top of page
  • Dagny

The Constitutional War Between the States

10 States standing for justice with Texas

Attorneys general of nine other states — Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and South Dakotahave joined him in it. Indiana is also making statements that imply they too will join.

Musical Statement from Q: We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore!

See and listen here: 3 minutes of rocking!

Democrats Tried to Give Billions to Iran, Russia and Communist China in 2020!

The House of Representatives passed a major appropriations bill, 229 to182, on July 31, 2020. Among other things, the bill contained funding for the next fiscal year for all eleven departments of the U.S. government. For most news outlets, that was not particularly surprising since Congress must pass a budget for the government every year. Except that this time there was something unusual.

The House Rules Committee, just before the legislation reached the House floor, inserted a new section in the bill. According to Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) with little debate, a whopping $3 trillion was tacked onto existing International Monetary Fund (IMF) drawing rights or funding, and by a party-line vote.

The new section directed the IMF to send the $3 trillion dollars—with no strings attached—as coronavirus relief aid to all nations based in part on their respective GDP and financial losses.

That was not done by mistake. Adding such a huge expenditure to any bill must have had the prior agreement of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) or the idea would have gone nowhere.

Nearly $300 billion was tucked in the bill for Iran, Venezuela, Syria, China and Russia, a rogue gallery of countries masquerading as normal nations but behaving more like criminal gangs.

The specific funding for these countries, according to Rep. Huizenga, is staggering:

$20 billion for Iran,

$75 billion for Russia,

$170 billion for Communist China and

$17 billion for Syria.

(t)he bill’s IMF provision had no committee hearing and that opponents like him were allocated only one minute to speak in opposition. A minute is insufficient time for informed debate on spending $3 trillion let alone giving $300 billion to rogue states.

There are rumors of military deployments, but few reliable sources yet.

However, these are in fact the current Naval deployments from a reliable source:

Comment on the Naval Force Deployments:

"It could be that he's getting things ready for a full on Martial Law lockdown. With that many Battle Groups deployed, he has the whole of BOTH coasts PLUS the Gulf of Mexico AND the whole of Canada covered if anyone tried to get in or out."

That's if you take into account the Air Wimgs' reach. Each one can cover 1500 nautical miles in diameter from the Carrier. And there's LHA's mixed in these Groups with Harriers and F-35's, as well. That would extend that limit out by another 1500 nautical miles from those ships, too. It gives a Carrier Battle Group, if positioned correctly, an effective intercept range of 3,000 nautical miles.

Note: I spent 9 yrs in the Navy. While we usually have 2 Battle Groups deployed per Fleet, Atlantic & Pacific at any one time, I've never seen 6 deployed among BOTH coasts at the same time. I can't remember when this one done last, except for maybe WWII.

To put it in more recent perspective, I was in 95-04. We didn't even do this after the USS COLE bombing, nor did we do this after 9/11/01. And we never had more than 4 deployed on station anywhere in the World during Vietnam, either. They continually rotated out after their tours were up. That has been the practice since WWII.

I can't get a straight answer from any of my AD friends, at least those I can get in touch with, too. Some are on the deployed Carriers and they're not communicating at all. Seems like there might be a comms blackout for these 6 Battle Groups and DOD has possibly told the whole military to keep quiet.

If I had to place a wager on what's happening right now, I'd say he's fixing to lockdown the country...real soon. Best to prepare for that and make sure you have all the essentials you'll need for the next few weeks."

Comment on the possibility of West Coast succession:

"The ChiCom puppets - governors of WA, OR, CA - are not going to try and secede or let in foreign troops - because if they twitch a muscle in that direction of treason, they'll be giving just cause to patriots residing in those areas to defend the US republic against domestic treason. POTUS can nationalize the NG away from their control - few if any of the police are going to be willing to put their lives on the line for these commie traitors, and ANTIFA/BLM thugs will finally see what it's like to face real opposition."

YouTube goes full Soviet:

Michigan Witness: I was there at approximately 3:00 to 3:30 AM. And I saw the huge dump of ballots that were delivered to the counting hall. I noticed that the city of Detroit Clerk’s Office it was their emblem on the white van that showed up with the ballots. Janice Winfrey‘s name was on there and a number presumably for Janet Winfrey’s office. I estimated that it was over 50 boxes that I counted. And I estimated that over a thousand ballots could have fitted in each of the large boxes. There was no chain of custody. There was no accountability. There was no transparency. Nobody knew where these ballots had been. They said they had to be turned in at 8 PM. They showed up approximately at 3:30 AM. So, 7 to 7.5 hours is a long time for these ballots to be kind of in limbo not with anyone knowing where they are.

YouTube will not allow you to discuss this on their platform.

“There was no chain of custody, there was no accountability, there was no transparency. Nobody knew where these ballots had been” — Alice (@themodalice) December 9, 2020

YouTube will not allow this evidence of fraud. They announced the new rule this morning. No more videos on election fraud will be allowed.

Team Trump asks to join in the Texas and others state's Suit:

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he and/or members of his legal team would join, as intervenors, the lawsuit brought by Texas’ Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton to the U.S. Supreme Court against four battleground states.

“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!” Trump said in a tweet.

An intervention, in legal terms, is a procedure that lets a nonparty join ongoing litigation if the case affects the rights of that party. The court considering an application to intervene, in this case the U.S. Supreme Court, has the discretion to allow or deny such a request.

In the lawsuit, Texas is alleging that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin introduced last-minute unconstitutional changes to election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot-integrity measures. The lawsuit is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that the four battleground states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution.

Congresspersons Challenge the Election Results:

The number of members of Congress who will commit to challenging the results of the Nov. 3 election during the upcoming joint session is expected to grow.

“There’s three of us that have publicly said that we will refuse to certify Electoral College votes for Joe Biden, and I definitely have a very strong feeling that there will be more of us,” Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) told The Epoch Times.

“The number will grow, you’ll see the number will grow, because I’m talking to a lot of people. Seventy-five million Americans voted for President Trump, and right now 70 percent of that number feel that that the election was stolen, and that fraud has taken place, and we know that we have big problems here in Georgia. So I think this is definitely something the American people will be supporting us in our efforts.”

Greene, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), and Rep-Elect Barry Moore (R-Ala.) have publicly committed to challenging the election results during the upcoming joint session of Congress.

“I think as we, as the process becomes more public and the media starts to get the word out that this is our plan, I feel like there’s good conservative people, ethical people—I’d love to see some Democrats join us,” Moore told The Epoch Times.

“I think we’ll have some join us, certainly some people who say they will stand by the president on the campaign trail—it’s time now to stand and to make sure we get this right.”

The Supreme Court already ruled in 1997 ruled 9-0 that Election Day is the cutoff:

THE PRECEDENT: Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997)

In 1975, Louisiana employed a new statutory process for electing United States Senators and Representatives. In October of a federal election year, the State held open primaries for congressional offices. All candidates, regardless of party, appeared on a general ballot, and the voters, despite party affiliation, voted for any candidate. If no candidate for an office received a majority of the vote, the State held a run-off election the following month on federal Election Day, between the two candidates who received the most votes. But if a candidate did gather a majority in the primary, there was no further election on Election Day, and therefore no voting for that office on the day.

In a unanimous, 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court struck the Louisiana statute down, as it was preempted by 3 U.S.C. § 1, and therefore in violation of the Constitution’s plenary grant of authority to Congress to determine the time of Congressional elections.

“When the federal statutes speak of ‘the election’ of a Senator or Representative, they plainly refer to the combined actions of voters and officials meant to make a final selection of an officeholder… By establishing a particular day as ‘the day’ on which these actions must take place, the statutes simply regulate the time of the election, a matter on which the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the final say.

“While true that there is room for argument about just what may constitute the final act of selection within the meaning of the law, our decision does not turn on any nicety in isolating precisely what acts a State must cause to be done on federal election day (and not before it) in order to satisfy the statute. Without paring the term ‘election’ in § 7 down to the definitional bone, it is enough to resolve this case to say that a contested selection of candidates for a congressional office that is concluded as a matter of law before the federal election day, with no act in law or in fact to take place on the date chosen by Congress, clearly violates § 7.4″.


Serious Question:

We are dreading an imposition of Martial Law, but how is the Democrat controlled Lockdown any different from Martial Law?

Suspension of Civil Rights


Businesses shut down

People arrested for defying the lockdown

Force of law based on no more than a bureaucrat or politicians' whim

Fines and seizures without due process of law

Demands for papers showing approvals to travel (see California's pass cards)

I think we already actually have martial law in many places, but they just want to label it as something more politically correct.


Remember the Swiss have halted vaccine use pending proof that it is safe and effective... not having gone through the requisite testing and having the results made public... Now there is the question: Is all based on high false positive testing protocols and can it cause infertility in women (and logically also abortion in pregnancy women).

Russian Vaccine Works or Not?

Russians are being asked to make the ultimate sacrifice; no drinking alcohol for six weeks after taking the country's COVID-19 vaccine.

In a statement to state-owned Tass, Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova said that Russians will need to take heightened precautions during the 42 days that the 'Sputnik V' coronavirus vaccine requires to reach maximum effectiveness.

"[Russians] will have to refrain from visiting crowded places, wear face masks, use sanitizers, minimize contacts and refrain from drinking alcohol or taking immunosuppressant drugs," she said.

And as the New York Post notes, the head of Russia's consumer safety watchdog, Anna Popova, echoed Golikova's statement in the Moscow Times - saying "It’s a strain on the body. If we want to stay healthy and have a strong immune response, don’t drink alcohol."

Russian health officials say the Sputnik V vaccine is over 90 percent effective, but reports say medical workers who have taken the shot have come down with COVID-19. Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly refused to take it. Western experts have expressed skepticism at the speed at which the purported vaccine was developed and Russia hasn’t provided any data to back up its claims for the shot. -New York Post

46 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page