Former President Bill Clinton said Sunday that Laken Riley’s death “probably wouldn’t have happened” if the Biden-Harris administration had “properly vetted” her accused illegal migrant murderer.
Clinton’s comment further ties Vice President Kamala Harris to the administration’s border policies. Since 2021, the Biden-Harris administration reversed or undid many of the Trump-era border policies. For instance, it suspended the Remain in Mexico policy on the administration’s first day in office.
Riley, a 22-year-old Augusta University nursing student, was allegedly killed this year by an illegal migrant released into the United States.
Clinton, 78, spoke about Riley’s death and the Biden-Harris administration’s southern border invasion while stumping for Harris at a fish fry in Fort Valley, Georgia: “You had a case in Georgia not very long ago, didn’t you? They made an ad about a young woman who’d been killed by an [illegal] immigrant,” he said.
“Well, if they’d all been properly vetted that probably wouldn’t have happened,” he added:
Under the Biden-Harris administration, the southern border is open:
- Nearly two million known gotaways evaded U.S. Border Patrol under the Biden-Harris administration, according to numbers released by Republicans on the House Committee on Homeland Security in April.
- The administration allows up to 650,000 criminal migrants and suspects — including at least 13,099 migrant convicted murderers and 222,141 migrants facing criminal charges — to roam through American communities, according to data released by House Republicans.
- The illegal migrant population in the United States was 11 million in 2022, according to Pew Research Center estimates published in July, although critics estimate those numbers to be much higher.
More at:
| Law
Ninth Circuit Overturns Federal Judge’s Ruling, Upholds Montana Law Protecting Workers and Patients from Discrimination Based on their Vaccination Status
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently handed down a victory for individual rights and medical freedom by reversing a lower court decision that sought to block Montana’s House Bill 702 (HB 702) in healthcare settings.
At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Democrats and federal agencies were pushing hard for vaccine mandates.
The bill was passed in 2021 as a response to what many Montanans view as federal government overreach, where the freedom to choose and the right to medical privacy have increasingly been called into question.
According to the bill, it is unlawful for any person, government entity, or employer to deny services, goods, facilities, employment, or public accommodations to someone based on their vaccination status or whether they possess an immunity passport. This includes barring individuals from education, healthcare, or employment opportunities.
The bill also prohibits individuals from being required to receive any vaccines that are under emergency use authorization or are undergoing safety trials.
Certain vaccination requirements are still permitted, specifically those required for schools and daycare facilities. Additionally, licensed nursing homes, long-term care, and assisted living facilities may be exempt if compliance would conflict with federal regulations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or the CDC.
Healthcare facilities can request vaccination information voluntarily from employees for safety purposes. If an employee declines to disclose their vaccination status, the facility can assume they are unvaccinated and apply reasonable accommodations to protect the health and safety of others.
The plaintiffs, which included healthcare providers and some immunocompromised individuals, argued that HB 702 was in direct conflict with federal laws, specifically the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act).
“They alleged that the ADA and the OSH Act impliedly preempt HB 702 because the statutes require employers to know employee vaccination status and to discriminate on that basis in order to furnish ADA accommodations for persons with immunocompromising disabilities and to satisfy the OSH Act’s duty to furnish a workplace free of recognized hazards,” according to the court document reviewed by The Gateway Pundit.
But the Ninth Circuit wasn’t convinced. The Ninth Circuit decision dismantled the lower court’s argument that federal laws preempt HB 702.
Judge Daniel Bress, writing for the court, found that claims of conflict were speculative, not grounded in the actual text or effect of the ADA or OSH Act.
The Ninth Circuit emphasized that HB 702 allows healthcare facilities to take necessary steps to protect patient and staff safety without mandating vaccination status disclosures or creating discriminatory workplace policies. HB 702 simply requires facilities to find “reasonable accommodations” without resorting to forced vaccinations or employment bans.
Plaintiffs also argued that HB 702 violates the Equal Protection Clause due to different rules for different healthcare facilities.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed this claim as well, noting that Montana has the right to set regulations suited to varying levels of risk within the healthcare system.
In essence, the court agreed that maintaining a balance between individual rights and public health falls within the state’s jurisdiction.
More at:
More Stories
The Chief Justice and His Wife Took $20 Million From Firms He Rules On. I’m Filing for His Disbarment Today
Surprise! En-Banc Appellate Court Restores ‘Ten Commandments’ Law in Texas
NEW: Iran Caves, Declares Strait of Hormuz “Completely Open” for All Commercial Ships – Trump Responds