Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision centered on a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively ending recognition of a constitutional right to abortion and giving individual states the power to allow, limit, or ban the practice altogether.

The ruling came in the court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centered on a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Republican-led state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court ruling that stopped the 15-week abortion ban from taking place.

“We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s opinion.

Alito’s opinion began with an exploration and criticism of Roe v. Wade and its holding that while states have “a legitimate interest in protecting ‘potential life,” this interest was not strong enough to prohibit abortions before the time of fetal viability, understood to be at about 23 weeks into pregnancy.

“The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning,” Alito wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed that the viability line “never made any sense,” but said he would have taken “a more measured course” with this case. Rather than overturn Roe v. Wade altogether, Roberts said he would have continued to recognize a right to get an abortion, and that the right should “extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further.”

The court’s majority took a firmer stance against Roe v. Wade and the subsequent case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, holding “that Roe and Casey must be overruled.”

“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Alito wrote. 

The Court’s opinion recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has been found to guarantee certain rights that are not spelled out in the Constitution, but that those rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Abortion, the Court said, “does not fall within this category,” as “such a right was entirely unknown in American law” until the late 20th century.

The opinion continued to shred the Roe decision, saying it “was egregiously wrong from the start,” and that “[i]ts reasoning was exceptionally weak[.]”

Rather than continue the tradition established by Roe and Case, the Court wrote that it “is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The opinion comes after a leak of a draft opinion from February striking down Roe caused nationwide debate and promoted pro-choice activist protests at the homes of the six conservative justices. In addition, dozens of pro-life pregnancy centers were vandalized since the opinion leak, Catholic churches were targeted for protests and unrest, and a suspect was charged with attempted murder for allegedly trying to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

At least 13 Republican-led states have already passed “trigger laws,” in the event Roe was overturned, that would immediately restrict access to abortion.

Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and South Carolina all have laws banning abortions after the six-week mark, which have been ruled unconstitutional but would likely be revisited if Roe is overturned, the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group, has reported.

On the other hand, pro-choice advocates will have to work to codify Roe or enact looser abortion restrictions by passing state-level legislation. 

New York passed a bill in 2018 designed to codify Roe, and other blue states are expected to follow suit after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Public opinion polling has also indicated that despite that more than six in 10 registered voters think the court should uphold Roe, the majority of Americans are in favor of some restrictions on abortion.

When Americans were asked in a recent Fox News poll about how they would feel if a law banning abortions after 15 weeks were passed in their state, just over half of voters favor it (54%) while 41% are opposed. 

At the federal level, the Senate failed to advance a bill to codify federal abortion protections in Roe v. Wade in the week following the leaked draft.

Vice President Kamala Harris presided over the vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act. It needed 60 votes to advance but died in a 51 to 49 tally, with West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin joining with all 50 Republicans in voting no.  

Democratic campaign arms have already signaled that abortion will be a key issue heading into the midterms and will galvanize their base. Republicans are largely convinced that “sanctity of life” issues will spark renewed enthusiasm for conservative candidates in state-level elections.

By Ronn Blitzer , Kelly Laco

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number–a book that discusses UAP and other interesting matters.

San Francisco archbishop bars Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion due to abortion support

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion.

Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself.

“A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others.  Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is unambiguous on the question of abortion, both in procuring one and assisting in the practice: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the catechism says. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

“Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law,” it says, before calling abortion and infanticide “abominable crimes.”

It also declares that “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”

However, despite that clarity, liberal Catholic politicians have consistently attempted to try and align their Catholic beliefs with their support of abortion rights. Then New York Gov. Mario Cuomo famously declared himself personally opposed to abortion in 1984, but said he could not impose that view on the country. 

But since then, Democrats such as Pelosi have been more full throated in their support of pro-abortion policies. President Biden, also a Catholic, had once supported the Hyde Amendment — which prevented U.S. funding going to pay for abortions abroad. He flipped on that amendment when he ran for president in 2020, and recently described “a woman’s right to choose” as “fundamental.”

Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that “should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He says that since that time, she has not done so.

“Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be ‘concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to [my] care” (Code of Canon Law, can. 383, §1), by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.” he said.

Pelosi has sparred with the Church for years on the matter as she has tried to present herself both as a “devout” Catholic, while also a full-throated supporter of a practice that the Catholic Church condemns as a moral evil.

In a 2008 interview, Pelosi claimed that “as a devout, practicing Catholic,” the Church has “not been able to make that definition” of when life begins — a remark that brought a slew of criticism from a number of top U.S. bishops – and then said that “the point is, it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.” In that interview she also said she wanted abortion to be “rare.”

But in the wake of the leaked opinion this month suggesting that the Supreme Court will soon overturn Roe v Wade, Pelosi has not talked about reducing abortion, but she has continued to claim that her pro-choice stance is in line with Catholic teaching.

“This [topic] really gets me burned up in case you didn’t notice, because again I’m very Catholic, devout, practicing, all of that. They would like to throw me out. But I’m not going because I don’t want to make their day,” she said this month.

Pelosi met with Pope Francis last year, where the Vatican did not say if the topic of abortion was discussed. Pope Francis has compared having an abortion to hiring a hitman but has also been cautious about suggesting politicians be barred from communion.

“I have never refused the Eucharist to anyone,” the pope said last year, although he said that he did not recall a time when a politician stood staunchly against Church teaching on abortion and came to him for communion. 

He referred to communion as “a gift” and not “a prize for the perfect.”  In that same interview, however, he emphasized that the Catholic Church views abortion as homicide. 

“Whoever has an abortion kills,” the pope said. “It is a human life.”

Adam Shaw is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, with a focus on immigration. He can be reached at adam.shaw2@fox.com or on Twitter: @AdamShawNY. Fox News’ Peter Aitken contributed to this report.

Twitter announced in a press release it has agreed to be acquired by billionaire Elon Musk for $54.20 per share, which is a 38% premium to Friday’s closing price. The deal is valued at $44 billion.

Observers have been wondering if the billionaire would be able to get the Twitter board of directors to accept the offer, in light of Musk’s public statements that he would reform the social media giant by restoring it to a free-speech platform.

For years, Twitter, and other tech giants, have been purposefully burying stories that leftists deem undesirable for public knowledge, and have been cutting off all accounts raising viewpoints that are not in lock-step with leftist policies and propaganda. Musk has been highly critical of these severe censorship practices, and has promised to make the Twitter platform politically neutral and available for the expression of all reasonable viewpoints.

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Musk said in a statement.

Twitter’s shares were up about 6% following the news.

Stay tuned for updates on this breaking story.

A Nation Under God Need Fear no Tyrant

We who have known something more than out of control spending, unfathomable national debt, unemployment, poverty, violence in the streets, government regulation and political/social/commercial cancellation have known a different America than most Americans today have seen.

This once-great nation was founded on principles of individual liberty, honor, and being responsible for one’s own family. These were principles taught long ago by the Lord of all humanity, and venerated in all of our teaching for the first 100 years of nationhood — which coincides with the explosive growth of the American economic system. Everything grew exponentially during that initial time, and nothing could possibly derail the steady progress of our nation, except a menace that began to overtake the earth in the late 19th Century — socialism.

Socialists pandered to the upwardly-mobile working class to gain a power base, promising people rewards for which they had not risked their own labors or capital. Socialism swept through the Soviet Union, then across China, and socialist leaders ordered the murders of millions of “rich,” who in China happened to be anyone with more than 1 acre of land, so that their property could be ‘redistributed.’ In fact, most of that property was merely seized and kept under the control of the socialist ruling class. No one gained anything more than they had before—except for the leaders—and most lost much in the deal.

The family unit, which had been a necessary component of the American nation’s rise from obscurity to global greatness — and indeed, under those principles this nation became great — was seen as an enemy to the spread of socialism. The family unit reminds people of their spiritual nature, and makes family members rely on one another. This is abhorrent to socialists, because the state must be one’s only family, and one’s only god. Indeed, today’s socialistic government propaganda teaches American women and minorities — and indeed, everyone — to depend on the government, for everything they need, from cradle to grave. The government merely prints the money, and throws the party.

Because Americans were reaping the tremendous rewards of liberty and capitalism for the first 100 years (capitalism is liberty’s economic engine), it was  impossible for socialists to make significant inroads in the US. However, in the early 1900s they began to find weaknesses in America’s working class, and began to infiltrate labor, then government. Their plan was simple–exploit the weak and the ignorant — by creating a sub-class of American citizens and by taking over the education system and media outlets.

Progressives, as they called themselves, fought civil rights for America’s blacks, forcing the newly liberated (by Republicans) citizens into long-term poverty. When Republicans tried to force through voting and other civil rights for blacks and other minorities, it wasn’t until Progressives adopted them as poster children for vastly expanded government spending that they went along with these Republican ideals, now claiming that they were the ones who had fought for civil rights. That promised liberty was never realized, however, because Progressives immediately used the underclass they had created to begin pulling the entire capitalist nation down with the Great Society they  launched in 1964, followed by decades of welfare spending (over $24 trillion to-date) — with only negative results.

It is now the end of 2021 and in this single year we have seen our country go from wealth to poverty. Because of the efforts of Progressives in the past few years, America has gone from civil to violent, from morality to immorality, from Christian to agnostic; and what do we have to show for these ‘progressive’ inroads? As we said at the outset, we have an ignorant nation with no understanding of where we came from or how we got to be the greatest nation in the world. Our teachers and journalists have re-educated our children and rewritten our history to the point that the man on the street believes that the KKK was made up of Republicans, that no one has to pay for gifts given by a generous government, and that guns should be taken from law-abiding citizens because young black men use them to kill fellow young black men in Democrat ghettos. It is absolute madness — and the insanity machine keeps cranking, day in and day out without the mainstream media taking the time to stop and think about why America is in such rapid decline.

I, like a fellow Republican, have a dream. One in which morality and reality retake their rightful place at the head of the Christmas table. Where the Lord Jesus Christ is our only Sovereign, and those whom we elect are public servants who diligently toil to uphold our Constitution and protect and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. My dream is that our children will learn nobility through selflessness, instead of what they learn from these self-centered, self-serving socialists who have infiltrated our fair nation and brought it to the brink of total bankruptcy–economic and moral.

My wish for Christmas is that my fellow Americans, brothers and sisters of every race, color and creed, will look back to see where we came from, and how we got here, and join me in restoring this nation to its former glory — as it was before the socialists took it over and prepared it for final destruction.

Surely, an enemy hath done this. He who has an ear, let him hear.

James Thompson

Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted of all charges after tense trial in Kenosha

FAST FACTS

• Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, is on trial for killing two men and wounding a third with a rifle during a turbulent night of protests that erupted in Kenosha.
• Judge Bruce Schroeder granted one juror’s request Thursday to take copies of the instructions home with them and noted that the 36 pages are complicated. 

Jurors in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Friday declared Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts, capping off an intense trial surrounding the deadly unrest in that city last summer. 

A breakdown of the Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty verdict

Count 1: First Degree Reckless Homicide – Not Guilty

Count 2: First Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety – Not Guilty

Count 3: First Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety – Not Guilty

Count 4: First Degree Intentional Homicide – Not Guilty

Count 5: Attempted First Degree Intentional Homicide – Not Guilt

Rittenhouse, 18, would have faced a mandatory life sentence if found guilty and convicted of first-degree intentional homicide.

The verdict came on the fourth day of deliberations and 15th day of the trial.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, during a press briefing prior to the not guilty verdict being announced in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, said “once it’s concluded, I’m sure there will be something we have to say from the White House.”

Jurors in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Friday declared Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts, capping off an intense trial surrounding the deadly unrest in that city last summer.

Rittenhouse, 18, would have faced a mandatory life sentence if found guilty and convicted of first-degree intentional homicide.

“I couldn’t have asked for a better jury to work with and it has truly been my pleasure,” Judge Bruce Schroeder said after delivering the verdict. “I think, without commenting on your verdict, the verdicts themselves, just in terms of your attentiveness and the cooperation that you gave to us, justifies the confidence that the founders of our country placed in you so I dismiss you at this time.”

He continued: “You’re never under any obligation to discuss any aspect of this case with anyone. You’re welcome to do so as little or as much as you want.”

The verdict came on the fourth day of deliberations and 15th day of the trial.

Jurors deliberated for a total of 26 hours and found Rittenhouse not guilty on five counts including first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. Judge Bruce Schroeder had previously dismissed two additional counts related to his weapon.

Local officers, media and protesters were seen positioned around the Kenosha County Courthouse Friday.

Rittenhouse was facing charges of first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety after he fatally shot two people and injured a third person during the second night of civil unrest in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020.

The judge tossed one charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 on Monday after Rittenhouse’s defense team argued that a subsection of the law concerning short-barreled rifles was grounds for dismissal. 

His attorneys argued that the then-17-year-old was acting in self-defense after being attacked from behind when he shot Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, as well as deceased Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26 in the riots following the police shooting of a 29-year-old Black man, Jacob Blake.

Audrey Conklin. Follow her on Twitter at @audpants. Jiovanni Lieggi contributed to this report.

Democrats at each other’s throats as another senator takes swing at Biden’s $3.5T spending spree agenda

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., reiterated Thursday that she will not support a $3.5 trillion spending bill, in the latest sign of discord among key Democrats as President Biden scrambles to rally support for his signature piece of legislation.

“Senator Sinema said publicly more than two months ago, before Senate passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, that she would not support a bill costing $3.5 trillion,” Sinema’s office said in a statement shared on her Twitter account. “In August, she shared detailed concerns and priorities, including dollar figures, directly with Senate Majority Leader [Chuck] Schumer and the White House. Claims that the Senator has not detailed her views to President Biden and Senator Schumer are false.”

Biden has personally met with Sinema and fellow moderate Democrat holdout Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia on multiple occasions this week to negotiate an agreement on the spending bill. With a razor-thin majority, Biden needs every Senate Democrat to support his bill for it to pass.

Earlier Thursday, Manchin said he would not support a spending bill with a topline number larger than $1.5 trillion. 

Sinema’s latest statement followed criticism from prominent progressives who say moderate opponents to the full spending bill have not been clear on their priorities. Critics included Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., one of many progressives who will not vote to approve the $1.2 trillion bipartisan physical infrastructure deal unless the Senate first passes a spending bill focused on social programs.

“We need to know what he’s a skeptic on so that we can have the conversation with him. There has been no clarity in what they actually want, both Sinema and Manchin,” Omar told the Washington Post.

The statement from Sinema’s office added that Biden and Schumer “are fully aware of Senator Sinema’s priorities, concerns and ideas.”

“While we do not negotiate through the press – because Senator Sinema respects the integrity of those direct negotiations – she continues to engage directly in good-faith discussions with both President Biden and Senator Schumer to find common ground,” the statement said.

By Thomas Barrabi

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den

Taliban fighters Thursday opened fire on a group of protesters celebrating Afghanistan’s independence day and waving the Afghan national flag in Kabul. 

Afghans gathered in the streets to commemorate the anniversary of a 1919 treaty that gave the country independence from Great Britain and waved the Afghanistan national flag, only to be dispersed by gunfire from Taliban forces.

In the video obtained by Fox News, Afghans who were upset that the Taliban changed the national flag after taking over on Sunday took to the streets on foot and in cars waving the former national flag. Shots can be heard being fired by the Taliban and the crowd quickly disperses in panic. 

“In many cities, the Taliban opened gunfire and charged and beat the people,” a source told Fox News, explaining that protesters were attacked by Taliban fighters across the country in similar fashion.

The source added that the Taliban had removed a large Afghan flag in Kabul and the protesters in the video were attempting to replace it but were driven back. 

“May the Afghan flag fly forever,” the protesters could be heard chanting while others shouted, “Long live Ashraf Ghani” in reference to the now-deposed former president of Afghanistan, who fled the country as the Taliban took control. 

“May Afghanistan live forever,” others chanted. 

At least two people were reportedly killed in a similar protest in the country’s Kunar province after gunfire prompted a stampede.

U.S. forces are trying to evacuate thousands of American citizens and allies trapped in Kabul, where the Taliban has taken full control of the city with the sole exception of the Hamid Karzai International Airport, where 4,500 U.S. troops are currently occupying.

President Biden has authorized 6,000 U.S. troops to deploy to Afghanistan to assist in the evacuation mission, as the Taliban pushes to restore the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan – the formal name of the country under the Taliban rule before the militants were ousted by U.S.-led forces in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were orchestrated by Al Qaeda while it was being sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan. 

The president, adamantly standing by his initial decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by Aug. 31, outlined the current mission for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, saying it will be “short in time, limited in scope and focused on our objectives: get our people and our allies as quickly and as safely as possible.”

By Andrew Mark Miller | Lucas Y. Tomlinson contributed to this report.

The New Testament of the Bible contains the story of the life of Jesus Christ. Within its pages is recounted how He was crucified on Friday, and his body was hastily removed from the cross and placed into a tomb hewn into the rock, with very little time to appropriately prepare the body for final burial before the Jewish Sabbath started at sunset.

It was early Sunday morning when Mary Magdalene and other women disciples arrived at the tomb to see the sepulcher and prepare His body. Suddenly there was a great earthquake and an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow.

The angel said to the women, “Fear not: for I know that you seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is arisen. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.” He then instructed her to go and tell Jesus’ disciples that He was risen from the dead and that He would go before them to Galilee; and there they would see Him.

The others ran to tell the Apostles what they had seen and heard, but Mary stood at the door of the sepulcher weeping. As she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulcher, and saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain.

They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”

She said, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.”

And when she had spoken she turned back, and saw Jesus standing, but knew not that it was Him. He spoke to her and said, “Woman, why are you crying? Whom do you seek?”

She, supposing him to be the gardener, said, “Sir, if you have borne him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

Jesus looked upon her with compassion, and said, “Mary.”

Suddenly recognizing His voice, she turned herself and said to him, “Rabboni,” which is to say, Master.

Mary ran to him and embraced him, but Jesus said to her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.’”

What is the significance of this event nearly 2,000 years later? Each of us must decide its implications and importance for ourselves, and apply its lessons and realities in our own lives as we interpret the message for ourselves. John, the Apostle who recorded this version of the incident gives us his own explanation of why he recorded it: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name.”

Let us remember Him this Easter.

James Thompson is a Christian author, political commentator and ghostwriter.

Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, released photos of migrants in clear pens akin to cages

Photos of migrants in a crowded border facility in Donna, Texas, were released Monday by the office of Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, as the Biden administration limits media access to the southwestern border. 

The migrants, who are in clear pens akin to cages, are seen sleeping on pads on the floor with aluminum blankets. In some instances, it appears that dozens are sharing individual pens. Most appear to be wearing masks.

Amid a significant surge of migrants to the southern border in President Biden’s first two months, some in the media have complained about a lack of access to facilities like the one in Donna.

“I respectfully ask US Customs and Border Protection to stop blocking media access to their border operations,” award-winning photojournalist John Moore tweeted Friday. “I have photographed CBP under Bush, Obama and Trump but now – zero access is granted to media. These long-lens images taken from the Mexican side.”

He added: “There’s no modern precedent for a full physical ban on media access to CBP border operations.”

The White House has said that it is limiting media access to border facilities in order to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday that the Biden administration is aiming to finalize details on how the media can access border facilities like the one in Donna, Texas. 

Psaki responded to the photos on Monday, as a reporter asked her whether the conditions the migrant children are being kept in represent a crisis. 

“Children presenting at our border who are fleeing violence, who are fleeing prosecution, who are fleeing terrible situations, is not a crisis,” she responded. “We feel that it is our responsibility to humanely approach this circumstance and make sure they are treated and put in conditions that are safe. I will say that these photos show what we’ve long been saying, which is that these border patrol facilities are not places made for children. They are not places that we want children to be staying for an extended period of time. Our alternative is to send children back on this treacherous journey. That is not, in our view, the right choice to make.”

She continued to say that the Biden administration is aiming to ease the pressure on facilities like the one in Donna, Texas.

The photos released Monday also upset some on the right who believed Democrats are being hypocritical in saying there is no crisis currently on the southern border after sounding the alarm over the treatment of migrants under former President Donald Trump. 

“Either Dems and media faked the tears and ‘outrage’ pre-Biden, or they meant it,” Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., tweeted. “If it’s the latter, where are they now? Kids are in cages. And this surge is far worse than any under President Trump.”

By Tyler Olson, Evie Fordham contributed to this report. 

Lawmakers in the House and Senate on Tuesday welcomed the Justice Department’s (DOJ’s) move to file an antitrust lawsuit against Google that claims the tech behemoth used its power to preserve its monopoly via its search engine.

“Today’s lawsuit is the most important antitrust case in a generation,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said in a statement. “Google and its fellow Big Tech monopolists exercise unprecedented power over the lives of ordinary Americans, controlling everything from the news we read to the security of our most personal information. And Google in particular has gathered and maintained that power through illegal means.”

The DOJ suit alleges that Google has used its dominance in online search and advertising to stifle competition and boost profits. The suit could be an opening shot in a battle against a number of Big Tech companies in the coming months.

A Google spokesperson told Fox News: “Today’s lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed. People use Google because they choose to — not because they’re forced to or because they can’t find alternatives. We will have a fuller statement this morning.”

According to the lawsuit, “For years, Google has entered into exclusionary agreements, including tying arrangements, and engaged in anticompetitive conduct to lock up distribution channels and block rivals.”

“American consumers are forced to accept Google’s policies, privacy practices, and use of personal data; and new companies with innovative business models cannot emerge from Google’s long shadow. For the sake of American consumers, advertisers, and all companies now reliant on the internet economy, the time has come to stop Google’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition,” it says.

The DOJ claims the action was brought to stop Google from “unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising in the United States through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices, and to remedy the effects of this conduct.”

“Largely as a result of Google’s exclusionary agreements and anticompetitive conduct, Google in recent years has accounted for nearly 90 percent of all general-search-engine queries in the United States, and almost 95 percent of queries on mobile devices,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit has been in the works for over a year, and Big Tech executives from Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter have been anticipating an announcement — designing their testimonies in Congress to ward off a potential federal suit. 

House Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David N. Cicilline, D-R.I., described the lawsuit as “long overdue” and brought attention to prior investigations by the committee.

“The Subcommittee’s investigation uncovered extensive evidence showing that Google maintained and extended its monopoly to harm competition,” he said in a statement. “It is critical that the Justice Department’s lawsuit focuses on Google’s monopolization of search and search advertising, while also targeting the anti-competitive business practices Google is using to leverage this monopoly into other areas, such as maps, browsers, video, and voice assistants.”

The lawsuit alleges that Google used billions of dollars from advertisers to pay phone manufacturers to ensure Google is the default search engine on browsers.

“For a general search engine, by far the most effective means of distribution is to be the preset default general search engine for mobile and computer search access points,” the lawsuit says. “Even where users can change the default, they rarely do. This leaves the preset default search engine with de facto exclusivity.”

The Trump administration has long had Google in its sights. A top economic adviser to President Trump said two years ago that the White House was considering whether Google searches should be subject to government regulation. 

Trump and other Republicans have accused Big Tech companies of having an anti-conservative bias — claims they have denied.

In a press conference, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said that the case had nothing to do with online bias, and was only about competitive conditions in the marketplace.

By Gillian Turner, Jake Gibson and Bill Mears, as well as The Associated Press, contributed to this report.Adam Shaw is a reporter covering U.S. and European politics.

Sponsors:

GHOSTWRITER book ghostwriting service >

ROADRUNNER website design and marketing automation >

President Trump has promised to announce a pick for the US Supreme Court promptly, specifying this coming Saturday. The seat was vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday at age 87 following cancer complications.

Democrats have been howling that there would be something unjust about Trump nominating Ginsburg’s successor, and for the GOP controlled Senate giving its “advice and consent” regarding the nomination. Of course, that is exactly what the US Constitution requires of each of them.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lindsey Graham, has announced that there are enough votes in the senate to confirm Trump’s pick.

Trump has indicated that he plans to nominate a woman to the high court. Sources say that the president has already met with 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a very well known conservative judge, recently approved by the Senate to sit on the 7th Circuit bench.

In retaliation for the President and Senate doing their constitutionally mandated jobs, Democrats are threatening (again) to “pack” the Court when they take control of the White House and Senate–hopeful that will be the outcome of the upcoming November election.

Packing the US Supreme Court was threatened by FDR when the Supreme Court ruled many of his big government New Deal power grabs were unconstitutional. Packing the Court means (to liberals) adding liberal justices to the present 9 justices, diluting the conservative votes on the court. For instance, if Trump and the Senate install a conservative justice on the Court, it will give the court 6 conservative voices and 3 liberal. By packing the court with additional justices, say a total of 13, that would leave the Court with 6 conservatives and 7 liberals–ensuring that every case would be ruled on according to liberal activist philosophy.

Okay — Let’s Pack the Court, if it’s such a great idea!

If Democrats are so keen on the idea of packing the Court, perhaps the Republicans, who have actually been voted into control of the White House and the Senate by The People, should do just that.

Perhaps President Trump should nominate 5 judges to be seated on the Supreme Court, raising its members to 13. Indeed, such an act would ensure conservative (historically constitutional) rulings from SCOTUS for the next 30 or 40 years–probably much longer.

The Democrats could not overcome this super-majority by adding a few more judges to the Court when they take control–unless they add enough justices to total 21. Although the Democrats have proved that there is no new low to which they are unwilling to go–no law, tradition or rule they are unwilling to break–I cannot see them convincing The People of the need for 21 Justices on the Court.

If Packing the Court is a great idea–then let’s do it. If it’s a stupid idea, and it is, then it shouldn’t be done by either party. When I say “shouldn’t be done,” I mean that a party that threatens to do it should be permanently retired by The People, and never given The People’s trust again.

By James Thompson | James Thompson is a political consultant and a ghostwriter.

Sponsored:

Would a BOOK with YOUR NAME on the cover launch you?

Be the one to get the speaking and media invitations.

I’ll help you write and publish your book in just 12 weeks. Get details, my fees, etc. in this FREE brochure:

Watch a 1 min VIDEO that explains my process:

Need non-lethal self protection? Byrna offers non-lethal self protection at an affordable price. Click to Watch the short video, or click to learn more!

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Friday at her home in Washington, the court says. She was 87.

Ginsburg died of complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer, the court says.

Ginsburg has had many health related issues in the past few years, and finally succumbed today.

Ginsburg’s death clears the way for President Donald Trump to nominate a third justice to the Supreme court in his first term. A major fight is anticipated from Capital Hill democrats, who have long feared President Trump receiving this rare opportunity to heavily influence the court.

By James Thompson

Sponsored:

Would a BOOK with YOUR NAME on the cover launch you?

Be the one to get the speaking and media invitations.

I’ll help you write and publish your book in just 12 weeks. Get details, my fees, etc. in this FREE brochure:

Watch a 1 min VIDEO that explains my process:

Need non-lethal self protection? Byrna offers non-lethal self protection at an affordable price. Click to Watch the short video, or click to learn more!