All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2020 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
01:11:37
Dr Corsi NEWS 12-10-20: Why SCOTUS Hears The Texas Case
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You You
You You
So dr. Corsi for the purpose of Trump winning the 2020 election is fraud just the
Shiny ball that everyone is chasing, but the real meat of the matter is the 14th amendment
Well, in a sense, yes, but we're going to get into that pretty deeply today, because my filing, Corsi v. Biden, was done for a reason, and I'm going to explain that today, because it has to do with the John Roberts and a case called Abbott v. Perez.
But first, today is December 10th.
It's Thursday.
Happy Hanukkah!
And it's Hanukkah.
Now, I'm told Hanukkah is a feast to expect miracles.
Is that right?
Really?
Yeah, expect miracles.
Wow.
And it's a week of miracles.
It goes from the 10th to the 18th.
I'm expecting a week of miracles here.
I'm expecting Donald Trump is going to be president, and I'm 100% confident that's going to happen now.
100%.
Okay, now, we have before the Supreme Court the case of the Texas case.
The Texas case is largely arguing on constitutional grounds, which is very solid.
That, for instance, the states have put into effect all these screwy mail-in ballot Type of regulations by the governors, the state board, sometimes the state court, but they did not do it with law from the state legislature.
And the state legislature is the only body under article three of the constitution that can make rules for a presidential election.
So that means all these mail-in ballots that don't have a strict constitutional backing to them by having been passed the way they were implemented, By a state legislature.
Our unconstitutional have to be thrown out.
Think that'll affect anything, Greg?
Ah, gee whiz.
A whole bunch of stuff on that.
You know, about 10 o'clock at night on election night, Tuesday, November 3, President Trump was off to a landslide victory.
Everything that happened after that, if it's washed away, makes a big difference.
And that was all the mail-in ballots being wheeled in on in suitcases, right?
Yeah, suitcases from under tables.
Every other way they could think to bring them in.
Okay.
Now, Ruby's unique treasures arrived.
That's right.
We covered that the other day.
And that was the woman in Atlanta who was videotaping all of her getting these ballots in there and all the things they were doing with the mail-in.
Now, the second argument they're making is one that is an equal protection argument under the 14th Amendment.
It's in the Texas case, namely the fact that, for instance, Oregon put in to effect mail-in ballot, and they did not have a state law.
It was universal.
Everybody had to vote by mail-in, same way it was here in New Jersey.
But there was no state law to that effect.
They did it through an initiative.
Initiative up on the ballot.
1997, I believe it was.
They tried twice to get a law and they failed both times.
And so Oregon is disadvantaging the rights of someone in Texas who did it right.
Because they did not have this wild and crazy mail-in voting.
And so therefore, It's unequal, it's like the original purpose of the 14th Amendment, which was after the Civil War, the 13th Amendment had given the freed slaves the right to vote.
But then in the South, the Jim Crow South, in Reconstruction, after the Civil War, they had put in place this whole poll tax and these other barriers like this that were designed to make sure blacks didn't vote.
Well, 14th Amendment said any state action that is taken to deny a citizen their equal rights under the Constitution is unconstitutional in itself.
So therefore, all these state actions are unconstitutional because they denied voters like me or voters in Texas an equal right to have their vote count like everybody else's.
Instead, if I'd been a voter for Biden in Oregon, I could have voted illegally many times and not get caught.
Just fill out these mail-in ballots.
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
Give me another stack.
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
Right, Craig?
Yeah, absolutely.
The Ilhan Omar claim to fame, that's how you get elected in Mogadishu on the Mississippi.
You buy the votes.
That's it.
OK, now, also in my filing, and let's go to the article we wrote about my filing with the Trump
wins.
This book, by the way, is doing extremely well if you really want to understand what's going on.
Get my ebook, Trump Wins, and it's on CorsiNation.com, and this is how it's gonna play out.
It's coming right down to the script that I wrote in that book.
We're now at the Supreme Court, and I'm gonna tell you today why they're gonna hear the case, because you see, Supreme Court would just as soon run away from the case.
They're gonna have to make a big decision, like who's gonna be president.
They're going to say, no, we're just setting the rules, but everybody knows they're going to be picking president.
Now in the Supreme court, they're afraid of this because, oh, this, you know, this is a big decision.
The Biden people aren't going to like me.
In fact, the Biden people are kind of rough.
So they might come after me.
I better just ignore this case, but it's decided after the election when, when Biden will be president.
Yeah, well, if they do that, then the Supreme Court isn't worth a pale or warm you-know-what.
And so, therefore, we better, a nice way of saying it, a pale and warm spit.
They've got to do their job.
They've got to do their duty.
This is why they want to be in the Supreme Court.
You want to be on the Supreme Court?
Okay, then you're going to have tough cases.
And you're going to have to pick winners and losers in very important things like who's going to be president.
But if we can have an election in which we can just steal the votes like they did here, out in the open, well then we don't need any more stinking elections.
Why don't we just go back to what they did in, you know, in Caesar's day, Roman Republic.
They had this triumvirate.
It was Caesar and Cassius and Pompey.
And these guys were doing fine.
They were running the joint.
All getting what they wanted, bribing, paying for votes, making sure the Senate was beat up if they didn't do what they were told.
And it was just a rosy affair, except that Pompey was the only one who lasted any length of time.
Initially, of course, he got done in Egypt.
Caesar eventually got him, but Cassius went off to the east somewhere and thought he was gonna be a big war hero.
Well, they killed him by pouring molten gold down his throat because he was so in love with money.
When they defeated his army, they decided that was a good way to kill him.
And Caesar went off to Gaul, conquered Gaul, and came back and decided he was emperor.
And from then on, it was, we don't need any stinking elections.
Let's just, we don't like the emperor.
Okay, well I'll kill Caesar.
Okay, and then we kill the next one.
If you don't get somebody in like Augustus, you got a mess.
So over the next 100 or 200 or 300 or 400 years, we just kill people and bribe people and cheat and steal.
And it's okay with the Supreme Court if they don't want to decide this case, because we don't need any stinking voting anymore.
Not if we're going to go into forgetting about being a constitutional republic, decide we're going to be a Marxist state.
Just bring on the gill legs.
Right, Craig?
Yeah.
And so the triumvirate over here, I guess currently we got Biden, Obama, and Clinton.
So now we're going to have a new kind of lesson here today.
We're going to shift gears.
And what I'm going to explain now is why this court was going to take this case.
And some of this may not be the most polite discussion I've ever had.
Craig, do you think that's possible?
Red Chief?
Should we remind everybody of Red Chief?
Yeah, so the book by O. Henry, way back 100 years ago, and he talked about how, gee whiz, there's this kid who's uncontrollable, and his dad, when he finds out he's been kidnapped, says to the kidnappers, keep him!
Oh, that Red Chief?
That Red Chief, and the kidnappers pay the dad $50,000 to take the kid back.
It was a short story.
Wasn't a book, it was a short story.
Great short story.
The Ransom of Red Chief.
Okay, so now let's talk about Justice Roberts.
Because everybody thinks Justice Roberts.
He's gone left.
He hates Donald Trump.
I'm getting stories about how he's having dinner at his country club with this guy who's got Biden's slogans all over it.
They're having a great old time over here at this table because they're all hating Trump.
Hate Trump.
Orange man, go away.
That's John Roberts.
That's John Roberts.
Okay.
Let's talk about John Roberts because when I filed my case, Corsi v. Biden, let's go to the article.
I made the point, and it was pretty far, pretty much right up front in the case, where I'm, point number three, where I say Chief Justice Roberts and Abbott v. Perez, 2018 case, established that voter data could be used to show that a gerrymandering scheme, redistricting, to discriminate against Latinos, and by the way, did you see Ted Cruz is gonna argue the case in front of the Supreme Court.
That happened late last night when Donald Trump asked Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz is one of the most brilliant students of constitutional law maybe ever at the Harvard Law School.
And if he argues this case successfully, he immensely increases his chances of being president in 2024.
And Donald Trump has asked him to.
It's pretty remarkable because I was in Cleveland The 2016 campaign.
I grew up in Cleveland, born in East Cleveland, and there was a speech that Cruz was giving.
Cruz had been, he dropped out of the 2016 race in one of the primaries.
That's when Trump was really going to be clearly the candidate for the Republican Party.
Cruz gave this speech and he was talking about himself.
At the end they expected him, they gave him time on the platform to give a speech.
Which was a concession to Cruz as well as he had done in the primaries in 2016.
The end of the speech, they expected him to endorse Donald Trump.
He ended the speech without endorsing Donald Trump.
And I thought that was the end of his career.
I was having breakfast the next morning in the Ritz-Carlton, which is adjoined to the convention center in Cleveland,
that had an underground pathway between that and the Ritz-Carlton and what is the Cavaliers basketball arena,
which is where the convention was being held.
And in the back room, after that stunt, Ted Cruz was meeting with his advisors.
I was sitting and having breakfast with a couple of his fundraisers, and the other table, a couple of his other big
fundraisers.
Ted Cruz came out of that. These two gentlemen over here caught him.
They dressed him down for about 45 minutes with him.
They didn't even ask him to sit down.
He stood up while they sat down.
They said, that was a damn fool thing you did last night.
And we don't know if we can save your career.
They dressed him down.
Then he left that table and he came over to our table.
I said hello to him and these other two guys tore into him.
I thought that was the end.
And then I went to one of the caucus meetings.
I started sitting on the floor with a Texas delegation saying, what do you all think of what Ted Cruz did last night?
Oh, they were angry.
Ted Cruz had to meet with that delegation.
I thought his career was over.
Of course, he did manage to beat, what is it?
Who did he beat?
I guess it's Beto O'Rourke, the skateboard jockey.
Yeah.
That jerkhead.
What's his name?
Beto O'Rourke.
Where does the Democratic Party get these people?
Okay, Beto O'Rourke.
He thought, didn't he try to present himself as Spanish?
Ah, si.
Mucho.
Yeah, that's right.
He also spoke a little Spanish, badly.
Un poquito.
Un poquito, yeah, that's right.
Okay, now let's talk a little bit about this case, Abbott v. Perez, because it's one of Justice Roberts' big cases.
Justice Roberts doesn't like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and he's got some Pretty good reasons for not liking it.
We're going to discuss those in a minute, but I want to find, I want to get the language of the case.
So let me just go here over.
Justia, J-U-S-T-I-A, is a very good site for finding these Supreme Court cases.
The Supreme Court has a blog too, SCOTUSblog, which is also quite good.
But the Abbott v. Perez case, Uh, was in the opinions, Alito and Thomas, it was a complicated case, but it was about this redistricting area that they had, and Alito actually wrote an opinion.
I think the opinion of the court was written by Roberts.
Let me just double check that.
Let's see if I get the actual opinions here.
Briefings, opinions, yeah.
Syllabus, okay.
So the court held, it was a redistricting scheme that usually would be, the Supreme Court would usually say this was discriminatory against blacks.
Because what they were trying to do was... I'll just pick it out of my book, it's a little bit easier.
I've got just the article up there, and I've got the opinion by Alito and concurrence by Thomas.
Okay, but let's go into...
Let's go into the actual, what I wrote about in my book.
I wrote about this at length in my book and it's in this Trump wins book.
And let me pull that up because I want to get a particular sentence that I wrote.
Hold on a second.
Edit, find.
Here we go.
Advanced search.
And we'll look for Abbott.
Okay, Inhabitant Pete Perez.
The case involved a 2011 redistricting case where Latino citizens of Texas arguing the Texas legislature and engaged in an illicit redistricting that amounted to a racial gerrymandering scheme to break up Latino voters into districts where Latinos were minorities with the goal To prevent the Latino voters involved from electing Latinos to the House of Representatives.
Latinos argued they were being denied equal voting rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
But in this case, Roberts joined the majority in concluding the Texas redistricting plan was constitutional.
The liberal left immediately began howling, raging at Roberts for what was perceived as racism.
A charge that, you know, incendiary today when the radical left has embraced the Marxist influence critical social theory that glorifies identity politics in the name of race and social justice.
In fact, I quote this Ian Milheser, who is a correspondent of Vox.com, He specializes in reporting on SCOTUS and the decline of what he considers the glory days of Chief Justice Warren's civil rights decision as Mil Hisser as a leftist.
And so he published an article entitled, Chief Justice Robert's Lifetime Crusade Against Voting Rights Explained.
He submitted, he's fought to undermine voting rights his entire career.
Milhiser pointed to another voting rights case in which Roberts had led the majority, Shelby County v. Holder.
That was a 2013 case against Attorney General Holder.
In both cases, Milhiser objected that Roberts was intent on joining SCOTUS decisions that made it, quote, much harder for voting rights plaintiffs to prove they were victims of discrimination, end quote.
Milhiser argued that Roberts has been, quote, trying to strangle the Voter Rights Act for some four decades.
Of course, the Voting Rights Act of 65 was a major component of then President Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society civil rights program.
Now, in the 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority, and he was joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito.
Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion.
She was joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
And the point was that what, you know, Roberts was arguing was that if you look at the voting data, that the Latinos were getting their congressmen in.
Okay?
And what Alito said in his He joined, but a separate opinion.
Whenever a challenger claims that a state law is enacted with discriminatory intent, the burden of proof lies on the challenger to prove that.
And so what Roberts was saying, as we look at the voting data, it proves there wasn't discrimination.
Well, okay.
In this case, the Texas case today about the votes that were held in this election, we don't need to go to a court trial to prove that there was fraud.
It is proved by the fact that, just like here, we've got probability data, we've got political science voting data, which show that these votes that came in late You know, at the end of that, that what they call the blue shift.
So they stopped counting and suddenly Biden just jumps up and now he's in a plateau above Trump and the, and the percentages of the votes all change.
So that before when Trump was getting 55% of the vote, now after this blue shift, Biden's getting 55% of the vote that can only be explained by fraud.
And I can give you a lots of political science arguments and articles and citations.
Why that's the case now.
Justice Roberts has got a choice.
He's going to say, I don't really want to take this case because I know that Trump wins on the constitutional issues.
I don't like, I don't like Trump.
So let's just sit this out.
That's what Roberts is going to say.
Now, there's only one problem with that Justice Roberts.
And that is that if you don't want to visit Abbott v. Perez, sounds to me like you are a racist.
Sounds to me like you don't like the Voting Rights Act because you don't like blacks.
You don't want them to vote.
Wink wink.
Oh, you're a Biden supporter?
Oh, you don't like Trump?
Well, guess what?
I'm going to get a billboard that says social justice warriors condemn Roberts for his racism and not hating the Voting Rights Act.
Do you think that would have any impact on Justice Roberts?
What do you think, Craig?
I think he's swayed by public opinion.
He wants to have his little pinky up when he's drinking his tea.
I think that'll quash the whole thing right there.
I'm happy to do this.
I mean, I want this case heard.
When I filed my case, if you go back to that article, you will see that in that article, what I'm showing you is that I cited this case.
Because I think it is, and if they want to roll my case into the Texas case, fine.
If they just want to use the arguments, fine.
I don't really care.
It doesn't make any difference to me.
I'm happy that they have the Texas case.
I think it's extremely well-argued.
I think it's brilliant.
I think it wins.
We discussed that yesterday.
Go back and listen to that yesterday.
You can see why I think it wins.
I'm telling you today, I think the loser here is Roberts.
Because if he doesn't want to get this case, I think it proves that he's a racist.
In fact, I think the only way Roberts can prove he's not a racist is to take this case and explain that he really was only arguing that you can use social science data to prove whether something is or is not discriminatory, is or is not fraud, Because there was no trial here that would prove as a fact that the Latino voters in Texas in the Abbott case didn't get what they wanted.
It was done by looking at the voting data.
So if Justice Roberts wants to make sure that we all understand that he wasn't making a racist decision in Shelby County or in the Abbott case, then he'll take this case and show us how, in fact, his argument in Perez really works.
Think that makes sense?
He's got an opportunity here to explain himself.
What do you think, Craig?
Yeah, makes absolute sense.
And so, gee whiz, why would you pass up an opportunity to show that you're not a racist?
Okay, now I want to ask you a question.
Why is Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court?
He was put there by George W. Bush.
Okay, and why did George W. Bush nominate Justice Roberts?
Probably because he's part of the same club.
I don't know.
Well, it had to do with a woman called Harriet Meyer.
Do you remember her?
When he nominated her, there was a pushback by Rush Limbaugh and the other conservatives that she's not qualified to do it, and Roberts was his number two pick.
And what finally blew up Harriet Meyer's?
Well, the conservatives got on their high heels and said, no way is she the one that we want.
And with her leanings, she was not.
He was just his personal lawyer, Bush's personal lawyer at the White House, and didn't have the gravitas in order to be Supreme Court justice.
Well, you've done pretty good up to now on the questions.
But on this last one, I'm going to have to say you missed.
OK, now I'm going to give you here and instant messages.
I want you to put up an old article.
From that period of time, here it comes.
Right there.
Just pull that one up.
The reason that Justice Roberts is on the court is because I blew up Harriet Meyers.
So occasionally I have to admit to this being, you know, maybe Red Chief.
Want to mess with me?
I'll mess with them.
I don't do it out of any spite.
I would prefer not to do it, but Bush thought it was really clever at this point.
He was going to nominate Harriet Meyers.
She was relatively unknown, except to people like me.
Now, Harriet Meyers, this article, got the article up.
Yes, I do.
From the Narchive?
Yeah, it comes out of... This you got to find in the Wayback Machine.
It's an article I wrote in a period of time.
I guess when she was nominated, what year was she on the court?
Harriet Meyers was nominated in what year?
She wasn't on the court.
She was nominated.
Personal attorney.
Let's just find out.
I don't know.
Okay, let me take a look.
Yeah, I think it was... I think it was like 2006.
Oh, 2005.
2005, maybe.
Yes, October 3, 25.
Yeah, it was right after Unfit for Command, because I went after her right after Unfit for Command with John O'Neill.
And what the deal is, okay, here's who Harry Meyers is.
Let's go through this article a little bit here.
Now, when George W. Bush was in Texas, where he came from, the Bush family in Houston, There was a controversy over this Texas lottery.
It involved a guy named Larry Litwin, who was the commissioner at that time of the lottery, and he happened to be in New York, and I found him because I knew about this controversy.
Now, Harriet Meyers, Larry Litwin was the Director of the Texas Lottery under Harriet Meyers.
She was an attorney and she was over this whole Texas Lottery deal in the Texas government.
And this article was a gag order on Litwin over the case that he got settled.
He was not allowed to talk about it.
But I helped him and we got the gag order lifted.
So that when Harriet Meyers could have her Supreme Court confirmation, he could testify.
And then his testimony was going to be explosive, both to Bush and to the nominee.
Okay, now, Litwin was forced to, he was fired, this goes back to the Vietnam War era, this goes back to the 60s we're talking about.
And what I report on World Net Daily at that time was that Litwin was fired by Myers because he wanted to investigate, there was this improper influence buying by lobbyists for a company called G-Tech, who was hired to run the lottery.
So this firm G-Tech wanted to run the lottery.
And they wanted to do it, and there was influence buying to get the contract that was alleged, and Larry Litwin was the guy who had that, who had that information.
So, of course, he believes that Litwin, according to an examination of hundreds of contemporary Texas newspaper accounts, I got all the Texas newspapers from the time.
I have hundreds of newspaper articles on this from the time.
Litwin will be able to establish under oath that the G-Tech contract was preserved on a no-bid basis by then Chairwoman of the Lottery Commission, Myers, in order to keep the lid on the National Guard controversy involving George W. Bush.
Now, that controversy was that George W. Bush went into the Air National Guard in Texas, the Texas Air National Guard, in order to stay out of Vietnam.
And that his daddy helped him arrange that.
Daddy being H.W.
Bush of CIA and fame and going to be President of the United States in 1967.
This is back in 67, 68, 65.
So you're back into the period of time when Enda Johnson and You know, this whole period is very, very controversial over the war.
And if you wanted to stay out of the war, didn't want to go to Vietnam, one thing you could do is go to the Texas National Guard.
Now, one of the lobbyists for GTEC involved Ben Barnes, who was a former Texas Lieutenant Governor.
And when George W. Bush wanted to keep out of Vietnam and go into Texas Air National Guard, his daddy, George H.W.
Bush, was bigwig in Texas politics, called up Ben Barnes, who is the lieutenant governor, and said, my son, George, would like to be in the Air National Guard.
And Barnes said, well, I think we can arrange that.
And in fact, it was all true.
The Bushes had for years tried to deny all this.
But I had the story.
I had the testimony.
And I was saying to Bush, if you want Harriet Meyers on the court, then I'm going to tell the world the entire Air National Guard story.
Because I know it.
I know it from several people who were involved in it at the time.
And so George W. Bush goes off into the Air National Guard to avoid Vietnam.
And he succeeds in that goal.
He does not go to Vietnam.
Now, the process, he did learn how to fly.
I think it was the F-101, flew one of the more dangerous planes we had, and he was good at it.
His father, George H.W.
Bush, was a pilot in World War II in the South Pacific, who flew in the San Jacinto aircraft carrier.
And that was involved in a lot of the action in the South Pacific when we were island hopping, trying to get to Japan.
And that was vicious combat.
And quite frankly, his father did some heroic things.
Including if airplane was shot down, George H.W.
Bush was pulled out of the water by a submarine.
He spent like four months on the submarine before they could get him back somewhere where he could get on with the Navy, get back to aircraft carrier flying.
He was flying a I believe a torpedo plane.
I'll have to go back and see which plane he was flying.
But by the way, on that aircraft carrier was a guy named Robert Stinnett, S-T-I-N-N-E-T-T, who was a photographer.
And when George H.W.
Bush used to take and go on these missions where he would take air photography of the Japanese boats along the way for reconnaissance to identify which boats the Japanese Navy had where, Stinnett would develop the film.
He and Stinnett became good friends.
Now, Stinnett was a photographer at one of the newspapers in Oakland.
He had taken some very good pictures.
It was his career when he got back from the war.
He was a columnist and the photographer for one of the Oakland, California local newspapers.
But he got interested in World War II and he did all this research on World War II.
He wrote a book called Day of Deceit, which he argued very convincingly that FDR Knew that Pearl Harbor, it caused Pearl Harbor to happen because he wanted to get in, FDR wanted to get in the war.
Not really so much to preserve Churchill as to preserve Stalin.
Stalin was going to get beat by Hitler.
So we did lend a lease and got all this equipment to Stalin.
But we, America didn't want to fight it.
We'd fought in World War I. We thought it was a waste of time for another European war.
George Washington was right.
Avoid foreign entanglements.
And FDR and one of his deep state moves, just like the Biden deep state move, architecting reality.
So we think we're in a Truman show.
It's what we're in.
Turn off the mainstream news.
You'd do better off than hear their lies.
Constructing this reality.
They want you to believe where Biden is the president.
He's not.
He's never going to be.
And Stinnett wrote this brilliant book on FDR.
He died, Stinnett died.
I really got onto him after he was dead, but I wanted to know where his papers were, because I read his book and I read his footnotes.
I knew he had to have a massive collection of this information on Pearl Harbor that was probably no longer available, because after he wrote that book, our government reclassified some of the stuff they'd given him, so nobody else ever could see it.
Because it does prove that FDR lied, And got a lot of good 2000 good Americans killed at Pearl Harbor because he didn't warn them that the Japanese fleet was about 100 miles away and going to attack them that morning.
He knew.
Didn't warn them.
FDR knew.
So I find these papers at the Hoover Institute and they got them in some warehouse somewhere because they don't want them.
So I make him get them out.
Now there's slow play in me and I'm mad at them still because I don't get my damn papers.
And I'm gonna get them one at a time.
I said, I'll get you somebody who'll go in and we'll put them on scanner.
We'll get all that.
We'll do it on a week and get all that stuff so everybody can see it.
Oh no, Dr. Corsi, these are very precious papers.
So precious, why do you have them out in the cold in a storage facility?
You didn't even remember you had them.
Okay, so that's who Stinnett is.
That's who George H.W.
Bush is.
When George W. Bush went into the Air National Guard, he found he could fly these planes like his daddy could.
He was good at it.
And he suddenly stopped drinking as much as he was drinking.
He was a horrible alcoholic at that time.
And decided he wanted to marry this woman who's a librarian.
Probably the best decision he ever made in his life.
And started getting himself straightened up.
And he liked flying these planes, and he was good at it.
And these planes were dangerous to fly.
I think it was one of the planes that John McCain flew.
Of course, John McCain was a complete, I don't want to say F-up, but that's what he was.
Releasing a missile on the plane on the forestall aircraft carrier that killed a bunch of people and caused a huge fire because he He was always doing these, flying his airplane into telephone wires, hot-dogging it over Vietnam and getting shot down.
I mean, I don't want to get on to McCain.
But my point here is, Harriet Meyers, after I started writing these articles, and people in Congress were saying, wait a minute, of course he's going to tell the whole story here, George W. Bush.
about the Air National Guard.
Now you just denied all that when it came out and Dan Rather was fired over a stunt he played on the Air National Guard.
And maybe we ought to stop Corsi from writing these articles.
So Harriet Meyers withdrew her.
She said, I'm not going to be, I don't anymore want to pursue.
I'm not going to go to the Senate confirmation hearings.
Bush took her domination back and he nominated Roberts.
That's how Roberts got in the court.
What do you think of that, Craig?
Red Chiefs strikes again?
Well, I sure wouldn't want to have to do that to Roberts again.
But you sure would if you had to.
If he doesn't take this case...
You want to see civil war?
Let's have it.
We're going to blow up the United States because you're going to give in to these.
We know there was fraud in this election.
You know, John Roberts, because of Abbott v. Perez, there was fraud in this election.
Now, there might be some things in your past, John Roberts, you don't want talked about either.
And we don't have to, but we could.
Talk about the adoptions.
We could talk about those.
We could talk about Lolita Island.
Well, maybe Epstein.
Maybe just Epstein.
We might talk about Lolita Island a little bit.
We don't have to, John Roberts.
No reason getting rid of me.
You just know where I'm going.
I don't have to go there, but I will.
Because this case is going to be heard.
The United States of America is going to remain a constitutional republic.
We're not going to go the way of ancient Rome, down this corruption and mafia and backroom dealing and cheating out in the open.
It's wrong.
Not only wrong, it's unconstitutional.
It's not only wrong and unconstitutional, it's evil, it's crime, and it's a sin.
Stop it.
Democratic Party?
Needs to be gotten rid of right now.
It's a Marxist party.
We don't need it anymore.
Republican party isn't much better.
I think it's time for the MAGA party because there's a fundamental realignment of voters going on.
And the realignment of voters is going to be dramatic because the American people have come together under Donald Trump.
They've heard his message.
Look at these rallies, these people, the mega hats, the... I'm driving locally here and I'm seeing people who are out honking their horns and they're out having a rally for George W. Bush.
Nobody's there but them.
They got a booth, they're giving speeches, they're waving to all the cars going by who are supporting them for George W. Bush.
I've never seen anything like that in my life.
Why?
Because he said, I'm going to put people to work.
I'm going to have people have some money and he's going to say, blacks, Latinos, what do you got to lose?
Come with me.
We'll build your families.
We'll get you off this America first.
We're not going to go to China.
We're not going to go with the globalists.
A minority is fine.
We're not going to go with illegals.
We're not going to release people from prison.
We're not going to have transvestites without underwear teaching children story hour.
They can do that if they want.
I don't care what they really do, but I mean, I'm kind of libertarian on this.
Do whatever you want to do, but don't teach my kids that trash.
Not in my time.
Don't tell me what I can say.
Don't tell me I can't read my Bible.
Don't tell me we can't have legally weapons.
You want to do that?
Sayonara, Democratic Party.
And sayonara, John Roberts, if you don't have any balls.
Sorry.
You better develop some.
Or, hey.
Well, Lita, let's get the log out here.
Craig, how many times did you go?
You can only show one on the log, but who knows?
Do we have this Maxwell woman in prison?
She's sitting there, and she probably knows all about it.
Think she might want to get out of prison?
She will sing like a bird, I think, if you put the right inducement in front of her.
Think we got any song music she might want to play?
Could be.
And how about those kids?
Where'd they come from?
They were adopted, both of them.
And that was kind of a mystery in itself.
Okay.
We don't need to go any further.
That's it.
Now, a couple other people on the court I want to talk about briefly today.
Um, Clarence Thomas, and by the way, I did think we had an improvement when we got rid of Harriet Myers and we put in John Roberts.
Now I might've been mistaken.
I'm going to tell you one more thing about John Roberts in a minute, but, um, I know if we get rid of John Roberts, we got an improvement with Clarence Thomas.
I'd love to see him be Supreme Court Justice.
Wouldn't you, Craig?
Chief.
Absolutely.
Chief.
I'd like to see him be Chief Justice.
And he deserves it.
Now, he has a little grievance against Biden.
You remember what that was, Craig?
Well, Gene, in 1991, there was this hearing that I think that Clarence Thomas had been nominated to become a Supreme Court Justice, and there was a guy named Biden.
He headed up the Judiciary Committee back then in the House, and he had some hearings, and he brought in this lady, Anita Hill, and she made up all... Well, I'm sorry.
She presented all kinds of information about nefarious doings of Clarence Thomas.
Sexual.
Sexual nature.
Coke cans and things hanging on the Coke cans, all kinds of garbage.
All kinds of trash.
And Thomas told Biden, this is a judicial lynching.
He's a black guy.
He said, this is a judicial lynching.
You're lynching me.
He was mad that day.
I remember that day vividly.
He was mad.
And Biden went back in his little hole, like he'd been swatted by a bear.
Biden is not a good guy.
He's a thug.
He comes from the DuPont family.
He was a creation of the DuPonts.
He's been a criminal since the very beginning.
Cheating in school.
Plagiarizing.
Putting his kids in jobs that they had no business being in so they could get paid.
His brother.
The guy's a criminal.
Chinese.
Beijing Joe.
He's not going to be president.
He ought to be.
Now, by the way, you just happen to see this thing about Hunter now coming out, right?
Yeah, it appears there's actually a tax evasion investigation going on.
You might think that's an accident, right?
Just timing, coincidence.
Not?
No, it's going to develop.
American people are now going to get revisited, the fact that Biden is a criminal.
And that his son is a criminal, the communist Chinese own him, and this site we've been going and referencing.
Song of Hope.
Which are two Chinese, two cute little Chinese, a man and a woman out here, just looking through some data and showing you some pictures.
Devastating.
Tucker Carlson's been picking up their material and running with it.
And you see now that the Chinese are bragging about they're going to own America when Joe Biden's in here.
This is a national security case.
Anybody home back there in the White House?
Fire Barr.
Fire Wray.
Fire Haspel.
What are you guys doing back there?
You got a few days left when the first term, when you have all the authority of the federal government is mighty powerful.
Fire these people.
Fire Durham.
Put in Grinnell.
Let him be acting attorney general.
He's my choice.
I'm calling him the gay Avenger.
What do you think of that, Craig?
I like that moniker, or, you know, bring in the male commentator on Sound of Hope, he could be the AG, and make that female investigative journalist, make her the FBI director.
See, I'm not opposed to it, Gage.
One of my editors, on one of the books I was publishing, we were signing a contract, he said, now I'm going to tell you something, you may not want to have me be your editor, because I'm just going to tell you this.
I thought to myself, this must be pretty bad.
What's it going to be?
What is he going to tell me now?
We're having a steak dinner.
I'm ready to sign the contract.
And he says, I'm gay.
And you're a Christian conservative.
And if you don't want to work with me because I'm gay, I'll understand and I'll get somebody else.
And I said, well, I've only got a couple of questions.
One is, do I have to become gay to work with you?
And what do you think he said, Craig?
No.
No?
He said, okay, that's fine.
I said, well, I don't really care what you are.
You do whatever you want to do.
You live your life, I'll live mine.
You answer to God, I'll answer to God.
I'm not telling you what God's going to say, because I'm not God.
I'm going to live my life the way I want to live it.
And it doesn't appeal to me to be gay, so I'm not.
And as long as that's not required.
So my other question is, are you a good editor?
Yeah, I'm pretty good.
I said, okay, fine.
Then you can edit the book.
And he was good.
He did a good job.
I admired a lot of things he did on my books.
I thought he edited two or three and it was good.
So I want Grinnell in there because he's good and he'll get the job done.
He did his acting DNI.
I want him in there now.
Let's get Grinnell in there.
Okay.
Now, I want to come to one more subject that I want to cover today and it's, this is kind of all, so that was Barrett, let's talk about Barrett for a minute.
Amy Coney Barrett, new Associate Justice.
So she just come on and she's a little bit scared and said, oh my, couldn't I just, here I am in the Supreme Court, I'm brand new, I don't even know, I don't even know where my office is.
Who are my clerks going to be?
Couldn't I have a break?
I got to come here.
And the biggest case in the history of the United States is now on my desk.
And I got to, I got to, couldn't I just take a vacation?
Why don't I, why don't I say I'll start this job at the new year?
Maybe right after the holidays.
Uh, I'm sorry, Amy, Jay, maybe Coney, whatever your name is, Barrett.
You took the oath.
You're Supreme court justice.
You're not a lower court justice anymore.
You're not going to school.
This isn't about your children and your marriage.
You got this job.
Well, you ain't a housewife anymore.
And you probably never were.
You ain't a lawyer anymore.
You might have been for a while.
You ain't a justice anymore of a lower court.
You're on the Supreme Court of the United States.
And you better strap it on, because this is what you're going to be dealing with from here on.
If you don't want to do it, that's fine.
Go home.
You can resign.
Otherwise, you know the law.
You know this case has got to be heard.
Oh, but Dr. Corsi, if we do this, the Supreme Court's going to hate us.
The Biden people are going to say we interfered in an election.
If you don't do this, there will never be another election.
The Supreme Court won't exist.
They'll have 25 of you up here.
All leftists.
And you're either going to do what they say, take a knee, or they'll be in your face and in your home and messing with your children, spray-painting your house.
Oh, if we just give them Biden, this will all stop.
No, it won't.
They didn't stop tearing.
It's all we want to do is tear down the Confederate monuments.
Yeah, yeah, right.
Well, we got to tear down the Lincoln monuments.
We got to tear down all the monuments.
We got to spray paint the cities.
You got to destroy the cities.
These people are insane.
They're Marxists.
They destroy things.
Between you, your stand and Amy Coney Barrett, between chaos and the future of the United States of America.
It's on your shoulders.
If you don't want to do it, resign today.
We'll put somebody else there.
If you want to do the job you signed for, then do it right.
We're expecting you to.
Kavanaugh.
You think he liked being dressed down by the Democrats at those hearings?
Well, he got through that one, but if he doesn't go for this case, they're going to know.
They're going to know.
The left's going to know they own him.
They'll just put a ring in his nose.
He thought that was miserable.
He's crying for himself.
Oh, this is so hard.
Why are they doing this to me?
Oh, and they got mad.
He was a little petulant.
Come on.
Another little boy, baby.
Grow up, Cavanaugh.
These people are going to lead you around and they know your number.
You blinked.
They saw you blink.
He'll be on your knees, Cavanaugh.
If you don't have the balls to take this case.
Forget about Sotomayor.
Forget about Kagan.
I sat in a lot of meetings watching those two before they were on the court.
Watching John Podesta, another one of my favorites over there.
So you all are Marxists.
You like the Marxism.
You want to destroy the Constitution.
So we're just going to forget about you.
You're only two votes.
Gorsuch.
Seems we got three people on this court that were put there by Trump.
Y'all forget that?
Gorsuch?
Kavanaugh?
Y'all forget that?
Barrett?
This man put you on the Supreme Court.
Now you're gonna abandon him?
Uh-uh.
I don't think so.
We're gonna start reading all your cases.
Find out how y'all lived.
What do you think, Craig?
I'm threatening him.
No threats here.
This is just what I do.
I'm an investigative reporter.
Okay?
And the one thing you learn, and what I do, is there's no human being walking on the face of the earth that doesn't have something they'd prefer you not find out about.
Well, the thing that I want to make sure is they don't abandon the Constitution, and now's the time to stand tall, and I think it's a God thing why Amy Coney Barrett is on the bench to begin with, with the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the exact time that there was enough time to get her there, and it's time now to step up and do your duty to protect the Constitution.
Well, like I told the Buehler prosecutors, Jeanne Rhee and Aaron Zielinski, The other one, Goldstein, said, you know, look, I came in here, I gave you my computers, I gave you all, I came in to cooperate with you, did my, one of my passwords, I helped you help the FBI and, you know, get into my computers when they wanted to call me from wherever they called me in their FBI land.
I gave them everything they wanted.
I came in here to cooperate.
You guys start playing this stupid memory game.
I forgot a few, you want emails that I wrote four years ago.
Now you want to jump down my throat and put me in prison, huh?
I didn't come in here to mess with you guys.
But if you want to mess with me, I'm shutting this whole thing down.
And I did.
They gave me a plea deal.
They wanted me to plead to testimony.
They allowed me to amend.
I said, no way.
You guys are supporting perjury.
I'm not done with them yet.
When they are, Accused and face a trial for suborning perjury, which is what Weissman and these others did.
Well, I'll expect that that day I'll say there's justice whether they're convicted or not.
But I want the courts to be no longer these kind of courts where they pick the jury because the jury hates you.
These people corrupt everything.
The left corrupts everything because all they care about is power.
Controlling you.
Okay, so the point is, I'm happy to let the Supreme Court do its job.
I'm concerned that it might not.
And I want everybody to know that this is not going to go down easy.
And so you might as well do the right thing, which is pray to God, read the Constitution, the arguments that are here are 100% solid.
Now, I want to conclude this by giving you proof That what I'm saying is the way this is gonna go and the way it needs to go.
And I think, in fact, as I've always said, the only way this is gonna happen is miracles, and this is Hanukkah, and miracles happen in Hanukkah.
Okay, I'm gonna give one more article.
You know I've been after getting Dershowitz onto the court.
I don't want him on the court.
Dershowitz to help argue the case.
I'm glad Cruz is doing it.
Dershowitz would be good.
Now, Dershowitz was with Larry Tribe, and he did not want to be on the court.
And he's come up with this article.
A lot of pressure was put on Dershowitz, and he was still trying to argue that, for instance, That the power vested by the constitution article two in the state legislature is to pick the electors according to whatever way they want to.
In other words, they can reject the electors from Biden, even if Biden won the popular vote.
And Dershowitz was trying to say, well, if there was a law that gives the popular vote to The person who won, the electors go to the person who won the popular vote in the state.
If there's a law in the state which legislator passed, legislator is bound by the law they passed until that law is revoked.
So for this election, while that law is on the books, they have to follow that law.
Well, that's not what the Supreme Court says.
Because the Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case in 2000, it was very clear.
I write about this in my book too.
If we just go to that for a minute, Craig, I want to show you that passage.
And by the way, your donations help us greatly.
And there's lots of ways to donate.
I'm signing my books.
I'm taking my entire collection of author's copies and I'm signing them.
These are going to be collector's items.
There's only so many of them.
And they're all in the bookstore, and I'm signing, I'm giving away two books at a time for $100, one of which is coup d'etat and silent no more.
That's one donation.
The other donation is for the America for Sale and the Late Great USA.
I've been writing about these themes for a long time, as you saw with the Harriet Meyers article, back to the beginning of this, 2004.
I've been at this for over 20 years now.
The point is that we need to get some resources to get this done.
I'm going to do it anyway.
Donations helped me when I was fighting Mueller.
They can help again.
I'm wanting to get these books moved out and in the hands of other people who might appreciate them.
And the books, the e-books, and all the rest are for sale.
So please, if you can and you want to keep us going, it would greatly help.
Now, if we go and search for the Bush v. Gore, I come up with a statement here, and I guess this is on page I guess I start talking about this on page... 54.
54, yeah.
And what I'm saying is that there's language in here, in the Bush v. Gore, which the Supreme Court said, the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses Statewide election is the means to implement its power to appoint the members of the electoral college.
Okay, now, in other words, the court is saying here that the legislature can pass a law that says whoever wins the popular vote picks the electors.
And that's a statement in this 1892 case, McPherson v. Blacker, which is going to be at issue again in this current case.
The state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary, full, unhindered.
It may, if it chooses, select the electors itself.
Which indeed was the manner by the state legislatures in several states for many years after the framing of the Constitution.
They went on, because the Supreme Court elaborated the state legislature could at any time take the power back to appoint the electors, even if there was a law in place that said the electors were going to the winner of the popular vote.
The court said, quote, history has now favored the voter.
And in each of the several states, the citizens themselves vote for presidential electors.
When the state legislature vests the right to vote for president and its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental.
And the one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.
That's what's at stake at this issue, this election.
The votes have to, voting rights have to be due process, they have to be equal.
If they're not, we don't have elections.
This election, the question before the court is whether we're ever again going to have an election or if it's okay to cheat.
If it's okay to cheat, bring on the criminals, free up, open the prisons.
We're going to be ruled by criminals in our politics.
We already are.
Let China in, let China rule the United States, just hand over the keys of the country.
But the Supreme Court says here, especially the state, of course, after granting the franchise, In the special context of Article Two, can take back the power to appoint the electors anytime it wants.
So, what does Dershowitz write?
I give you an article here by Dershowitz.
This is an article that is from the True Pundit, which is a very good source.
And attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Sunday that he believes the Supreme Court may get involved in adjudicating On whether state legislatures have the power to pick alternative electoral college electors who could vote for President Trump if the legislatures determined there was voter fraud, even after an initial slate of electors has cast its votes on December 14th.
That's a very important paragraph.
Because Dershowitz was not originally thinking that, not until we started pressuring him.
Dershowitz doesn't have any Epstein Island problem, does he, Craig?
He absolutely does.
More than once.
Well, he's been trying to explain that for several years, and now it's still there.
He can't sweep it under the rug, although the mainstream media will try.
Just like they're trying to sweep Hunter Biden under the rug.
And especially if we get Grinnell in there, I expect that'll change.
I think that Dershowitz actually did some legal work in that sphere.
Yes, he did.
Trying to clear his name.
Trying to do other things.
We don't have to go into the details of that.
Everybody can look him up.
But right now, Dershowitz is saying the Supreme Court's got to decide this case.
It's clear in the Constitution.
It's clear in Bush v. Gore.
Dershowitz is saying Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.
can pick the electors the way it wants.
Even after an initial slate of electors cast its vote on December 14th.
So they can go to the electoral college, they can vote, and if the state yet determines there was fraud, the electoral college is null and void.
And they can do it again.
Because you can't let this date, which is what the Democrats have been gaming, Set the parameters where you can run your fraud as long as you don't get caught before they have to say who's president.
Nuh-uh.
We got all the way until the 20th of January.
And what Rudy Giuliani, who I hear is getting out of the hospital now, is over COVID.
And what Sidney Powell are doing, if they can continue doing this, We're gonna have plenty evidence of fraud and we're gonna have if we get Grinnell in there so we get somebody in the Department of Justice with balls.
Let's go.
What are you waiting for?
Y'all afraid?
Because you might have to find some Democrats criminal?
Uh-uh.
Don't worry about it.
We'll go back and find the Republican criminals too.
There are plenty there.
Republican party, Democratic party committed suicide to going Marxist.
Republican party committed suicide going against Trump.
I'm not missing either one of them.
I'm not either one of them.
My registration in New Jersey is with the Constitution Party.
Howard Phillips.
Okay, so this statement here is the ball game, right here, what Dershowitz just said.
Now, Alan, you believe that.
Why the hell don't you come up and tell that to the Supreme Court?
Why don't you put that in an amicus brief?
You're willing to say it, but you don't have the guts to put it in an amicus brief?
What, are you a coward too?
It's a pretty important holiday here.
Let's get a miracle, Dershowitz.
Do the right thing.
Maybe one of the first times in your life you've done it.
No, I'm sorry.
There was one other when you supported President Trump in the impeachment hearing over Ukraine.
I'll give you that one.
That was my first hope that you might have.
I met you, Dershowitz, if you remember, outside of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem one night.
One of those beautiful nights in Jerusalem, we were enjoying the fresh air, and I came up to you and introduced myself.
I said, Professor Dershowitz, You're probably not gonna like me very well because I'm Jerome Corsi and I wrote Swift Boat Book.
And you probably think I'm, whatever you think, conspiracy theorist, blah, blah, blah, right wing nutcase, whatever you think, fine.
I went to Harvard political science.
I did my dissertation in law school.
I was tutored in constitutional law by Paul Freund, who probably should have been your grandfather.
He should have been one who taught you constitutional law.
I never met anybody who knew it like Paul Freund did.
He was a true genius.
He had this office, big long office.
You come into his office and there was paper everywhere.
This guy sitting behind the desk, he was a big guy.
But paper everywhere.
And I'm sure he knew where every single one of those pages were.
And I'd sit down at the desk in front of him.
I was a graduate student.
I'd come in and say, now, Professor Freund, I got this question.
He said, OK, what would that question be?
I'd ask him, and we might spend 45 minutes talking about it.
He'd pull this, and pull this, and pull this.
Go read this.
Go read that.
And I had a great time.
I still remember that.
It was one of the most fun times of my life, talking to Paul Freund.
I wrote my dissertation at the Harvard Law School.
And my other advisor was Arthur Sutherland Jr., who was the historian at the Harvard Law School.
Now, I'll just tell you one story about him.
People say I tell too many stories.
Well, tough luck.
Don't listen.
I'm not forcing you to listen to this.
Don't if you don't want to.
Sutherland had clerked for Oliver Holmes, and he had been in the Civil War.
Holmes fought in the Civil War.
And I was sitting in his office.
I had just written what I thought was going to be my brilliant dissertation.
And he said, now, Mr. Corsi, I'm going to take this with me to Cape Cod for the summer.
When I come back, I'll tell you what I think about it.
Well, I mean, I had to wait for him for three months to see what he thought.
Those were tough three months.
Wondering, did he like it?
Didn't he like it?
I got a meeting with him after, when he came back in September, and he sat me down in his chair in his office.
He had a lot of papers in his office, too, and books, but they were much more organized than Freund's.
He said, Mr. Corsi, I'm really happy that you only wrote on one side of the paper.
I said, uh-oh, here we go.
What's this going to be about?
He said, because that means you still have the other side, you can use it.
And I enjoyed what you were, but when you get it down to one paragraph, or better yet, one sentence, what you're trying to say in this dissertation, I'll permit you to start.
Well, that was the most brilliant thing anybody had ever said to me, maybe in my life.
And so therefore, We, all of this is to say that I rewrote that dissertation and I got the highest grade they could give me.
I was his last student.
He died of cancer shortly after my thesis defense.
And I really had a great education in the constitutional law And in the subjects I was working on, the First Amendment, because these people made me think pretty hard.
They wanted to get an idea really thought through before they'd accept it.
Now, when Dershowitz is saying this, Dershowitz is saying the following things.
He's saying, essentially, that the arguments that Biden has won't work at the Supreme Court.
And even the date of the 14th of December is meaningful because the state legislatures, once you can't let a legal process through to succession, to completion, if in fact it produces a fraudulent result.
So there's another reason the Supreme Court has to hear this case.
They can't let this election proceed to a fraudulent conclusion.
If Biden won by stealing the election and the evidence is abundant, go back to Perez v. Abbott.
You can't let that happen, the Supreme Court.
And the states don't have the right just to pick any way.
Even the state legislatures, though they can set the rules, the state legislatures have to follow the constitution and the law.
They can't make a law for a fraudulent scheme.
And the way these mail-in votes are designed are inherently fraudulent.
They're designed for fraud.
And anybody with half a brain knows it.
And I can prove that probabilistically, statistically, a lot of different ways.
And there are a lot of very, very, very bright people here, Russ Ramsland and others, who have shown what these computers are doing.
That intelligence agent that we talked about last week or a couple days ago, who showed you how communist China and Iran have portals into the Dominion computer system.
That can't be ignored.
That's in my brief too.
So Craig, do you understand the point I'm making today?
How would you summarize it?
Now, you have to give me your one sentence as your dissertation.
What's your one sentence summary of what I've done today?
Well, Red Chief has sharpened his stick and pointed in a variety of directions and they all lead to one thing.
Trump wins.
Well, yes, but it's also my theme today is all of you out there, you've got to do the right thing.
You've got to quit thinking you can cheat and steal.
You can't.
Because the ultimate court here is the court of God.
And this ain't right with God.
And if you want proof of that, just go back and read a little bit of the Bible.
I don't care, you can get anywhere you want.
First sentence, in the beginning was God.
That says a lot.
Okay, got that?
It was God.
God created heaven and earth.
Hmm, that's how we got, okay.
Means God rules, right?
God's in charge, he created it, okay?
It's his place.
So when Jesus Christ says, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, I guess Jesus Christ understood the first sentence of the Bible.
If you understand the first sentence, you probably understand a good deal of the rest of the book.
That means in the end, God always wins, because he can unplug it as certainly as he plugged it in.
And the final analysis, you can't take any of this with you.
And to get earthly fame, Christ said these things.
He said, get earthly fame.
It's easy, you know, easier for a rich man to go to heaven than to get the camel through the eye of a needle.
The eye of a needle is a particular door in Jerusalem, coming into Jerusalem, a door in the gates to Jerusalem.
And I've seen it.
I've stood at it and gone through it.
I guarantee you, you can't get a camel through that door.
Camel's too big.
So the point is that the Supreme Court's got to do the right thing because we're dealing here ultimately with the judgment of God.
Now I can get Justice Roberts and I can do Harriet Meyers and all these other things, but When Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, I think the thing that she had to deal with most was that she was at the court of God and all the people that all these fetuses she'd aborted probably got the chance to give their testimony.
And all the generations that didn't get born as a result of that.
There's my wife calling me, so I'm going to end this right now and call her back immediately.
In the end, God always wins.
Jerome Corsi is my producer.
Craig today is Thursday, December 10th.
It's the first day of Hanukkah.
I think we need to have miracles.
Miracles are about to happen.
God bless you.
We'll be back tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection