Remember Which State the Alamo Took Place In! They Are Going To Save Our County…..

God bless the State of Texas and AG Paxton. What he has just done gives us every chance to save our Republic and our country. Keep in mind that there are only a few instances where a party can file a direct lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, a state claiming harm by another state is one of those instances.

https://twitter.com/barnes_law/status/1336406108894679042?s=21

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit [pdf here] with the Supreme Court seeking and emergency injunction against Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia “from taking action to certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”

AG Paxton argues that arbitrary changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”

The lawsuit states: “these non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.” […] “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.”

Paxton notes the intent of the states may have been changes in good faith, due to COVID-19 mitigation efforts; however, the end result of the changes is in direct violation to the Constitution and therefore creates the harm.

“Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting.” […] “The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States.”

This is absolutely brilliant!

Here is an excellent thread by Roscoe B. Davis explaining what this entails and what the outcome will be once 5 justices rule in favor of the injunction.

https://twitter.com/baba9773/status/1336478770463694849?s=21

This is for all the marbles! This determines whether we are a country of laws or not. Whether our Constitution lives on or dies.

Our President absolutely understands the magnitude of this case! Look what he retweeted:

God bless the AG of Arkansas as well as the other 5 AGs that joined AG Paxton.

The MSM, Democrats, Leftists, Never Trumpers, RINOS etc. are continuing to try and gaslight the country. They can take their safe harbor deadline and wipe their asses with it!

https://twitter.com/waynedupreeshow/status/1336479457767460864?s=21

From the article linked above:

And thank God for Ken Paxton, the Texas AG who has put together one barnburner of an election case.

Here are the very brief details on the case:

Paxton believes that he can use “Article II” to take his lawsuits against PA, WI, GA, and MI straight to the SCOTUS, bypassing the lower courts totally.

And he’s putting it to the test. He filed a lawsuit at around midnight last night, arguing that PA, WI, GA, and MI violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures.

In other words, they bypassed Republican legislatures to do their little workarounds with mail-in ballots and registrations, etc.

That goes against the Constitution.  All of those changes had to be made via the state legislatures and they were not.

Here’s a great video from a lawyer that explains the suit in detail:

Our President understands the magnitude of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision. That is why this occurred yesterday:

The Insurrection Act will be announced by our President soon after the Supreme Court rules in his favor!

20201014: Day 3 Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing For SCOTUS

Two days into this mess and this hasn’t changed.

And just to set the mood:

https://youtu.be/Lfy5Esue_ls

Here is what happened on Day 1 (you may want to fast forward through the Democrats).

And day 2:

The vote to send this nomination will be Thursday. This thread will serve as the live thread for that if people are not commenting on tomorrow’s daily.

And now on to the show…and to find out well-behaved the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be. (If they want to be re-elected, it would be a good idea to treat this lady with respect.)

Today’s links:

20201013: Day 2 Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing For SCOTUS

What do senators with sense think about this whole process and the entire grandstanding affair that really isn’t necessary according the president.

And just to set the mood:

https://youtu.be/Lfy5Esue_ls

On Sunday, the opening statement Mrs. Barrett read yesterday was published at Fox News.

Monday, October 12, 2020

Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee: I am honored and humbled to appear before you as a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

I thank the President for entrusting me with this profound responsibility, as well as for the graciousness that he and the First Lady have shown my family throughout this process.

I thank Senator Young for introducing me, as he did at my hearing to serve on the Seventh Circuit. I thank Senator Braun for his generous support. And I am especially grateful to former Dean Patty O’Hara of Notre Dame Law School. She hired me as a professor nearly 20 years ago and has been a mentor, colleague, and friend ever since.

I thank the Members of this Committee—and your other colleagues in the Senate—who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. It has been a privilege to meet you.

As I said when I was nominated to serve as a Justice, I am used to being in a group of nine—my family. Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me.

My husband Jesse and I have been married for 21 years. He has been a selfless and wonderful partner at every step along the way. I once asked my sister, “Why do people say marriage is hard? I think it’s easy.” She said, “Maybe you should ask Jesse if he agrees.” I decided not to take her advice. I know that I am far luckier in love than I deserve. 

Jesse and I are parents to seven wonderful children. Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law. Vivian came to us from Haiti. When she arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never walk or talk normally. She now deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym, and I assure you that she has no trouble talking. Tess is 16, and while she shares her parents’ love for the liberal arts, she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents’ generation. John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait. Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad. Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, including one she recently submitted for publication. And our youngest—Benjamin, who has Down Syndrome—is the unanimous favorite of the family.

My own siblings are here, some in the hearing room and some nearby. Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael are my oldest and dearest friends. We’ve seen each other through both the happy and hard parts of life, and I am so grateful that they are with me now.

My parents, Mike and Linda Coney, are watching from their New Orleans home. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains how I ended up as a law professor. More important, my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a life of service, principle, faith, and love. I remember preparing for a grade-school spelling bee against a boy in my class. To boost my confidence, Dad sang, “Anything boys can do, girls can do better.” At least as I remember it, I spelled my way to victory.

I received similar encouragement from the devoted teachers at St. Mary’s Dominican, my all-girls high school in New Orleans. When I went to college, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys.

My freshman year, I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. When I did my first presentation—on Breakfast at Tiffany’s—I feared I had failed. But my professor filled me with confidence, became a mentor, and—when I graduated with a degree in English—gave me Truman Capote’s collected works.

Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors—in particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit gave me my first job in the law and continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture, and he is cheering me on from his living room now. I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.

Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life. A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit.

In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.

When the President offered this nomination, I was deeply honored. But it was not a position I had sought out, and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed—requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.

I come before this Committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me. I was nine years old when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the Court. When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat. She told the Committee, “What has become of me could only happen in America.” I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.

If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the President noted when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.

As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.

And now on to the show…and to find out well-behaved the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be. (If they want to be re-elected, it would be a good idea to treat this lady with respect.)

Here is what happened on Day 1 (you may want to fast forward through the Democrats).

Today’s links:

20201012: Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing For SCOTUS

A post a day keeps the F-I away, right?

Well, we all hope so, anyway.

Okay, so, today begins the revetting of the vetting of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/27/02/33667388-8776779-image-m-35_1601169495103.jpg

Today, we turn the page on that woman’s life and look to another to give a more life affirming perspective to the American way.

On Sunday, the opening statement Mrs. Barrett will read was published at Fox News.

Monday, October 12, 2020

Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee: I am honored and humbled to appear before you as a nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

I thank the President for entrusting me with this profound responsibility, as well as for the graciousness that he and the First Lady have shown my family throughout this process.

I thank Senator Young for introducing me, as he did at my hearing to serve on the Seventh Circuit. I thank Senator Braun for his generous support. And I am especially grateful to former Dean Patty O’Hara of Notre Dame Law School. She hired me as a professor nearly 20 years ago and has been a mentor, colleague, and friend ever since.

I thank the Members of this Committee—and your other colleagues in the Senate—who have taken the time to meet with me since my nomination. It has been a privilege to meet you.

As I said when I was nominated to serve as a Justice, I am used to being in a group of nine—my family. Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me.

My husband Jesse and I have been married for 21 years. He has been a selfless and wonderful partner at every step along the way. I once asked my sister, “Why do people say marriage is hard? I think it’s easy.” She said, “Maybe you should ask Jesse if he agrees.” I decided not to take her advice. I know that I am far luckier in love than I deserve. 

Jesse and I are parents to seven wonderful children. Emma is a sophomore in college who just might follow her parents into a career in the law. Vivian came to us from Haiti. When she arrived, she was so weak that we were told she might never walk or talk normally. She now deadlifts as much as the male athletes at our gym, and I assure you that she has no trouble talking. Tess is 16, and while she shares her parents’ love for the liberal arts, she also has a math gene that seems to have skipped her parents’ generation. John Peter joined us shortly after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and Jesse, who brought him home, still describes the shock on JP’s face when he got off the plane in wintertime Chicago. Once that shock wore off, JP assumed the happy-go-lucky attitude that is still his signature trait. Liam is smart, strong, and kind, and to our delight, he still loves watching movies with Mom and Dad. Ten-year-old Juliet is already pursuing her goal of becoming an author by writing multiple essays and short stories, including one she recently submitted for publication. And our youngest—Benjamin, who has Down Syndrome—is the unanimous favorite of the family.

My own siblings are here, some in the hearing room and some nearby. Carrie, Megan, Eileen, Amanda, Vivian, and Michael are my oldest and dearest friends. We’ve seen each other through both the happy and hard parts of life, and I am so grateful that they are with me now.

My parents, Mike and Linda Coney, are watching from their New Orleans home. My father was a lawyer and my mother was a teacher, which explains how I ended up as a law professor. More important, my parents modeled for me and my six siblings a life of service, principle, faith, and love. I remember preparing for a grade-school spelling bee against a boy in my class. To boost my confidence, Dad sang, “Anything boys can do, girls can do better.” At least as I remember it, I spelled my way to victory.

I received similar encouragement from the devoted teachers at St. Mary’s Dominican, my all-girls high school in New Orleans. When I went to college, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider girls to be less capable than boys.

My freshman year, I took a literature class filled with upperclassmen English majors. When I did my first presentation—on Breakfast at Tiffany’s—I feared I had failed. But my professor filled me with confidence, became a mentor, and—when I graduated with a degree in English—gave me Truman Capote’s collected works.

Although I considered graduate studies in English, I decided my passion for words was better suited to deciphering statutes than novels. I was fortunate to have wonderful legal mentors—in particular, the judges for whom I clerked. The legendary Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit gave me my first job in the law and continues to teach me today. He was by my side during my Seventh Circuit hearing and investiture, and he is cheering me on from his living room now. I also clerked for Justice Scalia, and like many law students, I felt like I knew the justice before I ever met him, because I had read so many of his colorful, accessible opinions. More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men.

Justice Scalia taught me more than just law. He was devoted to his family, resolute in his beliefs, and fearless of criticism. And as I embarked on my own legal career, I resolved to maintain that same perspective. There is a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming, while losing sight of everything else. But that makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life. I worked hard as a lawyer and a professor; I owed that to my clients, my students, and myself. But I never let the law define my identity or crowd out the rest of my life. A similar principle applies to the role of courts. Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit.

In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against: Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.

When the President offered this nomination, I was deeply honored. But it was not a position I had sought out, and I thought carefully before accepting. The confirmation process—and the work of serving on the Court if I am confirmed—requires sacrifices, particularly from my family. I chose to accept the nomination because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the place of the Supreme Court in our Nation. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.

I come before this Committee with humility about the responsibility I have been asked to undertake, and with appreciation for those who came before me. I was nine years old when Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman to sit in this seat. She was a model of grace and dignity throughout her distinguished tenure on the Court. When I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat in this seat. She told the Committee, “What has become of me could only happen in America.” I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat, but no one will ever take her place. I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led.

If confirmed, it would be the honor of a lifetime to serve alongside the Chief Justice and seven Associate Justices. I admire them all and would consider each a valued colleague. And I might bring a few new perspectives to the bench. As the President noted when he announced my nomination, I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.

As a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the many Americans from all walks of life who have reached out with messages of support over the course of my nomination. I believe in the power of prayer, and it has been uplifting to hear that so many people are praying for me. I look forward to answering the Committee’s questions over the coming days. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to faithfully and impartially discharge my duties to the American people as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Thank you.

And now on to the show…and to find out well-behaved the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be. (If they want to be re-elected, it would be a good idea to treat this lady with respect.)

Here is what happened on Day 1 (you may want to fast forward through the Democrats).

Plausibility

By which the HIDING of Means, Motive and Opportunity are accomplished through the use of the most obvious explanation as a form of both misdirection and social persuasion


NOTE:

The following post was written back in late February of 2020, and was finished in the state you see below on February 29 at 12:50 AM. What I’m now going to do is show you that post, UNCHANGED, and comment further at the end.

Recall before you read this, the taking down of QMAP just recently – it’s important.



THERE IS A SUBSET of “teachable moments”

that one could refer to as “red pill moments”, and this turns out to be one of them. Earlier, I decided not to let the above news about a serial killer pass in the comments HERE without comment…..

LINK: https://wqth.wordpress.com/2020/02/27/dear-kag-2020027-open-thread/comment-page-2/#comment-412232

…..but I have now decided to “go bigger” so that our entire movement can prepare for what is to come.

It is my belief that EVERYTHING Q has “belabored as factual” is NOT part of the “disinformation”, and thus will be revealed fully when the time is right.

ANTONIN SCALIA [187] is part of that truth.


Let’s look more closely at that image…..

For Zoe…..

1161
John Brennan Killed Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Q
!xowAT4Z3VQ
15 Apr 2018 – 10:06:56 PM

8614095C-F745-4036-8460-1….jpeg

SC – Supreme Court.
RBG.
AS 187 / Clown Black (Brennan).
Q

Q Post 1161 from qmap.pub

If you go to QMap, this explanatory meme is given in proof for the post:

I’m not going to get into the theories of John Podesta’s potential involvement in any way. What I want to demonstrate is simply that the combination of EXPLOITABLE PLAUSIBILITY PLUS ACCESS (opportunity), CUI BONO (motive), and the most basic RESOURCES (means), are enough to CHANGE THE EQUATION on certain potential homicides which are PLAUSIBLY dismissed as “natural causes”.


Let’s start by looking at that serial killer more closely.

You can go to the link and read it all, or see part of it below.

LINK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8047403/Serial-killer-illegal-immigrant-tied-THOUSAND-unexplained-deaths-indicted-murders.html

CONTINUED HERE: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8047403/Serial-killer-illegal-immigrant-tied-THOUSAND-unexplained-deaths-indicted-murders.html


I urge you to read the rest at the link above.

Here is the critical part:

Many of the deaths now attributed to Chemirmir were first listed as deaths by natural causes as no foul play was suspected. 

However, once he was identified as a suspect in Harris’ death in March 2018, detectives began reviewing hundreds of natural death cases to attempt to identify other potential victims. 

Notice how DIFFICULT it is to separate the SIGNAL of “forcibly induced natural causes” from the NOISE of “natural causes”. Old people stop breathing and they die – this happens all the time.

But when it is FORCED to happen RIGHT NOW, because the TIMING benefits somebody, it’s MURDER.

Barring the presence of a NANNYCAM – meaning a hidden security camera watching either children or the elderly – it is wickedly hard to prove such a murder.

And speaking of NANNYCAMS, is incredibly useful to read the following two articles:

Chinese woman arrested at Mar-a-Lago while Trump was in town

LINK 1: https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20190402/chinese-woman-arrested-at-mar-a-lago-while-trump-was-in-town

Woman arrested at Mar-a-Lago had device for detecting hidden cameras

LINK 2: https://www.cnet.com/news/woman-arrested-at-mar-a-lago-had-device-for-detecting-hidden-cameras/

This woman was almost undoubtedly some kind of Chinese spy – either an amateur working for pros, or a pro disguised as an amateur. In any case, this was a STATE-LEVEL OPERATION. You can be certain that the CIA has AS GOOD or BETTER EQUIPMENT.

This woman had EXACTLY what would have been needed as part of any state-level murder of Antonin Scalia.

NOW – let’s look at the Scalia case.

LINK: https://nypost.com/2016/02/13/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dead-at-79/

You won’t get much out of this article, except for a Trump tweet (very interesting)…..

…..and the following section, which leads to much more interesting stuff.

Antonin Scalia, the longest-serving justice on the Supreme Court, was found dead Saturday at a luxury resort in West Texas, officials said.

The body of the 79-year-old leader of the court’s conservative bloc was discovered in his room at the Cibolo Creek Ranch after he failed to show up for breakfast, the San Antonio Express News reported.

Scalia died apparently of natural causes. He had arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party along with about 40 people.

The link in this section goes to an EXCELLENT article in the San Antonio paper:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch

LINK: https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

This link has DOZENS of photographs and detailed information.

There is also ANOTHER article by the same paper, with more photos, including of the actual suite used by Justice Scalia.

Inside the West Texas ranch where Antonin Scalia was found dead

LINK: https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/texas/article/Inside-the-West-Texas-ranch-where-Antonin-Scalia-6829290.php

Additional photos give a strong idea of (1) how remote and isolated this ranch is, and (2) how approachable from all sides, by trained operatives, it would be, at night. It could also be under nearly perfect satellite surveillance at all times.

But who knows.

It’s a strange and lonely ranch. Who knows what kind of things go on there?

W


/end of 2/29/2020 post – beginning of 9/22/2020 post/

I am revisiting this post, and finally publishing it, in light of RBG’s passing, but even more in light of Sadie’s comments about “double” theories of RBG.

I do not personally subscribe to these “double” theories, but I find them extremely useful as (1) likely disinformation to protect actual politics and scandal around RBG and SCOTUS, and (2) helping us to examine RGB more closely, in relationship to Antonin Scalia’s passing.

Their close friendship was likely pivotal, but not in a bad way as far as RBG was concerned. I believe they were true and deep friends. Sadly, but logically, and understandably, it is the job of intelligence agencies to exploit such relationships. I repeat – it is their JOB. That job is generally good, but it can be abused.

Back to “double” theories.

For example, thanks to examination of the “double” theory, and in particular the facts around RBG suddenly doing several dramatic things immediately AFTER the November 2014 election, it becomes quite clear TO ME that her end-life was highly managed by aides, DNC big-wheels, and potential operatives of all kinds.

Note that a DNC official who got RBG to officiate her WEDDING in August is now being BLAMED by many Democrats for Ruth’s death by COVID – which is not in evidence, but which could easily be true, and could even more easily have been covered up – “because DNC OFFICIAL”.

LINK 1: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/rbg-officiates-wedding-bride-blamed-death/

LINK 2: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8749607/Ruth-Bader-Ginsburgs-public-appearance-Justice-officiated-wedding-family-friends.html

People of Ruth’s age and medical condition are extremely vulnerable, but it is very hard to “assign blame”. When I had probable COVID-19 in January/February of 2020, I was WITH 80 and 90-year-old people immediately before and afterwards, and in the middle of my infective period, I decided not to visit a nursing home filled with such people, who I would have interacted with DIRECTLY.

And yet, at the event where I most likely GOT the disease, several people in that HIGHLY VULNERABLE age group didn’t catch anything. This is very similar to the “novel coronavirus cruise ship” – a VERY well-studied outbreak of COVID-19. Transfer of the disease in that case was highly random and not super-easy, and spared many people who one might think would have gotten it.

LINK: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/16/diamond-princess-mysteries/

After the 2014 election, RBG underwent risky major surgery, changed her style of glasses to much thicker ones, and began wearing gloves more frequently. In my opinion, the gloves were used to hide the IV marks on her hands. Joe Biden – similarly being abused as a kind of “power carcass”, cannot hide the IV marks and bruises. This was very enlightening to me.

Yes, it’s not exactly unexpected. No, it’s not as sexy as a “double”. But it’s still very useful information, because it HELPS TO SHOW MOTIVE.

After the 2016 election, similarly, RBG was whisked off to somewhere (I think it was Nevada), and there were interesting medical leaks to the anon community that she was undergoing VERY expensive therapy at a VERY exclusive facility.

Clearly, holding RBG’s seat became a BIG DEAL after both the 2014 and 2016 elections failed to produce a favorable climate for her replacement by somebody MORE LEFT-WING. Thus, I believe that her seat was pivotal in ways which were not “fixable” by just any replacement. I am now thinking that it is likely because she was a tactical investment by CIA to spy on SCOTUS in general and Scalia in particular, and Obama and Brennan were loath to replace her with somebody more centrist (and perhaps not a CIA asset) like Merrick Garland.

Which ALL leads to where I am now.

I think it’s possible that *SOMEBODY* has evidence that the TIMING of Scalia’s death was not an accident.

A lot more was riding on it than just some jewelry and cash in a nursing home.

I am not ready to rest my case. In fact, these are just my opening arguments.

And I’m still running down more facts.

W

See also:

The RBGQ Color Space

LINK: https://wqth.wordpress.com/2019/01/06/the-rbgq-color-space/