Declarations of Truth

Texas – will it set secession in motion? By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday saw a whipsaw of rulings in two courts, directly affecting the Texas program of State border enforcement. The U.S. Supreme Court refused the Biden administration’s “application to vacate a stay” early yesterday afternoon. But the stay involved was an administrative stay by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Within hours of the Supreme Court action, the Fifth Circuit dissolved their administrative stay, as they prepared to hear oral argument today. At the same time, the court has agreed to rehear an earlier Texas appeal – en banc. The Texas Nationalist Movement is watching – and publicly wondering what Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) will do. So now two questions occur: what will the Fifth Circuit decide, and what will Texas do in response? Texas, the courts, and various personalities Texas presently has three cases before the federal courts, at various stages, over three parts of its Operation Lone Star. The three parts include: • Installation of a barrier of ballards – buoys on a string – with circular saw-like disks between them, and nets beneath, • Stringing of concertina wire along a fence along the Northern Rio Grande riverbank, and • Making unlawful entry or re-entry into Texas from a foreign country a violation of State law. Each of these measures is the subject of its own case, two of which have actually reached the Supreme Court: Ballard string: U.S. v. Abbott, in District Court and Appeals Court, Concertina wire: Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, in District Court, Appeals Court, and Supreme Court. Direct arrests: U.S. v. Texas, in District Court (consolidated with another case), Appeals Court, and Supreme Court. https://rumble.com/v3za9tj-texas-buoy-case-mistakes-all-around.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v48xehx-texas-border-dispute-and-defiance.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Judge David Alan Ezra, former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii and now seconded to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, is handling the buoy case and the direct-arrest case. Judge Alia Moses, Chief Judge of the Western Texas District Court, is handling the concertina-wire case. Current dispositions Judge Ezra, on September 6, handed down a preliminary injunction ordering Texas to move the ballard barrier out of the main channel of the Rio Grande, and onto the northern riverbank. But the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed that decision until they could hear argument. On December 2, they voted 2-1 to vacate all stays. (The dissenting judge owes his appointment to President Trump; the other two owe theirs to Presidents Carter and Biden.) But almost at once, Texas applied for the full Fifth Circuit to hear the case en banc. Against all odds, a majority of the active judges agreed to this. Therefore the full Circuit Court vacated the earlier judgment and opinion. They will hear the matter on May 13, 2024. Judge Ezra also enjoined Texas from enforcing its new immigration law, known only as Senate Bill 4. In his opinion, the judge held that: • A surge of immigrants, legal or illegal, does not an “invasion” make. (“Invasion,” to Judge Ezra, means a military incursion by an organized, disciplined armed force.) • No State may run its own immigration policy; that would violate the Supremacy Clause. • Texas cannot say it is “engaging in war” with its passage of SB 4. • SB 4 interferes with American treaty obligations. The Fifth Circuit initially granted an administrative stay. Immediately the Biden administration ran to the Supreme Court with an application to vacate the stay. The Supreme Court balked – but the Fifth Circuit dissolved its own stay. About the concertina wire The concertina wire case began when Texas sued the federal government to stop Border Patrol personnel from cutting it. Judge Moses at first granted an injunction against the federal government – but let it lapse toward the end of November. Texas appealed, and a different panel voted 2-1 to grant an injunction pending appeal. The federals went to the Supreme Court, and earlier this year, the Supreme Court vacated that injunction. Then the Fifth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance and asked Judge Moses to hold an evidentiary hearing. She did this on March 5, but so far the proceedings are behind a paywall. At present she is dealing with a motion-to-dismiss from the federal government. The Fifth Circuit, meanwhile, heard the direct-arrests case today. (They have made a sound recording available here.) As mentioned, the full Fifth Circuit will hear the buoy case en banc in May. But in the meantime: Texas has left the ballard string in or just north of the centerline of the Rio Grande. The Texas National Guard has also ejected the Border Patrol from the Eagle Pass State Park, which they had been using as a staging area and processing center. Texas is also completing the construction of President Trump’s border wall on its own. The Texas National and State Guards are also stringing more concertina wire. As to direct arrests, Gov. Abbott insists that he has already been making them. https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1770530449707688410 If true, that’s the most serious open defiance yet. The Texas Nationalist Movement And what is the Texas Nationalist Movement doing? Watching, waiting – and pursuing several runoff campaigns from the Texas Primary. They took note when the Supreme Court denied the application for vacating the administrative stay. (And when the government of Mexico categorically refused to repatriate any of their people, should Texas deport them.) https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1770214603563450427 They took note again when the Fifth Circuit dissolved their administrative stay. https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1770467308349304874 Even before yesterday’s Supreme Court action, Newsweek published a piece describing a resolution by the Kendall County Democratic Party, calling for changes in the election code to disqualify “Texas First Pledge” signatories from running for office. https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1770136739908399136 The Boerne Star had carried their own article on the same story: https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1769769902045368643 TNM is urging a defiant stance – and active preparations for Texas to assert its independence. https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1770517558153576540 https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1770544612500820206 https://twitter.com/DeanRoss34/status/1770114538341282281 They also alleged something that, if true, would cast doubt on Judge David Ezra’s confident “finding” of no “invasion.” https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1769756267843665982 That dovetails with this stunning admission by Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee. He admitted that ten or more Known or Suspected Terrorists have already crossed the border. A “terrorist” is an irregular saboteur, therefore an agent of a hostile power. But the most striking post they’ve made recently is an hour-long analysis by TNM President Dan Miller. https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1769884392066044225 He wonders whether Gov. Abbott is actively preparing for “Texit,” and whether the world at large is preparing to accept it. For instance, he cited these fanciful, but on-point, videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXIaYWHclv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL-GPKh0JdI Analysis On one hand, as Mr. Miller pointed out, Gov. Abbott has been junketing around the world signing Statements of Mutual Cooperation with various foreign governments. The minute Texas changes its nickname from Lone Star State to Lone Star Republic, each of these statements could become a treaty. Of course, States may not make treaties under any circumstances. (U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 10 Clause 1.) No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation… Furthermore, Gov. Abbott’s posture might now be openly defiant, if his boast about making 41,000 criminal arrests is actually true. Yet he has, so far, refused to call the Texas Legislature into special session to consider a “Texit Bill.” Perhaps he’s waiting for next year’s regular session, which will likely have a new strength of secessionist sentiment. (Among other results, Rep. Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, Speaker of the Texas State House, faces a runoff. He has been the chief opponent of the Texit Bill when sympathetic colleagues have introduced it twice before.) https://rumble.com/v4ia9bf-texas-primary-advances-conservative-and-secessionist-cause.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Note that a “Texit Bill” would not be a resolution of secession. Instead it would cause a Joint Select Committee on Texas Independence to sit, hold hearings, and consider appropriate steps. Before that could happen, the people must vote in a referendum – in the first fall following the bill’s passage. How Texas could vote yes The last times the House Committee on State Affairs considered a “Texit Bill,” Texas wasn’t facing an immigration crisis, nor taking a pro-active, now defiant, posture in response. So the first move by the federal government to federalize any part of Texas Military forces might provoke that special session. Then a referendum on independence would appear on the ballot – in a Presidential election. Trump will likely carry Texas, but he might carry it more easily with a Texit Referendum also on the ballot. If Texans voted yes, Trump might take over a country with one of its largest States actively considering secession. No doubt he would move to correct the serious dereliction of federal Constitutional duty that has caused Texas to act as it has. And the easiest solution would be to give federal blessing, if not necessarily funding, to ballard strings and concertina wire. Perhaps he would also formally request Texas law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants. They would then turn them over to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement authority ready to do its job. But if Biden wins…! Neither Donald Trump nor Elon Musk (now one of Texas’ largest employers) has said what they would do then. A Biden victory and a Texit Yes vote invokes possibilities the seriousness of which one cannot overestimate. Perhaps one should close with this reminder: Joe Biden, you’re no Abraham Lincoln! Link to: Various court dockets: U.S. v. Abbott: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67630985/united-states-v-abbott/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67770228/united-states-v-abbott/ Texas v. DHS: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67909144/state-of-texas-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68058529/state-of-texas-v-dhs/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a607.html U.S. v. Texas: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68134300/united-states-v-state-of-texas/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68100418/las-americas-immigrant-advocacy-center-v-steven-c-mccraw/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68304081/united-states-v-state-of-texas/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a814.html US v. Texas oral argument: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/23/23-30305_3-13-2024.mp3 Previous videos: https://rumble.com/v3za9tj-texas-buoy-case-mistakes-all-around.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v48xehx-texas-border-dispute-and-defiance.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4ia9bf-texas-primary-advances-conservative-and-secessionist-cause.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Post: Greg Abbott’s boast: https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1770530449707688410 Texas Nationalist Movement: Home page: https://tnm.me/ Posts, including sympathetic posts: https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1770214603563450427 https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1770467308349304874 https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1770136739908399136 https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1769769902045368643 https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1770517558153576540 https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1770544612500820206 https://twitter.com/DeanRoss34/status/1770114538341282281 https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1769756267843665982 https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1769884392066044225 Two Alert World videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXIaYWHclv8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL-GPKh0JdI Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Supreme Court divides on First Amendment By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday the case of Murthy v. Missouri (once Missouri v. Biden) came to oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. And as they have on the Second Amendment, so the Court divided on the First. Exactly where that division will happen, the country must wait through June to see. But the advocate for the First Amendment was probably not the best advocate among the many lawyers for the plaintiffs. Furthermore, this advocate conceded a few things an advocate for a private plaintiff might not have. Nevertheless, the reasons why the plaintiff-respondents might lose this case, also show the way to a solution to the only real problem they all have. Which is: they are trying to preserve their voices on a de facto social-media cartel. Therefore their solution is to decamp from that cartel and support other platforms that have withstood the worst siege that cartel has thrown at them. The blocs of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court showed, in its 2022 Term, that it now divides itself into three blocs. https://rumble.com/v2xigv8-supreme-court-2022-term-in-review.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The Originalist Bloc of Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas stand on the Constitution – in its original language. Furthermore they stand on the original words of the Constitution and its amendments, and what those words originally meant. The Liberal Bloc of Justices Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor treat the Constitution as “a living document” and the Court as a Court of equity. As in, “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” No wonder – Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor appear to represent, respectively, the Black, Alphabet Soup, and Latinx (rhymes with Kleenex®) constituencies. https://rumble.com/v17mpwu-aoc-brands-fellow-dems-as-cowards.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The Moderate Bloc sometimes “splits the baby,” as they have in two recent border-critical cases out of Texas. This Bloc includes Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh. They tend not to want to upset precedent, unless someone – probably either Alito or Thomas, two of the best legal minds now on the Supreme Court – can persuade them. As Sam Alito did in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s, for example. Recently, Justices Barrett and Sotomayor, in an interview with PBS NewsHour, discussed the rather painstaking code of etiquette at the Supreme Court that is the most likely reason Justices Alito and Thomas have an opportunity to persuade their colleagues of anything. Preconditions for the oral argument Herewith the docket pages for this case from CourtListener (District and Appellate Courts) and the Supreme Court itself. https://twitter.com/dbenner83/status/1769787318376821150 The Supreme Court docket shows that someone – probably one of the Missouri plaintiffs – tried to move for divided argument and for an extension of time. Divided argument would have let a State Solicitor General (from Missouri or Louisiana) make one argument, and an attorney for one of the five individual plaintiffs (Jayanta Bhattacharya, M.D. Aaron Kheriaty, M.D., Martin Kulldorf, M.D., and journalists Jim Hoft and Jill Hines) make another. https://rumble.com/v4jzezt-first-amendment-goes-to-supreme-court.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1769779193896657035 Whoever it was, filed too late, and the Court denied the motion – probably because the Court had already scheduled another Big Case for the same day. (National Rifle Association v. Vullo, Docket No. 22-842.) So the plaintiffs selected J. Benjamin Aguinaga, Solicitor General of Louisiana, to make their argument. That would turn out to be a mistake. For one thing, Mr. Aguinaga thought like a government official, and therefore conceded far too much when a certain Justice argued for “compelling interests” and inherent “emergency” powers. A private attorney might not have been so willing to concede that. More to the point, a case like this needed a far more “ornery” attorney to argue it, than a State Solicitor General. Brian H. Fletcher, Chief Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, argued for the government. Attitudes of the Supreme Court Justices As should surprise no one, Justice Samuel A. Alito took up the cause of freedom of speech. Recall that he objected initially to staying the injunction when the government applied for it. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas joined Justice Alito in that dissent. So perhaps they are more likely to vote to affirm the Fifth Circuit’s admittedly watered-down injunction. At the oral argument, Alito made no secret of his disdain for – indeed horror of – the government’s position. https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1769817813341143488 Mr. Fletcher, when I read all of the emails exchanged between the White House and other federal officials on Facebook in particular but also some of the other platforms, and I see that the White House and federal officials are repeatedly saying that Facebook and the federal government should be partners, we're on the same team, officials are demanding answers, I want an answer, I want it right away. [And] when they're unhappy, they curse them out. There are regular meetings. There is constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms and they want to have regular meetings, and they suggest rules that should be applied and why don’t you tell us everything that you're going to do so we can help you and we can look it over. And I thought: Wow, I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media, our representatives over there. If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be? And so I thought: You know, the only reason why this is taking place is because the federal government has got Section 230 and antitrust in its pocket and it's – to mix my metaphors, and it's got these big clubs available to it, and so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like they're subordinates. Would you do that to The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service? Mr. Fletcher pleaded what the government had then persuaded everyone was a public-health emergency. He cited coronavirus, and a vaccine the government insisted was safe and effective. In fact it is dangerous and countereffective. Too bad no one never inserted that danger or that countereffectiveness into the lower-court record. In any case, Mr. Fletcher’s argument did not impress Justice Alito. Good intentions did not alter the air of command the government assumed when talking to those Trust and Safety Teams. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has emerged as the most strenuous advocate for the government. Toward the end of the session, she made this incredible statement: So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I'm really -- I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems. Further on: The line is does the government, pursuant to the First Amendment, have a compelling interest in doing things that result in restricting the speech in this way? That test, I think, takes into account all of these different circumstances, that we don't really care as much about how much the government is compelling or maybe we do but in the context of tailoring and not as sort of a freestanding inquiry that's overlaid on all of this. Does that make sense? https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1769780554772136090 https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1769741427271966976 https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1769753959315427812 The “hypothetical” here is a fictitious Internet “challenge,” daring teenagers to jump from ever-higher windows. In fact that mirrors any of a number of “death dares” on TikTok. The solution has always been to tell the “kids” not to do it, and alert the parents. More on death dares In any event, when a Justice of the Supreme Court actually says, You know, “Kids, this is not safe, don’t do it,” is not going to get it done. Then what does she think will “get it done”? Get what done? Since when does the government have a responsibility to protect people, even adolescents, from themselves? If an adolescent wants to enter the Darwin Awards competition by eating a “Tide pod,” to quote one particular TikTok “death dare,” then no law-enforcement agency can possibly be negligent. (In fact, Procter and Gamble, makers of Tide laundry detergent, did post a public-service announcement denouncing the Tide Pod Challenge.) As repugnant as this is, and bearing in mind the “instinct” that Solicitor Aguinara said he “understood,” the death dare is protected speech. But Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t understand that. In fact she spoke repeatedly of “compelling interests” to restrict speech – something none of her colleagues broached. (Definition: Darwin Awards – an informal competition, decided posthumously in all cases, to honor – or rather, remember – those who made the greatest improvements to the human gene pool by removing themselves from it.) But in criticizing Justice Jackson for not even remembering that such “death dares” as she invented actually exist, one must also criticize Solicitor Aguinaga for failing to mention that fact when Justice Jackson threw it at him. Instead of merely saying, “Your Honor, I understand the instinct,” does not one say: Your Honor, with all due respect, I submit, for the record, that such death dares as you describe in your hypothetical, already exist, and no one has responded by taking any of them down. And I further maintain that it is never any part of the government’s mission – not in this Republic – to protect people from themselves. Which brings up another thing: Mr. Aguinara referred repeatedly to “our democracy.” We are not a democracy, but a republic. The difference is more than academic. Other expressed attitudes Justice Thomas questioned Mr. Fletcher closely on whether “coercion” could include an apparently mutual agreement on censorship. Fletcher insisted that it would not, but Aguinaga said it would. But oddly, Justice Gorsuch drew from Mr. Fletcher that precise concession – that an inducement could qualify as coercion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to question the harm the injunction was now doing to the government. But later she accused Mr. Aguinaga of “confusing” his “legal doctrines” and even of willful distortions of fact. Several times Mr. Fletcher said, “The platforms say No to the government all the time.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged Mr. Aguinaga on that point. The Louisiana Solicitor said that wouldn’t change the fact of the threat. Chief Justice Roberts suggested to Mr. Aguinaga that the government was not “monolithic.” The Solicitor seemed to dispute that point. Justice Amy Coney Barrett challenged Mr. Fletcher on how it would look if Facebook literally turned over all Trust and Safety decisions to the government. That, Fletcher said, would constitute joint action. Later, Justice Barrett asked Mr. Aguinaga whether he would stand on the First Amendment even if someone shared his personal information and called for bodily harm against him. He said, “Yes.” (Actually, that kind of solicitation is an unlawful threat in any jurisdiction.) Mr. Aguinaga made one key – maybe fatal – concession to Justice Elena Kagan. He conceded that the government could take down speech by “terrorists.” But he did not concede that the injunction would interfere with such takedowns. (It wouldn’t.) Rebuttal – and analysis In rebuttal, Mr. Fletcher insisted that none of the parties had any standing, that the government’s communications with Trust and Safety Teams were nothing more than “bully pulpit” pronouncements, and that no coordination of censorship exists or existed. Those last two statements are lies, and one can show that easily from The Twitter Files. But this shows a glaring weakness in how the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana, and the lawyers for the individual plaintiffs, have run their case. Why didn’t they ever have any Twitter Files material entered into the record? They surely had that opportunity during the hearing Judge Doughty called on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Perhaps their most serious unforced error was not applying, in time, for divided argument and an extension of time. Furthermore, Solicitor Aguinaga failed to anticipate the outrageousness of Justice Jackson’s questioning. She distinguished herself, if dubiously, for just such outrages during oral argument during the entire October 2022 Term. Worst of all, a presumption has crept into Supreme Court jurisprudence that the government has “compelling interests” in: • Abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States (like freedom of speech), and • Depriving people of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (The “life” in view here is mainly that of unborn children.) Yesterday, Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only one to make that absurd claim. But the other two Liberal Bloc members probably would gladly take up that refrain. A solution outside the Supreme Court Citizens of the United States, as users of the most popular social-media platforms, have a problem. The problem is that these platforms have formed an informal, but no less real, cartel. That cartel imposes similar strictures on freedom of speech on their platforms. These restrictions go far beyond such obvious crimes as copyright violation, or the exploitation of children, to name two. Anything that challenges the: • Powers of “public health authorities” to shut down entire economies, • Safety or efficacy of Rockefellerian medicine and especially of “vaccines,” or: • Good will of world governments or especially world public-health organizations, is subject to censorship and sanctions against those who share such views. But in the fall of 2022, Elon Musk bought Twitter, Inc. and withdrew it from this cartel. And even before that happened, Andrew Torba’s Gab never said Yes to a government, and still won’t. Gab has definitely suffered retaliation. The cartel de-hosted Gab – as it de-hosted Parler before it. In response to these and other cartel sanctions, Gab built its own server farm and other infrastructure – even its own payment processor. They – and Rumble, the largest alternative video platform – have the simplest content standards of all social media. So if, as Dr. Steve Turley now fears, the Supreme Court vacates the anti-censorship injunction, https://rumble.com/v4k2ihl-this-is-the-most-massive-attack-on-free-speech-ever.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 the solution is simple. Decamp from the cartel! Demand the highest standards of free-speech protection, and limit your social-media participation to platforms that meet those standards. Link to: Docket pages: District court: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/ Appeals court: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67563473/state-of-missouri-v-biden/ Application for stay to Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a243.html Supreme Court review: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-411.html The oral argument transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-411_2c83.pdf Previous videos: https://rumble.com/v2xigv8-supreme-court-2022-term-in-review.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v17mpwu-aoc-brands-fellow-dems-as-cowards.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4jzezt-first-amendment-goes-to-supreme-court.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Dr. Steve Turley’s video: https://rumble.com/v4k2ihl-this-is-the-most-massive-attack-on-free-speech-ever.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Gateway Pundit post showing some of the plaintiffs: https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1769779193896657035 Charlie Kirk’s post on Justice Alito: https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1769817813341143488 End Wokeness’ post on Justice Jackson: https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1769780554772136090 Dave Benner, replying to Rand Paul, about free speech: https://twitter.com/dbenner83/status/1769787318376821150 System Update thread on Alito v. Jackson: https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1769741427271966976 https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1769753959315427812 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

First Amendment goes to (Supreme) Court By Terry A. Hurlbut Today the Supreme Court of the United States will hear argument in the largest First Amendment case in modern times. The case of Murthy v. Missouri, once known as Missouri v. Biden, comes to oral argument this morning. As the United States government proposes to assert an authority of which George Orwell scarcely dreamed, its targets are also preparing to ask the Court to let the case go to trial – and to reinstate a massive injunction against the clear violations of the First Amendment the trial judge found. But the targets are also rallying outside the Supreme Courthouse, and in legacy and “new” media. Essence of the First Amendment case On August 2, 2022, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, plus five individuals, sued the Biden administration and several agencies. They alleged that the government had coerced Twitter (now calling itself X), Meta, Alphabet, Spotify, and other social media to become State actors. The named individuals are Jayanta Bhattacharya, M.D. Aaron Kheriaty, M.D., Martin Kulldorf, M.D., and journalists Jim Hoft and Jill Hines. Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Monroe Division), has had this case ever since. In March of last year he denied a motion to dismiss from the defendants. And on July 4, 2023, he handed down a massive injunction against the government. The government appealed, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals weakened the injunction somewhat. That didn’t satisfy the government, so now they are asking the Supreme Court to clear them to go on turning social media into State actors. But something has changed since then: Twitter, now X, is not cooperating. Docket pages for this case are available from CourtListener (District and Appellate Courts) and the Supreme Court itself. https://rumble.com/v44aiyc-government-strenuously-defending-censorship.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Last-minute commentaries In apparent preparation for today’s oral argument session, The Gateway Pundit has run interviews with four individual plaintiffs. (The fifth, Jim Hoft, is Editor-in-chief of The Gateway Pundit and actually conducted all these interviews.) https://rumble.com/v4jj3oh-jim-hoft-talks-w-jay-bhattacharya.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4jdqf0-dr.-kheriaty-faces-termination-after-contesting-university-california-irvin.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4j619w-jim-hoft-interviews-dr.-martin-kulldorff-co-plaintiff-in-historic-mo-v-bide.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4jjagf-jim-hoft-interviews-jill-hines-who-was-silenced-after-challenging-governmen.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Mr. Hoft provided at least partial transcripts of his interviews with Drs. Bhattacharya, Kheriaty, Kulldorf, and Ms. Hines. These four faced censorship over their challenge to the prevailing narrative on coronavirus, and the “vaccines” ostensibly against it. In those interviews, the plaintiffs describe what they said that the government found so terrible, and the specific ways the censorship affected them. But coronavirus is clearly not the only issue at hand in the government’s flouting of the First Amendment. The theft of the Election of 2020 is another sore point. Yesterday The New York Times published a boo-hoo piece: “How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation.” In it they try to portray the government’s censorship regime in sympathetic terms. The piece refers repeatedly to “initiatives started during the Trump administration.” Of course they leave out that these were Deep State initiatives, operating behind the President’s back. They also mention the Twitter Files, and the first hearings before the Judiciary Committee and its Weaponization Subcommittee. Lastly they mentioned Judge Doughty’s injunction – and the Supreme Court’s scheduled oral argument on it. (Ben Kew at The Gateway Pundit also offered a brief summary of the piece.) A big rally Perhaps most embarrassing to the government, The Gateway Pundit is co-sponsoring a rally on the Supreme Courthouse steps for this morning. They list Children’s Health Defense, Liber-Net, the Brownstone Institute, the Front-line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) as its fellow co-sponsors. Most of these co-sponsors concern themselves with coronavirus and the vaccines. That should surprise no one, because the coronavirus “pandemic,” and the federal government’s overreaction to it, were central to the censorship of which the plaintiffs are complaining. The coronavirus issue is still alive, because the World Health Organization is using it to promote a very dangerous treaty. That treaty effectively will usher in one-world government, because it will set up an authority to override health policy in all signatory States. But more than coronavirus, or even the threatened “Disease X,” is at stake here. As The New York Times let slip, election integrity is also at stake. That an old-line newspaper should plump for censorship should shame them, given their role as petitioners in New York Times v. United States – the Pentagon Papers case. All this serves as more evidence that people should simply unsubscribe from legacy media and support new media. That includes other social media that, throughout this drama, refused to become State actors for any consideration. Link to: Docket pages: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67563473/state-of-missouri-v-biden/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-411.html Video: Government strenuously defending censorship https://rumble.com/v44aiyc-government-strenuously-defending-censorship.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Videos: interviews with named plaintiffs: https://rumble.com/v4jj3oh-jim-hoft-talks-w-jay-bhattacharya.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4jdqf0-dr.-kheriaty-faces-termination-after-contesting-university-california-irvin.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4j619w-jim-hoft-interviews-dr.-martin-kulldorff-co-plaintiff-in-historic-mo-v-bide.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4jjagf-jim-hoft-interviews-jill-hines-who-was-silenced-after-challenging-governmen.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Times piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/us/politics/trump-disinformation-2024-social-media.html Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Legacy media “jump the shark” on Trump By Terry A. Hurlbut The past thirty-odd hours have seen the most absurd distortion of a candidate’s words the legacy media have ever produced. After Donald Trump predicted massive job losses if he loses reelection, his enemies accused him of predicting massive casualties. But as a measure of the power of the New Media, a key legacy media commentator had to take back an accusation he posted. This will, without a doubt, lose them even more subscribers than they have already lost. The best they can now hope for is to have half the country follow them, while the other half refuse. The latest legacy media outrage Yesterday, President Trump appeared in a campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio, to support the candidacy of Bernie Moreno. Mr. Moreno is challenging incumbent Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) this November. (Actually he must first win the March 19 primary against two RINOs.) Moreno is also a former automobile dealer, which is relevant to what Mr. Trump said at the rally. Trump began speaking shortly after 4:00 p.m. EDT in Dayton. https://rumble.com/v4ite9u-live-pres.-trump-speaks-at-buckeye-values-pac-rally-in-dayton-ohio-31624.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Kristinn Taylor at The Gateway Pundit pointed out that the rally was very well-attended. When Trump arrived, the crowd greeted him with great enthusiasm. https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1769093474870009963 He spoke of mathematically clinching the nomination, https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1769095146866364628 reversing the disastrous policies of the Biden administration, https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1769095815912415671 and seeing justice done for Laken Riley, who lost her life to an attack by an illegal alien, and all other such victims. https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1769101054648504655 But then he started talking about the automotive industry, and about how he would reinstate tariffs against Chinese automobile imports. We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line. That, of course, would be relevant to Mr. Moreno’s automobile dealership ventures. Then he made the remark that started the legacy media going wild. He said that, if he didn’t get reelected, a “bloodbath in the automotive industry” would result. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath. That’s going to be the least of it. https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1769125293954884059 This is a reference to more job losses, especially at domestic automotive companies. How the legacy media reported it But several legacy media outlets, and their reporters, saw fit to construe Trump’s remarks another way. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1769121671317721324 https://twitter.com/mjfree/status/1769104815911559238 https://twitter.com/PopularLiberal/status/1769124349095653482 https://twitter.com/maddenifico/status/1769112616092250579 https://twitter.com/TheDividedStat3/status/1769120284685328438 These posts said much the same: that Trump had threatened a flat-out, right now, blood-and-flames civil war if he lost. One account apparently sought to make a criminal referral of some kind to Attorney General Merrick Garland. That attempt is still amusing, because he forgot to use Garland’s account name. Still another account mentioned Trump’s shake-up of the Republican National Committee, or at least its ranking officers. But other New Media accounts stepped in immediately to correct the misconstruction: https://twitter.com/albert1776/status/1769128983562494373 https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1769144187595723169 https://twitter.com/JessieJaneDuff/status/1769146585433379093 https://twitter.com/reesejgorman/status/1769135936363692152 Rumble influencer Grant Stinchfield made an unusual Sunday episode of his show, to discuss this latest distortion. https://rumble.com/v4jt5wf-the-bloodbath-hoax-backfiring-media-ratings-plunge-along-with-joe-bidens-po.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 He wasn’t the only outraged New Media influencer. “Professor Nez” weighed in, too: https://rumble.com/v4jvzm5-main-stream-media-invents-new-hoax-to-get-trump-massive-disinformation-camp.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 But the final humiliation came from Elon Musk, now the owner of X. First, Joe Scarborough of MSNBC actually posted a worse construction on the word bloodbath, in a reference to the January 6 event. An angry Musk replied: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1769338682706632805 After which, Scarborough deleted his post. Perhaps he didn’t want to risk Musk taking it down, as the “Old Twitter” Trust and Safety team might have done – to a post from the other side. Musk goes full animal In any event, Musk later posted this commentary: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1769343816434139583 The letterword NPC stands for Non-Player Character and refers to one refusing to think for oneself. Later he accused the legacy media straight-out of lying. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1769347889392730271 Then he posted this clip giving the full context of the word Trump used: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1769362828954132928 Finally he posted this zinger: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1769364263041187851 Musk had already said if Republicans do not regain the White House and both chambers of Congress, “America is doomed.” https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1768819343628947703 Your correspondent notes that, so far, Musk has ruled out making Presidential campaign donations. Ben Kew at The Gateway Pundit suggested Musk might make a few donations in down-ticket races. Perhaps he really should ally himself with Mike Lindell and support cases like Curling v. Raffensperger and Lake v. Fontes. https://rumble.com/v43uanv-georgia-elections-insecure-statewide.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4jpga3-kari-lake-takes-it-to-scotus.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Just one more word This kind of silliness shouldn’t bear mention. But, sixty-odd years ago, it wouldn’t – because it wouldn’t happen. Editors were far more careful about context dropping than they are today. They were also careful about comparing people to one of the most dangerous despots the world has known. Today the legacy media has thrown such caution to the wind. The only reason why Trump cannot sue any of those people is that, in America, “public figures” have almost no recourse against the “lying and bad-mouth offenses” of libel, slander, and defamation of character. But if he can’t sue them, then he and his allies can encourage people to unsubscribe from legacy media organs, and stop reading, watching, or listening to their content. This of course goes along with the Parallel Economy that Steven Turley, Ph.D., and others, have urged Americans to build. The once-popular American television show Happy Days ended its run rather abruptly, after its most famous supporting character, Arthur “Fonz” Fonzarelli, literally took a ski jump over a live shark. “Jumping the shark” is now proverbial for an outrageous publicity stunt that makes the one pulling it look stupid. Which is exactly what the legacy media has now done. Link to: Livestream from Trump’s rally in Dayton: https://rumble.com/v4ite9u-live-pres.-trump-speaks-at-buckeye-values-pac-rally-in-dayton-ohio-31624.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Five X posts about Trump’s arrival and speech: https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1769093474870009963 https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1769095146866364628 https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1769095815912415671 https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1769101054648504655 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1769125293954884059 Five misconstructions of Trump’s word: https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1769121671317721324 https://twitter.com/mjfree/status/1769104815911559238 https://twitter.com/PopularLiberal/status/1769124349095653482 https://twitter.com/maddenifico/status/1769112616092250579 https://twitter.com/TheDividedStat3/status/1769120284685328438 Four posts correcting the record: https://twitter.com/albert1776/status/1769128983562494373 https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1769144187595723169 https://twitter.com/JessieJaneDuff/status/1769146585433379093 https://twitter.com/reesejgorman/status/1769135936363692152 Videos by Grant Stinchfield and “Professor Nez”: https://rumble.com/v4jt5wf-the-bloodbath-hoax-backfiring-media-ratings-plunge-along-with-joe-bidens-po.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4jvzm5-main-stream-media-invents-new-hoax-to-get-trump-massive-disinformation-camp.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Elon Musk’s posts: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1769338682706632805 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1769343816434139583 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1769347889392730271 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1769362828954132928 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1769364263041187851 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1768819343628947703 Previous videos: Curling v Raffensperger and Lake v Fontes: https://rumble.com/v43uanv-georgia-elections-insecure-statewide.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4jpga3-kari-lake-takes-it-to-scotus.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Kari Lake takes it to SCOTUS By Terry A. Hurlbut Kari Lake, candidate for Governor of Arizona in the 2022 Midterms, now has petitioned the United States Supreme Court. Even before those Midterms, Lake and fellow candidate Mark Finchem (who ran for Secretary of State) challenged the fairness and accuracy of Arizona’s electronic voting machines. This might be the first time any court not tainted with network or ideological corruption will hear this particular matter. It is also the first opportunity for the highest court in the land to review electronic voting machines for accuracy. Ironically, those machines went in as a response to an election in which the Supreme Court did intervene. Lake and Finchem’s attorneys show convincingly that those machines were the wrong reform to avoid the infamous “hanging chads.” In this case they seek only recognition of their standing. Once they have that, they want a court to enjoin the use of these particular electronic voting machines. Kari Lake files her latest case Kari Lake is now seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) now holds. (Sen. Sinema has declined to defend her seat, thus leaving it open.) Mark Finchem is running for the Arizona State Senate in Legislative District One – with Donald J. Trump’s endorsement. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112085231737372518 https://twitter.com/RealMarkFinchem/status/1767700317435498998 Arizona will hold its Presidential primary next Tuesday (March 19), and the down-ticket primary on August 6. Naturally, Lake and Finchem want to settle this election-integrity matter before that primary, then the general election (November 5). The luck of the draw in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has been hit or miss even since Trump’s first term. Lake and Finchem clearly “missed,” because the three-judge panel dismissed their lawsuit on October 16, 2023, for lack of standing. Immediately their attorneys explored a petition for review by SCOTUS. Currently the SCOTUS docket records contain an Application for Extension of Time to File (Docket No. 23A622). Justice Elena Kagan, the Supervising Justice for the Ninth Circuit, extended the time twice. Now, apparently in the nick of time, the lawyers have filed a 210-page petition for review. Jordan Conradson at The Gateway Pundit has the best coverage, and TGP is also hosting the document here. (Apparently the Supreme Court hasn’t uploaded it yet.) Essence of the case Arizona is a Dominion Voting Services State, as is Georgia. In Arizona, Dominion Voting actually uses a Ballot On Demand print device. This device allegedly can produce a ballot in any of a variety of “styles” for voters who, at any given precinct, might be voting in different sets of elections, depending on their home addresses. In most other jurisdictions (including where your correspondent serves as an Officer of Election), OOEs hand voters a ballot from one or more stacks, each stack holding ballots of a particular “style.” But Arizona has seen fit to print ballots of different styles when a voter shows up. In the 2022 Midterms, that turned out to be an unmitigated and inexcusable disaster. https://rumble.com/v1t22q0-red-wave-meets-blue-seawalls.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 County-wide election officials delivered paper of the wrong stock and size, causing unforced and fatal printing errors. Chains of custody broke six ways from Sunday. Lines stretched so long that many voters could not vote at all. Chief OOEs, on their own authority or on advice from higher-ups, sent voters to different precincts. The destination chiefs, of course, weren’t ready for them. And incredibly, State superior courts accepted the excuse that the voters involved could and should have voted early. Questions even before the election But even before that debacle, Kari Lake and Mark Finchem had reason to believe the BOD devices, and the scanner-tabulators, were unreliable. It was good reason, in the form of reports of vulnerability – and that hacks had taken place before. That’s why they filed their initial action, on April 22, 2022. Judge John Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the Arizona District dismissed the matter on August 26, 2022. In granting this summary judgment, Judge Tuchi relied on representations from Maricopa County and the Arizona Secretary of State’s office of precautions they allegedly took to ensure that such hacking as Lake and Finchem feared, could not occur. Beyond that the judge held that the claimed security lapses were “speculative.” He referred to the then-ongoing Georgia election-integrity case, Curling v. Kemp (now Curling v. Raffensperger). https://rumble.com/v43uanv-georgia-elections-insecure-statewide.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 In that case, Donna Curling alleged security breaches of specific machines in a specific election. Obviously the judge held Kari Lake and Mark Finchem to a standard of showing that a breach did occur and affected the outcome of an election in which they were then candidates. That’s similar to other cases in which courts held plaintiffs to higher standards of proof than the law requires. Not only did the judge throw the case out, but on December 1, 2022, he imposed sanctions on Lake and Finchem’s attorneys. Again he took Maricopa County officials’ word on whether elections were secure or not. At the end of his ruling, he wrote: Imposing sanctions in this case is not to ignore the importance of putting in place procedures to ensure that our elections are secure and reliable. It is to make clear that the Court will not condone litigants ignoring the steps that Arizona has already taken toward this end and furthering false narratives that baselessly undermine public trust at a time of increasing disinformation about, and distrust in, the democratic process. It is to send a message to those who might file similarly baseless suits in the future. The appeal Kari Lake appealed the dismissal on September 16, 2022. The case went before Judges Ronald M. Gould, Andrew D. Hurwitz, and Patrick J. Bumatay. These judges owe their appointments to Presidents Clinton, Obama and Trump, respectively. These three judges issued a per curiam opinion – thus hiding how each judge voted. They affirmed Judge Tuchi’s dismissal for lack of standing. In so affirming, the panel relied on the District Court record, which itself relies on assurances of election security. This particular statement by the District Court seems to be the linchpin of the Courts’ opinions: [A] system that uses paper ballots for recording votes and electronic machines for tabulating them remains a “paper-based voting system.” Your correspondent disputes that, and so do Kari Lake and Mark Finchem. If that statement were true, then the French would be wasting their time doing all their official counts as manual counts of the paper ballots, or bulletins, voters hand in. https://rumble.com/v2w24g4-france-votes-on-paper-why-cant-we.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The French understand something Judges Tuchi, Gould, and Hurwitz apparently do not. Which is: unless the manual count is the official count, one can make subtle changes to the vote that none would suspect until the Secretary of State certified the election. What does Kari Lake want? That’s why Kari Lake wants Arizona – and presumably the rest of the country – to run elections in the French way. Which means: paper ballots, and manual counting of those ballots as the official count. To support their petition for review by SCOTUS, Lake and Finchem allege that Maricopa County officials flat-out lied to the District Court. One can almost presume this, on the basis of other stories that Jordan Conradson has broken in Arizona. For example: Maricopa County elections staff broke into certified and sealed scanner-tabulators and inserted removable media containing program updates. What began with new records showing this, continued with video evidence. https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1662893154977083395 https://twitter.com/KariLakeWarRoom/status/1662872148921434114 The Lake campaign has also briefed several Arizona State courts on the evidence they uncovered. Jim Hoft reported, in April of 2023, that the Department of Justice, two weeks before the Election of 2020, had announced an election fraud investigation in Arizona. But after the election, they made no report. Finally, in their petition, Lake and Finchem made six specific “new … allegations regarding standing”: • First, Maricopa did not conduct the required [Logic and Accuracy] testing, on which the district court relied to find the risk of election interference speculative. • Second, Maricopa did not use certified software, on which the district court relied to find the risk of election interference speculative. • Third, Maricopa used software that made all passwords needed to control Maricopa elections available to anyone with physical or remote access, which supports petitioners’ allegations and evidence that past elections were manipulated. • Fourth, altering election software without the Arizona Secretary of State’s approval is [a] criminal act under Arizona law, A.R.S. §§16-449(A), 16-452(C), 16-1009, 16-1004(B), 16-1010, thereby evaporating presumptions in their favor under Arizona law. See note 5, infra (Arizona’s “bursting bubble” theory of nonstatutory presumptions). • Fifth, Maricopa’s officials misrepresented their compliance with Arizona election law (e.g., L&A testing, certified software), which negates any presumptions in their favor under Arizona law. See note 5, infra (Arizona’s “bursting bubble” theory of nonstatutory presumptions). • Sixth, Maricopa officials abdicated control over the complex election systems to embedded private Dominion employees who lack any presumption of regularity under Arizona law. See note 4, infra. “Note 4” reads: Arizona election officials benefit from nonstatutory presumptions of regularity, Hunt v. Campbell, 19 Ariz. 254, 268 (1917), but those presumptions do not apply to private actors engaged in an election. Garcia v. Sedillo, 70 Ariz. 192, 200 (1950) (“the officials in this election were not public officials where we can say that there is a presumption that they acted in good faith”). “Note 5” reads: For election officials, nonstatutory presumptions evaporate in the face of rebuttal evidence: “Whenever evidence contradicting a legal presumption is introduced the presumption vanishes.” Silva v. Traver, 63 Ariz. 364, 368 (1945); Golonka v. GMC, 204 Ariz. 575, 589-90 ¶48 (App. 2003) (discussing Arizona’s “bursting bubble” treatment of presumptions). These are the most sensational allegations, because they tell us that the defendants lied to the District Court. (And perhaps it was “a lie, agreed-upon.”) But Lake and Finchem also raise considerations of “procedural” and “unequal-footing” injury, which the lower courts ignored. Why can’t people understand? Arizona’s premier newspaper of record, The Arizona Republic, tries to throw cold water on this case. Laurie Roberts’ column of yesterday is typical. Did she even read the petition? Apparently not. Funny thing. The new evidence sounds pretty much like the same old Maricopa County-is-the-devil argument they’ve been making all along: altered software, faulty testing, coverups, the usual stuff the courts have rejected. Not this time! The allegations in the petition reflect evidence that came to light after the appeal. I don’t know whether this is ENIGMA-level spy stuff that'll shock the world. Or whether it's even true. They appear to offer no backup to support their claim in the 210 pages filed with the Supreme Court. How convenient. Ms. Roberts has forgotten that such things come forward at oral argument. What I do know is that this appeal still doesn’t offer any evidence that Dominion’s machines – the ones various independent experts have confirmed were not connected to the internet – were hacked. That’s not the standard of proof, and she should know that if she presumes to cover an appellate proceeding. The standard is what could happen in the future. As the petition clearly states: The Article III imminence requirement does not require that petitioners wait to be injured. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2210 (2021). Indeed, in the election context, such a standard is unworkable. Instead, imminence for “risk of future harm” requires only a “risk of harm [that] is sufficiently imminent and substantial.” Which Kari Lake and Mark Finchem also show. Laurie Roberts’ X feed clearly shows that she is a Never-Trumper and a Uniparty hack. (Uniparty means the Democratic Party and the old-line Republican establishment. The term refers to the collusion between those two entities, in order to shut-out outside apple-cart upsetters.) The arguments Ms. Roberts makes against Kari Lake’s chief premise are totally specious. A so-called reporter cries “Foul!” on Gillespie County, Texas, for hand-counting ballots in the March 5 Texas Presidential primary. https://twitter.com/JenAFifield/status/1765477241839034555 https://twitter.com/JenAFifield/status/1765478129655746614 Laurie Roberts runs with that: https://twitter.com/LaurieRoberts/status/1765493624312377481 News flash! Counting by hand for a larger population would not mean limiting counting staff to 200 people. With the same ratio of counting officers to votes cast, we could easily turn our elections around in 24 hours. The French do this all the time. And remember: The Machines demonstrably broke down in Maricopa County, Arizona in 2022. Moving forward Assuming the Supreme Court accepts the petition for filing, they’ll likely put it on the agenda for next week’s conference. This will take place on March 22. One can probably expect the Originalists to vote to grant review. So Mr. Justice Thomas will need to persuade Justices Kavanaugh and/or Barrett to support him in this. (The Chief Justice is not likely to want to grant review, given his harangue of his colleagues to reject Texas v. Pennsylvania in 2021.) The issue of “getting rid of the machines” is not before the Supreme Court; only Kari Lake’s standing is. But Lake has asked the Court to remember its intervention in the Election of 2000. That intervention provoked the introduction of electronic voting machines, first by Diebold, then by Dominion Voting, Election Systems and Software, and a smattering of other vendors who divide a ten percent “market share” among them. Kari Lake has given true patriots their one chance to “get rid of the machines” for this Election. Until that happens, elections will not be secure. Again, arguments against a hand count are inexcusably specious. The French solved that problem easily: let each voter submit a piece of paper for each race or public question. Hiring enough counting officers to count ballots by hand is surely less expensive than: • Putting those machines into a warehouse, • Guarding said warehouse against unauthorized intrusion, and • Paying the legal fees to defend against challenges like the one at issue today. Link to: Trump’s endorsement of Mark Finchem, and Finchem’s acceptance of it: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112085231737372518 https://twitter.com/RealMarkFinchem/status/1767700317435498998 The application for extension of time: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a622.html The petition: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/plugins/pdfjs-viewer-shortcode/pdfjs/web/viewer.php?file=https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Lake-and-Finchem-Petition-For-Writ-Of-Certiorari.pdf&attachment_id=1115555&dButton=true&pButton=true&oButton=false&sButton=true#zoom=auto&pagemode=none&_wpnonce=426451ceea The report: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/just-kari-lake-mark-finchem-take-lawsuit-ban/ Earlier videos by Declarations of Truth: https://rumble.com/v1t22q0-red-wave-meets-blue-seawalls.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v43uanv-georgia-elections-insecure-statewide.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v2w24g4-france-votes-on-paper-why-cant-we.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Docket pages: District court case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63260463/lake-v-fontes/ Appeals court case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67328004/kari-lake-v-adrian-fontes/ Video evidence of possible tampering: https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1662893154977083395 https://twitter.com/KariLakeWarRoom/status/1662872148921434114 Earlier reports of new evidence: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/05/smoking-gun-this-election-was-rigged-kari-lake-attorneys-say-clear-misconduct-and-intent-caused-260-of-446-tabulators-to-fail-on-election-day-filing-included/ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/05/ready-new-video-evidence-maricopa-county-elections-officials/ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/just-kari-lakes-attorneys-file-new-brief-petition/ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/were-they-told-to-stand-down-the-dojs-arizona-election-fraud-investigators-go-awol-following-2020-and-2022-elections-where-are-they-today/ Laurie Roberts’ column: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2024/03/15/mike-lindells-and-kari-lakes-explosive-new-evidence-goes-pffft/72990063007/ Laurie Roberts and friend cast doubt on hand counting: https://twitter.com/JenAFifield/status/1765477241839034555 https://twitter.com/JenAFifield/status/1765478129655746614 https://twitter.com/LaurieRoberts/status/1765493624312377481 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

American politics – battle of the sexes? By Terry A. Hurlbut Three days ago, Donald J. Trump mathematically clinched the Republican nomination for President of the United States. By itself this event merely confirmed what everyone already knew. After all, Ambassador Nikki Haley, by throwing in the towel, had already decided the nomination. But the next night, a now-iconic panel of five commentators discussed “The Rematch” between Trump and “Resident” Joe Biden. One of them – Greg Gutfeld – returned to a theme he has sounded before. In his view, American electoral politics, especially national politics, has turned into a battle of the sexes. But this battle of the sexes is more dangerous, because the women this time have no fellow-feeling with men. Greg Gutfeld’s battle of the sexes exposition Gutfeld held forth on the coming (or ongoing) battle of the sexes in a segment of The Five on Fox News Channel. Ian Schwartz at RealClearPolitics provided a transcript. This is not a rematch. This is the second half of the Trump Bowl. And Biden was merely the worst halftime show in history, worse than Maroon 5 in 2019 and that is saying something. We keep talking about the black and Hispanic vote but we are missing what it really is. The Dems are not losing the black and Hispanic vote, they are losing the black and Hispanic men, right? Why don't they break that down, that men are fleeing the Democratic party like a showing of Barbie? It is because it is terrifying to them that they are becoming the party of AWFLs, affluent, white, female, liberals. The Democratic party has become almost a political version of the Bud Light commercial with Dylan Mulvaney. They've alienated men in order to please miserable activists, and men are like, hey, we know when we are not wanted. We will see ourselves out. We know what a woman is, right? We know what is best for our kids. We know what it takes to protect our cities and our families and we are tired of apologizing for laughing at funny jokes and having natural testosterone, right? So they know, they know that the Democratic party has become a gender-specific party, and it is run by a specific type who deny biology, deny reality, deny common sense and laws necessary for safety and security because you know why? They're too mean. It's no different [from] a teacher's lounge at Smith College. They have alienated men in favor of tormented activists. I would just like to know, what has Joe Biden -- what has the Democratic party ever said about men? Anything? It's about women. It's about gender. It's about trans. And it's about race. Right? And they got so obsessed with race, they forgot about the sexes, especially one half of the sexes. It's a party that is inhospitable to the Y chromosome. If you are a man, why stick around? (Note: Schwartz insisted on inserting the word urban between the words female and liberal to “complete the acronym.” That word belongs out, good or bad, because Greg Gutfeld left it out.) This X user, while biased against conservatives generally, at least embedded an accurate video of Mr. Gutfeld’s remarks. https://twitter.com/DecodingFoxNews/status/1768358733631942765 Later that night, on his own program, he returned to this theme. He published his own essay the next day. In it he reiterated that Black, Latino, and especially Asian-American men are deserting the Democratic Party. They are doing this because the Democratic Party is hostile to men qua men. As mentioned, Greg Gutfeld has sounded this theme before. In a discussion of American female swimmer Riley Gaines’ protest against mediocre male athletes “identifying as women” in order to score athletically against another class of competitors, Gutfeld said this: https://twitter.com/abughazalehkat/status/1671995452512956416 In essence he said that if the Democrats insist on forcing parents to consent to the surgical mutilation and hormonal poisoning of their children, and taxpayers to pay for it, they will risk a second civil war. Less dramatically, he predicted that in ten years, physicians and surgeons would lose their licenses for taking part in, aiding, and abetting these practices. What is it all about? Mr. Gutfeld might seem to have expressed himself inconsistently and even inartfully at times. For example, the Y chromosome is no longer the disqualifying factor – not with the advent of surgical mutilation and hormonal poisoning to let a biological man pass for a woman. The key to the problem is the spectacle of mediocre males “re-identifying” as females. We see this in athletics and, more disgustingly still, in the military. The women fighting the battle of the sexes include biological males, who never learned how to be true men, uniting with biological females who hate the true men. They share in common a disdain for all reproductive function, or any of the womanly arts. What can it matter to them, that reproduction would be impossible? Gilbert and Sullivan famously asked: If you enlist all women in your cause, / and make them all abjure tyrannic man, / the obvious question then arises: How / is this posterity to be provided? They don’t know, and they don’t care. Their time horizon extends no further than an immediate revenge for real or imagined slights. This is what Gutfeld means by a specific type who deny biology, deny reality, deny common sense and laws necessary for safety and security. It is not the Y chromosome to which the Democratic Party is inhospitable. It is men who know how to be men, and the idea that the sexes are in fact different. At the same time they know the sexes are different – and seek to divide them. How the battle of the sexes began The battle of the sexes has its roots in the earliest tensions between men and women in civilized society. Sadly, they result from an institutional failure, on the part of men, to attend to their responsibilities as men. Paul of Tarsus, in his Letter to the Ephesians, addressed several superior-subordinate relationships. These included employers and employees (actually masters and slaves in his day), parents and children – and husbands and wives. While exhorting the subordinates to submit to their superiors, Paul also enjoined the superiors to treat their subordinates fairly. He also reminded everyone in such relationships that with authority comes responsibility. Sadly, in the United States, too many men shirked that responsibility. They took to drink, and, in addition to not being able to carry out their responsibilities under its influence, spent their earned substance on intoxicating liquor. Charles Gloyd was one such man. A physician who had fought in the Union Army, he was plainly addicted to alcohol. In Holden, Missouri, where he settled after the war, he met a certain young woman and, against her parents’ better judgment, married her. But he proved a poor husband, separated from his wife after the birth of their daughter, and died of medical complications of alcohol abuse. How women’s rights became a thing Five years later, that wife, Caroline Amelia Moore Gloyd, married a lawyer named David Nation. She also began the work that made her most famous: smashing liquor kegs. But more than that, she led some of the first women’s rights marches – in protest against the availability of alcohol. In 1918 her efforts, and those of fellow members of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, paid off. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Amendment XVIII of the Constitution of the United States Then – in fear that the men would rally to repeal that Amendment, women agitated for a vote – and got it. These two acts set a precedent: men couldn’t be trusted, so women would take care of themselves. That precedent opened the way for women to experiment with unhealthy philosophies – and the men made little effort to regain the trust they had lost. Every part of the unhealthy philosophy behind the battle of the sexes became inevitable from that moment forward. The sexual revolution, abortion on demand, and the first medical experiments in surgical and hormonal alteration of human males and females, all stem from that change in the basic relationship between men and women. These movements might now have reached their logical endgame – when a class of women declare not only independence of, but war against, men. Healing the rift Happily the rift is not as severe as the women fighting that battle might imagine. The “Bud Light Controversy” shows that only a small fraction of women care to carry it on. That brand crashed and burned because most people recoiled in horror from the advertisements Greg Gutfeld mentioned. Were this rift as great as these women pretended, Bud Light might have lost half its customer base. Instead it lost almost all of it. But the one thing that can stop the battle of the sexes is for the adults – particularly the adult men – to reenter the room. Of course the Democratic Party doesn’t want that; the women fighting the battle want to continue it. They’ll inevitably lose that battle, for if they give no thought to the lack of posterity, they will have none. But to avoid a Pyrrhic victory, the adult men must reassert their authority – and take the responsibility too many of their ancestors shirked. If any women are to trust men again, men must show themselves trust-worthy. Link to: Video: Greg Gutfeld on Democrats as the Party of AWFLs: https://twitter.com/DecodingFoxNews/status/1768358733631942765 Transcript from RealClearPolitics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/03/13/gutfeld_democrats_have_become_a_gender-specific_party_black_and_hispanic_men_know_theyre_not_wanted.html Essay: Democrats forgot the battle of the sexes: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/greg-gutfeld-democrats-race-people-alienated-men Video: do Democrats risk civil war? https://twitter.com/abughazalehkat/status/1671995452512956416 The Prohibition Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-18/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Georgia judge dismisses six counts By Terry A. Hurlbut Today, Judge Scott McAfee of the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, dismissed six counts in the Georgia election-subversion case. Three of the counts involve Donald Trump directly, and deal with requests he made of the Speaker of the Georgia House, and of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, on January 2, 2021. While the rest of the indictment remains, the judge dismissed the six counts because the district attorney worded them incorrectly. These dismissals, in the form of special demurrers, cast doubt on the competence of the Fulton County D.A.’s office, even apart from the allegations of collusion, conflict of interest, and embezzlement. The constitutional principle at issue in the Georgia case A special demurrer is a challenge to the form of an indictment on the grounds that it is unconstitutionally nonspecific. Amendment VI of the U.S. Constitution specifies certain rights that all criminal defendants enjoy in any prosecution. The relevant right here is “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” Trials that imitate the titular Trial in the Franz Kafka story are, by that definition, unconstitutional. In this case, lawyers for Trump and at least some of his eighteen co-defendants filed special demurrers against six counts of the Georgia election-subversion indictment. Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit, in his coverage of today’s action, has an image of the first two pages. The list forty-one counts, and of these, the defense team challenged counts 2, 5, 6, 23, 28 and 38. All these counts charge “solicitation of violation of oath by public officer.” The first four counts have to do with asking various legislators to appoint their own slate of Presidential electors, or to summon the Legislature into special session to do this. The last two specifically are about the infamous – and likely misquoted – telephone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, either to “find [more] votes” or to decertify the election. Why the judge felt the need to throw those counts out The Gateway Pundit is hosting its own copy of the judge’s nine-page order. Examination of each of the counts shows exactly why the Georgia judge had to dismiss them. The oath-takers involved, besides Secretary Raffensperger, included the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives and several Members of the Georgia State House and Senate. The only oath they took was to support the United States and Georgia Constitutions. So which oath they took, is clear enough. But: how would each officer had violated his oath by granting the requests Trump and his co-defendants made? The counts don’t say! It’s not enough to allege, as District Attorney Fani Willis does, that Trump and his team wanted the Georgia legislature to appoint its own electors, or the Secretary of State to “find [more] votes” or decertify the election. She needed to show how these acts were unlawful and unconstitutional. Willis didn’t do that, and that left the court with only a vague understanding of the offense she was charging. As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited. Kimbrough, 300 Ga. at 884. They do not give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the Defendants could have violated the Constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways. Id. At 882. Judge McAfee listed five other defendants that this order affects: Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Ray Smith, and Bob Cheeley. Interestingly, the judge gave the D.A. six months from today to go back to a grand jury to seek fresh indictments on these six counts. He also lamented that Georgia law does not allow the filing of bills of particulars to remedy such defects. More at issue Judge McAfee still must deal with whether to disqualify D.A. Willis, and indeed her entire office, from this case. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe suggested that Willis’ special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, might have written the defective pleading. The extracurricular relationship between Willis and Wade is the main issue prompting the disqualification proceedings now playing out in Judge McAfee’s court. Concerning the flawed counts, Jim Hoft quotes Ratcliffe: I think, if anything, my first take is it really sort of lends itself to the argument that the special prosecutor, special prosecutor Wade in this case is inexperienced in these types of cases and didn’t plead it properly, and as a result, these counts are being dismissed. https://rumble.com/v4j0xei-former-dni-john-ratcliffe-on-judge-tossing-out-several-charges-against-trum.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 At first glance, the dismissal of six out of forty-one counts might not seem like much. But the calls to Secretary Raffensperger, even more than any calls to Georgia legislators, were the heart of her case. Even had the judge let those counts stand, Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist reported last week that the video record of that call was illegally obtained. The co-authors of a book on this case admit that Jordan Fuchs, Raffensperger’s chief of staff, was in Florida when the call took place. Florida is a two-party-consent State. So a party to a telephone call in Florida, may not record that call without the consent of all other parties. Fuchs didn’t ask for that, and that could make that recording inadmissible as evidence. Jim Hoft reports that Willis might have been proceeding with a false transcript anyway. Fuchs sent a false transcript to The Washington Post, then deleted the sound recording. But she did not expunge it. Investigators later found it in the “Trash” folder of her laptop. Where does the Georgia case go? Speculation is already breaking out that the case cannot move forward, even if Judge McAfee does not disqualify D.A. Willis. Jeff DiSantis, Willis’ deputy, says only that the office is “reviewing the ruling,” according to the Associated Press. Actually he has two other questions to answer. Why did he allow someone to file flawed pleadings in a case of paramount importance to the White House? And with whom is he “reviewing the ruling”? The White House Counsel, perhaps? https://rumble.com/v4ga2hf-fani-willis-legal-ecdysiast.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Of course, a truly fair-minded District Attorney wouldn’t be stretching – and selectively applying – the law to disallow an election challenge. The case of Curling v. Raffensperger provides ample evidence that Georgia elections – State-wide – have been dirty for years. https://rumble.com/v43uanv-georgia-elections-insecure-statewide.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 So if Fani Willis wanted to prosecute someone for violating his oath of office, she should have gone after Raffensperger. If she couldn’t prosecute him criminally, she could have gone to the Speaker of the Georgia House and recommended impeachment. Raffensperger knew the Election of 2020 was dirty even when he spoke to Donald Trump by telephone. But he has always run dirty elections, tilting them to the right, or the left, whomever paid the more. Willis should have known that. But she so loved her identity politics that she had to take sides, thereby becoming worse than Raffensperger. Add a touch of romantic embezzlement, and we have the flawed indictment with which Judge McAfee had to deal. Link to: The Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ The report: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/breaking-georgia-judge-dismisses-some-charges-against-trump/ The ruling: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/plugins/pdfjs-viewer-shortcode/pdfjs/web/viewer.php?file=https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/trump-order-on-defendants-special-demurrers.pdf Video: Fani Willis as distraction – and Jeff DiSantis’ true role: https://rumble.com/v4ga2hf-fani-willis-legal-ecdysiast.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Video: John Ratcliffe interview: https://rumble.com/v4j0xei-former-dni-john-ratcliffe-on-judge-tossing-out-several-charges-against-trum.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Video: Georgia elections always dirty: https://rumble.com/v43uanv-georgia-elections-insecure-statewide.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Liberty – curse word in America? By Terry A. Hurlbut A concept basic to the foundation and working of the United States of America now draws undisguised contempt. That concept is liberty. Suddenly half the country seems to want to curtail liberty wherever they can, in the name of “safety” for themselves. Some of these people, if they don’t get their way, are threatening to leave the country. True, many threatened to leave the country in 2016, then didn’t do it. Now some of them are – while others rejoice in actions by some State governments that violate every concept of liberty. Why has liberty become a curse word? What could possibly be more important than liberty to those now attacking it? What does liberty mean? Liberty is one of the Three Inalienable Rights, that one finds in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. (The other two are life, and what’s called “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration and “property” in the Constitution.) Without liberty, people do not govern themselves; someone else governs them instead. The Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment, both allude to liberty. Liberty means that the government cannot detain you without saying why. Nor may the government declare you outlaw, nor punish you in future for something perfectly lawful when you do it. Liberty includes the freedom to practice religion as you choose (and not having a government church). It includes freedom of speech, and of the press, assembly, and petition. At a basic level it includes the right of self-defense, and possession of the means of self-defense. The Constitution further declares that all States must respect liberty at a basic level. That is what the Constitution means by “privileges and immunities.” The political left in the United States has never honored basic liberty, except when it suits their aims at the destruction of culture and the promotion of depravity. In this they take inspiration from the Bolsheviks who created the Soviet Union – and their eventual executioner, Josef Stalin. (Here Stalin illustrates the observation that the left inevitably eats its own.) The arrival of a champion of liberty has caused them to abandon all pretense of “electoral sportsmanship,” or respect for anyone’s ideas but their own. Disrespect for rights, and for “privileges and immunities” Inevitably the first basic right to come under attack is the right to keep and bear arms. Last month the Hawaii Supreme Court launched the most brazen attack on a basic liberty imaginable. They actually rebuked the Supreme Court of the United States to say that Hawaii has the authority not to allow people to keep or bear arms. Before them appeared a man convicted of carrying a gun publicly without a permit. That man (through his lawyers) cited the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling striking down New York State’s gun laws. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. https://rumble.com/v19q6r1-second-amendment-wins-big.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 In a unanimous ruling, the Hawaii Court held that the Bruen case had no force or effect in Hawaii. To justify that, they cited a television script as their authority. State of Hawaii v. Wilson, SCAP-22-0000561, 7 February 2024. The thing about the old days, they the old days. The Wire: Home Rooms (HBO television broadcast Sept. 24, 2006) (S04E03) One could probably dismiss that as a joke, because in fact they cited other precedents to say that the law doesn’t expect them to study history. The problem is: those modern precedents are of highly dubious probative value. They seem to say, “In our modern era, we’re not going to allow such liberty anymore, because it’s too dangerous!” Nor is this the only example. Gov. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) will sign a law criminalizing free speech. It even provides for taking information from tattling friends and relatives against those who express “bias” against members of “protected groups.” Leaving the country? Every Presidential election cycle draws out those who threaten to leave the country if the candidate they hate, wins. Shortly after the Election of 2016, The Hollywood Reporter listed several celebrities who threatened to leave the country, but didn’t. Three weeks ago, Bill Maher scornfully told such “entitled whiners” to stop making idle threats – and also to recognize how good live is in America for those same celebrities. He especially pointed out that few countries enjoy the blessings of liberty America has. Threatening is one thing; carrying out the threat, quite another. Last week, Paul Starobin, writing in Business Insider, reported a rise in actual interest by Americans looking for property in Italy to which to relocate. He cited three specific examples, from Montana, Texas, and Tennessee – all “red” States. Then he cited (but did not link to) several headlines in The Washington Post and The Atlantic actually talking about dictatorship in American if Donald Trump wins reelection. Furthermore, he cited a tangible sign that people really are moving out of America in large numbers. Rents and property values are rising in the destination countries – often provoking backlash. But his description of why people want to leave America was the most instructive. They cite Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s, the closest decision yet to respecting a right to life. https://rumble.com/v19sqbz-roe-v.-wade-has-fallen-has-fallen.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 And they cite Bruen and similar rulings. In contrast to these, Europe is allowing, even encouraging, mothers to kill their babies, and restricting guns largely to law-enforcement, military, VIPs and bodyguards. Why don’t they like liberty? Never mind those who might be leaving because their efforts to “stop Trump” included prosecutable criminal acts. (Chief among them: perjury, misprision of felonies, and withholding of evidence.) We see a large portion of people openly hostile to liberty – and especially ordered liberty. They also are hostile to the concepts “life” (they support abortion on demand) and “property.” A thief is an irregular wealth-redistribution agent – and a murderer is an irregular population thinner. This is not only about encouraging women to celebrate the act of abortion, and confiscating weapons. This is about electing public prosecutors who decline to prosecute common garden-variety crime. Whatever else Victor Hugo’s most famous leading character Jean Valjean did, he never murdered anyone. Yes we have prosecutors who prosecute, not those who rob or attempt to kill, but those who defend themselves against such people. If ending that practice is reason enough for some to leave the country, then good riddance to bad rubbish. But at least those who wish to leave the country, no longer trouble our peace. (Though if Democrats Abroad really does register people to vote who actually domicile themselves abroad, that must stop.) State Governors and Supreme Courts who actually “make [and] enforce laws [and rulings] that … abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States” are another matter. If their acts stand, Constitutional government will fail. But conservatives won’t decamp to Europe, and certainly not Canada – but to Texas, to make that a separate country. https://rumble.com/v4ia9bf-texas-primary-advances-conservative-and-secessionist-cause.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Link to: Previous video: https://rumble.com/v19q6r1-second-amendment-wins-big.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v19sqbz-roe-v.-wade-has-fallen-has-fallen.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4ia9bf-texas-primary-advances-conservative-and-secessionist-cause.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Ruling: State of Hawaii v. Wilson, SCAP-22-0000561 https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SCAP-22-0000561.pdf Report in The Hollywood Reporter, 10 November 2016: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/20-stars-who-pledged-flee-country-trump-was-elected-are-they-945888/ Report: Bill Maher calls out “entitled whiners”: https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/entitled-whiners-bill-maher-calls-out-celebrities-who-threatened-to-leave-america-under-donald-trump-but-stayed/ar-BB1ifDCk Report from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reelected-americans-are-planning-to-flee-in-droves-2024-3?op=1 Report from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/if-trump-wins/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Agenda 47 – what it really means By Terry A. Hurlbut Last week, Donald J. Trump effectively clinched the Republican nomination for President in 2024. He humiliated his last rival, Amb. Nikki Haley, so badly that she quit the race. After that, he won endorsements – or rather, capitulations – from Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), now the Lame Duck Republican Floor Leader, and Ronna McDaniel, whose resignation as head of the Republican National Committee took effect last Friday (March 8). At that same meeting, Trump’s two picks for Chair and Co-Chair took office – by acclamation. After that, an influencer on TikTok tried to hold up Trump’s program, which he calls Agenda 47, up to ridicule. Instead she made Trump sound more attractive than ever to the American people. Herewith a point-by-point critique of that video, and a more detailed look at Agenda 47. What is Agenda 47? Agenda 47 is, of course, “The Agenda of the Forty-seventh President of the United States, which Trump hopes to be. Trump maintains his own website, which contains a page linking to detailed essays on all parts of Agenda 47. Each of these essays is a transcript of a video lecture, available on Rumble. (Not only does YouTube forbid positive discussion of the points he makes in its Community Guidelines, but they have also blackballed Trump completely on their platform.) The X account End Wokeness embedded a TikTok video from a (presumably) female influencer, whose name he does not record. https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1766062378095894546 Currently this X post has 15.8 million views, and earned 14 million of them within 30.5 hours. “End Wokeness” did not carry her self-introduction, but embedded 2 minutes 55 seconds of footage. Margaret Flavin at The Gateway Pundit produced this transcript. Here are the first 15 promises he will make if he is reelected. You may have heard of Project 2025, but this is from Agenda 47, and you can read all of these on his website. First, he promises that he will carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in history. He will also ask for the death sentence for anyone convicted of human trafficking. He will close the Department of Education and return all education standards to the states to decide. He will put prayer back into school and he will criminalize any race-based advantage programs. He will end the Affordable Care Act. He will ban gender-affirming care for adults and children and he will ban any federal dollars from going towards gender-affirming care. Which means anyone with government provided healthcare will no longer be able to access gender-affirming care except for Viagra and Sialis, those will still be available. He will propose a constitutional amendment that gives a term limit to Congress. He will deploy the Department of Justice to investigate the Biden crime family and any of his adversaries or political rivals. He will immediately pardon all of the January 6ers and he will create a task force to investigate anyone who arrested, charged or imprisoned a January 6er. He will increase the penalties for underage criminal offenders, strengthen immunity for police officers and deploy the National Guard to patrol woke cities. One day one, he will reassess our participation in NATO and says that every European country needs to pay the United States for protection. He will also restore the wonderful travel ban on Muslims coming to America. He will build Freedom Cities…this is ten new cities built on federal land…he will award them to areas with the best development proposals and he will prioritize moving young families to these Freedom Cities. He will kill all E-vehicles and E-vehicle legislation seeking to replace that with the development of a flying car…he believes that we could create a car that vertically takes off. He will remove all of the limits on American natural gas exports and drill baby drill for oil domestically. He will impose a tariff of up to 60% on Chinese imports. He will extend the 2017 tax cuts and drop the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%. He will push Congress to pass legislation that would give every American the right to concealed carry anywhere at any time and he will revoke any gun restrictions or legislation that seeks to inhibit people’s ability to own guns that’s been passed in the last several years. He will demand that Europe pay back all of the money we gave Ukraine and then he will use all of that money to recruit for the American military. And he will take billions and billions of dollars from private university endowments by taxing, fining and suing the universities, he specifically names Harvard in this one, and then he will use that money to create the American Academy. It is a free online college that will be free of wokeness that he will force employers to recognize as a bachelor’s degree equivalent. So, that’s Agenda 47. That’s actually an oversimplified overview of Agenda 47, though nothing in that transcript misrepresents any part of that agenda. In fact the influencer miscounted, for she lists not fifteen points of disagreement, but twenty. The point-by-point critique of the supposed deprecation of the Trump agenda begins here. Points 1-4: immigration and education The “largest domestic deportation operation in history,” if Trump can pull it off, is necessary to relieve the bad effects the Biden open-border policy has had. (It also might be the one thing that will ensure a “no” vote on a Texas Independence Referendum.) Trump’s Agenda 47 page has a link to one “Day One” promise he did make. Specifically he will, by Executive Order, end citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, and stop “birth tourism.” https://rumble.com/v2qxy9q-agenda47-day-one-executive-order-ending-automatic-citizenship-for-children-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Women practice birth tourism by traveling, while pregnant, to countries where they wants their children to have automatic citizenship. So far we see women arranging to travel while pregnant – something Emmerich de Vattel (The Law of Nations) never envisioned. (In his day, no woman traveled while pregnant – unless she had a miscarriage wish.) We haven’t yet seen American citizen men hiring out as “green card gigolos” to impregnate women before or after they board ship or airliner. But if we don’t stop the present practice, we will. Trump describes in detail why he believes those who traffic in children deserve death. https://rumble.com/v31dhdc-agenda47-president-trump-calls-for-death-penalty-for-human-traffickers.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 He cut this video shortly after screening Sound of Freedom at his Bedminster golf club. https://rumble.com/v2y7n9q-the-sound-of-freedom-a-sound-we-need-to-hear.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 If you’ve seen Sound of Freedom, then enough said. Closing the Department of Education is long overdue. The federal government needs no equivalent of a Board of Education. As to “prayer back in school,” the Supreme Court has done that. Carson v. Makin, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. https://rumble.com/v19ghjv-supreme-court-repudiates-blaine.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v1a7jl7-prayer-wins-but-how-much.html Points 5-9a: health care and true justice Concerning race-based advantage programs, these are extensions of the Supreme Court’s welcome decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC. https://rumble.com/v2x73oi-affirmative-action-dies-and-high-time.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 “Criminalization” is not in view – but discontinuance definitely is, and should be. The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” should be called “The Medical Tyranny and Dictated Care Act.” Joseph R. Mercola, D.O., decried it as the same-old, same-old allopathic medicine he has criticized many times. Absolutely no indication exists for surgical mutilation and hormonal poisoning of adults or children. In adult cases, that’s between said adult and his or her family. But to make sure it is no business of the government, let the government refuse to pay for it. Term limits for Congress will create lame ducks. Better to repeal Amendment XVII and let legislatures choose Senators. The Bidens are a crime family, and are guilty of embezzlement at best, treason at worst. But no part of Trump’s programs seeks to prosecute a political rival for being a political rival. Democrats do that; Trump doesn’t. But Trump has every reason to prosecute those who abuse the powers of their offices. January 6 was a false-flag pseudo-operation. Everybody knows that. Recently a judge disallowed enhanced sentencing in one case, that could affect hundreds of others. Those convicts did not get due process of law. A mass pardon will avoid costly lawsuits. And that “task force” will set an example for anyone who dares even think of so violating the Constitution in future. Agenda 47 Points 9b-15: law, public safety, civilization, and energy “Increasing the penalties for underage criminal offenders” probably means trying more of them as adults, not as juveniles. Considering some of the offenses involved, that’s entirely appropriate. It’s also generally for local courts to decide. New York City already has National Guardsmen patrolling its subway system. NATO is a Deep State institution. The only excuse for it was the demonstrable oppression of Stalin and the empire building of Khrushchev. Putin is neither Stalin nor Khrushchev. The Muslim “travel ban” dates back to the Obama administration and is a good policy, given the explicit calls in Muslim foundational documents for a war of annihilation against all non-Muslims. Electric vehicles failed the Great American EV Road Test. https://rumble.com/v47wayl-electric-vehicle-test-drive-fails.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Road-legal aircraft are already not only envisioned but in production. A company called Terrafugia built one, which received FAA and NHTSA joint approval. A VTOL road-legal aircraft is currently under development. (Problem: the Chinese have bought out Terrafugia. But Elon Musk might be starting a VTOL project of his own.) America must resume the oil and gas exploration the Biden administration all but halted. Agenda 47 does not mention “freedom cities,” though Trump has mentioned those before. I don’t approve of the concept. America should stay out of the city planning business. Besides, cities are a “mass society” concept. A network society de-emphasizes cities and emphasizes rural and small-town living with enhanced telecommunications infrastructure. This, in my view (and Dr. Steve Turley’s view), would be far preferable. Points 16-19: trade, taxes, and self-defense Foreign imports should be subject to a tariff. That influencer might have invented the 60% figure. But a tariff on overseas imports pays for the Navy that guarantees their safety on the high seas. Furthermore, such dependency on Chinese imports invites supply-chain interruption, attempts to dictate American policy – and espionage, both of the industrial and the militarily significant variety. The 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act benefited all taxpayers and actually increased tax yields. Cutting business taxes lets businesses grow – and compete on the “soft wages” of fringe benefits. (Not all businesses are organized as Subchapter C or even Subchapter S corporations.) Some people, like this influencer, don’t understand the meaning of Amendment II. The Supreme Court clearly showed that it did. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. https://rumble.com/v19q6r1-second-amendment-wins-big.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The Constitution allows any citizen to arm himself at least as well as, if not better than, an infantry soldier. Only a would-be tyrant – or Miss Me Too with the Bullies – need fear that. And the only defense against a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. Said “good guy” being on the scene already is far preferable than having to summon him. Hence, letting civilians arm themselves. Point 20: higher education The Fourth Arab-Israeli War has shown two plagues on higher education: antisemitism, and the refusal of most institutions of higher education to recognize objective evil as such. Harvard University is one of the worst offenders in this regard. Not only did it figure in the affirmative-action case, but they also had a “woke” President who cheated on her doctoral dissertation. If the American people have causes of action for honest-services fraud in connection with the federal grants that have flowed into colleges and universities for decades, any American President has a duty to pursue such action. Having said that, I cannot approve of the American Academy as Trump envisions it. The government has no business being in the education business, except for the military service academies. (And perhaps all officer candidates, especially in the Army or Marines, should be “mustangs,” recruited from the enlisted ranks.) Enough private “anti-woke” higher-educational institutions exist to serve the goal Trump wants to serve – without risking placing a critical institution back into the wrong hands. Summarizing Agenda 47 The forty-six videos at the Agenda 47 page give a far more comprehensive summary of the Trump agenda than that influencer gave. Again, she did not misrepresent anything in her presentation. But she presented as unfavorable many things, most of which good-hearted people will find favorable. Of all the things she presented, I could find fault with only three. (And the fault I found, would not be the same as the faults she might find.) Donald Trump could not have paid for better promotion of his plans than he got from a video whose initial creator intended to find fault, but ended up pointing out good things. Link to: The Trump website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/ Agenda 47 video list: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47 The embedded video: https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1766062378095894546 Previous videos: https://rumble.com/v4ht86w-super-tuesday-changes-everything.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4c16un-ronna-mcdaniel-resigns.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v2y7n9q-the-sound-of-freedom-a-sound-we-need-to-hear.html https://rumble.com/v19ghjv-supreme-court-repudiates-blaine.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v1a7jl7-prayer-wins-but-how-much.html https://rumble.com/v2x73oi-affirmative-action-dies-and-high-time.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v47wayl-electric-vehicle-test-drive-fails.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v19q6r1-second-amendment-wins-big.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Agenda 47 videos: https://rumble.com/v2qxy9q-agenda47-day-one-executive-order-ending-automatic-citizenship-for-children-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v31dhdc-agenda47-president-trump-calls-for-death-penalty-for-human-traffickers.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Cabrini and the value of persistence By Terry A. Hurlbut This weekend, the movie Cabrini had its public release. (Cabrini, dir. Alejandro Monteverde; with Cristiana dell’Anna, Romana Maggiora Vergano, David Morse, Giancarlo Giannini, John Lithgow, Jeremy Bobb, et al.; Angel Studios, 2024.) No doubt residents of New York City, Chicago, Seattle, New Orleans, and many other American cities will recognize the name, usually attached to a hospital or orphanage. But they are not likely to connect the name with the feisty five-foot woman who made many politicians and mavens remember that name, often with gnashing of teeth. This film fills that void, or at least should inspire people to research her story. Those who do will get an object lesson in the value of persistence in the face of small-minded opposition. Cabrini in real life Francesca Saverio Cabrini, who later Americanized her name to Frances Xavier Cabrini, had a strike against her from birth. Born two months premature, she suffered from underdeveloped lungs – but would surprise at least one doctor who attended her, by outliving his wildest estimate of her lifespan. That was only one way in which she surprised everybody with whom she dealt. She is the founder of the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In fact she always wanted to be a missionary. The film portrays a real-life scene in which she fashioned lots of paper boats and launched them into a canal, imagining each to be carrying missionaries to faraway lands. She established her first orphanages and schools in Lombardy, but always wanted to lead a mission to China. In September 1887 Pope Leo XIII did send her on a mission – to New York City. Why His Holiness chose to send her there, is not entirely clear. But in actual fact, the Pope sent a letter of reprimand to Michael Corrigan, Archbishop of New York, calling him on the carpet for his shameful treatment of Italian immigrants in that city. The Archbishop might have regarded her as Pope Leo’s proxy, and at first he disinvited her – after she’d already sailed. Cabrini persisted – and started a movement that would spread from New York all over the world – including to China. Final years In 1909 she became a citizen of the United States. Eight years later she died at the age of 67. At first she was buried at the Sacred Heart Orphan Asylum which she founded in West Park, New York. But eventually, Church authorities exhumed her remains as part of a process of beatification and eventual canonization. Her remains – except for various body parts preserved as relics – lie at her major shrine in the Hudson Heights neighborhood of Upper Manhattan. Technically she is the first U.S. citizen to become a Catholic saint. In 1950, Pope Pius XII recognized her as the patron saint of immigrants. New York wags often regard her as an effective intercessor for finding a parking space. She lived in New York City! She understands traffic! Cabrini the film The same production team that produced Sound of Freedom, now working for Angel Studios, produced this film. Angel Studios is dedicated as much to quality as to powerful messages, and this film is no exception. Alejandro Monteverde essentially does for women what he did for men in Sound of Freedom: give them a respectable heroine. How appropriate, then, that Angel should release this film on the weekend of International Women’s Day. Cristiana dell’Anna makes the perfect Mother Cabrini. Furthermore, as she makes her case to Pope Leo, the Archbishop, and eventually to the Mayor of New York, one can almost hear Jesus preaching His parable about the unrighteous judge who finally gives a widow what she demands, just to get her out of his hair. The men who come to know Mother Cabrini, almost to their regret, have top-flight actors portraying them as well. Giancarlo Giannini – in a vast improvement over the soft-core porn he made for Lina Wertmüller in the Seventies – portrays Pope Leo as a wily, clever politician, sending this diminutive but feisty nun to take the obstreperous Archbishop of New York down a peg or two. (The film doesn’t actually tell us about Pope Leo reprimanding the Archbishop in writing before Cabrini sailed to New York.) David Morse is equally effective as the Archbishop, always playing the political game only to have Cabrini wear him down. Composites John Lithgow portrays a possible composite of New York Mayors Abram Hewitt and Hugh Grant. And what a last name he has: Gould, as in Jay! Director Monteverde leaves us guessing. Did the arsonists who torched Columbus Hospital (with Cabrini in it, barely escaping suffocation) act on their own? Or did “Mayor Gould” put them up to it? Never mind. Gould is a politician, and he would not care to risk such an accusation with an election coming up. (In those days New York’s residents elected their Mayors for two-year terms.) Jeremy Bobb plays New York Times Reporter Theodore Calloway – himself a composite of every sympathetic reporter Cabrini managed to recruit. This being the era of Yellow Journalism, the “leveraging” of the press is an entirely realistic proposition. Romana Maggiora Vergano plays a prostitute with a struggle of her own. Her choice of profession fills here with shame, and she presents the perfect picture of a sinner wondering whether anything could make her clean. (The answer, as the hymn title says, is: Nothing But the Blood of Jesus. Furthermore, Robert Lowry wrote that hymn thirteen years before the film’s events.) Cabrini offers her hope, and treats her with a dignity she never received from anyone. That empowers her to walk away from “The Life.” Note that no historical warrant exists for this character. She could be another composite, or she could simply represent every woman who needed courage to walk away from exploitation. Inspiration All things considered, Cabrini shows what anyone, male or female, can do with enough persistence and determination. Mother Cabrini is an inspiration to anyone facing impossible odds – and small-minded people who won’t do the right thing even when they know what it is. And this film will stand as one of the few quality works of film anyone is making today. Link to: The IMBb listing for Cabrini the film: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14351082/?ref_=ttfc_fc_ttvv Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Texas primary advances conservative – and secessionist – cause By Terry A. Hurlbut The Texas primary, a Super Tuesday contest that also featured down-ticket races, went largely unnoticed outside of Texas. But anyone outside of Texas ought to pay close attention. Seven Republicans, who had pledged to support legislation to move secession forward, won their primaries in House and Senate races. An eighth forced the Speaker of the Texas House into a runoff. Results like these should signal everyone, in and out of Texas, to pay attention. That goes double when the federal government seems determined to keep the Texas border open – and Texas is rapidly gaining new industries that would be critical to any independent nation-state. Texas First Pledge and object The Texas Nationalist Movement has most of the results; the Associated Press and other news organs have more. TNM keeps a separate site, Take Texas Back, that features the Texas First Pledge, which reads as follows: I pledge to place the interests of Texas and Texans before any other nation, state, political entity, organization, or individual. I further pledge to uphold the right of Texans under Article 1 Section 2 of the Texas Constitution “to alter, reform or abolish their government.” If it is within the powers of my office, I will vote for legislation and resolutions to call for a vote on Texas reasserting its status as an independent nation in every term that I am elected until such a referendum is held. If a majority of the people of Texas vote in support of Texas reasserting its status as an independent nation, I pledge to work toward a fair and expedient separation of Texas from the federal government placing the interests of Texans first. The legislation in view is the Texas Independence Referendum Act, which has seen two introductions in regular Texas legislative sessions. It saw one introduction in 2021 and another in 2023. These bills would each have called for a referendum, in the fall of the same year, on whether to seat a special study committee to study the feasibility of Texas secession from the Union. And if secession were feasible, this committee would report on a way to make it happen. The members of this Committee would include the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the Texas House, and four each Senators and Representatives, whom their respective chamber presiding officer would appoint – except that the bill reserves two seats on this Committee for the Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on State Affairs. Among the issues this Committee would consider: 1. Amending the Texas Constitution, with respect to new officers, new duties, and recognizing all current rights of Texas residents, 2. Changing Texas laws, with respect to new agencies and new charters for existing agencies, 3. Functionally transitioning Texas from State to independent Republic, and 4. Recommending whether (or not) to join any “international convention or multilateral agreement.” Chubbed! Unfortunately, the “Texit Bill” has died in committee each time – “chubbed” as Texans like to call it. (To chub is to delay to death with dilatory motions, refusal to discuss, and other such tactics.) TNM blames Rep. Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont), current Speaker of the Texas State House, for the “chubbing.” Mr. Phelan kept his seat last Midterms, though his ally, the chairman of the State Affairs Committee, lost his. Dan Miller, head of the TNM, was determined to “primary” Mr. Phelan for “chubbing” his bill twice. But Phelan made another deadly enemy in the meantime. He led a campaign to pass Articles of Impeachment against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Unfortunately for Mr. Phelan, Paxton survived his trial in the Texas Senate. So he was out for revenge for his own motive, apart from Texas secessionist sentiment. But lately, Mr. Paxton has made several statements one could construe as supporting secessionist sentiment. Quite simply, he has indicated that the federal government is not doing Texas any favors. The chief context of his remarks is the illegal immigration surge at the Rio Grande. Paxton has filed several lawsuits against the federal government, and is defending several more, all over a simple proposition. Which is: the federal government has a duty to defend the border, they haven’t done it, and so Texas has the right to do that itself. Texas primary results As morning dawned on March 5 (Texas primary day), TNM greeted it with their best photo of Mision San Antonio de Valero – the Alamo. https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1765043740996161691 (On March 5, 1836, the Alamo defenders reckoned with the reality that no one would come to relieve the siege that General Antonio López de Santa Ana was laying to it. So Lt. Col. William Barrett Travis, in command, drew a line in the Texas sand with his sword. “Every man willing to die in Texas’ cause, let him come over to me!” he said. And everyone did – except Jim Bowie, who had to ask several men to carry him over the line, and Louis “Moses” Rose, who took Travis’ invitation to leave.) TNM published their own article listing candidates who won their primaries outright, advanced to runoffs, or won county or precinct chairmanships. They had published it earlier as a long-form post: https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1765477631330517405 Of 128 candidates who signed the Texas First Pledge, twelve won their races outright, and eight more advanced to runoffs. The most significant of those eight is David Covey, candidate for Texas Representative in the 21st District – where Dade Phelan is the incumbent. Another eight candidates for county and precinct chairmanships won their races. Among them: Allen West, former Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, now County Chairman of Dallas County. Media opposition This year, the Dallas Morning News saw fit to criticize the Texas First Pledge and all those who signed it. The daily spoke of “a worrisome number of candidates” signing that pledge, which they called “unpatriotic.” They also lamented the apparent projected loss of federal funds amounting to 30% of the Texas State budget. That turned out to be a major miscalculation – for their editorial incensed enough people to vote for the signatories. The day after the Texas primary, TNM indulged in some schadenfreude by posting an image of the Dallas Morning News’ morning-after editorial. https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1765485196214980806 From the tone of that editorial, and their earlier article before the Texas primary, the Dallas Morning News makes clear that they don’t like Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton or anyone allied or sympathetic with him. Newsweek has been giving Texas secession sentiment national attention for months, and did so again. They quote Dan Miller as saying the consideration of another Texit Bill is “virtually guaranteed.” Of course the guarantee is that someone will introduce that bill in the Texas House for yet a third time. Bringing it to the full House will be a taller order – and passage will be the tallest order of all. Next steps from the Texas primary On Tuesday, May 28, Texas will hold its runoff. Because many Texas First Pledge signatories are in that runoff, Texas independence will likely be foremost in voters’ minds. Border security will likely drive more people to vote for Texas Independence supporters, for a simple reason. They want a closed border. Joe Biden is keeping it open, to get more good little Democrat voters. And the fastest way to close the border is to declare Texas independence. Of course, a Trump victory in November will change the dynamic. Donald Trump has pledged to help, not hinder, efforts to secure the Texas-Mexican border. These Texas primary results will ensure that a President Trump will have sympathetic Texas officials to work with. But suppose Biden wins? Biden does not poll well, and his State of the Union address was the worst-received in a quarter century. Tucker Carlson warns that the Democrats “are going to steal the Election.” https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1765952544386191772 If that succeeds, Dr. Steve Turley predicts civil war. But that civil war might take the form of millions of conservatives flocking to Texas, registering to vote, flooding legislative offices with calls to support a Texit bill – and all voting Yes on a Texas referendum. And to give leftists further pause, at least two gun manufacturers – Colt and Ruger – are moving to Texas. That’s how the 2024 Texas primary advanced secessionist sentiment, as well as conservative causes, in and out of Texas. Link to: Earlier videos: Super Tuesday: https://rumble.com/v4ht86w-super-tuesday-changes-everything.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 State of the Union: https://rumble.com/v4i2reo-state-of-the-union-2024-pack-of-lies.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Texas Nationalist Movement: Home: https://tnm.me/ Texas First Pledge text: https://taketexasback.com/pledge/ Texas First Pledge signatories: https://taketexasback.com/candidates/ Texas Independence Referendum Act: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB3596 Definition: To chub https://www.lrl.texas.gov/whatsNew/client/index.cfm/2011/5/23/Filibusters-and-Chubbing TNM posts: https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1765043740996161691 https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1765477631330517405 https://twitter.com/TexasNatMov/status/1765485196214980806 Tucker Carlson warns of election fraud: https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1765952544386191772 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

State of the Union 2024 – pack of lies By Terry A. Hurlbut Last night (March 7), Resident Biden gave the traditional State of the Union address – about a month late. It was, without a doubt, the biggest pack of lies in the history of State of the Union addresses. Worse than that, Biden turned the event into a campaign rally – the biggest campaign rally he has ever held. Only the memorial service for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) was in worse taste. This event almost makes the case for asking Presidents to discontinue addressing joint sessions of Congress and instead transmit their reports to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. But as long as the Resident made a public display of himself, someone has to tell fact from fiction. History of State of the Union reports and addresses Article II Section 3 of the Constitution reads in relevant part: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. Beginning in 1790 with George Washington, “from time to time” has meant “at least once a year,” with some exceptions. George Washington and John Adams addressed joint sessions of Congress. But after Adams left office, no President did this until Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Beginning with Thomas Jefferson in 1801, Presidents sent written reports. Calvin Coolidge sent one written report in his last year, and Herbert Hoover sent only written reports. The real modern tradition of addressing a joint session of Congress began in 1933 with Franklin D. Roosevelt. Harry S. Truman (1947) was the first to broadcast the address on television. Lyndon B. Johnson (1965) began the tradition of scheduling the address in prime time. And in 1966, Sen. Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.) and Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.) inaugurated the tradition of rebuttals to the State of the Union address. These joint sessions always take place in the chamber of the House, the only room big enough to hold all the various dignitaries. The Senate sits in two rows at the extreme left, and Justices of the Supreme Court sit front and center. Members of the Cabinet also have assigned seating on the floor, along with the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps (the oldest serving foreign Ambassador to the United States). With such august attention, one expects these addresses to have a corresponding dignity. The 2024 State of the Union Address did not. State of the Union 2024 Herewith the official White House prepared transcript, and Time Magazine’s full transcript of the actual remarks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V01QvlQels Before Biden even got to the Capitol, pro-Palestinian protesters blocked his motorcade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXSPEdF4kbo The protesters are calling for a cease-fire in the Fourth Arab-Israeli War. Of course they did not dare call for what they really want – but one can readily guess that from how that War began. Presaging a particularly untoward remark by the Resident, Justices Samuel A. Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas did not attend the State of the Union address. Johnathan Jones of The Western Journal reported on that and included these X posts: https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1765920985432088681 https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1765921204928442472 https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1765940601839566983 https://twitter.com/daily_wire_fan/status/1765924547683914231 https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1765920486955843911 About halfway through his address, Biden appeared to threaten the Court with an unspecified exercise of women’s political power. And with all due respect, justices, women are not without electrical power. Excuse me, electoral or political power. You’re about to realize just how much you… At that Biden trailed off as the House and Senate Democratic Conferences erupted in cheers. Those remarks appear to be extemporaneous. The prepared transcript didn’t have them, and Time Magazine edited out that entire exchange. https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1765930182135648542 https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1765931794518421507 But that wasn’t the only untoward exchange, or even the worst. Your correspondent sat through it, and estimates that it contained one-third lies, one-third empty platitudes, and one-third conflation. The conflation reflects Biden’s continued cognitive decline, which became evident in the last fifteen minutes of the address. If any President since Wilson would have been better advised to submit a written report, it’s Biden. State of the Union? A litany of lies Shawn Fleetwood of The Federalist counted thirty statements in the State of the Union address that he knew were false, or at least lacking in context or supporting evidence, or equivalent to loaded questions. In reply to these statements, your editor says: Ukraine America is not in any leadership position in the world today. America is instead a glove, and the World Economic Forum is the hand inside the glove. It is high time – and way past time – to bring that master-slave relationship to an end. Donald Trump did not actually tell the Russians to do what they wanted. He did, however, threaten to say that if NATO continued to expect a military free ride. Russia ended the “threat to the free world” when she abandoned communism. Vladimir Putin might be trying to “redeem” certain lands where ethnic Russians now live. As to Ukraine, Putin doesn’t even care for all of it – only those areas that speak Russian. And not only is that not our fight, but it ill befits anyone to defend a country that: • Is not really a country. Nikita S. Khrushchev cynically pretended to call Ukraine that, to score an extra vote in the United Nations General Assembly. • Played host to biological weapons development laboratories, with American funding, and American direction, and American staffs. January 6, reproductive issues, etc. The January 6 event was a false-flag pseudo-operation. Concerns about election integrity are real, and foundation for them becomes stronger every month. To suggest that voting on paper, requiring I.D., replacing absentee ballots with in-person pre-registered proxy voting, and junking The Machines would “pose the gravest threat to democracy since the [War Between the States]” is worse than ludicrous. These things pose the gravest threat to the Democratic Party as we know it today. And that’s a good thing. The Alabama Supreme Court did raise concerns about the callous discarding of embryos as part of in-vitro fertilization. That Court declared that those embryos are persons within the meaning of the Constitution. But they did not issue any injunction against IVF. Since then, Alabama’s legislature passed, and Gov. Kay Ivey (R-Ala.) signed, a hasty measure to shield IVF clinics from liability from the perishing of such embryos. Abortion tourist Kate Cox was never in danger of dying in childbirth from having a child with Edwards Syndrome (Trisomy 18). Furthermore that child might have lived. True, most Edwards children die within days – but not all. That child deserved a chance. Then again, Democrats will see no abortion unperformed, and that’s why Biden threatened the Court (see above). Biological sciences, economy, drug prices Again in his State of the Union address, Biden returned to the boast that his administration would “cure cancer.” Then he actually said the COVID vaccines were now “help[ing] beat cancer.” Not only is that false, but the opposite is true. Patients who took the vaccine are often reporting – and dying from – runaway cancers. People going back to work with the lifting of COVID quarantines do not represent new job creation. Inflation in the U.S. today is worse than in several countries throughout the world. And consumer confidence is shrinking, not “soaring.” Drug prices are rising, and your editor has no brief for Big Pharma – but under Biden the problem has gotten worse, not better. And the unlawful COVID vaccine mandate was a favor to Big Pharma, not a victory over it. Concerning student loans, lay aside for a moment that the Supreme Court enjoined Biden’s program. In fact that program shifts the burden onto taxpayers who never attended college. (Or if they did, they paid for it out of current funds or paid back, with interest, whatever they borrowed.) Taxes, spending, and immigration Biden has increased, rather than decreased, the federal deficit. And while large taxpayers might pay a lower proportion of their income or profit than most individuals, they still pay the lion’s share of tax in absolute amounts. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 benefited everyone, not just “the top one percent.” Trump did increase the national debt – by agreeing to COVID lockdowns when he should have followed Kristi Noem’s example instead. But Obama, not Trump, increased the national debt the most. Not once has Biden proposed any measure that would in fact exempt those earning less than $400,000 from income tax. Biden’s estimate for “1000 billionaires” could be a convenient resort to lack of precision. (Forbes counts 735.) But even leftists dispute the notion that billionaires pay an effective 8.2 percent tax rate. The so-called border bill would have made the southern border invasion worse, not better. In fact the only people slowing that invasion down are the Texas National and State Guards – no thanks to Biden. Republicans frankly don’t go far enough with election-integrity measures that mandate voter ID (always with an option of free issue). They should mandate voting on paper, as the French do it. Even so, this does not constitute “voter suppression,” nor does it even have that effect. (Or at least, not suppression of the votes of the living, except for attempts to vote where one moved out.) If you’re going to say her name, at least pronounce it properly! Marking books, videos, or other resources as “for adults only,” and refraining from reading such a book to children, does not constitute “banning” of books. No one is talking about sending a fire pumper loaded with fire accelerant instead of water, and its crew, to: • Grab armfuls of books off library shelves and carry them outside, • Dump them into a quickly assembled portable grill in the parking lot, and then • Douse them with a flamethrower, as one sees in the opening sequence of the motion picture Fahrenheit 451 (1966). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9iyKI2pJbE Biden unforgivably mispronounced the name of murder victim Laken Riley as “Lincoln” Riley. Moreover he insinuated that legal immigrants commit more murders than do illegal. A statistician might easily dispute that. Trump did tell the survivors of a recent school shooting in Iowa that, though he felt for them, they should move on. Biden not only left out the “feeling” words, but also returned to the same-old, same-old gun-control theme. Even if he could accomplish the confiscation of all privately held weapons, that would violate the Second Amendment. (As would his “assault weapons” ban.) And no record exists of Biden ever teaching about the Second Amendment. Foreign policy Biden carefully acknowledged Israeli civilian killed, wounded (including sexual wounds), and missing in the Fourth Arab-Israeli War. But he attributed these to “a terrorist group called HAMAS,” as if they were not the duly constituted Gaza government. Furthermore he quoted Gaza casualty figures that come from HAMAS. Such figures are never trustworthy. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross, not exactly trustworthy themselves, do not claim independent verification of HAMAS’ truth claims in this area. Biden claimed to be “in a stronger position to win the competition … against China.” He also claimed that Trump did nothing against China. Neither statement is accurate. In fact, the Chinese (and, for that matter, the Russians) are planning to build Lunar cities with nuclear generators. Whether RosKosmos could possibly accomplish that feat is an open question. The Chinese are in a better position, however. And with a nuclear generator, they could build a mass driver that could pelt the United States into submission with artificial meteors. Finally, Biden accused the whole country of never living up to the ideal of all humans being created equal. Not only is that slander, but under Biden, clearly some people are more equal than others. Other reviews of State of the Union 2024 Erick-Woods Erickson – no friend of Trump – poured contempt on Biden’s State of the Union address. He flatly accused Biden of being “hopped up on drugs.” (And in fact, your editor, drawing on his medical training, recognized last night the signs of one under the influence of methamphetamine, dextroamphetamine, or a similarly acting stimulant. It must have worn off at about 10:15 p.m. EST.) Erickson said a number of other things, with which your editor agrees. Biden’s State of the Union address was “beneath the dignity of [his] office.” Biden showed Democrats that they dare not think of replacing him, and he has the stamina for a long campaign. And independents won’t like his “angry man yelling” routine. Furthermore, Democrats are kidding themselves if they think Blacks and Hispanics will “come home” to them. Dick Morris said yesterday that Donald Trump is pro-actively encouraging Blacks and Hispanics – Democrats’ core constituents – to follow him instead. Not only is this working, but Biden can do nothing to stop it. And that screamfest last night won’t help. Donald Trump did rebut the State of the Union speech – ahead of time. https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1765796289848004981 WorldNetDaily quoted him: Joe Biden is on the run from his record and lying like crazy to try and escape responsibility for the horrific devastation he and his party have created. All the while they continue the very policies that are causing this horror show to go. We cannot take it any longer as a country. Maybe Erickson is right when he said Trump, not Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), should have delivered the official rebuttal. Even Dr. Steve Turley didn’t like that performance, seeing it as a missed opportunity. Moving forward The only people who will appreciate Biden’s State of the Union address are Democrats and their Deep State masters. This speech, even more than Biden’s pre-Midterm speech of 2022, represents the last gasp of a regime that wanted to be dictatorial. So says “Doctor Steve,” and so said your editor, comparing That Speech to Cicero Against Catiline. More to the point, Biden made his worst mistake at the beginning, by invoking Ronald Reagan. Evidently he forgot that Reagan first asked, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The answer is no, and even the Democrats’ traditional constituents cannot say yes. Furthermore, last night’s address is remarkable for what Biden did not mention: the Alphabet Soup movement (except for “book bans”). He and his handlers must know that most Americans now regard that movement with monumental disgust. Americans now need to see to election integrity, and take all necessary measures to ensure it. Election fraud is now the only way Democrats can win. If anything, last night’s speech proves that. Link to: The Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ Transcripts: Prepared: https://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2024/ As delivered (and redacted by Time): https://time.com/6898705/read-president-joe-bidens-2024-state-of-the-union-address-full-transcript/ Video of the address, per C-SPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V01QvlQels Video: motorcade blocked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXSPEdF4kbo Posts about Alito, Barrett, and Thomas JJ not attending: https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1765920985432088681 https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1765921204928442472 https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1765940601839566983 https://twitter.com/daily_wire_fan/status/1765924547683914231 https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1765920486955843911 On the abortion issue: https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1765930182135648542 https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1765931794518421507 Article in The Federalist counting thirty lies: https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/08/biden-lied-30-times-during-the-state-of-the-union/ January 6 event keyword search link: https://cnav.news/keywords/january-6-event/ Article about how France votes on paper: https://cnav.news/2023/06/24/editorial/talk/france-votes-paper/ Video: Fahrenheit 451 opening book-burning sequence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9iyKI2pJbE Donald Trump’s “pre-buttal”: https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1765796289848004981 Articles about Biden’s 2022 speech (and Cicero’s In Catalinam): https://cnav.news/2022/09/02/accountability/executive/president-divider/ https://www.loc.gov/item/tmp92004278/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Super Tuesday changes everything By Terry A. Hurlbut Super Tuesday played out two days ago, over fifteen States. Donald J. Trump gained at least 758 delegates, to move within striking distance of a mathematical clinch of the nomination. His rival, Ambassador Nikki Haley, received 46 delegates, most in States no one (yet) expects Trump to carry. But by morning, all that ceased to matter – because Nikki Haley bowed out of the race. But she refuses to endorse President Trump, the only one of his now-defeated nomination rivals to so refuse. Anyone who expects her to go home and sulk for the rest of the year, has forgotten the time-honored aphorism about the fury of women scorned. Or about who’s pulling her strings. The Super Tuesday sweep-stakes Before Super Tuesday began, Amb. Haley captured all 19 delegates in the District of Columbia primary on Sunday (March 3). Trump dubbed her “Queen of the Swamp” after that showing. The next day (March 4), he captured all 29 delegated in the North Dakota caucus. Super Tuesday saw primaries and caucuses in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia. (American Samoa held its Democratic caucus today and will hold Republican caucuses on Friday.) This schedule shows what contests have taken place, and still remain. This delegate tally sheet shows which candidates have how many delegates, in the order of Republican contests. Nikki Haley swept only one contest: the Vermont Primary, for 9 delegates. (Another 8 remain to be allocated.) Her other delegate awards came from Arkansas (1), Colorado (11), Minnesota (12), North Carolina (7), and Virginia (6). Whereas Trump received all allocated delegates from Alabama, Alaska, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. How Nikki won anywhere The Town of Ashland, in Virginia’s Hanover County, presents a typical case of how Nikki Haley could win anything. Ashland is home to Randolph-Macon College, where the politics are as leftist as they come. Moreover, most town residents are just as leftist in their thinking. The last State-wide Republican to carry Ashland was Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-Va.). He won after former Gov. Terence McAuliffe actually said parents surrender their rights at the school perimeter. Democrats have carried Ashland in every State-wide contest since, and also in U.S. Senate, State Senate, House of Delegates, Board of Supervisors, and other local races. In short, Ashland is a Democratic town. Yet primary participation in one precinct (Ashland downtown) consisted of 102 Democratic votes and 286 Republican votes. The final tally in the Republican primary was: Candidate Votes Donald J. Trump 161 Nikki Haley 121 Ron DeSantis 4 These results can have only one explanation. Substantial numbers of Democrats – perhaps more than half the Democrats living in Ashland – crossed over into the Republican primary to vote for Haley. Virginia does not enforce Party voting patterns in primaries. That’s why Virginia Republicans nominate their candidates in State and District conventions, or “firehouse primaries” (unassembled caucuses), whenever possible. But the law provides for Presidential preference primaries, which, by definition, are open. So for Democrats to “gimmick” the Republican primary is absurdly simple. Yet despite that, Nikki Haley could achieve no better result than this, in a Democratic town! (Except, as noted, in Vermont and D.C.) Nikki Haley suspends campaign In fact, the only victories Nikki Haley achieved on Super Tuesday were from Democratic crossover in Democratic States and Districts. She needed to achieve much broader-based victories than that – and as Ashland illustrates, she failed. The only places where she did well in Virginia, according to The Republican Standard, were: • Northern Virginia (Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax County), • The City of Richmond, and • Albemarle County, which surrounds the City of Charlottesville – home of the University of Virginia. The first clue that Amb. Haley would suspend her campaign actually came Tuesday morning. The Associated Press reported that her schedule from Tuesday night forward was empty. By 9:05 p.m. Eastern Time, with defeats racking up and California still voting, Nikki Haley had decided to quit. (Source: Associated Press.) She in fact did so at 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, in Charlotte, North Carolina, according to The Wall Street Journal. Laura Loomer shared a short clip: https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1765394947681718653 Cullen Linebarger at The Gateway Pundit carried this summary of her remarks. Amb. Haley touted old-line Republican positions, including especially intervention in Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. She also asked Trump to court those who supported her. That’s a strange thing to ask – because her support came from Democrats who would not have supported her in November. (In fact, they said so!) Moreover, she somehow interpreted an aphorism by Margaret Thatcher to justify that request. Jim Hoft, editor-in-chief of TGP, carried a full transcript. https://rumble.com/v4hlt05-nikki-haley-suspends-campaign-vows-to-support-ukraine-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Trump consolidates his victory Donald Trump, for his part, was declaring victory within hours of the closing of the Eastern Time polls. But he wasn’t talking about Nikki Haley, but about Joe Biden. In fact he repeated an incredible story about 325,000 migrants flying into America from abroad at federal government expense. Jim Hoft broke that story shortly after polls opened, citing The Daily Mail. https://rumble.com/v4hj2yi-trump-super-tuesday-victory-speech-joe-biden-is-the-worst-president-in-the-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 (A furious Elon Musk, replying to that report, accused the administration of flying in reliable Democrat voters.) https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1764979672129909177 Soon after Nikki Haley announced her suspension, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Minority Floor Leader, finally endorsed Trump. This from a Senator who once said he would never speak to Donald Trump again. It is abundantly clear that former President Trump has earned the requisite support of Republican voters to be our nominee for President of the United States. It should come as no surprise that, as nominee, he will have my support. I look forward to the opportunity of switching from playing defense against the terrible policies the Biden administration has pursued to a sustained offense geared towards making a real difference in improving the lives of the American people. Cullen Linebarger, quoting a fundraising link, carried Trump’s response to Haley’s speech. Trump called for a united effort to defeat Joe Biden, and now seems reluctant to mention Haley at all. But Trump also issued an immediate challenge to Joe Biden, on Truth Social. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112050574571343856 It is important, for the Good of our Country, that Joe Biden and I Debate Issues that are so vital to America, and the American People. Therefore, I am calling for Debates, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANYPLACE! The Debates can be run by the Corrupt DNC, or their Subsidiary, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). I look forward to receiving a response. Thank you for your attention to this matter! After Super Tuesday, what next? Nikki Haley obviously prepared to quit the race as voting on Super Tuesday was beginning. Losing every primary except the Vermont Primary should have made no difference. (She was never going to win a caucus, which by definition is closed.) If she had the money, she could have stayed for next Tuesday’s primaries in Georgia, Mississippi, and Washington State. And stayed for many more primaries and caucuses to come. So why hasn’t she? Possibly because her real role was to have enough pledged delegates to offer herself as an alternative. On April 25, the petition of Trump v. United States will come to oral argument before the Supreme Court. That case will decide whether Trump enjoys immunity from prosecution for the things he actually said on January 6, 2021. (What he actually said, and what overwrought Secretaries of State like Jena Griswold of Colorado misquote him as saying, are two different messages.) The shadowy megadonors who gave Haley her orders, still think they can bring Trump to trial before Election Day. When they find out they won’t be able to do that, they will attempt an assassination. (They could even, like the fictitious Sen. John Yerkes Iselin (R-N.Y.) and his wife Eleanor in The Manchurian Candidate, attempt an assassination at the Convention.) Publicly, Trump can say nothing else than what he has already said. Super Tuesday turned out to decide the nomination. But privately, the fight might not end so easily, and he should remember that. Link to: Schedule and spreadsheet: https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2024-primary-schedule/ https://www.270towin.com/2024-republican-nomination/polls/delegate-totals-by-candidate Video: Nikki Haley suspends: https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1765394947681718653 https://rumble.com/v4hlt05-nikki-haley-suspends-campaign-vows-to-support-ukraine-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Transcript of Nikki Haley’s speech: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/nikki-haley-suspends-campaign-vows-promote-ukraine-refuses/ Video: Trump’s victory speech: https://rumble.com/v4hj2yi-trump-super-tuesday-victory-speech-joe-biden-is-the-worst-president-in-the-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Elon Musk on the immigration replacement plan: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1764979672129909177 Trump challenging Biden to debates: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112050574571343856 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

A Great Awakening for America By Terry A. Hurlbut America badly needs another Great Awakening – a return to the faith that informed the earliest settlers. This applies to both groups of early settlers – the Captain John Smith expedition and the Pilgrims and Puritans. For too long the United States government has maintained ambivalence at best, antipathy at worst, toward the Christian faith. This has resulted in practices that would certainly shock both Captain John Smith on one hand, and Elder Brewster and Governor William Bradford on the other. And that this result should come from an interpretation of the earliest Articles and Amendments to the Constitution, would shock the Framers, and especially the Second President of the United States. Without another Great Awakening, America will fall – and for reasons one old atheist historian actually admitted in his text. The first Great Awakening Historians recognize at least two Great Awakenings in early American history. Nevertheless, of the two, the first Great Awakening was the significant one. Spanning the period from 1720 to 1740, it was a protest against the atheistic or “deistic” Enlightenment. It was also an attempt to unite three disparate religious blocs among the American colonies: • Congregationalism in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and other New England colonies (New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island), • Anglicanism (forerunner of the Episcopal Church in America) in the South (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia), and • Quakerism, Lutheranism, Dutch Reformed, and Presbyterianism in the Middle Colonies (New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania). This division weakened the idea of faith, and men turned to their wealth, social standing, and “reasoning ability” for comfort and answers. Jesus Christ famously said, No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. Matthew 6:24, NASB How true that was, and is. Men like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield reminded people of this and other facts. Whitefield especially preached to all persons, “great and small, rich and poor, free and slave,” as St. John of Jerusalem might have said. (See Revelation 13:16.) In essence, they told their listeners: • Everyone falls short of the glory of God, and therefore • Everyone needs salvation, without which they will die permanently separated from God. Happily, • Salvation is open to everyone who will freely confess their sins, and ask God to forgive them, relying on Divine Grace. • Ideally, one’s relationship with God must not be formal and rigid, but personal. Effects – and decline The First Great Awakening set forth many ideas that evangelical preachers preach today – especially about personal relationships with God. Not everyone agreed with these things, and that caused a split in the Christian community into “new lights” and “old lights,” depending on whether they embraced Edwards’ and Whitefield’s ideas, or not. This might also have informed the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. But it also informed the “Black Robed Regiment” spectacle during the American War for Independence. And it led to the expansion of the Ivy League beyond its first two institution, Harvard and Yale. (Cornell would begin in 1865, the last year of the War Between the States.) Historians point to a Second Great Awakening in the last decade of the eighteenth century, largely in New England. This led to the founding of colleges like the Little Ivies. An alleged Third Great Awakening, from 1850 to early in the Twentieth Century, would see the founding of Cornell University. If some historians doubt that the Third Great Awakening amounted to anything, that’s because it ended with the accession of atheism as an unofficial policy of government, and prevailing theme in higher education. The Roaring Twenties likely ended it, as once again great wealth intoxicated the people. Among the Seven Deadly Sins, those of Envy, Gluttony, Greed, Pride, Sloth – and Lust – predominated. The role of Wrath is less clear, as most acts ascribed to it actually proceed from Envy, Greed and Pride. Current dark spiritual state Today America is in a dark spiritual place. From Charles Darwin comes the ultimate appeal to Pride, which its practitioners call Modern Science. The essence of Modern Science begins with the Theory of Evolution, which gives rise to Eugenics – the ideology of National Socialism in all its forms. Pride combines with Lust to yield the ideology of abortion on demand. Wrath waits in the wings, ready to induce people to endorse murder to protect this “right.” Greed and Envy work together to produce (non-national) socialism and its most extreme form, communism, in which the State owns everything. The Greed part manifests either as crony capitalism or as people seeking “pull” to get material rewards. Or else an official operates on Wrath to make others’ lives miserable as a primary gain. These officials also appeal to Sloth, at least in the early stages of their “revolution.” But let us not forget Gluttony. Gluttony has produced a population having the lowest average health in history. The British statesmen who revived the Olympic Games must be spinning in their graves, despairing that anyone would qualify for these Games by the standards they laid down in 1896, the year of the First Modern Olympiad. Will Durant, author of The Story of Civilization in eleven volumes, repeatedly said: Religion attends the birth of civilization; philosophy accompanies it to its grave. Though he never believed in any religious precept, neither did he ignore the salutary effect of religion, and the detrimental effect of prideful, anti-theist philosophy, on civilization. Laying aside Divine authority In fact, independent filmmaker Rich Christiano illustrated brilliantly, in 2002, one very likely reason the so-called Third Great Awakening failed. In Time Changer, with D. David Morin, Gavin McLeod, Hal Linden, and Jennifer O’Neill, Christiano flatly accused late nineteenth-century Christian apologists of disconnecting the Teachings of Christ from the Christ of the Teachings. Which they likely did – because the problem with sound moral doctrine is that it doesn’t lend itself to instant fulfillment. Gratification in the Christian system is delayed, almost by definition. Now compare that to Modern Science and its centerpiece, Evolution. Evolution is all about instant rewards for behavior most would deride, even shudder at, as criminal. And today those realizing the ill-gotten gains know it. That’s why men like James G. Blaine, the Huxleys, John Dewey, Horace Mann, Roger Baldwin, Antonio Gramsci, and Karl Marx worked so hard to chase God from the public square. Recognizing this, Christiano said to himself, I would love to pull one of those smug Bible professors one hundred years into their future – and our present. Which is exactly what he did in Time Changer. A professor presents a manuscript that proposes to teach Christian morals apart from Christ. A colleague, under rules requiring unanimity, says, in effect, “Veto! I forbid it!” But this colleague knows the secret of time travel. So he sends the writer forward a hundred years. What this person sees, has him completely revising his manuscript upon his return. Toward a real Second Great Awakening Obviously, had a thing like that happened, the prevailing conversation about morals and social “justice” would be far different. That’s why the so-called Second and Third Great Awakenings were not Great Awakenings in the sense of the First. They were aftershocks, like the aftershocks of any earthquake. And in the nineteenth century, a movement arose to put religion to sleep, or even to death. A real Second Great Awakening must have all the energy of the First, and re-emphasize all the ideas that Edwards and Whitefield put forward. But it must also attack directly the ideas of Modern Science and the philosophy behind it. Modern Science, and Marxism, insist that God does not exist. Behold the devastation they have wrought! Hence the need to promote Creationism – an observational model that says, quite simply, that the universe is not a Great Craps or Baccarat Table or Roulette Wheel. The universe had to have a Master Builder – the literal translation of the word Architect. This might seem scandalous to clergymen (and, ironically, clergy women) who insist that faith alone is sufficient. Sadly, the academic establishment, including the Ivy League, has fully embraced Modern Science, and its close cousin, Marxism. And they have had more than a century to tell people that God is not Real. To have a relationship with Him, one must know that He is Real. And one must apply His teachings to political, educational, and other questions. A new Great Awakening must happen to reintroduce these teachings. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/03/05/civilization/christianity-today/creation/great-awakening-america/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Trump to stay on ballots – SCOTUS By Terry A. Hurlbut The Supreme Court has acted in the Colorado ballot access case involving Donald J. Trump. This morning at 10:00 a.m. EST the Court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s order to keep Trump off the ballot. In so reversing, five of the Justices set forth a clear rule that Congress must pass any enforcement legislation if Amendment XIV Section 3 is to have the force and effect the Colorado Supreme Court thought it had. As one might expect, the Liberal Bloc objected to that – but not enough to dissent from the reversal. An opinion-issuance day The Court signaled its possible intention by declaring, early yesterday afternoon (March 3), that it would issue an opinion. Such “opinion issuance days,” in which the Court would release an opinion or opinions without formally taking the bench, were very common during the “COVID era.” They have been unknown since the lifting of most quarantines. Instead, the Court schedules a “non-argument day” in which it issues the opinion. But the Court is in an apparent spring recess until the week of March 18. Yet they marked their electronic calendar with a day to issue orders, and to release an opinion. This, according to Christina Laila of The Gateway Pundit, was on very short notice. https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1764365783398764702 https://twitter.com/lawrencehurley/status/1764353195902435791 The Colorado Supreme Court ordered the Colorado Secretary of State not to put Trump’s name on any primary ballot. But they carefully stayed their ruling until the ballot deadline, which was January 4. Furthermore, the stay would self-extend automatically if Trump sought U.S. Supreme Court review. He did, and the Court held oral argument on February 8. The nine Justices offered no solace to the respondents at oral argument. So as expected, the Court unanimously reversed the Colorado Supreme Court. The unusually terse twenty-page opinion is available here. It comes just in time for Super Tuesday – and Colorado is a Super Tuesday State. Trump wins – and the win goes further Again, recall the wording of Amendment XIV, 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. But recall also the wording of Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. The Supreme Court found that last section critical. Only Congress may enforce the provision of Section 3 as to federal offices. Congress did so enforce, in the Enforcement Act of 1870. A State may pass its own statutes to exclude “insurrectionists” and “rebels” from holding State offices. But a State may not presume to enforce that section on candidates for President or Vice-President, or Presidential Electors, or Senators or Representatives in Congress. And yes, just as Jon Mitchell, attorney for Trump, argued, the decision in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton governs. States cannot impose additional restrictions, such as term limits, on its representatives in the federal government beyond those provided by the Constitution. Perhaps the overriding principle is that Amendment XIV changed the balance of power in favor of the federal government. That this same Amendment would grant to any State an enforcement power over the election of a President, strains credulity. So Chief Justice John Roberts suggested, and so this opinion ringingly reads. The Enforcement Act of 1870 works by letting United States Attorneys sue to remove nonlegislative “insurrectionist/rebellious” officeholders from office. It provides no enforcement mechanism against a President. Therefore (though the Court did not say this) the proper sanction against an “insurrectionist/rebellious” President is impeachment. The grounds would be even simpler: treason. Finally the Court held that the inevitable differences in qualification standards among the States – with different laws on the books – would produce a “patchwork” of different standards for the validity of votes cast. That, the Court would not tolerate. Majority and concurring opinions In summary, a clear majority – consisting of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas – have absolutely forbidden any State to keep Donald Trump, or any other candidate, off the ballot on this ground. These five issued a per curiam opinion – one without signatures. So the recent decision by a judge in Cook County, Illinois – overriding the State election board – cannot stand, either. Nor can a similar decision in Maine. Perhaps the Court sought to draft a decision that says, in no uncertain terms, “Don’t waste our time.” Such decisions – more common than people think – often produce very terse subsequent decisions called Grant, Vacate and Remand orders. One can probably anticipate that such orders will be swiftly forthcoming in the Illinois and Maine cases. Amy Coney Barrett seemed to feel, in her two-paragraph concurrence, that the majority had delivered their judgment with an unseemly stridor. The Liberal Bloc (Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor) seemed to want to leave a way open for ballot-access challenges less “messy” than the Colorado case. In this they make a serious logical inconsistency. They state: All the Reconstruction Amendments (including the due process and equal protection guarantees and prohibition of slavery) “are self-executing,” meaning that they do not depend on legislation. That might apply to Amendment XIII. But Amendments XIV and XV both have “Congress shall have the power to enforce” sections. Why have them, if those Amendments are self-executing? Reaction from Trump and others Indeed they leave open the question of exactly why they concurred in the final judgment. They indicated their concurrence, but only because Colorado relied on no uniform procedure and therefore “winged it.” But who do they expect to draft that uniform procedure? The Liberal Bloc didn’t say. So by virtue of what standard do they propose to uphold future Trump ballot access challenges? Again, they won’t say. Julie Kelly, a frequent defender of Trump, highlighted the last page of the per curiam opinion and the unanimous judgment. https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1764668067814965583 President Trump had an even simpler reaction: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112038026037364851 Trump also appeared on Howie Carr’s radio program to offer more detailed reaction: https://twitter.com/HowieCarrShow/status/1764686237686731004 Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), Speaker of the House, offered this: https://twitter.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1764687750240833893 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) reacted slightly more strongly: https://twitter.com/VoteMarsha/status/1764675832700719581 As did Sen. John Hawley (R-Mo.): https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1764674890014089262 And Sen. J. D. Vance (R-Ohio): https://twitter.com/JDVance1/status/1764674570680693096 Trump appeared ready to concentrate on Super Tuesday – and today’s North Dakota primary. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/03/04/foundation/constitution/trump-stay-ballots-scotus/ Two posts anticipating the opinion: https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1764365783398764702 https://twitter.com/lawrencehurley/status/1764353195902435791 The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf Reactions: https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1764668067814965583 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112038026037364851 https://twitter.com/HowieCarrShow/status/1764686237686731004 https://twitter.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1764687750240833893 https://twitter.com/VoteMarsha/status/1764675832700719581 https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1764674890014089262 https://twitter.com/JDVance1/status/1764674570680693096 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Trump continues to sweep up delegates By Terry A. Hurlbut Donald Trump continues his delegate “sweep-stakes” as Super Tuesday approaches. Yesterday he made an almost clean sweep of three closed contests. These results leave him with twenty percent of the delegates he will need to win the nomination. The Trump sweep Election Central maintains a schedule of primaries, caucuses, and conventions for both Parties. In addition, the site 270 to Win has this running delegate spreadsheet for Republican candidates. The Trump Sweep began in Missouri, where he won all votes cast in its caucuses. According to The Gateway Pundit, the Associated Press called the race around noon Eastern Time. Missouri will send 54 delegates to the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in mid-July. Three will be uncommitted, per the rules. The Party awarded eleven delegates at-large and five from each of eight Congressional districts. As seems to be a default rule, any candidate winning fifty percent or more of the vote in any contest gets all the delegates. Trump won all fifty-one delegates at stake in Missouri’s caucuses – a broad-based victory across all Congressional districts. Michigan held a primary last Tuesday (February 27). Republicans offered sixteen delegates in that primary, and Trump won them all, with 68 percent of the popular vote. Yesterday Michigan held caucuses to award the remaining thirty-nine delegates. TGP had two reports from Michigan, one in the afternoon and the other in the evening. The final results showed Trump with fifty-one delegates and Nikki Haley with four. The Team Trump account announced at 7:08 p.m. EST that Trump had swept Idaho as well. https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1764079865328808400 Idaho will send 32 delegates to the Convention. As with the other States, Donald Trump won them all. Laura Loomer posted the results: https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1764101627504373770 Nikki Haley refuses to quit Nikki Haley spent her time campaigning in the Super Tuesday States. She campaigned in Richmond, Virginia on Friday (March 1), and in North Carolina and Massachusetts yesterday. But she had the bad sense to post video from her Raleigh, North Carolina rally. That was a mistake, because that rally was very poorly attended. https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1763992715618881969 Trump’s rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, provided a sharp contrast – in his favor. https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1763994703853187582 Furthermore, as of this moment, Trump has 244 delegates, Haley 24, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), 9, and Vivek Ramaswamy 3. DeSantis and Ramaswamy have both suspended their campaigns. They picked up all their delegates in Iowa. Any other candidate would probably quit when the situation became mathematically impossible. But not Nikki Haley. Even after Trump made her Not The Favorite Daughter of South Carolina, she made her position insultingly clear. https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1761572239340618053 The latest New York Times/Siena College poll has her earning only 20% of the vote, to Trump’s 77%. Furthermore, nearly half her supporters are Democrat crossovers. https://twitter.com/amyewalter/status/1763981584674218028 She also refuses to commit to supporting the eventual nominee, if she’s not it. https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1763670196034633742 And her excuse is that the Republican National Committee has changed, after Ronna McDanial resigned. What are the Democrats saying? The Democrats are talking half trash, half crazy, suggesting that a second Trump term frightens them badly. Mike LaChance at TGP quotes MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch as lamenting that rank-and-file voters aren’t as frightened as he. https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1763915996673577433 One voter says the Democrats’ problem is that they inspire fear – of themselves. https://twitter.com/Robeno/status/1763955540881727585 Given that, Nikki Haley’s crossover campaign is likely to lose more votes than she gains. In Richmond, Virginia, the Mayor – the same Mayor who erased Monument Avenue – cut a video saying, “Trump, you’re not welcome!” https://twitter.com/LevarStoney/status/1763939420510593242 https://twitter.com/JennMcClellanVA/status/1764043260752789659 https://twitter.com/raven_txwarrior/status/1763990431153406107 But when a Nikki Haley billboard truck drove past a line of people waiting to get into Trump’s rally, the people in line cried, “Boo!” https://twitter.com/thadgreen/status/1764019011539370394 All this illustrates Nikki Haley’s problem. Republican rank-and-file have adopted Trump’s battle cry: “Make America Great Again!” But she, having drunk too much of the tap water at Turtle Bay when she served as our Ambassador there, wants to make the United Nations great. And to do that, she needs Democrats – the same Democrats who are behaving like schoolyard bullies. Nor would they vote for her in the general election, anyway. Super Tuesday – with its dizzying variety of ways to allocate delegates – will tell the tale. 865 delegates will be on the line in 15 States. Trump will need another 971 delegates to win, so he cannot “clinch” the nomination mathematically on Super Tuesday. But he might be able to do so on March 12, with 160 delegates at stake. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/03/03/news/trump-continues-sweep-delegates/ The schedule: https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2024-primary-schedule/ The spreadsheet: https://www.270towin.com/2024-republican-nomination/polls/delegate-totals-by-candidate Announcements of results: https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1764079865328808400 https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1764101627504373770 Competing rallies: https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1763992715618881969 https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1763994703853187582 The “Soviet-style election” crack: https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1761572239340618053 NYT/Siena finds half Nikki Haley’s supporters are crossovers: https://twitter.com/amyewalter/status/1763981584674218028 Nikki Haley on Meet the Press: https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1763670196034633742 Video clip: Donny Deutsch’s call for a scare campaign (and reaction): https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1763915996673577433 https://twitter.com/Robeno/status/1763955540881727585 Democrat leaders in Richmond react (badly) to Trump’s rally: https://twitter.com/LevarStoney/status/1763939420510593242 https://twitter.com/JennMcClellanVA/status/1764043260752789659 https://twitter.com/raven_txwarrior/status/1763990431153406107 Boo on Nikki Haley’s billboard truck: https://twitter.com/thadgreen/status/1764019011539370394 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Election integrity scores a small, but key, win By Terry A. Hurlbut Two principles, of supreme importance to the American republic, won a small, but very important, victory this week. First – as every lawyer knows and in which every commentator can take comfort – truth is a complete defense against the familiar “lying and bad-mouthing” charges of libel, slander, and defamation of character. Second – and more important still – election integrity matters. Two front-line defenders of election integrity pushed back against a voting machine warehouse keeper accusing them of lying about him. They won – because, to paraphrase the incomparable Laura Loomer, they had the receipts. Their victory, while small in the grand scheme, sets precedents in election law and in patriotic tactics in organized societies. Important election integrity roles The two most important roles patriots can play in ensuring – or reestablishing – election integrity are poll watchers and poll workers. Poll workers are the precinct-level Officers of Election, and their chiefs and their assistants. An Officer of Election might greet you at the door, check you in, hand you a ballot, wave you to a booth where you can mark it, or guard a scanner-tabulator or Ballot Marking Device while you use either machine. Chiefs and their assistants, in many jurisdictions, have the authority to register you to vote that day, hand you a provisional ballot, or override some machine function in case of machine or human error. The chief also runs the tape on the scanner-tabulator and reports the vote to the registrar. (Thus when a news organ says, “with such-a-percent of precincts reporting,” that’s what they mean.) A poll watcher is an observer, which his unit Party committee has accredited in advance to the Registrar of Elections. He may sit where he can observe everything except information personal to a particular voter. If he knows someone is voting improperly, he may complain to the chief. And in theory, his presence ensures that the chief and his crew will not “pull any funny business.” This case involves two poll watchers who went above and beyond the call of duty. A senior election official alleged that they exceeded their authority. The particular election integrity case Delaware County, Pennsylvania, sits on the eastern third of the “hump” that is the Pennsylvania-Delaware border. Jim Hoft, editor-in-chief of The Gateway Pundit, has a summary of the case, and appropriate links. Last year, Brian Lupo filed another report while the case was still ongoing. This case involved the Election of 2020. Mr. James Savage, the Delaware County Voting Machine Warehouse Supervisor and Chief Custodian, sued: • Then-President Donald Trump and his campaign, • Attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and Phillip Kline, and Mr. Giuliani’s law firm, • The Thomas More Society, and • Two Republican poll watchers, Gregory Stenstrom and Leah Hoopes, for libel/slander, defamation of character, putting him in a false light, and civil conspiracy. Savage v. Trump et al., Case No. 211002495, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, October, 2021. Mr. Savage buried Stenstrom and Hoopes’ names in the middle of the defendants’ list. But those two, without question, are at the heart of this case. (See also this report from The Delco Times.) Mr. Stenstrom and Ms. Hoopes accused Savage of tampering with the Universal Serial Bus (USB) “v-cards” to add 50,000 votes for Joe Biden. Biden allegedly carried the State by 80,555 votes – but Trump had been ahead by 700,000 votes at least. This allegation was one of many Stenstrom and Hoopes made at “The Gettysburg Hearing” of November 25, 2020. At that hearing, Mr. Stenstrom said this part, relevant to the case: So I personally observed … USB v-cards being uploaded to the voting machines by the … voting machine warehouse supervisor on multiple occasions. I saw this personally. I brought it to the attention of the deputy sheriff who was there stationed who was a senior law enforcement officer, and I brought it to the attention of the clerk of elections… I objected, and I said, “This person is not being observed, he’s not part of the process that I can see,” and he’s walking in with baggies which we have pictures of, and that were submitted in our affidavits, and he was sticking these USBs into the machines. So I personally witnessed over that happen twenty four times, over twenty four times. We have multiple other witnesses who saw it including Democrat poll watchers… And we were told, the next day by … the attorney that we had secured, that they said every election they leave a couple of USBs in the voting machines and they’re brought back and generally the warehouse manager comes over and puts them in. So in talking to US Attorney General McSwain and other law enforcement officers, I found out that was not the case. That generally uh, you know, more than more than two is unusual. So they denied they did it, but um as of today 47 USB v-cards are missing, and they’re nowhere to be found. So I was told personally that these 32, these 24 to 30, cards that were uploaded um weren’t there, those cards I demanded that they, they didn’t update the vote live time, they only updated it about once every two or three hours, I demanded they updated the vote so I could see what the, the uh, what the what the result was, and it was … 50,000 votes. And I think as a computer scientist, an American, and a patriot, it doesn’t matter who those 50,000 votes were. I’ll tell you they were for Vice President Biden. But what was shocking to me, as an American, as someone who has gone to sea, gone to war, that that could even happen… You know, people ask me all the time, “how do people commit crimes,” um I know there’s a lot of theories here and I always look for the simplest thing. People that stuff, you know, sticking USB sticks in, putting ballots in, very simple thing. So we have a situation where we have 100,000 ballots to 120,000 ballots, both mail in and USB, that are in question. The fight continues History cannot determine whether those allegations might have been proved, had the United States Supreme Court taken the case of Texas v. Pennsylvania. Mr. Savage denied flatly that he did, or even could have, altered the Delaware County vote total. In his lawsuit, Savage alleged that he suffered two heart attacks, and had certain persons unknown threaten him with bodily harm. But whether he would have had the wherewithal to file this action on his own, is an open question. No disinterested observer can doubt that whoever paid Mr. Savage’s legal bills, sought to shake the testimony of two poll watchers to some of the most serious types of election fraud that took place on November 3-4, 2020. Why the Thomas More Society maintains no landing page about Savage v. Trump, though they were defendants, none can say. Incredibly, the two poll watchers represented themselves in this case. Somehow this case dragged on for two and one-third years. In May 2022, Stenstrom and Hoopes appeared on podcasts to explain their positions and their continued fight for election integrity. https://twitter.com/CannConActual/status/1660704351130664960 https://twitter.com/CannConActual/status/1660704354381209614 https://twitter.com/CannConActual/status/1660704357317238784 https://twitter.com/CannConActual/status/1660704359032692754 https://rumble.com/embed/v2klg3q/?pub=4teej https://rumble.com/embed/v2lrpde/?pub=4teej https://rumble.com/embed/v1zhsok/?pub=4teej Note that Stenstrom also has information about the story by Jesse Morgan, a United States Postal Service contract truck driver. He drove a load of about 250,000 ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. After he parked it for a night’s rest, trailer and load disappeared. See also these posts, from June 2023: https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668069639484481537 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668073151345950720 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668073835411767296 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668074745223413760 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668075380501106689 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668075828742111233 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668077917878861824 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668078980711194627 It was all true – and the plaintiff has effectively admitted it The rest of this information comes from two posts on the Patriot Online social-media platform, from Gregory Stenstrom’s account: https://patriot.online/@gregorystenstrom/posts/AfLqvtimEDDVbcW7G4 https://patriot.online/@gregorystenstrom/posts/AfMSKj02vLrlthIQXQ On January 10, 2024, someone, presumably through Savage’s lawyers, offered Stenstrom and Hoopes a settlement. Under it, Stenstrom and Hoopes would be out of the case, and Savage would proceed against Trump and Giuliani only. Obviously those two were the “big fish” and “deep pockets.” Nothing doing, said the two poll watchers – who then proceed to file an impressive archive of documents at this link. https://cloud.patriot.online/s/WCiSBwADGfK7WaK Five days ago they filed this massive trove of video clips of what, apparently, they had seen. https://cloud.patriot.online/s/wXZgb9oPyXH5dX4 They were prepared, apparently, to show at trial that Savage took part in the destruction and obfuscation of evidence. Obviously this would have been monumentally embarrassing to Mr. Savage – and to various State and federal officials. Perhaps his financiers abruptly served notice they would throw him under the bus if he continued. In any event, the poll watchers filed motions for summary judgment and monetary and other sanctions. On Wednesday, February 28, less than twenty-four hours before the summary-judgment hearing was to take place, Savage withdrew his complaint. The judge accepted that and canceled all remaining hearings – after citing Savage’s attorney for unprofessional conduct. What can we take away First and foremost, this case demonstrates the role of poll watchers in maintaining election integrity. Had they not been present, and made nuisances of themselves, Mr. Savage would have gotten away with his misconduct. But let no one suppose that this misconduct was Mr. Savage’s idea. A tremendous rot of ideological corruption exists in many county and municipal election offices. As important as poll watchers are, poll workers are even more important. Patriots must sign up to be poll workers, and work their way up the ladder. This case revealed corruption at the top of the election-official food chain. But that no poll worker ever questioned it, should shame their pride. Poll watchers like Stenstrom and Hoopes can take falls for the team, but their authority goes only so far. Poll workers – as Dr. Steve Turley told your editor directly – are “in the belly of the beast.” Better to be a poll worker than to complain about their conduct afterward. True patriotic poll workers might also have made Mr. Savage think twice before doing what he now admits to doing. As Stenstrom said in his Patriot Online posts, truth is a complete defense. Your editor learned that as a senior in medical school, from no less authorities than associate members of the venerable law firm of Fulbright and Jaworski. (Yes, that Jaworski, as in Leon, the Special Prosecutor who took Nixon down.) Savage’s whole case depended on showing those poll watchers were lying. They weren’t, and his case fell apart. The objective Besides all the above, the most important thing to decide, in going to literal or figurative war, is: objective. In this case, patriots must have a goal. Sadly, it cannot be canceling out more than three years of an illegitimate Presidency. The Supreme Court threw away the only chance to change that result – because the Chief Justice feared riots on First Avenue Southeast, in front of the Supreme Courthouse. The objective must be to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. And to achieve that, requires absolutely the elimination of electronic voting machines. Electronic poll books might remain, so that voters don’t have to sort themselves into, say, the A-K and L-Z lines. But scanner-tabulators and Ballot Marking Devices must go, so that future Messrs. Savage positively cannot do what he did. And under no circumstances must electronic poll books connect to the Internet! We must also abolish mail-in voting – no more transporting ballots across State lines in mail trucks! France votes on paper, and in person, even allowing pre-registered proxies. The United States can – indeed must – do the same. Nevertheless, election integrity scored a significant victory this week. It is the first case in which the “Trump position” won the day. Patriots need to follow up on this, and recruit both poll watchers and poll workers. Then we can start drafting city and county ordinances to get rid of The Machines. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/03/02/foundation/constitution/election-integrity-small-key-win/ Gateway Pundit reports: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/massive-win-trump-pa-voting-machine-warehouse-official/ https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/05/still-fighting-one-only-remaining-2020-election-cases/ Savage v. Trump complaint: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21098745/savage-v-trump-et-al.pdf The CannCon thread: https://twitter.com/CannConActual/status/1660704351130664960 https://twitter.com/CannConActual/status/1660704354381209614 https://twitter.com/CannConActual/status/1660704357317238784 https://twitter.com/CannConActual/status/1660704359032692754 Podcast videos: https://rumble.com/v2n6vje-sitrep-ep-29-thur-900-pm-et-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v2od4t2-live-at-9pm-with-greg-stenstrom-and-leah-hoopes-on-their-active-pa-2020-law.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v223xjq-tony-shaffer-on-the-deep-state-the-2020-election-steal-in-pa-and-former-ag-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Mr. Sausage posts (not as a thread): https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668069639484481537 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668073151345950720 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668073835411767296 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668074745223413760 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668075380501106689 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668075828742111233 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668077917878861824 https://twitter.com/MrSausageGet/status/1668078980711194627 Gregory Stenstrom’s posts on Patriot Online: https://patriot.online/@gregorystenstrom/posts/AfLqvtimEDDVbcW7G4 https://patriot.online/@gregorystenstrom/posts/AfMSKj02vLrlthIQXQ Mr. Stenstrom’s Patriot Cloud directories: https://cloud.patriot.online/s/WCiSBwADGfK7WaK https://cloud.patriot.online/s/wXZgb9oPyXH5dX4 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Presidential immunity and leftist anguish By Terry A. Hurlbut Last Wednesday (February 28) the United States Supreme Court agreed to decide formally an issue most people took for granted. They will decide whether or not a President of the United States enjoys immunity from ordinary prosecution for his acts while in office. Presidential immunity should never have been in doubt, and the doubts some are raising amount to ex post facto law. And if people studied ancient history, they’d know how hazardous not granting immunity can be. Indeed, at least one leftist news commentator played with fire in her comments on the subject. Presidential immunity and the January 6 case The Supreme Court handed down a Miscellaneous Order near day’s end in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s “January 6 case.” What is now Trump v. United States, Case No. 23-939, will present this question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. The most salient effect of this order is that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia must withhold any further “mandate” in the case until the Supreme Court rules on that question. The Court set petitioner’s, respondent’s, and friend-of-the-court briefing deadlines, and scheduled oral argument for the week of April 22, 2024. Special Counsel Smith accuses Trump of inciting the alleged attacks on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Trump’s lawyers filed motions to dismiss, asserting presidential immunity. Judge Tanya Chutkan of the District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion. Trump appealed – and drew the short straw, in the form of three judges, two Biden appointees and one Bush Jr. appointee. They ruled, 3-0, that a former President does not enjoy presidential immunity for his acts in office. In their ruling, they actually said: We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed. We conclude that “concerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government” compel the rejection of his claim of immunity in this case. This is another in a disturbing line of appellate cases that courts have decided, or declined, on public-policy grounds. First was Texas v. Pennsylvania, in which Texas sought Supreme Court intervention in the Election of 2020. Chief Justice John Roberts allegedly harangued his colleagues into declining that case, in fear of riots outside the Supreme Courthouse. The opinion by these three judges smacks of a similar extra-legal “concern.” Immediate consequences Christina Laila at The Gateway Pundit continued her coverage of the Supreme Court’s action yesterday. This included an interview with Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor with a reputation for hating Donald Trump. He took note that the case of USA v. Trump is already postponed indefinitely. Naturally the postponement must last even longer, given the Supreme Court action and the announced briefing and argument schedule. In an interview with MSNBC, Weissmann said this: https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1763277139540152735 Ms. Laila also criticized Weissmann for saying Smith had charged Trump with “illegally staying in office.” Neither Smith nor any other prosecutor has actually alleged that. Apparently Weissmann further accuses the Supreme Court of delaying the case. In fact, the Biden administration timed the case to have a trial during election season. Perhaps they even thought to see Trump in a federal (or State) prison. Neither thing is likely to happen now. Smith has another case pending against Trump, though in the Southern District of Florida. This is the Documents Case, arising out of the FBI raid on Mar-A-Lago in August of 2022. Now Smith wants a trial of that case by July 8, according to CNN. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1763337691935244307 Even that is a postponement for a trial set to begin May 20. Smith’s exact motive for such a delay is unclear. Leftist and media apoplexy While this has been happening, two media personalities have vented their apoplexy at the idea that the Supreme Court will consider presidential immunity as a valid concept. According to Jim Hoft, MSNBC brought in Elie Mystal from the radical-left magazine The Nation to vent his spleen. He called on Democrats to “deal with” the Supreme Court – but made himself clear as mud on what that meant. https://rumble.com/v4ge5ol-msnbc-hack-elie-mystal-threatens-supreme-court-calls-on-democrats-to-strip-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 His hostess referred to a “bulletproof ruling” from the Court of Appeals, that the Supreme Court nevertheless agreed to review. In reply, Mystal called the Court’s members (outside the Liberal Bloc) “corrupted political actors who act in bad faith.” Then he said: And at some point, people in the media, people at home, and people sitting in the White House have to stop pretending that the Supreme Court is some kind of benign ‘trying to do its best’ institution and start to realize that there are six Republicans, not conservatives, Republicans on the Supreme Court, who view it as their job to help the Republican Party. And until we do something about that, until we take away that power, until we draw the line on them there, they will continue to do this. They will help Trump. They will take away abortion rights. They will end affirmative action. They will liberalize gun rights. They will do all of it until we stop them. And somebody needs to start listening in the higher echelons of the Democratic party, because we will keep losing every day we allow these six Republicans in robes to rule over all of us. Again, he did not say how he proposed that someone “take away that power.” Of course he referred to decisions that have struck at the heart of leftist ideology and orthodoxy: • Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, • Students for Fair Admissions v. Trustees of Harvard College [and] University of North Carolina, and • New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Curiously he forgot to mention: • Carson v. Makin, • Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, • West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, • 303 Creative v. Elenis, • Sackett et ux. v. Environmental Protection Agency (the judgment in which was unanimous), and • Biden v. Nebraska (the student loan case). Jim Hoft actually accused Mystal of incitement to Justicial assassination. (Like Antonin Scalia? Or Brett Kavanaugh?) But as Cullen Linebarger reported, that wasn’t the worst! Rachel Maddow plays with fire Rachel Maddow, who has her own show on MSNBC, lamented that (perhaps) Trump might never face trial. (If the Supreme Court upholds his presidential immunity claim, or if further proceedings delay a trial until after the Inauguration, then, no, he will not.) But then she suggested that, if Trump ever becomes President again, “he will never leave.” https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1763045727759204498 She then accused the Court of “dilatory” proceedings “to help [their] political friend.” https://twitter.com/allinwithchris/status/1763014265156346205 The rest of what she said amounts to classic throwing-off (the fancy Latinate word is “projection”). Saul Alinsky specifically recommends projection in his Rules for Radicals. For it is the left, not Trump or the Originalist Bloc of the Court, that is turning the United States into a country, not of laws, but of well-connected people. Mike LaChance reported on similarly unhinged posts from other celebrities. Some of the posts he gathered, are not embeddable on a site for polite company. This post is at least embeddable and repeatable, though incomprehensible: https://twitter.com/StevieVanZandt/status/1763212216302460981 As are these: https://twitter.com/MrJonCryer/status/1763234663546716502 https://twitter.com/BarbraStreisand/status/1763266291626885276 https://twitter.com/robreiner/status/1763190232663339423 But none of them, least of all Rachel Maddow, seem to understand the heat of the fire they’re playing with. Without presidential immunity, no head of state worth his salt dare even hold the office. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the State of Israel surely understand that. But so did another head-of-state when his legislature pushed him to the decision point. An ancient case for presidential immunity Go back in time to the Consulship of Gaius Claudius Marcellus and Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus – 49 B.C. About four days before the Ides of January, Junior Consul Lentulus Crus stood up in the Senate of Rome – then meeting in a temporary venue – and introduced a declaration of national emergency against the power of intercession – the veto power – of the Tribunes of the Plebs. Everyone knew this was actually part of a broader strategy to attack Rome’s most successful general – or field marshal. At once the Tribune with the loudest voice – no other than Mark Antony – stood and cried out, “I forbid that!” (In Latin the word translating “I forbid” is: Veto.) Lentulus Crus ordered the sergeants-at-arms – the Lictors – to eject him, and a fellow Tribune who rose to his defense. Antony and his friend rushed to the Well of the Comitia, displayed their dishevelment, and told the people what was happening. Then when a troop of Lictors marched toward the Well to arrest them, they left Rome. But they sent a fast horseman to carry a message to their patron, who waited in Ravenna in Northern Italy. When that message arrived, its recipient ordered his staff to mount up, and to prepare an entire division to march. Then, with a jaunty cry of “Let the dice fly high!”, Gaius Julius Caesar led Legio XIII across the Rubicon. That is what a republic risks when it threatens its heads-of-state with specious charges on pretended offenses if they leave office. From ancient to modern And that is what Rachel Maddow inadvertently revealed as the plans the Democrats have for Trump. Nor is that the only threat any liberal has made. Whoopi Goldberg actually encouraged Resident Biden to order the arrest of all Republicans, should the Supreme Court uphold presidential immunity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kex7H6KiYI Brandon Tatum accused Goldberg of “going full Hitler.” But she did not emulate Adolf Hitler; she emulated Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus. Given this man’s ancient example, Goldberg and Maddow are behaving with gross irresponsibility when they make such statements. In fact, the Sackett precedent, plus the recent oral argument in Trump v. Anderson, suggest that Maddow and Goldberg have totally blown the gaffe. None of the Court members were even willing to allow that an insurrection had occurred. (Only Congress can declare an insurrection, because “insurrection” is treason, therefore war, which only Congress may declare.) And the only way that Presidents, Vice-Presidents, and civil officers are subject to “indictment, trial, judgment and punishment,” is upon conviction following impeachment. Article I Section 3 Clause 7 of the Constitution spells that out. The Democrats tried impeachment after Trump left office – and failed. Now they want a do-over? That’s ex post facto – another thing the Constitution forbids. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. (Nixon resigned with three Articles of Impeachment pending against him – and Gerald R. Ford merely wanted to stop all arguments.) If the Originalists follow the Constitution, and the Moderates remember recent and already pending cases, they will vote for presidential immunity. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/03/01/foundation/constitution/presidential-immunity-leftist-anguish/ The cert order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022824zr3_febh.pdf Citizen Free Press’ post: Andrew Weissmann interview: https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePress/status/1763277139540152735 Kyle Cheney’s post about a desired trial date in the Documents Case: https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1763337691935244307 Video: Elie Mystal interview: https://rumble.com/v4ge5ol-msnbc-hack-elie-mystal-threatens-supreme-court-calls-on-democrats-to-strip-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Two posts with parts of Rachel Maddow’s monolog/interview: https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1763045727759204498 https://twitter.com/allinwithchris/status/1763014265156346205 Four posts with leftist outrage: https://twitter.com/StevieVanZandt/status/1763212216302460981 https://twitter.com/MrJonCryer/status/1763234663546716502 https://twitter.com/BarbraStreisand/status/1763266291626885276 https://twitter.com/robreiner/status/1763190232663339423 Video: Analysis of Whoopi Goldberg interview by Brandon Tatum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kex7H6KiYI Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Mitch McConnell stepping down By Terry A. Hurlbut Sen. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader and senior Senator from Kentucky (emphasis on senior), announced yesterday that he is stepping down from Senate leadership. Moreover he will likely not seek reelection to the Senate in 2026. Legacy media organs are making much of his being the longest-serving Party Floor Leader in the history of the Senate. But his (so far) voluntary laying-down of leadership affords a time to reflect on the mixed results of his tenure. It also affords the last chance for Republicans to retake the Senate – hopefully this time with an uncompromising Leader. Mitch McConnell makes electrifying announcement Christina Laila at The Gateway Pundit broke the news of the impending announcement at 11:40 a.m. EST yesterday. Commentator Benny Johnson also broke the news on X: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1762892770019004919 Then at 3:32 p.m. EST, the Associated Press carried the formal announcement. Mitch McConnell entered the well of the Senate to make the announcement everyone expected him to make. https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1762895846230602121 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEgd6ylqM20 One of life’s most underappreciated talents is to know when it’s time to move on to life’s next chapter. So I stand before you today … to say that this will be my last term as Republican leader of the Senate. I'm not going anywhere anytime soon. However, I'll complete my job. My colleagues have given me until we select a new leader in November and they take the helm next January. Madeline Hubbard at Just the News carried a further quote: Father Time remains undefeated. I am no longer the young man sitting in the back, hoping colleagues would remember my name. It is time for the next generation of leadership. Henry Rodgers at The Daily Caller quoted him further as saying he would serve out his current Senate term, “albeit from a different seat in this chamber.” Unlike the Roman Senate, United States Senators who are not currently in leadership do not have permanent “front bench” privileges. McConnell, who entered the Senate in 1985, has served as Floor Leader since 2007. Mary Margaret Olohan at The Daily Signal had more of his speech. Why is he stepping down? His aides insisted that Mitch McConnell is not stepping down by reason of his health. That might or might not be true, in whole or in part. The Senator took a fall in March of last year and suffered a concussion. Speculation was rife then that he might retire. Later last year he suffered two apparent strokes, in July and again in August. https://twitter.com/HannahPThomas/status/1696936240040321474 A Capitol Hill physician then diagnosed “small seizures due to dehydration.” McConnell’s junior partner, Sen. Rand Paul, who is a physician himself, repudiated that diagnosis. He told reporters, “It looks like a focal neurological event,” meaning a stroke. After that he faced pressure to step down, or even leave the Senate, then and there. But the politics of his conference had already begun to tell against him, and he acknowledged that. https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1762898217266512237 And with good reason. The only commentator with a kind word for him was Erick-Woods Erickson, who once backed the challenge by Gov. Matt Bevin (R-Ky.) to McConnell’s Senate seat. (Apparently Erickson lost his jobs at Fox News and RedState over that episode.) Erickson credits McConnell with keeping Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court after the death (murder?) of Antonin Scalia. He further asserts that no other Floor Leader could have kept the Senate Republican Conference together to advance nominees Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. With, he says, the following results: The end of Roe v. Wade, a 6-3 United States Supreme Court, a Republican appointed majority in six of the Courts of Appeal, near parity in several more, the end of most gun control legislation, blocking the Paris Accord and climate change legislation, the Trump tax cuts, the death of the individual mandate, and an aggressive culling of regulations imposed by the Obama Administration at the end of his term. The cons Erickson went on to offer this commentary, that weakens his argument: I’d rather have a center-right United States Senate that has to deal with a Susan Collins [RINO-Maine] or a Lisa Murkowski [RINO-Alaska] in the majority than have a progressive Senate run by Chuck Schumer. And McConnell worked very hard to deliver that and, frankly, probably would have preserved it further had Donald Trump not convinced 427,205 Republicans in Georgia not to go vote in runoffs in January of 2021. As much as I would prefer Washington do nothing, Washington is always going to do something. I often disagreed with much of what McConnell was willing to allow Washington to do, but often he was willing to allow advances through backroom deals that accomplished, in other ways, things conservatives wanted. Lay aside for a moment that Erick-Woods Erickson will not get it through his thick head that Democrats stole the Election of 2020. (As Tucker Carlson explains, according to Mike LaChance at TGP.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lRdkH_QoY The problem is that we now have a progressive Senate with Chuck Schumer at the helm. For that blame Mitch McConnell, who didn’t want to risk a MAGA Conference deposing him as Leader. The worse problem is that those “backroom deals” now include support for a corrupt region, that can call itself a country only because Nikita Khrushchev wanted another vote in the United Nations General Assembly, that hosted biological weapons development laboratories, with American funding, and American direction, and American staffs. A region that, furthermore, hosts twelve bases for the Central Intelligence Agency, who really are a Dark Force. (That accusation was always the Soviet Union’s broken-clock position.) Furthermore, Mitch McConnell refuses to secure the southern border. https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1762607473217724881 So now Texas is building military forces and infrastructure to do it themselves – or maybe prepare for a secession war. Erick-Woods Erickson said Mitch McConnell doesn’t care. He obviously doesn’t care about the border. (And if Texas does move toward secession, Mitch McConnell can blame himself as well as Resident Biden.) After Mitch McConnell, who’s next? Dick Morris, in yesterday’s “Lunch Alert,” thumped McConnell for keeping Republicans in a permanent minority in the Senate. Likewise he hailed the step-down as an opportunity for Republicans – MAGA Republicans – to make the Senate their own. This, says Morris, can happen immediately. By announcing his step-down, Mitch McConnell effectively ends whatever influence he has over the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), its current chairman, is a definite MAGA Republican – and was MAGA before MAGA “became a thing.” In 2016 he backed McConnell’s decision not to bring up Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination for a vote. In the Obama years (during two of which he was Montana’s At-large Representative), he rejected climate-change panic. Likewise, he wants to abolish the Department of Education and make education a State and local affair only. All these things make him a good candidate for Floor Leader. But even now, Morris hopes Daines will continue to support MAGA Senate candidates – in an election that will see Democrats defending more than their usual share of Senate seats. (Among them: that of Sen. Jon Tester, his senior and Democratic partner in Montana.) But Daines faces three competitors, all of whom have the advantage of seniority. Politico calls them the Three Johns: John Thune (R-S.D.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) Cornyn and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton traded barbs yesterday. https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1762994033779978483 https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1762994251573404153 Ken Paxton does not face prison. He recently survived an impeachment attempt – and has scores to settle as a result. What happens if Mitch can’t serve out his term? Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell did pledge to serve out his term. The words he chose during his speech suggest that he will not seek reelection in 2026. Without question, his political differences with Trump and most of his Conference decided him in retiring as Leader. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who challenged him for the leadership position a year and a half ago, made that point: https://twitter.com/SenRickScott/status/1762922591293976680 But suppose he suffers a stroke, or a heart attack, or other attack, that kills him? Who then replaces him in the Senate? Kentucky Law provides that in case of the expulsion of a U.S. Senator from Kentucky from office, or of his death or resignation, that Senator’s Party Executive Committee would then specify three candidates, from among whom the governor must choose an Interim Senator. McConnell himself suggested that change in the law in 2021. Kentucky’s legislature passed it over the vehement veto of Gov. Andy Beshear (D-Ky.). The governor has since vowed that he would appoint whomever he d____d well pleased as Interim Senator, given the opportunity, and dared Republicans to sue him in federal court if they so chose. Perhaps that’s why McConnell does not resign from the Senate altogether. Activist (and former Delaware Senate candidate) Lauren Witzke definitely doesn’t want him to “hang on” as Leader through the election. https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1762951637763858585 She might have a point, if Dick Morris is wrong and McConnell retains his influence over the NRSC. But his step-down as Leader is still a step in the right direction. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/02/29/foundation/constitution/mitch-mcconnell-stepping-down/ Benny Johnson’s post announcing the step-down: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1762892770019004919 Article, posts and video covering the step-down: https://apnews.com/article/mitch-mcconnell-senate-republican-leader-stepping-down-ba478d570a4561aa7baf91a204d7e366 https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1762895846230602121 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEgd6ylqM20 https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1762898217266512237 Video: Tucker Carlson interview in which he says the Election of 2020 was stolen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lRdkH_QoY Post about McConnell saying to forget the border: https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1762607473217724881 Ken Paxton and John Cornyn’s dispute: https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1762994033779978483 https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1762994251573404153 Sen. Rick Scott: “We need new leadership: https://twitter.com/SenRickScott/status/1762922591293976680 Lauren Witzke: McConnell should step down effective immediately: https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1762951637763858585 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Fani Willis, legal ecdysiast By Terry A. Hurlbut The sordid soap opera – with apologies to the Procter and Gamble Company – concerning Fulton County (Georgia) District Attorney Fani Willis and her apparent illicit lover and “colleague” Nathan Wade, grinds on, serving up more titillating gossip with every passing day. One has to wonder what kind of show Judge Scott McAfee is running – an evidentiary hearing, or a strip show. The revelations at that hearing, while embarrassing to Fani Willis, do not address the most serious aspects of the case. Which are: selective application of the law, prosecuting a candidate for a perfectly legal election contest, and collusion between the Office of the District Attorney and the Office of White House Counsel. This salacious drama serves only to distract the American public from far more serious plans that the Woke Left has for all of North America. Review of the Fani Willis drama Fani Willis won an indictment against Donald Trump and 18 of his lawyers and associates in August of 2023. She charged him under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute for his election challenge. Apparently elections, especially elections that Democrats win, are not to be challenged. Anyone who does, her prosecution theory states, is a racketeer. Sadly, that is also the theory of a grand jury who heard the evidence. How odd – no grand jury heard any RICO charge against Donna Curling. She is suing the Georgia Secretary of State’s office over voting machines that turn out to be eminently hackable. Donna Curling is a leftist. While her claim turns out to be eminently valid, Donald Trump’s claim is no less valid. Yet officials prosecute him but not her. The House Judiciary Committee began investigating Fani Willis for prosecuting Trump from a political motive – and using federal funds. Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-Ohio) announcement of that investigation drew skepticism – and outrage from those who want to apply the law selectively to Trump. Which is exactly what’s happening, as if anyone seriously compares Donald Trump to an organized crime figure. Then, in January 2024, Mr. Michael Roman, one of Trump’s co-defendants filed a motion to: • Dismiss all charges against himself, and: • Disqualify Fani Willis and her entire office from any further prosecution of him. The first revelations This happened after his lawyer, and the private investigator they hired, developed evidence of an illicit love affair between Willis and Nathan Wade, the private attorney she hired as a “special prosecutor.” Within hours, further investigation, by Roman, his lawyer, and several journalists, revealed that: • Fani Willis appointed Nathan Wade as “Special Prosecutor” without consulting Fulton County’s legislative body, the Board of Commissioners. • Fani Willis set Wade up with a lavish expense account – sometimes receiving invoices for 24 hours of work in one day. (Does the man even sleep? Oh, sorry…!) • Since January 2022, Wade received nearly $654,000 in legal fees. • The two spent that money in lavish vacations and Caribbean cruises, including on ships of the super-deluxe Royal Caribbean Line. • Among the invoices the DA’s office received: $2000 for eight hours of meetings with White House Counsel’s Office officials. This was only the beginning. These are the elements of what should be the scandal surrounding this case: • Selective application of the law, • A political prosecution for an activity that ought always to be perfectly lawful, i.e., contesting an election, and: • Collusion between the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office and the Office of White House Counsel. Rep. Jordan has expanded his investigation of Willis to include Wade and his communications with various Biden administration officials. He at least is working the collusion angle, of which two other commentators have taken note. But why doesn’t this aspect of the case concern anyone else? Fani Willis and Nathan Wade as the shiny objects Two days ago, The Gateway Pundit carried one article – by Cullen Linebarger – about collusion between the Fulton County DA’s office and the Biden administration. Linebarger cited an article from Breitbart about Fani Willis’ deputy, Jeff DiSantis. He worked on Willis’ 2020 election campaign and also has extensive experience with and in the Georgia Democratic Party. But that’s not the worst part. The worst part is that the entire prosecution of Trump was his idea. And he was taking the direct orders from the White House. From Breitbart: DiSantis did this. He’s the one. He is the one pulling all the strings. He was the one that walled her (Willis) off. He was in every important meeting. He is the brainchild behind this. That is the connection to the White House. DiSantis is the one pulling the strings on this whole thing. Everybody heard Fani testify. It’s no secret that she’s not smart. That is how she sounds and acts every day of the week. In other words, Nathan Wade has almost nothing to do with this. Those invoices could be all for show – another excuse to bilk the taxpayers for money for lavish vacations. So why are we wasting time on the Willis-Wade soap opera? Fani Willis and Nathan Wade exchanged 11,865 text messages before she put him on the payroll, according to Jim Hoft. Who cares? Why are Paul Sperry and Charlie Kirk talking about this, and not Jeff DiSantis and his pipeline to Biden? https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1761839220845649942 https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1761092265274159525 Nathan Wade’s divorce attorney tries to claim attorney-client privilege, and Judge McAfee disallows it. Who cares? That same attorney then makes that time-honored claim of hostile witnesses everywhere: amnesia. Again, who cares? https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1762563382245196109 https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1762562871412617488 Wade had a garage-door clicker for Fani Willis’ home. The two actually “did it” in his law office. Again, who cares? What does this prove? This is supposed to prove that the two began their affair before she hired him, though she said the affair began afterward. That, of course, is perjury. But what does that prove, except that Fani Willis moronically and desperately tried to fudge something that doesn’t even matter? How does that address a political prosecution, selective application of the law, and White House collusion? Those are the real scandals with this case – while Judge McAfee dangles two shiny objects to distract people from it. With all due respect to the court, the American people likely don’t give an unripe fig: • What kind of relationships, other than professional, any two or more people have in the Fulton County DA’s office, • When any kind of extracurricular and adulterous (or merely fornicative) relationship began, or • That one of the parties is pretending to be the Big Connection to the White House that he is not. That last part almost redounds more to conservatives’ shame. That Nathan Wade could have fabricated those invoices about meetings with White House officials, both to screw more money from Fulton County taxpayers and to hide the role of Deputy District Attorney Jeff DiSantis, should have been obvious. Kudos to Breitbart for revealing the missing piece. But why isn’t Judge McAfee looking into this? For that matter, has Donald Trump made another mistake in his hiring of his own attorneys? Why didn’t they turn up this lead? Who should care about what Perhaps Mrs. Wade, Nathan’s long-suffering wife, should care about Wade’s withholding of income during their divorce litigation. Obviously Fulton County taxpayers, regardless of how they voted in the Presidential or the Fulton County DA’s election, should care about their DA turning the high-profile case she campaigned on pursuing, into a slush fund for herself and her boyfriend. Arguably any court must care when one of its officers perjures herself on the witness stand and violates ethical canons. All these things are legitimate concerns – for the people directly involved. They are not the most important concerns for the American people. Instead, the American people need to know about the collusion, between the DA’s office (and at its highest levels!) and the White House, to: • Interfere in the Presidential Election of 2024, • Infringe upon the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States, and • Deprive said citizen of liberty and property, if not of life, without due process of law. The Canadian Anti-free-speech Juggernaut And while this is happening, something else is happening Up North that The Gateway Pundit isn’t even covering. Canada is considering a new bill – C-63, the Online Harms Act – that violates every concept of freedom of speech. Life imprisonment and $70,000 (Canadian) fines for defending the State of Israel in the Fourth Arab-Israeli War! (They say those penalties would apply to the advocacy of genocide – but who decides that? The ideological allies of Justin Trudeau’s government have made the direct analogy, and repeatedly.) Canadian Justice Minister Arif Virani (a Muslim himself!) introduced this bill and couched it in grand terms. The Bill would create stronger online protection for children and better safeguard everyone in Canada from online hate and other types of harmful content. The Bill sets out a new vision for safer and more inclusive online participation. It would hold online platforms, including livestreaming and adult content services, accountable for the design choices made that lead to the dissemination and amplification of harmful content on their platforms and ensure that platforms are employing mitigation strategies that reduce a user’s exposure to harmful content. For too long, we have tolerated a system where online platforms have offloaded their responsibilities onto parents, expecting them to protect their kids from harms that platforms create or amplify. Parents should run, not walk, from any such protection. Sixty years ago, adults used to tell children not to play with the telephone. Now parents irresponsibly let their children engage with social media and with users they know nothing about. No one can relieve parents of their responsibilities – which this bill seeks to do. And “hate speech”? “Hate speech” is any speech with which the government disagrees. Some of the harms the Canadian government mentions are legitimate – but the law already provides for their investigation and punishment. For the rest, the best defense is practical philosophical education, including not caring what other people say about you. Instead the Canadian government entices people to support this draconian legislation with an offer to protect sensitive feelings. Which gives “conspiracy theorists” better reason to suppose, and assert, that government is a protection racket. Again, who cares about Fani Willis? All these things should be the objects of concern for the American people. Instead, we get Fani Willis, and her transformation from legal avenger to legal ecdysiast. And while she plays her part in the legal strip show that is her disqualification hearing: • Real street crime goes unpunished in Atlanta, just as it does in New York City and for the same reasons, • The White House has installed an operative as the real Fulton County District Attorney, though he holds a lesser title, • He and the White House collude in election interference, infringement on citizen privileges and immunities, and denial of due process and equal protection of the laws, and: • The Canadian Minister of Justice shows equally ideologically corrupt Attorney General Merrick Garland How It Is Done. So when: • The FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team batters down your door because you “gave gas” to “the Palestinians,” • A federal judge sentences you to life imprisonment for that offense, and • Chief Justice Tanya Chutkan presides over a Supreme Court conference that denies review of your case, ask yourself why you watched Fani Willis perform – i.e., testify – for your mindless entertainment, instead of concentrating on the real scandal – and threat. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/02/28/foundation/constitution/fani-willis-legal-ecdysiast/ Cullen Linebarger’s article identifying Deputy DA Jeff DeSantis: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/02/meet-experienced-democrat-operative-biden-regime-placed-fani/ Four posts about the Fani Willis affair: https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1761839220845649942 https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1761092265274159525 https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1762563382245196109 https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1762562871412617488 Press release about the Online Harms Act: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2024/02/government-of-canada-introduces-legislation-to-combat-harmful-content-online-including-the-sexual-exploitation-of-children.html Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

New York civil fraud case – appeal By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday attorneys for Donald J. Trump filed notice of appeal in New York following the massive civil fine in a case alleging “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts” but neither victim nor loss. This is part of “exhaustion of remedies,” which requires an aggrieved party to petition for redress at every possible opportunity. The Appellate Division of the New York State “Supreme” Court is the next step. It is also a test of the integrity of New York’s courts – and elements of the real-estate and trucking industry are watching very closely. How the New York fraud case came to this pass Manhattan Judge Arthur Engoron tried the case without a jury, under Executive Law Section 63(12). In his 92-page ruling, the judge set forth his reasoning: In mid-twentieth century New York, to judge by contemporary press reports and judicial opinions, fraudsters were having a field day. Along came Executive Law § 63(12), which began life as Laws of 1956, Chapter 592, “An act to amend the executive law, in relation to cancellation of registration of doing business under an assumed name or as partners for repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.” Jacob Javits, then the Attorney General of the State of New York (the position that Attorney General James now occupies), pushed for the bill, as did the Better Business Bureau of New York City. See Senate Bill Jacket, February 21, 1956. State Comptroller Arthur Levitt asked, “Why not grant the Attorney General authority to enjoin anyone from continuing in a business activity if such person has been guilty of frequent fraudulent dealings.” The preponderance of the evidence standard, the one used in almost all civil cases would apply. Comptroller Levitt noted: “In a suit for an injunction, there is no need to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal case—a mere preponderance of evidence would be sufficient.” Id. In the subsequent six decades, the State has toughened the statute. In Laws of 1965, Chapter 666, the definitions of the words “fraud” and “fraudulent” were expanded to include “any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretence [sic], false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.” The statute casts a wide net. The judge then quoted the law: Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply … for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. The word “fraud” or “fraudulent” as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term “persistent fraud” or “illegality” as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term “repeated” as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law. The key phrases are “fraudulent or illegal acts” and “may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper.” That forms the basis of the fines. How Attorney General Letitia “Tish” James arrived at a figure of $370 million in damages, no one can guess. Judge Engoron awarded $355 million in disgorgement of ill-gotten gain – plus mandatory interest starting at nine percent. The full amount now amounts to $454 million, plus another $112,000 per day until final payment. On Friday (February 23), the court formally filed its ruling with the Clerk of the New York courts. That cleared the way for a Notice of Appeal, which Trump’s lawyers filed yesterday. The full Notice contains the full text of Judge Engoron’s ruling, plus an Informational Statement specifying the following issues: Whether Supreme Court committed errors of law and/or fact, abused its discretion, and/or acted in excess of its jurisdiction,… The Issues statement continues with a restatement of the full effects of the rulings. Note that New York uses the phrase Supreme Court for what other States call Superior Court. The real Supreme Court equivalent in New York has the name Court of Appeals. If Trump does not succeed in the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals is his next step. After that, he must petition the United States Supreme Court for review. Likelihood of success The Trump team did not specify, in its Notice, whether they had secured an appeal bond for the full amount of the “disgorgement” judgment. Trump has thirty days to post that. Obtaining a bond might be impossible under the terms of the judgment. However, Stephen Turley, Ph.D., noted that Trump will shortly realize up to $9 billion from an Initial Public Offering of his Truth Social platform. He has previously testified that he had $400 million in cash on hand as it is. (Trump’s lawyers applied to Judge Engoron for a stay of his ruling; he has refused.) In this interview on Fox News, legal expert Sol Weisenberg suggested Trump’s team has a very strong Constitutional case “if they preserved the issues at trial.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dmej1M_EXo NewsMax reported Trump’s “lawyers had been laying the groundwork for months by objecting frequently to Engoron’s handling of the trial.” That is how one prepares for an appeal: • File objection after objection, • Expect a judge to overrule each objection, and then • Announce with the word exception that they are stating for the record that they will cite that ruling on appeal. Some of the grounds for appeal include: • Ignoring the statute of limitations on some of the acts alleged, and • Declaring “fraudulent and illegal” elements of normal business practice to which no party objected at the time. Constitutional questions CNAV has noted before the many Constitutional questions this case raises. They include: • Two bill of attainder and ex post facto law clauses (Article I Sections 9 and 10), • The Contracts Clause (from Article I Section 10 Clause 1), • Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and: • The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. At least one other influencer has cited the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment: Private property shall [not] be taken for public use, without just compensation. CNAV places little confidence in this clause, because this was never an eminent domain case. Dr. Stephen Turley frankly doubts that the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene. Their concern for federalism, he said, might extend to telling Trump that he: • Took a calculated risk by doing business in New York, and must therefore: • Suffer the consequences of dealing with a court system that now has decided to destroy its real-estate markets by declaring normal business practices illegal. Dr. Turley did not address the bill of attainder or ex post facto angle. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) laid her State open to that very possibility, however, by telling other developers not to worry. I think that this is really an extraordinary unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior. The Governor’s problem is that these other “law-abiding and rule-following … business people” are not different from Donald Trump. They differ only in the size of their portfolios (smaller than his), and their public and political profiles (considerably lower). How New York really stepped in it – and a Supreme irony Jonathan Turley (no relation) seemed to touch on the bill-of-attainder angle in his outraged opinion on the case. But he also told those other businesses to worry – greatly – and get out and stay out of New York. Then he suggested one ground the U.S. Supreme Court might have to intervene. Randy DeSoto at The Western Journal suggested much the same. Ironically, the key case for DeSoto is a 9-0 case with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s name on it. The case is Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019). Justice Ginsburg’s opinion (in which all the other Justices except Justice Thomas joined) sets out the material facts: Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. The trial court sentenced him to one year of home detention and five years of probation, which included a court-supervised addiction-treatment program. The sentence also required Timbs to pay fees and costs totaling $1,203. At the time of Timbs’s arrest, the police seized his vehicle, a Land Rover SUV Timbs had purchased for about $42,000. Timbs paid for the vehicle with money he received from an insurance policy when his father died. The State engaged a private law firm to bring a civil suit for forfeiture of Timbs’s Land Rover, charging that the vehicle had been used to transport heroin. After Timbs’s guilty plea in the criminal case, the trial court held a hearing on the forfeiture demand. Although finding that Timbs’s vehicle had been used to facilitate violation of a criminal statute, the court denied the requested forfeiture, observing that Timbs had recently purchased the vehicle for $42,000, more than four times the maximum $10,000 monetary fine assessable against him for his drug conviction. Forfeiture of the Land Rover, the court determined, would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timbs’s offense, hence unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed that determination, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed. 84 N. E. 3d 1179 (2017). The Indiana Supreme Court did not decide whether the forfeiture would be excessive. Instead, it held that the Excessive Fines Clause constrains only federal action and is inapplicable to state impositions. To which Justice Ginsburg said: wrong! The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Justice Gorsuch, in his concurrence, held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause might also apply. Justice Thomas said the same, and even said the Due Process Clause was not the operative clause. But that’s a moot point. The larger point is that: • This is an excessive fine, and • The Fourteenth Amendment forbids a State to impose that which the federal government may not impose. Furthermore, the Court has set a precedent of intervening against any State court that imposes, or upholds, an excessive fine. That was the unanimous opinion of the Court. Mark Levin mentioned Eighth Amendment jurisprudence nearly a week ago: https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1760316303213011268 How likely the Court would apply their reasoning to New York Of the Court members who signed on to the opinion, Breyer has retired, and Ginsburg has passed away. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who replaced Ginsburg, is not likely to overrule her judgment in this case. And Ketanji Brown Jackson has occasionally found against the government in cases involving material forfeiture or something like it. See, for example, Sackett et ux. v. EPA. But this case differs from Timbs in one particular. In Timbs, the Court merely had to judge whether the Indiana Supreme Court properly applied the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that they had not. But when this case reaches the Supreme Court, Trump’s legal team might find themselves asking the Court to pass judgment on the fine itself. Actually, the Court has a history of passing direct judgment on excessive fines. In 1996, the Court blocked a $2 million punitive-damages award in a case with only $4000 in actual damages. BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). In this case, the damages are zero. Indeed the only thing at issue is disgorgement of gains that might – or might not – be ill-gotten. Furthermore, the Court almost certainly will look at its decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Texas and ask what kind of social upheaval it wants to risk. If Trump gets no relief, his fellow developers will worry, and will not accept Gov. Hochul’s assurances. The result will be the worst social disaster any State has faced since the War Between the States. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/02/27/foundation/constitution/new-york-civil-fraud-case-appeal/ The Notice of Appeal: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=v_PLUS_hx9UEfkTWVRUsAQUHqFQ== Video: Sol Weisenberg interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dmej1M_EXo Tibbs v. Indiana slip opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1091_5536.pdf Mark Levin mentioning the Eighth Amendment: https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1760316303213011268 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

The Trump Effect – politics, media, and elections By Terry A. Hurlbut Donald Trump won a resounding victory in South Carolina – apparently with twice as many votes as any Presidential candidate has ever received in a South Carolina primary. Today Ronna McDaniel, current head of the Republican National Committee, made official what insiders had hinted at: her resignation. In addition, election officials – from registrars to the lowliest Officers of Election in precincts – have almost completely changed out. The Trump Effect, which many have hinted at without understanding, is manifesting itself in each of these changes. Trump Effect 1: political currents Donald Trump won in South Carolina with 451,905 votes. Minutes after polls closed, Trump, in his victory speech, announced that he had received twice as many as had any Presidential primary candidate in that State – from either Party. https://twitter.com/MAGAIncWarRoom/status/1761544053269692574 At 8:05 p.m. EST, CNN held a panel discussion, with some of the usual suspects. https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1761558078984519963 Christina Laila, yesterday at 12:40 p.m., gave a partial roster: pundit Jonah Goldberg, former Obama White House official David Axelrod, and Alyssa Farrah Griffin, former Trump White House Communications Director. Ms. Laila made much of some panelist, whose name she must not have caught, shouting, “It doesn’t make sense!” That happened after Ms. Griffin noted that Trump had mounted “the greatest political comeback in history.” With all due respect, that misses the point. The point was that the panel, after nearly fifteen minutes of discussion, seemed to conclude three things. Changing demographics favoring Trump more than ever First, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) is auditioning for the Vice-Presidential running mate spot, and seems to have sound political reasons. Those reasons are the simplest: South Carolina voters demand, in no uncertain terms, bringing Trump back. David Axelrod did speak of Scott “subjugating” himself by sharing the stage with Trump. But others pointed out that everyone on that stage, wanted to be there. (Though Sen. Lindsay Graham, the senior Senator from South Carolina, might regret that choice. Trump’s audience cried “Boo” on Graham – but no on Scott.) Second, South Carolina might or might not be the same State that elected Amb. Nikki Haley as its governor – twice. It has benefited from “explosive growth” of domestic migrants from both “red” and “blue” States – but has drawn Republicans from “blue” States. That panel did not mention that perhaps those Republicans from “blue” States have grown weary of their urban neighbors: • Consistently outvoting them (perhaps by using manual vote-count adjustments) for State-wide offices, • Taxing them to near-bankruptcy to support those who produce nothing but Democrat votes, and • Forcing “urban sophisticate” values, including Alphabet Soup-friendly policies, upon them. What is Nikki Haley doing, and why? Finally: Ambassador Haley is not in this race to win the nomination. She is in it to build the Never-Trump faction within the Republican Party and take its lead. When, as she and those panelists suppose, Trump loses the general election, she will triumphantly say, “I told you so!” Still, about half the panel could not ignore the humiliation of her becoming “Not the Favorite Daughter” of South Carolina. At the time, they doubted she would even win in “moderate” District One, which includes Charleston and Beaufort Counties. (They needn’t have worried about that. Amb. Haley carried both those counties, and picked up the three delegates from District One.) The Trump Effect accounts for all those votes Trump got – for though he lost Charleston, Beaufort and Richland Counties, he carried all the rest. (Richland County includes the city of Columbia – Jim Clyburn’s home. That county might have had some crossovers, but not many.) But the Trump Effect also explains the migration. South Carolina instituted Trump-like policies, and attracted conservative migrants. The panel also noted that South Carolina is a “military State,” by reason of all the bases in it. Yet Amb. Haley still lost in it, though the panel regarded Trump’s policies as not military-friendly. Of course, they, too, missed the point. Trump is not anti-military – he is anti-war. That might offend a few general and flag officers who itch to go to war to prove their mettle. But to everyone lower down, and their families, that’s a relief. Trump Effect 2: Ronna McDaniel finally leaves Ronna McDaniel, rumored to be on her way out at the beginning of this month, made it official this morning. She made a full statement to The New York Times: Some of my proudest accomplishments include firing Nancy Pelosi, winning the popular vote in 2022, creating an Election Integrity Department, building the committee’s first small-dollar grassroots donor program, strengthening our state parties through our Growing Republican Organizations to Win program, expanding the Party through minority outreach at our community centers, and launching Bank Your Vote to get Republicans to commit to voting early. I have decided to step aside at our spring training on March 8 in Houston to allow our nominee to select a chair of their choosing. The R.N.C. has historically undergone change once we have a nominee, and it has always been my intention to honor that tradition. I remain committed to winning back the White House and electing Republicans up and down the ballot in November. The process for electing a new chair and co-chair now begins. It will come to a head at the next plenary session of the Committee – the March 8 “spring training” session. Trump has backed Michael Whatley, former North Carolina Republican chair, as RNC Chair, and his daughter Lara as Co-Chair. Assuming Mr. Whatley is a good choice (some have disputed this), this represents another Trump Effect. Trump is taking over the Republican Party and making it his own. His “faction,” therefore, will dominate, no matter what Amb. Haley does. (Furthermore, Byron York and others have pointed out that the rank-and-file won’t stand for her replacing Trump in the event of some “trumped-up” disqualification. That’s another Trump Effect – convictions in courts of law are meaningless, because people have lost respect for the courts.) Trump Effect 3: election personnel turnover Sharika Soal, also at The Gateway Pundit, noted the third part of the Trump Effect, though she did not call it that. City and county election officials – from Registrars of Voters to the lowliest Officer of Election who greets voters at the precinct door – have been resigning since at least 2022. Deanna Spikula, Washoe County (Georgia) Registrar, resigned in that year. Her intended replacement, Jamie Rodriguez, quit within weeks after receiving envelopes impregnated with fentanyl. And according to USA Today, every one of 18 employees in the Washow County Registrar’s Office, who were working in that office for the Election of 2020, has quit. Another USA Today report alleges some of the reasons so many election officials are quitting: A similar pattern is playing out nationally, with tens of thousands of longtime elections workers harassed out of their jobs by a small cadre of self-appointed voting experts and critics who have hounded clerks to switch to paper ballots, demanded hand-counted results, and insisted they be allowed to participate in ways that are normally barred specifically because they can introduce errors. “It’s not that turnover is something new,” said Tammy Patrick, CEO for programs at the National Association of Election Officials. “What’s new is the scope of it, the depth of it, the scale of it. Those who have left the field, it’s understandable. A person can only take so much.” The unprecedented turnover means elections today are being run by less-experienced workers at every level. One nonpartisan group concluded departing elections officials took with them a collective 1,800 years of experience from a system that until 2020 was widely considered the international gold standard. Considered by whom? USA Today didn’t say. And “harassment” could mean merely taking part as a Party challenger, or “poll watcher.” https://twitter.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1761121344576749983 (Washington State is working on a bill to make harassment of poll workers, meaning sworn election officials, a felony. But the solons did not see fit to extend any such protection to poll watchers or to petition signature gatherers.) Elections haven’t been secure since they moved away from paper CNAV does not and can never condone sending literal poison mailpieces, or making malicious, threatening, or abusive telephone calls or social-media posts. But to address the snidery from USA Today: one does not have to be an expert to know that elections haven’t been secure in these United States since the first Print-O-Matic voting machines came on-line. From the beginning these violated Constitutional provisions, in Virginia and elsewhere, that vote counting must take place in the open. The intricate gears of the Print-O-Matic machine constituted a secret count, because no one observed how the gears turned. Their replacement with electronic voting machines – first by the discredited Diebold company (a maker of Automatic Teller Machines) and then by vendors like Election Systems Software and the notorious Dominion Voting Services has made the matter worse. (The French know this! That’s why they got rid of the machines in 1975.) These vendors are the number-one and number-two vendors of electronic voting machines nationwide. Both have had problems. An ES&S ExpressVote Ballot Marking Device (BMD) switched votes between judicial candidates in a November off-year election in Pennsylvania. And in a famous Georgia elections case, J. Alex Halderman, Professor of Computer Science, demonstrated in open court how ridiculously easily one could “hack” a Dominion BMD. Demand return to paper ballots! Even before those two cases, Trump voters started demanding a return to paper ballots. This, of course, is an obvious Trump Effect. Spalding County (Georgia) has already taken the first step in that direction. Activists in South Central Virginia have been agitating for paper ballots ever since the Election of 2020. To them, a machine is a machine is a machine, no matter who makes or programs it. Virginia has paper ballots, but those go through a scanner, which actually produces the official results. One activist urged voters to do the following: • Check in and request a ballot as usual, • Mark it – and then elaborately fold it and mutilate it so that it would never scan, and then • Hand it to the Chief OOE and demand that this ballot go for hand counting and not through any scanner. Thus far no mass movement of voters has emerged to follow that advice. But that activist has also filed in pro se lawsuits, alleging that a scanner count is an unconstitutional secret count. He points out that no law currently mandates any kind of machine count. Big Trump Effect – the people are starting to care Everyone who cares to know has known about the inherent weaknesses of machine counts ever since the first Print-O-Matics deployed. The Trump Effect manifests itself this way: for the first time, people are questioning the motives of those deploying voting machines. They watched elections of Presidential Electors in at least seven key States violate the Law of Averages in their outcomes. Then they watched as the Chief Justice of the United States harangued his colleagues, virtually to forbid them to take the one case (Texas v. Pennsylvania) that could have set that right. Then in 2021 – the first off-year election after 2020 – the Glenn Youngkin team implemented a Precinct Strategy. They recruited poll watchers and poll workers for that election. Glenn Youngkin won it – largely because his opponent brazenly told parents their parenting rights stopped at the school perimeter. Thereafter, as old OOEs retired – for whatever reason – new Trump Effect OOEs took their places. They awakened a sleeping giant That USA Today actually laments this replacement, stands as further evidence of the perfidy of the legacy media. At this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Steve Bannon, of “War Room” fame, took note. https://rumble.com/v4filqi-steve-bannon-speaks-live-from-cpac.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 “You know Trump won!” he said. As evidence, Bannon cited that The New York Times and The Washington Post are not standing by Joe Biden. They would stand by him, he implied, if they considered him legitimately elected, in their hearts-of-hearts. (The Washington Post is facing bankruptcy.) Thus the Trump Effect makes itself plain, not only in elections but also in the Party and the workings of election offices – and the legacy media. Some might not see the changes immediately – but the legacy media certainly does. Then again, perhaps Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto could have told them. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/02/26/foundation/constitution/trump-effect-politics-media-elections/ Post: Trump got twice as many votes… https://twitter.com/MAGAIncWarRoom/status/1761544053269692574 Post: CNN panel https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1761558078984519963 Post: Washington State OOE protection bill: https://twitter.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1761121344576749983 Video: Steve Bannon https://rumble.com/v4filqi-steve-bannon-speaks-live-from-cpac.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Trump wins South Carolina By Terry A. Hurlbut President Donald J. Trump, to no one’s surprise, won the South Carolina Republican Primary yesterday. At the same time, his remaining competitor, Amb. Nikki Haley, admitted that she wishes only “to continue to be competitive.” How competitive she can call herself after yesterday’s performance, is an open question. Trump gets many early calls Promptly at 7:00 p.m., as polls closed, the Associated Press called the primary for President Trump. https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1761541805969985827 One minute later, Interactive Polls reported that Decision Desk had also called the race for Trump. https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1761541887796605327 Five minutes after close of polls, NewsMax made its call: https://twitter.com/NEWSMAX/status/1761542804583678156 At the same time, Fox News’ Bret Baier suggested that Trump could win all 50 delegates at stake. https://twitter.com/BretBaier/status/1761543000004391181 As noted yesterday, South Carolina will send 50 delegates to the Republican National Convention. The Party was to award 29 of those delegates state-wide, and 3 delegates in each of the State’s congressional districts. The Associated Press suggested that the former President aligns well with South Carolina Republicans on these three positions: • The Russia-Ukraine War is not Americans’ fight, and America should not involve herself in any way, shape or form. • Immigration, especially illegal immigration (and at such high levels), hurts the country. • The various civil and criminal cases against the former President arise from political motives, not any impartial pursuit of justice. Moreover, more Trump supporters take an increasingly jaundiced view of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). (Not to mention the United Nations!) Dividing the vote Decision Desk was reporting, at 8:00 p.m., with 21% of precincts reporting State-wide, that Trump had 57.3% of the vote. Haley had 42.1%, with dropped-out candidates Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Vivek Ramaswamy dividing the rest among them. At 4:06 p.m. today, with nearly all precincts reporting, the final tally is: Candidate Votes Percent Donald J. Trump 451,905 59.8% Nikki Haley 298,674 39.5% Ron DeSantis 2,951 0.4% Vivek Ramaswamy 726 0.1% Chris Christie 657 0.1% Ryan Binkley 527 0.1% David Stuckenberg 360 0.0% The South Carolina Republican Party awarded 47 delegates to President Trump and 3 to Ambassador Haley. Presumably Haley won these in District One – Nancy Mace’s district. Haley carried only Beaufort, Charleston and Richland Counties; Trump carried all the rest. (Charleston and Beaufort Counties lie mostly in District One.) Currently Trump has 110 delegates, Haley, 20, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), 9, and Vivek Ramaswamy, 3. A candidate will need 1,215 delegates to win the nomination. Trump welcomes his latest victory Trump gave his victory speech soon after the early calls came in. https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1761548106909331717 https://twitter.com/michaelgwaltz/status/1761543778005897683 NewsMax reported that the pressure on Nikki Haley to get out of the race was mounting while the early calls were sounding. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) suggested it was time for Haley to go. I think the sooner she does, the better for her, the better for the party. In fact, only one Republican since 1980 has lost the nomination after winning in South Carolina: Newt Gingrich in 2012. Another account reminded everyone that Nikki Haley had hoped to get 43% of the vote. https://twitter.com/MAGAIncWarRoom/status/1761567503694631096 Recall that with 21% of precincts reporting, she didn’t have that proportion. In the final talley, she didn’t even have 40%. Nikki Haley, obviously smarting from the repudiation this loss represents, continued her defiant posture. https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1761572239340618053 That crack about “Soviet-style elections” didn’t go over very well, as anyone can well imagine. But the “Team Trump” account staff didn’t seem to care. Within one minute they shared their answer: https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1761572503325983218 Apart from this contretemps, congratulations rolled in in short order, starting with Attorney General Kenneth Paxton (R-Texas). https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1761544466345726166 And Gov. Henry McMaster (R-S.C.). https://twitter.com/baldwin_daniel_/status/1761569388958789883 Analysis The next delegate-awarding contest on the schedule is the Michigan Primary, at which the Republicans will award 16 delegates. But Michigan Republicans will award 39 more delegates in caucus this Saturday (March 2). Republicans will also hold caucuses in Idaho and Missouri that day, then a closed primary in Washington, D.C. on Sunday (March 3), and caucuses in North Dakota on Monday. Next after that is Super Tuesday, with: • Dual primaries in thirteen States (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia), • The Alaska Republican Caucus (the Democrats will hold a primary in April), • A dual primary in American Samoa, • The Democratic Iowa Caucuses, which they will conduct by mail only, and • A Democratic Primary and Republican Caucus in Utah. The earliest that Trump could clinch the nomination is March 12, with four Republican contests. To do that he would have to take the lion’s share of all delegates at stake that day and before. By now, the only purpose Nikki Haley is serving is to earn a distant second number of delegates. Winning the nomination is becoming a longer shot with every contest. But activist Lauren Witzke made a darker suggestion early this morning: https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1761617957757579541 What does Nikki Haley know, and when did she learn it? Stay tuned. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/02/25/foundation/constitution/trump-wins-south-carolina/ The early calls: https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1761541805969985827 https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1761541887796605327 https://twitter.com/NEWSMAX/status/1761542804583678156 https://twitter.com/BretBaier/status/1761543000004391181 Trump victory speech: https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1761548106909331717 https://twitter.com/michaelgwaltz/status/1761543778005897683 Reminder that Nikki Haley sought 43 percent of the vote: https://twitter.com/MAGAIncWarRoom/status/1761567503694631096 Nikki Haley’s post: “Soviet-style election.” https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1761572239340618053 Team Trump shares likely proportions in contests to be held: https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1761572503325983218 Congratulations: https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1761544466345726166 https://twitter.com/baldwin_daniel_/status/1761569388958789883 Remaining primary, convention and caucus schedule: https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2024-primary-schedule/ Lauren Witzke’s question: https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1761617957757579541 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

South Carolina battle is on By Terry A. Hurlbut The South Carolina Republican Primary began today at 7:00 a.m. At this point the race has two participants: Donald J. Trump and Nikki Haley, once the State’s Governor. Any other candidate in Nikki Haley’s position would consider this a do-or-die contest. Candidates who lose primaries in their home States generally do not win nominations or general elections. (Donald Trump’s home is in Florida, not New York.) But Nikki Haley is a special case, because her money – Democrat money – is not likely to dry up. Nevertheless, everyone expects Donald Trump to win today, possibly (though not necessarily) with all the delegates. As for Haley, the real do-or-die date might be March 5 – Super Tuesday. South Carolina primary rules According to this schedule, the South Carolina Republican Primary is the fifth Republican delegate-awarding contest, after the: • Iowa caucuses, • New Hampshire primary, • Nevada Republican Caucuses, and • U.S. Virgin Islands Republican Caucus. Donald Trump has won each of these four. His victory in New Hampshire was especially significant because it was an open contest. Most New Hampshire primary voters turned out to be Democrats, and Trump still won. South Carolina has already held its Democratic Primary – on February 3. Biden won that handily. An independent gadfly asserts – with scant supporting evidence – that “Democratic leaders” instructed their voters to vote in the Democratic Primary to give a big boost to Joe Biden. Any Democrat who cast such a vote, may not vote in the Republican primary today, as Laura Loomer noted: https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1761340948175311144 Nevertheless, she and others (like Rep. Nancy Mace of Charleston) fear Democratic crossovers voting for Haley. https://twitter.com/NancyMace/status/1761408508543566236 Another user embedded video of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) actually calling Haley “one of our better surrogates.” https://twitter.com/The_Nomad_News/status/1761371487825801446 South Carolina received fifty delegates, and will award twenty-nine of them State-wide – all twenty-nine to the winner. In addition, each of the State’s seven Congressional districts will award three delegates to the winner in the district. South Carolina currently sends only one Democrat to Congress: Rep. Jim Clyburn of Columbia. The most significant crossover, if any, should come from that district – unless Independent Greg Orman is correct and those Democrats have voted already, thus barring themselves from voting today. Polls in South Carolina and elsewhere Trump holds commanding – indeed landslide – leads in ten polls conducted this month. These leads vary from 58% to 65%. Moreover, in some polls, double-digit proportions of the samples said they would vote for “others.” Comparisons are available of current and prior polls by Emerson College, the Trafalgar Group, Winthrop University, and Monmouth University/Washington Post. In each case, Trump has increased his proportion of support. (In the Monmouth case, he went from plurality to majority support.) The Center Square reports Trump leading Haley 62% to 37% in South Carolina, per the Real Clear Politics Average. Haley, trying to turn that around, makes much of a Marquette University poll showing both candidates beating Joe Biden in November, but Haley doing so with more comfortable margins. But that’s a sea change from when she was asserting that Biden would beat Trump, but she would beat Biden. Yesterday at about noon, Haley’s campaign team confirmed to Bloomberg that they were buying national ads, ahead of Super Tuesday. She already spent eight figures in South Carolina, compared to Trump’s six. That, obviously, hasn’t helped. Trump made the point at a rally in Rocky Hill, South Carolina, yesterday. https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1761145717647638803 In this Truth, Trump flatly disputed the notion that Nikki Haley could beat Joe Biden. According to this, even the Rasmussen Report shows Haley losing to Biden. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111987567141838959 Questionable donations Byron York, two days ago, summarized the frankly obstinate thinking in the Haley camp. She doesn’t even speak of winning in South Carolina, or even any Super Tuesday contest. But if she doesn’t win somewhere, and soon, everyone will perceive her campaign as hopeless. But perhaps she hopes to inherit the nomination if by some dark chant Trump cannot accept the nomination. York notes, correctly, that the Republican rank-and-file would never stand for that. They’ll blame Democrats, of course – but also blame her. Still, she’s already booked venues for rallies in Michigan, Minnesota and Colorado. Rallies like these cost money. So where is the money coming from? Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit notes that it’s been coming from Democrats for a long time. In 2022 Nikki received a $1 million donation from Vivek and Lakshmi Garipalli, members of a New Jersey family that has donated large sums to Democrats. Then in December 2023 it was revealed that billionaire Reid Hoffman, a mega-donor to Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, is throwing his support behind former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley in her bid for the presidency. But those aren’t the most scandalous sources. The most scandalous source to date is Michael Morrell, former Acting Director of Central Intelligence in the Obama administration. RenewedRight cites “federal campaign finance records” reporting a $1000 donation by him to the Haley campaign in November. Morrell has a nasty reputation. He organized the Gang of Fifty-one who wrote the letter saying the Hunter Biden Laptop was a Russian plant. With testimonials like that, who needs blackballs? The drama continues Unrepentant and defiant, Nikki Haley returned to her theme that Trump had too many legal troubles: https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1761130810936316110 That last part refers to the repeated speculation that the Democrats will push Joe Biden aside. Never mind that polling shows that, among Democrats, the senile dotard polls higher than the drug-addled, or simply raving, maniac. The X influencer Catturd, quoting the above, gave this warning: https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1761153756362658014 That could be truer than the influencer knows – because Haley clearly takes a tone consistent with assumption of guilt. In reply, one other user noted the same thing Byron York noted: that the Republicans would never accept her as a replacement for Trump. https://twitter.com/Kathlee77649005/status/1761392092704641242 Someone else pointed to her participation in the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program. https://twitter.com/johnthe92611772/status/1761153942833045759 South Carolina closes its polls in two hours, and after that, the counting – and the projections – begin. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/02/24/foundation/constitution/south-carolina-battle/ Full 2024 Presidential primary, convention and caucus schedule: https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2024-primary-schedule/ X posts endorsing Donald Trump: https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1761340948175311144 https://twitter.com/NancyMace/status/1761408508543566236 Nomad News post of Newsom calling Haley a Democrat surrogate: https://twitter.com/The_Nomad_News/status/1761371487825801446 Page showing rules and polls in South Carolina: https://www.270towin.com/2024-republican-nomination/south-carolina-primary The Marquette University poll: https://www.marquette.edu/news-center/2024/marquette-law-poll-finds-trump-at-51-biden-49.php Post embedding video of Trump rally in Rocky Hill: https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1761145717647638803 Trump “Truth” disputing whether Nikki Haley can win against Biden: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111987567141838959 Nikki Haley on Trump’s legal troubles: https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1761130810936316110 “Catturd” retort: https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1761153756362658014 Two replies: https://twitter.com/Kathlee77649005/status/1761392092704641242 https://twitter.com/johnthe92611772/status/1761153942833045759 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Tulsi Gabbard for Vice-President? By Terry A. Hurlbut Recently, Laura Ingraham challenged Donald Trump with a “short list” of persons having Vice-Presidential rumors swirling about them. Among the six names on that list, that of former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) stood out. Of course that name stood out by reason of the “D” that followed her name. Tulsi Gabbard has broken permanently with the Democratic Party, finding that they’ve abandoned the values that drew her to them. But as Trump considers selecting her, he must ponder – then question her closely on – some apparent shifts in her positions. Some of those shifts are so frequent that CNAV must disqualify her for that reason alone. Tulsi Gabbard and her current prospects Newsweek shared the full list of Vice-President contenders Laura Ingraham mentioned. The other five are: • Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) • Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy • Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) • Gov. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) • Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) Gov. DeSantis’ State citizenship is the same as Trump’s, so the Florida delegation would have to vote for someone else. Vivek Ramaswamy is not a natural born citizen within the meaning of Vattel’s Law of Nations. (Neither, incidentally, is Nikki Haley.) Sen. Scott didn’t impress many people while he was running for President. Rep. Daniels is a relative unknown. Interestingly, Gov. Noem yesterday specified five qualifications upon which Trump should insist in picking a Vice-Presidential running mate. https://twitter.com/IanTFury/status/1760677451213193595 Noem herself meets her third qualification. She quit college to take over the family farm after her father died in an accident on the farm. During that time she added a hunting lodge and a restaurant to the property. “Having been a Commander in Chief” sounds like a qualification only former Presidents could meet. But perhaps she means having been a State governor and made significant National Guard deployment decisions. As she has done, recently sending South Dakota National Guardsmen to Texas to help defend the Northern Rio Grande Valley. Tulsi Gabbard has been a military officer, so she knows what war is. But her other Noem Qualifications are week to lacking. She’s currently a long shot on that list, while Kristi Noem is the current favorite. History of Tulsi Gabbard Gabbard seems to be trying to ingratiate herself with Trump. The Hill reports that she will headline a fundraiser, at Mar-A-Lago, for the 917 Society. That group, dedicated to educating American schoolchildren about the Constitution, takes its name from its proposal date: September 17, 1787. Nevertheless, Tulsi Gabbard has a mixed record, and Trump should consider how she got mixed up with the Democratic Party to begin with. She began with a deep environmental consciousness. Growing up in Hawaii, with its contrast between natural beauty and rapid development, led her into politics. The Democratic Party attracted her then because they opposed the Vietnam War, while the Republican Party supported it. She also accused the Republican Establishment of that day of supporting “big business” in exploitation of labor and consumer alike. And no doubt, much of what she says was true! Only the reputation of the Bolsheviks and their successors the Communists, and especially that of Nikita S. Khrushchev, could have excused anyone for wanting to continue that war. But she forgot to mention that Democrats started the Vietnam War. Only when Lyndon Johnson didn’t run again, and men like “Clean Gene” McCarthy, Edmund Muskie, and especially George S. McGovern gained the ascendancy, did the Democratic Party become the Anti-war Party. Today she expresses shock and astonishment that this administration, and the Big Tech Axis, would behave as they are behaving. In blunt fact, we see the logical endgame of the Marxism the Democrats embraced, beginning with McCarthy, Muskie, and McGovern. Political positions Add Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to the list. Gabbard supported Sanders against Hillary Clinton, on the anti-war, corruption, cronyism, and elitism issues. But remember: Bernie Sanders honeymooned in Russia – back when it called itself Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. Tulsi Gabbard doesn’t seem to have repudiated the positions Sanders holds – essentially that “citizens” should own nothing, and the State should own it all. Sanders differs only in which State should own everything: something called United States of America and not World Economic Forum. Gabbard has swung from supporting traditional marriage, to opposing it. Now she opposes the worst modern excess of the Alphabet Soup movement: the spectacle of surgically altered and hormonally poisoned men competing against women in their sports divisions. She takes that position from a women’s rights angle – and thereby admits that men and women do differ biologically. (If they did not, men and women would have competed against one another in the ancient Olympics. Furthermore, they would have always fought side-by-side in war. Ancient history does record the Amazons, a female-dominated society that invented mounted cavalry, but these are the outliers.) But the one constant in her positions that forced her break with the Democrats, is preferring a non-interventionist foreign policy. She has opposed U.S. support for Ukraine, and pointed out Ukraine’s biowar labs (now confirmed). https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1502960938147729413 Thus she has made bitter enemies of her former allies, as this Guardian piece makes clear. Last year she was accusing her once-fellow Democrats of “banana republic tactics.” Problematic positions But two years ago, John Anthony listed several problematic positions she has taken, most of which she has never repudiated. They include: • The old Moving Forward Act, with subsidies for wind and solar power and “green building” programs for schools. • Medicare for all, meaning all ages. (Joseph R. Mercola rejects that as funding the same-old, same-old, allopathic medicine that he despises.) • Community grant programs that extend federal control, however indirect, over local zoning decisions. • Proxy voting in the House of Representatives, as a containment measure against airborne “pandemics.” • A law that would have severely hampered police response in major cities. • A permanent “lobster trap” on ratification of the mis-called Equal Rights Amendment. (Whether she would support that amendment now, in view of the men-in-women’s-sports spectacle, is an open question.) • Reducing off-shore oil leasing. • A House resolution condemning President Trump’s first characterization of the migrants crashing the Mexican border as “an invasion.” All these positions represent her actual votes in the House of Representatives. Has anything changed? She needs to tell us, and she hasn’t. Indeed her positions in 2019 (per PBS) were almost as radical as anything President Biden (or his handlers) have done. Her real objection: to leftist extremism Her position on abortion has gone from opposition, to on-demand at any stage, to maybe limiting it after twenty weeks. Apparently her experiences fighting in a Muslim country soured her on what she feels is harsh religious moral discipline. But the selective application of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act on the part of the Biden administration after the Dobbs decision soured her on her fellow Democrats. That could be part of what she meant by “banana republic tactics.” The thread she left on X as she left the Democratic Party is the latest comprehensive statement of her positions: https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1579788950696185859 https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1579789231555489792 https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1579793195176628227 In short, Tulsi Gabbard despises the extremism the Democrats are now showing. The Democrats seem to have forgotten that anyone opposed to them are still human beings. That is, if the Democrats even agree on what a human being is. The problem for people of faith is that she has shown no sign, thus far, that she recognizes that the moral strictures she saw so “harshly” enforced in Iraq, could have any sound, rational basis in natural law. To be sure, Islam imposes far harsher penalties than Christianity ever would. (The Spanish Inquisition doesn’t count; Torquemada didn’t get his ideas on punishments out of any Bible CNAV has read.) But she forms her opinions on social issues as matters of convenience only. In short, she tries to stay within the Overton Window. Great leaders move the Overton Window, and persuade others to accept its new position. Conclusion: Tulsi Gabbard doesn’t cut it For all the above reasons, CNAV does not endorse Tulsi Gabbard as a Vice-Presidential running mate. America needs great leaders, who take positions on immutable principles of natural law – and the Holy Scriptures. That meant something once, as the late producer Cecil B. DeMille ably demonstrated in his career. If it means nothing to any candidate, that candidate is not fit to lead John Adams’ “moral and religious people.” Gov. Kristi Noem, besides being the current favorite, is the best-qualified candidate among the Ingraham Six. Nevertheless, Tulsi Gabbard might qualify as an Undersecretary of State for Middle Eastern, or Russian and East European, Affairs. (Sending her to the United Nations would be useless; Trump should withdraw from that “House That Hiss Built.” Besides, look at what “something in the air of Turtle Bay” did to Nikki Haley.) But Donald Trump must not appoint a Vice-President whom denizens of the Deep State – or Senator Sanders – might think they or he can manipulate if they can just get Trump out of the way. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/02/23/foundation/constitution/tulsi-gabbard-vice-president/ Newsweek piece: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbards-vice-president-chances-soar-after-donald-trump-remarks-1872446 Post with Kristi Noem’s qualifications: https://twitter.com/IanTFury/status/1760677451213193595 Tulsi Gabbard’s post about biowar labs in Ukraine: https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1502960938147729413 Tulsi Gabbard’s Leaving Democratic Party thread: https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1579788950696185859 https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1579789231555489792 https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1579793195176628227 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/