadows from testifying to the committee. Meadows is fighting a legal battle against the committee based on the entirely sound principle of executive privilege, and the J-6 committee knows they don’t have much time.

P.S. (2): Let’s see if the young Ms. Hutchinson ends up with a book deal in a few months.

The slippery slope of red flag gun laws

By William Haupt III | The Center Square contributor

"No free man shall ever be barred from using arms to guard public liberty." –  Thomas Jefferson

The gun control debate began in the 1920s in Germany’s Weimar Republic. They mandated the registration of all firearms and the authority to confiscate them "if it was necessary for the pubic good." They convinced gun owners these records would be confidential for the nation's security.

The prime minister said these records would forever be protected from militant groups. Yet in 1933, when Adolf Hitler seized power, he used these "secret gun records" to identify, disarm, and attack and imprison opponents of the regime. It also enabled Hitler to murder 6 million defenseless Jews.

Weimar's ill-conceived gun edict showed little insight and had one major flaw. It's most loquacious oversight was that Werner Best crafted it, a suspected conspirator and future Gestapo henchman.

"How fortunate it is for governments that the people they administer don't think." – Adolf Hitler

In 1938, Hitler signed The Gun Control Act to deprive Jews from owning guns. Since the Jews had registered their guns they were easily disarmed. With no weapons to fight back, they were sent to death camps and burned alive. Hitler relied on gun control to cleanse Germany with his Holocaust.

When France fell to the Nazis in 1940, it was a walk in the park for Hitler since it was illegal to own a gun in France and they couldn't fight back. In reaction to this, days before Pearl Harbor in 1941, Congress no only affirmed our 2nd Amendment rights, it also outlawed federal gun registration.

Although America's military might defends world liberty, gun ownership has been under attack for years. Gun control advocates say the U.S. should mimic the European nations that have strict gun control laws. But it was the well-trained army of U.S. gun owners that led the allied victory in WWII.

In Germany, to purchase a gun, you must pass a government psychiatric evaluation. In Finland, to own a gun you must prove you're a member of an approved gun club and pass a police review. In Italy, one must prove they need a gun and pass a criminal and mental background investigation.

In France, applicants must pass a mental health exam. In the UK and Japan it is a felony to own a handgun. In Red China, anyone caught owning gun powder will be jailed. On the other hand, 75% of all citizens in Switzerland own guns. And they have the lowest gun-related crimes in the world.

Every nation with strict guns laws has been taken over by a tyrannical rogue leader; Adolf Hitler of Germany; Benito Mussolini of Italy; and Hirohito of Japan; or they've been invaded by one. But in the U.S. where it is a constitutional right to own and use guns, we are the defender of world freedom.

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."– General George Patton

In America, the colonies demanded free speech and gun ownership was protected before ratifying the Constitution. They demanded that those two amendments be added to the Constitution.

James Madison drafted and passed the Bill of Rights during the first U.S. Congress in NY in 1789.

In 1999, Connecticut passed the first "red flag law." Today 18 states have followed. Red flag laws allow law enforcement, with a court order, to seize guns from anyone that a person considers a danger to themselves or others. Almost anyone can file a red flag request for almost any reason.

President Joe Biden has urged Congress to pass additional gun control laws including a red flag law. With a 224 to 202 vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi passed the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order last week. This allows courts to issue extreme risk orders that ban individuals deemed dangerous from buying or owning a gun. But for this to become law, the 2nd amendment must be amended.

This is the most dangerous attack on the 2nd amendment by the federal government in history.

Within the context of red flag laws, anyone may attempt to have someone's firearms seized with the slightest suspicion that a gun owner may pose a danger to them or to themselves. Only after proving their "innocence" before a court can a law-abiding citizen possibly retrieve their property.

A study by the RAND Corporation on states with red flag laws found that there is zero conclusive evidence that red flag laws prevent acts of gun violence. In fact, a report by CNN shows homicides across the U.S. have risen an alarming 6.2% since Biden was elected and after the George Floyd protests, riots and looting.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." – Aldous Huxley

According to NBC, Illinois passed its red flag law in 2018 and gun crimes and homicides escalated throughout the state. In 2021, in the city of Chicago there were 797 homicides and 3,561 shooting incidents despite Illinois' extremely tough gun laws. Obviously "red flag" gun control doesn't work.

Some states allow medical professionals, school officials and coworkers also to petition the courts. Other states only allow law enforcement and relatives to petition the courts to have guns removed from anyone they wish. In red flag states, you are guilty until proven innocent to get your guns back.

"You're guilty until proven innocent. Perception is reality, that's the way that it is." – Chris Webber

The powers of the federal government are clearly defined and enumerated in the Constitution and disarming citizens is not one. In fact, the 2nd Amendment forbids the government from doing so. It specifically designates that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall never be infringed.”

James Hanstein wrote, "Our past are our lessons learned." Our constitutional rights are not just a source of patriotic pride but the lifeblood of democracy. Our founders knew that the right of citizens to bear arms was essential to preserving their liberty. The 2nd Amendment ensures that. We need to remind our Congressmen that it was Hitler's genocide of the Jews that led to the 2nd Great War.

The Senate has now passed the onus of "gun control" on to the states. They expand background checks, and fund school safety programs. They will also incentivize states to pass more red flag laws. Since states have almost "innumerable powers" they will pressure each state to pass stricter gun laws.

All government is local, and all liberty is too. The rubber meets the road in every state legislature. Politicians are addicted to money and easily swayed by federal gratuities. But what happens in our states ends up in DC. As states trade our gun rights for abusive "red flag laws," citizens that do not challenge them don't covet their freedom. They will be crying and moaning when progressives win their campaign to repeal their 2nd amendment.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, how to use them." – Richard Henry Lee



Clarence Thomas vs. the Fictional Progressive Narrative

His writings from the bench frequently bust popular left-wing myths about race and justice.

Jason L. Riley | The Wall Street Journal |
June 22, 2021 

Justice Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court in Washington, April 23, 2021.


Justice Clarence Thomas served up a twofer last week: a Supreme Court decision, in Terry v. U.S., that’s noteworthy for its judicial restraint as well as for pushing back at another false racial narrative that has gained popularity in this Age of Wokeness.

Justice Thomas has done this before. His concurrence in McDonald v. Chicago, a 2010 case about handgun restrictions, offered a succinct tutorial on gun-control measures put in place after the Civil War to suppress blacks and leave them more vulnerable to domestic terror groups like the Ku Klux Klan. In Box v. Planned Parenthood, a 2019 case that concerned the legality of “selective” abortions based on race and sex, his concurring opinion included a history of the eugenics movement in the U.S. and how it made common cause with abortion-rights activists.

Liberals today are eager to highlight how the filibuster was used in the past to block civil-rights legislation. They don’t want to talk about the racist history of gun control or minimum-wage laws or abortion advocacy, let alone how this history still affects blacks today. Eight decades after Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger established a birth-control clinic in Harlem, Justice Thomas wrote, “there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive—and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area.”

Democratic opposition to the filibuster is based less on principle than on political expediency. The Senate is split evenly, and the filibuster stands in the way of a far-reaching progressive agenda. Part of that agenda involves so-called criminal-justice reform, which to liberals means defunding the police, prosecuting fewer crimes, and reducing the size of the prison population by releasing inmates early.

Activists allege that today’s “mass incarceration” resulted from policies motivated by racism. Justice Thomas’s opinion last week in Terry undercuts that claim by providing a more accurate history of sentencing laws than the fictions being peddled of late by Democrats and progressive activists. The court unanimously rejected a petition, from a convicted crack-cocaine dealer named Tarahrick Terry, to be resentenced under the First Step Act, a 2018 federal law that reduced sentences for certain drug offenders. In his opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the text of the law made this a “straightforward” case. Mr. Terry had been sentenced as a “career criminal” for an offense that fell outside the scope of the First Step Act and thus was ineligible for a sentence reduction.

Justice Thomas’s ruling didn’t stop there. The stiffer sentencing guidelines for crack-cocaine offenses, versus those for powder cocaine, date to the mid-1980s. The thinking in Washington at the time was that because crack was cheaper than powder, more addictive and more closely associated with violent crime, offenders should face tougher penalties. Like everything else these days, such attitudes are viewed almost exclusively through a racial lens, but as Justice Thomas points out, the sentiment at the time transcended both race and party affiliation.

“In response to these concerns, Congress quickly passed a bill with near unanimity,” Justice Thomas writes. “The new law created mandatory-minimum penalties for various drug offenses, and it set much lower trigger thresholds for crack offenses.” The 1986 bill passed the Democrat-controlled House 392-16 and the Republican Senate 97-2. “A majority of the Congressional Black Caucus cosponsored and voted for the bill,” he adds in a footnote. Many black leaders at the time were motivated by two major worries. “First, crack was fueling crime against residents of inner cities, who were predominantly black.” Second, “there were concerns that prosecutors were not taking these kinds of crimes seriously enough because the victims were disproportionately black.”

Various efforts would be made in ensuing decades to determine if Congress had overreached and how to reduce the sentencing disparity between crack and powder offenses. But what drove the initial effort was bipartisan, cross-racial concern for what was going on in poor black communities. And although today’s woke left is at pains to deny it, that effort was led by black lawmakers responding to their constituents, as Justice Thomas’s opinion reminds us.

Current efforts to reduce resources for law enforcement in the name of “social justice” for blacks ignore that blacks have long complained about underpolicing of their communities. In a 1993 Gallup poll, 75% of black respondents said they wanted more cops on the streets, and 82% said that the court system goes too easy on offenders. Blacks today continue to express overwhelming support for the presence of more police in their neighborhoods, which suggests that, unlike the progressive politicians and activists who claim to speak on their behalf, most blacks are more interested in safe communities than they are in the racial composition of the inmate population.

BREAKING: New York Supreme Court strikes down law that allowed non-citizens to vote

By Libby Emmo | Post Millenial

Photo credit: Shutterstock

New York City's City Council approved a measure in January to give non-citizens the right to vote in local elections. But after a suit was brought by the GOP lawmakers, the New York Supreme Court ruled that no, non-citizens do not have the right to vote.

The plan would have added some 800,000 New Yorkers to the voting rolls, and would have allowed them to vote for mayor, public advocate, city council, borough presidents, and school boards.

Justice Ralph Porzio said that the law was in direct violation of the New York State Constitution. "The New York State Constitution expressly states that citizens meeting the age and residency requirements are entitled to register and vote in elections," he said.

"Though voting is a right so many citizens take for granted, the City of New York cannot 'obviate' the restrictions imposed by the Constitution," Porzio continued, going on to say that "the weight of the citizens’ vote will be diluted by municipal voters and candidates and political parties alike will need to reconfigure their campaigns."

The bill allowed non-citizens to register in political parties and vote in local elections if they hold green cards or have working visas. The only additional requirement for non-citizens is that they have been residents of New York City for a mere 30 days.

In striking down the law, Porzio said that "Though Plaintiffs have not suffered harm today, the harm they will suffer is imminent." The bill was slated to go into effect for the 2023 election year.

Outgoing Mayor Bill de Blasio was not in favor of the measure, but agreed to sign the law anyway. Current Mayor Eric Adams was on board with the bill, saying that while the bill might not be legal, green card holders should get the vote. The idea was that because they were impacted by local leaders, and were being taxed, they should also vote, despite that being a right only for US citizens.

The bill was touted by immigrant activists as necessary, because those immigrant non-citizens pay taxes and should therefore be permitted to vote.

Staten Island City Councilman Joe Borelli said of the ruling that:

"Today's decision validates those of us who can read the plain English words of our state constitution and state statutes: Noncitizen voting in New York is illegal, and shame on those who thought they could skirt the law for political gain. Opposition to this measure was bipartisan and cut across countless neighborhood and ethnic lines, yet progressives chose to ignore both our constitution and public sentiment in order to suit their aims. I commend the court in recognizing reality and reminding New York's professional protestor class that the rule of law matters."

Borelli had opposed the bill at the time, saying that "Someone who has lived here for 30 days will have a say in how we raise our taxes, our debt and long-term pension liabilities. These are things people who are temporary residents should not have a say in."

Activists claimed that the measure to expand voting rights to non-citizens would be a message to the rest of the country. "It’s important for the Democratic Party to look at New York City and see that when voting rights are being attacked, we are expanding voter participation," said the bill's sponsor Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez.

Monday, June 27, 2022

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes an embryo as a legal victim


Pregnant women who are allowed to abort a baby are the only human beings permitted to commit infanticide, something no other human being is allowed to do, male or female.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-212) establishes a separate offense for harming or killing an “unborn child” in utero during the commission of specified violent crimes. In other words, this United States law recognizes an embryo or fetus (foetus) in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Notably, the bill explicitly contains a provision excepting abortion, which allows a pregnant woman to commit infanticide.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade gives the citizens of each state the right to decide if they wish to sanction pregnant women committing infanticide.

Additional information about the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 can be found at:

The Rest of the Story

 By Judd Garrett 

East St. Louis, Illinois, 14-year-old Mary finds out she is pregnant by her 16-year-old boyfriend, Alfred. She and Alfred were scared to death. It was an impossible situation. Neither had even graduated high school. East St. Louis was a poverty-stricken city, infested with drugs and crime. This child growing inside of Mary did not have a chance in life. Every argument for abortion easily applied to Mary’s pregnancy. Every one of life’s cards were already stacked against him; born to a 14-year-old unwed mother, living in poverty with drugs and crime all around, his only hope was a failing school system. The most logical thing to do would be to end the pregnancy, stop the life of this child just as it was beginning.

But this was 1959, 14 years before the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v Wade, making abortion a protected right in this country. If this pregnancy had occurred after 1973, the practical thing to do, the logical thing to do, would be for Mary to visit the local planned parenthood, and “take care” of her pregnancy so she could live a “normal” life.

Instead, Mary and Alfred had the baby, and faced life as two scared teenage parents. Alfred Junior was born in January of 1960. Their family rallied around the young couple, the parents and grandparents helped them out as they married and grew their family. Two years later Alfred’s sister Jacqueline, named after our first lady at the time, Jacqueline Kennedy, was born.

They lived a hard-scrabble life. They never had much in their home other than love and each other. They went to school every day, and church every Sunday. They were taught to avoid the trappings of the streets; drugs, alcohol, crime, but at the same time, they were forged by the streets. They were taught toughness, competitiveness, self-sufficiency, survivor skills. 

With their family not having very much money, Alfred and Jackie got jobs working at the local community center, to make some extra money and to avoid the streets. They spent their free time playing basketball and racing each other in the streets. They played sports in high school and ran on the track team. They were so poor that they had to use the sand in the sandbox from the local playground as their landing pit when they practiced the long jump. But they did what they were taught; work hard, stay out of trouble, believe in God.

And 24 years after 14-year-old Mary brought a young boy into this world, her son, Alfred, was standing on a platform in the Los Angeles Coliseum, having an Olympic gold medal placed around his neck as the United States national anthem played. A day later, Jacqueline, or Jackie as she was now known, had a silver medal placed around her neck. Jackie also went onto compete in three other Olympic games, becoming one of the most decorated female Olympians in history, winning three gold medals, a silver and two bronze. And Jackie was named the greatest female athlete of the 20th century. 

The two children born to teenage parents whose pregnancies would be the standard argument for abortion are Al Joyner and Jackie Joyner-Kersee, two legendary track athletes, exemplary citizens, and true role models. And now, long after their track careers are over, they are still making a difference in people’s lives. They’re back in East St. Louis, where they grew up, rebuilding and revitalizing that city, making it a much better place to live for those who are born and raised there, like they had been. They recently opened the Jackie-Joyner Kersee center. How much true human potential, and human greatness has been snuffed out at the hands of abortionists?

What the abortionist do not understand is that quality of life cannot be measured on an excel spreadsheet where are you tally up your assets and debits to determine whether your life is worthwhile or not. These two people were born and raised in a family of riches, not riches by America’s standards, money and consumer products, they were born and raised in a family filled with love, and commitment, and devotion to each other, and a strong faith in God. Those are the riches that give children a chance at a better life, those are the things that make life worthwhile, the things that don’t cost anything, but are worth everything. And those are the things, more than anything is what’s lost in the abortion culture, where a child’s worth is determined based on how much money or net worth or how big of a house the child will be born into. We value children, we determine whether their life is worthwhile based on the meaningless, the worthless things in the world. And we therefore make the child just as disposable as the consumer goods that we are using to determine their worth. 

Whether Al Joyner or Jackie Joyner-Kersee ever won a medal in the Olympics or whether they ever even ran one race, their lives are inherently and infinitely valuable just like yours and mine are, just like everyone who has ever lived, just like every single one of the 60 million babies whose lives were ended in abortion since 1973. Al Joyner and Jackie Joyner-Kersee’s lives were valuable and worth protecting not because they were going to win Olympic medals, not because they would go on to make millions of dollars, not even because they were going to give back so much to the community, they grew up in. Their lives were valuable because they are human beings, human beings from the moment of conception. And they, like all unborn babies, were worth protecting.


Judd Garrett is a graduate from Princeton University, and a former NFL player, coach, and executive. He has been a contributor to the website Real Clear Politics. He has recently published his first novel, No Wind.

The Rest of the Story (

BREAKING: Another Big Win for Religious Freedom at SCOTUS

By Katie Pavlich |

Source: (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Monday in favor of public High School football coach Joseph Kennedy’s right to pray on the field after games.

“Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a high school football coach because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet prayer of thanks. Mr. Kennedy prayed during a period when school employees were free to speak with a friend, call for a reservation at a restaurant, check email, or attend to other personal matters. He offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “Still, the Bremerton School District disciplined him anyway. It did so because it thought anything less could lead a reasonable observer to conclude (mistakenly) that it endorsed Mr. Kennedy’s religious beliefs. That reasoning was misguided.”

“Both the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect expressions like Mr. Kennedy’s. Nor does a proper understanding of the Amendment’s Establishment Clause require the government to single out private religious speech for special disfavor. The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike,” Gorsuch continued.

Dems Pause Focus On January 6 Hearings To Demand Overthrow of SCOTUS as ‘Illegitimate’

By Walt Rasinger

As expected, the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v Wade, returning the decision to regulate abortion to the states where elected officials can write any laws they like on the matter. Written by Justice Alito, the majority opinion of the Court stated, “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

The last part is the most important. The Court has returned power to the people, something you’d think those who have spent the last two years yelling “our democracy is at stake!” would support. But, as also expected, especially from the antics of Keith Olbermann and others yesterday, this wasn’t the case.

Democracy for Democrats, apparently, only matters when it’s validating things they want. Raise the potential that they might have to bring something in front of the voters, negotiating something the people support, like say a 15 week abortion ban, and all of a sudden the Court, and the democracy it protects, is “illegitimate.” 

Fox News broke down the reactions from Democrats in the aftermath of Dobbs. Democrats lashed out Friday following the Supreme Court’s historic ruling to overturn Roe vs. Wade with chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) calling the high court “illegitimate.”

In response to a tweet by South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham championing the Friday ruling as a “long overdue” decision Jamie Harrison, a South Carolina native, issued a scathing retort. “It isn’t up to you, this illegitimate court, or a bunch of state elected officials to decide what happens to a woman’s body… that choice belongs to a woman and no one else! Period!!!” the DNC chairman said.

His sentiments were echoed by March For Our Lives, a student-led group that supports gun control legislation, said they were “appalled” by the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn 50 years of abortion rights.

“It’s clear to us that the Court is more interested in scoring political points that protecting the rights enshrined to us in the Constitution,” the group said in a statement. “We are watching the erosion of rights promised to us long before we were born by an unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic Court packed with illegitimate judges forced through by a president who lost the popular vote.”

New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also reportedly joined protestors in front of the Supreme Court Friday to chant, “This decision is illegitimate” according to posts on Twitter.

Democratic supporters were even more outrageous. The Capitol Police had to deploy riot police almost immediately after the ruling as crowds gathered in front of the Court. Previously, radical pro-choice groups called for a “night of rage” if Roe were overturned. A group of protestors burned an American flag while others shouted that they wanted to burn down the Supreme Court. 

As protests began to erupt across the country, protestors planned to “carpool” to Justice Clarence Thomas’s house. The flyer, which zoomed across Twitter, said: “Protesters headed to Justice Clarence Thomas’ house on Friday night in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning the landmark abortion-rights decision Roe v. Wade. Enraged? Devastated? Pissed the f-ck off? So are we,” before listing the address of the Thomases [Here at NCP we don’t publish people’s addresses, so we are not linking the tweet, you’ll have to trust us].

The protest went to the Thomas home just weeks after authorities stopped an assassin in front of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home a few weeks ago. It didn’t occur that sending an angry mob to the front yard of the only Black Supreme Court Justice to rule on the case might not be a great look.

Threats to churches and pro-life organizations have also risen over the past few months. Fox News recently noted that there have been roughly “40 incidents of violence against pro-life supporters since the Supreme Court abortion case leak.”

Woke corporations also got in on the act, as well. The clothing company Patagonia released a statement saying that they would pay bail for any employee arrested for protesting “for reproductive justice.” 

According to CBS News the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods announced that “company will provide employees across the U.S., who need to travel to a different state for abortion access, up to $4,000 in travel expense reimbursement, Hobart said in the post.”

This topic was so talked about on the left today that “assigned female at birth” became a “trending topic” on Twitter. 

The most ghastly response to the ruling came from Ana Navarro, essentially saying that handicapped people would be better off aborted. She told the CNN audience: “And because I have a family with a lot of special needs kids. I have a brother who’s 57, and has the mental and the motor skills of a one-year-old. And I know what that means financially, emotionally, physically, for a family, and I know not all families can do it,” she added.”

“And I have a step-granddaughter who was born with Downs syndrome, and you know what? It is very difficult in Florida to get services. It is not as easy as it sounds on paper and I’ve got another, another step-grandson who is very autistic, who has autism.” 

“Mothers, and people in that society in that community will tell you that they’ve considered suicide because that’s how difficult it is to get help. Because that’s how lonely they feel. Because they can’t get other jobs, because they have financial issues, because of the care that they are unable to give their other children.”  

Jeff Blehar, host of the podcast Political Beats, spoke for many of us shocked by Navarro’s cruelty and calls for violence against the most vulnerable, writing, “That Ana Navarro clip from CNN really is just the most inhumanly repulsive thing I’ve seen all day related to the abortion issue. I shouldn’t have watched it. She comes across as thinking special-needs children are little more than cumbersome houseplants all better off aborted.”

Other very online and paranoid liberals focused on “period apps,” suggesting that those apps would somehow help the government catch those who did illegal abortions or something.

Another self-described socialist Twitter user, confused about how federalism works, took things a bit further, writing, “what the f-ck is the federal government going to do when this patchwork mess of laws inevitably creates conflict between the states? when states refuse to extradite for felony miscarriage? when lawsuits over abortion bounties end up in federal court?”

Conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey how misguided these ideas are: “Miscarriage care and the removal of an ectopic pregnancy are not abortions,” she wrote. “When someone makes this claim, make them cite the exact line from the specific bill or law that forbids these procedures. They won’t, because they can’t.”

Most of these people want to imagine the worst-case scenario because it gives meaning to their lives to worry about something unlikely to happen, but that doesn’t mean elected leaders won’t spur that fear to benefit themselves. 

Journalist Tom Elliot summarized the paranoia stemming from Democrats in the wake of the Dobbs ruling. He documented eight conspiracy theories that high-ranking officials “have recently predicted the following will be criminalized post-Roe:

— Birth control (Harris) 

— Same sex marriage (Harris & Biden) 

— Interracial marriage (Harris & Biden) 

— Period-tracking apps (CNN)

— Right to privacy (Harris & CNN) 

— Brown vs. Board of Ed (Warren) 

— LGBT students being allowed into classrooms (Biden) 

— Interstate travel (CNN)”

The Supreme Court still has seven more cases to rule on over the coming weeks.

Dems Pause Focus On January 6 Hearings To Demand Overthrow of SCOTUS as 'Illegitimate' - New Conservative Post