Hillary Caught Making Claim About Kavanaugh That Was Already Proven False by Fact-Checkers


by Randy DeSoto

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton doubled down Wednesday on a claim Sen. Kamala Harris made regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s views on birth control that multiple fact-checkers have already determined to be false.

“I want to be sure we’re all clear about something that Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearings last week. He referred to birth-control pills as ‘abortion-inducing drugs,'” Clinton tweeted. “That set off a lot of alarm bells for me, and it should for you, too.”

“Kavanaugh didn’t use that term because he misunderstands the basic science of birth control—the fact that birth control prevents fertilization of eggs in the first place. He used that term because it’s a dog whistle to the extreme right,” she added.

Hillary Clinton‏Verified account @HillaryClinton Sep 12

I want to be sure we're all clear about something that Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearings last week. He referred to birth-control pills as "abortion-inducing drugs." That set off a lot of alarm bells for me, and it should for you, too.

20,281 replies 41,031 retweets 137,358 likes

Kavanaugh didn't use that term because he misunderstands the basic science of birth control—the fact that birth control prevents fertilization of eggs in the first place. He used that term because it's a dog whistle to the extreme right.

6:14 AM - 12 Sep 2018


The Washington Post awarded Harris with four Pinocchios for sharing a selectively edited video about Kavanaugh while arguing that he is “going after” birth control.

The California Democrat tweeted footage of an exchange Kavanaugh had with Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas during the judge’s confirmation hearing last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Cruz asked Kavanaugh about his dissent in the 2014 Priests for Life case before the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals involving the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

The nominee answered by recounting the plaintiff priests’ position in the case regarding filling out a Department of Health and Human Services form to obtain a waiver from the contraception mandate, which, if accepted by HHS, required health insurance providers to offer the coverage free of charge to those who were interested.

Kavanaugh told Cruz, “They said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to.”

Harris’s video omitted Kavanaugh saying, “they said,” making it appear that he was offering a statement about his views on the matter, and even birth control more broadly.

Harris wrote of the exchange in a tweet on Friday.

Kamala Harris‏Verified account @SenKamalaHarris

Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control. He was nominated for the purpose of taking away a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions. Make no mistake - this is about punishing women.

11:45 AM - 7 Sep 2018
8,538 replies 15,061 retweets 

Here is Kavanaugh's full answer. There's no question that he uncritically used the term "abortion-inducing drugs," which is a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control.

Kavanaugh explained to Cruz that the reason he dissented in the case was based on the Supreme Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores decision, which found business owners have the right not to provide contraception coverage to employees if it runs contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

It should be noted that Hobby Lobby’s owners did not object to providing birth control coverage, which they were in fact doing, but did object to providing contraceptives they believe cause abortions, including “morning-after pills” and two types of intrauterine devices.

There are 16 other FDA-approved contraception methods that the company did not object to, as they prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place.

However, the four methods of contraception at issue in the case “may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.” Thus, the concern was that by providing these abortifacients, they would be facilitating abortion.

After receiving significant criticism for her misleading tweet, Harris included Kavanaugh’s comments in context in a subsequent post, but argued, “There’s no question that he uncritically used the term ‘abortion-inducing drugs,’ which is a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control.”

The Washington Post was not buying the senator’s explanation.

“Harris’s decision to snip those crucial words (‘they said’) from her first post on the video is certainly troubling,” wrote Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler.

Regarding her follow up tweet, he added, “But there was no acknowledgment by Harris that the original tweet was misleading.”

Kessler concluded, “She earns Four Pinocchios — and her fellow Democrats should drop this talking point.”

Politifact also found Harris’ Twitter post in error.

“In Harris’ tweet, Kavanaugh appears to define contraception as abortion-inducing. But the video failed to include a crucial qualifier: ‘They said,’” Politifact reported.

“In fact, he was citing the definition of the religious group Priests for Life. He has not expressed his personal view,” the fact-checker added. “We rate this statement False.”


David French‏Verified account @DavidAFrench

David French Retweeted Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton comes barreling back into the conversation with a timely reminder that she’s one of the more prolific liars in modern American politics.

David French added,

Hillary ClintonVerified account @HillaryClinton
I want to be sure we're all clear about something that Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearings last week. He referred to birth-control pills as "abortion-inducing
drugs." That set off a lot of alarm bells for me, and it should for you, too.
Show this thread
7:18 AM - 12 Sep 2018
175 replies 652 retweets 2,373 likes

National Review’s David French chastised Clinton for grabbing onto Harris’ claim against Kavanaugh, which she should have known to be false.

He tweeted, “Hillary Clinton comes barreling back into the conversation with a timely reminder that she’s one of the more prolific liars in modern American politics.”



Classmate Deletes Tweet That Supported Ford’s Claim Against Kavanaugh

by Jack Davis


A woman who said the 35-year-old alleged sexual misconduct incident Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh denies ever happened was all the buzz at school has deleted her tweet making that claim.

On Tuesday, Christina King Miranda entered the fray over allegations that Kavanaugh acted inappropriately toward Christine Blasey Ford at a party in the 1980s.

There's a well-established legal term of art for what Cristina King Miranda is peddling today: HEARSAY. http://archive.is/xz6AN 


“I graduated from Holton Arms, and knew both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me, I remember her. I signed this letter. The incident was spoken about for days afterwords (sic) in school. Kavanaugh should stop lying, own up to it and apologize,” she tweeted.

The tweet was seized upon as corroboration of Ford’s allegation, but it raised questions because it offered details not mentioned in, or conflicting with, Ford’s version of events.

For example, Lisa Banks, Ford’s lawyer, said the incident took place over the summer, NPR reported. Miranda’s now-deleted post placed the party during the school year.

Also, Ford indicated in her interview with The Washington Post that she did not discuss the incident until 2012, while Miranda’s tweet indicates it was common knowledge at their school — Holton-Arms in Bethesda, Maryland — in the 1980s.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading


Miranda then followed up that tweet with another making it clear she won’t be saying anything more.

“To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That’s it. I don’t have more to say on the subject,” she tweeted.

— Cristina King Miranda (@reinabori) September 19, 2018

The tweet was perceived by some as an effort to avoid dealing with a story that was full of holes.

Chris Costlow @TheChrisCostlow

Well, SOMEONE'S lying. Ford said she told NO ONE about it until 2012. Seems you shot yourself in the foot with a tweet and I'm guessing your name isn't going to go away from the news cycle any time soon. You go girl! You've done more to ruin Ford's cred than the Republicans.


Miranda’s actions came as Patrick J. Smyth, another high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s, denied ever seeing inappropriate conduct from Kavanaugh and said that if Ford has identified him as being at a party where the alleged incident took place, she is wrong.

Politics US News

Classmate Deletes Tweet That Supported Ford’s Claim Against Kavanaugh

By Jack Davis
September 19, 2018 at 11:17am

A woman who said the 35-year-old alleged sexual misconduct incident Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh denies ever happened was all the buzz at school has deleted her tweet making that claim.

On Tuesday, Christina King Miranda entered the fray over allegations that Kavanaugh acted inappropriately toward Christine Blasey Ford at a party in the 1980s.

“I graduated from Holton Arms, and knew both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me, I remember her. I signed this letter. The incident was spoken about for days afterwords (sic) in school. Kavanaugh should stop lying, own up to it and apologize,” she tweeted.

The tweet was seized upon as corroboration of Ford’s allegation, but it raised questions because it offered details not mentioned in, or conflicting with, Ford’s version of events.

Do you believe Christina King Miranda?

Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

TRENDING: Franklin Graham Calls Out ‘Socialist-Leaning Dems’ in Wake of Kavanaugh Accusations

For example, Lisa Banks, Ford’s lawyer, said the incident took place over the summer, NPR reported. Miranda’s now-deleted post placed the party during the school year.

Also, Ford indicated in her interview with The Washington Post that she did not discuss the incident until 2012, while Miranda’s tweet indicates it was common knowledge at their school — Holton-Arms in Bethesda, Maryland — in the 1980s.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

Miranda then followed up that tweet with another making it clear she won’t be saying anything more.

“To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That’s it. I don’t have more to say on the subject,” she tweeted.

The tweet was perceived by some as an effort to avoid dealing with a story that was full of holes.

Miranda’s actions came as Patrick J. Smyth, another high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s, denied ever seeing inappropriate conduct from Kavanaugh and said that if Ford has identified him as being at a party where the alleged incident took place, she is wrong.

“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 a statement, CNN reported. “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.

“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 towards women.”

Mark Judge, who was mentioned in Miranda’s deleted tweet, said in a letter to senators that he had “no memory of this alleged incident” and “never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”










Trump Admin Fights Back, Wants Judge to Toss Lawsuits So it Can Defund Planned Parenthood

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.






$3.7 billion tax increase set up by courts and schools

{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

This calculation is produced by the Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD) and presents a long-term picture of the tax revenue needed to pay for the increased school funding.

Aug. 2 - Wichita - Kansas taxpayers are being set up for a $3.7 billion tax increase over the next four years unless the majority of elected officials reduce costs and stop taking orders from a runaway judiciary.  That’s what it would take to have a structurally balanced budget, with each year’s spending not exceeding that year’s tax collections.  

The calculation is based on having a legally-required ending balance[i] without transfers from the highway fund and making all scheduled KPERS pension payments through FY 2023.  The only spending increases included are those related to approved school funding, the Department of Education’s (KSDE) calculation of complying with the latest Supreme Court ruling and KLRD’s caseload estimate for existing Medicaid coverage.

About $624 million of the tax increase is already in place, noted as ‘Federal Tax Adjustment’ in the table linked here.  Federal tax reform eliminates personal exemptions, caps itemized deductions for some people and imposes higher taxes on many businesses.  The Kansas Senate voted to prevent this backdoor state income tax hike but too many House members wanted more money to spend.

Paying for approved school funding without gimmicks (transfers, KPERS delays, ignoring the ending balance law, etc.) will cost another $2.1 billion and if elected officials decide to meet KSDE’s $365 million estimate of the latest court demand, another $940 million tax hike will be needed.

The tax impact of paying for the new school funding is much greater than the simple total of the funding approved because of the cumulative impact of adding more money each year.  The estimate of meeting the court’s latest demand is a good example.

KSDE says funding would have to increase a little over $91 million each year and would, therefore, be $365 million higher in the fourth year; but that amounts to $912.3 million more being spent over the four-year period.

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.’





Kansas Supreme Court Once Again Dictates the Level of School Spending

by Allen Williams


If you have ever lived in Kansas then you know that the state's judiciary gains bench positions by appointment NOT election.  "These efforts succeeded in 1958, when Kansas voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing merit selection of supreme court justices. The amendment's success can be attributed to the intensive lobbying efforts of the Kansas Bar Association and the political scandal aptly titled the "triple play of 1956," in which the governor and chief justice resigned their positions with the understanding that the lieutenant governor--who would become the governor--would appoint the former governor as chief justice. "

"The current procedure for filling a Supreme Court judgeship is very simple. A panel of lawyers [and non-lawyers] creates a list of fellow lawyers as candidates. That list is submitted to the governor and who appoints someone from that list. There is no vote. There is no confirmation process. There is no investigation or approval of any kind. The result of the current process is a judiciary run amuck.  A prime example is the Kansas Supreme Court. In the last session of the legislature, judges were caught discussing legislation with senate members and ethics complaints were lodged (they are still pending).  That same court has, in direct violation of the Kansas Constitution, ordered increases in school spending, a function reserved to the legislature. By its illegal actions, the court has effected increases that will force each man, woman, and child in the State of Kansas to pay an extra $400 per year in taxes by the year 2009."   It's a nice little monopoly  where, as KU law professor Stephen Ware, has noted some 10,000 people control 2.8 million.

I
n 2005
a petition was circulated by Wayne Flaherty and Judicial Watch for a constitutional amendment to change the judicial selection system to popular election. The state legislature failed to pass the amendment. The same year Topeka judge Terry Bullock ordered an increase of One Billion dollars for K-12 education in schools. This ruling violated the separation of powers via legislating from the bench. However, it was Kansas Supreme Court Justice Lawton Nuss who dictated the monetary amount in the Montoy decision to the state legislature that forever transferred spending authority from the Kansas Legislature to the Kansas Supreme Court.

In past years a number of attempts have been made to return judicial selection to popular election but the proposals were always beaten back by the public education system and its many supporters who obviously profit from the corruption of the current system.  Finally in 2013, then Governor Sam Brownback replaced merit selection for appeals court judges with gubenatorial appointment and Senate confirmation as in the case of federal judges.  A Kansas constitutional amendment to move the state judiciary to the federal model failed during Brownbacks tenure as governor. And in 2015, incredibly the Kansas Supreme Court, found that the state legislature's attempt to defund the court was unconstitutional. This decision has denied the people of Kansas the right of self government and established the Kansas Supreme Court as a ruling olighargy

The Kansas Court system is a corruption cesspoll and it hasn't disappointed.

Alan Rupe and his legal team have carved out a sweet niche suing the state legislature through the years to force higher taxes for education. Due to the obscure wording in the Kansas Constitution requiring a 'suitable education'. Many attempts have been made in the past to formulate a 'funding formula' for 309 Kansas school districts.

That's an awfully large number of school districts for such a small state you might think. Well, yes but absolutely essential to keep the for profit school indoctrination system rolling.  And public money makes the Kansas education system the largest PAC-lobby in the state. 

Here's how the school funding merri-go-round works:

(1) The state legislature develops a school funding formula which is always 'unfair' to some particular school district and in some cases nearly all by agreement. Greed dictates the relative 'degree of unfairness', etc.  (2) Rupe and his team go to court, finding a synpathetic judge isn't difficult because the lawyers control the judicial selection process. (3) The lawyers argue that the funding formula distributions aren't equitable or isn't weighted properly or the current formula simply fails to provide a 'suitable education' (Doesn't spend enough money) (4) The court agrees. Legal appeals are made and eventually the Kansas Supreme Court affirms the lower court ruling for a fixed sum of money to finance education.(5) Go immediately back to (1) and begin the process anew.

Kansas is under authoritarain rule held hostage by a judicial hunta.

Cost Functions Should Not be Used to Make Education Spending Decisions

by Kansas Policy Institute


June 1 - Wichita - A cost study recommending a school funding increase upwards of $2 billion survived a peer review by a scholar the Legislature hired; but, another respected school finance scholar says cost studies should not be used to set funding levels.

Benjamin Scafadi, Ph.D., a professor of economics and director of the Education Economics Center at Kennesaw State University, says, “cost function studies do not provide valid and reliable estimates of the minimum 'cost' of achieving a given outcome.” 

Knowing the Legislature’s WestEd cost study would define the conversation on education spending and impact further judicial proceedings, Kansas Policy Institute partnered to do an independent peer review with Dr. Scafidi.  His findings disprove the notion that spending more money causes student achievement to improve. 

In response to the Kansas Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Gannon V case, the Kansas Legislature recently contracted with a vendor conducting a $285,000 study to analyze the “cost” of educating public school students in grades K-12. The Legislature asked the vendor, WestEd, to “estimate the minimum spending required to produce a given outcome within a given educational environment.” WestEd used a “cost function” approach to estimate the costs of providing students in each public school in Kansas with an adequate education. 

Dave Trabert, president of the Kansas Policy Institute, commented, “These cost studies may be done with the best of intentions, but they fail to provide results that are useful in guiding policy decisions. In practice they only take a partial look at one variable – spending – and ignore all other variables that impact learning.”

Scafadi said, “The estimates vary widely and do not track with historical data on spending and achievement.” The review outlined the reasons why supposed “cost” functions do not provide valid and reliable estimates of the minimum “cost” of achieving a given outcome.

“One glaring problem we found with the WestEd study is that researchers do not have access to data on all external factors that impact the cost of educating students.” Trabert said.

Scafidi’s study for Kansas Policy Institute included in its exhaustive review a complete recommendation of best practices that should be performed to “check carefully for robustness and reliability of results.”

His data determined it unreasonable to conclude that giving the Kansas public school system, as currently constituted, a large boost to spending would significantly improve student outcomes.

“Given the vast sums of taxpayer funds at stake, the Kansas Governor, Legislature, and the State Supreme Court should implement the five best practices, as laid out in my review, to discover the truth about the relationship between spending and valuable student outcomes.” Scafadi concluded.




Editor's Note: Such mathematical games accomplish little more than feed the lawyers who feast on endless court decisions that force the Kansas Legislature to raise taxes violating both the separation of powers and the people's right to determine fiscal policy.

Federal Judge Rules: Way Trump Uses Twitter Is Illegal

by George Upper


There’s been a lot of theorizing about the effect of social media on the 2016 presidential election, most of it — in the establishment media, anyway — focused on how Donald Trump’s campaign, with or without the help of the Russians, “stole” the election from Hillary Clinton by selectively planting “fake news” on Facebook.

But Trump’s social media advantage during the campaign was never on Facebook; it was always on Twitter, from his announcement through the election and inauguration.

And, while it wasn’t obvious at the time, that’s when swamp water began seeping into Trump’s online presence, with the ultimate result being that federal judge ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump cannot block users from access to his Twitter account without violating the First Amendment to the Constitution after seven plaintiffs — we don’t have their names, but I’m guessing they don’t hail from right-of-center heartland America — sued over the practice.

The judge ruled that, because blocking accounts that disagree with him on Twitter prevents those users from expressing their disagreement with him on what was essentially a public forum amounted to government suppression of their right to free speech, according to The New York Times.

Now, given the circumstances, the judge could hardly have decided anything differently. It’s not the judge in the wrong here; it’s the circumstances surrounding the judge’s decision.

Essentially, Federal District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that, because Trump and Dan Scavino, the White House social media director, “exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account,” the account is an official government account and blocking the seven plaintiffs from it because of their political views violated their First Amendment rights. 

Again, that’s true. But that’s not the problem.  The problem is that this should never have been an “official government account” in the first place. 

Donald Trump — with the help of media experts in his employ, one would imagine — built his following on Twitter long before he ever ran for office, and he continued to build it — and expertly so — during his campaign.  If the account had remained under his personal control, he could block or not block anyone he chose.

But that’s not what happened.

“The viewpoint-based exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified by the president’s personal First Amendment interests,” the judge, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1999, wrote in her decision.  The White House is apparently considering an appeal, although the basis for such an action was not mentioned and remains unclear, given the present circumstances.  

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering our next steps,” said the Justice Department, which is representing the president in the case.

‘The right thing for the president and his social media director to do would be to log into the president’s account and unblock everyone who has been blocked on the basis of viewpoint,” said Jameel Jaffer, the plaintiffs’ attorney and the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, which joined the case as a plaintiff itself.

The court, however, did not order the president to take such an action which would, on the face of it, appear to mean that any government employee or elected official with a social media account funded with taxpayer money would have to take the same action or face similar lawsuits.  Again, since White House staffers became involved, free speech is a legitimate issue in this case. But was it really necessary for that to happen? Isn’t the president’s Twitter account really that, a personal account?  

And the president should be able to communicate directly with the American people without the intervention of federal bureaucrats. Shouldn’t he?

The court, however, did not order the president to take such an action which would, on the face of it, appear to mean that any government employee or elected official with a social media account funded with taxpayer money would have to take the same action or face similar lawsuits.  Again, since White House staffers became involved, free speech is a legitimate issue in this case. But was it really necessary for that to happen? Isn’t the president’s Twitter account really that, a personal account? 

And the president should be able to communicate directly with the American people without the intervention of federal bureaucrats. Shouldn’t he?


Kentucky's 'Pay for Play' Legal System

by Allen Williams


In October of 2017 I was returning from a trip On US 64 which brought me through Louisville, Kentucky.  Just about a half to three quarters of a mile before the Shively 264 exit, I was bumped in my rented 2017 Chevy Impala by an individual in some sort of green sports car. I saw him or her  swing in behind me from an angle consistent with someone entering the highway from an on ramp. 

It looked to be a woman or guy with long hair from my rear view mirror who fell in behind me after the hit and slowed down.  I had expected him to pull in behind me after the bump event.  I signaled to pull over to the shoulder where we could exchange insurance information.   I stopped on the shoulder about 100 yards from the Shively 264 exit.  Instead of pulling directly in behind me, the guy sped away on the 264 exit just as traffic began to back up at the Shively exit.  However, I got his license number '840 CAL' before he fled the scene.  Looking at the rental vehicle right side damage, the collision was consistent with an onramp entry and appeared to be more that $500.

Two Louisberg police officers showed up about a minute or so after the individual sped away. I thought they might have witnessed the accident but instead they began clearing debris off the Shively exit to free up traffic. Lacking a working cell phone I was unable to contact the police.  One female officer at the scene I attempted to talk with said they were 'super busy' and that another patrol car would be coming.  At that point, she and an accompanying officer jumped into their cars and left the scene. I waited 30 minutes at the Shively exit for the promised patrol car but it never showed.  I then left and continued my journey home.  The next day, I filed a Kentucky Civilian Traffic Collision Report with the state police.

The civilian traffic collision report I filed is a joke.  It gets no identifying number after it's filed; nobody appears to do anything with the report. It's likely a convenient archive that allows insurance adjusters to determine your 'risk' factor in premium assignments. Otherwise, it's a worthless document for anyone who has filed it.

After I arrived back home I called the Kentucky state police but they wouldn't run the license plate I recorded.  They suggested that I talk to Louisville police at Division 4 of Jefferson County.  So I called there and the officer tells me they don't have jurisdiction and they wouldn't run the plate because I'm not a law enforcement officer or an insurance representative.  They suggest I call the Jefferson County DA.  So I talk to a Jefferson County assistant DA who tells me that I cannot file a criminal complaint over the phone and that I would have to return to Kentucky.  Neither would they accept my complaint in a notarized letter. Only a local lawyer could file my complaint, I was told.  I believe the reader can see where this might be going.

Talking to a number of lawyers in the Loiuisville area that handle auto accidents revealed a host of solutions for the hit and run accident I was involved in but none of them were viable. I should point out that few attorneys called me back the same day as either business was exceptionally good or the amount of damages I experienced wasn't sufficient to peak their interest.

One attorney suggested that I file a civil action to recoup the rental losses. But unfortunately, even if I returned to Kentucky and filed a civil and criminal action, I was told that the accused could simply deny it. (The perpetrator obviously didn't have insurance which was why the person fled to begin with).  Another lawyer said paying the damages myself (or my insurance company) would be cheaper than hiring a lawyer to resolve the issue. What this translates to is unless there's sufficient money in play because of an incident we're not interested in pursuing it even if it's a felony. Remember that statement because it's nothing more than 'pay to play' and even if you win the civil suit it's doubtful that you'd be awarded attorney's fees. it's characteristic of the endemic corruption in America's legal system. You'll understand this a bit further down. 


My personal favorite was a local lawyer who advertises  'How to Get a Car Accident Report or Police Report in Kentucky'.  Nothing gauche about tooting your own horn.  The process is actually quite simple, "There is a company that has a website to handle requests for car accident reports for Louisville and all of Kentucky. The website is called www.buycrash.com (www.buycrash.com/Public/Home.aspx). There is a fee for each accident report that can be paid by credit card (MasterCard, Visa, Discover, or American Express) or PayPal...Written requests need to be addressed to the Kentucky State Police post that worked the accident. Written requests should include a self-addressed stamped envelope and a $5.00 check or money order payable to Kentucky State Treasurer...If you believe another person was responsible for your car accident in Louisville or elsewhere in Kentucky, you may want to contact a Kentucky attorney to assist you with filing a claim or pursuing a lawsuit..You can contact Brett via email or call (502) 749-5700, toll free (866)935-5729.."

So the lawyer's advertisement suggests that what I experienced outside Louisville is quite common in the area. His site has a number of testimonials from happy satisfied clients  So there you have it, if the monetary damages are sufficient to make it worthwhile for the attorney then a claim will be pursued.  Apparently the same condition applies to the Jefferson county D.A. Never mind that a particular law has been violated, after all we break the country's laws every day where immigration is concerned. 

One final call to the Jefferson County DA to suggest that their office pursue the criminal charge against the individual who fled the accident scene as it was at least a Class C misdemeanor.  (My guess is it wouldn't be a felony unless it was something like $5000 or more in damages) The assistant DA that I talked to said they don't pursue individuals and that I would have better luck with a civil complaint through an attorney.  Now the DA had to know that a civil complaint against an individual without auto insurance was futile so his recommendation was more 'pay for play' rhetoric. 

I retorted with 'I bet if I robbed a bank and someone got my license you’d run it. That’s no different than someone leaving the scene of an accident.'  There was complete silence from the assistant D.A. I thought he had hung up.  He reiterated that there was nothing he could do and so the call ended.


Travel through Kentucky at your own risk.




Oregon Judge Tries to Silence Mother of Medically Kidnapped Children: Orders Website Taken Down

by HealthImpactNewsStaff

 

Multnomah County Oregon Circuit Court Judge Susan M. Svetkey recently ordered Trisha Delaurent of Vancouver, Washington, to take down a website and Facebook page that chronicled her struggles with Oregon CPS to get her children back. Trisha was charged with “medical neglect” of her oldest son, Max, who is 15.

Oregon CPS not only removed Max from her custody, but also his 3 siblings, including a newborn baby just 12 days after he was born.
Baby Elias – Removed from family just 12 days after birth. Image Source.

The website chronicling the family’s struggles is injusticeoregon.com, which has since been taken over by other interested parties, so that Trisha no longer has control over the website. The website was ordered to be taken down by Oct. 2nd, but is still up at the time of publication. The Facebook page for injusticeoregon has apparently been removed. 


Family Court Judges Routinely Violate the 1st Amendment

Judge Svetkey. Image source/contact info.


Here at MedicalKidnap.com we have had family court judges order our stories about families who claim they have had their children taken away unjustly be removed from our website. These judges usually threaten the parents and issue gag orders against them that many attorneys have claimed are unconstitutional. The parents are, of course, terrified, because the state is holding their children in custody. Sometimes the parents come back and beg us to remove their stories. A few times judges have threatened to jail parents for failing to comply with their order.

But Health Impact News has never given in to pressure to remove these stories. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the freedom to publish these stories, and each time we stood firm and defied those orders, any legal action threatened by the judge against the parents, such as going to jail, has (so far) not happened.


Why Does Oregon Want this Mother Silenced?

Since the website injusticeoregon.com is still up despite a judge’s order that it be taken down, much of the background of this case is documented on this site. Guy Bini, writing for GarrettsVoice.com has also covered their story recently:

Delaurent has been accused of medical child abuse. She has publicized her family’s story and claims her innocence. The information published on the website has been highly critical of both Oregon CPS and law enforcement investigators who have been looking into the medical child abuse allegations.
 

Specifically, Delaurent has published a counter narrative with details that point to a lack of a genuine investigation which includes false reporting, false statements, failure to investigate and witness tampering all initiated by state investigators.


According to Judge Svetkey, the creation of the website and FB page flies in the face of state and federal laws designed to help protect the privacy and confidentiality of minor children who become caught up in the DHS/CPS system. However, DHS attorneys representing the children did not present any documentation during the 9/28 hearing that would suggest Delaurent was in violation of any state or federal privacy laws, nor were any specific laws referenced by code or by statute. Instead, state attorneys asked Delaurent if she posted medical information about the children which any parent has a right to do. Delaurent answered “Yes” which embolden Judge Svetkey to order the entire website injusticeoregon.com to be shut down.

Delaurent, a mother of four, is currently embattled with both Oregon DHS and Washington DSHS over the custodial rights of her children.

In October of 2016, the three oldest children were taken into temporary protective custody by Oregon CPS and later placed with the children’s maternal grandmother. On the surface it seems like an optimal plan to place the three older children with their maternal grandmother, until one scratches the surface to dig into grandma’s background and discovers a long-term hostile relationship towards Delaurent.

In February 2017, Delaurent gave birth to her 4th child. Twelve days after the birth of her youngest son, Washington CPS took temporary custody of him as well based upon a ‘threat of harm’ due to the other 3 children being taken by Oregon CPS.

Delaurent’s motivation to develop a website was to publish her family’s story. It was born out of her frustration which stemmed from what she believed to be a biased investigation on the part of Oregon CPS investigator, Steve Jackson, and Gresham Police Officer, Detective Robert Harley who is assigned to the Portland Child Abuse Team known as CAT. Neither investigator interviewed friends or family members close to the Delaurent family. Instead, they sought the opinions of those who were adversarial to Delaurent, and that includes Delaurent’s mother.

In April of 2017, Detective Harley interviewed Delaurent, six months after the decision was made by the state to take her children into temporary protective custody, and only after she had made numerous requests to be interviewed.

Medical abuse cases typically involve parents who fail or neglect to seek medical attention for their children, especially those children who have life threatening ailments. Delaurent has done the exact opposite. Delaurent has sought out medical treatment for her children and accepted the medical advice given by her doctors. She has made certain that doctor’s orders were followed. Then why has Delaurent been accused of medical child abuse?


Read the full article here.


How a Sebelius judge saved Planned Parenthood

by Jack Cashill {WND.com}


With her first appointment to the Kansas Supreme Court as governor in 2003, Democrat Kathleen Sebelius chose the proudly “third-wave” feminist, Carol Beier. It was a timely choice.  That same year, Republican Phill Kline took office as Kansas Attorney General.  From Beier’s perspective, Kline represented a serious threat to the “reproductive freedom” that she, Sebelius, and other third-wavers espoused.

As Kline sensed before taking office, the state’s two dominant abortion providers, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (CHPPKM) in suburban Kansas City and George Tiller’s Women’s Health Care clinic in Wichita, were ignoring state restrictions on late term abortion, Tiller flagrantly.  What Kline discovered only after a multi-year fight with Sebelius’s people to get access to relevant records was that both clinics were grossly ignoring mandatory reporting laws on child rape.

Of the 166 abortions performed on girls under-fifteen in the years 2002 and 2003, the clinics reported only three cases to the state department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. They should have reported all 166.

Kline was prepared to press charges against both Tiller and CHPPKM. For reasons of ideology and campaign finance, Sebelius could not let this happen.

To begin, Sebelius persuaded Paul Morrison, a popular Republican district attorney from Johnson County in suburban Kansas City, to change parties and run against Kline in 2006. The state abortion industry invested nearly $2 million to help the local media defeat Kline.

To the dismay of the abortion industry, however, Kline was elected to fulfill the remaining two years on Morrison’s term as Johnson County DA. From that position, he was able to continue the investigation into CHPPKM he had begun as attorney general.

In October 2007, Kline filed 107 counts, 23 of them felonies, against CHPPKM. District Court Judge James Vano found “probable cause” of crimes having been committed and allowed the case to proceed.

Planned Parenthood and new AG Morrison sued Kline to derail the prosecution.  When the case reached the Kansas Supreme Court, the justices grudgingly ruled in Kline’s favor and allowed his case against Planned Parenthood to go forward.  If the facts supported Kline, Judge Beier clearly did not. “His attitude and behavior are inexcusable,” she wrote for the majority , “particularly for someone who purports to be a professional prosecutor.”

Associated Press writer John Hanna uncritically described her summary as “a public tongue-lashing.” A Topeka reporter termed her opinion “a searing condemnation.” The Kansas City Star headlined its story, “Kansas Court Rebukes District Attorney Kline.” And remember, Kline won the case.

If the media were blind to what was happening, then Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice, Kay McFarland, was not.  She called Beier’s opinion “ the very antithesis of ‘restraint and discretion’ and . . . not an appropriate exercise of our inherent power.”  McFarland scolded Beier and the majority for attempting “to denigrate Kline for actions that it cannot find to have been in violation of any law and to heap scorn upon him for his attitude and behavior that does not rise to the level of contempt.”


McFarland may have suspected that Beier’s hectoring of Kline was not spontaneous. Earlier that year, in fact, Beier co-authored a provocative paper that endorsed a strategy very much like the one used to defame Kline.  The paper was written for the Feminist Legal Theory and Feminisms (sic) Conference sponsored by the University of Baltimore School of Law and dealt with what is called third-wave feminism and its effect on parenting law.


The article’s closing quote by Gloria Steinem captures the spirit of this radical feminist incarnation. “We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned,” said the feminist icon and all-purpose leftist. “We are really talking about humanism.”  Understanding that tradition is not easily discarded in a state like Kansas, Beier and Walsh cite approvingly a strategy suggested by feminist law professor Bridget Crawford.

Write the authors, “Crawford posits that the third-wave’s reclamation of feminism through engagement with the media is powerful ‘cultural work’ that may be a necessary pre-condition to an evolution in the law.”

According to Crawford, “The media are tools to produce cultural infrastructure, without which even the best intentioned and artfully designed legal reforms are ineffective.”  Beier knew something about the media. Before going to law school, she worked several years for the Kansas City Times, the then sister publication of the Kansas City Star.

The Star proved to be the most useful of all media “tools” at Beier’s disposal. Indeed, the paper won Planned Parenthood’s top 2006 national editorial honor for its work defeating “anti-choice zealot” Kline and attacked him relentlessly thereafter.  So powerful was the media’s “cultural work” that in May 2007 Sebelius had no qualms about letting Planned Parenthood celebrate her birthday at a big Kansas City blow-out.

Leading the “conga line around the concert hall” was Peter Brownlie, the local CEO whose abortion clinic was then at the center of Kline’s investigation.  The partiers “sure know how to have fun!” enthused the Planned Parenthood newsletter.  With the cultural infrastructure so well established, Kline lost his re-election bid and was forced to leave the state to find employment.

Wanting to make an example of Kline lest some other prosecutor challenge Planned Parenthood in the future, the activists on the Supreme Court prompted an ethics investigation into Kline’s handling of the abortion cases.  Ironically, one of the charges was that Kline did not share the scope of his investigation with Sebelius. This was true. Kline feared her people would hamper the investigation and possibly destroy evidence.

As it turned out, they did both. Planned Parenthood will likely escape prosecution because Sebelius’s health department and her attorney general’s office separately destroyed key evidence.  Last week, as the decision in the ethics case neared, Kline filed a recusal motion showing that Beier’s 2008 opinion was “flagrantly dishonest in its presentation of facts.” After reading Kline’s motion, four other justices decided that they too had previously complained about Kline’s behavior and recused themselves, as did Beier.

In doing so, the justices gave Beier cover. A public airing of the Beier-led assault on Kline would have seriously damaged the court’s reputation and Sebelius’s.  Planned Parenthood stood to lose over $300 million in federal funding if CHPPKM had been successfully prosecuted. Sebelius protected Planned Parenthood’s interest in Kansas and now oversees its funding as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The ladder goes up, Kathleen, but the circles go down.