Một số tin tức, video clips đáng xem của cuối ngày Giáng Sinh 2020... Xin mời theo dõi
để tường và tùy nghi thẩm định...
You forwarded this message on Sat 12/26/2020 3:01 PM
B
BMH
Sat 12/26/2020 9:39 AM
Xin chuyển đến Quý Vị, Quý NT và CH...
Một số tin tức, video clips đáng xem của cuối ngày Giáng Sinh 2020...
Xin mời theo dõi để tường và tùy nghi thẩm định...
Trân trọng..
** Mời Quý Vị xem twitters từ LS Lin Wood nói về ông John Roberts..
OMG - You don't want to miss this....part of the 2020 live movie production.
@LLinWood
I am a trial lawyer. I pursue truth to achieve justice. I ask questions. Witnesses provide answers under oath. I sometimes have investigators provide me with information. If witness answers conflict with information, I impeach the witnesses’ credibility. Cross-examination 101.
Get Chief Justice John Roberts under oath NOW. First question after handing him exhibit below: “Explain this.”
With Chief Justice John Roberts under oath, Second question after handing him exhibit below: “Explain this.”
With Chief Justice John Roberts under oath, Third question: “Do you deny under penalty of perjury saying to Justice Breyer in discussing
, “that mother f#*ker will never be re-elected’?”
With Chief Justice John Roberts under oath, 4th question: “Just before rendering yet another inexplicable anti-conservative vote, you claim you suffered
a fall at Chevy Chase Country Club requiring hospitalization. Why did you not report the fall
to public for several days?”
With Chief Justice John Roberts under oath, 5th question: “Identify all witnesses to your fall at Chevy Chase Country Club.”
6th Question: “What injuries did you suffer from the fall?”
7th Question: “Can public review medical records?”
With Chief Justice John Roberts under oath, 8th question: “Describe in detail your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.” 9th Question: “Describe in detail your relationship with Bush 41.” 10th Question: “Describe in detail your relationship with Bush 43.”
Threats & lawsuits against
& me are nothing more than ill-conceived efforts to suppress free speech & hide TRUTH. We will not be deterred. Not as long as We The People have First Amendment & honest judiciary. If we lose one or both, it is game over for freedom.
“HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY.”
** Một video clip phóng sự điều tra của Joshua Philipp / Epoch Times thực hiện...
Rất có giá trị, xin mời Quý Vị xem để tường..
World Exclusive: 1st Documentary Movie on 2020 Election Investigation---Who Is Stealing America?
•Premiered Dec 21, 2020
Due to many requests from viewers, we have decided to release this documentary on YouTube.
If this video is removed from our
channel, you can still watch it on The Epoch Times: https://www.theepochtimes.com/2020-el... - - - - - - - - -
2020 has been a most unusual year... It started with an unprecedented global pandemic caused by the CCP virus,
and is concluding with the globally
captivating U.S. presidential election—the results of which will not only decide the future of the United States,
but also determine the future of the
world. However, the US election has been plagued with allegations of irregularities.
So following election night, The
Epoch Times’ investigative team quickly went to work.
In an attempt to uncover the issues
behind the election, senior investigative reporter Joshua Phillip traveled across the country to swing states
to interview whistleblowers, big
data experts, and election experts. And this is what he uncovered...
Xin click vào link dưới đây:
**********************************************************************************
It Looks Like China Is Building a Foothold in the Atlantic, Less than 100 Miles from Florida
By Jim Hayek December 25, 2020
For many, the problem of a rising China appears to be an issue for future generations.
After all, despite the meteoric rise of the communist giant’s economy, military and culture, the People’s Republic lacks the basic ability to project power and maintain a force abroad thanks to its second-rate navy.
Now, however, it seems that in the chaos of 2020, China is not only rapidly increasing production of advanced arms but is actively working on an Atlantic Ocean foothold less than 100 miles from American shores.
As far back as 2019, Chinese defense officials publicly expressed their plan to shore up military cooperation with islands in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.
According to state-operated Xinhua News, Chinese State Councilor and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe framed the expansion around America as part of China’s Belt and Road initiative.
TRENDING: Report: A Growing Number Of Republican Lawmakers Join Upcoming Electoral College Challenge
After scrambling the world order with a viral pandemic fueled by its lies, China is taking full advantage of distracted nations to further the interests of the People’s Republic.
Near the end of 2019, China Merchants Port Holdings, through a joint venture with a French company, began to gobble up naval infrastructure around the globe. Although the staked ports are spread all over the world, one is uncomfortably close to the continental United States.
According to shipping logistics network Atlas, CMPH’s joint venture gained a major foothold in ports in India, Ukraine, Singapore and Jamaica, the latter of which is roughly just 500 miles from the coast of Florida.
Although CMPH controls only 49 percent of the joint holding securing ports around the world, the Chinese government’s habit of leaning on domestic companies for the furtherance of state interests means the Communist Party of China will now likely hold sway over several foreign terminals.
In the Bahamas, the Chinese regime has been slowly building up a massive presence on the islands.
According to an April 2019 article in the Bahamian newspaper The Tribune, a container port project worth tens of millions of dollars in the city of Freeport, situated less than 100 miles from American shores in Florida, was undertaken in part by Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong-based investment company.
China’s hold on the island appears to have grown with years of investment, and now the Bahamas are happy to join in with other Caribbean nations parroting Chinese propaganda. According to Chinese state-controlled Global Times, in May, the islands were among nine countries in the region to affirm the “one China” dogma.
Under the “one China” policy, Taiwan is not seen as an independent nation, but a wayward province of the communist mainland.
Where the communist regime can’t gain a foothold, it is putting in work to build up clout in nations surrounding the United States.
In Cuba, Chinese laborers worked alongside islanders beginning in 2017 to modernize a port on the socialist island, according to Xinhua News. Financed largely by a China-backed loan, the massive undertaking would open the area for larger ships.
There’s no doubt China has been playing the long game by building up relationships with its Belt and Road program. Through the initiative, Chinese loans have gone toward foreign construction projects and infrastructure repair around the world.
When the loans cannot be repaid, the ruling communist regime is more than happy to accept alternate payment. In the case of Sri Lanka, which was unable to pay for projects financed by the Asian giant, it was forced to hand over a port to a Chinese company on a 99-year lease.
We can’t even expect our neighbors to the north to stand beside us against China, either.
Last year, Canadian officials approved winter training in North America for cadres of Chinese troops. The training would have given insider knowledge on surviving harsh northern winters and navigating the terrain of continental America.
The training was canceled after American defense officials intervened.
President Xi Jinping and other ruling members of the Chinese Communist Party know that a foothold doesn’t have to be a fortified bunker bristling with guns. When they economically encircle their enemies and turn neighboring countries against them, the need for military might takes a backseat.
The United States’ ability to win a war with China already is uncertain. Although the country is not able to put boots on the ground in America yet, its own coastline is assumed to be protected by batteries of ship-killing hypersonic missiles for which we simply do not have an effective countermeasure.
With the likely ascension of presumptive President-elect Joe Biden, we risk losing even the slim chance that we could contain an aggressively growing China.
Biden’s pro-China attitude, which paved the way for the global ascension of the massive country, would undoubtedly be exploited by communist leaders who are more than happy to meet with an “old friend” than with a hardliner such as President Donald Trump.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
**********************************************************************************
**********************************************************************************
Will Wisconsin Republicans Reassign the Current Wisconsin Electoral College Votes to Trump After Judge Rules Over 200,000 Biden Votes Are Illegitimate?
THIS IS A HISTORIC MOMENT TO SAVE THE COUNTRY!
Will the current leadership in Wisconsin change their electoral college votes and assign them to President Trump now that over 200,000 Biden votes are labeled illegitimate or will the President have to continue to be the only one fighting for justice in Wisconsin?
We reported last week that the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the President’s position on indefinitely confined cases:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Mark Jefferson and the Republican Party of Wisconsin.But the court noted that a determination must be make in every case before tossing a ballot, as President Trump has sought in a separate lawsuit.Under Wisconsin law, a voter may receive a ballot by mail and bypass Wisconsin’s voter ID law, if the voter, by his own determination, concludes he “confined” based on age, physical illness, or infirmity. This fall, roughly 215,000 voters in Wisconsin said they were indefinitely confined, nearly a four-fold increase from the 2016 election.The court said the government’s interpretation of Wisconsin’s indefinitely confined was erroneous. “A county clerk may not “declare” that any elector is indefinitely confined due to a pandemic,” the court said. The court further stated that, “…the presence of a communicable disease such as COVID-19, in and of itself, does not entitle all electors [voters] in Wisconsin to obtain an absentee ballot…”Moreover, the court stated that lockdown orders do not meet the requirements under Wisconsin law to allow a voter to claim the status of “indefinitely confined” either.
There are 240,000 indefinitely confined cases in Wisconsin this year. Most are illegitimate and these were unquestionably votes for Joe Biden.
A judge has agreed that these votes are illegitimate. Republicans should eliminate every one until the Democrats can prove any of them are legitimate.
Will the Republican leadership stand up and disqualify these votes and assign all their electoral votes to President Trump or will the President have to continue to fight alone?
**********************************************************************************
TWJ Exclusive: Bombshell New Legal Memo Giving Trump Supporters Hope on Christmas Eve
By William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney
Published December 24, 2020
Published December 24, 2020
The Western Journal is presenting this memorandum, written by two prominent conservative legal scholars, essentially verbatim, with only enough editing to format it for the Op-Ed section of our website. This is the second memo by Messrs. Olson and McSweeney to be published exclusively by The Western Journal, and it, like the first, outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks. Prior to its publication here, it was sent to President Trump. — Ed. note
Overcoming the Court’s Abdication in Texas v. Pennsylvania
William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney
December 24, 2020
December 24, 2020
In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.
However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again.
Texas v. Pennsylvania
The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the Framers vested in each State legislature the exclusive authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors. The Framers’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise, because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states. Individuals can be bought, paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures.
In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People.
The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania.
As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable.
The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear. However, just like when it agrees to decide a case, and in disputes where the original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them. Two centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote: “however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Marshall described “the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” because “every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option
The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court.
The only reason given by the Supreme Court was: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” In truth, Texas did make such a showing. When Pennsylvania violated the exclusive authority bestowed on state legislators in the Constitution’s Electors Clause, it opened the door to corruption and foreign intrigue to corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, and as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68, that is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College. During the 2020 election cycle, changes to the election process in Pennsylvania were made by judges, state office holders and election officials which would never have been made by its state legislature.
If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support. That political reality presents a real “judicially cognizable interest” no matter what the Supreme Court decided. What happens in Pennsylvania does not stay in Pennsylvania, as electors from all States acting together select the President of the United States.
In the Federalist Papers, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “the spirit of faction” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity. They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State. When differences arise between States that threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together, as Hamilton observed, either “by the agency of the Courts or by military force.” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences.
In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.
Round Two: The United States Must Enter the Fray
Fortunately, that might have been only the first round in the fight to preserve the nation. A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause. That would leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires.
When those four States violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature, the United States suffered an injury. Indeed, there could hardly have been a more significant injury to the nation than that which corrupted its Presidential election.
The United States has a vital interest and a responsibility to preserve the constitutional framework of the Republic, which was formed by a voluntary compact among the States. As with any contractual relationship of participants in an ongoing enterprise, no party is entitled to ignore or alter the essential terms of the contract by its unilateral action.
The President who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has the right and the duty to order the U.S. Department of Justice bring such an action in the Supreme Court — and should do so quickly.
Reasons for Great Hope at Christmas
In rejecting the invocation by the State of Texas of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute between Texas and four other States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause, for now, a majority of the Justices foreclosed the use of that constitutional safeguard by Texas to provide a peaceful means of resolving the controversy that has deeply divided States and the citizens of this Republic as at no time since the 1860s.
That consequence is too dangerous tobe allowed to stand
If the same case previously brought by Texas were now brought by the United States of America, there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would be compelled to understand it must hear it and decide it favorably.
Although outcomes are never certain, it is believed and hoped that a majority of the Supreme Court could never take the position that the United States has no business enforcing the process established in the Constitution by which we select the one government official who represents all the People — The President of the United States.