Carol Everett: The Dirty Truth about Abortion Industry

July 30, 2015

Carol Everett has been a vigorous Pro-Life activist for three decades. She was an abortion clinic owner responsible for more than 35,000 deaths of babies. She finally quit the industry, was converted to Christ, and become one of the premier Pro-Life activist in the United States.

Note from Bro. Ignatius Mary: I had the privilege of interviewing Carol on my TV Show, Eyes on Justice, in Iowa City, Iowa. It was our most popular program. It was necessary to move the taping out of our studio to a lecture hall because of the number of people who wanted to come to the live show. I tried to get a pro-abortion person to debate her, but no one would accept the invitation. Carol said on air that this was common with each speaking engagement. Carol simple knew all the dirty little secrets.

Here is her keynote presentation and testimony to the Texas Alliance for Life 2011 Annual Benefit Dinner:

To buy Carol’s book: Blood Money: Getting Rich Off a Woman’s Right to Choose

God Has a Warning For This Country

May 9, 2015

Rabbi Jonathan Cahn brought a chilling warning to America at the U.S. Capital on Wednesday.

It was day after justices heard arguments on whether or not the U.S. government would mandate recognition of homosexual “marriage” across the country, Cahn warned the Supreme Court what redefining marriage in America would mean. Cahn said:

“If this court should overrule the word of God and strike down the eternal rules of order and right that heaven itself ordained, how then will God save it?”Justices, can you judge the ways of God? There is another court and there another judge, where all men and all judges will give account.
If a nation’s high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you then be surprised God will pass judgment on the court and that nation? We are doing that which Israel did on the altars of Baal.

We are exchanging our light for darkness.”

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” (Psalm 33:12)

Listen to the Rabbi’s fiery speech. It will make you stand up in your own house in ovation.


Truth: the New Hate Speech | Islamic Jihad Today

February 7, 2015

 World War III is raging today. The aggressor of this world war is Islam. This war even has a Pearl Harbor, the unprovoked sneak attack on 9/11. Military actions are not the only weapon Islam uses this war. The greatest weapon of Islam is immigration into non-Muslim nations and those nations acquiescence to Islam and even shariah law through so-called hate-speech laws, political correctness, and other social pressures.

Truth is the new hate speech. 

We offer here several speeches and documentaries that explains these issues in detail.

Pamela Geller, Founder, Editor, and Publisher of Atlas and Executive Director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, speaks to the Sugar Land Tea Party in Sugar Land, Texas. This event was originally to be held at the HyattPlace in Sugar Land but was canceled with less than 30 hours notice after the hotel received one email threatening to protest her appearance. The event was relocated to the Sugar Land Community Center

Free Speech is under attack in England, Canada, and in the United States. This attack comes in the attempt to pass laws and in the discrimination practice of some businesses and Universities.

Here Pamela Geller joined Steve Malzberg on his Newsmax TV show to discuss being banned from Great Britain because she is “not conducive to the public good”.

 Books by Pamela:

redpointer1redpointer1Pamela’s Blog


The Third Jihad

The Third Jihad is a groundbreaking film that exposes the truth and reveals what the media is not telling you about the Jihadist quest to rule America. Based on the accounts of the one person who is not afraid to tell you the truth; Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, former physician to the US Congress and a Muslim American.

Following the FBI release of a radical Islamist manifesto outlining its plan to destroy America from within, Dr. Jasser decided to investigate. The movie The Third Jihad is about what he discovered. Its focus is on a secret manifesto of the American Muslim Brotherhood discovered by the FBI.

It describes the ‘Grand Jihad’ goal of the Islamic Radicals to destroy Western civilization from within by infiltrating and dominating North America. This document outlines how Radical Islamists are taking advantage of our country’s democratic processes, and using them to destroy the American way of life.

(This is the Abridged Version)

Support the makers of this film. Buy the DVD


Fitna: The Movie (Controversial)

This controversial film was produced by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. The film argues that Islam encourages—among other things—acts of terrorism, antisemitism, violence against women, violence and subjugation of “infidels” and against homosexuals and Islamic universalism. A large part of the film details the influence of Islam on the Netherlands.

The Arabic title-word “fitna” means “disagreement and division among people” or a “test of faith in times of trial”.

A trial of Dutch politician Geert Wilders is ongoing as of this post in the Netherlands in 2010-2011. Wilders is facing five counts of inciting hatred and discrimination for describing Islam as a fascist religion and Moroccan youths as violent and for calling for the banning of the Koran. The judges in the first trial were removed after a perceived bias against Wilders, and a retrial started in February 2011. The Dutch Public Prosecution Service argues that Wilders should be acquitted on all counts.

Wilders is the leader of the Party for Freedom and is known for his criticisms of Islam and what he describes as the Islamization of the Netherlands. In the Netherlands he is being prosecuted on charges that on several occasions in 2007 and 2008 he insulted Muslims and fomented hate and discrimination against them because of their religion. He is also accused of fomenting hate and discrimination against non-Western foreigners, including Moroccans. Wilders portrays himself as “a champion of free speech” and the trial as a test of freedom of speech and hate speech issues.

In 2008, Wilders was also charged by a prosecutor in Jordan with blasphemy and contempt for Muslims for making his anti-Qu’ran film “Fitna”.

In an August 8, 2007, open letter to the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant Wilders wrote that the Koran, which he called a “fascist book”, should be outlawed in the Netherlands, as is Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. He has stated that “[t]he book incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order.” He has also referred to Mohammed as “the devil”.

In 2008, Wilders published the film Fitna that accuses the Qur’an of inspiring terrorism, Islamic universalism, and attempts to draw connections to Islam in the Netherlands.

Here is the film followed by a Jewish response to the film:
Warning: This film contains disturbing images that may not be suited for all audiences.


Jihad in the United States

Radical Muslims are looking for ways to bring sharia law to the United States. Here is a first hand account from David Woods of sharia law in the United States.


Oklahoma Case

OKLAHOMA CITY – A federal appeals court upheld a temporary stop to our state’s ban on sharia law. Voters overwhelmingly passed the constitutional amendment in November 2010, but it still hasn’t gone into effect because of a fierce court battle. The amendment bans state courts from considering international and Islamic – or Sharia – Law, when deciding cases.

The man suing the state says Oklahomans were asked to vote on something that was unconstitutional. Muneer Awad has been fighting for this day for more than a year and the fight’s not over.

“We’re just hopeful that we can carry the momentum to continue to show politicians that this type of legislation, legislation that targets religious minorities, is unconstitutional,” Awad said.

Awad is the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. He filed a lawsuit that claims banning Sharia Law targets Muslims. “It demonized Muslims by saying they are somehow a unique threat to the state of Oklahoma. The law says that on its face,” Awad said.

Because of Awad’s lawsuit, the law never took effect. A federal appeals court in Colorado agreed, the law should be put on hold while a lower court decides whether it’s Constitutional. Seventy percent of Oklahoma voters approved the constitutional amendment.

In the ruling, the court admitted, “Federal courts should be wary of interfering with the voting process… but it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.”

“The first amendment is not up for a vote, whether it’s 70% or 90%,” Awad said.

The court concluded Awad made a strong case that the amendment exposes him and other Muslims in Oklahoma to discrimination. It also says he could potentially win in his lawsuit to permanently stop the law. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt released a statement today, saying “My office will continue to defend the state in this matter and proceed with the merits of the case.”

We also called Senator Anthony Sykes, who authored the bill, and he did not call us back.   


What Every Christian Ought to Know About Islam 



Additional Resource

Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs by Robert Spencer

International Day of Prayer and Awareness against Human Trafficking

January 17, 2015 (Rome) – The First “International Day of Prayer and Awareness against Human Trafficking” will be celebrated in all dioceses and parishes in the world, in the groups and schools on 8 February 2015, the Feast Day of Josephine Bakhita, a Sudanese slave, freed, who became a Canossian nun, and was declared a Saint in 2000. The initiative is promoted by the Pontifical Council of Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the International Union of Superiors General .

The statement sent to Agenzia Fides highlights that “the primary objective of the International Day is to create greater awareness on this phenomenon and to reflect on the overall situation of violence and injustice that affect so many people, who have no voice, do not count, and are no one: they are simply slaves. Another goal is to attempt to provide solutions to counter this modern form of slavery by taking concrete actions”.The phenomenon concerns the whole world. According to official data roughly 21 million people, often very poor and vulnerable, are victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation, forced labour and begging, illegal organ removal, domestic servitude and forced marriages, illegal adoption and other forms of exploitation.

Each year, around 2.5 million people are victims of trafficking and slavery. On the other hand, for traffickers and pimps, this is one of the most lucrative illegal activities in the world, generating a total of 32 billion dollars a year. It is the third most profitable “business” after drugs and arms trafficking.

+ History & Danger of Administrative Law

October 7, 2014

by Philip Hamburger, Columbia Law School

PHILIP HAMBURGER is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. He received his B.A. from Princeton University and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He has also taught at the University of Chicago Law School, the George Washington University Law School, the University of Virginia Law School, and Northwestern Law School. A contributor to National Review Online, he has written for several law reviews and journals, including the American Journal of Legal History, the Supreme Court Review, the Notre Dame Law Review, and the Journal of Law and Politics. He is the author of Separation of Church and State, Law and Judicial Duty, and, most recently, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 6, 2014, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.


There are many complaints about administrative law—including that it is arbitrary, that it is a burden on the economy, and that it is an intrusion on freedom. The question I will address here is whether administrative law is unlawful, and I will focus on constitutional history. Those who forget history, it is often said, are doomed to repeat it. And this is what has happened in the United States with the rise of administrative law—or, more accurately, administrative power.

Administrative law is commonly defended as a new sort of power, a product of the 19th and the 20th centuries that developed to deal with the problems of modern society in all its complexity. From this perspective, the Framers of the Constitution could not have anticipated it and the Constitution could not have barred it. What I will suggest, in contrast, is that administrative power is actually very old. It revives what used to be called prerogative or absolute power, and it is thus something that the Constitution centrally prohibited.

But first, what exactly do I mean by administrative law or administrative power? Put simply, administrative acts are binding or constraining edicts that come, not through law, but through other mechanisms or pathways. For example, when an executive agency issues a rule constraining Americans—barring an activity that results in pollution, for instance, or restricting how citizens can use their land—it is an attempt to exercise binding legislative power not through an act of Congress, but through an administrative edict. Similarly, when an executive agency adjudicates a violation of one of these edicts—in order to impose a fine or some other penalty—it is an attempt to exercise binding judicial power not through a judicial act, but again through an administrative act.

In a way we can think of administrative law as a form of off-road driving. The Constitution offers two avenues of binding power—acts of Congress and acts of the courts. Administrative acts by executive agencies are a way of driving off-road, exercising power through other pathways. For those in the driver’s seat, this can be quite exhilarating. For the rest of us, it’s a little unnerving.

The Constitution authorizes three types of power, as we all learned in school—the legislative power is located in Congress, executive power is located in the president and his subordinates, and the judicial power is located in the courts. How does administrative power fit into that arrangement?

The conventional answer to this question is based on the claim of the modernity of administrative law. Administrative law, this argument usually goes, began in 1887 when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission, and it expanded decade by decade as Congress created more such agencies. A variant of this account suggests that administrative law is actually a little bit older—that it began to develop in the early practices of the federal government of the United States. But whether it began in the 1790s or in the 1880s, administrative law according to this account is a post-1789 development and—this is the key point—it arose as a pragmatic and necessary response to new and complex practical problems in American life. The pragmatic and necessitous character of this development is almost a mantra—and of course if looked at that way, opposition to administrative law is anti-modern and quixotic.

But there are problems with this conventional history of administrative law. Rather than being a modern, post-constitutional American development, I argue that the rise of administrative law is essentially a re-emergence of the absolute power practiced by pre-modern kings. Rather than a modern necessity, it is a latter-day version of a recurring threat—a threat inherent in human nature and in the temptations of power.

The Prerogative Power of Kings

The constitutional history of the past thousand years in common law countries records the repeated ebb and flow of absolutism on the one side and law on the other. English kings were widely expected to rule through law. They had Parliament for making law and courts of law for adjudicating cases, and they were expected to govern through the acts of these bodies. But kings were discontent with governing through the law and often acted on their own. The personal power that kings exercised when evading the law was called prerogative power.

Whereas ordinarily kings bound their subjects through statutes passed by Parliament, when exercising prerogative power they bound subjects through proclamations or decrees—or what we today call rules or regulations. Whereas ordinarily kings would repeal old statutes by obtaining new statutes, when exercising prerogative power they issued dispensations and suspensions—or what we today call waivers. Whereas ordinarily kings enforced the law through the courts of law, when exercising prerogative power they enforced their commands through their prerogative courts—courts such as the King’s Council, the Star Chamber, and the High Commission—or what we today call administrative courts. Ordinarily, English judges resolved legal disputes in accordance with their independent judgment regarding the law. But when kings exercised prerogative power, they expected deference from judges, both to their own decrees and to the holdings and interpretations of their extra-legal prerogative courts.

Although England did not have a full separation of powers of the sort written into the American Constitution, it did have a basic division of powers. Parliament had the power to make laws, the law courts had the power to adjudicate, and the king had the power to exercise force. But when kings acted through prerogative power, they or their prerogative courts exercised all government powers, overriding these divisions. For example, the Star Chamber could make regulations, as well as prosecute and adjudicate infractions. And defenders of this sort of prerogative power were not squeamish about describing it as absolute power. Absolutism was their justification.

Conceptually, there were three central elements of this absolutism: extra-legal power, supra-legal power, and the consolidation of power. It was extra-legal or outside the law in the sense that it bound the public not through laws or statutes, but through other means. It was supra-legal or above the law in the sense that kings expected judges to defer to it—notwithstanding their duty to exercise their own independent judgment. And it was consolidated in the sense that it united all government powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—in the king or in his prerogative courts. And underlying these three central elements was the usual conceptual justification for absolute power: necessity. Necessity, it was said, was not bound by law.

These claims on behalf of absolutism, of course, did not go unchallenged. When King John called Englishmen to account extralegally in his Council, England’s barons demanded in Magna Carta in 1215 that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or even summoned except through the mechanisms of law. When 14th century English kings questioned men in the king’s Council, Parliament in 1354 and 1368 enacted due process statutes. When King James I attempted to make law through proclamations, judges responded in 1610 with an opinion that royal proclamations were unlawful and void. When James subsequently demanded judicial deference to prerogative interpretations of statutes, the judges refused. Indeed, in 1641 Parliament abolished the Star Chamber and the High Commission, the bodies then engaging in extra-legal lawmaking and adjudication. And most profoundly, English constitutional law began to develop—and it made clear that there could be no extra-legal, supra-legal, or consolidated power.

The Rise of Absolutism in America

The United States Constitution echoes this. Early Americans were very familiar with absolute power. They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights. It is no surprise, then, that the United States Constitution was framed to bar this sort of power. To be precise, Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America.

After absolute power was defeated in England and America, it circled back from the continent through Germany, and especially through Prussia. There, what once had been the personal prerogative power of kings became the bureaucratic administrative power of the states. The Prussians were the leaders of this development in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 19th century they became the primary theorists of administrative power, and many of them celebrated its evasion of constitutional law and constitutional rights.

This German theory would become the intellectual source of American administrative law. Thousands upon thousands of Americans studied administrative power in Germany, and what they learned there about administrative power became standard fare in American universities. At the same time, in the political sphere, American Progressives were becoming increasingly discontent with elected legislatures, and they increasingly embraced German theories of administration and defended the imposition of administrative law in America in terms of pragmatism and necessity.

The Progressives, moreover, understood what they were doing. For example, in 1927, a leading Progressive theorist openly said that the question of whether an American administrative officer could issue regulations was similar to the question of whether pre-modern English kings could issue binding proclamations. By the 1920s, however, Progressives increasingly were silent about the continuity between absolute power and modern administrative power, as this undermined their claims about its modernity and lawfulness.

In this way, over the past 120 years, Americans have reestablished the very sort of power that the Constitution most centrally forbade. Administrative law is extra-legal in that it binds Americans not through law but through other mechanisms—not through statutes but through regulations—and not through the decisions of courts but through other adjudications. It is supra-legal in that it requires judges to put aside their independent judgment and defer to administrative power as if it were above the law—which our judges do far more systematically than even the worst of 17th century English judges. And it is consolidated in that it combines the three powers of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—in administrative agencies.

Let me close by addressing just two of many constitutional problems illuminated by the re-emergence of absolutism in the form of administrative power: delegation and procedural rights.

One standard defense of administrative power is that Congress uses statutes to delegate its lawmaking power to administrative agencies. But this is a poor defense. The delegation of lawmaking has long been a familiar feature of absolute power. When kings exercised extra-legal power, they usually had at least some delegated authority from Parliament. Henry VIII, for example, issued binding proclamations under an authorizing statute called the Act of Proclamations. His binding proclamations were nonetheless understood to be exercises of absolute power. And in the 18th century the Act of Proclamations was condemned as unconstitutional.

Against this background, the United States Constitution expressly bars the delegation of legislative power. This may sound odd, given that the opposite is so commonly asserted by scholars and so routinely accepted by the courts. But read the Constitution. The Constitution’s very first substantive words are, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The word “all” was not placed there by accident. The Framers understood that delegation had been a problem in English constitutional history, and the word “all” was placed there precisely to bar it.

As for procedural rights, the history is even more illuminating. Administrative adjudication evades almost all of the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It subjects Americans to adjudication without real judges, without juries, without grand juries, without full protection against self-incrimination, and so forth. Like the old prerogative courts, administrative courts substitute inquisitorial process for the due process of law—and that’s not just an abstract accusation; much early administrative procedure appears to have been modelled on civilian-derived inquisitorial process. Administrative adjudication thus becomes an open avenue for evasion of the Bill of Rights.

The standard justification for the administrative evasion of procedural rights is that they apply centrally to the regular courts, but not entirely to administrative adjudication. But the history shows that procedural rights developed primarily to bar prerogative or administrative proceedings, not to regulate what the government does in regular courts of law. As I already mentioned, the principle of due process developed as early as the 14th century, when Parliament used it to prevent the exercise of extra-legal power by the King’s Council. It then became a constitutional principle in the 17th century in opposition to the prerogative courts. Similarly, jury rights developed partly in opposition to administrative proceedings, and thus some of the earliest constitutional cases in America held administrative proceedings unconstitutional for depriving defendants of a jury trial.

* * *

In sum, the conventional understanding of administrative law is utterly mistaken. It is wrong on the history and oblivious to the danger. That danger is absolutism: extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. And the danger matters because administrative power revives this absolutism. The Constitution carefully barred this threat, but constitutional doctrine has since legitimized this dangerous sort of power. It therefore is necessary to go back to basics. Among other things, we should no longer settle for some vague notion of “rule of law,” understood as something that allows the delegation of legislative and judicial powers to administrative agencies. We should demand rule through law and rule under law. Even more fundamentally, we need to reclaim the vocabulary of law: Rather than speak of administrative law, we should speak of administrative power—indeed, of absolute power or more concretely of extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power. Then we at least can begin to recognize the danger.

+ Legislatively Overturn Roe v Wade

March 22, 2014


It is possible to overturn Roe v Wade by Congressional Legislation. We do not have wait until the Supreme Court, who created the “right” to abortion out of thin air in violation of their Constitutional mandate, to correct their arrogance. We can overturn Roe v Wade by legislation.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has introduced and co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act in the Senate (S.583), along with 21 others. In the House Rep Jim Jordan (R-OH) introduced the Life at Conception Act, (H.R.1091) with 124 others.

Life at Conception Act – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Prohibits construing this Act to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.

This Act establishes what medicine and science has established long ago, that life begins at conception. Establishing this scientific fact into law will overturn Roe v Wade.

Senator Rand Paul explains:

Sign the Petition: National ProLife Alliance

+ Pope: Prisons shouldn’t just be about punishment

November 23, 2012

+ Statistics

August 4, 2012

Created by:


+ West Virginia Judge, William Watkins goes Berserk

July 3, 2012

West Virginia Judge, William Watkins goes Berserk, berates and threatens (with abuse of power) Rev. Arthur D. Hage in a divorce hearing. In listening to the video recording of the hearing, it is perfectly clear in our mind that Judge Watkins should be removed from the bench because of ?his anger issues and utterly?unprofessional?behavior that goes way beyond the pale.

No matter what Rev. Hage has done, and as best as we can tell he merely expressed his First Amendment rights and talked to a reporter, Judge Watkins behavior disqualifies him, in our opinion, as an officer of justice.

One source of the Judge’s anger is sourced in the Newspaper publishing a picture of his house, causing the Judge and his family to come under duress from some members of the public terrorizing his family. We completely understand that anger. However, Rev. Hage does not control the press. Even if Rev. Hage did control the press, the over-the-top anger of Judge Watkins, which is?understandable?if his family was under attack, the proper and judicial response for the judge would be to recuse himself, instead of humiliating himself in the way be behaved.

After this hearing, Rev. Hage filed an ethics violation against the Judge, as was proper to do. Only after the ethics complaint did Judge Watkins?recused himself from the case. This is something a professional would have done from the very beginning.

Our concern, however, is not exclusive to this one judge, but to the growing lack of judicial decorum witness in many cases like this one. Justice cannot be served by Judges like this one, and more critically, outright miscarriage of justice is likely.

Read more about it >>>>


+ Kansas Courts Collude to Protect Planned Parenthood

June 11, 2012

The evil of Planned Parenthood knows no bounds. As such, the devil takes extraordinary means to protect his project of killing innocents through Planned Parenthood, the organization began by Margaret Sanger for the purpose of eugenics to eliminate “unfit” people such as the ill, infirmed. poor, insane, and blacks.

In this case the “Kansas Supreme Court colluded with prosecutors and the Kathleen Sebelius administration to halt his [Attorney General??Phill Kline]?investigation and turn the media against him, culminating in an effort to end his legal career.”

This is another of many examples of the typical Progressive strategy to abuse power to crush those who oppose them.

Anatomy of a lie: Kansas court?s scheme
to eliminate Planned Parenthood prosecutor revealed

by Kathleen Gilbert

?OPEKA, Kansas, June 7, 2012 ( – The man who became the first prosecutor in America to take on Planned Parenthood in court has revealed new details in the astonishing story of how the Kansas Supreme Court colluded with prosecutors and the Kathleen Sebelius administration to halt his investigation and turn the media against him, culminating in an effort to end his legal career.

For those unfamiliar with the Phill Kline case, the?recusal motion?filed last month by lawyers for the former Kansas Attorney General deftly encapsulates how the investigator was vilified for allegedly violating ?patient privacy? in the normal course of investigating child rape, which in turn brought him head to head with Planned Parenthood.?

The motion tells the story Kline?summed up recently?as ?Alice through the looking glass: It only gets curiouser and curiouser.?

Although Kline?s motion focused on the need for two of the state Supreme Court?s justices to recuse themselves, in a testimony to the strength of his argument, all five Supreme Court justices named for their involvement in the case recused themselves last month – an exodus unprecedented in recent memory, as a Court spokesman?acknowledged.

One of the motion?s early footnotes notes that the reason for the twisted tale was predictable: it involved abortion.?

?It is difficult to fathom any other context where criminal targets could so effectively use the courts to prevent a prosecutor from using lawful means to gather evidence of their crimes,? said Kline?s lawyers. ?However, in the context of abortion it should surprise no one.? The lawyers quoted U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia?s observation that, ?the jurisprudence of this Court has a way of changing when abortion is involved.?

From the beginning, AG Kline?s investigation into child rape was repeatedly hampered by abortionists? extraordinary legal motions: in one example, the court handed over the task of redacting the records in question to the target of the investigation itself, Planned Parenthood – a move Kline called ?unprecedented,? and which resulted in over-redaction.

As soon as Kline moved out of the attorney general?s office in 2007, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri teamed with Kansas? new top attorney in a desperate bid to recover the abortion records Kline still held.

Kline?s pro-abortion successor, AG Steve Morrison, first attempted to run ?an intelligence raid for Planned Parenthood? in the spring of 2007 by demanding Kline?s records – even though Morrison already owned copies of all of them, and had no intention of prosecuting anyway – but the motion was denied. Two months later, Planned Parenthood began trying to force Kline to hand over the records. Meanwhile Morrison, who publicly cleared Planned Parenthood of charges, subpoenaed a local magistrate for his copy of the records.

When that failed, Planned Parenthood officials arrived unannounced three days later in the same judge?s office to demand the records. The judge, Richard Anderson, said the records likely contained evidence of their criminal activity, and refused.

Finally, Morrison joined forces with Planned Parenthood itself in their Supreme Court action against Kline, a bid that failed in December 2008.

But Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier?s opinion in that ruling, widely noted for its surprisingly abusive language against Kline, had a falsehood buried within that few noticed at the time: she wrote that Kline left ?no coherent copies? of the records at the AG?s office, a claim Kline?s lawyers called a ?whopper.? The ?spectacular falsehood? was the basis of Beier?s faux ?sanction? ordering Kline to return totally redundant record copies, putting him in a bad light.

Even worse, previous writings by Beier strongly hinted that the red herring was intentional: Beier had endorsed the idea that ?[t]he media are tools to produce cultural infrastructure.?

The ruse worked: ?Kline abortion prosecution faulted, Justices order medical records turned over to state,? reported the?Topeka Capital-Journal; the?Kansas City Star blared, ?High court sanctions Kline for handling of abortion records.?

Ultimately, many of the 107 charges Kline had brought against Planned Parenthood, including all 23 felonies, were thrown out last year when it was discovered that the Kathleen Sebelius administration had destroyed key documents needed to compare Kline?s records with Planned Parenthood?s later submissions. The destruction took place in 2005, two years after Kline began uncovering abortionists? alleged criminal activity.

Fortunately, Kline?s recent recusal motion has had an impact: four days after the filing, the five justices, including Sebelius-appointed Carol Beier, said they would recuse themselves based on a technicality regarding their previous involvement with Kline – something they would have known about for years – reasoning Kline?s attorney called a smokescreen to divert attention from the embarrassing motion.

Even so, said the attorney, the layers of deception demonstrated in the case have rendered it ?irretrievably flawed.? Meanwhile, as Kline fights the ethics allegations aimed at suspending his license, in proceedings that have also?proved deeply flawed thus far, his legal expenses have topped $300,000 and counting.

Although the recusal motion focused on Justice Beier?s role in the affair, its contents reveal just how far Kansas officials were willing to go to protect Planned Parenthood from prosecution.

Not only were AG Morrison?s actions baseless other than to erase record of abortionsts? wrongdoing, said Kline?s lawyers, but the Beier sanction raised the stakes even more by requiring Kline to hand over records that Kansas officials never had to begin with – ones he procured in his own subsequent abortion investigations as a district attorney.

As a result, private documents and statements Kline had assured sources would be kept private, were handed over to Kansas – and abortionists.

?I?ve been told,? said Kline, ?that all of that information was then turned over to the attorneys for the abortion clinics.?

Click?here?for more information on contributing to Phill Kline?s legal fund.