Saw this video on my phone today and thought, "everyone should see this" again and again!! And...call your congressman !
!
Jun 30, 2022 #jessewattersprimetime #FoxNews
Wednesday, March 18, 2026
Sunday, March 8, 2026
How the greatest generation handled ELECTION FRAUD! 
Making & taking a stand!
The Historian's Den
In August 1946, the small town of Athens, Tennessee, was controlled by a corrupt political machine that had ruled for years through intimidation, rigged elections, and a network of deputies who abused their power.
When Election Day arrived, these deputies arrested poll watchers, beat citizens, and seized ballot boxes, hauling them into the county jail to count in secret. What the officials didn’t expect was that dozens of World War II veterans, men who had just fought fascism overseas had returned home determined not to let tyranny take root in their own backyard. They had already formed a reform ticket, but when the deputies began arresting voters, the veterans realized the election was being stolen in broad daylight.
Fed up and unwilling to back down, the veterans armed themselves with rifles and surrounded the jail where the ballots were held. A tense standoff followed, with gunfire exchanged through the night as the veterans demanded the ballots be released.
By dawn, the corrupt officials surrendered, and the ballot boxes were opened and counted publicly, revealing the veterans’ candidates had won. The event became a rare moment in American history when ordinary citizens, many fresh from the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific, took up arms not against a foreign enemy but to defend the integrity of their own democracy.
Making & taking a stand!In August 1946, the small town of Athens, Tennessee, was controlled by a corrupt political machine that had ruled for years through intimidation, rigged elections, and a network of deputies who abused their power.
When Election Day arrived, these deputies arrested poll watchers, beat citizens, and seized ballot boxes, hauling them into the county jail to count in secret. What the officials didn’t expect was that dozens of World War II veterans, men who had just fought fascism overseas had returned home determined not to let tyranny take root in their own backyard. They had already formed a reform ticket, but when the deputies began arresting voters, the veterans realized the election was being stolen in broad daylight.
Fed up and unwilling to back down, the veterans armed themselves with rifles and surrounded the jail where the ballots were held. A tense standoff followed, with gunfire exchanged through the night as the veterans demanded the ballots be released.
By dawn, the corrupt officials surrendered, and the ballot boxes were opened and counted publicly, revealing the veterans’ candidates had won. The event became a rare moment in American history when ordinary citizens, many fresh from the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific, took up arms not against a foreign enemy but to defend the integrity of their own democracy.
Judicial Tyranny vs. the Rule of Law
The Framers rejected the idea that the courts should be the final arbiters of the law or the Constitution. Judicial review, as we now know it, was not granted in the Constitution. The concept was discussed, and rejected on the floor of debate.
However, it was later asserted by Chief Justice John Marshall in his judicial opinion regarding Marbury v. Madison (1803). Over time, political elites and the legal class accepted that assertion, and the judiciary gradually elevated itself above the other branches.
As a result, we have drifted into the same trap the colonists faced under the British Empire: believing that a black robe confers superior wisdom and that judges exist to define the law rather than apply it.
The Rule of Law is not merely a collection of statutes or the text of the Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, it is grounded in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Rule of Law is a moral and legal order that pre-exists government and stands above the will of rulers, judges, or shifting public opinion.
It is a framework rooted in objective moral reality, binding on both the governed and those who govern. It is the law not invented by man but discovered by him. It is a moral order observable in human nature and the natural order of things. It is Divine Law, which is a transcendent moral authority acknowledged by the Founding Fathers as the ultimate source of rights and duties. The Rule of Law is not whatever a legislature enacts or a judge declares. It is the alignment of human law and the pre-existing moral architecture of the universe and of the Cre Himself.ator
canadafreepress.com
Judicial Tyranny vs. the Rule of Law
Ron Schwartz
Judicial Tyranny vs. the Rule of Law
Ron Schwartz
Friday, March 6, 2026
SCOTUS
“You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchyOur judges are as honest as other men, and not more so...and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control…The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”Thomas Jefferson (Stated in a letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
Unfortunately, Jefferson’s warning proved to be all too accurate.
Sixty-plus years ago, the progressive, liberal left in America decided the best way, possibly the only way, to impose their will on the American people was not at the ballot box or through the Legislative Branch of our government; it was through the Supreme Court.
To do so, they would only need five of the nine members.
The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court had supreme power over all government decisions would allow only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans! ...
No entity or group has allowed more evil into America than the Supreme Court.
As Phillip Jauregui points out (The Parable of the Prodigal Court) so clearly in this critical book, only five individuals were needed to remove God and His principles from American schools, our government, and the public square. They trampled on constitutional rights, made the right to murder babies the law of the land, and overruled the will of the people in thirty states, who agreed with God that marriage was between one man and one woman.
On June 26, 2015, five Justices decided they had the right to redefine a 6,000-year-old definition of marriage–a definition clearly given by God, mind you–and redefine this covenant He instituted!
Just let that sink in: five people (two of whom had participated in gay wedding ceremonies, yet refused to recuse themselves), arrogantly granted themselves the “authority” to overrule God…and the American people.
The deception and arrogance of this was mind-numbing.
The late Justice Scalia stated, regarding this:
“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy...
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court...
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied [as it is today] by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776–the freedom to govern themselves…
To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
Regarding this usurpation, Justice Alito said:
“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage...
“All Americans, whatever they’re thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”
It is time to break this un-constitutional and inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions.
The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions allows only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans!
Going to get your voter ID......
PresidentialReviews By Hugh Janus, TDS News
CLEVELAND, OH — In a groundbreaking feat that has left feminists everywhere scratching their heads, local Ohio resident Annie Rection has shattered glass ceilings by becoming the first woman in recorded history to legally acquire a photo ID. “It was a grueling process,” Rection admitted, wiping sweat from her brow. “I had to walk all the way to the DMV, fill out a form, and wait in line for what felt like 15 whole minutes. But hey, I did it—proving once and for all that women aren’t delicate flowers who crumble at the sight of bureaucracy.”
Experts are already sounding the alarm: If the SAVE Act passes, requiring voters to show ID at the polls, Rection could very well be the only woman casting a ballot in the upcoming midterms. “This is a catastrophe for democracy,” warned Democratic strategist and professional pearl-clutcher, Wilma Dikfit. “Women simply can’t be expected to handle something as insurmountable as getting an ID. What next? Asking them to tie their own shoelaces? It’s voter suppression on steroids!”
Critics of the SAVE Act, mostly blue-haired activists and cable news pundits, insist that mandating photo ID is akin to building an invisible force field around polling places that only repels the fairer sex. “Women have jobs, families, and Netflix queues—how on earth are they supposed to squeeze in a trip to get an ID?” lamented one anonymous source, who apparently forgot that millions of women already have driver’s licenses, passports, and even those fancy Costco cards that require a photo.
But Rection, now a national hero (or villain, depending on your Twitter feed), begs to differ. “If I can do it, any woman can,” she said, flexing her newly minted ID like a trophy. “Heck, I even renewed my library card on the same day. Ladies, rise up—against the nonsense that we’re too helpless to function in the real world!”
As the midterms approach, TDS News will continue monitoring this developing story. Will more women defy the odds and obtain IDs? Or will polling places become ghost towns echoing with the faint sobs of disenfranchised damsels? Stay tuned—and remember, folks, satire is the best disinfectant for political absurdity.
Trump wants White men to sue for race discrimination. This man did
Story by Jessica Guynn, USA TODAY
Story by Jessica Guynn, USA TODAY
David Duvall had been a senior vice president at Novant Health for five years in July 2018 when the multibillion-dollar health system told him it was “going in a different direction.”
After his firing, Novant Health promoted two of Duvall’s deputies, a White woman and a Black woman, to take over his duties while it conducted a search for his successor. A Black woman was appointed to permanently replace him.
Duvall sued in federal court in November 2019, alleging he was let go because of a push to diversify the leadership ranks.
At trial two years later, Duvall presented evidence he received strong performance reviews and gained national recognition for the marketing program he developed for Novant Health. His manager testified he had seven White men as direct reports at the start of 2018 but none by the time of the trial.
His former employer said Duvall was terminated for performance issues, including walking off stage while giving a public presentation. Novant Health said he was given a job coach and more public speaking opportunities but Duvall delegated those.
The jury sided with Duvall. A federal appeals court later upheld the $4.8 million award in 2024.
Duvall’s was a bellwether case that put the spotlight on high-profile lawsuits in which White men accuse their employers of racial bias, claiming they were dismissed or denied opportunities so companies could make room for more women and people of color through diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Legal experts say the ruling was an early shot across the bow for diversity initiatives that are exclusive rather than inclusive.
Even though men – and White men in particular – dominate corporate America, these cases have ramped up as anti-DEI activists and the Trump administration target corporate diversity efforts.
While statistically rare, research shows that White men still file discrimination claims, just at a lower rate than other groups.
White workers make up about two-thirds of the U.S. workforce but only account for about 10% of all race discrimination claims, according to data USA TODAY obtained in 2023 from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A study from the Center for Employment Equity at the University of Massachusetts found that White men filed about 9% of race discrimination claims from 2012 to 2016.Trump targets White discrimination
The view that “unlawful” and “woke” DEI policis have harmed White Americans – and White men in eparticular – was central to President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and now his second term in office.
The Trump administration has urged White men to come forward with bias complaints, upending decades of civil rights policy that once prioritized the rights of women and people of color.
The EEOC had made this DEI enforcement a top priority. The agency charged with fighting workplace discrimination is investigating Nike’s diversity policies for allegedly discriminating against White employees and it sued a Coca-Cola Co. distributor for allegedly discriminating against male employees by organizing a women-only retreat.
Signaling that the commission is poised to pursue more enforcement actions, EEOC chair Andrea Lucas warned Fortune 500 leaders that the Trump administration will not tolerate "discrimination against certain races or groups."
"All citizens are entitled to equal treatment under law and therefore should have equality of opportunity in every sector of our society, including the workplace," she wrote in a letter in February.
Reverse discrimination’ claims increase
Even before Trump took office, “reverse discrimination” lawsuits were on the upswing. Now lawyers predict the Trump administration’s enforcement efforts will spur even more bias complaints from White men.
In June, the Supreme Court made those lawsuits easier to bring, unanimously ruling that antidiscrimination laws apply equally to everyone regardless of race or gender.
"Discrimination is unlawful whether the victim is Black, White, male or female," Nick Barry, senior counsel at the advocacy group America First Legal, told USA TODAY. "Many have hesitated to come forward because they feared retaliation or backlash. But the tide is finally turning and momentum is building around the simple principle that merit, not race or sex, must govern workplace decisions."
Steven Miller, a senior portfolio manager, recently sued Bausch + Lomb and his billionaire employer Carl Icahn, alleging he was denied a board seat because he is White.
According to the complaint filed in December in a Miami federal court, Bausch + Lomb required one of the two board directors nominated by Icahn Capital to be “diverse,” meaning non-White.
Bausch + Lomb and Icahn Enterprises did not respond to a request for comment.
“Undoubtedly, employers will soon experience the impact of this messaging,” Charles Plumb, a lawyer with the McAfee & Taft law firm in Oklahoma, said. “We should anticipate an uptick in reverse employment discrimination investigations by federal agencies and lawsuits brought against employers.”
Bias claims face tough hurdles, long odds
Like those brought by women and people of color, these discrimination lawsuits face tough hurdles and long odds, but some White workers have had success in court.
A New Jersey jury awarded $1.3 million to two White educators who alleged they were passed over for vice principal posts at Newark high schools for younger and less experienced candidates of color. Starbucks was ordered to pay $25 million to Shannon Phillips, a regional director who claimed she was fired for being White.
“Sadly, it is with the slimmest of odds that employees get their day in court, let alone prevail,” Duvall told USA TODAY in an email in 2024.
“I hope my nearly six-year journey is helpful to others who lose their livelihood unfairly,” he wrote.
His lawyer, Luke Largess, said Duvall didn’t set out to become the face of the anti-DEI movement. He supported Novant Health’s diversity efforts during his tenure there, Largess said.
Novant Health told USA TODAY in a statement that ensuring equal employment opportunities "is a foundational aspect of Novant Health’s culture and we continue to vehemently disagree with the finding of liability."
For Duvall, standing up for himself in court came at a steep price. He told USA TODAY the litigation caused “immeasurable damage to my employment, my professional reputation and my career.”
After Novant, Duvall landed a job that paid more and included a signing bonus. He was fired not long after he filed his discrimination lawsuit in November 2019.
Even so, headhunters contacted him with interest from four employers. His phone stopped ringing when Duvall informed them about the lawsuit.
Today, the high-powered marketing executive works as a consultant.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump wants White men to sue for race discrimination. This man did
mm
Saturday, February 28, 2026
Rep. Tim Burchett just called out the Democrats’ sudden concern over presidential military action.
The left loved it when Obama did it, but now act shocked when Trump responds to Iran. Classic double standard.
Danny Sullivan ·Conservative Twins
Rep. Tim Burchett just called out the Democrats’ sudden concern over presidential military action.
“Obama bombed 8 countries without Congressional approval. It’s disingenuous for them to say this is ‘unprecedented’…they killed Americans in recent memory.
Rep. Tim Burchett just called out the Democrats’ sudden concern over presidential military action.
“Obama bombed 8 countries without Congressional approval. It’s disingenuous for them to say this is ‘unprecedented’…they killed Americans in recent memory.
"You poke the bull, you get the horns!”
The left loved it when Obama did it, but now act shocked when Trump responds to Iran. Classic double standard.
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Khamenei, one of the most evil people in History, is dead. This is not only Justice for the people of Iran, but for all Great Americans, and those people from many Countries throughout the World, that have been killed or mutilated by Khamenei and his gang of bloodthirsty THUGS. He was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do. This is the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country. We are hearing that many of their IRGC, Military, and other Security and Police Forces, no longer want to fight, and are looking for Immunity from us. As I said last night, “Now they can have Immunity, later they only get Death!” Hopefully, the IRGC and Police will peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots, and work together as a unit to bring back the Country to the Greatness it deserves. That process should soon be starting in that, not only the death of Khamenei but the Country has been, in only one day, very much destroyed and, even, obliterated. The heavy and pinpoint bombing, however, will continue, uninterrupted throughout the week or, as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!Thank you for your attention to this matter.
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP 2/28/2026
Thursday, February 26, 2026
Sunday, February 22, 2026
Lunacy: You Won’t Believe What Eric Swalwell Wants To Do To Trump’s Ballroom
The meltdown over President Donald Trump’s new White House ballroom has been nothing short of spectacular. From Hillary Clinton to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the usual suspects are losing their minds in a full-blown case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
They couldn’t care less about the practical need for the new space or the fact that past presidents have carried out plenty of renovations to the White House complex. None of that matters to them. What matters is finding yet another excuse to attack Trump — no matter how trivial or hypocritical it makes them look.
I figured Hillary Clinton’s reaction would take the cake, considering how much damage her family’s legacy did to the White House. But apparently, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is determined to outdo her. He’s now suggesting that every 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful should make it a campaign pledge to tear down Trump’s ballroom — as if that’s some grand act of resistance:
So let’s get this straight — Eric Swalwell wants Democrats to run on demolishing something the country got for free. A ballroom, no less, that even the Washington Post editorial board admitted was necessary — and that Biden and Obama officials quietly agreed was long overdue. Please, by all means, make that your campaign platform. It’ll be just like 2020 all over again, when every Democrat on stage — including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris — proudly raised their hands to promise taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants.
Go ahead, make that the hill to die on, you lunatics. Make it just like that infamous 2020 debate moment. You know, the one where every Democrat on stage raised their hand to support free health care for illegal immigrants:
Let them all line up again and pledge to tear down Trump’s ballroom. It’ll haunt them the same way that clip still does. And let’s not forget who was standing all the way on the right that night, nodding along to the nonsense.
So what’s the plan this time? Waste taxpayer money to rebuild a smaller office space that doesn’t even meet the White House’s needs — just so they can virtue-signal about “undoing Trump”? And here’s the kicker: wouldn’t tearing down a part of the White House itself be considered “destroying history,” which they claim is some unforgivable sin?
This is where the Democratic Party is now — obsessed with symbolism, detached from reality, and laser-focused on petty vendettas instead of actual governance. While the country faces a looming Schumer Shutdown, this is what they’re prioritizing: tantrums over a ballroom.
After getting hammered with well-deserved backlash, Swalwell quickly backpedaled on his grand “tear it down” crusade. In classic Democrat fashion, he didn’t admit it was a dumb idea — he just tried to rebrand it. Now, he’s calling for the ballroom to be renamed after Barack Obama, following a suggestion from Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).
Wait a second — wasn’t the ballroom supposed to be an unspeakable abomination that had to be torn down brick by brick? Now suddenly, it’s fine as long as it’s named after Barack Obama? So slapping his name on it magically transforms it from a symbol of corruption into a national treasure? Give me a break.
Only in Democrat logic does accepting private donations for a public project equal “corruption,” while bleeding taxpayers dry or sending billions overseas to Ukraine is somehow “responsible governance.”
They’ve officially lost the plot — and maybe their minds along with it.
Friday, February 20, 2026
SCOTUS
“You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy…
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so...and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control…The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately, Jefferson’s warning proved to be all too accurate.
Sixty-plus years ago, the progressive, liberal left in America decided the best way, possibly the only way, to impose their will on the American people was not at the ballot box or through the Legislative Branch of our government; it was through the Supreme Court.
To do so, they would only need five of the nine members.
The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court had supreme power over all government decisions would allow only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans! ...
No entity or group has allowed more evil into America than the Supreme Court.
As Phillip Jauregui points out (The Parable of the Prodigal Court) so clearly in this critical book, only five individuals were needed to remove God and His principles from American schools, our government, and the public square. They trampled on constitutional rights, made the right to murder babies the law of the land, and overruled the will of the people in thirty states, who agreed with God that marriage was between one man and one woman.
On June 26, 2015, five Justices decided they had the right to redefine a 6,000-year-old definition of marriage–a definition clearly given by God, mind you–and redefine this covenant He instituted!
Just let that sink in: five people (two of whom had participated in gay wedding ceremonies, yet refused to recuse themselves), arrogantly granted themselves the “authority” to overrule God…and the American people.
The deception and arrogance of this was mind-numbing.
Dutch Sheets
The late Justice Scalia stated, regarding this:
“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy...
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court...
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied [as it is today] by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776–the freedom to govern themselves…
To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
Regarding this usurpation, Justice Alito said:
“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage...
“All Americans, whatever they’re thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”
It is time to break this un-constitutional and inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions.
The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions allows only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans!
“You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy…
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so...and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control…The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
Thomas Jefferson
(Stated in a letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
Unfortunately, Jefferson’s warning proved to be all too accurate.
Sixty-plus years ago, the progressive, liberal left in America decided the best way, possibly the only way, to impose their will on the American people was not at the ballot box or through the Legislative Branch of our government; it was through the Supreme Court.
To do so, they would only need five of the nine members.
The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court had supreme power over all government decisions would allow only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans! ...
No entity or group has allowed more evil into America than the Supreme Court.
As Phillip Jauregui points out (The Parable of the Prodigal Court) so clearly in this critical book, only five individuals were needed to remove God and His principles from American schools, our government, and the public square. They trampled on constitutional rights, made the right to murder babies the law of the land, and overruled the will of the people in thirty states, who agreed with God that marriage was between one man and one woman.
On June 26, 2015, five Justices decided they had the right to redefine a 6,000-year-old definition of marriage–a definition clearly given by God, mind you–and redefine this covenant He instituted!
Just let that sink in: five people (two of whom had participated in gay wedding ceremonies, yet refused to recuse themselves), arrogantly granted themselves the “authority” to overrule God…and the American people.
The deception and arrogance of this was mind-numbing.
Dutch Sheets
The late Justice Scalia stated, regarding this:
“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy...
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court...
“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied [as it is today] by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776–the freedom to govern themselves…
To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
Regarding this usurpation, Justice Alito said:
“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage...
“All Americans, whatever they’re thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”
It is time to break this un-constitutional and inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions.
The inappropriate belief that the Supreme Court has supreme power over all government decisions allows only five unelected people to impose and enforce their will over 300,000,000 Americans!
Monday, February 16, 2026
Sunday, February 15, 2026
Ripleys "Believe it or not" ?
THIS is why California is dying.
Despite earning a $178,000 Super Bowl winner’s bonus, he was required to pay an estimated $249,000 in California state income taxes due to the state’s "jock tax." This tax applies to non-resident athletes who work in California, based on the number of "duty days" spent in the state—eight days for Super Bowl week.
As a result, Darnold faced a net loss of approximately $71,000 on his Super Bowl victory. The tax is calculated on a portion of his full annual salary (from his $100.5 million contract with the Seahawks), not just the bonus.
[NOTE]
Everyone saying this is fake, it's straight from News Week. Argue with them.
https://www.newsweek.com/.../seahawks-sam-darnold-lost.
EPSTEIN...Read this article, then determine whether you just described yourself ?
“The Epstein files create so much emotional charge that having rational discourse about them is basically impossible.
Andrew Wilson LHGrey @grey4626
You brain-dead conspiracy tourists and partisan rage-monkeys losing your ##### minds over “Elvis Presley” and “Janis Joplin” popping up in Epstein document searches need to shut the hell up, sit down, and absorb a dose of reality before you embarrass yourselves further.
These names are not on any “client list.” They are not implicated in trafficking, abuse, recruitment, or conspiracy.
They are throwaway, irrelevant mentions scattered across thousands of pages of unfiltered deposition transcripts and discovery material...someone casually said “Epstein had Elvis records in the lodge” or “we played Janis Joplin on the flight” or “I saw a poster of her in the guest house.” Mundane human conversation that any competent review would flag as utterly meaningless noise.
Under normal protocol...the protocol that has governed every prior Epstein/Giuffre v. Maxwell unsealing...the DOJ and the court apply meticulous redactions to protect innocent third parties. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) authorizes protective orders. Judge Preska’s own 2023-2024 unsealing orders explicitly required continued redaction of non-party identifiers absent a compelling override. Basic privacy statutes, due process, and simple decency demand that dead celebrities, distant acquaintances, and random staffers not be dragged into the public sewer for clicks.
But Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna couldn’t tolerate that. They needed the rush. They needed the viral dopamine hit of “fighting the deep state.” So they mounted a full-court press: public letters, hearing grandstanding, coordinated X outrage campaigns, the whole performative circus. “Release EVERYTHING immediately!” they shrieked, implying that any delay, any careful review, was proof of a cover-up protecting whichever boogeyman their base hated that week...Trump, Clinton, Gates, take your pick. Psychologically, it’s textbook narcissistic projection fused with political opportunism.
They cannot conceive of institutional caution that isn’t corrupt because their own motives are impure: clout, donor pats on the head, and the delicious thrill of wielding moral superiority over faceless bureaucrats.
They whipped the mob into a frothing “transparency or treason” frenzy, leaving the DOJ with two choices: take the time to do it right and be accused of obstruction, or dump the raw, unredacted discovery and let the chips fall. The DOJ chose option B.
Message received loud and clear:
You want it raw and right now? Here it is...every unfiltered page, no redactions, no context, no guardrails.
Enjoy the flood.
Now innocent names...long-dead musicians, caterers, pilots, distant cousins...are smeared across search results.
Real disclosures about actual powerful figures get drowned in algorithmic noise.
Victims’ advocates watch in horror as legitimate evidence is contaminated by deliberate chaos.
And the lowest-IQ corners of the internet get to scream “Elvis was a pedo!” or “Janis recruited girls!” while the rest of us roll our eyes at the predictable self-own.
This isn’t transparency. This is sabotage disguised as principle.
Massie and Khanna didn’t expose the guilty; they deliberately violated established privacy protections, poisoned the evidentiary well, and handed disinformation merchants a gift-wrapped distraction.
They own every bit of this circus...the confusion, the defamation of the innocent, the dilution of actual accountability.
You demanded unfiltered truth without the patience or intelligence to handle it. Congratulations. You got exactly what you begged for: a steaming pile of raw discovery with zero curation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
