Featured Image

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library. 

February 23, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised when the Supreme Court announced on Monday that they would not review the Pennsylvania election fraud case. They – along with the most of the federal judiciary – have been largely ducking election-related cases for months now, bizarrely claiming that those filing the lawsuits lacked “standing.”

How can any citizen of the United States of America lack standing to file election-related cases? Are we not all — each and every one of us — directly harmed by a stolen Presidential election?     

The Pennsylvania case, however, could not be so easily dismissed. Indeed, it seemed like a slam dunk. The U.S. constitution explicitly requires state legislatures to set laws governing elections. But in Pennsylvania, as in several other states, existing voting integrity laws were rewritten by the state courts and state officials. An open-and-shut case, you would think.  

Yet only three of our nine Supreme Court justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas — voted to even hear the case. I confess to being very, very disappointed that Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, for whose confirmation we all fought so hard, did not. Instead, they joined the majority in saying that, because the election was over, the entire issue was now “moot.”  

That’s “moot” as in, hypothetical, even irrelevant. 

Of course, the question of who writes election laws would only be truly “moot” if we were never going to have another election in this country. As it is, whether future elections will be free and fair will now, in the minds of many, be an open question.

This is essentially the point that Justice Thomas makes in his brilliant dissent to the majority: “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable. … If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.”

Thomas concludes by asking precisely the question that preys on my mind: “One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Oppose taxpayer-funded abortion #SaveHyde
  Show Petition Text
43752 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 45000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of most federal funds for abortions, except in some limited circumstances.

But, with the Democrats in charge of the Congress and the presidency, the Hyde Amendment is now under severe attack.

That's why 200 Republican Congressmen vowed in a letter addressed to U.S. House and Senate leadership their "unified opposition to Congressional Democrats’ efforts to repeal the Hyde Amendment and other current-law, pro-life appropriations provisions."

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition to signal your support of the effort to keep the Hyde Amendment firmly in place, and prevent our federal tax dollars from funding abortion.

After signing the petition, please take a few minutes to quickly and easily contact your congressmen to politely voice your opposition to the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. Simply click on the link in the 'For More Information' section below, and follow the directions.

No-one should be forced to pay for any abortion, ever, against their will. Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion would be a gross violation of freedom of conscience, and should be vigorously resisted.

Although President Joe Biden was originally in favor of the Hyde Amendment, even as recently as 2019, he has dramatically altered his position to align with the Democratic Party platform, which has promised to repeal the amendment throughout the 2020 presidential campaign and, indeed, since taking the presidency.

The Democrats officially support unlimited abortion on demand, funded by taxpayers. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by pledging to make abortion available to "everyone."

But, Americans overwhelmingly disagree with this proposed policy change. A 2019 Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 49% of Americans agree with the Hyde Amendment, while only 33% oppose it.

Regardless of polls, though, abortion is always and everywhere wrong.

Abortion is not necessary medical treatment, it is the deliberate destruction of unborn human life at its most vulnerable stage. Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion would be unconscionable.

Please SIGN and SHARE this petition, telling Congressmen of both political parties, to supports efforts to keep the Hyde Amendment in all federal budgets.

Thank you!


Please CLICK HERE to CONTACT your congressmen. It only takes a couple of minutes and the platform is very user-friendly. Thank you!

'200 GOP congressmen slam Democrats, say they’ll never vote for tax-funded abortions' -

2019 Poll on the Hyde Amendment -

**Photo Credit: Shutterstock

  Hide Petition Text

Note that Justice Thomas is not talking here about overturning state-certified election results. Rather, he is pointing out that real constitutional questions have arisen that desperately need to be addressed as soon as possible – certainly before the 2022 midterms — to preserve the integrity of our elections.  

If the court were to find that the last-minute election law changes of last summer and fall were unconstitutional, it would not throw the country into chaos. Nor would such a finding be “legislating from the bench,” “judicial activism,” “a violation of state’s rights,” or any of the other excuses being used to justify the Court’s passive aggression.  But it would put the onus on state legislatures to devise remedies.

Instead, the Court chose to take a knee, using “mootness” as an excuse for inaction, just as it used “standing” before.  

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that yet another one of our institutions — the Supreme Court of the United States — has been compromised. The majority of the justices seem to be more interested in doing the bidding of the Oligarchy — the leaders of the Washington, Wall Street, Hollywood and Silicon Valley establishments — than they are in enforcing the Constitution.   

Remember, this is the same Supreme Court that, in Roe v. Wade, engaged in raw judicial activism. A majority literally invented a so-called “right to privacy” – a right nowhere found in the Constitution — and used it to overturn pro-life laws in dozens of states that were passed by democratically elected state legislatures.  

And now it won’t even address whether officials in a half-dozen states violated the clear English-language meaning of a constitutional statute?

About the only thing that those two decisions have in common is a willingness to bend to the prevailing political winds.

Do we still have the rule of law in the U.S.? Are we still all equal under the law? Or are we gradually evolving into Communist China, where the law is weaponized by the ruling oligarchy in order to protect its interests and punish its political enemies?

The Department of Justice, apparently undeterred by the FISA debacle and the fraudulent Mueller investigation, seems to have been reduced to the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party. The FBI, once America’s premier law enforcement agency, is now gearing up for a nationwide crackdown on “white supremacy.”  

Does anyone even know any “white supremacists?” I don’t. My friends all subscribe to the Christian view — which used to be the American view — that all men are created equal. It’s the other side of the political aisle that obsesses about race.

The Congress, instead of attending to the nation’s business, twice impeached President Trump on imaginary crimes. Now they are engaged in passing a grotesquely misnamed “COVID relief bill” that has almost nothing to do with COVID. As Kevin McCarthy noted, “Only 9 percent of 1.9 trillion will actually be spent on COVID relief.”  

Where will the bulk of the money go? To political allies in Blue states and to groups like Planned Parenthood, all in the expectation of political payback at election time. It’s one of the greatest attempts at mass bribery in human history.

So what do the 76 million voters who supported the MAGA Movement do?

As the Democrats assert control from the top down, the MAGA Movement has to work from the bottom up. This begins with capturing control of the Republican Party at the local level and state levels. Scotch talk of a third party. We need to forge the Republican Party into a populist party based on faith, family, and freedom, not start from ground zero with a new one.  

The Party must become a party that insists that its elected representatives defend life, defund Planned Parenthood, and put the most vulnerable among us — the unborn — first.  We must elect candidates who put the national interests of America and Americans first, and defeat those who sell out to China. If we do these things, working class Americans will leave the Democrat Party in droves and join with us to form a new majority.  

Our Founding Fathers set out to establish a novus ordo seclorum, a new order for the ages.  It has not only survived, but thrived, for over 200 years.

Whether it survives this present age is up to us.

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order.

Featured Image

Steven Mosher is an internationally recognised authority on China and population issues as well as an acclaimed author and speaker and founder and head of the Population Research Institute. He was the first American social scientist to visit mainland China in 1979 where he witnessed women being forced to have abortion under the new “one-child-policy” which he then exposed to the world. Mr. Mosher was a pro-choice atheist at the time, but witnessing these traumatic abortions led him to reconsider his convictions and to eventually become a practicing, pro-life Roman Catholic.

Mosher has appeared numerous times before the US Congress as an expert in world population, China and human Rights abuses. He has also made TV appearances on Good Morning America, 60 Minutes, The Today Show, 20/20, FOX and CNN news, as well as being a regular guest on talk radio shows across the nation.

He is the author of the best-selling A Mother’s Ordeal: One woman’s Fight Against China’s One-Child-Policy. His latest book is Bully of Asia, exposing the threat of China to the entire world at this time.

Articles by Steve have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, The New Republic, The Washington Post, National Review, Reason, The Asian Wall Street Journal, Freedom Review, Linacre Quarterly, Catholic World Report, Human Life Review, First Things, and numerous other publications.

Steven Mosher lives in Virginia with his wife, Vera, and their nine children.


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.