Huma and Sext-Offender Weiner Together in Divorce Court Ahead of His Sentencing Next Month

When Laura Loomer verbally berated Hillary Clinton during her Tuesday book signing in New York City, Huma Abedin was present. Annoying Loomer asked Abedin when she was going to divorce her husband, Anthony Weiner, for sexting an underage girl.

Loomer’s timing wasn’t bad. Huma and Weiner showed up in court today to begin finalizing that divorce.

Loomer claims to have been nearly taken into custody by the Secret Service for her harassment.

In all honesty, I don’t believe the marriage was real anyway. It was arranged to shield Hillary Clinton from scrutiny over her affair with Huma. Both Weiner and Huma are play acting. For now, you have to believe Weiner’s payoff will be in the form of probation, not prison, for his sex crimes.

Excerpt from the New York Post

This is one odd ​soon-to-be ex-​couple.

Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin sat elbow to elbow whispering to each other during their first divorce hearing Wednesday​ ​— then left together in a chauffeur-driven car.

Abedin, whose husband will be sentenced later this month for sexting with a minor, smiled as she stood next to the disgraced ex-congressman in the courthouse elevator, even though she’s filed a contested divorce proceeding against him.

And Weiner seemingly couldn’t be happier.

“Feeling ​OK, Anthony?” a reporter asked.

“Thank you, yes. Bless you guys,” the repeat sext-offender, who ​once ​went by the online moniker Carlos Danger, said on his way into Manhattan Supreme Court.

Justice Michael Katz said he was “glad to hear” that Weiner and Abedin “would like to resolve this amicably.”

Abedin finally filed for divorce in May just hours after Weiner tearfully pleaded guilty to sexting with the underage girl.

His sexting addiction first surfaced in 2011 when pictures of his crotch leaked onto the internet — ultimately leading him to resign from Congress.

Abedin first separated from her husband in August 2016 after The Post published yet another crotch shot — this time with the couple’s toddler son in the picture.

THE UNHAPPY COUPLE LEAVING COURT.

Senator (((Diane Feinstein))) Hints That Christians Not Eligible for Federal Judgeships

American Senator Diane Feinstein seems to think that if you have religious beliefs that you might rule against the liberal, cultural Marxist agenda that she stands for.

The nerve!

Feinstein has gotten some pushback for her chutzpah, as well she should. The setting for her nervy display of arrogance was a confirmation hearing for a conservative woman nominated to the bench by President Trump. The unspoken subtext is, of course, abortion, which the Democrat party has staked its life on.

Fox News

The president of the University of Notre Dame said he is deeply concerned after Sen. Dianne Feinstein questioned a colleague’s religious beliefs during a Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing.

Amy Coney Barrett, a law professor at Notre Dame, was grilled by Democrats over how her Catholic beliefs might influence her decisions from the bench. Barrett was recently nominated by President Trump for a seat on the federal court.

AMY CONEY BARRETT. ROUGH CONFIRMATION HEARING.

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country,” Sen. Feinstein said.

Feinstein has been widely condemned for what many are calling anti-Catholic bigotry and bullying.

“It is chilling to hear from a United States Senator that this might now disqualify someone from service as a federal judge,” Notre Dame President John Jenkins wrote in a public letter to the California lawmaker.

He took great exception to her remark that the “dogma lives loudly” in the professor.

The Detroit News elaborates on the pushback against the nervy Jewish Senator from California.

“People of faith, whatever faith they may hold, should not be disqualified because of that faith from serving the public good,” said Archbishop William E. Lori, chairman of the Catholic Bishops’ committee on religious liberty.

A key focus of the hearing was a 1998 law review article titled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” In the article, Barrett and John H. Garvey said Catholic judges are obliged to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters and the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing judges to recuse themselves when beliefs keep them from doing their job.

Richard Simmons Libel Lawsuit Against National Enquirer Reportedly Dismissed

RICHARD SIMMONS TAKING A FITNESS WALK WITH FANS IN 2007 IN NEW ORLEANS

This is good. You can now falsely call your enemy a tranny and get away with it as far as the courts are concerned. That’s assuming this landmark legal precedent holds up.

If it does, by the same token, you should be able to call your enemy a homo and get away with it.

If you’re an amateur lawyer, read this story and extrapolate how we can use this to our advantage.

NOLA

In what could establish a landmark legal precedent, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge indicated Wednesday (Aug. 30) that he plans to dismiss Richard Simmons’ pending defamation lawsuit against the National Enquirer, Variety is reporting. The New Orleans-born weight-loss guru sued the tabloid publication in May over a published report alleging he was in the process of transitioning to become a woman.

Simmons, who — before unexpectedly withdrawing from the public spotlight in early 2014 — was well-known for his flamboyant manner and style of dress, expressed support for the trans community in his initial filing, which also named Radar Online as a defendant. At the same time, though, he insisted he was not transitioning.

But while the Enquirer story might be false, Judge Gregory Keosian’s tentative ruling asserts that being misidentified as transgender doesn’t rise to the standard of defamation, which is defined by exposing someone to hatred, contempt, ridicule or abuse.

“While, as a practical matter, the characteristic may be held in contempt by a portion of the population, the court will not validate those prejudices by legally recognizing them,” Keosian wrote in his ruling, according to Variety.

The decision, if finalized in coming days as expected, is believed to set a new legal precedent, contending that misidentifying someone as transgender doesn’t necessarily harm their reputation. Similar rulings have focused on race, and Keosian’s decision would appear to argue that a person’s transgender status should be held to the same standard.

While some have characterized the ruling as a counterintuitive legal victory for the trans community, Simmons’ lawyers responded by arguing that it is rooted more in idealism than reality.

A public figure for decades who long showed an affinity for the spotlight, Simmons in 2014 abruptly disappeared from public view, secluding himself in his Hollywood Hills home. He has since refused every request to be interviewed in person, leading to all manner of speculation about the reasons for his seclusion, ranging from his health to rumors that he was being held hostage by his housekeeper.

That speculation even spawned a hit podcast, “Missing Richard Simmons,” which — while not authorized by Simmons — became an online sensation in early 2017.

Simmons has maintained that he is in good health but that he simply wants a break from the spotlight. Multiple visits to his Hollywood Hills home by Los Angeles police, prompted by rumors regarding his well-being, led a law enforcement source in March 2017 to confirm to the website TMZ that Simmons is “perfectly fine.”

RICHARD SIMMONS, 2013.

I can’t finish a post about Richard Simmons without saying that he’s the only allegedly homosexual person I can think of that I accept.

He’s never gotten into promoting the LGBT agenda. He loves his fans and they seem to feel the same way. And why not? His whole life has revolved around teaching fat women how to lose weight and feel better about themselves. He was a fat kid himself so whatever struggles the obese go through, he’s experienced. Furthermore, he’s a self-made “man” from a lower middle class New Orleans background.

Richard needs to get out and about again. Becoming a recluse like Howard Hughes is probably not a good thing.

Nostalgia from 1990!

Justin Trudeau to Pay $10.5 Million to Muslim Terrorist Who Allegedly Murdered U.S. Army Medic

OMAR KHADR. JUSTIN THINKS HE’S CUTE.

An admitted Muslim terrorist is going to profit handsomely from his murderous crimes because the government of Canada is settling his wrongful imprisonment lawsuit.

How can you be wrongfully imprisoned when you’re a terrorist!

This decision by Justin Trudeau gives the military every incentive to just kill the rat bastards rather than taking them prisoner. That’s about the only good that will come out of this situation, which stinks as badly as any in recent memory.

Not only should Khadr not receive money, he should be deported.

Excerpt from CBC.ca

A government source has confirmed to CBC News that Ottawa will apologize and pay millions of dollars in compensation to former Guantanamo Bay prisoner Omar Khadr.

Khadr — who confessed to killing a U.S. army medic when he was 15, under interrogation that was later deemed “oppressive” — will receive a settlement of $10.5 million, the source, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to CBC late Tuesday.

Details of the deal were first reported earlier Tuesday by unnamed sources who spoke to The Associated Press, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.

Khadr, who now lives in an apartment in Edmonton, had been seeking $20 million in a wrongful imprisonment civil suit against Ottawa.

The government and Khadr’s lawyers negotiated the deal last month, according to The Associated Press.

Speaking to reporters in Ireland, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would not confirm any details.

“There is a judicial process underway that has been underway for a number of years now, and we are anticipating, like I think a number of people are, that that judicial process is coming to its conclusion,” Trudeau said.

15 at time of arrest

Born in Toronto, Khadr was 15 in July 2002 when he was captured by U.S. troops following a firefight at a suspected al-Qaeda compound in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of Sgt. Christopher Speer.

Khadr was suspected of throwing the grenade that killed Speer and confessed to doing so during later interrogations by military and FBI investigators.

The Canadian was taken first to prison at the Bagram U.S. military base in Afghanistan and then to the prison at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. naval base in Cuba and ultimately charged with war crimes by a military commission.

After pleading not guilty to five war crimes charges, including murder, in 2010, he changed his plea to guilty later that year and was sentenced to eight years plus the time he had already spent in custody.

He returned to Canada two years later to serve the remainder of his sentence and was released in May 2015 pending an appeal of his war crime convictions, in which he argued that his admissions of guilt were made under duress.

Khadr spent 10 years in Guantanamo Bay. His case received international attention, with some advocating that he should be treated as a child soldier, not an adult.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2010 that Canadian intelligence officials obtained evidence from Khadr under “oppressive circumstances,” such as sleep deprivation, during interrogations at Guantanamo Bay in 2003, and then shared that evidence with U.S. officials.

Youngest detainee at Guantanamo

Khadr, now 30, was the youngest and last Western detainee at the U.S. military prison.

His lawyers filed a $20-million lawsuit against Ottawa, arguing the government violated international law by not protecting its own citizen and conspired with the U.S. in the wrongful imprisonment and abuse of Khadr. The suit was first filed in 2004 and expanded in 2014.

The widow of Speer and another U.S. soldier blinded by the grenade in Afghanistan filed a wrongful death and injury lawsuit against Khadr in 2014, fearing Khadr might get his hands on money from his wrongful imprisonment lawsuit.

A U.S. judge granted $134.2 million in damages in 2015, but the plaintiffs acknowledged then that there was little chance they would collect any of the money from Khadr because he lives in Canada.

Khadr’s lawyers have long said he was pushed into war by his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, whose family stayed with Osama bin Laden briefly when Omar Khadr was a boy.

KHADR WITH MUNA ABOUGOUSH, HIS FIANCEE.

Meanwhile a widow watches a filthy maggot be enriched by a little turd boy fag of a government leader.

TABITHA SPEER, WIDOW OF SGT. CHRISTOPHER SPEER AND MOTHER OF HIS TWO CHILDREN.

Winning! Promised Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch Delivering for Trump

Wow! Justice Neil Gorsuch is meeting expectations held by conservatives. He hasn’t had his head turned by lib-think. President Trump hit a home run with him.

If Donald Trump also keeps the world out of nuclear Armageddon and gets the wall going, his election was worth all the blood, sweat, and tears that Trump supporters gave last year. Gorsuch is going to be an asset to liberty for a long time to come. It would be icing on the cake if Trump were able to put a couple of other equally conservative justices on the Court.

Excerpt from CNN

Washington (CNN)In his scant two and a half months on the bench, Justice Neil Gorsuch has proven he’s no ordinary junior-most justice.

From his first day on the bench when he dominated oral arguments, to Monday, when he wrote a dissent in a case related to gay marriage, joined his conservative colleagues in a fiery response to the travel ban case and possibly provided the necessary fourth vote for the court to hear a major religious liberty case, Gorsuch has broken the mold.

Gorsuch is already delivering as the strong conservative President Donald Trump promised his voters when he ran for office last year.

“Whereas new justices usually take a beat before they start opining on every issue the court does (and doesn’t) address, Justice Gorsuch has asserted his exceptionally conservative views early and often across a dizzying range of hot-button issues,” said Joshua Matz, a lawyer and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Gorsuch’s recent opinions prove the point.

On Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Gorsuch and Justice Samuel Alito, chastized their colleagues for not going far enough in the travel ban cases. The troika would have allowed all of Trump’s executive order banning people from six majority-Muslim countries to go into effect immediately.

Furthermore, they said that their colleagues’ “compromise” — allowing in people with connections to the United States — would “prove unworkable.”

And the three justices said that, at the end of the day, the Trump administration is likely to succeed in the case as applied to all non-citizens.

In another case Monday, the court ruled in favor of two married same-sex couples in Arkansas who challenged a state law that did not allow both partners to be listed as parents on a birth certificate. In an unsigned, majority opinion, the court cited Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 opinion that legalized gay marriage, to summarily reverse the Arkansas lower court.

Gorsuch dissented. This time he wrote for the trio of himself, Thomas and Alito: “The statute in question establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child’s birth certificate.” Gorsuch’s biggest complaint was that the majority thought it was such an easy case and handled as a summary reversal it without setting it for full briefing and argument.

“Summary reversal is usually reserved for cases where the law is settled and stable, the facts are not in dispute and the decision below is clearly in error,” Gorsuch wrote.

Not even Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the principal dissent in Obergefell, signed on.

Gorsuch’s impact might also have been in play in a case the court decided to take up for next term.

Long before Gorsuch took the bench, a religious liberty case lurked on the docket as the justices decided whether to take it up next term. On Monday the court finally pulled the trigger after months of inexplicable inaction.

Next term, the court will consider the case of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception because he said it would violate his religious liberty. The couple sued and won under a state anti discrimination law. While no one knows the vote count, the unusual timing implies that there might not have been the necessary fourth vote to hear the case until Gorsuch was ready to participate.

“One of the biggest themes of Justice Gorsuch’s confirmation process was his commitment to an especially strong view of how the Constitution protects religious liberty,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law.

New York Dems Hand Six-Figure Job To Woman Too Fat To Work

OMG! Not only is (((Elizabeth Shollenberger))) too fat to actually show up for work and earn her huge paycheck, but when she does show up, she sh*ts on herself and expects others to clean up after her.

The Daily Caller identifies the problem in this story as Democrats abusing the system, but maybe it’s the Jews. I believe that the mayor who appointed her to the bench is also a Jew.

Jews looking out for other Jews. What a world!

Daily Caller

The all-Democratic city council in suburban White Plains, N.Y., gave its party chairperson a six-figure judicial seat despite the fact that she is too obese to climb the three steps to the bench.

City judge Elizabeth Shollenberger, who suffers from a digestive disorder and obesity, was appointed to the $175,500-a-year job in December and has since disgusted her colleagues with gastrointestinal issues.

“She would come in and we would see the diarrhea running down her leg and to the floor,” one court worker told the NY Post. “She would soil the chair and then ask for a new one.”

Shollenberger further dismayed her colleagues by displaying “complete arrogance” following the embarrassing incidents.

“She would just say, ‘There is a mess over there. I think someone should clean it up,’” a court source told the NY Post.

City Judicial Review Committee member Mark Elliott publicly accused White Plains Mayor Tom Roach of ensuring “the fix was in” for Shollenberger, who served as his campaign treasurer. Elliot previously slammed Roach in an email after the City Council ignored the committee’s rejection of Shollenberger, who Elliott described as a “machine politician.”

The committee decided not to approve Shollenberger for the position after realizing she was not fit to work during her interview.

“She came to the interview with an oxygen tank. She’s very fragile,” Elliott told the NY Post. “No reasonable person could have looked at her as I did and thought that she could finish her 10-year term.”

Shollenberger, 61, put her $65,000 in annual health benefits to work almost immediately, taking the first of several health leaves only one week after beginning her term.

Council member Milagros Lecuona accused Roach, who he will challenge for the mayoralty this year, of forcing through Shollenberger’s appointment despite the committee’s rejection “to make sure he’d have the support of the chair of the Democratic Party” for his re-election bid.

“If I knew what I know now, I would not have voted to support her,” Lecuona told the NY Post. “This is going to be a big problem for the taxpayers. It’s financially very irresponsible.”

Shollenberger’s husband called the complaints a “grotesque distortion” and a “hysterical overreaction to what was a minor health incident.”

The Office of Court Administration determined she was “unable to perform her job,” after receiving multiple reports regarding her incontinence, a high-level court source told the NY Post.

Shollenberger has been prohibited from receiving any new cases and her current case load has been distributed to other jurists but she wishes to continue serving in her current post.

“I have no intention of retiring. I want to work. I want to be a judge. Judges get sick all the time,” she said.

Shollenberger’s spokesperson called the court staffers complaints “quite a conspiracy theory,” and added that she would dispute all of their claims.

“The situation remains under review,” OCA spokesman Lucian Chalfen told the NY Post.

Disgusting! At least those who have to clean up her mess have decided they’ve had enough.

1994 Article Exposed the American Shadow Government That Seeks Total World Domination

Full text:

The Constitution Society

The Shadow Government

Copyright © 1994 Constitution Society. Permission is hereby granted to copy for noncommercial use.

Secret Rule

It is becoming increasingly apparent to American citizens that government is no longer being conducted in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, or, within states, according to state constitutions. While people have recognized for more than 150 years that the rich and powerful often corrupt individual officials, or exert undue influence to get legislation passed that favors their interests, most Americans still cling to the naive belief that such corruption is exceptional, and that most of the institutions of society, the courts, the press, and law enforcement agencies, still largely comply with the Constitution and the law in important matters. They expect that these corrupting forces are disunited and in competition with one another, so that they tend to balance one another.

Mounting evidence makes it clear that the situation is far worse than most people think, that during the last several decades the U.S. Constitution has been effectively overthrown, and that it is now observed only as a façade to deceive and placate the masses. What has replaced it is what many call the Shadow Government. It still, for the most part, operates in secret, because its control is not secure. The exposure of this regime and its operations must now become a primary duty of citizens who still believe in the Rule of Law and in the freedoms which this country is supposed to represent.

Continue reading