THE PROS AND CONS OF JUDGE NEIL M. GORSUCH

 GORSUCH RAISED CATHOLIC
 

 GORSUCH'S LIBERAL "PROTESTANT PASTRIX" 
(I.E. NEITHER PROTESTANT NOR A PASTOR 
IN THE BIBLICAL SENSE)
 
ABOVE: SUSAN SPRINGER, RECTOR OF APOSTATE, PRO LGBT, PRO ABORTION, ANTI GUN, PRO CLIMATE CONTROL, 
ST. JOHN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, BOULDER, COLORADO

THIS CHURCH PRACTICES CATHOLIC CONTEMPLATIVE MYSTICISM & SPIRITUAL FORMATION & THE PAGAN "WALKING THE LABYRINTH"

 

SEE: http://www.stjohnsboulder.org/index.php/worship/centering-prayer 

SEE: http://www.stjohnsboulder.org/index.php/worship/labyrinth 

SEE: http://www.stjohnsboulder.org/index.php/worship/evensong (contemplative). EXCERPT: "St. John’s Contemplative Evensong Service encourages us to also be prayerful without words.  The chanted prayers and psalms, as well as the hymns and sacramentals, help prepare us for longer periods of silence where one might simply rest in the presence of God." 

CHORAL COMPLINE: http://www.stjohnsboulder.org/index.php/worship/compl EXCERPT:

"Compline is a 1500-year-old tradition that developed in the early monastic communities. It is the final office of the day in the Christian tradition of canonical hours.

The English word “Compline” is derived from the Latin word “completorium” meaning completion, since Compline completes the liturgy of the day. As is characteristic of monastic offices.  The sanctuary is dark and quiet; there are candles, but no cell phones, no responses to have to follow, no preaching. It’s short: just 30-35 minutes. People are free to sit on the floor, sit up around the altar, or even lie down and allow the music to wash over them."

Congregation’s Rapid Response Network: "This network would be activated as significant bills are introduced that relate to guns."

SEE THIS BLOG'S "CONTEMPLATIVE PRAYER" & "MYSTICISM" CATEGORIES FOR EXTENSIVE POSTS ABOUT THESE APOSTATE PRACTICES.
___________________________________________________ 

THE PROS AND CONS OF JUDGE NEIL M. GORSUCH

(SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST & ARTICLE FROM KELLEIGH NELSON: http://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2017/01/contact-trump-say-no-to-neil-gorsuch.html)

SEE: http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh391.htm; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

By Kelleigh Nelson
February 8, 2017
NewsWithViews.com

Our young are so full of innocence and capabilities that are not yet known. Why would anyone want to destroy that through abortion? One of the most absurd pro-choice claims is that those who are pro-life do not like or care for the baby after he or she is born. In fact, pro-lifers find equal importance of life inside and outside of the womb. The gravity in a baby’s eyes, showing such extreme happiness for life, is one of the most beautiful things in the world. —G. K. Chesterton

I am overjoyed that Donald J. Trump is our 45th President, and I’m thrilled with 95% of his nominees. Nevertheless, unlike the sycophants who supported Obama and Hillary, when I am in doubt, I’m going to let my readers know about it.

God Said, CHOOSE LIFE

The Lord said in Deuteronomy to Choose Life! When those of us who hate Roe v. Wade think of the suffering of millions of little babies in their mothers’ wombs when abortion is chosen, we cry out for it to come to a screeching halt. We know too what happens to those little murdered bodies. It is why our 45th President has promised to put pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. We can thank God Hillary Clinton is not nominating a justice.

My first choice would have been Judge Charles Canady from Florida. While he was in Congress, Canady was credited for coining the term "partial-birth abortion" while developing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. He has proven to be stellar on pro-life issues.

Neil Gorsuch and Antonin Scalia

When introducing Neil Gorsuch, our President said, “I took the task of this nomination very seriously. I have selected an individual whose qualities define, really, and I mean closely, define what we’re looking for. Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support.” He added that Gorsuch’s resume was as good as he’s ever seen.

As he searched for a nominee to ultimately take Scalia's empty seat, Trump said he spoke "regularly" with Scalia's wife, Maureen McCarthy Scalia, according to Kellyanne Conway. Mrs. Scalia has been a rock throughout this entire process," Conway said. "She has been somebody who the President has talked to regularly throughout this process and he has very much enjoyed his time with her in person and over the phone."

Gorsuch is better than half of those on the list who really don’t see much that can be done in stopping abortion. He does have sterling credentials, and in theory believes in the Constitution. However, no one can truly say whether or not he’d vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is ultimately the definition of pro-life.

Gorsuch and Scalia were friends, and obviously had enjoyed time together in Colorado as the signed photo suggests.

The insignia reads, “To Neil Gorsuch, Fond memories of a day on the Colorado. With warm regards, Antonin Scalia.

After President Trump’s announcement of Neil Gorsuch as his nominee, Gorsuch met Mrs. Scalia and chatted amiably with her and her son, Fr. Paul Scalia.

Gorsuch and Hobby Lobby

Many believe Gorsuch is pro-life because he ruled for the Christian Hobby Lobby stores against Obamacare’s demand (via Secretary Sebelius) that this Christian for-profit organization provide all contraceptive funding in their insurance. The left would have you think that Hobby Lobby was against all contraception for women, which is untrue. The reality is that the FDA approved 18 forms of female contraception, and Hobby Lobby took offense to only the ones that killed an already fertilized egg, Plan B "morning-after pill," Ella "morning-after pill," and two hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs). They didn’t object to most birth control pills, sponges, condoms and even sterilization.

The key issue on appeal in the 10th was whether or not a “for-profit corporation” may be considered a "person exercising religion" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which came into play in the decision for Hobby Lobby from the lower court. The case was about religious freedom, not about abortion per se. Gorsuch sided with the Little Sisters of the Poor in a similar religious freedom case involving Obamacare.

In the Supreme Court decision, Justice Alito wrote that, "The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients."

According to ABC News, Gorsuch “is a defender of the ‘Free Exercise Clause,’ which says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As such, he has also championed the rights of religious groups to display their religion in public places. And that’s a big Amen.

Gorsuch and Assisted Suicide

Gorsuch disagreed with Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Posner has written in favor of permitting physician-assisted suicide, arguing that the government should not interfere with a person's decision to take his or her own life, especially in cases where the patient is terminally ill.

Gorsuch rejected that view, writing it would "tend toward, if not require, the legalization not only of assisted suicide and euthanasia, but of any act of consensual homicide." Posner's position, he writes, would allow "sadomasochist killings" and "mass suicide pacts," as well as duels, illicit drug use, organ sales and the "sale of one's own life."

Gorsuch concludes his book by suggesting that the law could allow for terminally ill patients to refuse treatments that would extend their lives, while stopping short of permitting intentional killing.

In his book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (2006), Gorsuch praised the pro-abortion ruling that upheld Roe v. Wade as follows: “The plurality in Casey expressly sought to provide a firmer basis for the abortion right and to shore up the reasoning behind Roe’s result.” (p. 79) This is extremely troubling, as no one who is pro-life would ever assert that there is a “firmer basis” and better “reasoning” that can support the horrifically unjust result of abortion-on-demand.

Citing the Judge’s book as proof that he is pro-life is not valid inasmuch as pro-abortion supreme court judges have ruled against physician assisted suicide in the past.

Gorsuch and Stare Decisis

Gorsuch also clings to bad precedent, and is an extreme supporter of stare decisis, both of which are excuses for upholding Roe v. Wade rather than overturning it. “Our duty to follow precedent sometimes requires us to make mistakes,” Gorsuch declared in ruling against the Second Amendment rights of a man before his court. United States v. Games-Perez, 667 F.3d 1136, 1142 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch, J. concurring).

What is stare decisis? It is Latin for “to stand by things decided,” and is the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833. The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. Consequently, stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents.

Although courts seldom overrule precedent, Justice Rehnquist explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” On occasion, the Court will decide not to apply the doctrine if a prior decision is deemed unworkable. In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to overrule precedent; however, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously. (Cornell University Law School)

Gorsuch Nominated by George W. Bush

“Not a single Democrat opposed #NeilGorsuch’s confirmation in 2006,” tweeted Mitch McConnell on February 1st. Both Bush families stated they were pro-choice after they were out of office. It is likely the Democrat Senators knew the families were really pro-choice and thus confirmed their nominee. Here’s the list of the leftists who confirmed him.

Gorsuch and the CFR

Neil Gorsuch was a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, listed in the 2008 CFR Annual Report Membership Roster. He is not listed in the 2017 Annual Report, but is listed as a member in his 2006 nomination by President George W. Bush. (See part 8)

Aside from his stint at Harvard Law, can we conjecture that his term membership in the CFR might have influenced him with the One-World-Socialist-Police-State-under-the-United-Nations goals of the CFR? Here is a short tutorial on the CFR. You can also purchase a booklet about the CFR.

Because of his membership, will he will be a shoe-in for the post, as he was in 2006? Other CFR Members of the Court are Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The only way you can find out about CFR Membership rosters is to obtain the CFR Annual Reports through purchase from Amazon for a nominal fee. (Hat tip to Sue.)

Gorsuch’s Pro-Abortion Church

Neil Gorsuch and his wife attend the apostate St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado, that has a woman rector, Rev. Susan Springer, who considers homosexuality as acceptable, and who believes that women have the right to kill their unborn babies. Springer also promotes climate control and gun control. [Link]

Homosexuals have had union blessing ceremonies in the church. Here is an article written by Rev. Susan Springer in 2010 supporting homosexuals and their behavior.

In 1994, as the anti-abortion movement mobilized to restrict reproductive freedom of American women, the Episcopal Church added this resolve:

“The Episcopal Church expresses its unequivocal opposition to any legislative, executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy or that would limit the access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision.”

From this article in Huffington Post, it appears Gorsuch is also pro-gay marriage, and unlikely to ever change Roe v. Wade.

Gorsuch’s membership in an Episcopal church in Boulder, Colorado, whose female senior pastor attended the Women’s March in Colorado, and has been associated with other liberal causes, gives great pause to most pro-life conservatives.

Lobbyist Influence

The influence, primarily by the pro-abortion Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation lobbyists, over the Supreme Court decision by our President was unprecedented. Why did Trump lock himself into only 21 names given by these organizations?

According to media accounts Trump considered only candidates whom the Federalist Society recommended, and no others. Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady is pro-life and more qualified than Gorsuch, but apparently, Trump never even interviewed Canady. Other prominent pro-life candidates, both on and off the list, who Trump cited during his campaign, were also not seriously considered.

If this were merely the first time that a Supreme Court nominee was supposedly pro-life, but was actually pro-choice, then perhaps a “wait and see” approach might be reasonable. However, unborn children have been sacrificed time and time again by this deception. President Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor, who was supposed to be pro-life but wasn’t, and then likewise for Anthony Kennedy. The first President Bush appointed David Souter, who was also supposed to be pro-life, but became stridently pro-abortion instead.

As well, the pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage billionaire Koch brothers have thrown their weight behind Judge Gorsuch. [Link] They launched a digital campaign urging senators to confirm Gorsuch, and they plan to mobilize the network’s 3.2 million activists to put pressure on lawmakers.

Gorsuch on Other Issues

In an analysis by Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, he pointed out that Gorsuch joined an opinion that adhered to the anti-gun view that “concealed weapons create an immediate and severe danger to the public.” United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481, 490 (10th Cir. 2013).

On the transgender issue, Gorsuch joined an opinion holding that “it is unlawful to discriminate against a transgender (or any other) person because he or she does not behave in accordance with an employer’s expectations for men or women.” Kastl v. Maricopa Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 325 F. App’x 492, 493 (9th Cir. 2009).

 Where will Gorsuch come down on in the issue of whether men, who claim to be women, may enter women’s public bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. His opinion would affect children in public school facilities. Will he even be questioned on this issue by senators during his hearing proceedings? 

Conclusion

Unfortunately for us, Gorsuch’s views on abortion are not well defined. In his book, he wrote, “In Roe, the Court explained that, had it found the fetus to be a “person” for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, it could not have created a right to abortion because no constitutional basis exists for preferring the mother’s liberty interests over the child’s life.”

For the sake of the unborn babies in America, I pray that Gorsuch truly is pro-life.

Like Joe Friday of Dragnet, I’m just giving you the facts, the decision is yours.
_________________________________________________________

SPRINGER ATTENDED ECUMENICAL LGBT DISCUSSION

 USU Panel Discusses Gay Marriage, Faith

SEE: http://gaysaltlake.com/news/2010/11/08/usu-panel-discusses-gay-marriage-faith/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Representatives from seven faiths discussed same-sex marriage on Nov. 2 as part of the Center for Women and Gender lecture series at Utah State University. Titled, ““Gays and Marriage: Religious Perspectives,” the panel discussion was open to students, faculty and members of the general community.
Panel members included the Rev. Susan Springer of St. John’s Episcopal Church; Michael Sowder, associate professor of English and a practicing Buddhist; Dr. Vikram Garg, gastroenterologist and internist who practices the Hindu tradition; Harrison Kleiner, adjunct assistant professor of philosophy and Roman Catholic; William Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation and member of the Church pf Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Eldon Peterson, pastor of the Cache Valley Bible fellowship; and Rabbi Ilana Schwartzman of the congregation Kol Ami in Salt Lake City.
“We realize we don’t have all possible religions represented and many will argue that we should have had an atheist on the panel,” said director for the Center for Women and Gender Ann Austin. “But this panel is an important step in understanding the diverse points of view around this very sensitive topic.”
The panel was organized by Philip Barlow, USU’s Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture, and Camille O’Dell, director of the School Counseling program in USU’s Department of Psychology.
Rev. Springer said all voices are important to such a discussion and, as a society, it is necessary that they are made public.
“Currently, the Episcopal Diocese of Utah permits the blessing of same gender unions, but not every Episcopal diocese in this country permits them,” Springer said. “Unlike, for example, the Roman Catholic and LDS churches, Episcopalians have no central figure or group that is our doctrinal authority.”
“We endeavor to be a safe place and to be welcoming,” Springer said. “We’re not perfect, we don’t always succeed, but that’s our goal.”
Duncan said the controversy over the Proposition 8 measure in California – which was overturned by a San Francisco judge – demonstrates that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious liberties.
Duncan’s group was formed a year after a Massachusetts Court decision which declared banning gay marriage as unconstitutional with a mission of “reaffirming the legal definition of marriage as the union of a husband and wife.”
“Increasingly, groups are seeking to harness religion along with other social institutions, such as family and church, to accomplish their aims of cultural reconstruction,” Duncan said.
Duncan said that many saw opponents to interracial marriage in the ’60s as bigots.
“Just because the LDS Church does not believe in same-sex marriage does not mean Latter-day Saints are prejudiced,” he said.
Peterson said Christians do not condone same-sex marriage and likened the debate to “what color the grass is … there’s only one definition of same-sex marriage.” He said he wishes gays would “take responsibility” for their orientation and not “claim to be a victim.”
Sowder said that Buddhism has no central religious authority but largely welcomes gays as it would welcome anybody. He quoted the Dalai Lama, who said that homosexuality is considered “sexual misconduct,” but that the Tibetan stance of gay marriage is “subject to change.”
“Compassion is the ultimate ideal in Buddhism,” Sowder said. “Why is sexuality such a highly charged issue in religion? I think that’s why we have this focus on it, it freaks us out.”
Kleiner said Catholics believe “marriage was founded for man.”
“We are most complete as organisms when we join with opposite flesh.”
He said he does not believe gay marriage is a choice: “You can’t choose how you feel but you can choose how you act.”
Garg said that Hinduism, currently,  has no one leader who would stand up for gay marriage, though there is no reference to it in scripture.
“Love, in Hinduism, means a devotion between two people, whether it is romantic or platonic,” Garg said. “There’s really no information in religious scriptures about marriage and same sex.”
He said for some it is a challenge to accept gay marriage since males play a dominant role in a heterosexual marriage.
Schwartzman said the Torah “is divinely inspired, not divinely written,” so more Jewish people are becoming accepting of same-sex marriage and that even the more conservative members are “teetering” on whether or not to fully embrace the concept of same-sex marriage.
Springer ended the panel saying she felt discussions such as this panel are necessary to moving forward.
__________________________________________________

 EXCLUSIVE: A rector who marched against Trump, (is for) gay blessings, gun control, Muslim outreach and ‘climate crisis’ solar panels on the roof: Meet Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s ultra-liberal church

BY PAUL MARTIN & RUTH STYLES

SEE: http://revolutionradio.org/?p=160912; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

St. John’s Episcopal Church is led by a pastor who proudly attended the anti-Trump Women’s March in Denver the day after the President’s inauguration
Rev. Susan Springer has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same-sex couples
Another member of the clergy is outspoken about the need for gun control
The church’s Rev. Ted Howard also signed a letter slamming the ‘disrespectful rhetoric’ directed at Islam as Trump floated a ban on Muslim immigrants
Church authorities also appear to be strongly in favor of environmental initiatives and added solar panels to the roof because of ‘climate crisis’
If Gorsuch is confirmed, he will renew the Supreme Court’s Christian majority and join as the only non-Catholic member

By Ruth Styles In Boulder, Colorado
DailyMail.com
6 February 2017
He has been described as ‘the heir to Scalia’ and is a religious conservative whose appointment to the Supreme Court was greeted with jubilation on the pro-gun, anti-abortion Right.
But DailyMail.com can reveal that Neil Gorsuch’s own church, in Boulder, Colorado, is a hotbed of liberal thinking – and is led by a pastor who proudly attended the anti-Trump Women’s March in Denver the day after the President’s inauguration.
Another member of the clergy at St. John’s Episcopal Church is outspoken about the need for gun control, and helped organize opposition to a gun shop giveaway of high-capacity magazines in the run-up to a 2013 law that banned them from the state of Colorado.
In December 2015, shortly after the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Rev. Ted Howard, 74, also put his name to a public letter slamming the ‘criticism and disrespectful rhetoric’ directed at Islam – just as President Trump was floating a total ban on Muslim immigrants.
And in a twist that may surprise religious conservatives who welcomed Gorsuch’s appointment, church leader Rev. Susan Springer, 58, has said she is pro-gay marriage and offers blessings to same sex couples.
The church, which trumpets its ‘inclusive’ ethos on its website, also operates a homeless outreach program that includes an LGBT center and a sexual health clinic in a pamphlet setting out the best places for those in need of help.
Church authorities also appear to be strongly in favor of environmental initiatives – even adding solar panels to the roof in January last year saying it was because of the ‘climate crisis’.
Gorsuch, 49, moved to Colorado with his British wife Louise and daughters Emma, 18, and Belinda, 16, a decade ago after being appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by President George W. Bush.
The judge, who grew up in Denver but relocated to Washington DC as a teenager, has been a member of the congregation ever since and regularly volunteers as an usher.
Gorsuch was brought up as a Catholic by his mother Ann, and attended an elite all boys Catholic school in Washington D.C. run by the Jesuit order.
The Rest…HERE
___________________________________________________

 JOSHUA R. GOODBAUM

SAYS GORSUCH SUPPORTED HIS "GAY MARRIAGE":

SEE: http://www.garrisonlaw.com/about-garrison/joshua-r-goodbaum-partner/;

EXCERPTS:  Prior to joining Garrison, Levin-Epstein in 2011, Josh worked at a large corporate firm in Washington, DC, and interned at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) in Boston

Former Law Clerk for Supreme Court Nominee Says Gorsuch Supported His ‘Gay Marriage’

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/02/07/former-law-clerk-for-supreme-court-nominee-says-gorsuch-supported-his-gay-marriage/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

 WASHINGTON — Discussion is stirring over 
how Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch might rule on issues such 
as homosexuality and abortion should he be confirmed. His former law 
clerk told reporters last week that Gorsuch was supportive of his “gay 
marriage,” but reports also note that Gorsuch outlined over a decade ago
 that he does not believe the courts are the place to effect social 
change.

Joshua Goodbaum served as a clerk for Gorsuch in 2009, and now works as an attorney. He told Reuters on Friday that on the week of his 2014 “wedding” with his partner, Gorsuch expressed his support.
“He said, ‘This is a wonderful thing. You’ll see how your relationship grows,'” Goodbaum recalled.
“I have never felt the least whiff from him of homophobia or intolerance toward gay people,” he added.
 As previously reported, Gorsuch is an Episcopalian, and attends St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. St. John’s identifies itself as “inclusive” on its website and is led by female minister Susan Springer. All of its deacons are also female.
In 2013, Springer expressed her support for same-sex “marriage.”
“I don’t think anybody in my faith tradition is out to destroy marriage between a man and a woman,” she told the Daily Camera. “I think we are out to find a way to offer the same blessing and the same sense of inclusion to same-sex couples. And I think we stand as prophetic witness, that same-sex couples ought to enjoy the same legal benefits, if you will, as heterosexual couples."

However, in 2005, Gorsuch penned an article for the National Review, where he opined that issues such as same-sex nuptials and others should be battled in the ballot box rather than in the courts.
He pointed to the writings of Washington Post columnist David von Drehle, who remarked that pushing agendas through the court system damages progressive purposes. Gorsuch said that liberals would do well to heed those sentiments.
“von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education,” he wrote.
“Liberals may win a victory on gay marriage when preaching to the choir before like-minded judges in Massachusetts. But in failing to reach out and persuade the public generally, they invite exactly the sort of backlash we saw in November when gay marriage was rejected in all eleven states where it was on the ballot,” Gorsuch noted.
He reiterated that letting the American people sort out matters in elections is the best way to solve social arguments rather than placing issues in the hands of judges.
“During the New Deal, liberals recognized that the ballot box and elected branches are generally the appropriate engines of social reform, and liberals used both to spectacular effect—instituting profound social changes that remain deeply ingrained in society today,” Gorsuch wrote. “It would be a very good thing for all involved—the country, an independent judiciary, and the Left itself—if liberals take a page from David von Drehle and their own judges of the New Deal era, kick their addiction to constitutional litigation, and return to their New Deal roots of trying to win elections rather than lawsuits.”
But Gorsusch has weighed in on social issues at times. As previously reported, Gorsuch is the author of the book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he concludes that “human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong.”
Gorsuch is also known for ruling in favor of the popular craft chain Hobby Lobby, which had sued the Obama administration over its abortion pill mandate. The company had sued to retain the right not to cover contraceptives that it considers to be abortifacients, such as the morning-after pill. Gorsuch pointed to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in his ruling.
“It is not for secular courts to rewrite the religious complaint of a faithful adherent, or to decide whether a religious teaching about complicity imposes ‘too much’ moral disapproval on those only ‘indirectly’ assisting wrongful conduct,” he wrote in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. “Whether an act of complicity is or isn’t ‘too attenuated’ from the underlying wrong is sometimes itself a matter of faith we must respect.”
Gorsuch was likewise a part of a ruling in favor of the Roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor, which had also sued the Obama administration over the abortion pill mandate.
Gorsuch is stated as being much like the late Antonin Scalia in that he is an originalist, that is, he seeks to interpret the Constitution in the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Scalia, however, noted during his tenure that he opposes both the complete abolition of abortion, as well as requiring legalization. He said that the Constitution does not require a state to ban abortion as he believes the 14th Amendment only applies to those who have been born.
“I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade,” Scalia outlined in a 2002 Pew Forum. “You know, both sides in that debate want the Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. One [side] wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong.”
“And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong,” Scalia further explained in a 2008 60 Minutes interview. “I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.”
The Trump administration, while identifying as pro-life with exceptions, has also expressed its support for the homosexual agenda. As previously reported, during his RNC acceptance speech in July, Trump told those gathered that he would work to protect homosexuals if elected.
“As president, I will do everything in my power to protect LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology,” he declared, being met with applause.
“And, I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said,” he said in response.
Trump had also declared at a fundraiser in June that he is the best candidate for the “gay community.”
“So you tell me, who’s better for the gay community, and who’s better for women than Donald Trump? Believe me!” he said.
In February, he replied in the affirmative when asked by a lesbian reporter if the nation can expect “more forward motion” on homosexual issues if elected president.

U.S. SENATORS INTRODUCE BILL TO REDIRECT PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDING TO WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

U.S. SENATORS INTRODUCE BILL TO REDIRECT PLANNED PARENTHOOD FUNDING TO WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS 

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/02/07/u-s-senators-introduce-bill-to-redirect-planned-parenthood-funding-to-womens-health-care-providers/;

 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

 WASHINGTON — Two U.S. Senators have introduced a 
bill that would redirect more than $500 million in federal funding from 
the abortion and contraceptive giant Planned Parenthood to women’s 
health care providers that do not perform abortions.

Sens. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and James Lankford, R-Okla., recently introduced the “Protect Funding for Women’s Health Care Act” with the support of 127 co-sponsors.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no federal funds may be made available to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, or to any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors or clinics,” the bill reads in part. “All funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be made available to other eligible entities to provide women’s health care services.”
The Act notes that community health centers, local health departments, physicians’ offices and others provide a variety of women’s services and pregnancy care—minus the killing. Reports state that there are over 13,500 community health centers alone that assist with women’s health.

“Such health services include relevant diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well-child care, prenatal and postpartum care, immunization, family planning services such as contraception, sexually transmitted disease testing, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and referrals,” the bill outlines. “Many such entities provide services to all persons, regardless of the person’s ability to pay, and provide services in medically underserved areas and to medically underserved populations.”
As previously reported, the organization Live Action found in an investigation that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood locations do not offer prenatal care, and ultrasounds are only conducted in order to perform a guided abortion.
Sen. Lankford opined in a statement that the federal government should not be distributing millions in taxpayer funds to a controversial organization such as Planned Parenthood.

“For years, our nation has debated life and abortion, but at least we should agree that no taxpayer should be forced to fund the largest provider of abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars,” he said. “There is no reason for a private non-governmental organization, like Planned Parenthood, to receive $500 million a year in taxpayer money.”
Lankford also noted that “[r]edirecting taxpayer money from Planned Parenthood to other entities that provide women’s health care won’t put Planned Parenthood out of business; it will just ensure that taxpayers don’t fund their activities.”
As previously reported, according to Planned Parenthood’s annual report, during the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the organization received $553 million in taxpayer funding/grants in 2014, up from $528 million the year prior, which equated to 43 percent of its total income. $48 million of Planned Parenthood’s income was used for sex education, and $39 million was used for public policy, or to influence legislation, up from $33 million in 2013. Despite its expenditures, it still garnered a $61 million dollar profit.
It aborted 323,999 babies nationwide during that fiscal year, equating to approximately one-third of the more than 900,000 annual abortions in America.
Planned Parenthood has not yet released its 2015-2016 report for unknown reasons.

ANTI-GLOBALIST TED MALLOCH, TRUMP'S AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION IS LIKE U.K.'S NIGEL FARAGE

 

Ted Malloch: America’s Nigel Farage Takes on EU

 Published on Feb 7, 2017

Trump’s pick for US Ambassador to the EU, Ted Malloch, has been met with calls to block his appointment. But Malloch fired back in European interviews over the weekend, pointing out that choosing an ambassador is the prerogative of President Trump who just won the election and saying that Trump would not be cowed down. He went on the offensive against the President of the European Commission, the EU bureaucracy and political correctness in a series of frank statements that showed he would not be cowed down either.

 "'DAVOS MAN' Is Dead" Says Trump EU Ambassador

 Published on Feb 6, 2017

The man tipped to be Donald Trump’s Ambassador to the EU made the rounds this weekend with the European press. Candid, frank and defiant to the unelected EU bureaucrats who are trying to block his appointment to the EU, Ted Malloch has seen the global elites from the inside, organizing their summits. He now pulls back the curtain and proclaims — “the Davos Man is dead”.

Trump’s EU Ambassador: Trump Will Only Make Trade Deals With Nations, Not the EU

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/25321-trump-s-eu-ambassador-trump-will-only-make-trade-deals-with-nations-not-the-eu; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

 Ted Malloch (shown), President Donald Trump’s proposed ambassador to the 

European Union, made it clear on Sunday
 that the administration’s goal is to destroy the European Union. During
 an interview on BBC on Sunday, Malloch warned that the EU is in for a 
rude awakening: Whether the EU powers-that-be like it or not, Trump will
 only deal with countries on a nation-by-nation basis. That would 
effectively end the supposed underlying reason for the EU.

Malloch said, “Trump won’t cow down to the powers that be. He’ll speak his mind even if it gets him in trouble or held in disregard for others. It used to be called honesty but in the age of baby talk and political correctness, and mostly bullshit, it’s now regarded as dishonesty.”
EU leaders and media supporters have seen this coming since November. Patrick Wintour, the diplomatic editor for the liberal British paper The Guardian, spelled it out last Friday:

In European eyes, figures like Malloch and Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, do not really want to end the US leadership role in Europe.

They want, in the view of the European Council president, Donald Tusk, to destroy the EU, and are … intent in doing so….

This is not a policy of non-interference. The policy is to help oversee the break-up of the EU, using the bully pulpit of the presidency and the Breitbart website to do all they can to cheer on the populist forces across Europe. Victories for nationalist parties in the Netherlands, France, Germany and Italy this year would ensure the EU’s implosion, and as such are to be encouraged.

Previous pronouncements from Malloch have confirmed that intent. In January Malloch told BBC News, “I had a previous career in a diplomatic post where I helped bring down the Soviet Union. So maybe there’s another union that needs a little taming.” Malloch was a vocal supporter of Brexit, and has predicted that the euro would collapse. He expressed his hope that all members of the European Union would hold similar referendums.
In January Malloch, in an interview on BBC One’s This Week, said that Donald Trump doesn’t like the idea of EU’s “integration”: “[He] doesn’t like an organization that is supranational, that is unelected, where the bureaucrats run amok, and is not frankly a proper democracy.”
Malloch can be best described as the insiders’ “maverick,” supporting various efforts but not buying into the ideology. He has served — he calls himself a Sherpa — on the executive board of the World Economic Forum, which hosts the Davos meeting of elites in Switzerland every year. He has held an ambassadorial position in the UN. He headed up the consulting division of Wharton-Chase Econometrics. He worked at the international banking firm Salomon Brothers. He served in senior policy positions with the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, as well as in the U.S. State Department. He is a research professor at Yale.
He’s even expressed support for the EU in the past, but usually with a qualifying disclaimer: The EU is a “very important arrangement that was largely brought about by American contributions.… For some long decades it’s been absolutely critical to the trans-Atlantic alliance and to US-Europe relations.” But he added, “I do believe it has more and more become a supranational organization with political ambitions that probably don’t fit with all of its member states’ ambitions.”
He has spoken critically of some of the EU’s top people, including European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. Juncker, said Malloch, “was a very adequate mayor, I think, of some city in Luxembourg, and maybe he should go back and do that again.”
This has not surprisingly generated genuine concern among those top people. The liberal leader of the European Parliament, Guy Verofstadt, and the head of the European People’s Party, Manfred Weber, sent a letter to Juncker last week demanding that the EU not grant “credentials” to Malloch if Trump does in fact name him as his ambassador to the organization. The letter cited Malloch’s “outrageous malevolence against the values that define this European Union. We are strongly convinced that people seeing as their mission to disrupt or dissolve the European Union should not be accredited as official representatives to the EU.”
Nervousness bordering on panic has forced the New York Times to weigh in against Trump as Malloch’s potential employer. Steven Erlanger of the Times launched a broadside against the president: “Mr. Trump has expressed disdain for other multilateral institutions such as the European Union, His praise has been reserved for populists and strongmen, like Nigel Farage, the former leader of the U.K. Independence Party, President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and, of course, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.” Erlanger added:

Some European leaders are urging their counterparts to recognize that Mr. Trump may represent a truly dire challenge, one that threatens to upend not only the 70-year European project of integration and security, but just about everything they stand for, including liberal democracy itself.

Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, added:

Trump is the first American president since the E.U. was created not to be in favor of deeper European integration. Not only that, he’s against it and sees the destruction of the European Union as in America’s interest.

European [leaders] see Trump as the biggest threat to global order and the European ideal of how the world should be organized. The U.S. has been a crucial part of the ballast meant to be upholding the global order … in face of challenges….

But rather than acting as a check on these [challenges], Trump seems to be amplifying them, and that’s pretty terrifying.

By negotiating with the EU’s member states individually — nation-by-nation — Trump and his ambassador-to-be, Ted Malloch, hope to cut the legs out from under the primary foundational assumption that has falsely and fraudulently supported the EU’s raison d'être: that the union could obtain for them better economic performance than individually. It would end the real reason for the EU: an economic union leading inevitably to a political one as a step toward a One World Government.

UN LESSON PLANS TEACH KIDS TO GET CIVILIANS TO "TURN IN GUNS"

UN LESSON PLANS TEACH KIDS TO GET CIVILIANS TO "TURN IN GUNS" 

BY  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/25306-un-lesson-plans-teach-kids-to-get-civilians-to-turn-in-guns; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The United Nations (UN) is offering lesson plans for teaching American and Canadian children about the benefits of civilian disarmament and to familarize them with “the process by which the international community, regional organizations, and the UN encourage the practice of disarmament.”
Over the course of six lessons, teachers using the “Disarmament Education Programme” prepared by the United Nations Association in Canada will indoctrinate students to accept the UN as a global government and an engine of peace with the goal of creating a “world without weapons.”
The lesson titles should be enough to enrage every person who recognizes that the first act of any would-be autocrat is to disarm the people they intend to command. 
Lesson One serves as an introduction to the topic, informing North American schoolchildren that weapons lead to violence and that this gun-related violence leads to “human and environmental destruction” (there they go again surreptitiously packaging the Agenda 21 agenda into another program), and this destruction “affects everyone regardless of race, age, nationality, or gender.”

During the second class period devoted to Lesson One, kids are instructed that in order to end the violence, they must cooperate in “creating a culture of change at local, national, and global levels.” They must begin immediately to “analyze cultural messages and the prevalence of armament in our society” so that they may begin to identify allies who will join them in “working toward disarmament.”
In Lesson Two, the drilling on the glory of disarmament gets so much worse.
The lesson plan for this section challenges the students to “analyze the rationale for gun ownership.” Once they’ve investigated this issue, they are to identify “successes and challenges in the campaign to ban small arms and light weapons.”
Yes, it really says that, and that’s not nearly the end.
Next, the kids are tasked with learning their nation’s gun control laws and proposing ways that “individuals, groups, and institutions” can change those laws in ways that advance the aim of complete civilian disarmament.
Students are told that “one person dies per minute” as a victim of gun violence.
The types of weapons that must be seized in order to secure global peace are then listed for the students: revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, and light machine guns.
Why, the UN asks the students, must the listed weapons be outlawed for civilian ownership?
“Guns wound and kill individuals and serve as devices to frighten and terrorize; it is very difficult to build and sustain progress when people are fearful for their lives. As a result, countries that suffer from gun violence are often stunted in development.”
Students, instructed as to the urgent need of ending the ability of individuals to own small arms, are then informed as to “the reason[s] for a person’s desire to own small arms":

Exert power over others

Accepted cultural norms of civilian owning guns

For vengeance, if past violence has been suffered

To be seen as a person of great status

That list of reasons is taken verbatim from the UN’s disarmament lesson plans.
Since the desire to own guns is often complex, the kids must realize that the solutions they propose “should address not only the guns themselves, but the economic and social development of the country, as well.”
In other words, disarm the people, make them dependent upon the government for every aspect of human existence, and then the world will be peaceful.
The final lesson, Lesson Five, is entitled “Road to Disarmament and Non-Proliferation: A Human Security Approach,” and it is designed to convince students that “human security” is the key to peace, and that “human security” will only be achieved when they “put in place laws and procedures to control ... the production of small arms and light weapons” and when they “ensure that good records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding, and transfer of these weapons.”
Should national governments fail to enact these disarmament solutions, then it may become necessary for the UN to “separate people from their states.”
Finally, Lesson Five challenges the kids to come up with “ideas to convince locals to turn in their weapons” and to “encourage the civilian population to hand in … weapons, explosives, and ammunition.”
These lesson plans are no doubt to be implemented by teachers sympathetic to the disarmament agenda, likely without the knowledge or approval of local school boards. The students in these classes will be unaware that they are being brainwashed, and their proclivity to put faith in the words of their teachers will incline them to imbibe deeply the draughts of disarmament being pumped into their classrooms.

SOROS PUPPET JUDGE AIDS ISIS BY BLOCKING TRUMP

Soros Puppet Judge Aids ISIS by Blocking Trump 

Published on Feb 5, 2017

Seattle, Washington Federal Judge James Robart based his judgement of the Trump administration's decision to follow through with a travel ban of seven Muslim countries as "not rationally based". However, this purported logical judge was quoted by CNBC as stating "Black lives matter."
In August of 2016 Breitbart reported that The Black Lives matter movement was funded by U.S. National Security public enemy number one George Soros " ....in a detailed 69-page Open Society report on the agenda of an Open Society U.S. Programs board meeting held in New York October 1 to October 2, 2015." A portion of the Soros funded agenda read.
Recognizing the need for strategic assistance, the U.S. Programs Board approved $650,000 in Opportunities Fund support to invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement"

Furthermore, Soros' shaping of Black Lives Matter was used to alter the 2016 elections, oddly never mentioned by the Democratic zeal to solely blame the Russians. As a hacked open society document stated "Leaders of #BlackLivesMatter and The Movement for Black Lives worked to influence candidate platforms during the 2016 primary season. This came alongside the recent acknowledgement by political strategists that African-American voters may be much more pivotal to the 2016 general election than previously forecasted."

President Trump responded to Judge Robart in a tweet stating"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?" The DHS has stopped flagging travelers. And direct flights have resumed from the previously banned countries to the United States.

After the DOJ quickly appealled Judge Robart's decision a Federal 9th Circuit Appeals Court declined to reinstate the Travel Ban. We are now playing Russian roulette with our National Security. Set into motion by a Federal judge basing his decision on political opinion rooted in the subversion of George Soros' Open Society initiatives.

Judge Robart's name won't fade into mainstream media history. Because when the next inevitable terror attack occurs on U.S. soil, we'll know exactly who to hold accountable for this dangerous subversion of U.S. National Security. Jon Bowne reports.