Right Wing Granny

News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.

Right Wing Granny

The Real Threat to Our Democracy

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

As usual, the Democrat left is lying to the American people. Truth is not something that they believe in. This has been the case with every communist/Marxist government in world history. The latest of many examples is the Biden regime’s claim that Donald Trump is the biggest threat to our democracy. As usual, they do not even recognize that we are a constitutional Republic–not a democracy. Let’s see where the real threat is coming from.

In a very revealing interview on CNN, Robert Kennedy, Jr., a third party candidate for the presidency (and an extreme leftist himself, especially on the environment), was asked who was the greatest threat to democracy, Donald Trump or Joe Biden. To the shock and chagrin of the CNN interviewer, Kennedy answered that it was Joe Biden. He went on to explain how his free speech was taken away by the Biden regime through social media banning which he has had to fight in court. He has also been denied Secret Service protection which under previous administrations, would have been routinely granted. Especially in his case where both his father (Robert) and his uncle (John) were both assassinated. Leaving him at risk would be one way of Biden eliminating an opponent.

Inviting illegal aliens into our country and granting them free support including airfares directly into our country are the biggest threat to our country at this time. Not only does the Biden regime invite them in, they make every effort to block Texas from sealing their border, including court actions. A country without borders cannot long exist. Free speech is an essential part of any free country. The first thing Hitler did when taking over the government of Germany was to forbid speech in opposition to his regime. He then constituted a federal police force (the SS) to arrest and incarcerate anyone who voiced opposition to his regime. Sound familiar? Look how the Biden regime is misusing the FBI and the Department of (In)Justice to go after Trump supporters, branding them as MAGA terrorists. Sending fully armed squads of FBI agents to arrest your political opponents and their supporters has never been seen in this country before the Biden regime took over. How about the coordinated campaign of bringing bogus charges and court cases against your political opponent, as Biden has done to Donald Trump? Also, the Democrat Marxists efforts to steal elections by the wholesale use of mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting. No free country can exist without free and fair elections and citizen’s confidence in the election process. The final example is Biden’s continuing effort to grant forgiveness of student loans, which he hopes will buy him votes, in spite of the fact that the courts have declared that he has no constitutional authority to do so. He just ignores the courts.

Well, you get the point. If Biden and the Marxist Democrats succeed in winning this coming election, our country is doomed to follow other communist regimes that have destroyed the freedoms and liberty of their people. We must not let this happen. If we do, we will have not only failed ourselves but our children and grandchildren. Get out and resist before it is too late!

America Is Slowly Waking Up

On Tuesday, The Postmillennial posted an article about an article on the ballot in Tuesday’s Wisconsin election.

The article reports:

Wisconsin voters have approved a constitutional amendment banning private money for elections. The constitutional amendment passed on Tuesday after it was proposed by Republicans who were fed up with the money funneled into elections by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, dubbed Zuckerbucks.

“Wisconsin has spoken and the message is clear: elections belong to voters, not out-of-state billionaires,” GOP Chairman Brian Schimming said. Joe Biden won Wisconsin in 2020 after $8.8 million went into the state’s largest five cities.

…A second question offered by Republicans amended the state constitution to say that elections could only be administered by actual election officials. Though this was already state law, enshrining it in the constitution firms up the practice against legislative change.
 
President of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty Rick Esenberg said “Voters sent a clear message that they want to keep private money out of election administration,” per ABC.

“Whether you identify with the left or the right, ensuring the fairness and integrity of our elections should be a shared priority,” he said.

In 2020, Wisconsin saw an influx of funds from the Center for Tech and Civil Life, which had in turn received $300 million from Zuckerberg and his wife. The purpose of the leftist group is to fight for voter access. The funds were used to “help election officials buy supplies and run elections at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic before vaccines were available.”

There were a lot of anomalies in battleground states in 2020. There are a lot of things that can be done now to make sure that the 2024 election is fair and that the votes tallied reflect the choice of the voters.

Congress Needs To Say “No”

Congress has until April 19th to reauthorize  Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is the law that allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens. It was passed after 9/11 in the hope that it would make America more secure from terrorist attacks. Instead it has been used as a political weapon to move America toward Banana Republic status.

On Monday, The Conservative Review posted an article about Section 702.

The article notes:

The FBI is attempting to rehabilitate the public image of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as Congress has until April 19 to reauthorize it. The bureau recently posted a video to X that features FBI Director Christopher Wray attempting to put a gloss on Section 702 as part of this monthslong campaign.

The bureau’s timely propaganda did not escape the attention of critics on X, where the post received a community note that read, “The FBI violated American citizens’ 4A rights 278,000 times with illegal, unauthorized FISA 702 searches.”

Among the critics was Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who wrote, “FBI just got called out in a community note on X. Congress — take note. FISA 702 has been used for warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of times. Yet FBI demands 702 be reauthorized by April 19 WITHOUT a warrant requirement for searches of U.S. citizens.”

“Many in Congress will want to reauthorize FISA 702 — which is set to expire April 19th — either without modification or (more likely) with fake reforms that fail to impose a warrant requirement for searches directed at Americans,” added the senator.

The article notes:

In his March 11 testimony, Wray stated, “The FISA Court itself most recently found 98% compliance and commented on the reforms working. The most recent Justice Department report found the reforms working, 99% compliance. And so, I think legislation that ensures those reforms stay in place but also preserves the agility and the utility of the tools, what we need to be able to protect the American people.”

The FBI’s March 25 social post containing an excerpt from Wray’s testimony was not well-received.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) wrote, “The FBI was correctly called out in a community note for lying about its unconstitutional, warrantless surveillance of Americans. Congress must eliminate FISA abuse and protect the American people’s privacy.”

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) tweeted, “The FBI has been corrected in community notes and rightfully so.”

FBI whistlelower Steve Friend reiterated that the FBI “violated constitutional rights and abused FISA Section 702 over 278,000 times in a single year.”

The article concludes:

“While only foreigners overseas may be targeted, the program sweeps in massive amounts of Americans’ communications, which may be searched without a warrant. Even after implementing compliance measures, the FBI still conducted more than 200,000 warrantless searches of Americans’ communications in just one year — more than 500 warrantless searches per day,” said Durbin.

Durbin figured this legislation would make reauthorizing Section 702 palatable.

Section 702 needs to go away. We have seen that there is too much temptation for those in power to misuse the law to target their political opponents.

Waiting For The Constitutional Challenge

On Wednesday, The Federalist posted an article about the new red flag law the Biden administration recently announced. The article notes that this law is unconstitutional. We all want to limit gun violence, but we need to find a way to do it without infringing on peoples’ constitutional rights.

The article reports:

On Saturday, Vice President Kamala Harris touted the administration’s new National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center, which will “support the effective implementation of state red flag laws” and “keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others.” But there is a problem: Congress never authorized the U.S. Department of Justice to create this resource center. The administration confuses “grants … to implement state … mental health courts, drug courts, veterans’ courts, and extreme risk protection order programs” with creating an entirely new center for one of these areas.

This isn’t the first time the Biden administration has gone beyond what the law allows and done more harm than good.

The Department of Justice press release claims that Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs, also known as red flag laws) will “reduce firearm homicides and suicides.” Surveys show likely voters support laws that “allow guns to be temporarily confiscated by a judge from people considered by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others” by at least 2-1 margins.

If we truly want to curb gun violence, let’s work toward building stronger families with two parents who live together and raise their children together. Let’s make a decision to value life in all its stages–neither killing the unborn or advising euthanasia for the elderly or infirm. The guns are not the problem–mental illness and the devaluing of life are the problem.

Essential Citizenship

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

History has clearly shown that in order for a country to survive, especially a republic, it must retain its essential cultural integrity. The Founding Fathers recognized this fact when they emphasized the importance of educating each generation about the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson referred to this as patriotic knowledge, beliefs and duties as citizens.

A question we are faced with now, is how well are doing developing and ensuring that we have patriotic citizens who appreciate America’s uniqueness. It is obvious to me that love and respect for America has been declining, primarily due to the influence of the Left on our public education system. Instead of learning about the freedoms and opportunities that we have in America, they are taught that America is a flawed country and needs to be “fundamentally transformed” as Barack Obama stated. Indoctrination through Critical Race Theory (CRT), Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), the 1619 Project, and transgender instruction is not producing freedom loving patriotic citizens. No wonder so many parents are choosing to take their children out of the public school system. Obviously, no country is without flaws. America went through a period where slavery was tolerated, as it was in many other countries. Ridding our country of slavery was not easy, but was accomplished by dedicated patriots who realized that the Declaration of Independence emphasized the rights of all people regardless of race and were willing to fight for that principle. The Left, instead of accepting equal opportunity regardless of race, now wants to use a system of racial quotas through the DEI agenda. This will only divide our country; something we cannot allow.

No clear thinking person wants race or gender as a determining factor in the selection of people for positions in our society. When you go to a surgeon, you want to be assured that that person has the requisite skills to perform successful surgery; similarly, with other professions and positions of responsibility. Knowing that race or gender is being used in the selection process, creates doubt that should not exist in the minds of the public. We deserve better than that. Our children should be taught that success depends on their motivation and hard work and that the American Dream still exists in American for all those willing to work to achieve it. Not as the Left would have it that the government is there to take care of you.

Look at the message that the Biden regime is sending to the rest of the world with its open border policies: break our immigration laws, lie about needing asylum and we will give you free food, shelter, cell phones and healthcare all paid for by the hard working citizens of America. These illegal invaders do not have the values to make good citizens as the Democrat run sanctuary cities are finding out. These illegals need to be deported before it is too late. This election will determine the fate of our country. No question. A blind man could see what is coming. You must get out an vote!

What Is A Bill Of Attainder And Why Is It Important?

Our Founding Fathers understood what it was like to live under a king. They also understood what it was like to live under a government that not only did not represent you, but could target you at any time. They wanted the new government they founded to represent the people and protect the people from the government.

On Tuesday, The American Spectator posted an article that points out that the continued lawfare against President Trump violates the law against a bill of attainder.

The article reports:

Yet so common was the bill of attainder in British history in pre-modern times that it was a fairly normal way of dealing with the rebellious — or, indeed, just those whom the authorities found uncongenial. And so much did the Founding Fathers dislike its use that they deemed it important enough to have its own mention in the Constitution, which expressly forbids it under Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

But what is this strange creature?

The word “attainder” derives from the adjective “attainted,” which was used to define individuals whose legal rights had been removed. All of them. They lost the right to own property and bear titles; they could not enter into legal agreements, nor could their heirs inherit from them. They were often summarily executed, and they forfeited all their possessions to the state, in this case the Crown, or as much of it as the rulers could get their hands on. What makes bills of attainder unique in legislation — and insupportable — is that they imposed draconian penalties on specific individuals without the need to find them guilty in a court, for they had lost their right to a jury trial or, indeed, any trial at all.

Now, if this sounds hauntingly familiar in modern America, that’s because it should. Bills of attainder may be unconstitutional, but acting in ways essentially equivalent apparently is not.

Consider the lawfare being directed at Trump. Only the naïve or the prejudiced could seriously believe that the indictments leveled at him would be directed at anyone else. They’re aimed at one man, and his first name is Donald, his last name Trump.

Enter Judge Arthur Engoron, and the indictment for fraud brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

This case is astonishing on so many levels. First, no one is claiming injury here: Banks loaned money to Trump based on the value of his assets. Trump repaid the loan, with interest. The banks had not the least inclination to sue him, since they had suffered no injury.

The article notes:

If one were of a suspicious mind, one might surmise that Engoron imposed the most massive fines he could in order to make it as hard as possible for Trump to appeal his ruling.

Surely not!

Now consider how similar this is to a bill of attainder. First, such a bill removes the legal rights of the target. Engoron has made an appeal against his ruling as difficult as possible. Further, draconian penalties have been imposed on Trump without the need to find him guilty of anything in court. As with a bill of attainder, the target’s ability to hold offices and function is withdrawn. His property is seized and removed from his control. Finally, since there is no aggrieved party claiming redress, the Crown — the state, in this case — takes the wealth forfeited. His heirs are punished — not for what they did but because they are his sons.

This is a bill of attainder in fact, if not in name. It differs only in that it comes from a court rather than a legislature.

Obviously the wrong people are on trial.

So What Do We Do Now?

The courts seem to move slowly. Most of the time that’s not an issue, but we have a court case right now where the timing matters. It will be interesting to see what the next step is. Also, at what point is Congress required to follow the U.S. Constitution and what are the consequences when they don’t?

On Tuesday, Just the News reported:

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday secured a major victory in his challenge to the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending package passed in 2022, with a court declaring that the bill was approved unconstitutionally.

President Joe Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 in December of the prior year. The measure effectively set the federal budget for the year by wrapping the 12 annual appropriations bills into a single piece of legislation. Paxton, however, had argued that the House’s passage of the measure was unconstitutional as less than half of the lower chamber’s members were physically present to vote on it. Many lawmakers who were not present voted by proxy. Paxton had specifically challenged stipulations in the bill that affect his state.

“Like many constitutional challenges, Texas asserts that this provision is unenforceable against it because Congress violated the Constitution in passing the law. In response, the defendants claim, among other things, that this Court has no power to address the issue because it cannot look to extrinsic evidence to question whether a bill became law,” the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division wrote. “But because the Court is interpreting and enforcing the Constitution—rather than second-guessing a vote count—the Court disagrees. The Court concludes that, by including members who were indisputably absent in the quorum count, the Act at issue passed in violation of the Constitution’s Quorum Clause.”

So what happens now? Does this matter?

The article concludes:

The Texas Public Policy Foundation served as co-counsel in the case.

“The Court correctly concluded that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 violated the Quorum Clause of the U.S. Constitution because a majority of House members was not physically present when the $1.7 trillion spending bill was passed. Proxy voting is unconstitutional,” TPPF senior attorney Matt Miller said.

Why Should They Listen To The Voters?

On Saturday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about one possible outcome of the 2024 election. It is becoming very obvious that as the powers that be work harder and harder to make sure that President Trump does not get a second term, more and more voters are deciding to support him–just to have their voices heard. This is going to make for a very interesting year.

The article reports:

In 2001, 2005 and 2017, some Democrat House members objected to the certification of electoral votes for the winning Republican presidential candidate. Those objections, while “denialist,” were only symbolic. But Democrat leaders in the House are now suggesting that if they control that body following November’s election–as they well might–they may refuse to allow a victorious Donald Trump to take office.

Notice that the objects to the electoral votes were not allowed in 2020–they were pre-empted by the events outside the Capitol and a parliamentary procedure was used to block them when the House reconvened.

The article concludes:

The Democrats have become so insane on the subject of Donald Trump that it is hard to know which of their mutterings to take seriously. But if Trump wins the election and a Democrat-controlled House refuses to certify his election on the ground that he is an “insurrectionist” under the 14th Amendment, we will be past the point of a constitutional crisis. If that happens, the only realistic path forward will be disunion, possibly accompanied by civil war, but preferably not.

This is one reason why the Supreme Court should put the 14th Amendment theory out of its misery, once and for all. It is obvious that the drafters of that amendment meant the just-concluded Civil War, in which 600,000 Americans lost their lives, when they referred to “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. In contrast, the January 6 protest was not one of the 50 most destructive riots of the last few years, and the only person killed was Ashli Babbitt. Not a single participant in the protest was arrested in possession of a firearm. Some insurrection!

In the interest of preserving the Republic, the Supreme Court should rule definitively that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Donald Trump.

Stay tuned.

When WOKE Takes Over

On Monday, Hot Air posted an article about a change in the information collected by the government from broadcasters.

The article reports:

The Biden Administration is so concerned about preserving democracy and the norms that underlie it that they are, once again, ignoring Supreme Court precedents in order to do the right thing no matter how many Constitutional limits they have to blow through. 

…This time the issue is collecting DEI information from broadcasters, which has been tried before and found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court–twice.

We have this story via an FCC commissioner who dissented from the decision. He was previously the General Counsel of the FCC, so he knows of what he speaks better than almost anybody. 

…There is one and only one reason for the FCC to require broadcasters to publish their DEI-related employment stats, and it has everything to do with making broadcasters vulnerable to pressure from activist groups pushing them to change the racial and gender balance of their employees. 

The point is to outsource what the government can’t do to pressure groups: impose de facto quotas.

The Court has twice rejected similar attempts by the FCC, but they seem to believe that in this case, the third time is the charm. 

The FCC claims that there is no evidence that forcing broadcasters to disclose this presumptively private information will have any impact. 

The article concludes:

Government grants go to nonprofits with Left-wing agendas, pushing for things the government cannot. It is the outsourcing of the cultural revolution in the way that post-9/11 intelligence and even military operations were outsourced to private contractors. 

It’s legally dubious, morally wrong, and over the long term it has been pretty damn effective. 

There is no plausible reason for forcing companies to release private employment data legally protected under privacy provisions except to give ammunition to outside pressure groups. 

Unfortunately, it’s no surprise that our benevolent betters are fine with tearing up the Constitution. They have been working at it for years now. 

I remember what happened in California when names of donors to a conservative cause were released–their homes were picketed and some were put out of business. The requesting of this information by the FCC is illegal and needs to end immediately.

That Ship Already Sailed

On Monday, The Daily Caller posted an article about some concerns in the intelligence community.

The article reports:

The intelligence community is warning that key agencies may be politicized under a second Trump administration as the 2024 election approaches after it tried to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story and pushed a now-debunked dossier about the former president, Politico reported on Monday.

Former President Donald Trump could politicize the intelligence community through who he appoints and removes as well as demanding adherence to his agenda, the 18 former Trump officials and analysts claimed to Politico. The FBI welcomed the now-discredited Steele Dossier alleging Trump had ties to Russia and 51 former intelligence officials signed onto a letter saying Hunter Biden’s now-authenticated laptop was Russian disinformation shortly before the 2020 presidential election.

I think a more accurate story would be that the intelligence community is concerned that a second term of President Trump might force them to be neutral and obey the Constitution. He might also hold them accountable for the times they broke the law. I suspect he might even change the personnel to make the agencies politically neutral. Oh horrors.

The article concludes:

However, Trump’s campaign cited the examples of the Steele Dossier and Hunter Biden laptop letter among examples of intelligence community weaponization against the former president.

“President Trump has been under assault ever since he announced his campaign in 2016,” Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung told the DCNF. “From spying on his campaign, Russiagate, the Russia collusion hoax, the debunked Steele dossier, and the 51 intelligence officials wrongly ignoring Hunter Biden’s laptop from Hell, the establishment has been trying to meddle in elections because they simply can’t stand voters choosing a candidate who puts America First.”

Trump is currently leading Biden by 2.1 points in a RealClearPolitics national average of polls.

The FBI insisted that the intelligence community incorporate the Steele Dossier in a report of foreign meddling in the 2016 election, according to Politico.

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio hinted Wednesday that the Department of Justice is operating under a double standard after it indicted an FBI informant who allegedly provided false evidence of corruption involving Biden, while letting Christopher Steele, a former operative of the Secret Intelligence Service, off the hook for his dossier that was used to try and remove Trump from office.

The FBI “dug their own grave” by promoting the Steele Dossier, one former intelligence official told Politico.

I pray for an honest election without interference from the intelligence community or the deep state.

Do We Really Want To Give Away American Sovereignty?

On February 19th, American Greatness posted an article about the pandemic treaty the World Health Organization (WHO) is negotiating.

The article reports:

Despite the immense influence wielded by the United Nations, attention to its rumblings is typically rare outside the international crisis du jour. Breaking from this trend, the ongoing negotiation of a pandemic treaty at the World Health Organization has captured the global spotlight long before reaching its anticipated conclusion. Yet, despite this heightened attention, the public debate on how to head off future pandemic threats has largely overlooked the potential impact of the WHO Pandemic Agreement on fundamental freedoms, notably freedom of expression.

Underway since March 2023, the pandemic accord negotiations seek to establish legally binding rules to enhance international cooperation and to strengthen the role of the WHO in preventing, preparing for, and responding to future pandemics.

To purportedly achieve these objectives, the draft text currently under consideration would commit parties to “tackle” such things as misleading information, misinformation, or disinformation, without offering a definition for these terms or specifying how this would be done. It would also require the “management” of so-called “infodemics,” defined as “too much information, false or misleading information, in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak” causing “confusion” as well as “mistrust” in health authorities. These provisions cast a looming shadow of censorship that should alarm anyone who values open discourse and transparent governance.

America is blessed in that our Founding Fathers gave the power to sort out misinformation and truth to the citizens of our country. That sorting was not to be left to the government. We saw during the Covid pandemic that a disease could be used as a weapon to trample the rights supposedly guaranteed by our Constitution. Understand that these rights were not given by our Constitution–they were supposed to be protected by our Constitution. Also understand that the American Constitution was put in place to limit the power of the government–not the rights of the people. I am not willing to surrender those rights again.

Who Wrote Her Script?

The death of any American military is sad. It should be solemnly addressed by the administration in power. Condolences should be offered. Unfortunately, the Biden administration’s response to the recent deaths of three American soldiers was not exactly what was called for.

On Monday, The Conservative Review reported:

During an interview on MSNBC, Jean-Pierre spoke about the fallen soldiers — but appeared nearly unable to piece together a coherent statement.

What I will say, our deepest, uh, obviously, our deepest condolences go out and our heartfelt condolences go out to the families, uh, who lost, uh, three, three brave, uh, three brave, uh, three brave — three folks who are military folks who are brave, who are always fighting, who are fighting on behalf of this administration, of the American people, obviously, more so, more importantly.

Uh, we lost those souls as the president said yesterday when he was in South Carolina. Our hearts go out to their families and friends. And let’s not forget: there are wounded, also wounded soldier, military forces as well, and our hearts go out to them, and so I want to make sure that we offer up those deep, uh, deep thoughtful condolences to them.

The article includes a video of Karine Jean-Pierre’s remarks.

First of all, the oath these soldiers took was to the U.S. Constitution–not to the Biden administration. Second, I found it demeaning to call these brave soldiers ‘folks.’ They were trained military personnel who swore an oath to defend their Constitution. They were not just folks.

 

Transformation of the United Nations

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

When President Ronald Reagan was asked why he left the Democrat Party, he replied, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat Party left me!” Meaning of course, that the principles and policies of the Democrat Party had changed to the extent that they were no longer consistent with his views of America. We are now facing the same situation with the United Nations (UN).

The original charter of the United Nations, when it was created after World War II, was focused on ending wars, promoting world peace, and human rights. The UN has morphed into a platform for global government and the elimination of individual national sovereignty. The evidence for this is substantial, as reflected in the revised mission statement in the UN’s Agenda 30, which includes the following, “We, the UN, are determined to manage consumption and production, and urgent action on climate change. Achieve full and productive employment for all. Adopt fiscal, wage, and social protection, and progressively achieve greater equality. Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of all people (i.e. open borders). Require universal vaccine documentation for all international travel.” This is nothing less than a totalitarian statement of socialism, make no mistake about it.

The UN has been capitalizing on the COVID19 outbreak and the manmade climate hoax to expand its worldwide control. With organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO), the UN is attempting to infringe and limit the rights and freedoms existing in individual nations. Just recently, the UN announced an effort to control freedom of speech worldwide (under the guise of misinformation) and stated that the United States should repeal its constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech since it is too broad in scope.

Clearly, the UN has moved towards world governance and a socialist agenda controlled by a group of bureaucrats. I do not want our freedoms controlled by some world government, and I assume neither do you as a freedom loving American. We must elect candidates who recognize the threat of global governance and are willing to fight against it. Leaving the UN would be a good place to start and would send a clear message that we stand for America first and will not surrender our independence.

Creating An Unnecessary Constitutional Crisis

On Thursday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the crisis at the southern border. There has been a crisis at our southern border since day one of the Biden administration when President Biden undid some of the procedures President Trump had put in place to deal with illegal immigrants. I am not sure why this is finally being addressed after three years, but I am glad that someone is taking action. It is very possible that it is finally being addressed because of the impact moving the illegal aliens around the country has had on Democrat-controlled cities. I am always suspicious of the timing of crises–in recent years they have become political tools.

John Hinderaker reports:

The Biden Administration has dealt a devastating blow to America by opening up the southern border to all comers. The influx of illegals threatens our national security and our economy, and it has placed an intolerable burden on the border states. How intolerable, is demonstrated by the panic that seizes blue cities when they are faced with a tiny fraction of the burden suffered by communities near the open border.

Joe Biden’s border policy is unconstitutional. Under Article II, his most fundamental duty as president is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Biden has not faithfully executed our immigration laws; rather, he has deliberately sabotaged and negated them. This is an impeachable offense, but what to do in the meantime?

In Texas, a constitutional crisis may be brewing. Governor Greg Abbott, having had enough of the scofflaw Biden Administration, had fencing erected along the border to discourage illegal migration. Biden, determined to illegally undermine our country, directed that the fencing be torn down so that more illegals can pour in. The case reached the Supreme Court, which voted 5-4 to overturn a Court of Appeals decision that enjoined federal border agents from cutting the wire. So for now, the Court has the feds back in control.

The article includes a memo written by Texas Governor Greg Abbott stating that it is the responsibility of the federal government to enforce the border. It also includes screenshots of tweets by other governors supporting Governor Abbott.

The article concludes>

Sarah Hoyt says that Oklahoma, Montana, Virginia, Arkansas, West Virginia, Louisiana and Idaho have also lined up behind Texas. And, she reports, the entire Republican Governors Association has signed a letter supporting Abbott. So far, no Democrats. Fine: let’s let sovereignty be the issue on which the 2024 election turns.

I haven’t studied the constitutional issues raised by this crisis in any detail. For the moment, I would simply say, with Justice Robert Jackson, that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. No sane interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions could conclude that a scofflaw president, by violating federal law and betraying his oath of office, can disable the states, who came together to form the federal government in the first place, from defending themselves against foreign invasion.

A nation without borders is no longer a nation. The battle has been joined. Let’s fight it out.

Where The Money Is Actually Going

On Friday, Zero Hedge reported the following:

President Joe Biden is heaping another $5 billion onto a $136 billion pile of taxpayer-funded student loan debt forgiveness, as one of his signature 2024 (vote buying) schemes heading into the 2024 election.

Not only has moral hazard been reduced to an academic concept, shouldn’t taxpayer funds be used to bail out poverty-stricken Americans before people with college degrees who signed their names to a contract for non-dischargeable debt? We digress.

Around 74,000 student loan borrowers will now see debt canceled as a result of administrative changes enacted by the US Department of Education in the latest round of relief – including borrowers enrolled in the government’s income-driven repayment and public service loan forgiveness programs, Bloomberg reports.

Each program requires at least a decade of payment or service to be eligible for relief. Mismanaged federal student-loan plans have left some borrowers without promised relief after making payments for as long as 25 years. -Bloomberg

“My administration is able to deliver relief to these borrowers – and millions more – because of fixes we made to broken student loan programs that were preventing borrowers from getting relief they were entitled to under the law,” Biden said in a Friday statement written by other people.

Of those receiving taxpayer-funded assistance, roughly 60% are taxpayer-funded “public servants” – so the snake continues to eat its tail. So, buying votes with voters’ money.

Since when is the federal government able to change the details of a contract mid-stream? Since this is essentially an expenditure, why is it coming from the Executive Branch? The House of Representatives is supposed to be in charge of spending. This should quickly be found unconstitutional by the courts, but I seriously doubt anyone will bring the case.

The Impact Of Changing The Voting Laws

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article about what happened in Arizona when the voting laws were changed so that let voters who failed to provide proof of U.S. citizenship on their state voter application forms vote in federal elections anyway,

The article reports:

Twenty years ago, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, also known as the “Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act.” At its core, the election integrity initiative required proof of U.S. citizenship to vote and photo identification at polling places. Prop 200 has come under constant assault from leftists fighting against the Arizona Constitution’s key qualification to vote in elections: U.S. citizenship. 

The challenge went all the way to U.S. Supreme Court, where in 2013 the justices ruled 7-2 that states could not add documentary proof of citizenship requirements to federal election registration forms. States must “accept and use” the standardized federal voter registration form for national elections under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The NVRA form, developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission, does not require proof of citizenship. It only asks that an applicant “aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen.”

…According to Mussi (Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a nonprofit committed to advancing a pro-growth, limited government agenda in the Grand Canyon State), the pause in the proof of citizenship provision saw an “explosion of federal only voters” — voters who used the federal honor system instead of showing actual proof of citizenship. 

According to the secretary of state’s office, about 1,700 people in Arizona voted in the 2018 midterm elections with a federal-only ballot. Two years later, in the absence of the documentation safeguard, the number grew to 11,600 individuals, according to AZ Free News. President Joe Biden claimed victory in Arizona by just 10,457 votes, or about 0.3 percent. 

It’s time for all Americans to work together to secure our elections. Voter ID should be required, and paper ballots (to be hand counted). Otherwise, we are on a slippery slope to becoming a Banana Republic.

 

This Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone

Channel 19 in Cleveland, Ohio, posted an article on January 3rd about the impact of the state’s new  “constitutional carry” law.

The article reports:

Contrary to concerns from some local leaders, a new study shows a decrease in gun crimes across six of Ohio’s eight largest cities following the implementation of the state’s “constitutional carry” law.

The research, conducted by the Center for Justice Research (CJR) in partnership with Bowling Green State University, analyzed data from June 2021 to June 2023, covering a year before and after the law went into effect in June 2022.

It focused on crimes involving firearms, verified gunshot-detection alerts, and the number of officers struck by gunfire.

The article notes:

The findings revealed:

  • Overall Decline: Across all eight cities, the rate of gun crimes decreased.
  • Significant Drops: Parma experienced the most significant decline (22%), followed by Akron and Toledo (both 18%).
  • Mixed Trends: Dayton and Cincinnati saw increases in gun crime rates (6% and 5%, respectively).

“This is not to downplay the very real problem of gun violence in our cities,” noted Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who commissioned the study. “But the key takeaway here is that we need to focus on criminals, not responsible gun owners.”

He acknowledged concerns expressed by several mayors before the study, stating, “I genuinely did not know what the study would find. I thought it would be useful either way.”

CJR Director Melissa Burek, a Doctor of Criminal Justice, led the research.

She emphasized the importance of examining the impact of policy changes: “This study helps us understand the complex picture of crime rates and policy implementation. It’s valuable data for informing future decisions.”

The findings add to the ongoing debate surrounding permitless carry laws, challenging concerns that such laws would lead to a surge in gun violence.

While proponents highlight responsible gun ownership and increased self-defense, critics argue it removes valuable safety measures like background checks and training.

Responsible gun-ownership discourages crime. Criminals are less likely to attack a person if he/she might be armed. Citizens have the right to defend themselves from criminals. Our Founding Fathers passed the Second Amendment to make sure that citizens had the power to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

Moving Away From The U.S. Constitution

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Biden administration has worked very hard to abridge the right of free speech in America.

On Saturday, Townhall reported:

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley had a few choice words for President Joe Biden after he used his first 2024 campaign speech to assault democracy. 

On Friday, Biden spent a significant portion of his campaign speech demonizing former President Trump and fear-mongering Americans by focusing on the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill protests. 

Turley suggested to Fox News that Biden’s speech was hypocritical by talking about the freedom to vote despite his own party attempting to strip Trump’s name from the 2024 ballot. 

During his speech in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Biden said that defending democracy was a “central cause” of his administration. However, Turley pointed out that the Democratic Party has gone to great lengths to suppress the constitutional rights of Americans and their freedom to choose who they want running the country. 

Jonathan Turley stated:

He lost me in the specifics. He talks about democracy being on the ballot but the ballot isn’t very democratic, his own party is trying to strip ballots of Donald Trump’s name to prevent people who want to vote for what appears to be the leading candidate for the presidency from doing that. So when he’s talking about the freedom to vote and have your vote count, his party is actively trying to prevent that and saying, really, you’re not just voting for me, just think you’re voting for democracy. For those people, they really feel like, if we vote for you, do we get democracy back next time? Are we going to have all of the candidates on the ballot? I don’t think that effort will succeed. It’s worth noting when he talks about the freedom of speech, the Biden administration I have written before, is the most anti-free-speech administration since the administration of John Adams. I mean, his administration has carried out what a federal court called an Orwellian censorship program with the help of social media companies. 

If you want your rights preserved as they are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, you cannot vote for a Democrat in 2024.

Misinformation And A Continuing Narrative

Recently President Biden recently gave a speech where he talked about attending the funerals of police officers killed on January 6th. Just for the record, there were no police officers killed on January 6th. There were two civilians killed–one shot and one beaten and trampled during a police-caused stampede in the Lower West Terrace tunnel.

Capitol Policeman Brian Sicknick died on January 7th, after having been admitted to the hospital for a stroke on January 6th. The medical examiner ruled Sicknick’s cause of death as natural causes–two strokes. There is speculation that the strokes were a reaction to either the chemicals sprayed by the police on that day or the chemicals sprayed by the protestors that day. We will never know.

However, when was the last time that a police officer who died of a stroke was honored by flags flown at half mast and lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda? Those two things, ordered by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were done to plant the idea in peoples’ minds that Brian Sicknick had been killed in the line of duty by radical extremists. It was all a lie. I am sure all of the police involved on January 6th were stressed. I am also sure that many of them were angry that the reinforcements that the President (Trump) had asked for were denied. There were also police that called headquarters for reinforcements and did not get a timely response.

The bottom line here is that we have been fed a lot of lies about January 6th. Many of those lies have been debunked as the videos of the day have been released. I am sure many more of the lies will be revealed as more video is released. Meanwhile, there are people in jail for simply walking through the Capitol after the police opened the doors. These defendants have been sitting in jail with no bail awaiting trial for three years. That is in total violation of the U.S. Constitution. Where are the lawmakers who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution?

The Push For Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson posted the following on Twitter:

This is the first step toward granting voting rights to all of those who have entered our country illegally. They will not be required to go through the process of becoming a citizen, they will have no understanding of America and its Constitution. They will be a group of totally uneducated voters easily swayed by the lies of the mainstream media. They are here to replace the votes of the Americans who have become aware of the lies of the mainstream media. If amnesty happens, we will not recognize our country within three years.

About That Fourteenth Amendment Thing…

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.

 

Part Of A Trend?

On December 11th, The Daily Caller posted an article about a man who switched his party allegiance from Democrat to Republican. He had worked as an advisor to Bernie Sanders and as a fundraiser for Joe Biden. So why did he change his mind?

The article reports:

But despite my active involvement in the Democratic Party, the concerns I hold regarding the party’s direction in recent years can no longer be ignored. 

I love our country. That is why I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party, a party that is focused on dividing us by radicalizing every issue and undermining our rights enshrined in the Constitution. 

The main reason I am leaving the Democratic Party is its utter disconnect with the American people. The party that once championed the working class has now been overtaken by elites in affluent hubs who couldn’t care less about the struggles of the average American. This shift has left many Americans, including myself, unheard and feeling like an afterthought of the Democratic Party. 

The party’s shortcomings in education have played a significant role in my departure. They have declared war on concerned parents like myself, labeling them “domestic terrorists,” for expressing their opposition to radical curricula that disseminate sexual content to young children. The party’s emphasis on “progressive ideology” in schools, at the expense of parental involvement and a robust STEM education, raises legitimate concerns about the future preparedness of our children. It’s time to shift our focus back to the fundamentals that ensure our children’s success, thereby building a foundation for a more prosperous society. 

Also, the Democratic Party’s shift toward identity politics has steered us away from the timeless belief of judging individuals by their character, and not by the color of their skin or similar characteristics. The weaponization of race and gender identity for partisan political purposes does a significant disservice to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy, and is a detriment to us all.

The article concludes:

This difference between stated values and actual behavior undermines the trust that citizens should be able to place in their government. As I reflect on these issues, I am compelled to seek a political home that aligns with a commitment to judging individuals by their character, fostering accountability, and advancing the well-being of all Americans.

By joining the Republican Party, I am not abandoning my values. Instead, I’m seeking a political home that aligns more closely with my vision for a free, united, and prosperous America. The Republican Party, with its emphasis on individual freedoms, fiscal responsibility, and a commitment to addressing the concerns of all Americans, offers a new path forward — one that I am eager to explore as I re-enter the political arena. 

Please follow the link to read the entire article. He makes a lot of sense.

The Importance Of Primary Elections

On Thursday, The Liberty Daily posted an article about primary elections.

The article cites a recent illustration of the importance of primary elections”

Another day, another betrayal by the Republican wing of the UniParty Swamp. The House overwhelmingly passed the NDAA and failed to strip out the extension of FISA domestic spying. Oddly, Senate Republicans actually did a better job of attempting to stop it than their House partners. Both still failed to do the will of their constituents and defend the Constitution.

Rather than write up a long rant about what needs to be done to reform the party or to hold our elected officials accountable, I’m going to cut to the chase. The primaries are EVERYTHING. Another election in which we’re forced to choose between the lesser of two evils in legislative races could be the end of our nation. We need America First constitutional conservatives. Having the letter (R) next to the name is not enough.

Fortunately, this is a presidential election year so the vast majority of attention by media, donors, and voters will be spent on the top of the ticket. This is an opportunity for patriots to have a greater impact on down ballot races during the primaries. Less money and effort will be spent propping up RINO legislative candidates so if we’re selective with our support and we loudly voice our opinions, we have a chance of putting fellow patriots on the general election ballots.

If we want to protect the rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution, we need to pay very close attention during the primary elections.

Please follow the link to see how conservatives can make a difference this primary season.

Time To Exit The United Nations?  

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D    

The United Nations (UN) was formed in 1945 right after the end of World War II.  Like the League of Nations formed after World War I, it was hoped that the UN would foster global peace among nations.  It is time to assess whether the UN has achieved that objective and whether our participation in it is beneficial to our country.  There have been many wars since the creation of the UN such as the Korean War, Vietnam War, Israeli Six Day War, Iraq War and currently Russia/Ukraine and the Israel/Hamas conflict.  

One might argue that the presence of the UN has prevented a nuclear World War III, but that would be a stretch to say the least. The threat of mutual destruction has been the controlling factor in preventing nuclear war thus far.  Whether that will continue with the spread of nuclear weapons to China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and inevitably Iran remains to be seen. The existence of the UN does not seem to have prevented nuclear proliferation.   

Is membership in the UN beneficial for the United States? The UN started with 51 countries and now has 189. The majority of these countries are not democratic and their values and principles are not consistent with our constitution.  Worse still, the structure of the UN General Assembly gives every country one vote with the weight of the smallest country (Tuvala, population 12,000) carrying the same impact of the United States.  Currently, the United States pays up to 25% of the UN annual budget of about $4 billion which amounts to $1 billion a year.  Money that could be spent on securing our borders, for example.  

Some other areas of concern are the leftist leaning decisions of the UN.  The World Health Organization arm of the UN mishandled the COVID 19 pandemic and failed to hold China in anyway responsible for the creation and spreading of the manmade virus. The UN’s unwavering support of the climate change extremist’s agenda, such as the Paris Accords, and the war against fossil fuels threatens our country and way of life, while allowing China and India to continue to build coal burning power plants.   Another example, is the UN’s failure to condemn the barbaric atrocities of Hamas for almost two months and their history of condemning Israel at the slightest excuse. They have never condemned Iran, the biggest sponsor of terror in the world.  The latest example is UNESCO’s (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) global wide guidelines that would severely restrict free speech in the media and social platforms. The guidelines require the blocking of any speech that they label as “misinformation.”  Sound familiar?  They also boldly stated that the U.S. Constitution needs to be changed to reflect these new guidelines. 

  It is time to have a serious debate as to whether we want to turn over the governance of our country to some global authority.  Some of the leftists in this country believe we should.  I do not and hope neither do you. With China increasingly controlling the UN by placing members of their communist party in key positions, we must make an honest evaluation of whether the UN has outlived its usefulness.