WEDNESDAY
- donbrooks777
- 1 hour ago
- 17 min read
New BLOG – Great ARTICLES
WEDNESDAY 3-[25]-26
SPIRITUAL:
Pastor - Jack HIBBS
CANADIAN:
‘Dangerous’ anti-Christian Bill C-9 inches closer to becoming law in Canada
On Monday, Bill C-9, known as the 'Combatting Hate Act,' sailed through the report stage in the House of Commons.
Tue Mar 24, 2026 - 4:13 pm EDT
OTTAWA (LifeSiteNews) — A new Liberal bill that could open the door to the criminalization of religious expression and belief when quoting certain parts of the Bible has passed the report stage and will soon head to Canada’s Senate.
On Monday, Bill C-9, known as the “Combatting Hate Act,” sailed through the report stage in the House of Commons. All that is stopping it now from heading to the Senate, which mostly rubber stamps laws into place, is the law passing third reading, which will take place soon.
At a press conference on Monday, Conservative MP Andrew Lawton warned that Bill C-9, as it reads, “will erode long-standing religious protections for speech, and religious freedom in general.”
“This is not a government that has a track record of upholding constitutional rights, which is why faith communities are raising very real concerns,” said Lawton.
“We are listening to those, and giving the Liberals one final opportunity this week to do the right thing.”
Conservative MPs have also warned that Bill C-9 is a direct “attack” on religious freedom and would allow the “prosecution” of those who simply read certain passages of Scripture in “good faith.” They have been battling the bill in committee.
Bill C-9 is a Liberal Party censorship bill that has attracted a massive backlash from religious Canadians of many faiths. Once it becomes law, certain protections for sincerely held religious beliefs, particularly regarding LGBT issues, could be removed.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, earlier this month, the Liberals shut down all debate on the bill in the committee stage.
Conservative MPs have been demanding that a recently passed amendment to the bill, which removes a religious exemption, be rescinded immediately.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Bill C-9 has been blasted by constitutional experts as allowing empowered police and the government to go after those it deems to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way. The bill was introduced by Justice Minister Sean Fraser last year.
US Canada Catholic
The removal of the religious exemption prompted condemnation from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who issued an open letter criticizing the proposed amendment and calling for its repeal.
Recently, the Democracy Fund (TDF) alerted Canadians that Bill C-9 will expand the “legal definition of hatred and removes key free expression safeguards in the Criminal Code.”
Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) campaigns manager David Cooke has previously told LifeSiteNews that Bill C-9 would result in the “prosecution of Canadian Christians” when quoting the Bible on issues of life and family.
The third reading on Bill C-9 could come as early as sometime this week.
JOIN the Virtual PRAYER LINK across CANADA... NOW!
Zoom link https://zoom.us/j/92542087461
Telephone: 1 647 558 0588 ID: 925 4208 7461
TRUMP:
Senate Republicans craft DHS funding deal that leaves ICE removal operations on the table
Senate Republicans are moving toward a deal to reopen the Department of Homeland Security by funding most of its operations, but with a significant carve-out: ICE enforcement and removal programs would remain unfunded. The plan, developed after a White House meeting, could begin advancing as early as tonight.
The proposal would fund ICE investigations targeting cartels, traffickers, and child predators. What it leaves out is the muscle behind those investigations: the programs that actually remove illegal immigrants from the country.
That distinction matters enormously.
The Shape of the Deal
According to Fox News, Five and a half weeks into a partial government shutdown, Republicans are staring at a math problem that won't solve itself. Any standalone DHS funding bill needs 60 votes to clear a Senate filibuster, which means Democratic cooperation. Democrats have already tipped their hand, repeatedly asking for unanimous consent on the floor to pass DHS funding bills that strip out ICE entirely.
The emerging Republican plan threads the needle by keeping ICE's investigative arm funded while shelving the enforcement and removal side. One Senate Republican source put it bluntly:
We're going to have to move forward and give them what they want.
That's the kind of candor that should concern every conservative who watched the border crisis unfold over the past several years. Investigations without removals are a house with no doors. You can identify every illegal immigrant, every trafficker, every cartel operative inside the country, and then do nothing about it.
The SAVE America Act Gambit
Republicans aren't surrendering entirely. The strategy involves moving provisions from the SAVE America Act, which includes measures like withholding federal dollars from states that don't require photo ID, into a budget reconciliation package. Reconciliation is not subject to a filibuster and only needs a simple majority to pass.
There's a catch. Reconciliation requires bills to be fiscal in nature, dealing with numbers rather than policy. Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough could rule SAVE America Act provisions out of order if she determines they cross that line. Republicans are betting they can frame voter integrity measures as fiscal questions. It's a procedural gamble with real stakes.
To clear the path, GOP leaders hope to extract a promise from Sen. Mike Lee of Utah to step back from insisting on the SAVE America Act in the current fight and resume that debate after the Easter and Passover recess. Whether Lee agrees to defer is an open question. He's not known for folding.
What Democrats Actually Want
The Democratic position deserves examination for what it reveals. Democrats aren't asking to defund border security in the abstract. They're asking to fund every part of DHS except the agency responsible for removing people who are in the country illegally. That's not a funding dispute. It's an ideological statement dressed up as a budget negotiation.
Consider the logic: Fund the investigators who track cartels and child predators, but defund the officers who actually arrest and deport them. Fund TSA agents screening passengers at airports, but not the enforcement apparatus that ensures immigration law means something. It's the governing equivalent of installing smoke detectors and removing the fire department.
Democrats have spent years rebranding immigration enforcement as cruel. This funding fight is the policy expression of that project. If ICE can investigate but not remove, the entire enforcement pipeline becomes performative. Cases get built. Files get thicker. Nobody goes anywhere.
The Shutdown Pressure
The political dynamics are working against Republicans in the short term. Lawmakers on both sides are reportedly growing increasingly anxious about the possibility of a terrorist attack while DHS operates at reduced capacity. TSA agents and other frontline personnel are working without pay. That pressure creates urgency, and urgency favors the side willing to wait.
Democrats understand this. Every week the shutdown drags on, the leverage shifts. Republicans face the unenviable choice of holding the line on ICE funding while TSA agents at places like JFK Airport work without paychecks, or cutting a deal that funds the bureaucracy while starving the enforcement mission conservatives care about most.
The GOP Conference luncheon at the Capitol today will shape the next moves. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and his leadership team are working to unify the conference around a plan that can pass the Senate and survive the House.
What Comes Next
The broader context here is the transition at DHS itself. President Trump selected Sen. Markwayne Mullin to replace Kristi Noem as DHS secretary. A new secretary walking into a department that's been partially shuttered for over a month, with its removal operations defunded by legislative design, is not walking into a position of strength.
If Republicans accept this deal, the reconciliation path for the SAVE America Act becomes the last line of defense. And that path runs through a parliamentarian's ruling on whether voter integrity provisions count as fiscal policy. That's a thin thread to hang an agenda on.
The conservative base sent a clear message in 2024: enforce the border, remove illegal immigrants, and stop treating immigration law as optional. A deal that funds investigations but not removals answers that mandate with a half-measure. It catches the fish and throws it back.
Sometimes governing means accepting imperfect outcomes to fight another day. But Republicans should be clear-eyed about what this deal is. It's not a compromise. It's a concession with a promissory note attached.
AMERICAN Almanac
GLOBAL:
Supreme Court signals doubt over state laws that count ballots arriving after Election Day
A majority of Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Monday of state laws that allow mail-in ballots to be counted even when they arrive days after Election Day, signaling a potential landmark shift in how elections are administered across more than a dozen states.
The case before the Court concerns a Mississippi law that permits ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked by Election Day. An appellate court already struck the law down. Now the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Trump administration are asking the justices to affirm that ruling.
If the Court agrees, the consequences ripple far beyond Mississippi. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have similar provisions on the books. Another 15 states extend deadlines specifically for military and overseas ballots. A ruling is expected by late June, just months before the 2026 midterm elections.
The fraud question the left doesn't want to answer
According to Newsmax, Justice Samuel Alito cut to the core of what makes late-arriving ballots so corrosive to public trust. He raised the scenario of "a big stash of ballots" arriving after Election Day that "radically flipped" the outcome of a race. The implication is obvious to anyone not working overtime to avoid it: when the window for receiving ballots stays open after votes are counted, you create the conditions where results can shift in ways that voters cannot verify and election officials cannot easily explain.
This is not a hypothetical concern cooked up by conspiracy theorists. It is a structural vulnerability. You don't need to prove that fraud has occurred in every instance to recognize that a system inviting suspicion is a system that undermines confidence. Election integrity doesn't depend on catching every bad actor. It depends on building a process that gives bad actors nowhere to hide.
Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, defending the state law, reportedly pointed to the absence of documented fraud under the current system. That argument misses the point entirely. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, particularly in a system that makes detection harder by design. You don't leave your front door unlocked and then cite the lack of burglaries as proof that locks are unnecessary.
Even Sotomayor sees the limits
Perhaps the most revealing moment came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is nobody's idea of a conservative judicial ally. She offered a striking concession:
The people who should decide this issue are not the courts, but Congress, the states and Congress.
That framing matters. When even the Court's most reliably liberal justice suggests this question belongs in the hands of legislators rather than judges, it tells you something about the constitutional weakness of the pro-late-ballot position. The left has spent years arguing that any effort to tighten election rules is "voter suppression." But if the strongest argument for counting late ballots is that state legislatures passed laws allowing it, and the Court rules those laws conflict with federal Election Day requirements, then the entire infrastructure of post-Election Day ballot acceptance collapses on its own terms.
Congress set Election Day for a reason. The principle is simple: everyone votes by the same deadline, and we count what's in. Exceptions erode the meaning of the deadline itself.
The Chicago rule
Lawyer Paul Clement, representing the Republican and Libertarian parties challenging the Mississippi law, threaded a careful needle during oral arguments. When pressing the case against late-arriving ballots, he acknowledged the obvious with dry precision:
I am not here to say there could ever be voting fraud in Chicago.
The line drew attention for good reason. It gestures toward a reality that polite Washington conversation treats as unspeakable: some jurisdictions have long, documented histories of electoral irregularity. You don't need to litigate every instance to understand why Americans are deeply skeptical of systems that widen the window for mischief. Clement's argument rests not on proving fraud occurred under Mississippi's specific law, but on the principle that the Constitution's framework for federal elections demands a uniform endpoint.
That principle is harder to argue against than the left would like.
What comes next
The practical stakes are enormous. A ruling against late-arriving ballots would force at least 14 states and D.C. to overhaul their election procedures before November 2026. States that have built their mail-voting systems around generous post-Election Day windows would need to adjust, and quickly.
Alaska's Division of Elections has already signaled readiness to comply, stating:
If a ruling requires operational changes, we will work through those in coordination with the appropriate state entities to ensure compliance and to provide clear information to voters.
That's the responsible posture. Adapt, comply, inform voters. It's not the catastrophe that election-law progressives will inevitably describe. States managed to run elections for over two centuries before the proliferation of extended ballot-receipt windows. They can manage again.
The deeper question is whether the Court is willing to reassert a principle that should never have been controversial: Election Day means Election Day. Not Election Day plus five business days. Not Election Day plus however long it takes for a postal truck to arrive from a county that didn't get its act together. A single day, a common deadline, a result that Americans can trust because they watched it unfold in real time.
The justices appear ready to say what millions of voters already believe. Late June will tell us if they follow through.
Supreme Court
EXCLUSIVE:
Lockdown 2.0 Imminent
- 10 Point Plan Revealed | Daily Pulse
The plan is already in motion… and it aligns with the globalist nightmares we’ve been warning about.
Multiple countries are now rolling out “COVID-style” policies in response to the war.
And officials aren’t hiding it, they’re calling them exactly that.
From fuel rationing, to licence plate tracking, to fines for driving when you’re “not allowed,” even down to what you’re permitted to cook with…
If this is starting to sound familiar, it should.
Because it is.
This didn’t start with the war. It began during COVID, and now it’s accelerating into the next phase.
What’s being called emergency response starts to look a lot more like a long-planned shift, one that struggled to gain traction under the green agenda, but suddenly makes sense when there’s a real crisis and real shortages.
And now there’s proof.
A 10-point plan published by the International Energy Agency lays it out clearly, and countries are already following it to a tee.
Here are the facts…
Maria opened by exposing what she says is far more than a routine policy update, a 10-point plan from the International Energy Agency tied to rising oil prices and supply disruptions.
On the surface, it looks like a standard response to a global crisis.
But she quickly reframed it. In her view, this isn’t something new being created in real time. It’s something that’s been sitting there, waiting to be rolled out.
That’s where Melbourne comes in.
She described it as one of the most locked-down cities in the world outside China, then pointed to what she called the “Melbourne Experiment,” a report that took those lockdown conditions and turned them into a long-term model built around smart cities, reduced movement, and sustained behavioral change.
Not temporary measures, but something designed to carry forward.
Then came the detail that changed the tone.
She said the document was once publicly available, then quietly taken offline after being exposed—no explanation, no announcement.
Because plans like this don’t disappear unless someone wants them forgotten.
And from there, the connection to the present becomes harder to ignore.
The same ideas, she argued, are now resurfacing, repackaged as solutions to “oil price pressures… in response to Middle East supply disruptions.”
This is where it stops being about policy and starts being about control.
Maria asked the question most people don’t stop to think about: where does all of this actually lead?
Once you follow these proposals through, it’s not just about saving fuel. It starts to reshape how people move, where they go, and how often they’re able to do it.
She pointed to measures like limiting car access in certain zones and tying driving days to license plates. On paper, it reads like traffic management.
But that framing starts to break down when those systems are paired with widespread plate readers already being rolled out across multiple countries.
That’s where the connection to the broader smart city framework starts to sharpen.
Movement isn’t just influenced, it can be managed. And it doesn’t stop with transportation.
At that point, the pattern becomes difficult to dismiss.
Daily life starts to shift from personal choice to system-level control.
That’s when Maria zeroed in on a detail most people would probably overlook.
“Modern cooking solutions.”
At first, it sounds harmless. Maybe even helpful.
But she slowed it down and unpacked what that wording actually implies.
“Modern” doesn’t just mean efficient, it means standardized, everything pulled into a single system. Cooking with wood or fire, methods used for generations, gets pushed aside, while electric becomes the preferred, and eventually expected, option.
She made the point directly, electricity is easier to monitor, easier to regulate, and easier to shut off when needed.
That’s what turns a small policy detail into something much bigger.
Once everything runs through that system, independence starts to disappear.
Then she pointed to what she saw as a contradiction.
In the middle of a global fuel and energy crisis, there’s a push to accelerate EV infrastructure, something that requires more manufacturing, more transport, and more energy to build.
At that point, she suggested, it stops looking like a short-term fix.
It starts to look like a long-term shift.
This is where the report shifts from policy to enforcement.
Because proposals only matter if there’s a mechanism behind them.
Maria pointed to Australia’s Liquid Fuel Emergency Act and noted that amendments were made just months before the current situation escalated, suggesting to her that groundwork was already being laid.
She focused on the expansion of government powers, particularly around coordination, reporting, and what she described as increased surveillance tied to fuel management.
Then she highlighted a key detail.
Under emergency conditions, fuel wouldn’t just be limited, it would be assigned.
She explained that only certain groups could be designated as “essential users,” mainly those tied to defense or the movement of goods and commerce.
Everyone else falls outside that category.
And once access depends on status, the system starts to look very different.
That’s where the shift happens.
From open access to controlled allocation.
And once it’s allocated, getting it back isn’t so simple.
By this point, the pattern becomes impossible to ignore.
The same sequence shows up again and again, policies introduced gradually, framed as temporary, justified by crisis.
Australia during COVID becomes the reference point, where some of the strictest measures were rolled out through a mix of state and federal coordination.
Now, similar language is being used again.
“COVID-style protocols.” Fuel rationing. License plate restrictions. Reduced travel. Shorter workweeks. Remote work. Remote schooling.
Individually, each one makes sense.
Together, they begin pointing in the same direction.
In her view, these aren’t isolated responses, they’re extensions of the same behavioral shifts introduced during COVID, now being reinforced under a different crisis.
And that leads to the issue she kept coming back to.
Dependence.
The more dependent the system, the easier it is to steer.
When countries rely heavily on global systems, external shocks, whether from war, supply chains, or energy disruptions, ripple through everything.
Her answer was self-sufficiency.
Reduce reliance. Build internal resilience. Control what you can within your own borders.
Otherwise, she warned, the direction doesn’t change.
It accelerates.
Thanks for tuning in. Follow us (@ZeeeMedia and @VigilantFox) for stories that matter—stories the media doesn’t want you to see.
We’ll be back with another show tomorrow. See you then.
LOCKDOWN [2.0]
RUMOUR:
RUMOURS Circulating out there...:
Disclaimer: All articles, videos, and images posted on Operation Disclosure were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes. All statements, claims, views, and opinions that appear on this site are always presented as unverified and should be discerned by the reader. We do not endorse any opinions expressed on this website, and we do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content posted on this website.
I may not agree with everything from the content-producers that I share.
Apply critical thinking and use discernment to
Come to your own conclusions regarding the content!
You need to MAKE UP Your own MIND!
What we think that we now know...
REPORT Today
The world keeps spinning, and now you’re caught up.
“Supreme Court Ruling on Election Day”
AdvertisementReader Post | By Patriot Monica
We’ve been lied to our entire lives about everything including religion and govt just naming two all while technology has been spying, programing humans into believing everything they see and hear is absolute truth to justify the erasing/amending of World history including what happened before “Time” was created. God didn’t create “Time”, man created time, man created division, man created religion, man created division… Yet nobody knows… Intended that nobody would discover the truth, if you know it will resonate deeply and if it doesn’t resonate, you’re still asleep.
Your choice to be awakened or continue to sleep. Your choice determines your truth NOT MY TRUTH. Doesn’t make you right and it doesn’t make you wrong and it doesn’t indicate you have the right to tell me my truth is wrong. KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. DO NO HARM TAKING NO CRAP.
The Supreme Court Justice Roberts has ties with Jeffrey Epstein and Trump’s knows it, the reason the 2020 Election Fraud has continued to be pushed back for 7 years hoping American citizens will be forgotten all while “We The People” are continued to be distracted by Govt created distractions while the US Constitution continues to be ignored amending the US Constitution not in favor of ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ but for the justification of the United States INC (who flys the US FLAG trimmed with gold fringe located in all US created corrupted agencies) created Govt and NOT for the Real United States, the land of ‘We The People’s where the flag waves WITHOUT gold fringe.
Research the Act of 1781. You must do your research.
Research your rights, know your rights not someone else’s opinion are of what your rights are. Everyone has an opinion just like everyone has an a**h**e.
Overview of U.S. Constitution Amendments
The U.S. Constitution has a total of 27 amendments. These amendments are changes or additions to the Constitution that have been ratified over time. The first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.
Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10)
Amendment Description
1st Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2nd Right to keep and bear arms.
3rd Prohibition against quartering soldiers in private homes.
4th Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
5th Rights related to legal proceedings, including due process.
6th Right to a fair and speedy trial.
7th Right to a jury trial in civil cases.
8th Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
9th Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
10th Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.
Notable Amendments (11-27)
Amendment Year Ratified Description
11th 1795 Limits lawsuits against states.
12th 1804 Modifies the procedure for electing the President and Vice President.
13th 1865 Abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude.
14th 1868 Grants citizenship and equal protection under the law.
15th 1870 Prohibits voting discrimination based on race.
19th 1920 Grants women the right to vote.
22nd 1951 Limits the President to two terms.
26th 1971 Lowers the voting age to 18.
27th 1992 Limits congressional pay increases until after the next election.
In January, the Trump FBI, with DNI Gabbard present, raided Fulton County for hundreds of thousands of ballots from the 2020 election, with a focus on mail-in ballots.
Now the Supreme Court will rule on the definition of “Election DAY”.
Fulton County, Georgia, was where we had the infamous “pipe burst”, that turned out to be an overflowed toilet, which caused the massive delay in tabulation of absentee/mail-in ballots in the wee hours of the morning, then massive batches of Biden mail-in ballots continued to trickle in, well into the following days, flipping the state from Trump to Biden. Similar delays in counting happened in other swing states around the nation, like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all states which Trump was winning, flipped to Biden, long after Election Day was over, via massive arrivals of mail-in ballots to deep blue districts.
So, what’s my point? If the Supreme Court rules that Election Day means that elections must be decided on Election Day, the Dems will no longer be able to utilize their mail-in ballot h********g scheme. They will no longer be able to delay elections, so they can calculate where they need to send their h*******d mail-in ballots, to then flood deep blue counties with fraudulent mail-in votes, to flip entire states and national elections. If we have same day elections, their mail-in ballot scheme doesn’t work.
This leads me to believe that the Trump FBI, along with DNI Gabbard, found legitimate proof of fraud in the 2020 election when they raided Fulton County, and now they have to shut down this scheme.
I think we, the public, are close to being shown the official evidence that 2020 was indeed stolen via fraud, which would mean the 2020 election was a continuation of the treasonous coup, launched by the Obama administration.
“Freedom’s just another word when there’s nothing left to lose” ~ Janis Joplin
Gold trim on US flag symbolizes the United States Incorporated (people slaves to Govt man made laws) KNOW THE DIFFERENCE
No gold trim on the US flag symbolizes United States of America as We The People’s Land
THE END
Comments