As our nations founders were debating what should be included in our Constitution, they included several protection for the citizenry while adding restriction s on the power of the federal government.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Churches in California received a major victory today when the Supreme Court struck down California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ban on indoor worship services. The unsigned decision follow quickly on the heels of a major ruling at Thanksgiving striking down a New York ordinance severely limiting church attendance to as low as 10 people.
The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a California church challenging Newsom’s order. The unsigned order had no dissents as the nation’s highest court tossed out an order from the federal district judge Central District of California, which had upheld Newsom’s restrictions.
The justices vacated the district judge’s ruling and sent the case back down to the lower court for further consideration in light of its ruling in Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, which struck down New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions.
U.S. Supreme Court granted cert and vacated the lower court orders involving the emergency petition of Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry. The Court stated in its order:
“The application for injunctive relief, presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court, is treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, and the petition is granted. The September 2 order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to remand to the District Court for further consideration in light of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U. S. ___ (2020).”
Tuesday, Liberty Counsel filed the final reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding its request for an injunction pending appeal in the churches’ federal lawsuit against California Governor Gavin Newsom’s unconstitutional worship ban and discriminatory treatment. The emergency petition also requested the extraordinary relief that the Court alternatively consider it as a petition for writ of cert before judgment.
Today, the Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the lower court orders, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its ruling last week that granted an injunction pending appeal for churches and synagogues in New York.
The restrictions against places of worship in California are more severe than those in New York. Governor Gavin Newsom’s orders ban ALL in-person worship for 99.1 percent of Californians.
Harvest Rock Church has multiple campuses in California, including in Pasadena, Los Angeles, Irvine and Corona. Harvest International Ministries (HIM) has 162 member churches throughout the state. Irreparable harm is being suffered every day as the churches remain subject to the unconstitutional restrictions, coupled with daily criminal threats, fines, and closure.
The Code Enforcement Division for the City of Pasadena and the Criminal Prosecutor have threatened criminal charges, fines, and closure for being open for worship against the governor’s orders and local health orders. The letters threaten up to one year in prison, daily criminal charges and $1,000 fines against the pastors, staff, and parishioners.
The discrimination has become more obvious and severe in Gov. Newsom’s new “Blueprint” issued on August 28, 2020, which established a system of four Tiers. The “Blueprint” discriminates against religious meetings in churches and places of worship in every Tier. The chart attached to the petition makes this discrimination very clear. For example, the consequence of the sea of purple in the “color-coded executive edict” is that indoor worship services are completely prohibited for 99.1 percent of Californians, including most of Harvest Rock and HIM churches. However, warehouses, big box centers, shopping malls, liquors stores, family entertainment and destination centers, gyms, fitness centers, and museums receive preferential treatment with either no capacity limits or no numerical limits.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court provides great relief for churches and places of worship. The handwriting is now on the wall. The final days of Governor Gavin Newsom’s ‘color-coded executive edicts’ banning worship are numbered and coming to an end. It is past time to end these unconstitutional restrictions on places of worship.”
As Donald J. Trump was preparing to be sworn in as President Of The Unite State on January 20, 2017, members of the FBI, CIA, and the White House were in the process of setting up an, per Peter Strzok, an “insurance policy”.
Following the swearing-in, FBI Director James Comey met with President Trump to tell of accusations he should know about, and the existence of a dossier which would show that his campaign had colluded with Russians to help him get elected.
After meeting with President Trump, Comey contacted the United States Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who initiated the fake news networks to start the attack on Trump knowing bout the dossier.
Regardless of no evidence, United States Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller, to in effect find a crime. After 40 million dollars, and over 2 years of investigations, the final Mueller report concluded no evidence of collusion was discovered.
Shortly after the conclusion of the investigations and after the Democratic party re-took the US House in 2018, the democrats, using one phone between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, voted for impeachment sending the case to the US Senate for trial.
The Senate quickly voted NO, rejecting the bogus charges, ending shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic kicked in.
So here we are, right before the end of year 4 for President Trump’s term, and the DOJ is the next government agency to look into an alleged crime, this time a bribery charge against President Trump.
The Department of Justice is investigating a potential crime, a bribery scheme that allegedly sought to funnel money in the form of a “political contribution” in exchange for a “presidential pardon or reprieve of a sentence.”
The revelation, which was made in court documents that were unsealed on Tuesday in federal court, does not disclose “a timeline of the alleged scheme, or any names of people potentially involved, except that communications between people including at least one lawyer were seized from an office that was raided sometime before the end of this summer,” CNN reported. “No one appears to have been publicly charged with a related crime to date.”
The court documents state that “over fifty digital media devices, including iPhones, iPads, laptops, thumb drives, and computer and external hard drives” were seized that allegedly contained evidence of “criminal activity,” specifically a “secret lobbying scheme” in which unnamed individuals acted as lobbyists to senior White House officials without registering as lobbyists, in accordance with U.S. law, to secure “a pardon or reprieve of sentence.”
“The heavily redacted documents revealed Tuesday do not name the individuals involved or President Donald Trump,” NBC News reported. “They also do not indicate if any White House officials had knowledge of the scheme.”
Trump responded to the report late on Tuesday evening, writing on Twitter: “Pardon investigation is Fake News!”
The Trump haters have been trying to line up charges against, who the left thinks will be, Donald J. Trump, former President, if he has left office on January 20th, 21.
Why many might ask, to me it is simple. To publicly display what actions the establishment will take against those who try to come in and drain the swamp. There are a lot of “Deep Staters” who want to get a pound of Trump’s flesh for his efforts to expose their dirty deeds.
With all the activity taking place today including the Arizona hearings, Las Vegas discovery ruling and fall out from the Georgia rulings to not wipe their voting machines, Sidney Powell made an appearance on the Fox News Network tonight.
In a segment that opened up with General Flynn’s pardon a few days ago, his attorney Sidney Powell was asked about the bogus charges that were brought against him which lead to the need for President Trump to intervene.
In the second part of the interview, Sidney shocked a lot of viewers by sharing that one of her witnesses that witnessed election irregularities was actually beaten up and is in the hospital. This confirms to me and others, there are some high-powered peoples’ toes getting stepped on in these investigations and precautions must be taken NOW.
Powell spoke about the attack while speaking about witnesses needing protection as a reason some are not going public and signing affidavits. Powell said some are in the government, others are in roles that require confidentiality, and that they need protection by the government.
Powell: “They’re gonna lose their job. Their lives have been threatened. Uh, one witness we know of got beaten up and is in the hospital. There have been all kinds of repercussions against people who have come forward to tell the truth. And no, Democrats don’t like whistleblowers, they only like liars who claim they’re whistleblowers.”
Following is the second part of the interview showing Powell’s comments.
This explains why Sidney has been working behind the scenes and I hope she can find protection and guarantees for these witnesses. Obviously, their testimony must be crucial enough to warrant violence as seen with this one witness so far.
Unlike the GOP leaders in the state legislatures in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, The Chairman of the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee Ed McBroom says he will not allow President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani to testify on Tuesday.
Grassroots Republicans are working feverishly organizing a hearing Tuesday inside the Binsfeld Office Building in Lansing, Michigan.
The hearing will focus on the massive fraud witnessed by dozens of Republican observers on November 3rd and 4th at the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan.
Most of the testimony will focus on the Detroit absentee ballot counting at the TCF plus overvotes in precincts throughout Wayne County. An overvote occurs when there are more votes cast than registered voters, impossible but happened all over the county.
Only in-person or written testimony will be accepted.
Michigan State Senator Ed McBroom (R- Vulcan) was quoted by liberal Jonathan Oosting:
An hour later McBroom softened a little, but he kept the caveat that someone from the Trump team could speak, but only if they had first hand knowledge and for 3 minutes.
I expect Rudy to show up and regardless of where he has to set up, the truth will get out. In the America I grew up in, and hopefully tomorrow, Giuliani will present his case, via the witnesses and other affidavits, sitting in front of the committee.
We never want to shy away from seeking the truth, even if a few people have a virus, with a 99.98 percent survival rate, in the community.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, created to be the go-to government organization to help the US navigate through outbreaks, including pandemics.
The institute has been lead by Dr. Anthony Fauci since 1984 and in a Biden administration, he would play an important role in the new administration.
Joe Biden’s first act as the assumptive president-elect was to urge all Americans to wear masks, and to announce the formation of a new coronavirus advisory board that will consider a national mask mandate as one of his first executive actions as president amid rising cases and deaths.
Not surprising coming from Joe. Biden has said several times he supports the idea of a national mask mandate but acknowledges it would likely face legal challenges.
This reminds me of Barak Hussein Obama promoting the idea of DACA, but then saying the president can’t just write immigration law to give the grown children who came into the US illegally protections.
Well after a few attempts to get something passed, but failed, Obama came up with an Executive Order workaround, and 6 years later DACA is still protecting the group, without the risk of them getting deported.
I am sure the Biden team would hope the SCOTUS would rule in their favor accepting the argument that the pandemic is an emergency and thus citizens can be compelled by the government when needed.
Fauci Now Says People Who Already Recovered From Covid-19 Should Get Vaccine!
You just read that Dr. Anthony Fauci would have no problem requiring all Americans to wear a mask. Fauci is also advising Americans who have already had the coronavirus – or suspect that they’ve had it – to take the coming vaccines for it anyway.
Fauci said in a recent interview, that he doubts previously infected individuals will be restricted from accessing the vaccines, and that he has no reason to believe that taking the vaccine will be of harm to those who have already had COVID-19.
“I don’t think that should be a concern at all,” Fauci said, encouraging those Americans to take the vaccines once available.
Two manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna, have completed their trials and found their vaccine candidates are roughly 95% effective at preventing illness.
“I believe they should” take the vaccine, Fauci said, addressing concerns among individuals who have already recovered from the infection. “The final decision is going to be awaiting both FDA input, because we know that there was a certain percentage of the people who were in the original vaccine trial that had evidence they had been previously infected. So we need to see what the outcome of those individuals was.”
Fauci’s view in un-American and I am sure would end up in litigation.
Talk about Big Brother. I don’t believe half the country will go for a mask mandate, and if pushed do not expect the 5-4 conservative Supreme Court to rule in their favor either.
Well folks, General Flynn is back, and jumping into the fight to stop the steal from taking place.
Following a Presidential Pardon he received a few days ago, General Flynn has come out fighting mad tweeting and doing interviews.
General Flynn joined Lt. General McInerney and conservative activist Mary Fanning in his first interview on WVW-TV Saturday night.
General Michael Flynn took up most of the interview shedding light on the Trump election strategy in combatting the massive and obvious fraud in the 2020 election.
Flynn repeated during the interview that President Trump has a clear path to victory, “We have clear, clear paths to winning for this president… If we don’t correct what is happening right now over the next couple of weeks then I hate to really think what will happen in our country going forward into the latter part of December and into the next month. I do not believe for a second that the country will accept Vice President Biden as the next president. “
General Flynn added, “I was asked today 1 to 10 who will be the next president. I said Donald Trump. Hands down!… I believe we’re going to win.”
During the interview General Michael Flynn announced Attorney Sidney Powell filed two amendments today.
General Flynn: Today they just filed another amendment to those in Georgia and back again in Michigan. And I think the next priorities are looking at some of these other states where there’s some big challenges.
In the crazy world of politics, almost anything can happen. Our nation’s founders were quite the thinkers and even set up future generations to deal with contested elections at the state level. If neither candidate gets a majority of the Electoral College delegates, the decision is then left up to Congress.
Think about this, a presidential candidate can win the popular vote, have more Electoral College Delegates but not a majority, and still lose. How is that possible you might ask?
The US Constitution, U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1, clause 3
“…and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President…”
Three times in American history the US House of Representatives voted and selected the president. Election years 1800, 1825, and 1877.
Kyle Bekker tweeted out a summary of a CNN broadcast explaining how President Trump could lose the election but still stay in office.
Here is a summary of how CNN and other lefties believed this could take place. I don’t believe President Trump lost the election, but it was stolen via fraud, but for the sake of this article, I will go with Joe Biden won the election and voter fraud did not take place.
President Trump is leading in the swing states on election day.
2. As the massive number of mail-in ballots start coming in, millions after election day, Trump’s leads evaporate in every swing state.
3. Trump contest the election results suing the states to overturn the elections due to voter fraud, voting machines manipulating the counts, and GOP observers not being allowed to view the mail-in ballots.
4. Trump’s legal team presents evidence to the swing states with GOP controlled legislatures, asking them to pick the Electoral College delegates since their states elections final numbers can not be trusted.
5. Three or more of the state legislatures decide to pick the delegates who will vote for President Trump instead of using their state’s popular vote count.
6. On Monday, December 14th – Electors meet in their respective states and cast their votes. This vote is, constitutionally, what determines the next president.
7. Mr. Biden’s 306 electoral votes would be adjusted to the actual votes received dropping him below the 270 needed for victory.
8. On Wednesday January 6th, the US House Of Representatives picks the winner since neither candidate ended with a minimum of 270 votes.
9. Since the GOP has the majority in 3 more states, one vote from each state would counted, re-electing President Trump 26 to 23.
Finally, a judge who considered the plain language of the Constitution rules in favor of the Trump administration.
After several defeats in Pennsylvania, Trump’s team argued that the PA Governor and Secretary of State did not have the authority to extend the mail-in ballot deadline to 3 days after the election date set by the PA state legislature of November 3rd. All ballots including mail-in are required by state law to be in by the close of election day, period.
Tonight Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough ruled that the Pennsylvania preliminary ELECTION CERTIFICATION injunction was PROPERLY ISSUED and should be upheld.
McCullough added this, “Additionally, petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed.”
Today’s ruling follows up on the order Judge McCullough issued on Wednesday.
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania — A Pennsylvania appeals court judge, Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough, ordered state officials on Wednesday to halt any further steps toward certifying election results, a day after Gov. Tom Wolf said he had certified Democrat Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.
Judge McCullough issued the order and set a hearing for Friday. It wasn’t immediately clear if she intended to hold up the certification of state and local contests on the ballot or interrupt the scheduled Dec. 14 meeting of the state’s 20 electors.
Twitter followers were quick to announce the beaking news.
The Internet up until the 21st century consisted of mainly blogs, forums, and random information found via Yahoo and other search engines. Myspace had become the leader in social networking yet the landscape was open for others to fill the void for all age groups to connect.
In February 2004, in Cambridge, MA, an awkward Harvard college student, Mark Zuckerburg, launched The Facebook to connect students on multiple universities.
On March 21st, 2006 in San Francisco, CA, Twitter launched a micro-blog to connect those who wanted to see others’ limited posts, in order to generate community discussions.
With their technical knowledge, these two companies morphed into almost fixtures of the web attracting billions of users globally.
As anomalies in the fast-changing Internet landscape, the liabilities that Facebook and Twitter were liable for under current laws were enormous and quickly found protections through the US Congress.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act
Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.
Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do.
In effect Free Speech was protected by preventing these social networking platforms was being liable for the speech posted on their platforms.
Fast forward to 2020, and things are changing rapidly again.
The friction is, the left in the USA wants to modify the Constitution to accommodate their worldview.
Our founders valued individual rights so they passed the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This year, we just watched Facebook and Twitter suppress, delete, define, and hide information they deemed to not be appropriate on their platforms. Not a violation of the 1A, but definitely a violation of protections included in section 230. The US Senate has been preparing the groundwork to remove this protection as both companies are now acting as publishers.
What is scary for a majority of Americans, is that a Biden administration would not only keep 203 in place but would also attempt to do to the general public what FB & Twitter are doing online.
Now Twitter is ratcheting up their censorship and placing far-left activists in rolls to silence speech they deem “hateful” and/ or untrue.
Tech news site Protocol published a profile recently of Christine Su, the senior product manager for conversational safety at Twitter. Su’s approach to the platform’s censorship will focus on “transformative and procedural justice.”
Tech news site Protocol recently published an article titled “How a Young, Queer Asian-American Businesswoman is Rethinking User Safety at Twitter,” which profiles Christine Su, Twitter’s senior product manager for conversational safety. Su describes herself as an “activist-entrepreneur” who spent six-year running a startup called PastureMap that aimed to help ranchers plan climate-friendly grazing practices.
Protocol outlined Su’s aims at Twitter, writing:
A woman with an MBA and a master’s in land use and agriculture might seem like an odd choice, but she’s been interested in mission-driven tech work for years. It’s what drove her commitment to PastureMap and then her decision to join Twitter. “As a queer women of color who is an Asian American in tech in rural America, that experience is a very intersectional one. I’ve had plenty of experiences moving through spaces where I wanted more safety,” she said. After years of worrying for her sister’s safety (she’s a journalist covering sensitive topics in the Middle East and now China) as well as her own, Su knew she wanted to focus on building safety and inclusion for people who are the most vulnerable.
Su’s goals sit at the heart of what could become a very different Twitter one day, if — and it remains a very big conditional — the company is serious about the changes it’s been signaling over the last year. Women and people from marginalized groups have documented disproportionate levels of abuse and harassment on the platform for years, and, until recently, Twitter did little to change that. Its content rules stayed stagnant, and time and again, people reported incidences when abuse went ignored and harassment continued unabated. But Twitter has bowed to recent political pressure, expressing clear interest in stricter rules for what people are allowed to do and say.