Censoring HCQ, Zithromax and the Cure For Covid By Kelleigh Nelson|July 31st, 2020

kelleigh-nelson-nwv-96x96
Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Previously, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. Email: Proverbs133@bellsouth.net


Censoring HCQ, Zithromax and the Cure For Covid

By Kelleigh Nelson|July 31st, 2020
Kelleigh Nelson

Censoring HCQ, Zithromax and the Cure For Covid

The Communists’ chief purpose is to destroy every form of independence—independent work, independent action, independent property, independent thought, an independent mind, or an independent man. Conformity, alikeness, servility, submission and obedience are necessary to establish a Communist slave-state. —Ayn Rand

Censorship reflects society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. —Potter Stewart, Supreme Court Justice

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. —Salman Rushdie

Quite obviously, Hillary loving Dr. Anthony Fauci would prefer to make beaucoup bucks on his Remdesivir which is unproven to cure Covid-19 than promote a 65-year-old drug that has proven to be effective throughout the world in curing the Wuhan virus. His purely political hatred of those who are promoting Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Azithromycin smacks of monetary prerequisites of his approval. Despite the fact that his National Institute of Health approved HCQ in 2005 for Covid, his leftist politics refuse to admit that lives all over the world are saved by HCQ and Z-Pacs as so many physicians have testified to.

President Trump is hated for promoting HCQ and for taking it as a preventative, despite physicians who have said it works for both. Facebook, Google and Twitter have deleted the truth about HCQ. Even attorney Sidney Powell who retweeted President Trump’s tweet about HCQ was removed from twitter as was Donald Trump Jr. Free speech is a core of a free society. So, are we free? Not hardly.

Silencing truth.

Hydroxychloroquine

Doctors Back Trump

Physicians in America have taken a stand and are backing the president’s recommendation to use HCQ to treat Coronavirus. Across America doctors are standing behind the president and announcing that it’s time for America to reopen. A group of doctors standing before the Supreme Court building in Washington DC, claimed there is no reason to keep the country locked down when we already have a cure for the virus…Hydroxychloroquine. Dr. Simone Gold, an ER physician in Los Angeles for 20 years, who appeared with several other physicians said, “If you’ve gotten the virus, there is treatment and that’s what we’re here to tell you.” Dr. Gold said, “The American people aren’t hearing from all the experts across the country.

After this video aired and was viewed millions of times, Dr. Gold was summarily fired from her job. She has hired attorney L. Lin Wood to defend her.

Americans are being forced to take advice from doctors who have allowed their political bias against Donald Trump to stop them from treating patients they have the ability to cure. Of course, we’re speaking about the appointed head of the Coronavirus Task Force, VP Pence, whose chosen expert was Dr. Anthony Fauci.

(Koch Dark Money operative, Marc Short is Chief of Staff to VP Pence and he owns stocks that could conflict with Coronavirus response.)

Dr. James Todaro said, “If it seems like there’s an orchestrated attack against HCQ, it’s because there is. When have you ever heard of a medication generating this degree of controversy? HCQ is a 65-year-old medication that has been listed as the World Health Organization’s (WHO) safest medications for years and it’s over the counter in many countries. What we’re seeing is a lot of misinformation.” HCQ has been prescribed to hundreds of millions of people all over the world for over a half a century with no side effects. It has never been a controversial medicine until President Trump suggested it might be used to help Coronavirus patients and the Deep State went ballistic.

President Trump tweeted a copy of the doctors’ video which went viral with over 14 million views. Nigerian physician, Stella Immanuel is a primary care physician from Houston, Texas and her video alone reached 20 million on Facebook before it was removed.

Video Here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/pZV6XlNsG7av/

Twitter, Google, Facebook and other media giants rushed to delete all traces of these important videos from the internet. Dr. Simone Gold said,“Our website host, which is Squarespace, has just completely and arbitrarily shut down our website, claiming a violation of their terms of service. This is crazy. We are a group of doctors advocating for a better understanding of COVID-19 and its available treatment options. This is outrageous. We’re not subverting anything. We’re not purposely countering medical ethics. We’re not making anybody sick. We’re advocating for a better understanding of COVID-19. They take us down.”

Silencing truth.

Dr. Gold said, “We implore you to hear this because this message has been silenced. There are many thousands of physicians who have been silenced from telling the American people the good news about the situation, that we can manage the virus, carefully and intelligently, but we cannot live with this spiderweb of fear that is constricting our country.” She said that doctors are not being allowed to prescribe HCQ, and that if they do, the pharmacists can overrule the physician’s diagnosis and medications.

She is absolutely right, fear is what Fauci, Birx and Redfield have promoted and sold to the American public from the very beginning, and it appears to be purposeful. Dr. Fauci, WHO and the promoters of Remdesivir decided they wanted their drug to be the cureall for all patients of Covid. Why? Because they’d make beaucoup bucks off it, but it hasn’t proven to be nearly as effective as the older and cheaper HCQ.

Our economy is in shambles and democratic governors and mayors are purposely keeping businesses shut down because it’s an election year, and to hell with the people they represent.

The physicians all explained that Dr. Fauci is citing flawed studies and the negative reports on HCQ involve treating patients with lethal doses of the drug, something no physician should ever be doing. The physicians stated that Dr. Fauci has never treated a Covid-19 patient himself.

They added that with a cure like HCQ available, there is no need for social distancing, there’s no need for masks, there’s no need to keep our children home from school (other than keeping them from the common core and BLM rot) and there’s certainly no need to keep our country or the economy locked down.

Dr. Bob Hamilton stated that it was important for all people present during their talks that America’s children are not really the ones who are driving the infection; it is being driven by older individuals. He believes children can go back to school without fear. Dr. Hamilton stated, “There has not been one documented case of Covid being transferred from a student to a teacher in the world.” He explained that teachers’ unions are demanding conditions to return to school, some of which are totally outlandish and unrelated to the virus. In Los Angeles, California, the teacher’s union is demanding more money by defunding the police and calling for Medicare for all.

Doctors have warned that the effects of the lockdown are far worse than the virus, including a 600 percent increase in suicides.

The doctors said the biggest problem for them has been the government blocking doctors from treating patients they have the ability to cure right now. Dr. Hamilton said, “I think the important thing is we need to not act out of fear. We need to act out of science, we need to do it and get it done.”

Silencing truth.

George-Fareed

Saving Lives

Dr. George Fareed of El Centro, California, a 1970 honors graduate of Harvard, sent a letter to President Trump and the Task Force. He has used the HCQ, Azithromycin and Zinc cocktail to cure his patients and says it has kept them out of the hospital. He said, “Not only have I seen outstanding results with this approach, I have not seen any patient exhibit serious side-effects. To be clear — this drug has been used as an anti-malarial and to treat systemic lupus erythematosus as well as rheumatoid arthritis, and has over a 50-year track record for safety. It is shocking that it only now is being characterized as a dangerous drug.”

“Moreover, I am in my seventies, and I (as well as some other older physicians in the hospital) use hydroxychloroquine and zinc as prophylaxis. None of us have contracted the disease despite our high exposure to COVID patients nor have we experienced any side-effects.”

Hydroxychloroquine is the Key

It’s making a comeback from Lancet’s and Fauci’s false reports. Doctors all over the world are using it and their patients are recovering. When given early, not one patient dies, when taken as a prophylactic, it prevents physicians from contracting Covid from their patients. It’s cheap, it’s plentiful and it’s been around for over six decades, and Fauci and his gang don’t like it. Why? Because it’s all about money. The more money he can put in the pockets and his cohorts and himself, the happier he is, and to hell with the many lives that can be saved with the cheap drugs already available.

A Michigan hospital study says: “Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients. Treatment with HCQ cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with Covid-19, and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.

“Our analysis shows that using hydroxychloroquine helped saves lives,” said neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Kalkanis, CEO, Henry Ford Medical Group and Senior Vice President and Chief Academic Officer of Henry Ford Health System. “As doctors and scientists, we look to the data for insight. And the data here is clear that there was benefit to using the drug as a treatment for sick, hospitalized patients.”

So why the hatred of this life saving cocktail of drugs?

There are doctors all over the country, who are singing the praises of this drug, but there is a conspiracy of silence.The hydroxychloroquine cocktail, azithromycin, (Z-Pak) and zincwould solve some of the very basic problems that we’re now facing. It’s also a preventative. It would prevent hospitalizations. It keeps hospitals and ICUs from being overrun with Covid-19 patients, and it keeps patients off the deadly ventilators where 90% die after being on a ventilator long term. It apparently can be used early on in hospitalization to prevent patients from requiring ventilators, and reduces the length of a hospital stay.

Yet there’s literally no desire to use this cheap drug. America has lost 150,000 people to this flu-like virus. We lost so many during the H1N1 virus that we stopped counting, but we didn’t wear masks everywhere, we didn’t close schools, we didn’t keep six feet apart and we didn’t close the economy, yet more allegedly died in 2009-2010 under the Obama presidency than have died with this Wuhan virus under Donald Trump’s presidency.The CDC estimates that influenza has resulted in between 9 million to 45 million illnesses, between 140,000 to 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 to 61,000 deaths annually since 2010, but we never donned masks.

Silencing truth.

Nursing Home Deaths

Governors of five states: Andrew Cuomo of New York, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Gavin Newsom of California, Phil Murphy of New Jersey, and Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania put Covid patients in nursing homes and the virus spread rapidly to the elderly population with co-morbidities.

At least 62,000 residents and workers have died from the coronavirus at nursing homes and other long-term care facilities for older adults in the United States, according to a New York Times database. As of July 30, the virus has infected more than 362,000 people at some 16,000 facilities. Had they been given the cheap drug as a preventative, perhaps most of these older Americans would not have died alone.

Are these governors guilty of murder?

Conclusion

President Trump was lied to, our economy did not need to be shut down. Masks are to keep healthcare workers from contaminating open wounds of patients. They do little to prevent viruses. Healthy people are never quarantined. Distancing of six feet apart has no scientific authority whatsoever; it was born in a high school student’s science project. Had we remained open, and sheltered only the vulnerable, most likely we would have had her immunity within 40 to 70 days.

Thousands of Americans have died needlessly, which plays into the United Nations Agenda 2030 of decimating the world’s population. Yes, China is responsible, but more than China, the collateral damage to Americans from the shutdown is far greater than the damage done by the Wuhan virus. And that damage, which is still going on, was brought to us by Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, Dr. Redfield and the Democratic Party.

© 2020 Kelleigh Nelson – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Kelleigh Nelson: proverbs133@bellsouth.net

print
Click Here for mass emailing

Share This Article
FacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWhatsappGoogle+TumblrPinterestVkEmail
About the Author: Kelleigh Nelson

Kelleigh Nelson has been researching the Christian right and their connections to the left, the new age, and cults since 1975. Formerly an executive producer for three different national radio talk show hosts, she was adept at finding and scheduling a variety of wonderful guests for her radio hosts. She has owned her own wholesale commercial bakery since 1990. Previously, Kelleigh was marketing communications and advertising manager for a fortune 100 company. Born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, she was a Goldwater girl with high school classmate, Hillary Rodham, in Park Ridge, Illinois. Kelleigh is well acquainted with Chicago politics and was working in downtown Chicago during the 1968 Democratic convention riots. Email: Proverbs133@bellsouth.net

Lawyer’s sexual harassment was ‘monstrous and inhuman,’

sexharasssquare332pixels
sexual harassment concept with man and women (Image from Shutterstock.com)

Lawyer’s sexual harassment was ‘monstrous and inhuman,’ lawsuit alleges
By Debra Cassens Weiss
July 30, 2020, 2:07 pm CDT

A sexual harassment lawsuit filed against a Kentucky lawyer claims that he sexually harassed two employees with “outrageous and intolerable” conduct, leading one of them to threaten to cut off his exposed penis.

The lawsuit accuses Corbin, Kentucky, lawyer Shane Romines of fondling the employees, sending them “perverse and beyond obscene” videos of himself, and requiring one of them to perform oral sex. The plaintiffs are a former receptionist and legal assistant at the law firm.

The Louisville Courier Journal and the Times-Tribune have coverage; the Kentucky Trial Court Review’s Facebook page links to the July 28 complaint.

Romines denied the allegations, telling the Louisville Courier Journal that the claims “will prove to be untrue.”

The suit alleges that Romines allowed the receptionist to keep her $22,000-per-year job in exchange for his “monstrous and inhuman behaviors.”

Romines also made clear to the legal assistant that he expected her to “be friendly” and loyal if she expected to keep her job, according to the suit.

The legal assistant put up with Romines exposing himself until March 10, when he “flopped out his partially erect penis between her penholder and stapler and started shaking it, saying, ‘Just give it a little touch, c’mon, just a little touch,’” according the suit.

“Scared, shaken and physically ill, but at the end of her rope, [the employee] picked up her letter opener and said, ‘Or, like Lorena Bobbitt, I can cut it right off,’ ” the suit says.

After that, Romines stopped giving work to the legal assistant, “ghosted her and hired someone to replace her,” the suit says.

The two employees reached out to each other May 1 and learned that they were both victims, the suit says. They took sick leave and never returned. After the employees left, Romines called them each “a gold digger and slut,” according to the suit.

The suit alleges sexual harassment, retaliation, constructive discharge and infliction of emotional distress.

Romines is a personal injury lawyer with the Copeland & Romines Law Office. His uses the slogan “In pain? Call Shane!”

The woke war on objectivity hits the federal judiciary by Jerome Marcus

sullivanflynn

The woke war on objectivity hits the federal judiciary
by Jerome Marcus | July 24, 2020 04:25 PM

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-woke-war-on-objectivity-hits-the-federal-judiciary

The Michael Flynn case has opened a new front in the woke war on objectivity: Within the federal judiciary, we now have judges taking sides in the cases before them. It’s a development directly at war with the political philosophy that animates our Constitution. It would, if left unchecked, destroy the neutrality of the federal courts. If that were to go, the judiciary’s legitimacy and public respect for its dictates would be destroyed.

When the Justice Department decided to agree with Flynn that his prosecution was unfounded and joined in his motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him, presiding Judge Emmet Sullivan refused. Instead, he appointed another lawyer, who had already gone on public record opposing dismissal, to “advise” the court whether Flynn should be prosecuted even after the prosecutor chose to end the case. The adviser later came through with a 70-page brief accusing the Justice Department of cronyism and corruption.

Flynn appealed, and the Court of Appeals held the judge had no authority to do anything other than what the prosecutor and the defendant had jointly agreed upon. He could not, the court held, take a side in the case or seek a resolution unwanted by either of the actual parties.

APP-121318-Emmet-G-Sullivan

Now, Sullivan has doubled down on his insistence that he need not be neutral: He has, as if he were a party to the case, filed a motion in the court of appeals asking that its decision be vacated and that the entire District of Columbia appellate bench rehears the matter. In so doing, he has dropped all pretense of neutrality and revealed his desire to steer the criminal case against Flynn, rather than presiding over it as a neutral figure who interprets and applies the law.

So why isn’t it the case that … if the government makes a considered but racist decision that it just does not want to have a white officer stand trial for excessive force on a black victim that the District Court can deny the motion and then the political chips can fall where they may, and perhaps under pressure from the public or Congress or whatever, the District Court may not be able itself to force government to prosecute the case that maybe through operation of the legislative branch or other pressures from the public and the media…a new prosecutor is appointed and the case proceeds?

Like Sullivan, the judge in Wilkins’s example is not a neutral decisor. He is on the political ramparts and inviting others to join him there.

How would this work in practice? A motion for dismissal of an indictment, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), would be denied by a judge who distrusts the prosecutor and believes the decision to dismiss is animated by impermissible considerations. Many people now believe that virtually every decision made by the Trump administration is driven by racism. Perhaps the judge before whom our Rule 48(a) motion is pending is such a person. So the judge writes an opinion, denouncing the effort by the prosecution to dismiss the case and making whatever allegations about the prosecutor’s motivation the judge finds persuasive. The judge has life tenure after all; he can say whatever he wants. Such a ruling isn’t appealable. Then the fun starts.

“Pressure from the public” is brought to bear. “The media,” who may share the judge’s hostility to the prosecutor or the prosecutor’s boss (the president) do their part to amplify the judge’s allegations in newspaper stories, interviews, talk shows, and late-night monologues. Sympathetic members of Congress join the effort. Most importantly, an election is never too far away. Elections can produce a new president, and that’s how you get a new attorney general and then, as Wilkins says, “a new prosecutor.” According to this understanding of the federal courts’ role, the judge’s denunciation of the prosecutor is appropriately a part of that process, which will end when “the political chips fall where they may.” If the judge gets his way, “a new prosecutor is appointed, and the case proceeds.”

A judge who rules with the expectation that he can make “political chips fall” as a result of how he rules has crossed the clearest line there is distinguishing the federal courts from the other two branches.

It should hardly need explaining that judges don’t (they can’t) take sides from the bench in political disputes. They are neutral interpreters of the law; they aren’t parties to the case.

President Dwight Eisenhower was able to send the army to enforce Brown v. Board of Education, and so to integrate the schools in Little Rock, because the nation recognized that if the Supreme Court had decided the law required it, then the law required it. We had, and have, no choice as a country but to follow the law.

If the federal courts allow judges to become parties, no one will any longer believe that the judges are applying the law. They will be revealed as people trying to advance political goals. A nonelected body trying to advance political goals will not long be obeyed in a democracy.

There’s a simple way to put a stop to this: When the Court of Appeals denies (or better, dismisses) Sullivan’s petition for rehearing, it should reassign the case to a judge — an actual judge, who will be neutral. That would have to be someone other than Emmet Sullivan.

Jerome Marcus is an attorney in private practice and a former federal prosecutor.

==================================================================

Looks like the rest of the country gets to become familiar with the way normal people have been treated by the federal courts, and state courts alike for going on more than 20 years now.

And what was it that was said around 100 years ago now? In 1960, the ruling was already 30 years old so, yes, around 100 years ago…

It was in ELKINS v. UNITED STATES, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) 364 U.S. 206?? No. 126.
Argued March 28-29, 1960.   Decided June 27, 1960.

The Court, discussing the use of evidence illegally obtained by State Police, by federal prosecutors, and the FBI, and the Rights violations are discussed pretty heavily. Hell nowadays, the Courts do not give a second thought to violations of our civil and constitutional rights:

Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222-23 (1960) (“These, then, are the considerations of reason and experience which point to the rejection of a doctrine that would freely admit in a federal criminal trial evidence seized by state agents in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. But there is another consideration — the imperative of judicial integrity. It was of this that Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandeis so eloquently spoke in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, at 469, 471, more than 30 years ago.
“For those who agree with me,” said Mr. Justice Holmes, “no distinction can be taken between the Government as prosecutor and the Government as judge.” 277 U.S., at 470. (Dissenting opinion.) “In a government of laws,” said Mr. Justice Brandeis, “existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” 277 U.S., at 485. (Dissenting opinion.)”)

This basic principle was accepted by the Court in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332. There it was held that “a conviction resting on evidence secured through such a flagrant disregard of the procedure which Congress has commanded cannot be allowed to stand without making the courts themselves accomplices in willful disobedience of law.” 318 U.S., at 345. Even less should the federal courts be accomplices in the willful disobedience of a Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

For these reasons we hold that evidence obtained by state officers during a search which, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the defendant’s immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible over the defendant’s timely objection in a federal criminal trial. In determining whether there has been an unreasonable search and seizure by state officers, a federal court must make an independent inquiry, whether or not there has been such an inquiry by a state court, and irrespective of how any such inquiry may have turned out. The test is one of federal law, neither enlarged by what one state court may have countenanced, nor diminished by what another may have colorably suppressed.

Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223-24 (1960)

Now think about the Flynn case, and numerous other cases, where the last thing the Courts think about, is if the evidence was illegally obtained, or if someone’s rights were violated in the illegal obtaining of the evidence.

We have no rights, and the many Courts’ flagrant disregard of the procedure
which Congress had commanded cannot stand…

All I can wonder is what the fuck?

Judge is removed from bench after asking woman whether she closed her legs to prevent rape

judge-gavel
(judge and gavel Image from Shutterstock.com.)

Judge is removed from bench after asking woman whether she closed her legs to prevent rape
BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge-is-removed-from-bench-after-asking-woman-whether-she-closed-her-legs-to-prevent-rape
MAY 28, 2020, 11:05 AM CDT

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday removed a judge from the bench who asked a woman whether she had tried to close her legs to stop a sexual assault.

The court ordered the removal of Judge John Russo in a May 26 decision.

The woman was in Russo’s Ocean County courtroom in 2016 to seek a final restraining order against her alleged assailant. Russo took over questioning after cross-examination by defense counsel. The judge asked the woman whether she had tried to block her body parts, close her legs, call police or leave.

The questions were unwarranted, inappropriate and discourteous, the supreme court said in an opinion by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner. “No witness, alleged victim or litigant should be treated that way in a court of law,” the court said.

Russo claimed the woman was a demoralized witness, and he was trying to help her get reengaged in the hearing. But that explanation “does not square with the record,” the court said. “The plaintiff plainly testified that defendant forced her to have sexual intercourse against her will. She also described other acts of alleged domestic violence. And she did so without needing any assistance from the trial judge to express herself.”

“Beyond that,” the court said, Russo’s “coarse questions about how the plaintiff responded during the alleged assault were not relevant.” Sexual assault in New Jersey turns on the use of physical force by the alleged assailant, not the victim’s state of mind or resistance.

Just as problematic were Russo’s comments to court staff after the hearing, the court said. Russo asked whether staffers heard “the sex stuff” and said he was the master of “being able to talk about sex acts with a straight face.”

“Judges set the tone for a courtroom,” the court said. “Especially when it comes to sensitive matters like domestic violence and sexual assault, that tone must be dignified, solemn and respectful, not demeaning or sophomoric. [Russo] failed in that regard.”

The court said Russo also committed misconduct in three instances.

• Russo ruled in a hearing even though he stated at the outset that he knew both the defendant and his wife since high school. The defendant was arrested after failing to comply with a judge’s order to pay. $10,000 out of nearly $145,000 in past-due child support. Russo vacated the arrest warrant and lowered the purge amount from $10,000 to $300 based on the defendant’s uncorroborated financial information.

• Russo made an ex parte call to a mother in a paternity matter who failed to appear in court. When Russo asked for the woman’s address, she said she didn’t want to disclose it because she was afraid. She said the putative father had molested her daughter, and she feared for her son’s safety. Russo threatened the woman with financial penalties and said she wouldn’t be able to keep her address secret. “He’s going to find you, ma’am,” Russo told the woman. “We’re all going to find you.”

• Russo asked the family division manager in his courthouse to intercede in another vicinage to reschedule a guardianship hearing in a personal matter involving himself, his ex-wife and his son. Russo should have worked through his lawyer rather than the manager, the court said.

“The series of ethical failures that [Russo] committed are not errors of law, innocent missteps or isolated words taken out of context,” the court said. “Viewed as a whole, they are flagrant and serious acts of misconduct.”

Russo is a former mayor of Toms River, New Jersey. Law360, Courthouse News Service, Law.com, NJ.com and the Legal Profession Blog had coverage of the decision.

Must Read, “Don’t Trace Me, Bro” — Just Say No to Contact Tracing, By Tom Luongo

they-live-contact-tracing

“Don’t Trace Me, Bro” — Just Say No to Contact Tracing

Date: April 28, 2020
Author: Tom Luongo

“Don’t Trace Me, Bro” — Just Say No to Contact Tracing

Contact Tracing? Really? That’s the next big government program to push for total surveillance over our lives. Now the real fallout from the Coronapocalypse comes to light.

The very people who created a fake pandemic out of faulty statistics, media fear-pimping and the rankest of propaganda are now pushing the total surveillance state to protect us (them?) from the next crisis.

James Corbett from the Corbett Report just published an excellent video discussing ‘contact tracing’ as promulgated by (who else?) the Clinton Global Initiative to create an army of new Brown Shirts to assist our wise and benevolent leaders in managing us like livestock.

James is urging us not to use their Orwellian term, and I agree with him. But the best way to do that is to make fun of it and them.

I propose just looking at them and saying, “Don’t Trace Me, Bro.”

As always when they want to herd us towards a terrible idea they first have to come up with a harmless sounding euphemism for it. Either that or just call it a war that we’re going to fight and win together, you know, for kids!

But this was always the plan with this virus. We can speculate as to why this has been done, why it was directed from the commanding heights of our society but, in the end, that speculation is irrelevant.

This is happening, it’s here and they are now working to square the circle. The goal is to finish off the last vestiges of anonymity and individuality started with the destruction of financial privacy during the Clinton Adminstration, which was wrapped in the classic government phrases “Know Your Customer” and “Anti-Money Laundering”

Now those sets of rules which got ramped up after 9/11 dominate the global financial landscape.

But, let’s look at what’s happened with COVID-19 step-by-step.

First, a virus shows up in China which people in the highest levels of our government were briefed about as early as November, if Pepe Escobar’s research is to be believed.

The gold standard remains the ABC News report according to which intel collected in November 2019 by the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), a subsidiary of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was already warning about a new virulent contagion getting out of hand in Wuhan, based on “detailed analysis of intercepted communications and satellite imagery”.

An unnamed source told ABC, “analysts concluded it could be a cataclysmic event”, adding the intel was “briefed multiple times” to the DIA, the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, and even the White House.

Next China, the gold standard for the Orwellian Panopticon, proceeds to use that Panopticon to prove to the world how effective government can be in containing a deadly plague.

That model, which runs fundamentally counter to billions of years of evolution and basid immunology, is then propagated around the Western world to combat COVID-19, a disease which has a mortality rate similar to the annual flu, to shut down those economies exacerbating a financial crisis already fully underway.

This destroys the lives of hundreds of millions of people. It creates economic dislocations that make the Great Depression look like a mild recession.

In places like Italy, France and Spain where youth unemployment has been in double digits for more than a decade, the lock down was used as a way to tamp down social unrest, as they were hot beds for opposition to inept and increasingly fascistic governments.

In the U.S., a country ruled by old, ideologically-possessed and corrupt Boomers who have been in a heightened state of fear since Donald Trump was elected saw the opportunity to create the worst possible outcome in places like New York and California.

Governors in blue states seized power they didn’t legally have and cried for help they didn’t need.

And the confusion and disinformation about the virus created so much fear people willingly huddled in their homes hoping the angel of death passed them by with nothing more to do than be glued to the death counter in a desperate bid to stay informed about the science.

But there weren’t two million dead in the U.S. There’s around 50,000 and those death statistics are very speicous since the people reporting them have motive, means and opportunity to inflate them to get Federal aid, advance their political agendas now on full display and cover their asses.

So, now ‘contact tracing’ which is just a euphemism for total surveillance. But they are admitting that they can’t do it themselves. They need help. In totalitarian governments like the U.K., they’ll have an app in a couple of weeks.

Matthew Gould also disclosed plans to log the location of whenever two or more people are in close proximity for minutes at a time.

That will disturb privacy campaigners.

Ya think?

Mr Gould told the Science and Technology Committee the app would be “technically ready” for deployment in “two to three weeks” – but made it clear it was only one part of the strategy to emerge from lockdown and would involve a none-too-subtle marketing campaign.

“If you want to protect the NHS and stop it being overwhelmed and, at the same time, want to get the economy moving, then the app is going to be part of an essential part of a strategy for doing that,” he said.

China already has this. All across the enlightened West countries will now recruit tens of thousands of ‘contact tracers’ to go out and build their network for them, just like Gavin Newsome and Andrew Cuomo discussed with Bill Clinton in the video linked above.

And since there are now tens of millions of people out of work desperate for a job of any sort finding recruits will be easy.

See how this works?

First you destroy people’s lives, then you print trillions in funny money to bail out the inept and continue paying the enforcers, ensuring they are fed. And then when desperation reaches its peak you create a new government program and turn people into snitches to ensure compliance.

We’re going to empower the worst busybodies who are already insane with fear to run around collecting data for the government.

All in the name of getting the economy back up and running!

I’m pretty sure when I read The Scarlet Letter in high school we didn’t consider Hester Prynne to be the bad guy. Because the person who is COVID-19 positive will now have a big red “CV” on them which will limit their ability to partake in society.

The next stage will be to force them to lock themselves down in isolation or face the depredations of the State. And even if we begin to ignore such insanity the next step will be to look the other way when the contact tracers become belligerent.

This is all about keeping everyone in a heightened state of fear at all times. The Karens will bee worried about a stupid germ and everyone else will be worried about what the Karens will do.

Because what good is this app if it doesn’t report you to the authorities who know where you are.

So the solution to a virus and the incompetence of our governments is to turn busy bodies into brown shirts and COVID positives into social pariahs.

Do you realize what happens when you don’t pay a parking ticket now? Eventually your licence gets suspended, then your car insurance gets canceled. If you don’t turn your tag in for not having insurance then you are risking jail time when you get stopped by the police. They arrest you for driving on a suspended licence, impound your car, and the entire ordeal becomes a bureaucratic nightmare.

The moral of the story? Pay your parking ticket, obviously.

But not because you were a bad person or committed a heinous crime. But because you broke the rules. If you don’t follow the State’s rules, no matter how petty, no matter how asinine you will be punished to the full extent of the law.

Do you really think this ‘contact tracing’ system won’t end up in the same kind of hell?

Now you’re a documented threat to other people’s lives! You’re an evil spreader, man! Think of the children!

The State is only good at two things. Killing people and creating perverse incentives. And if this isn’t a classic case of creating the perverse incentive of destroying civilization in order to save it I don’t know what is?

This is the real danger of 5G technology. It isn’t China having a backdoor embedded by Huawei, it is the State having the ability to blanket the world in high bandwidth snooping devices everywhere that people congregate.

Their system is failing before our eyes. It’s a system born of corrupt money begetting ever greater institutional corruption. They wouldn’t be pushing for this total surveillance if they weren’t uniquely paranoid about our readiness to throw them overboard.

They want us snitching on each other and suspect of each other. This is the most pernicious form of social control ever devised, to distrust basic human contact and interaction because there are germs in the world.

It’s time to end the mass hallucination that we’ve never dealt with something like this before. The mass branding of this COVID-19 as the plague is laughable and the push for global surveillance is pathetic.

Unfortunately, we live in a world today where the fearful are empowered by the powerful to mob the non-compliant. COVID-19 isn’t the plague folks. If you think it’s the crisis you should be fearful of I urge you to seek therapy not the false security of a government tracking app.

Join My Patreon if you want a Scarlet Letter

Install the Brave Browser if you want to wear it proudly

California Throws The Books At Undercover Reporter Who Exposed Baby Body Trafficking

4535874193-22914e87fd-o-998x679
California Throws the Books at Undercover Reporter Who Exposed Baby Body Trafficking

California Throws the Books at Undercover Reporter Who Exposed Baby Body Trafficking


Thomas BrejchaBy Thomas Brejcha
MARCH 10, 2020
From the time of its founding and fight for independence, America has been synonymous with the idea of freedom – freedom to speak your mind, pursue your own dreams, worship as you want. The American press has often been called the “Fourth Estate” or referred to as the fourth branch of government for its ability to hold leaders to transparency with the ability to expose wrongdoing. Today, that cherished Freedom of the Press is at risk. Why? Because of the power of the abortion lobby and its insistence that the rules are different when it comes to the business of selling death.

Federalist
The Federalist

Read The Federalist article by Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, on how the rights of all journalists are at risk because a California federal court deemed David Daleiden’s undercover work – exposing baby body parts trafficking by abortion vendors – a crime.

“What does it tell you that the Daleiden case may have been the first time that any journalist has been criminally charged with violating the California recording law in the many years it has been on the books?” from California Throws The Books At Undercover Reporter Who Exposed Baby Body Trafficking by Tom Brejcha.

California Throws The Books At Undercover Reporter Who Exposed Baby Body Trafficking
Even those who disagree with David Daleiden and his techniques but care about how the legal actions against him could define press freedom need to follow this case.

Thomas BrejchaBy Thomas Brejcha
MARCH 10, 2020
https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/10/california-throws-the-books-at-undercover-reporter-who-exposed-baby-body-trafficking/

An undercover reporter has been arraigned in California and charged with ten felonies for secretly recording conversations, and it’s time to revisit how the judiciary and the law can stifle the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press.

The accused, David Daleiden, used standard media undercover techniques to investigate and expose Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetus body parts. While the use of undercover techniques like Daleiden’s is a controversial practice even within journalism circles, Daleiden’s upcoming jury trial has far wider implications for journalists.

Namely, can and should government criminalize undercover reporting, which historically has revealed otherwise hidden wrongdoing of all kinds?

Being Pro-Life Is Not a Crime
Let’s first put aside that Daleiden, as director of the Center for Medical Progress, is a pro-life activist—which is not a crime. He should have the same right to penetrate the practices of America’s abortion providers and report his findings just as other reporters and publications investigate other matters.

Consider the multitude of covertly conducted investigations exposing threats to public health and safety, racism, and various other injustices, dating back to the dawn of our republic. To mention a few: In a classic case of disguised reporters using hidden cameras, ABC “Prime Time Live” outed Food Lion’s alleged unsanitary food handling practices. “Dateline” NBC deployed decoys and hidden cameras to expose men who solicited sex with minors on the Internet. Vanity Fair had a clandestine reporter join a tour group to the Holy Land to probe then-President George W. Bush’s alleged ties to religious right leaders.

Undercover Chicago Tribune reporters, working from the inside as employees, exposed life-threatening conditions in nursing homes. Another Tribune reporter worked undercover in the city’s election board to reveal widespread election fraud. Chicago Sun-Times reporters, working inside, turned up dangerous practices at abortion clinics. The paper also opened a bar, the Mirage, in a sting using hidden cameras to bare shakedowns by city inspectors.

Jerry Thompson of the Nashville Tennessean infiltrated the Ku Klux Klan to provide a first-person account of its racist practices and beliefs. BBC used clandestine students to describe a “sex for grades” scandal. In Los Angeles, CBSN’s David Goldstein regularly goes undercover.

The Washington Post captured a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service by disclosing disgusting and unsanitary conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The reporters never identified themselves as such, which, according to Brooke Kroeger, a New York University law and journalism professor, defines their action as investigative reporting. It is, she argued, yet another demonstration of how deception in investigative reporting is not only permissible but a necessary tool regularly exposing wrongdoing that can’t be found any other way.

Attacking Whistleblowers Who Exposed Crime
Instead, Daleiden faces a legal system that has unleashed both criminal and civil actions against him for a variety of supposed violations of law, including criminal trespass, fraud, and breach of contract, even federal civil racketeering. A jury in the civil trial awarded the plaintiffs more than $2.2 million in damages, enough to permanently silence Daleiden’s small pro-life and nonprofit operation. We are appealing.

The criminal case, the one more likely to chill undercover work, was the product of then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris. A judge threw out six of 15 criminal charges against Daleiden and co-investigator Sandra Merritt but ruled that the other counts can go to a criminal trial. Thus, the arraignment. Never mind that Harris violated shield laws protecting reporters by raiding Daleiden’s home and capturing previously unpublished raw journalism materials.

How ironic, because about the time that Daleiden published his findings, animal rights activists were praised for ­documenting abuse in the poultry industry. Unlike in Daleiden’s case, Harris launched probes of the poultry industry and didn’t charge the reporters.

That Harris received campaign donations from, and touted her support for, pro-choice groups suggests she was motivated by political bias. Same for the judge in the civil case, who was affiliated with an organization that had a joint venture with a Planned Parenthood affiliate whose successor is now one of the entities suing Daleiden.

No one can be blamed for thinking that the legal actions were inspired and carried out by pro-choice organizations to punish and silence their opponents. What does it tell you that the Daleiden case may have been the first time that any journalist has been criminally charged with violating the California recording law in the many years it has been on the books?

Putting Reporting Under Government Threat
Even if the government’s action were bias-free, Daleiden’s pursuit still jeopardizes quality journalism. The California accusations are based on the claim his targets had an expectation of privacy even when the conversations were conducted in a public place, like a restaurant or hotel convention hall, where bystanders could hear them. It’s a ludicrous assertion, a gross misinterpretation, and an undue and overbroad extension of the law.

I refer to two pro-choice law professors, Sherry F. Colb and Michael C. Dorf, who support Planned Parenthood’s work but warned that the criminal pursuit of Daleiden “follows a troubling pattern in American constitutional jurisprudence” to cripple investigative journalism. In a CNN opinion article, they wrote, “Whatever the precise facts of this case prove to be, the prosecution has broader implications, and not just for abortion and anti-abortion speech. Undercover exposés play a vital role in informing the American public of important facts that would otherwise remain hidden.” The Los Angeles Times deemed the prosecution “disturbingly aggressive” and an “overreach.”

Possible prison sentences and burdensome fines attached to criminal conduct cannot be ignored in this debate. They are more than a disincentive to expose wrongdoing; they give the upper hand to criminal enterprises, powerful corporations, avenging politicians, ideologues, and special interests to protect themselves from public condemnation and costly penalties for misconduct. This is not a loophole that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they crafted the constitutional protection of freedom of the press.

Even those who disagree with Daleiden and his techniques but care about how the precedent-setting legal actions against him that could define press freedom in the future need to follow this case as it winds through the legal system, possibly all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thomas Brejcha is founder, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm defending life, family and religious liberty. It represents David Daleiden.
Photo kambodza / Flickr

Fact, Not Advice!

legal15

Too, whenever you file a case, you need to do everything, as if you plan to appeal. Every case goes to appeal, unless it is so shitty a case that it don’t warrant an appeal. Everything you do in your case should prepare for an easy appeal, you have to be diligent, as if you are the one being sued, and you have to do plenty of discovery if you want anything from the opposing party, and the most important thing, is you have to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, Uniform Superior Court Rules, the Court’s Rules and all Orders.
If any of the above things have not been followed to a “t” then you have made it hard for yourself, and will most likely loose the case. If you have planned to appeal, which should always be done, then it will be easier and less costly to appeal.

Damn, that’s good, I am going to post.

29f1d974578c240cfb0796b6b0f3da48449903f1

Michael Flynn’s Lawyers Claim Lisa Page Altered FBI Interview Record to Frame Him

Michael Flynn’s Lawyers Claim Lisa Page Altered FBI Interview Record to Frame Him

Lisa-Page-after-meeeting-lawmakers-Capitol-Hill-ap-640x480
(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/25/michael-flynn-lawyers-accuse-fbi-of-laying-trap-withholding-evidence/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191025&utm_content=Final

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page leaves following an interview with lawmakers behind closed doors on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, July 13, 2018.
JOEL B. POLLAK
25 Oct 2019

Lawyers for former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn reportedly filed a motion on Thursday in which they allege that the Department of Justice manipulated a document to frame their client and is withholding exculpatory evidence.
The apparent “sealed” filing, dated October 24, 2019, was posted to social media on Thursday evening.

US v Flynn; DE 129-2 by Techno Fog on Scribd

The filing by Flynn’s new legal team, which took over the case several weeks ago, argues that the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an “ambush-interview” of Flynn in the White House not to discover any evidence of criminal activity, but to coax him into making false statements.

When Flynn’s new lawyer Sidney Powell first made those allegations in September, prosecutors replied that she was indulging in “conspiracy theories” and noted his client had already pleaded guilty to the crime of lying to the FBI in 2017. Flynn has been awaiting sentencing since then, and even told the sentencing judge in 2018 that he would not claim FBI misconduct, despite growing evidence that they had departed from normal practice in interviewing him and had only completed their “302” — the report of their meeting — after he had already been forced to resign from his position in the administration over the allegations.

The new defense filing alleges that the government is refusing to turn over a mountain of potentially exculpatory evidence, some of which has begun to emerge in the media — either through leaks or through ongoing inquiries into the origins of the probe into alleged Russia “collusion” with the Trump campaign, later found not to exist.

That evidence, Flynn’s legal team alleges, includes an apparent admission by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page — who resigned after being discovered having an affair with agent Peter Strzok, with whom she shared anti-trump texts — that she had edited the 302 — something that she allegedly told FBI investigators she did not recall, the filing states.

The edits, the filing alleges, were substantive: they included a claim that Flynn said he did not discuss any sanctions with the Russian ambassador. Flynn’s lawyers allege he merely told the FBI he did not recall, and that the claim he said otherwise was added only after a transcript of his discussion with the ambassador had been leaked to the media.

In a footnote, the filing adds that former FBI general counsel James Baker “is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn’s calls to [Washington Post reporter David] Ignatius.” It also alleges that former National Intelligence Director James Clapper told Ignatius to “take the kill shot on Flynn.”

The filing emerged hours after reports that the Department of Justice had shifted its investigation of the origins of the Russia probe to become a criminal investigation under the supervision of prosecutor John H. Durham.

Flynn was subject to surveillance — allegedly in response to claims that he might have violated the Logan Act, an archaic and rarely-enforced law barring private citizens from diplomacy — during President-elect Donald Trump’s transition to office. Flynn’s name was then unmasked in the transcript of his telephone conversation with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which was then leaked illegally.

Flynn’s subsequent prosecution for lying to the FBI was key to the “Russia collusion” theory, later found to have no substance after a lengthy investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that took nearly two years to complete.

Critics have alleged that Mueller may have induced Flynn to plead guilty by suggesting that the government had more evidence of “Russia collusion” than it actually did.

This story is developing.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws

Red-Flag-Laws-Beth-PP-Featured-9-24-19

Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws
Beth Alcazar – 09/24/2019

Some Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws

A terrible tragedy occurred in my home state of Alabama last month. As reported by the local news, a father and his son were involved in an argument that led to the 70-year-old father shooting his 45-year-old son in the chest in what he claims was self-defense.

Soon afterward, the Alabama chapter of Moms Demand Action shared the news — along with a comment — on social media. They posted:

’Investigators said James Adams and his son, Alfred Dewayne Adams, were involved in an argument Sunday night. They further stated they believe James told Alfred he was going to bed. Alfred then walked into the bedroom and James shot him in the chest. Some of the neighbors and some other family members can tell us about stuff that was happening through [sic] the years.’ This life could have been spared by utilizing a red flag law.

Some Questions

“This life could have been spared by utilizing a red flag law?” That’s quite a statement. And I wanted to post a few questions to Moms Demand Action. First of all, I wanted to ask: If the father truly used a weapon in self-defense, would a “red flag” law have disarmed him … and then spared the life of his violent son? Would the father be dead, then, in this particular situation? Beyond that, do “red flag” laws cover all weapons in the home? What if the suspect had decided to use a knife? Or what about prescription drugs or poisons? Does it cover a person’s bare hands and/or body? Could we confiscate those weapons, as well, whenever we feel there’s “some stuff that was happening through the years?”

Some Examples

And what about the terrible case in which a son killed his father and wounded his mother with a knife? Two months ago, in Arizona, the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office reported that when the older couple returned home, “they noticed their 33-year-old son had consumed a large amount of beer. The parents argued with him over their drinking concern. He threw his phone at them and then went into the kitchen and grabbed two large knives. When he tried to stab his mother, his father intervened and attempted to restrain him while he was still in the kitchen. The son began attacking his dad. As the struggle moved from the kitchen into the living room, the son was able to stab his dad in the chest. The father collapsed to the floor.”

Or there’s this recent horror story from Illinois: A man in a Chicago suburb was arrested by local police after killing his own mother by stabbing her repeatedly with a samurai sword in the chest. Park Ridge Police had removed the murderer’s firearms two times, with the last time being in July 2019. So the suspect didn’t have a gun … but he still had evil intent. And he used whatever weapon he could find.

There’s also the atrocity from Nevada a few weeks ago in which a 36-year-old man bludgeoned a woman to death with a sledgehammer in what Las Vegas police said was a random attack at a laundromat.

I could go on. But I won’t. Perhaps you see the point.

Some Red Flags

Beyond the fear of just anyone pointing out someone else with a gun for no good reason or people wrongly having their firearms taken from them because of mistaken identity or possibly just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, there are so many red flags about “red flag” laws. Undoubtedly, we’d love to be able to stop crimes and keep bad people from harming or killing others. But this is not the movie Minority Report, in which police can employ some sort of psychic technology to arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crimes. Ultimately, we have to ask: Will “red flag” laws actually target violent people … or just people with guns? Because as the above examples (and countless others) show, the problem isn’t the firearms.

About Beth Alcazar

Author of Women’s Handgun & Self-Defense Fundamentals, associate editor of Concealed Carry Magazine and creator of the Pacifiers & Peacemakers column, Beth Alcazar has enjoyed nearly two decades of teaching and working in the firearms industry. She holds degrees in language arts, education and communication management and uses her experience and enthusiasm to share safe and responsible firearms ownership and usage with others. Beth is certified through the NRA as a Training Counselor, Chief Range Safety Officer and Certified Instructor for multiple disciplines. She is also a Certified Instructor through SIG Sauer Academy, ALICE Institute, DRAW School, TWAW and I.C.E. Training and is a USCCA Certified Instructor and Senior Training Counselor.


How many times have we heard about someone running over a bunch of people too. Even the car or truck can be a deadly weapon. If someone is dead set that they are going to kill, for whatever reason, they will find the tool to kill others with!

These gun grabbers want any possible way to take our protection from us. And these same gun grabbers are socialists/communists.

Impeachment can go more ways than one. These politicians that want to do away with the Second Amendment, work for us. When they were sworn in, they swore to honor and uphold the Constitution. Trying to do away with any of the Amendments to the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is not honoring and upholding the Constitution. Violating one’s Oath of Office is usually grounds for them to be removed.

I say let’s remove their asses!
(Please note, I usually don’t comment on my own posts).

Supreme Court Lets Trump Build the Wall; Lifts Injunction

trump-el-paso-rally-build-wall-getty-640x480
(EL PASO, TEXAS – FEBRUARY 11: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a rally at the El Paso County Coliseum on February 11, 2019 in El Paso, Texas. U.S. Trump continues his campaign for a wall to be built along the border as the Democrats in Congress are asking for …Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Supreme Court Lets Trump Build the Wall; Lifts Injunction
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/07/26/supreme-court-lets-trump-build-the-wall-lifts-injunction/
JOEL B. POLLAK26 Jul 201911,830

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to begin building the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border using emergency funds, lifting an injunction Friday that had been imposed by a district court in California and upheld by the Ninth Circuit.
After Congress refused to appropriate enough funding to build a barrier along the border earlier this year, President Trump declared a national emergency to allow the administration to access more money. In total, he ordered $8 billion spent — though, as Breitbart News pointed out, only $3.6 billion needed an emergency declaration.

The president was exultant on Twitter:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!

126K
6:37 PM – Jul 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
56.7K people are talking about this

The decision was largely along partisan lines, with all five Republican-appointed justices voting to lift the injunction, while all three liberal justices were opposed. Justice Stephen Breyer sought to have it both ways, allowing the process to go forward but not the construction: “There is a straightforward way to avoid harm to both the Government and respondents while allowing the litigation to proceed. Allowing the Government to finalize the contracts at issue, but not to begin construction, would al- leviate the most pressing harm claimed by the Government without risking irreparable harm to respondents.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.