America’s Corrupt Oligarchy Attempts to Retain Power Unconstitutionally
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 John’s Newsletter
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
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:
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
February 14, 2025
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
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~