People have been writing to me about how ‘wonderful’ it was that Biden fell on his face at the first debate. I have been writing back to them, telling them that this was indeed orchestrated by the Dems.

We mustn’t forget that these people are being led by Satan himself, who is as smart as he is EVIL.

I believe that they wanted the American people to see Biden at his absolute worst, so that they can bring in a replacement for him. Perhaps Gruesome Newsom? Perhaps Michelle Obama or even Killery Clinton? 

Brethren – Only God knows, and He will not be surprised by anything that happens between now and the election (If there IS one)

GOD IS IN CONTROL. TRUST HIM ALONE!!

From americanthinker.com

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the government cannot prosecute January 6 defendants under 1512(c)(2), the “Enron” statute, for generally obstructing “an official proceeding” unless they interfered with objects or documents.

The bombshell decision could result in hundreds of convictions against non-violent January 6 defendants being overturned — and could result in at least some charges being dropped against President Donald Trump as well.

1512(c)(2) was passed after the Enron scandal, when it was discovered that federal law had a loophole: it was illegal to instruct others to destroy evidence, but not illegal to destroy evidence oneself. Consequently, Congress passed a law prohibiting tampering with witnesses or evidence that is to be used in an “official proceeding.” The Department of Justice used that law to prosecute participants in the Capitol riot based on the idea that they had “obstructed” an official proceeding — i.e. the certification of the Electoral College vote in the 2020 presidential election. But critics said that 1512(c)(2) had never been intended to apply to protests or other First Amendment-connected activities.

In a 6-3 decision, with the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court overruled the (heavily anti-Trump) D.C. Circuit and said that 1512(c)(2) could not be used as broadly as the Department of Justice had done.

“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Roberts wrote. The term “otherwise” — as in “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding” — could not be used so broadly as to include trespassing.

In order to continue a prosecution under the Enron law, the prosecution would have to show that the defendants not only invaded the Capitol, but that they also impeded the delivery of documents or objects needed for the proceeding.

The Court remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court in D.C., where the petitioner, Joseph Fischer, faces trial for his involvement in the Capitol riot (including for allegedly physical violence against law enforcement). The Court instructed the district court to consider the 1512(c)(2) court of the case against Fischer more narrowly than before.

Surprisingly, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the majority, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissent. Barrett wrote: “Section 1512(c)(2) is a very broad provision, and admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target. … But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway.” She said that Fischer had been properly prosecuted under the law.

Trump faces four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against him in D.C. relating to the January 6 Capitol riot. One of those is under 1512(c)(2), and could possibly be thrown out on the basis of the Court’s decision.

From foxnews.com

The lone dissenting judge said the court was giving the Texas government the ability to ‘legislate away fundamental parental rights’

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday upheld the state’s ban on gender transition treatment for children, allowing the Lone Star State to remain one of at least 25 states, and the largest, with restrictions on such treatment.

The law, which has been in effect since Sept. 1, 2023, prohibits children under the age of 18 from accessing hormone therapy, puberty blockers and gender transition surgery. Children who were already on those medications were required to taper off their use of the drugs. The law includes exemptions for children in early puberty or who have “a medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development.”

The lawsuit that challenged the law argued it harms transgender teenagers who are barred from receiving gender transition treatment recommended by their physicians and parents, according to The Associated Press.

The court, comprised of all Republicans, handed down its ruling in an 8-1 decision.

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday upheld the state’s ban on gender transition treatment for children. (AP)

“We conclude the Legislature made a permissible, rational policy choice to limit the types of available medical procedures for children, particularly in light of the relative nascency of both gender dysphoria and its various modes of treatment and the Legislature’s express constitutional authority to regulate the practice of medicine,” Justice Rebeca Aizpuru Huddle wrote.

The lone dissenting judge said the court was giving the state’s government the ability to “legislate away fundamental parental rights.”

“The State’s categorical statutory prohibition prevents these parents, and many others, from developing individualized treatment plans for their children in consultation with their physicians, even the children for whom treatment could be lifesaving,” Justice Debra Lehrmann wrote. “The law is not only cruel — it is unconstitutional.”

A lower court had ruled the law unconstitutional, but it was permitted to take effect during the state Supreme Court’s consideration of the case.

Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton tweeted after the ruling that his office “will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that doctors and medical institutions follow the law.”

The groups who filed the lawsuit criticized the ruling as harmful to transgender children and their families.

“It is impossible to overstate the devastating impact of this ruling on Texas transgender youth and the families that love and support them,” Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Constitutional Law Practice at Lambda Legal, which was one of the groups that sued the state on behalf of doctors and families, told The Associated Press.

ACLU of Texas’ policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights, Ash Hall, said the government should not “deprive trans youth of the health care that they need to survive and thrive,” adding that “Texas politicians’ obsession with attacking trans kids and their families is needlessly cruel.”

Gender transition treatment for transgender children is supported by major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the Endocrine Society.

The lawsuit that challenged the law argued it harms transgender teenagers who are barred from receiving gender transition treatment recommended by their physicians and parents. (ALLISON DINNER/AFP via Getty Images)

One justice dismissed the medical groups’ position as irrelevant to whether the Texas law is constitutional.

“The fact that expert witnesses or influential interest groups like the American Psychiatric Association disagree with the Legislature’s judgment is entirely irrelevant to the constitutional question,” Justice James Blacklock wrote in a concurring opinion. “The Texas Constitution authorizes the Legislature to regulate ‘practitioners of medicine.'”

In a lower court hearing, several doctors who treat transgender children testified that patients could face deteriorating mental health that could potentially lead to suicide if they are denied gender transition treatment.

Texas officials said the law was needed to protect children and pointed to several other restrictions for minors intended to keep them safe, including when it comes to tattoos, alcohol, tobacco and certain over-the-counter drugs. source

WAY TO GO TEXAS!!  WE’RE ALL PROUD OF YOU.

MARANATHA!