Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court

On Wednesday 1 April 2026 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the case brought by President Donald J. Trump challenging the citizenship clause of the 14^th Amendment on the grounds that the liberal left has misinterpreted the full meaning of the text and relies on historical “exceptions” that are arguably too narrow, a position reinforced by a later SCOTUS decision that created the concept of “birthright citizenship”.  These so-called “exceptions” are not defined or included anywhere in the 14^th Amendment.  They were debated by Congress during discussions that formed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The exceptions are a very narrow trio of carve-outs for children of foreign diplomats, children born to enemy forces during a hostile occupation, and members of Native American tribes.  That’s it.  There couldn’t possibly be any other classifications of people that would expand the list of exceptions.  That’s the stance of the defense, as cited in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark below.

At the time, Native American tribes were not paying taxes and out of respect they were granted autonomous quasi-sovereignty to govern their own affairs.  That has since been changed and obviously Native Americans are U.S. citizens. 

At the crux of the argument is the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, a conditional and crucial part of Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment, that raises questions of domicile and allegiance.

Trump’s case was presented by U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who led off the 2+ hour hearing with an opening statement, followed by questions from the Justices.  It got “into the weeds” pretty quickly with a lot of discussion over the definition of “domicile” and how it relates to the legal residency of the class of people under review for their acceptance as American citizens, that is “illegal immigrants”, a class that did not exist, nor could be foreseen in 1868.  As General Sauer explained, domicility requires legal status and intent to remain.  Illegal immigrants do not meet the standard to be considered “domiciled”, as by definition, they are not present in the United States legally.

Proponents of the “birthright citizenship” defendants were represented by ACLU Attorney Cecillia Wang.  Keep in mind, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a non-profit civil rights organization founded in 1920 that projects a righteous existence but is now, in fact, a collection of far-left activists who sit by the phone ready to pounce on every complaint the Democrat Party wishes to air.

Following the segment presented by General Sauer, Ms. Wang was granted the opportunity to present her arguments and take questions from the Justices.  Their defense of the principle of “birthright citizenship” is based entirely on a flawed 128-year old Supreme Court decision and an egregious misinterpretation of the 14^th Amendment.  In order to accept their position, they expect you to conveniently disregard the conditional portion of Section 1 and consider only the first part of the sentence.  Reasonable minds operate on clarity.  Deception artists rely on selective half-truths.   

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

Solicitor General Sauer mentioned a key clause in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the first piece of legislation to address the issue of citizenship, granting citizenship and civil rights to slaves freed by the Civil War.  Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois introduced the bill on 5 January 1866, it was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson and Congress overrode his veto on 9 April 1866.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 provided the blueprint for the 14^th Amendment.

The Congressional Record contains debate on the language of the bill and how it should be interpreted, essentially clarifying the intent of the 39^th Congress (1865-1867) when they codified the final draft.  It was during those debates that discussion of the clause “not subject to any foreign power” was raised for the purpose of excluding the right to citizenship for certain classes of people.

Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; . . . “ 

In those debates, Trumbull, then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, repeatedly defined the phrase “not subject to any foreign power” as not owing allegiance to any other country in the context that there is a definite distinction between the concept of “territorial allegiance” and “complete allegiance”.

Territorial allegiance simply means that all persons are obligated to obey local laws of whatever territory they may be presently located within.  That territory holds territorial jurisdiction over the conduct of all persons within its boundaries, but does not necessarily hold complete jurisdiction over all persons. Complete allegiance refers to ones’ political affiliation, or the sovereignty to which that person owes his fealty, regardless of where that person may presently exist.  That is the critical distinction. 

In the Congressional Record, Trumbull explicitly addressed the cases of tourists, and temporary residents, in addition to children of foreign diplomats in that the United States had no right to confer citizenship to those who were subject to the political allegiance of their parents. [1] 

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted to grant citizenship and civil rights to slaves freed by the Civil War.  It was never intended to grant citizenship to every baby whose mother from anywhere in the World happened to give birth on U.S. soil.  Citizenship requires the complete, full permanent allegiance to the United States.

We will see below that the Supreme Court somehow disregarded those classes of people in an even narrower set of exceptions when they wrote their opinions in Wong Kim Ark.

The 14^th Amendment

At the core of President Trump’s argument against birthright citizenship is the actual language of the citizenship clause of the 14^th Amendment [2]

The 14^th Amendment was proposed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, as part of the Reconstruction Amendments following the Civil War, ensuring citizenship and civil rights protections for formerly enslaved people and extending due process and equal protection guarantees to the states.

(Constitution.gov, National Archives)

The pertinent part in this case reads:

Section 1

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

To be accentuated, is the conditional language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, a close facsimile to the phrase “not subject to any foreign power” in Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (see above).

What does that mean?

First we must acknowledge what it doesn’t mean.  It doesn’t simply refer to all persons who are obliged to obey the law.  Obviously, all persons are expected to obey the laws of the territory upon which they are occupying.  The conditional clause would be unnecessary and redundant if that were the only consideration.  So obviously, it must mean something more than that.  It’s really not that complicated, when you understand the principle of “complete jurisdiction”.

It is not just a regulatory reference, which is territorial jurisdiction.  It refers to the additional condition so eloquently described by Trumbull in the Congressional Record debates for the Civil Rights Act, known as “complete jurisdiction”, in that any person, wherever they may located, either temporarily or with intent to establish domicile, is subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereignty to which they owe their allegiance.

Not to confuse anyone, but my previous reference to “territorial allegiance” and the term “territorial jurisdiction” here is nearly synonymous, but allegiance is possessed by the person and jurisdiction is the legal authority of the territory. 

In the instance that a legal immigrant comes to the United States with intent to live here permanently, an applicant must be at least 18 years of age, possess good moral character, and be a legal permanent resident for a minimum waiting period of 5 years before he/she can be legally naturalized, at which time they must renounce their allegiance to any other sovereignty in order to become a legally domiciled American citizen. 

For example, a French national visiting the United States retains her implied allegiance to France.  She is obliged to obey the laws but not suddenly subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States upon setting foot on American territory.  Nor should her child born on American soil automatically become a citizen of the United States.  How is that any different than the exclusive exception carved out for diplomats?  It’s an absurd argument to insist it only applies to diplomats.

Justice Jackson offered a hypothetical example that pertained to a street crime on foreign soil, as if territorial jurisdiction was the only consideration.

The 14^th Amendment does not specifically describe the carve-outs, but it was expressly passed to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that did establish those classes of people who should be excluded from the right to citizenship, including, but not necessarily limited to, the children of foreign diplomats, occupying forces, tourists, temporary residents, or foreign sojourners, and Native American Indians.  We now know that consideration of illegal immigrants, whether temporary, or not, is absurd.

For the record, on 8 Jun 1866, the Senate passed Joint Resolution H.J. Res 127 proposing the 14^th Amendment with a vote of 33-11, surpassing the required 2/3rds majority.  On 13 Jun 1866, the House agreed to Senate changes to the bill and passed the 14^th Amendment by a vote of 120-32.

Not a single Democrat in either chamber voted for the Amendment.

It was ratified by the required number of states (28 of 37) on 9 Jul 1868 and officially certified on 28 Jul 1868 as part of the Constitution.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (SCOTUS, 1898)

The pillar of the argument for birthright citizenship by the entire liberal camp and their Propaganda Media Complex in their resistance to “everything Trump” is the 1898 Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark [3]

It is the landmark case that established the principle of jus soli, and created the notion of “birthright citizenship” relative to the citizenship clause of the 14^th Amendment.

The Kim Ark case presented to the Court was of a man born in San Francisco in 1873, to Chinese nationals who were not employed in any diplomatic capacity under the Emperor of China.  Both parties in the case agreed that his parents were “permanent domiciled residents” of the U.S., that they decided to return to China in 1890, that Kim Ark went with them temporarily and returned to California in July 1890, was admitted by the Collector of Customs on the sole ground that he was a “native-born citizen”, that a subsequent visit to China in 1894 and return in August 1895 resulted in denial of admittance based on the determination by the Collector of Customs that he was not a citizen of the United States.

I’m guessing that the determination upon his first return from China as a “native-born citizen” carried a lot of weight in the SCOTUS decision. 

In contrast, the core principle of the term “natural born citizen” which is a qualification to hold the office of President or Vice President, and should arguably be expanded to include all members of Congress.  It was nice to hear Justice Coney Barrett mention Vattel in her questioning, which goes to the concept of citizenship, in that we must acknowledge English Common Law, which  established the basis for much of our Constitution.

Emmerich de Vattel (1714-1767), was a Swiss-born philosopher, diplomat, and juror, most famous for his 1758 book, The Law of Nations that best describes the concept of “natural born citizen”.  Vattel, at the time, was considering the circumstances under which children born on foreign soil to diplomats were to be classified in terms of citizenship.  His conclusion was that any person, regardless of place of birth, should automatically become a natural born citizen of the sovereignty to which his/her father owes his allegiance.  The mother was inconsequential as women had very few rights at that time. 

Advocates of the left-wing interpretation of the 14^th Amendment’s “birthright citizenship” clause directly contradicts Vattel’s explanation of natural born citizen.

When the framers wrote Section 1 of Article II into the Constitution, they were well aware of Vattel’s interpretation.  According to Benjamin Franklin, every member of the Constitutional Convention had a copy of The Law of Nations.

Vattel brought to light the concept of allegiance, or loyalty to the sovereign responsible for the protection of its citizenry.  That allegiance does not flow to any other sovereignty while within foreign territory.

By the way, the natural born citizen requirement should have disqualified Obama from the presidency because his father was a Kenyan national, subject of Great Britain, and never a U.S. citizen, but that’s another story.

Found within the Kim Ark decision, is this quote:

“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual . . . “ [4] 

Cecillia Wang, the ACLU Attorney who presented oral arguments against Trump’s case, claimed that the 39^th Congress (1865-1867) specifically carved out foreign diplomats and occupying forces as the only two narrow exceptions, as cited below, to the citizenship clause, as if she, or any “expert” she may have consulted, could possibly be tuned in to the wavelength of 1860s legislators who would have no idea of 21^st century classes of people that may warrant exceptions.

There were no “illegal immigrants” in 1866.  What about temporary sojourners, foreign students, temporary Visas?  The 39^th Congress could not have foreseen every potential exclusion.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year (1869), reviewing the whole matter, said:

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.” [5]

Indians not taxed, as written in Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, were the only other class of people acknowledged in Kim Ark.  Apparently, Counsel for the plaintiff selectively deleted the other classes of people specifically mentioned by Sen. Trumbull in the Congressional Record, namely “tourists, and temporary residents”, or foreign sojourners, that would certainly include the classification of illegal immigrants.

Wang pointedly stated that Congress intended to structure the language of the 14^th Amendment to prevent any alterations by any future Congress, a clear misrepresentation.

Indeed, Section 5 of the 14^th Amendment addresses the possibility in stating:

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Hence the reason for Section 5, which she ignored.

If her claim was valid, how does she explain the limitation of voting rights strictly to males over the age of 21 years, as described in Section 2?  Clearly, the 14^th Amendment has been altered, and it can be altered again to clarify language, though I don’t think it’s necessary.  It just needs to be understood.  The trouble is, leftists have a hard time understanding anything logical.  It’s like nailing Jello to a tree.  

And yet, Kim Ark is the hill they cling to because anti-American leftists need as many foreign nationals, with no allegiance to the United States, to vote for the Democrats who appease them with free stuff, and place them into positions of permanent rule.  Then we’ll see who the real Kings are.      

The Fate of American Political Power is in Limbo

It is noteworthy that SCOTUS was willing to hear the case and it’s widely agreed that the current makeup of the Supreme Court is decidedly conservative, typically a 6-3 majority over liberal Justices.  However, this case is asking the Court to overrule another SCOTUS decision that has been in effect for 128 years and there seems to be a reluctance to override such a long-standing principle, regardless of the logical and prudent necessity to do so.

When it is recognized that an old ruling was unjust, shouldn’t it be corrected rather than allow the injustice to continue just because it has been around for a long time?

Obviously, the 40^th Congress wasn’t thorough enough in drafting the 14^th Amendment, but they did allow for the possibility of altering the Amendment by Section 5.

Clearly, the Supreme Court erred in judgment in Kim Ark, but it’s not the first time they have made a wrong decision and this Court doesn’t have to ignore the error to avoid disparaging the earlier Justices.

This case is extremely important as the future of American governance hangs in the balance.  Everybody knows the motive of the Democrat Party is to establish permanent power by legalizing illegal immigration and building a super-majority voting block.  That’s the plan and they’ll do anything to effect it.

If there is to be any opposition at all to permanent Democrat power, America needs at least one viable alternative voice.  Right now, the only other option is the Republican Party, though I suggest a strong third party would be nice.

It has been reported that in 2006, 45% of Americans polled were in favor of birthright citizenship, and now that has increased to 69%.  That shows you how effective the Propaganda Media Complex has been in brainwashing the ill-informed useful idiots.  Alternatively, 80% of Americans polled favor the Iran war, but Democrats are against that – selective outrage.

But neither SCOTUS, nor any court, is beholden to polls.  Laws are not subject to popular approval.  Judges are supposed to uphold the law and make reasonable and fair decisions.  The only fair decision in Trump v. Barbara is to declare birthright citizenship invalid and reverse Kim Ark.  That is the only way to restore and maintain political balance in America.  It is expected that the Court will deliberate and write their opinions, then declare a decision sometime in June.

Comments welcomed.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Congressional Globe, 39^th Congress ; 1^st Session 572 ; February 1, 1866

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-globe/page-headings/39th-congress/n-a/50088

[2] Constitution Annotated ; 14^th Amendment text

U.S. Constitution – Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

[3] Justia U.S. Supreme Court ; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) ; Decided March 28, 1898

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | 169 U.S. 649 (1898) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

[4] ibid, ; Page 169 U.S. 655

Excerpt from a previous article I wrote on Natural Born Citizen:

William Blackstone, the famed English jurist, who wrote in “Commentaries on the Law of England, 1765, [a] The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.

Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king;

and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.

The full article is a good read and gives thoughtful insight on the subject, but for the sake of brevity, I will feature the following key points:

  Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local;

the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.

  For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another,

put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other;

and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance,

may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters;

and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince.

  Every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.

  To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth

in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England:

  But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects,

are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;

These points are important in that they tie one’s allegiance/loyalty to the King/nation within which he was “naturally” born, AND his loyalty travels with him wherever he may go.

It is very difficult to abandon one’s loyalty to his King/nation.

It was recognized that the King’s ambassadors living abroad would raise families and to clarify any misconceptions, it was determined that all children born abroad would be classified as

“natural born citizens” provided BOTH parents were subjects of the King at the time of birth.

Then, it was later refined to require only the FATHER had to be “natural born” for the child born abroad to be a “natural born subject”.

From this we can classify a child born of parents from differing nations, would be a “natural born” subject/citizen of the nation from which his FATHER was a “natural born” subject/citizen.

[a] Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Law of England, Vol. 1, p. 354 (Oxford, The Clarendon Press 1765)

[5] ibid, ; Page 169 U.S. 657

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Unless you just got back from Jupiter 5 minutes ago, you’ve heard of the savage execution of Charlie Kirk, the 31 year old founder and Director of Turning Point USA, at his public appearance on the campus of Utah Valley University on Wednesday the 10^th of September.  He was the popular conservative voice who was changing young minds by inviting liberals to present their views, before countering with facts and logic.  Leftist Liberals hate it when they are proven wrong and Charlie’s alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, wrote a pre-meditated note that claimed he was going to “take Charlie out” because he hated what Charlie stood for.

Robinson was captured by video surveillance strolling on campus a few hours before the 12:23 PM (MDT) shooting wearing a maroon tee shirt, then had changed to a black shirt before accessing the roof from stairwells to his sniper’s position.  He was then videoed jumping off the rear of the building and hustling away with his backpack and Mauser 30.06 rifle wrapped in a blanket.  Police recovered his rifle in a wooded area nearby and were able to collect DNA evidence from the edge of the building and his weapon.  There is no doubt as to the identity of the killer.  Recent reports have uncovered text messages to his trans love interest wherein he admits committing the assassination and wrote, “I had enough of his hatred.”  These messages have yet to be verified. 

The outpouring of mourners and vigils held in his honor has been extensive.

This Is the Turning Point

Many conservatives have been echoing the sentiment that this is the turning point in relations between deeply divided political discourse and the constant rhetoric spewed by high profile Democrats and their Propaganda Media Complex, otherwise known as the mainstream media. 

While authorities have yet to announce Robinson’s motive, messages inscribed on the bullet casings found at the scene refer to anti-fascism, and his roommate allegedly has stated he/she hates conservatives and Christians. 

When you continually call your opponent Hitler, as many Democrats have, those among your followers begin to believe you and feel justified in killing the pseudo-Hitler and anyone associated with him.  In a recent poll it was found that 48% of respondents who identified as “left of center”, believe killing Elon Musk would be justifiable, while 55% feel the same about President Trump. [2]         

In a survey taken from 1,264 respondents, who were asked to classify their political ideology, “left of center” included those who chose “Far Left, “Liberal”, and “Slightly Liberal”.  Certainly, the percentages are much higher among the “Far Left”.

There is no bipartisan cooperation possible with the Democrat Party. They are clearly driven by Marxist ideology.  They clearly hate everything about conservative political thought.  They clearly hate President Trump and all of his supporters, MAGA Movement advocates and Republican voters alike.  There is no reconciliation, only resistance.  Everything and anything that threatens their power, must be burnt down, torn down, eradicated, and destroyed “by any means necessary”.  There is literally nothing they wouldn’t do to regain power.   

America itself, our nearly 250 year old republic, must be shamed as a systemic racist country and replaced by a society under “democratic socialism” that strives to achieve diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), while taxing the rich (Haves”) and redistributing their wealth to the “Have Nots”.  The Propaganda Media Complex, in the exclusive control of left-wing ideologues, trumpets their agenda in an all-out effort to persuade the populace that they are the compassionate ones.  Nothing could be more disingenuous or misleading.  They don’t give a rat’s ass about people.  They just need votes to restore their power.  That’s why they invited as many millions of illegal immigrants across the border as they could usher in.  Pander to them, give them free stuff, and register them to vote.  All under the advice of Obama, to complete his “fundamental transformation” of America.  He knew it would be difficult to deport them, and even has members of his activist army, “Organizing for Action” appointed as District Judges, in place to block all attempts.

There is no such thing as “democratic socialism”.  Google will offer you a flowery description, but in the real world, there is only capitalism, socialism, and communism.  And socialism is merely a temporary layover on the way to communism.

What Options Do Patriots Have Now ?

I deliberately laid off this essay for days, waiting to see if my outrage would dissipate.  The story needed to simmer down a bit before I was able to think clearly, and in appropriate response.  At first, I was infuriated, as many of you can relate, and felt that an actual civil war was needed to crush the leftist anti-Americans.  As if they would just line up across the battlefield armed with clubs and spray paint, ready to be slaughtered like the sheep that they are.  But we must acknowledge that as a pipe dream.  They are cowards and would never consider any armed conflict with an enemy that literally owns millions of guns.  It’s virtually impossible to draw them out as they operate a guerilla campaign, attacking at random, striking anywhere at any time to instill fear, in acts of domestic terrorism.  Law enforcement is left to investigate their carnage and innocent victims continue to suffer the consequences.  This is an unacceptable existence and should not be tolerated moving forward.

Another approach would be to propose a Two-State Solution.  More than two years ago, in disgust of the Democrat Party, I published my thoughts on such a proposal, under the disclaimer that I was not advocating for the splitting of the union.  It is simply an idea that has been proposed in other parts of the world from time to time.  At this point, I’m not sure it’s practical but I believe most of the proposal I outline in The Two-State Solution (click on link) deserves further consideration and could be worked out with agreeable terms.  After all, what self-respecting leftist wouldn’t want to live in their little utopian society, form whatever government they prefer, and be taken care of by the state?  They could be packing their bags as we speak.  In that respect, it’s a win-win for both sides.  They could give up their eternal struggle to change America and we could banish them into exile, permanently surrendering their American citizenship.   

Perhaps recent developments have changed the perspective, but certain concerns still linger, specifically, the risk of foreign military buildup on our shores and how to protect our heartland when surrounded by a hostile nation on both coasts.  If you’ve read the above referenced essay, you know the proposal divides the United States by cutting off most of the northeast and all of the west coast. 

This new nation we would be creating by ceding territory might begin on friendly terms, but we can’t ignore the fact that fundamentally, we hate each other.  There is no guarantee that any sovereign nation would remain an ally indefinitely.  We could stipulate that any military presence would be dealt with severely and we have the capability to monitor and mitigate any incursion, but it probably wouldn’t go over well on the world stage if we simply annihilated the threat.    

What other means could be implemented to alleviate this unsustainable division?

Maybe they have already given us the “ammunition” we need to force the dissolution of the Democrat Party, strip them of all their power, expel them from Congress and leave them crying about it.  They have shown their true colors and revealed themselves as far-left Marxists dedicated to destroying America.  It’s rather obvious that they march in lock-step and are whole heartedly committed to enforcing communist rule.  What steps would be required to declare the Democrat Party as a Communist Party?  They certainly wouldn’t vanish into thin air and would reconstitute, but whatever new party they decided to rename themselves, it could be legislated that no political party would be permissible that promoted a communist platform.

Of these three potential solutions, while the first two may seem the most satisfying, the third is the most practical.

Comments welcomed.

FOOTNOTES

[1]  Charges filed against Tyler Robinsonin the state of Utah

[2]  Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) ; Assassination Culture: How burning Teslas and Killing Billionaires Became a Meme Aesthetic for Political Violence ; December 2024

NCRI Assassination Culture Brief

The Rise of Zohran Mamdani

Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year old New York State Assemblyman from the 36^th District of Queens, is all the rage these days.  The Propaganda Media Complex are collectively gushing over his prospects to become the next Mayor of New York City just like they did when Barack Obama hit the national stage.  In case you missed it, he won the nomination of the Democrat Party primary in June 2025, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo and nine other candidates. [1]

He ran on the platform of city-owned grocery stores, rent control, “free” public transportation, a $30 minimum wage, and tax increases on corporations and anyone earning over $1,000,000, all extremely radical socialist ideals.  Technically, he’s a member of the Democratic Party and represents the Democratic Socialists of America, which caught the eye of Bernie Sanders, AOC and other far left cheerleaders, but in reality, he’s a full-blown communist.  Democratic Socialists believe in collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, advocating the redistribution of wealth to achieve economic equality, and workers’ self-management.  Can you imagine the employees in any industry “managing themselves”?  Can you spell “U-N-P-R-O-D-U-C-T-I-V-E” ?  Their delusional utopia assumes that dutiful workers will keep their collective noses to the grindstone because the state will make sure they have a guaranteed minimum wage, and that all those generous millionaires will be more than happy to “pay their fair share” for the support of the masses who essentially contribute nothing.  I’m not sure I can fathom anything more absurd. 

Contrast that with communism, which is a short jump from socialism, whereby the means of production, as defined by Marx himself, is controlled by the state, like “city-owned grocery stores” and free public transportation under a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls the economy, right down to the elimination of private property. Mamdani estimated that the free buses would cost the city $650 million per year, but “no problem”, the millionaires can pick up that tab.  And he has publicly stated that he is in favor of taking over New York’s real estate for conversion to public housing.  That’s Communism 101. 

An excerpt from my blog post of 17 December 2021

The Socialist Agenda of Alinsky and Obama: Part 2

Dr. Paul Kengor, Professor of Political Science at Grove City College, says that the definition of totalitarianism is to “seek to fundamentally transform – specifically, to fundamentally transform human nature via some form of political-ideological-cultural upheaval.”

SIDEBAR: As you may recall, Obama said, “We are five days away from the fundamental transformation of the United States” at a campaign rally in Columbia, Missouri on October 30^th 2008.   

From Obama’s beginnings as a community organizer in Chicago, picking up where Alinsky left off, his modus operandi has been to divide and conquer along racial and ethnic lines, by socio-economic status, relentlessly pushing for the redistribution of wealth from the “Haves” to the “Have Nots”, by vilifying, ridiculing, and condemnation of all political opposition, by attacking traditional institutions, such as law and order, criminal justice, social values, the military,  and the Constitution itself.

More than 3-1/2 years later and we are still seeing all the signs of Obama’s MO, from the race baiting, to the cries for taxing the rich, to the verbal thrashing of all Republicans and Trump supporters (with no logical reason, btw), to actual physical assaults on ICE agents, and most recently, to open defiance of federal law in “sanctuary” jurisdictions.  It’s “almost” like Obama himself was encouraging them to ignore the law under the advice that they needn’t worry about it.

The Democrats, in complete solidarity, all march to the beat of anarchical rebellion disguised as legitimate political debate.  They use their propaganda arm, the mainstream media, to regurgitate their insane policy positions and stand in front of cameras acting as if they hold the moral high ground.  The useful idiots, or low-information voters, gobble up every scrap of disinformation spewed by the Propaganda Media Complex like cheese crumbs left around a sprung mouse trap, hungry for more garbage.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism

Many are confused as to the differences between socialism and communism and how they relate to capitalism.

Capitalism is the economic system that has offered opportunity to more people than any other system and made America the most prosperous nation in history.  It essentially is based on “free market” competition of goods and services produced under private ownership by companies and proprietors operating for profit.  Private ownership creates an incentive for any business to succeed and grow.  There is no pure “laissez-faire”, or totally “free market” capitalism in existence today among civilized nations.  Most systems operate with various degrees of state intervention and regulation, but the basic system has made many enterprises and their owners wealthy.

In the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, as the platform of the Communist League, they describe Socialism as “a middle-class movement, Communism a working-class movement.  Socialism was, on the continent at least, ‘respectable’; Communism was the very opposite,  And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that ‘the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself’”. [2]         

At that time, socialism in Europe took the form of social and economic reforms brought about by the Industrial Revolution.  Advocates claimed socialism would eliminate the inequalities experienced by the working class, but fell short of the Marxist worldview that capitalism needed to be eradicated by revolution of the working class.

From the Oxford Dictionary, socialism is defined as “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”  Pure socialists believe that every member of the society “should be able to jointly use, share, and receive the benefits from both the natural resources and the goods and services that are collectively produced.” [3]  Back in the old hippie days of the 60s and early 70s, the commune was a somewhat popular idea where people could live in a small community that was, at least partially, self-sufficient through growing their own food and exchanging services on a barter system.  It was a kind of virtue signal that the elders, or leaders, had passed “Sosh 101” and considered themselves intellectuals because they heard about Marx and Che Guevara and could organize their little socialist utopia. 

Marx and Engels decided they could only title the book “Communist” based on the fundamental proposition that “in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land and common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes, that the history of these class struggles form a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class – the proletariat – cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class – the bourgeoisie – without at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions, and class struggles.” [4] 

Communism was the system best suited to achieve equality among the masses, reassuring them that they would all be treated equally.  Pay no attention to the opulence of their rulers who made sure the system was not threatened.  The exact dynamics at work in today’s Democrat Party brought to you by none other than Barack Obama.  Obama always operated with a “divide and conquer” strategy.  Create “class struggles” and conquer the social consciousness using the Propaganda Media Complex as his personal militia.  The class warfare was from Marx.  The conquering phase came from Muhammad and his Islamic imperialistic ambitions to rule the world.  The most useful tool in his arsenal of coercive social engineering was class warfare, gleaned directly from Marx and under the advice of the Father of Community Organizing, Saul Alinsky.  Cultivate the perception of a “ruling class”, the bourgeoisie, the “millionaires and billionaires” who exploit the “working class”, the proletariat, the oppressed.  As Alinsky said, it’s the “Haves” and the “Have Nots”.  Communists, and Socialists, are out to level the playing field through income redistribution.  Never mind the inconvenient truth that those “millionaires and billionaires” tend to be the driving force behind a prosperous economy, employing millions of workers, many of whom earn a comfortable living.  Contrary to the vision you are supposed to believe, it is not a simple distinction between industry titans and slaves toiling under horrible conditions for subsistence.   I’ll leave the theory of “trickle down” economics for another time, and simply say that leftist liberals claim it doesn’t work, even mock it, but how could it not work?  The notion that rich people keep all their money and the rest of society exists in abject poverty, never seeing a rich man’s dollar, is absurd.  In every society, Marx argues the bourgeoisie must be attacked, the conditions that fortify the continuance of oppression and exploitation, must be dismantled, and the minority populations must be encouraged to support the social revolution their anarchist leaders have fomented.  Damn if that doesn’t sound familiar!  Look at today’s “blue” cities, governed by Democrats for decades.  Every election cycle, they hop onto soap boxes across the country and pontificate about how they are fighting for the “working class” and the disadvantaged.  All the useful idiot, low-information voters re-elect them and 50 years later, they’re still poor and disadvantaged.  The “Have Nots” are still “Have Nots” while their elected “representatives” enrich themselves through graft and corruption.

We’ve Seen This Movie Before, and It’s a Horror Show

Mamdani will be old enough when the 2028 general election rolls around, and at least partially qualified to run for President of the United States.  The Constitution limits qualification to the minimum age of 35 years, a natural born citizen [5], and 14 years a resident within the United States (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5)   Mamdani was born in Uganda to parents of Indian descent.  His mother is a Punjabi Hindu and his father is a Gujarati Muslim who grew up primarily in Uganda.  Mamdani identified as Asian and African American on his college application, naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2018 and is now a dual citizen of the United States and Uganda. [6]   So, technically, he is not, nor ever will be, a natural born citizen, and therefore automatically disqualified from becoming President of the United States.  Of course that was the requirement Obama failed to meet in 2008, and nobody stopped him.  Obama is a natural born citizen of Kenya because his father owed his allegiance to Kenya, much like Mamdani owes his allegiance to Uganda.  We can now clearly see that Obama does not honor any allegiance to the United States.  He’s been trying to destroy America for the past 17 years and the damage could take 50 years, or more, to restore.  We the People don’t need to endure another huge mistake like that again. 

Comments welcomed.

FOOTNOTES

[1]  Wikipedia ; Zohran Mamdani

Zohran Mamdani – Wikipedia

[2]  Marx, K. & Engels F. ; The Communist Manifesto ;English Translation,International Publishers Co., Inc. , New York ;© 1948 ; p. 6

[3]  Chen, E. & Dorsey, J. ; Understanding . . . Socialism in the U.S. ; February 15, 2022

Studio ATAO | Understanding Socialism in the U.S.

[4]  Marx, K. & Engels F. ; The Communist Manifesto ;English Translation,International Publishers Co., Inc. , New York ;© 1948 ; p. 6

[5]  Natelson, Rob ; What Does the Constitution Mean by Natural Born Citizen? ; Independence Institute.org ; December 4, 2023

What Does the Constitution Mean by “Natural Born Citizen?” – Independence Institute

This guy does a pretty good job of sorting through the “smoke and mirrors” and describing the meaning of the term as the Founders intended, BUT, he has failed to mention a very specific concept that more thoroughly defines the term, about which the Founders were certainly convinced should eliminate the possibility of dual loyalty.  When drafting the Constitution, the Framers were well versed in English Common Law and the concepts put forth by the likes of the famed British Parliamentarian, William Blackstone (1723-1780), but I’m referring specifically to the works of the Swiss Philosopher and legal writer, Emer de Vattel (1714-1767), who published The Law of Nations in 1758, and wrote that:

“[§212] The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist, and perpetuate itself, but by the children of citizens; those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . . The country of the fathers is then that of the children; and these become true citizens, merely by their tacit consent. . . . I say, that in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a stranger, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.“

Sourced from:  Ramsey, Michael D. ; The Original Meaning of “Natural Born” ;

Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repository ; Vattel and the Civil Law Tradition ; pp. 224-225

The Original Meaning of “Natural Born”

Natelson claims that Obama was a natural born citizen because his Kenyan father was in the U.S. legally and therefore in “temporary allegiance”, whatever nonsense that means.  The fact is, his father was a Kenyan subject citizen of the U.K. who owed his allegiance to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, permanently.  Therefore, Obama was, and will always be a natural born citizen of the U.K. because that is who his father owed his allegiance to.  It doesn’t matter who his mother is or where he was born.

[6]  Ryan, B., Fandos, N. & Rubinstein, D. ; New York Times ; July 3, 2025

The Bunker Buster That Destroyed Obama’s Legacy

On Friday the 18^th of July 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence (DNI), released previously classified documents that implicate former President Barack Obama and his high-level Intelligence Community (IC) officials in fabricating a knowingly false Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that completely contradicted pre-election assessments by the IC that Russia is “probably not trying to influence the election by using cyber means”, and on  December 7, 2016, then DNI James Clapper stated, “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. Presidential election outcome.”  The Presidential Daily Briefing of December 8^th confirmed the assessment that the Russians had no effect on the election.  The very next day, on December 9, 2016, President Obama convened members of his top National Security Council, including Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and others, to discuss their strategy concerning Russia.  After that meeting, James Clapper’s Executive Assistant sent an email to IC principals tasking them to create a new IC assessment “per the President’s request”.    

Administration officials then began a campaign to leak false allegations to their Propaganda Media Complex outlets, such as the Washington Post, that claimed Russia had interfered in the election through cyber means to influence the outcome of Trump’s victory.  And on January 6, 2017, the newly fabricated IC Assessment, generated by the ODNI, was released that attempted to legitimize their phony claims. [1]

Gabbard is on the record as stating that there is overwhelming evidence that proves Obama himself was the mastermind of this scheme to subvert the will of the American people by undermining the legitimacy of a duly elected President.

As we all know, President Trump subsequently endured the nearly two-year, taxpayer funded Mueller investigation, two bogus Congressional impeachments, and endless attacks by the corrupted media that painted him as a “Russian asset”.

Trey Gowdy, former Republican Congressman from South Carolina and Chairman of the House Oversight Committee from June 2017 to January 2019, has stated that the Committee knew all these facts years ago but they were handcuffed because the documents were classified.  It’s incredible that Trump, or someone on his behalf did not step in to set the record straight during his first term.  Cast some disappointment on Congressional Republicans if you must, but at this point we should be hailing Tulsi Gabbard as a true American hero, who has staked her reputation, and perhaps is in great peril, to expose the perpetrators of this despicable conspiracy. 

There is considerable sentiment across the country that nothing will ever be done about it.  Why?  Because Democrats are widely believed to be “above the law”, and for good reason.

The day of reckoning may be upon us, or at least “on the horizon”.  There’s a new sheriff in town, and he’s determined to restore law and order.  If America is to be a nation of laws, the rule of law must be equally enforced and fairly applied.  Trump is not on a “revenge” tour.  He’s on a justice tour.  We can’t have anarchists openly rioting and looting in the streets without consequence.  Nor can we allow Governors and Mayors to flaunt federal immigration laws, claiming “sanctuary” status, or corrupt politicians to fleece government aid funds for their own personal wealth, or concoct phony allegations against their political opponents in an effort to sabotage his presidency.  The President actually takes an oath that he “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and that’s exactly what he intends to do.

Maybe this time, the Democrat co-conspirators will face the justice they deserve and our system will be brought more into balance.  I know this all sounds overly optimistic to many of you but the degree of egregiousness is so heinous, it must be prosecuted.  We the people demand justice!

We understand that this case against Obama and his high-level IC officials will take time to build but the evidence, as Gabbard pointed out, is “overwhelming” and irrefutable.  There are only 114 pages of documents in the initial release.  It couldn’t take that long to review and analyze 114 pages.  The next phase is applying the facts to underlying crimes.  I thought of a few potential charges that seem to be appropriate, as follows:        

The Charges

Many of you have seen numerous memes on the internet by now, calling for Obama to be charged with treason.  Tulsi Gabbard and Trump himself, have both labelled his crime as a “treasonous conspiracy”.  Technically, I don’t believe a treason charge is applicable because the statute requires that “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason . . .” [2]  Russiagate, as it’s being termed, was not perpetrated in wartime, and Russia is not a legally declared enemy.  For that matter, Obama doesn’t even owe his allegiance to the United States because he’s not a natural born citizen, but that’s another discussion. 

Neither do I believe he is legally liable under the provisions of sedition, because the letter of the law regarding sedition requires “two or more persons . . . conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government . . . or to oppose by force the authority thereof . . .”, in one of several ways that all pertain to forceful means. [3]

Russiagate was a coup d’ètat designed to usurp power from a duly elected President and rule the country through resistance to anything Trump tried to enact.  Obama and his co-conspirators intended to weaponize the vast resources of the federal bureaucracy and sabotage Trump’s every move.  The mysterious “deep state” was by then firmly entrenched and populated by Obama’s 30,000+ member activist army of communistic ideologues.  When you hear the term “drain the swamp”, it’s in reference to the “deep state”.

So . . . , if not treason or sedition, what can Obama and his co-conspirators actually be charged with?  That is the question confronting the Department of Justice (DOJ) Strike Force right now.  Here are a few that could be considered:

18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally

Russiagate co-conspirators, John Brennan and James Clapper lied to Congress in sworn testimony.  The case could be made that they made “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements” per section (a) (2) of the statute.  Other co-conspirators may be at jeopardy of perjury as well.

18 U.S. Code § 1002 – Possession of false papers to defraud United States

This statute deals with possession of any false document with intent to defraud.  The fabricated ICA, known to be false, seems to fit like a glove.

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

Ironically, it might be appropriate to charge them with the same statute under which they prosecuted Trump after the 2020 election.

Did Obama and his co-conspirators “offend” or “defraud” the United States?  Knowingly concocting a scheme to undermine the presidency seems pretty “offensive” to me, and they certainly defrauded the American people with baseless lawfare, impeachments, etc.  The only potential problem I see with this charge is the 5-year statute of limitations.  However, there is the principle of “systemic conspiracy”, wherein the plotters have broader goals than a single event conspiracy, such as an assassination.  In a systemic conspiracy, the treasonous scheme may involve intentions to secure control over the country.  BINGO!  That’s exactly what the Russiagate scandal was all about; delegitimatizing Trump and administering Obama’s agenda by fraud.  So, the conspiracy was continuous and ongoing throughout Trump’s first term, which ended on January 20, 2021.  That’s less than 5 years before Gabbard’s criminal referral to the DOJ.   

18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations and bankruptcy

This statute, properly applied, should have imprisoned Hillary for (wait for it), 660,000 years.  That’s 20 years per offense for destroying 33,000 emails and was the bulk of her 1,024,132 year sentence.

Obama ordered the alteration and falsification of the ICA and the Democrats used it to persecute their political opposition, including the entire first term of Trump’s presidency.

I’m sure there are other related charges that might come into play, but that’s a good start.

My Intelligent Assessment

It was expected that Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State during Obama’s first term and head of State during the Benghazi attack, would succeed Obama as our 45^th President.  All the polls favored her and the media was gushing at the prospect of the first female President.  All that remained was the formality of Election Day 2016 and her coronation in January.

As it turned out, Trump gummed up the works with a stunning victory and the only title bestowed upon Hillary was the Queen of Corruption.  Obama must have been just as furious as she was.  How dare such a despicable person have the audacity to interrupt Obama’s communist agenda, disguised as the “fundamental transformation” of America.  He had to be stopped “by any means necessary”.

It actually began before the reaction of December meetings, during election season 2016, when the Clinton campaign concocted the Russia Collusion hoax in an attempt to smear Trump in the eyes of the populace. 

As you may recall, the Clinton campaign funneled over $1,000,000 to the legal firm Perkins Coie, who then enlisted the services of the opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, with the task of digging up dirt on Trump, and Fusion facilitated the infamous Steele Dossier, written by discredited FBI informant Christopher Steele.  The dossier was a 35-page unfinished report based on unverified “raw intelligence” that contained salacious accusations against Trump and coordination between his campaign and the Russian government. 

On July 31, 2016, the FBI, then directed by James Comey, launched the secret “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation, accepting those unsubstantiated, unverified allegations from the Steele dossier.

Then in October 2016 FBI officials lied to the FISA Court without revealing the Clinton funded source, to obtain several warrants to spy on Trump campaign officials just weeks before Election Day.  Comey himself had to sign off on those requests.

The Mueller Report, headed by Special Prosecutor and former FBI Director Robert Mueller, released in March 2019, to the tune of about 40 million taxpayer dollars, inferred but could not prove any conspiracy to collude with Russia, and ended up charging 34 individuals and 3 companies with various financial crimes and lying to investigators.  Mueller likely kicked off his March 2017 “investigation” by assuming the ODNI Report of January 2017, published on January 6, 2017 and concocted under Clapper’s new directive, was “solid evidence” that the Russian government was “working to get Mr. Trump elected”, sought to “cultivate people in Trump’s orbit”, and his campaign officials had “secretive contacts with Russian officials and agents”. [4]

We now know all of it to be complete garbage, stemming directly from Barack Obama himself in the final weeks of his presidency.  He had picked Hillary Clinton to administer his third term and expected eight more years to finalize his communist agenda.  There was literally nothing he wouldn’t do to delegitimize the incoming President.  He ordered his own intelligence officials to smear Trump using Clinton’s groundwork, despite the previous contradictory assessments, in an effort to undermine his presidency, and subvert the will of the voters by usurping his power through a bloodless coup d’ėtat.  Though it didn’t rise to the level of treason by the letter of our law, it was a “treasonous conspiracy” that would have prompted Henry VIII to place heads on spikes.   

He does not have plausible deniability.  The documents not only prove his involvement, they also prove he directed the contradictory assessment. 

He does not have absolute immunity, contrary to what some analysts are now saying.  The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States, decided July 1, 2024 by a 6-3 vote, that former Presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for “official acts they took while in office”.  Such immunity is granted to Presidents to protect him from exercising his “core powers”. [5]  It could be argued that knowingly concocting false allegations against a President-Elect during the transition period in an effort to undermine his presidency and subvert the will of the electorate is not a “core power”, nor could it be construed as an “official act”.

This political scandal, now widely termed as “Russiagate”, is the most egregious criminal act ever perpetrated by an American President, originated by his intended successor, but supported and implemented at his direction.  It cannot be overlooked.  It cannot be forgotten.  It cannot be swept under the rug.  It cannot be forgiven.  It must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The American people deserve to know the truth and We the People demand justice.  We don’t need Congressional hearings and be subjected to weak excuses and indignant denials from Democrats.  These co-conspirators can have their hearings in a court of law.  We expect justice to be swift and harsh.  We expect them to be tried and convicted of their crimes.  We expect them to be sentenced to the maximum penalties according to the parameters set forth by those charges applied.  Anything less will be unacceptable for they have committed the most heinous political treachery imaginable.

It started with Hillary, whose campaign funded the Steele dossier, then Obama “went to bat” for her by directing the reversal of a series of intelligence reports.

I once did a spreadsheet outlining the potential crimes for which Hillary could have been charged by the DOJ and their respective sentences, related to her email scandal and private server, as examined by Fox News legal analyst, Gregg Jarrett.  Most of those crimes involved destruction and concealment of government property in the form of official documents.  Astonishingly, the composite sentence came up at over 1,000,000 years, as I mentioned briefly above. I’m sure she could have negotiated a plea bargain and with time off for good behavior, she probably could have been out in 20 thousand years.  Obama’s “Russiagate” scandal is worse than that.   

Politics is a filthy game.  Smear campaigns and “opposition research” is customary political strategy, but Russiagate has taken it below the depths of decency.

Remember, it wasn’t long ago that Democrats were claiming the high moral ground.  Obama’s own wife was lauded when she said, “When they (Republicans) go low, we go high”.  Her husband has single-handedly destroyed the Democrat Party’s integrity.  They will never recover from the stain he planted on their toxic brand.  Sure, they will put up all the resistance they can muster and try to regroup with the help of their Propaganda Media Complex, acting as if they still hold moral superiority, but it’s as phony as they are.  They try to convince the voting public that Trump is an authoritarian, a tyrant, Hitler personified, and  Republicans are fascists, when in fact, they are radical leftist Marxist, anti-American communists themselves, employing their own fascist tactics.  My advice to them would be to collapse the party and rebrand under a platform more appealing to Americans.

We, as Patriots, must continue to speak out and be the voices of reason.  We are in an ideological war that we must win.  The time is NOW.  This scandal is your sign, your opportunity to drive the proverbial stake of righteousness through the “vampire’s heart” that is the Democrat Party.  Hold your sword high!  Victory is at hand.

Comments welcomed.

FOOTNOTES

[1]  Press Release ; New Evidence of Obama Administration Conspiracy to Subvert President Trump’s 2016 Victory and Presidency ; Office of the Director of National Intelligence ; July 18, 2025

New Evidence of Obama Administration Conspiracy to Subvert President Trump’s 2016 Victory and Presidency

[2]  18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason ; Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

[3]  18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy ; Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

[4]  Wikipedia ; Steele Dossier

Steele dossier – Wikipedia

[5]  Read the Full Supreme Court Decision on Trump and Presidential Immunity ; PBS News ; July 1, 2024

Read the full Supreme Court decision on Trump and presidential immunity | PBS News

Democrats Have Launched Stage One of Their Massive Insurrection

It’s here.  It’s happening right now.  The highest levels of the Democrat Party have unofficially rolled out the next-level of their “resistance” campaign.  It broke out in Los Angeles over the weekend of June 6^th.  This is their version of the J6 insurrection, except this one is real.  

Unless you just got back from Uranus, you’ve been seeing reports of the massive “mostly peaceful protest” in Los Angeles, California, where thousands of protesters have been blocking roads and freeways, many of them committing increasingly dangerous acts of violence, such as throwing projectiles at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, shattering windows of police vehicles from overpasses, and setting vehicles on fire, all in objection to ICE efforts to remove violent criminal illegal aliens from the streets of Los Angeles and make the communities in which many of these protesters reside safer.  The very notion of enforcing existing immigration laws to make America safe again rubs radical leftist Marxist communists the wrong way.  They don’t want to deport the illegal immigrants they spent four years encouraging to come here illegally.  They need as many Democrat voters as they can import.  It’s common knowledge that if you offer free benefits to third world nationals, and fight for their right to vote, they will support you when they get the chance.  Their immigration policy is no secret.  It’s the best way they know to regain power and retain it permanently.  And permanent power assures the success of Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America into a communist nation.  This little Los Angeles insurrection is just the beginning of a nation-wide campaign to create chaos and anarchy.  It could be a long summer of violence in many major U.S. cities, and perhaps elsewhere.  There are plausible expectations that Saturday the 14^th of June, will be a day of widespread violence, sponsored by funding from  various organizations and perpetrated by paid agitators/insurrectionists. 

Left-wing groups involved in organizing the L.A. riots include; CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights for Los Angeles), the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), and the PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation), a Marxist organization funded by expat businessman Neville Roy Singham who now lives in Shanghai and has ties to the CCP.

CHIRLA, a 501(c) (3), received nearly $34 million in government grants in fiscal 2023, mainly from California , with several hundred thousand in U.S. taxpayer dollars sprinkled in, and over $500,000 from the Tides Foundation.  The Tides Foundation is a key pass-through organization for the Open Society Foundations (OSF), founded and funded by George Soros.  From 2016 through 2023, OSF awarded the Tides network of organizations more than $72 million. [1]

There may be no direct proof that Soros is funding these “protests”, but It’s not a complicated web.  I found out about the CHIRLA, Tides Foundation, OSF link in about 5 minutes.  CHIRLA also provides legal services to help illegal immigrants, including convicted criminals, avoid deportation, and OSF contributes directly with organizations known as the Immigrant Defense Project and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. [2]  There seems to be a cry for a forensic audit of the Open Society Foundations, and a wiretap on the phone communications of George Soros and his son, Alex, who supposedly has taken over the helm.

SEIU receives most of its revenue from the dues of its 2 million members but they spend a lot of it backing radical causes.  Their California President, David Huerta, was arrested “for obstructing ICE agents in a brazen act of deviance that fueled the chaos”, according to CBS News. [3]

The PSL has ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), through Neville Singham, the 71 year old social activist, who promotes pro-Chinese government propaganda [4], and apparently injects an element of potential foreign influence into the destabilization of the United States government.

At this point, the Los Angeles Police Commissioner has publicly stated his department was overwhelmed by the crowds but they were not going to assist ICE in their deportation operations.  Trump has deployed 2,000 California National Guard to help and there are 700 urban-warfare trained Marines from Camp Pendleton on ready alert.  Trump has not officially invoked the Insurrection Act, but he is on record as saying it is possible.  California Governor, Gavin Newsome, has publicly stated that these riots are Trump’s fault because he “commandeered our National Guard illegally and for no reason”, and has dared Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations ICE, Tom Homan, to arrest him.

News Flash: The President of the United States has every right to call up the National Guard under the Insurrection Act, and he has a constitutional duty under Article II, to “see that the laws are faithfully executed”.  Newsome is either a total idiot, or he is grandstanding on thin ice to curry political favor.  All the prominent Democrat politicians are supporting the violent criminal illegal aliens that ICE is attempting to deport.  For some reason, these morons think they can provide safe haven for their beloved illegal aliens by declaring their cities as sanctuaries.  The truth is, there is no such thing as safety zones for criminals.  Not only are they delusional, but they expect their useful idiot voters to believe them and their Propaganda Media Complex. 

I’ll remind Newsome and CHIRLA, that it is a federal felony, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years, per 8 U.S. Code § 1324 for,

• Any person who –

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

Shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

• A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs –

(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A) (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

That’s a 5 year prison term for EACH alien concealed, harbored, or shielded from detection.  Wouldn’t it be nice if the DOJ actually indicted some of these Democrats?  I’m under the assumption that We the People demand justice !

An image of the “mostly peaceful protest” in Los Angeles

The Blueprint

On 28 October 2024, Lee Smith published an essay titled, Is the Left Preparing  for War if Trump Wins?.  It can be read in its entirety HERE and I would strongly suggest everyone do so, then return to finish this article.

Essentially, Smith dug into the game plan that was formulated by the Democrat Party that actually appeared in four separate publications.  His exposė revealed that a woman named Rosa Brooks, an Obama high level appointee (keep that in mind ) to the Pentagon, drafted various scenarios in 2020 that were war-gamed in cooperation with the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), anticipating a potential  Trump victory in the 2020 election.  The probability of a Trump victory at that time, was considered remote, but they weren’t concerned about wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars any more then, than they are now, so according to The Guardian, they played out a scenario whereby Trump would refuse to concede defeat to Joe Biden, claim widespread election fraud, and unleash his “army” of supporters.  Coincidently, some of that happened and enabled the Democrats to portray the J6 attack on the U.S. Capitol as an insurrection, whether staged by Democrat operatives, or not.  How convenient.  The viable suspicion is that the instigated “insurrection” could be utilized as a counteroffensive to ward off accusations of mail-in vote fraud, which was summarily dismissed by courts across the land, as if they colluded to do so, all while being derided and protected by the Propaganda Media Complex.  No one has ever proven that massive ballot fraud did not generate 81 million votes for Biden.  It seems virtually impossible for a candidate who hunkered down in his basement during the entire campaign season.

Brooks had established her credentials with the highest-level Democrats and they sought her insight for the 2024 election cycle, so she teamed up with “journalist” (I use the term lightly) Barton Gellman “to run a series of wargames under the auspices of the Democracy Futures Project (DFP)”.  They released a media presentation of their results and published four articles that same day, 30 July 2024 [5], in which all of the scenarios assumed a Trump victory.  That’s when the “blueprint” was formulated.

More than three months before the election, the Democrat Party had developed their plan to “resist” Trump in every conceivable way.  They would disrupt his  agenda by any means necessary, including blocking all legislation, violent “protests”, refusal to comply with federal laws by state and local officials, and narratives that counter everything Trump says or attempts to do.  They all got the memo to stand in solidarity against the evil, authoritarian as self-proclaimed “defenders of democracy”.  Right on queue, many of the top Democrats labeled Trump as Hitler.  The campaign to frame Trump was well under way.  The New York Times published an interview that declared Trump is a fascist.  Democratic Presidential substitute candidate, Kamala Harris, called him a fascist.  Legacy media outlets echoed the warnings of impending dictatorship under Trump.  They even went so far as to claim Trump would use the military to assassinate his political rivals, an allegation that Democrat operatives may have employed themselves at Butler.  The key takeaway from all these political schemes is that there is absolutely nothing Democrats wouldn’t do, to gain and retain power.  I’m almost shocked they didn’t recruit some useful idiot to bomb the Republican National Convention.

Many top Democrats continued to encourage mass protest, ramping up the rhetoric with violent innuendo, as if they were well coached into eliciting the wargame scenario outlined by Brooks and Gellman.  Somebody in a high-level leadership position within the Democrat Party has to be calling the shots.  Somebody with direct knowledge of the wargame findings, a lot of experience in community organizing and the sources necessary to fund multiple operations that would follow the “blueprint”.  All these co-conspirators were anticipating that Trump would likely react to massive violence by deploying the military to quell any social unrest and invoke the Insurrection Act, whereby some top military officers would be faced with a dilemma; obey the Commander-in-Chief, or stick to their oath of defending the Constitution in order to fight “Hitler’s” dictatorship.  The entire purpose of the incessant Hitler references all along, was to split the military and cause internal strife.  That reeks of the old “divide and conquer” strategy Obama employed in his race war and class warfare campaigns.  Coincidently, it was Obama who appointed Brooks in the first place. 

UPDATE: 12 Jun 2025, 2:20 PM

Things are moving quickly.  I started drafting this essay on Tuesday the 10^th of June.  By Wednesday morning riots had erupted in Chicago and New York City.  Reportedly, New York Mayor Eric Adams is supporting ICE efforts and dealing with all violence immediately.

Meanwhile, the FBI is investigating any, and all, financial transactions among the several activist groups mentioned above.  Having discovered the funding link between Soros’ OSF and CHIRLA, through the Tides Foundation, there seems to be concrete evidence that George and Alex Soros are directly involved in a highly organized, well-funded insurrection, and should be indicted for violating,

18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or Insurrection, to wit:

   Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I’ll be damned.  That looks exactly like what the professional agitators/anarchists are doing, re, rebelling against the authority of the United States.  And if they are being paid by George and Alex Soros, they are assisting  and planning the Los Angeles insurrection, which is a rebellion against the authority of federal officials attempting to carry out their duty to uphold the laws of the United States.  To quell the insurrection is not enough.  There must be consequences for those who have planned it and funded it. 

I might suggest a raid on Alex Soros’ wedding this Saturday.

Pro Tip: wait until after the nuptials are exchanged before raiding the wedding.  That way Huma can wait ten years for Alex to take her on the honeymoon.

By Wednesday afternoon, it had been reported that demonstrations had popped up in 15 major U.S. cities, including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, Denver, Seatttle, Dallas, Austin, and others.  It didn’t take long for the operation to spread and is obviously highly organized.  These coordinated rebellions/insurrections cannot be tolerated. 

Fast forward to Thursday morning, and I see this feed in my Instagram account that follows the war-gamed scenario right on queue.

Less than a week after the first protesters hit the streets of L.A., the planners release an old video of a U.S. Army soldier who was interviewed complaining about Trump’s agenda.  They want you to believe this was recorded earlier this week and she is speaking out against Trump deploying Marines to L.A.  Problem is, she was discharged from the Army in 2020 but never let the truth get in the way of a good narrative.  It’s almost like Obama wants to legitimize the whole Rosa Brooks war-gamed scenario, right down to the last detail.  A truly pathetic, orchestrated self-fulfilling prophecy. Remember that time Lee Smith warned us that she predicted they could split the loyalties of the military? 

I originally warned against Trump invoking the Insurrection Act due to the Smith essay , figuring that was what the war-gamers were baiting him into for future political “ammunition”, but now I’m advocating for him to deal with these insurrectionists in the harshest manner necessary, prosecute every violent agitator, and indict/prosecute the planners and funders to the fullest extent of the law.  They’ll label him a dictator, but who cares?  There is nothing they say that deserves any respect whatsoever and they certainly can’t hate him any more than they already do.  If they have chosen this hill to die on, We the People will be more than happy to oblige.

Comments welcomed.

FOOTNOTES

[1]  LifeZette News Staff ; ‘Organized. Funded. Coordinated’: Soros Network, Others Behind LA Riots ; June 12, 2025

‘Organized. Funded. Coordinated’: Soros Network, Others Behind LA Riots [WATCH]

[2]  KeyWiki ; Organizations Funded Directly by George Soros and His Open Society Institute ; Last Updated March 25, 2023

Organizations Funded Directly by George Soros and his Open Society Institute – KeyWiki

[3]  Dr. Sean ; Jester Politics ; Private Funding Behind the Anti-ICE Riots in Los Angeles

Private Funding Behind the Anti-ICE Riots in Los Angeles – Jester Politics

[4]  Wikipedia ; Neville Roy Singham

Neville Roy Singham – Wikipedia

[5]  Rosa Brooks, a former Obama Pentagon appointee, teamed up with journalist Barton Gellman to run a series of wargames in May and June of 2024.  At the end of July 2024, they released their results and published them in The New Republic, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Bullwark in an effort to “ready” officials and operatives for likely post-election operations.  That is exactly what we are witnessing in Los Angeles and other major cities right now.

Supreme Court Rules Against the Alien Enemies Act of 1798

On Friday, 16 May 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling by 7-2 majority (Justices Thomas and Alito dissented) that has blocked the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan illegal immigrants, most of whom have been identified as violent Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members, being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas, a small town about 3 hours west of Fort Worth.  The court had previously ordered a stop to the deportations back in April, “until further order of this court” in response to an ACLU lawsuit that challenged Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.

The ACLU lawsuit is based on the argument that the first deportees sent to El Salvador were denied “due process” and not given sufficient time to challenge their cases.  SCOTUS, essentially in agreement, expressed their concerns for the right to “due process” and “only 24-hour notice”.

I wrote about the justifications the administration had for invoking the Act back in March.  You can read about it HERE.  The language in the Act clearly does not require any rights to “due process” for “alien enemies”, stating only that they “shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.”  I’m not a Lawyer, but I stayed up all night watching Pery Mason reruns.  Typically, legal statutes list every conceivable situation to which the subject law may be applied.  If the intent was to grant court hearings, or some other form of legal proceeding, the law would have included language to state such.  Apparently SCOTUS is suddenly of the mindset that violent criminal illegal aliens who have entered the country with ties to a foreign regime that openly despises the United States, have the same legal protections as the American citizens they have ruthlessly been victimizing.  To me, it sure looks like the Supreme Court is completely rejecting the validity of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a duly enacted law passed by Congress and signed by President John Adams, a founding father of this nation, based on a misinterpretation.

This case is not over, however.  The Supreme Court has returned it to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, for further proceedings.  The Fifth Circuit had previously ruled that the detainees lacked jurisdiction for their appeals, and this SCOTUS ruling vacates that judgment. 

It is important to distinguish the difference between legal jurisdiction and complete jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction is the term usually associated with legal jurisdiction, in that persons are expected to follow all federal, state, and local laws and regulations, whether they are citizens, or not.  That’s the common perception, but it’s not the whole truth.  Complete jurisdiction infers that a subject individual owes his allegiance to his/her sovereignty, wherever he/she may be physically located.  In other words, a foreign national, present within the United States, legally or illegally, is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, as written in the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution.  That language refers to complete jurisdiction.  Some sources have “muddied the waters”, claiming only three groups of people are exceptions to automatic citizenship by birthright; children of diplomats here on diplomatic business and have diplomatic immunity to U.S. law; children of an invading army occupying U.S. territory, who obviously are not subject to U.S. law; and members of Native American tribes, subject to their own jurisdiction who do not pay U.S. taxes (since eliminated),  However, the intent of the 14^th Amendment was to exclude those children born of foreign nationals who have never been naturalized and remain citizen subjects of their home countries, owing their allegiance to their home sovereignty.  The argument that two parents from Ireland, or Germany, or Venezuela, or China, or any other country to which they owe their allegiance, happened to give birth to a child while within the territory of the United States, automatically confers citizenship upon that child, is ludicrous.  At some point between 1868 and 2025, that distinction has been ignored.     

The Fifth Circuit ruling that determined those illegal immigrant Venezuelans did not have jurisdiction clearly references complete jurisdiction, not legal jurisdiction.  They are obviously subject to legal jurisdiction while present within U.S. territory. 

In a seemingly contradictory ruling, issued Monday, 19 May 2025, the Supreme Court by an 8-1 majority (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, was the only voice of dissent), revoked the “protected status” on nearly 350,000 Venezuelans granted in the first weeks of the Biden administration.  The media spins it as paving the way for Trump to process deportations, phony appeasement.  However, they have other ways to fight the ruling, such as claiming asylum and filing appeals.    This just looks like SCOTUS threw a bone to Trump, as some type of “damage control”, but the reality is that before ANY of them actually get deported, more litigation is to come.  That horde is getting plenty “due process”.

One thing is clear as a bell.  Not a single Democrat, their Propaganda Media Complex, or any activist federal judges, who are fighting for the rights of violent criminal illegal aliens, give a damn about the safety and security of actual American citizens.

“The accumulation of all powers, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

  ­­­ James Madison

SCOTUS is Inconsistent on Immigration

Without diving into every Supreme Court decision regarding immigration laws, which would take an entire semester, I’ll just highlight a few pertinent facts about existing law.

In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), Congress established streamlined deportation procedures that allow the government to deport (or “remove”) certain non-citizens from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge.

Despite the government’s broad power over immigration, the Supreme Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due Process clause, which applies “to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”

HOWEVER, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court in 2020 held that an alien detained shortly after entering the United States could not constitutionally challenge a federal statute limiting judicial review of his “expedited removal” proceedings (a streamlined removal process applicable to aliens apprehended at or near the border).  Although the alien had physically entered the United States, the Court determined that he could be “treated for due process purposes as if stopped at the border” because he was encountered only twenty-five yards inside the United States and essentially remained “on the threshold” of entry.  According to the Court, the “century-old” rule that aliens seeking entry into the United States lack due process rights “would be meaningless if it became inoperative as soon as an arriving alien set foot on U.S. soil.”  The Court observed, moreover, that only aliens “who have established connections in this country” have due process protections in their removal proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence indicates that, although aliens present within the United States generally have due process protections, the extent of those constitutional protections may depend on certain factors, including whether the alien has been lawfully admitted or developed ties to the United States, and whether the alien has engaged in specified criminal activity.  Therefore, even with regard to aliens present within the United States, the Court has sometimes deferred to Congress’s policy judgments that limit the ability of some classes of aliens to contest their detention or removal.

Expedited Removal

IIRAIRA established “expedited removal”, in which immigration officials gained the authority to summarily remove certain aliens.  This is different from the expedited removal proceedings for aliens convicted of aggravated felonies.  Aliens subject to expedited removal include aliens “who are inadmissible because they lack valid entry documents or have sought admission through fraud (may also include aliens inadmissible on same grounds if they are present in the United States without being admitted or paroled and have been in the country less than two years)”.

Expedited removals can be considered removals without hearings: these removals do not require judicial review by immigration judges within the Executive Office of Immigration Review unless the individual plans to apply for asylum or indicates fear of persecution.  Therefore, aliens subject to expedited removal do not have the right to administrative review or the right to administrative appeal and judicial review.  Because expedited removals do not require judicial or administrative review, aliens who are subject to expedited removals are not afforded the right to an attorney during their interviews with immigration officials.

Although the Supreme Court has weighed in with differing opinions on the issue of immigration, it seems as though the Trump administration has more than one way to “skin the cat”, by invoking the “Expedited Removal” status to millions of illegal immigrants who could be classified as those engaged in “specified criminal activities”.  For those so classified, deportations could resume without hearings or judicial review.  Let the games begin.

Comments welcomed.

Liberalism Could be Tolerated, Marxist Leftism Cannot

The arena of political “debate” in the country these days, most of it rather nasty, has drawn clear lines in the sand, as heated rhetoric is thrown about like virtual ammunition between well-entrenched keyboards across the battlefield of social media.  As opposing viewpoints, it is widely accepted that one side is commonly referred to as “liberals” and the other side as “conservatives’.  I submit there are distinctions among the liberals relative to different eras of the Democrat Party that I explain below.

If we step back for a moment to look at the big picture, we must recognize that we are in the midst of an ideological war that We the People, as Patriots, must win.  The stakes are extremely high as America itself, a shining example of freedom and individualism, is on the brink of being “fundamentally transformed” into a communist nation by Obama’s army of Marxist activists. 

Dr. Paul Kengor, Professor of Political Science at Grove City College, says that the definition of totalitarianism is to “seek to fundamentally transform – specifically, to fundamentally transform human nature via some form of political-ideological-cultural upheaval.” [1]

I’ve written about this before in The Socialist Agenda of Alinsky and Obama, published in two parts, December 2021.  You can read about it in detail HERE.

To lose this war is to subject our descendants into a life of misery under the iron fist of tyranny.  The good news is that our enemy is not a superior force in terms of numbers.  In fact, it’s probably much smaller than what the media has been making it out to be.  The reason I say this is because the media, collectively referred to as the Propaganda Media Complex (PMC), otherwise often called the Mainstream Media (MSM), is actively colluding to deceive the American people into thinking the Democrat Party is a formidable foe.  It certainly seems that way because that’s all you hear.  The PMC/MSM is the official mouthpiece of the Democrat Party and they control a huge percentage of all the information that we are being fed.  They thereby control the social consciousness and the populace is blindly influenced by what they are told.

The Democrat Party has been hijacked by Obama and his 30,000+ member activist army, Organizing for Action.  I would argue that they are relatively a minor faction of the Democrat Party but they are in total control of the party, the media, academia, Hollywood, and have infiltrated nearly every major institution in the country.  HOWEVER, this faction of Marxist, communist ideologues does not represent the entire Democrat mindset.  Democrats are marching in lock-step, as they always do, but many of them are what I call “traditional” liberals, whose core values remain as compassionate, caring people who still embrace the plights of the unfortunate, and have been caught up in the hysteria created by the media that they must resist everything Republicans say and do, simply because they are Republicans.  Given the time and opportunity to allow the MAGA movement to show them that their lives will be drastically improved under Trump’s policies, many of them could defect.  And if the Democrats are reduced to a faction of pure communists, it’s quite possible they will disintegrate as a viable political force.  Our focus, as Patriots, should perhaps be to facilitate a fracture among Democrats.  Coerce them to reject their communist leadership and revert to their more traditional sensibilities.  They must be convinced that leftism is not the next progression from liberalism, but a perversion of it.  They must be convinced that the leadership of today’s Democrat Party doesn’t have the slightest concern for underprivileged citizens.  Their only concern is permanent power, achieved by any means necessary, the primary stratagem encouraged by Obama himself.

He has embraced the concept published by Saul Alinsky, in Rules for Radicals, that to achieve any measure of political influence, it is necessary to effect change by dividing the country along socioeconomic lines, pitting the “Have-Nots” against the “Haves”, and playing the core instincts of “traditional” liberals to go along with his “hope and change” campaign slogan.  They fell for it, hook, line  and sinker.  And now, 16 years later, how much better off are they?

The point of all this, is that the Democrat Party has morphed a couple times since its founding in 1828.  The party formed by Martin Van Buren in the leadup to the election of Andrew Jackson, that basically held modern-day Republican values, was what could be called the “modern” Democrats, or what I’ve termed “classical” liberals.  I don’t believe those Democrats had much to do with what I call “traditional” liberalism, which started to appear in the late 19^th century, under Grover Cleveland (POTUS 22, 1885-1889, and POTUS 24, 1893-1897).  Cleveland was a fiscal conservative, committed to the principles of “classical” liberalism, who fought against corruption, patronage, and political “bossism”, in other words, a virtual Republican who would be a pariah in today’s Democrat Party regarding his ideals. [2]  But he also strongly opposed tariffs working to reverse the effects of the McKinley Tariff bill and was able to relieve some tariffs on raw materials but the revenue shortfall had to be countered by passing an income tax of two percent on income above $4,000, equivalent to about $131,281 in 2022 dollars.  We all know how Democrats love taxes, as a means to fund their ever-burgeoning bureaucracy.

During Cleveland’s second term, the Progressive Era arose, often recognized as beginning in 1896 and lasting until 1917.  In that period the Progressives were a collective group of social activists focused on defeating corruption, arguing against government waste and inefficiencies, and fighting monopolies.  That initial Progressive Era is acknowledged as ending when The United States got involved in World War I.  By the time Woodrow Wilson entered the White House (POTUS 28, 1913-1921), the Democrat Party had fully morphed into progressivism and was completely behind his “New Freedom” platform that focused on lower tariffs and breaking up large corporations in favor of the “little man” to create a level playing field. [3]  After teaching at several colleges, Wilson was appointed as President of Princeton University in 1902, “where he emerged as a prominent spokesman for progressivism in higher education,” though, as President, he worked to keep African Americans out of the school [4], a policy that wouldn’t pass as progressive today and would, in fact, be deemed racist.

These so-called “traditional” liberals formed the backbone of support for the Democrat Party for over 100 years, and are to this day, arguably the majority of the party.  And then Obama came along and everything changed.  Traditional liberalism morphed into “radical” liberalism, or extreme leftism, and all those “traditional” liberals were caught up in the media adulation.  He is practiced in the art of deception by his Islamic upbringing and he played the Democrat Party like a fiddle, transforming the party as they went about their lives.  Trump and the MAGA movement is the only thing standing in his way.

With that in mind, I’ll take this opportunity to allow “traditional” liberals the chance to save face and denounce the Democrat Party, for many of them aren’t even aware that their beloved party has been hijacked.  Life can be busy.  There are millions of voters who haven’t been paying attention.  They simply go out every four years and perform their civic duty, feeling good about themselves for having voted, but they’ve been disengaged and manipulated by the PMC/MSM in the final weeks, casting crucial votes in swing states that have serious consequences for all of us.  We the People cannot afford to continue down that path.  We must facilitate a conflict between the “traditional” liberals and those “radical” liberals, also known as the Marxist leftists.  It should not be that difficult because the stance they have chosen on every issue is virtually insane.  As an example of one of the “hills they chose to die on”, they are publicly advocating for the non-existent rights of violent criminal aliens over all concerns for American citizens.  We can split the Democrat Party, effectively driving a wedge that could dissolve the party and force them to rebrand, as the Democrat-Republicans morphed into the “modern” Democrat Party.  They could stick with the name, but in my (almost never) humble opinion, they’d be better off rebranding under a new banner because Obama has put such a stain on them, they’d never recover.

Speak out at every opportunity.  Stay firm in your convictions.  Remind them that this is not their father’s Democrat Party, but a political hijacking.  Stay the course.  Victory is on the horizon.   

Comments welcomed.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Kengor, Dr. Paul ; CNS News, 16 January 2017

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/dr-paul-kengor/how-obama-made-good-his-promise-fundamentally-transform-united-states

[2] Grover Cleveland ; Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland

[3] Woodrow Wilson ; Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

[4] ibed.

The Constitution, the Law, and the Case

Article II of the Constitution, Section 1, Clause 8 concerns the oath the President must affirm to before taking office.  It reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States , and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 reads in part, “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

One of those laws that the President is faithfully executing is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.  Interestingly, when you Google that term, the entire first page of results is populated with left-wing propaganda.  For example, the Brennan Center is one of the first results, and the very first paragraph claims that, “Although the law was enacted to prevent foreign espionage and sabotage in wartime, it can be — and has been — wielded against immigrants who have done nothing wrong, have evinced no signs of disloyalty, and are lawfully present in the United States.” [1]

only “in wartime”?  

done nothing wrong ?

lawfully present in the United States ?

Wow!  Talk about misinformation, disinformation, and deception.  In one sentence, this “journalist” misrepresents the facts three times.

Worse than the outright lies, the useful idiots who consume this type of “journalism” actually believe the crap they are spewing, and are rising up in open rebellion against the best interests of the country.  When you have Democrat politicians standing in front of rolling cameras calling for “resistance”, it’s going to get worse before it gets better.

Let’s go straight to the actual law itself.

Title 50, U. S. Code, Chapter 3 – Alien Enemies § 21

“Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually nationalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.” [2]

There it is in black and white.  Pay particular attention to the italicized portion that does not require a declared war.  That portion does refer to an incursion perpetrated by a “nation or government” and the ensuing portion requires the President to issue a proclamation, but Trump has covered that base also, to wit:

The President has publicly proclaimed Tren de Aragua as a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization operating in conjunction with and sponsored by the Nicolas Maduro regime.  The Proclamation further provides detailed information on its leaders and its activities.  In other words, TdA is a state-sponsored terrorist organization that has been furthering its “objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.” [3]

That meets the requirements of a deliberate invasion and predatory incursion into the United States.  The Defense rests!

So what does the destructive left roll out from their never-ending insane resistance arsenal?

Activist District Judges.  Judge James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, an Obama appointee with strong Democrat ties (more on that in a moment), issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop the flight containing 261 known terrorists bound for El Salvadore.  But despite a claimed verbal order, the TRO was not issued in writing until after the plane was outside U.S. airspace and it landed safely in El Salvadore, where the terrorists were sent to a secure prison under terms agreed upon by the Trump administration.  I heard that agreement is to cost the U.S. $6 million annually (unconfirmed), however that is a bargain compared to the damage that was being inflicted on our homeland.

The Plaintiff’s argument is that the terrorists were not afforded the right to “due process” under the 5^th Amendment.  I could remind everyone of the Biden administration’s denial of due process for J6 Defendants who languished in prison for 2 or 3 years, but that’s another story that favors conservatives by comparison.  The central question is; do “Alien Enemies” have the constitutional right to due process, i.e., a hearing and/or trial?  The answer has already been given above, in the last segment of the Act herein quoted, as such, “shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.”  There is no prerequisite for any hearing or trial.  As the late great Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, once said about the Constitution, “It says what it says, and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”  

The case has been tied up ever since its filing and the current status is that the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has refused to lift Boasberg’s March 15^th order barring Trump’s administration from deporting known terrorist immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. [4] 

The split decision will undoubtedly go to the Supreme Court.

The Judicial Branch and Early Congressional Acts

Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the government wherein it is stated in Section 1, “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Section 2, Clause 2 states, “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.  In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

The Supreme Court is the only court mentioned in the Constitution and all “inferior” courts are subject to congressional approval.  Congress first created the District and Circuit court system by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a defense of the Constitution in The Federalist, wherein “they explained their judgment that a strong national government must have built-in restraints: ‘You must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.’ The writers of the Constitution had given the executive and legislative branches powers that would limit each other as well as the judiciary branch.”

In Federalist No. 78, published May 28, 1788, under the title, The Judicial Department, Hamilton wrote that  the judiciary branch was the weakest of the three, calling it the “least dangerous” branch, and argued that federal judges should have the power to examine the constitutionality of the actions and laws of the executive and legislative branches.  He sought to bring the judiciary into a more balanced status as an equal branch.

Some would say the judiciary branch is now too powerful.  It was never intended by Hamilton for administrative actions of the President of the United States to be subject to the approval of unelected District Judges, nor do they have the constitutional authority to conduct the affairs of state or foreign policy.  We have elections whereby the government is chosen by consent of the people.  Constitutional Republics are not controlled by individual unelected bureaucrats from any branch.   

The Judiciary Act of 1789, approved September 24, 1789, just two years after the ratification of the Constitution, was enacted to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. 

It was enacted by the Senate and the Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, that:

• The Supreme Court consist of a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices, any four of whom would be a quorum.
• The United States shall be divided into thirteen Districts, defined geographically.
• There shall be a District Court in each of those Districts that consists of one Judge, called a District Judge, who shall be appointed (not elected).
• There shall be three Circuit Courts, dividing the thirteen Districts geographically into the “eastern”, “middle”, and “southern” circuits, and that there shall be held annually, two courts, which shall be called Circuit Courts, and consist of any two justices of the Supreme Court, and the District Judge of such districts, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, further defining when such courts should meet.
• That the Justices of the Supreme Court and all the District Judges shall take the following oath, to wit: “I, (name), do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution, and the laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

There are many other provisions that define the authority of the courts and how they are mandated to administer justice.  The full transcript of the Act can be reviewed HERE. [5]

I just wanted to cover the bare basics here and highlight the oath that specifically requires all judges to act impartially, because that is precisely the problem we are witnessing today, i.e., the coordinated obstruction of administrative acts designed to undermine the constitutional authority of the President of the United States.

The Judicial Act of 1789 has stood the test of time, as much of it still defines how jurisprudence is administered today, but the Supreme Court justices are no longer required to “sit in” on Circuit Court proceedings, a practice known as “riding circuit”, or “circuit riding.”  It was a concern that they would be inclined to go along with decisions made in the appellate courts.

That concern, and the attempt by lame duck President John Adams, to expand the federal court system favorable to his Federalist Party, led to the Judicial Act of 1801.

The Judiciary Act of 1801

The Judiciary Act of 1801, often referred to as the “Midnight Judges Act”, became law on February 13, 1801, and reduced the number of seats on the Supreme Court from six to five, effective upon the next vacancy, and created 16 new judges that were rapidly appointed by Adams, before he left office.

The bill expanded the circuit courts, creating three additional circuits with three more circuit judges in each circuit, except for the sixth circuit, which received only one.  He passed it under the guise of relieving the Supreme Court justices of the burden of “riding circuit.”

The Act also reduced the number of District Courts from 13 to 10, reorganizing some of the districts, and gave the circuit courts jurisdiction to hear “all cases in law or equity, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and treaties made , or which shall be made, under their authority”, a form of jurisdiction not previously granted to federal courts.

Thomas Jefferson was declared 3^rd President of the United States, after being so decided by the House of Representatives, due to an electoral tie with his Vice President, Aaron Burr, and was inaugurated on March 4, 1801, just 19 days later.

Jefferson was determined to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1801 and rescind the Federalist “midnight” judgeships.

Jefferson viewed the 1801 Act as an egregious attempt by Adams to stack the federal court system with partisan Federalist appointees that threatened the balance of power.   

The Judiciary Act of 1802

Jefferson’s Democrat-Republican party majority in both houses of Congress led to easy passage of The Judiciary Act of 1802, adopted April 29, 1802, and reinstated the makeup of the Supreme Court to six justices, although no seat was ever vacated under the 1801 Act.  It also restructured the six circuit courts and assigned one Supreme Court justice to each circuit, reinstating the requirement of “circuit riding”.  Each circuit court consisted of only two judges and they would refer to the Supreme Court and question of law upon the two would disagree.  No District Judge could hear appeals of his own decisions, so appeals from the district courts were to be decided by the circuit justice alone.  More importantly, only one judge was required to constitute a quorum, and Supreme Court justices were eventually relieved of their “circuit riding” obligations by 1840.

Jeffersonian Republicans asserted that Congress’s right to establish inferior courts implicitly allowed it to abolish such courts.  In other words, if Adams was able to convince Congress to adopt the Judicial Act of 1801, then Jefferson was entitled to lobby Congress to repeal it, which means any Congress has the authority to define the federal court system as they deem appropriate for the times.  Jefferson was leery of the federal court system gaining too much power over the administration of his executive decisions, particularly when all these new Federalist judges could bog down his efforts to limit the government’s size and cut taxes.  Sound familiar ?

Despite outcry from the Federalists, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of Congress to alter the structure of lower federal courts in Stuart v. Laird (1803), a case that would support Trump’s effort to do the same today.

Marbury v. Madison – Decided February 24, 1803    

Perhaps the most important decision in American constitutional law ever ruled by the Supreme Court was the case brought by William Marbury of Maryland, appointed as a Justice of the Peace for the County of Washington, in the District of Columbia.  Marbury was among more than two dozen District Judges and Justices of the Peace appointed by outgoing President John Adams just two days before he left office in March 1801, in an effort to pack the courts with Federalists and stymie President-Elect Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican majority.  Outgoing Secretary of State, John Marshall, was not able to deliver all of the commissions, including Marbury’s, before Jefferson’s inauguration, and the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver them at the direction of Jefferson, who viewed them as invalid.   

Marbury filed suit with the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his commission. [6] 

In the interim, John Marshall had been appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and he wrote an opinion that held Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission illegal, however, the Court did not order Madison to comply, based on the finding that Congressional adoption of the Judiciary Act of 1789 expanded the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction beyond what was originally set forth in the Constitution.  Marbury’s case did not fall into either category regarding foreign dignitaries or state parties, as per Section 2, clause 2, and was therefore outside of the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction”.

The Supreme Court struck down the pertinent section of the 1789 Act and announced that the courts have the power to invalidate laws they find to be in violation of the Constitution, now commonly referred to as “judicial review”.

In essence, “any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void”, a clause I cite regularly in my posts and comments.  Perhaps Marshall was reminded of Hamilton’s concern for “judicial review”.

Activist Federal District Judges Undermining the Presidency

Less than two months into Trump’s second term it became clear that the Democrat Party, their leadership, and their propaganda machine in the mainstream media were conducting a coordinated attack on literally everything he was attempting to accomplish for the American people.

Trump’s efforts to expose the fraud, waste and abuse of federal taxpayer dollars through DOGE examinations –

Democrats: Wait.  We don’t care about saving taxes.  In fact, we need more taxes.  You can’t stop our gravy train.  We need that money kicked back to our re-election campaigns. Call Judge Paul Englemayer, a 2011 Obama appointee, who blocked Elon Musk’s access to Treasury records. [8]

Trump’s agenda to close the border, reduce the dangers of dangerous illegal immigration like gang members and terrorists, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and the burdens on our infrastructure by concerted efforts to apprehend criminal illegals –

Democrats: Wait.  Again, we don’t give a rat’s ass about the safety of American citizens.  We need to maintain our virtue signaling compassion for the less fortunate.  Call Judge Theodore Chuang, a 2014 Obama appointee, blocked DHS and ICE agents from conducting deportation operations in houses of worship, as a freedom of religion violation.  OK, wait outside until they come out, duhh.  And by the way, there is NO SUCH THING as “sanctuary” from federal law.  If you believe there are Safety Zones for criminals, you’ve been watching too much propaganda.

Trump’s efforts to slim down the bloated federal government, an initiative first undertaken by Thomas Jefferson –

Democrats: Wait:  You can’t just eliminate the jobs of all those “non-essential” government employees, you know, the ones who aren’t critical and the ones who don’t even show up to the office.  We need them to keep voting for us.  Call Judge Amy Berman Jackson, another 2011 Obama appointee, who ordered the Head of the Office of Special Counsel to be reinstated to block Trump from reducing the size of the federal workforce.   

You get the picture.  It’s resistance on every front.

At this point, it seems like they are projecting the desire for unsuspecting conservatives, Patriots, and all Trump supporters, to believe the party is rudderless, in disarray, and searching for leadership.  I’m not buying the ruse.  If you look at the efficiency with which they roll out little protests all over the country, and the sheer volume of fronts on which they engage resistance to everything Trump is doing, it almost screams COORDINATION to me. 

We know for a fact that the entire Democrat Party “marches” in lock-step, on every issue.  They have no defectors.  They are united to a fault.  That is simply not possible without clear leadership.  Schumer is being challenged.  Pelosi is a “has-been”.  Her replacement, Hakeem Jeffries is a “wannabe”.  Bernie and AOC are the latest “cool candidates”.  But one person stands out as their Supreme Leader, and he is the only one commanding the total respect of the party.  He has a track record of undermining everything Trump wants to do, and he is doing it again.  It might sound like a wild conspiracy theory, but it’s as simple as this;

Barack Obama calls George Soros (think, speed dial) and directs the latest “protest” with details, Soros calls his stand-by activist groups to order deployments, and sends those leaders money to fund the operations.  But the money isn’t Soros money.  It’s YOUR money.  It’s taxpayer money laundered through a couple “wash cycles” that was fraudulently earmarked for “worthy” USAID programs like $29 million to “strengthen the political landscape in Bangladesh”.  

I’ve said it thousands of times and I’ll keep saying it until he is indicted for treason.  Barack Obama is orchestrating everything we see going on in the political arena today.  His agenda is to “fundamentally transform” America into a communist nation, and frankly, We the People, for the most part, aren’t even aware of the threat.  We are in the midst of an ideological war that we must win.

The Democrat Party is not going away anytime soon.  They may be hoping we are celebrating a little too much and getting complacent, but Obama is practiced in the art of deception and as long as he is in command, We the People must be vigilant. 

The Democrat Party, which is essentially the Communist Party of America, controls the social consciousness through their Propaganda Media Complex.  With alarming regularity, they disseminate misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies designed to fool disengaged voters.  They don’t even care about backlash from conservatives bold enough to challenge them, because they turn immediately to ridicule, a strategy recommended by Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals.  Then they assume the moral high ground as if their self-righteous egos were somehow superior.  We the People must expose them as the far-left Marxists that they are.  Boycotts, social media campaigns targeting their advertisers.  Total assault on their credibility.  The Democrat Party may turn a new leaf under new leadership, but if it continues to stand on the platform they have been pushing since Obama rose to power, they must be totally destroyed.  We must go on offense.  We must strike while the iron is hot.  We must do everything we can possibly think of to discredit the Democrat Party on every front.  America is no longer governed by two legitimate political parties with different ideas on how to improve the lives of our citizenry.  There are only Patriots and Communists now and Patriots cannot allow Marxists to rule our descendants.    

Comments welcomed.

Return to SCOTUS Halts Alien Enemies Act Deportations

FOOTNOTES

[1]  Yon Ebright, K. ; The Alien Enemies Act, Explained ; Brennan Center ; October 9, 2024

The Alien Enemies Act, Explained | Brennan Center for Justice

[2]  United States Code: Alien Enemies, 50 U.S.C. §§ 21-24 ; p. 4410 ;

Library of Congress

United States Code: Alien Enemies, 50 U.S.C. §§ 21-24 (1940)

[3]  Proclamation by the President of the United States of America ; Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua ; March 15, 2025

Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua – The White House

[4]  Kunzelman, M. ; Appeals Court Won’t Lift Order That Barred Trump Administration From Deportations Under Wartime Law ; AP ; Updated March 26, 2025 at 8:54 PM EDT

Appeals court won’t halt order barring Trump administration from deportations under wartime law | AP News

[5]  Federal Judiciary Act (1789) ; National Archives

Federal Judiciary Act (1789) | National Archives

[6]  Marbury v. Madison ; Wikipedia

Marbury v. Madison – Wikipedia

[7]  Dowling, M. ; Judge Boasberg’s Daughter Provides Legal Advice to Criminal Aliens ; Independent Sentinel ; March 18, 2025

Judge Boasberg’s Daughter Provides Legal Advice to Criminal Aliens

[8]  Rahman, K. ;Full List of Judges Who Have Thwarted the Trump Administration So Far ; Newsweek ; Updated February 11, 2025 12:40 PM EST

The Headline seems to be bragging as a badge of honor

This piece predates the Boasberg injunctionFull List of Judges Who Have Thwarted the Trump Administration So Far – Newsweek

Biden Pardons His Family 22 Minutes Before Trump is Sworn In

I suppose it’s not surprising that former President Biden pardoned five members of his own family as his last act in office.  He lied to the American people repeatedly that he would not pardon his son and then he did.  Hunter Biden was indicted for tax evasion and weapons charges.

In September of 2024, Hunter was convicted in Los Angeles of three felony tax evasion counts and six misdemeanor counts after pleading guilty with no plea bargain.  His plea was accepted by the Judge who scheduled sentencing for December 16, 2024, whereby he faced a maximum sentence of 17 years in prison. [1]   

Would any sane person plead guilty without seeking a deal unless he had been assured by his father that he would be pardoned from all his crimes?  

In a separate case, brought in Delaware, Hunter was convicted of three felonies related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018 when he lied on a mandatory gun-purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.  At the time, the President said he would accept the outcome and “continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal”. [2]

Now we know that Hunter never had anything to worry about.  Hunter was granted a “full and unconditional pardon” for all crimes he “committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024,” by his father on December 1, 2024, just 11 days before he was scheduled to be sentenced in his gun conviction case. [3]

The pardon just happens to cover the period of time when Hunter first conducted business deals with the corrupt Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

As you may recall, Joe Biden bragged in a 2018 video taken during a Council on Foreign Relations interview, about withholding a billion dollars in aid to Ukraine unless they fired the Prosecutor who was investigating his son’s business arrangements with Burisma.  Low and behold, they fired the Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, and Biden, then President Obama’s V.P. and liaison for the Ukraine, authorized the aid.  This interview was clear evidence that Joe Biden was corrupt, and a window into the money laundering operations his son was conducting for the personal benefit of the Biden family.  Hunter Biden had no experience whatsoever in the energy sector and no legitimate reason to be engaged in business deals in the Ukraine.  Since then, all kinds of evidence has surfaced regarding Hunter’s business deals in China, Kazakhstan, and other foreign countries, with over 100 offshore shell companies and secret accounts popping up.  Somehow investigations were stonewalled and the Propaganda Media Complex covered for them until Biden got into the White House in January 2021, at which point we were all supposed to forget about it.

Fast forward to January 20, 2025, Joe Biden’s final day in office, and loose ends need to be wrapped up, so Biden calculates the timing of his last act as President to be announced just minutes before President-Elect Trump is sworn in as the 47^th President.  In fact, the announcement that Biden was granting a “full and unconditional pardon” to five members of his own family, wasn’t made until Trump and the entire Inauguration Party were in position in the Capitol Rotunda.

The Senate Confirmation Hearing of Pam Bondi

On Wednesday, January 15, 2025, the Honorable Pamela Jo Bondi, former defense lawyer during President Trump’s first impeachment trial, and Attorney General for the state of Florida from 2011 to 2019, appeared before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for confirmation hearings on her nomination for Attorney General of the United States.

Ms. Bondi has the support of numerous legal and law enforcement organizations and is expected to be confirmed, but Democrats never pass on an opportunity to degrade the character of their political opposition with personal attacks and attempts to cast doubt on the worthiness of a nominee.  The hearing for Attorney General was more of the same.

Every Democrat on the committee had certainly seen the memo, from Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL), or perhaps a higher authority, that Ms. Bondi should be repeatedly questioned on their “concerns” that she might use her position to weaponize the Justice Department against political opponents of the Trump administration.  Imagine “lieutenants” of the Biden regime acting all high and mighty and offended that the Attorney General would even think of such an abuse of power.  Apparently, they are tone deaf and totally blind to that exact strategy perpetrated against then former President Trump for four long years in all-out lawfare designed to prevent him from retaking the White House.  Mindboggling hypocrisy.

She consistently stated that she would follow the law, which is the proper response.

During the hearing, Sen. Blumenthal (D-CT) asked the nominee, “Can you say ‘no’ to the President of the United States when he asks you to do something unethical or illegal?”  Notice Blumenthal presumes Trump will ask her to do something, not whether she would say no if he asks.

Next up for the Democrats was Sen. Hirono (D-HI), the 77 year-old disgrace representing Hawaii.  Her first question was, “Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”  Does she have some evidence to present that would embarrass Ms. Bondi, or is that just an attempt to degrade the nominee’s character?

Later, Hirono states that “in fact, President Elect Trump considers the DOJ to be his law firm” and follows that up with, “If President Elect Trump asks, suggests, or hints that you, as Attorney General, should investigate one of his perceived enemies, would you do so?”

Ms. Bondi reiterated that the DOJ would make charging decisions, saying, “It is the Department of Justice’s decision to determine what cases will be prosecuted.”

I have a simple solution that could allay the Democrat fears, and would keep President Trump’s hands clean.

Open letter to the President of the United States

We the People respectfully suggest to Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, that you, sir, refrain from making any directives, requests, or suggestions, to the Attorney General regarding prosecutorial discretion of any American citizens.

It will not be necessary for you to communicate directly, or indirectly, with the Attorney General in regards to any perceived political targeting you may have been subject to from the previous administration.  Further, we recommend that you record every conversation you have with the Attorney General in an effort to defend yourself against any future lawfare.

We the People have your back.  We know who the corrupt politicians are and we will urge the Attorney General to investigate, indict and prosecute all of them to the letter of the law.

We the People simply ask that you remain “on the sideline”.  We’ve got this one.

This is not a revenge campaign.  This is a justice campaign, and We the People demand justice.

Signed, We the People

The Attorney General Must Enforce the Law

Open letter to the Attorney General of the United States

We the People hereby request that the Attorney General of the United States conducts thorough investigations into the actions taken by all corrupt politicians that violate existing federal statutes, specifically for violations of federal statute 18 U.S. Code § 595 – Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments, and other crimes that may be discovered, including but not limited to:

18 U.S. Code § 594 – Intimidation of Voters

18 U.S. Code § 610 – Coercion of Political Activity

18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

We hereby refer for prosecution, the following:

Joseph R. Biden, Jr., former President of the United States

Merrick B. Garland. former Attorney General of the United States

Christopher A. Wray, former Director of the FBI

John L. Smith, former Special Counsel for the U.S. Dept. of Justice

Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney

Letitia A. James, Attorney General for the State of New York

Fani T. Willis, District Attorney for Fulton County, Georgia

Jared S. Polis, Governor of Colorado

 . . . and others as may be determined during the course of investigations.

It is of utmost importance that full investigations be undertaken to assure the American people that the unprecedented “lawfare” conducted against political opponents shall be prevented in the future by holding those who perpetrated these acts accountable for their corrupt behavior.

This is not a campaign of revenge or retribution.  This is the proper course for exacting justice, deterring abuse of power, and restoring faith in the Department of Justice.

Signed, We the People

Comments welcomed.

FOOTNOTES

[1]  Robert Hunter Biden Convicted on Three Felony Tax Offenses and Six Misdemeanor Tax Offenses ; U.S. Department of Justice Press Release ; September 5, 2024

Special Counsel David C. Weiss’s Office | Robert Hunter Biden Convicted on Three Felony Tax Offenses and Six Misdemeanor Tax Offenses | United States Department of Justice

[2]  Chase, R., Lauer, C., Kunzelman, M., Durkin Richer, A., Long, C. ; President Joe Biden’s Son, Hunter Biden, is Convicted of all 3 Felonies in Federal Gun Trial ; AP News ; June 11, 2024

Hunter Biden convicted of all 3 felonies in federal gun trial | AP News

[3]  Lee, C., Fitzpatrick, S. ; President Biden Pardons His Son Hunter Biden ; NBC News ; December 1, 2024

President Biden pardons his son Hunter Biden

The 2024 Election

I had planned to save this essay until the final votes had been tabulated but it has now been 2-1/2 weeks since Election Day and some states are still counting.  We knew going in that “election officials” were not to be trusted, particularly in the seven “battleground” states (AZ, GA, MI, NC, NV, PA, and WI) where the presidential election would be decided.  I suspect that Obama’s 30,000+ member army of activists, a.k.a. “Organizing for Action”, are not only thoroughly entrenched in the federal bureaucracy, but also have infiltrated the key states by obtaining certification as “election officials”.  They are they operatives who clandestinely rig vote tabulations by programming the machines to switch votes, re-scanning selected ballots, stealing mail-in ballots, harvesting pre-fabricated phony ballots, and other methods.  Obama’s army certainly isn’t limited to a “ready-to-march” bunch of college kids and angry suburban women waiting for the next “mostly peaceful protest” to be announced.  They are working to advance Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America communist agenda with utmost determination.

As it turned out, and I still can’t believe it, Trump’s MAGA movement was perhaps “too big to rig”.  Patriots, many of whom have been quietly waiting to come out of the woodwork, voted in great numbers in a total rejection of the Democrats record of failure on many fronts.  All the polls in the last few months, particularly after Kamala was inserted by coup, projected a razor-thin race that could be determined by a few thousand votes here and there.  Many pundits believe the polls were as phony as the Democrat ballots.  They were skewed and biased by “news organizations” (I use that term lightly) who had the incentives to discourage voter turn-out and make it seem like Harris had an excellent chance to win so that the Democrat rigging would go unnoticed and election denials would be unacceptable.  They had successfully stolen the 2020 election and they had every reason to believe they could do it again.

Here are some results of the presidential race per the latest available data

Image depicts the Electoral College vote and the popular vote totals of the presidential election as of 22 Nov 2024.  It is noteworthy that Trump’s popular vote margin was much higher on the morning of 6 Nov 2024.  Apparently, late counting of votes is almost exclusively Democrat votes. [1]

Speaking of Cheating

It’s amazing how vehemently the full spectrum of liberalism denies there is any “widespread” cheating In our elections, yet every time you turn around, you hear of another story, typically from a state that just happens to be one of the so-called “battleground” states. 

Here is one right here in Pennsylvania, close to where I live, that was in the news this week.  It has been featured on Fox News (where would we be without them?) and has been summarized by Breitbart in an article titled, “Bucks County Pennsylvania, Election Official Apologizes for Saying Court Precedent ‘Doesn’t Matter Anymore’”.

Essentially, the Bucks County Board of Commissioners Vice-Chair, Robert Harvie, Jr. and Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia, in a November 12 meeting, moved in a 2-1 vote to count 405 mis-dated, or undated, mail-in ballots, in bold defiance of the state Supreme Court.  Two days later, in a November 14 meeting, the day after the state announced a mandatory recount in the Senate race between incumbent Bob Casey (D) and Senator-Elect Dave McCormick (R) who held a lead of over 17,000 votes and had been declared the winner by the AP, the same two Commissioners moved to count provisional ballots missing required signatures, despite the State Supreme Court ruling that ballots missing signatures were not legitimate, Ellis-Marseglia openly stating that, “I think we all know that precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country, and people violate laws any time they want.”  The two Commissioners then voted to count the ballots over objections from the County legal counsel.

On Wednesday, November 20, the day the recount began, in front of an angry crowd, Ellis-Marseglia apologized for her previous comments, probably under advice that she could be prosecuted for several federal election crimes.

The point is, this is not an isolated incident.  Stories like this pop up all the time and it just shows how Democrats see themselves as immune from legal jeopardy.  They truly believe they are above the law because they get away with virtually anything they want.  We the Patriots need to stand up and be heard.  We the Patriots urge the Attorney General of the United States to hold these people accountable for every statute they violate.  The Trump administration has a clear mandate to clean up corruption everywhere it is found. [2]  

Gratitude to All Who Helped Preserve Our Republic

We the Patriots have good reason to celebrate Trump’s great victory as he was the last hope to save America from the destruction wreaked by Obama and his radical Marxist Democrat Party.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for seeing the light and getting out there to cast your ballot.  Every ballot counted (at least we hope so) towards preserving our republic, our American values, our culture, our institutions, and our freedoms.

We Have Won a Major Battle But The War is Not Over

The 2024 election was our Saratoga, our Trenton, a tremendous victory that may have turned the tide against seemingly insurmountable odds, but the war is not over.  The enemy is regrouping every day.  Obama is not going to disband his army and ride off into retirement.  His life-long hatred of America and everything she stands for has not been extinguished.  We have dealt him a serious blow but our resolve must be sustained.  This war against his communist agenda is in the early stages.  We must completely destroy the leadership and the direction of the Democrat Party.  Their Marxist ideology must be eradicated from American politics.

We must fight them at the ballot box at every opportunity, and in the meantime, we must ensure that the Department of Justice under the presumed direction of newly nominated Pam Bondi, former Attorney General for the state of Florida, is doing everything they can to prosecute the criminal elements of the Democrat Party.  No quarter.  No immunity.  No dead-end investigations that take years to recognize what we already know.

Obama’s army will be difficult to root out completely, but that is the task at hand.

It cannot be forgotten that radical Marxists adhere to the mantra “by any means necessary”.  There is nothing they wouldn’t do to gain, and retain power, because their ultimate goal is permanent one-party rule.

May the ghosts of our forefathers guide us in defeating the leviathan that has hijacked the federal bureaucracy.  Do not get complacent.  Stay committed to the cause.  Stay the course.  Yorktown is on the horizon.    

Comments welcomed.

FOOTNOTES

[1]  2024 Election Results ; Google ; as of 22 Nov 2024

2024 election results popular vote – Google Search

[2]  Breitbart News ; “Bucks County Pennsylvania, Election Official Apologizes for Saying Court Precedent ‘Doesn’t Matter Anymore’”.

wearebreitbart Instagram article