The Patriots

by Shane Ormond

In the last few months, the Dems have been successfully leveraging the power of the courts to impede Trump, further investigations into his finances, and avoid ever having to speak to their Republican counterparts.

However, they hit their first major stumbling block yesterday, as a Trump appointed judge ruled they could not sue the president over a plan to divert $6.1 billion from the military to build his border wall.

The Dems argued that the lawsuit should be allowed on the grounds that 1) they had exhausted every other option. And 2) the emergency order violated the Constitution Appropriations Clause, which grants Congress authority over the allocation of federal funds.

Judge Trevor McFadden disagreed, writing that “while the Constitution bestows upon members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to (drag) the executive branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority.”

He went on to say that a “lawsuit is not a last resort for the House,” pointing to “several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power.”

McFadden puts his finger on the key problem with modern American ultra-partisan politics here. There is no actual “politics” anymore.  No discussion. No deals. No compromises. None of the wheeling and dealing essential to making a two-party system work.

Instead, we have a bunch of idiots smashing their heads off each other and trying to circumvent the process with loopholes and legislative back alleys.

And all that gets us is a bunch of bumped noggins and a lot of very angry, frustrated, and exhausted people.

Even this decision doesn’t get actually get anyone anywhere. The funds for the wall have already been blocked by an Obama-appointed judge in California in a completely separate lawsuit.

by Allen Williams

Once again the Kansas Supreme court ‘Wizards of OZ’ defy logic with the latest ruling that personal autonomy guarantees the right to abortion.  It equally infers that I needn’t pay tribute to the Kansas Dept of Revenue.

The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled from  the “Declaration of Independence that recognized that certain rights predated the country.  The Declaration's "natural, inalienable rights," the Court said, included "personal autonomy" and therefore abortion.  Those 'unalienable  rights' come from God, they are not grandfathered in from some ancient culture predating America.

The so-called logic the court is trying to pawn off is: “Ancestors of Native Americans hunted elephants in Kansas 13,000 years ago. That’s thousands of years before Columbus arrived in 1492, thousands before the Vikings landed in Newfoundland.  And so it’s thousands of years before the Declaration of Independence to which my resounding ‘So What?’ is exclaimed.

This hare brained ruling is an effrontery to anyone who possesses the slightest semblance of intelligence except for the Kansas legislature who collectively lacks the sense to pour a well known liquid out of a boot.  It is the folly of this useless assembly that has allowed a band of robed oligarchs to enslave the citizens of this state with their pedagogical nonsense.

The court’s opinion that certain’ rights ‘predate the country’ means what?  It means that child sacrifice was practiced well before the nation was formed and that this exercise predates the constitution. But interestingly enough the court made no reference to the Declaration’s unalienable ‘right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The principle justification for this malfeasant decision seems to be that ‘life’ is not the desire of the court but rather thinning of the North American population is of far greater importance than the antiquated notion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This clown court doesn’t even bother to construct a viable legal rationale to support the decision but resorts to the alchemy of political obeisance to the eugenics coalition.  It is the greatest stretch of reason that has masqueraded as a legal decision since Dred Scott claimed Negroes were a separate class of persons and couldn’t be citizens.

It’s clear that Kansas is ruled by a junta of robed thugs whose gavel is for hire. It is an enemy of the people and precisely the kind of autocratic system you might expect from a cabal of lawyers who select the state’s judges as they earn their livelihood off the misfortunes of others.

By Kara Pendleton

An effort to stop Texans from legally carrying handguns on university campuses has failed. What some would call a twisted interpretation of the Constitution by three University of Texas at Austin professors was soundly shut down Thursday by a panel of three federal judges.

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges determined the professors’ claim that the campus carry law infringes upon their First, Second and 14th Amendment rights was invalid.

The claims made by the professors in their lawsuit filed two years ago may leave some people scratching their heads. The reason may be found in a review of the facts. The full ruling of the judges may be viewed online. Here is the basic breakdown, one amendment at a time:

How does campus carry infringe upon the First Amendment? According to professors Mia Carter, Jennifer Glass and Lisa Moore, students and professors might be too afraid to discuss controversial topics in the classroom when someone in the room might be armed without their knowledge.

“Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom,” the lawsuit said, according to The Texas Tribune.

The appeals court panel affirmed the dismissal of all claims by a district court judge. In the matter of the First Amendment, the district court judge had ruled that the plaintiffs “cannot manufacture standing by self-censoring her speech based on what she alleges to be a reasonable probability that concealed-carry license holders will intimidate professors and students in the classroom.”

So how on earth does a student opting to carry a means of self-defense on campus infringe upon someone else’s citizenship or rights under the 14th Amendment? Hand on tight. It’s a doozy of an explanation.

The professors claimed in their lawsuit that campus carry violated the amendment because “the university lacks a rational basis for determining where students can or cannot concealed-carry handguns on campus.”

The federal judges shot that down as well, saying that Glass “ultimately fails to address Texas’s arguments concerning rational basis. Instead she simply argues that the prohibited concealed-carry zones are an ‘inexplicable hodge-podge.'”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded the decision in a statement Thursday.

The case might not be over, yet. The professors can fight this ruling by asking for a “full appeals court” hearing or, within 90 days, opt to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Their attorney, Renea Hicks, told The Dallas Morning News he doesn’t expect they’ll ask the appeals court to rehear their case.

“I’m doubtful that there’ll be a request for en banc review,” Hicks said. “As to asking for [Supreme Court] review, that’s something we’ll just have to discuss amongst ourselves when we all can coordinate schedules and sit down and meet.”

by Will Racke

An illegal alien who was arrested in southern California while taking his pregnant wife to the hospital is wanted for murder in Mexico, immigration authorities said Saturday.

Joel Arrona Lara, 36, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on Wednesday at a gas station in San Bernardino, California. At the time, Arrona was taking his wife, Maria del Carmen Venegas, to the hospital for a scheduled cesarean section, CBS 2 Los Angeles reported.

News of Arrona Lara’s arrest quickly spread nationally, with several media outlets characterizing it as an example of the Trump administration’s heavy-handed crackdown on illegal immigration.

But immigration authorities say Arrona Lara is not just an otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrant.

He is also wanted by Mexican authorities for murder.

“Mr. Arrona-Lara was brought to ICE’s attention due to an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Mexico on homicide charges,” ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Security footage from the gas station shows Arrona Lara getting out of his car and being intercepted by ICE officers. A visibly distraught Venegas is then seen using a phone shortly after Arrona Lara is taken away.

Arrona Lara’s lawyer, Emilio Amaya Garcia, accused ICE officers of endangering Venegas and her unborn baby.

Arrona Lara has reportedly been living illegally in the U.S. for 12 years. ICE released the following statement about his arrest on Friday:

by Health Impact News/MedicalKidnap.com Staff

The Arizona woman accused of scalding her adoptive child causing third degree burns to 80% of her body resulting in the amputation of all 10 toes has been found guilty of 2 of the 3 charges brought against her.

Samantha Osteraas was found guilty by a jury in Tucson Arizona for child abuse. Image source.

Samantha Osteraas of Tucson, Arizona, faces between 10 and 24 years in prison for hurting Devani, the little girl that the Arizona Department of Child Services placed into her care after removing her from a foster home where she was being abused in a pedophilia pornography ring.

A Pima County jury of 9 women and 3 men deliberated for 8 hours before reaching their verdict on Friday afternoon, October 19, 2018. According to News 4 Tucson, Osteraas:

She looked so beautiful! She is so strong.

Two different advocates told us that it was clear from Devani’s demeanor that she refused to wear the label of “victim,” even though she has suffered more abuse than most people can imagine.

Devani has a different legal name after being adopted by Samantha and Justin Osteraas, but her advocates say that they will always call her by her real name, Devani Rose.

Devani’s parents and grandmother, who are still fighting and praying that, somehow, their little girl will be returned to her family, were not allowed to see her testify.

They simply wanted to see her with their own eyes, something they have not been allowed to do since she was so brutally injured under state supervision. A simple request to be permitted to see her through a crack in the door or from behind a 1-way glass window was denied.

According to one witness, Guardian ad Litem Thea Gilbert brought in a psychologist to court to argue that seeing her birth parents would be “traumatizing” to the child. However, no mention was made of the potential trauma of seeing the woman who has scarred her for life.

Devani testified that Samantha Osteraas held her down in the bathtub with a pink towel. She named Osteraas and pointed her out to the jury.

Abuser – She Did This to Herself

Tucson.com reports that Osteraas denied holding her down. Her version of the story was that the 5-year-old child did this to herself:

Osteraas testified the child got into the hot water on her own and then stayed there until Osteraas found her in a dazed state.

There were “so many inconsistencies in Samantha’s story,” according to one of the court watchers we talked to.

Deputy Pima County Attorney Alan Goodwin had urged jurors to use common sense in deciding whether a child would sit in scalding water as the burns deepened, and whether a mother who claimed to care would wait hours to get help. The girl was “on death’s door” before Osteraas sought help, he said.

17 Calls Made Over 5-Hour Period Before 911 Called

He pointed out that the burns were so severe that she lost her toes. Yet, the accused waited for possibly 5 hours before making the phone call that should have been her first response. Phone records cited in court showed that Osteraas made 17 phone calls to various people before calling 911.

Sentencing – Aggravating Circumstances or Leniency Due to Abuser’s Own History in Foster Care?

Tucson.com reports that Samantha Osteraas will be sentenced on December 3. There are several factors involved in determining the length of her prison sentence, which could range from a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years up to a maximum of 24 years.

The jury believes that there were factors present that increase the severity of the crimes committed against Devani:

• that the child had suffered emotionally,
• that she was 5 years old when the crime occurred, and
• that she was harmed by someone in a position of trust.

The jury found all of these factors were proven, which will allow the judge to consider them when determining Osteraas’ sentence.

Samantha Osteraas herself was adopted as a child. Her defense attorney pointed to her “very rough childhood,” which included abuse and foster care. Based on those factors, Jeff Rogers intends to request leniency in her sentencing.

The irony is that these same factors – being a victim of childhood abuse (or domestic violence as an adult), and growing up in foster care or being adopted – are frequently used by Child Protective Services agencies and social workers all across the United States to argue against leniency on birth parents.

Many loving parents who are falsely accused in the system hear in court that, because they have a history of being in foster care themselves, they cannot possibly know how to adequately parent.

These criteria do not actually determine the ability or suitability of anyone to parent, but social workers and attorneys pick and choose how to use facts such as these to twist to fit whatever agenda suits them in the moment.

There was no leniency on Devani’s mother Michelle Tremor-Calderon when the state of Arizona terminated her parental rights and placed her child into horrific situations that she never would have faced in her mother’s care.

Now that the trial is over, Devani is still not with any of her family. Her legal name remains one assigned to her by her adopters, Samantha and Justin Osteraas. As far as we can determine, Devani is in yet another foster home.

Shockingly, her Guardian ad Litem, Thea Gilbert, remains on her case. The attorney who is supposed to represent the child’s best interest has been with Devani’s case since the beginning.

Gilbert approved her placement with the now-imprisoned David Frodsham. Even after Devani’s mother Michelle Tremor-Calderon and transporter Beth Breen told Thea Gilbert that the child was terrified and showed clear signs of being sexually molested, Gilbert ignored them.

She and other Pima County social workers ignored the stories of other foster and adopted children in the home telling that they were being repeatedly raped and trafficked. One of the children has now aged out and is suing the state for millions of dollars for placing him and his brothers in such harm.

See: Arizona Foster Care System Revealed as Pedophile Ring: Former Foster Child Tortured for Years Sues for $15 Million

Despite being informed of the harm to Devani, Thea Gilbert recommended to the court that the Frodshams be allowed to adopt Devani.

According to KOLD News 13:

In November 2015, DCS investigated reports of sexual and physical abuse [by David Frodsham]. Those allegations were unsubstantiated.

Yet, they report:

DCS removed the child from the home of her biological parents in April 2013 when neglect allegations were substantiated.

[Note: these allegations against the parents were investigated by Health Impact News as well. We examined the DCS documents as well as the exonerating evidence, which clearly proved that the allegations were false from the very beginning. Source.]

After the pornography pedophile ring was busted by ICE, Gilbert approved Devani’s placement and subsequent adoption by Samantha and Justin Osteraas, despite clear warnings that the woman was prone to violence.

Two of the foster parent placements approved by Thea Gilbert and the Pima County DCS face at least a decade in prison each for heinous crimes committed against children.

Still, Thea Gilbert not only remains involved in the case, but she also refuses to so much as recuse herself.

Why are the standards for non-biological fosters and adoptors consistently far more lenient than those to which biological parents are held?

There is a Facebook page established by supporters to continue to fight for “Justice for Devani Rose.”

by Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

On Oct 30, 2018 President Trump announced that he will issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship. He states that he can do it by executive action and he might be right.

The 14th amendment states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Now, an important point in it is the fact that people, who are foreign citizens, are subject to the jurisdiction of their own nations, not US. Their children automatically inherit the citizenship of the countries of their parents, not US, and they automatically are under the jurisdiction of those foreign nations.

One wrinkle is a decision of the Supreme Court over 100 year ago.

A 1898 Supreme Court decision held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents residing in the United States, was a citizen because of his birth on American soil.

There can be 2 rebuttals to Wong Kim Ark.

1.Wong Kim Ark’s parents were legal residents, the ruling should not be read as an affirmation of the status of children of undocumented immigrants.

2. The Supreme Court might disavow, overturn this precedent as it was done by overturning 1857 decision in Dred Scott v Sandford. Supreme Court might decide that the decision in Wong Kim Ark needs to be clarified in that a child follows the legal immigration status of his parents. If the parents are legal residents, the child gets status of a legal resident, if the parent is a foreign citizen illegally residing in the US, the child is a foreign resident illegally residing in the US.  Supreme Court might decide that this clarification is needed as birthright citizenship is a magnet that led to an invasion of millions of illegal aliens with the hope of having anchor babies.

According to the US government we have 12 million illegals. According to the Center for immigration studies and the former ambassador of Mexico, we have over 30 million illegals, which is an enormous burden on our welfare system and which causes wages to stagnate.

MSNBC screen shot of Christine Blasey Ford, the Palo Alto University professor who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. (MSNBC screen shot)

First and foremost, Kavanaugh has vociferously denied the allegations.

“This is a completely and totally false allegation,” Kavanaugh said when the accusations first surfaced. “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone.”

Besides Kavanaugh and Keyser, Mark Judge and Patrick J. Smith were also named as witnesses. Their statements reflect Keyser’s.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said Mark Judge in a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Smith issued an even stronger statement than his other named witnesses.

RELATED: Panicking NYT Deletes Source Name, Caught Hiding Game-Changing Facts on Kavanaugh

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in his statement. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Smyth then went on to defend Kavanaugh.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh toward women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”

For the record, every named witness in Ford’s accusations has now categorically denied ever attending such a party or witnessing sexual assault.

Whether your believe Ford or not, you can’t deny that these latest developments do not bode well for her claims.

Read more »

Introduced by Brian Shilhavy

As we have previously reported here at Health Impact News, the medical kidnapping of America’s elderly is a $273 BILLION industry.

Medical kidnapping of senior citizens occurs when a doctor, usually a psychiatrist, deems that the senior can no longer take care of themselves, and gets a judge to sign an order of “guardianship” or “conservatorship” to someone working for the State.

This state-appointed guardian then comes in and seizes all of their assets, and keeps them a prisoner locked up in a mental facility, most of the time against the wishes of their family members.

This epidemic in the U.S. is even a larger problem than child medical kidnapping, as state-appointed guardians currently have 1.3 million elderly people nationwide under their control. See:

The few stories we have covered here at Health Impact News regarding seniors medically kidnapped represent just a tiny fraction of what is going on all across the U.S. every single day. (List of links below.)

Attorney Mark Nestmann has written an article that was published on LewRockwell.com giving people practical advice on how to oppose these adult medical kidnappings:

Attorney Explains how to Protect Against America’s Epidemic of Senior Medical Kidnappings

State courts appoint guardians to make personal and financial decisions on behalf of adults found to be legally incompetent. A guardian is supposed to ensure that their “wards” have safe housing and help them negotiate a legal and medical system they may be incapable of dealing with on their own. According to an auditor for the Palm Beach County (Florida) guardianship fraud program, guardians control assets valued at $273 billion.

A ward loses nearly all civil rights once a judge approves a guardianship. The guardian has complete control over the ward’s personal and financial affairs. All of a ward’s money can be transferred to a guardian’s own account. A ward can also be forcibly relocated to any residential facility the guardian sees fit. Family members may lose the right to obtain information about the ward’s finances or medical conditions. Indeed, family members may even lose the right to visit the ward, because the guardian can forbid it.

As Judge Steve King of Tarrant County, Texas said on Oliver’s program: “Guardianship is a massive intrusion into a person’s life… they lose more rights than someone who goes to prison.”

The powers that guardians wield are rife with abuse. In a series of cases from Las Vegas described last year in The New Yorker, a guardian in Las Vegas named April Parks targeted elderly individuals with substantial assets. Parks persuaded doctors to declare these individuals incompetent and place them under her guardianship. She would then acquire control over their assets and charge outrageously high fees to arrange for their care. When her wards’ estates were depleted to the point where they qualified for Medicaid, she would place them in nursing homes at government expense. In virtually all cases, this happened without a formal cognitive assessment to determine if the ward could continue living independently.

The horror story surrounding the North guardianship is not an isolated case. I’ve come across abusive guardianship cases in many other states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. And while I suspect the vast majority of guardians exercise their authority ethically and with discretion, if only 1% of guardianship cases are abusive, that means 15,000 Americans are victims of this system.

Since it’s extremely difficult to escape from a guardianship once you’re in the system, plan ahead to avoid it. Getting your legal documents in order is the best way to avoid becoming the next victim. We insist that all Nestmann clients execute durable powers of attorney and health care proxies and record them in public records.

These documents should name someone you trust – generally your children or grandchildren – to step in if you become incapacitated. Whomever you name should not be someone in financial difficulty who might use your assets to satisfy their own financial obligations. The document should also be revocable unless a formal cognitive assessment performed by a licensed physician (ideally two licensed physicians) determines you are incompetent.

Another precaution is to build a safety mechanism into your planning. If the agent you name steps in to assist you if you’re incapacitated, your documents should require the agent meet periodically with an independent party – your accountant, for instance – to ensure your assets truly are being used for your benefit.

The guardianship system is one of the biggest rackets in the US today. Don’t be the next victim of this corrupt system.

by Micaiah Bilger

Share this story:

The Trump administration is fighting back against lawsuits challenging its efforts to defund the abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

This week, attorneys for the government asked federal judges to dismiss two lawsuits the abortion chain filed against changes to Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) program grants, Reuters reports.

In June, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging a Department of Health and Human Services decision to prioritize sexual risk avoidance programs instead of the abortion giant’s risky sex education programs.

The Trump administration also cut millions of dollars in TPP program grants to the abortion chain in 2017 after evidence showed the program was not effective. However, the abortion chain is suing to stop those cuts as well in a separate lawsuit.

Lawyers for HHS argued this week that Planned Parenthood chose not to apply for the grants under the new changes so it does not have standing to sue, according to the report.

The Daily Caller reports more:

HHS lawyers countered that the new criteria for awarding grants under the program, which they changed in May, was “reasonable” and consistent with HHS’s past practices and congressional intent. Under the new criteria, recipients for grants must either follow a “sexual risk reduction model” or a “sexual risk avoidance model,” which aim to curb or completely stop sexual activity among teens respectively.

Planned Parenthood asserted that HHS’s new approach “stigmatizes” teens who have sex and that it prevents them from informed decision-making concerning intercourse, according to Reuters. HHS argued, however, it does not favor “sexual risk avoidance models” over “sexual risk reduction models,” and that halting grants to organizations that do follow a sexual risk avoidance model would not serve the public good, since such organizations can put those grants to “good use.”

Planned Parenthood did not comment on the development.

HHS spokesman Mark Vafiades previously told the New York Times there is very little evidence that the TPP programs were working under the Obama administration model.

Vafiades said the evidence of a positive impact is “very weak,” and the Trump administration wants to support science-based programs that provide “youth with the information and skills they need to avoid the many risks associated with teen sex.”

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

In 2017, the Office of Adolescent Health issued two reports evaluating the program. Of the 38 programs examined in the report, only one “reported a long-term reduction in overall rates of teen sexual activity. Nearly all of the evaluations found no long-term difference in sexual activity, use of contraception, or pregnancy rates between students enrolling in these programs and students in control groups,” Dr. Michael New, a professor at Ave Maria University, wrote in 2017.

HHS also pointed to research indicating that 73 percent of the TPP programs under the Obama administration either had a negative impact or none at all.

Many parents become very upset when they learn Planned Parenthood teaches their teenagers about sex. School districts in North Carolina and Michigan recently rejected Planned Parenthood sex education programs because of a strong public outcry.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States, aborting more than 320,000 unborn babies every year. The abortion chain also teaches sex education in public schools across the country, and promotes risky sexual behavior to vulnerable young teens at its clinics.

Planned Parenthood affiliates received several million dollars in taxpayer funds through the TPP grants. Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and Hawaiian Islands received $1 million annually to target rural teens. Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho, as well as Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, also received grants of nearly $1 million each annually to promote their risky sex agenda to teens.

{The Kansas school funding issue comes back again and again to punish citizens because of the illegal 2005 Montoy v Kansas  decision which forever enshrined the lawless Kansas Supreme Court as the 'ultimate authority' (not the people)  dictating the amount of money that must be spent to satisfy a clause in the Kansas Constitution defining "a suitable education.' There is no school funding formula that can ever be devised to prevent the endless lawsuits against the state legislature from Alan L. Rupe and company which will eventually bankrupt Kansas citizens thanks to the worthless Kansas Legislature who has failed to prevent the Court's usurpation of power. -  ED}

by Kansas Policy Institute

KSDE calculates the total amount approved thus far for FY 2018 through FY 2023 at just over $1 billion dollars.  Total aid as calculated by KSDE would slightly exceed $8 billion in FY 2023 even if federal aid remains flat and local revenue is only nominally increased.  If legislators provide the additional aid KSDE says is needed to satisfy the court with enrollment increases as KSDE anticipates, per-pupil funding would be $16,520 in FY 2023.
__________________
[i] State law requires an ending balance equal to 7.5 percent of expenditures.  Legislators and governors have often ignored that legal requirement over the last couple of decades by periodically changing the law to effectively say, ‘except this year.’