Fitton: Documents show Obama FDA buying fetal heads ‘fresh, never frozen’

Rumble — Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton speaks out on new damning documents showing the Obama-era FDA purchased fetal body parts. One America's John Hines has more from Washington.


Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton speaks out on new damning documents showing the Obama-era FDA purchased fetal body parts. One America’s John Hines has more from Washington.

These people are sick! that explains their demonic push for abortions!;

Why is this not on every major news outlet? We as a country are going to hell in a handbasket;

Because the news is controlled by the Satan worshipers. OAN and Newsmax seem to tell what’s really going on. Of course, the democrats and the fake news will say they’re the ones lying. That’s what Liberals do. They do bad things and blame it on the other side. It’s the first play in their playbook:

HORRORS CONFIRMED: Obama’s FDA purchased “fresh and never frozen” aborted baby heads and other body parts


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

(Planet Today) A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case filed by the government watchdog group Judicial Watch has revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under Barack Hussein Obama purchased the heads and other body parts of murdered (aborted) unborn human babies in order to conduct “research.”

The FDA claimed that the aborted baby body parts were for a “humanized mice” project that involved experimenting with “human fetal heads, organs, and tissues,” according to 198 pages of now-extracted FDA records.

(Article by Ethan Huff republished from

These “supplies” came from a biotechnology company called Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR). ABR employee Perrin Lawton reportedly conducted the business deals with the help of FDA officer Kristina Howard, according to unearthed documents.

A lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch sought the records for “all contracts and related documentation on disbursement of funds, procedural documents and communications between FDA and ABR for the provision of human fetal tissue to be used in humanized mice research.”

A federal court responded by ordering that the government provide even more details about the purchase of these human body parts, “including ‘line item prices,’ or the price per organ the government paid to ABR,” Judicial Watch announced about the ongoing case.

“The court also found ‘there is reason to question’ whether the transactions violate federal law barring the sale of fetal organs. Documents previously uncovered in this lawsuit show that the federal government demanded the purchased fetal organs be ‘fresh and never frozen,'” Judicial Watch added in a statement.

Baby murder is big money in America

In 2012, right after Obama had been reelected for his second term, an agreement was made between the FDA and ABR to transact “$12,000 worth of ’tissue procurement for humanized mice.'” That transaction ended up costing some $60,000 when all was said and done.

In some cases, aborted baby body parts came at a rate of $230 per “tissue,” with two per box plus shipping. The delivery of “fetal livers and thymuses,” meanwhile, cost a bit more at $580 a “set,” with some of the more “premium” organs costing $685 a pop.

To obtain an “intact calvarium,” which is just a fancy word for an uncrushed baby’s skull, the FDA was billed $515 each by ABR.

“The HM [humanized mice] are created by surgical implantations of human tissue into mice that have multiple genetic mutations that block the development of the mouse immune system at a very early stage,” a government researcher reportedly told ABR at the time.

“The absence of the mouse immune system allows the human tissues to grow and develop into functional human tissues … In order for the humanization to proceed correctly we need to obtain fetal tissue with a specific set of specialized characteristics.”

Obtusely, Obama actually had the gall to get up in front of the world and condemn this type of medical experimentation with aborted baby body parts – in Africa, anyway.

You read that right: Obama expressed opposition to the chopping up of human babies for the purpose of doing “Frankenstein” experiments on them, but only in Africa. Here in the United States, he oversaw this very same wickedness, which was funded with American taxpayer dollars.

“Chopping up aborted human beings for their organs and tissue is a moral and legal outrage,” says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This issue should be front and center in any debate about America’s barbaric abortion industry.”

Last year, Judicial Watch reported on how the National Institute of Health (NIH), where Tony Fauci works, has been doing much the same thing via the University of Pittsburgh, which has since been outed as one of the major “tissue hubs” where aborted baby body parts are processed and sold for profit.

The latest news about the abortion racket can be found at


Four Taliban members Obama traded for deserter Bergdahl are in the new Afghan government



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

Really, what did anyone expect?

“Four Taliban members swapped for Bowe Bergdahl now in Afghan government,” by Samuel Chamberlain, New York Post, September 7, 2021:

Four of the five Taliban members released from Guantanamo Bay by the Obama administration in 2014 in exchange for admitted US Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl are part of the Islamic fundamentalist group’s new hardline government in Afghanistan, according to local media reports.

The four members of the so-called “Taliban Five” who have joined the new government are Acting Director of Intelligence Abdul Haq Wasiq, Acting Minister of Borders and Tribal Affairs Norullah Noori, Deputy Defense Minister Mohammad Fazl, and Acting Minister of Information and Culture Khairullah Khairkhah. The fifth member of the Taliban Five, Mohammad Nabi Omari, was appointed governor of eastern Khost Province last month.

Afghan outlet TOLOnews published a list Tuesday of members of the new “caretaker” government, which features several familiar faces who helped run the war-torn country between 1996 and 2001 — when the Taliban were forced from power by US-led NATO forces following the 9/11 attacks.

Wasiq, Fazl, and Khairkhah all held positions in the former Taliban government — Wasiq as a deputy intelligence chief, Fazl as army chief of staff, and Khairkhah as interior minister.

According to assessments written in 2008 by leadership at Guantanamo Bay and later made public by Wikileaks, Wasiq “utilized his office to support [Al Qaeda] and to assist Taliban personnel elude capture” and “was central to the Taliban’s efforts to form alliances with other Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight alongside the Taliban against U.S. and Coalition forces” in the early days of the Afghanistan war.

The same assessments said that Fazl was alleged to have had “operational associations with significant al Qaeda and other extremist personnel.”

Fazl and Noori, who was governor of two northern Afghan provinces during the earlier Taliban regime, are also accused of ordering the massacres of ethnic Hazara, Tajik, and Uzbek communities in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif in 1998.

Khairkhah, who helped found the Taliban in 1994, allegedly took part in “meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against U.S. and Coalition Forces” following the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, according to the 2008 assessments. He also was the governor of western Herat province between 1999 and 2001 and was known as “one of the major opium drug lords in western Afghanistan,” US military leadership found.

Despite the assessments recommending “continued detention” for the five, then-President Barack Obama signed off on an agreement that sprung the men from Gitmo in exchange for the release of Bergdahl, who had been taken captive by the Taliban after walking away from an observation post in Paktika Province in June 2009.

“The United States of America does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind,” Obama said at a Rose Garden ceremony announcing Bergdahl’s release on May 31, 2014.

As Bergdhal returned to the United States, the Taliban Five were flown to Qatar, where much of the Taliban’s political leadership resided at the time. Among those aghast by the price paid for Bergdahl’s return was then Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who told CBS’ “Face The Nation” that the Taliban Five were “the hardest of the hard core” and “the highest high-risk people.”

In 2015, Bergdahl was charged by the military with desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty and one count of misbehavior before the enemy by endangering the safety of his fellow soldiers. In 2017, he pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, a reduction in rank and a fine. Bergdahl has since appealed to federal court in a bid to get his conviction overturned.

The new Taliban government also features Acting Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, who is on the FBI’s most-wanted list with a $5 million bounty on his head and is believed to still be holding at least one American hostage. He headed the feared Haqqani network that is blamed for many deadly attacks and kidnappings….



Taliban Commander was Gitmo Detainee Swapped for Deserter



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

It was one of the worst trades in history, even worse than Nolan Ryan for Jim Fregosi or Kobe Bryant for Vlade Divac: Back in 2014, Barack Obama traded five Taliban commanders for one American who, we were led to believe, had been captured by the Taliban. Obama did all he could to make the swap seem noble: He said at the time that the recovery of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was “a reminder of America’s unwavering commitment to leave no man or woman in uniform behind on the battlefield,” and the five Taliban jihadis were sent to Qatar, where they would ostensibly be kept out of trouble. Seven years later, Bergdahl is known as a deserter, not a hero: In 2017, he pleaded guilty to desertion and was given a dishonorable discharge. And now Khairullah Khairkhwa, one of the jihadis Obama traded for Bergdahl, is among the Taliban leadership that just took Kabul.

Obama’s deal was fishy from the start. Bergdahl was known as a deserter even at the time the deal was made. Former infantry officer Nathan Bradley Bethea, who served with Bergdahl in Afghanistan, wrote in the Daily Beast that Bergdahl was “a deserter, and soldiers from his own unit died trying to track him down.” Refuting reports that Bergdahl got separated from his unit while on patrol, Bethea declared: “Make no mistake: Bergdahl did not ‘lag behind on a patrol,’ as was cited in news reports at the time. There was no patrol that night. Bergdahl was relieved from guard duty, and instead of going to sleep, he fled the outpost on foot. He deserted. I’ve talked to members of Bergdahl’s platoon—including the last Americans to see him before his capture. I’ve reviewed the relevant documents. That’s what happened.”

Three days before he deserted, Bergdahl wrote to his parents: “I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.”

Then there was the Taliban’s 2010 claim that Bergdahl had converted to Islam and was teaching bomb-making to its jihadists. Documents revealed in 2014 corroborate the claim. According to one of these documents, dated August 23, 2012, “Conditions for Bergdahl have greatly relaxed since the time of the escape. Bergdahl has converted to Islam and now describes himself as a mujahid. Bergdahl enjoys a modicum of freedom, and engages in target practice with the local mujahedeen, firing AK47s. Bergdahl is even allowed to carry a loaded gun on occasion. Bergdahl plays soccer with his guards and bounds around the pitch like a mad man. He appears to be well and happy, and has a noticeable habit of laughing frequently and saying ‘Salaam’ repeatedly.”

The Obama/Biden administration ignored all this, made the lopsided deal, and treated Bergdahl as a returning hero at a Rose Garden ceremony featuring the deserter’s parents.

Meanwhile, Obama’s own intelligence team warned him that four of the five jihadis he traded for Bergdahl were almost certain to return to the jihad. He ignored this. And so Khairullah Khairkhwa was free to join other Taliban representatives in Qatar in 2019, negotiating the terms of America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. During those protracted, fruitless, and foredoomed negotiations, Khairkhwa declared in March 2021: “I started jihad to remove foreign forces from my country and establish an Islamic government, and jihad will continue until we reach that goal through a political agreement.” Or, as things turned out, until Old Joe Biden leaves Afghanistan without bothering to have his military, which was too preoccupied with making sure to enforce woke orthodoxy anyway, prepare a coherent exit strategy that would protect our personnel and get them and our weaponry out of the country safely.

The presence of Khairullah Khairkhwa among the Taliban leadership in Kabul is a vivid illustration of how disastrously wrongheaded, futile, and self-defeating the Left’s foreign policy really is. Jihadis will happily lie to Americans to get what they want, as Obama’s team happily accepted the assurances that the five jihadis freed from Guantanamo for Bergdahl would not return to the jihad. Those jihadis will not see gestures of goodwill as something to be reciprocated, but as signs of weakness in the enemy, a weakness that must be exploited. Now, as the Taliban consolidates its power within Afghanistan and begins to make good on its vow to export its jihad elsewhere, untold numbers of Americans and others will suffer for Obama’s determination to get the traitor Bergdahl back from the Taliban, and to show them what a grand fellow he was by freeing five of their commanders. But preventing the suffering of Americans never seems to have been a high priority for the Obama/Biden team of “experts.”




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

I refer to DACA (Deferred Action- Childhood Arrival) as a scam because while it was foisted on Americans as a program to provide legal protection to young aliens, in reality, it enabled aliens in their mid to late thirties to acquire lawful status.  We will explore the true nature and background of DACA shortly, but first, there has been an important development with this program.

On July 19, 2021, the New York Times reported, Judge Rules DACA Is Unlawful and Suspends Applications

That news report included this excerpt:

The judge, Andrew S. Hanen of the United States District Court in Houston, said President Barack Obama exceeded his authority when he created the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, by executive action in 2012.

But the judge wrote that current program recipients would not be immediately affected and that the federal government should not take any immigration, deportation or criminal action” against them that it would not otherwise take.”

The New York Times article went on to note, in part:

Judge Hanen, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, ruled that the creation of the program violated the Administrative Procedure Act, in part because comment from the general public was never sought. D.H.S. failed to engage in the statutorily mandated process,” he wrote, so DACA never gained status as a legally binding policy that could impose duties or obligations.”

Now let’s delve into the background behind the creation of the DACA con game by President Obama.

On June 15, 2012 then-President Barack Obama announced, during a Rose Garden event at the White House, that he was going to create the DACA program to provide temporary lawful status for what he claimed were young “undocumented immigrants.”  DACA is an acronym for Deferred Action- Childhood Arrivals.

On June 17, 2012, Fox News published my Op-Ed Obama Invokes Prosecutorial Discretion to Circumvent Constitution and Congress that took Mr. Obama’s bogus claims to task.

To begin with, Mr. Obama claimed that he was exercising “prosecutorial discretion” to create DACA.  Prosecutorial discretion is a valid concept whereby the limited resources for law enforcement are used to address more serious problems while intentionally ignoring relatively minor law violations.

However, prosecutorial discretion could never be reasonably used to provide lawful status to law violators under the guise of making effective use of limited resources.  Providing lawful status to illegal aliens should require legislation and such a program would create additional burdens that squander and not make effective use of limited resources.

Therefore I noted in my Fox News commentary that Obama was not using prosecutorial discretion but was, instead, using prosecutorial deception!

The notion of “Deferred Action” was one that was used by the former INS and the subsequent follow-on immigration agencies of the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) on a limited, case-by-case basis for humanitarian purposes.

If, for instance, a family from another country was visiting in the United States and a family member was injured or fell ill with a serious injury or illness, Deferred Action would permit the family to remain in the United States for as long a period as necessary, as attested to by their attending physician(s).  Immigration authorities would require that their doctors provide periodic updates until the alien was well enough to travel back to their home country.

The action that was deferred was the requirement that aliens depart from the United States.

Deferred Action was never meant to be used to act as a stop-gap in anticipation of pending amnesty for huge numbers of illegal aliens to enable them to remain in the United States.

Obama justified creating DACA because he falsely claimed, “Congress failed to act.”

In reality, Congress had acted and, indeed, acted in accordance with the Constitution.  It is just that Congress did not act the way Obama wanted when it voted to not enact the DREAM Act.  (DREAM Act is an acronym for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors) that would have provided lawful status for millions of illegal aliens who claimed to have entered the United States prior to their 15th birthday- however, these aliens could be as old as 35 years of age when they made their applications.

I am compelled to note the hypocrisy in the name of that failed legislative action.  The term “Alien” has come to be reviled by the open borders/immigration anarchists, even though the term alien is defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act as simply being, “Any person, not a citizen or national of the United States.”  However, apparently when the term alien was essential to creating the acronym that conjured up the image of the “American Dream” the supposedly dastardly term “alien” became palatable.

The actual purpose for the DREAM Act and for DACA was to dupe kind-hearted Americans into believing that this was about helping children.  In reality, this was not about children but about flooding America with huge numbers of aliens for political purposes and to enrich those who profit from massive immigration and provide huge campaign contributions to politicians who do their bidding

The immigration system has morphed into a delivery system that, as I have noted in the past, provides an unlimited supply of clients for immigration law firms.  There is no shortage of immigration lawyers among the ranks of politicians from both parties and on all levels of government- particularly the U.S. Congress.

Among those who also benefit from this “immigration delivery system” are companies that want cheap and exploitable labor, religious organizations that want to fill the seats in their houses of worship, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, labor unions that seek to increase their membership so that they get more money (union dues) and increased political leverage.

As more aliens flood into the United States housing becomes scarce and the price of housing increases.  Banks make more money as the size of mortgages increases as the cost of housing goes up.  This causes homelessness to increase as more Americans lose their jobs to foreign workers or suffer wage suppression even as the cost of housing soars.

Fraud would permeate this program because there would be no way to interview all of these aliens and no way to conduct field investigations to determine if the information contained in their applications was accurate and truthful.  The 9/11 Commission, in point of fact, identified immigration fraud as a key vulnerability that was repeatedly exploited by terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves.  This nexus between immigration fraud and terrorism and national security was the predication of my article, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.

The DREAM Act legislation, incidentally, followed on the heels of a prior failed piece of legislation, Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  Comprehensive Immigration Reform is still on the agenda for leaders of both parties.  There would be no age cut-off for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, only a requirement that the aliens who participate would have entered the United States prior to a cutoff date.  Again, the inability to interview so many aliens or conduct field investigations would enable aliens to easily misrepresent their dates of entry into the United States as it would be for them to misrepresent their true identities and potentially their criminal histories and/or affiliation with criminal or terrorist organizations.

These concerns caused me to write an Op-Ed for the Washington Times that was published on June 22, 2007, Immigration bill a ‘No Go’, in which I proposed changing the name of the legislation from Comprehensive Immigration Reform to “The Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act.”
The hotly contested bill was being debated in the U.S. Senate at the time and then-Senator Jeff Sessions quoted my article during the floor debate on three separate days and sent me a certificate in which he attributed my article, in part, to his successful efforts to block that wrong-headed and dangerous bill back then.
We will give the “last word” to none other than former President Obama.  
On November 18, 2014, the Washington Post published a report, Obama’s royal flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration that included this excerpt:
With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

The ‘Conservative’ Supreme Court’s Love-Affair With Obamacare

Giving the Left’s healthcare scam a thumbs-up.



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

Conservatives across America have to be asking themselves why they put so much time, money, and energy into electing Republicans when the supposedly conservative Supreme Court justices who follow side with the Left in important cases.

The latest jurisprudential atrocity is the high court’s dreadful but not altogether unexpected betrayal of the U.S. Constitution in California v. Texas, a challenge to the Obamacare redistribution statute lodged by Texas and 17 other states that had been backed by the former Trump administration.

“It’s never been a proper role for the federal government to regulate health care and health insurance,” Robert Henneke of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who represented two individual plaintiffs, said after winning at the trial court level. “It is a proper role for the states.”

There are 6 conservative justices and 3 liberal justices on the Supreme Court, or so the conventional wisdom goes.

Yet instead of dealing with the legal controversy head-on, a majority of the court chickened out, failing for a third time to mete out a richly deserved death blow to the flagrantly unconstitutional, un-American monstrosity that is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). By a vote of 7–2 on June 17, the Supreme Court cavalierly brushed aside questions of the law’s constitutional validity by finding that those challenging it lacked the required legal standing to do so.

Of the three Trump appointees, two –Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett— voted to protect the ACA. Even the most brilliant member of the court, conservative stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas, bought into this cowardly nonsense, siding with the majority on standing.

This ruling should disabuse Americans once and for all of the claim, repeated ad nauseam by the Left, that the Supreme Court, which momentarily is dominated by Republican appointees, is somehow “conservative” or “right-wing.”

It also demonstrates that threatening to pack the court, as Democrats vow to do, is an effective way of making sure the court fails to do its job.

After all, the Supreme Court does what it wants to do. In controversial cases, it sometimes adheres to the Constitution, as its members are sworn to do; other times it just makes stuff up, issuing incoherent decisions written to justify a predetermined conclusion. Invoking standing is a tried and true method of copping out.

After the court opinion in California v. Texas was released, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said what needed to be said.

“Obamacare was sold on a lie to the American people,” the Republican wrote on Twitter

“Its crown jewel —the individual mandate— was unconstitutional when it was enacted and it is still unconstitutional. Yet, seven justices decided to avoid the question of constitutionality by limiting their decision to a ruling on standing. If the government is allowed to mislead its citizens, pass a massive government takeover of health care, and yet still survive after Supreme Court review, this spells doom for the principles of federalism and limited government.”

“The failed Obamacare system will stagger on as a result of this decision,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a physician who has worked to repeal the law. “Every American’s health care has been harmed by Obamacare.”

Recall that in the 2008 campaign, then-candidate Barack Hussein Obama lied to voters, claiming that his health care scheme would drive annual premiums down by $2,500 and that patients would not see their health care arrangements disrupted. Even left-leaning PolitiFact deemed Obama’s mantra, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” its “Lie of the Year” in 2013.

After BHO conned his way into the Oval Office, the law was enacted in 2010 without a single Republican vote in Congress on final passage. Later, Obamacare “architect” and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said lying was essential to getting it done. It was “the stupidity of the American voter” that made it important to conceal Obamacare’s true costs from the public. “That was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said.

Insurance premiums have shot up since then. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that the total cost of the average employer-sponsored family health insurance premium increased to $20,576 in 2019, up from $13,375 in 2009, a 54 percent increase. In individual markets, premiums rose from an average of $2,640 ($220 per month) in 2011 to $6,960 ($580 per month) in 2019, a 164 percent increase. Many consumers haven’t been able to afford premiums and have lost their insurance.

Finally, the case of California v. Texas came along, affording the Supreme Court a wonderful opportunity to at long last drive a stake through Obamacare’s heart.

Congress teed up the case by making the ACA’s individual mandate disappear in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 by reducing the tax penalty for not purchasing insurance to zero. Those fighting the statute in the current case argued that the revised law ran afoul of the Constitution because the individual mandate was so integral to the law that Obamacare couldn’t function without it.

At the end of 2018, Texas-based federal Judge Reed O’Connor sided with the challengers, ruling they had standing and that the Obamacare law was unconstitutional in its entirety.

In 2017, Congress “sawed off the last leg [Obamacare] stood on,” wrote O’Connor, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. The “mandate ‘is essential to’ and inseverable from ‘the other provisions of’” the law, he wrote.

But the Supreme Court had no interest in doing the right thing.

The majority opinion in California v. Texas was written by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, though it reads like something written by the weaselly virtue-signaling fake conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts, along with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion. Naturally, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan also joined it.

Roberts, who wrote the NFIB v. Sebelius decision, had said during oral arguments November 10, 2020, that the Supreme Court had no business striking down unconstitutional statutes.

“On the severance question, I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire Act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the Act,” Roberts told Texas Solicitor General Kyle D. Hawkins.

“I think, frankly, that they wanted the Court to do that. But that’s not our job,” Roberts said in an assertion that would no doubt surprise his predecessor John Marshall, who invented judicial review in 1803 in the seminal Marbury v. Madison ruling.

Roberts was in fact wrong when he said Congress did not try to repeal the Obamacare law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that zeroed out the mandate-related penalty came out of the 115th Congress (2017–2018). In fact, lawmakers voted on several bills in that Congress that would have repealed Obamacare.

Returning to the case at hand, Breyer wrote that the 18 states argued that without the penalty the law’s “minimum essential coverage requirement,” as he put it in pleasant-sounding language, was unconstitutional.

They said “neither the Commerce Clause nor the Tax Clause (nor any other enumerated power) grants Congress the power to enact it,” Breyer wrote. “They also argue that the minimum essential coverage requirement is not severable from the rest of the Act. Hence, they believe the Act as a whole is invalid.”

Then Breyer began the excuse-making.

But the Supreme Court does “not reach these questions of the Act’s validity” because “Texas and the other plaintiffs in this suit lack the standing necessary to raise them.”

Article III of the Constitution “gives federal courts the power to adjudicate only genuine ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies[,]’ … [and] includes the requirement that litigants have standing,” Breyer wrote.

A “plaintiff has standing only if he can ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.’”

Citing two precedents, he stated fatuously that, “Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have shown that the injury they will suffer or have suffered is ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ of which they complain.”

Come again?

Another way of putting this is to say that the Supreme Court didn’t care about the needless hardship and suffering Obamacare has imposed on Americans without controlling costs, which keep rising and rising.

The court lacked the resolve to do the right thing and actually interpret the Constitution, so, as it has done many times before, the court chose the result it wanted and then after the fact threw together yet another poorly reasoned written opinion to justify the desired outcome.

“Standing, after all, is not a complicated concept,” Andrea Widburg wrote at American Thinker, citing Whitmore v. Arkansas (1990).

It requires a litigant to clearly demonstrate he has suffered an “injury in fact,” which “must be concrete in both a qualitative and temporal sense.” The litigant must allege an injury to himself that is “distinct and palpable,” not merely “abstract … and the alleged harm must be actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” The litigant must also show the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action” and “is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.”

So what would it take to demonstrate an “injury in fact”? Surging health care cost-related bankruptcies? Reduced hiring by employers because health insurance is unaffordable? An increase in morbidity rates because patients can’t afford to go to the doctor? Rising suicide rates resulting from sick patients killing themselves because they can’t get the care they need?Dead bodies overflowing from morgues?

If the Supreme Court doesn’t want to rule on the merits of a case, the standing excuse is an easy out.

Justice Samuel Alito used sarcasm to slam his colleagues for engaging in legal sophistry because they didn’t want to do the right thing.

“Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two,” Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue.”

Let’s go over the other two constituent parts of the trilogy.

In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court upheld the statute 5–4, on the theory that the individual mandate—which compelled Americans to buy health insurance even if they didn’t want it—was somehow a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax.

The court again threw a lifeline to Obamacare in King v. Burwell(2015), finding 6–3 that even though the law provides that Congress makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State,” the latter phrase actually means on an “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government,” as the justifiably angry late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion.

In his dissent in California v. Texas, Alito wrote, “No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats.”

“A penalty is a tax. The United States is a State. And 18 States who bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge. So a tax that does not tax is allowed to stand and support one of the biggest Government programs in our Nation’s history. Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again. But I must respectfully dissent.”

Perhaps Justice Thomas’s conscience bothered him so instead of doing the right thing he slammed his colleagues for wrongly deciding NFIB v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell.

“But, whatever the Act’s dubious history in this Court, we must assess the current suit on its own terms. And, here, there is a fundamental problem with the arguments advanced by the plaintiffs in attacking the Act—they have not identified any unlawful action that has injured them,” he wrote in an opinion concurring with the majority.

Tedious stuff.

And although Gorsuch may have done the right thing in this case, his brief tenure on the court does not inspire confidence.

With Gorsuch’s majority opinion last year in the 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the justice used the court as a national super-legislature and amended a law without involving actually elected lawmakers. (Roberts was the only other conservative in the majority.) Gorsuch stretched the meaning of the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity, something nobody thought it meant in 1964. As then-Solicitor General Noel Francisco said during oral arguments, “Sex means whether you’re male or female, not whether you’re gay or straight.”

“Many will applaud today’s decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court’s updating of Title VII,” Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion.

“But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not.”

But I digress, sort of.

Over the past year the Supreme Court has left the American people at the mercy of radical leftists. 

Power-mad governors and mayors inspired by swamp creature Anthony Fauci and fed bogus data by lying, monomaniacal epidemiologists, declared war on the American people as they combated the Chinese virus that causes COVID-19. 

The Supreme Court stood by for the most part and allowed the Left’s ongoing experiment in social control to proceed unimpeded. Ditto for the election-related challenges brought by President Donald Trump and Republicans, which seem more and more justified with each passing day as post-election audits and investigations continue.

There was so much justice to be done, but the Supreme Court refused to do it.

As it turns out, what seemed true before the ruling has only come into sharper focus after it: good, patriotic people who believe in the American idea cannot count on the Supreme Court, which has long enjoyed reverence it does not deserve, to save America.

We will have to do it ourselves.

Leaked Docs Show Obama FTC Gave Google Its Monopoly

March 22, 2021

Leaked Docs Show Obama FTC Gave Google Its Monopoly

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


Good afternoon,

In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission had an opportunity to go after Google on antitrust grounds. In 2013, the agency closed the investigation and dropped the case. A remarkable leak of those investigatory documents -- usually kept confidential -- reveals the extent to which the FTC relied on speculative economic forecasting over actual evidence of market distortions. Moreover, the pressure Google applied to the FTC through its deep ties to the Obama Administration suggest that the lack of enforcement had a political bent.

My take on all of this -- and what it means as Congress grapples with our antitrust laws and the growing power of Big Tech -- in the piece below.

 Leaked Docs Show Obama FTC Gave Google Its Monopoly After Google Execs Helped Obama Get Re-Elected

Leaked documents from the FTC's 2012 investigation of

Google show exactly what is wrong with the state of American antitrust enforcement.

Eight years ago, the Federal Trade Commission had the chance to face down Google — the giant of Silicon Valley whose power now alters the free flow of information at a global scale, distorts market access for businesses large and small, and changes the nature of independent thought in ways the world has never experienced.

Instead, the FTC blinked — and blinked hard, choosing to close the investigation in early 2013. A remarkable leak to Politico of agency documents about the 2012 Google investigation reveals that, despite ample evidence of market distortions and threats to competition presented by the agency’s lawyers, the five commissioners of the FTC deferred instead to speculative claims by their economists.

Records and reporting about the 2012 investigation suggest the FTC did so while bending to political pressure from the Obama White House — which was, in turn, bending to political pressure from Google. William Kovacic, a former FTC chair under President George W. Bush, reviewed the more than 3,00 pages of documents leaked to Politico and concluded the agency overlooked “what many experts and regulators would consider clear antitrust violations,” calling the specificity of issues outlined “breathtaking.”

In short, where we find ourselves today — with Google as the primary filter of the world’s information, engaging in a network of exclusionary contracts and anti-competitive conduct, and subject to an antitrust lawsuit led by the Department of Justice and joined by 48 state attorneys general — could have, and should have, been avoided.

That it wasn’t, however, provides key takeaways about where we are now with Big Tech, and, in particular, the method of enforcement of our antitrust laws, whose application has become too tightly wrapped around the axle of price, and captured by the speculative science of economic forecasting. It also reveals just how politicized antitrust enforcement has become — influenced by the siren song of internet exceptionalism and the powerful tug of Google, one of the world’s richest companies.

The Economists Were Wrong

Perhaps the most stunning takeaway in the 2012 documents is the extent to which the recommendations of the FTC’s lawyers sharply differed from those of the agency’s economists, on whose judgment the FTC commissioners ultimately relied in their decision to drop the investigation into Google.

The FTC’s antitrust attorneys concluded that Google was breaking the law by “banishing potential competitors” with a series of exclusionary contracts on mobile phones — much of which forms the basis for the lawsuit brought nearly a decade later by the Trump Department of Justice. The FTC’s economists, however, demurred, insisting that claims of Google’s market dominance were unfounded and would soon give way to competition. This required a markedly un-curious treatment of key facts.

The economists claimed, for example, that Google only represented 10 to 20 percent of the referral traffic to retail sites — disregarding statements from Google itself that those numbers were unreliable, as well as evidence from staff attorneys that Google’s referral traffic to retail provided closer to 70-90 percent. A pair of FTC economists made what Politico deemed “questionable assertions” about Google’s dominance of the advertising markets, citing as their evidence a study by Google and two academic papers funded by grants from Google.

Among other claims, two economists also alleged that Google’s grip on the market for mobile devices would fall in the face of competition from Amazon and Mozilla — and that the mobile distribution channel for search was too small a market to be relevant.

History has borne out how spectacularly wrong the economists were. This brings forward a key element of the over-reliance on an ever-narrowing set of criteria around which our antitrust laws are now enforced. It over-emphasizes speculative economic forecasting over hard market realities.

Coherent economic principles are central to antitrust enforcement for good reason — otherwise, justification for enforcement would swing wildly on ideological ballasts. But, like the consumer welfare standard’s current application, which is narrowly fixated on price (as opposed to a broad application that considers other factors, like consumer choice and innovation), economic forecasting has taken a premier and unquestionable seat among antitrust enforcers.

In particular, an over-reliance on a cost-benefit tool called the error-cost framework has made enforcers gun-shy about acting at all. Enforcers now largely defer to benefit claims made by the merging parties – and the economists these companies can afford to hire, who conveniently produce speculative analysis to buttress their points – while appearing to ignore hard evidence by senior executives clearly stating an anticompetitive intent behind a merger or business strategy.

In the case of Google, for example, one top executive bragged in an email that Google could “own the U.S. market” with its exclusive contracts with major phone makers and carriers. The FTC’s attorneys concluded Google was breaking competition laws. The agency’s economists, however, said there was no issue because they “expected” the mobile search to remain a small market.

In the FTC’s ultimate judgment, speculative analysis and complex econometric modeling reigned supreme over pragmatic facts regarding anti-competitive market behavior. This flips the intended calculus on its head.

Judge Robert Bork, one of the progenitors of the consumer welfare standard, explicitly warned against pushing economics beyond its competence. In his seminal book, “The Antitrust Paradox,” Bork wrote that “antitrust must avoid any standards that require direct measurement and quantification of either restriction of output or efficiency. Such tasks are impossible.”

He goes on, “The real objection to performance tests and efficiency defenses in antitrust law is that they are spurious. They cannot measure the factors relevant to consumer welfare, so that after the economic extravaganza was completed we should know no more than before it began.” Finally, Judge Bork notes that “the judge, the legislator, or lawyer cannot simply take the word of an economist in dealing with antitrust, for the economists will certainly disagree.”

Economic analysis, in other words, is a component, not the whole, of the analysis. Antitrust economics can help assess, but cannot ultimately determine, the scope of antitrust policy in its most rational form: determining who is being harmed, and how.

In 2012, the FTC made the critical error of letting economic speculation subsume the hard market evidence that former FTC chair William Kovacic called “specific, direct, and clear about the path ahead.” In its final judgment, the agency prioritized the “economic extravaganza” that Judge Bork explicitly warned against. They were wrong, and the market consequences have been severe.

Google’s Thumb on the Scale

The FTC was not acting in a vacuum, however. Although an independent agency, four of the FTC’s five commissioners voting on the Google probe were appointed by the Obama administration, which was notably close to Silicon Valley and very much bought into the notion of America’s internet exceptionalism.

According to The New York Times in 2016, President Obama was “America’s first truly digital president,” the leader who “routinely pushed policy that pleases the tech-savvy” and boasted “deep and meaningful connections” with Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs.

In 2012, Google employees were the second-largest source of campaign donations by any single U.S. company besides Microsoft. Google employees were senior aides at the White House and Google executives served on White House advisory panels. On Nov. 6, 2012, the day Obama was re-elected to a second term, Eric Schmidt, Google’s then-executive chairman, “personally oversaw a voter-turnout software system for Mr. Obama,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

The frequent contact between Google and the White House continued during the FTC’s investigation. A report published in 2015 by the Wall Street Journal detailed the “unusual” depth of Google’s engagement with the Obama administration, finding the company had clocked 230 meetings with senior White House officials, roughly one per week. Their top lobbyist Johanna Shelton darkened White House doors for more than 60 meetings. By April of 2016, according to another report, Shelton had notched 128 White House meetings.

Google has reportedly also attempted to dictate how the FTC discusses both the company and the dropped antitrust case. When the Wall Street Journal published a partial leak of the FTC’s Google investigation documents in 2015 (later fully leaked to Politico) demonstrating the depth of disagreement between the agency’s staff and the final commission vote, Shelton emailed the agency’s chief of staff to state Google was “troubled” and “puzzled” by the FTC’s non-response. She asked the agency to issue a statement that “set the record straight.” A statement was issued two days later.

Congressional Oversight Is Desperately Needed

Thanks in part to the FTC’s whiff on Google in 2012, the power of Big Tech has continued to grow, unchecked and largely unrivaled. Antitrust enforcement is once again emerging as a key remedy to the anti-competitive and market-distorting elements of what is undeniably oligarchic power.

But to avoid the mistakes of 2012, congressional oversight is desperately needed: over how our antitrust laws are being enforced, if that enforcement aligns with the congressional intent of the statutes, if the enforcement agencies are adequately resourced for the task, and whether statutory interpretation needs clarification for the digital economy.

Big Tech is pouring big money into the policy and academic arguments that claim such efforts would “politicize” antitrust enforcement, away from the pristine science of economic analysis. But if FTC’s actions in 2012 are any indication, antitrust enforcement is already well-politicized, and economic analysis, while a useful guidepost, is not a compass. In fact, an over-reliance on the error-cost framework can render our antitrust laws completely moot in the face of real market threats.

In many areas, Congress has largely abandoned its role as the lawmaking body, preferring instead to outsource policy development to bureaucrats and the courts. It is encouraging, therefore, to see both the House and Senate engaging in scrutiny of antitrust enforcement for Big Tech.

The FTC of 2012 has given them a helpful guide by highlighting the areas of weakness in our current enforcement analysis, and the capture by billion-dollar interests that can defer it. In other words, the leaked FTC memos are a flashing red light that all is not well in the world of American antitrust enforcement. The antitrust agencies have effectively privatized antitrust law. Congress must democratize it again.

Rachel Bovard is the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute.




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

On Tuesday, Alejandro “Ali” Nicholas Mayorkas was sworn in as Director of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the newly-installed Joe Biden. Mayorkas, who was born in Cuba, has been referred to as the “chief architect” of former President Obama’s amnesty plan known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

This, on the same day Joe Biden signed three new executive orders reversing President Trump’s immigration policies. As reported at RAIR, Joe Biden intends on increasing the number of “refugees” by 700 percent.

Mayorkas has engaged in cronyism for his entire career, protecting those in positions of power. For example, Alejandro Mayorkas was infamously involved in the Clinton-era pardon of the drug-trafficking son of Democrat donor Horacio Vignali. Along that vein, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also criticized the new swamp leader:

“As a high-ranking official in the Obama administration, Mr. Mayorkas did his best to turn US Citizenship and Immigration Services into an unethical favor factory for Democratic Party royalty — governors, the DNC chair, Hollywood executives, a Senate majority leader from Nevada, they all received special treatment to a degree that stunned and disturbed the Obama administration’s own inspector general.”

Mayorkas vowed to “end construction of the Mexico border wall in accordance with Biden’s directive, even though Congress in December approved $1.4 billion in new funds for the project,” as reported at the New York Post. Mayorkas continued to say that he will look into what can be done with the wall that has already been built, signaling that the newly installed lunatics in the federal government would actively remove the border wall.

The White House tweeted about the Mayorkas appointment last month, which featured a list of pro-amnesty endorsers (see video below), including big unions United Farm Workers, SEIU and AFL-CIO, as well as radical groups such as the Soros-Funded UnidosUS (formerly National Council of La Raza), the Coalition for the American Dream, and Community Change.


It appears that the swearing in video has a disproportionate amount of “dislikes” on YouTube, which is representative of other official White House videos, as reported at RAIR.

*UPDATE: In the few short hours since this article was published, another 4k “dislikes” were added to the video.

*Funny, at 11:42 PM, the “dislikes” were drastically deflated. Huh.


*11:42 PM.


Watch as Red Diaper Baby Kamala Harris swears In Alejandro Mayorkas as Secretary of Homeland Security. What a slap in the face that this man is swearing on a Bible to defend America against foreign and domestic enemies as he plans to flood the borders with illegal aliens.

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here:

Trump Should Have Pardoned This Pro-Family Hero~He Didn’t

Philip Zodhiates is a Christian who was aggressively railroaded for a phony "crime" by the Obama Justice Dept, the LGBT lobby, and the SPLC.


ABOVE: Philip Zodhiates and his wife Kathie Lee Zodhiates

Note: This article first appeared in American Thinker.



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

We have all seen the corrupt US Justice Department aggressively prosecute and imprison political opponents such as General Michael Flynn and former Texas Congressman Steve Stockman on the flimsiest of “crimes.” Meanwhile, left-wing figures such as Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden, who commit serious crimes remain untouched. The full truth is worse than most people are aware. Here is just one case we’re familiar with.

Philip Zodhiates is recognized as one of America’s best direct-mail professionals for conservative and Christian non-profits. His company, Response Unlimited, has sent out tens of millions of fundraising letters regarding the homosexual agenda and other anti-Christian movements. (Several years ago his company helped us!) Prior to and during the Obama administration his company sent out over 80 million fundraising letters targeting various suspect issues concerning Barack Obama, including his status as a “natural born citizen” and his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, Zodhiates operated the Conservative Petitions website that generated impactful feedback and millions of email messages opposing leftist programs.

Zodhiates is a committed Christian who adopted six children from Central America and has generously donated money to, and volunteered for, Christian causes.

On Sept. 21, 2009, Zodhiates gave a young woman he knew from church, Lisa Miller, a car ride from Virginia (where they all lived) to New York. At the time, Miller was under emotional stress and was accompanied by her 7-year-old daughter Isabella.

That was the beginning of Zodhiates’ nightmare. The Obama Justice Dept. and major liberal and LGBT groups used the incident to manufacture an outlandish charge against him, leading to a tremendously expensive trial, and landing him in federal prison where he is today.

But the story began almost ten years earlier. It’s not surprising that a “gay rights” dispute is involved.

In December 2000, Lisa Miller and another young woman, Janet Jenkins, were in a lesbian relationship. They traveled from home in Virginia to Vermont to enter into a “civil union” which was not legally recognized in Virginia.

Lisa wanted to have a child and was artificially inseminated. Janet did not participate in that. In April 2002 when Isabella was born, Janet was not listed as a parent on the baby’s birth certificate. Since then, Jenkins also declined to adopt Isabella on at least two occasions, according to published documents.

In July 2002, the couple and child moved from Virginia to Vermont. But in September 2003, the relationship broke up and Lisa and Isabella moved back to Virginia. In November 2003, the domestic partnership was dissolved. After that, according to documents, Janet only saw Isabella once in 2003 and twice in 2004. Soon after, Lisa became a Christian. In 2004, a Virginia judge officially recognized Lisa as Isabella’s sole parent. Lisa decided not to allow Janet to have any further visits with Isabella. And according to published papers, Janet expressed little interest in Isabella.

Then the LGBT movement stepped in.

The ACLU along with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund sought to make it a test case to establish that same-sex partners in civil unions could have “parental rights” over children – even if they were not biologically related and had never legally adopted them. In addition, according to documents, the Southern Poverty Law Center convinced Janet to allow them to make this case the precedent-setting attempt to nullify the Virginia Marriage Amendment and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Starting in 2007, these groups funded Janet Jenkins’ protracted custody battle over Isabella in the courts of Virginia and Vermont. A Vermont judge ordered that Janet should be allowed unsupervised overnight visits with Isabella, even though at that time she had not seen Isabella for 2½ years.

Lisa initially complied with these orders. But then she noticed that Isabella was acting very disturbingly after these visits. According to published documents, after one visit in 2007 (when Isabella was 5 years old) Lisa noted (published later in an affidavit):

Isabella has been crying at night asking me to promise that she doesn’t have to take a bath or shower with [Janet] … Since I picked her up on Sunday, Isabella has been exhibiting severe behaviors of stress, including pushing a comb against her stomach and telling me she is going to kill herself. She has been excessively and openly masturbating since she returned on Sunday and at one point tried to put a pen in her vagina.

When Lisa could see that Isabella was obviously being sexually abused during the visits with Janet, she declined to yield to the orders of the Vermont court. She continued trying to fight, but the massive legal force of the national groups was no match for Lisa’s meager resources.

Three licensed social workers in Virginia submitted affidavits stating that they believed Isabella was in danger with these visits, but that did not sway the courts. The Vermont court would not even allow those affidavits to be introduced as evidence.

The Virginia courts were persuaded to go along with the Vermont decision on visitation. In 2008, Lisa fought it all the way up to the Virginia Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor of continuing visitation rights for Janet!

Lisa still refused to comply. In 2009 a judge warned that if Lisa did not allow the visitations, he would transfer full custody of Isabella to Janet. In November 2009, the judge followed through with his threat and ordered Lisa to hand Isabella over to Janet.

But by then it was too late. Lisa and Isabella had left the country.

On Sept. 21, 2009, Lisa asked her friend from church, Philip Zodhiates, to drive her to Buffalo, NY. The next day Lisa and Isabella took a taxi across the border to Canada. They apparently flew from there to Central America, but their exact whereabouts are still unknown, according to reports.

At that point, the LGBT groups got the Obama Dept. of Justice (DOJ) to get involved, which they did with enthusiasm. They charged Zodhiates with International Parental Kidnapping and Conspiracy. The two-week jury trial was largely a sham. Among other things:

  • The DOJ got the jury trial moved from conservative Lynchburg, Virginia to liberal Buffalo, New York. But the supposed “kidnapping” took place in Virginia. Buffalo was simply the endpoint of the ride.
  • Lisa had full legal custody of Isabella, they had legal passports, and there were no travel restrictions.
  • Virginia's Defense of Marriage Amendment to its Constitution forbade the Virginia courts from recognizing the Vermont civil union, and Isabella's Virginia birth certificate lists Lisa as her only parent. Lisa lived in Virginia when Isabella was born.
  • The trial was largely on ad hominem characterization, not points of law. During the trial, the SPLC helped introduce “evidence” that Zodhiates was a horrible Christian bigot. But the judge refused to allow evidence of Zodhiates’ philanthropy and charitable work.
  • The jury never heard any evidence of the horrible sexual abuse regarding Isabella (or the affidavits from the social workers) which was the reason Lisa was escaping with her daughter. More important, fear of sexual abuse is a legal defense for alleged “parental kidnapping.” But Zodhiates’ lawyers purposefully chose not to tell the jury about that – an act of apparent legal malpractice which Zodhiates brought up in his appeal.

By any normal measure, Philip Zodhiates committed no crime. And certainly, by the normal standards of today’s legal system, he wouldn’t have been charged even if he had. But that’s not how things turned out.

The massive DOJ, SPLC, and LGBT legal team was too overwhelming, and Zodhiates’ lawyers were frankly unimpressive. The jury convicted Zodhiates.

The appeal was also shameful. The court rejected all of the problems with the trial that Zodhiates brought up. Petitions to the US Supreme Court were also rejected. In 2018 he was sentenced to three years in federal prison, where he sits now until the end of 2021. They would not even let him out early for Covid, even though thousands of other inmates were released.

Philip Zodhiates is also hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for legal fees and lost income. It is likely that the SPLC will bankroll a further lawsuit against him on behalf of Janet for “damages.”

In December 2019, Zodhiates filed a Petition for Pardon to President Trump. Since then, there were numerous letters and emails from the Trump administration. On Dec. 23, 2020, President Trump pardoned 15 people and commuted the sentences of 5 others. Then on Jan. 20, 2021, President Trump granted 73 pardons and commuted the sentences of an additional 70 people. Philip Zodhiates was not among them.

Many of these people had been convicted of drug trafficking, securities fraud, and similar crimes. A friend of a famous rapper got pardoned.

But no one who got pardoned, that we could determine, had committed a transgression against the LGBT movement. We have a disturbing feeling that President Trump – or his staff – did not want to offend that “constituency.” It’s a terrible shame, and bad for America.

Facebook Twitter Email Print

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Trump to Declassify Trove of Obamagate Documents



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

With less than a week left in office, President Trump is declassifying a “massive trove” of FBI documents relating to Obamagate, including FBI documents “showing the Russia collusion story was leaked in the final weeks of the 2016 election in an effort to counteract Hillary Clinton’s email scandal,” reports Just The News

The documents could be released as early as Friday, and are said to include “FBI interviews and human source evaluation reports for two of the main informants in the Russia case, former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and academic Stefan Halper.”

According to government officials who spoke with Just The News, the internal FBI and DOJ documents pending release “detail significant flaws in the investigation and provide a detailed timeline of when the FBI first realized the Steele dossier was problematic.”

One bombshell revelation contained in the documents is an admission by Christopher Steele, who was hired by Clinton’s campaign law firm to dig up dirt on Trump. He leaked information from his controversial dossier to the media, such as the false Russian collusion narrative, in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign to counter the Hillary Clinton email scandal, after former FBI Director James Comey had reopened the Clinton email investigation.

Several investigations have since concluded that the Steele dossier was mostly debunked and uncorroborated accusations, and likely contained Russian disinformation. Nevertheless, the dossier set off the biggest and most expensive political witch hunt in history.

John Solomon of Just The News was on Lou Dobbs Tonight on Fox Business to discuss the bombshell news.

The news comes on the heels of the House of Representatives impeaching President Trump a second time over accusations that he incited violence at the U.S. Capitol.

Matt Margolis is the author of Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trumpand the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on TwitterFacebookParlerGabMeWeRumble, and CloutHub.

Did CNN Accidentally Prove That Trump Did NOT Call for Violence at the Capitol?
Never Forget These Ten Republican Turncoats Who Voted to Impeach Trump
Attack on Capitol Partially Coordinated on Twitter. Will Apple, Google, and Amazon Ban It Now?
Mozilla CEO Says Deplatforming President Trump Isn’t Enough
Parler Sues Amazon, Asks Court to Reverse Illegal ‘Death Blow’
The All-Out Assault on Conservative Thought Has Just Begun
VIP: Are Social Media Echo Chambers Inevitable?

US taxpayer money went to al-Qaeda-linked jihad group during Obama administration




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

The Obama third term is about to start, so the money is likely once again to flow freely to those who wish to destroy America.

“US Taxpayer Money Went to Al-Qaeda Affiliate During Obama Administration: Senate Reports,” by Li Hai, Epoch Times, December 30, 2020:

At least $150,000 in U.S. taxpayer money went to an Islamic organization with ties to terrorism through a humanitarian organization from 2014 to 2015, a large amount of which was approved by the then-Obama administration despite being informed the Islamic organization was a sanctioned entity, a Senate report shows.

On Dec. 23, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released a report of an investigation conducted by his staff into the relationship between World Vision, a non-profit humanitarian organization, and the Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA), an organization that has funded terrorist activities.

World Vision is a non-profit organization founded in 1950 to provide humanitarian aid to impoverished peoples in vulnerable areas across the world.

ISRA is headquartered in Sudan and has been sanctioned by the United States since 2004 “after they had funneled approximately $5 million to Maktab Al-Khidamat, the predecessor to Al-Qaeda controlled by Osama Bin Laden,” the report stated.

According to a timeline of events from the report:

  • On Jan. 21, 2014, World Vision submitted a grant application to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to provide humanitarian services to some conflict-affected areas in Sudan. World Vision was subsequently awarded a grant of $723,405 to carry out the program.
  • On Feb. 1, 2014, World Vision entered into an agreement with the Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA) whereby ISRA would provide humanitarian services to certain parts of the Blue Nile Region in Sudan on behalf of World Vision. Prior to this, World Vision had worked with ISRA on several projects from 2013 through 2014.
  • In late September 2014, World Vision’s legal department was notified of ISRA’s potential status as a sanctioned entity. World Vision then ceased all payments to ISRA and began investigating whether ISRA was indeed a sanctioned entity.
  • On Jan. 23, 2015, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) responded to World Vision’s inquiry that ISRA is indeed a sanctioned entity. OFAC denied World Vision’s request for a license to transact with ISRA in the same letter.
  • On Feb. 19, 2015, World Vision again requested a license to transact with ISRA in order to pay them $125,000 for services rendered. In its request, World Vision stressed that it could face severe legal consequences and even expulsion from Sudan if it did not pay ISRA the monies owed.
  • On May 4, 2015, the Obama Administration’s State Department recommended OFAC grant World Vision’s request for a license to pay ISRA $125,000 in monies owed. The following day, OFAC granted World Vision a specific license to pay ISRA $125,000 only for services rendered.

The report shows $125,000 was paid on May 7, 2015, from which $111,982 was from a United States Government (USG) grant and $9,062 was from Irish government aid….






Is Your State On The List? Obama and Holder Hijack the Redistricting Process to Seize Republican Areas



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

Take Action! Scroll Down for Details!

With the expressed goal to get Democrats elected in all levels of office, former President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have unleashed an army of trained activists to interfere in redistricting, the electoral map-drawing process that takes place in America every ten years based on the results of the census.

Aggressively exploiting the infrastructure created during Obama’s presidential campaigns, Obama and Holder are fighting to ensure Democrat wins by redrawing America’s electoral maps in a way that benefits democrats and dilutes the republican vote, a process known as “gerrymandering.”

Obama is keenly knowledgeable of gerrymandering, as it was crucial to him winning his own Senate seat.

As reported at RAIR Foundation USA in October, Obama’s gerrymandering organization “All On The Line” (AOTL) (formerly “Obama for America”) is a project of Obama and Eric Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC), which was created to “favorably position Democrats for the redistricting process through 2022” according to their own tax documents. The NDRC officially launched eight days before President Donald Trump was sworn into office.

What is Gerrymandering?

Electoral maps are redrawn after every census in a process called “redistricting”. Redrawing maps in a way to favor a political party is referred to as “gerrymandering.” While Obama and Holder accuse the Republican party of gerrymandering, their entire organization is built around strategically drawing maps to benefit democrats.

The left has been skillfully honing their gerrymandering skills for decades through organizations such as IMPAC 2000, a leftist gerrymandering organization founded in October, 1988. The communications director for IMPAC 2000, Greg Speed, currently serves on the Board of Directors for Obama and Holder’s NDRC. Greg Speed is also the President of the deceptively named “America Votes,” an insidious organization which “works year-round in more than 20 key states, acting as a permanent campaign to continually advance progressive causes,” according to their website. America Votes was founded in 2003 by former president of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards.

According to a 2003 article from the left-leaning Center for Public Integrity, IMPAC 2000 was one of several tax-exempt political organizations free to “spend millions on elections with little oversight or accountability.”

The Obama/Holder Strategy

The truly insidious thing about the Obama/Holder initiative is that they are lying to their own supporters to incentivize them to bend to their will. Instead of coming right out and saying they are seeking to get democrats elected across the country, AOTL misrepresents their opposition as taking part in unfair map drawing, while they only seek “fairness”.

“All On The Line is a national campaign to restore fairness to our democracy and ensure every American has an equal say in our government,” they claim on their website. But “fairness” has nothing to do with the Obama/Holder plot.

The ploy is very similar to Obama’s “take over the suburbs” strategy to import democrat voters into conservative strongholds. By drawing maps so that cities divert some of their democrat voters into traditionally GOP areas, historically red towns will turn blue.

If you can’t physically import democrats to turn red areas blue, redraw the maps. Or do both.

Obama and Holder intend on getting their cronies deeply involved in the map-drawing process in targeted states. We are not going to allow any maps — anywhere in the nation — to pass without comment or question from the public,” writes AOTL Campaign Manager Saumya Narechania on December 11, 2020. In this case, “the public” means Obama acolytes.

Narechania also bragged:

“All On The Line is already working with thousands of volunteers across the country. We held more than 200 events, trainings, and informational sessions in the last year alone. Our efforts have helped reach diverse communities in Colorado during the application period for the state’s new redistricting commission process. We have beaten back bad legislation in Arizona to protect the integrity of their independent commission. We’ve participated in map redraws in North Carolina, and launched a first-of-its-kind leadership program for activists in the state. We’re helping to lead redistricting coalitions in states like Ohio and Florida with countless community organizations. We’ve sent more than a million text messages to community members across the nation — including to the 100 folks in Wisconsin who have signed up to learn more about how they can testify at an upcoming hearing for the Governor’s People’s Maps Commission. In the last few weeks alone, All On The Line volunteers have submitted and had their local papers publish more than 20 letters-to-the-editor.” [Emphasis added]

The GOP should be matching these efforts. Scroll down to see how to take action.

“Grassroots” is really “Astroturf”

Over a decade ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously and falsely referred to the Tea Party as “astroturf,” which implies that the Tea Party was somehow beholden to a larger master. She said this in the attempt to discredit the movement, which indeed sprung up organically to protest Obamacare and other radical left policies.

While the Tea Party was organic, Obama’s group is the opposite.

Comrades Obama and Holder are using a common leftist tactic to confuse citizens into believing a movement is “grassroots”. They create and/or infiltrate local organizations across the country using their own activists that seemingly operate independently, but are completely following the dictates of their leftist masters.

In August, 2019, Obama tweeted a link to the AOTL training initiative “Redistricting U”. The original link is no longer there, but the Wayback Machine reveals that “Redistricting U” stated in part:

“We’re sending dedicated trainers to cities across the country to train volunteers, give them the tools to impact the redistricting process in their state…”

All On The Line is targeting ArizonaColoradoFloridaGeorgiaNorth CarolinaOhioPennsylvaniaTexas and Wisconsin.

The former president and his “wingman” Eric Holder are maintaining constant communication with activists across the country to manipulate the drawing of electoral maps. AOTL supporters should ask themselves why Obama would target specific states if the goal was really to end unfair map drawing. Remember, the goal is only to get democrats elected.

Understand how Obama and Eric Holder are using their vast resources to fundamentally transform America by twisting the vision of the founding fathers, and misrepresenting their opponents by attempting to stir up hate against them:

Attorney Marc Elias, Chair of the Democrat’s favorite law firm Perkins Coie, represents the NDRC. Marc Elias is also the head of the legal team attempting to cover up voter fraud in the 2020 election. Elias has previously served as council for Hillary Clinton, who laid out Joe Biden’s marching orders to drag out the election until he “wins,” as reported at RAIR.

Right now, a former American President and Attorney General are scheming to activate their carefully-cultivated supporters in strategic areas in order to secure wins for Antifa-loving, America-hating candidates across the country.

What are Americans, including the GOP, going to do about it?


  • If you live in ArizonaColoradoFloridaGeorgiaNorth CarolinaOhioPennsylvaniaTexas and Wisconsin, join the organizations redrawing maps and take part in public commenting sessions. Bring your friends.
  • Sign up for updates on Obama’s organization AOTL and warn your friends who live in the targeted states.
  • Text “FAIR” to 88228 for Action Alerts for AOTL.
  • Sign up for updates on the left-wing partner organization National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC).
  • Ask your GOP representative how he/she is responding to the effort. If there is no plan, make one together!
  • If you do not live in one of the targeted states, pick one and GET involved!
  • Take videos of trainings, meetings, Zoom events, and document everything!
  • If you are on Twitter, click here and select “Follow” the House Republicans List. Send them this article and ask them what measures they are taking to ensure that maps are drawn fairly.
  • Keep RAIR updated on your efforts by sending an email to [email protected]

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here:

Bush And Clinton Vow To Join Obama For Televised COVID Vaccination

They will 'get in line' for shots, and 'will gladly do so on camera' to 'urge all Americans to do the same'



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

After Barack Obama promised to take a COVID jab on live TV to help convince Americans it is safe, former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have also reportedly said they will do the same.

Speaking to CNN Bush’s chief of staff Freddy Ford announced that “A few weeks ago President Bush asked me to let Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx know that, when the time is right, he wants to do what he can to help encourage his fellow citizens to get vaccinated.”

“First, the vaccines need to be deemed safe and administered to the priority populations. Then, President Bush will get in line for his, and will gladly do so on camera,” Ford added.

The report also states that Bill Clinton’s press secretary Angel Urena confirmed he is also willing to take the vaccination on camera.

“President Clinton will definitely take a vaccine as soon as available to him, based on the priorities determined by public health officials. And he will do it in a public setting if it will help urge all Americans to do the same,” said Urena.

Obama declared this week that he trusts Anthony Fauci completely, adding “I may end up taking [the vaccine] on TV or having it filmed just so that people know that I trust this science.”

CNN has also been pushing the idea of vaccination ID cards, allowing those who have taken the shot to go about their lives without harassment.


MICHELLE OBAMA: “Big Mike” Unloads On Trump-He “Spread Racist Lies About My Husband”

Former first lady Michelle Obama (left) stands alongside first lady Melania Trump (center left), President Donald Trump (center right) and her husband, President Barack Obama on Inauguration Day. Trump has refused to concede the election to President-elect Joe Biden


'I had to find the strength and maturity to put my anger aside.'



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

Michelle Obama, known to some as “Big Mike,” criticized “racist” President Donald Trump for not facilitating a “smooth transition” to a Joe Biden presidency – despite many states still being litigated by the Trump campaign.

The former First Lady lambasted the 45th president in an Instagram post Monday, writing it pained her to pass the torch to Trump, but ultimately she gave in because she “knew in [her] heart it was the right thing to do.”

“This week, I’ve been reflecting a lot on where I was four years ago. Hillary Clinton had just been dealt a tough loss by a far closer margin than the one we’ve seen this year,” Obama wrote, ignoring the legal challenges alleging voter fraud from the Trump campaign in several states.

“I was hurt and disappointed—but the votes had been counted and Donald Trump had won,” she wrote. “The American people had spoken. And one of the great responsibilities of the presidency is to listen when they do.”

Obama went on to remark that because she and Barack were eagerly welcomed to the White House by the Bush administration, Trump should do the same.

“So my husband and I instructed our staffs to do what George and Laura Bush had done for us: run a respectful, seamless transition of power—one of the hallmarks of American democracy. We invited the folks from the president-elect’s team into our offices and prepared detailed memos for them, offering what we’d learned over the past eight years.”

Obama goes on to call President Trump a horrible, immature racist.

“I have to be honest and say that none of this was easy for me. Donald Trump had spread racist lies about my husband that had put my family in danger. That wasn’t something I was ready to forgive. But I knew that, for the sake of our country, I had to find the strength and maturity to put my anger aside. So I welcomed Melania Trump into the White House and talked with her about my experience, answering every question she had—from the heightened scrutiny that comes with being First Lady to what it’s like to raise kids in the White House.”

The wife of the 44th president went on to claim Trump was merely resisting the results of the election, and labeled his claims of voter fraud – of which several hundred legal affidavits have been obtained – “groundless conspiracy theories.”

I knew in my heart it was the right thing to do—because our democracy is so much bigger than anybody’s ego. Our love of country requires us to respect the results of an election even when we don’t like them or wish it had gone differently—the presidency doesn’t belong to any one individual or any one party. To pretend that it does, to play along with these groundless conspiracy theories—whether for personal or political gain—is to put our country’s health and security in danger. This isn’t a game. So I want to urge all Americans, especially our nation’s leaders, regardless of party, to honor the electoral process and do your part to encourage a smooth transition of power, just as sitting presidents have done throughout our history.

Obama’s motive is transparent: Trump needs to concede – before his legal team has a chance to present a strong case of voter fraud in the several states where the results are still being contested, and to avoid the media’s loss of credibility if, or when their hastily-announced election results are overturned.


Obama Wants More Media, Big Tech ‘Fact-Checking’



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

Former President Barack Obama lamented the fact that President Donald Trump won 71 million votes in the 2020 election, blaming the “current media environment” for a supposed lack of an “informed citizenry.” He called for “the media” and “the tech companies” to “inform the public better” and “separate truth from fiction.” Obama said this just as Facebook, Twitter, and legacy media outlets have worked to bury or undermine important stories like the Hunter Biden emails and the irregularities in the 2020 election.

In an interview aired on 60 Minutes on Sunday, CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley lamented that the 2020 election (the results of which are still disputed) wasn’t a clear repudiation of Trump.

“President-Elect Biden won in this election more votes than anyone in history,” Pelley noted. “And yet, the 2020 vote wasn’t a repudiation of Donald Trump; it was more like an affirmation. He received 71 million votes, eight million more than he did in 2016. What does that tell you about our country today?”

Obama said the results show that America is “very divided,” even down to the level of the voters. “It has now become a contest where issues, facts, policies per se don’t matter, as much as identity and wanting to beat the other guy. You know, that’s taken priority. I do think the current media environment adds to that greatly. This democracy doesn’t work if we don’t have an informed citizenry,” he argued.

Pelley noted that Americans appear to hate one another at levels not seen since the Civil War. Obama said, “I think we’d like to avoid that.”

He suggested that Joe Biden will set a new tone, but he encouraged the legacy media and tech companies like Facebook and Twitter to pose as arbiters of truth, as if that will defuse partisan gridlock.

“I do think that a new president can set a new tone. That’s not gonna solve all the gridlock in Washington. I think we’re gonna have to work with the media and with the tech companies to find ways to inform the public better about the issues and to bolster the standards that ensure we can separate truth from fiction,” Obama said.

To his credit, the former president went on to encourage more work on the local level, where “that kind of visceral hatred” is less likely to develop. Even so, Obama clearly encouraged more “fact-checking” from the legacy media and tech companies — a trend that conservatives have rightly condemned as a form of censorship.

Election Interference? Big Tech Censored Trump More Than 60 Times, Left Biden Unscathed

In the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, The New York Post reported on a trove of emails from the laptop of Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden. Hunter Biden had been notorious for cashing in on his father’s famous name, taking lucrative deals in China, Ukraine, and elsewhere. The new documents suggested that — contrary to his repeated denials — Joe Biden was not only aware of his son’s dealings but involved in them.

Twitter and Facebook limited sharing of The New York Post‘s bombshell report, while legacy media outlets largely ignored it. After the Post story failed to get the kind of traction many expected it would, Hunter Biden’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, came forward with firsthand knowledge — and evidence — tying Joe Biden to the notorious deals.

Democrats, former intelligence officials, and even the Biden campaign claimed — without evidence — that the story was “Russian disinformation.” Not only did numerous sources debunk that claim, but Vladimir Putin himself came out to vouch for Hunter Biden.

According to a Media Research Center (MRC) survey, most Americans (73 percent) had heard about the scandal, but Biden voters proved to be the group least likely to know about the damning revelations. A small percentage of Biden voters who hadn’t heard about the scandal said that if they had known before the election, they would not have voted for Biden. About 4.6 percent of Biden voters overall took this position. Had the legacy media and Big Tech not suppressed the story, those voters may have handed the election to Trump.

After the election, as Trump challenged the preliminary results, many legacy media outlets and Big Tech companies like Facebook and Twitter have parrotted the line that there was “no evidence of systematic fraud” in the election. In fact, Twitter repeatedly claimed that there was no reason to worry about mail-in voting, despite the fact that mail-in voting has historically enabled fraud, as presidential commissions have repeatedly warned.

On Friday, Twitter slapped a disclaimer on a tweet from former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley. “Despite what the media tells us, election fraud does happen, and policies like ballot harvesting and mailing ballots to people who don’t request them make it easier. That needs to stop,” Haley had tweeted.

Obama Now Worries He May Have Gone Too Soft on America’s Alleged Racist Oppression

Twitter put a disclaimer, saying “This claim about election fraud is disputed.” Yet Haley was not claiming that the 2020 election results were illegitimate. She had only warned about two mail-in voting practices that increase the potential for fraud.

She called out the company for a blatant double standard, noting that Twitter did not slap a disclaimer on Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameinei when he raised doubts about the reality of the Holocaust.

“Wow. When Iran’s Ayatollah says the Holocaust didn’t happen, Twitter doesn’t say ‘this claim is disputed.’ When I say ballot harvesting makes election fraud easier Twitter says that’s disputed. Wonder why conservatives don’t trust big tech?” Haley responded.

Twitter appears to have removed the label after this backlash.

Obama may not support specific instances of suppression like these, but his call for more “fact-checking” from the legacy media and Big Tech companies translates to adverse action against conservatives online.

To be fair, conservatives do share false information from time to time, as do their opponents on the Left. It is important to combat fake news and misinformation. However, much of the recent crackdown on “misinformation” often boils down to a biased interpretation of the facts and a demand that Facebook and Twitter brook no dissent from the Left’s narrative.

Some people may have bad motives for supporting Trump, and the president has told his share of falsehoods. However, that does not mean that every Trump supporter is motivated by fake news or irrational hatred. There are good reasons to disagree with the Left’s orthodoxy on climate change, Marxist critical race theory, abortion, relations with Israel, and so many other issues.

Support for Trump does not boil down to “misinformation,” and further attempts from the legacy media and Big Tech to silence dissent from the Left’s orthodoxy will only enflame partisan fear, not defuse it.

Editor’s Note: Want to support PJ Media so we can continue telling the truth about the Biden-Harris campaign? 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.

Report: Big Tech, Media ‘Stole the Election’ by Burying Biden-China Scandal
Evidence of Joe Biden Corruption Just Keeps Piling Up, and the Media Refuses to Cover It
‘Big Tech Is Out to Get Conservatives,’ Jim Jordan Warns. He Gave 15 Examples
Barack Obama’s Latest Reason to Vote for Joe Biden Is Actually a Reason to Vote Trump



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

Right Click here and Select Save As to Download the Audio file

Please help us get this information to the American people. Guests: Lt. General Thomas McInerney, (3-Stars) U.S. Air Force (Retired), Author and Researcher Mary Fanning. Former National Security Council Staffer for President Donald Trump Rich Higgins join us to give us his thoughts on what it would mean for America if Joe Biden becomes President due to his a national security threat due to being compromised by the Communist Chinese and government of Russia. You will hear General McInerney tell our audience that Brannon is revealing facts that no other national talk show host on terrestrial radio is covering because they likely are not aware of this breaking news. Watch our live interview with General Thomas McInerney and Author Mary Fanning.

Topics Covered in today’s broadcast as written by guest and research Mary Fanning and confirmed on air by retired, 3-Star General Thomas McInerney. 

In February 2009, the Obama administration commandeered a powerful supercomputer system known as THE HAMMER. THE HAMMER includes an exploit application known as SCORECARD that is In February 2009, the Obama administration commandeered a powerful supercomputer system known as THE HAMMER. THE HAMMER includes an exploit application known as SCORECARD that is capab capable of hacking into elections and stealing the vote, according to CIA contractor-turned-whistleblower Dennis Montgomery, who designed and built THE HAMMER.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER TAPES, confidential audio recordings released by U.S. DIstrict Judge G. Murray Snow’s courtroom in November 2015, revealed that SCORECARD was deployed by the Obama team against Florida election computers to steal the 2012 presidential election on behalf of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

SCORECARD is now being activated to steal the vote on behalf of Joe Biden once again. Biden utilized THE HAMMER and SCORECARD while running for Vice President in 2012. Votes are again being stolen on Joe Biden’s behalf as he runs for President of the United States in 2020.

This time, SCORECARD is stealing votes in Florida, Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona, according to Montgomery.

SCORECARD steals elections by tampering with the computers at the transfer points of state election computer systems and outside third party election data vaults as votes are being transferred. The Obama White House had an encrypted VPN in order to access THE HAMMER at will.

In August 2015, CIA contractor-turned-whistleblower Dennis L. Montgomery provided the FBI and the DOJ with evidence stored on 47 hard drives that implicates Robert Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, in illegal activities, Montgomery states.

Among the 600 million pages of documents stored on those 47 hard drives of electronic data that Montgomery turned over to the FBI were 10,000 pages of documents regarding Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, according to Montgomery. The 10,000 pages of documents regarding Hunter Biden and Joe Biden included videos and images. 

Going all the way back to 2003, Montgomery maintains, the U.S. government continuously targeted Joe Biden and Hunter Biden with electronic surveillance via THE HAMMER.

On February 3, 2009, Brennan and Clapper moved THE HAMMER to Fort Washington, Maryland and began using the foreign surveillance system for domestic surveillance, targeting President Obama’s political enemies for “blackmail and leverage.” Montgomery, as a CIA contractor, worked for John Brennan and James Clapper. 

Montgomery became a whistleblower upon seeing first hand how the Obama administration had turned THE HAMMER against America. Montgomery received two limited immunity agreements from the DOJ and the FBI in exchange for evidence production and testimony. 

Montgomery originally designed and built THE HAMMER in 2003 as a foreign surveillance system to protect America after 9/11. 

“THE HAMMER IS THE KEY TO THE COUP” — Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, On His Death Bed, Speaking To His Longtime Friend, Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney 

They stole a super-surveillance government tool for foreign surveillance and they turned it against America and are using it to steal the Presidential election of 2020. 

* CIA contractor Dennis Montgomery built THE HAMMER in 2003 as a foreign surveillance tool to keep America safe from terrorists after 9/11 and to protect U.S. troops on the battlefield.

* Robert Mueller’s FBI provided the computers for THE HAMMER.

* THE HAMMER foreign surveillance system featured multiple echelons of safeguards and sign-offs to prevent U.S. personnel, up to and including the President of the United States, from using the system for unlawful domestic surveillance.

* On February 3, 2009, two weeks after President Obama’s inauguration, Brennan and Clapper moved THE HAMMER to a secret CIA facility in Fort Washington, Maryland.

*After Dennis Montgomery saw Brennan and Clapper commandeer THE HAMMER foreign surveillance tool and transform it into a domestic surveillance system for blackmail and leverage, Montgomery became a whistleblower.

* In 2013, Dennis Montgomery alerted multiple officials in Washington D.C. that THE HAMMER was being used to conduct illegal domestic surveillance. Montgomery even sent faxes to President Obama and Vice President Biden to alert them about the ongoing illegal domestic surveillance.

* Brennan and Clapper used THE HAMMER to spy on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 156 Article III judges, FISA Court Presiding Judge Reggie Walton, Members of Congress, Wall Street executives, Rudy Giuliani, Lt. General Michael Flynn, Donald Trump, Trump Tower, multiple Trump businesses, and members of the Trump family. Brennan and Clapper spied on Donald Trump because the CIA feared Trump. Brennan and Clapper wiretapped Donald Trump “a zillion times.”

* The Obama Whitehouse could access THE HAMMER at will through an encrypted VPN. 

* In August 2015, Dennis Montgomery, under a limited immunity agreement, provided FBI General Counsel James Baker and FBI Director James Comey with 47 computer hard drives of evidence proving that Brennan and Clapper had used THE HAMMER to conduct illegal domestic surveillance. Included on the 47 hard drives was 10,000 pages of documents regarding Hunter Biden.

* In December 2015, Dennis Montgomery, under a second limited immunity agreement, provided the FBI and the DOJ with sworn testimony about THE HAMMER and the contents of the 47 hard drives. 

* THE HAMMER framework could throw multiple exploit applications. The Obama team used a HAMMER application called SCORECARD to steal the 2012 presidential election in Florida.

* The Biden campaign is using SCORECARD to steal the 2020 presidential election (they have NOT turned off THE HAMMER).


The Bidens Got Into the “Financially Struggling” Hospital Business and People Died~At Least 3 Hospitals Became the “Money pit” for them

There wasn’t enough money for medication, tests, or sterilizing instruments, but lots of money for the Bidens.




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

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

The old slogan, "The Best of Care" can still be found on Ellwood City Medical Center's old promotional materials. When the pandemic began, the old rural Rust Belt country where President Trump beat Hillary Clinton could have used a hospital. Any hospital.

There was even talk of reopening the defunct hospital again to treat coronavirus patients.

But, like so much in Pennsylvania, the Ellwood City Medical Center never recovered from the Democrats. The FBI raided it in January and the hospital lost its license next month. Not that it mattered at that point because the hospital had already been shut down since December.

Despite that, the hospital managed to score $1.8 million in coronavirus relief funds.

With no hospital, local residents face a trip if they’re injured. And if the injury is bad enough, they might not survive. The closed hospital in Pennsylvania is just another piece of the Biden legacy.

In the three years since Americore CEO Grant White was allegedly introduced by James Biden to Joe Biden at a fundraiser for the Beau Biden Foundation, a charity co-chaired by Hunter Biden whose laptop bearing the foundation's sticker is at the center of a new scandal, there have been lawsuits, an FBI raid, and investigations in different cities and states.

“James Biden mentioned that his brother’s connections to labor unions and the Department of Veterans Affairs would help DMM expand its model nationwide,” a lawsuit filed by one company claims.

Mayor Anthony Court, a Democrat, recalls White constantly dropping Biden's name.

White would later claim that Biden told him, "there’s not a single door in the country that we can’t open."

James Biden, Joe’s brother, had become a principal at Americore whose business model was based on buying and turning around rural hospitals. But the turnaround was into the grave.

Obamacare had hit rural hospitals hard, forcing many of them to shut down. By Obama’s last year in office, 4% of rural hospitals had closed down, and hundreds more were on the brink. And the Bidens had figured out a way to profit from the devastation caused by Obama-Biden.

"His brother was very interested in rural health care and very interested in veterans’ health care, and it was something he really wanted to get behind," an Americore executive recalled Biden telling him. "This would help his brother get elected."

After Americore took over the Ellwood City Medical Center, it racked up over 40 citations from the Department of Health. Cardiovascular services were cut, the wound unit was closed, and access to its MRI machines was sidelined.

In 2018, James Biden was renovating his Americore office and demanding expensive furniture as part of an office that was described as a “little shrine to him and his brother and Obama.”

Utilities threatened to turn off the gas and the water at Ellwood. Instruments weren’t being sterilized because there was no equipment, and the hospital couldn’t even afford to order tests.

Things got so bad at the hospital that hazardous waste was just piling up in garbage bags.

Hospital patients might have been able to get basic care and supplies, but the money wasn’t there. Meanwhile, James Biden had allegedly made off with $650,000.

According to the Americore CEO, “Jim Biden directed me to loan him approximately $400,000 of this money for him to use to repay a past-due personal loan.”

Later, "Biden took additional amounts totaling approximately $250,000."

That was in January 2018. By the summer, Ellwood was closing departments, and by the fall, it couldn’t pay its power or gas bill. Meanwhile, Biden only allegedly paid back $25,000.

James Biden had promised that the money would be coming from the Muslim world.

Biden and his partners had allegedly gone to the Qatar Investment Authority, the Islamic terror state that acts as the patron for the Muslim Brotherhood, controls Al Jazeera, whose royal family had ties to the mastermind of 9/11, and which is allied with Iran, for money for Americore.

But Qatar didn’t pay up and James Biden and his partners denied ever taking the meeting. The Americore CEO claims he was told that President Trump’s sanctions on Iran blocked the deal.

The former Americore CEO also claims to have met with Hunter and James Biden at a meeting that looked for ways to raise money from China.

“We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden,” James Biden had once boasted. There’s no denying that. How else could a college dropout and failed nightclub owner be in demand around the world, or help score a billion dollar contract to build homes in Iraq?

Together James and Hunter Biden had built a business around Joe Biden. But what happened in Pennsylvania, in St. Louis, and Arkansas ended with more than greed.

St. Alexius Hospital in St. Louis had become famous as the scene of a forties exorcism that had inspired the novel and the movie, The Exorcist, but there was no one to exorcise the Bidens.

The famous hospital is another of the failed Americore properties and as it crawled agonizingly through bankruptcy, "two preventable deaths" were among the casualties. Like Ellwood, St. Alexius had to cut patient care, sacrificing its operating room, and its wound care clinic.

The hospital’s nursing school shut down and the facility was down to four contracted nurses and was operating at a fraction of its capacity.

The victims of the disaster were the largely black residents of the south St. Louis neighborhood.

St. Alexius, which began as a Catholic hospital in 1828, is now being used to house the homeless, and its bankruptcy sale has been stalled because of a state investigation triggered by an “immediate patient jeopardy” tag.

In Izard County, Arkansas, the only hospital in the county, listed as a critical access hospital, is also on the chopping block.

"We have difficulty in securing pharmaceuticals simply because of lack of money," a doctor at the hospital warned.

Last year, two medical firms sued, among others, James Biden, claiming that, "millions of dollars in funds may have been taken by these defendants outside of the ordinary course of business."

One of the men claimed that James Biden had promised to sell the plan to the White House. Instead Biden accidentally texted him a plan to defraud him even as Biden's partner was encouraging him to make up numbers to defraud a Turkish company.

Another partner was promised that their “model would be used by Joe Biden as part of his campaign.”

The “investment capital originating from and flowing through foreign entities” did not materialize, neither did Biden’s alleged promise that the company’s model “would play an integral role in health care policy at the highest levels of the United States government.”

When there were concerns about the government, the message was, “Jim told me. Don’t worry every time someone threatens to sue you you’re with us now nobody is gonna touch You,”

After they sued Biden and his partners, they received an envelope filled with "blood-stained currency from a Middle Eastern country" linked to terrorists and a "torture ticket" resulting in an FBI investigation.

But the real price is being paid in Ellwood City, in St. Louis, and Izard County.

Joe Biden has run on a promise to tackle the pandemic. But when coronavirus cases shot up 40% in Lawrence County over the summer, the Ellwood City Medical Center wasn’t there.

New cases have been rising sharply in Izard County and in St. Louis, there is one hospital less able to help and treat the sick.

“All the promises were on the Biden name,” one of the men James Biden dealt with said.

James Biden has moved on and as his brother aspires to the White House, has no doubt found new investors who “who want to invest in Joe Biden”, but in a place without a hospital, no one can move on. And when Election Day comes to Pennsylvania, that’s one place Biden won’t win.

The next time Joe Biden promises to fix healthcare, he can start in Ellwood City.



In this episode of Common Sense, Rudy Giuliani lays out how Ukraine revealed that 5.3 BILLION in foreign aid was unaccounted for. The Obama/Biden administration blocked any investigation. This episode is the tip of the iceberg, much more to come. Don’t forget to comment below with your Common Sense and subscribe to my podcast at ► Connect with Rudy Giuliani on Twitter: ► Connect with Rudy Giuliani on Instagram: ► Connect Rudy Giuliani on Facebook:




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

The Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued a statement about ending a definition issued by the Obama administration regarding Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “ObamaCare”). The Obama administration had redefined sex discrimination to include termination of pregnancy (abortion) and gender identity, which it defined as “one’s internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”

Under the revised HHS rules, abortion and “gender identity” will no longer be protected under anti-discrimination laws. Though the Obama-era rules have not been put into practice since the last day of 2016, they were still on the books. With the latest HHS ruling, they are now erased.

The Obama administration rules, issued in 2016, could have forced medical workers to help abort unborn babies. It also would have protected so-called transgender individuals from sex discrimination based on their “identify” rather than the traditional biological definition of gender as determined at birth.

Roger Severino, director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, has reassured the public that the changes will not affect the agency’s protections: “HHS respects the dignity of every human being, and as we have shown in our response to the pandemic, we vigorously protect and enforce the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted by our laws as passed by Congress. We are unwavering in our commitment to enforcing civil rights in healthcare.” 

The Obama administration, however, decided to add its own definitions to certain federal statutes, such as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) stating that it wanted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in certain federally funded programs.

However, noted the HHS release, on December 31, 2016, a federal court enjoined the Obama administration’s attempt to redefine sex discrimination in its 2016 rule. The court concluded that the administration’s provisions were likely contrary to applicable civil rights law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. On October 15, 2019, the federal court issued a final judgment, and vacated and remanded these provisions as unlawful.

HHS noted that this final ruling is binding on HHS, which has not been able to enforce these provisions since December 2016, and the provisions have been vacated since October 2019.

Therefore, HHS has eliminated certain provisions of the 2016 Rule that exceeded the scope of the authority delegated by Congress in Section 1557. HHS will enforce Section 1557 by returning to the government’s interpretation of sex discrimination according to the plain meaning of the word “sex” as male or female and as determined by biology. The 2016 Rule declined to recognize “sexual orientation” as a protected category under the ACA, and HHS will abide by that judgment.




If, that is, it is meant to celebrate the presidents who were best for America.



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

Before President Trump spoke at Mount Rushmore last week, the Left decided that it was a monument to “white supremacy,” conveniently forgetting that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have all been there in recent years and spoken favorably of the place. Now, amid a clamor from Leftist savages to blow up Rushmore, hard-Left “journalist” Don Lemon of CNN has a more temperate idea: just put Barack Obama up there with Washington, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Lincoln. Lemon actually has a good idea: Rushmore needs a fifth face. But it should not be that of Obama, but of Donald Trump.

Lemon said Tuesday: “Even though a rich diversity of people helped build the country, and many of us, meaning ancestors, for free — did not get paid for it, could not get an education, could not build wealth, are not on statues, Confederate or otherwise, are not on Mount Rushmore. I think, listen … if they are going to put someone on Mount Rushmore, considering the history of the country, the first black president should be front and center.”

Lemon’s sidekick Chris Cuomo agreed, saying: “Add to Mount Rushmore. I think that’s first of all, it’s a more salable idea than the idea of taking away Founding Fathers.”

Quite right, Fredo. But as Mount Rushmore is supposed to celebrate American heroes, Barack Obama is not the best choice for the honor. The forthcoming Rating America's Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster evaluates the presidents on the only basis upon which they ever should be evaluated: were they good for America and Americans? On that scale, Obama left the United States weaker, and Americans poorer and in a more precarious position, than they were before he took office. This is true despite the fact that he received more uncritical adulation than any president in recent memory.

The fact has been secured amid today’s race hysteria, but the current rage makes it all the more important to remember that throughout his tenure, Obama stoked racial tensions rather than calming them. When he took office, the Justice Department was pursuing a case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation in Philadelphia. Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, abruptly dropped the case in May 2009 and refused to cooperate with further investigations, giving the impression that the Black Panthers were getting away with voter intimidation because of their race.

Obama’s response to several widely publicized incidents exacerbated racial tensions. On July 16, 2009, black intellectual Henry Louis Gates found himself locked out of his Massachusetts home and began trying to force his way in. An officer arrived to investigate a possible break-in; Gates began berating him and was arrested for disorderly conduct. Obama claimed that the police “acted stupidly” and noted the “long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by police disproportionately,” although there was no indication of racial bias in this case. He invited Gates and the police officer to the White House for a “beer summit,” which the media hailed as a manifestation of his determination to heal racial divisions, when in fact it was just the opposite: he was taking a case of misunderstanding and disorderly conduct and portraying it as a racial incident requiring presidential reconciliation.

Obama made a similar rush to judgment in the case of Ahmed Mohamed, a Muslim high school student who was arrested in September 2015 after bringing what appeared to be a suitcase bomb to his Texas high school. Mohamed claimed it was a homemade clock and that he was a victim of “Islamophobic” bigotry. Obama invited him to the White House, making the boy a symbol of the nation’s “Islamophobia” and the need to overcome it. Mohamed’s father filed a lawsuit against the school district, which was dismissed when he failed to establish that the school had engaged in any prejudice or discrimination.

Obama oversaw the rapid politicization of the supposedly apolitical civil service, including targeted Internal Revenue Service harassment of groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, as the director of the IRS Exempt Organizations division, Lois Lerner, admitted in 2013.

Throughout the Obama administration, meanwhile, illegal immigrants crossed more or less freely into the United States across the border from Mexico. Epitomizing the failure of the Obama administration’s immigration policies was the killing of a young woman named Kate Steinle on July 1, 2015, in San Francisco. The killer was an illegal immigrant, José Inez García Zárate, who had seven felony convictions and had been deported five times.

The Obama foreign policy was no better. Shortly after taking office, he embarked upon two world tours that critics quickly dubbed the “apology tours,” as at every stop Obama had some negative words for the U.S. He had little to say about America being the most generous, and most free, nation on earth.

Obama was enthusiastic about the “Arab Spring” uprisings of 2011. The establishment media backed him up by claiming that they were democratic revolutions. Reality was, as always, different: the “rebels” were generally Sharia supremacists and often outright jihadis. The U.S. backed the Muslim Brotherhood regime that came to power in Egypt in 2012, despite the Brotherhood’s dedication to jihad for the implementation of Sharia. The Brotherhood regime was overthrown in 2013, as protesters held signs in Cairo denouncing Obama for supporting terrorism.

On September 11, 2012, Islamic jihadis stormed the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and murdered the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans. The Obama State Department had done nothing when Stevens repeatedly requested additional security, and administration figures claimed that the massacre was a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video – a strong implication that America’s freedom of speech was at fault.

There is much more, including the disastrous Iran nuclear deal and his showering billions upon the Islamic Republic as the Iranian mullahs chanted “Death to America.” Yet when Obama left the White House, he was hailed and lionized as much as he had been when he took office. Yet he had done nothing but weaken the United States on virtually all fronts. Only a courageous leader with a strong capacity for independent thought could even begin to undo the havoc Obama wrought.

That man was Donald Trump. In his inaugural address, Trump announced that “today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another—but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the American People. For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished—but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered— but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.... That all changes—starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.”

But the guardians and beneficiaries of the old order were not going to give way easily. Most Americans assumed that when Trump became president, he would be able to implement his own agenda insofar as he could secure the cooperation of Congress, as other presidents had done. But Trump encountered an entrenched coterie of bureaucrats at all levels who were determined to thwart his every move. While the media dismissed talk of a “deep state” as a conspiracy theory, the New York Times admitted its existence on September 5, 2018, when it published an anonymous op-ed that proclaimed, “I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”

If Trump had not been elected, the deep state still would have been operating, but its existence would not be known. Now it is out in the open, and the battle for America is on. Trump’s supposedly “worst inclinations” involved defending America and putting it back on its feet. In June 2016, Obama ridiculed Trump’s pledge to attract U.S. companies that had moved out of the country back to the United States, sneering, “What magic wand do you have?” Trump’s magic wand was an unprecedented initiative to cut regulations on businesses and drastically lower taxes. It began to work immediately. In 2019, unemployment was at 3.5 percent, the lowest it had been since 1968. The Trump administration also set record lows for unemployment among blacks and Hispanics and record highs for the stock market.

The Trump-era economy boomed until the coronavirus pandemic wiped out the gains that had been made; it began rebounding quickly, however, and there was no doubt that it would have been even weaker still had the steps Trump took to get it going again not been taken in the first place.

The coronavirus crisis was in many ways a vindication of points Trump had been making for years, including his repeated assertion that China (where the virus originated) was no friend of the United States, and constituted an economic threat—not an ally. Trump and George Washington were proven correct about avoiding foreign entanglements: the nation was unwise to outsource so much of its manufacturing to the People’s Republic or to any other foreign country. The crisis showed that Trump was also correct that strong border controls were essential for national security, as one of his earliest responses to the crisis was to restrict travel from China to the United States, for which the Democrats, predictably focused on destroying his presidency and not on what was best for Americans, charged him with “racism.”

The coronavirus crisis demonstrated anew why Trump is a great president: because he puts America first. After a long line of internationalists occupied the White House since 1933, with the sole and partial exception of Ronald Reagan, Trump unashamedly made America first, a principle that had been discredited as “isolationist” since the bombing of Pearl Harbor, not just a slogan, but the cornerstone of his administration. This should have been taken for granted: putting America first is actually the central duty of the president, as encapsulated in his oath of office, in which he solemnly swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In line with that oath, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal that weakened the country internationally. His multitude of critics responded with claims that the deal was working, that Iran was more peaceful than it had been, and that it was rejoining the family of nations. This was not true and never had been true. The deal had just been concluded when the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reaffirmed his nation’s hostility toward the U.S.: “Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change.” Two days later, Khamenei said in a speech, “According to Qur’anic principles, fighting against arrogance and global imperialism is never-ending and today, America is the very epitome of arrogance.”

Trump placed new sanctions on Iran that immediately began to have an effect: as the Iranian economy suffered, the Iranian people increasingly turned against the regime, and there were demonstrations all over the country.

Rating America's Presidents details a great deal more that Trump has accomplished. He became president when the nation had lost its way. He made herculean efforts to bring it back to what the Founding Fathers had intended it to be: a bastion of freedom.

As Trump said: “I never forget, that I am not President of the world, I am President of the United States of America. We reject globalism and we embrace patriotism. We believe that every American citizen, no matter their background, deserves a government that is loyal to them. The Democrat Party and the extreme radical left are trying to abolish the distinction between citizens and non-citizens.”

Indeed. But it is, or ought to be, simple common sense: every head of government the world over should make his or her top priority the protection and strengthening of his or her own nation, not the interests of some other nation or group of nations.

Trump is not a great president solely for restoring this principle. He also inherited from Obama an economy that was worse off than it had been since the Great Depression, with spiraling unemployment, rapidly expanding welfare rolls, and job growth at record lows. Trump immediately began to turn the economy around, overseeing an unprecedented rise in the stock market, record growth in wages, and decreases in unemployment to levels not seen in nearly fifty years.

Trump also did all he could to protect American citizens from a tidal wave of illegal, unvetted immigrants that threatened the American economy and the safety of American citizens. In this, however, he encountered fierce resistance from a cadre of bureaucrats and judges appointed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who challenged his attempts to put America first at every turn.

Trump vowed during his campaign to Make America Great Again—a slogan that the Democrats tried to portray as racist and hateful. Even as he faced vociferous and relentless opposition from a supposedly objective mass media and unremitting hostility from the allegedly loyal opposition, Donald Trump made good on that promise.

He became president when internationalism and the steady decline of America was taken for granted. In three years, Donald J. Trump, against extraordinary odds, turned that around, and in doing so, became nothing less than one of the greatest presidents in American history. After a long string of internationalist mediocrities, the presidency was once again occupied by a man who put America first.

Put him on Rushmore.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.





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

Two rulings by the Supreme Court on Wednesday not only affirm the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they also hearten pro-life constitutional conservatives who hope the rulings set the stage for a full review of the constitutionality of ObamaCare (aka the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) by the high court in the fall.

The first ruling, in a 7-2 decision, concerned the Little Sisters of the Poor, and finally puts to rest the question whether the Trump administration, through an Executive Order to the Department of Health and Human Services, could expand the exemption under which faith-based ministries such as the  Little Sisters could avoid having to provide contraceptive health services to their employees.

When ObamaCare was first foisted upon the American citizenry in 2010, it specifically exempted churches from providing contraceptive healthcare coverage but said nothing about faith-based ministries. So, under ObamaCare, the HHS ruled that religious non-profits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor had to comply, or suffer the consequences of huge fines.

During President Trump’s first year in office, he ordered the HHS to issue a new rule expanding the exemption. Several states sued, claiming that Trump had overreached. The opinion of the high court was penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote, “Consistent with their Catholic faith, the Little Sisters hold the religious conviction ‘that deliberately avoiding reproduction through medical means is immoral.’”

He explained why the court reversed a lower court’s ruling, stating that the Trump administration had not exceeded its authority by issuing the new rule that expanded the exemption:

For over 150 years, the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious calling to surrender all for the sake of their brother. “[T]hey commit to constantly living out a witness that proclaims the unique, inviolable dignity of every person, particularly those whom others regard as weak or worthless.”

But for the past seven years, they — like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today’s decision — have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.

After two decisions from this Court and multiple failed regulatory attempts, the Federal Government has arrived at a solution that exempts the Little Sisters from the source of their complicity-based concerns — the administratively imposed contraceptive mandate.

We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption.

We further hold that the rules promulgating these exemptions are free from procedural defects. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The second case, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morissey-Berru, although less known, is just as important as Little Sisters. The Supreme Court also ruled 7-2 in favor of the two religious schools who argued that they should not have to face discrimination lawsuits brought by former teachers.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion:

The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission.

Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.

Applause for the ruling came from Adrian Alarcon, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles: “Religious schools play an integral role in passing the faith to the next generation of believers. We are grateful that the Supreme Court recognized [that] faith groups must be free to make their own decisions about who should be entrusted with these essential duties.”

The lead counsel for Becket, Eric Rassbach, who argued the case for the schools, called the decision a “huge win”:

Today is a huge win for religious schools of all faith traditions. The last thing government officials should do is decide who is authorized to teach Catholicism to Catholics or Judaism to Jews. We are glad the court has resoundingly reaffirmed that churches and synagogues, not government, control who teaches kids about God.

In the fall, the high court will take on a lawsuit brought by 20 states, led by Texas, calling for the elimination of ObamaCare. It will be combined with another lawsuit brought by 17 other states, led by California, seeking to preserve the law.

The Trump administration has weighed in on the side of the 20 states, filing a brief that asks the high court to consider “whether, as a result of the elimination of the monetary penalty for noncompliance with the ACA’s minimum-essential-coverage requirement … that requirement is no longer a valid exercise of Congress’ legislative authority.” And if so, “the remainder of the ACA’s provisions are inseverable from it.”

Therefore, according to the government’s brief, “the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed insofar as it held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and this Court should further hold that the insurance provisions injuring the individual plaintiffs are inseverable from the mandate and the remainder of the Act.”

Naturally, totalitarians fear the worst. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement: “President Trump and the Republicans’ campaign to rip away the protections and benefits of the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the coronavirus crisis is an act of unfathomable cruelty.” Former Vice President Joe Biden spoke, denouncing Trump’s position: “It’s cruel, it’s heartless, and it’s callous.”

Constitutionalists are hoping that the high court finds ObamaCare unconstitutional. 





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

One wonders what exactly these generals think we’ve been doing for the past twenty years?

Why have thousands of American soldiers died and many more were wounded fighting… what… exactly?

But we mustn’t talk about the war. Or even mention that we can’t talk about the war.

At least three prominent retired general officers have dropped their support for President Trump’s nominee for the Pentagon’s top policy job, retired Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Tata, over inflammatory tweets he made two years ago on Islam, President Obama and Democratic lawmakers.

“I now would not want him in that position,” said retired Army Gen. Joe Votel, who led U.S. Central Command until 2019, of Gen. Tata.

Gen. Votel was one of 35 former senior military officers, former State Department personnel and other former national security officials who had signed a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee in support of Gen. Tata’s nomination before the tweets had re-emerged.

What are these horrifying tweets?

In a series of remarks on Twitter, Gen. Tata called Islam “the most oppressive, violent religion” and referred to Mr. Obama as a “terrorist leader.” In a radio appearance, he falsely referred to Mr. Obama’s “Islamic roots,” according to CNN, which first reported his remarks June 12.

Falsely? Obama wrote an entire memoir based on that premise. He included it in his Cairo speech, saying, “I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims,”

His minister, Jeremiah Wright, had started out as a black Muslim. And retained the ideology, complete with Farrakhan ties.

But these days, stating facts means that the media throws in a “falsely” and calls for your head, and the D.C. establishment, looking at its career options, quickly joins in.


The judicial branch has just dumped buckets of sand into what should be a straight-forward process of this administration being able to undo what was an unlawful executive action in the first place. Unfortunately, and I hate to say it, but Chief Justice John Roberts strikes yet again. By the time this gets through the courts again, it will be a new presidential term, and if Biden were to win, DACA rescission is gone and lawless people would have been able to weaponize the courts and able to thwart the President they don't like. This is not the way the rule of law and our system of liberty is supposed to work. I was on Fox News early this morning talking about the Supreme Court's DACA ruling.



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

Illegal isn't even the word for this absurdity.

Obama decided to unilaterally implement an amnesty for some illegal aliens, or as the media falsely calls them "young immigrants". While officially Obama was using discretion, in practice he rolled out an entire system for allowing DACA aliens to function as if they were legally here. This was completely outside the powers of the executive. And Justice Roberts was fine with that.

When President Trump tossed the amnesty aside, which only executed through Obama's orders, the Left announced that Trump had no right to undo Obama's unilateral act. Now Justice Roberts and the usual Dem justices have agreed that Obama is still POTUS.

Roberts claims that his decision is about process. This is the same scam that he pulled with what is probably the most fatal loss of the Trump era, when it came to putting citizenship on the census. It's not about process. It's about political correctness.

Justice Roberts is helping Democrats police what he considers violations of assorted progressive causes, and this is the second time he wrongly used process to protect illegal aliens. Both were utterly outrageous decisions that nullified the separation of powers and executive authority. As bad as previous courts were, Roberts has taken the SCOTUS in the direction of suppressing executive authority when it's used to carry out policies that political elites disapproved of. This is, in many ways, more troubling than previous SCOTUS abuses.

The Roberts court is essentially going along with at least some of the judicial sabotage engaged in by Obama and Clinton judges whose only purpose is to wrongly override the authority of an executive whom they oppose.

Franco may still be dead, but according to Justice Roberts, Obama is still in the Oval Office.


Supreme Court Protects Illegal Immigrants at the Expense of the Constitution

Chief Justice Roberts moves further to the Left



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

The Supreme Court rejected by a 5-4 vote the Trump administration’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program initiated by President Obama in 2012 unilaterally via an executive order. In an opinion written largely by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the Trump administration’s action reversing Obama’s executive order was “arbitrary and capricious.” The administration needed to go back to square one and come up with a better rationale for its decision, the Court ruled. Roberts and the liberal foursome, with whom he is increasingly aligning himself, were the ones who reached an “arbitrary and capricious” decision. They threw judicial restraint to the wind.

Just as Chief Justice Roberts had done in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare on dubious legal grounds, he joined his four liberal colleagues in twisting the law to reach a desired policy outcome on behalf of the illegal immigrant “Dreamers.” Roberts is morphing into another in the line of Republican appointees to the Supreme Court who represented themselves as conservative jurists but have sided more and more frequently with the liberal bloc once they secured their lifetime seats on the Court.

In this case, Roberts used a pseudo-technical interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to conclude that the Trump administration’s decision to rescind Obama’s DACA executive order did not meet the APA’s standards requiring “a reasoned explanation for its action.”  To the contrary, President Trump had a compelling reason to reverse, by his own executive order, the executive order of his predecessor with which he had sharp disagreement on legal as well as policy grounds. President Trump believed that Obama had exceeded his legal authority in issuing his DACA order in the first place and did not want to expend federal resources in defending the DACA order against anticipated legal challenges. Such allocation of executive resources and balancing the risks of litigation against the executive department are entirely within his discretion as the nation’s chief executive officer.

Obama’s DACA program had granted young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children the right to work and stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation. DACA recipients also became eligible for other benefits. The so-called “Dreamers,“ many of whom are now adults, were in the country illegally when Obama unilaterally decided to “legislate” their temporary legal status and conferral of benefits through executive action. DACA altered how the immigration laws applied to this large class of illegal aliens.

Never mind that the Trump administration was on solid ground in concluding that Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority in issuing his DACA executive order in the first place. The Chief Justice sidestepped this fundamental legal issue. He placed more importance on the DACA recipients’ reliance on Obama’s order that even Obama himself had previously doubted he had the constitutional authority to issue on his own. Roberts for all intents and purposes stepped out of his judicial role and stepped into the shoes of an advocate for illegal immigrants. Never mind, as Justice Clarence Thomas put it in his dissenting opinion, that “the Trump administration rescinded DACA the same way that the Obama administration created it: unilaterally, and through a mere memorandum.” According to Roberts’ “reasoning,” the Trump administration must do a better job explaining the rationale of its rescission of Obama’s DACA executive order than the Obama administration had done originally in justifying the DACA order itself.

“Chief Justice Roberts does it again, convoluting the law to appease the D.C. establishment,” Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, said in reaction to the Supreme Court’s DACA decision. “By ruling that President Trump cannot terminate DACA in the same manner that President Obama used to start it, the Court’s decision creates two standards of executive power: one for President Obama and another for President Trump.”

One president’s executive order is not the equivalent of legislation duly passed by Congress and signed by the president that is legally binding on the next president. It is not even a regulation that has gone through an extensive public comment process and complied with other rigorous procedural requirements. The next president is free to exercise his own executive authority to either accept his predecessor’s executive order, rescind it, or replace it with another order of his own. President Trump’s executive order did nothing more than restore conditions for the “Dreamers” to the way they were before Obama issued his DACA executive fiat without Congressional authorization or even the rigorous procedural processes required for lawful regulations.

In reversing Obama’s executive order with his own executive order, President Trump first gave Congress the opportunity to take up the “Dreamers” issue in new legislation where making such significant changes in immigration law policy belongs. Congress has failed so far to pass such remedial legislation that would be acceptable to the Trump administration. The judiciary has no business injecting itself into a political dispute over immigration policy between the legislative and executive branches. But that is precisely what Chief Justice Roberts has now done in joining once again with the liberal wing of the Court that likes to legislate their policy preferences from the bench.

As Chief Justice Roberts admitted in his opinion, “DACA was rescinded because of the Attorney General’s illegality determination.” That should have been the end of the case. But Roberts and his liberal colleagues ignored the core issue of DACA’s illegality. They decided to legitimize Obama’s illegitimate executive order for politically expedient reasons.

The administration should have assessed “the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients,” Roberts wrote in remanding the matter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “so that it may consider the problem anew.”  It is not up to the Supreme Court to prescribe policy options that the executive branch must consider in order to save a legally defective executive order from a prior administration.

Justice Clarence Thomas saw right through Chief Justice Roberts’ sophistry. Justice Thomas undertook the careful analysis of federal immigration law and the limits of its delegation of authority to the executive branch that Chief Justice Roberts neglected to do. The Obama administration lacked the “authority from Congress to either reclassify removable DACA recipients as lawfully present, or to exempt the entire class of aliens covered by DACA from statutory removal procedures,” Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. “No party disputes that the immigration statutes lack an express delegation to accomplish either result. And, an examination of the highly reticulated immigration regime makes clear that DHS has no implicit discretion to create new classes of lawful presence or to grant relief from removal out of whole cloth.  Accordingly, DACA is substantively unlawful.”

Justice Thomas also warned of dangerous consequences that may flow from the Roberts majority opinion. “Under the auspices of today’s decision, administrations can bind their successors by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Even if the agency lacked authority to effectuate the changes, the changes cannot be undone by the same agency in a successor administration unless the successor provides sufficient policy justifications to the satisfaction of this Court. In other words, the majority erroneously holds that the agency is not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.”

Chief Justice Roberts has claimed to have great concern for ensuring public acceptance of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. "In our branch, our job is to interpret the law and ensure compliance with the Constitution," Roberts said last September. "We will decide cases according to the Constitution and our laws, without fear or favor.” The Chief Justice flunked this standard with his DACA opinion and placed the legitimacy of the Supreme Court's rulings on hot button issues in further jeopardy.




In this episode of Behind The Deep State, host Alex Newman explains how and why the establishment is trying to demonize local police and sheriffs that are accountable to their local communities. One of the goals of this unrest is to nationalize and globalize American law enforcement to pave the way for tyranny, as proven by their own documents and statements. Obama and the UN were both open about the goals.

1 2