Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHE DAY.BLOGSPOT.COM
Sunday, July 1, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
"Why is there so much month left at the end of the money?"
- John Barrymore
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not a sense of humor to console him for what he is."
- Francis Bacon
The Donald is our Trump Card
A friend of Issues of the Day sent the following...
Bodie is still in search of a family to call his own. Due to his size and strength, he is having a difficult time finding his true match. He is super, super, sw...
See More at https://www.facebook.com/SOUTHCOASTHUMANE/
Call (508) 995-6661
AUSTRALIAN MUSLIMS' REQUEST:
At Bondi beach, Muslims request BEACH BAN of "BIKINIS" DURING RAMADAN:
:
There we go again ---- bowing to Muslim wishes!!
Mexico Reduces Legal Age Of Sexual Consent To 12
By Baxter Dmitry
Mexico has lowered the legal age of sexual consent to just 12-years-old, becoming the latest nation to give in to pressure from an international liberal network of activists determined to normalize pedophilia and legalize sex with children across the world.
Federal law in Mexico now establishes the age of 12-years as the age of legal consent, while the age at which there are no restrictions for consensual sexual activities is 18-years (sex with someone as young as 12-years is legal, but can be open to prosecution if deceit, force, or an abuse of authority was used.)
Mexico suffered its most murderous year in memory in 2017 with 29,168 homicides as the long term violence in Mexican society shows few signs of abating. Corruption has soared as massive acts of graft go unpunished. Now the age of consent is just 12-years, placing millions of vulnerable children in serious danger of sexual abuse, according to child protection officials.
The European Parliament in Brussels is also considering a motion which could lower the legal age of sexual consent from 16 to 13 years of age across the European Union.
Laurent Henry proposed the motion which “could free thousands of unjustly convicted prisoners” if the parliament decides to pass it.
“Our prisons are filled with young men that have been robbed of their youth, condemned to rot in jail for an act that should not be a crime. Why are we denying these young men the chance to play a more positive role in modern society?”, he said before the assembly Tuesday.
“Some even argue that a law on the age of consent has become superfluous and should no longer exist.”
“Outdated laws”
Laws on pedophilia are outdated claims top German immigration attorney, Hans Goldsberg.
“There will be the need for a consolidation of national laws under the current European system on the legal aspects of sex. Most of these national rulings don’t represent the modern social complexities of our times and are legally baseless. Some even argue that a law on the age of consent has become superfluous and should no longer exist,” claims the lawyer who has worked for more than 35 years in his field of work.
Support for the European motion also exists in the United States.
“Just think about how 2,000 years ago the Greeks were a much more open society. We must remember that love between a man and a boy were not as taboo as today,” explains cultural anthropologist, Thomas Black, from the University of Michigan.
Adults who have sex with underage children now face from two to six years in prison and up to 12 years according to current European law if they have performed oral or penetrative sex.
Currently the age of consent varies by state across the USA and is currently set between 16 and 18-years-old.
The age of consent in Mexico is complex. Typically, Mexican states have a “primary” age of consent (which is usually as low as 12), meaning a man can “seduce” a 12-year-old while operating entirely within the law.
2 Reasons Why the Media Will Drop Coverage of the Capital Gazette Shooting
Amy Swearer / @AmySwearer
Amy Swearer is a visiting legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Amy Swearer is a visiting legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Police officers secure the scene of a mass shooting in Annapolis, Maryland, on June 28. (Photo: Yang Chenglin Xinhua News Agency/Newscom)
On Thursday, four journalists and one staff member of the Capital Gazette were murdered in the newspaper’s Annapolis, Maryland, office.
While the event was initially widely covered by all major news outlets, the media is likely to quickly move on from the story, just like it did with the Santa Fe High School shooting, because it doesn’t fit the right narrative. (Unlike many of the Parkland students, the Santa Fe students didn’t respond to the tragedy by calling for gun control measures.)
That in itself is a shame, not just because there is much to learn from this tragedy, but also because the inspiring courage of the surviving journalists deserves more than a single news cycle.
Why It Will Go Away Quickly
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
Reason No. 1: It doesn’t fit the gun control narrative.
This shooting can’t be blamed on lax gun laws. Maryland has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, earning it an A- rating from the Giffords Law Center—one of only six states to earn above a B+ score. It has enacted almost all of the gun control measures commonly proposed by gun control advocates.
And yet, despite this, not only did this incident occur, but Baltimore is one of the worst cities in the U.S. for gun-related violence, and was recently named by USA Today as “the nation’s most dangerous city.” In the last sixth months, 120 Baltimore residents have been murdered with firearms—21 in the last 30 days.Maryland itself does not fit the gun control narrative.
But this tragedy does fit the actual common fact pattern of mass public shootings: An individual with a long history of concerning behaviors managed to avoid a disqualifying criminal or mental health record, took a legally owned “non-assault” firearm to a gun-free zone, and picked off defenseless people in the time it took law enforcement to respond.
This reality, however, is inconvenient for pushing common gun control measures like raising the minimum purchase age to 21, imposing universal background checks, and banning “assault weapons.”
That makes it much more likely this story will quietly fade and be replaced by other stories that can be better weaponized against conservatives, like Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement.
Reason No. 2: Pundits immediately—and incorrectly—blamed President Donald Trump.
Within an hour of the first reports of shots fired in the Capital Gazette building, numerous media pundits took it upon themselves to blame the shooting on Trump’s rhetoric about “fake news.” A Reuters reporter accused the president of having blood on his hands, followed by similar accusations from a New York Times journalist, a White House correspondent, an investigative reporter from Politico, and other high-profile media personalities.
They were completely, unequivocally wrong.
The suspect wasn’t motivated by political ideology, but by a longstanding feud with the newspaper that predates Trump’s election by roughly four years. Had these journalists waited for the facts of the situation to come out, they could have avoided looking exactly like the “fake news” media the president has accused them of being.
Instead, they’re having to backtrack and justify irrational statements. That’s not an easy job, and often requires a bit of humility.
On the other hand, simply dropping the story as fast as possible is much more convenient.
Why It Shouldn’t Go Away Quickly
Reason No. 1: We need to face the reality of warning signs.
It’s all too common to hear people, in the aftermath of these attacks, imply that they had every reason to believe the suspect was a danger to himself or others, and yet nothing was done to keep him from possessing firearms. We must learn from these heartbreaking incidents so that we can prevent future tragedies.
The suspect has been convicted of criminal harassment, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail. He served 18 months of supervised probation. But in Maryland, as in most states, this is not an offense that disqualifies a person from possessing a firearm.
Criminal stalking, harassment, and threatening behaviors need to be taken seriously as indicators of future violence. This man’s actions left a women so in fear for her life that she moved to a new location and told reporters that she still sleeps with a gun.
He became so unhinged that Capital Gazette employees reported him and his threats to two different law enforcement agencies. A former executive editor and publisher for the paper once told his attorneys that “this was a guy that was going to come and shoot us.”
The answer to these warning signs is not to impose wholesale restrictions on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, or to prohibit entire categories of firearms commonly used by those law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
The answer is to intervene with the specific individuals who, by their actions and based on objective criteria, indicate that they present a heightened risk of danger to themselves or to others compared to the general population.
This does not mean that every single person who has ever committed a misdemeanor should be eternally, completely stripped of gun rights, either. States should pair individual restrictions for violent and violence-related misdemeanors with comprehensive, fair, and easy-to-utilize mechanisms for the restoration of an individual’s Second Amendment rights.
Reason No. 2: Maryland left the journalists defenseless.
There is no evidence that any employees of the Capital Gazette would have chosen to carry a firearm to work for self-defense. But had they been inclined to protect themselves against a person they reasonably—and correctly—believed was more than capable of carrying out his threats, Maryland makes it nearly impossible for them to do so outside of their homes.
Maryland is a “may issue” state, meaning it does not presume that residents have a right to carry concealed firearms, and only issues permits to those who sufficiently prove they have a “good and substantial reason” to carry a firearm in public. This bar is rarely met, even by law-abiding citizens such as Robert Scherr, who served honorably in the National Guard and who felt at risk because of his work as a divorce lawyer.
Fewer than 0.4 percent of Maryland adults have an active concealed carry permit. In terms of total concealed carry permits issued, Maryland outranks only Washington, D.C. (which effectively did not issue concealed carry permits until 2017); Hawaii (the only state to not issue a single gun carry permit to a private citizen in 2016); New Jersey (which notoriously issues permits almost exclusively to former law enforcement officers); and Delaware and Alaska (both of which have fewer than one-sixth of Maryland’s population).
And even if a Maryland resident is one of the lucky few authorized to carry a gun in public, she is prohibited from doing so in a wide range of places.
The reality is that, for all of Maryland’s strict gun laws, it has only succeeded in making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals bent on destruction.
Reason No. 3: The journalists are heroic.
The most unfortunate part of the likely imminent media retreat from this story is that the real heroes of the day won’t get the coverage they deserve.
When asked if the Capital Gazette would print a Friday edition on the heels of so horrific a tragedy, reporter E.B. Furguson III fiercely told The New York Times, “Hell, yes.” This was followed by a tweet from the Gazette’s twitter account, informing the public: “Yes, we’re putting out a damn paper tomorrow.”
The men and women of the Capital Gazette were hours removed from watching their colleagues be slaughtered simply for having the audacity to publish truthful material about a deeply troubled man. Their blood was still wet on the floors of the printing office. The pain was raw, and deep, and intense.
So they did the most courageous thing they could do.
Meet These 5 Stellar Conservatives Trump Just Added to His Supreme Court List
President Donald Trump on Friday added five judges to his list of potential Supreme Court nominees. (Photo: Alex Edelman/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom)
COMMENTARY BY
John G. Malcolm@malcolm_john
John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Read his research.
Elizabeth Slattery@EHSlattery Elizabeth Slattery writes about the proper role of the courts, judicial nominations, and the Constitution as a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. She co-hosts SCOTUS101, a podcast about everything that’s happening at the Supreme Court.
Tiffany Bates@TiffanyHBates Tiffany Bates serves as legal policy analyst in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
On Friday, President Donald Trump announced the addition of five individuals to his outstanding list of potential candidates for a future Supreme Court vacancy.
As was the case with the lists Trump put out during his presidential campaign, these new additions to the list are conservative men and women who are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning.
While there are currently no vacancies on the Supreme Court, rumors abound that Justice Anthony Kennedy may retire in the near future. Here’s a look at the new names.
Amy Barrett
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution.
(Find out more >>Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit)
Age: Approximately 45
Barrett, a former University of Notre Dame law professor, was recently confirmed to the 7th Circuit. After graduating from Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit and Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
She then worked in private practice (where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore) before starting her career in academia, teaching briefly at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002.
Barrett is a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court.
In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed her to the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, where she served for six years.
At her confirmation hearing in September, Senate Democrats chided her for her writings as a law student in 1998 and asked inappropriate questions about her Catholic faith. But Barrett received robust bipartisan support from the legal community, including from Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.
Britt Grant
Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia
Age: Approximately 39
Appointed to Georgia’s highest court by Gov. Nathan Deal in 2016, Grant previously served as the state’s solicitor general and in other capacities in the state attorney general’s office. She also worked in the George W. Bush administration, serving on the Domestic Policy Council and the Office of Cabinet Affairs.
Grant began working at the White House weeks before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and after that horrific day, her mission became making government “as effective as it can be and as protective of liberty as it can be.”
Earlier in her career, she served as an aide to then-Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., on Capitol Hill, clerked for Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit, and worked in private practice at Kirkland & Ellis, one of the top appellate law firms in Washington, D.C.
She is a graduate of Stanford Law School and Wake Forest University.
In a letter recommending her appointment to the state’s high court, Kavanaugh praised Grant’s “superb” writing, which is “[o]ne of the most important duties” of judges. In her 11 months on the bench, she’s heard numerous cases and displayed her excellent writing abilities.
In a recent decision reinstating criminal charges against a woman who secretly filmed her boss in the nude, Grant wrote a special concurrence agreeing with the judgment but not the reasoning of the majority. The majority analogized a state law criminalizing “hostile intrusion or surveillance” by a private party with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She explained, “[t]he statute cannot bear the weight that the Fourth Amendment puts on it when addressing the behavior of private parties and not of the government” and that it “addresses a privacy interest quite different than the one that we all share against government search and seizure.”
Brett Kavanaugh
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Age: 52
A former clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy and graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, Kavanaugh worked as a senior associate counsel and assistant to President George W. Bush and as an associate independent counsel.
He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2003 but not confirmed until 2006.
Former Attorney General William Barr stated that Kavanaugh “quickly established himself as one of the key outside lawyers I went to on some of my toughest legal issues. He has a keen intellect, exceptional analytical skills, and sound judgment. His writing is fluid and precise. I found that he was able to see all sides of an issue and appreciate the strengths and weakness of competing approaches. He was particularly effective in dealing with novel issues which required some original thinking.”
Since joining the bench, Kavanaugh has distinguished himself as a thoughtful, apolitical jurist, who is not afraid to stake out bold positions on complex issues. We included him on The Heritage Foundation’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Kavanaugh recently delivered the annual Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at Heritage—joining the ranks of Justice Clarence Thomas and many other renowned federal judges. He spoke eloquently about the judiciary’s essential role in maintaining the separation of powers.
Kevin Newsom
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
Age: Approximately 45
Kevin Newsom, former all-star appellate lawyer, was confirmed to the 11th Circuit in August. After graduating from Samford University and Harvard Law School, Newsom clerked for Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain on the 9th Circuit and Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. He then worked in private practice before serving as Alabama’s solicitor general.
After five years of government service, Newsom went back to private practice where he became a partner at Birmingham’s Bradley Arant.
Before joining the bench, Newsom had an extensive Supreme Court practice, arguing four cases at the high court and authoring dozens of cert. petitions and amicus briefs. Newsom has won countless awards for his work, including the National Association of Attorneys General’s Best Brief Award four times.
He has argued more than 30 cases in federal appellate courts across the country as well as in Alabama’s appellate courts. In 2011, Roberts, the chief justice, appointed Newsom to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules.
Patrick Wyrick
Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Age: 36
Patrick Wyrick is the youngest person on the Trump list, at 36 years old. Then again, Joseph Story was only 32 when he was nominated by President James Madison to serve as an associate justice to the Supreme Court, a position in which he served with great distinction for nearly 34 years.
Wyrick was appointed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court last February, after serving as the state’s solicitor general for six years.
As solicitor general, Wyrick argued cases before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and also successfully argued Glossip v. Gross (a case challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection) before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A graduate of the University of Oklahoma and that school’s College of Law, Wyrick clerked for U.S. District Court Judge James Payne.
When Wyrick was nominated to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, then-State Attorney General Scott Pruitt described Wyrick as “a superb lawyer” and “a constitutional scholar well-versed in both state and federal law … ” He added that Wyrick’s “wisdom, compassion, and integrity are unparalleled among the many public servants with whom I’ve had the pleasure of working.”
In his short time on the bench, Wyrick has written some noteworthy opinions, including the majority opinion in a case striking down a fee that the Oklahoma Legislature imposed on cigarette companies for violating a provision in the Oklahoma Constitution that sets forth the procedures that must be followed before enacting a “revenue raising” measure.
Although young, Wyrick’s meteoric legal career could ultimately land him on the high court.
We commend the president for taking the utmost care in continuing to identify outstanding individuals to serve on all levels of the federal bench.
Noncitizen arrested for voter fraud scheme
Image via Video Screenshot
How many times have we been told voter fraud is a myth and does not exist?
That “myth” was shot down this week when a non-citizen was arrested for her role in voter fraud in Texas.
Caught!
As many of us suspected, illegal votes were being cast in the 2016 presidential election.
While conservatives complained of voter fraud all along, liberals continued to say this was nothing more than wishful thinking on our part.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton landed the opening shot in what will surely be a landslide of indictments.
On June 3, Marcela Gutierrez was indicted for illegal voting.
Her crime was filling out a ballot under someone else’s name without their permission.
According to reports, Gutierrez was using the ruse of “explaining” how the voting machine was working, but she was actually casting a vote.
On Tuesday, Paxton announced Gutierrez has been formally arrested on the charge.
More to the Story
This was not a one-off instance, either.
Gutierrez is also facing 10 counts of unlawfully assisting a voter.
Nor was Gutierrez acting alone in this voting ruse.
Two other women, Sylvia Arjona and Sara Ornelas, were also implicated in the scandal.
Between the two of them, seven more counts of unlawfully assisting a voter were charged.
Of note here is the fact that Arjona is married to Hidalgo County ISD Trustee Ben Arjona.
So, why was a trustee’s wife messing with votes?
We would also like to know why a non-citizen was even working at a voting facility.
Don’t expect answers anytime soon, though, because Democrats still insist voting fraud doesn’t exist.
As was the case with the lists Trump put out during his presidential campaign, these new additions to the list are conservative men and women who are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning.
While there are currently no vacancies on the Supreme Court, rumors abound that Justice Anthony Kennedy may retire in the near future. Here’s a look at the new names.
Amy Barrett
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution.
(Find out more >>Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit)
Age: Approximately 45
Barrett, a former University of Notre Dame law professor, was recently confirmed to the 7th Circuit. After graduating from Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit and Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
She then worked in private practice (where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore) before starting her career in academia, teaching briefly at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002.
Barrett is a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court.
In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed her to the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, where she served for six years.
At her confirmation hearing in September, Senate Democrats chided her for her writings as a law student in 1998 and asked inappropriate questions about her Catholic faith. But Barrett received robust bipartisan support from the legal community, including from Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.
Britt Grant
Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia
Age: Approximately 39
Appointed to Georgia’s highest court by Gov. Nathan Deal in 2016, Grant previously served as the state’s solicitor general and in other capacities in the state attorney general’s office. She also worked in the George W. Bush administration, serving on the Domestic Policy Council and the Office of Cabinet Affairs.
Grant began working at the White House weeks before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and after that horrific day, her mission became making government “as effective as it can be and as protective of liberty as it can be.”
Earlier in her career, she served as an aide to then-Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., on Capitol Hill, clerked for Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit, and worked in private practice at Kirkland & Ellis, one of the top appellate law firms in Washington, D.C.
She is a graduate of Stanford Law School and Wake Forest University.
In a letter recommending her appointment to the state’s high court, Kavanaugh praised Grant’s “superb” writing, which is “[o]ne of the most important duties” of judges. In her 11 months on the bench, she’s heard numerous cases and displayed her excellent writing abilities.
In a recent decision reinstating criminal charges against a woman who secretly filmed her boss in the nude, Grant wrote a special concurrence agreeing with the judgment but not the reasoning of the majority. The majority analogized a state law criminalizing “hostile intrusion or surveillance” by a private party with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She explained, “[t]he statute cannot bear the weight that the Fourth Amendment puts on it when addressing the behavior of private parties and not of the government” and that it “addresses a privacy interest quite different than the one that we all share against government search and seizure.”
Brett Kavanaugh
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Age: 52
A former clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy and graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, Kavanaugh worked as a senior associate counsel and assistant to President George W. Bush and as an associate independent counsel.
He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2003 but not confirmed until 2006.
Former Attorney General William Barr stated that Kavanaugh “quickly established himself as one of the key outside lawyers I went to on some of my toughest legal issues. He has a keen intellect, exceptional analytical skills, and sound judgment. His writing is fluid and precise. I found that he was able to see all sides of an issue and appreciate the strengths and weakness of competing approaches. He was particularly effective in dealing with novel issues which required some original thinking.”
Since joining the bench, Kavanaugh has distinguished himself as a thoughtful, apolitical jurist, who is not afraid to stake out bold positions on complex issues. We included him on The Heritage Foundation’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Kavanaugh recently delivered the annual Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at Heritage—joining the ranks of Justice Clarence Thomas and many other renowned federal judges. He spoke eloquently about the judiciary’s essential role in maintaining the separation of powers.
Kevin Newsom
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
Age: Approximately 45
Kevin Newsom, former all-star appellate lawyer, was confirmed to the 11th Circuit in August. After graduating from Samford University and Harvard Law School, Newsom clerked for Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain on the 9th Circuit and Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. He then worked in private practice before serving as Alabama’s solicitor general.
After five years of government service, Newsom went back to private practice where he became a partner at Birmingham’s Bradley Arant.
Before joining the bench, Newsom had an extensive Supreme Court practice, arguing four cases at the high court and authoring dozens of cert. petitions and amicus briefs. Newsom has won countless awards for his work, including the National Association of Attorneys General’s Best Brief Award four times.
He has argued more than 30 cases in federal appellate courts across the country as well as in Alabama’s appellate courts. In 2011, Roberts, the chief justice, appointed Newsom to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules.
Patrick Wyrick
Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Age: 36
Patrick Wyrick is the youngest person on the Trump list, at 36 years old. Then again, Joseph Story was only 32 when he was nominated by President James Madison to serve as an associate justice to the Supreme Court, a position in which he served with great distinction for nearly 34 years.
Wyrick was appointed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court last February, after serving as the state’s solicitor general for six years.
As solicitor general, Wyrick argued cases before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and also successfully argued Glossip v. Gross (a case challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection) before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A graduate of the University of Oklahoma and that school’s College of Law, Wyrick clerked for U.S. District Court Judge James Payne.
When Wyrick was nominated to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, then-State Attorney General Scott Pruitt described Wyrick as “a superb lawyer” and “a constitutional scholar well-versed in both state and federal law … ” He added that Wyrick’s “wisdom, compassion, and integrity are unparalleled among the many public servants with whom I’ve had the pleasure of working.”
In his short time on the bench, Wyrick has written some noteworthy opinions, including the majority opinion in a case striking down a fee that the Oklahoma Legislature imposed on cigarette companies for violating a provision in the Oklahoma Constitution that sets forth the procedures that must be followed before enacting a “revenue raising” measure.
Although young, Wyrick’s meteoric legal career could ultimately land him on the high court.
We commend the president for taking the utmost care in continuing to identify outstanding individuals to serve on all levels of the federal bench.
Noncitizen arrested for voter fraud scheme
Image via Video ScreenshotHow many times have we been told voter fraud is a myth and does not exist?
That “myth” was shot down this week when a non-citizen was arrested for her role in voter fraud in Texas.
Caught!
As many of us suspected, illegal votes were being cast in the 2016 presidential election.
While conservatives complained of voter fraud all along, liberals continued to say this was nothing more than wishful thinking on our part.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton landed the opening shot in what will surely be a landslide of indictments.
On June 3, Marcela Gutierrez was indicted for illegal voting.
Her crime was filling out a ballot under someone else’s name without their permission.
According to reports, Gutierrez was using the ruse of “explaining” how the voting machine was working, but she was actually casting a vote.
On Tuesday, Paxton announced Gutierrez has been formally arrested on the charge.
More to the Story
This was not a one-off instance, either.
Gutierrez is also facing 10 counts of unlawfully assisting a voter.
Nor was Gutierrez acting alone in this voting ruse.
Two other women, Sylvia Arjona and Sara Ornelas, were also implicated in the scandal.
Between the two of them, seven more counts of unlawfully assisting a voter were charged.
Of note here is the fact that Arjona is married to Hidalgo County ISD Trustee Ben Arjona.
So, why was a trustee’s wife messing with votes?
We would also like to know why a non-citizen was even working at a voting facility.
Don’t expect answers anytime soon, though, because Democrats still insist voting fraud doesn’t exist.
‘Experts’ Rank US in Top 10 Most Dangerous Countries for Women—Almost as Bad as Nigeria
Among 193 U.N. member states, “women’s rights experts” rank the U.S. as the 10th-most dangerous country for women. (Photos: Alaa Al-Faqir in Syria/Reuters; John J. Kim in U.S./TNS/Newscom)
Kelsey Harkness@kelseyjharknessKelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal and co-host of "Problematic Women," a podcast and Facebook Live show. Send an email to Kelsey.
Suggesting that many of the world’s most grave problems have been solved, experts in women’s rights from around the world rank the United States among the 10 most dangerous countries for women.
Sadly, however, issues such as female genital mutilation, arranged marriage, rape as a weapon of war, honor killings, and maternal mortality haven’t stopped.
Rather, leading “experts” in their fields appear to have lost any perspective, categorizing the U.S. as almost as dangerous as Nigeria, where Boko Haram militants kidnap, rape, and sexually exploit women and girls.
The ranking was compiled by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Reuters, “the world’s largest news and information provider.” The foundation asked 548 “women’s rights experts” to name the most dangerous countries from among the 193 United Nations member states in health care, access to economic resources, customary practices, sexual violence, and nonsexual violence and human trafficking.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
The results came in as follows:
1. India
2. Afghanistan
3. Syria
4. Somalia
5. Saudi Arabia
6. Pakistan
7. Democratic Republic of Congo
8. Yemen
2. Nigeria
10. United States
Notably missing from the Reuters list:
—South Sudan and Central African Republic, where the armed forces systematically rape women as a weapon of war.
—Mauritania, where an estimated 40 percent of the population is enslaved, presumably many of them women.
—North Korea, where tens of thousands of women are trafficked and trapped in prison camps.
—Iran, where women are arrested for taking off their hijabs and protesting an oppressive regime.
—China, where millions of baby girls were murdered under the country’s one-child policy.
—And Myanmar, where a genocide is happening under our watch.
I could go on. But somehow, it’s the U.S. where women are doomed.
If living in the United States is more dangerous for women than living in a country where boy’s and men’s bodies are used to create bonfires while women are raped and baby girls are grabbed by the leg and thrown into the fire to burn, then forgive me—I must be missing something. As far as I was aware, women in the U.S. face injustices, but we still have equality before the law.
The same can’t be said for these nine other countries, or the dozens of others that didn’t make the list of most dangerous countries for women.
The inclusion of the U.S. in this group demonstrates the level of ignorance among “women’s experts,” and why so many of them shouldn’t be trusted. It reflects the dangerous “victimhood” ideology that’s pervasive among college students, and shows how selfish American feminism has become.
Harvey Weinstein, after all, does not equate with Boko Haram.
In explaining the decision to rank the U.S. as the 10th-most dangerous country for women, the Thomson Reuters Foundation said:
The United States shot up in the rankings after tying joint third with Syria when respondents were asked which was the most dangerous country for women in terms of sexual violence including rape, sexual harassment, coercion into sex and the lack of access to justice in rape cases. It was ranked sixth for non-sexual violence.
The survey was taken after the #MeToo campaign against sexual harassment went viral in October last year as Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual misconduct by more than 70 women, some dating back decades. Hundreds of women have since publicly accused powerful men in business, government and entertainment of sexual misconduct and thousands have joined the #MeToo social media movement to share stories of sexual harassment or abuse.
Specifically, experts ranked the U.S. the third-worst country for the category Sexual Violence, “including rape as a weapon of war; domestic rape; rape by a stranger; the lack of access to justice in rape cases; sexual harassment and coercion into sex as a form of corruption.”
That puts us just between Syria and Congo, the latter once called “the rape capital of the world.”
The U.S. also ranked sixth in Non-Sexual Violence, “including conflict-related violence and forms of domestic physical and mental abuse.” That leaves us just before Saudi Arabia, where women recently gained the right to drive.
#MeToo was a long, overdue movement, and the good news is that it’s creating change. Men who do wrong are being held accountable, and more women feel empowered to speak up. Yes, there’s still a lot of work to do. But the majority of our #MeToo cases don’t compare to women’s cries in the Middle East. Nor do our injustices hold water to the inequalities of women in the developing world.
We might face sexual harassment, assault, and even violence, but it’s not systematically used as a weapon of war. And sure, some of us don’t like our leader, but our government isn’t gassing its own people.
Speaking in relative terms, women in the U.S. are safe.
For anyone who’s perplexed about the level of outrage in America today, look no further than the results of this survey. According to “women’s experts,” there are 183 countries where women are better off living than the U.S.
To be fair, the U.S. does allow women to be thrown out of restaurants, and Democratic leaders call on their supporters to harass political opponents. But even so, women here have it pretty good. So good, in fact, that our borders are overwhelmed with people dreaming of calling this place “home.”
To pretend that life in America is more dangerous than so many other countries is nothing short of sad, insulting, and ludicrous. Because let’s be clear: Women are far better off living in the U.S. than they are in places like Myanmar.
“Women’s experts,” of all people, should know this.
st
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/07/www.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment