Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Kavanaugh & Roberts Side With Liberal Justices, & Clarence Thomas Is Pissed Off

Set ’em straight, CT! This is how you call out your colleagues!

John Salvatore

Published

on

Justice Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t want to make any waves.

On one hand it is understandable, on the other it’s kind of ridiculous.

No matter how much one tries to please the left it never works. Ever.

Trending: CONFIRMED: Reporters From Big Name Liberal Outlets Found to Have Working Ties With Antifa

Chief Justice John Roberts hasn’t been a solid conservative during his time on the high court, but Clarence Thomas has.

take our poll - story continues below

Who are the happiest people?

  • Who are the happiest people?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the four liberal justices over a Planned Parenthood case, while Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Thomas wasn’t happy, pointing out that his colleagues are fearful.

From Politico:

Chief Justice John Roberts and the newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh, joined the court’s four liberal jurists in turning away a pair of petitions from Kansas and Louisiana seeking the ban on abortion providers

[…]

Thomas, suggesting most of his colleagues were fearful of taking up a challenge involving Planned Parenthood, asserted the cases weren’t about abortion rights but whether individuals have a right to challenge a state’s decision to cut a particular provider from its Medicaid program.

“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”

Thomas wrote: “Because of this Court’s inaction, patients in different States — even patients with the same providers — have different rights to challenge their State’s provider decisions.

Students at a Georgia college want Justice Thomas’ name removed from a building.

But there’s a problem.

They have no flippin’ clue why!

WATCH:

She deserves to be…loved. She deserved to be…wanted. She deserves to be…a choice.

That’s how Planned Parenthood describes a little girl in a new ad.

The implication, of course, is that the child is “better off dead.”

WATCH:

Pretty sick.

What does this say about stage mothers – that someone would allow their child to be involved with this?

Reactions:

From American Thinker:

What happens if the baby is not happy, not well-fed, and not white? What happens if the baby is not pretty? The white baby may deserve to be “loved” and “wanted,” as Planned Parenthood argues, probably trying to appeal to white suburban women, but what about the kid off camera, the black baby?

A judge recently blocked the federal government from releasing PP’s bid for funding.

A federal judge is restraining the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, for now, from publicly disclosing Planned Parenthood bidding information for Title X funding, which the non-profit said could gut its competitive edge if ever seeing the light of day.

The government prohibits Title X funding being used for abortions. The Title X funding at issue in the case relates to family planning services for things like contraception, infertility services, HIV testing and pregnancy testing.

Check out this video of a man who seems to convince a woman to change her mind about getting an abortion:

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

BOMBSHELL: Shocking New Report Shows Trump Is Making America LESS Racist (Details)

And BOOOOOOOMMM goes the dynamite!

John Salvatore

Published

on

Do you like apples? A new report shows that since President Trump has been in office, America is a less racist country than most liberals want the politically uninformed to believe. How do you like them apples? From Spectator: […] Americans, claim Hopkins and Washington, have actually become less inclined to express racist opinions since Donald Trump was elected. Anti-black prejudice, they found, declined by a statistically-insignificant degree between 2012 and 2016, when Trump was elected. But then after 2016 it took a sharp dive that was statistically significant. Moreover, contrary to their expectations, the fall was as evident among Republican voters as it was among Democrats. There was also a general fall in anti-Hispanic prejudice, too, although this was more evident among Democrat voters. It is a similar story to that in Britain, where the attempt to link Brexit with rising xenophobia has been somewhat debunked. A murder of a Polish man in the town of Harlow in August 2016 was widely attributed to Brexit – but eventually declared by police not to have been a hate crime at all. Similarly, a smashed window in a Spanish restaurant in South London on the night of the Brexit vote was initially widely reported to be an expression of euphoria on the part of xenophobes – but was later revealed to be an attempted burglary. According to freshman Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib, all Congressional Democrats are racist. No joke. She actually said that, revealing what conservatives have known to be true for decades. Did Tlaib mean to say it, though? IT SURE LOOKS THAT WAY. Here’s how it all started… A woman sent a tweet arguing that Democrats are not doing enough to protect embattled Dem Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN)… The attacks on @IlhanMN and subsequent lack of support from Democratic…

Continue Reading

News

BUSTED! Joe Biden Vowed to Ban Sanctuary Cities During Second Run for POTUS In 2007

Hey, Joe – DO YOU REMEMBER THIS!?

John Salvatore

Published

on

1988. 2008. And now, 2020. Former Vice President Joe Biden is attempting to become president of the United States for the third time. Back in 2007 at a New Hampshire primary debate, handsy Joe was asked about “sanctuary cities.” He said he wouldn’t allow them. Biden’s exchange with New England Cable News’s Alison King went as follows: KING: I’d like to hear from Senator Biden, would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law? [Emphasis added] BIDEN: The reason that cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need … Part of the problem is you have to have a federal government that can enforce laws. This administration’s been fundamentally derelict in not funding any of the requirements that are needed even to enforce the existing law… [Emphasis added] … KING: So Senator Biden, yes or no, would you allow those cities to ignore the federal law? [Emphasis added] BIDEN: No. [Emphasis added] With everything Joe has said over the years, how in the world is this man the Democrat frontrunner? It’s almost baffling. Almost. The former VP can’t seem to escape his gaffe-prone ways, yet continues to remain in the public eye. When it comes down to it and Joe goes head-to-head with President Trump in the 2020 general election, Biden stands an excellent chance of being a thrice failed candidate for POTUS. Check out this recently unearthed clip of Biden sounding eerily similar to Trump when it comes to Mexico – and it’s not from that long ago. LOOK: A review of rhetoric from Joe Biden’s record on immigration. It included boasting about needing a 700 mile fence to stop “tons…tons…tons” of drugs from “corrupt Mexico”…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend