Before the blood even dried on the victims of another attack at the hands of terrorists, Democrats found another tragedy to exploit for political gain. The predictable response to bad people misusing a device was to blame the device itself and frame anyone with a differing political opinion as endorsing violence. The vile tactics of Democrats include mocking those who pray in times of tragedy and offer condolences to victims, purely because they don’t agree with them politically.

In terms of tolerance, the Democrats score poorly.

House Democrats have since been pushing legislation to strip anyone suspected of a certain crime of their constitutional rights. Their opposition to due process led to a number of grown adults charging up their cell phones, firing up their Periscope apps, and throwing a day long slumber party on the House of Representatives chamber floor.

This isn’t how America works.

The United States Constitution is actually quite clear on the fact it is the supreme law of the land, pursuant to Article VI, Clause 2. This means that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which includes due process protections, is required. The Constitution itself can be changed and amended, but it hasn’t been.

When Senator Rand Paul was elected to office, he took an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. Because of this, opposing due process would be violating the oath of office. The only way to amend the Constitution is through the legislatures or by a constitutional convention. An act of Congress does not qualify under Article 5 as a way to amend the Constitution.

The Mayor of Lexington, Kentucky feels otherwise and launched an attack against Senator Paul over it.

Mayor Jim Gray ran an ad slamming Senator Paul for supposedly allowing terrorists to acquire guns. This is not the case. The legislation proposed would make it so anyone appearing on a government watchlist would be unable to purchase a gun, regardless of whether the justice system actually ruled them a criminal or not.

The Lexington Mayor continued his dishonesty when he claimed the legislation would not affect law-abiding Americans’ rights.

An 8-year-old boy found himself on the terrorist watchlist and repeatedly targeted by security at airports, even resulting in being patted down and humiliated in public. Martin Luther King Jr. was also on a government watchlist because government agents were convinced he was a communist and working against America. He even applied for a concealed carry permit after death threats and assassination attempts, but was then denied.

Does Mayor Gray believe American 8-year-olds are terrorist threats? Does Mayor Gray hate children?

Does Mayor Gray believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was a terrorist threat? Is Mayor Gray a racist?

This is the dangerous slippery slope America will find itself on if it allows fear to overcome the law and due process to be destroyed. Innocent people can be mistaken for criminals and it happens regularly in the system. There are also those who wrongfully become targets of the system. For this reason, due process exists. When accused, those accused can face the accuser and allow an impartial arbiter to preside over the case and decide right or wrong.

If someone is indeed a terrorist, the evidence will be there and they can be tried, then imprisoned. Why does due process need to be eliminated for terrorists to be stopped?

Due process is a threat to Democrats everywhere who believe 8-year-olds can do terrible things on airplanes and that Martin Luther King Jr. was a terrorist. Mayor Gray hopes to join the fight against these despicable child terrorists and hateful civil rights activists.

The Republican Party has become a war zone and a lot is made of Donald Trump’s effect on the situation. All through the primaries, he was a topic of growing controversy and even after locking down the path to the nomination, many Republicans still remain uneasy. Moderates cite his demeanor, conservatives cite his connections to Democrats, and libertarians cite is support of various big government policies.

Chaos is currently engulfing the Republican Party, but Trump is not the only threat to stability.

Politico covered a developing internal power struggle for something that is realistically meaningless: the platform. While Trump is securing his coronation, social conservatives are preparing to go to war to ensure the marriage freedom forces do not secure victory this month.

The current party platform endorses a marriage between two people and the government, with bureaucrats regulating who can and cannot enter in private relationships.

The problem with social conservatism is it’s conflict with conservatism itself. If liberalism is inflating the size of government, what should conservative naturally be? The opposite. Whereas liberals aim to have government involved in marriage, conservatism should want to get government out of marriage.

Anti-gay marriage supporters want government defining marriage, however.

Are two homosexuals getting married going to hurt two religious heterosexuals’ marriage? The answer should be no, and if it isn’t, then perhaps marriage counseling is in order.

The speculation for months has been that Donald Trump will ignite chaos and disorder within the ranks of the Republican Party. His difficult positions are putting politicians and leaders in the awkward position of standing by the party brand, even though Trump is at the top of the ticket. To this point, Trump has been boosted by new Republican voters and those disaffected conservatives who have long wanted something more than another moderate ticket.

The growing disorder will be enough to throw the Republican Party off balance going into the general election, but now the anti-homosexual forces and social conservatives who put government force before freedom will threaten to hurt any remaining hope of unity. If government doesn’t intervene with private relationships and regulate who can and cannot enter in personal partnerships, it’s game over for these people.

For this reason, the Republican Party’s message of unity is more in danger by the anti-LGBT crowd than Donald Trump himself.

Republicans have a unique opportunity now to embrace freedom in some way. Donald Trump may not be the standard bearer many want and he’s hardly libertarian or arguably not conservative, but there’s another battle where the future of the Party can be steered in the right direction. This is the platform battle with the issue of marriage.

Will Republicans side with the message of freedom and embrace deregulating marriage, thus getting the government out of the business? Or will Republicans continue to want government force to define personal relationships and private contracts, setting freedom aside and becoming the very thing they claim to be opposed to?

Time will tell if the Republican Party is ready to embrace freedom.

Democrats for weeks have been pushing to end due process since the tragic shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. This represents a stunning new low for even Democrats opposed to the Constitution. To this point, it’s been a clear attack on the Second Amendment, but now the Fifth Amendment is under fire. It even got to a point where House Democrats sat in the middle of the House chamber floor armed with Periscope apps on their smartphones kicking and screaming until they got their way.

At the time, Speaker Paul Ryan stood his ground.

But like with any other time when Republican leadership, including Speaker Ryan, stands their ground, there comes a point where they completely capitulate to the Democrats. This battle for the Fifth Amendment has become another instance on the list.

A number of Republicans have voiced concerns about suspected terrorists being stripped of constitutional rights, because deprivation of due process without an actual conviction is a dangerous precedent. At the same time, a number of Republicans had been working to cave to the Democrats’ fearmongering.

Among those pushing the liberal agenda against the Constitution was United States Senator Susan Collins, who presented a compromise measure that would still push the Democratic agenda against due process while pretending to address the concerns of due process supporters. It would still ban anyone on a watchlist from purchasing a gun, but people could appeal to regain their innocence after being assumed guilty.

Senator Collins and anti-due process ally Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid have won.

According to sources, the House will be voting on a counterterrorism package after it returns from recess next week. Among the proposals in this package is a provision to stop suspected terrorists from purchasing a gun.

On a conference call with Republicans, Speaker Ryan reportedly said it was common sense to stop suspected terrorists from being able to buy a gun. It’s common sense to block people not convicted of a crime from access to constitutional rights in the United States of America?

At the same time, Speaker Ryan reportedly stated he wanted to protect people who are mistakenly added to a terrorist watch list.

That’s not how it works. Depriving constitutional rights of those added to a watchlist without due process of law while wanting to protect those who were mistakenly added is trying to have it both ways. People will mistakenly be added and for this reason, due process exists. If someone is guilty of a crime and should not have a gun, we have a legal system to prevent them from doing so.

What is Speaker Ryan’s problem with due process?

The partisan divide in a lot of ways is overstated in Washington D.C. The fight against due process is showing just how close the two parties are. Democrats made a push to treat people not convicted of a crime like criminals, and the Republicans slowly caved, starting with Senator Susan Collins pushing back with the support of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Speaker Ryan shows us why he should never had been trusted.

The judicial branch is out of control. Recently, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that set health standards for doctors performing abortions. While Texas law had wanted doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at area medical facilities, the unelected and lifetime lawyers of the Supreme Court felt that ending the life of an unborn child is more important than having a standard of health.

The Supreme Court also stated there is a constitutional right to have an abortion.

Repeat, the Supreme Court states there is a constitutional right to kill your child, so long as it has not yet been born.

Until today, North Dakota and Indiana both had laws on the books banning abortions because of genetic abnormalities or because of the child’s race, sex or ancestry. A federal judge has now struck down Indiana’s law.

As Planned Parenthood joins Democrats to celebrate, the ruling itself has a number of stunning implications.

First and foremost, whatever happened to opposing discrimination and protecting minorities? Are Democrats fine with choosing to kill an unborn child because of down syndrome? Because they’re going to be a certain skin color? Their ancestry? The child essentially will have it’s life chosen for it based purely on how prejudice the parents are.

Even pro-abortion Democrats should be appalled by this.

If someone supports termination based on something like Down Syndrome, what does that say about their thoughts regarding Down Syndrome? What about termination based on race or ancestry? What if someone wants to terminate the pregnancy because the child has male genitalia?

This creates an alarming precedent with disturbing implications.

Whereas the Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher argued against discrimination, the federal judge nominated by President Barack Obama sided with the misnamed American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood. This isn’t entirely surprising, given U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt shot down a law in 2011 that would’ve prevented entities performing abortions from getting state funding.

The argument of the American Civil Liberties Union was that previous Supreme Court cases justified it, as if the Supreme Court itself has never been wrong. How does the American Civil Liberties Union feel about Africans like Dred Scott or Japanese-Americans like Fred Korematsu, who were mistreated purely based on their heritage?

If they were still in the womb, it would be ok to kill them in the State of Indiana now.

Judge Pratt’s legal world is a strange one.

It’s not surprising that a federal judge nominated by President Barack Obama would continue the trend of abortions or targeting the innocent. The Democratic Party has recently also begun pushing legislation that would deprive Americans of due process rights based on mere suspicion of a crime, without any legal verdict. The targeting of the innocent in America is becoming increasingly more prominent as time goes on.

Now in Indiana, an attempt to end discrimination against innocent children has been overturned by a federal judge, paving the way for targeting unborn children based on things out of their control. Is this the kind of America that our founders created for us? Is this the America that we want to leave for our children?

The Iowa Supreme Court has just issued a ruling in the case of Griffin v. Pate, which tackled the issue of voting rights for convicted felons. Iowa has some of the strongest laws dealing with felons in the country. The plantiff in the case is a woman by the name of Kelli Jo Griffin, a 42-year old mother who was convicted for cocaine delivery. Not clear on the law, she had thought after completing her sentence and doing her time, that her voting rights were restored. This was not the case.

Is this right? Should felons, given they committed a crime of this nature, have a right to vote?

Griffin had brought her children to watch her vote in 2013 in a municipal election. One should take pride in voting and participating in the political processes that shape our nation, and given low voter turnout every election, our children should be encouraged as well. Clearly believing in both, she had brought her children to do just that.

And as a result, she broke the law.

There are two issues at the heart of this debate. First, should the government be able to disqualify you from certain rights based on a type of criminal conviction? Second, where does the line get drawn?

Sometimes barring a criminal from certain rights has a logical purpose. If someone is convicted of a crime involving firearms, logically, there is an argument against them holding a firearm. But if someone is convicted of a drug charge that didn’t involve guns, should they be barred from owning a firearm?

This is relevant to the voting issue, because now we’re debating which constitution rights stay or go, and how they should be deprived. It’s a slippery slope.

If the government starts classifying more crimes as felonies, they can start depriving more rights of more people. In the case of a 42-year old mother who transported cocaine, she’s lost her rights because she made a mistake. She may not have even used cocaine and certainly didn’t murder anyone, but she’s being held to a standard as someone who may have committed a more legitimately heinous crime.

Should everyone who makes a drug related mistake be deprived of rights for life and be punished even after doing their time?

There’s a case for making punishments strong, because they can then discourage people from doing bad things. There is also a concern about excessive punishment, which is why our own federal Constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment was apart of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights  was added to the Constitution to calm fears that the government could become out-of-control and take down the freedoms our founders had just secured.

Allowing government to set what a felony crime is and be able to deprive rights based on a felony conviction is a very dangerous idea. While one woman made a mistake with cocaine, many others are making mistakes with drug. Addiction itself is more of a health problem than a crime. But now health problems and government changing the bar for felony crimes is affecting voting rights.

If we allow voting rights to be stripped of convicted felons, we must accept the fact that other crimes could later become felonies. Is this a risk we as a free society is willing to take?

Motorists traveling down Interstate 81 in Virginia were in for a surprise on Friday when they observed a flatbed truck carrying UN Military vehicles to a yet unknown destination, prompting concern the vehicles will be stored for use as part of a UN police force called for under the Strong Cities Initiative (SCI) to combat “extremism” in the United States.

The American Mirror displayed photos shared on Facebook by Jeff Stern of the UN vehicles on the back of a flatbed truck traveling down Interstate 81 near Lexington, Virginia.

“Tactical Vehicles, with bullet proof glass? What ever could those be for, and why are UN vehicles here, in THIS country,” commented Fernando Johnson.

The site of UN military vehicles on an American highway has raised concern among many that they could be used to equip a UN-organized police force called for under the Strong Cities Initiative to combat “extremism” in the United States.

In October, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced her office would work in several American cities to form a “Strong Cities Network,” a plan assailed by Pamela Geller on Breitbart as, “the overriding of American laws, up to and including the United States Constitution, in favor of United Nations laws that would henceforth be implemented in the United States itself – without any consultation of Congress at all.”
While the premise of the initiative is to combat violent extremism, the exact source of that violent extremism remains incredibly vague.

New York City’s globalist Mayor Bill de Blasio, who signed on to the Strong Cities Network, said, “We will be vigilant against all forms of violent extremism, whether it’s based in religious, or racial, or nationalistic or ideological intolerance.”

Speaking at the United Nations alongside Attorney General Lynch, de Blasio continued, “We know our efforts to combat extremism must be seen as universal … Extremism doesn’t discriminate. It comes in many forms. It comes from many different backgrounds and ideologies. Our mission should be to address extremism is in all its forms.”

The lack of a concrete commitment to battle radical Islamic terrorism should come as no surprise to the American people, as President Obama and the globalists have used radical Islamists as a weapon to destabilize moderate countries throughout the Middle East and bring about a clash of civilizations to overthrow the West (a program called “order out of chaos”).

“The United Nations is a sharia-compliant world body, and Obama, speaking there just days ago, insisted that “violent extremism” is not exclusive to Islam (which it is). Obama is redefining jihad terror to include everyone but the jihadists. So will the UN, driven largely by the sharia-enforcing Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the pro-Islamic post-American President Obama, use a “global police force” to crush counter-jihad forces,” Geller continued.

Plans to deploy troops, American or UN, domestically to combat civil unrest are not unheard of.

The Strong Cities Initiative will be used to combat the globalists’ true enemies: the American people, specifically, Conservatives, Libertarians, veterans and gun-owners. Anyone who will stand against the consolidation of power under a dictatorial global elite will be deemed an “extremist” and punished as such.

For many conservatives and libertarians, Senator Rand Paul has been a controversial topic over the last few years. As the son of former Texas Congressman Ron Paul, he already had his libertarian credentials solidified before he even started. Upon entering the Senate, he has pushed legislation to advance a number of pro-liberty goals and bring together coalitions on specific issues. He has been a negotiator, more so than his father was in his Congressional career.

Senator Paul also has an integrity issue.

Whereas his father never caved to the Republican Party, his son regularly has backed up the party. Past endorsements include Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, as well as Senator Susan Collins who has recently made a name for herself pushing compromise gun control legislation.

While one must respect the need to make peace with the political establishment, at what cost does this occur?

Romney isn’t known for his principled consistency. As a United States Senate candidate, he tried to win by running to the left of Ted Kennedy, where he held liberal views on issues like abortion and gun control. These views only changed when it became politically necessary, but even as governor, he signed an assault weapons ban and had the “Romneycare” law to his credit.

And Senator Paul wanted this as President?

In terms of Senator Collins, she has always been a ready defender of big government, supporting legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act. More recently, she’s supporting anti-Fifth Amendment gun control legislation being sold as a “compromise.” The legislation bans suspected terrorists on a government watchlist from being able to buy a gun without due process of law, and because they are merely suspected, the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be notified of this activity. The big sell in the compromise is the ability of citizens wrongly placed on a list to appeal it, but they are essentially guilty until proven innocent.

And Senator Paul supports this, as well?

Herein lies the problem with Senator Paul’s career thus far. There is an argument in favor of pragmatism and in terms of legislative success, he is likely more successful than his father. Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul was known more for his positions and his consistency than career legislative success. That’s not to say Ron Paul was bad, he wasn’t. But failure to be pragmatic can cost political leverage.

This seemed to be the point of Senator Paul, who has embraced pragmatism and keeping the Republican elite happy.

But pragmatism doesn’t work for conservatives and libertarians, because it only results in getting used. Senator Paul kept a lot of people happy building for his presidential candidacy, with the belief among many that this would boost his run. The unfortunate reality is that libertarianism, whether it be more stern like Ron Paul’s or more pragmatic like his son’s, will never be embraced by the Republican elite. Never.

Senator Rand Paul was used.

Senator Paul became the political establishment’s mercenary against Donald Trump, devoting much of his campaign to complaining about him. This only aided people like Senator Marco Rubio and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Now Senator Paul is faced with either standing by his word to not support Trump or standing by his word to support the Republican nominee, both conflicted positions that will make him a hypocrite in the end.

Senator Rand Paul still has a lot of political years ahead. It’s time to restart the image and stop playing nice with the Republican Party. The pragmatism failed. Dig in like Ron Paul did and in the next presidential election, the liberty movement might make it past Iowa.

Dear Trump supporters,

A recent ABC/Washington Post poll of “registered voters” purports to show that Donald Trump lags 12 points behind Hillary Clinton in a national head-to-head contest. In case you’re inclined to accept this at face value—don’t.

First, this poll does indeed purport to gauge preferences nationally. Ultimately, what’s going to matter is how the candidates fare in the battleground states. For example, a Pew Poll from just last week showed Trump beating Clinton by two points in North Carolina (a state that Barack Obama won in 2008).

Secondly, it is June. The election isn’t until November.

Thirdly, this poll focuses on how “registered voters,” not likely voters, say they would vote if the election was held today. There are lots more registered voters than there are people who will actually come out to vote.

Fourthly, as the pollsters themselves admit, this poll is heavily stacked in favor of Democrats: the latter constitute 37% of registered voters while only 27% of Republicans count for the same.

Fifthly, ABC and the Post acknowledge that had they used the same party division numbers that they used in their poll from last month, Clinton would be up a full one-third less (8%) than this poll shows her leading now.

Sixthly (and isn’t this interesting?), a Wall Street/NBC News—a poll, that is, taken at the same time as the ABC/Post poll—shows Clinton with a five point lead in a national head-to-head matchup (46%-41%). However, when third party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are thrown into the mix, Clinton and Trump are in a virtual dead-heat with 39% and 38%, respectively.

The ABC/Post poll questioned 836 registered voters. The Wall Street/NBC poll questioned 1,000 such voters.

Both surveys were conducted during the week of June 19-23, a week during which Trump fired his campaign manager. And Trump’s had a bad June. Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducted the Journal poll with Democrat Fred Yang, summed up their findings well: “Donald Trump has had the worst month one can imagine, but Clinton’s negatives are so high the net impact on the ballot is almost invisible.” Yang added: “The fact that Donald Trump had a really bad period and he went down just a few points indicates that it will be difficult for either candidate to break out given the hard-set division in the electorate.”

In other words, contrary to what ABC and the Washington Post would have us think, Clinton does not have a 12 point lead over Trump. This election isn’t close to coinciding with the impression that they’re working so hard at conveying.

Think about this: There are two polls of registered voters taken in the same period of time by well-known media outlets. The one proclaims that the Democrat nominee leads the Republican by twelve points. The other declares that her lead is only five points, but even then notes that with the third party candidates thrown into the mix, the two are tied!

And by the way, the NBC poll shows Trump leading Clinton with the much coveted “independent” vote by double digits.

Seventh, other than as a mechanism by which to manipulate voters into voting for those candidates that the pollsters and media favor, and other than as a means by which pollsters can earn a living and the media can increase their profits, there is absolutely no reason why anyone needs to learn five months in advance how a select sample of people claim they would vote in a hypothetical contest.

Five months is an eternity in politics—and these pollsters and “journalists” know it.

Eighthly, Trump brought millions of otherwise disenchanted people back into politics, and he garnered more votes in the GOP primaries than did any other Republican in American history. And yet now we are expected to believe that millions more have turned against him?!

This is crucial: Not only Trump, but his supporters, have not only been demonized by both the Democrat-friendly media and Republican NeverTrumpers; they have been the objects of physical intimidation and assault. It has become dangerous to be a Trump supporter. There is no such danger to being an Obama, a Clinton, or a Sanders supporter, for Republicans generally and Trump supporters specifically just don’t unleash violence upon those of their fellow Americans with whom they disagree. It doesn’t happen.

But as for left-wing thugs—not “protesters,” but cowardly, criminal punk-thugs—violence is the air that they breathe. And they’ve been visiting this violence upon attendees at Trump rallies and anyone else who they suspect of being a Trump backer.

It’s not at all implausible to think that many are fearful of expressing publicly their support for the Republican nominee. They may not necessarily fear being beaten up. But they most definitely fear for their livelihood, reputation, and property, for they know that once they admit that Donald Trump is their man, their opponents will seek to brand them as “racists” and “fascists.”

Finally, the polls found that Trump is losing to Clinton because while 90% of Democrats back their nominee, only 77% of Republicans are backing theirs.

The GOP NeverTrumpers, the very same folks who chastised Trump for his initial refusal last August to pledge to support the GOP nominee, could now imperil his victory because of their refusal to do the same.

If so; if their fantasy comes true and Trump loses, they should be mindful that the millions who back Trump will not forget. NeverTrump could very well give way to NeverGOP—and the neocon establishment Republicans will lose power for a generation.

Sincerely,

A Citizen for Truth

Remember the great push on the left to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay?

All through the Bush Administration years, the Democrats fought against the blatant lack of due process for people who were kept at this facility. Their rights had been violated by merely being detained without trial. In America, we have a Constitution and this document guarantees us a right to due process.

The counterargument was that being terrorists, the rights America offers do not apply.

This is a relevant point given where we are in the gun control debate. In the aftermath of the tragic Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, Democrats have renewed a push for gun control. The difference between now and past incidents is now the left has gone full blown Bush on America.

Democrats are pushing legislation that would ban suspected terrorists appearing on a government watchlist from purchasing a gun. Notice the word suspected, as these individuals have never gone before a judge to face their accuser and address accusations in a court of law. The watchlist itself is actually compiled by government agents who aren’t accountable to the American people.

The counterargument to this practice is that it violates due process and rights simply cannot be denied because someone is suspected of a crime.

Democrats now disagree with this.

The obvious point is that they’re merely politicking. They opposed President George W. Bush’s actions, not because of some philosophical differences or legal concerns, but simply because the former President was a Republican. It’s different now because it’s Democrats pushing to eliminate due process rights, so the erosion of the Constitution stops being a tyrannical act and now is a noble crusade to keep America safe.

Politicking is normal in American politics, though. The implications of the situation is far worse though.

Democrats were opposed to suspected terrorists’ rights being oppressed. But now law-abiding Americans who land themselves on a terrorist watchlist because some government agent decides they may be guilty of a crime or airport security states they share the name with someone suspicious, they are guilty of a crime.

No trial, no due process, but instant guilt that can only be reversed if the individual can prove innocence.

This not only is a shocking reversal of how the American justice system has long operated, it also smacks in the face of everything the country was founded on. Our Republic is one that is meant to favor the freedom of all Americans over a limited government. Now the government has come to rule by fear and use this emotion to destroy what this country stands for.

Democrats stand by this stance and appear determined to push it at all odds. Do Democrats really care more about the rights of suspected terrorists than that of law-abiding Americans? Does an individual caught on a foreign battlefield have more rights than an 8-year-old boy who has been mistreated by security officials all his life simply because he shares his name with someone on a watchlist?

It would appear that in the Democratic Party’s United States of America, terrorists deserve more freedom than Americans.

This Monday, the US Supreme Court struck down several Texas laws that regulated how abortion is provided in the lone star state. The 5-3 decision is undoubtedly the most significant abortion ruling from the high Court since the 1992 case Casey v. Planned Parenthood where it clarified the Roe v Wade decision.

The Court decided that Texas laws that were aimed at making abortion safer were an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to the procedure. The laws included requirements that doctors have hospital admitting privileges which proponents claimed would make abortion clinics be subject to the same rules and regulations as outpatient surgery centers.

Without wading too far into the details of the case or the future of abortion in America, I want to discuss part of the opinion that no one is talking about. Justice Breyer’s opinion reads like not just a rebuke of abortion regulations, but also as a repudiation of government regulatory schemes altogether.

On page 27 of Breyer’s opinion, he discusses the argument made by the State of Texas that their regulatory scheme would shut down unsafe abortion clinics. The argument centers around a Pennsylvania case about an abortionist named Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of manslaughter and first-degree murder. Gosnell ran a clinic and did not have admitting privileges – something which is legal in Pennsylvania – but his clinic also violated numerous existing Pennsylvania laws regarding sanitation and safety.

Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong.
But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer
of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined
wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes
and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to
adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations. – Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

Breyer, a Clinton appointee, is making the argument that criminals do not follow laws. He seems to understand that more laws about the same issue do not make us any safer from criminals who will simply ignore them, a point those of us who support gun rights make often. Obviously, Breyer is himself a hypocrite on the issue seeing that he regularly votes to restrict other constitutional rights, but his opinion does give us a good opportunity to contrast the different ways our government treats regulations on our rights.

In fact, the parallels between gun rights and abortion rights could not be more clear, but the left always ignores one and goes out of their way to protect the other. Individual gun ownership and the right to have an abortion have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to be constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is actually significantly more clear as it is explicitly defined and not the product of the catch all Ninth Amendment. Liberals treat restrictions on abortion as threats to our democracy, but push extremely restrictive gun control as if it is no big deal.

Democrats all of a sudden turn into civil libertarians when restrictions on their favored rights are enacted. The Constitution they continually trash is held up high when they can use it to further their agenda and win over voters.

The court is right to affirm that constitutional rights must be protected at all costs and with very few exceptions. I just wish it felt that way about the rights protected by the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment too. I also understand that those on the right usually believe that their is no constitutional right to abortion, and if you are looking for a good piece about that you can find one here. However, regardless of what you believe, you have to be consistent. The Constitution has no sacred cows.

The recent shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida has again cast guns in a negative light. After a terrorist took a device clearly not intended for mass murder and did just that, the debate has become politicized by the gun control lobby that is more concerned with an agenda then making the country safer.

Incidents like what happened in San Bernardino, California and Paris, France highlight why a lack of guns can actually backfire. When law-abiding citizens are not allowed to own firearms because of the acts of bad people, bad people are allowed to take advantage of more defenseless people.

If the goal of murderers is to murder, why would disarming innocent people work?

This was a situation on display in Paris and in California, as well as everyday in places like Chicago, Illinois. Crime finds comfort in an area where people’s right to defend themselves is restricted. For this reason, the response to tragic shootings should be to better train people to defend themselves and encourage responsible citizens to be ready to defend themselves.

An example of this was recently in Augusta, Maine. A shooting broke out in a Wal-Mart parking lot between four individuals on a Sunday afternoon. Given how popular of a business Wal-Mart is and the time of day, such an outbreak of violence could have gotten quite out of hand. All it would take would be one stray bullet in the wrong direction to end of a life.

What if a stray bullet meant for one of the reckless shooters instead missed and hit a child? What if a stray bullet hit an elderly individual? Or just any regular human being just going to pick up some groceries or needed supplies? A trip to the store becomes the last thing you know before death.

Instead, this scenario was averted.

Two legally armed bystanders intervened to stop the scenario which was growing out of hand. By stopping this confrontation, these responsibly trained and legally armed citizens prevented the quarrel from becoming a full blown massacre.

But guns only kill people?

This is the problem with political rhetoric. The gun control lobby exploits tragedies like the one that occurred in Orlando to push a biased political agenda. They don’t care about the many lives lost, but rather the opportunity to advance an agenda.

As we saw in the incident in Augusta, Maine, guns can save lives if utilized by those who are responsibly trained and legally armed. Simply banning guns or obstructing the process for law-abiding citizens only makes an intervention like what happened in Maine’s capital less likely. Had those two bystanders not intervened, how many more would have died? Would the story be different?

The real tragedy is that as we continue to debate gun control and how due process factors into everything, an incident like this will never become apart of national discourse. If many more people had been killed, it would be different.

In a prevented massacre though, there is no tragedy for the left to exploit.

It’s amazing that people still take the Supreme Court seriously. Americans mock lawyers often for their high paid egos and ability to twist the law to their bidding, but in the end, it’s unelected lawyers that shape the entire basis of modern law. The Constitution takes a backseat whenever the lifetime tenured lawyers enter the picture.

Now the Supreme Court has struck again, this time striking down a Texas law limiting abortions to those with medical credentials to do so. Under the law, doctors performing abortions would have to have admitting privileges at hospitals and clinics for the purpose of maintaining hospital-like conditions.

Medical safety is apparently overrated, as is the life of an unborn child.

On the one hand, this is appalling. The Supreme Court is openly attempting to make death row for unborn children more efficient than death row for convicted criminals. The former is defenseless and unable to make a case for life before execution, the latter at least saw their day in court.

On the other hand, this is completely unsurprising. What accountability do the Supreme Court justices have to the American people? They don’t. The entire United States legal system is a parody of it’s own existence. The President doesn’t know where his boundaries are, Congress sits on the chamber floor playing on Periscope, and the Supreme Court makes up the law as they go.

It would appear that the Supreme Court did not take the life of the child into consideration on the ruling. The idea that every human being has a right to exist and be free was not considered.

This is the same Supreme Court of the United States that ruled in Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sanford that Africans are not free and Congress had no right to free these human beings. Why? Because they were not considered humans, but property. Thus, because they had been dehumanized, neglecting their rights was easy for unelected legal bureaucrats to do.

This is also the same Supreme Court of the United States that ruled in Fred Korematsu v. United States that rights can be stripped simply because of heritage. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese-American who refused the Executive Order from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordering people into camps based on their heritage. He was held because of his heritage by an executive order, not because a judge declared Korematsu or any other Japanese-American guilty of working for the Japanese.

The issue at hand is the right to exist and the right to be free within that existence. Korematsu had that stripped because of his heritage, just as Dred Scott did. Skin color alone lost it for Scott and having a Japanese heritage did for Korematsu. No actual crime had been committed, government just simply declared their rights null and void out of pure racism. But this was an easy pill for all involved to swallow, because those affected were being demonized and dehumanized.

After the treatment of Africans and Japanese-Americans, now unborn American children are the next subject of the Supreme Court’s lawless behavior. Whether they justify it or not with some sort of perversion of the Constitution, it is still wrong. Predictably, just with Scott and Korematsu, the unelected legal bureaucrats got it wrong when they had a chance to help protect unborn children from being killed.

Partisan times are upon us. The general election is that special part of politics where principles and policy discussions become secondary to simply making sure the other party looks terrible. Anything probable Republican nominee Donald Trump does will be called out by the opposition party purely because of their party registration. The same is true for Associated Press-nominated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

For that reason, it’s not entirely surprising that the Brexit response of Clinton would be based on what Trump said.

Speaking for the first time after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, Clinton slammed Trump without specifically naming him, but making reference to a “snarky tweet.” Trump has become known for his unfiltered speech and use of social media to communicate his uncensored thoughts.

Clinton specifically stated that nobody should be confused about the United States’s commitment to Europe.

First question: what does Europe matter? It’s certainly apart of the global economy, but in the end, the United States of America should be most concerned about itself first. Those running to be the chief executive of this country should be focused on policies that will work to the betterment of this country, not another.

The problem is the Democratic Party gets it wrong on both counts, domestic and foreign.

On the foreign front, Clinton is attempting to portray Trump as being anti-Europe with his tweeting style. But what does it mean to support Europe? Does it mean supporting them regardless of what path they chose? Or does it mean backing unity and only favorable outcomes?

The answer to the question actually lies with President Barack Obama himself.

In the final days leading up to the vote, President Obama was faced with a decision. Europe was on the edge of a potential earthquake of a vote that would shatter politics and the economic dependency of the European Union. It would also affect other countries who work with the European Union, as well.

President Barack Obama’s response was to openly threaten the United Kingdom. In attempt to influence the vote and intimidate the voters, he stated that leaving the European Union would affect the trade relationship with the United States. Essentially, moving forward on Brexit would put them at the back of the queue.

How is this standing with Europe?

In the end, Democrats showed themselves to once again only care about themselves and their political agenda. In terms of Brexit, President Obama put his politics before another nation. Brexit, regardless of how the vote turned out, would be a significant moment in history. It would be significant not only for the British and all of Europe, but the world. Given the impact on the British themselves, any leader should be encouraging involvement in the democratic process instead of attempting to sway it’s outcome.

Herein lies the problem though, President Obama doesn’t stand with Europe or the British through this important vote. Will Hillary Clinton call out the President for refusing to stand with Europe and allow Britain to decide it’s own course without interference?

For quite some time now, the Benghazi issue has been lingering in American politics. As the general election draws near, it threatens to be an issue to haunt Associated Press-nominated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. For Republicans, the issue has been a rallying cry.

Is it relevant however? Is this a legitimate issue or is it just more politicking?

The debate over Benghazi itself aside, President Barack Obama is now entering as a major player and is letting his inner-constitutional scholar shine. The issue at hand is due to a recent line of questions coming from the House Select Committee on Benghazi. The shocking part wasn’t the content of the questions, but instead questions themselves. The White House believes that the President should be shielded from Congress and not held accountable.

Neil Eggleston, counsel to the president, lit into Republican Chairman Trey Gowdy by stating the President shouldn’t have to answer any questions related to the attack. The House Committee has been attempting to wrap up their investigation and close the door on some unrelated questions. Given that American lives did get killed in the embassy attack and there’s been some question as to the official response, it’s not unreasonable to try and get to the bottom of that.

But not according to the White House lawyers.

Eggleston specifically stated that the President couldn’t answer the questions from the committee because to do so would suggest that “would suggest that Congress has the unilateral power to demand answers from the president about his official acts.”

In other words, checks and balances can impede upon the President’s ego and damage his dictator mentality.

A lecture from the White House about separation of powers is astounding, considering this is the same President that told Congress if they didn’t act on his immigration reform plan, he’d just bypass them. Does the President have the power to legislate? Or is that the power of the legislative branch itself?

The White House also launched the allegation that the line of questions coming from the House Committee is partisan in nature and implies he’s being setup as the general election draws near.

This likely has some truth to it, but what does it matter?

Partisan attack or honest inquiry, if the President or anyone involved with his Administration, past or present, have nothing to hide, why decline to answer?

It would seem like the most obvious move here would be to call out the Panel for the partisan attack and then return fire with all the answers, clearing the President’s name. Isn’t this what would be called a checkmate? Of course, the problem here would be if the lack of a checkmate exists. What if the President doesn’t have the right answers to clear his name? What if the President knows that his Administration in some capacity, whether it be a top official or someone low on the chain, messed up?

This would certainly explain why the President is hiding behind a weak separation of powers argument to protect his power and guilt. It then begs the next question: what exactly does President Obama and his Administration have to hide?