This May Not Be Going As Planned

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

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.

The Words Change When Necessary

Americans have no idea who Ray Epps was working for and probably will never know. The FBI and the DOJ have denied that he was working for them, but there are a number of other government (deep state) agencies that could have hired him. Evidently whatever agency that is no longer has his back. He is actually being faced with consequences for his actions on January 6th.

On Thursday, PJ Media posted the following headline:

And Just Like That, It’s No Longer an Insurrection

The article reports:

And just like that, the January 6 insurrection is no more. And the deconstruction story is really something. At the center of this narrative switcheroo is non-other than Ray Epps.

Before we get to that, let’s remember how we got here. It took only moments for the Democrat media complex to anoint the January 6 breach and riot at the U.S. Capitol Building an “insurrection.” As if beckoned by an unseen force, narrative builders dutifully lined up to receive the official wafer on their tongues, and voilà! “Trump supporters” who had never committed an act of violence at years of peaceful and crowded rallies were eligible for a 20-year prison stretch.

Shortly thereafter, the insurrection became a deadly insurrection when the same media reported, wrongly, that police officers were killed by rioters on January 6.

…Epps was vetted by the J6 Committee and declared not to be a federal agent. Epps claims he has been so damaged by the speculation in the media that he’s suing Fox News and Tucker Carlson for defamation for reporting on him. That dog won’t — or shouldn’t — hunt, but Epps and his attorneys see deep pockets and a future payday from a settlement, seeing as how Fox was willing to settle a case brought by Dominion Voting Systems.

Incredibly, the mainstream media have picked Epps as their pet protester, writing fawning treatments of this misunderstood man. For some reason, Epps is the only Trump supporter and J6 attendee that they’re willing to support. It’s unclear why.

…But with news of Epps’ lawsuits and the possibility that he really may face J6 charges, a story which, oddly, only surfaced with news of the lawsuit, the media have done an about-face on their pet protester and now refer to January 6 as “demonstrations,” “protests,” and Epps as a “protester,” “scapegoat,” and any notions that he could be a “Fed! Fed! Fed!” are dismissed as a “right-wing conspiracy theory.”

Epps’ attorney is a former Perkins Coie lawfare lawyer who now hangs a shingle in Wilmington, Del. He was one of the attorneys who brought the lawsuit against Fox News for “defaming” Dominion Voting Systems.

Follow the link to the story for further details. Isn’t it an incredible coincidence that Epps’ attorney formerly worked for Perkins Coie, the law firm that was wrapped up in the Russia Hoax, and now works in Wilmington, Delaware?

More Desperation


On Saturday, Townhall reported that an Arizona judge ruled against voting groups seeking to prevent Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, both Republicans from Arizona, as well as State Rep. Mark Finchem, a fellow Republican from the state, from appearing on the ballot. This is one of many lawsuits Democrats have initiated to keep key Republicans off the ballot in November. The uniparty in Washington does not like to be challenged.

The article reports:

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury ruled against the voter groups, as Ryan King reported for The Washington Examiner, based on grounds to sue. The groups bringing the suit tried to claim that the Arizona Republican lawmakers had participated in an “insurrection” on January 6, based on their presence at the rally before the rioters headed for the Capitol.

Note that they were present at the rally where the President stated the following, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. today we will see whether republicans stand strong for the integrity of our elections but whether or not they stand strong for our country.” That is hardly a call for an insurrection. The Democrats are working hard to give the impression that what happened on January 6th was an insurrection so they can then use the the 14th Amendment to disqualify anyone from running for election who supports President Trump.

As I reported on February 21st (article here):

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “No person shall be a … Representative in Congress … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

Hopefully we have enough good judges to put an end to this legal foolishness.

 

 

This Would Be Funny If It Were Not So Serious

One of the problems with the political left’s claim that January 6th was an insurrection is that none of the ‘insurrectionists’ had weapons. The only person shot was an unarmed civilian by a policeman, and there are a lot of questions surrounding the incident. I somehow think real insurrectionists might have been armed. I also wonder why they are called insurrectionists when there is public video showing the police waving them into the building. But a narrative is a narrative I guess. At any rate, the political left is not done with January 6th. Their next step is somewhat unbelievable.

Yesterday BizPacReview posted the following:

The FBI has previously stated that no firearms were found in connection to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol, but despite that contention, the media is now breathlessly reporting that authorities have found guns in the homes of protesters.

“Numerous people arrested in connection with January 6 have also had weapons in their homes, including this latest case just today — 3 pistols and an AR-15,” Mother Jones explosively tweeted in reference to an NBC report.

“Some January 6 defendants, including additional Oath Keeper members charged with conspiracy, have lied to investigators and went to significant lengths to destroy evidence of their communications related to the insurrection, according to court documents. Others have kept weapons in their homes in violation of pretrial orders. And some defendants have threatened future attacks,” they reported.

The defendants have not been found guilty of anything yet. They still have Second Amendment rights. I seriously doubt the part about future attacks since there was never an attack to begin with.

The article continues:

NBC New York is reporting that a man named Antonio Vuksanaj was arrested Thursday in connection with the Jan. 6 protest on federal trespassing-related charges. An AR-15 as well as three other guns were allegedly found in his home. The media outlet notes that it is unclear if these were his and if they were possessed legally. It should have been fairly simple for a major media outlet to find out if that was or wasn’t the case but it apparently doesn’t make for as good a headline.

Vuksanaj was turned in by a tipster and has pleaded not guilty. He’s facing trespassing and disorderly conduct-related charges which don’t appear to have any connection to possessing firearms. Nevertheless, outlets such as Mother Jones are seizing on the fact that he had guns at home which may or may not have been perfectly legal.

The article also notes:

Sanborn (Jill Sanborn, an FBI official) contended at the time that nobody from the riot was facing weapons charges, though a firearm was recovered from a van containing Molotov cocktails found near the Capitol. It is not publicly known whose van that was and if those involved were actual protesters taking part in the riot.

Please follow the link above to the article. The tweets in response to the Mother Jones article are hilarious. Mother Jones needs to go back to her days of Acapulco Gold and give up on the magazine.

Changing The Rules According To Political Beliefs

On Friday, The Gateway Pundit posted an article that illustrates the current problem with justice in America.

The article reports:

Democrat Rep. Joyce Beatty along with a group of far-left protesters stormed the Hart Senate Building on Thursday chanting, “End the filibuster!

Congresswoman Beatty, who is the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, was arrested during the insurrection by Capitol Police.
Police zip-tied her wrists and marched her off.

Rep. Beatty was out of confinement soon afterward. Yet, ironically, she complained about ‘the double-standard treatment’.
She did not have to worry about being held indefinitely without trial. She did not have to worry about losing her job or being doxxed in her community.

Meanwhile, over 20 Trump supporters still languish in isolation in a DC prison for walking into the US Capitol on Jan. 6. Their lives are ruined. Their incomes and reputations are destroyed.

There is something very wrong with the double standard that now operates in our justice system. We need to remember that unequal justice can be used against any American. As we see some political views being labeled as ‘hate speech’; or ‘racist’ when they are no such thing, we need to remember that we are responsible for the leaders we have. It