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!
Visit US Hub

Like US Hub on Facebook

Follow US Hub on Instagram
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

SEE:;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.



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.





"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."



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




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



WATCH: 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,, 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



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.


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.

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




Biden Commits to Codifying Roe Into Law on 48th Year Since Supreme Court Abortion Decision



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

WASHINGTON — Referring to abortion as “reproductive health care,” President Joe Biden reiterated his commitment to codifying Roe v. Wade into law on Friday, the 48th year since the U.S. Supreme Court issued the decision that resulted in more than 60 million deaths of unborn children — and counting.

“In the past four years, reproductive health, including the right to choose, has been under relentless and extreme attack,” he said in a statement released by the White House. “We are deeply committed to making sure everyone has access to care — including reproductive health care — regardless of income, race, zip code, health insurance status, or immigration status.”

“The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to codifying Roe v. Wade and appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe,” he advised. “We are also committed to ensuring that we work to eliminate maternal and infant health disparities, increase access to contraception, and support families economically so that all parents can raise their families with dignity. This commitment extends to our critical work on health outcomes around the world.”

Vice President Kamala Harris also shared the statement on social media. Read it in full here.

As previously reported, prior to the election, Biden made clear on his campaign website that he planned to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law.

The page, called the “Biden Agenda for Women,” which is still available for viewing, explains, “Biden will work to codify Roe v. Wade, and his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade.”

He also outlined that he wishes to reinstate federal Title X and Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, and to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funds from being used for abortion (with exceptions).

In October, during a town hall event hosted by NBC News, Biden similarly outlined that he would urge Congress to pass a bill making Roe the law of the land when asked by a woman — who spoke of taking birth control in college — what his plans are to protect “women’s reproductive rights” now that Amy Coney Barrett is seated on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“[W]e don’t know exactly what she will do, although the expectation is that she very well may overrule Roe,” he replied. “And the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation to make Roe the law of the land. That’s what I would do.”

He or his campaign then shared the town hall segment on Twitter, writing, “Roe v. Wade must remain the law of the land.”

Biden, a Roman Catholic, outlined years ago that while he personally believes that life begins at conception, he doesn’t want to “impose” his view on others.

“Life begins at conception in the Church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” he said in 2012. “I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others …”

“I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women — they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that,” Biden stated.

However, Scripture states in Romans 13 that civil leaders are to be the “minister of God for good,” being representatives of God’s will on Earth in the application of the law.

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,” Romans 13:4 states.

Proverbs 24:11-12 outlines, “If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain, if thou sayest, ‘Behold, we knew it not,’ doth not He that pondereth the heart consider it? And He that keepeth thy soul, doth not He know it? And shall not He render to every man according to his works?”

2 Chronicles 19:6 similarly teaches that judges are to represent the will of God, stating, “And said to the judges, ‘Take heed what ye do, for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it, for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God …'”

Please visit Christian News Network’s Outlaw Abortion page to help us work to abolish the worldwide holocaust.


January 6, 2021: The Day of the Electoral Epiphany



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

January 6 marks the festival of the Christian Epiphany commemorating the visit of the Magi—the three “wise men” of popular parlance—bringing gifts to the Christ child. It is also the day on which the presidency of the United States will be determined as the “wise men” of Congress meet to certify or decertify the vote of the Electoral College. The question is whether the current legitimate president will be recognized or whether a pretender to the throne, a false messiah, or, to put it bluntly, a corrupt grifter benefitting from the largest electoral fraud in American history will be confirmed in his stead.

Three facts should be obvious.

The first is that the list of Donald Trump’s accomplishments as president is a long one: the Middle East peace treaties, wage gains for low wage earners, elimination of the ISIS Caliphate, low unemployment (pre-COVID), Operation Warp Speed, energy independence, rapid economic recovery, reduction of economy-strangling regulations, pushback against Chinese Communist subversive tactics (including his recent release of Chinese bounty intel), returning manufacturing and industry to the homeland, immigration sanity, forcing NATO allies to pay their fair share of military expenses, the renegotiating of trade deals in America’s favor, in short, the policy of America First—to mention only a few of his extraordinary achievements.

Second, he has been routinely and viscerally misrepresented and traduced by a hostile and corrupt media consortium that has suppressed or sullied a record any responsible president would be proud of. Clearly, we no longer have a fair and trustworthy press but a Soviet-style propaganda machine trading on lies, unceasing vitriol and relentless ad hominem attacks on a sitting president.

Third, the evidence of massive and unprecedented electoral fraud that may well cost Trump the election is undeniable: preventing inspectors from observing the vote count, accepting illegal mail-in ballots and invalid (without dates) absentee ballots, random assignment of ballots, vote dumping, ballot box stuffing, votes exceeding the number of estimated voters, registering 120-year-old voters, transference of votes from Trump to Biden in battleground states, suitcases filled with ballots dragged out from beneath a covered table after mandated poll observers were told to leave, thousands of affidavits attesting to illegitimate activities, election rules drastically changed, hackable and manipulated voting machines and practices, and so on. The documentation is everywhere. Pennsylvania election numbers don’t add upoutcome-determinative fraud occurred in GeorgiaRepublican ballots were misprinted in several swing states. The fraud, which is, in effect, an integral part of a premeditated coup d’état and “the biggest political scandal in U.S. history,” cannot be doubted or dismissed except by committed partisans of the Democratic Party, #NeverTrumpers, insurrectionary cadres like Antifa and BLM, useful idiots, and data-censoring corporate magnates frustrated by an honest broker in the Oval Office.

Trump has been faulted for his brusque rhetorical style, for his lack of polish, for his incessant Twittering, for his thin-skinned reaction to criticism, for his hands, for his hair, for his past—indeed, for anything his adversaries can think of. Certainly, he is not flawless, but I suspect his only significant fault is possibly his misjudging the vast extent of the “swamp,” and not acting early enough to counter its malignance. 

For the swamp is everywhere: in Congress, in the intelligence agencies, in the education establishment K-12 to post-graduate (including the professoriate and academic administration), in state legislatures, in the judiciary, in many of the churches, in the media gutters and high-tech platforms, in communal organizations and in a considerable portion of the nation. Perhaps Trump should have invoked the Insurrection Act. Perhaps he should have challenged Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act earlier in his term. Perhaps he should have fired the problematic elements and Obama holdovers in the military leadership and replaced them with reliable personnel. Perhaps he should have relied on executive privilege to ensure that the plotters who spied on his campaign and who used extraconstitutional means to remove a duly elected president be charged in criminal court or according to the Articles of the Constitution (Article II, Section 1). He should definitely have investigated the electoral apparatus and adopted preventive measures years before the current election. Then again, he is one man against a veritable world.

In this respect, I recall a lecture given by the celebrated education author and psycholinguist Frank Smith, which I attended when guesting at Brigham Young University. Smith was lamenting the state of the culture, which he felt had grown so decadent, divisive, and mendacious that it could no longer be salvaged. “We’re on the Titanic,” he said, “and we’re going down. Save yourself if you can. Jump ship.” The problem, so far as I could see, was that there was nowhere to jump. Everything is the Titanic: the sea, the land, the lifeboats, even the iceberg. The only solution, within the terms of the metaphor, was to keep bailing in order to maintain the ship afloat, in the hope that a competent crew could be dispatched to repair the damage before the foundering.

Similarly, as noted, the swamp is everywhere, giving off its fetid neo-Marxist/Globalist stench. Another four years of a Trump presidency will serve to drain it further, and perhaps make political life somewhat more bearable, but the swamp will continue to pollute the constitutional order of the nation. The battle is endless against the abominations who inhabit the swamp, the Shambling Mounds, the Green Hags, the Bullywugs, the Stirges, and especially the Mud Mephits and Yuan-tis. But this is more than a Dungeons & Dragons gaming session; it is a war for survival. Should Trump be re-elected, he will need all the help he can get when, as Adventurer-in-Chief, he enters the swamp to confront its foul denizens.

As Lee Smith writes in his recent The Permanent Coup, detailing the “desperate measures” of America’s domestic enemies, “The coup aimed at toppling Donald Trump will not end in November 2020, whether he is reelected or not…because it is aimed mainly at Americans…it’s weaponized to destroy anyone the left perceives as its enemy.” Trump and a few loyal allies are all America has as a bulwark against the advancing fen, in an effort to keep it at bay and reduce its lethality. Should a spurious and criminal election fail to be overturned, the swamp will inundate the land and there will be no Ark to ride it out, no Titanic to keep afloat.

In his Agony and Eloquence: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and a World of Revolution, American historian Daniel Mallock reflects: “Every generation has its own times that try the souls of men and women. The present belongs to the living” who must honor the gift deeded to them by great and patriotic men like Adams and Jefferson, nation-builders like Washington and Lincoln. “Every generation writes its own history,” he continues, “Our interpretation will change but the truth of the matter will not; it is our responsibility to weigh the evidence and know the difference between the shadows of our prisms and the sometimes-dim light of historical truth.” The “dim light” also occludes our vision, not only of historical truth but of present reality, thanks to the efforts of an obscurantist media and the derelictions of our public institutions. Nevertheless, “it is our responsibility to weigh the evidence” of electoral malfeasance and institutional complicity to arrive at “the truth of the matter” and to act upon it

This January 6 is the critical moment in the modern history of the United States. The secular Epiphany will “show forth” whether there will be anything to celebrate or whether it will manifest as a terminal mockery of the will of the majority of the  American people and the virtual end of the American Republic.

If a Won Election Is Not Reported, Is It a Won Election?


Lin Wood has filed an Emergency Petition to the Supreme Court to overturn the dismissals of his federal lawsuits and to pause the upcoming senate runoff election. He also tweeted some SPICY takes and accusations against Chief Justice John Roberts. Petition for Mandamus: Lin Wood Tweets:

Legal Memo Outlines Strategy for Trump to Succeed: Having Supreme Court Hear Election Dispute



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

The Western Journal has published a legal memo written by William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney that, they say, “outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks.” The legal memo was reportedly sent to President Trump prior to it being published on The Western Journal.

The authors of the memo contend that by refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court” abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court,” resulting in intense criticism that they had evaded “the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.”

“However,” the authors say, “even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff.”

Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause.

Olsen and McSweeney say that if this happened, it would “leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires. The United States suffered an injury when those four states “violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature.”

So, is this the next step for the Trump legal team? Trump legal adviser Jenna Ellis shared this legal strategy memo on Twitter, urging her followers to read it, so this strategy is definitely on their radar.

This still leaves us asking, “Is there hope?”

It’s the season of miracles, so never give up.

Matt Margolis is the author of Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trump and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis

FLASHBACK: Millions Signed Petition Urging Electors to Vote for Hillary After Trump Won in 2016
KERIK: Biden Received ‘Mathematically Impossible’ Spike in Votes When Suspicious Ballots Counted in Georgia
Georgia Governor Calls For ‘Signature Audit’ After Ballot-Counting Video Presented at Hearing
CLAIM: Dominion Exec Bragged That He Made Sure ‘Trump Is Not Gonna Win’ on Conference Call


Dr. Pierre Kory testifies to Senate Committee about Ivermectin, Dec. 8, 2020

Appearing as a witness on Dec. 8, 2020, before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs—which held a hearing on “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution”— Dr. Pierre Kory, President of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), called for the government to swiftly review the already expansive and still rapidly emerging medical evidence on Ivermectin.

The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover. Dr. Kory testified that Ivermectin is effectively a “miracle drug” against COVID-19 and called upon the government’s medical authorities—the NIH, CDC, and FDA—to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19.


(Friday Church News Notes, December 25, 2020, [email protected] , 866-295-4143) -

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

We are keen to avoid quackery on all fronts, theological, political, and medical. The Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which is not quackery, is recommending the use of Ivermectin as a “miracle cure” and “wonder drug” for prevention and early treatment of Covid-19. We don’t know if it is true that no one who takes Ivermectin will get Covid, but it is obvious from the studies so far that it has a major effect. On Dec. 8, 2020, Dr. Pierre Kory, President of the FLCCC appeared before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs in Washington, D.C., to testify of the group’s scientific findings. Dr. Kory said, “We are a group of one of the most highly published physicians in the world. We have nearly 2,000 peer-reviewed publications among us. Led by Professor Paul Marik, who is our intellectual leader, we came together early on in the pandemic, and all we have sought is to review the world’s literature on every factor of this disease, trying to develop effective protocols. I was here [before the Senate committee] in May, and I recommended that it was critical that we use corticosteroids in treating this disease, when all of the national and international health care organizations said we cannot use those. That turned out to be a life-saving recommendation. I’m here again today with a new recommendation. ... We have a solution to this crisis. There is a drug that is proving to be of miraculous impact, and when I say ‘miracle’ I do not use that term lightly. I don’t want to be sensationalized when I say that. This is a scientific recommendation based on mountains of data that has emerged in the last three months. When I am told that we are touting things that are not FDA recommended, let me be clear, the NIH [National Institutes of Health], their recommendation on Ivermectin, which is to not use it outside of controlled trials, is from August 27. We are now in December. This is three to four months later. Mountains of data have emerged from many centers and countries from around the world showing the miraculous effect of Ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus. ... Our manuscript details all of this evidence. ... We now have four large randomized controlled trials totaling over 1,500 patients, each trial showing that as a prophylaxis agent it is immensely effective. ... In early outpatient treatment, we have three randomized control trials and multiple observation as well as case series showing that if you take Ivermectin the need for hospitalization and death will decrease. ... We have four randomized control trials there, multiple observation trials, all showing the same thing. You will not die, or you will die at much, much lower rates, statistically significant, large magnitude results if you take Ivermectin. It is proving to be a wonder drug. It has already won the Noble prize in medicine in 2015 for its impact on global health in the eradication of parasitic diseases. ... Our manuscript has been submitted for peer review, but please recognize that peer review takes months, and we don’t have months. We have 100,000 patients in the hospitals right now dying. I am a lung specialist. I am an ICU specialist. I’ve cared for more dying Covid patients than anyone can imagine. They’re dying because they can’t breathe. ... They are on high velocity oxygen delivery devices, non-evasive ventilators, and/or they are sedated and paralyzed and attached to mechanical ventilators that breathe for them. ... By the time they get to me in the ICU, they are dying, they are almost impossible to recover. Early treatment is key. ... Any further deaths are going to be needless deaths. I cannot keep caring for patients when I know that they could have been saved with early treatment, and that drug that will treat them and prevent the hospitalization is Ivermectin.” Dr. Kory called upon the government’s medical authorities--the NIH, CDC, and FDA--to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19. Following are the links to Dr. Kory’s interview, Dr. Hector Carvallo’s interview, and the FLCCC’s protocol for use of ivermectin as a prophylaxis: Video [Reddit]


(Friday Church News Notes, December 25, 2020, [email protected] , 866-295-4143) -

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

The following is excerpted from “Supreme Court Slaps Down,” The Federalist, Dec. 15, 2020: “The Supreme Court sided with a rural Colorado church Tuesday that challenged the state Democrat governor’s COVID rules restricting building capacity in some parts of the state. The 6-3 decision overturned lower court rulings that had upheld Gov. Jared Polis’s church gathering limits to a maximum of 25 percent or 50 people, whichever is fewer, and ordered lower courts to re-examine the case. ‘Today in Colorado it is perfectly legal for hundreds of shoppers to pack themselves cheek by jowl into a Lowes or other big box store or patronize any one of the thousands of other retail establishments that are not subject to draconian numerical limits,’ church attorney Barry Arrington told National Review. The case was brought by the High Plains Harvest Church north of Denver, arguing the state was unlawfully targeting religious institutions by imposing harsher restrictions on churches than shopping centers. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court also handed down its ruling on a New Jersey case brought by a Catholic priest and a rabbi. This ruling overturned limits on religious gatherings in houses of worship, wiping out executive rule-favoring opinions in the lower courts. The cases upholding religious liberty come on the heels of rare public remarks by Justice Samuel Alito criticizing coronavirus lockdowns this year as placing ‘previously unimaginable’ restrictions on American freedom. ‘We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020,’ Alito said in a virtual speech to The Federalist Society. ‘The COVID crisis has served as sort of a constitutional stress test.’” PJMedia added, “This would appear to open the door to churches nationwide to decide their own COVID policies. ... The arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the court has proven to be a godsend to religious liberty” (“Supreme Court,” PJMedia, Dec. 15, 2020).

Supreme Court Gives Trump HUGE WIN as John Roberts Accused of FEARING RIOTS!!!


The Supreme Court Gives Trump a HUGE WIN all as John Roberts is being Accused of FEARING RIOTS! In this video, we’re going to take a look at the HUGE win for President Trump with regard to illegal aliens and redistricting, how John Roberts is being called out as a coward by a growing number of voices, and what’s really behind the corruption of our courts and what we really need to do about, you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Reports Claim “Anti-Trump” SCOTUS Justice Roberts Afraid To Hear Election Fraud Cases Due To Liberal “Riots”




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

Multiple sources are claiming Supreme Court Justice John Roberts is an “anti-Trumper” who is actively working to ensure President Trump isn’t re-elected.

A video going viral online shows Arizona State Senator Eddie Farnsworth citing a Supreme Court staffer who allegedly heard SCOTUS judges yelling behind closed doors during a heated argument.

Farnsworth describes a statement made by a “Current staffer for one of the Supreme Court Justices.”

“He said the justices, as they always do, went into a closed room to discuss cases or to debate,” Farnsworth explained. “There are no phones, no computers, no nothing. No one else is in the room except the nine justices. It’s typically very civil.”

He continued, saying, “They usually don’t hear any sound, they just debate what they’re doing. But, when the Texas case was brought up, he heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices were insisting that this case not be taken up. The words that were heard through the wall when Justice Thomas and Justice Alito were citing Bush vs Gore, from John Roberts, were,

‘I don’t give a ***** about that case, I don’t want to hear about it. At that time we didn’t have riots.’ So, what he was saying is he was afraid of what would happen if they didn’t do the right thing.”

“I’m sorry, but that is moral cowardice,” Farnsworth declared. “We in the SREC, I’m an SREC member, we put those words in very specifically, because the charge of the Supreme Court is to ultimately be our final arbitrator, our final line of defense for right and wrong, and they did not do their duty. So, I think we should leave these words in because I want to send a strong message to them. Thank you.”

Corroborating this account is an interview with Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne, a Trump insider, who told the Strange Report podcast about the Supreme Court clerk’s experience before Farnsworth spoke out.

According to Howard-Browne, “The clerk said, ‘The justices are normally calm. They meet behind closed doors, and you never hear anything, but it was a screaming match. You could hear it all down the hallway.'”

“He said they met in person… they didn’t trust the telephonic meeting,” Howard-Browne told Strange Report. “Chief Justice Roberts was screaming, ‘Are you going to be responsible for the rioting if we hear this case?’ And then Roberts went on to say [to Justice Neil Gorsuch], ‘Don’t tell me about Bush versus Gore. We weren’t dealing with riots then, and you’re forgetting what your role is. And I don’t want to hear anything from the two junior justices.'”

The clerk alleged that Roberts continued, saying, “I will tell you how to vote,” with Justice Clarence Thomas supposedly answering, “This will be the end of democracy, John.”

“When they left the room, Roberts and the liberals and Kavanaugh had big smiles; Alito and Thomas [were] visibly upset; ACB and Gorsuch didn’t seem fazed at all,” according to Howard-Browne’s source.

“So obviously, it’s clear that Chief Justice Roberts is intimidated by Antifa, the left-wing rioting,” the pastor concluded. “And, of course, that’s the problem that we’re dealing with. Apart from the corruption that’s in our courts, and the judges that are legislating from the benches, and all the corruption that we’re dealing with here with the voting fraud and the scandals of what’s taking place. This would be ultimately the scenario that I could just see unfolding in the Supreme Court.”

In addition to these claims, Trump attorney Lin Wood wrote on Twitter Thursday, “This may be the most important tweet of my life.”

He continued, “Chief Justice John Roberts is corrupt & should resign immediately. Justice Stephen Breyer should also resign immediately. They are ‘anti-Trumpers’ dedicated to preventing the public from knowing the TRUTH of
Trump’s re-election.”

Elaborating, Wood claimed Roberts was heard discussing Trump in a phone conversation, saying, “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.”

“Roberts engaged in phone conversations with Justice Stephen Breyer discussing how to work to get Trump voted out,” Lin wrote.

The POTUS attorney added, “This is a sad day for our country but a day on which we must wake up & face the truth,” and told Americans, “Roberts is the reason that SCOTUS has not acted on election cases. Others involved.”

Changing the direction of his Twitter rant, Wood said he’s “long had questions about ‘the John Roberts’ on Jeffrey Epstein private jet flight logs. I suspected it was our Chief Justice. MSM has shown no interest in investigating issue to find TRUTH. America is now entitled to know the answer. Every lie will be revealed. Pray.”

“The documentation of my claims about Justices Roberts & Breyer has been placed in hands of several third parties,” Wood added. “When one cannot attack message, all too often messenger is attacked. But TRUTH cannot be denied. It cannot be destroyed. I have made sure of that TRUTH.”

Infowars has reached out to Lin Wood to inquire about the documentation of his claims, but has yet to receive a response.

One final tweet on the subject by Wood explains that if he gave the wrong date for the alleged phone call where Justice Roberts said Trump would “never be re-elected,” that the judge can give the exact date himself.

“While you have his attention, ask him some other questions. He owes The People answers. He owes us TRUTH,” Lin wrote.


Attorney Jenna Ellis on Trump Team Legal Options, Supreme Court Decision & Starting Recall Petitions

Today we sit down with constitutional law attorney Jenna Ellis, a member of the Trump campaign legal team, to get an update on their legal efforts, and what she expects the future holds. This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek.

Why SCOTUS Punted, and What Happens Next

Why SCOTUS Punted, and What Happens Next



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

Upon learning that the Supreme Court wouldn’t consider the lawsuit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to challenge the election fraud perpetrated in four key battleground states, President Trump tweeted: “The Supreme Court had ZERO interest in the merits of the greatest voter fraud ever perpetrated on the United States of America.” He called it a “disgraceful miscarriage of justice.”

Paxton agreed. The justices didn’t even bother to hear any of the arguments he claimed to justify suing those four states. He angrily asked rhetorically:

If my people are harmed, which I view them as having been harmed, by the fact that other states didn’t follow their election laws and didn’t follow the Constitution, how do I address the fact that my voters are affected by a national election, that potentially was not done correctly, where there was fraud, and in that state law and federal law were not followed?

The high court issued a nonsensical explanation:

Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

It was a classic waffle, as the concept of “standing” — “cognizable interest” — has been carefully defined in Whitmore v. Arkansas, decided by the Supreme Court in 1990:

To establish an Article III case or controversy, a litigant first must clearly demonstrate that he has suffered an “injury in fact.” That injury, we have emphasized repeatedly, must be concrete in both a qualitative and temporal sense.

The complainant must allege an injury to himself that is “distinct and palpable,” … as opposed to merely “abstract,” … and the alleged harm must be actual or imminent, not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.”…

Further, the litigant must satisfy the “causation” and “redressability” prongs of the Article III minima by showing that the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action” and “is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.”

As attorney Andrea Widburg noted in American Thinker, “Texas met those requirements, showing an ‘injury in fact’ that is ‘distinct and palpable,’ that ‘can be traced to the challenged action’ and that can be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’

So, with the high court’s flimsy excuse exposed, what is its real motivation behind its decision? Dick Morris thinks they were intimidated by the Biden campaign:

The Supreme Court is after justice, of course, but primarily they are after making sure the Supreme Court survives — that’s their institution and that’s their duty.

I believe the Supreme Court was sent a message by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party during the election.

And the message was: “If you overturn this election, we will pack you, and make your Court basically meaningless.”

Retired Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said that, in his opinion, the court just didn’t want to deal with an issue fraught with political overtones:

This Supreme Court decision sends a message. The majority included the three justices appointed by President [Donald] Trump, and they all said, “We’re not going to hear the Texas case. We’re not going to get involved in this election.”

I think this sends a message. It’s not a legal message, but it’s a practical message: the Supreme Court is out of this game.

What happens next? Trump attorney Sidney Powell thinks the situation merits exercising an Executive Order the president issued in 2018: No. 13848, titled “Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election.”

Per that order, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) “shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election.” The director must present his findings to the president no later than 45 days after the election. That would be Friday, December 18.

Said Powell:

[EO 13848 gives the president] “all kinds of power … to do everything from seize assets to freeze things, demand the impoundment of the machines.

Under the emergency powers, he could even appoint a special prosecutor to look into this, which is exactly what needs to happen.

Every machine, every voting machine in the country should be impounded right now. There’s frankly more than enough criminal probable cause to justify that, for anybody who’s willing to address the law and the facts purely on the basis of truth and not politics, or corporate greed, or global wealth.

And then there’s Section 252 of the Insurrection Act of 1807, which states:

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

As Stephen Meister pointed out in the Epoch Times:

The president’s invocation of the Insurrection Act isn’t a declaration of martial law. The Constitution isn’t suspended. The writ of habeas corpus isn’t suspended. The president would be using troops to enforce the law, not override it.

How that would play out remains to be seen. Suffice to say, the president has numerous options available to him to keep Biden from fraudulently assuming the office of the presidency of the United States on January 20. 






Jericho March Stop the Steal


This Election Jericho March™ will culminate in a massive national peaceful prayer rally protest in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 12, 2020 called “Let the Church ROAR!” where we will march around the U.S. Capitol seven times to send a very clear message to national and state leaders as they hear patriots and people of faith roar in support of election integrity, transparency, and reform. We will be hearing from national faith leaders, worship leaders, and others. 

Our first Jericho March™ is for election integrity, transparency, and reform to preserve free and fair elections in America for this generation and generations to come — free from any corruption or interference, both foreign and domestic. America is a city on a hill and light to other nations, and God’s favor is still upon her. We are proud of the American system of governance established by our Founding Fathers and we will not let globalists, socialists, and communists destroy our beautiful nation by sidestepping our laws and suppressing the will of the American people through their fraudulent and illegal activities in this election.

Mainstream Media, Big Tech, and corrupt political machines want the world to believe that the 2020 election is over. We have a clear message to them: You do not call elections and this election is far from over. You try to censor the truth, but we know the truth, and our God will reveal the truth,

“For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.”
(Lk. 8:17)




Then onto the stage came one Fr. Greg Bramlage, a Colorado priest who says he is an exorcist. He shamanically prayed down heaven to deliver America from demons. These were real deliverance prayers. He is saying, in effect, that to oppose Trump and his re-election is to be an agent of Satan. This was the first time I got really angry. As regular readers know, I believe in the power of exorcism. I believe the demonic is real. But there was this Trumpy priest deploying holy prayers of deliverance from the demonic on behalf of a politician, and did it in a way that logically locates doubters within the shadow of Mordor. It felt sacrilegious. I wondered what Protestants in this crowd thought about the Catholic priest addressing prayers to Mary, the saints, and the angels. Following him was an opera singer belting out “Ave Maria.” Trumpy ecumenism is a fascinating religious development. This isn’t simply a revival of the old Chuck Colson/Richard John Neuhaus “Catholics & Evangelicals Together.” This is something much more intense. Later in the day, a Catholic priest blessed a framed image of Our Lady of Guadalupe that they plan to give to Melania Trump. Again, what did the Evangelicals think of that? I believe that it is good for Christians to work together on political and social causes of mutual concern. But if I believed what Evangelicals believe, I would have a lot of trouble affirming, by my presence, those kind of Catholic prayers. But maybe common love for Trump overcomes these theological divisions.

Then a woman who heads a pro-Trump organization in Virginia came onstage to instruct the crowd: “We have to align our spirituality to our politics.”

Yes, it is bonkers. All of it. But you would be wrong to make fun of it and blow it off. This phenomenon is going to matter. Divinizing MAGA and Stop The Steal is going to tear churches to bits, and drive people away from the Christian faith (or keep them from coming in the first place). Based on what I saw today, the Christians in this movement do not doubt that Trump is God’s chosen, that they, by following him, are walking in light, and whatever they do to serve Trump is also serving God. They have tightly wound apocalyptic religion to conservative politics and American nationalism.

“We have to align our spirituality to our politics,” said the speaker today. Notice that she didn’t say “align our politics to our spirituality.” Politics determines spirituality. (?)


Trump supporters gather for the Stop the Steal rally at Freedom Plaza in Washington on December 12, 2020. Photo by Yuri Gripas/ABACAPRESS.COM.

Gen. Flynn: SCOTUS doesn’t decide, we decide the election of president of the United States 

General Michael Flynn’s FULL Speech At DCs Jericho March Rally For President Trump 12/12/2020

Alex Jones Speaks At The Massive Trump Stop The Steal Rally In Washington DC 12/12/20





Over 100 House Republicans Sign Brief Supporting Landmark Texas Election Lawsuit

Over 100 House Republicans Sign Brief Supporting Landmark Texas Election Lawsuit



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

Is this the opening President Trump’s supporters have been looking for?

Over 100 Republican members of the House of Representatives on Thursday signed an amicus brief supporting the Texas lawsuit aimed at overturning the election results in the battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that the states unconstitutionally changed their state election statutes to enable mail voting.

“This brief presents [our] concern as Members of Congress, shared by untold millions of their constituents, that the unconstitutional irregularities involved in the 2020 presidential election cast doubt upon its outcome and the integrity of the American system of elections,” states the brief, signed by 106 GOP lawmakers.

The effort was led by outgoing Republican Study Committee Chairman Mike Johnson (La.), one of the president’s closest allies in the House, who served on his impeachment defense team.

“President Trump called me this morning to let me know how much he appreciates the amicus brief we are filing on behalf of Members of Congress. Indeed, ‘this is the big one!’” Johnson tweeted on Wednesday.

Prominent Republicans who signed the brief include Minority Whip Steve Scalise (La.); Representative Jim Jordan (Ohio), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee; Representative Andy Biggs (Ariz.), chair of the Freedom Caucus; and Representative Jim Banks (Ind.), the incoming Republican Study Committee chairman.

Notably absent among the signatures were House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney (Wy.). McCarthy twice on Thursday declined to comment when asked by reporters if he supports the lawsuit.

“The president has a right for every legal challenge to be heard. He has the right to go to the Supreme Court with it, yes,” McCarthy said.

The Trump campaign is also on board with the lawsuit; the president has reportedly asked Senator Ted Cruz, a former Texas solicitor general, to argue the latest case before the Supreme Court.

But not all Republicans on Capitol Hill are on board. “Respectfully, I will not join because I believe the case itself represents a dangerous violation of federalism and sets a precedent to have one state asking federal courts to police the voting procedures of other states,” wrote Representative Chip Roy (R-Texas) in a series of tweets.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the GOP leadership team, has also questioned the lawsuit’s merit. “You know, it’s very unusual because when a state sues a state, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction,” Cornyn told CNN, “so you don’t have to go through the ordinary procedure. I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued on Tuesday on behalf of Texas and 18 other states, including Florida, Utah, South Carolina, and West Virginia. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) filed a separate brief in support of the case.

“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, ‘Defendant States’), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes,” reads the suit, which, because it involves one state suing another, has original jurisdiction in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity,” Paxton added, and went on to call on the high court to “declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted.”

What makes this case favorable for the president and his supporters is that it deals with questions of constitutionality, rather than tackling the subject of voter fraud directly, something the justices on the Supreme Court were likely loath to do. Furthermore, the fact that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction here removes the potential delay of having to go through a lengthy appeals process in lower courts.

The mainstream media has tried its best to sweep this story under the rug. Now that they find themselves forced to cover it due to all the states that have joined the suit and the members of Congress who signed onto the brief, they want only to paint it as ludicrous, as in a CNN article titled “Why this Texas ‘election fraud’ lawsuit is a total and complete joke.”

It remains to be seen who will really have the last laugh when this is all through.



Pennsylvania Will JOIN Texas Lawsuit AGAINST Pennsylvania! This is HUGE!!!


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

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



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

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

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

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


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

Trump to Join Texas Election Lawsuit at the Supreme Court



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



On today’s Jay Sekulow Live, we cover the breaking news that the Supreme Court has ordered Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin to respond to the State of Texas' lawsuit by 3pm tomorrow. (Dec. 10, 2020). This election lawsuit alleges violations of fundamental Constitutional protections and is clearly outcome determinative.

Texas Drops BOMBSHELL Lawsuit Challenging ELECTION as Congress Rejects Biden as President-Elect!!!


Texas Drops a BOMBSHELL Lawsuit Challenging the ELECTION Results as a Congressional Committed Rejects Biden as President-Elect! In this video, we’re going to look at the amazing lawsuit filed by the attorney general of Texas, how it plays into Rudy Giuliani’s strategy for President Trump’s reelection, and how a congressional committee failed to pass a resolution acknowledging Sleepy Joe Biden as president-elect; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

1 2 3 4