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
(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!


Sunday, February 15, 2026

 Ripleys "Believe it or not" ?

Shane Moore

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.


 I stole this from somewhere, don't remember from where....Doesn't matter, I'm gonna post it anyhow because I would like to know WHAT HAPPENED???













 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.
People want arrests but don’t know who they want arrested. They want justice but don’t know who they want justice for. Totally Incoherent outrage. Mob panic.”

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.