Tag Archives: President Trump

The Accomplishments Of The Biden Administration

Posted on by

On January 2nd, The Daily Caller posted the following headline:

Biden Added $745 Billion Worth Of Regulations In 2023

Just what we needed.

The article reports:

The Biden administration promulgated over $745 billion worth of regulations in 2023, according to information supplied by Advancing American Freedom (AAF) to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Biden administration has used rulemaking procedures in agencies to enact several of its left-wing policy initiatives, such as stringent emissions standards to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles and student loan forgiveness plans. From Jan. 1 to Dec. 29 of 2023, the administration greatly exceeded both the Trump and Obama administrations in terms of the regulations it issued, adding to the 743 rules since 2021, according to data from AAF, a government regulations watchdog.

Remember that when President Trump took office, he began removing regulations in order to allow the American economy to grow. What impact have these new regulations put on by the Biden administration had on economic growth?

The article notes:

“Since January 1, the federal government has published $745.2 billion in total net costs (with $129.2 billion in new costs from finalized rules) and 251.3 million hours of net annual paperwork burden increases (with 60.5 million hours in coming from final rules),” AAF told the DCNF. “[T]he Biden Administration heads into 2024 with to-date final rule cost and paperwork totals exceeding those of the Obama Administration by $173.7 billion and 91.4 million hours, respectively.”

The article reports:

Moreover, in the last working week of the administration from Dec. 26 to Dec. 29, which was shortened due to Christmas Day, the administration added $45.6 billion in total costs and added 43.4 million annual paperwork burden hours, according to AAF.

The article includes the following statement:

Today, we released new standards for fridges & freezers that reflect a joint agreement with manufacturers & advocacy groups.

This will save Americans $5B/year & underscores our ongoing work with industry partners to promote innovation & cut energy costs.https://t.co/0Q9UKTRB31 pic.twitter.com/mXWh6SxR2U

— Secretary Jennifer Granholm (@SecGranholm) December 29, 2023

Can we please have a new President in 2025 before this administration can do any more damage.

About That Fourteenth Amendment Thing…

Posted on by

I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be one. However, I am concerned about the lawfare being conducted against President Trump.

In the January 2024 issue of Newsmax Magazine, Hans von Spakovsky wrote a commentary about the use of the 14th Amendment to keep President Trump off of the primary ballot in several states.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states:

Section 3.

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

Note that Congress may remove such disability.

The article in Newsmax notes:

In 1872, Congress passed an Amnesty Act providing that the “political disabilities” imposed by Section 3 “are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever” except for members of Congress who had served just before and during the Civil War, as well as a limited number of other officials.

In 1898, Congress passed a second Amnesty Act getting rid of these remaining exceptions, providing that the “disability imposed by section 3…heretofore incurred is hereby removed.”

That sounds to me like using the 14th Amendment to keep President Trump off of the ballot does not agree with the laws Congress has passed since the 14th Amendment.

Also, doesn’t there have to be a trial and a conviction?

It should also be noted that the removal of President Trump from the ballot represents taking away the right of the American people to vote for whoever they choose. This sounds like something that happens in dictatorships. The only reason to remove someone from the ballot is if they do not have enough support to run for election. Obviously that is not the problem with President Trump.

 

Can We Elect Argentina’s President As America’s President This Year?

Posted on by

On December 27th, Headline USA reported the following:

(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Newly sworn-in Argentina President Javier Milei purged over 5,000 government bureaucrats, fulfilling a campaign pledge to reduce the size of the inflation-burdened federal government. 

According to the Spanish-language newspaper El Pais, Milei signed an executive order to halt the contracts of federal workers hired in 2023, likely targeting individuals hired by his former leftist predecessor.

The order came after the capitalist president vowed to rescue Argentina from widespread corruption, inflation and wasteful government spending. 

El Pais reported that some disabled and indispensable employees will be exempt from the layoffs. However, the Argentine government announced a comprehensive audit within the next 90 days, hinting at potential future layoffs. 

The article notes that President Milei has been compared to President Trump in that President Trump has also pledged to shrink the federal government if he is elected in 2024. It will be interesting to watch the consequences of such a drastic change.

Election Interference?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to keep President Trump off of the Republican primary election ballot.

These are the three main problems with the decision listed in the article:

#1)  It was a 4-3 decision. Meaning it was the politics of the court, literally the political makeup and perspective therein, that determined the outcome of the decision.  This is showcased in point #3, which is the funniest part.

#2)  The entire framework of the case against Trump in the Colorado decision is predicated on this: “[the complainants] asserted that he was ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution.”  [pdf, page 6]  REMINDER – President Donald Trump was not charged with “insurrection,” is not accused of “insurrection,” does not fit the complaint under the definitions of “insurrection,” and has never been found guilty of insurrection.  The complaint is moot before the court.  But hey, it’s Lawfare… and we all know Lawfare is created for public media consumption, so that takes us directly to the biggest point.

#3)  Instead of me writing it, let me screengrab it so we can all laugh together [pdf page 9].

Wait, what?

As long as President Trump appeals the ruling, he can be on the ballot, so what’s the point?

This is political theatre. It should not be taken seriously although it is an example of lawfare. If the practice of lawfare continues, we will eventually lose our Republic. That is the major significance of this case.

Remember When The Democrats Screamed That Donald Trump Ruined The Decorum Of Washington?

Posted on by

The circus that is the Biden administration and the Democrat party continues. If you haven’t seen the video of the White House Christmas dance, please spare yourself. During the summer there were bare breasts on the White House Lawn. Now there is gay sex in the Senate hearing room. I’m so sorry that President Trump ruined the decorum of Washington.

On Saturday, Townhall reported:

At the time of this post, an aide to Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), who allegedly filmed himself having gay sex in a Senate hearing room, tried to play the victim card when the clips were leaked. This staffer was identified last night, and Cardin’s office issued a classic crisis management response, which some could view as throwing the aide under the bus. It was a prelude to an employment termination. Immediate action was required. Yet, for now, that’s the least of that office’s worries. I do not envy the Cardin communications staff right now.

The article includes the following quote:

Aidan Maese-Czeropski posts a statement on LinkedIn after having sex in a senate hearing room where he says that he is “being attacked for who I love to pursue a political agenda” and that “I would never disrespect my workplace.” 

Sir, you were not fired because of who you love–you were fired for actions that were grossly inappropriate in the setting in which they occurred. No one really cares what you do  in your bedroom, but they do care what you do in a Senate hearing room.

The article notes:

Are the adults in charge again? We’ve had someone bring cocaine into the White House, with the perpetrator being as elusive as D.B. Cooper. Breasts were exposed on the White House lawn, and now gay sex in the Senate. What a circus 

Remember when Biden was elected that all the Democrats said the grownups were in charge again. These are very strange grownups.

Some Of The Swamp Is Being Held Accountable

Posted on by

Charles McGonigal was one of the FBI agents who was involved in trying to frame President Trump as working for the Russians. On December 14th, Charles McGonigal was sentenced to more than four years in prison for violating sanctions on Russia and working for a Russian oligarch.

On Friday, The National Review reported:

A former FBI counterintelligence chief who played a pivotal role in launching the Trump-Russia probe was sentenced to just over four years in prison for assisting a sanctioned Russian oligarch after leaving his post in 2019.

In August, Charles McGonigal, a 22-year veteran of the bureau’s field office in New York, was found guilty of a count of conspiracy for working with Oleg Deripaska, a Russian billionaire with close ties to President Vladimir Putin. During his stint with the bureau, McGonigal received classified information that Deripaska would be designated a Russian oligarch with close ties to the Kremlin, the indictment alleged. McGonigal was legally obligated to inform the FBI of his relationship with foreign officials, which he violated by continuing communication and establishing business ties with Deripaska.

Judge Jennifer Rearden argued that McGonigal “repeatedly flouted and manipulated the sanctions regimes vital” to American security interests. “The undeniable seriousness of this and the need to respect the law,” Rearden continued, “compels a meaningful custodial sentence.”

The FBI official admitted during the hearing that he has a “deep sense of remorse and sorrow for my actions.”

Maybe the FBI needs to clean up its own backyard.

More Spying On American Citizens

Posted on by

Periodically I highlight an article I don’t fully understand. This is one of those times. On Saturday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the changes made to  HR 6611, the 2023 FISA reauthorization bill. The changes don’t protect innocent Americans from being spied upon–they make things worse. The article includes a link to the bill.

The article reports:

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Mike Turner is celebrating the passage of HR 6611, the 2023 FISA reauthorization bill.

Chairman Turner would have granted a clean FISA renewal, he’s that kind of Republican; however, several Republicans demanded changes to the FISA-702 authorities that capture the data of American citizens without a warrant.  Thus, the HPSCI modified the authorities within HR 6611, but they made it worse.

(Via CDT) (Center for Democracy & Technology) – Tucked away near the end of the bill the House Intelligence Committee reported on December 7 (H.R. 6611, the “HPSCI bill”) is a provision that would dramatically expand surveillance under the controversial Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA 702”), which sunsets on December 31 unless reauthorized. Section 504 of the bill, innocuously captioned “Definition of Electronic Communications Service Provider,” would expand the types of entities that can be compelled to disclose internet communications whether in storage or in transit.

FISA 702 permits the U.S. government to compel communication service providers to disclose for foreign intelligence purposes the communications of persons reasonably believed to be non-U.S. persons abroad. No warrant is required; a belief that the communications relate to U.S. foreign affairs or national security is sufficient.  Under current FISA 702, only entities that provide communication services like email, calls, and text messaging can be compelled to disclose these communications. 

As FISA Court amicus and longtime practitioner Marc Zwilligener and his colleague Steve Lane have already noted, the HPSCI bill would upend the current system, enabling the government to compel anyone with mere access to the equipment on which such communications are stored or transmitted to disclose those communications.  That could include personnel at coffee shops that offer WiFi to their customers, a town library that offers public computer internet services, hotels, shared workspaces, landlords and even AirBNB hosts that offer WiFi to the people who stay there, cloud storage services that host but do not access data, and large data centers that rent out computer server space to their clients.

At this point, the only way to stop the formation of a full-scale Stasi in America is to vote all Democrats out of office and drain the swamp. President Trump is the only person who even remotely has a chance of draining the swamp–that’s why the deep state is coming against him so hard.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. Our privacy as Americans is at stake.

This Sounds Innocuous, But It Is Frightening

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Conservative Treehouse reported the following:

Inside the construct of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Congress has agreed to extend the current FISA-702 authorization through April 19. 2024.  Why April 19th?  I believe, based on DOJ/FBI history, there is a very nefarious intent. 

The article goes on to explain that April 19th is the end of the primary election season. The deep state will be free to abuse FISA during the primary elections in an attempt to skew the election results. This is another tool the deep state is going to use in their war against President Trump.

The article notes:

On/around April 19, 2024, the GOP nominee will likely have locked down the nomination.  The nominee is likely to be Donald Trump.

Beyond the extension motive, the previous counterintelligence investigation by the FBI never stopped.  Crossfire Hurricane evolved into the Mueller special counsel investigation.  The same investigative units from the FBI then transferred into the Jack Smith special counsel.  There is no reason to believe a counterintelligence investigation does not underpin the legal authorities by which the current DOJ is keeping candidate Donald Trump under surveillance today.

Using the wording within the criminal indictment, the DOJ-NSD could -likely is- considering Donald Trump a national security threat.  All indications from the Jack Smith prosecution point in this direction.  There is no countervailing data that would suggest the DOJ is not considering Donald Trump a national security threat.  As a result, it is very likely candidate Trump is once again under a FISA authorized Title-1 surveillance warrant….. and everyone within two hops of him would be under the same.

On/around April 19, 2024, if Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee, the FISA court might look at any renewal authorities differently.  It’s one thing to have American citizen Donald Trump under title-1 surveillance, it is another thing entirely to have the opposing candidate to the current administration under legally authorized surveillance by the DOJ-NSD.

The end date of April 19, 2024, would align with a need to have more than reasonable suspicion to retain the surveillance. At least, that’s the way the FISC would likely look at it.

If Occam’s razor is applied to the current datapoints, the most likely scenario for the DOJ-NSD, FBI and Jack Smith special counsel investigative units, is that Donald Trump is currently under FISC authorized title-1 surveillance.

It’s where we are, folks. The only solution is an overwhelming victory for President Trump in 2024. Otherwise, we will have morphed into a police state.

Will The Jury Listen To The Evidence?

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Epoch Times posted an article about the ongoing trial of President Trump in New York. It seems that the evidence doesn’t fit the charges.

The article reports:

“Financial reporting misconduct is a very important part of any course that I teach,” said Mr. Bartov (Eli Bartov, professor of accounting at NYU’s Stern School of Business and an award-winning researcher,). Being able to detect financial fraud early can be rather profitable, he explained, such as the famous case of Enron.

…Though the judge allowed him to testify as an expert in financial accounting and credit analysis, it came after lengthy objection from the state attorneys, who argued the professor had expertise in valuing publicly traded companies, not Deutsche Bank’s decisions. Mr. Kise commented that the state attorneys have objected to this one witness more than any of the others, “which tells me they’re terrified of this witness.”

Mr. Bartov said that after reviewing the lawsuit against the Trump Organization, “the most important evidence is the credit reports of Deutsche Bank.”

Those reports, rather than the Trump statements of financial condition (SFoCs), “really tell you the whole story,” he explained. “You can spin it any way you want, but everything is there.”

Mr. Bartov, who teaches students how to do credit reports just like the Deutsche Bank credit report on Trump Organization, said the person who prepared this report may well have once been his student.

“I am not going to provide an independent valuation of these because it’s not necessary, not because I can’t do it,” he explained. “My main finding is there is no evidence whatsoever of any accounting fraud.”

“The SFoCs over the years were not materially mistaken,” Mr. Bartov said.

The statement prompted the judge to ask if he meant that the attorney general’s “complaint had no merit.”

“This is absolutely my opinion,” he said. “You read the complaint: the complaint has numerous allegations of valuations of GAAP [generally accepted accounting principles]. There is no specific reference to a provision of GAAP that was violated.”

Mr. Bartov concluded:

Mr. Bartov, who teaches students how to do credit reports just like the Deutsche Bank credit report on Trump Organization, said the person who prepared this report may well have once been his student.

“I am not going to provide an independent valuation of these because it’s not necessary, not because I can’t do it,” he explained. “My main finding is there is no evidence whatsoever of any accounting fraud.”

“The SFoCs over the years were not materially mistaken,” Mr. Bartov said.

The statement prompted the judge to ask if he meant that the attorney general’s “complaint had no merit.”

“This is absolutely my opinion,” he said. “You read the complaint: the complaint has numerous allegations of valuations of GAAP [generally accepted accounting principles]. There is no specific reference to a provision of GAAP that was violated.”

Is the jury listening? Will the mainstream media report this? The answers to those two questions will tell us (if we don’t know already) whether or not this is a witchhunt.

Destroying Evidence Again?

Posted on by

On Friday, a website called rsbnetwork posted the following:

Shocking new information from Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., appears to prove that President Trump was right yet again when it comes to the Jan. 6 Select Committee, which closed up shop earlier this year after an inconclusive investigation and hours of witness testimony.

During an interview on Real America’s Voice with “Just the News, No Noise,” Rep. Loudermilk stated that the Jan. 6 Committee did not preserve their deposition tapes, based on a conversation he had with Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who served as the Jan. 6 Select Committee chairman.

“That is true, I can confirm that,” Rep. Loudermilk stated when asked if the videotapes of infamous witness Cassidy Hutchinson were gone. “And all of the video tapes of all the depositions are gone.”

This story should have been easy to find in numerous sources, but this is the only source I found. Hopefully it is in other places so that Americans can be aware of the game being played.

The article notes:

Rep. Loudermilk explained on RAV, “I wrote a letter to Bennie Thompson asking for them and he confirmed that they did not preserve those tapes. He didn’t feel that they had to. But according to House rules, you have to preserve any data and information and documents that are used in an official proceeding – which they did. They actually aired portions of these tapes on their televised hearings, which means they had to keep those, but yet, he chose not to.”

He added that he believes “they exist somewhere, we’ve just got to find where all these videos are.”

The mind-blowing revelation that the Jan. 6 Committee allegedly failed to preserve their deposition tapes may come as a shock to some, but it is worth noting that President Donald Trump accused them of destroying evidence and records this past summer when Rep. Loudermilk raised a red flag on the issue.

The Republicans may think that they control the House of Representatives, but there are enough traitors in their ranks to prevent them from actually doing anything.

I Guess That Testimony Did Not Go As Planned

Posted on by

On Friday, Breitbart posted an article about the ongoing trial of President Trump in New York. It is becoming apparent that President Trump is being tried for a crime where there was no victim.

The article reports:

A Deutsche Bank AG executive told a court in New York on Tuesday that it is not unusual for loan clients to overstate their net worth, and that the bank does its own due diligence in determining eligibility for loans.

Another executive testified that the bank had benefited from its business relationship with Trump and had wanted to continue that relationship — all of which runs against Attorney General Letitia James’s civil fraud case against Trump: there was no one harmed by alleged overestimates of his worth.

Trump faces the first case ever brought in New York in which a borrower is being sued for fraud when no one is claiming actual harm. The state is seeking a $250 million fine against Trump, and wants him to be forced to give up control of his businesses.

Judge Arthur Engoron, an elected Democrat, issued a summary judgment that Trump was liable before Trump was ever able to mount a defense. The current phase of the trial is simply about the penalty. But it is undermining the state’s basic allegations.

On December 1st, The Messenger reported:

The evidence shows that banks made money on these loans, which were paid off either early or on time. In fact, none of the banks complained about the Trump organization’s estimations, which were accompanied by a warning that the banks should not rely on those estimates.

Moreover, James is seeking to kill a corporation once viewed as iconic in New York, not just by denying the certificates for the Trumps to do business in the city but by imposing $250 million in penalties for money that no one actually lost.

That all became curiouser this week when two bankers were called by the defense. Rosemary Vrablic and David Williams worked on Deutsche Bank loans to the Trumps for years, and they testified that the banks made millions and viewed Trump as a much-sought-after “whale” client — what Vrablic described as a “very high net-worth individual.”

Williams testified that net worth is “subjective” in such documents as property valuations and are offered as mere “estimates.” It is not uncommon for a bank’s estimates to differ from a client’s.

If nothing else, this illustrates the absurdity of the case.

The Future If President Trump Is Elected In 2024

Posted on by

If you are a government worker, you should probably work very hard to make sure President Trump does not become President again. The changes he is planning to make will be good for the country, but not necessarily appreciated by government employees.

On Tuesday, Newsmax posted an article about what is being planned if President Trump is elected. President Trump is a much greater threat to the deep state than he was in 2016–he has a much better idea of who the goods guys are and who the bad guys are. That is one of many reasons there will be a desperate attempt to stop him from being elected.

The article reports:

Project 2025, a well-funded effort that is essentially a transition team orchestrated by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, has already begun recruiting and screening potential candidates who would be in place for the next Republican administration.

More specifically, a second Donald Trump administration.

The goal, according to a report by Axios, is to have 54,000 like-minded Trump loyalists ready to be hired and placed across every level of the federal government in January 2025.

The article notes:

In order to install 54,000 federal workers hand-picked by this effort, Trump has said he would reinstate Schedule F, a personnel policy to erase employment protections for tens of thousands of federal workers through reclassification, which makes them easier to fire.

And with the army in place, Trump in the early days of his second administration can revamp the Justice Department, FBI and intelligence community, swiftly move on deporting illegals “by the millions per year,” and eradicate woke ideology from the military, according to Axios.

“And the goal is that we are just like a snowball rolling downhill. It keeps building momentum and whoever the nominee is, whoever the next president is, we’re going to be ready on Day One,” Chretien said.

Sweeping reform is what is needed. The question is whether or not we can have an honest election to allow that reform to happen.

Statements Like This Used To Be Investigated As Criminal

Posted on by

On Sunday, Red State posted an article about a disturbing statement made by a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Representative Dan Goldman, a Democrat from New York, stated in an interview with Jen Psaki that President Trump needs to be eliminated.

The article reports:

Our friends at our sister site, Twitchy, picked up the comment. Goldman was on MSNBC with Jen Psaki. They were talking about an interview former President Donald Trump had with ABC’s Jonathan Karl. In that interview, Trump told Karl that he had wanted to go up to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot to try to stop what was going on. But Trump said the Secret Service discouraged that. The MSNBC chyron at the bottom of the screen framed that as “New audio: Trump says he wanted to join Jan. 6 crowd,” which miscasts what Trump said.

Representative Godman later tweeted an apology for ‘using the wrong word.’

The article notes:

So let’s see. Saying people should act “peacefully and patriotically” is inciting. But saying someone should be “eliminated” is just using the “wrong word.” That makes a lot of sense. The funny thing here is that had Trump said what Goldman said, Goldman would likely be encouraging people to try to prosecute him over it. But Goldman’s a Democrat, so of course, out comes the pass, and he apologizes, so everything is cool. 

The double standard is alive and well in Washington.

Injustice in Our Justice System

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D   

There is an old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We are seeing glaring examples of this in our justice (maybe better our injustice system).    As any sensible person can see, President Trump is being singled out by the Democrat’s for persecution not prosecution. Their fear of him is palpable and they will do anything to stop him from running again. We must make sure they fail, or our constitutional republic will never recover. 

Some judges have become political pawns rather than fair arbiters of facts and truth.  The case in New York is a prime example. The judge issued a summary judgement  against President Trump before even hearing his defense. The judge is a lifelong Democrat as is the prosecutor Latisha James.  As in the other three cases against President Trump, this judge placed a “gag” order on President Trump that violates his first amendment right to free speech. The case in Atlanta about election interference also includes a gag order. There is no legal justification for preventing a defendant from commenting critically about the trial process or the motivation of the judge or prosecutor. The only legal justification for a gag order by a judge is based on 18USC1512 which is concerned with violence, threats and intimidation of witnesses. It says nothing about criticizing the judge, clerk or prosecutor. In today’s judicial system the outcome of a case often has more to do with the judge who tries the case than the facts presented. This is not blind justice. It is right out of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China. 

Another troubling development, as shown by the fraudulent cases against the former president, is the prosecution or threat of prosecution of his attorneys and staff.  Prosecutors in the Atlanta case are using what is called RICO tactics that were designed to be used against organized crime. What they do is threaten the defendant’s attorney with felony prosecution if he or she does not reveal supposedly privileged conversation with their clients. The enormous cost of defending oneself is often sufficient to bankrupt the attorney. This actually amounts to blackmail. Who can trust the truthfulness of a person who is threatened with jail time, professional ruin and financial destruction if they do not go along with the prosecutors and turn states evidence against their client who came to them, expecting  attorney/client privacy? This is not the justice that our Founding Fathers expected would occur in our country. 

So what do we do about this trend?  First, as stated above we must support the re-election of President Trump to show the leftist Democrats that these tactics will not work in this country. Second, we must get our state legislators to pass legislation that makes the communication between attorney and client  absolutely privileged and cannot be used by any prosecutor in a trial or lawsuit. It should be similar to the spousal rule that a wife cannot be forced or coerced into testifying against her husband and vice versa. In fact, an attorney should not be allowed to testify willingly against a client based on privileged communications. Third, there should be an independent  process that can review the actions of a judge to ensure that political motivations are not influencing the judge’s actions and decisions.   

Without these or similar actions to protect the integrity of the justice system, the citizen’s confidence that we can receive justice before the law will continue to be undermined. 

This May Not Be Going As Planned

Posted on by

On Tuesday, NBC News reported that a Michigan judge has refused to hear the case that would remove President Trump from the ballot in 2024.

The article reports:

A Michigan judge on Tuesday dismissed an effort to keep former President Donald Trump off the state’s ballot in 2024.

The judge said that under Michigan law, the secretary of state does not have the authority to intervene in a primary election if the party chooses to list a candidate who would not qualify for the office.

“The ultimate decision is made by the respective political party, with the consent of the listed candidate,” the judge wrote.

The decision comes after a group of Michigan voters in September filed a legal challenge to Trump’s candidacy, arguing that his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and his and conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, making him ineligible for office.

If January 6th was an insurrection, it was the first insurrection in history where the police opened the doors and the insurrectionists had no guns. At some point the full video evidence will be released, and the public will realize that they have been lied to. The only person shot in the ‘insurrection’ was an unarmed civilian. There was also a death in the tunnel due to police brutality (article here).

I firmly believe that January 6th was a false flag operation designed to keep President Trump permanently out of the White House. Otherwise, why were his instructions to the crowd constantly misquoted?

The Court Gets It Right

Posted on by

On November 10th, The Epoch Times reported that the Minnesota Supreme Court has refused to take a case designed to remove President Trump from the ballot.

The article reports:

The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit that sought to keep former President Donald Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot on Wednesday, after having heard arguments on whether they should take the case.

In a brief opinion and order written by Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, the justices said the petition was dismissed without prejudice.

Free Speech for People, a liberal group, had sued on behalf of eight local voters, arguing that the secretary of state putting President Trump on the ballot would be an “error.”

The article notes the reason the group has tried to remove President Trump from the ballot:

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship and equal rights to all persons born or naturalized in the United States. Ratified after the Civil War, it also included a section that prohibited those who had participated in “rebellions” or “insurrections” against the nation from holding office.

The Minnesota petition argued that, under section three of the 14th Amendment, President Trump is disqualified from holding elected office again because he engaged in an “insurrection.”

There are some problems with this. The most obvious is the fact that generally speaking insurrectionists have guns. The only people who had guns on January 6th were the police, and the only person who was shot that day was an innocent civilian. The second problem with this charge is the speech President Trump gave on that day. In his speech on January 6th, President Trump stated, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Those are not the words of an insurrectionist.

Dealing with Threats from China

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D    

In spite of the naïve efforts of Henry Kiesinger, who advocated the policy of reaching out to communist China, China has become militarily and economically not only our rivals, but in some ways they have surpassed us. Is their government less totalitarian and communist in their principles and actions? Definitely not. Quite the opposite–their plan is to dominate the world, and they appear to be succeeding. A compromised Joe Biden who clearly has been profiting from shady business deals his son and brother made with China is not helping. 

Now that we are in this adversarial position with a powerful China, made so primarily by our buying their products, what do we do about it? There are several things we must do. First, we must clearly recognize their global ambitions as a threat to our country and treat them as such.  Second, we must stop awarding them special privileges such as favored nation status and exemptions from rules governing other developed countries. Third, China must no longer be permitted to purchase land or major businesses in our country.  Allowing them to buy our farm land and food processing industries is about the dumbest things we could do.  Fourth, many colleges and universities are receiving research grants and programs funded, and in many cases staffed, by the Chinese. This not only allows them access to our developing new technologies but also to  control the actual outcome and reporting of this research. Look where Dr. Fauci’s funding of gain of function research in the Wuhan lab got us.    Fifth, we need to return the manufacture of essential products to this country as President Trump had initiated. The idea that most of our essential pharmaceuticals are manufactured overseas is seriously risky.    Sixth, close the border and deport all illegals including the increasing numbers of Chinese that are coming over the southern border. 

Last but not least, we should shut down access to the social platform TikTok as India has done. TikTok is increasingly being accessed by the youth of our country. It is estimated that 60% of TikTok users are age 11 to 26. TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is like most Chinese corporations, controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, our federal government has banned TikTok from being used on any federal government devices. If TikTok presents this kind of risk, why are we allowing our impressionable youth to be exposed to the propaganda, personal data collection, and anti-American ideas prevalent on it?  A recent study showed that the mechanism that TikTok uses of short videos can in the long term affect a person’s brain and diminish their ability to focus and stay on task. This is particularly true for young users. Thirty four of our 50 states have joined the prohibition of using TIkTok on state owned devices. So far, only Montana has banned TikTok on private/personal devices.

North Carolina should step up and do the same. 

Given the compromised Biden regime, the Republican controlled House of Representatives is our only current option to address this issue.   Another reason, among many, to vote for Donald Trump. 

The Economy Is Questionable At Best

Posted on by

I love it when a Democrat is in power–when unemployment rises it is always a surprise–even at Fox News.

On November 3rd, Fox News posted an article about the current state of the American economy.

The article reports:

U.S. job growth slowed more than expected in October, a sign the labor market is finally softening in the face of higher interest rates, stubborn inflation and other economic uncertainties.

Employers added 150,000 jobs in October, the Labor Department said in its monthly payroll report released Friday, missing the 180,000 jobs forecast by Refinitiv economists.

The unemployment rate, meanwhile, unexpectedly ticked up to 3.9% — the highest level in nearly two years. The pickup in the jobless rate suggests that layoffs are on the rise; the survey of households shows that the number of workers laid off rose in October by 92,000 from the previous month.

The unemployment number of 3.9% is not really a good measure of the economy unless it is looked at in relation to the workforce participation rate, currently slightly down at 62.7. Just to give some perspective, the workforce participation rate was 62.8% when President Trump took office in January 2017. It peaked at 63.3 in February 2020 (the ‘stop the spread’ shutdown began in March 2020). The reported unemployment rate is calculated only counting people who are looking for jobs. I suspect that if you counted everyone who is able to work but not working, the number would be much higher.

The article also notes:

The report also contained steep downward revisions to job growth at the end of the summer. Gains for August and September were revised down by a total of 101,000 jobs to a respective 165,000 and 297,000, the government said, suggesting that the labor market is weaker than it previously appeared.

The bottom line here is that the economy is not really growing although inflation is. For further details, please follow the link above to read the entire article.

 

A Temporary Victory For Free Speech

Posted on by

On Saturday, The Daily Wire reported that the gag order placed on President Trump regarding the federal 2020 election case has been paused.

The article reports:

A gag order against former President Donald Trump related to his federal 2020 election case has been paused by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals after Trump filed an emergency request on Thursday saying the order violated his First Amendment rights. 

The court issued an administrative stay, saying that the decision was made to give the judges more time to hear Trump’s arguments. The court said that the ruling “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits.”

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, had imposed the gag order on Trump Sunday night after Trump criticized former chief of staff Mark Meadows. Chutkan is overseeing special counsel Jack Smith’s federal election case against Trump, who has denied any allegations of wrongdoing.

Imposing a gag order on a leading candidate for public office sets a scary precedent, and I hope it gets entirely removed. There really should be no question as to whether this gag order is unconstitutional, but our legal system has been turned on its head in order to ‘get Trump.’

Taking Out The Cartels   

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D      

Israel is again fighting for their existence against a terrorist force that not only wants to eliminate the state of Israel but also all Jews. Hamas has been acquiring advanced weapons, principally from Iran, for several years. When your enemy arms itself it never turns out well. The situation with the so-called drug cartels is similar in a lot of ways.   Let’s take a look at our options to deal with them. 

First, we need to recognize the threat that the drug cartels present to our country.   Estimates are that over 100,000 of our citizens die each year due to drug overdosing–especially fentanyl.  At that rate we will have over one million drug deaths within 10 years.  In comparison, there were 36,634 Americans killed during the Korean War and 56,220 Americans killed in Vietnam. During the Vietnam War, there were massive protests throughout this country. Where are the protests against the drug cartels, and what is happening as a direct result of Biden’s open border policy? I am certain that we all have friends or family members that have been impacted by drug overdose deaths.  Just because it happens individually does not minimize the threat to our country. Most of these lethal drugs are manufactured and smuggled into our country by the drug cartels. The second obvious threat from the drug cartels is their encouragement, control and profiting from illegal immigration. The amount of money they are making is staggering. Estimates are that over 8 million illegals have come over the border since Biden took office. This is more people than 38 of our 50 states!  At an estimated $6,000 dollars profit on each illegal that they funnel across our border; that amounts to billions of dollars to the drug cartels. Much of this money is used to purchase weapons that are making the cartels a formidable fighting force. The recent attack on a Mexican police station killing half of their personnel shows where this is going.   

So, what do we do about it? Clearly, the Biden administration intends to do nothing.  First we must secure our border. Second, during his administration, President Trump was able to coerce the Mexican government to deploy 26,000 of their troops on their side of the southern border. Clearly, the Mexican government has no plans to do the same now. They are facilitating this problem, not helping to correct it. Do we have a right and duty to protect our country from what is actually an invasion? Of course we do, but sadly it will not be done unless Biden is replaced.   

Assuming that happens, the Mexican government must be enlisted to assist with this problem. Unfortunately, it appears that the drug cartels have become so powerful that Mexico may not be able to deal with them even if they were motivated to do so. This may require our sending American forces to put an end to the drug cartels. Remember these cartels have members that have infiltrated into our southern states and other areas in the country. There is a precedent for this from 1915, when President Wilson authorized the sending of American troops into Mexico under General John J. Pershing to deal with the threat from Poncho Villa. Dealing with this current threat without sending our troops is preferable, but Mexico needs to get the message that either they deal with it or we will be forced to.    

Israel has learned a lesson from the Hamas attack; we must do likewise.   

This Could Get Very Interesting

Posted on by

On Friday, The Gateway Pundit posted an article about the upcoming trial of President Trump regarding the events of January 6h.

The article reports:

Former President Donald Trump’s defense team filed a new motion on Thursday indicating that the former president will present classified information exposing foreign interference in both the 2016 and 2020 U.S. Presidential elections.

The article includes an excerpt from one of the court documents in the case:

The Indictment in this case adopts classified assessments by the Intelligence Community and others that minimized, and at times ignored, efforts by foreign actors to influence and interfere with the 2020 election.

President Trump will offer classified information at trial relating to foreign influence activities that impacted the 2016 and 2020 elections, as well as efforts by his administration to combat those activities.

President Trump will also present classified information relating to the biased and politicized nature of the intelligence assessments that he and others rejected during the events in question.

Collectively, this evidence will undercut central theories of the prosecution and establish that President Trump acted at all times in good faith and on the belief that he was doing what he had been elected to do.
The article concludes:

According to Halper-Hayes ( Dr. Jan Halper-Hayes, a former Global Vice President of Republicans Overseas UK), Trump had chosen not to disclose such evidence early to prevent civil unrest, believing it could lead to a civil war.

“I sit on a task force at the Department of Defense, and the thing is, they’ve got the goods. They’ve got the goods. And Trump knew that if he presented any of the goods early on, we’d have a civil war, that he really felt that the people needed to see how bad it could get,” said Halper-Hayes.

“See, the thing is, think about Edward Snowden and all the information he had. Think about the fact that our military, our Department of Defense Space Force, if you think that they don’t have the actual real results from the election, then you’re fooling yourself,” said Halper-Hayes.

Dr. Halper-Hayes further delved into Executive Order 13848,” enacted by Trump on September 12, 2018, arguing that it was designed to combat foreign interference in U.S. elections, with a focus on the 2020 elections.

“Now, let me say something about this 2020 election, is that Biden is the legitimate president, but he’s the legitimate president of what is now the bankrupt US. Corporation and that was a treaty in 1871,” said Halper-Hayes.

She continued, “Well, on September 12, 2018, Trump created an executive order. Within that, he outlined in future elections any kind of foreign or domestic interference specifically for the 2020 election. So we say, how did he know some of these things were going to happen? Election integrity on both sides of the aisle is tough. It’s really tough. But what this has done is it opened the door for Trump to present his case.”

It will be very interesting to see if this case ever makes it to trial.

 

A Gag Order That Allows The Other Side To Lie

Posted on by

President Trump has been placed under a gag order to limit his comments about one of the lawfare cases against him. However, the Special Counsel continues to leak lies to the media. There is a glaring recent example of that dynamic reported by various news sources.

On Tuesday, The Conservative Treehouse reported:

Remember, on August 21st, in another ridiculous Lawfare operation, Special Counsel Jack Smith told ABC that Mark Meadows testified that President Trump never attempted to declassify any information {Go Deep}.   That report was transparently false, yet the media ran with it and multiple alternative media promoted it.  Pure nonsense.

In this latest Lawfare effort, again from Special Counsel Jack Smith, again to ABC news, again about former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the claim is the Special Counsel granted Meadows immunity (that’s the hook), and that Meadows told President Trump the 2020 election was not rigged or stolen.

Now remember, Mark Meadows wrote about the rigged and stolen 2020 election in his book, so why would he undermine his own story by saying something completely the opposite to Jack Smith that is only coming out now?   The Occam’s razor answer is, he didn’t.  This lawfare story is all made up, fictitious, anonymous sources, manufactured to create a public impression.

Bolstering the likelihood that Meadows gave no such testimony, Meadows lawyers, when contacted by media, said the story is fake news.   Yet again, everyone falls for it.  This is how Lawfare succeeds, and this is how Trayvon Martin’s fake and fabricated ear-witness girlfriend becomes the key witness and embarrasses the prosecution on the stand.

The article includes the following Tweet:

The mainstream media isn’t even trying to hide its lies anymore. Thank goodness for journalists like Catherine Herridge who are willing to tell the truth.

 

This Will Be A First (And Not A Good First)

Posted on by

On Sunday, Julie Kelly posted an article at Substack about the potential gagging of President Trump during the election season (a season that I think began in November of last year).

The article reports:

Another precedent-setting event related to the criminal prosecution of a former president is scheduled for Monday morning in the federal courtroom of Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in Washington.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is asking Chutkan—an Obama appointee with a record of biased and often inaccurate statements about Donald Trump and the events of January 6 in general—to silence the leading GOP presidential contender on a key campaign issue through the heart of the 2024 primary season.

Smith’s prosecutors and Trump’s defense attorneys will square off during what is expected to be a fiery hearing to debate the special counsel’s proposed gag order ostensibly needed to prevent Trump from unduly influencing the D.C. jury pool with his criticism of the prosecution and those involved. A jury pool, by the way, almost exclusively populated by Democrats with deep contempt for Trump.

Chutkan set a March 2024 trial date for Smith’s four-count indictment against Trump for attempting to “overturn” the 2020 election; the indictment and trial, anticipated to last four to six weeks, represent a history-making case of election interference—a sitting Democratic president using his Department of Justice to ruin his presumptive Republican rival.

But forcing Trump to endure not one but two federal criminal trials isn’t enough to quench the Biden regime’s insatiable appetite for destruction. Smith, citing social media posts and interviews, wants Trump, his lawyers, and even his campaign associates banned from making any comments about the case.

“In service of his criminal conspiracies, through false public statements, the defendant sought to erode public faith in the administration of the election and intimidate individuals who refuted his lies,” Smith wrote in his September motion for a wide-ranging gag order. “The defendant is now attempting to do the same thing in this criminal case—to undermine confidence in the criminal justice system and prejudice the jury pool through disparaging and inflammatory attacks on the citizens of this District, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. [The] Court can and should take steps to restrict such harmful extrajudicial statements.”

The article concludes:

Trump’s lawyers responded in pointed fashion, calling the gag order “an extraordinary step of stripping President Trump of his First Amendment freedoms during the most important months of his campaign against President Biden.”

Which obviously is Smith’s motivation. A top DOJ official during the Obama-Biden administration, Smith has his marching orders. In a follow-up motion, Smith wrote that Trump’s candidacy shouldn’t be used as a “cover for making prejudicial statements about this case.”

After Monday’s hearing, it is Chutkan’s next move.

And Team Trump should be worried.

Not only does Chutkan have a history of making outlandish remarks in January 6 cases, she wrote the opinion that pierced presidential privilege and forced Trump to produce his records to the January 6 Select Committee. She also ruled against the Trump administration in cases involving illegal immigrants seeking abortions. Given her brazen partisanship from the bench, it is safe to assume her gag order is already a work in progress.

What has happened to the judicial process in America is a disgrace. I am convinced that the majority of our judges have never read the U.S. Constitution.

UPDATE:  The gag order has been put in place. It will be interesting to see what happens next. This will probably find its way to the Supreme Court. What the Supreme Court will do with it is anyone’s guess.

Reevaluating The Past

Posted on by

I came across this video on Twitter. I wish all Americans would watch it. It illustrates one man’s journey in realizing the good that President Trump did for America. There are some basic differences between businessmen and politicians, and many Americans did not appreciate that fact when Donald Trump became President.

The above is posted because the “Show more” on the post below is not active. The information that you would receive by clicking “Show more” is above. In order to watch the video, click on “Watch on X,”

A Few Comments On The Trump Trial In New York

Posted on by

From Jonathan Turley at The Daily Caller:

Fox News legal analyst and constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley laid out a major problem for Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James’ civil case against former President Donald Trump on Monday.

James sued Trump in Sept. 2022, accusing him of committed fraud to secure more favorable terms for loans. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled Tuesday that Trump and his businesses exaggerated his net worth and deceived banks and insurance companies.

…“But I also want to note that James’ comments ignore one thing, in front of that courthouse,” Turley continued. “She ran for office on the pledge to bag Donald Trump. She didn’t say on what grounds. She ran to bag him on any grounds, and so she doesn’t have any more credibility in making these comments than did the Trump team, for people who view this as a very political environment. You know, many of us wrote at the time that we were deeply concerned about a candidate for attorney general that was essentially pledging a trophy defendant as the basis for running for office. And she delivered it … And so I think that she has also damaged her own credibility in that effort.”

From Attorney Robert DuChemin at Substack:

…That is why I find it bizarre that New York would go after the Trump Organization for what the state claims are inflated real estate values. It took me only one trial to learn that appraisers say what they are paid to say.

…The case against the Trump organization, however, is not a criminal case. That is why he was not entitled to a jury. Nevertheless, although the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees us the right to jury trials only in criminal cases, the Eighth Amendment prohibits “excessive fines.” Several U.S. Supreme Court decisions have held that any fine designed as “punishment” instead of restitution is excessive. Many intermediate appellate and trial courts have ignored those decisions but some recent comments by members of the current Supremes have indicated they are going to stop the practice.

Therefore, because there were no damages incurred as a result of the alleged fraud, New York will be limited by the Eighth Amendment in their ability to fine the Trump Organization. Anything above court costs and some nominal fine would likely violate the Eighth Amendment.

In short, the New York case is clearly the persecution of a political opponent. If I was the judge I would have thrown out the state’s case immediately. But then again, I am not a judge in a communist state that values party loyalty over truth and justice.

Let’s see if the court acknowledges or abides by the Eighth Amendment. Please follow the link to read the Substack article. Attorney DuChemin definitely has a way with words.