Hitlery Calls Law Protecting Lives Of Viable Infants “Extreme And Unacceptable”

Hillary Clinton Calls Law Protecting Lives Of Viable Infants ‘Extreme And Unacceptable’ – Weekly Standard

.
…………

.
This week, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker signed a law protecting the lives of infants after the fifth month of pregnancy (or 20 weeks after conception), a point in human development when babies can feel pain and survive long-term if born prematurely.

The law includes an exeption for cases in which a physical health issue endangers the life of the mother, but Hillary Clinton still denounced the late-term abortion ban as an “extreme and unacceptable” measure:

————————————————————————————————————————–
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton

Gov. Walker signed dangerous abortion restrictions into law in WI – without exceptions for rape or incest. Extreme and unacceptable. -H

8:43 PM – 20 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

Clinton especially objects to the fact that Wisconsin’s law doesn’t include an exception to allow the killing of infants late in pregnancies that resulted from rape. But laws in the blue states of Pennsylvania and New York (which take effect, respectively, at 22 weeks and 24 weeks after conception) also prohibit late-term abortions in that circumstance. Does Clinton think liberal New York’s aboriton law is also “extreme and unacceptable”?

Scott Walker responded to Clinton with the following tweet:

————————————————————————————————————————–
Scott Walker
@ScottWalker

@HillaryClinton attacks me for protecting life after 5 months, but won’t condemn disgusting Planned Parenthood videos. -SW

5:44 PM – 21 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

Republicans in Congress have not only tolerated the legality of abortion in pregnancies that result from rape, they have voted since 1993 for laws allowing federal Medicaid funding of abortions in these extreme cases in order to prohibit funding in more than 99 percent of other cases. But even if one accepts this exception for principled or prudential reasons, it does not follow that this exception must exist in the ninth month of pregnancy.

So does Clinton support any limits on abortion? She has given conflicting answers over the years, and her campaign still hasn’t answered several questions about her position on late-term abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion:

In 2005, Hillary Clinton said that “government should have no role” in limiting the right to abortion – a remark very similar to the one made by Wasserman Schultz this week. “This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult, and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role,” Clinton said at the time.

But at other times, Clinton has claimed that she’d be willing to support a ban on late-term abortion. “I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected,” Clinton said in a 2000 New York senatorial debate. Clinton did not define “health,” and supporters of a right to abortion have typically defined health exceptions so broadly–to include “mental and emotional” health–that any restriction on late-term abortion would be rendered meaningless. (In 2008, Barack Obama endorsed late-term abortion bans without a mental health exception, but quickly backtracked.)

So would Secretary Clinton support any federal law restricting late-term abortion? If so, how many weeks old must an unborn child be for the law to protect her? Must any restriction on late-term abortion include a “mental and emotional” health exception? And does Clinton still support taxpayer-funded elective abortions for Medicaid recipients?

.

.

Another Win For Walker – Wisconsin Voter ID Law Stands As USSC Rejects Appeal

Wisconsin Voter-ID Law Stands As Supreme Court Rejects Appeal – Bloomberg

.

.
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Wisconsin to implement a voter-identification law that opponents say is one of the strictest in the nation.

Rejecting without comment an appeal by civil rights groups, the justices Monday gave a victory to Republicans, including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who have championed voter-ID laws around the country. Wisconsin is one of 30 states with ID laws and one of 17 that enacted measures since the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana statute in 2008.

Civil rights groups say ID requirements disproportionately affect minority and low-income voters while doing little if anything to protect against fraud. The organizations pressing the Wisconsin appeal said 300,000 registered voters in that state lack a qualifying ID.

“The right to vote is the foundational element of American democracy,” the groups argued. “Increasingly restrictive voter ID laws like Wisconsin’s Act 23 unjustifiably burden the voting rights of millions of registered voters, particularly African-Americans and Latinos.”

Wisconsin officials led by Walker, a potential presidential candidate, defended the law. They argued that it will impose a minimal burden on voters while providing more assurance of a fraud-free election.

‘Overwhelming Majority’

“In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of voters already have qualifying ID,” Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel argued. “For those who lack ID, obtaining one and bringing it to the polling place is generally no more of a burden than the process of voting itself.”

In a statement Monday, Schimel said the voter-ID law won’t take effect for an April 7 election for judicial offices because absentee ballots already have been sent to voters.

“The voter-ID law will be in place for future elections,” he said.

In October the Supreme Court blocked the Wisconsin law from applying to the Nov. 4 election. A lower court had revived the law weeks earlier, and civil rights groups told the high court at the time that hasty implementation would mean widespread confusion.

Lower courts have largely backed voter-ID laws. In a notable exception, a federal trial judge said Texas’s statute was the product of intentional discrimination. That case is now before a federal appeals court and could make its way to the Supreme Court before the 2016 election.

2014 Election

Unlike with Wisconsin, the Supreme Court let the Texas law take effect for the 2014 election.

In the latest Wisconsin appeal, groups led by the League of United Latin American Citizens argued that the 2011 state law violated the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Wisconsin’s law lets voters use any of eight forms of identification, including in-state driver’s licenses, state-issued photo IDs for non-drivers and military IDs. The state also accepts some student identification cards, though not those from the University of Wisconsin campuses.

A federal trial judge invalidated the measure, saying it would deter many residents from voting. The judge also said the state hadn’t pointed to any recent instances of voter impersonation in Wisconsin.

A three-judge federal appeals panel in Chicago reversed that decision, pointing to new rules the state issued to help people obtain the documentation they need to get IDs. Officials took that step after the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in a separate case, said people must be able to get IDs without having to pay a fee for documents.

‘Fig Leaf’

The panel’s ruling drew a rebuke from Judge Richard Posner, who argued unsuccessfully for reconsideration by a larger group of judges. Posner said voter-impersonation fraud was “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters.”

The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld Indiana’s voter-ID law on a 6-3 vote. Writing the court’s lead opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said voter fraud was a real risk that “could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Stevens said the record in the Indiana case “does not provide any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who currently lack photo identification.”

The Wisconsin civil rights groups say the trial in their case produced that type of evidence. State officials say the two laws are indistinguishable after the changes required by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The case is Frank v. Walker, 14-803.

.

.

*VIDEOS* House Committees: Hearings On Executive Amnesty And Immigration Law Enforcement


HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE AMNESTY

.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY’S OPENING STATEMENT

.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY QUESTIONS LEFTIST PROFESSOR STEPHEN LEGOMSKY

.
FULL HEARING

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE HEARING ON IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT

.
TESTIMONY OF JAMIEL SHAW, FATHER OF TEENAGER MURDERED BY ILLEGAL ALIEN

.
FULL HEARING

.

*VIDEO* Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore Sets CNN’s Chris Cuomo Straight On Where Our Rights Come From


.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related audio:

.

.

.

Supreme Court Upholds Texas Voter ID Law

Supreme Court Allows Texas Use Of New Voter ID Law – Wall Street Journal

.

.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday allowed Texas to enforce its voter identification law for the Nov. 4 midterm elections, denying emergency requests from the Obama administration and other challengers who said the law harmed minority voting rights.

The high court’s move, announced in an early morning order, is a setback for civil-rights advocates and marks the court’s fourth recent action on a state’s election procedures just ahead of Election Day.

A federal judge in Texas last week struck down the state law after holding a trial on the issue and concluding lawmakers acted with discriminatory intent when they enacted the law in 2011.

Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos said the Texas law was the strictest in the country for several reasons, including because it allowed the fewest forms of acceptable photo identification and didn’t make certain accommodations for the poor and the elderly.

The judge said more than half a million registered voters, many of them black or Hispanic, were expected to lack the ID necessary to vote in person at the polls.

This week the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, acting on an emergency appeal by state officials, decided Texas could use the voter ID law for this election. The appeals court said the state already had been training poll workers to apply the voter ID law and said it was too late to change the rules so close to the date when voters were due to begin casting ballots. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.

The appeals court said it was guided in part by recent Supreme Court emergency actions on election rules in Ohio, North Carolina and Wisconsin. The results in those cases pointed in different directions, but in each case the justices blocked late changes to state election procedures, seemingly out of concern for voter confusion. The high court didn’t offer an explanation for its course of action in those cases.

The same held true Saturday when a majority of the court issued a brief written order that allowed Texas to use its voter ID law. But three justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – dissented, saying the court should have intervened.

“The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters,” Justice Ginsburg wrote for the dissenters.

The Justice Department and civil rights groups had filed emergency appeals with the Supreme Court, saying there was no justification for allowing Texas to use the voter ID law after a judge found it to be discriminatory.

Texas said in court papers that its law wasn’t discriminatory and was approved to deter and detect voter fraud. The state also disputed the trial judge’s finding that large numbers of voters could be disenfranchised, saying it had taken extensive steps to mitigate “the already minor inconveniences associated with securing photo identification.”

The Supreme Court action Saturday wasn’t a ruling on the legality of the Texas law. The court was considering only whether the law could be applied while Texas appealed the trial judge’s ruling.

With the high court’s action in favor of Texas, three of the court’s four recent emergency actions in election matters have favored the states. The court also allowed Ohio to cut back on early voting and let North Carolina prohibit same-day voter registration and out-of-precinct voting. In a win for civil rights advocates, the court blocked Wisconsin from enforcing its voter ID law for the midterms.

.

.

Missouri Legislature Overrules Leftist Governor’s Veto Of Law Allowing Teachers To Be Armed In School

Missouri Legislature Overrules Dem Governor’s Veto, Provides Huge Gun Rights Victory – TPNN

.

.
Our system of government was designed with a redundancy of checks and balances. In recent years, Democrats have charged Republicans with supposed obstruction and have maintained that their unwillingness to rubber-stamp the president’s agenda is, somehow, an anti-American concept when, in reality, blocking bad ideas from becoming law is a tremendously American idea upon which our system of government relies.

Similarly, across the country, there have been battles in state legislatures as one party battles another. Recently, Missouri passed legislation that would allow schools to train teachers in the use of firearms and allow such teachers to defend students from a would-be attacker.

The legislation, SB 656, was vetoed by Democrat Governor Jay Nixon. With regards to his veto, Nixon stated, “Arming teachers will not make our schools safer. I have supported and will continue to support the use of duly authorized law enforcement officers employed as school resource officers, but I cannot condone putting firearms in the hands of educators who should be focused on teaching our kids.”

What’s amazing is that every time a “bad guy with a gun” seeks to create carnage, the defenseless are forced to run, hide and cower and pray that a trained “good guy with a gun” makes it to the scene in time to save their life. What this legislation accomplishes is exactly that plus offering the added benefit of a deterrent effect.

I ask: how many would-be shooters would be willing to wage an assault on a school knowing that there are trained, armed teachers everywhere? This legislation will save lives.

However, our representative democracy prevailed as this week, Missouri’s House and Senate voted to override the governor’s veto and the legislation is set to become law.

The House voted to overrule the governor 117 to 39 and the Senate voted to overrule Nixon 23 to 8.

SB 656 doesn’t just arm teachers, but makes adjustments to current laws concerning concealed carrying of firearms. It disallows public housing authorities to infringe upon “a lessee or a member of the lessee’s immediate household or guest [to] personally [possess] firearms.”

It further augments the places in which open and concealed carry is lawful and even lowers the concealed permit requirements from 21 years of age to 19. It also prohibits healthcare professionals from inquiring about a patient’s firearm ownership.

This is a tremendous step in the right direction and an affirmation of our American values. More guns in the hands of responsible citizens has been the only tried-and-true method of lowering violent crime and the right to carry and use firearms in defense of oneself or another is a right that must be recognized and supported.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd is sure to hate this development, but for those who love freedom and have a clear understanding of our rights as Americans should rejoice at the news of this victory that is relatively undiscussed within the leftstream media.

.

.

Rep. Issa: Voicemail Left By Former Top Obama Regime Official A Clear Violation Of Federal Law (Audio)

Listen To The Voicemail Left By Former Top Obama Administration Official That Darrell Issa Says Is A Clear Violation Of Federal Law – The Blaze

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is sounding the alarm regarding new alleged audio of former Labor Secretary Hilda Solis leaving a voicemail for someone “off the record” to ask the individual to contribute and help organize a fundraising event for President Barack Obama’s campaign. Issa says Solis violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits political activity on official time.

In his opening statement during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on Wednesday, Issa played the voicemail Solis reportedly left to pressure a Labor Department employee to donate to Obama’s re-election campaign.

.

.
Read a transcript of the controversial Solis voicemail:

“Hi – this is Hilda Solis calling, um, just calling you off-the-record here – Wanted to ask you if you could, um, help us get folks organized to come to a fundraiser that we’re doing for Organizing for America for Obama campaign on Friday at La Fonda at 6 p.m. Steven Smith, an attorney, and his staff are helping us [inaudible]. There are a lot of folks that we know that are coming but wanted to ask you if you might help contribute or get other folks to help out. I would encourage you to call this number, [inaudible] – that’s his assistant – at [phone number] and you can call [the attorney] yourself who’s a good friend, an attorney, good friend of mine, at [phone number]. And it’s for a Friday event at La Fonda [inaudible] we’re just trying to raise money to show that we have support here in [inaudible].”

.

.
Issa went on to slam the Obama administration for showing what he called an “indefensible” attempt to avoid oversight.

“It is deeply ironic that an administration claiming to be the most transparent ever, has resisted oversight of its political office and offered less corroboration than its predecessors,” he said.

Watch Issa’s full opening statement below:

.

.

.