Help Us Go Viral!

Who's Online
Guest Users: 608

9669 Pages Viewed
1215 Unique Visits
My Account
Please Support Us With A Purchase

  • Home
  • Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules That Foreign Soros-Backed Operatives Do Not Have First Amendment Rights

The ruling was against the Soros-backed Alliance for Open Society International


By Shane Trejo

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Monday making it clear that a major front of progressive billionaire oligarch George Soros does not have 1st Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.

In the case of Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts ruled against 1st Amendment right for the Soros front. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented against the majority while Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the case.

The Alliance for Open Society International hoped to soak up federal funds earmarked to stop HIV/AIDS throughout the world. However, they hit a snag due to an act of Congress banning any group that supports prostitution from taking these funds. The pro-hooker leftist group attempted to sue to get around that act of Congress, but were rebuked by the conservative majority. Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion for the case.

“We appreciate that plaintiffs would prefer to affiliate with foreign organizations that do not oppose prostitution,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But Congress required foreign organizations to oppose prostitution in return for American funding. And plaintiffs cannot export their own First Amendment rights to shield foreign organizations from Congress’s funding conditions.”

“Those foreign organizations are legally separate from the American organizations. And because foreign organizations operating abroad do not possess constitutional rights, those foreign organizations do not have a First Amendment right to disregard the Policy Requirement,” he continued.

“In sum, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad possess no rights under the U. S. Constitution,” Kavanaugh concluded.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence to Kavanaugh’s opinion in favor of the ruling as well. He went even further than Kavanaugh in supporting Congress’ prohibition on issuing HIV relief funds to organizations that support prostitution.

“The Policy Requirement does not violate the First Amendment, regardless of whether it is applied to respondents, respondents’ legally distinct foreign affiliates, or any other organization, foreign or domestic,” Thomas wrote.

The Soros network is unhappy about the ruling and the fact that they will be denied the federal funds because of their international support for the flesh trade.

“The Supreme Court upheld the U.S. government’s quest to impose its harmful ideological agenda on U.S. organizations and restrict their right to free speech,” said Patrick Gaspard, president of the Open Society Foundations.

“The Anti-Prostitution Pledge compromises the fight against HIV by impeding and stigmatizing efforts to deliver health services. Condemnation of marginalized groups is not a public health strategy,” Gaspard added.

Regardless of their whining, the decision is final. The ruling could have the cascading effect of denying foreign Soros-backed operations any constitutional protections in terms of their alleged support for terror groups such as Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA as well.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Justice Thomas Slams Colleagues in DACA Ruling Dissent

Editor's Note: The separation of powers between the branches of gubermint is in serious jeopardy with the judiciary assuming authority it does not have. They claim they ruled this way because they didn't like the reasons given to justify the action taken by the Executive Branch but say "nothing" about what gives the court the authority to demand such a thing.


Marisa Herman

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ripped his colleagues for blocking President Donald Trump’s request to end the DACA program.

DACA, which stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, prevents young people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children from being deported for a period of time. The program was put in place by former President Barack Obama in 2012.

“Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision,” Thomas wrote in his dissent.

The court ruled 5-4 that the Department of Homeland Security's decision to cancel DACA did not follow proper procedure. 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, which states that the department does have the ability to cancel the program. The opinion said the court took issue with the reasons the Trump administration gave for eliminating the program.

"The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so,” he wrote, adding the department's decision to terminate the program was "arbitrary and capricious."

Thomas blasted his colleagues for giving the “green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong — the political branches.”

"The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope," Thomas said. "The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end."

He said the majority’s opinion supports the idea that a president is “not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.”

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Supreme Court Justices Signal Potential Crackdown On Nationwide Injunctions

Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion about the threat nationwide injunctions present to separation of powers and the role of the courts under the Constitution.


By Shawn Fleetwood

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling that the Trump administration may deny green cards to foreign nationals who use taxpayer-funded social services. The ruling freezes several nationwide injunctions issued by lower federal courts late last year. Monday’s vote also fell along ideological lines, as the five Republican-appointed justices voted in favor, while the four Democrat-appointed justices dissented.

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (NIA), foreign nationals are prohibited from acquiring a green card if they are “likely at any time to become a public charge.” The issue at hand on Monday was what fit the criteria of a “public charge.” In recent years, the phrase was characterized as an individual who was reliant on a cash assistance program.

Back in August 2019, the Trump administration implemented this new rule to take into account immigrants’ use of government benefits, such as Medicaid and food stamps, when determining whether to provide individuals with permanent status. The policy exempts refugees and asylum seekers.

In Monday’s ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion about the threat nationwide injunctions present to separation of powers and the role of the courts under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. “The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them,” Gorsuch wrote. “Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.”

Gorsuch continued, “But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies.” Gorsuch was joined in his concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas.

This isn’t the first-time SCOTUS justices have discussed nationwide injunctions. Back in 2018, in the case Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Thomas noted that nationwide injunctions “are legally and historically dubious,” and warned that “If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.”

Rather than interpret the law as written, leftist judges have become activists in the courtroom, ruling out of political opinions rather than the legal text before them. Such behavior rejects the ideals of the Founders, who believed in an impartial judiciary that rules based on the law as written.

Nationwide injunctions by lower federal courts have become a recurring problem for the Trump administration. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in September 2019, Attorney General Bill Barr revealed that “During the eight years of the Obama administration, 20 nationwide injunctions were issued while the Trump administration has already faced nearly 40,” with the vast majority of these injunctions coming from Democrat-appointed judges. Barr stated “the federal judiciary wasn’t made to produce instant legal uniformity. To the contrary, the system—in which local district courts are supervised by regional courts of appeal—was constructed to allow a diversity of initial rulings until a single, national rule could be decided by the Supreme Court.”

This continuous abuse of judicial power by leftists on the bench erodes our Constitution, piece by piece. President Thomas Jefferson even warned of the judiciary’s potential corruption in 1819, when in a letter to Judge Spencer Roane he wrote, “Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

This was one of many times Jefferson wrote about potential judicial tyranny, and it seems that his worst fears have come true.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t limit nationwide injunctions, the lower federal courts will continue to run roughshod over our Constitution, deeply damaging the separation of powers that prevents judicial tyranny. The longer this problem persists, activist judges will continue to become emboldened to dictate national policy, while seizing power for the judiciary. It’s time the Supreme Court take a stand and defend the Constitution, and that starts with ending nationwide injunctions.

Shawn Fleetwood is a college student attending Germanna Community College in Virginia. After he gets his associate’s degree, he plans to transfer to a four-year institution to major in either journalism or political science.




  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Clarence Thomas Exposes Abortion's Ties to Racist Eugenics in Scathing Fetal Remains Case Opinion.

By Tyler O'Neil

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court refused to take up the issue of Indiana's ban on abortion specifically for the sex, race, or disability of the baby to be killed. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a powerful opinion revealing the connections between the racist eugenics movement and the abortion movement. He warned that if Planned Parenthood is able to get sex-selective, race-specific, and disability-targeted abortions codified as a woman's right under the Constitution, that would enshrine a horrific movement rightly left in the past.

"Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement," Thomas warned. "In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination."

Yet abortion activists argue that Roe v. Wade (1973) was correct in ruling that abortion is a fundamental right for women. They claim that this right should override any other concerns, even race, sex, and disability discrimination applied to an unborn baby.

Thomas condemned this abortion argument, showing how it echoes the disgusting eugenics movement. He argued that the Indiana law "and other laws like it promote a State's compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics."

The ties between abortion and eugenics run deep into history. "The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement," Thomas argued. "That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control 'opens the way to the eugenist.'"

"As a means of reducing the 'ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all,' Sanger argued that 'Birth Control . . . is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method' of 'human generation.'" Yet Thomas claimed that "Sanger’s arguments about the eugenic value of birth control in securing 'the elimination of the unfit,' ... apply with even greater force to abortion, making it significantly more effective as a tool of eugenics. Whereas Sanger believed that birth control could prevent 'unfit' people from reproducing, abortion can prevent them from being born in the first place."

While Sanger condemned abortion as a "disgrace to civilization," many eugenicists supported legalizing abortion, and many abortion advocates endorsed using abortion for eugenic reasons, including most notably future Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher. "Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability."

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Justice Thomas: America Now in Conflict Between Religious Liberty and Court's Decree on Gay Marriage

By Terence P. Jeffrey

( - In his dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Clarence Thomas predicted that the court’s declaration that same-sex marriage is a right would ultimately lead to conflict between that purported right and religious liberty.

In his concurring opinion today in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Thomas concludes: “This case proves that the conflict has already emerged.”

In Obergefell, decided by a 5-4 vote in 2015, the Supreme Court declared that the 14th Amendment creates a right for people of the same sex to marry one another.

“The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built,” Thomas wrote in his dissent in Obergefell. “Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not enti­tlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty.

“Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a ‘liberty’ that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect,” Thomas continued. “Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the government. This distor­tion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.”

In his Obergefell dissent, Thomas went on to warn:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

“The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability,” wrote Thomas.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)
Please Support Us With A Purchase

Please Make A One Time Donation
You can send a check
or money order to:
The KTAO Project
P.O. Box 1086
Crestone, CO 81131
or donate online:
Or Better Yet Become A Supporting Member
Worthy of Support

Help Us Go Viral!

Who's Online
Guest Users: 608

9669 Pages Viewed
1215 Unique Visits
My Account
Please Support Us With A Purchase