I’m not sure if you’ve heard, but it’s June and that means “Pride Month”. A relatively new phenomenon where corporations go braindead for 30 days replacing their logos with rainbow flags. Why? To celebrate “Pride”. Not sure if you know this or not, but “Pride cometh before the fall”. So it’s kind of a strange thing to brag about. But nonetheless, it’s Pride Month. And I figured I needed to weigh in because I’m tired of the Rainbow being counterfeited. You do know God had the Rainbow first, right? Genesis 9:13-16: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.” So how did we go from the Rainbow being God’s symbol to being one used for gay sex? The story is actually fascinating and I want to share it with you! I’ve always been fascinated by the rainbow and how it’s been counterfeited in recent decades and taken over by the LGBTZVXYZ+ community. It’s not really surprising, the Devil always steals and counterfeits from the true original. He has no creative power on his own, he can only copy and counterfeit. So he did what he always does with the rainbow, trying to take it over within the LGBT community. But here’s what I found really interesting….it only uses 6 colors and not the full 7 of God’s rainbow. Which is a funny phrase “God’s Rainbow”. God’s Rainbow is simply “The Rainbow”.  The one true creation that he made. Anyway, here is the LGBT Rainbow, and note only six colors: Isn’t that interesting? God chose 7 colors, the LGBT “community” chose 6. I don’t think that’s any accident. And you know what else? The color they omitted was Indigo, and this might be why: So the next time someone tells you not to use the Rainbow because it supports LGBT, kindly remind them it’s GOD’s Rainbow and we’re using the accurate 7 colors not the counterfeit! Here’s more that I found on the topic, in an EXCELLENT summary from RforH.com: In 1978 San Francisco artist Gilbert Baker created his version of the rainbow flag in response to a local activist’s call for the need of a community symbol. Baker dyed and sewed the material for the first flag himself and it had 8 colors. This multi-colored flag morphed into a banner of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement, which is commonly referred to today as LGBT. Each of the colors had a specific meaning: Hot Pink for sex Red for life Orange for healing Yellow for sun Green for serenity with nature Turquoise for art Indigo for harmony Violet for spirit. On November 27, 1978, the openly gay San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk was assassinated. As a consequence the demand for the flag greatly increased.  So, in order to meet the demand, the Paramount Flag Company began selling a version of the flag using stock rainbow fabric consisting of seven stripes of red, orange, yellow, green, turquoise, blue, and violet. Baker eventually dropped the hot pink color because he couldn’t find the fabric. In 1979 the flag was hung vertically from the lamp posts of San Francisco’s Market Street. Because of the width of the seven stripe flag the center stripe was covered up by the post itself. In order to fix this problem they changed the design to have an even number of stripes so they dropped the turquoise stripe. That left them with the six stripe version of the flag that we see today consisting of — red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. So, even though the LGBT flag might be called by the name of God’s token of promise to all mankind, it’s NOT a true rainbow. God’s rainbow has always had seven colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. [easyazon_infoblock align=”none” identifier=”B081V5KMMY” locale=”US” tag=”s0d58f-20″] God’s rainbow doesn’t have to change colors because of a lack of “fabric” or not fitting on a lamp post. No, God’s rainbow still is a promise that He will not destroy man by flood waters ever again.  Next time it will be by fire! Seven has always been the number of colors used in rainbow flags throughout the centuries, so a flag with fewer than seven colors isn’t really a rainbow flag…it’s just a multi-colored flag. Throughout human history, we find those things which are in opposition to God’s will and ways are often simply counterfeit copies.  Such copies might come close, but they always fall short.  All false religions have enough truth to sound good, but they all teach lies often using subtle twists of the truth.  That was Satan’s ploy in the Garden.  He tempted Eve not by presenting a totally false teaching but by twisting God’s Word.  With subtle deception, he created confusion and caused Eve to forget God’s words and commit sin. Satan never presents himself in truth, as the accuser that he is.  Instead he is able to transform himself into an “angel of light,” and his minions are able to transform into “ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor 11:14-15), all with intent to deceive.  They may “look” good, but they are nothing more than “copy-cat” appearances of that which is good, and their desire is to lead people away from the One True God who is omni-benevolent (all good). God’s Rainbow God created the rainbow and it belongs to Him.  God’s rainbow has seven colors.  Interestingly, according to Strong’s Dictionary, even the word “rainbow” has seven letters (qesheth).  God’s rainbow represents His goodness, His mercy and grace, His love and longsuffering, and, most of all, it is a reminder that His promises are true and faithful. The true rainbow will never represent, nor can it ever celebrate, any sinful behavior. I hope you’ll never look at the LGBT flag in the same way again.  It is NOT a rainbow flag, falling short with only six colors.  And it certainly does not represent God’s rainbow.  The LGBT community uses a multi-colored flag that falls short in every way….especially in what it represents. I told you that was an awesome summary! Now you know “the rest of the story” (apologies to Paul Harvey). And here’s what Franklin Graham recently said on the issue, from Newsweek: Prominent Evangelist Franklin Graham thanked President Donald Trump and the U.S. State Department for helping deny embassies’ requests to fly the rainbow flag during Pride Month. The son of late U.S. evangelist Billy Graham and current president of the Samaritan’s Purse took to Facebook Saturday to applaud Trump and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for “making the decision not to fly the gay flag over our embassies” in June. Thousands of his more than 7 million social media followers appeared to support Graham’s claim that rainbow-adorned gay pride flags are “offensive” to Christians and much of the country. State Department sources last week reportedly confirmed the agency had denied multiple diplomatic requests to fly the rainbow pride flag on official embassy flagpoles this month in honor of LGBT Pride Month. “I want to thank President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for making the decision not to fly the gay flag over our embassies during June in recognition of gay pride month. That is the right decision,” Graham, 66, wrote on Facebook over the weekend. “The gay pride flag is offensive to Christians and millions of people of other faiths, not only in this country but around the world. The U.S. flag represents our nation—everyone—regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation,” the North Carolina native added. LGBTQ activists say the recent decision to reportedly deny embassies in Brazil, Germany, Latvia and Israel from flying the rainbow pride flag on official flag poles is just the latest affront to gay rights since Pompeo took over the State Department in April 2018. Prominent Evangelist Franklin Graham thanked President Donald Trump and the U.S. State Department for helping deny embassies’ requests to fly the rainbow flag during Pride Month.RON SACHS-POOL Dozens of top replies of the more than 30,000 responses to Graham’s Saturday Facebook post also applauded the State Department and Trump for pushing gay people, as one poster said, “to realize the sin that they are all doing and turn from the wicked ways!” “God meant the rainbow for a promise to his creation. Satan is very good at taking what God meant for good & turning it to evil. The Gay Pride- rainbow. Pride also being a sin against God—- we are not better or greater than HE!” wrote another Graham supporter. Graham frequently weighs in on Twitter and Facebook over social issues he claims are an affront to Christian conservatives. Last month, Graham told openly gay South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg that God has laws and standards against what he described as the sin of being homosexual. Speaking of “Pride”….no one analyzed it better than Norm Macdonald…. It’s an “odd thing to be proud of”: Norm Macdonald On Pride I still find it a little surreal to realize Norm Macdonald is no longer with us. All these years later and it never fails if I need a laugh I just find almost anything from Norm on YouTube and they still bring tears to my eyes from laughing so hard. But one that has always stood out to me was his take on Gay Pride. As always, Norm is both the funniest man to ever exist but also one of the most insightful. If you want the best version of his bit, you have to get his album “Me Doing Standup“. It’s available on Amazon or anywhere you can search for it. That’s the best and longest and most hilarious version, but it’s banned everywhere online for copyright. The next best version starts at the 3:00 minute mark of the video below and it’s the same material but a different night and a version that didn’t make it on to the album. Still hilarious just not as long and missing some content. But the point Norm makes is it’s certainly quite a strange thing to be “proud” of. Pure brilliance, enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOmbMPIisgI Norm was like that. He could be absolutely wild and uncontrollable and vulgar and hilarious all at the same time, and then in the next breath have one of the most insightful observations you’ve ever heard. A true comic philosopher. Like this… Absolutely Brilliant From Norm Macdonald You might remember Norm Macdonald from Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live in the 1990s, back when SNL was funny. No one did the news desk better than Norm. Actually, it’s a little known fact that Norm invented the term “fake news” when he was at SNL, he said it at the end of every Weekend Update. I remember Norm as one of the best, if not THE best, comedians to ever walk the face of the Earth. But did you know he was also incredibly brilliant and insightful? Norm is the only guy who could go on Dennis Miller Live and do perhaps the funniest (but filthiest) 6 minutes you’ve ever seen, to the point where everyone is dying laughing (WARNING: graphic language, don’t send me hate mail, watch at your own risk): …and then also be the guy who could put together one of the simplest but most brilliant observations I’ve ever heard about religion and atheism. Listen to this: BRILLIANT: Norm Macdonald on Atheism"You will never see an atheist argue God doesn't exist because Scientology is absurd. They will ALWAYS pick Christianity. So they choose the God they decide doesn't exist…which means they're really choosing the God they think exists!" pic.twitter.com/KdXJA1rYM7 — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) January 24, 2023 It’s so true, right? Share with your friends… And while I’m here, I can’t do a Norm post without showing you perhaps his most famous bit ever….the 4 minute Moth Joke. Enjoy: Backup: Ok, here’s one more of Norm Macdonald driving the ladies from The View crazy back when Babs was still running it: Comedy Legend Norm Macdonald Passes Away But His “Bill Clinton Is A Murderer” Jokes Live On The comedy world lost a legend yesterday. Comedian Norm Macdonald who had the ability to turn an acute observation into an elaborate hilarious joke has died at the age of 61. Macdonald got his start on SNL but was fired five years later for making jokes about OJ Simpson that NBC wasn’t too fond of, but his firing at SNL didn’t stop him from rising to comedic fame and he ended up producing several specials, starring in several movies, and had his own show. Norm was known to tell jokes that were filled with truth and never let anybody off the hook when it came to hypocrisy. After it was announced Norm died of cancer at the age of 61 several users on Twitter decided to remember his life by posting a video of him making jokes about Bill Clinton that are funny but eerily true at the same time. Watch Norm call Bill Clinton a murderer while he was interviewed on the View: Norm Macdonald triggering the View hosts. RIP Legend. pic.twitter.com/UOIH96hJY1 — The Columbia Bugle (@ColumbiaBugle) September 14, 2021 That wasn’t the only time Macdonald took jabs at Bill Clinton, he also made several jokes that stated Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster who was  Clinton’s deputy White House counsel: Omg https://t.co/J14zAVgUCG — Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) September 15, 2021 NPR had more details regarding Macdonald’s recent passing: Comedian Norm Macdonald, a beloved Saturday Night Live cast member in the 1990s, has died. His management company confirmed that the 61-year-old had battled cancer for nine years. “He was most proud of his comedy,” his producing partner and friend Lori Jo Hoekstra told Deadline. “Norm was a pure comic. He once wrote that ‘a joke should catch someone by surprise, it should never pander.’ He certainly never pandered. Norm will be missed terribly.” SNL fans may remember Macdonald as an anchor on the show’s “Weekend Update” segments. He was known for his impressions, particularly that of Burt Reynolds. In his signature droll manner, he lampooned former superstar Michael Jackson and former football star and actor O.J. Simpson throughout the latter’s murder trial. Macdonald later said he was pressured by network executives to stop blasting Simpson, who was eventually acquitted, as a murderer, and he attributed getting fired from the show for his refusal to stop. Norm was the greatest to ever do it https://t.co/bGUsVYcMDY — Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) September 15, 2021 This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post Exposing The TRUTH About God’s Rainbow! appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

Every single day, more and more evidence comes out about Long COVID and Vaccine Injury syndrome and every single day we learn more about the culprit behind both:  spike protein. From Dr. Peter McCullough’s substack: the primary cause of Long Covid & Vaccine Injury Syndromes—namely, the Spike Protein.  There is a steadily increasing body of evidence that the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and the spike protein induced by COVID-19 mRNA vaccines linger in the body for an indeterminate period of time.  If it seems like Long COVID and Vaccine Injury syndrome are closely related, it’s because they are: Long Covid Syndrome and Vaccine Injury Syndrome seem to be closely related and to amplify each other. Because the vaccine does NOT prevent infection, we have seen cases in which the patient is repeatedly exposed to the viral spike protein and the spike protein induced by the vaccine and boosters. Moreover, we are concerned that the vaccine may actually be impairing the immune system’s ability to mount an effective response when it is exposed to new variants. The trouble with the viral spike protein seems to be related to the fact that it did not arise through natural evolution, but was optimized in a laboratory to infect humans. The good news is that there is a way to fight back against the damage being done by spike protein, thanks to the work of Dr. McCullough and his team of experts at The Wellness Company: For the last three years, Dr. Peter McCullough has tirelessly sought to find any safe and effective molecule or combination of molecules that could eliminate the spike. While no silver bullet—such as penicillin against syphilis—has been found, he has assembled Spike detoxification protocol, consisting of over-the-counter Nattokinase, Bromelain, and Curcumin. Dr. McCullough said that the most common question he gets asked is “how do I get this out of my body”: Far and away the most common question I get from those who took one of the COVID-19 vaccines is: “how do I get this out of my body.”  Dr. McCullough’s Ultimate Spike Detox Reclaim your health with this powerful blend of natural detoxifying ingredients. This clinical grade formula is the only one designed and used by Dr. Peter McCullough, the world’s leading pandemic expert and developer of the McCullough Base Spike Detoxification Protocol. Scientifically formulated for use in the McCullough Protocol, Ultimate Spike Detox helps you get back to that pre-COVID feeling. Featuring Nattokinase, a key enzyme that may help break down spike protein and disrupt its function, along with Bromelain and Curcumin, provide your body with unparalleled support for cellular defense and detoxification. If you’re ready to get serious about getting back to good health, you’re ready for Ultimate Spike Detox. What People are Saying About Ultimate Spike Detox “Excellent product!!! Worked wonderfully! I’m so thankful for TWC! I got my health back! “We ordered your spike protein cleans for our patients who took a couple of COVID 19 vaccinations. After about two weeks of them taking the supplements, their appetites increased and our mother with diagnosed heart issues claimed she wasn’t getting dizzy anymore.” “I saw Dr. McCullough talk about the product and decided to give it a try. A month and a half later, I feel sooo much better. I also have recommended the product to family members to help them detox from the painful side effects of the vaccine.” “I feel like I have had brain fog for the past 18 months and after taking this supplement noticed the fog lifting finally. I plan to buy more for myself and now a friend suffering from heart issues.” “I am grateful for the Wellness Company and for you coming out with this spike protein vitamins. I am a big believer in natural healing and not pharmaceutical drugs. Thank you for doing what is right and for speaking truth in a world that is so dark.” CLICK HERE TO ORDER THE ULTIMATE SPIKE DETOX TODAY! (Note: The information provided is intended for generalized informational purposes only and should not be considered personal medical advice or used as a substitute for professional healthcare guidance. It is your responsibility to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines regarding the purchase, possession, and use of prescription medications. Thank you for supporting businesses like the one presenting a sponsored message in this article and ordering through the links provided, which benefits WLTReport. We appreciate your support and the opportunity to keep you SAFE and HEALTHY!) This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post Urgent From Dr. McCullough On COVID-19 Vaccine Detoxification – “How Do I Get This Out Of My Body?” appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

President Trump’s Justice Department just opened a federal court that had existed for 30 years without hearing a single case. Now the identity of the first person in the government’s sights has been revealed. Her name is Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan national and lawful permanent resident living in Fort Worth, Texas. The government alleges that she supported ISIS, encouraged her children to pledge loyalty to the terrorist organization, and aided relatives who plotted a mass-casualty attack against Americans on Election Day 2024. Those are allegations the Justice Department must prove. But this is no ordinary immigration case. The Trump administration is asking the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to order Zada out of the United States. Newly unsealed records exposed the extraordinary first case: NEW: The Trump administration activate the never-before-used “Alien Terrorist Removal Court” to deport a woman whose son and son-in-law conspired to commit a “mass casualty” attack on Election Day 2024 in support of ISIS.. w/ @joshgerstein https://t.co/aga9ifjz2k pic.twitter.com/731NL0q4hL — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) July 29, 2026 The court was not created by President Trump. Congress established it in 1996 as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, then left the legal machinery sitting untouched through five presidential administrations. The Federal Judicial Center explains that the special court consists of five federal district judges selected by the chief justice from different judicial circuits. Congress gave those judges a narrow assignment: evaluate sealed attorney-general applications involving suspected alien terrorists when ordinary removal procedures could expose the country to a national-security danger. No administration had ever filed such an application before July 2026. The five judges serve staggered terms and come from different parts of the country, preventing one district from controlling the court’s national-security docket. The attorney general may submit a sealed application seeking the removal of a suspected alien terrorist. A judge can allow the case to proceed after finding that the person was correctly identified and that ordinary removal methods could create a national-security risk. That does not produce an automatic deportation order. The accused receives a public hearing, has the right to counsel, and may appeal. The government bears the burden of proving that the person qualifies as an alien terrorist under federal law. Classified information may be protected, but the government must prepare an unclassified summary detailed enough to let the accused mount a defense. If the judge orders removal, either side can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The attorney general can also appeal if the special court refuses to let a removal application move forward. The court therefore combines a sealed national-security screening process with a public hearing, an adversarial burden of proof, and appellate review. In other words, this is a national-security court with a defined legal process — not a bureaucrat making a secret decision and putting someone on a plane. The government’s unclassified summary identifies Zada as the mother and mother-in-law of two men already convicted in the 2024 plot. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, was 17 when federal agents arrested him. Her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, had worked as a security guard for an American military installation in Afghanistan before coming to the United States. The Justice Department said the two men acquired two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition for an ISIS-inspired attack planned for Election Day in November 2024. Federal agents arrested the pair in October 2024 before the attack could be carried out. Prosecutors later secured guilty pleas that established the weapons purchase and ISIS support as proven parts of the criminal conspiracy behind the new removal filing. Prosecutors said Tawhedi took steps to liquidate family assets and purchase one-way tickets for his wife and child to return to Afghanistan before the planned attack. Abdullah Haji Zada pleaded guilty as an adult and was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison. Tawhedi pleaded guilty to terrorism and firearms offenses. Both men agreed to be permanently removed from the United States after serving their sentences. The case was investigated by the FBI’s Oklahoma City Joint Terrorism Task Force with Homeland Security Investigations, ICE, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Marshals Service, and state and local law-enforcement partners. That earlier prosecution supplies the proven criminal backdrop. The new removal proceeding concerns what the government says Nazira did to support the same family plot. The first application names a lawful permanent resident and lays out the government’s alleged ISIS connection: DOJ lodged the unclassified summary of its first Alien Terrorist Removal Court target, Nazira Haji Zara, a lawful permanent resident (green card) of Fort Worth, Texas. She is an alleged ISIS loyalist who supported a terrorist attack conspiracy in the U.S. by her son & son-in-law pic.twitter.com/pM8aEeI9bM — Aram Gavoor (@AramGavoor) July 29, 2026 The FBI memo supporting the new case alleges that Nazira backed the plot and repeatedly expressed support for ISIS. According to the government, she encouraged her children to pledge allegiance to the terror group and resisted ordinary efforts to remove her from the country. Politico reported that federal officials concluded the normal immigration-court system would not adequately address the national-security risk they say she presents. The reporting identifies Nazira as a green-card holder who came to the United States about eight years ago and cannot read or write in any language. Government lawyers say her family connection is only part of the case and point separately to alleged statements and conduct supporting ISIS. ICE officials contend that a standard removal case would move too slowly and could expose sensitive national-security information. The special process is designed to protect that information while still giving Nazira an unclassified summary and a public hearing. The special court’s first public removal hearing was scheduled for Thursday in Washington, D.C. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche did not mince words when the application became public. He said Congress built the court to remove alien terrorists who never should have been in the country and called the case an example of an ISIS-sympathizing family allegedly aiding a plot against American voters. The current filing followed an FBI memo dated July 15 and Nazira’s arrest earlier this week. Government lawyers submitted supporting material under seal, then released the unclassified summary before the public hearing. The application marks the first time the court has had to test its rules, evidence standards, and removal authority in a real case. The hearing will decide whether the government can back that charge with evidence. The larger policy question is already impossible to ignore. Why did the United States create a specialized tool for alien-terror cases in 1996 and then leave it unused through the embassy bombings, 9/11, the rise of ISIS, and two decades of terror investigations? President Trump’s administration looked at the statute and chose to use the authority Congress put on the books. That is exactly what voters expected when they sent him back to the White House: find the powers the government already has, enforce the law, and put American safety ahead of institutional inertia. If the allegations are proved, an ISIS supporter tied to a plot against American voters should not get to remain here because the most appropriate court had never been tested before. The government still has to make its case. Zada still has the right to challenge it. But after 30 years of gathering dust, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court is no longer theoretical. The Trump administration has put it to work. The post Trump DOJ Opens A Court America Has Never Used — Now We Know Who Is First In Line appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

President Trump is taking the $83.3 million E. Jean Carroll judgment to the Supreme Court. This time, the fight is about more than the staggering dollar amount. Trump and the Justice Department are asking the justices to decide whether a president can be hit with personal civil liability for statements made while answering reporters in office — and whether lower courts can avoid that constitutional question on procedural grounds. The petition puts presidential immunity, the Westfall Act, and nearly $100 million in personal liability directly in front of the nation’s highest court. The appeal reached the Supreme Court this week: Trump, DOJ appeal E. Jean Carroll defamation suit verdict to Supreme Court https://t.co/Y04iVahZM2 — The Hill (@thehill) July 29, 2026 The case concerns statements President Trump made in 2019 after Carroll accused him of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. Trump denied the allegation and attacked Carroll’s credibility while responding to questions from reporters during his first term. A New York jury later awarded Carroll $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages for defamation. Trump has continued to deny her account and has fought the judgment through the federal courts. Axios reported that Trump’s lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment because the statements came in response to questions about his fitness for office while he was serving as president. The petition asks the justices to review both the constitutional immunity issue and the lower court’s treatment of the federal government’s effort to substitute itself under the Westfall Act. Trump’s attorneys say those questions affect every future president who must answer accusations in public. His legal team argues that presidential immunity protects the conduct and that the Second Circuit never squarely decided whether that immunity applies. Instead, the appeals court relied on procedural rulings and the “law of the case” doctrine to say the immunity defense had been waived or already settled. Trump’s petition calls that approach a series of procedural contortions designed to avoid the central constitutional question. His attorneys also call the $83.3 million award grossly excessive and warn that the precedent would reach far beyond this lawsuit. They say future presidents could face personal financial ruin for defending themselves against public accusations while carrying out the communicative duties of the office. The amount alone makes the stakes impossible to dismiss: President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to overturn an $83 million verdict against him after a federal appeals court upheld a civil jury’s findings that he repeatedly defamed advice columnist E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of sexual assault. https://t.co/8ENOiRntES — KFOX14 News (@KFOX14) July 30, 2026 The Justice Department is also backing Supreme Court review through a separate but related federal-law argument. Under the Westfall Act, the United States can be substituted as the defendant when a federal employee is sued for conduct within the scope of official duties. Because the federal government cannot be sued for defamation under the Federal Tort Claims Act, substitution would effectively end Carroll’s claim based on the 2019 statements. The dispute is not whether every sentence spoken by a president receives blanket protection. It is whether answering press questions about an accusation directed at the president’s fitness for office falls within the outer perimeter of presidential duties — and who gets to decide when the lower courts never reached that issue on the merits. The Second Circuit’s published record shows that the panel treated the immunity defense as procedurally foreclosed. It relied on decisions made before the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity ruling instead of applying that new constitutional framework to the 2019 statements. The panel relied on earlier rulings that treated presidential immunity as waivable and concluded that the defense had been raised too late. That meant the judges upheld the $83.3 million award without deciding whether the 2019 statements were protected official conduct. The federal government later certified that Trump had acted within the scope of his office and sought substitution as the defendant. The panel also rejected that move on procedural grounds. Several judges dissented when the full court declined to rehear the case. They argued that the panel had refused to analyze presidential immunity after the Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 decision in Trump v. United States expanded and clarified constitutional protections for official presidential acts. What are your thoughts? TAP HERE TO ADD YOUR VOTE Those dissenting judges warned that the lower court had left an important structural question unresolved. The dissent said the panel treated the Supreme Court’s intervening immunity decision as too insignificant to justify revisiting the issue. It also challenged the idea that a structural constitutional protection could be lost without an explicit and unequivocal waiver. That disagreement gives the justices a clean institutional question: whether an appellate procedural rule can prevent Supreme Court review of a presidential-immunity claim that the lower court never analyzed. Trump’s attorneys are now making that warning the center of their Supreme Court petition. They contend that the judgment is the first in American history imposing damages liability on a president for conduct undertaken while in office. They also argue that allowing the ruling to stand would expose future presidents to crushing personal lawsuits whenever they answer hostile accusations from the press. The Associated Press reported that federal attorneys told the court a sitting president now faces nearly $100 million in personal liability for conduct the government considers within the scope of his federal office. The filing arrived after Trump’s private legal team and the Justice Department both pressed for high-court review. Carroll’s lawyers had not offered a public response to the new petition when the filing became public, leaving the government’s institutional argument as the first one before the court. The petition was submitted electronically and was expected to receive a formal Supreme Court docket entry after the clerk completed the filing process. The Justice Department said that circumstance alone deserves the Supreme Court’s attention. The new petition is separate from the $5 million judgment the Supreme Court declined to review in June. That earlier verdict involved Carroll’s underlying civil claims and statements Trump made in 2022, after his first term had ended. The $83.3 million judgment at issue now concerns statements from 2019, when Trump was president. The federal government’s position focuses on that difference. It says the 2019 comments came while Trump was responding as president to press questions about accusations bearing directly on his fitness for office. If the Westfall Act applies, the United States would replace Trump as the defendant and the defamation claim could not proceed against the federal government. That distinction is the heart of the new appeal. Carroll’s lawyers have declined to comment on the latest filing. The Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case. The next decision is simply whether at least four justices believe the questions deserve full briefing and argument. The court has repeatedly stepped into disputes over the scope of presidential immunity, from Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton to President Trump. This case now asks the justices to draw another line. Can a lower court impose an unprecedented personal judgment against a president for statements made in office without ever deciding whether presidential immunity protects those statements? Trump’s legal team says the answer must be no. And with $83.3 million on the line, the Supreme Court may be the only institution left that can answer the question directly. The post President Trump Takes The $83 Million Carroll Judgment To The Supreme Court — And Puts Presidential Power On Trial appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

Sen. Ron Johnson came to Anthony Fauci’s Senate hearing with receipts in hand, and one question that went straight to the heart of the government’s COVID-era treatment decisions. Holding up a thick stack of studies, Johnson challenged Fauci over the claim that there had been no evidence supporting ivermectin. The Wisconsin Republican said the papers showed effectiveness in the 60 to 70 percent range and declared, “There’s all kind of evidence.” Johnson then asked Fauci to what extent he had been involved in “sabotaging hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.” Fauci did not answer the substance of the question. He invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. Ron Johnson Holds Up A STACK of Studies Showing 60-70% Effectiveness of Ivermectin, Says Fauci COVERED IT UP “You said there was no evidence” “There’s ALL KIND of Evidence” “To what extent were you involved in sabotaging Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?” *Pleads the Fifth* — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 29, 2026 That exchange came during a full committee hearing titled Testimony of Anthony Fauci, held Wednesday morning by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The official hearing notice listed Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the sole witness. The committee scheduled the session for 8:30 a.m. in Room SD-342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Its official page identified Fauci by his former NIAID title and placed the disputed decisions before the full committee, not a subcommittee or informal forum. The distinction here is important. Johnson’s question accused Fauci of helping sabotage two early treatments, but the exchange itself does not prove that accusation. What the hearing does show is a senator confronting the former government’s most prominent COVID official with a stack of studies, putting the allegation directly to him, and receiving a Fifth Amendment invocation instead of an explanation. Johnson has been pressing this issue for years. In a 2021 letter to federal health officials, he and other lawmakers argued that agencies had ignored or discouraged discussion of early COVID treatments. The letter specifically asked why ivermectin had been prejudged while a National Institutes of Health trial was still underway and demanded records about how treatment guidance had been developed. The lawmakers said treatment decisions had consequences for patients and physicians and sought the evidence federal officials used when discouraging certain therapies. Their questions covered both the scientific basis for the public posture and the decision process behind it. That history is why Wednesday’s questioning carried more weight than a one-off hearing clash. Johnson was returning to a dispute he had raised in writing while the pandemic response was still unfolding: who evaluated the evidence, who shaped the public guidance, and whether officials gave potentially useful early-treatment research a fair hearing. The scientific record also deserves accurate treatment. A later Cochrane systematic review, updated in 2022, concluded that the included evidence showed no beneficial effect for outpatients and remained uncertain for hospitalized patients. That finding does not erase legitimate questions about how federal officials handled competing evidence in real time, but it does mean Johnson’s 60 to 70 percent figure should be understood as his characterization of the studies he displayed, not as a settled medical conclusion. The accountability fight did not end when the hearing adjourned. Hours later, Johnson announced that he had sent letters asking Fauci and former Food and Drug Administration officials to appear voluntarily for transcribed interviews. He said subpoenas would follow if they refused. Here is Johnson’s same-day follow-up: I just sent letters to former FDA officials and Anthony Fauci to appear voluntarily for transcribed interviews. The American people deserve answers, and I will issue subpoenas if they do not appear voluntarily. — Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) July 29, 2026 That next step matters because a hearing clip can expose the question, but documents and sworn interviews can establish the timeline. If officials acted properly, they should be able to explain who reviewed the studies, what standards were applied, and why federal guidance took the shape it did. If internal communications tell a different story, Congress should make them public. Americans lived through mandates, lockdowns, business closures, school disruptions, and relentless instructions to trust the experts. They are entitled to know whether those experts evaluated disfavored treatments honestly or allowed politics, institutional pressure, or bureaucratic self-protection to influence the response. Johnson put the allegation on the record. Fauci chose the Fifth. The subpoenas, interviews, and documents now have to provide the answers the hearing did not. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post Ron Johnson Confronts Fauci With Ivermectin Studies, Fauci Takes the Fifth appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.