A group of anti-abortion activists that Planned Parenthood has suspected is targeting it in a hoax investigation released the first of a series of videos on Tuesday that purportedly shows Planned Parenthood encouraging the selective abortions of girls in the United States.
The activist group, Live Action, sent pregnant actors posing as patients to Planned Parenthood clinics across the country and had them ask a certain pattern of questions about sex-selective abortions. The result of the undercover operation is a series of videos called “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America,” which Live Action says will expose the problem of gendercide in the United States and show how Planned Parenthood facilitates it.
Loading ...
why is no one talking about the 3% federal sales tax on sale of certain homes to fund obama care in this market?
The real reason behind the flip-flop of Chief Justice Roberts:
Protecting the Independence Status of the Supreme Court.
Good Morning,
It is clear to me that the Chief Justice originally sided
with his fellow Republican conservative justices and something changed his
mind. I believe that the Chief Justice changed his position because he wanted
to protect the reputation and independence of the Supreme Court. He did not
want the Supreme Court to become viewed as a partisan institution. He did not
want either or especially both the public and the political l class to see the
Supreme Court as a stacked deck, siding with its internal partisan majority on
(especially divisive) political matters.
Just imagine the Republican outrage, if the Supreme Court
had a liberal Democrat slant on all important issues, always predictably siding
against Republican positions. The reputation for non-partisan independence is a
key pillar of the institutional status of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
is currently viewed as above mere partisan politics, the protector of the
Constitution from politics. Once that status is lost in the eyes of the public
and the political class it would be extremely difficult to regain. The public
would come to view the Supreme Court as just another partisan political
institution, rather than an independent institution designed to balance the political
outcomes of government with the Constitution. The political class would view
the Supreme Court appointment process as the ultimate zero-sum high stakes
battle, in which the stakes would be so high that results could be dangerous to
the Republic . This development would create even more rancor and bitterness
than that experienced currently during the confirmation process.
As the Chief Justice indicated, it is not the duty of the
Supreme Court to protect the nation from (a conservative point of view–bad)
legislation, that responsibility belongs to the American people, who can
replace one group of politicians with another in an election. It is the
responsibility of the voting public to determine the course of the nation. The
President told the American people in his first election campaign that he
wanted to change America (and he has delivered on that promise) and it is
during the coming election that the people will have their opportunity to
continue this course or to change it. The stakes in this election could not be
higher because it will shape the political and governmental landscape for the
foreseeable future. There is a ancient Chinese proverb/curse: “May you live in
interesting times,” because we certainly do live in such times.
Kevin Frei
832-758-1022
Since I live in Houston and since I pay property taxes to the Hospital District and what with the SCOTUS ruling “tax” not penatly, is this not double taxation?
Was the interview of Ted Cruz on your show yesterday evening? It was during your time slot, but Lance Roberts was mentioned so I’m not certain. At any rate, that was a very telling interview. Up until yesterday I thought voting for Mr Cruz was a no-brainer. Now I am not sure. He seems to be a very angry person. The way he latched onto the interviewer like a pitbull with no ‘release word’ was frightening. Attacking the interviewer is not the way to influence people in a positive manner. A man with no self-control is not the person I want representing me in any position.
You can beat the rap, but you wont beat the “ride”. Old cop saying when someone has a baditude…. LOl.. Greg
The analogy of yelling fire in a movie theatre is valid. SCOTUS has ruled on several classes of speech. Read the info below.
Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. The freedom is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States
has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the
freedom of speech, and it has recognized that governments may enact
reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.
Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that
people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always
permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including
the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.
The analogy of yelling fire in a movie theatre is valid. SCOTUS has ruled on several classes of speech. Read the info below.
Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. The freedom is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States
has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the
freedom of speech, and it has recognized that governments may enact
reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech.
Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that
people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always
permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including
the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.
Chris, you are wonderful, I try to nrver miss your show. You make us think. Thanks for your shows! merryb