A judge in Indiana has ruled that a prisoner convicted of murdering his 11-month-old stepdaughter back in 2001 must be granted transgender surgery.

The case was originally filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the rights of transgender inmate, Jonathan C. Richardson, also known as Autumn Cordellionè, were being violated by an Indiana law prohibiting the Department of Corrections from using taxpayer dollars to fund sex reassignment surgeries for inmates.

ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Indiana For Banning Inmate Sex-Changes — on Behalf of Man Who Murdered 11-Month-Old Stepdaughter

"Accordingly, at this point gender-affirming surgery is necessary so that her physical identity can be aligned with her gender identity and so her gender dysphoria can be ameliorated," the lawsuit states.

"She believes that the only remedy for her persistent gender dysphoria, and the serious harm it causes her, is to receive gender-affirming surgery, specifically an orchiectomy and vaginoplasty," it said.

Judge Richard Young, who was appointed to the court by Bill Clinton back in 1998, agreed with this assessment.

"Specifically, Ms. Cordellioné has shown that her gender dysphoria is a serious medical need, and that, despite other treatments Defendant has provided her to treat her gender dysphoria, she requires gender-affirming surgery to prevent a risk of serious bodily and psychological harm," he wrote in his ruling.

As a result, the Department of Corrections must now take "all reasonable actions" to grant the murderer his desired sex change.

Posting on the X platform, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita confirmed he would be appealing the decision and pointed out that taxpayers would rather not fund such an indulgent request.

An Indiana inmate convicted of murder wants taxpayers to fund their gender altering surgery. Last night, on WEHT in Evansville, they aired a story and my interview. My comment? Voters and the Legislature do not want their tax dollars spent on these prisoner gender surgeries.…

— Todd Rokita (@ToddRokitaIN) September 19, 2024

According to court documents, Richardson was sentenced to 55 years in prison after being convicted of strangling his wife’s 11-month-year old daughter to death while she was at work. Detectives who interviewed him at the time said he "unemotional" when questioned about his dastardly crime.

The post Indiana Judge Rules Sicko Who Murdered His 11-Month-Old Stepdaughter Must Be Granted Transgender Surgery appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

As political tensions rise in the U.S., Congress is preparing for the possibility of a major “mass casualty event” that could dramatically change its makeup.

With recent assassination attempts and increasingly heated public discourse, lawmakers are considering drastic steps, including a possible Constitutional Amendment that would allow for the direct appointment of House representatives in the event of mass vacancies.

According to the Constitution, any emerging vacancies in the House must be filled through elections, unlike Senate vacancies which can be filled by appointment.

However, following the events of 9/11, a law was enacted to enable rapid elections if over 100 House seats are vacant—supposedly to keep the government running as smoothly as possible by expediting the process.

But now, with the shadow of political violence looming large, lawmakers are opportunistically pushing for a system where governors can swiftly appoint new members to Congress, fundamentally circumventing the People’s right to directly elect these individuals by vote.

On Thursday, during a subcommittee hearing on “Preparing for the Future by Learning From the Past,” lawmakers gathered to discuss the amendment.

Rep. Derek Kilmer (WA-D), a leading proponent of the bill, stated during the hearing, “Congress hasn’t fully considered the implications of a mass casualty event affecting members and the impact it would have on our ability to function in a time of need.”

In other words, they are about to consider it. Kilmer is pushing for the bill to be called to the floor for a vote.

Under the proposed legislation, elected representatives would be required to compile a list of potential successors deemed qualified to serve in Congress.

In the event that a House member’s seat becomes vacant due to death or incapacitation, a state governor would have only 10 days to appoint someone from this list, allowing for a replacement until a special election can be held.

Although intended as a temporary measure until special elections are held, it raises the question of whether unforeseen emergencies could arise, delaying the election, allowing unelected representatives to remain in office longer than expected.

The bill could set a dangerous precedent, particularly in a time when public trust in the electoral process is already fragile.

In fact, it’s no surprise that the discussions regarding the bill come just weeks before the 2024 presidential election is set to take place.

Following the election in 2020, Trump supporters stood in unity at the Capitol building on January 6th, to protest the certification of the election over fears that their votes were disenfranchised by fraudulent activity.

During the protest, supporters were ushered into the building by officers in what appeared to be a false flag operation to frame patriots as insurrections, despite no proof of the claim and therefore no insurrection charges against anyone arrested.

Many Republican voters are understandably on edge as we approach the upcoming election as the fears of disenfranchisement that marked the last election continue to grow.

Unlike last time, voters are now more aware of potential fraud as they prepare to scrutinize the electoral process closely. The moment voters get a whiff of suspected fraud, there will likely be an immediate uproar.

This begs the question of if this recent legislative maneuvering is a desperate attempt by the regime to shield itself from the inevitable backlash of a population that feels betrayed yet again. Are they gearing up for not just for an electoral contest, but a full-scale confrontation from the people whose votes they continue to undermine?

The implications are chilling.

Ultimately, it’s clear that the elite in Washington are more concerned about maintaining their power than truly representing those they are meant to serve, and this bill further proves that.

Watch the full video from Thursday’s hearing:

The post Lawmakers Prepare for ‘Mass Casualty’ Event, Push Constitutional Amendment to Undermine Election Integrity and Control House Vacancies in a ‘National Crisis’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

With each passing day, the reality of the situation in the war in Ukraine – that Russian forces have the upper hand – becomes more and more inescapable.

It has come to the point where even some of the most ardent Kiev defenders are now vocal in calling for President Volodymyr Zelensky and his regime to accept it.

For President Petr Pavel of the Czech Republic, a former senior NATO general who has been one of Ukraine’s most robust backers in its war with Russia, it is time for Ukrainians and their supporters to ‘be realistic’ about how unlikely are its prospects of recovering territory conquered by Russia.

On the one hand, the Czech presidency is ‘a largely ceremonial post’. But Pavel is a relevant voice aligned with those of the country’s center-right government under Prime Minister Petr Fiala.

Mr. Pavel also has considerable influence on security issues, being a former chief of the Czech military’s general staff and past chairman of NATO’s military committee.

New York Times reported:

“’The most probable outcome of the war’, he said, ‘will be that a part of Ukrainian territory will be under Russian occupation, temporarily’. But, he added, that ‘temporary thing’, could last years.”

Maximalist goals are out of reach for either Russia or Ukraine, he says. That means Kiev can’t recover its territory under Russian control.

“’To talk about a defeat of Ukraine or defeat of Russia, it will simply not happen’, Mr. Pavel said in his office at Prague Castle this past week, ‘So the end will be somewhere in between’.”

While Zelensky rules out direct talks with Russia and insist on demanding that Russia leave all ‘Ukrainian territory’, opinion polls show a three-fold increase in the share of Ukrainians ready to accept territorial concessions, going from 8 to 32 percent.

“The Czech Republic, along with Poland and the Baltic States, has been a particularly stalwart supporter of Ukraine but has faced growing public pressure to curb its aid and to push Ukraine toward a deal with Russia. Nearly two-thirds of Czechs, according to an opinion poll conducted this summer, would support a quick end to the war in Ukraine even at the cost of some territory remaining under Russian control.”

For their part, 54 percent of Czechs oppose sending weapons to Ukraine.

Pavel dismisses as ‘nonsense’ the position of Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán that Ukraine should swiftly sue for peace and stop draining European resources better spent on the continent’s domestic needs.

While maintaining that, Pavel also states that Ukrainians need to be ‘realistic about the support that they can achieve’ from EU governments that are under pressure to scale back military aid.

“’The issue is linked to populism’, Mr. Pavel said, ‘It’s easy to say, ’Let’s stop providing Ukraine with weapons and ammunition and then the peace will come on its own’. […] As someone with some experience with defense and security, and with knowledge of Russia, I know that peace will not come from a declaration by Ukraine that it will stop fighting’. Russia, he said, ‘will not stop its military activities’.”

[…] ‘Constantly repeating [like Orbán] that everybody else wants war, but I want peace — that would make me look much better than all the others’, Mr. Pavel said, ‘Unfortunately, most people do not realize that such a proposal is unrealistic’.”

Read more:

PEACEMAKERS: Orbán Writes to EU Leaders That Trump ‘Has Detailed and Well-Founded Plans’ to End the War in Ukraine

The post Czech President Pavel Says Ukraine Will Have to ‘Be Realistic’ and Accept That Its Conquered Territories Will Become a Part of Russia ‘Temporarily’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The Gateway Pundit has not only reported over and over again on the Missouri v. Biden litigation, which went to oral arguments before the Supreme Court in March to determine in Murthy v. Missouri, whether a preliminary injunction could stop massive government censorship on all major social media platforms while the case was being litigated.

The Supreme Court issued a horrible opinion this past July authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett that allowed the government to continue suppressing free speech while the case continued at the trial court level. The Gateway Pundit then discovered that one of Coney-Barrett’s clerks was connected to the anti-free speech entities, colleges, and donors at issue in the litigation in a significant conflict of interest.

Last month, on August 26th, the trial court took notice of the Supreme Court’s opinion and vacated the preliminary injunctions which were temporary court orders stopping the government from censoring Americans while the case progressed through the courts. The day after, Judge Terry A Doughty set a briefing schedule for questions of jurisdiction.

The key question is whether the parties have standing to continue the case. Standing is typically a way in which courts dispose of cases they would rather not hear, by saying a particular party lacks the status necessary to continue litigating the case in the courts.

Because of Justice Amy Coney-Barrett’s awful Supreme Court decision, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, where she questioned whether the parties had the ‘standing’ necessary to continue the case, the trial court is now trying to reconcile the question. Amy Coney-Barrett doesn’t think state Attorney Generals, States, and individual plaintiffs, have the standing necessary to challenge the coercive deletion of their own social media posts.

One attorney close to the case points out the insanity of this decision: “If all of these parties don’t have standing, then who does? If you can’t sue when the government is deleting your own social media posts, and your Attorney General can’t sue, then clearly no one can. The Court is setting up an absurdity where no one can sue to protect the First Amendment, and it’s obscene.”

Now the case is trying to add Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as another litigant in the case as he has been personally suppressed on social media, and his organization Children’s Health Defense has been suppressed, on topics related to vaccine safety and vaccine injuries.

Additionally, last week the Plaintiffs in the case filed an answer with the court asking three things:

1. to consider the ‘standing’ requirements as applying only to the preliminary injunction process, and not relevant to the larger case, and
2. that more legal discovery is required to determine the extent and scope of the government’s massive censorship regime, and
3. that the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their filing to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The site “UncoverDC” did a thorough rundown of the Plaintiff’s memo in support of further discovery and to be allowed to update and amend their complaint here.

The lying liberal media refers to this case as simply the Biden regime “hectoring” social media companies, as Politico spun the case. The liars at Vox tried to say that this limited what Biden had to say to social media companies. CBS lied and said that this case was about ‘restricting government contact‘ with social media companies.

Facebook alone, in less than a year, took down over 20 million pieces of content.

Last month, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg apologized to Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R) and admitted that the social media giant was pressured and coerced by the government to delete content and speech by its users, and promised to not make the same mistake again.

The Missouri v. Biden case is so Orwellian that it emerged during discovery that the government considers the thoughts of its citizens as ‘critical infrastructure’ so that the government can then justify doing almost anything to combat ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation.’

Free speech experts have called the Missouri v. Biden litigation the most important free speech case in a decade.

What’s happening is that the government is coercing social media companies to delete individual social media posts, ban individual users, prohibit any discussion of certain topics like vaccine injuries, voter fraud, the losing war in Ukraine, the China-lab origins of COVID, and the Hunter Biden Laptop from Hell, but also to systemically suppress the political opponents of the White House.

The deep state abused its censorship powers to cement and solidify its control over the public after the rampant and systemic voter fraud in the 2020 election.

The government went after accounts with large followings like Emerald Robinson and even deleting interviews with dissidents like Dr. Robert Malone, but they also went after people who had few, if any, followers. On behalf of the Ukrainian government, the United States government even directed social media companies to suppress criticism by Americans talking to one another on social media of the war in Ukraine.

The courageous Attorney Generals of Missouri and Louisiana filed suit against the Biden regime, alleging that their citizens’ fundamental first amendment rights had been violated en masse. Gateway Pundit Founder and Publisher Jim Hoft is the lead Plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden case.

The Department of Justice’s attorneys on the case are Indraneel Sur, Kuntal Cholera, Kyla Snow, Adam D. Kirschner, Alexander William Resar, Amanda Chuzi, and Joshua E. Gardner.

DOJ Attorney Adam Kirschner was found in a prior case to have deliberately misled a federal judge, in a decision that was scrubbed from the court record and documents.

DOJ Attorney Indraneel Sur is a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who gave pro-Kavanaugh speeches before the Federalist Society praising Kavanaugh’s outlook and judicial philosophy.

The case is 3:22-CV-1213 at the trial court in the Western District of Louisiana.

The post Missouri v. Biden Back to Trial Court, Govt. Wants to Wholesale Censor all Social Media Posts and Misquotes SCOTUS to use Barrett Decision to Dismiss Case appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

As The Gateway Pundit contributor Paul Ingrassia reported in an earlier post — If the Biden Regime can be summarized by a single word, it would be: injustice.

No presidential administration in the history of the United States ever observed such an egregious assault on civil liberties and the rule of law, especially constitutional due process and the presumption of innocence, than what is now occurring under Biden and his weaponized Department of Justice these past 3+ years. Donald Trump is, of course, the Political Hostage Numero Uno of the weaponized justice system – and his white martyrdom at the hand of a deeply subverted justice system in this country has galvanized his base and his countrymen to levels that surpass time since he first entered politics in 2015…

Respected Attorney Jeff Clark was serving as Acting United States Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice when he was summoned by President Trump to inquire into allegations of election fraud in the state of Georgia, among other places after the 2020 election.

Since that time, Clark has faced criminal charges for making honest inquiries into election fraud affecting the 2020 results, particularly in the Peach State, where the evidence overwhelmingly proves the election was riven with fraud, for which he was indicted, and forced to take a mugshot, alongside both Attorney John Eastman and President Trump, last year.

On Monday, Jeff Clark joined Mike Davis on The War Room to discuss the Deep State’s constant attacks on Clark from every angle.

Mike Davis: Welcome back. Jeffrey Clarke, as we all know, was a former top Justice Department official for President Trump. He worked at one of the top law firms in the world, a serious lawyer with serious credentials, and the Democrats put Jeff Clarke through the Ringer. And we’re going to talk about that, and we’re also going to talk about what should happen in a Trump 47 Justice Department to bring justice for this unprecedented welfare and election interference against President Trump, his top aid, Steven Bannon, who’s in prison right now, Peter DeVaro, who went to prison, his lawyers like Jeff Clark and John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, and his January 6 supporters who were persecuted. Yes, persecuted as the Supreme Court correctly held in the Fischer decision in June, when the Supreme Court held that the Biden-Harris Justice Department illegally contoured it, politicized and weaponized a post-Enron of justice statute intended for corporate fraud to go after their political enemies.

Jeff Clark: Well, thanks for having me, and I’m glad to follow Andrew Ferguson here, and good to be with the viceroy designate for the future Trump administration. Look, so what happened to me is, as you said, I was called on to present legal advice about the 2020 election and what to do about it, especially in the face of the fact that as has come out publicly, although there’s still much of the story that’s privileged, and President Trump has had his lawyer send me two letters, not just one, to take executive privilege and a host of other privileges, including some obscure ones that probably not many people know about, like law enforcement privilege, that they didn’t want to do any real investigations of the election. And I think that’s come out since then in Instead, former AG Barr was shutting down investigations. He shut down an investigation that the US attorney, Bill McSwane in Philadelphia, the Eastern district of Pennsylvania wanted to do. He shut down an investigation that US attorney in Florida wanted to do that involved Andrew Gillham and told that US attorney, Larry Keefe, that if he ever raised his head about trying to investigate those sorts of issues, he would be fired.

And he also shut down an investigation investigation into the postal worker from New York who said that he was driving ballots to Pennsylvania that was being investigated by the Amistad Project and by Colonel Schafer. So there are probably other investigations that were shut down that were privileged that we didn’t even see. But there are just three quick examples. Look, I worked on a letter that was very modest in its design. It was basically keying off of the fact that there had been a an investigation done by Senator Liggan, a state senator in Georgia, of election irregularities and fraud, and concluded that there was pretty good evidence in those categories, took a lot of sworn testimony and live testimony. And the letter indicated that under the Electors Clause of the Constitution, the Georgia legislature could call itself in this special session to do more investigations of the election. So that’s it. They could do more investigations of the election.

They didn’t want these investigations to take place, and they threw a hissy fit about it. And with only 17 days left to go before the inauguration of Joe Biden, they pitched all of this anonymously to the New York Times. And in a series of articles by Katie Benner, they postured that President Trump and I were engaged in a coup against the United States and the peaceful transition of power, which is about the dumbest idea I can imagine. But yet, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times these stupid ideas get credence. So that’s the origin story of my time of troubles, Mike, such as it is.

They didn’t want these investigations to take place, and they threw a hissy fit about it. And with only 17 days left to go before the inauguration of Joe Biden, they pitched all of this anonymously to the New York Times. And in a series of articles by Katie Benner, they postured that President Trump and I were engaged in a coup against the United States and the peaceful transition of power, which is about the dumbest idea I can imagine. But yet, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times these stupid ideas get credence. So that’s the origin story of my time of troubles, Mike, such as it is.

Please listen to the entire interview. It is heartbreaking what several Trump supporters and administration officials have had to go through since Trump left office. This is like something you’d witness in a failed state somewhere. This is the Democrat Party.

The post Top Trump Official and Attorney Jeff Clark Discusses How the Biden Regime and Soulless Deep State Is Attacking Him from Every Angle (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.