‘Pope Francis’ Claims: ‘For the Entire Course of Her Life, Mary Was Free From Any Stain of Sin’

Catholic mary blessed virgin immaculate mother of god fake imaginary

“We know from Scripture that Mary must have known she was a sinner who needed a Savior when she said, ‘My spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior’ (Luke 1:47),” Mike Gendron of Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries told Christian News Network. “The infallible word of God declares that ‘all of sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Rom. 3:23). Mary was no exception. God’s word tells us that sin entered the world through Adam, ‘and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Rom. 5:12).”












SEE: https://christiannews.net/2020/12/09/pope-francis-claims-for-the-entire-course-of-her-life-mary-was-free-from-any-stain-of-sin/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

ROME — In one of the feasts and celebrations marked on the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar leading up to Christmas, Catholics around the world observed the Feast of Immaculate Conception on Tuesday, a day in which those who follow the religion commemorate their belief that Mary was conceived in her mother’s womb without original sin. The doctrine has been deemed unbiblical and rejected by evangelicals.

“Even she (Mary) was saved by Christ, but in an extraordinary way,” Jorge Bergoglio, the leader of Roman Catholicism known as “Pope Francis,” stated during his Angelus address over St. Peter’s Square, “because God wanted that the mother of His Son not be touched by the misery of sin from the moment of her conception.”

“And so, for the entire course of her earthly life, Mary was free from any stain of sin,” he claimed. “She was the [one] ‘full of grace’ as the angel called her.”

Bergoglio made his customary visit to the Piazza di Spagna in Rome to pray to Mary before a sculpture that was commissioned in 1857 by Pius IX. The figure, which rests atop the lofty Column of Immaculate Conception, was created by Giuseppe Obici, and shows Mary stomping the head of a serpent.

“With the first light of dawn, under the rain, Pope Francis placed a bouquet of roses at the base of the column where the statue of the Madonna is, and turned to her in prayer, so that she might lovingly watch over Rome and its inhabitants, entrusting to her all in the city and the world who are afflicted by illness and discouragement,” according to a statement from the Holy See Press Office.

He also visited the Basilica of St. Mary Major, where he prayed before the Maria Salus Popoli Romani, which being translated means “Mary, Health/Protection of the Roman People.”

The oil-based painting depicts Mary holding the Christ child and has been visited by Vatican leadership for centuries, being carried throughout Rome in 593 to pray for the end of the Black Plague. Gregory XVI prayed before it in seeking help in the midst of the cholera outbreak of 1837.

Bergoglio then observed mass in the basilica’s Chapel of Nativity before returning back to the Vatican.

As previously reported, the concept of the immaculate conception was declared by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854, who issued a proclamation ex cathedra claiming that it had been revealed to him by God that Mary was conceived without sin.

“We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the blessed virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful,” he said.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads in paragraph 491, “Through the centuries, the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854.”

Paragraph 493 states, “The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God ‘the All-Holy’ (Panagia) and celebrate her as ‘free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.’ By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.”

Bergoglio mirrored this doctrine on Tuesday, telling hearers that just as Mary was sinless, so shall they too be when their salvation is complete.

“What Mary had from the beginning, will be ours in the end,” he stated, “after we have passed through the purifying ‘bath’ of God’s grace.”

“The uncontaminated beauty of our mother is incomparable, but at the same time, it attracts us,” Bergoglio said. “Let us entrust ourselves to her and say ‘no’ to sin and ‘yes’ to grace once and for all.”

As previously reported, Catholics also believe that Mary did not die but, like Jesus, ascended into Heaven. The concept is not found in the Scriptures but was decreed by Pope Pius XII in 1950 as he wrote, “We pronounce, declare and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that the immaculate mother of God, the ever virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory.”

However, evangelicals feel that Catholics place an inordinate amount of focus on Mary and unbiblically ascribe attributes to her that belong to the Godhead alone, such as her all-seeing eye (omniscience), her ability to hear prayers from around the world (omnipresence), and her power to care for and protect those who entrust their very lives to her, even by intercession (omnipotence).

In Luke 1:47, Mary referred to the Almighty as her Savior, declaring, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior, for he hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden. For, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”

GotQuestions.org outlines, “The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27).”

“But the Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Person who was not ‘infected’ by sin and never committed a sin (see Ecclesiastes 7:20Romans 3:232 Corinthians 5:211 Peter 2:221 John 3:5).”



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Friday Church News Notes, December 11, 2020, www.wayoflife.org[email protected], 866-295-4143) -
Pope Francis issued the latest in a long line of papal letters that fly in the face of God’s Word, the Holy Bible. Entitled Fratelli Tutti (“Brothers All”), the encyclical letter calls for global unity. It builds on the Document on Human Fraternity that the Pope signed with Ahman al-Tayyeb, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar in Abu Dhabi, in February 2019. It teaches the heresy of the universal Fatherhood of God. It teaches the heresy that all beliefs bring richness to the human family. It teaches that “Jesus Christ is in those who are abandoned or excluded.” It calls for open borders. “Each country also belongs to the foreigner inasmuch as a territory’s goods must not be denied to a needy person coming from elsewhere.” It denounces capital punishment and calls for the “care of the whole planet.” It calls for the “subordination of all private property to the universal destination of the earth’s goods, and thus the right of all to their use,” which, of course, is communism. It rejects the concept of a “just war,” calls for disarmament, promotes the myth that disarmament would produce global peace, and makes the ridiculous claim that war can be stayed “with a word” and “peace can be maintained by peace.”


Trump Administration Counters Politically-Motivated Banking Discrimination


SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/12/trump-administration-counters-politically-motivated-banking-discrimination/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
In late November, the Trump administration took its firmest action yet to counteract ongoing banking discrimination against firearms-related companies.. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- In late November, the Trump administration took its firmest action yet to counteract ongoing banking discrimination against businesses that serve America’s gun owners. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a significant banking regulator, issued a proposed rule to prohibit politically-motivated service denials and to ensure large, nationwide banks would have to make offered products available to all law-abiding customers without ideological bias.

Of all the Obama/Biden administration’s attacks on the Second Amendment, Operation Choke Point (OCP) was one of the most insidious. Frequent readers of this page will recall how federal banking regulators, under the guise of shielding banks and the public from fraud, pressured financial service providers against doing business with lawful but politically-disfavored customers. These included sellers of firearms and ammunition, which were specifically singled out as “high risk” by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in regulatory guidance provided to banks in 2011.

What made these firearm-related businesses high risk? In the circular reasoning of OCP, it wasn’t their creditworthiness or financial performance but the “reputation risk” they supposedly posed to banks that, so the story went, could anger third parties by serving the “high risk” clients. And the regulators made sure the banks understood that no one might be angrier than the regulators themselves: failing to heed their “risk-based” guidance could subject the banks to costly and embarrassing investigations. The simple solution was for the banks to avoid conducting business with “high risk” customers entirely.

The Obama/Biden administration retreated from OCP when Congressional investigators and other watchdogs revealed its obvious wrongdoing. The FDIC revised its infamous 2011 regulatory guidance in 2014, and issued further clarification in 2015, refocusing on case-by-case risk management, rather than debanking of entire industries. Nevertheless, the regulators portrayed the furor over OCP as a big misunderstanding, with banks supposedly overreacting to legitimate attempts to hinder scammers.

Subsequent events, however, confirmed that political activists were indeed deliberately trying to weaponize the financial services industry against the targets of their activism.

On February 18, 2018, the New York Times published an infamous essay by Andrew Ross Sorkin that called upon the financial services industry to adopt restrictions on relationships with gun companies to demonstrate its commitment to “moral responsibility.” The plan was for banks and payment processors to defund activities – like the making and sales of semiautomatic rifles – that anti-gun activists had unsuccessfully lobbied the political branches to ban.

Sorkin’s proposal, like OCP, recognized that financial services are the lifeblood of any successful business. But the pressure this time was to come from the social justice mob, not faceless government bureaucrats. The new OCC rulemaking actually cites Sorkin’s article as an example of how politics have infected the provision of financial services.

Even some in the government itself have retroactively embraced the tactics of OCP. After anti-gun Democrats took over control of the House Financial Services Committee following the 2018 midterms, the committee hauled a Wells Fargo Bank executive to a hearing to berate him for, among other things,  the bank’s transactions with gun companies.

Other banks, Rep. Carolyn D. Maloney (D-NY) lectured, had forced their firearm-related customers to adopt “best practices” that limited the scope of their lawful activities. These practices just happened to mirror unsuccessful legislative proposals pushed by anti-gun Democrats, that included such constitutionally dubious measures as refusing to sell otherwise-legal long guns to otherwise-eligible adults of military age. To his credit, the executive stood his ground, asserting, “We just don’t believe that it is a good idea to encourage banks to enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.”

The tenor of the hearing, however, made it unmistakably clear that certain committee members were unabashedly trying to pressure the bank to curb its business with certain customers, not because those customers were behaving illegally, but because the committee members found them objectionable.

All the while, firearm-related businesses were finding their options for financial services shrinking.

For its part, the Trump administration explicitly repudiated OCP, with the U.S. Department of Justice (which had participated in OCP under the Obama/Biden administration) providing written assurance to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee that the program had been terminated and would not be revived. Characterizing OCP as a “misguided initiative conducted during the previous administration,” the DOJ’s Aug. 16, 2017, letter stated:

“the Department will not discourage the provision of financial services to lawful industries, including businesses engaged in … firearms-related activities.”

Still, whether from lingering doubts left by OCP or in the vain hope of appeasing the social justice grievance lobby, some of America’s biggest banks have continued to shun lawful, creditworthy, and financially sound businesses within the firearm and ammunition sectors.

The proposed OCC rule aims to end politically-motivated manipulation of the financial service industry and to require large banks to provide fair access to all the products they offer to law-abiding customers who are able to satisfy predetermined “quantitative, impartial risk-based standards.” It reiterates that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires “fair treatment of customers by . . . the institutions” subject to its jurisdiction. The rule would therefore establish enforceable standards of fairness for America’s largest banks. Those standards would prevent activists and banks from conspiring to deprive otherwise eligible customers of financial services for purely political reasons.

The rule, in other words, would refocus banks on doing their jobs of helping to promote lawful economic activity and managing financial risk while leaving policy decisions about what sorts of businesses are permissible in the first place to the political branches and the U.S. Constitution.

While some have questioned whether it is an appropriate role for government to tell private banks who they must provide financial services to, the major banks affected by the proposed rule have themselves been the beneficiary of support by American taxpayers. As Senator Kennedy (R-La.) pointed out last year, “[b]anks should not be able to discriminate against lawful customers on the basis of social policy. The banks should keep in mind that these lawful customers are the same hard-working taxpayers who bailed them out during the recession.”

Beyond bailouts during the recession, major banks regularly benefit from taxpayer dollars. We noted just this year that

 “[m]any of the same institutions that discriminate against lawful firearm activity are now the clearinghouses for the COVID-19 SBA loan programs, reportedly picking up billions of taxpayer dollars for processing fees along the way.”

If major banks get to benefit at the expense of the American taxpayer, especially at times when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, then, at a minimum, they can be required to respect those same Americans’ constitutional rights.

The OCC is accepting comments on the rulemaking through the government’s online regulatory portals, (among other options) until Jan. 4, 2021. The NRA encourages all firearm-related businesses that have been harmed by political discrimination in the provision of financial services to provide their respectful and constructive feedback on the proposal.

We also thank the Trump Administration and Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian P. Brooks for their leadership in seeking to restore fairness and sanity to the nationwide market for financial products. Ideological discrimination in the services businesses need to survive is a shameful, pernicious, and thoroughly un-American trend. The proposed OCC rule is a welcomed step toward eliminating it.

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)


U.S. Naval Southern Command chief says Iran’s Quds Force is sending weapons & troops to Venezuela


SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/12/u-s-southern-command-chief-says-irans-quds-force-is-sending-weapons-and-troops-to-venezuela;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Iran and Venezuela have been strengthening their relationship; Jihad Watch has been covering this malignant friendship, which threatens Latin America and ultimately the U.S.

Admiral Craig Faller, the head of the U.S. Southern Command, warns about “the ‘alarming and concerning’ arrival of military personnel from the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), notorious for its terrorist activities in other countries including Syria and Iraq. Faller also confirmed that the military is seeing an “uptick” in weapons shipments from Iran to Venezuela, although he did not specify the specific arms being supplied.”

The Iranian proxy Hizballah has already been described as having a “sanctuary” in Venezuela, which clearly poses a real threat, not only to the Latin American region but also to American national security.

“Top U.S. Military Commander in South America: Iran Quds Force Active in Venezuela,” by Ben Kew, Breitbart, December 4, 2020:

Iran is sending Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro’s socialist regime weapons and troops, a top U.S. military official told the Wall Street Journal Wednesday.

“We see a growing Iranian influence in there,” the head of the U.S. Southern Command, Admiral Craig Faller, told the Journal. “We’re real [sic] concerned about what Iran is up to, not just globally, but here in this hemisphere.”

He went on to cite the “alarming and concerning” arrival of military personnel from the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), notorious for its terrorist activities in other countries including Syria and Iraq. Faller also confirmed that the military is seeing an “uptick” in weapons shipments from Iran to Venezuela, although he did not specify the specific arms being supplied.

The IRGC is a U.S.-designated terror group that is accused by Washington of “actively participating, financing, and promoting terrorism as a tool of statecraft.” Its former leader, Major General Qasem Soleimani, was killed in a U.S. drone strike in January this year, marking a major blow to the Iranian regime. Among those to pay tribute to Soleimani was Maduro’s right-hand man, Diosdado Cabello, who visited the Iranian embassy in Caracas to host a ceremony mourning his death.

In August, Colombian President Iván Duque, whose country borders Venezuela, claimed that the Maduro regime is currently negotiating the purchase of medium- and long-range missiles from Iran, although they remain in the preliminary stages.

“There is information from international intelligence organisms that work with us which shows there is interest from the dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro in acquiring some medium and long-range missiles through Iran,” he warned at the time. “The information is that (the missiles) still haven’t arrived but there has been contact especially under instructions from (Venezuela Defense Minister Vladimir) Padrino.”…


REP. ERIC Swalwell’s Chinese Spy Connection Underscores Democrats’ Fatally Poor Judgment

Swalwell's father also liked a headshot style image Fang posted to her Facebook on March 12 of this year despite Rep. Swalwell asserting contact had been severed

Swalwell is pictured with Fang at one of their numerous social engagements

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/12/09/amid-mounting-criticism-eric-swalwell-implicates-democrat-leadership-blames-trump-for-the-chinese-spy-who-infiltrated-him-n1199716


SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/swalwells-chinese-spy-connection-underscores-democrats-fatally-poor-judgment/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

So you’re on the House Intelligence Committee, and you take into your inner circle a national from our main geopolitical adversary — which just happens to be a nation dictating that all its citizens must engage in spying when asked. What could possibly go wrong?

What could possibly go wrong is what did: Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) ended up with a Chinese spy in his midst, a comely young woman named Fang Fang (a.k.a. “Christine Fang”)

What’s more, the married politician is accused of having had a sexual affair with Fangs. This would make it a classic “honey pot” scenario, which is when an operative initiates a relationship with a target in order to gain influence over him (and a married Intel. Committee member is ripe for blackmail).

Moreover, Fangs sank her teeth into other politicians as well, as she also “allegedly slept with at least two Midwestern mayors while cozying up to a slew of pols across the country in a bid to infiltrate the US political system,” reports the New York Post.

In fairness, it’s not believed Fangs obtained classified information, and Swalwell did break ties with her in 2015 after being warned of her activities in a “defensive briefing.” Yet what does making ties with her in the first place say about his, and the other politicians’, judgment?

More on that momentarily. But first we have some story details about the “Chinese Mata Hari,” as the Post dubs Fangs.

The fetching Beijing spy “entered the US through California as a college student in 2011 — and spent the next four years wooing everyone from local politicos to US congressmen, said the Web site Axios, citing current and former US intelligence officials,” the paper related. 

Aside from Swalwell, Fangs “also once helped raise funds for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), sources said,” the Post further informs. The paper continues:

“She was on a mission,’’ a US counter-intelligence official said of Fang — and it included plenty of seduction before the feds got wind of her antics and she vanished in 2015.

The idea was for Fang to maneuver herself into key government circles — and sometimes politicians’ beds — to gain personal information about them while ingratiating herself with unwitting potential up-and-coming heavy-hitters, intelligence sources told Axios.

US officials know of at least two mayors who had romantic relationships with Fang, likely now in her late 30s or early 40s, for about three years, the site said.

The accused spy had sex with an Ohio mayor in a car, an incident caught on FBI electronic surveillance, an intelligence official said.

The mayor asked Fang at one point why she was into him, and she allegedly replied that she needed to improve her English.

(And, not suspicious at all, that’s always a great reason to jump into bed with somebody!)

As for the congressman, why did Swalwell fall well for Fangs? Aside from the allure of being a comely coed, Axios tells us that the spy “took part in fundraising activity for Swalwell’s 2014 re-election campaign, according to a Bay Area political operative and a current U.S. intelligence official.”

“Swalwell’s office was directly aware of these activities on its behalf, the political operative said,” the site continued.

In addition, Fangs “helped Swalwell secure the support of his district’s Asian-American community,” according to Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

To be clear, Shanghai Swalwell isn’t accused of illegality, but he may be guilty of two other “itys”: immorality and stupidity. And for certain, as Carlson points out (video below), he doesn’t belong on the Intel. Committee.

In fact, Swalwell was a prime target for Chinese espionage, stated ex-federal prosecutor Brett Tolman, a former counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Swalwell had to have known this, too, informs Tolman.

What’s more, there were enough red flags with Fangs to drive a bull to Xanax. Consider:

  • She’d just arrived from China, an aggressively imperialistic nation and our main geopolitical adversary.
  • Beijing is infamous for infiltrating American power structures.
  • Many Chinese are intensely nationalistic; politically correct “internationalism” isn’t in their vocabulary.
  • Shortly after arriving, Fangs tried to insert herself into the American political system.
  • She’s an attractive young woman, precisely the kind of honey-pot operative an intelligence agency would use.

So what explains Swalwell’s Shanghai surprise? Stupidity first comes to mind, but the second possibility is even more troubling.

Leftists’ identity politics/cultural affirmative action mentality corrupts their judgment. That is to say, instead of seeing red flags with Fangs, she’d get hiring points because she’s non-white. She’d get more points because she was a foreigner and, oh my, even (likely) had an accent! What a chance to value-signal and show how enlightened you are!

But there’s a reason our Constitution contains a natural-born clause relating to the presidency. Oh, this doesn’t mean an immigrant can’t become a good citizen, and there certainly have been native-born American traitors. Nonetheless, it’s logical to suspect that a recently arrived foreigner’s heart will lie with his native country — and a Chinese national should set off alarm bells.

The third possibility is that, as with too many leftists, Swalwell just doesn’t care about our country at all. And power-lust does appear his only principle, as his frequent lying about President Trump and mythical “Russian collusion” evidenced (meanwhile, he was the one subject to foreign influence).

Of course, two or all of the above possibilities likely explain Swalwell’s behavior. He may not be a Manchurian congressman, but he’s surely a bad one.

And the bottom line about Fangs’ role with Swalwell is, was that really a job Americans won’t do? She didn’t belong there, period — and the congressman doesn’t belong on the Intelligence Committee.

Then again, maybe Swalwell just wanted to help Fangs improve her English. What are we, all cynics now?


NASDAQ to Wokely Trannitize U.S. Businesses

NASDAQ wants to mandate a new "diversity quota" that just American companies must follow, while keeping foreign companies exempt. American companies would be mandated to have drag queens, women, and non-white people. Merit is no longer a factor. Get reliable notification options and further information at Sarah's home site: https://SarahCorriher.com/

Trump to intervene in Texas Supreme Court election case; Multiple states back Texas lawsuit

YouTube announces unprecedented censorship policy; will delete any and all videos which mention election fraud

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/12/09/youtube-says-it-will-start-deleting-content-alleging-2020-election-voter-fraud-n1199954


"We also work to make sure that the line between what is removed and what is allowed is drawn in the right place. Our policies prohibit misleading viewers about where and how to vote. We also disallow content alleging widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election. However in some cases, that has meant allowing controversial views on the outcome or process of counting votes of a current election as election officials have worked to finalize counts.

Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections."

SCOTUS Orders Response to Texas Lawsuit by December 10, 2020 on or before 3 PM EST

THIS IS THE BIG ONE! The Supreme Court Will DETERMINE the FATE of the 2020 ELECTION!!!


THIS IS THE BIG ONE! The Supreme Court Will in fact DETERMINE the FATE of the 2020 ELECTION! In this video, we’re going to take a look at how the bombshell lawsuit filed by the Texas attorney general is being received, how both President Trump and a number of other states appear ready to join in on the lawsuit, and how many are saying that this is it, this is the lawsuit that we’ve been waiting for that will decide the election once and for all; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Trump to Join Texas Election Lawsuit at the Supreme Court


SEE: https://pjmedia.com/election/tyler-o-neil/2020/12/09/the-big-one-trump-will-join-texas-lawsuit-to-block-unlawful-election-results-in-swing-states-n1200952;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced he would join the explosive case Attorney General Ken Paxton (R-Texas) filed at the Supreme Court this week. No fewer than seventeen other states also urged the Supreme Court to take up the case. Paxton’s case urges the Court to block swing states from certifying “unlawful election results,” to remand the election to state legislatures for review, and to direct the legislatures to reverse the unlawful actions of election officials by choosing Electoral College electors themselves.

“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one,” the president announced on Twitter. “Our Country needs a victory!”

It remains unclear exactly how Trump and his legal team aim to intervene in the case. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari and take up the case, Trump could file an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief, but the promise to “intervene” seems more aggressive than that.

On Wednesday, Missouri led a group of 17 states in filing a brief that echoes the Texas claims. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined the Missouri brief.

“The Bill of Complaint alleges that non-legislative actors in each Defendant State unconstitutionally abolished or diluted statutory safeguards against fraud enacted by their state Legislatures, in violation of the Presidential Electors Clause,” the brief states, Fox News reported.

“All the unconstitutional changes to election procedures identified in the Bill of Complaint have two common features: (1) They abrogated statutory safeguards against fraud that responsible observers have long recommended for voting by mail, and (2) they did so in a way that predictably conferred partisan advantage on one candidate in the Presidential election,” the brief alleges.

Paxton’s case contests the results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

“As set forth in the accompanying brief and complaint, the 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in the Defendant States,” Paxton argues in the brief. The Texas brief lists three kinds of violations of federal law:

Non-legislative actors’  purported amendments to  States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.

Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.

The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.

These three broad claims echo many of the Trump campaign’s lawsuits challenging the presidential election results in those states.

EXPLOSIVE: Texas Asks Supreme Court to Block ‘Unlawful Election Results’ in Swing States

The Electors Clause in the U.S. Constitution states that only state legislatures may direct how states choose electors in the Electoral College. Election officials allegedly violated that clause by altering election procedures in violation of state law (enacted by the legislatures), ostensibly in order to help people vote during the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic.

State elections officials also treated some voters more favorably in more Democratic-leaning areas of states, helped in that effort by the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), an organization that directed funds to election officials in such areas.

Finally, while many election officials relaxed voting standards in order to help voters worried about COVID-19, those relaxed standards made potential fraud more likely.

“All these flaws – even the violations of state election law – violate one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law,” Paxton’s brief argues, citing Bush v. Gore (2000).

Texas “respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law.”

Importantly, Paxton claims that “these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”

The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to block certification of election results, to direct swing-state legislatures to review the results, and direct the legislatures to award electors based on legal ballots only. Such an order would fall in line with the legislative strategy President Donald Trump’s attorneys Jenna Ellis and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have supported.

On Monday, Ellis outlined the strategy, predicting that state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will independently investigate the election results and flip the electors from Joe Biden to Trump.

Republicans hold an edge over Democrats in each of the states mentioned. Ellis mentioned Arizona (11 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (31 seats to 29 seats) and the Senate (17 seats to 13 seats). Both Ellis and Paxton noted Georgia (16 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (103 seats to 75 seats) and the Senate (35 seats to 21 seats); Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (113 seats to 90 seats) and the Senate (28 seats to 21 seats); and Michigan (16 electoral votes), where Republicans control the House (58 seats to 52 seats) and the Senate (22 seats to 16 seats). Paxton mentioned Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), where Republicans control the State Assembly (63 seats to 35 seats) and the Senate (19 seats to 14 seats).

If the legislatures in states Jenna Ellis named flip for Trump, that would represent 63 electoral votes, flipping the election from 306 electoral votes for Biden and 232 for Trump to 295 electoral votes for Trump and 243 for Biden. If the legislatures in states Paxton named flip for Trump, that would represent 62 electoral votes, flipping the election from 306 electoral votes for Biden and 232 for Trump to 294 electoral votes for Trump and 244 for Biden.

Heritage Foundation election expert Hans von Spakovsky noted the strength of Texas’ claims, but he warned that the Supreme Court “may be extremely leery and disinclined” to take up the “unprecedented lawsuit.”

“Texas does a good job of describing what happened in each state and why the actions of government officials making unauthorized, unilateral changes in the rules may have violated the Constitution and affected the outcome of the election,” von Spakovsky notes. “But by almost any measure, this is the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. While the questions raised are serious ones, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will address them at this time.”

Trump may intend to add gravitas to the Texas suit, but his move to intervene may make the lawsuit appear even more political. I would like to see the Supreme Court take up this case, but the Court rejects far more cases than it takes up, and many justices are leery of getting involved in election matters.

TX v State Motion 2020-12-0… by Breitbart News

Editor’s Note: Want to support PJ Media so we can continue telling the truth about the 2020 election? Join PJ Media VIP TODAY and use the promo code LAWANDORDER to get 25% off your VIP membership.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

EXPLOSIVE: Michigan Illegally Counted or Ignored 500K Ballots, Lawsuit Claims
VIP: Did Mark Zuckerberg Steal the 2020 Election?
Team Trump: Evidence Shows ‘More Than Double’ the Vote Margin in Swing States Is From Illegal Ballots
10 Reasons Pennsylvania’s Election Results May Be ‘Irredeemably Compromised’
Jenna Ellis: Swing-State Legislatures Will Reject ‘False Corrupt Results,’ Switch Electors to Trump