THE SUPREME COURT - ONE MORE PACK OF GAMER LAWYERS TO SERVE THE SPECIAL INTERESTS AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S RULING CLASS OF PARA * SITE LAWYERSS
BUILDING THE SOROS - DEMOCRAT PARTY'S FASCIST CORPORATE STATE
- Colorado: Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said, "...the all-Democrat Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group's scheme to interfere in an election..."
Will the Supreme Court Let This Crisis Go to Waste?
Has the Supreme Court noticed that we’ve crossed a legal Rubicon? The Constitution — that thing the Court is supposed to defend — is becoming less relevant by the day because the left has decided that our mutual pact of self-governance doesn’t apply to leftists. They have weaponized our government against us — using it to surveil, silence, harass, and steal from us. Our own government is even arguing that the Constitution should not be a constraint on its operations — which is precisely what its purpose is.
Are the Supreme Court Justices beginning to realize that we are in crisis? Two recent cases indicate that they are awakening to that reality.
In Fischer v. United States, the court is considering the validity of using a financial statute to charge January 6 trespassers with obstruction of an official proceeding. During questioning, Justice Gorsuch asked, “Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?” He was referring to Democrat Jamaal Bowman, who pulled a fire alarm to prevent a congressional vote yet was not charged with “obstructing an official proceeding.” That was Gorsuch’s way of asking if something other than party affiliation determines who will face the greater jeopardy of obstruction charges. It was a sarcastic illustration of the decidedly unequal system of justice the DoJ is currently practicing.
In Trump v. United States, the Court is considering whether Donald Trump has immunity for actions taken while he was president. The DoJ argued that the motive for presidential actions should determine whether immunity applies and that the discretion and good motivations of DoJ attorneys should be trusted to make that determination (try not to laugh). Justice Alito questioned the wisdom of that argument, asking if the DoJ should be trusted, “given its history of abusive partisan prosecution.” That is about as close as a Supreme Court justice will ever come to telling a government solicitor general that the latter has squandered his last ounce of credibility.
It appears that the Supreme Court justices are becoming aware that our justice system is now a tangle of broken constitutional promises and inconsistent legal decisions. But do they realize that they helped create this mess?
When pundits complained about inconsistent decisions from the courts, and the obvious political biases at play, Chief Justice Roberts responded,
We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.
Roberts was ignoring the early warning signs that a cancer was destroying our republic and advising the public to “ignore the lump, it’s nothing.” But it’s not “nothing.” Our republic was being eaten away by a malignant leftist tumor. Roberts wishing it were otherwise didn’t make it otherwise.
When Democrat party operatives used hoaxes to attack a president and a nominee for the Supreme Court (Brett Kavanaugh), the justices should have realized the extent of our problem. But as the election of 2020 approached, they seemed determined to continue “business as usual.”
When state election officials used the 2020 pandemic as justification to change election rules, several organizations filed lawsuits claiming that only the state legislatures are constitutionally authorized to make such changes. But the Supreme Court declined to hear the cases. Since the election hadn’t happened yet, nobody had been harmed; hence, there were no damages to be adjudicated.
After the election, in which an unprecedented number of irregularities occurred, Texas (and several other states) petitioned the Supreme Court to adjudicate the issues. But the court ruled that since the irregularities hadn’t occurred in Texas, citizens of Texas were not harmed, and the state therefore lacked standing to file suit.
When audits of the election began to reveal problems, organizations again asked the Court to engage. But the Supreme Court declined again, simply saying that the election had been certified, and the arguments were therefore moot.
I’m sure the justices thought they were being prudent and were protecting the reputation of the Court by staying as far away from a controversial election as possible. If so, they placed protection of the Court over protection of the Court’s source of authority — the Constitution. It was shortsighted — as we see in hindsight.
Avoiding the problems of 2020 only created much bigger trouble for 2024. According to Rasmussen Reports, 1 in 5 people who voted by mail in 2020 admit to cheating. Now few Americans trust our elections.
A lack of legitimacy didn’t stop the Democrats from working toward political hegemony. The Democrats used their control of the Legislative and Executive Branches to attempt “fundamental transformation” of all three branches of government. They came within two Senate votes of changing the nature of our government for decades — if not forever. Had Senators Manchin and Sinema not balked, the Dems would have packed the Supreme Court, added two liberal states to the Union, and nationalized elections.
During all of this, the Supreme Court’s power to stand against “fundamental transformation” was waning. When the Court attempted to constrain Executive overreach (i.e., student loan forgiveness), the president simply ignored it. Democrat strategists are even arguing that “Popular Constitutionalism” is a legitimate way to interpret the Constitution. They insist that the president has the authority to interpret the Constitution and may read into it whatever he wishes. They say the president can decide that the Dobbs decision was incorrect and declare that the Constitution provides an inalienable right to abortion. “Popular Constitutionalism” is a giant red light that if the justices stay out of our current political civil war, the Court may become its first casualty.
We are at a constitutional cliff. The Court aided our descent into banana republic status when it chose restraint over aggressive defense of the Constitution. Should the Democrats consolidate control over the government in the next election, there is nothing in their behavior arguing that they will refrain from:
- adding four leftist senators,
- packing the Supreme Court with leftist finders of penumbras and emanations,
- arresting their political and ideological adversaries,
- ignoring all limitations imposed by the Constitution, and
- rendering the Supreme Court irrelevant for all time.
The Supreme Court needs to make radical course corrections now, because it failed to make minor adjustments when it would have mattered.
The Court’s desire to exercise restraint is an admirable judicial philosophy — in a well functioning republic. When a car is running well, minor maintenance is the only appropriate action. But when the car is on fire, it doesn’t need an oil change. It needs emergency action.
Do the Supremes realize that the leftists have set our republic on fire? The Court needs to stop looking for excuses for restraint and start looking for opportunities to stop the advance of tyranny. This is the time for bold action — or after November there may be nothing left to defend but ashes. They need to consider that as they deliberate on the cases before them.
John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high-performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a staff writer for the American Free News Network and can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
Image via Pixabay.
Democrats are Silencing Voices of Opposition
The Democrat Party has changed since Harry Truman said this:
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."
'Silencing' has become a way of life for Democrats when they govern. For example, when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, they held a hearing on 'Disinformation and Extremism in the Media.' What prompted the hearing was a letter, written by Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Jerry McNerney (D-CA), to 12 cable and satellite provider companies that carried TV shows ranging from the Food Network to Fox News. The letter began, "Our country's public discourse is plagued by misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories and lies." The representatives were concerned about right-wing media broadcasts, which, they claimed, was spreading 'lies' and 'disinformation.'
One question the committee asked was, "What moral or ethical principles (including those related to journalistic integrity, violence, medical information and public health) do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?"
When Republicans perceived the committee's actions as attempted subversion of the Constitution and the silencing of news of which Democrats didn't approve, Congresswoman Eshoo said she had no intention of proposing legislation to silence conservative news outlets, that she was asking 'strong, important questions.'
Democrats don't like conservative news organizations or what they say, especially things favorable to Donald Trump. They consider it disinformation and/or extreme speech. Democrats have an agenda to silence conservative voices. They get private companies to do their dirty work, then say, "Our hands are clean" and "We didn't abridge anybody's First Amendment rights."
Democrats are 'committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition.' They have tried to silence Trump by keeping him off ballots. The primary reason cited was that he violated Section 3 of the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which bars any individual from holding federal or state office who has "engaged in insurrection." The 'insurrection,' for which Trump was neither charged nor convicted, took place on January 6, 2021.
- Colorado: Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said, "...the all-Democrat Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group's scheme to interfere in an election..."
Arizona: U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes ruled that (Republican presidential candidate) John Castro's challenge had no 'standing' because Castro was 'not genuinely competing' with Trump for votes in the GOP primary.- California: Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis wrote a letter to Secretary of State Shirley Weber urging her to 'explore every legal option' to remove Trump from the ballot.
- Maine: Secretary of State Shenna Bellows removed Trump from its primary ballot.
- Michigan: the state's Court of Appeals ruled the Republican Party controls who appears on its primary ballot.
- Minnesota: the state's Supreme Court ruled the Republican Party decides which candidates appear on its primary ballot.
- Rhode Island: An attempt to remove Trump from the Republican primary ballot failed in Democrat Rhode Island.
Lawsuits have been filed in other states as well to keep him off state ballots: Alaska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Vermont, and Virginia.
Fortunately SCOTUS stepped in and ended the nonsense.
On the evening of January 24, on which Donald Trump won the Iowa caucus, MSNBC anchor Rachael Maddow silenced Trump's voice. She refused to air Trump's speech after his landslide win, saying MSNBC couldn't air "lies."
Maddow claimed it was 'not an easy decision' and that MSNBC and other news networks were interested in telling [a Democrat version of] the truth. "But there is a cost to us, as a news organization, of knowingly broadcasting untrue things. That is a fundamental truth of our business and who we are. And so, his remarks, tonight, will not air here live."
The 'Hush Money' trial, in which Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, a felony punishable by up to four years in prison, is being prosecuted by a Democrat, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (who has made this a federal case) and (conveniently) a former Biden Justice Department official. Another silence factor is that Alvin Bragg has no authority to enforce federal law. Trump also had to deal with a lawsuit brought by another New York Democrat, Attorney General Letitia James. He faces charges brought by Democrat district attorney Fani Willis. Trump also faces two indictments from the Biden Justice Department's chosen Trump prosecutor, Jack Smith.
In the 'Hush Money' trial, which began on March 25, Democrat Judge Juan M. Merchan cited Trump's prior comments about him and others in the case in granting the prosecution's request for what it termed a 'narrowly tailored' gag order barring Trump from making certain out-of-court statements. Prosecutors cited what they called Trump's 'long history of making public and inflammatory remarks' about people involved in his legal cases when it asked for the gag order.
Further damaging Trump's ability to campaign and raise funds, Judge Merchan ruled that Trump must be in court when it's in session. Merchan gave a warning "...that if Trump disrupts the proceedings, he could face jail time."
In what has to be the greatest case of chutzpah ever, Marchan said, "There’s no agenda here. We want to follow the law. We want justice to be done. That's all we want." He also said he is certain of his "ability to be fair and impartial." He said that despite the facts he's contributed to Democrats and his daughter is a party consultant.
Democrat operatives have done a very good job by bringing a total of 88 felony counts against Trump. They have managed to put Trump in a box designed to (a) cripple Trump's ability to campaign; (b) bankrupt or force him to use campaign funds for legal bills; and (c) erode Trump's appeal to swing voters who might be less likely to vote for him if he's convicted.
Democrats, learn from Harry Truman. You're going 'down the path of increasingly repressive measures.' What's being perpetrated today is exactly what Truman forecast over seventy years ago. Does ideology cloud your vision and thinking so much you can't see what's going down? Your voices will be silenced next, and it won't be Donald Trump doing the silencing.
Warren Beatty has created a web page that facilitates quick responses and/or comments to anything you consider outrageous: quick-rant.atwebpages.com
Image: RawPixel.com
Soros and the Holocaust
Politico reported last Sunday that Biden bankroller and longtime Democrat mega-donor George Soros, who is of Hungarian Jewish ancestry, financially enables ongoing campus mass-agitations bellowing for the utter destruction of Israel, the world's only Jewish state.
That might seem counterintuitive, to phrase it gently. But Soros's present fanning of anti-Semitic college flames is consistent with his boyhood collaboration with Nazis who sent Jewish prisoners to genocidal deaths.
The amoral left-wing billionaire detailed his abhorrent collaboration during a 1998 interview with CBS reporter Steve Kroft, in a broadcast of that network's 60 Minutes.
A transcript records the exchange:
KROFT: "My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted [Christian] grandson. Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews."
SOROS: "Yes. That's right. Yes."
KROFT: "I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?"
SOROS: "No. Not at all, not at all. Maybe as a child, you don't see the connection. But it was -- created no problem, at all."
KROFT: "No feeling of guilt?"
SOROS: "No."
KROFT: "For example: 'I'm Jewish, and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?"
SOROS: "Well, of course I could be on the other side, or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets. That if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would be taking it away, anyhow."
In a 2023 Jerusalem Post essay, Larry Pfeffer observed "By his insensitive logic, German, Japanese, and Russian soldiers could also have exclaimed that they don't need to regret raping women, since if they didn't, then someone else would have."
Recall Soros's unconscionable Third Reich-era collaboration -- and his current bankrolling of campus anti-Israel rioting and Biden's reelection campaign -- when next you hear Democrats smear Trump as Hitler, and compare MAGA to Nazis.
Image: Niccolò Caranti
Comments
Post a Comment