Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog

biden: AMERICA’S GREATEST THREAT~Dinesh D’Souza Podcast

In this episode, Dinesh reveals how the Biden administration, not any external foe, is America's greatest threat.  Amy Coney Barrett claims to be thoroughly apolitical and this, Dinesh argues, is a big problem. Former U.S. intelligence chief Richard Grenell joins Dinesh to talk about Afghanistan, terrorism, and what's on Hunter Biden's laptop. Dinesh also answers the question of why Americans don't seem to be able to unite anymore.

Former Director of National Intelligence Ratcliffe: "Joe Biden Is a National Security Threat"

 

California, LA County Pays $800,000 to Grace Community Church Over COVID Lawsuit

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/california-la-county-pay-800k-to-grace-community-church-over-covid-lawsuit/;

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

The statement from Los Angeles County’s attorneys announcing its settlement with Pastor John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church said nothing about the underlying issues. It only said it was withdrawing from the field of battle and paying MacArthur’s church $800,000 to please go away:

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled [in February] that some public health safety measures could not apply to houses of worship, resolving this litigation is the responsible and appropriate thing to do.

When elders of Grace decided in July 2020 to reopen their church for indoor worship, they knew it would rouse the ire of LA County health officials who had banned such worship, using COVID as cover for their illegal and unconstitutional mandates. They prepared for the battle, issuing a statement that said:

While civil government is invested with divine authority to rule the state [no authority exists which] grants civic rulers jurisdiction over the church.

God has established three institutions within human society: the family, the state, and the church.

Each institution has a sphere of authority with jurisdictional limits that must be respected….

Government is specifically tasked with the oversight and protection of civic peace and well-being within the boundaries or a nation….

God has not granted civic rules authority oved the doctrine, practice, or polity of the Church….

Government officials have no right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters in a way that undermines or disregards the God-given authority of pastors and elders.

Those government officials demanded under penalty of fines and imprisonment that church officials stop indoor services immediately.

The church ignored the demands and instead filed suit against those officials, claiming they were violating the church’s rights to free speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. The church also claimed it was being discriminated against, as those mandates weren’t being applied equally to secular institutions and organizations.

Sure enough, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of those government officials. The church refused to follow that ruling, and in November, the county went to court.

The church’s attorneys made the persuasive case to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff that the lower court’s ruling couldn’t be enforced until the constitutionality of those mandates had been decided.

And there matters stood until February, when the Supreme Court ruled that most (not all) of those mandates were indeed unconstitutional.

Jenna Ellis, the lead attorney helping Pastor MacArthur’s church fight against the state, rejoiced:

We are very pleased to see Pastor MacArthur and Grace Community Church’s First Amendment protections fully vindicated in this case.

It has been a hard-fought battle to preserve religious liberty and we hope that this result will encourage Californians, and all Americans, to continue to stand firm that church is essential.

Lacking further evidence in this case, Ellis’ rejoicing appears to be premature. There was no ruling by a court that the state’s officials were out of bounds constitutionally. There was no admission of guilt by those officials. There appears to be nothing in the record that resolves the conflict between church and state.

Both parties, given the ruling by the Supreme Court (half-hearted that it was), decided to withdraw from the contest, leaving the underlying issue unresolved.

Related articles:

LA Times: Three Cases of COVID at Grace Community Church an “Outbreak”

Judge Rules Pastor MacArthur and Grace Community Church Are Entitled to Full Trial, Thus Delaying Fines, Imprisonment

California Megachurch Sues State Over COVID Mandates

SCOTUS Rules Against Biden on the Border. What Next?~BIDEN, THE BIGGEST SUPPLIER OF ARMS TO TERRORISTS, FLOUTS COURT ORDER, SENDS OUR BORDER PATROL AGENTS TO AFGHANISTAN~DEMAND IMPEACHMENT NOW!

BY BRYAN PRESTON

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2021/08/25/scotus-rules-against-biden-on-the-border-what-next-n1472448;

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

Late Wednesday night, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott touted a Supreme Court win on his Facebook feed.

BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court tells the Biden Administration to reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy put in place by the Trump Admin.

This halts Biden’s skirting of immigration laws & will reduce the record number of migrants entering illegally.

Not long after that, SCOTUSBlog tweeted the outcome and the ruling.

So that’s it, endgame, right?

It should be. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled. But Joe Biden has already established the precedent of ignoring court rulings against him.

The ruling should mean that Remain in Mexico is reinstated, which would help stem the overwhelming tide of illegal aliens crossing into the United States — by the thousands — every day.

But Biden has been weakening the Border Patrol even while the disaster in Afghanistan that he created unfolds. The New York Post reported nearly a week ago that the Biden administration is — incredibly — asking the Border Patrol to help with the Afghanistan evacuation.

Border Patrol agents are being asked to temporarily move from the US-Mexico border to Afghanistan to help with the desperate evacuation of US and Afghan citizens following the Taliban takeover of the country.

The Border Patrol has been overwhelmed by this year’s illegal immigration crisis on the southern border, but agents were recently asked to consider an assignment to either Afghanistan or a nearby country to help process Afghans seeking refuge in the US.

Three Border Patrol agents told the Washington Examiner that the possible postings would last 30 to 90 days overseas.

Keeping our eyes on the ball, the border has been so overwhelmed that months ago the Biden administration asked bureaucrats from other federal agencies to go to the border and help out with processing and minding the detainees. Now it’s asking actual Border Patrol agents to go to Afghanistan.

Those other agency bureaucrats aren’t trained to handle border issues.

Border Patrol agents aren’t trained to handle anything like what’s happening in Afghanistan. The Biden White House doesn’t seem to understand that or care. It’s just chaotically throwing bodies around at the problems it’s creating.

Sending Border Patrol personnel over to Afghanistan is a sign that Biden will once again flout a court ruling against him. Then what? That ought to be an impeachable offense. So should his handing over billions of dollars in U.S. military gear to terrorists in Afghanistan, making him — Joe Biden — the world’s largest supplier of arms to terrorists. He gave them a country and serious weaponry in one fell swoop while also showing unconscionable weakness and cowardice.

But the Democrats so far are standing by him even as he drags the country off a cliff and possibly into a constitutional crisis. So far they don’t care that he’s keeping people in cages, that he’s releasing COVID+ illegals into the U.S. population, or even that he’s separating families over in Afghanistan.

Without the Democrats deciding to abandon him, nothing will happen in the closely divided Congress even if Biden just flat out ignores the United States Supreme Court.

Pakistan: Supreme Court declines petition to protect Christian girls from forced conversion and marriage to Muslims

BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/07/pakistan-supreme-court-declines-petition-to-protect-christian-girls-from-forced-conversion-and-marriage-to-muslims;

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

Pakistan is a leading nation in promoting Muslim victimology worldwide and advancing the “Islamophobia” agenda. The manipulative promotion of Islamic blasphemy doctrine is unceasing, while Muslim men continue to kidnap, forcibly convert and rape Christian, Hindu and Sikh girls on a routine basis.

The persecution worldwide by Muslims of both those Muslims who are deemed to be apostates and of infidels is unmatched by any other group. Still, the lie that Muslims are suffering under systemic “Islamophobia” persists. French teacher Samuel Paty was openly beheaded in France while multitudes of Muslims protested against his allegedly committing blasphemy, instead of protesting against the fact that he was beheaded. This kind of behavior would never be tolerated from any other religion but Islam, the so-called “religion of peace.”

“Christians suffer court setback in child marriages in Pakistan,” Morning Star News, July 22, 2021:

Efforts to end the abduction and forced conversion/marriage of minor Christian girls suffered a setback when the Supreme Court of Pakistan last week declined to intervene in the issue, sources said.

Supreme Court Justice Mushir Alam on Wednesday (July 14) rejected an appeal by a senior church leader for a constitutional petition to protect Christian girls from forcible conversion to Islam and marriage to Muslims.

“We had pinned our hopes on the Supreme Court for addressing this longstanding genuine grievance of the Pakistani Christians, but we are deeply disappointed and saddened by this decision,” Bishop Azad Marshall, moderator bishop of the Church of Pakistan and president of the National Council of Churches in Pakistan (NCCP), told Morning Star News. “The court has, however, stated in the order that it will take this issue up if we bring a specific case before it.”

Filed by renowned human rights lawyer Saif Ul Malook on behalf of Marshall, the petition stated that Pakistan accords a degree of permanence to the abduction and forcible conversion of Christian girls by allowing them to marry Muslims without ascertaining the pressures coming to bear on girls when they make declarations of consent before trial and high courts, nor taking into account their intellectual, emotional and social maturity.

The petition asserted that courts fail to consider whether declarations of consent are voluntary or result from threats, psychological abuse and conditioning and fear of social stigma and rebuke.

The petition also asked the court to recognize the difference between Pakistani penal laws and sharia (Islamic law), as the latter is one of the major causes behind the exploitation of Christian girls.

Marshall said the petition was filed under the Pakistani constitution’s Article 184(3), under which the Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction in matters of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan.”

The court’s objection that the petition improperly invoked Article 184(3) by failing to address an individual grievance, Marshall said, “in our opinion, is not sustainable because the matter is not restricted to an individual case; rather, it relates to the entire Christian population in Pakistan and violation of their fundamental rights.”….

AG to Supreme Court: It Is High Time to Reverse Roe v. Wade

Mississippi Attorney General: Roe v. Wade Is 'Egregiously Wrong,' Poisonous, and 'Decades Out of Date'

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/07/23/miss-ag-roe-v-wade-is-egregiously-wrong-poisonous-and-decades-out-of-date-n1464165;

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

On Thursday, Attorney General Lynn Fitch (R-Miss.) urged the Supreme Court to strike down its abortion precedents in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Fitch called Roe and Casey “egregiously wrong,” poisonous to America’s public discourse, and “decades out of date” because its assumptions about women’s freedom and the development of unborn babies in the womb have proven false. Most importantly, Fitch reiterated the central argument against Roe — it invented a “right” to abortion that does not exist in the Constitution.

“Because nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion,” Fitch argued, “a prohibition on elective abortions is therefore constitutional if it satisfies the rational-basis review that applies to all laws.”

Fitch made these important arguments in her brief in the central abortion case Thomas Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which the Supreme Court will hear when it reconvenes this fall. The case involves a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks gestation, at which point an unborn baby already has a fully formed nose and lips, eyelids, and eyebrows.

RecommendedSupreme Court Abortion Case May Reverse a Key Aspect of Roe v. Wade

As Fitch noted in her brief, the Mississippi Legislature found that at 5-6 weeks’ gestation, “an unborn human being’s heart begins beating,” while at about 8 weeks gestation, he or she “begins to move about in the womb.” At 9 weeks, “all basic physiological functions are present,” as are teeth, eyes, and external genitalia. At 10 weeks, “vital organs begin to function,” and hair, fingernails, and toenails begin to form. At 11 weeks, an unborn baby’s diaphragm is developing, and he or she may hiccup. At 12 weeks, he or she can open and close fingers, starts to make sucking motions, and senses stimulation from the world outside the womb.” By 15 weeks, the unborn baby “has taken on the human form in all relevant respects.”

Yet, according to the precedents set by Roe and Casey, states like Mississippi cannot protect this human life because the Court has ruled that 15-week-old babies have not reached the point of viability outside the womb. Fitch argued that the Court should reject this standard, partially because the Court’s recent abortion jurisprudence is “egregiously wrong.”

“Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition,” Fitch claimed. “Roe based a right to abortion on decisions protecting aspects of privacy under the Due Process Clause. But Roe broke from prior cases by invoking a general ‘right of privacy’ unmoored from the Constitution. Notably, Casey did not embrace Roe’s reasoning. And Casey’s de- fense of Roe’s result—based on the liberty this Court has afforded to certain ‘personal decisions,’—fails.”

“[A]bortion is fundamentally different from any right this Court has ever endorsed,” the attorney general explained. “No other right involves, as abortion does, ‘the purposeful termination of a potential life.’ So Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution.”

RecommendedDemocrats Give Away the Game: They Want the Supreme Court to Unilaterally Amend the Constitution

Fitch explained that “the Constitution’s text says nothing about abortion” and that “nothing in the Constitution’s structure implies a right to abortion or prohibits States from restricting it.”

“Rather, history shows a long tradition—up to, at, and long after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment—of States restricting abortion. At the end of 1849, 18 of the 30 States had statutes restricting abortion; by the end of 1864, 27 of the 36 States had them; and, at the end of 1868, the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, 30 of the 37 States had such laws, as did 6 Territories,” she noted. “The public would have understood that consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, states could restrict abortion to pursue legitimate interests and could do so throughout pregnancy.”

The attorney general argued that, because the Constitution does not explicitly address the issue, the power to regulate abortion is “reserved to the States” under the Tenth Amendment.

Fitch did not just make the classic originalist argument against Roe and Casey, however. She also noted that these abortion cases “have inflicted significant damage.”

“Far from bringing peace to the controversy over abortion, Roe and Casey have made matters worse,” she noted, citing none other than the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote that “Heavy-handed judicial intervention [in Roe] was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

“Abortion caselaw is pervaded by special rules—the undue-burden standard, the large-fraction test, and more—that feed the perception that ‘when it comes to abortion’ this Court does not ‘evenhandedly apply’ the law,” Fitch explained. “Roe and Casey are unprincipled decisions that have damaged the democratic process, poisoned our national discourse, plagued the law—and, in doing so, harmed this Court.”

The attorney general also explained that “the march of progress has left Roe and Casey behind.”

“Those cases maintained that an unwanted pregnancy could doom women to ‘a distressful life and future,’ that abortion is a needed complement to contraception, Casey, and that viability marked a sensible point for when state interests in unborn life become compelling,” she noted. “Factual developments undercut those assessments.”

“Today, adoption is accessible and on a wide scale women attain both professional success and a rich family life, contraceptives are more available and effective, and scientific advances show that an unborn child has taken on the human form and features months before viability. States should be able to act on those developments. But Roe and Casey shackle States to a view of the facts that is decades out of date,” Fitch argued.

Casey upheld Roe in the name of protecting societal reliance interests. Yet Fitch argued that women do not need abortion to get ahead. “Innumerable women and mothers have reached the highest echelons of economic and social life independent of the right endorsed in those cases. Sweeping policy advances now promote women’s full pursuit of both career and family. And many States have already accounted for Roe and Casey’s overruling.”

Importantly, the AG noted that “modern options regarding and views about childbearing have dulled concerns on which Roe rested.” For instance, “numerous laws enacted since Roe— addressing pregnancy discrimination, requiring leave time, assisting with childcare, and more—facilitate the ability of women to pursue both career success and a rich family life. And today all 50 States and the District of Columbia have enacted ‘safe haven’ laws, giving women bearing unwanted children the option of ‘leaving [the] newborn directly in the care of the state until it can be adopted.'”

In 1973, abortion may have seemed necessary for women’s advancement and it seemed less barbaric because embryology had not yet made the advances it has today. Now, however, abortion is less necessary for women’s well-being and advancement, and it also appears more barbaric.

RecommendedBlame the Left for Making the Supreme Court Too Political

The idea that the Constitution guarantees a “right” to abortion was always wrong, but these modern developments make it all the more imperative for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. With these cases overturned, states can again make their own laws on abortion, reclaiming the Tenth Amendment power of which the Court unjustly deprived them.

Given the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas is the most senior among the more conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — he may write the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. This case may make history by finally setting right the historic injustice of Roe v. Wade.

 

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

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

BY MATTHEW VADUM

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/why-does-conservative-supreme-court-love-obamacare-matthew-vadum/;

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.

Democrats Vow to Pack Supreme Court If It Modifies “Roe v. Wade”

Democrats Vow to Pack Supreme Court If It Modifies “Roe v. Wade”

BY MICHAEL TENNANT

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/democrats-vow-to-pack-supreme-court-if-it-modifies-roe-v-wade/;

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

Democrats are renewing their calls to pack the Supreme Court should the Court’s upcoming decisions accurately reflect the Constitution as originally understood rather than as interpreted by the courts since the 1930s.

Soon-expected rulings related to ObamaCare and gun control could spur court-packing efforts to some degree, but the big driver is likely to be the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which the justices agreed to hear last week. The court, whose pro-abortion majority vanished with the death of former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, could take the opportunity of Dobbs to modify or even overturn Roe v. Wade, which is heresy to the Left.

“It will inevitably fuel and drive an effort to expand the Supreme Court if this activist majority betrays fundamental constitutional principles,” Senate Judiciary Committee member Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told The Hill.

Of course, by “fundamental constitutional principles,” Blumenthal means the court’s 1973 invention of the right to abortion on demand, not such things as federalism and limited government. Indeed, Blumenthal would likely concur with President Franklin Roosevelt, who, in introducing his own (failed) court-packing scheme in 1937, thundered that the court’s anti-New Deal rulings were predicated on a “horse-and-buggy” understanding of the Constitution.

Note, too, that in Blumenthal’s telling, a court that works to restore the original intent of the Constitution is “activist,” while one that tries to eviscerate it is simply an unbiased referee. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), likewise, told The Hill that “there’s no easy answer on how to restore the court to be [a] fully legitimate, non-political arbiter of the Constitution,” i.e., one that will uphold Roe and other blatantly unconstitutional decisions.

As Democrats see it, justices who rule in favor of big government are honest, public-minded jurists, while those who don’t are tools of evil capitalists.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who is also on the Judiciary Committee, told The Hill the court’s willingness to consider Dobbs “really enlivens the concerns that we have about the extent to which right-wing billionaire money has influenced the makeup of the court and may even be pulling strings at the court.”

Democrats have already introduced bills in both chambers of Congress to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to 13, thereby giving President Joe Biden the opportunity to appoint enough liberal justices to thwart the conservative ones. Moreover, as Whitehouse pointed out, “We’ve got a whole array of options we’re looking at in the courts committee,” referring to the commission Biden created in April to study ways to guarantee the courts will rule as Democrats desire.

“Chipping away at Roe v. Wade will precipitate a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court,” said Blumenthal. “It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain number of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”

According to The Hill, Whitehouse

cited “easy” reforms such as “proper disclosure and transparency” of the “gifts, travel and hospitality” received by the judges themselves and the “people who are behind front-group amicus curiae briefs” and who were “funding the political advertisements for the last three judges, writing $15 million and $17 million checks.”

Unlike the rulings they want from the courts, Democrats’ proposed “reforms” are to some degree constitutional. The Constitution merely establishes the High Court’s existence; Congress is free to determine its composition, jurisdiction, and so on.

Whether they will achieve their objectives, on the other hand, remains to be seen. The Senate, after all, is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, and the filibuster remains an option. In addition, Biden’s signature on any court-changing bill is not guaranteed. He has opposed court-packing in the past, although he refused to state his position on the issue just before the election, which suggests another of his patented flip-flops is in the offing.

But Democrats don’t necessarily need to pass any bills to get the court to rule the way they want. Roosevelt’s doomed court-packing plan persuaded the existing justices to begin ratifying the New Deal, setting the stage for decades of genuine judicial activism. So what if, as Biden has repeatedly observed, this sudden about-face made the Court’s subsequent decisions suspect? To the Left, power is far more important than the public’s perception of how it was attained.

SCOTUS: Police Cannot Seize Guns Without A Warrant

Constitution Glock iStock-697763612

BY JOHN CRUMP

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/05/scotus-police-cannot-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/#axzz6vEMbv2D8;

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- In a case argued in front of the Supreme Court, that could affect Red Flag laws across the country, SCOTUS ruled unanimously that the “community caretaking” exception does not apply inside the home.

Caniglia v. Strom centers around the police seizing the firearms of a man that his wife reported as suicidal. The incident that led to the issue started when Edward and Kim Caniglia began to have marital problems in their 27-year long marriage. Mr. Caniglia grabbed his unloaded handgun and sat it on the table, and told his wife, “shoot me now and get it over with.”

Mr. Caniglia then left the house to go on a drive. While he was gone, Mrs. Caniglia hid the gun. When he returned, the couple started to fight again. This time, Mrs. Caniglia left the house and decided to stay at a motel to let things calm down and blow over.

Mrs. Caniglia tried to call her husband the following day, but he was not answering the phone. She then contacted two police officers to do a welfare check on her husband with her. She told the police about what her husband did the night before but stressed that her husband didn’t threaten her. He was just expressing how hurt he was because of the fighting. Mr. Caniglia has never been abusive and does not have a criminal record.

Police told Mrs. Caniglia to stay in the car. They found Mr. Caniglia sitting on the back porch. They talked to him, and he assured them that he wasn’t suicidal. One of the officers said Mr. Caniglia appeared completely normal but was upset because the police became involved in the dispute. The officers wanted him to go to the hospital for a mental evaluation.

Mr. Caniglia was hesitant because he believed the officers would seize his guns if he did, but the officers agreed not to take his firearms. The officers had him transported to the hospital via ambulance. Once gone, the police did what they promised Mr. Caniglia that they would not do. They entered his home and searched for guns. The officers seized two handguns, magazines, and ammunition without a warrant. They claimed to have used the “community caretaking” exception.

When Mr. Caniglia returned home, he found out police seized his guns without a warrant and did not leave him with any way to retrieve his firearms. When he tried to get the guns back, the police refused to turn over the man’s property. He would have to sue to get them back.

He claimed that police violated his Fourth Amendment rights and his right to due process. The case made its way through the courts. President Joe Biden strongly supported the actions of the police. President Biden has been pushing Congress to pass a national “red flag” law.

SCOTUS rejected the notion that police could take someone’s guns without due process.

Anti-gun groups condemned the decision of the Court and claimed it makes people less safe. Gun rights groups hailed the decision as a victory for freedom. One gun group, Gun Owners of America, filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Mr. Caniglia. The organization celebrated the decision as a victory for inalienable rights.

“The Supreme Court today smacked down the hopes of gun-grabbers across the nation,” Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told AmmoLand. “The Michael Bloombergs of the world would have loved to see the Supreme Court grant police the authority to confiscate firearms without a warrant. But the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Fourth Amendment protections in the Bill of Rights protect gun owners from such invasions into their homes.”

The case will have a rippling effect across the legal landscape. The courts will have to decide if this decision affects “red flag” laws.


About John Crump

John is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

 

Supreme Court Weighs Kamala Harris Attack on Free Speech

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/04/26/supreme-court-seems-primed-to-reverse-kamala-harriss-attack-on-free-speech-n1442786;

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

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the key First Amendment case Americans for Prosperity v. Rodriguez, which centers on the State of California’s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their donor information to the state. Back in 2015, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) demanded that two conservative nonprofits, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), hand over their donor lists. This demand threatened to reveal the identities of donors, potentially subjecting them to threats and harassment.

Legal representatives for AFP and TMLC said the Supreme Court justices’ questions and remarks suggested they are likely to strike down California’s requirement as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

RecommendedSupreme Court May Finally Reverse Kamala Harris’s Attack on Free Speech

“The justices appreciated very well that membership and donations to an organization are protected by a right to privacy in association, not just a right to associate,” Kathleen Sullivan, legal counsel for Americans for Prosperity Foundation, said on a press call after the oral arguments on Monday.

She noted that the justices cited many friend-of-the-court briefs written by ideological opponents of AFP and TMLC that nonetheless support these conservative organizations’ rights to donor anonymity. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) proved particularly noteworthy in this regard.

Many of the justices cited the key legal precedent NAACP v. Alabama (1958), in which the Supreme Court struck down Alabama’s order that the NAACP hand over a list of its members. Alabama issued this order during the era of segregation when the Ku Klux Klan held tremendous power in the state. The Court rightly upheld the NAACP’s organizational privacy.

“In particular, the justices seem to understand that what is not controversial today may be controversial tomorrow,” and that views that are now commonly held were controversial in the past, Sullivan noted.

The justices also grasped the inherent “paradox” of requiring “an organization that is fearful that its donors may be chilled” to “come forward to the government and apply for an exemption.”

John Bursch, legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and a lawyer for TMLC, cited specific statements or questions that the justices made during oral arguments.

He noted that Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that a ruling for California might allow the government to demand the addresses of donors that nonprofits use when they send out Christmas cards. Justice Brett Kavanaugh cited the fact that the ACLU, the NAACP, and HRC came forward in opposition to Kamala Harris’s donor disclosure mandate.

Justice Clarence Thomas “explained that the government used confidential census data information to locate Japanese citizens for internment,” Bursch noted. “Sotomayor noted that donors may not have faith in California” because the state had leaked the records of more than 1,700 donors.

When California’s lawyers argued that most non-profits would not object to providing donor lists, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, “That’s not how the First Amendment works.” She noted that speech zones on college campuses may violate the First Amendment even if most students support speech zones.

While California claims the Kamala Harris donor disclosure mandate is necessary for fraud investigations, Bursch noted that “California has never used the schedule B information that it collects in advance” for its investigations, and it “never has a problem getting that information after the fact.”

California’s lawyers have claimed that it is advantageous for the state to have donor information at its fingertips. Bursch wryly noted, “It might also be advantageous to the government to allow officials to warrantlessly go into homes. That would certainly deter criminals from acting, but the violations [to Americans’ constitutional rights] are outrageously disproportionate.”

Brian Hauss, an attorney with the ACLU, joined Sullivan and Bursch on the call, even though the ACLU does not represent any of the parties in the case.

“Certainly, we don’t see eye to eye with the petitioners in this case on every issue,” Hauss began in a massive understatement. “However, First Amendment rights apply to everyone.”

Hauss noted that, since the information of 1,700 donors had been leaked from California before — including Planned Parenthood donors — “it is entirely reasonable for donors to fear that their private information will become public.”

“California cannot require charities to disclose the identities of their donors if the state cannot guarantee that that information will remain confidential,” the ACLU lawyer insisted. He warned that “this de facto public disclosure requirement… will ultimately diminish civil society.”

California’s lawyers argued that if the Supreme Court strikes down Kamala Harris’ donor disclosure requirement, the ruling may hamper the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) ability to enforce the disclosures mandated in campaign finance law.

Hauss tore apart this argument. The current case is “worlds apart from campaign finance,” he noted. “California has not shown that the state’s blanket disclosure … played a decisive role in the state’s investigations.”

“California has no interest in national donor lists,” Sullivan, the AFP lawyer, added. “This is not a case about tax collection, this is a case about charitable fraud.”

Sullivan noted that “the argument was very rich in distinctions between the IRS and California.” Oral arguments suggested that if the IRS were the party in question, it would win the argument on disclosure, while California seems likely to fail.

One of the parties in the case, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), faces accusations that it is an “anti-LGBT hate group” from the far-Left smear factory the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC puts TMLC on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan.

As I documented in my book Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the SPLC routinely places mainstream conservative and Christian groups on the “hate group” list. In 2012, an attempted terrorist targeted the Family Research Council, using the SPLC “hate map.” A sexual harassment and racial discrimination scandal at the SPLC led former employees to confess that the SPLC exaggerates hate in order to bilk donors, a strategy arguably in keeping with its co-founder’s history.

PJ Media asked the panel whether the SPLC’s accusation against TMLC makes Kamala Harris’ donor disclosure mandate more dangerous, especially considering the Democrats’ reliance on the SPLC, the Democrats’ new domestic “war on terror” after the Capitol riot, and Michigan’s reliance on the SPLC “hate map” to target conservatives in launching a “hate crimes unit.”

Bursch, TMLC’s lawyer, condemned the SPLC’s accusations as utterly baseless and unfounded, but he did note that the SPLC’s smear against TMLC does highlight the threat of Kamala Harris’ donor disclosure mandate.

“Substantively, no government, no company should be using that discredited hate list or hate map,” Bursch said. “The SPLC routinely puts groups like Alliance Defending Freedom… on that list simply because they disagree with their views.”

“It does highlight the risk that the government will take that type of evidence” and weaponize it to chill speech. “That’s precisely what’s at issue in this case.”

Bursch noted that TMLC has faced routine threats from ideological opponents, including “intimidation, death threats, hate mail, boycotts, and even an assassination threat.”

“Certainly, the government should not be putting anyone on a watch list, particularly those who are here to safeguard our country’s freedoms,” Bursch concluded.

The Left’s Plan to Commandeer the Supreme Court

And control all three branches of the federal government

BY JOSEPH KLEIN

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/lefts-plan-commandeer-supreme-court-joseph-klein/;

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

The fate of America’s constitutional republic hangs in the balance as the leftwing progressive base of the Democratic Party tries to parlay Democrat control of the White House and Congress to obliterate the independence of the Supreme Court.

President Joe Biden has kicked things off by naming a 36-member commission to examine possible changes to the size and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as well as proposals to set term limits for Supreme Court justices. The commission has 180 days to report back on its study of the issues, although it has not been given a mandate to make any formal recommendations.

While advertised as being bipartisan, the commission’s co-chairs, Bob Bauer and Cristina Rodriguez, both worked for the Obama administration. Even so, establishing a commission to analyze a hot button issue is often regarded as a convenient way to bury the issue. Not this time, however. The left won’t allow Biden or the Democrat-controlled Congress off the hook so easily. Even on the rare occasions when Biden’s old centrist instincts seem about to kick in, he quickly backtracks in the face of blowback from his left flank. What then-Senator Biden called a “bonehead” idea in 1983 and an “institutional power grab” in 2005 is now very much in play during Biden’s presidency.

The left sees immediate radical change to the structure and composition of the Supreme Court as necessary to cement its permanent control over the third branch of the federal government. That can only happen, however, after first nuking the Senate filibuster to pass their misnamed "For the People Act.” Also referred to simply as S.1, this bill would federalize slipshod election procedures across the country, eliminating state protections against potential election fraud, voter intimidation, illegal votes, and inaccurate vote counts. Passage of the bill will help Democrats guarantee their enduring control of Congress and the White House. With the filibuster already cast aside, Democrats will then be able to push through major changes to the Supreme Court this term with their slender majority. The result will be the left’s tight grip on the Supreme Court while ensuring that the other two elected branches remain firmly in their pockets in future elections.

On April 15th, four Democrats in Congress decided not to even wait for Biden’s commission to complete its work. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Hank Johnson, Rep. Mondaire Jones, and Senator Edward J. Markey introduced the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats, creating a 13-justice Supreme Court. This would represent the first change in the size of the Supreme Court since 1869.

"Some people will accuse us of packing the court. We're not packing the court, we're unpacking it," Nadler sneered. Markey claimed that the “legislation will restore the Court’s balance and public standing and begin to repair the damage done to our judiciary and democracy, and we should abolish the filibuster to ensure we can pass it.”

Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not willing to oblige these demagogues just yet. Pelosi said that she “has no plans” to bring their bill to the House floor at this time. She wants to wait for Biden’s commission to finish its work before taking any further steps. But Pelosi has not ruled out supporting such a change down the road. “It’s not out of the question,” Pelosi said. “It has been done before.”

Yes, Congress has the constitutional authority to alter the size of the Supreme Court. However, it has chosen not to do so during a span of 152 years for good reason. When FDR tried to push forward his court-packing scheme in 1937, the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report at the time declaring that “we would rather have an independent Court, a fearless Court…than a Court that, out of fear or sense of obligation to the appointing power, or factional passion, approves any measure we may enact.” FDR's plan was shot down by his own party.

Democrats in Congress today no longer show such respect for the independence of a co-equal branch of the federal government. They are willing to increase the size of the Supreme Court solely for the purpose of turning it into a rubber stamp for their radical agenda. So long as Democrats succeed with their strategy to lock in continuing Democrat control of Congress and the White House by doing away with state law safeguards against election shenanigans, they have nothing to worry about. There will be no future Republican Congress and president elected who will be able to add more conservative justices.

However, there have been a few liberals with a conscience who have spoken out in recent times against court-packing, as Joe Biden did when he was his own man in the Senate.

The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – the liberals’ heroine replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett – told NPR in July 2019 that "Nine seems to be a good number. It's been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.” Justice Ginsburg worried that court-packing “would make the court look partisan," adding that "it would be that — one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.' "

At Harvard Law School’s annual Scalia lecture on April 6thJustice Stephen G. Breyer warned about how court-packing would “reflect and affect the rule of law itself.” Justice Breyer added, “If the public sees judges as ‘politicians in robes,’ its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the Court’s power, including its power to act as a ‘check’ on the other branches.”

Progressives dismiss such arguments, of course, and indeed are pressing for Justice Breyer to retire so that a much younger and more left-leaning justice can replace him. However, a few moderate Democrats in the House may be wary of supporting a bill to pack the Supreme Court, fearing the issue would be hung around their necks in Republican ads during the next election cycle. Democrat Senator Joe Manchin has declared his opposition to court-packing legislation, which means it would be dead in the Senate even if the filibuster were eliminated or severely weakened.

Court-packing also does not have widespread public support. In a New York Times/Siena College poll conducted last October during the height of the presidential campaign, a question was asked: ”If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court and Joe Biden is elected president, do you think that Democrats should or should not increase the size of the Supreme Court to include more than nine justices?” 58 percent said no. 31 percent said yes. 11 percent said they didn’t know or refused to answer.

Thus, Democrats may decide to rally around a seemingly less drastic alternative to immediately expanding the Supreme Court to 13 members - term limits for future Supreme Court justices. There is more public support for term limits than for court-packing. But the proponents of this idea are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Term limits for Supreme Court justices are arguably unconstitutional since Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” Except in the case of impeachment or early retirement, this provision has been interpreted to mean a lifetime term.

The term limit advocates try to get around the constitutional issue by arguing that their reform would only apply to future justices. Moreover, they propose that after a future justice’s Supreme Court term has expired, the justice would be free to remain in the judiciary as a senior appellate judge. They believe this demotion would satisfy the Constitution’s good behavior term language since the justices would still be judges. However, the Constitution’s text appears to tie the “good behavior” term for Supreme Court justices to their specific “Office” of Supreme Court justice, not to any post in the judicial branch. In her interview with NPR, Justice Ginsburg said that the term limits idea was unrealistic because of this constitutional provision and because, as she pointed out, "Our Constitution is powerfully hard to amend."

In any case, on a policy level, Democrats proposing term limits for future Supreme Court justices are selling snake oil.

Take, for example, legislation proposed by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) would apply only to future justices and would limit their service on the Supreme Court to 18 years. New justices would be appointed in the first and third years of each presidential term. Since, under this plan, none of the current justices would be forced off the Supreme Court, there will be a period during which more than nine justices will be serving at the same time. It is just a slower way of achieving the same objective as court-packing.

If something like the Khanna-Beyer bill is passed in 2021, for example, President Biden would get to appoint one justice this year. This would expand the Court to ten until one of the current justices retires or dies. By a simple majority in the Senate (with Vice President Harris casting a tie-breaking vote), a progressive will be added to the Supreme Court. Biden’s next appointment would occur in 2023, even if there is then no vacancy on the bench. That could mean eleven justices until one of the current justices retires or dies. Assuming the Senate remains in Democrat hands, with the help of vote cheating enabled by the falsely entitled “For the People Act,” another progressive will be added to the Supreme Court. A Democrat White House and Senate in 2025 will ensure yet another progressive added to the Supreme Court, tilting the Supreme Court in a leftward direction. And so on. If a vacancy occurs during one of the off years, it would be filled temporarily by a lower court judge, until the following year

when the president nominates, and the Senate confirms, the next term-limited justice.

The combined effect of the Democrats’ federalizing of elections to slant the outcomes in their direction and the passage of court-packing or term limit legislation for the Supreme Court will be to institute permanent one-party rule in Washington D.C. for all three branches of government. Separation of powers and checks and balances will be dead.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,” Ronald Reagan once said. We are at that crossroads right now. We must fight the leftwing progressives’ attempt to turn this country into their tyrannical domain lest, as Reagan warned, we “spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

 

NEMOS NEWS: Dems Stacking Supreme Court, US Bans J&J Suicide Vaccine, CNN Busted as Get Trump & Fearporn

In this episode of The Silent War:
Dems are seeking to Stack the Supreme Court to get around the final impediment to their unconstitutional far left radical agenda.

The (Formerly..) United States has joined a growing list of countries including Denmark in banning one or more suicide vaccine variants - pick your poison, death by blood clot, or cytokine storm induced heart attack?

CNN Busted by amazing work by my friend in Project Veritas, catching a CNN Director admitting that Covid Fearporn was about the ratings and that the focus has been to Get Trump.

All of this and more, including an update on the audits of the fraudulent, stolen 2020 election - in this important emergency episode!

SCOTUS to Decide if Public Schools May Regulate Off-campus Speech

Brandi Levy, then 14, was suspended from her cheerleading squad by the Mahanoy Area School District in Pennsylvania back in 2017 after she sent the Snapchat to her friends on a weekend

ABOVE: Brandi Levy, then 14, was suspended from her cheerleading squad by the Mahanoy Area School District in Pennsylvania back in 2017 after she sent the Snapchat to her friends on a weekend

BY ELAD HAKIM

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/scotus-to-decide-if-public-schools-may-regulate-off-campus-speech/;

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

When Brandi Levy, a high school freshman, issued an F-bomb-laden Snapchat post to some of her followers, she probably didn’t expect any pushback from the school district. To her dismay, Levy, who had unsuccessfully tried out for the school cheerleading team, was suspended from cheerleading for an entire year by the school district as a result of her post. After prevailing in several lower courts, Levy has asked the Supreme Court to intervene, and arguments in front of the Supreme Court are scheduled for later this month. In essence, the Supreme Court will decide whether a school may regulate speech that occurs off-campus in the same manner that it does with speech that occurs on-campus.

As reported by the Morning Call:

Frustrated at not making the varsity cheerleading squad or getting the softball position she wanted and worried about final exams, the Schuylkill County teen posted a picture of herself and a friend with middle fingers extended and the text, “F— school f— softball f— cheer f— everything.”

Levy sent the post on her own personal cellphone, away from school property, and on a Saturday. Despite these important facts, the school district suspended her after a coach from the school informed the district about her post.

Given the suspension, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments about whether the school board exceeded its authority when it suspended Levy. Since, as stated above, Levy’s post was made on her personal device, away from school grounds, and on a Saturday, at issue is whether the school was permitted to “police” such posts and to take remedial action under such circumstances?

In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question of student speech and the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court explained:

In December, 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines held a meeting at the Eckhardt home. The group determined to publicize their objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year’s Eve. Petitioners and their parents had previously engaged in similar activities, and they decided to participate in the program.

The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan to wear armbands. On December 14, 1965, they met and adopted a policy that any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it, and, if he refused, he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. Petitioners were aware of the regulation that the school authorities adopted.

On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their schools. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent home and suspended from school until they would come back without their armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period for wearing armbands had expired — that is, until after New Year’s Day.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that public-school officials could not censor student speech/expression unless they could forecast that the expression would result in “substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” or “intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others.” As the Supreme Court noted:

As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred. These petitioners merely went about their ordained rounds in school. Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth, not more than two inches wide. They wore it to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them. They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.

Since the Tinker decision, the Supreme Court has created several exceptions to such protection, which are discussed herehere, and here. One obvious question, however, is whether these exceptions should be applied to speech/expression that occurs away from school property, on a personal device, and not during school hours.

A ruling against Levy could have far-reaching implications due to the possible chilling effect it could have on First Amendment-guaranteed rights. Clearly, there are times when schools must take remedial action against students for certain forms/types of expression, including such cases where threats or incitements are made (such speech/expression is generally not protected under the First Amendment). However, if students can be disciplined for merely “venting” on their own personal devices, where will the line be drawn between protected speech and unprotected speech? More to the point, how much power will school administrators/officials have to police what students say? Finally, if such broad police powers exist, who will police those who are doing the “policing?” Are students merely at the whim of the school administrators/officials? Could this result in instances of selective enforcement? Will the students’ First Amendment-protected rights outside of the school be equivalent to those inside of the school?

Our First Amendment rights are vital. Sadly, they are already being eroded. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will provide some additional guidance in this context.

 

Emergency Alert-FEDERALIZED ELECTION TAKEOVER~Crooks Destroying Evidence~Texas Overrun!

In this emergency episode of The Silent War:
the Communists are federalizing control of the government through legalizing de facto vote-rigging in perpetuity. The Evidence on the table being openly ignored by the Supreme Court makes their complicity clear. They return No Comment on Trump's final legal challenge as Joe Biden uses executive order to fund America's enemies like his "Renegade" predecessor, Obama. And to help usher in the Communist regime's total federal takeover of the government.

Texas is being overrun and responding in defiance of Joe Biden's New Amerika.

FBI Chris Wray’s Lies @ Capitol Raid are Treason. Mask Mandates End, SCOTUS Hearing Case

In this episode of The Silent War:

The Supreme Court to hear a Landmark Ballot Harvesting Case from Arizona - Setting the stage to fix FUTURE elections..

The FBI must be complicit in the treasonous coup, nothing else explains why Chris Way just outright lied to the American People about Antifa, BLM, and CNN's involvement in the terrorist attack aspects of the mostly peaceful "capitol raid" of January 6th.

Also, Multiple States are Ending the Mask Mandates! Yay, No more Face Diaper of Oppression.

Interview: Mike Lindell – Update of “Absolute Proof” and the Election Steal

William F. Jasper, senior editor of The New American magazine, interviews MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell regarding his documentary on election fraud “Absolute Proof,” his censorship battles with Big Tech and Big Media, the cancel culture attacks on him and his company, and the lawsuit against him by Dominion Voting Systems. Lindell anticipates his lawsuit to reach the Supreme Court, at which time he states all of the evidence will come out and vindicate the claims made in his film regarding Dominion and Smartmatic’s role in the 2020 election. The New American also reached out to Dominion Voting Systems to request an interview with CEO John Poulos. At the time of this posting, we had not heard back from Dominion. We will be following up with that interview if Mr. Poulos responds to our invitation.

DONALD TRUMP JR Addresses The Nation! SCOTUS Will Allow Persecution for Donald Trump!

So the Supreme Court will allow the political persecution for Donald Trump by vindictive partisan democrats to continue. If they can keep a witch hunt against Trump going for years who cant they and more importantly who won't they do it to??? WATCH Donald Trump Jr. thoughts! Subscribe to US Hub! https://bit.ly/2WducLv
Visit US Hub https://www.unitedstateshub.org/

Like US Hub on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/USHubOfficial/

Follow US Hub on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/unitedstate...
United States Hub (US Hub) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. US Hub is the most revolutionary and credible news channel on YouTube. US Hub brings news to you in an innovative VOD style that is set to capture and satiate your thirst for NEWS. This is the most credible source of Live videos that bring to you Press Conferences done by all political parties. From exclusive interviews to politics, anything and everything that is happening around the United States is on US Hub. We ensure that the truth behind viral videos reaches you. We save you from rumors. This is the most reliable source of news that you can rely on.

SCOTUS allows Trump's tax returns be investigated

SCOTUS couldn't get their pound of flesh out of Trump & The Patriots on Monday, so they granted Cy Vance the right to peruse Trump's taxes. This is a travesty and disgrace. The levels of government throughout the USA are compromised and cannot be relied upon for We The People...

Supreme Court Rejects Trump Campaign’s Election Lawsuit

SC claims lawsuit is "moot" after the election~Only one of Trump's SC picks voted in favor of suit
BY KIT DANIELS

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/posts/breaking-supreme-court-rejects-trump-campaigns-election-lawsuit-in-penn/;republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Supreme Court has rejected the Trump campaign’s election lawsuit against the State of Pennsylvania, claiming that the lawsuit after the election is “moot.”

In comparison, the Supreme Court also rejected the Texas lawsuit months prior as having “no standing” prior to the election votes being counted by Congress.

Only three justices dissented in the Supreme Court decision: Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, and of those three only Gorsuch was appointed by Trump.

Of course, that means Kavanaugh and Barrett rejected the suit, both of whom were Trump picks met with skepticism by conservatives.

In related news, the Supreme Court allowed the release of Trump’s federal tax returns to a New York state prosecutor who is trying to criminally target Trump.

____________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/02/22/inexplicable-alito-and-thomas-dissent-as-supreme-court-strikes-down-pennsylvania-election-lawsuit-n1427260

Supreme Court To Decide If Police Can Enter A Home To Seize Guns Without Warrant~Hold the Line PAC

A new case tests the limits of the “community caretaking exception” to the Fourth Amendment.

SEE: https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/caniglia-v-strom

AND: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-157.html

AND: https://reason.com/2021/02/04/scotus-to-decide-if-cops-need-more-elbow-room-to-conduct-certain-warrantless-home-searches/

EXCERPT FROM THIRD ARTICLE ABOVE:

"The case is Caniglia v. Strom. It originated in 2015 when Cranston, Rhode Island, police paid a "well call" on 68-year-old Edward Caniglia. His wife had been unable to reach him after they had a fight and she was worried that he might be suicidal. So she called the authorities. The police took Caniglia to the hospital, where he was examined by a nurse and a social worker and discharged that same day. Meanwhile, the police entered his home without a warrant while he was gone and seized his two handguns. The present case centers on Caniglia's claim that this warrantless police action violated his Fourth Amendment rights."

BY LAUREN WITZKE

SEE: https://holdthelinepac.com/supreme-court-to-decide-if-police-can-enter-a-home-to-seize-guns-without-warrant/;

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

The 4th Amendment of the Constitution protects citizens against warrantless searches of their homes. A police officer cannot enter your home unless they have shown a judge that they have probable cause that they will discover specific evidence of a crime. There are “exigent circumstances” exceptions to this right. If a police officer is witnessing an assault or murder in the home, or if the officer sees that the person in the home is in need of “emergency aid” they may enter the home in good judgement. Overall, the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect a citizen’s private home above all other places.

The Supreme Court has just announced that it will hear arguments next month on the case Caniglia v. Strom. The Caniglia v Strom is a case that involves the police untruthfully telling the wife of Mr. Caniglia that her husband had given them permission to seize his guns, and searched the home of Mr. Caniglia without obtaining a warrant. Mr. Caniglia sued for the violation of his 4th Amendment right to privacy and his 2nd Amendment right to keep handguns in the home for self-protection.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the police, and the Supreme Court is going to be reviewing Caniglia v Strom to possibly overrule the lower court’s decision.

U.S. Supreme Court Blocks California Ban on Indoor Worship

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AT STAKE 

BY JOSEPH KLEIN

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/supreme-court-blocks-california-ban-indoor-worship-joseph-klein/;

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has solidified its support for religious freedom, delivering a blow last Friday night against arbitrary attempts by California's Governor Gavin Newsom to prevent people of faith from gathering indoors to worship. It follows on the heels of another Supreme Court decision last November, which disapproved of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s discriminatory edicts limiting group worship by the residents of New York State during the COVID-19 emergency.

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court sided with the San Diego area South Bay Pentecostal Church, which challenged Newsom’s ban of indoor worship as part of his coronavirus lockdown orders. The Court issued a partial emergency injunction blocking the enforcement of the state of California’s prohibition on indoor worship services, pending disposition of a petition for the Court to undertake a full review of the constitutional issues in the case. For now, the Court was willing to allow a 25% capacity limitation on indoor worship services and the continuation of a prohibition of singing or chanting indoors because of the enhanced possibility that such activities can spread the virus.

The Supreme Court ruling left open the right of the plaintiff to present evidence that the state of California is “not applying the percentage capacity limitations or the prohibition on singing and chanting in a generally applicable manner.” South Bay Pentecostal Church operates in a county of California that has been designated Tier 1, which indicates that the virus is widespread in the county. At present, Tier 1 restrictions cover nearly all of the state. While churches and other places of worship in Tier 1 counties are not allowed to be open for indoor worship, secular businesses such as music, TV, and film production can conduct business indoors. This disparate treatment raises serious questions regarding discrimination against religious institutions and their congregants who wish to exercise their constitutionally protected right to freely assemble and pray inside their places of worship. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that “if a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California’s regulations cannot be viewed as neutral.”

Arthur Hodges, South Bay Pentecostal Church’s bishop, courageously stood up against the state’s trampling on the rights of his church and its parishioners. With a Sword of Damocles wielded by aggressive law enforcement officers hanging over his church and other places of worship, Bishop Hodges decided that a legal challenge to California’s state shutdown order was necessary to vindicate the primary importance of religious freedom. The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, working with the Thomas More Society, stepped in and filed a complaint on South Bay’s behalf.  These non-profit organizations were able to do so with the generous financial support of individuals, including entrepreneur and philanthropist Dr. Robert Shillman.

“The only way that we can preserve our rights is by standing up to those evil persons who want to take them away,” Dr. Shillman declared. “Americans have inalienable rights and one of those rights is to peacefully assemble to pray, which cannot be taken away while others are free to engage in secular activities. There is absolutely a clear line of discrimination against people of faith.”

The lead attorney on behalf of South Bay, Charles LiMandri, said after the Supreme Court issued its ruling on Friday:

“We are heartened by this order from the United States Supreme Court allowing South Bay to gather for worship this weekend while our case against Governor Newsom continues. Throughout the COVID lockdown, the governor has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for California’s citizens and their deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs. His so-called ‘reopening plan’ is structured on the same discriminatory principles as those of New York’s Governor Cuomo, which were soundly denounced by the Supreme Court in their Thanksgiving Eve decision in Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo…It is time for the United States Constitution to be honored in the State of California and we thank the high court for upholding religious liberty and acting on South Bay’s behalf.”

For his part, Bishop Hodges said, “We are thrilled and excited to go back to church without legal threat of fines or arrest. This opens up churches in the entire state of California.” Despite being a practicing Jew, Dr. Shillman participated in services on Sunday at the South Bay Pentecostal Church to celebrate this victory for religious freedom for people of all faiths.

The Supreme Court decision was unsigned. However, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurring opinion in the case. He joined the majority, reversing the stance he took when the case first came to the Court last year. At that time, the Chief Justice expressed no reservation in deferring to those he considered to be politically accountable officials with the “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.”  This time around, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his concurring opinion that “Deference, though broad, has its limits.” Roberts drew the line at the California government’s “present determination—that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero,” which “appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.” However, the Chief Justice was willing to defer to the state public health expert judgment that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting the coronavirus.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch viewed California’s restrictions on places of worship more skeptically. Justice Gorsuch wrote, “Since the arrival of COVID–19, California has openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses.”  While acknowledging that justices are not scientists, Justice Gorsuch cautioned that “neither may we abandon the field when government officials with experts in tow seek to infringe a constitutionally protected liberty.”

Justice Gorsuch observed that California had “singled out religion for worse treatment than many secular activities.” The state did not extend the same options for conducting religious services indoors with health safety precautions as it does in allowing secular businesses to operate with some constraints indoors. “In my view, the State must do more to tailor the requirements of public health to the rights of its people,” he wrote. Justice Gorsuch concluded his concurring opinion by noting that “if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.”

The three liberal justices on the Supreme Court, Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, did not think that anything had gone awry. They dissented, bowing down to the unquestioned authority of the state. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Kagan complained that “the Court will not let California fight COVID as it thinks appropriate.” That’s as it should be, if what California “thinks appropriate” includes trampling on the First Amendment rights of its citizens based on sketchy evidence. Justice Kagan tried to pose the issue as a choice between the state’s reliance on “the best science” and “making a special exception for worship services.” That’s a false choice. What the government must do is prove with solid evidence that its prohibitions on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right are necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that there are no less restrictive means to satisfy that interest.

Heaven forbid that, in Justice Kagan's words, “the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials.” The Court must do so where fundamental liberties are at stake.

America's earliest settlers risked their lives to flee religious persecution they had endured in Europe. Although religious intolerance did rear its ugly head on these shores during colonial times and afterward, the flame of religious liberty was not extinguished. It burns brightly in the words of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion. Every generation is called upon to guard this flame. It is a beacon of hope for so many people of faith in other parts of the world who are still facing persecution for their beliefs. We must not take it for granted. Today, religious liberty in this country hangs by a slender thread, held up for now by a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

The progressive left authoritarians inside government and out believe that they have a monopoly on the truth. Their “religion” consists of an amalgam of critical race theory, identity politics, social justice, censorship of politically incorrect viewpoints, and the power of the all-knowing bureaucratic state. These authoritarians want to pack the Supreme Court to remove the last remaining major obstacle to their plans for a fundamentally transformed America. It will take valiant Americans who still believe in this country and its founding principles to stop them.

My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell Releases Documentary on Election Steal~”PROGRESSIVE” NEWSMAX INTERVIEWER ABUSES HIM, ABRUPTLY LEAVES

BOB SELLERS WALKS OUT INSISTING NEWSMAX HAS NOT SEEN ANY PROOF OF ELECTION FRAUD

"RIGHT OF CENTER" PROGRESSIVE LEANING NEWSMAX EXPOSED FOR THEIR LEFTIST "JOURNALISM" WHICH PURPORTS TO BE CONSERVATIVE-SOMETIMES!

WATCH: My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell Releases Documentary on Election Steal

BY WILLIAM F. JASPER

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/watch-today-my-pillow-ceo-mike-lindell-releases-documentary-on-election-steal;

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

Unstoppable. Irrepressible. On-fire. Passionate. Mike Lindell is on a mission and he’s not going to let the cancel culture censors at Big Tech, Big Media, or Big Business — or even his “friends” at Newsmax and Fox — stop him. Today, Friday, February 5, he has released his two-hour documentary, “Absolute Proof,” which he says shows “100 percent” the theft of our election by China and other countries.

In a rousing promotion for the new documentary aired over The Revival Channel of the Word Broadcasting Network (WBN) on Tuesday, the millionaire entrepreneur and enthusiastic Trump supporter repeatedly stressed that he has assembled damning evidence that conclusively shows the election was stolen from President Trump and the American people.

The documentary is available to view on his own website, MichaelJLindell.com, and, reportedly, on the One America News Network (OANN), and other sites to be announced. The New American has posted Lindell’s “Absolute Proof” video here for your convenience:

“Thou Shalt Not!” – Big Tech’s Censorious Commandments

The Orwellian censors at Twitter banned Lindell on January 26 for promoting what the Fake News Media repeatedly refer to as “baseless claims” of voter fraud. “Twitter has permanently banned My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell’s account after he continually perpetuated the baseless claim that Donald Trump won the 2020 U.S. presidential election,” the Associated Press reported on January 26.

Of course, Twitter’s Ministry of Truth had already banned President Donald Trump a couple of weeks earlier — along with tens of thousands of other Americans who had one way or another stepped over Big Tech’s arbitrary and ever-changing political correctness line-in-the-sand. Among the “Thou shalt not” absolutes now being ruthlessly enforced by the Big Tech oligarchy: any mention of election fraud; any mention of COVID-19 fraud; any opposition to COVID-19 lockdowns; any opposition to COVID-19 mask mandates; any questioning or challenging of COVID-19 vaccines; any opposition to mandatory vaccines; any challenge to LGBTQ political correctness; etc., etc., etc.

But political correctness is not in Mike Lindell’s DNA. The outspoken businessman is a fervent evangelical Christian whose drug addict-to-CEO life story is a remarkable and inspiring example of the power of grace, prayer, and heroic perseverance. After years of alcohol and drug abuse, he invented the “My Pillow” pillow in 2004, and has grown it into a bedding company with over 100 products and hundreds of employees.

In 2020, Mr. Lindell served as the state chairman of President Trump’s campaign in Lindell’s home state of Minnesota, and he is a staunch supporter of the president’s efforts to expose massive voter fraud and election cyber warfare by China.

Lindell is an ardent pro-life, pro-family advocate and reportedly contributed $1 million for the movie Unplanned, the true biopic about Abby Johnson, the director of a large Planned Parenthood abortion center who converted to Christianity and has become a pro-life crusader. At the end of the movie, Lindell has a cameo role as the driver of the bulldozer that knocks down the Planned Parenthood sign.

All Not Well at Newsmax

Now he is fighting an even bigger battle against even bigger odds, while being censored and de-platformed by the liberal-left media and social media companies. As if all that isn’t bad enough, Lindell also faced a hostile “interview” and censorship on the conservative network Newsmax on February 2, during which anchor Bob Sellers repeatedly interrupted Lindell, then got up out of his chair and stormed off the set. Sellers insisted that Newsmax was not going to allow Lindell to discuss election fraud, asserting that the election had been certified and settled. Sellers’ outrageous treatment of Lindell and his insistence on adopting the Big Media/Big Tech party line of unquestioning acceptance of the official election results reportedly caused considerable blowback from Newsmax viewers. In a subsequent episode, Sellers apologized for his over-the-top reaction and referred to Lindell as “a friend of the network.”

The Sellers escapade adds to other concerns that Newsmax may be drifting the way of Fox. The hiring of disgraced former ABC/NBC pundit Mark Halperin has been cause for concern. As the result of charges of sexual harassment by multiple women, Halperin was bounced from NBC in 2017. Although he denied some of the particular charges, he apologized for “inappropriate” behavior and said he was going to “properly deal with this situation.” However, aside from Halperin’s status as “damaged goods,” there is his left-wing persuasion and pedigree. His father, Morton Halperin, is a notorious far-left/pro-communist activist who has worked for the ACLU, the Carnegie Endowment, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the Center for American Progress. Morton Halperin is currently a senior advisor to George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and has been closely involved with the subversive Institute for Policy Studies and the pro-communist National Lawyers Guild.

Mark Halperin’s father, Morton Halperin, and his brother, David Halperin, are members of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations. In 2019, Mark Halperin came out with a campaign-themed book entitled How To Beat Trump: America’s Top Political Strategists On What It Will Take. A gaggle of left-wing Democrats assisted him in this effort to rehabilitate his career: Donna Brazile, James Carville, David Axelrod, Jennifer Granholm, Kathleen Sebelius, Bob Shrum, Anita Dunn, Karen Dunn — and others.

Then there’s the troubling political “evolution” of Newsmax founder and CEO Christopher Ruddy. Not only has he given $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, but has also become something of a buddy of and cheerleader for Bill Clinton, opining that Clinton “was a pretty good president in a lot of ways.” Ruddy the executive has come a long way since his investigative journalism days tracking Bill and Hillary Clinton’s crime spree. His 1997 book The Strange Death of Vincent Foster was a damning indictment of the Clintons — and of the media and government cover-up of the Foster murder, which (like the Jeffrey Epstein death) has been officially ruled a suicide. Now Ruddy calls himself a “moderate conservative” and has adopted Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch’s modus operandi of cozying up to both political parties.

Are the Bob Sellers/Mike Lindell dust-up, the Mark Halperin hiring, and Chris Ruddy’s political “mellowing” signs that Newsmax may be drifting in the same leftward direction as Fox, even while staking out a conservative-sounding agenda to lure in Fox defectors? Something to think about.

Related videos and articles:

VIDEO: Big Tech Censorship

VIDEO Watch The Banned Video: Bio-warfare & Weaponization of Medicine Amid Covid

“Unplanned” Ordeal Again Highlights Big Media & Big Tech’s Leftwing Bias & Censorship

Exploiting COVID19, Big Tech Censors Become Big Brother

Is “Statistics Shadowbanning” the Latest Big-Tech Salvo Against Conservatives?

Big Tech’s Iron Boot: Trump Moved to Parler; Now It’s Set to Go Dark at Midnight After Big Tech Attack

As Trump Confronts Censorship Big Tech Targets The New American

Big Tech Censors Alex Jones. Who’s Next?

ChiComs Buying Up U.S. Political System

Twitter Permanently Bans Trump; Why Do Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid Get a Pass?

Project Veritas Video Exposes Twitter as Part of “American Pravda”

National Review, CNN, WSJ: Backstabber Liz Cheney Is New “Hero,” “Conscience of GOP”

FULL EXPOSURE: NeverTrump Neocons Kristol and Schmidt Reach Out to Biden, AOC

The Great Wakeup Call for Fox Loyalists

National Review’s Neocons and The Bulwark’s Bidenistas: Reviling Trump, Rejoicing in Biden

Biden Forms a Commission to Pack the Supreme Court

BY RICK MORAN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/01/28/after-claiming-hes-not-a-fan-biden-forms-a-commission-to-pack-the-supreme-court-n1415026;

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

Joe Biden has begun staffing a commission that would examine reforming the Supreme Court and the federal court system. The commission will supposedly be bipartisan, but we all know which side will be in the majority.

Biden floated the idea of a commission to study reforming the Supreme Court during the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. At that time, the radical left was advocating to put more justices on the court to flip its ideological makeup to make it friendlier to the radical liberal social agenda.

Biden said at the time he was “not a fan” of court-packing. He said in 2019 that he opposed the idea. But now that he’s president and beholden to the radicals for his election victory, it’s time to pay up.

Politico:

The commission will be housed under the purview of the White House Counsel’s office and filled out with the behind-the-scenes help of the Biden campaign’s lawyer Bob Bauer, who will co-chair the commission. Its specific mandate is still being decided. But, in a signal that the commission is indeed moving ahead, some members have already been selected, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.

Among those who will be on the commission are Cristina Rodríguez, a professor at Yale Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Obama Department of Justice, who will join Bauer as co-chair. Caroline Fredrickson, the former president of the American Constitution Society, and Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and a former assistant attorney general in the Bush Department of Justice, will also serve on the commission, those familiar with discussions said.

Fredrickson, a respected constitutional lawyer, had this to say about packing the court.

Fredrickson has hinted that she is intellectually supportive of ideas like court expansion. In 2019, she said in an interview with Eric Lesh, the executive director of the LGBT Bar Association and Foundation of Greater New York: “I often point out to people who aren’t lawyers that the Supreme Court is not defined as ‘nine person body’ in the Constitution, and it has changed size many times.”

This is very true and the federal judiciary certainly could do with some reforms. But the Supreme Court is the primary battleground in the culture war. We can pretend it’s “above politics” but everyone knows it isn’t. It’s besotted with politics and the political calculation of the left is simple: if they can’t get the American people to elect a radical president whose term coincides with Supreme Court openings, they’ll just manufacture a new court with more justices who will rule the way they want them to.

At bottom, this is about the left not getting their way and changing the rules to bend the court to their political will. What they can’t do at the ballot box, they will do in the courts.

I really wish Joe Biden had had the political courage to say he would pack the court with more liberals if he was elected. Then, the American people would have had a say in how the court was constructed. If the people thought more justices were needed they could have voted for Biden. If they didn’t, they could have voted for Trump.

As it is, Biden will try and effect change through the subterfuge of a commission set up to satisfy his radical left base.

Help us STOP Joe Biden’s radical agenda by becoming a PJ Media VIP member. Use promo code AMERICAFIRST to receive 25% off your VIP membership.
_____________________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
_____________________________________________________________________

State AGs Warn Biden: Follow the Constitution or We’ll Sue

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/state-ags-warn-biden-follow-the-constitution-or-well-sue/;

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

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey minced no words in his letter of warning sent to the president on Wednesday: “If you sign unconstitutional laws passed by Congress, it will be our responsibility and duty to challenge those laws in court.”

Attorneys General from Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Texas signed the six-page letter. It said, “One week ago … you swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States … [but you] cannot cut constitutional corners or shirk statutory strictures without inevitably doing more harm to our country than good.”

It added:

Overreaching and defying Congress will not be rewarded or succeed. Our states have led the charge in successfully challenging unauthorized and unlawful executive actions, as you know from your years as Vice President.

You can be assured that we will do so again, if necessary.

This is only the latest example of the mounting pushback against Biden’s policies. His decision to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement generated a bill from Colorado Republican freshman Lauren Boebert to prevent its funding.

She also filed bills to halt funding for the World Health Organization “until we hold them accountable for their role in COVID”; and another bill to overturn the president’s mask mandate.

Those three bills, filed on Tuesday, immediately generated almost a dozen GOP co-sponsors. Representative Boebert stated:

My bill prohibits Congress from spending a single penny on the Paris Agreement until this treaty is ratified by the United States Senate.

Joe Biden took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. If he wants to keep it, he must transmit the job-killing Paris Agreement to the U.S Senate for ratification.

As for COVID, she tweeted:

Had the WHO not taken China at [its] word, COVID-19 would never have spiraled so deeply out of control.

The WHO is beholden to China and American taxpayers should not be sending them nearly a half a billion dollars each year.

Others are pushing back against the president’s executive orders, including the Western Energy Alliance, a group representing fossil-fuel producers operating on federal lands. It just challenged the president’s ban on oil and gas leasing: “The law is clear. Presidents don’t have the authority to ban leasing on public lands. All Americans own the oil and natural gas beneath public lands, and Congress has directed them to be responsibly developed on their behalf.… President Biden cannot simply ignore laws in effect for over half a century.”

And some of that pushback is meeting with initial success. A federal judge temporarily blocked Biden’s EO halting the deportation of certain immigrants for 100 days.

Many Christians are supporting this pushback as well. For example, on Lou Dobbs Tonight Friday, January 15, Pastor Robert Jeffress said:

The Bible says we need to pray for all our leaders. But we also need to be ready to push back against the ungodly policies that are sure to come [from the Biden administration].

These are days for God’s people to stand up and to be courageous like never before.

That would include the peoples’ representatives such as Morrisey and Boebert.

______________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21a/Bidens-LGBT-agenda-using-invented-language/images.html

 
1 2 3 4