John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© February 15, 2025
If there is anything an American Patriot devoted to the
Originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution should have realized over
the last four years of the Biden-installed tyranny is this: ALL FACETS OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME SO CORRUPT, that the Constitution became a
shredded parchment replaced by an Oligarchy of corruption.
Dear readers, that essentially is the illicit rule by the
FEW over the MANY the Constitution calls WE THE PEOPLE in the Preamble:
We the People of the United
States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That corrupt Oligarchy had been going on long before the installed
Biden Regime, but the most vivid expression of corruption in ALL Branches of
Government became brazenly visible during that timeframe.
This post is a share of how that CORRUPTION is doing its
utmost to remain installed by unconstitutionally thwarting the MAGA Mandate the
too big to rig WE THE PEOPLE voted fore in November 2024. The focus in this
share is the Executive Branch and Judicial Branch, but make no mistake. The
Legislative Branch has so many Dem-Marxists and RINOs it is tainted in
corruption as well.
READ the Shares Directly or BELOW:
o Unveiling
the FDA’s DECEPTION: The hidden truth behind Pfizer’s vaccine approval –
News Target
o
Trump
Need Not Bend To The 19-State Lawfare Coup Trying To Thwart His Treasury
– The Federalist
o
Tainted
FBI & Secret Service – No Thought Police
JRH
2/15/25
READER SUPPORTED!
PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers
to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100 (PAYPAL - one-time or recurring).
PLEASE YOUR generosity is NEEDED. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for
Liberty:
Please Support SlantRight 2.0
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on
all social media platforms!
Our Senior Citizen Family Supplements our income by
offering healthy coffee products. BETTER YOUR HEALTH with healthy & good
tasting COFFEE and enjoy some weight management supplements. BUY Happy Coffee
& Weight Loss Supplements at the Diana Wellness Store: https://dianawellnessstore.com
>>DRINK
COFFEE-MANAGE WEIGHT or MAKE SOME EXTRA CASH<<
*****************************
Unveiling the FDA’s DECEPTION: The hidden truth behind
Pfizer’s vaccine approval
By Willow
Tohi
February 14, 2025
NEWS
TARGET
FDA Banner (NT
Photo)
§ The
FDA is facing a major scandal for allegedly concealing crucial documents
related to the emergency use authorization of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine,
leading to a court-ordered disclosure.
§ Attorney
Aaron Siri, representing the Public Health and Medical Professionals for
Transparency, filed a lawsuit in September 2021 under the Freedom of
Information Act to access FDA documentation. Despite a court order, the FDA
continued to withhold over one million pages of documents.
§ The
FDA's slow release schedule and deliberate concealment of critical data have
raised serious questions about the vaccine's safety and efficacy, leading to
public mistrust in the regulatory process.
§ Federal
Judge Mark Pittman ordered the FDA to fully disclose the remaining documents by
June 2025, emphasizing the public's right to scrutinize the data. This decision
is seen as a significant victory for transparency advocates.
§ Texas
Attorney General Ken Paxton has also sued Pfizer for misleading claims about
the vaccine's efficacy and its attempts to censor public discourse, further
highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in public health
decisions.
In a stunning turn of events, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has been caught red-handed in a brazen attempt to
mislead the judiciary and the American public. The latest court order, issued
on December 6, 2024, by a federal judge, has exposed the FDA's systematic
concealment of critical
documents related to the emergency use authorization (EUA) of
Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. This revelation has sent shockwaves through the
public health community and reignited the debate over transparency and
accountability in governmental agencies.
A legal battle for transparency
The legal saga began in September 2021 when attorney Aaron
Siri, representing the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency
(PHMPT), filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The
plaintiffs sought access to the extensive
documentation the FDA used to approve Pfizer's vaccine. Initially,
the FDA proposed a staggeringly slow release schedule, offering only 500 pages
per month—a pace that would have taken 75 years to disclose the entire trove of
450,000 pages!
However, in January 2022, District Judge Mark Pittman of
Texas intervened, ordering the FDA to expedite the release to 55,000 pages per
month, with the goal of completing the disclosure by August 2022. Despite this
court order, the FDA continued to withhold
crucial documents, estimated to be over one million pages, directly
tied to the EUA of Pfizer's vaccine.
The FDA's deceptive tactics
As the documents began to trickle out, researchers and
public health experts noticed significant gaps in the data, raising suspicions
about the FDA's intentions. It became increasingly clear that the FDA had been
deliberately concealing records that could have provided a comprehensive
understanding of the vaccine's safety and efficacy. This deliberate omission
not only misled the judiciary but also eroded public trust in the regulatory
process.
Aaron Siri, Managing Partner of Siri & Glimstad LLP,
expressed his outrage in a recent interview: "The FDA has been hiding a million pages from the Court, the
plaintiff and the public. Only those concerned about the truth seek
to conceal evidence. The FDA here is clearly concerned about the truth and
lacks confidence in the review that it conducted to license Pfizer’s COVID-19
vaccine because it is doing everything possible to prevent independent
scientists from conducting an independent review."
A call for accountability
Judge Pittman's latest order, mandating the full disclosure
of the remaining documents by June 2025, is a significant victory for
transparency advocates. In his ruling, Judge Pittman invoked the timeless
wisdom of American revolutionary Patrick Henry: "The liberties of a people
never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may
be concealed from them." The judge's decision underscores the public's
right to scrutinize the data that underpins one of the most significant public
health interventions in history.
However, Siri remains cautious about the FDA's compliance.
"The FDA has spent far too long thinking it can do whatever it wants
without accountability. I think they’re hoping that we will just go away. What
the FDA doesn’t know is that we’re never going away. We won’t stop fighting for
freedom and rights, ever," he stated defiantly.
A wider context of misrepresentation
The FDA's deception is part of a broader pattern of
misinformation and lack of transparency surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has also taken legal action against Pfizer,
Inc., for its misleading
claims about the vaccine's efficacy and its attempts to censor public discourse.
According to the lawsuit, Pfizer made unsupported claims that its vaccine had a
95% efficacy rate, a statistic that is misleading and "unduly
influences" consumer choice.
Paxton's lawsuit further alleges that Pfizer engaged in a
campaign to intimidate the public and silence critics, labeling them as
"criminals" and accusing them of spreading
"misinformation." This strategy, Paxton argues, was a desperate
attempt to protect the company's financial interests as the vaccine's
effectiveness came into question.
"We are pursuing justice for the people of Texas, many
of whom were coerced by tyrannical vaccine mandates to take a defective product
sold by lies," said Attorney General Paxton. "The facts are clear.
Pfizer did not tell the truth about their COVID-19 vaccines. Whereas the Biden
Administration weaponized the pandemic to force illegal public health decrees
on the public and enrich pharmaceutical companies, I will use every tool I have
to protect our citizens who were misled and harmed by Pfizer’s actions."
Conclusion
The FDA's attempt to hide critical documents and Pfizer's misleading claims about the
vaccine's efficacy are clear violations of the public's right to
informed consent. These actions have not only eroded trust in public health
institutions but have also highlighted the need for greater transparency and
accountability. As the additional documents are set to be released by June
2025, the public and independent researchers will have the opportunity to
conduct a thorough and unbiased review of the data. The fight for truth and
transparency continues, and the American people deserve nothing less.
Sources include:
Brownstone.org
BeckersHospitalReview.com
TexasAttorneyGeneral.gov
NewsTarget.com © 2022 All
Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and
is protected under Free Speech. NewsTarget.com is not responsible for
content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is
provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as
a substitute for professional advice of any kind. NewsTarget.com assumes no responsibility
for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your
agreement to these terms and those published on this site. All trademarks,
registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property
of their respective owners.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump Need Not Bend To The
19-State Lawfare Coup Trying To Thwart His Treasury
By John A. Lucas
February 14, 2025
The
Federalist
President Donald Trump - Daniel Torok/The
White House/Flickr (TF
Photo)
The president, as the chief executive officer of the
country, is not obligated to heel every time an out-of-control federal judge
jerks his leash.
The opening
sentence of Article II of the U.S. Constitution is straightforward and
grants one person, the president, broad powers: “The executive Power shall be
vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Nineteen rebellious states are now attempting to usurp that
executive power, which the Constitution vests solely in the president. This
case, which seeks to wrest control of the Department of the Treasury away from
President Trump and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, is part of the
ongoing campaign of lawfare by which the Democrats seek to frustrate the will
of a majority of voters and states, thereby overturning the results of the
presidential election. They have been aided and abetted thus far by a pliable,
low-level federal judge in New York. The case is now proceeding with another
judge. We shall see.
Background and Updates
As I detailed in two previous articles about the New York case, the Constitution
gives the president sole executive power. However, New York’s anti-Trump
Attorney General Letitia James and 18 other rogue state AGs, in concert with
low-level New York federal Judge Paul Engelmayer, have tried to usurp this
executive power by prohibiting Trump and Bessent from effectively reviewing
Treasury records to eradicate waste and fraud in federal spending. As I wrote:
The judge has taken it upon
himself to be the first judge ever to grant a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) against the President of the United States that also to forbids a
cabinet secretary from accessing his own records without giving them an opportunity
to respond, with zero analysis of his Constitutional authority to make such a
radical ruling, zero analysis of the Federal Rule governing injunctions and
temporary restraining orders, and zero analysis of why he is enabling fraud and
grift by blocking access to records that show who got government money and for
what.
After those two articles were published, the defendants
filed an emergency motion to dissolve, clarify, or modify the TRO that
Judge Engelmayer — the judge on duty to handle “emergency” after-hour matters
on Feb. 7, the night it was filed — had entered. Judge Jeannette Varga, the
judge the case was actually assigned to, then made a modification
to the TRO. After that, the government filed a memorandum of law opposing the plaintiffs’
requested injunction. The plaintiffs’ response was filed Thursday, and a
hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Friday
afternoon.
A Primer on Injunctions and TROs
First, one point not mentioned in my prior articles is the
difference between a temporary restraining order (TRO), which has now been
issued, and a preliminary injunction, which will be decided after Friday’s
hearing.
An injunction is a form of what the law refers to as
“extraordinary relief.” Unlike a judgment that awards a successful plaintiff a
monetary sum, an injunction prohibits the defendant from performing or
continuing some illegal act or dangerous condition (such as a homeowners’
association attempting to enforce racially discriminatory rules). A “mandatory
injunction” may order the defendant to perform a specific act (such as convey
real estate that is the subject of an enforceable contract).
Getting an injunction often is a two-stage process. A
plaintiff may obtain a preliminary injunction on an expedited basis that
typically lasts for a limited time until discovery can be conducted and a full
trial on the merits can be held. A full trial can then result in a permanent
injunction for a successful plaintiff. Sometimes a hearing on a preliminary
injunction and a full trial on the merits may be consolidated, although that
has not happened in this case.
In cases of extreme emergency, where “irreparable harm” will
occur immediately if the court does not act swiftly, a judge may enter a TRO
granting the requested relief. But a TRO can only last for a maximum of 14
days, unless the court extends it for compelling reasons.
Defenses to a TRO That Defendants Did Not Raise
There are several defenses to a TRO and an injunction that
the defendants have not yet raised and which they apparently do not intend to
raise. One of those defenses is the lack of meaningful notice of the
application for a TRO.
Suffice it to say that New York’s “Special Trial Counsel”
Colleen Faherty tried to give the appearance of having provided notice that
they were asking for a TRO, but it was a sham notice that provided the
defendants no meaningful opportunity to respond. The defendants did not raise
this issue in either their emergency motion to dissolve, clarify, or modify the TRO or
their memorandum of law opposing an injunction. This
decision to conserve their resources by not fighting this battle may have been
an application of Clausewitz’s principle of “economy of force,” so I will not second-guess it
now.
A second defense that the defendant eschewed is somewhat
more concerning, if only because it evidences a certain lack of an aggressive
defense. As I previously pointed out, a TRO is not effective
until a bond or other security is posted. Judge Engelmayer ordered a
nominal $10,000 to be posted as security before the beginning of the hearing at
2:00 p.m. on Feb. 14. The express terms of Rule 65(a) provide that a TRO is not
in effect until that security is posted.
Yet even though the TRO is not effective until security is
posted, the defendants affirmatively stated both in their emergency motion and
in their memorandum of law that they were taking “all necessary steps to comply
with the Court’s Order.” So the president and other defendants are complying
with an order with which they are not legally obligated to comply. As Alfred, Lord Tennyson said, “All the world
wondered.” Perhaps the defense lawyers made another tactical decision not to
raise that issue, but it is something to wonder about.
Finally, there is the issue of the insufficiency of the
amount of security Engelmayer required. Given the potential damage the country could
suffer if DOGE is denied access to the Treasury Department records even
temporarily — the hampered ability to control some of the runaway and
fraudulent spending that has the country headed toward a financial abyss — a
bond that fully protects the government from a wrongful injunction could run
into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This is a complex question and could
be a trial in itself.
Again, defense counsel may have consciously decided not to
make an issue of this for tactical reasons, or they may raise it at the
injunction hearing on Friday, but it does grant the plaintiffs considerable
latitude to try to shut down DOGE’s operations with minimal cost to themselves.
Must Trump Cooperate with an Attempted Coup Camouflaged
as a Court Order?
The short answer is no.
People have been trained to believe that a president must
follow the orders of a third-tier federal judge because orders coming from any
of the 1,000-plus federal judges in the country are the “law of the land”
and must be regarded as supreme.
Such deference should usually be granted as a matter of
comity, when judges stay within recognized constitutional bounds. But where a
judge veers far from the constitutional path and enters a patently erroneous or
unconstitutional order, a president is not required to follow.
First, we start with the proposition that the judiciary
is not the supreme branch of the government. It is one of the
three co-equal branches. The lack of supremacy of the entire judicial branch is
highlighted when you consider that there are more than 1,000 active district
judges. When the Constitution vests the executive power of the United States in
one person — the president — it defies common sense to think that he is
obligated to obey every order from each of those many judges who might try to
second-guess his exercise of that power.
Next, when you consider a couple of examples, the fallacy of
that broad reasoning becomes even more apparent. What if one of the 1,000-plus
district judges were to enter an order forbidding the president from accessing
highly classified military documents such as nuclear attack plans, on the
grounds that the president has not been properly trained? (That alleged lack of
training was one of the bases for Judge Engelmayer’s order prohibiting certain officers and employees from
accessing documents.) Would the president be required to follow such an order?
I think not.
Neither would he be obligated to litigate the matter through
the court system for months or even years before obtaining an answer from the
Supreme Court. No, the president should continue to exercise his command
authority over the military and say, as President Jackson famously did, “John
Marshall has made his ruling now let him enforce it.”
Or what if a low-level judge forbade, say, the secretary of
transportation from accessing sensitive documents held by agencies he
supervised because he previously had been only a small-town mayor and had not
“passed all background checks and security clearances and taken all information
security training called for in federal statutes” that some civil servants get
to safeguard private information (as Engelmayer also required)? I think that
even most Democrats might shrink from such a rule.
Everyone can come up with their own examples. But the answer
to the initial question above is a resounding “no.” The president, as the chief
executive officer of the country, is not obligated to heel every time an
out-of-control federal judge jerks his leash.
And in addition to Andrew Jackson, there is powerful
precedent for a president’s refusal to acquiesce in a court order. President
Lincoln famously defied an order entered by Supreme Court Justice Taney.
Lincoln had suspended the writ of habeas corpus in certain
sensitive military areas. Federal troops had arrested and imprisoned a
Confederate sympathizer who had been “recruiting, training, and leading a drill company for
Confederate service.”
When the prisoner sought release pursuant to a writ of habeas
corpus, Justice Taney, sitting as a trial judge, entered an order and
opinion that Lincoln’s suspension of the writ was outside his powers. Lincoln
did not resolve the matter by appealing the order. President Lincoln just
ignored Taney’s order.
This article was originally published on the author’s
Substack, “Bravo
Blue,” and has been lightly edited.
John A. Lucas is a
retired attorney who has tried and argued a variety of cases, including before
the U. S. Supreme Court. Before entering law school at the University of Texas,
he served in the Army Special Forces as an enlisted man, later graduating from
the U. S. Military Academy at West Point in 1969. He is an Army Ranger who
fought in Vietnam as an infantry platoon leader. He is married with five
children. He and his wife now live in Virginia. John also is published at johnalucas6.substack.com.
© 2025 The Federalist, A wholly
independent division of FDRLST Media. All rights reserved.
++++++++++++++++++++
Tainted FBI & Secret Service
By Rev. Patti
February 14, 2025
No
Thought Police
Trump Assassination
Attempt- Butler PA (NTP
Photo)
Has that day been forgotten so quickly? I’m sure it’s not
been forgotten by POTUS nor the family who lost a father that day. But it seems
like the so-called media, Dems, and even the FBI are forgetting about it. This
is a damn good reason why it’s so important to get Kash Patel confirmed so that
the truth comes out about both of the attempts on his life. Because right now,
do you trust the truth coming from the FBI or even the Secret Service? I don’t
know about you but I sure as heck don’t.
According to several FBI whistleblowers, one such being
Steve Friend, warns that the corruption at the FBI isn’t just at the top it
goes all the way down to the boots on the ground. According to Friend, you can
no longer just blame it all on the top brass with the claim that the field
agents are mostly good guys, that’s no longer the case, far too many agents are
on board with the corrupt brass. If that’s truly the case, if Patel is
confirmed he has a nightmare of a job ahead of him.
Since the FBI has been dragging its heels on giving We the
People clear information on the two attempted assassinations. Tough to trust an
agency that goes dark on such important issues the American people have a right
to know.
Judicial Watch has for several years been trying to
transparency regarding the FBI and as always they were stonewalled, so in 2023
they filed yet another FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ for messages among some of
the top leaders of the FBI referencing social media posts of Special Agent
Jeffrey Veltri, head of the Miami Field Office, which is the same office that’s
supposedly investigating the 2nd attempt on President Trump’s life in Florida
on September 15, 2024.
According to the Washington Times back in November of
2023…”Top FBI officials ordered an agent to scrub his Facebook page to delete
all of his anti-Trump vitriol before they would promote him to head the
bureau’s Miami field office, which covers former President Donald Trump’s
Mar-a-Lago estate, a whistleblower told Congress.”
Judicial Watch them sued the DOJ when they refused to
respond in full to their original FOIA request for:
All emails and Lync system messages sent to and from the
following:
1. FBI officials referencing
social media posts and/or Facebook posts generated by Miami Field Office
Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri: Director Christopher Wray, Deputy Director Paul
Abbate, and or Executive Assistant Director Jennifer Moore.
2. All communications,
whether by email, text message, or the FBI Lync system between Director Wray,
Dep. Director Abbate and/or EAD Jennifer Moore on the one hand and Miami FO
Special Agent Veltri related to Donald Trump, social media posts, Facebook
and/or political opinions.
It seems that Veltri was reportedly “one of several
officials that used litmus tests to ‘purge’ political conservatives” like
whistleblower Marcus Allen and Steve Friend both former FBI agents.
“The Biden-Harris FBI engaged in a cover-up of a cover-up of
one of its top agent’s anti-Trump bias,” Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch said.
“This is why many Americans are concerned about the FBI’s dangerous political
bias against Trump – and whether the FBI can be trusted to investigate the
attempts on his life.”
In June 2024 Judicial Watch received documents showing that
the FBI Office of Congressional Affairs provided a Democratic staffer with
information on FBI whistleblowers who detailed the bureau’s targeting of
political opponents and retaliation for their testifying at a May 18, 2023,
hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government.
Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch represented Marcus Allen, a
decorated veteran, FBI analyst and witness before the Weaponization
Subcommittee, in a lawsuit against FBI Director Christopher Wray for violating
Allen’s constitutional rights by falsely accusing him of holding
“conspiratorial views,” stripping his security clearance, and suspending him
from duty without pay. However, on May 31, 2024 did have his security clearance
was reinstated.
In January 2024, again Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit
against the DoD for reports submitted by a military officer to his superiors
regarding an alleged conversation around January 2017 between CIA analysts Eric
Ciaramella and Sean Misko about trying to “get rid” of then-President Trump!
Then in November 2023, Judicial Watch released FBI records
showing top officials rushing to craft a public response to the leaked FBI
intelligence memo that revealed its targeting of Catholics who adhere to
traditional beliefs on church issues including any negative opinions of Pope
Francis.
In June of 2023 communications from FBI officials about
using several systems and databases regarding investigations that were carried
out after an October 4, 2021, memo from AG Merrick Garland instructing
investigators to target American parents due to an alleged “increase in
harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members,
teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools.” In a March 21, 2023,
report on the Garland memo, the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government cited FBI data which states that 25 inquiries under the threat tag
“EDUOFFICIALS” had been opened since the bureau began tracking the alleged
incidents.
So can we trust the FBI to give us the truth about the two
assassination attempts on President Trump?
Now, let’s not forget about the Secret Service, they’re not
innocent in any of this either. After all, the number one red flag was the
first attempt on POTUS’s life. Who in their right mind would leave a roof
unguarded that was about a football field away from where he stood. Even a
novice shot such as myself could have made that shot. What was their excuse?
The roof was slanted was one excuse the other was it wasn’t in their general
area of security. Are you serious?
And it doesn’t seem that they actually learned much from
either event. Judicial Watch points out that another breach of security at a
Trump event after the earlier attempts on his life. They pointed out an
incident that a Secret Service agent reportedly was breastfeeding her baby
while she was suppose to be on duty at a Trump rally in North Carolina in
August just after the July 13th attempt on his life.
Judicial Watch requested all the information on this
incident and the Secret Service denied their request and then later denied an
appeal as well.
It’s a disgrace that just a few minutes before Donald Trump
arrived at the fateful campaign event in Asheville, NC, the agent in charge of
security was reportedly doing a sweep of the walking route and found an agent
had “abandoned her post…..to breastfeed with no permission/warning to the event
site agent.” It was also noted that “a working Secret Service agent on duty is
not allowed to bring children to a protective assignment.” The agent at issue
also allowed unvetted family members to bypass security.
Once again the Biden-Harris Secret Service covered up yet
another dangerous security failure in protecting President Trump.
So until these departments are cleaned up or cleared out,
can we really trust that we’ll be given the truth? Or trust that the POTUS is
safe? Is it any wonder that President Trump has included private security on
top of Secret Service for his protection?
~No Thought Police
~ ~Copyright 2023~
.jpg)
.jpg)
