Monumental SCOTUS Immunity Decision

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

The Federal Case Against Trump

On August 1, 2023, a federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump him on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election.

The following is a summary of the allegations, written from the perspective of federal prosecutors.  It should be recognized that some of the language is presumptive, particularly in reference to terms such as “false claims”, “fraudulent electors”, and “false certificates”.  In real time, those actions were likely taken under circumstances in which the President had legitimate concerns.  

The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. According to the indictment, Trump advanced his goal through five primary means.

First, he and his co-conspirators “used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to . . . change electoral votes for [Trump’s] opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for [Trump].” [1]

Second, Trump and his co-conspirators “organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states” and “caused these fraudulent electors to transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6.” [2]

In 1876, there was a disputed presidential election whereby Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican Gov. of Ohio, won 165 electoral votes, but lost the popular vote to New York Gov. Samuel Tilden, who had secured 184 electoral votes.  However, those were the results of the initial count and there were 20 electoral votes unresolved from Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon.  Those 20 disputed electoral votes were presented to Congress by each party as “alternate” slates of electors from the respective four states.  There was no claim by the losing Democrat Party that they were “fake” electors.   Both slates were simply submitted to Congress for consideration.  To address the issue, Congress established an Electoral Commission which awarded all 20 disputed votes to Hayes, who became POTUS 19 by a single electoral vote.  So, despite precedent regarding the exact same circumstances, somehow when Trump attempts to ensure a free and fair election, in his official capacity as the sitting President, submitting an “alternate” slate of electors is construed as a crime, according to the Democrat Party and their advocates in the Propaganda Media Complex.

Third, Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to use the Justice Department “to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome.” [3] 

As President, it is entirely within his constitutional authority to communicate and coordinate with the Department of Justice, part of the Executive branch.

Fourth, Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to persuade “the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.”  And when that failed, on the morning of January 6, they “repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters, falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election results, and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” [4] 

The President has every right to communicate and direct his Vice President.  It is the prosecution’s assertion that the election results were legitimate and that Trump’s claims were “false”.  On January 6th 2021, he did NOT “knowingly” repeat “false claims” as he had evidence of over 1,000 independent affiants who swore under penalty of perjury that they witnessed massive voter fraud.  At that time he had every reason to question those vote results and it is entirely within the scope of his authority to ensure that elections are free and fair.  Nor did he direct his supporters to obstruct the certification proceeding.

Fifth, when “a large and angry crowd . . . violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding,” Trump and his coconspirators “exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convince Members of Congress to further delay the certification.” [5] 

There are a lot of conflicting accounts related to events at the Capitol on January 6th.  We saw videos of Trump supporters being escorted into the building by Capitol Police. We saw videos of anarchists breaking windows.  We saw videos of Trump supporters sitting in “official” chairs.  But there are multiple reports of Antifa and FBI operatives coercing the more “violent” behaviors in leadership roles.  Despite media and DNC claims of death on the scene, the only casualty was the killing of an unarmed 14-year Air Force veteran by the Capitol Police officer who was never charged.  Also, Trump offered to provide 10,000 National Guard troops ahead of time, but Nancy Pelosi declined the offer. And I have always wondered why the joint session needed to “run for cover”, or even delay their meeting, as it is almost certainly a secure room in which they were meeting.  It almost reeks of a government setup. 

Based on this alleged conduct, the indictment charged Trump with (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U. S. C. §371, (2) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(k), (3) obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(c)(2), §2, and (4) conspiracy against rights in violation of §241.1 [f]

Let’s examine those statutes.

18 U. S. C. §371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.  [6]

§1512(k) – Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant

(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

§1512(c)(2) – Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(c)  Whoever corruptly—

     (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,  [7]

§2 – Principals

  • Whoever commits an offense against the United States, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.  [8]

§241.1 [f] – Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—  [9]

The Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision in Trump v. United States

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued their decision in Trump v. United States that dealt with the question of presidential immunity for alleged criminal acts committed while a sitting President was in office.  It is a monumental decision in that SCOTUS has declared that any President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he may have taken while in office that fall within the sphere of his ambit, or purview, as official duties granted by the Constitution.  In their Opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, they meticulously distinguished the difference between absolute and presumptive immunities, and repeatedly stressed that the President is not protected from acts determined to be “unofficial”.

The Supreme Court acted fairly, they acted properly in their interpretation of the Constitution, and they acted with the highest possible degree of integrity.  The reaction from the uber-liberal media and prominent Democrats was despicable.  You can be sure that under the next Democrat administration there will be a push to pack the Supreme Court with as many liberal judges as necessary to swing the balance of power in their favor so they can dominate all three branches of government under an iron fist.  For now, the Supreme Court is the last firewall between our constitutional republic and communism.

The result of their decision, an outline of which I have provided under “Opinion of the Court”, is that the case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith is remanded to the lower courts because their prosecution made no distinction between “official” and “unofficial” acts and the Supreme Court is not a court of first review.

Opinion of the Court

Full Disclosure:  Most of the text below is copied directly from the Opinion written by SCOTUS.  It is not all quoted due to the many sets of quotation marks within.  All footnotes are provided to quickly access the pertinent pages.  I’ve added my own comments to certain sections.  My remarks in this segment are italicized.

The first eight pages of this pdf document [10] is the syllabus of key points rendered in the Opinion, which provides more detail.  The court concluded the syllabus portion of their decision by writing:

“Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.” [11]

 “We conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.  At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” [12]

In other words, no President can be expected to act unencumbered if he needs to be consulted on legal jeopardy, particularly when dealing with matters requiring grave decisions.

No President should be subject to prosecution for decisions that may result in grave consequences, and must therefore have some protection against legal jeopardy that might encumber decisions regarding grave matters.  He must be free to act swiftly when necessary in order to uphold his oath of office to preserve and protect the citizenry.

“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity . . .

The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.” [13]

Here, the Court clearly decides that the President is not protected for “unofficial” acts, or acts committed beyond the scope of his constitutional authorities.

For example, the President can’t order the assassination of his primary political rival and expect to be immune from prosecution for obvious criminality.

The office of the presidency does not entitle the President to act as a King, or Dictator, as you likely heard many prominent Democrats and their Propaganda Media Complex talking heads crying about.  They are either lying or have obviously not read the Opinion in an effort to fear-monger the voters.  They actually expect you to believe everything they say without question.  And as usual, they all portray this using the exact same catch phrases, as if a memo was dispatched from central command.  This particular clause of the decision is clearly explained on page 4 of the syllabus.  Were they all so lazy and ignorant enough to not bother reading the first 4 pages before pontificating on its ramifications?  These reprobates need to be held to account.  Perhaps somebody should organize a campaign to boycott advertisers of the mainstream media and demand a return to legitimate journalism.  We the People want fair and balanced news, not propaganda designed to secure the permanent power structure of one political party.

“Determining whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution requires applying the principles we have laid out to his conduct at issue. The first step is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, however, no court has thus far considered how to draw that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, and the very significant constitutional questions that it raises, the lower courts rendered their decisions on a highly expedited basis. Because those courts categorically rejected any form of Presidential immunity, they did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial.”  [14]

This is where SCOTUS is essentially reprimanding the lower courts for hastily prosecuting this case while failing to consider constitutional provisions or existing case law and laying the groundwork for their decision to remand back to the lower courts for thorough analysis.  The mere fact that the D.C. Circuit expedited this case in an attempt to convict Trump before the November election is further evidence that this case is politically motivated and arguably depicts election interference, an act that redirects criminality on those who brought the case. 

“Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations—such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions. Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.”  [15]

I would strongly argue that the President’s communications with his Vice President and state officials is certainly within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility to ensure elections are free and fair.  I can’t see any way that could be disputed. 

“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, “[i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government” [16]

Here, the court is saying that once it has been determined the alleged act falls within the scope of the President’s authority, motive cannot be considered further.  The investigation is over.

“The indictment broadly alleges that Trump and his coconspirators sought to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election.   It charges that they conspired to obstruct the January 6 congressional proceeding at which electoral votes are counted and certified, and the winner of the election is certified as President-elect.  As part of this conspiracy, Trump and his co-conspirators allegedly attempted to leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors.” [17]

My only comment with this particular statement is that SCOTUS misrepresents Trump’s attempt to submit “alternate” slate of electors, as was previously done in the election of 1876.  They were not “fraudulent” slates.

“Trump and his co-conspirators initiated with state legislators and election officials in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin regarding those States’ certification of electors.” [18]

“And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority.  Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.” [19]

In reference to Trump’s communications with his acting Attorney General, he is absolutely immune from prosecution and any inquiry regarding alleged motive.  I would argue, the same absolute immunity applies with respect to his communications with his Vice President and any state officials, such as the Georgia Secretary of State.

“The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.” [20]

Here, the Court guides the lower courts future considerations by classifying all of Trump’s communications with the Vice President as actions that are at least presumptively immune.

“Trump and his co-conspirators initiated with state legislators and election officials in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin regarding those States’ certification of electors.” [21]

As I said above, the 5 states mentioned here were merely attempting to submit “alternate” slates of electors as the states of Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon did in the election of 1876.  Those 20 electoral votes were all awarded to Rutherford B. Hayes and elected him as the 19th President by a single vote.  That could not have happened if those “alternate” slates had not been permitted to be submitted to the joint session of Congress.

Again, I argue the President has not only the right, but the duty, to ensure that elections are free and fair, and is entitled to communicate with state election officials.

The indictment alleges that Trump attempted to convince officials in those states to examine their election results and procedures and when they refused to alter their processes, he coerced them to submit “false certificates”, or “fraudulent” slates to the Vice President.  This is where I might suggest those state officials may not have had enough time to effectively audit every single vote to determine its validity and it would have been prudent to submit the “alternate” slates in case further examination revealed massive fraud.  In other words, delay the certification pending state audits.

The Supreme Court has remanded, the case, with guidance, back down to the “lower courts” for consideration of the distinction between official and unofficial actions allegedly committed by former President Trump in reference to his constitutional authority, something the District Court and the D.C. Circuit Court had hastily disregarded.  The reasoning is that SCOTUS is a court of final review and that prescribed analysis is best left to a court of first review.  In other words, SCOTUS has determined that the lower court(s) must first make determinations that correlate certain allegations to unofficial acts, then subject to appeal, before coming back to the Supreme Court.  

The SCOTUS Decision in Fischer

On the June 30, 2024 broadcast of Life, Liberty and Levin, host Mark Levin mentioned that Special Counsel Jack Smith was applying a creative legal theory to the Trump case in manipulating the interpretation of U.S. Code §1512, which is cited by Smith in two of the four federal charges against Trump.  Those charges relate to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a federal law that established regulations and auditing requirements for public companies.  The law was passed in response to corporate scandals and the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and was created to protect shareholders, employees, and the public from fraudulent financial practices and accounting errors.  It has nothing to do with the so-called “insurrection” of January 6th, and should be dropped entirely.  That leaves sections 371 and 241.

As defined in the segment titled “The Federal Case Against Trump”, the 371 statute reads, in part, “to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose . . . “

WHAT?  This statute was intended to address fraud committed by federal contractors.  I still don’t know how it’s applicable to Trump.

As defined in the segment titled “The Federal Case Against Trump”, the 241 statute reads, in part, “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution . . . “  This statute was enacted in 1948 to protect the civil rights and prevent intimidation of black voters by the Ku Klux Klan.  It’s a pretty shaky charge to bring against Trump.

This case concerns the prosecution of petitioner Joseph Fischer for his conduct on January 6, 2021. That day, both Houses of Congress convened in a joint session to certify the votes in the 2020 Presidential election. While they did so, a crowd of supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered outside the Capitol. As set forth in the criminal complaint against Fischer, some of the crowd eventually “forced entry” into the building, “breaking windows,” and “assaulting members of the U. S. Capitol Police.”  This breach of the Capitol caused Members of Congress to evacuate the Chambers and delayed the certification process. The complaint alleges that Fischer was one of those who invaded the building.

On Friday, June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Fischer v. United States, in which they cited 18 U.S. Code §1512(c)(1), wherein it states,  

(c)  Whoever corruptly—

     (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (§1512(c)(2)as shown above) [22]

Judge Walker of the D.C. Circuit Court read the element of the statute – “corruptly” – as requiring a defendant to act with “an intent to procure an unlawful benefit.”

Chief Justice Roberts opinion [23] opens thusly;

“The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly ‘alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.’ 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(1). The next subsection extends that prohibition to anyone who ‘otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.’ §1512(c)(2). We consider whether this ‘otherwise’ clause should be read in light of the limited reach of the specific provision that precedes it.” [24]

“Prior to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 1512 imposed criminal liability on anyone who ‘knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person’ to, among other things, shred documents. 18 U. S. C. §1512(b)(2)(B) (2000 ed.). But the Enron accounting scandal revealed a loophole: Although Enron’s ‘outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, had systematically destroyed potentially incriminating documents,’ the statute curiously failed to impos[e] liability on a person who destroys records himself.  As a result, prosecutors had to prove that higher-ups at Enron and Arthur Andersen persuaded someone else to shred documents rather than the more obvious theory that someone who shreds documents is liable for doing so.  The parties agree that to plug this loophole, Congress enacted Section 1512(c)—the provision at issue here—as part of the broader Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress actually hid away in the second part of the third subsection of Section 1512 a catchall provision that reaches far beyond the document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the first place. The better conclusion is that subsection (c)(2) was designed by Congress to capture other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity or availability beyond those Congress specified in (c)(1).” [25] 

In Count Three, the only count now before us, the Government charged Fischer with violating 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(2). Fischer moved to dismiss that count, arguing that the provision criminalizes only attempts to impair the availability or integrity of evidence. The District Court granted his motion in relevant part. It concluded that the scope of Section 1512(c)(2) is limited by subsection (c)(1) and therefore requires the defendant to “‘have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object.’”

The Court thus decided:

To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so. See supra, at 9. The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the D. C. Circuit may assess the sufficiency of Count Three of Fischer’s indictment in light of our interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2). [26]

Wherein the Justice Department is citing 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(2) in the Fischer case, they are citing Trump for violating 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(1), making the Fischer  decision relevant to Trump’s case.  Neither on January 6th, nor in the New York case, did Trump “impair the availability or integrity of evidence”.  It is arguable that he personally obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding on January 6th, but the happenings in and around the Capitol were actions of other actors, some of whom may not have been true Trump supporters.  And when the transcript of his speech that morning is reviewed, it is clear that he urged the crowd to “peacefully and patriotically” march down to the Capitol.  He clearly did not incite a riot, or engage in any sedition, or insurrection, or the federal indictment would have included those charges.

The Status in the Four Jurisdictions

In New York – Trump was convicted on May 30, 2024 of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment reimbursement to his lawyer, who was the star witness against him. 

In January 2017, Trump, Weisselberg and Cohen (Lawyer A) agree the lawyer would be paid the $420,000 (previously paid by Cohen) through 12 monthly payments of $35,000 over the course of 2017, according to court documents. Cohen (Lawyer A) was to send an invoice to the Trump Org each month falsely requesting a payment of $35,000 for legal services rendered. Cohen (Lawyer A) does not have a retainer agreement with Trump or the Trump Organization, according to prosecutors.

However, paying the woman for her silence is NOT a crime.  The alleged crime was “falsifying” the accounting ledgers by classifying the payments as “legal expenses” to conceal the criminal conduct of the “scheme to boost his election chances.” [27]

Election interference is covered by federal statutes.

All the reimbursements were made after Trump was inaugurated.

The New York state laws cited in the indictment are thoroughly reviewed in my previous post.  You can see my analysis HERE

Judge Juan Merchan has a conflict of interest because his daughter works for a Democratic consulting firm that donated to the Biden campaign in 2020, though he refused to recuse himself.

On July 1, 2024, Trump’s legal team requests Judge Merchan to throw out the conviction on the grounds that the jury saw evidence that should have been protected by presidential immunity, citing the SCOTUS decision.

Judge Merchan has delayed the previously scheduled sentencing hearing from July 11 to September 18, 2024 pending further review.

In Georgia – District Attorney Fani Willis was scheduled for a review by the Fulton County Board of Ethics for conflict of interest in that she may have benefitted financially through her romantic involvement with a prosecutor she hired to assist her in the case.  On March 7, 2024, Fulton County punted their review saying she was not a county employee, but a state constitutional officer and referred any review to the Georgia State Ethics Commission.

That prosecutor, Nathan Wade, stepped down from his position under an ultimatum issued by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott MacAfee.  The case is currently being reviewed by the Georgia Court of Appeals in consideration of filings by Trump and 8 co-defendants who have moved to disqualify Willis.  Arguments are tentatively scheduled to begin on October 4, 2024, with rulings not expected until mid-March 2025. 

The SCOTUS immunity decision casts further doubt on the case because Trump, as President, had every right to communicate with state employees and inquire about election integrity, and certainly falls within the scope of his “official” duties to ensure the election was free and fair.  His call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger asking him (perhaps rhetorically) to “find 11,780 votes” is asserted by prosecutors to be the most damning evidence.  There is no proof that Trump was demanding Raffensberger to manufacture phony ballots.  The context of the call is extremely important in that it may show Trump’s quote to simply be a wish.

Furthermore, election interference falls under the jurisprudence of federal courts.

In Washington D.C. – On Aug. 1, 2023, former President Donald Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. on four counts related to alleged attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Trump faces four felony charges in the D.C. election “subversion” case.  The charges are those specified under the heading “The Opinion of the Court” above.

In early February of this year, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkin pushed back the March 4 trial date, awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court on Trump’s petition claiming presidential immunity. 

As we now know, SCOTUS has issued an Opinion in this case. (see “Opinion of the Court” above)

In Florida –

Judge Aileen Cannon is meticulously reviewing pre-trial motions, including Trump’s legal team questioning the authority of Special Counsel Jack Smith that may be in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The Constitution does allow the appointment of “inferior” officers by the President alone, by the heads of departments, or by the judiciary, so I believe Smith’s appointment may be constitutional, having been appointed by the Attorney General.  However, she has several other motions to consider and has declined to be rushed to trial by Smith.

Where Do We Go From Here ?

Due to these two Supreme Court decisions, all four cases brought against former President Donald J. Trump are essentially “tied up in court” and there is virtually no chance that any of them will proceed to trial before the November election.  Even the New York “hush money” trial that convicted Trump of filing false business records is in limbo. 

The entire strategy of the Democrat Party has seemed to backfire.  Their plan was to “get Trump” by any means necessary in order to prevent him from having any chance to regain the White House.  They concocted a scheme to encumber him by creatively interpreting several statutes, as defined above, and slamming him with lawfare in four different jurisdictions, all in an effort to keep him off the campaign trial and potentially imprison him.  But shockingly, Trump’s numbers in the polls were immediately boosted following the verdict in New York and Biden sank even lower than he was before.  However, their lawfare game is not over. Trump still faces some headwinds that need to be argued in the lower courts and potentially return to the Supreme Court.

The good news for the Democrats, is that the SCOTUS immunity decision is probably more beneficial for them than it is for Trump, because Trump’s actions are far less egregious than the actual crimes committed by Biden and his puppet-master, Barack Obama. They should be dancing in the streets because it probably exonerates them from several charges.  Instead, all we hear is a bunch of activist talking heads melting down on CNN, MSLSD, ABC, NBC, CBS, and all the rest of the phony journalists in the Propaganda Media Complex.  Their hatred of Trump is on full display.  Can you imagine the outrage they will portray when the next Attorney General indicts Obama for treason and Biden for bribery, money laundering, and other potential crimes ? 

For some time now, Democrat messages have been warning their idiotic followers that the Trump administration will conduct a revenge campaign against his adversaries, but it won’t be revenge, it will be JUSTICE.  He has already proven he was forgiving by not urging the indictment of Hillary but after what they’ve done to him, they will deserve being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  We the People DEMAND JUSTICE!

Comments welcomed.


[1]  Supreme Court of the United States ; Opinion of the Court ; Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. United States ; on Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ; July 1, 2024 ; considering the scope of a President’s immunity from criminal prosecution ; Pp 1-2

[2]  ibid., Opinion of the Court, p. 2 

[3]  ibid., Opinion of the Court, p. 2 

[4]  ibid., Opinion of the Court, p. 2 

[5]  ibid., Opinion of the Court, p. 2 

[6]  18 U.S. Code §371 ; Cornell Law School ; Legal Information Institute

[7]  18 U.S. Code §1512 ; Cornell Law School ; Legal Information Institute

[8]  18 U.S. Code §2 ; Cornell Law School ; Legal Information Institute

[9]  18 U.S. Code §241 ; Cornell Law School ; Legal Information Institute

[10]  Trump v. United States ; Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ; Case No. 23-939 ; Argued April 25, 2024 – Decided July 1, 2024 ; full text, 119 pages

[11]  ibid. ; syllabus, p. 8, section (e)      

[12]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 14 

[13]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 15 

[14]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 16 

[15]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 17 

[16]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 18 

[17]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 18 

[18]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 25 

[19]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 21 

[20]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 23 

[21]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 25 

[22]  18 U.S. Code §1512 ; Cornell Law School ; Legal Information Institute

[23]  Supreme Court of the United States ; Opinion of the Court ; Joseph W. Fischer, Petitioner v. United States ; on Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ; Case No. 55-72 ; Argued April 16, 2024 – Decided June 28, 2024 ; full text, 43 pages

considering the applicability of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act with respect to the actions of petitioner on January 6 ; Pp 1-2

[24]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 1

[25]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, Pp. 9-10

[26]  ibid. ; Opinion of the Court, p. 16

[27]  Katersky, A. & Charalambous, P. ; Timeline: Manhattan DA’s Stormy Daniels Hush Money Case Against Donald Trump ; ABC News ; July 2, 2024 ;

Under dateline: April 4, 2023

The People of the State of New York v. Trump

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

The Basics and the Background

Those who are reading this post are certainly aware that former President Donald J. Trump has been indicted and charged in a criminal trial in New York City.  The basics are that New York County District Attorney for Manhattan, Alvin Bragg, who dedicated part of his campaign as a promise to prosecute Trump, charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.  Bragg launched his campaign for Manhattan DA in June 2019, shortly before outgoing DA Cyrus Vance Jr. began proceedings against Trump.  In July 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that Trump was not immune from a subpoena issued by Vance but New York officials did not receive the subpoenaed documents until February 2021 and a criminal investigation was launched in May.  Bragg was elected in November 2021 saying he would continue Vance’s investigation and hold Trump accountable.  But Vance’s investigation was focused on Trump’s financial statements and whether he had committed fraud by overstating the value of his assets in documents submitted to banks and insurance companies in order to secure more favorable terms.

That investigation morphed into a civil case known as New York v. Trump, brought by State Attorney General Letitia James, who also campaigned on a promise to “get Trump” and charged Trump with fraudulently misrepresenting his property values to potential lenders and tax officials.  New York assessed the value of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate at $18 million, a ludicrous estimate that wouldn’t even purchase the ground it sat on if it was a vacant lot.  Furthermore, Bank officials testified that all agreements were entered into mutually after the banks did their own due diligence all loans were repaid with interest.  That is, there were no victims and everyone made their anticipated money from the deals.  The entire case was baseless.

Nevertheless, presiding judge Arthur Engoron ordered the defendants (Trump, his three eldest children, Donald Jr. Ivanka, and Eric, CFO Allen Weisselberg, Controller Jeffrey McConney, and ten companies) to disgorge a total of $364 million.  That judgment has been appealed and legal arguments are expected to take place no sooner than September 2024.

All of a sudden Bragg was in search of something else he could charge Trump with, so he concocted a novel legal theory centered on the notion that Trump had somehow attempted to influence the 2016 election by paying Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about their alleged sexual encounter.  It was a case brought against a target in search of a crime, which reverses the application of American jurisprudence.

The prosecution alleged that Trump mislabeled, or “falsely recorded” repayments to his Attorney, Michael Cohen, as “legal expenses” in the general ledger, rather than reimbursements to Cohen, who paid Daniels from his own loan proceeds to secure the nondisclosure agreement.  Cohen testified he made the payment on his own to shield Trump’s wife, Melania, from embarrassment.

From that simple accounting entry, multiplied 34 times, Bragg made the leap of reclassifying those ledger entries, misdemeanors by New York state law, which had expired the statute of limitations, as felony violations of federal election laws by concealing the Daniels story from the voting public in order to aid his chances of a presidential victory. 

However, the New York District Attorney had no jurisdiction to bring such  charges.  If Trump was to be indicted for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, that would be a federal case.

But this kangaroo court show trial wasn’t about justice.  It was about weaponizing the justice system to persecute a political rival in what has been termed “lawfare”.

The Nitty Gritty of the Criminal Charges Against Trump

Of the four high profile“lawfare” cases against former President Donald Trump, the so-called “hush money” payment to porn star Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, brought in New York DA Bragg, was the first to go to trial.

The trial began on April 15, 2024, in New York Superior Court before Judge Juan Merchan, following an indictment by a grand jury filed March 30, 2023. 

The indictment charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, New York Penal Law §175.10 [1], described as “A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”  Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony, the lowest in severity, of five classes. [2]  Critical to application of this law is the meaning of “intent to defraud”. 

In this case, the prosecutors alleged that Trump committed the act of falsifying the business records with the intent to hide another crime, the second crime being a violation of New York Election Code § 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.

“Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” [3]

The way I interpret that is the state is alleging that Trump falsified business records in the second degree (whatever that is), and did so with the intent to commit the second crime of promoting his own candidacy by “unlawful means”.  Bragg essentially charged Trump under a felony statute that required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did so with the intent to commit the misdemeanor of promoting his own electability by one, or more, of the following “unlawful means”:

  1. Violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA;
  2. The falsification of other business records; or
  3. Violation of tax laws. [4]

FECA violations would seem to be “off the table” because the Department of Justice holds jurisdiction over all federal crimes, and the DOJ would be the proper avenue of prosecution.  In effect, Bragg is claiming the reimbursements were campaign contributions but the New York District Attorney had no jurisdiction to bring such a charge.  If Trump was to be indicted for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, that would be a federal case.

On tax law violations, Merchan describes any fraudulent information or false statement related to a material matter on a tax return as “unlawful” regardless of whether it resulted in a tax underpayment.  Not much to look at there, so apparently, the “unlawful means relate to falsification of business records, the notation of Trump’s reimbursements as “legal expenses”.

Each count in the indictment relates to a specific business document, bearing dates that range from February 14 through December 5, 2017, a period during which Trump was President.  Collectively, they are known as “hush money” payments, listed as “legal expenses” payable to Michael Cohen, including:

  • 11 for invoices from Michael Cohen

  •   9 for general ledger entries for Donald J. Trump

  •   9 for checks from Donald J. Trump

  •   3 for general ledger entries for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust

  •   2 for checks from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust [5]

The “false entries” in the business records cited by prosecutors was the $130,000 in payments by Trump to his personal Attorney, Michael Cohen, for reimbursement of funds paid by Cohen himself, as testified in earlier proceedings, to Stormy Daniels, in exchange for her silence leading up to the 2016 election.  Trump classified those payments as “legal expenses”. 

The Judge’s Instructions to the Jury

New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan provided detailed instructions to the jury following the closing arguments from both parties.  While much of the Instructions appear to be standard legalese, some Legal Analysts have described portions of the instructions as difficult to understand by a lawyer, let alone a lay person.  I’ve cited the full document in pdf format for anyone who wishes to review the pertinent sections.

According to the jury instructions provided by Judge Merchan, “intent means conscious objective or purpose.  Thus a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so.”  That sounds like word salad from Kamala Harris, but Merchan continues, “Intent does not require premeditation.  In other words, intent does not require advance planning.  Nor is it necessary that the intent be in a person’s mind for any particular period of time.  The intent can be formed, and need only exist, at the very moment the person engages in prohibited conduct or acts to cause the prohibited result, and not at any earlier time.” [6]  OK, so intent can be spontaneous.  Then it gets “muddy”.

In the next section, Merchan writes, “In order to prove an intent to defraud, the People need not prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud any particular person or entity.  A general intent to defraud any person or entity suffices.” [7]  What?  So who or what exactly was Trump “intending” to defraud?

This is where the election enters the discussion.  I get it, and most people do.  Trump allegedly thought he was paying Stormy Daniels under the terms of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA), in exchange for her not publicizing her alleged sexual encounter that could potentially damage his candidacy.  According to Bragg’s interpretation, and Merchan’s instructions, that met the requirements of a violation of New York election law, claiming Trump was promoting his chances at the ballot box by unlawful means.  Is that defrauding the voting public?  NDAs are perfectly legal documents and they are utilized quite frequently.  But it seems odd that the judge was telling the jury that the state did not need to prove Trump had any intent to defraud the voters.  I guess they were supposed to make the connection on their own that the mere existence of the payment implied intent to defraud.

Further, on the same page, Merchan wrote, “For the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.  Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.” [8] 

Got it?  So, to consider whether the law should even be applied, the state must conclude there was an intent to commit a second crime, or to conceal the commission of the underlying first crime.  And, the state is not required to prove that “other” (second) crime was actually committed or the first crime was concealed.  So, if the state can’t prove a second crime was committed, or even whether the first crime was actually concealed, what have they proved?  Not a damn thing, right?

In reference to New York Election Code § 17-152, Merchan instructed the jury that “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.” [9]

In other words, some jurors might think Trump was guilty of violating FECA only, while other jurors may have thought Trump was only guilty of falsifying business records, and it was not necessary that all jurors agreed.  

The Payback Will be Well Deserved

Remember that time when Hillary Clinton concocted the phony Russia collusion accusations against Trump leading up to the 2016 election?  She not only tried to pass off the false story to smear Trump’s name, but her campaign funded the entire “opposition research” and used it to encourage the Justice Department to appoint Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate it, at taxpayer expense, for two years, before Mueller reported there was no evidence of any Russian interference in Trump’s unexpected victory.  Mueller’s investigation focused on three points; Russian interference in the election, Trump associates and their connection to Russian officials (espionage), and obstruction of justice.  Her own campaign manager admitted she personally approved the plan to leak the allegations to the press in 2016.  And that was acknowledged by the extremely biased CNN. [10]

When you think about it, why would Putin want to see Trump in the White House rather than Hillary, who looked like an easy pushover when she brought out a giant red “reset” button to appease Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov? 

If Bragg is able to classify the “legal expense” of reimbursing his lawyer for a nondisclosure agreement, as intent to commit the conspiracy of promoting his own election by falsifying business records, then certainly Hillary Clinton’s Russia collusion hoax could be considered as an effort to influence the 2016 election, and all expenses incurred in that smear campaign qualify as campaign contributions.  She’s guilty of multiple felonies. 

The same can be expected for President Biden, as soon as he is removed from the White House.  The only thing that could save him from prosecution is death in office.  After his lawfare campaign against his chief political opponent, he has set a dangerous precedent, one which should haunt his every waking hour (if he is even cognizant enough to realize it).  Indicting Trump on what will prove to be phantom charges in four different jurisdictions, after trials and appeals have run their course, will give Trump every right to prosecute Biden for election interference that was far more egregious than anything he was accused of.  The Democrats are spreading fear to the voting public that Trump will exact revenge on his tormentors, in order to paint him as an evil vindictive man.  In truth, it will be more like justice, than revenge.

While we are in “roundup” mode, it would also be advisable to indict Tony Blinkin and the 51 intelligence officials who signed a letter claiming the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, when the FBI had possession of it as early as December 2019 and knew it was real.  Then they repeatedly contacted and coerced social media companies to squash the story in order to protect the Biden candidacy leading up to the 2020 election.  If that’s not “election interference”, what is?

Comments welcomed.

Return to Monumental SCOTUS Decision


[1]  People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf ; Post- Summation Instructions ; p. 27

[2]  Justia U.S. Law ; NY Penal Law § 175.10,or%20conceal%20the%20commission%20thereof

[3]  People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf ; Post- Summation Instructions ; p. 30

wherein Merchan cites    

New York State Senate;  Legislation, The Laws of New York, Chapter 17

[4]  ibid. ; p. 31     

[5]  Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York ; Wikipedia

[6]  People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf ; Post- Summation Instructions ; p. 28

[7]  ibid. ; p. 29   

[8]  ibid. ; p. 29     

[9]  ibid. ; p. 31     

[10]  Cohen, M. ; Hillary Clinton Personally Approved Plan to Share Trump-Russia Allegation with the Press in 2016, Campaign Manager Says ; Cnn ; May 20, 2022

Voter Registration Rolls Under Scrutiny

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

Far-Right Activists Urging States to Maintain Voter Registration Lists

In a recent article published by NBC News, which as we all know is a charter member of the Propaganda Media Complex (PMC), they inform us that so-called “far right” activist groups networked across 24 states have developed a program named EagleAI (pronounced Eagle EYE) that is a database of voter rolls that purportedly flags registrations that may be suspect for scrutiny for such things as names that appear on the Social Security Death Index, or duplicity of names registered in multiple districts.  It’s good to hear that somebody is trying to minimize voter fraud.  Any effort to make sure all votes are legitimate has my full support.

Of course the very first sentence of the article describes this network as “far right activists, some of whom falsely believe the 2020 election was stolen”. [1]  

As though NBC had conducted a thorough investigation into over 1,000 independent claims of voter fraud spread across multiple states.  If you recall the aftermath of the election, there were more than 1,000 Affidavits filed under penalty of perjury by independent witnesses who observed irregularities in the swing states.  Those claims were quickly denied by the Democrat Party and “debunked” by the PMC.  I don’t recall any thorough 2 year investigations by Special Counsels like those appointed to frame President Trump.  Those allegations and cursory reviews by Democrat-selected judges were “decided” virtually overnight.  So NBC News has determined immediately that the far right activists falsely believe the election was stolen, basically with no investigation at all.  They couldn’t possibly have come to that conclusion instantly.

So We the People are supposed to believe the word of the DNC, proven liars, and ignore the testimony of 1,000 INDEPENDENT affiants.  How can they say there is “no evidence” of widespread voter fraud, when they don’t even listen to the witnesses, or investigate it at all?

According to NBC, one of the activists emailed a top Florida election official with a list of about 10,000 names that should be reviewed and the state official forwarded the list to county supervisors.  The state official, identified as Maria Matthews, couldn’t say how the list was generated or what sources may have produced it, only that the “concerned citizen” who sent her the email was Dan Helm, whom NBC described as “a longtime Florid-based activist who has made unfounded voter fraud claims across the state”.

The EagleAI program was launched in 2023 by a retired doctor and used by a group founded by former Trump election lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, who was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Georgia case that has charged Trump with attempting to overthrow the 2020 election.  Mitchell was quoted as saying, “the left will hate this”, in reference to the EagleAI program.

Wesley Wilcox, Supervisor of Elections in Marion County, Florida said that “95% of the records identified in his county were records that his office has already identified for voter roll maintenance . . . ”  So, the EagleAI program must be getting fairly reliable data if it’s about 95% accurate, right?

Matthews, the Director of the Florida Division of Elections, assured all interested parties that the state does not take action to change a voter’s record, or remove any voter from the rolls without first exercising due diligence to determine “credible and reliable” information exists to warrant any action.

Far Left Activists Trying to Prevent Voter Registration Lists From Being Maintained

But left wing activists never miss an opportunity to ridicule anything that tries to question the authority of the Democrat Party.  No matter how credible the allegations of voter fraud may be, or how justifiable efforts are to ensure that the integrity of our voting system is secure, left wing activists will attempt to caste a nefarious shadow over the claims.  As soon as any far left activist catches wind of a story, they jump into action and formulate a media strategy to attack the story.  Among the first to respond is the multistate voting rights group All Voting is Local Action.  They sent a letter to Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd asking him to tell local officials to “disregard” the 10,000 name list and encourage counties to “not perform list maintenance based on unreliable and unreviewed data”.  They also want a state elections investigation office to refrain from making any communicationsthat could be perceived as “improper or threatening”.

By who?  Presumably the far left wing activists?  The Democrat Party?

The All Voting is Local Action letter was co-signed by the NAACP, Common Cause Florida, the Legal Defense Fund, and the Advancement Project.  They are all far left advocacy groups who state they are fighting the same thing.  The Common Cause mission statement says, in part, “that every eligible voter can have a say”.  We the People don’t disagree with that, as long as they are eligible.  When you open the main page of the Legal Defense Fund, you are immediately prompted to donate to their organization, without being able to see what they are about, but they are essentially a racial justice advocacy organization founded in 1940 by Thurgood Marshall.  As for the Advancement Project, they are a politically liberal American nonprofit organization that focuses on racial justice issues. [2]  In other words, all of these groups could be characterized as one and the same.  There is no diversity among their goals.

Brad Ashwell, Florida State Director for All Voting is Local Action, told NBC News that “it is a voter suppression technique and can bog down the machinery of elections at critical points”.  The DNC apparently doesn’t have any problem of “bogging down the machinery” on Election Night by reporting water leaks, power outages, and the like to give “officials” time to rescan enough Democrat ballots to “win” elections.

The Solution

The “far right” groups also have a presence in the seven swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  Good!  It’s long past due that someone is trying to ensure that every eligible vote counts, and every ineligible vote is thrown out.  There is only one way to conduct free and fair elections, and that is to mandate state-issued voter ID cards with unique identification numbers/codes.  Any voter who moves out of state must surrender his/her voter ID card from the previous state before being issued a new card and the number would stay with the voter for life.  Any voter who moves “in state” could vote using his/her state-issued card but the number would prevent casting multiple ballots when that number has already been used.

Ask any Democrat voter why they object to Voter ID and wait for their pre-programmed response.  I’d wager if you surveyed 10 people, six of the answers would be the same, and the other four are too stupid to remember what they were supposed to say.

Comments welcomed.


[1]  Dixon, M. & Timm, J. ; Florida is Using a Fraud-Hunting Tool Used by the Right to Look for Voters to Remove from the Rolls ; NBC News ; May 26, 2024

[2]  Advancement Project ; Wikipedia

The REAL Threat to Democracy 

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

Lexington and Concord

On this, the 249th anniversary of the “shot heard round the world” on Lexington Green in Massachusetts, it is appropriate to appreciate what those 70 brave Minute Men militia led by Captain John Parker, did to send a message to British commanders.

The original “stand your ground” monument on Lexington Green

These were not men who thought kindly of tyranny and oppression.  They had had just about enough and they were willing to literally put their lives on the line to fight for the freedom they sought.  They faced the most powerful military in the world and stood tall against it.

British troops, about 800 strong had marched out of Boston the night before on a mission to seize weapons and gun powder stored in the nearby town of Concord and capture Patriot leaders John Hancock and Sam Adams, who were staying at the Hancock-Clarke House just up the road from Lexington Green.  Fortunately, for the American revolutionaries, Paul Revere and William Dawes had been dispatched by Dr. Joseph Warren, who had caught wind of the British expedition, and warned them of the approaching British regulars, allowing them to escape northwards to Burlington, out of harms way.  But eight Minute Men lay dead on Lexington Green and another two were felled in the skirmish at North Bridge over Concord River, where the British lost three men before retreating back to Boston. 

A Minute Man reenactor at North Bridge, Concord

By the time they came back down what is now known as Battle Road towards Lexington, Dr. Warren and Captain Parker had gathered thousands of Minute Men along the route to Boston, ambushing the column from all angles for the next 12 miles.  At the end of the day, there were 73 British killed in action and many more wounded.  The Americans suffered 49 dead.  [1]

It was “go time”.

When Warren’s mother saw him later that day, she urged him to never put himself in such danger again.  Warren replied, “Now is no time for any of America’s children to shrink from any hazard.  I will set her free or die.”

Fifty-nine days later, he was killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill. 

That being said, why do I mention this little episode from the American Revolution?

Because I know there are Patriots who will view this and feel the same way.

The Warning and the Caviat

There are millions of Americans who are totally fed up with the direction Marxist communists are taking this country.  Many of them are military vets and members of groups who consider themselves armed militia.  Please be advised that no matter how angry you are and how justifiable your ambitions may be, it would be foolish to directly confront the active U.S. military commanded by the very political leader you might hope to supplant.  Any armed revolution would be disastrous.  There are alternative methods to restore our republic without committing suicide. One such method is to speak the truth about every aspect of Marxist ideology currently being installed by Obama’s communist agenda, whether he can be directly implicated, or carried out by his political puppets and his activist army.  Patriots must unite behind the cause to save America and the best way I see at this time is to inform them of what is really going on and convince as many people as possible to vote against this Marxist, anti-American regime.  Remember, it was Obama himself who proclaimed at a campaign rally in Columbia, Missouri on October 30th 2008 that, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”  No one asked what he meant, but now it is clear, his “fundamental transformation” was to convert America to communism.

His legacy cannot be allowed to happen.

I am openly calling for every Patriot to speak out, but you must be cautious in what you say and make sure you don’t cross the line into unprotected speech.  To that end, I urge you to be aware of the extremely important Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

Essentially, a Ku Klux Klan leader was convicted of violating an Ohio law that “prohibited public speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct”.  After going through the appeals process, SCOTUS overturned the verdict under the principle that speech was protected as long as it did not call for “immediate unlawful action”.  In the Brandenburg case, there was no proposal for anyone to commit illegal activity.  There was no imminent danger to any individual, public safety or the community at large.  His speech, though it may have been construed as “hateful”, was perfectly legal, and protected under the First Amendment.

For example, though it is protected speech to advocate overthrowing the government, it would be unprotected, and subject to prosecution, if you named a rally point and a time to assemble to forcibly enact a plan to do so.

The Police State

We are in a time when anything you say, can and will be held against you.  Though he was eventually exonerated, Brandenburg was damaged by the prosecution and it took five years for his case to be overturned.  It could be argued that Donald Trump’s “hush money” trial in New York right now is on very shaky legal grounds, but Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg doesn’t care about whether the Supreme Court could overturn his successful conviction in a biased courtroom.  His only objective is to apply maximum damage to the Trump campaign.  Once Trump’s reputation is damaged in the eyes of the voters and the 2024 election is over, it’s too late.

There is yet another reason to avoid such controversy.  And that is the “surveillance state”.  In case you missed it, on the 13th of November 2023, Democrat New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, announced that the state would “ramp up surveillance efforts of social media accounts and that law enforcement will take proactive measures, including contacting people on suspicion of using ‘hate speech’.” [2] 

Hochul offered assurance that New Yorkers could “feel safe” about their personal security due to the state’s social media analysis unit, which has ramped up its monitoring of sites to catch incitement to violence, and direct threats to others.  In other words, everyone should be thankful that the state is watching the entire spectrum of social media platforms looking for speech that some undefined expert analyst may deem threatening, under the guise of “safety”.  As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Perhaps Gov. Hochul should be made aware of the “Brandenburg test” because any person they decide to harass could cite the 1969 Supreme Court decision as a defense and the taxpayers of New York will have funded another pea-brained virtue signal.

So to all you federal agencies (and we know you’re watching) who may catch wind of this, or anyone’s speech deemed “hateful”, or offensive to your undefined “standards”, be advised of the Brandenburg defense.

Again, to remind all Patriots, the “surveillance state” is real and it is fully operational.  Everything you post on Facebook, or tweet on X, is captured and recorded by a fascist regime that will do anything to remain in power.  The proof is ongoing in New York City right now, as a judge who donated to the Democrat Party refuses to recuse himself for obvious conflict of interest, reviews potential jurors from a 90% Democrat district who have been coached to lie on their questionnaires by a former Asst. U.S. Attorney, in a case brought by a D.A. who fabricated felony charges out of misdemeanors that had expired statutes of limitations, and a State Attorney General who promised to “get Trump” as her campaign platform.  In other words, he is being railroaded like the express trains to Auschwitz.  A complete travesty of American justice.

If they decide they want to come after “hate speech” from dissidents, you may have a strong defense in Brandenburg, but it won’t matter after they bankrupt you and destroy your life.  We the People are undoubtedly already on their watch list of “domestic terrorists”.  And the actual fascists call MAGA Republicans a threat to our democracy, while their Propaganda Media Complex trumpets the mantra.

The Cause

Much as it was for the Minute Men of 1775 and all Patriots who rallied to the cause throughout the American Revolution, it has come to the point that we must recognize our way of life is in serious jeopardy.  The enemy is the Democrat Party and all that it stands for.  They must be totally crushed to save our republic.  We watched Donald Trump shock the world in 2016 by defeating Hillary Clinton, the presumptive heir to Obama’s legacy, and how the left denied his legitimacy because they felt they were entitled to rule.

We know they were willing to do anything to regain power, including stealing elections.  There is nothing they won’t do to keep it.

We the People may rest only when their legitimacy is completely destroyed.  We don’t need to see it collapse entirely, but their communist agenda cannot stand.  Until the DNC reforms their Marxist, anti-American platform, they must be critically attacked from every angle, exposed for every unconstitutional maneuver they make, and voted against at every opportunity. 

Speak out. 

Make the silent majority the moral majority.

Stay the course.



[1]  Lexington and Concord: The Shot Heard ‘Round the World ;American Battlefield Trust

[2]  Standing for Freedom Center Staff ; New York Announces it Will Take Citizen Surveillance and Censorship to the Next Level ; November 17, 2023

The Georgia Racketeering Case Against Trump

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

The Basics of Georgia’s Indictment Against Trump

For those who haven’t closely followed the case of The State of Georgia v. Donald J. Trump et al, brought by Fulton County Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis, be advised that a grand jury formally indicted the former President and 18 co-defendants on August 14, 2021, with charges that violate Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, alleging that all of the co-defendants “knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome” of the 2020 election.  Some defendants have also been charged with forty additional counts from other allegations, varying from; plotting to create pro-Trump slates of fake electors, to illegally accessing voting systems in search of fraudulent votes, to Trump himself calling Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensberger, asking him to “find 11,780 votes”, which would have swung the state’s electors in Trump’s favor.  Bear in mind, the text of Trump’s call to Raffensberger was, “What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than (the 11,799-vote margin of defeat) we have, because we won the state.”  [1] 

The statement itself is not proof that Trump was demanding Raffensberger to “find” votes for Trump by hook or by crook.  It could easily be construed as a request for Raffensberger to consider potential fraud.  But as is the norm for the Democrat Party and their Propaganda Media Complex, the context of the statement is omitted to spin a sinister effort by their opposition.  Needless to say, if the political parties were reversed, everything would have been “hunky-dorry” and there wouldn’t even be a case against any Democrat.  But we’re dealing with Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and Orange Man must be vilified at every opportunity.  Trump himself was facing 13 separate counts, three of which have been dropped by Fulton County Superior Court Judge, Scott McAfee.  He now faces ten counts, the RICO charge, four counts of making false statements, two counts of filing false documents, two counts of forgery, and one count of impersonating a public officer.  Among the charges alleged by prosecutors, the Trump team is accused of attempting to coerce the Georgia state legislature to appoint alternate electors for Trump in case pending litigation in Pennsylvania determined that fraud had been discovered in that state.  Such a procedure is perfectly legal and has been employed before in other jurisdictions following other elections, namely in Hawaii, when John F. Kennedy disputed the 1960 election results.  Kennedy prevailed in a recount that was court-ordered after the results were audited twice and certified by Acting Governor James Kealoha.  The third recount was ordered on December 19, 1960, by Judge Ronald B. Jamieson, which was completed by December 28th, showing a Kennedy victory by 115 votes, and Jamieson then ordered the alternate slate of Democratic electors to be validly appointed.  Governor William F. Quinn certified the Democratic slate on January 4, 1961 and the state air-mailed the new certificate to Congress notifying them of the change.  Allegedly, the Georgia “Certificate of Ascertainment” was deemed a false statement because it did not follow language guidelines that specified it as an alternate slate that would only be valid pending external litigation.  Apparently, only Democrats are allowed to question election results.  

Four of the defendants have pled guilty to some of the charges and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.  The other 15 defendants have pled “not guilty” and are currently awaiting the outcome of decisions related to pretrial motions, which have brought the case into the limelight.  

Pretrial Motions

As a prerequisite to any impending trials, Judge McAfee has been dealing with several pretrial motions, to which he set a deadline of December 1, 2023.  Among those:

August 19, 2023 – Mark Meadows, White House Chief of Staff, charged with one count, the RICO count, submitted a motion to have the case dismissed entirely, based on the fact that the President must be provided close, confidential advice and assistance ensconced in federal law for nearly 100 years.  It also argues Meadows is immune under the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment, prohibiting charges that are “unconstitutionally vague”.

September 2023 – District Judge Steve C. Jones denied a motion by five defendants to move the case to federal court in an effort to “widen the jury pool”.  Fulton County is heavily Democratic.

October 5, 2023 – Judge McAfee denies campaign attorney, Sidney Powell’s motion to dismiss charges against her and three co-defendants in a breach of Coffee County voting equipment whereby she sent two operatives to copy data recorded by Dominion Voting systems machines.  The motion argued that there was no attempt to break in to the system because they were authorized by Coffee County and escorted by employees of the independent data forensics firm SullivanStrickler.  McAfee said he had “no authority to do that so close to her trial”.  What?

October 11, 2023 – Powell and Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro, through their lawyers, argued that the alternate Trump electors could not be impersonating public officers because they were indeed public officers themselves under federal law.  Therefore, no conspiracy existed.  McAfee declined to dismiss the charges, saying they were not “defective”.

January 8, 2024 – Trump’s lead lawyer, Steven Sadow, submitted a motion for all criminal charges against him be dismissed due to presidential immunity, arguing that the acts described in the indictment are “at the heart of his official responsibilities as President”.

District Attorney’s Office Takes the Stand

Also on January 8, 2024, Mike Roman’s attorney, filed a motion alleging that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, whom she had hired as a special prosecutor in November 2021, had been conducting a romantic relationship that dated back to 2019, asserting that Willis vacationed with Wade, and thereby profited from his hiring at a lucrative salary, forming a conflict of interest.  This is where the case gets “juicy” and places the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office in serious jeopardy of its own credibility.

On February 15, 2024, Wade was called to testify on his relationship with DA Willis.  The legal team for the defendants questioned him about his alleged affair with Ms. Willis and when it began.  He repeatedly stated there was a romantic relationship but it didn’t begin until sometime in early 2022, after he was hired by Ms. Willis as a special prosecutor.  He was also questioned about a series of vacations the two had taken together in Mexico and the Caribbean, which he claimed were charged on his credit card, but reimbursed by Ms. Willis for her share in cash.  He could not produce any receipts or deposit slips for thousands of dollars spent on these elaborate vacations.

Prior to Wade’s testimony, the defense called Robin Yeartie to the stand, who testified under oath remotely that she was a close friend of Willis’ and had been a co-worker during the time frame when it is alleged that Willis and Wade were dating.  Ms. Yeartie was adamant that she had witnessed the two “hugging and kissing” before Wade was hired in November 2021.

Fulton County Georgia District Attorney, Fani Willis, takes the witness stand to testify of her relationship with Special Prosecutor, Nathan Wade, amid allegations of a conflict of interest and the “appearance of impropriety”.

Thursday, February 15, 2024

When Wade was dismissed from the stand, Willis stormed into the courtroom and told her DA’s office attorneys to put her on the stand.  She put on a performance for the cameras acting defiant and in near contempt of court.  She called the bundled papers detailing the motion requested by the defendants a pack of lies and reminded everyone that she was not on trial, but it was the Trump co-defendants who were on trial.  When questioned by the defense, she basically echoed Wades claims that the relationship had not begun until after Wade was hired and that she had always reimbursed Wade for her share of the vacation expenses, including airfare, with cash that she habitually kept laying around in her house.  When asked about her typical cash holdings, she replied, “on a bad day it might be $1,500, on a good day, it might be $15,000.”  Attorney Ashleigh Merchant probed her for the source of the cash, to which Willis replied she would typically take some extra cash when she was at the grocery store, but she didn’t have any receipts of any transactions, no bank records, and no statements of any kind.  OK, so if we go to the grocery store you frequent and subpoena the video surveillance footage of dates and times you were there to observe your “cash back” transactions, that would prove you’re telling the truth, right?  And if we go to your house right now, you can show us your cash box, right?  In other words, how much credibility would you assign to Willis and Wade?

McAfee Weighs In

On March 1, 2024, the cameras were back on in Judge McAfee’s Fulton County courtroom and he announced he would make a decision on whether to dismiss Fani Willis from the case within two weeks.  True to form, McAfee made his decision on Friday the 15th of March, wherein he ruled that Willis had a choice.  If she wanted to remain on the case and prosecute the co-defendants in Fulton County, she would have to fire Wade.  Wade resigned that afternoon.

On Wednesday the 20th of March, McAfee granted Trump and eight of his co-defendants permission to appeal, issuing a “certificate of immediate review”, which placed the case before the State Court of Appeals.  His ruling allows the State Court 45 days to decide whether to hear the appeal once it is filed.  Defense attorneys have 10 days to file the appeal. [2]

Democrat Lawfare 101

Full disclosure: McAfee contributed to the campaign of Willis and Fulton County I heavily Democratic.  It’s virtually certain that Trump could never get a fair trial in that jurisdiction.  There are other allegations that Willis’ office sent representatives to the White House and met with high ranking administration officials.  The Georgia case is just one of four jurisdictions in which Trump is facing legal challenges, all of them unprecedented.  Never in American history, has a former President been indicted for anything.  Of course no one is above the law, and any former President who breaks the law should be prosecuted, like an ordinary citizen.  But these alleged charges happened while Trump was in office which brings strong immunity claims.  A President must have clear consciousness to make difficult decisions at times and cannot be encumbered by concerns for his own legal jeopardy.  Apparently, Trump’s pleas for immunity have been ignored as well, and all four of the jurisdictions have the appearance of being coordinated by a politicized Justice Department determined to keep Trump from reentering the White House through this years’ election.  It is extraordinary that so many people have been influenced by the Propaganda Media Complex to accept the notion that all of this is normal and justified, when it is in fact, pure fascism to censor and eliminate your political opposition, particularly by any means necessary based on flimsy, or nonexistent evidence.

Almost in unison, you see high-ranking Democrats proclaiming that Trump must go down “to save our democracy”, while it is they who threaten the very soul of America.  Biden likes to shout that Trump would be on a mission of retribution and revenge if he gets elected.  It won’t be a revenge tour.  It will be a justice tour.  We the People can only hope that Trump proves “no one is above the law”, not even Democrats.



[1]  Georgia Election Racketeering Prosecution ; Wikipedia

[2]  Alexander, B., Gile, C., & Gregorian, D. ; Georgia Judge Gives Trump Permission to Appeal Order Keeping DA Fani Willis on Election Interference Case ; NBC News ; March 20, 2024

Biden v. Texas

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

The Immigration Crisis

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past three years, you’re well aware that we have an immigration crisis taking place on our southern border.  On Biden’s first day in office, he reversed former President Trump’s policies that had reduced illegal immigration, sending a signal to the entire world that our border was now wide open for anyone who wanted to wade across the Rio Grande, no strings attached. 

Under Trump, migrants who had been crossing the border, were detained and processed under Title 42, temporarily replacing Title 8.

Title 42 is part of the Public Health Service Act of 1944 and was codified to help prevent the spread of communicable diseases in the U. S. President Trump activated it in March 2020 to combat COVID 19, and it was to remain in effect until it expired on 11 May 2023, during the Biden administration.

On that day, DHS Secy. Alejandro Mayorkas said, “Starting at midnight, people who arrive at our southern border will be subject to our immigration enforcement authorities under Title Eight of the United States Code.”  Right now, he is undergoing impeachment hearings in the House for lying to Congress repeatedly, claiming the border was secure, and failure to enforce Title 8.  There is zero chance he will be removed from office because the Democrat-controlled Senate will save his job, and even if he was, Biden could just nominate another puppet.

Trumps policies also included building the wall, increased border security funding, zero tolerance for migrants caught illegally crossing by returning them to Mexico, ending the diversity visa lottery, banning immigration from 7 predominately Muslim countries that harbored terrorists, restricting family-based immigration, and expediting asylum procedures.  When Biden reversed all that, the cartels started coaching migrants to claim asylum.

Chart 1:  This graph shows how quickly illegal immigrant encounters escalated as soon as Biden took office in January 2021 (the red dots on the graph).  Notice the last month data was available shown here is Nov 2022, and compare that to the numbers shown below for the previous five months.

It is also noteworthy that in April 2020, almost all encounters were of Mexican nationals and by November 2022, there were an estimated 129,090 encounters from “other countries” (62.6% of the total), excluding Mexico (23.5%) and the Northern Triangle (13.9%). [1]   

Chart 2:  Fiscal Years 2021 (beginning Oct 2020) through 2023 plus Q1 of 2024, showing the rapid escalation in illegal immigrant encounters since Biden took office on 20 January 2020 (the red line separates Trump and Biden).

In Biden’s first full month in office, encounters increased 29% and February 2021 was the only month during Biden’s term with fewer than 150,000 encounters, other than June 2023 (144,556). [2]    

You will see below under The New Immigration Bill that the Democrats are proposing 150,000 immigrants per month.

The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) estimates for encounters at the southwest border since August 2023, by month, were 232,963 (Aug), 269,735 (Sep), 240,981(Oct), 242,407 (Nov), 302034 (Dec), the latest figures available.  The Democrats will tell you 150,000 is an improvement, cutting down on illegal crossings.  Similar to how they say gas prices are declining because $4 is cheaper than $5, even though it was $3 before they launched their war on American energy.

And those are just the known immigrants.  There have been another estimated 1.5 to 2 million “got-aways” during the past few years who preferred not to meet immigration officials.  Those are the ones everybody should be concerned about. 

According to Tom Homan, former Acting Director of the U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under President Trump from 30 January 2017 to 29 June 2018, those illegals actually paid more money to the cartels to cross undetected for a reason; they didn’t want to be fingerprinted, they didn’t want to get a notice to appear before an immigration judge, they didn’t want to be profiled.  They are the bad guys who probably have bad intentions.  They are the criminals, the drug mules, the gang members, and the human traffickers.

Those illegals who cross and turn themselves in can get across the river for a cheaper rate than the “got-aways”.

It only took 19 foreign nationals to carry out the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Imagine what 2 million unknowns could do.  One tenth of one percent is 2,000 individuals.

It’s not a question of whether anything bad is going to happen.  It’s only a question of when, and where?

Existing Immigration Laws

Despite the repeated misrepresentations you hear from high-ranking Democrats and their Propaganda Media Complex, who echo the mantra “our immigration system is broken”, as if there is nothing we can do about the influx of illegals, and that they need “comprehensive immigration reform”, the truth is we already have immigration laws.  They simply aren’t being enforced.  That fact alone, raises a whole host of serious questions, as in:

Doesn’t the Constitution mandate in Article II, Section III that the President shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”? 

Isn’t it part of the Presidential Oath of Office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”?

The answer to those two questions is “YES”

Why doesn’t this President enforce existing immigration laws?

There seems to be an agenda behind that policy.  One that encourages illegal immigration for a purpose.  Many suspect that purpose is to import sympathetic voters who will support the Democrat Party, “paying” Democrats back for the generous handouts they have been given. 

In fact, illegal immigrants have been given financial incentives to come here, all paid by the good old American taxpayer.

In case you missed it, Illegals are now receiving emergency Medicaid, free treatment at hospital emergency rooms, school meal programs, and other federal assistance.

After meeting a five year residency requirement, illegals can qualify for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status, which makes them eligible for additional federal programs such as Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance (CHIP), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP, or food stamps), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the last two are essentially guaranteed incomes.

On top of that, many states have programs that pay benefits to illegal immigrants immediately, such as California’s CalFresh Food Assistance Program and their Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI).  Governor Newsom (D-CA) is currently pushing for totally free health insurance for 700,000 illegals.  What would he do if 10,000,000 show up?  Maybe all the illegals should be sent to California.

According to the National Immigration Forum, “documented and undocumented immigrants pay more into public benefit programs than they take out”.  The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy claims undocumented immigrants contribute an estimated $11.74 billion to state and local economies each year. [3]

The date of that two-page paper is 2018, obviously during the Trump administration when immigration was in check.  It’s a much bigger problem now.

Perhaps we should consider a more recent report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) [4], wherein they found that the net cost of illegal immigration for the United States, at the federal, state, and local levels, was at least $150.7 billion.  That’s net cost, as in after being offset by collected taxes.  FAIR calculated that number by subtracting tax revenues ($32 billion) from the gross negative economic impact ($182 billion).  That averages out to an estimated $957 per year for each American taxpayer.  Those numbers are quite different from the above referenced National Immigration Forum of 2018, and the influx of illegals has grown exponentially this past year, making it even worse.

FAIR estimates that there were at least 15.5 million illegal immigrants in the United States at the beginning of 2022.

Actually, the Biden administration is breaking immigration laws every day, thereby violating Article II, Section III and his oath of office.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 is contained in Title 8 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) covering “Aliens and Nationality”.  Below is a partial list of the provisions in Title II of the Act, titled Immigration, as may be amended. [5]

8 U. S. Code § 1181 – Admission of immigrants into the United States

8 U. S. Code § 1157 – Annul admission of refugees and admission of emergency situation refugees

8 U. S. Code § 1158 – Asylum

8 U. S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

8 U. S. Code § 1226 – Apprehension and detention of aliens

8 U. S. Code § 1226a – Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial review

8 U. S. Code § 1227 – Deportable aliens

8 U. S. Code § 1229a – Removal proceedings

8 U. S. Code § 1230 – Records of admission

8 U. S. Code § 1302 – Registration of aliens

8 U. S. Code § 1321 – Prevention of unauthorized landing of aliens

These are just a few of the myriad of provisions in INA 1952, Title II of the Act.  Obviously, I don’t have the time or space to thoroughly cover the definitions of all of these statutes, so I have listed the above in case anyone wishes to click the links and investigate on their own.

There have been subsequent laws passed to supplement and partially alter INA 1952, most notably:

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which abolished the national-origins quota system defined in the 1952 act, and replaced it with a system whereby immigrants could be admitted based on their relationship to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family member or U.S. employer.  The new law provided for a cap of 120,000 on the total number permanent residents who may be admitted from the Western Hemisphere.  That doesn’t mean all immigrants.

The Refugee Act of 1980, which established a new statutory system for processing and admitting refugees from overseas as well as asylum seekers physically present at U.S. borders or in the country.  It further defined “refugee” as any person outside that person’s country of nationality who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or particular opinion.

The illegal immigrants crossing our southern border today have been coached to plead asylum, whether their claim is justified, or not.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 created two legalization programs; one to allow unauthorized aliens who have lived in the U. S. since 1982 to “regularize” their status; the other permits people who have worked at least 90 days in certain agricultural jobs to apply for permanent status.  Under these programs, about 2.7 million immigrants eventually became lawful permanent residents.

The 1990 Immigration Act raised legal admissions to 50% above the pre-IRCA level, mainly concerning employment-based immigrants.  It also terminated the discretion of sentencing judges in granting relief from deportation orders for criminal offenders, i.e., made it harder for criminals to avoid deportation.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) added new crimes to the definition of aggravated felony and established an “expedited removal” procedure for arriving noncitizens who border officials suspect of lacking proper entry documentation, or committing identity fraud.  Another measure to tighten up the system.

The new immigration reforms proposed don’t tighten up the system.  They just codify a way to allow a much larger influx of immigrants and probably hidden somewhere in clauses on “page 6,341” (i.e., buried), defines an easy way for them to become legal permanent residents, with voting rights.

The New Immigration Bill

At this writing, the Senate has crafted a new bill they are touting as immigration reform with some bilateral support from the Republican side of the aisle.  We don’t know what’s in it because it hasn’t been released. 

The first question that comes to mind is why not

Is there something they don’t want the full body of the Senate, or the House, to be able to scrutinize?

Maybe the sponsors don’t want to give the rest of Congress time to digest the full meaning of the bill and all its potential ramifications. 

Maybe they don’t want the political pundits to have time to examine it and publicize its negative impact on American citizens.  In any case, the bill should be released for public review and comment.  The fact that they don’t puts this bill, and every other one that is kept secret until it’s too late, in “shady” territory.

To make matters worse, reportedly it’s linked to additional funding for the Ukraine war.  WHY?

Democrats don’t want to close the border.  They can use it as a political weapon.  That’s right. 

Follow the thinking:

Democrats know the basic elements of the immigration law are not acceptable to the Republican majority in the House.  Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has publicly stated the Senate bill, based on the leaked rough details, is “dead on arrival” in the House.

Their plan is to attach another funding package to Ukraine, knowing it won’t pass the House because of the major objections to the elements in the immigration reforms.

Remember, it’s an election year.  So, actually knowing the bill won’t pass, the Democrats figure they can blame the Republicans for failure to pass immigration reform that essentially guarantees the massive influx of illegal immigrants will continue as it is right now.  And all those illegals, receiving federal and state benefits are highly likely to become Democrat voters.  As a bonus, they can blame the Republicans for not sending “critical” aid to Ukraine.

You’re not supposed to realize that all of this has been caused by the Democrats in the first place, and their Propaganda Media Complex will remind you of that constantly.  You know the border crisis was directly caused by Biden’s policies, right?  And it’s because of his projected weakness that Putin invaded the Ukraine in February 2022.  Under Trump, the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans, and everyone else, was kept in check.

The only “details” we have been made privy to in the immigration reforms are that the daily influx shall not exceed 5,000 immigrants, and that the President will have the authority to shut down the border when it reaches that threshold.

Wait a minute while I do a little math.  5,000 per day equals about 150,000 per month and 1.8 million per year.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, allowed 50,000 immigrants per year.  So this bill proposes 36 times that quota.

The Democrats claim it would never get to 5,000 and would slow down to “only” 4,000 per day.  Biden claims if he gets this deal, he will shut down the border that day.  Do you really believe any of that?  Remember, he also said he never spoke to Hunter about his business.  You are ordered to forget all that testimony from Hunter’s business partners and all those taped phone conversations.  That didn’t happen.  No one f***s with the Bidens.  Not even the law.

So I say, kudos to the Republican leadership in the House and every Representative who is vehemently opposed to this new immigration reform package.  It simply normalizes a massive influx of illegal immigrants from all over the world, most of whom we know absolutely nothing about, what they may have done in their native land, or what they are capable of here.  Not to mention the enormous cost to the American taxpayer and the excessive burdens placed on our infrastructure.  No matter what the Democrats and their media militia say, we don’t need another 1.8 million illegal immigrants coming here to threaten America in many potential ways.

As far as the aid package to Ukraine, bring it up in a stand-alone bill.  In fact, stop attaching unrelated legislation altogether.  Make every piece of legislation a stand-alone bill.  That’s the only way it can be fairly assessed.

Oh, I almost forgot.  How else are these charlatans supposed to piggy-back unpopular, nefarious legislation, onto worthy causes?

Biden Issues Ultimatum as Texas Enforces Their Own Border

On the 18th of December 2023, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas signed into law a bill that authorized state authorities to arrest and detain illegal immigrants anywhere in the state.  It is slated to take effect on 5 March 2024.  In the meantime, Texas has been augmenting and beefing up existing coils of razor wire at the border to deter illegal crossings.  Within hours of Abbott’s signing ceremony, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit to challenge the new law, formally known as SB4, alleging the state is “grasping control over immigration from the federal government and depriving people subject to that system of all the federal rights and due process that Congress provided to them, including the rights to contest removal and seek asylum.” [6]

The White House has responded through spokesperson Angelo Fernandez Hernandez that, “the federal government, not individual states, is charged with determining how and when to remove noncitizens for violating immigration laws.”

Both of those statements are true, however, as Gov. Abbott has clearly stated, the federal government has failed to protect the citizens of not only Texas, but the entire country, by not enforcing existing immigration laws, and has therefore neglected its constitutional duties.

Abbott wrote an apparent open letter, presumably addressing the Executive Branch in general, in which he outlines his position on the border.  You can read the one page letter by clicking the link in FOOTNOTE [7]  

On Monday 22 January 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court issued an order by a 5-4 vote, that federal agents should be granted access to the Shelby State Park near Eagle Pass to cut razor wire installed by Texas’ Department of Public Safety.  That order merely vacated a lower court ruling that barred the federal agents from cutting the wire until the case plays out in court.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court will need to decide whether the federal government is solely responsible for all immigration enforcement or states have the right to defend their own borders.  In the following days, Texas has refused access to the feds.  Biden gave Texas a 24 hour ultimatum to permit CBP agents to begin cutting the razor wire.  That deadline has come and gone and Biden has done nothing.  He’s actually on record as saying, “I’ve done all I can do” in terms of overall border security, and this new bill “would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed.”  

NEWS FLASH:  Hey Joe, you don’t need that authority.  You already have it.  And the border is already overwhelmed.

Put those zingers in the same category as “I never spoke to my son about his business dealings”.  In five minutes he could reinstate the policies Trump put in place to secure the border.  The same policies he reversed on his first day in office.  In my opinion, Biden will never admit that Trump’s policies worked.  Apparently, he has taken the advice of his former boss, Obama.  Just deceive them with lies and run out the clock.  He’s good at that.

Normally, I would say that federal law supersedes state law but this case bears further examination because the federal government is derelict in their obligations to the matter.  Stay tuned.  It could get interesting real soon.



[1]  Gramlich, J. ; Monthly Encounters with Migrants at U.S.-Mexico Border Remain Near Record Highs ; Pew Research Center ; January 13, 2023 

[2]  Southwest Land Border Encounters ;U. S. Customs and Border Protection ; Last modified 26, January 2024

[3]  Fact Sheet: Immigrants and Public Benefits ; National Immigration Forum ; 2018

[4]  The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers ; Federation for American Immigration Reform ; March 8, 2023

[5]  United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ; U. S. Department of Homeland Security ; Immigration and Nationality Act

[6]  Montoya-Galvez, C. ; Texas Immigration Law Known as SB4, Allowing State to Arrest Migrants, signed by Gov. Greg Abbott ; CBS News ; December 19, 2023

[7]  Letter from Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas ; addressed presumably to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government ; January 24, 2024

Colorado Supreme Court Goes Unconstitutional

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

The Colorado Supreme Court Rules Trump Ineligible for Primary Ballot

On Tuesday the 19th of December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court bared former President Donald J. Trump from having his name on the 2024 GOP Primary ballot.  The unprecedented ruling was issued claiming Trump “instigated” violence at the Capitol on January 6th 2021 as lawmakers were meeting to certify the results of the 2020 election. 

The basis for their decision rests in the 14th Amendment,

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office, which states,

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof.  But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.”

The key words are “shall have engaged in”.  To be clear, that implies an inherent conviction in a court of law.  This is not the place for interpretation of whether or not the subject individual may have engaged in insurrection or rebellion.  In American jurisprudence, any Defendant is innocent until proven guilty.  Even Donald Trump. 

This is the procedure you might see in a banana republic, where political opposition is persecuted without recourse.  This can not stand in the United States of America.  Because he has not been convicted, or even charged with insurrection, the Colorado Supreme Court decision is unconstitutional, denies Trump the constitutional right of due process under the 5th Amendment, and violates 52 U.S. Code § 10307, which states under,

a. Failure or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote

“No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote under any provision of Chapters 103 to 107 of this title or is otherwise qualified to vote, or willfully fail or refuse to tabulate, count, and report such person’s vote.”

In other words, the COSC has disenfranchised the public voters by denying them the ability to vote for their person of choice based on an unconstitutional ruling.  They have interfered with the public’s right to choose their preferred candidate by coercion.  If the voters can’t see the name as a candidate, they have been coerced into voting alternatively.

The Origins of the Case

From a Reuters article; [1]

“The case was brought by a group of Colorado voters, aided by the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who argued that Trump should be disqualified for inciting his supporters to attack the Capitol in a failed attempt to obstruct the transfer of presidential power to Biden after the 2020 election.”

CREW’s President said in a statement that the court’s decision “is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country.”

The Reuters article goes on to say that “some advocates had hoped the Colorado case would boost the overall disqualification effort . . .”

Well, it looks like they may get their hopes granted.  There are currently 13 more states considering to ban Trump’s name from their primary ballots; AK, NJ, OR, NM, NV, NY, SC, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV, and WY.  We’re about to find out which of those states are as foolish as Colorado, and it makes me wonder if there is someone coordinating this unconstitutional effort.  Coincidental ?  I don’t believe that for a second.  This is a highly organized campaign.

Nothing says “communism” like the radical left-wing Marxist movement.  And every time I turn around, it looks like yet another scheme coming from an epicenter on Martha’s Vineyard.  He’s got his entire ideological party and his Propaganda Media Complex convinced that Trump must be stopped by ANY means necessary and they know they will get away with anything to do it.  Democrats are above the law, period !  

Isn’t it ironic how Democrats keep lecturing us on “protecting our democracy” when, in fact, they are doing precisely everything they can to destroy it ?

Then they expect you to believe the absolute nonsense they are spewing from their incredibly deceitful and delusional voice boxes.  They are stone cold drunk on “Socialist Kool-Aid”.

Furthermore, there is no charge against Trump for “inciting his supporters to attack the Capitol.”  But hey, you’re not supposed to question their accusations over minor details.  You are being conditioned to believe everything they say.

Just for the record, Trump actually said to his supporters at the January 6th rally, to go “peacefully and patriotically” protest at the Capitol.  That is NOT instigating violence or incitement to riot.  The actual events at the Capitol are highly controversial and could be argued at great length some other time.

What Exactly is it that Leftists Hate About Trump ?

When I say “leftists”, I’m referring to that faction of the Democrat Party that is directing every move they make, and don’t make.  I’m not talking about the old hippies who grew up influenced by the likes of JFK and Jimmy Carter.  Those “traditional liberals” don’t even realize their beloved party has been hijacked by extreme left-wing Marxists Hell-bent on turning America into a communist nation.  The only problem with them is they keep voting to their own detriment with blind loyalty influenced by hard-sell propaganda.

What do they hate the most ?  Was it:

the booming economy ?

the low inflation ?

the low unemployment across all ethnicities ?

the energy independence that weaned us off foreign oil ?

the secure border that kept illegal immigration at a minimum ?

the lack of unending foreign wars ?

the respect on the world stage that kept adversaries at bay ?

Surely, it can’t be any of those realities.  When I asked my liberal wife, she had a hard time coming up with a suitable answer, mainly because she knew I could destroy it in less than 60 seconds, but finally said something like, “I objected to him saying ‘grab her by the pussy’”.  OK, so you don’t like him personally for something he allegedly said 15 years before he ran for office to a golfing partner in a locker room setting.  What a “thoughtful” answer.  And I suspect there are a lot of women who held that against him in 2016 and 2020.  Does that really warrant voting against all those abovementioned accomplishments in lieu of a communist agenda ?

Or, is it something more sinister ?

A lot of political pundits believe the Democrats are terrified that Trump will actually “drain the swamp” by exposing the heinous corruption they have been engaged in for the past several decades.  That is a plausible explanation.  Keep in mind, Democrats like Obama and Biden could easily be found guilty of treason.  It doesn’t take a lot of ink to connect the dots when you realize who is at jeopardy and who is orchestrating everything for their own protection.

Whatever the reason(s) may be, it’s incredible how viciously and vigorously the Democrats and their Propaganda Media Complex have attacked Trump and his family business.  There is literally nothing they won’t do to keep him from winning the 2024 election.  No law will stand in their way.  No constitutional protections will prevent him from being legally persecuted right up to Election Day.  No vote count will allow it.  Which is why I believe with every fiber of my being that they will steal the presidency, again.  They have to because their own lives are at stake.  Every American should be furious that traitors are destroying America.

We the People demand accountability.  The 2024 election is a choice between America and communism.  It’s that simple.



[1]  Goudsward, A. & Queen, J. ; Trump Barred from Colorado Primary Ballot for Role in US Capitol Attack ; Reuters ; Dec 20, 2023

Israel vs. Jihad 

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

Islam: A Brief History

In the aftermath of 9/11, I was too old to join the military, which I would have done before the smoke cleared, so I decided to find out as much as I could about Islamic jihad.  Sun Tzu said “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  If you know yourself, but not the enemy, for every victory gained suffer a defeat.  If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” [1] In other words,, to defeat the enemy, you must know the enemy.

One of the first books I read was Islamic Imperialism by Efraim Karsh.  He gave a detailed history of how the “religion” of Islam was founded and what its primary objective is.

In a nutshell, Islam was founded by the Prophet Muhammad (570 AD – 632 AD) and is based on revelations he received from God while meditating in a cave. They came to him over a period of time beginning in 610 AD.  These revelations resulted in the Qur’an, Islam’s “holy book”, which consists of 114 surahs, or chapters.  It was written a few years after Muhammad died, and the surahs are NOT in chronological order of when/how they were revealed to him.  It’s verses do not necessarily flow from one passage to the next in a typical story and often seem disconnected.  I mention this because the verses quoted here are not to be considered as “out-of-context”, they are pretty much “stand alone” concepts.

In many ways, the Qur’an resembles the Holy Bible, particularly the Old Testament, using similar phrases, preaching obedience and even condoning violence.  I am not a biblical scholar, but I believe the major difference is the Christian Bible preaches that God loves ALL people, whereas the Qur’an demands fealty to Allah, who loves only Muslims and commands them to “fight” all others.  Jews and Christians are specifically called “unjust” and are deemed “non-believers” or “infidels”.

Here are a few verses every Muslim should know:

Qur’an 5:51 – “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your protectors: they are but protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for protection) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.”

Qur’an 2:191 – “And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they first fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”  (“faith” meaning faith in Islam, or refusal to convert)

Qur’an 8:39 – “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; (“everywhere” meaning literally EVERYWHERE ON EARTH).

Muhammad, the so-called prophet, started rambling on in the town square of Mecca in 622 AD.  Most residents thought he was a nut case and paid him no mind.  Seeing that his message wasn’t well received, he took his “act” to Medina with some friends and family members, where he suddenly gathered a following, of about 3,000 Medinans from various tribes and pagan clans.  Then he took his little army of loyal devotees on tour, spending the next 10 years murdering, raping, pillaging, kidnapping, and extorting merchants along the trade routes, on a near daily basis. conducting a “join us or die” campaign, while recruiting their sons and marauding the countryside.  By the time Muhammad died in 632, the “religion” of Islam had grown significantly, and the concept of jihad had been established, which I will explain in a moment.

The reason I placed the term “religion” in quotes is because it is widely accepted that a “true” Prophet must exhibit righteousness AT ALL TIMES.  Considering the behavior that Muhammad himself practiced for 10 years, it’s impossible to call him “righteous”, therefore he must have been a “false” prophet and his early followers were nothing more than criminal gangsters.  It’s hard to imagine them as the founders of a legitimate religion.  I would say it’s more accurate to describe him as a ruthless megalomaniac who brilliantly predicted he could hide his intentions to conquer the entire globe under the guise of religion.  And make no mistake, the primary objective of Islam is to dominate the entire world by literally “slaying” all non-believers.  They’ve been doing exactly that for over 1,400 years, continuously.  There isn’t a single decade in all that time without at least 10 major Islamic attacks, many of them resulting in expanded territory.  It will never stop. When any group conducts war against everyone who refuses to conform to their ideology, all “non believers” are the enemy, and if you are their enemy, they are your enemy.

What is Jihad ?

The method by which Islam spread is known as jihad.  Some call it “holy war”, but it is much misunderstood.  Islamic scholars want you to believe it simply translates to “struggle or strive”, eliciting sympathy from the observer.  They want you to think all the relatively recent terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, and the rest of them, are “radical” factions that give Islam a bad name.  They want you to think that all jihadis are radical extremists wielding swords and AK-47s.  They want you to think there are only 100,000, or fewer, radicals waging jihad.  Nothing could be more deceptive.  Deception, by the way, is a Sun Tzu tactic that Islamists use as a fundamental stratagem.

I studied Islam for 15 years and am quite certain I could have earned a Masters degree in Middle Eastern studies had I pursued one.  It wasn’t until January 2015, that I saw an article published by the Islamic Supreme Council that was titled something like “Jihad: What it is Not” [2].  In their zealousness to rebuke what many perceived jihad to be, they had a section that revealed what it was.  Specifically, they admitted that jihad takes FIVE basic “forms”; by the sword, by the tongue, by the pen, by the hand, and by the heart.

I have likened these “forms” to the formation of a professional sports team. 

By the sword is anyone who actively fights.  Those jihadis waving swords and AK-47s are akin to the players on the team.

By the tongue is anyone who uses his position to promote Islam.  I liken them to the cheerleaders, local announcers, and former players who go on TV to rally the fan base from “pulpits” with microphones.

By the pen is anyone writing about the virtues of Islam, or Islamic scholars, such as the Islamic Supreme Council.  I compare them to the local sportswriters and columnists who cover the team.

By the hand is anyone who actively provides material support, or goods and services, or by offering their time to make sure jihad continues.  These are the coaches, front office, equipment managers, team trainers, etc., all dedicated to the success of the team.

By the heart, by far the largest group, which is anyone who wants jihad to succeed.  These are a pro team’s fans.

Technically, engaging in jihad by any one of those “forms” is a Jihadi, and clearly there are more Jihadis in the world than the Islamic Supreme Council wants you to believe.  In fact, I once did an analysis and spreadsheet to estimate the influence of jihad among the world’s populations.  You might be surprised to hear that there are not a mere 100,000 or so Jihadis, but actually more like 941 MILLION. 

I arrived at that figure by calculating the Muslim populations of every country in the world and assigning a sliding scale of sentiment based on the percentage of Muslim population in comparison to the total populations of each country.  Without getting too complicated, essentially, I categorized the sympathy for jihad into five percentages based on the degree of Muslim influence in each country    and factored in a degree of fear that is likely prevalent in Muslim dominated countries.  Fear being a very real force because in sharia the penalty for apostasy is death.  So, a truly peaceful Muslim must carefully guard his honest opinions of Islamic jihad.  I conservatively estimated that a fairly significant percentage of Muslims in Muslim dominate countries could be apostates.  Conversely, I estimated that a fairly low percentage of Muslims in so-called “free” countries with low Muslim populations were apostatic, meaning most were actual Jihadis by the heart.  Each country had a scaled section of their Muslim populations with a distribution in each category and the end result was 941 million Jihadis world-wide, out of a total Muslim population of 1.6 billion Muslims, or nearly 2/3rds of all Muslims.  For every “radical” extremist waving an AK-47 and firing rockets at “non-believers”, there are over 9,000 “cheerleaders” celebrating their terrorist attack.  Jihadis are not “radical” extremists.  They are orthodox Muslims. 

But what about all those peaceful Muslims, the ones every woke PC idiot praise as the finest people they ever met ?  Surely being the religious folks that they are, must be aware of this verse: Qur’an 4:95 – “Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons.  Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit at home.”

In other words, those “by the sword” Jihadis are first class Muslims; “passive” Jihadis waging the struggle ”by the pen, the tongue, the hand, and the heart” are second class Muslims, and the only Muslims remaining by deduction, those truly peaceful apostate Muslims are LOWER than second class Muslims.  One would think those apostates would denounce Islam if they could.  There’s a good chance the ones you may know who have always acted with civility, are either in denial about how Allah views them, or they are deceptively hiding their jihad “by the heart”.

By the Tongue Barry

The five “forms” revealed by the Islamic Supreme Council also sold me on the notion that Barack HUSSEIN Obama was a Jihadi.  I knew he had to be a Muslim due to the many things he said and the many acts he did to advance the spread of Islam, but I didn’t have the proof I needed to call him a Jihadi.  Now I know he has been waging jihad by the tongue since he came to power.

In fact, one little episode basically proves he is both a Jihadi and a traitor.

On October 19, 2011, 57 Muslim organizations signed a letter that was addressed to John Brennan, then Obama’s Chief Counterterrorism Advisor, complaining that Muslims were unfairly profiled by the FBI and Homeland Security.  At the time, both agencies had a terrorist watch list of sorts and the Department of Defense was sending officers about to be deployed to the Middle East to an approved course taught by Lt. Colonel Matthew Dooley at the Joint Forces Staff College, wherein they were briefed on what to expect when exposed to those very different cultures.  Within 6 months, by the Spring of 2012, the FBI, and Homeland Security were both ordered to scrub their lists of Muslim names and the highly acclaimed Lt. Col. Dooley was ordered to cease and desist conducting his course. 

Philip Haney, the former CBP officer who developed the database for Homeland Security, known as Treasury Enforcement Communications System, or TECS, later testified that several terrorist attacks that occurred on U. S. soil, could have been avoided had the watch lists been maintained [3].  It illustrates an instance whereby Obama, Brennan’s only boss and the only man who held direct authority over the DOD, the DOJ, and Homeland Security, deliberately acted to take the spotlight off known terrorists.  To “aid and comfort” an enemy against the United States is treason, as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 2381.      

The Shameless Media Condemnation of Israel

By now, everyone has been exposed to the non-stop coverage in the news media of the attack by Hamas from Gaza into southern Israel perpetrated on Saturday 7th October.  The attack left over 1,300 dead Israelis, many of them women, children and the elderly.  Reports of beheaded babies quickly came out, and may now be questionable, but babies riddled with bullets is confirmed.  Hamas returned to Gaza City with 203 hostages, including about 20 American citizens.  Israel has vowed to eliminate Hamas and has been shelling Gaza ever since, preparing for a ground offensive.  U. S. warships have gathered in the eastern Mediterranean under a pledge to assist and rearm the Israelis.

On Monday, 16th October, an Islamic Jihad missile misfired from a nearby cemetery and crashed into the parking lot of a hospital.  Hamas immediately blamed hundreds of r on an Israeli airstrike.  The mainstream news media, including CNN, and the New York Times, accepted the Hamas story at face value and ran the narrative that Israel had conducted a brutal response.  The Arab world is inflamed with rock-throwing “protesters” at western embassies, American college students are shouting pro-Palestinian slogans, and U. S. Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) took a bullhorn outside the Capitol to incite a crowd into occupying the Cannon Building at the Capitol complex.  To put it in a nutshell, anti-Semitism has reared its ugly head and is at a fever pitch.

In less than 24 hours, Israel had completed their investigation of the incident and discovered the explosion was the result of an Islamic Jihad missile misfire, which was rather common, by reviewing drone footage and intercepting a radio message between the two Jihadi groups wherein they were discussing the misfire from the cemetery.  But the propaganda message had been effective in projecting anger towards Israel, and tarnished their right to defend their own survival.  To conform to the woke culture, you must now sympathize with the “poor innocent” Palestinian civilians, and condemn those evil Israelis.  You’re supposed to ignore the atrocities committed by Hamas. That is a thoroughly DISGUSTING stance.

In 2006, Hamas “won” election to govern the Gaza Strip, supposedly with about 66% support of the voters, unless of course the election was rigged.  There hasn’t been another vote since.  But assuming the election was free and fair, we can say those “poor innocent” Palestinian civilians voted for what they are living through right now.  They brought it on themselves.  This is where I’ll remind you of the enormous influence of jihad, as I explained above.  Nearly 2 out of every 3 Muslims IS A JIHADI.  Sure, I feel sorry for those apostates who do not support this “holy war”, or did not vote for Hamas, but such are the casualties of war.

This is War

Yes, this is WAR.  This is not a law enforcement operation where Israel is attempting to capture the militants and place them on trial.  This is an all-out fight for survival.  This tiny democracy of about 7 million people is surrounded by Arab nations vowing to wipe them off the face of the Earth.  They are justly entitled to defend themselves by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.  Not only are they trying to eradicate Hamas in Gaza, but as I write this, they are under fire on the northern front by Hezbollah from Lebanon.  28 Israeli communities near the border are being evacuated amid sporadic rocket fire.  This is Iran’s proxy war and Israel has been warned by Iran that an invasion of Gaza will bring them into the conflict.  They are funding it.  They have trained the Jihadis and they have supplied the Jihadis with weaponry.  If Iran enters the fray, Israel will have no choice but to launch a devastating bombardment of Iran, and they will be justified in doing it.

Do I want to see this conflict escalate ?  No, but I’m afraid it’s not going to resolve itself easily.  Let’s hope it doesn’t evolve into an even bigger involvement. 

The Gaza Operation

Israel has been conducting an air campaign in Gaza since the first days after the Hamas attack.  That is Phase One of the operation, to be followed by a ground attack into the city.  Urban warfare is extremely dangerous to the troops clearing the streets, door-to-door and floor-to-floor.  There will be booby traps, mines, and IEDs all over the place.  There will be snipers on upper floors shooting at platoons, abandoning their positions, before being located, and moving to another armed location to shoot more troops.  Such is the nature of close quarters combat. 

How can Israel minimize their own casualties and effectively eradicate Hamas ?

It’s actually easier than the abovementioned ground campaign.  In order to save as many of their own as possible, they should be levelling all buildings in a wide path to the sea to eliminate sniper nests, clear an avenue through the rubble for armored personnel, protect the perimeter, and haul in massive pumps, then flood the tunnel system where Hamas is supposedly harboring with sea water.  Any gas that could be exploded is not advisable.  The resource is right there at the edge of the city.  Unless their 300 mile tunnel system is divided by water-tight bulkheads, water will do the trick.  Those that surface from the manholes, and access shafts should be shot on sight.  The rest will drown in their own filth.  The key is to pulverize the city beforehand in a wide swath, leaving them no good places to lie in ambush.  In other words, decimate the enemy with overwhelming force and extreme prejudice.

I hate to say it, but there can be no concern for 200 hostages.  Many of them are probably dead already, or wish they were, and with my deepest respect for those families, the hard truth is they are expendable in order to protect IDF soldiers.  I cite the Israeli father who said he would rather know his daughter was dead than find out she had been gang raped and tortured. No matter how it plays out, it’s not going to be pretty.

War is HELL.  Expect a lot of casualties by collateral damage.  It’s virtually necessary to send the message, “phuk around and find out”.  Maybe the next militant Islamic jihadi group will think twice before launching such a heinous attack.  Yeah right.  1,400 years and counting.  There will ALWAYS be a next time.  Pray it doesn’t come to your neighborhood.



[1]  Tzu, Sun ; The Art of War ; IXIA Press ; 2019 ; Chapter Three: Attack by Strategem, p. 40 ; an unabridged republication of the edition originally published in 1944 by the Military Service Publishing Company, Harrisburg, PA.  The English translation of the text was made by Lionel Giles, first published in 1910 by Luzac and Co., London.

[2]  Islamic Supreme Council ; Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept From Islam

I cited this website at the time, but you won’t find the original article because a few months after I saw it, the Council had edited out the revealing portion of the five “forms”, then deleted most of the content.  It isn’t available at all now.

This website now has Archives dating back to 1996 but the last month available is April 2011.  They now offer a few paragraphs under the titled referenced in this FOOTNOTE that claim Islam is “more accurately described as establishing the kingdom of heaven on earth”.  Is that non-threatening enough for you ?  Remember, Muhammad himself urged his followers to use deception as a critical tactic.

[3]  Haney, Philip & Moore, Art ; See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad ; WND Books ; 2016

2020 Election Results Don’t Add Up: Addendum

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

FACTUAL Evidence the 2020 Election was Stolen

After posting the article titled above a few days ago, I did a little more research to include third party, or other candidates, who may have skewed the data, and wanted to reinforce the claim of a stolen election by testing the results to account for the “Margin of Error” as published by the U.S. Census Bureau.  The following data takes all of that into consideration.

If you haven’t read the original article I posted on Saturday 31st August 2023, I suggest you read that first and then return here.  You can access the article by clicking THIS LINK.

Focusing on three of the five battleground states for which I listed data in the previous article, it’s evident that numbers published by government sources, presumed reliable, warrant serious scrutiny.

Look at the VOTE TOTALS of these three battleground states:

GEORGIA – 16 Electoral votes

  1. Biden                       2,473,633               
  2. Trump                      2,461,854    4,935,487
  3. Others                                             64,473                                               
  4. TOTAL VOTES                            4,999,960
  5. Biden’s margin of “victory”              11,779
  6. Total Voted                                 4,888 (thousands)
  7. Margin of Error   2.2%
  8. Total Votes – Margin of Error added   4,999 (thousands)

MICHIGAN – 16 Electoral votes

  1. Biden                       2,804,040               
  2. Trump                      2,649,852    5,453,892
  3. Others                                             85,410                                               
  4. TOTAL VOTES                            5,539,302
  5. Biden’s margin of “victory”            154,188
  6. Total Voted                                  4,994 (thousands)
  7. Margin of Error   2.2%
  8. Total Votes – Margin of Error added   5,104 (thousands)

PENNSYLVANIA – 20 Electoral votes

  1. Biden                       3,459,923               
  2. Trump                      3,378,263    6,838,186
  3. Others                                             77,097                                               
  4. TOTAL VOTES                            6,915,283
  5. Biden’s margin of “victory”             81,660
  6. Total Voted                                 6,756 (thousands)
  7. Margin of Error   1.9%
  8. Total Votes – Margin of Error added   6,884 (thousands)

Lines “1” thru “4” are Vote data courtesy of the Federal Election Commission, verifiable at:

These numbers match exactly with vote totals reported by CNN at:

Lines “6” and “7” in each state, columns “I” and “K” respectively, represent data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau in Table 4a, at:

Pardon me if I’m dumbing this down too much, but I want to make sure EVERYone can understand it.

Upon opening the website, scroll down to Table 4a, click the link to download a spreadsheet, and open the spreadsheet to see the results.

To calculate the “Total Votes – Margin of Error added” number(s), represented in Line “8”, simply multiply Line “6” by the Margin of Error (Line “7” – ex. 1.022)

It is easy to see that the “Total Voted” numbers, as reported by the Census Bureau (Line “6”) are significantly LESS than the “TOTAL VOTES” counted (Line “4”) in all three states, and are IN ALL CASES, enough to wipe out Biden’s margin of “victory”.

Even if votes are added by maximizing the Margin of Error in each state, the “Total Votes – Margin of Error added” numbers (Line “8”) are still LESS than the TOTAL VOTES (Line “4”) counted.  Georgia was still over by about 1,000 votes.  Pennsylvania came up with an extra 31,000 votes, and Michigan tabulated an extra 435,000 votes in comparison to the Census Bureau data MAXIMIZED by adding votes.

One caveat that I must mention is that Table 4a includes a statement regarding the Margin of Error that says, “This figure added to or subtracted from the estimate provides the 90-percent confidence interval.”

What are the odds that ALL THREE states were undercounted by the U.S. Census Bureau BEYOND the Margin of Error, “coincidently” vaulting Biden to “victory” by pulling off the hat trick?  These 52 Electoral votes would have swung the election to Trump.  Any combination of two of these states would have allowed Biden to retain “victory”.  He needed a clean sweep of all three to “win”.

It’s not who votes that count, it’s who COUNTS the votes.

Please spread this far and wide.  I need to get this FACTUAL data to Trump’s legal team.  We can assume the FEC “official” count is not subject to revision.  Those are certified results.  The defending lawyers should submit the Census Bureau data as evidence and force the Prosecutors in the Georgia case to PROVE that data is wildly inaccurate.

2020 Election Results Don’t Add Up

Thomas Paine: American Philosopher, & Revolutionary

From 1776 through the formation of The Constitution I helped create America. Now I have returned to help save America. American Patriots must join together, speak out in free and open discussion to fight the “woke” anti-American mob, and further the cause of FREEDOM.

The Deniers Claim it’s “Trump’s Big Lie”

Have you ever wondered how the mainstream media (MSM, i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, et al) quickly determined that there was NO VOTER FRAUD during the 2020 presidential election and immediately labelled all claims as “Trump’s Big Lie” ?

Remember, during the transition period between Election Day, November 3rd, and January 6th, when the electors were certified by Congress, Trump’s team alleged there were over 1,000 INDEPENDENT witnesses who signed sworn Affidavits under penalty of perjury, that they saw various polling station “irregularities” in at least six battleground states.  Texas filed a suit on behalf of those six states that made its way to he Supreme Court, and the Court announced that the case had “no basis” on December 11th 2020.  No basis ?  They wouldn’t even hear the case.

So We the People are supposed to believe the word of the DNC, proven liars, and ignore the testimony of 1,000 INDEPENDENT affiants.  How can they say there is “no evidence” of widespread voter fraud, when they don’t even listen to the witnesses, or investigate it at all ?

Meanwhile, the corrupt DOJ has been “investigating” Hunter Biden for over 5 years, while squashing attempts to release information, and denying the existence of the infamous “laptop from Hell” in the runup to the election, all to protect Quid Pro Joe Biden’s campaign.  The FBI had possession of the laptop nearly a year BEFORE the election.  They KNEW it existed.  They KNEW it was real, and they KNEW what was on it.  And something like 20% of Democrat voters when polled, said they would NOT have voted for Biden had they known about that laptop.  Can you spell “election interference” ?

The Mueller investigation into Trump’s phony Russian connections took over 2 years.  The Horowitz Report that exposed the depth of DNC corruption from Hillary Clinton’s manufactured Russian hoax, and the FBI’s targeting of Trump under their Crossfire Hurricane investigation, took 2 years to complete, and his “bombshell” findings have been ignored.  But all of Trump’s voter fraud claims were dismissed and debunked in a few days before ANY investigation could be launched.  The difference, is that the DNC and the media had to “run out the clock” in short order, to secure their power by January 6th.  Those other probes would be beneficial to the Democrats as long as they could delay the release of any information under the guise of “ongoing investigations”.

We still haven’t found out what really happened in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona, all five battleground states that “coincidently”, all flipped for the Democrats.

Why haven’t some of those 1,000 Affiants stepped forward and told their stories ?  Are they all too afraid to speak up ?  I recently heard of a case in my hometown that was filed by a Democrat election official claiming his reputation had been defamed by a poll watcher who said he witnessed the plaintiff manipulating machines at a storage facility.  The case was thrown out, in the poll watchers favor, but nothing more was said about the circumstances, and no details were provided, other than that which I have anecdotally described above.  Typical media reaction, sweep it under the rug.  Perhaps he was just one of 1,000 similar stories. 

Liars Can Figure But Figures Don’t Lie  

Let’s look at the numbers.  There were 168,300,000 registered voters in the 2020 presidential election, as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau.  [1]

Reuters posted this article in an effort to debunk online claims by Trump supporters that there were only 133 million registered voters, and if Trump garnered 74 million, there wouldn’t be enough votes left for Biden. 

There were 158,429,631 ballots counted for President in 2020; Biden “tallied” 81,283,501 votes, while the incumbent President, Trump, received 74,223,975 votes.  Third party and independent candidates accounted for the remaining votes, less than 1% of the total. 

OK, so the total vote count WAS less than 168 million, and everything looks “kosher”, right ?  Hold on. 

They “fact checked” the 133 million figure, eager to discredit the social media claims, and then posted the article, presumably under full approval from their editors, without realizing they were promoting the idea that over 94% of registered voters “turned out” and actually voted.  What ???  Wait a minute.  Is that plausible ? 

Straight from the very source that Reuters cited in their aforementioned article on the number of registered voters, the U.S. Census Bureau, put out a Press Release in April 2021, more than 2 years before the Reuters article, wherein they stated that, “The 2020 presidential election had the highest voter turnout of the 21st century, with 66.8% of citizens 18 years and older voting in the election, according to new voting and registration tables released today . . . “.  [2]

In order to fully understand these statistics, we have to dig a little deeper.  “In 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau counted 331.4 million people living in the United States; more than three-quarters (77.9%) or 258.3 million were adults, 18 years or older . . . “.  [3]

Of those 258.3 million adults, the Census Bureau estimates that 168.3 million, or 65.1% of them were registered voters.

In contrast, there were 158.6 million registered voters in 2016.  Hillary Clinton garnered 65,853,625 votes, winning the popular vote, but was defeated in the all-important Electoral College 306-232, by Donald Trump, who collected 62,985,106 votes.  That’s a total vote count between those two candidates of 128,838,731, or approximately 81.2% of the registered voters.  Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, got 3.3% of the vote.

In 2012, there were 153.2 million registered voters.  Incumbent Barack Obama was re-elected, collecting 65,915,795 votes, while his opponent, Mitt Romney, secured 60,933,504 votes, totaling 126,849,299 votes between those two candidates, about 82.8% of the registered voters.  Others received 1.7% of the vote.

In 2008, there were 146.3 million registered voters.  Obama was elected to his first term amid a huge wave of Democratic optimism, collecting 69,498,516 votes, while his opponent, John McCain, secured 59,948,323 votes, totaling 129,446,839 votes, or 88.4% of the registered voters.  Others received 1.4% of the vote.

And now we’re supposed to accept, without question, the notion that a candidate who hid in his basement during the entire campaign season, and drew a few dozen supporters to his limited appearances, collected 81 million votes, 16 million more than Hillary Clinton four years earlier.  And the enthusiasm for him was much greater than Obama ever generated.  Okaaaaaaayyy.

Historically, the 65% to 66% turnout of the entire eligible population is in line, and while it may be possible that media-inspired hatred of President Trump drew voters out from the shadows, increasing the voter turnout from traditionally low 80’s percentages, and 88% in the energetic campaign of 2008, to over 94% participation seems less than plausible.  

That’s a pretty high “batting average”.  I’m skeptical that 94 out of every 100 registered voters did their civic duty and actually voted, even with mail-in ballots and extended opportunities.  It’s not a stretch to assume there were millions of citizens who registered the last time they were at the DMV and simply apathetic when the time came to go through the motions of actually voting. 

Looking at it another way, the voter rolls increased by just 9.7 million voters from 2016 (158.6 million) to 2020 (168.3 million), and Trump got MORE than 11 million additional votes than he did in 2016.  So where did all those Biden votes come from ?  It’s reasonable to challenge the count when the Republican incumbent collected 11 million more votes, and the Democrat candidate claims to have won an additional 16 million votes than his party’s previous candidate, with less than 10 million additional voters.  That’s nearly three times the increase in registration.  I’m pretty sure you can’t squeeze 27 million more votes out of 10 million more voters.

The Battleground States

The five battleground states that Trump won in 2016 and flipped to Biden in 2020 were; Arizona (AZ), Georgia (GA), Michigan (MI), Pennsylvania (PA), and Wisconsin (WI).

Let’s look at these interesting numbers: Vote data courtesy of CNN [4]

STATE         %age            VOTES         MARGIN          REGIST[5]    VOTED [5]

                                                                                  In thousands     in thousands

AZ      11 Electors              3.333,829                           3,878            3,649

          Biden  49.4              1,672,143      10,457         

          Trump 49                 1,661,686

GA     16 Electors              4,935,487                           5,233            4,888

          Biden  49.5              2,473,633      11,779         

          Trump 49.2              2,461,854

MI      16 Electors              5,453,892                           5,513            4,994

          Biden  50.6              2,804,040      154,188       

          Trump 47.8              2,649,852

PA      20 Electors              6,838,186                           7,337            6,756

          Biden  50                 3,459,923      81,660         

          Trump 48.8              3,378,263

WI      10 Electors              3,241,050                           3,391            3,253

          Biden  49.4              1,630,866      20,682         

          Trump 48.8              1,610,184

[5]  Download Table 4a from the referenced government website to see the results of every state

Notice anything peculiar about the vote totals in GA, MI, and PA (in bold red text) ?

According to official U.S. Census Bureau data, the total number of votes cast in those states is LESS than the combined total vote for the two major candidates.  How could that be ?

Not only that, but the difference in “extra” votes above the Census Bureau totals, exceeds the margin of victory in ALL THREE STATES, which represent 52 electoral votes.  And some of those total votes in the last column were certainly cast for other candidates.

Next time you hear some fraud denier ridicule “Trump’s Big Lie”, ask them how to explain the FACT that there were more combined votes for Biden and Trump than the total votes cast in Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  And don’t forget to mention that those “extra” votes were MORE than the margin of “victory” in all three states.

NOBODY is going to convince me the 2020 election wasn’t stolen, PERIOD !

Comments welcomed.

See my follow up article “

See my follow up article “2020 Election Results Don’t Add Up: Addendum


[1]  Reuters Fact Check ; Reuters ; Fact Check-‘133 million reistered voters’ argument for 2020 election recirculates ; May 9, 2023

[2]  United States Census Bureau ; 2020 Presidential Election Voting and Registration Tables Now Available ; Press Release Number CB21-TPS.49 ; April 29, 2021

[3]  Ogunwole, S., Rabe, M., Roberts, A., and Caplan, Z. ; United States Census Bureau ; U.S. Adult Population Grew Faster Than Nation’s Total Population From 2010 to 2020 ; August 12, 2021,from%20234.6%20million%20in%202010.

[4]  CNN ; Presidential Results

[5]  United States Census Bureau ; Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2020 ; Press Release Number P20 Tables ; April 2021