Temlakos

Biden drops out of race By Terry A. Hurlbut “Resident” Joe Biden, three weeks and three days after a disastrous debate performance, dropped out of the Presidential race today. To avoid speculation that someone felt would hurt the Democratic Party worse, Biden endorsed Vice-President Kamala Harris for the nomination. But by all reliable indications, this will not help. The Biden news timeline Yesterday evening, The Political Prepper reported that President Biden was “defunded,” while Kamala Harris can still raise funds. This confirms earlier reports of threats by major donors to withhold their funds if Biden stayed in the race. Rumors spoke of a consensus among donors that Biden not only could not win, but would drag down the ticket. Why, by this theory, should donors throw good money after bad? This report named names: EMILY’s List and Way to Win. It also said the donors blamed Biden for his wretched debate performance. Apparently no Democrat wants to talk about another likely reason: Trump surviving a public attempt on his life. (The few who do want to talk about that, like “Joyless” Reid, accuse Trump of staging the scene.) https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1813990429437895023 https://x.com/atensnut/status/1813991017340633414 This morning, Sen. Joe Manchin (D→I-W. Va.) called on Biden to withdraw and “pass the torch to a new generation.” He said it on CNN’s State of the Union program this morning. Manchin was calling for an “open process” and named two possible replacements: Gov. Andy Beshear (D-Ky.) and Josh Shapiro (D-Pa.) Four other Senators in the Democratic Conference had already called for the President to withdraw. As a further complication, Hillary Clinton, as recently as last night, was thinking of a rematch with Donald Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N355AfUwIf8 Yesterday, a “mob” of protesters picketed the White House, demanding that the President bow out. https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1814762555790729393 https://x.com/TPostMillennial/status/1814746413039038527 https://x.com/daveweigel/status/1814750693905080706 https://x.com/daveweigel/status/1814741785488630234 The announcement The first report of Biden dropping out of the race appeared in The Guardian, which The Western Journal quoted. Other reports appeared in The Daily Caller and WorldNetDaily. But the best announcement came from Biden himself, on his personal X account: https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1815080881981190320 In that post he embedded an image of a signed letter that read thus: Over the past three and a half years, we have made great progress as a Nation. Today, America has the strongest economy in the world. We’ve made historic investments in rebuilding our Nation, in lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, and in expanding affordable health care to a record number of Americans. We’ve provided critically needed care to a million veterans exposed to toxic substances. Passed the first gun safety law in 30 years. Appointed the first African-American woman to the Supreme Court. And passed the most significant climate legislation in the history of the world. America has never been better positioned to lead than we are today. I know none of this could have been done without you, the American people. Together, we overcame a once in a century pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We’ve protected and preserved our Democracy. And we’ve revitalized and strengthened our alliances around the world. It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interests of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term. I will speak to the Nation later this week in more detail about my decision. For now, let me express my deepest gratitude to all those who have worked so hard to see me reelected. I want to thank Vice-President Kamala Harris for being an extraordinary partner in all this work. And let me express my heartfelt appreciation to the American people for the faith and trust you have place in me. I believe today what I always have: that there is nothing America can’t do – when we do it together. We just have to remember we are the United States of America. (Signed) Joe Biden. That letter stopped short of an endorsement. But about half an hour later, he dropped this post: https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1815087772216303933 My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this. Alex Soros (George’s son) chimed in with his endorsement: https://x.com/AlexanderSoros/status/1815108202499027417 Apparently Barack Obama left a lengthy statement paying tribute to Biden – but not endorsing Harris. https://x.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1815111210552959140 Neither, apparently, did Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): https://x.com/FoxReports/status/1815103887998898269 This announcement surprised few people, least of all Elon Musk, who boasted of having predicted this. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1815088145051873756 I heard last week that he would resign at this exact time and date. It was widespread knowledge in DC. The real powers that be are discarding the old puppet in favor of one that has a better chance of fooling the public. They fear Trump because he is not a puppet. Already the President is hearing calls to take the next step, and resign the Presidency itself. American Wire News quoted a statement from Richard Hudson, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee: This is a scandal of historic proportions – our president is incapacitated, Democrats knew, and they lied to the American people to cover it up. Voters will neither forgive nor forget the ultimate betrayal of their trust. Judgment day is coming in November, when Americans will hand down Democrats’ ultimate punishment: Donald Trump in the White House and a larger House Republican majority. If the president is mentally unfit to campaign, he is mentally unfit to have the nuclear codes. Every House Democrat must now answer: is the president fit to serve the rest of his term? Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), Speaker of the House, agreed. https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1815093011669516433 At this unprecedented juncture in American history, we must be clear about what just happened. The Democrat Party forced the Democrat nominee off the ballot, just over 100 days before the election. Having invalidated the votes of more than 14 million Americans who selected Joe Biden to be the Democrat nominee for president, the self-proclaimed ‘party of democracy’ has proven exactly the opposite. The party’s prospects are no better now with Vice President Kamala Harris, who co-owns the disastrous policy failures of the Biden Administration. As second in command and a completely inept border czar, Harris has been a gleeful accomplice — not only in the destruction of American sovereignty, security, and prosperity, but also in the largest political coverup in U.S. history. She has known for as long as anyone of his incapacity to serve. Regardless of the chaos in the current White House, our adversaries around the globe should be reminded that the U.S. Congress, the U.S. military, and the American people are fully prepared and committed to defend our interests both at home and abroad. If Joe Biden is not fit to run for President, he is not fit to serve as President. He must resign the office immediately. November 5 cannot arrive soon enough. Sen. J. D. Vance (R-Ohio), Trump’s running mate, said the same: https://x.com/JDVance1/status/1815020646520230262 The Republican National Committee started planning for a possible Trump-Harris campaign last week. For their part, the Democratic National Committee pledged “a transparent and orderly process” – and an open convention. https://x.com/harrisonjaime/status/1815102274466664681 But the Democrats have plenty to worry about. Republicans believe they can carry New York State for Trump – or at least, elect more New York House Republicans. Analysis Democrats have no reason to believe – nor Republicans to fear – that Kamala Harris can do better than Biden against Trump. Four years ago, Biden picked up some votes from people who felt Trump did not deserve a second term. This alone did not explain Biden’s margin of victory, but it did give him a “cheater’s baseline.” Kamala Harris will not even have that, for two reasons: 1. Biden, contrary to the statement under his signature, ruined America, at home and abroad. 2. Harris, besides being part of that, polls worse than Biden. Instead of a senile dotard, Harris looks and sounds like a raving maniac. Trump, for his part, did well to mention Biden only once in his record-breaking acceptance speech. A “pivot” to attack Harris rather than Biden should be easy – because Harris would continue the Biden policies. At the same time, Biden is taking a personal risk by refusing to resign the Presidency. That is, if Harris really wants the responsibility. But if she doesn’t want the responsibility now, why is she running to take on that responsibility next January? In short, Trump and the Republicans have little to fear but their own complacency. But that complacency could destroy them, as it did in 2020. Today’s development is either an opportunity or a trap. The same election cheats, lying legacy media, and censorious “trust and safety teams” remain – with murders to join them. Republicans would do well to pay heed. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/21/news/biden-drops-out-race/ Two commentaries on Joy Reid’s weird theory of the assassination attempt: https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1813990429437895023 https://x.com/atensnut/status/1813991017340633414 Video: Hillary thinking of a rematch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N355AfUwIf8 Four takes on the mob scene at the White House: https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1814762555790729393 https://x.com/TPostMillennial/status/1814746413039038527 https://x.com/daveweigel/status/1814750693905080706 https://x.com/daveweigel/status/1814741785488630234 Biden’s announcements: https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1815080881981190320 https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1815087772216303933 Statements from Democrats and their allies: https://x.com/AlexanderSoros/status/1815108202499027417 https://x.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1815111210552959140 https://x.com/FoxReports/status/1815103887998898269 Statements from Elon Musk, Speaker Johnson, and Senator Vance: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1815088145051873756 https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1815093011669516433 https://x.com/JDVance1/status/1815020646520230262 Statement from the DNC chair: https://x.com/harrisonjaime/status/1815102274466664681 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Transition Integrity Project – improved By Terry A. Hurlbut In three earlier articles, CNAV has treated the Heritage Foundation’s version of the Transition Integrity Project. Heritage intended it to anticipate every possible contingency, and plan for everything from election challenges to widespread street violence. But they forgot that they were creating fictional drama – and to be of any value, fiction must be compelling. Their facilitators forgot key elements of the writer’s craft, including basic story structure and “Chekhov’s Gun,” especially in Game Two. Worse, events were rapidly overtaking them during their exercises, then between exercise completion and their final draft. Then came a literally pivotal event in our country’s history, the full significance of which the people still don’t know. So at present, this exercise has no value – and if they wish to repeat it, Heritage must improve their gameplay setup, and their initial assumptions. Original game play setup of the Heritage Transition Integrity Project CNAV has treated the Heritage Transition Integrity Project in three articles, discussing basic gameplay setup, and Games One and Two. The insights in these previous treatments derive from the TIP Final Report. To review, Heritage set up the players in several teams, which they grouped into three cells, as follows: Blue Cell: Biden Administration, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Congressional Democrats, Intelligence Community/FBI/CIA, Department of Justice, Mainstream Media, Big Tech/Social Media/Internet Companies, TikTok, Black Lives Matter/Antifa/Pro-Hamas, and Urban Law Enforcement. Red Cell: Republican National Committee (RNC), Congressional Republicans, Republican Lawyers’ Association, Conservative Media, Evangelicals, Twitter/X and Truth Social, Project 2025, and Local Sheriffs. White Cell: China, Russia, Mexico/Central America, Cartels, Appeals Court, Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Military, Lower Courts in Swing States, and Swing State Governors. Roles functioning as non-players/exercise facilitators: Exercise Leader, Exercise Manager, Scenario Analysts, Tech Support, and Scribes. Game play proceeded in six Turns, as follows: 1. Democratic National Convention to Labor Day, 2. Labor Day to whenever early voting starts in any given unit (i.e., county or independent city), 3. From start of early voting to Election Day, 4. From Election Day to November 12, 5. The certification period (November 13 through December 5), and 6. End of certification period to the Constitutional Inauguration Day (January 20, 2025). Communications flowed freely between and among some players (almost always within Cells), and not so freely between and among others. As each game began, all players received a briefing on the circumstances peculiar to the war game they would run. Then the players relayed their intentions to the Facilitators – who played the same role as that of the Dungeon Master in Dungeons and Dragons. The Facilitators, said Heritage, “used free arbitration methods to decide which measures would meet with success.” Meaning, they would roll dice – or guess. Social media players, whoever they were, could emulate – or change – the Rules of the particular social media platforms they portrayed. Initial assumptions The Project made these key assumptions about the state of American politics after the Democratic National Convention: 1. Joe Biden, freshly renominated, polls 2 percent ahead of Trump in the estimated national popular vote. 2. These States were battlegrounds leading into summer: Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Minnesota, Virginia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada. As of August 26, 2024, Nevada and Pennsylvania are mathematically tied. Biden leads in Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia, and Trump leads in the remaining four – all within the margin of error. 3. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is on the ballot in enough states to win the Presidency – if he carries them all. 4. Voters list these concerns, in order: the economy, poor leadership, and immigration. 5. Illegal crossings continue to occur, but less than usual; migrants have stopped trying to cross into Texas, preferring Arizona instead. 6. Judge Juan Merchan in New York sentenced Trump on July 11. Trump appealed, and remains free pending appeal. (Merchan had considered placing Trump under house arrest, but Democratic officials – speaking very informally to the Judge – did not want that spectacle.) All of Trump’s other pending cases cannot come to trial until after the election. (Note: all those cases are alive during original gameplay.) Overtaking events The most recent event the Transition Integrity Project report even mentions is the Supreme Court’s decision in Murthy v. Missouri. That actually supports their decision to separate X and Truth Social from remaining platforms. Those other platforms, they had every reason to assume, would behave in the same ham-handed fashion as in 2020. Truth Social still struggles to build a user base, but X still has the base it had as Twitter. But on the very next day after the Murthy decision, came other events, in rapid-fire order, that invalidated certain assumptions. First, Donald Trump and Joe Biden met to debate – and that was an unmitigated disaster for Biden. Ever since then, he’s had to contend with a chorus of voices telling him to drop out of the race. The next day, the Supreme Court invalidated several January 6 prosecutions. Specifically, the Court disallowed any felony count having its basis in the Sarbanes-Oxley law about obstructing justice in financial crimes. Fischer v. United States. On the same day they also canceled the “Chevron Deference” courts used to give quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial executive agencies. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Then on July 1, the Court released a primer on Presidential immunity, which could invalidate most remaining cases against Trump. Trump v. United States. Furthermore, in the one case (a State case) that has resulted in conviction, the judge has delayed sentencing. That directly invalidates Assumption Six above, and preempts any notion of placing Trump under arrest as in Game Two. A would-be assassin cancels all bets As significant as those overtaking events were, they pale in comparison to the event two days after the report’s release. A would-be assassin shot President Trump while he was on an open-air stage, killing an attendee and wounding two others. This has shocked several players into changing their behavior in key ways. Trump distinguished himself immediately by standing up, raising a fist, and calling on his audience to fight. Leftist media first downplayed the event, then either described it as his just due, or accused him of staging it. (“Joyless” Reid continues to maintain that he staged the event.) The shock hit Trump the next day, when he told The New York Post, “I should be dead!” The Republican National Convention convened in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that Monday. Trump insisted on traveling to and appearing at the venue, to “look alive.” The convention held their pressing business – the votes – that day. At Trump’s direction, they nominated Senator J. D. Vance (R-Ohio) for Vice-President. While this was happening, Judge Aileen Cannon released a 93-page order that she had been working on since February. In it she dismissed the “Florida Documents Case” because Special Counsel Jack Smith never had a legal appointment. Smith has appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and that could create more drama. On Thursday evening, Trump made a speech proving his stamina, and new-found humbleness. Meanwhile, evidence has emerged – which not everyone will accept – that Trump’s attempted assassination was a conspiracy involving the Cabinet – and maybe the White House. Flaws in the Transition Integrity Project gameplay setup Add to the above, that the game play setup was flawed from the beginning. First, the Exercise Facilitators left unresolved details in both their Games, which the original Transition Integrity Project facilitators, four years ago, avoided. They also introduced details that never amounted to anything, in violation of Chekhov’s Gun Rule: If in the first act you introduce a gun, by the third act you have to use it. Furthermore, their setup is incomplete. Where are Gab, Andrew Torba (its founder), Nicholas J. Fuentes, or Bradlee Dean and his associates? They should form a Green Cell, because their attitudes are significantly different from all the rest. (Gary DeMar doesn’t have anything significant to say anymore. He mocked the folly of gun-control advocates after the Trump assassination attempt, but that was all.) In addition, let’s add Team Trump to Red Cell, and the New York courts to Blue Cell. Also add to Blue Cell the Globalist Axis – the Deep State, and the institutional investors BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. Round out Blue Cell with Dominion Voting Systems, and add Election Systems and Software, KNOWiNK, and all other Electronic Voting Machine vendors to White Cell. Add different Officers of Election to Blue, Red or White, depending on whether they are Democratic, Republican, or Unaffiliated. Add YouTube to Blue Cell, and Rumble to Red. White gets the Texas Nationalist and Greater Idaho Movements, and New California. And furthermore: start Turn One after the Republican National Convention, and end it immediately after the Democratic. Then renumber all other turns accordingly. What the new Transition Integrity Project must reflect The Heritage Foundation perhaps could not have foreseen an attempted assassination. Not even a smoldering fire of rhetoric on the left, calling for that precise thing, could have predicted it. Nor could they have foreseen that Joe Biden would enter into a debate and make a fool of himself. But the assassination attempt especially is causing a significant number of Americans to question the basic fairness of their government. A secret cabal of intelligence professionals, security personnel, gigantic institutional investors, and would-be social engineers now appears to have tried to remove from public life – and life, period – the one candidate who called them out and vowed to stop them. Trump’s supporters know it. They also know that the notorious Dominion Voting Services is part of that cabal. (As a matter of fact, many unit registrars refuse to use Dominion machines.) Furthermore, the country has an active movement seeking recognition of its State as an independent country. That movement cited the Trump assassination attempt as yet another reason for secession.Another seeks to transfer a vast tract of land from one State to another. Were Trump to die – or lose when he has every reasonable expectation of winning – civil war might then supervene. At the same time, the federal courts are having a civil war of their own – non-violent thus far. The Supreme Court’s Originalist Bloc, and a certain up-and-coming judge, have handed down revolutionary decisions. This has provoked attempted judicial assassination, and the Trump attempt might incite more. Exploring the concept In further installments in this series, CNAV will explore at least two scenarios, with this modified gameplay setup. In one, Blue Cell will desperately try everything to stop Trump, mainly through lawfare (however crippled) and election integrity compromise. A key legal drama will play out in the Eleventh circuit, concerning the legality of Special Counsels. The Supreme Court will return from recess with at least two nasty review petitions waiting for its consideration: • Trump v. New York, on potential certiorari to the New York State Court of Appeal (that State’s highest court), and • Trump v. United States, on potential certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. The election will have the greatest number of accredited Party challengers in recent memory – and a cadre of Officers of Election determined to prevent a repeat of the abuses of 2020, by replacing, to the extent possible, the original perpetrators. The second will gallop toward civil war. A major false-flag pseudo-operation will provide an excuse for the suspension of elections. When that happens, the Texas Nationalist and Greater Idaho Movements will shift from political activism – to armed resistance. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/20/news/transition-integrity-project-improved/ The report: https://oversight.heritage.org/TIP_Report_Final.pdf Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Trump proves he can take it By Terry A. Hurlbut Last night, Donald J. Trump formally accepted the nomination he had won in Monday’s voting at the Republican National Convention. But he also had two things to prove that night – and in two hours, he did prove them. His was probably the longest Presidential nomination acceptance speech on record. Certainly he showed he had the intelligence, the good will, and the stamina to be President again. He also provided a stark contrast to his opponent – who could never have spoken for so long. What did Donald Trump have to prove? More than anything, Trump had to prove that a would-be assassin’s bullet did not enfeeble him. He proved that in part by standing up and raising a fist on the stage after the shot hit him. But a brief pose is one thing; a long speech, quite another. As the country saw on June 27, when Donald Trump could keep talking, and Joe Biden could not. Which brings us to the other thing he had to prove: that he has the stamina, and Joe Biden doesn’t. In fact Joe Biden has literally called out sick. Apparently he “tests” positive for coronavirus, and is mildly symptomatic, after showily taking a vaccine in his makeshift studio. (He cannot deliver a televised address from the Oval Office, because he might trip over a wire if he tried.) So Biden canceled an address to the UnidosUS conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. That leaves Trump alone on the public field. Last night especially he knew the whole country would be watching. The country had already heard from his Vice-Presidential running mate, Sen. J. D. Vance (R-Ohio), and members of his family. That last included his eldest granddaughter, Kai, who spoke the night before last. She, more than any other speaker before or since, paved the way for Trump’s speech, by describing his softer, caring side. And that’s the side Trump showed last night. The speech The best full transcript of Trump’s acceptance speech is available from Station WBTS (Channel 10, NBC, Boston, Mass.). As noted, he spoke for two hours, longer than any other Presidential nominee has spoken at his convention. Very early, Trump proved a third thing: his near-assassination had humbled him. He will still fight for the causes he believes (correctly, in CNAV’s view) are just. But he clearly knows to give glory to God. As a case in point, he took time to recount the attempt on his life from his point of view. In the middle of it, he repeated remarks he apparently made to The New York Post the next day: I am not supposed to be here tonight. I stand before you in this arena only by the grace of almighty God. Many people say it was a providential moment. He also seemed to thank the crowd for not trampling over one another in any rush to escape. No such rush happened – no one wanted to leave Trump alone, and perhaps they were too stunned to move. But that apparent forbearance, he said, saved lives. Then he turned to his “vision for the whole nation.” Allegedly he had planned to slam the policies of the current administration. He made passing reference to those policies, but spent most of his time telling how he plans to do things. Carefully he addressed inflation, energy dependency and expense, immigration, misguided mandates (like one for electric vehicles), war in the Middle East, and the Russia-Ukraine War. Lastly, he called for unity, and the renewal of a spirit that tamed a wilderness, centuries ago. Reaction Bill Barrow and Michelle Price of the Associated Press seemed to be in no mood to heed any call for unity from Trump or any other Republican. In their article, “Five Takeaways from Trump’s RNC speech,” they repeated the rhetoric of the last four years: • “chaos and infighting” in this first administration, and • “a violent insurrection” in an attempt to retain power. One can take these five things away from their article: 1. Their idea of unity is to admit fault on both sides, whether the fault lies on both sides – or not. And, being part of the problem, they lack insight to see that the fault lies with them and their allies. 2. They remain openly skeptical of what they call his attempt “to humanize his image.” But they did note that he didn’t spend time criticizing the Secret Service. Nor did they reflect on whether the Secret Service deserves the criticism. 3. Never will they admit that anyone except Trump and his allies act, or have ever acted, in bad faith. But again, they’re part of the problem. 4. Nor will they admit that the Democratic Party is the party of tax, spend, starve and freeze. Donald Trump spent two hours laying out his program, and they still accused him of being short on detail. 5. But they did acknowledge one thing: Trump barely mentioned Biden or Harris. Of course he didn’t: he wants people’s votes for his program – not against someone who might not even be running. Biden not running? Yesterday afternoon, Mark Halperin of 2wayTV started sharing speculation on Democratic leaders wanting Biden to drop out. Bear in mind that his positive test result happened the day before. Halperin suggested that Nancy Pelosi had a definite wish list “when and if” Biden bows out. https://x.com/MarkHalperin/status/1814017339861447081 He also suggested that Kamala Harris wouldn’t necessarily be the nominee-in-waiting. Two hours later he posted this detailed statement that he attributed to “multiple sources.” https://x.com/MarkHalperin/status/1814049842790006837 BREAKING NEWS: Multiples sources outline the apparent state of play on Biden at this time: * plans to announce withdrawal from nomination as early as this weekend, with Sunday most likely * Jon Meacham polishing up remarks * Biden with NOT resign the presidency * Biden will NOT endorse Harris * open convention with Harris and about 3 others * super delegates will not be allowed to vote on 1st ballot * Harris is vetting at least four possible running mates, including [Gov.] Andy Beshear [D-Ky.] and possibly [Gov. Josh] Shapiro [D-Pa.] A certain other reporter, who shall remain nameless, disputes the above. But that doesn’t mean Biden is still stubbornly refusing to bow out. He dropped a hint of dropping out, by saying “a medical condition” might persuade him – before the coronavirus test result announcement. The competing version runs like this: • Biden has called out sick and is thus unavailable even for comment. • Several Democratic Party wheels are trying to tell a Big Lie and have others repeat it. Then Biden, unable to deny it, would drop out because anything else would be futile. • Biden does not want an open convention, and hasn’t even made up his mind to leave. People trying to make that decision for him, aren’t helping. On one point this other reporter agrees with Halperin: Biden does not intend resigning the Presidency. That, of course, would trigger Amendment XXV, Section 1, which reads: In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death or resignation, the Vice-President shall become President. Betting against Trump before the attempt? Meanwhile, more evidence is surfacing to suggest that Thomas Matthew Crooks did not act alone in trying to kill Trump. Furthermore, an institutional-level investor or investors, knew about it in advance. On July 12, the private equity firm Austin Private Wealth filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a report of a short sale of twelve million shares of Truth Social (NASDAQ:DJT). X influencer George Behizy shared that on Wednesday: https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1813731671503524070 https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1813734638889890293 Note that this filing happened the day before the assassination attempt. The SEC Archives list the report with the following dates: • Period of Report: June 30, 2024 • Effectiveness Date: July 12, 2024 The short volume on Truth Social does appear to show a tremendous spike on July 12 – despite a Community Notes post denying this. Austin Private Wealth hastened to report that their SEC filing was in error, and the correct share count was twelve hundred, not million. (Sources: News.com of Austalia, FinBold (see also here), and “County Local News.” See also this Wayback Machine capture of APW’s “news and events” link.) Here is the APW statement: The SEC filing which showed that Austin Private Wealth shorted a large number of shares of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp (DJT) was incorrect and we immediately amended it as soon as we learned of the error. No client of APW holds, or has ever held, a put on DJT in the quantity initially reported. The correct holding amount was 12 contracts, or 1,200 shares — not 12 million shares, as was filed in error. In submitting the required report for the second quarter of 2024, a multiplier was applied by a third-party vendor that increased the number of the shares by a multiple of 10,000 for all options contracts (not just DJT). We did not catch the error before approving the filing. We filed the report on July 12 to reflect our positions on June 28. We amended it on July 16. We deeply regret this error and the concern it has caused, especially at such a fraught moment for our nation. We are committed to full transparency and maintaining the trust of our clients. As such, we are reviewing our internal procedures and our processes with the third-party vendor that assists with SEC filings to better understand how this happened and avoid similar issues moving forward. But that doesn’t explain this further finding by Behizy. APW shorted Rumble in the same filing, to the tune of 34 million shares. https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1813771913283481718 https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1813772350078464076 Add this to it: the channel operator Peak Prosperity claims sound analysis shows that two shooters, not one, fired shots at Trump. https://rumble.com/v578vuz-beyond-incompetence-the-shooters-and-the-water-tower-peak-prosperity.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v57hp8j-audio-analysis-is-100-clear-trump-and-crowd-were-shot-at-by-two-separate-pe.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Grassy Knoll time again! CNAV thinks we need to hear from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Moving forward We see two kinds of evolution in the last week. First, we see the humble Trump, paying tribute to one who fell in his place, and to the crowd. And also giving glory to God in a way he hasn’t done before. Second, we see the change in the evaluation of an official narrative. This has gone from: What kind of incompetent boobs were these, who presume to offer to protect a Presidential candidate? To: This incompetence is so bad, that we can’t blame those who think this was intentional, not just careless. To: They let it happen. And now to: They MADE it happen. All this has come out on the eve of a hearing before the House Oversight Committee, next Monday. Secret Service Director Kim Cheatle will sit at the witness table. Donald Trump will need all the protection – private protection – he can get. Happily, after the speech he made last night, he should have no shortage of volunteers. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/19/news/trump-proves-take/ The transcript of the Trump speech: https://www.nbcboston.com/news/national-international/read-donald-trumps-full-rnc-speech-accepting-gop-nomination/3432055/ Mark Halperin’s posts about Biden possibly dropping out: https://x.com/MarkHalperin/status/1814017339861447081 https://x.com/MarkHalperin/status/1814049842790006837 George Behizy’s threads about APW shorting Truth Social and Rumble: First: https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1813731671503524070 https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1813734638889890293 Second: https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1813771913283481718 https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1813772350078464076 Various sources: SEC Archive: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1800328/000108514624002880/0001085146-24-002880-index.html Short Volume on Chart Exchange: https://chartexchange.com/symbol/nasdaq-djt/short-volume/ APW statement (per Wayback Machine): https://web.archive.org/web/20240718173413/https://austinprivatewealth.com/news-and-events Videos: two shooters? https://rumble.com/v578vuz-beyond-incompetence-the-shooters-and-the-water-tower-peak-prosperity.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v57hp8j-audio-analysis-is-100-clear-trump-and-crowd-were-shot-at-by-two-separate-pe.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

The dragon breathes fire – TIP-2-2 By Terry A. Hurlbut For completeness’ sake – and to keep a promise to readers – CNAV returns today to the Heritage Foundation’s Transition Integrity Project. Today we treat Game 2, which portrays the Chinese Communist Party as the bad foreign actor. With all due respect to the Heritage Foundation, this game, even more than Game 1 (Mexican Gambit, Accepted), is sloppy. It reports moves, but leaves no reference to supporting evidence, if available – and the evidence is not always sufficient. Add to it that events – including the attempted assassination of the President and the dismissal of a key case against him (said dismissal now on appeal) – have overtaken the Heritage TIP and made it valueless. Heritage needs to do this exercise over – and CNAV does plan to release its own scenario. This one will begin after the Republican National Convention, instead of waiting until after the Democratic. Review of game play setup Again, Heritage set up the players in several teams, which they grouped into three cells, as follows: Blue Cell: Biden Administration, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Congressional Democrats, Intelligence Community/FBI/CIA, Department of Justice, Mainstream Media, Big Tech/Social Media/Internet Companies, TikTok, Black Lives Matter/Antifa/Pro-Hamas, and Urban Law Enforcement. Red Cell: Republican National Committee (RNC), Congressional Republicans, Republican Lawyers’ Association, Conservative Media, Evangelicals, Twitter/X and Truth Social, Project 2025, and Local Sheriffs. White Cell: China, Russia, Mexico/Central America, Cartels, Appeals Court, Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Military, Lower Courts in Swing States, and Swing State Governors. Roles functioning as non-players/exercise facilitators: Exercise Leader, Exercise Manager, Scenario Analysts, Tech Support, and Scribes. Game play proceeded in six Turns, as follows: 1. Democratic National Convention to Labor Day, 2. Labor Day to whenever early voting starts in any given unit (i.e., county or independent city), 3. From start of early voting to Election Day, 4. One week from Election Day to November 12, 5. The certification period (November 13 through December 5), and 6. End of certification period to the Constitutional Inauguration Day (January 20, 2025). Communications flowed freely between and among some players (almost always within Cells), and not so freely between and among others. As each game began, all players received a briefing on the circumstances peculiar to the war game they would run. Then the players relayed their intentions to the Facilitators – who played the same role as that of the Dungeon Master in Dungeons and Dragons. The Facilitators, said Heritage, “used free arbitration methods to decide which measures would meet with success.” Meaning, they would roll dice – or guess. Social media players, whoever they were, could emulate – or change – the Rules of the particular social media platforms they portrayed. Disclaimer: the below scenario is a work of fiction, the result of a managed multi-player role-playing game. It does not represent reality in any way, shape or form. Additional descriptions of real-life events that have overtaken this narrative, will appear. The Chinese dragon makes its first moves On or before September 5, 2024, elements of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Cyberwarfare Corps launched an attack against the small islands of Matsu and Kinmen, which belong to Taiwan. Later, elements of the People’s Liberation Army Navy landed troops on both islands. President Biden “reacted decisively” (the report doesn’t say how), and the Chinese withdrew their forces. (Did he send the Seventh Fleet? The report doesn’t say.) This, plus the “typical post-Convention bounce,” brought Biden’s numbers even with Trump’s. Polling showed Trump with a slight Electoral Vote lead: 251-244, with 43 votes (Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) too close to call. Rumors (source unspecified) had Chinese intelligence preparing to sabotage the election by multiple (unspecified) means. Accusations of “voter suppression” were rife, and the Biden administration even filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan. The “suppression” consisted of “monitoring” activities. This actually refers to this real-life story about the Republican National Committee’s Election Integrity Task Force. This task force consists of accredited polling-place challengers (poll watchers) and sympathetic Officers of Election (poll workers). No voter suppression is intended – unless said voter suppression consists of deterrence or interception of electoral fraud. The District Court enjoined the RNC’s Election Integrity Task Force. But on September 26, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Judicial Circuit reversed, for lack of standing. After Labor Day – more Chinese fire breath While the appeal of the Michigan injunction was still pending, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-Pa.) issued an executive order, ostensibly to address the shorthandedness of County Boards of Election in his State. He even authorized emergency precinct consolidation. This would result ultimately in longer lines at the polls. (It would also cause many voters to miss their chances at voting after they showed up at their precinct, only to find them unstaffed and indeed closed for any operations whatsoever.) Republicans, namby-pamby as they were, did not go to court to challenge this E.O. Environmental activists “shut down port and rail access in Los Angeles, Oakland, and Seattle.” The Biden administration acted swiftly to reopen the ports and rail stations within a week. The Chinese were not idle, either. They ran a major exercise in or near the Taiwan Strait. Now the report mentions the concrete measures in the Taiwan theater: fighter squadrons and Patriot missiles in Taiwan. The Chinese launched a cyberattack against Taiwan itself as a rejoinder. In the U.S., rumors had the Chinese building “Jungle Tiger” cells, apparently using young military-age southern border infiltrators. Whether by reason of the action against the environmentalists, or the appearance of Chinese aggression, Biden started to lose votes. Trump now had a commanding lead, with 291 Electoral Votes, 21 more than he needed. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin now scored “lean Trump,” Virginia remained undecided, and Nevada became a toss-up. Early voting period Rumors abounded that the Justice Department would arrest Trump, in connection with January 6 activities, or the Florida documents case. The Justice Department denied the rumors. Some unnamed authority – maybe the Border Patrol – caught six illegal Chinese immigrants at the border. They had plans for a Texas water treatment facility on their persons. Were they a Jungle Tiger cell? No one knew. A cyberattack on October 10 knocked out email access for regular elections personnel in 23 counties, spanning 17 States. The registrars involved had the email systems locked down, and reissued email passwords. They then had to remind the public that no compromise of Electronic Voting Machines had taken place. The Wisconsin Supreme Court allowed the use of drop boxes. (In real life, this ruling has already gone down.) On October 19, a shooter or shooters in Philadelphia killed several police officers in a deliberate attack against the police. Gov. Shapiro sent elements of the State Police and National Guard to the city. Nationwide polling became even less certain, with Trump still ahead, but fallen below victory threshold. The vote total showed Trump leading 257-202, with 79 votes in “toss-up” States. These were Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Arizona. (Nevada went “likely Trump.”) Election Day and beyond Decision Desk called Ohio for Biden – until totals changed with the discovery of scanner-tabulator hacks. By morning, Trump had carried the State. In fact Trump had a one-vote victory: 271-231, with Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin too close to call. Trump carried Virginia with a margin of 7,000 votes. Democrats “lawyered up” in Virginia, alleging civil rights violations. A judge ordered continued vote counting in Arlington, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties. On November 7, Attorney General Garland did have Trump arrested, at the Mar-A-Lago estate. He charged him with insurrection and (again) with mishandling classified documents. Trump negotiated a house-arrest confinement – to Trump Tower in New York City. But the Justice Department did not cut off his Internet access. Trump held several “livestream” events, with millions of viewers. For reasons the report never explains, Garland filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court. He sought to have Trump disqualified from holding office. Left-wing activists breached the homes of Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh two nights later, setting fire to Thomas’ home. Fortunately, neither Thomas nor Kavanaugh were at home at the time. An intelligence community leak accused Trump’s associates of colluding with the Chinese Ministry of State Security. On November 10, the Supreme Court released an emergency order. By a vote of 6-3 they denied Garland’s petition to enjoin Trump’s victory and vacated the warrant for Trump’s arrest. Whether any commentators regarded this as a backfire of the attacks on Thomas’ and Kavanaugh’s homes, the report didn’t say. End of the process All the legal maneuvering by Democrats, and the Biden administration, came to nothing. Trump carried Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The recounts in Arlington, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties cut Trump’s margin in Virginia to 2000 votes – still enough to win. So Trump finished the election with 326 electoral votes. The left, failing in State circuit courts and the federal court system, turned to street violence. The Biden administration’s response to this violence was timid at best. (Because the report didn’t say where the violence broke out, it has no warrant to assume that State or local response would be just as timid. The Texas DPS and Rangers, for example, would move swiftly, and Gov. Greg Abbott might send the State Guard.) Several bureaucrats announced their refusal to cooperate with the Trump Transition Team. No one ever investigated whether those Jungle Tiger or other Chinese elements existed. Nor did anyone resolve the question of whether any of Trump’s associates cooperated with Chinese State Security. Republicans captured the Senate, 56-44, and barely held the House, 220-215. The scenario ends here; CNAV’s critique, a mixture of political analysis and literary criticism, follows. A Chinese red herring! In Game 2, the Heritage Foundation dragged a red herring, with Chinese markings, across the trail. They portrayed Chinese attacks on Taiwan’s outlying possessions, a cyberattack on Taiwan itself, and one near attack on American soil. Yet the report said not one word about whether anyone in Congress would introduce a declaration of war. The great Russian playwright Anton Chekhov once said: If in the first act you introduce a gun, by the third act you have to use it. The Heritage Foundation forgot that maxim – so Chinese interference, and rumors of same, became an unused Chekhov’s Gun. But that wasn’t the only flaw in this project. Heritage released their document on July 11, 2024. By then, several invalidating events had already overtaken their hypothetical narratives. They did acknowledge the Supreme Court’s Murthy v. Missouri decision. But they said nothing about the decisions in: • Fischer v. United States (invalidating several January 6 prosecutions for obstructing official proceedings), and • Trump v. United States (in which Chief Justice Roberts wrote a primer on Presidential immunity). The second case especially would have given even Merrick Garland pause. Concerning voter suppression: if any voter suppression is going on, Democrats are doing it. Your editor, as a Chief OOE during a recent primary, caught a Democratic Party under-the-tent campaigner telling a voter that the precinct was running a Democratic-only single-party primary. Which was a bald-faced lie. The report did make some recommendations with which CNAV wholeheartedly agrees, but their scenario analysis leaves much to be desired. In the next installment, CNAV will sketch out a scenario of its own. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/18/foundation/constitution/chinese-dragon-breathes-fire-tip-2-2/ The report: https://oversight.heritage.org/TIP_Report_Final.pdf Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

The good, the bad, and the pretense By Terry A. Hurlbut Bad actors will always try to look good, until (and if ever) their evil becomes undeniable, but good people can never disguise themselves. Angels are bright still, though the brightest fell. Though all things foul would wear the look of grace, Yet grace must still look so. MacBeth IV.iii.22-24 William Shakespeare wrote those lines to illustrate the central problem of good and evil. The riddle, for the just, is twofold. First, how can they trust anyone, given that bad actors will always hide their evil intent? Those whom they should trust, cannot distinguish themselves from those whom one should not trust. Second, the just may not use unjust methods, or they, too, will provoke suspicion in others. Such is the riddle that now confronts Americans of good will. The near-assassination of Donald J. Trump demands investigation – but what agency of competent authority can the people trust? At the same time – assuming Trump becomes President again – he might have trouble creating or empowering a trustworthy agency himself. The trust issue between good and evil Shakespeare, in writing those lines about angels, sought to illustrate the trust issue. The character who speaks them (Malcolm, Prince of Cumberland) has had to flee his country (Scotland). MacBeth, a general officer whom Malcolm’s father (King Duncan) trusted, assassinated the King to have his throne. Now comes MacDuff, a nobleman seeking to encourage Malcolm to recruit an army and regain his throne in the only way possible: through open warfare. The audience knows that Malcolm should trust MacDuff, but can Malcolm know that? Malcolm solves his riddle, ironically, by abandoning his “good” image. He cultivates the image of a grasping, lustful, avaricious, and power-hungry prince – and before that image, MacDuff recoils in horror. Only then does Malcolm know he can trust MacDuff – because MacDuff comes to the point of making no further allowances. Of course, Malcolm must reassure MacDuff that he was only testing him – a difficult task, and Shakespeare so portrays it. But he succeeds, and Malcolm agrees to seek an alliance with the English king (Edward the Confessor) and take command of an army of Scottish loyalists, to combine with an English force (Siward, Earl of Northumberland, commanding) which King Edward sends to join Malcolm. Whom can Americans believe today? That trust issue looms large today, in the aftermath of that near-assassination. The Secret Service is charged with Trump’s safety (and that of President Biden, his family, and most other Presidential candidates). And it failed its mission with breathtaking incompetence and incomprehensible decisions. As CNAV has said: incompetency alone could explain why Thomas Matthew Crooks could lurk on a slightly sloping rooftop, 150 yards from his target, for nearly half an hour before H-Hour. Similarly, psycho-social problems could have provided sufficient motive for Crooks to attempt what he attempted. Almost. Some of those decisions suggest worse than incompetence: an actual desire that someone rid the Earth of an adversary who has declared his intent to avenge himself upon a host of governing officials from the White House down. For more than a year, supporters of the once and (likely) future President have suggested that precise motive. Why, for instance, did the Secret Service deliberately shift assets from Trump’s security detail to that of the First Lady? Reporter Susan Crabtree of the Real Clear Foundation alleges that precise thing: https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/1812606597753168329 The denials by the Secret Service ring hollow – and Susan Crabtree is not buying them. Interestingly, she made allowance for Anthony Guglielmi, the Service’ spokesman, for not having been informed. https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/1812691744636403773 But does this, as Crabtree suggests, reflect an inflexibility at the Secret Service? Did they really not realize that Trump was no ordinary candidate, but was trying to become another Grover Cleveland? Incompetence? Boneheaded decision making? Or worse? Why won’t he answer? Add to it that Guglielmi not only never answered Crabtree’s questions, but hasn’t said a word on X since leaving a bland, boilerplate statement, https://x.com/SecretService/status/1813073999251054676 and then embedding video of the worst interview a law-enforcement agency director eve r gave. https://x.com/SecretSvcSpox/status/1813080492583055598 The response he got clearly illustrates the open public skepticism of anything the Secret Service has to say for itself. https://x.com/vanawesome/status/1813407252977697177 In short, we are all Malcolm, Prince of Cumberland, now. Nor do we limit our skepticism to the Secret Service. The FBI has now entered the case, as the agency in charge of the investigation. But this same FBI raided Donald Trump’s home with orders to use deadly force, if necessary. Furthermore, they answer to an Attorney General who illegally appointed a special prosecutor to hound Trump and his close associates. Dr. Steve Turley confirmed to his Insiders on Monday evening that no investigation worthy of the name, will happen before January 20, 2025. By then, not only will the trail be cold, but the “investigators” will likely destroy evidence. If any hard evidence now exists of collusion with an organizational suspect that placed a patsy on that rooftop, they will destroy it. And today, they don’t need a Jack Ruby to dispose of this modern Lee Harvey Oswald. Good people must use good methods We now turn to the second issue that Shakespeare highlighted: that good people must use good methods. Two days ago, Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division), in a ninety-three-page tour de force worthy of the Supreme Court itself, showed – incontrovertibly – that Attorney General Merrick Garland made an illegal, even unconstitutional, appointment. True, that opinion might not “hold.” for we don’t know what the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals will do. But as good people, we cannot ignore it. We must abide by the law and Constitution, even as evil people do not. So Donald Trump could not lawfully name, say, Dan Bongino as “Internal Security Czar” or some such thing. CNAV is sure Judge Cannon – and Justice Clarence Thomas – might argue that not one of so many “Czars” is legal. Not, that is, unless: 1. Congress, not the White House, creates the position, and 2. Trump nominates someone to that position and sends him to the United States Senate. True, the Heritage Foundation now suggests that Republicans will “flip” the Senate and retain the House. But suppose they don’t? Well, then, Trump would have to content himself with recalling Bongino from retirement and appointing him to direct the Secret Service. He then could run an “internal affairs” type investigation – a crude method, but the only one Trump could justify. Presidents propose, and Congress disposes. Do evil people ever declare themselves? Incredibly, sometimes they do. For instance, YouTube influencer Destiny, after the assassination attempt, used very ungentlemanly language to speak, not only of Trump, but also of Corey Comperatore, the retired fire chief who became the event’s only fatality on July 13, 2024. He then appeared on Piers Morgan’s “Uncensored” program to explain himself. Explain himself he did – utterly without remorse. Morgan, shocked, ranted and raved at the man – who smirked and stood by the despicable things he said. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt_CipOPPs0 Ironically, one can trust “Destiny,” because he tells you up-front that he hates you. (But only so far! He plays fast and loose with fact in his haste to condemn those with whom he disagrees.) To that extent, one can also trust people like George Stephanopoulos, Martha Raddatz, David Frum, Mehdi Hasan, Black Lives Matter 860 of Hartford, Conn., and a few not-quite-celebrities, who shall remain nameless, whose public reaction one can summarize in two words: Aw and Missed! But of course President Joe Biden will “condemn” the attack as a “sick” act that has “no place” in America. He, who contributed to a provocative media climate for the attack, now condemns it. But notice: he won’t apologize for what he said, nor suggest that anyone else on his side apologize, either. Summary So, like Malcolm Prince of Cumberland, we come back to the same questions. Whom can we trust, and how can we know we can trust them? This goes beyond “gaslighting” of those who suspect, not mere incompetence, but collusion in an assassination attempt. It also goes beyond bad-faith criticism of the kind that so shocked Piers Morgan on his program. It goes to the actual collusion, and the treachery of which it is a part. But Shakespeare also suggests a method to determine whom to trust. Seek not only whom the crime would profit, but whom the crime would destroy, if it went off as planned. Seek, in addition, those who stand to benefit directly when good people win. (As Robert J. Ringer advised in Winning Through Intimidation and Looking Out for Number One.) Finally, seek those who will take no shortcuts to conducting the investigation that must come, lawfully and Constitutionally. Seek also the Aileen Cannons and Clarence Thomases who are good enough to show the way. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/17/news/good-bad-pretense/ Susan Crabtree’s posts: https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/1812606597753168329 https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/1812691744636403773 Secret Service posts and response: https://x.com/SecretService/status/1813073999251054676 https://x.com/SecretSvcSpox/status/1813080492583055598 https://x.com/vanawesome/status/1813407252977697177 Video: Piers Morgan Uncensored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt_CipOPPs0 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Trump documents case DISMISSED By Terry A. Hurlbut The “second” case of U.S. v. Trump, the “documents case,” is now dismissed. Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division) has consistently denied several motions by Donald J. Trump’s legal team to dismiss the case – until now. Now she would appear to have found solid grounds to dismiss the case, grounds that had eluded her before. Her latest action has provoked speculation of a Supreme Court appointment in her future – and also hyperbolic decrying of her action as a miscarriage of justice. Essence of the Trump documents case The case of United States v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta Carlos de Oliveira, et al. (9:23-cr-80101) arose out of Trump’s decision, on January 20, 2021, to spirit out of the White House as much documentary evidence as he could lay hands on, of the extent, activities, and key nodes of the Deep State. At least, such is the best explanation for his decision. Other Presidents before him have retained “classified” documents, but never so many – or so sensitive. This material is so sensitive that the FBI laid on a raid on Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate to get it back. (The FBI might also have laid a deadly trap for Trump by couching their warrant in terms allowing deadly force. Those who still doubt that the FBI so intended, should reconsider those doubts in light of the assassination attempt on Trump on July 13, 2024.) None of that seems to matter anymore – because yesterday Judge Cannon granted a motion to dismiss the case. The grounds weren’t the President’s inherent authority to classify or declassify documents on his say-so alone. Nor were they his prerogatives under the Presidential Records Act. Nor, strictly speaking, was it the opinion in the other case – the January 6 Case – setting forth the parameters of Presidential immunity from prosecution after his term of office is finished. It was, rather, a concurrence in that case by Justice Clarence Thomas, suggesting that Special Counsel Jack Smith had no legal authority to prosecute anyone for anything. What Clarence Thomas said In his nine-page concurrence in the opinion, Justice Thomas decried what he called another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. Thomas didn’t officially “find” Jack Smith’s appointment unconstitutional – but he seemed to chide Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who has the “January 6 case” before her, for not examining that vital question herself before letting that case proceed at all. That’s because: If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President. Thomas’ objection is twofold. First, Congress creates offices, and Presidents fill them, usually with Senate advice and consent. [The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. Article II Section 1 Clause 2 Here the Constitution establishes a limited number of already existing offices: foreign officers, Supreme Court Justices, and “Heads of Departments.” Congress must create any other office for the President to fill. The problem, as Thomas sees it, is that no current enabling statute for Office of Special Counsel currently exists. How, then, could the President, or the Attorney General, appoint anyone to such an office? And even so, Thomas went on, who has the authority to make any appointments? [T]he Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department. But if Congress didn’t even create the office, how could it vest the filling of that office in either the President or the Attorney General? Simply put, it couldn’t, couldn’t have, and didn’t. Every previous Special Counsel authorizing statute has lapsed, and no lower court has found that Congress renewed the last statute. Attorney General Merrick Garland cited a few statutes – but as Thomas saw it, not anything that created Special Counsel. Thomas ended: [T]here are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. And who must answer them? A trial-level court. Which is what Judge Cannon, on a motion-to-dismiss from Team Trump, set out to do. Judge Cannon’s opinion A motion-to-dismiss on the basis of unlawful appointment was already before the Court, as Document No. 326. It does not appear on the CourtListener docket listing, but Team Trump definitely filed it on February 22, 2024. Yesterday Judge Cannon dropped a 93-page opinion into the case file, granting that motion-to-dismiss. She found two grounds to dismiss the “superseding indictment”: 1. Attorney General Garland appointed Smith in violation of the Appointments Clause, and: 2. Smith’s use of a “permanent indefinite appropriation” to fund his office violates the Appropriations Clause. In regard to that last, Article I Section 9 Clause 7 clearly states: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. In treating the Appropriations Clause, Judge Cannon went beyond Justice Thomas’ concurrence. Besides, she sought to build an iron-clad, irreversible argument for dismissing the case. Leftists, especially Democrats in Congress, had repeatedly accused her of partiality to the defense. So, in 93 pages, Judge Cannon sought to cut all arguments short. She took cognizance of another matter: the Appointments and Appropriations challenges were “matters of first impression” in the Eleventh Circuit. The Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School defines first impression as: a new legal issue or interpretation that is brought before a court. In a case of first impression, the exact issue before the court has not been addressed by that court, or within that court's jurisdiction, thus there is no binding authority on that matter. In Fiore v. White, 562 Pa. 634, it was held that “a case of first impression is one that presents an ‘entirely novel question of law’, which ‘cannot be governed by any existing precedent’”. In other words, nothing like this had ever before come up in the Eleventh Circuit. That’s probably true of all Judicial Circuits. So Judge Cannon knew she was making brand-new case law. Cases like these can make or break judicial careers. In fact she started work in February, and heard argument before Justice Thomas’ concurrence became available. The Appointments Clause The Supreme Court is not a trier or finder of fact, and neither are Courts of Appeal for Judicial Circuits. Trial courts find fact. Judge Cannon correctly identifies the central issue: [I]s there a statute in the United States Code that authorizes the appointment of Special Counsel Smith to conduct this prosecution? After careful study of this seminal issue, the answer is no. None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment—28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533—gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith. Nor do the Special Counsel’s strained statutory arguments, appeals to inconsistent history, or reliance on out-of-circuit authority persuade otherwise. In other words, Congress did not vest the appointment of any officer like Smith in the Attorney General. At best, Jack Smith is acting like just another United States Attorney, though not for a specific District. So he needed to appear before the Senate, or Congress needed to authorize his appointment ahead of time. Neither thing happened. Chapter 35 of Title 28 of the United States Code governs the appointment and funding of United States Attorneys. All United States Attorneys require Senate confirmation of their appointments. This Chapter authorizes the Attorney General to appoint assistant United States Attorneys without Senate involvement. But Jack Smith does not claim to be anyone’s assistant. Indeed, Jack Smith has the rank of a United States Attorney – and no statute lets the Attorney General appoint him without going to the Senate. The four statutes Garland cited in his appointment order do not suffice. In particular, 28 U.S.C. Section 515(b) does not authorize the appointment of a Special Counsel as a Special Attorney. And the law does not take into account the apparently ill-considered opinion of the Attorney General. (In fact, Special Attorneys have received their appointments from the President and not from the Attorney General.) Applicability of United States v. Nixon The Special Counsel’s office makes much of United States v. Nixon, the first application of Special or Independent Counsels in the popular imagination. In fact, Special Counsels go back to Warren Harding’s Teapot Dome scandal. But no one is suggesting that Jack Smith’s authority derives from a Teapot Dome-era law. The reason is simple: all such laws from that period have expired. Concerning the Nixon precedent, Judge Cannon finds it weak for one reason above all: no one challenged it. One wonders how different history would have been, had President Nixon challenged the validity of the Office of Special Prosecutor. Nixon didn’t do that. He merely fired the first such Special Prosecutor (Archibald Cox) and tolerated the second (Leon Jaworski). In contrast, Trump has challenged the validity of the Office of Special Counsel. He can do nothing else; Merrick Garland appointed Smith in 2022. One other debate remained: whether a Special Counsel is a principal officer or an inferior officer. Presidents appoint principal officers, with Senate confirmation, and Congress may not waive that. But Congress may waive Senate involvement in the appointment of inferior officers. Cannon found doubt on the issue, and gave Smith the benefit of that doubt, as federal rules require. Nevertheless, she found no current waiver of Senate involvement in the appointment of Special Counsel like Smith. In the absence of any statutory authority for Smith’s appointment, Cannon found only one thing to do. On that ground, she dismissed the indictment. The Appropriations Clause The Appropriations Clause issue is, if anything, more dire. As Judge Cannon shows, Jack Smith assured himself of an unlimited budget. That applied to Independent Counsels, appointed under the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1987. To begin with, that Act might have been unconstitutional on its face. Second, it expired on June 30, 1999 – so it remains untested and, besides, is no longer in force or effect. For that reason, the unlimited budget for which it provides is not available to Smith or anyone like him. (Trump didn’t challenge the idea of an unlimited budget for this kind of prosecution, so Cannon didn’t question it. But Cannon did wonder – in writing – whether the unlimited budget itself would survive such a challenge.) In any case, because Congress never authorized Smith’s appointment, it never authorized him to draw public funds, either. Judge Cannon’s orders were brutally simple: motion granted, indictment dismissed, case closed, pending motions denied as moot, all deadlines terminated.1 Trump wins – for how long? Jack Smith announced his intention to appeal, and the Justice Department’s authorization to him to do so. Thus far no Notice of Appeal has appeared on the case docket at time of writing. Any appeal will go to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, which includes Florida. Judge Cannon has seen that court reverse some of the rulings. That explains further why she waited so long to dismiss this case. She wanted to cut all arguments short, and present an incontrovertible, irreversible memorandum order. The Hill published a defiant statement from Peter Carr, spokesman for Smith, to this effect: The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel. That flatly contradicts Judge Cannon’s finding that the Special Counsel matter is one of first impression. Furthermore, maybe the Eleventh Circuit has no problem with Smith’s appointment, but the U.S. Supreme Court might. Recall that Clarence Thomas wrote his concurrence after Judge Cannon had already heard argument on this matter. So she was planning to dismiss the case all along. Thomas surely aimed his concurrence at Judge Chutkan, not Judge Cannon. Very likely two cases will be back before the Supreme Court on the Appointments and Appropriations Clause issues. Trump bids fair to surge to reelection. He took a literal bullet and lived to tell the tale, and that will resonate with voters. In any event, this matter cannot come to any kind of trial before the election. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/16/news/trump-documents-case-dismissed/ Trump v. U.S. (Immunity Case) slip opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf U.S. v. Trump, Nauta, de Oliveira, et al.: Docket page link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/united-states-v-trump/ Opinion and order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.672.0.pdf Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Lone assassin – or setup? By Terry A. Hurlbut As everyone worldwide knows by now, an assassin tried to kill President Donald J. Trump last Saturday (July 13). This happened as Trump was sharing statistics on illegal immigration to townsfolk in the farming town of Butler, Pa. Instead of killing Trump, the assassin killed a retired fire chief and severely wounded two others on the stage. He also proved the maxim that, if you try to kill the king, and fail, the king will overwhelm you. Now the questions begin: did the assassin act alone, or did some yet-unidentified conspirators place him there? (And eliminate him to ensure his silence?) But one question answers itself, and that’s how this episode will redound to the credit – or discredit – of each candidate in the Presidential election, and possibly down-ticket as well. A word on terminology – or what is an assassin? Webster (actually, Merriam-Webster, but who’s quibbling?) derives assassin from the Middle Latin word assassinus. This in turn derives from hashshasheen, the plural of hashshash, for one habituated to hashish. With a capital A, it means: One of a secret order of Muslims who, at the time of the Crusades, terrorized Christians and other enemies by secret murder committed under the influence of hashish. In his novel, The Count of Monte-cristo,. Alexandre Dumas the Elder explained the training of the Muslim Order of Assassins. But the more common meaning of the word – without the capital A – is: MURDERER, especially one that murders either for hire or from fanatical motives. This comes from Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 7th ed., 1969. Sadly, Merriam-Webster has succumbed to “woke” definition-making, so one must consult original sources, or something close to them. Take notice: the above definition does not use one word to say, or imply, that an assassin is always or must be a professional, or have accepted the training appropriate to one. Therefore calling Thomas Matthew Crooks – that’s the assassin’s name – a mere shooter does not do this event justice. One who kills, or tries to kill, a public figure because the target is a public figure, is an assassin. True, by the loose definition, anyone who kills another person is an assassin. But law enforcement agencies, and the law courts, typically reserve the term for those who target public officials. The only remaining question is whether someone hired him to do it, or he developed his own fanatical motive. Indeed fanaticism lies at the heart of all assassinations, because one who hires an assassin, is a fanatic. That holds, whether the motive is false religion, politics, power, or money. The events of July 13, 2024 This much the world knows: at about 6:00 p.m. EDT, Donald J. Trump began to speak to a crowd of well-wishers at the Butler Farm Show in Butler, Pa. To chants of “U! S! A! U! S! A!” he began to speak on illegal immigration. He was showing, statistically, how the Biden administration has made the problem worse. While he was speaking, Thomas Matthew Crooks, age 20, climbed to the roof of a barn off stage left, 150 yards away. According to witnesses, he carried an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The barn involved had an outside ladder, allowing anyone who slung such a rifle to make that climb. Several witnesses tried to warn the Secret Service contingent of seeing a man on the roof carrying a rifle. The Secret Service did not heed the warnings. https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1812810227739132168 (Or did they? Footage shows a sniper and his spotter, on a roof off stage right, taking aim.) But one unnamed police officer climbed that ladder to investigate the witness’ claims. This officer suddenly found himself (or herself) staring into the barrel of that AR-15. The officer backed down – and instantly Crooks swung his rifle around, aimed at President Trump, and opened fire. Trump was just describing a big placard he had set up on the stage in lieu of an electronic monitor. Five shots rang out, in rapid-fire order. https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1812251201011945868 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1812250726321844713 Trump reached for his right ear – then ducked. That ducking motion might be the very thing – the only thing – that saved his life. Failure and fatality Several Secret Service personnel – not one of whom even matched Trump in height, and some of whom was female – surrounded him. But one female agent took cover behind Trump himself. https://x.com/Lukewearechange/status/1812544224853995800 Donald Trump is the kind of person who might even make allowance for that – at the moment. Others, however, are not so willing. That same agent seems to have had trouble holstering her service weapon in the mélée. https://x.com/nypost/status/1812532816359440573 But at some point, Trump called his detail to halt and let him give a demonstration of his defiance. https://x.com/skizofck/status/1812256311704445381 Within hours, this image was all over Russia – Russia! – on public notice boards, with the Russian tricolor as backdrop. Note the legend: Russkiye Ni Zdayutsya! In English: Russians don’t surrender! Tara Reade, or whoever operates the Learn RCRussian channel on Telegram, provided further explanation: 🔻This is a catchphrase that was one of the combined arms slogans of the Russian army, dating back to the end of the 18th century. 🔻The phrase became most famous in connection with the defense of the Osowiec fortress in the First World War. 🔻On the Internet the catchphrase is sometimes used in relation to courage and inner strength of people not even of Russian nationality. Zounds! In other words, Vladimir Putin saw that photo and exclaimed to his aides, “Etot chelovek Russkiy! (That man is Russian!)” Or something to that effect. Perhaps we’ll never know that – but clearly Putin just paid Trump the highest compliment a Russian can pay a non-Russian. Sadly, the assassin did claim a victim. Corey Comperatore, a retired fire chief, was on the stage with his two daughters. As the shots rang out, he shielded his daughters with his body – and in so doing, lost his life. David Dutch, 57, and James Copenhaver, 74, received more serious wounds than Trump received – but still survived. (Their condition is “stable.”) CNAV reported on the incident within two hours. Who is the assassin, and where did he come from? Thomas Matthew Crooks graduated from Bethel Park High School only two years ago, with special recognition in math and science. He’s registered to vote as a Republican, but once gave $15 to a “progressive” cause. Candace Owens, in her commentary on the incident, said Crooks had a look about him similar to other school shooters – with an “effeminate” body habitus. https://rumble.com/v56z1ru-trump-survives-assassination-attempt.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Crooks has never before been in trouble with the law. Anonymous law-enforcement and FBI sources report the finding of bomb-making materials inside his car and home. His body (Secret Service agents climbed onto the roof afterward, confronted him, and shot him down) carried no identification. The local medical examiner (or coroner) used Southern Blots (the common forensic DNA test) to identify him. The AR-15 belonged to Crooks’ father; how he got it, no one will say, if they even know. We do know he bought fifty rounds of ammunition hours before he tried to kill the former President. https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1812841870474588393 But Laura Loomer found one association that deserves investigation. In 2023, BlackRock filmed a public-service announcement at Bethel Park High School. Crooks was in that PSA. https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1812416983201112373 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1812417724305334399 Within hours of Laura Loomer breaking the story, BlackRock deleted their PSA. “Out of respect for the victims,” they said – but only after Loomer challenged them for not making a statement. https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1812808186962813262 The New York Post reports that Crooks was no marksman. He tried to join the rifle team – and was rejected because he couldn’t shoot straight. After-action assessments – and review of coverage Col. James Waurishuk USAF (ret.) asks several questions on Armed Forces Press. He notes that no one secured that rooftop, nor even placed towers or cranes to obstruct line-of-sight from it. Nor did anyone fly any drones for aerial surveillance. He flatly declared this an inside job, by the Deep State, or else a Keystone Kops level of incompetence. Let me be extremely clear and to the point -- there is “ZERO chance,” repeat – “ZERO chance” from what I am seeing that this was not a DEEP STATE hit. Again, Trump’s Secret Service detail is either the keystone cops (as witnessed on camera during the exfiltration of Trump from the venue/site), or USSS were in on it. As Info Wars host Alex Jones said, “they will not stop – now … next they are going to try to poison him or shoot down his plane.” Likewise, War Room host Steve Bannon has for months been saying, based on the warning signs, that many high ranking political and entertainment figures have been calling for hostile and deadly action against President Trump. Joe Biden recently said, “It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.” These resources provide further evidence of incompetence – or collusion. https://rumble.com/embed/v54ky1e/?pub=4teej https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO_vJYMwb48 https://x.com/worldnetdaily/status/1812275085702807960 https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/1812462982661841170 https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/1812550621100421127 Elon Musk, as head of X, furiously demanded the resignations of Secret Service Director Kim Cheatle and the agent-in-charge of Trump’s detail. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1812256998588662068 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1812258574049157405 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1812260638569177510 The Daily Signal notes that Kim Cheatle has directly promoted “diversity, equity and inclusion” at the Secret Service. https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1812363667343851545 https://x.com/newtgingrich/status/1812478295897673835 https://x.com/mirandadevine/status/1812319844773081586 https://x.com/ericmetaxas/status/1812359161771925826 But already the leftist media are blaming Trump for provoking his own assassination attempt. Here is a booby-prize example: https://rumble.com/embed/v54m0qx/?pub=4teej But not the worst example! David Frum (The Atlantic) called Trump “a bloodthirsty dictator” and suggested that what had gone around, had just come around. https://x.com/MiaCathell/status/1812505844392796576 Mehdi Hasan, head of Zeteo, left this gem: https://x.com/mehdirhasan/status/1812329371388060070 There’s more. On Saturday morning, The Washington Post carried the headline, “Biden trains fire on Trump.” And let’s not forget Biden speaking of “put[ting] Trump in a bullseye.” https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1812254262505750560 https://x.com/SteveGuest/status/1812256617431535687 Afterward, the headlines at first played down the incident. https://x.com/TRHLofficial/status/1812265538560889031 https://x.com/TomBevanRCP/status/1812253949086622069 https://x.com/marcorubio/status/1812257847427629479 Aw, missed! Then came unmistakable “Aw, missed” expressions. Jacqueline Marsaw, field director for Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) – former Chairman of the January 6 Committee – dropped one. Black Lives Matter 860, in Hartford, Conn., left worse examples. Connecticut Centinel took screenshots, in fear that BLM 860 would delete their posts afterward. One speaks of posting bond for the assassin – obviously before hearing he was dead. Then they accused the Secret Service of staging the entire scene. One voice suggested that “a botched assassination attempt” didn’t save George C. Wallace (1972) and wouldn’t save Trump. Another snarled: It’s a flesh wound on a coke head. Extremely underwhelming. I used to sleep on the floor at times to avoid gun violence in the 90s. I wish they had reacted this way when kids got shot at playgrounds. Note: Donald Trump is not the cocaine habitué. Hunter Biden is, as a matter of court record. For his part, he reflected very soberly on his narrow escape, telling the New York Post: I’m not supposed to be here. I’m supposed to be dead. He also made this concrete change: the theme of the Republican National Convention (beginning today) will be national unity. Did the assassin act alone? Sadly, one can explain almost all the facts we have as due entirely to: 1. A lonely and rejected boy (not a man, Amendment XXVI notwithstanding) desperate for attention, and 2. Monumental incompetence at the United States Secret Service. Clearly Barack Obama, then Joe Biden’s handlers, have turned the Secret Service into a shell of its former self. This is not the Secret Service that stopped Gerald R. Ford from getting wounded in two public assassination attempts. Nor the Service that bundled Ronald Reagan into his limousine after a privileged character tried to impress an actress in a movie about someone else trying political assassination to get attention. Their standards of hiring, training, and procedure have all suffered. Blame the mistaken notion that women are just as qualified, on average, as men to be law-enforcement agents or bodyguards. Tellingly, private celebrities – including Elon Musk and Oprah Winfrey – have all-male bodyguard forces. Any member of those forces could tear a man apart, given sufficient provocation – and looks the part. But! Seek whom the crime would profit! At least three organizational suspects have motives: the – 1. Deep State and its servants and collaborators, including the BlackRock/Vanguard/State Street Axis and the World Economic Forum, the: 2. Chinese Communist Party, especially if General Chi Haotian’s sentiments are still current, and maybe the: 3. Islamic Republic of Iran, HAMAS, Hezbollah, et al. Off-track theories Sadly, some conservatives want to blame either: 1. Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who seeks an excuse to prolong the Israel-Gaza War to save his political skin, or even: 2. Trump himself as a very agent of the Deep State, to preserve his image while he accedes to the latest gun-control pitch. Those who make the second argument, base it on the “Bump Stock Ban” that the Supreme Court voided this Term. That very opinion, and the one in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, should stop any fresh gun bans. In any event, those two are the least likely suspects. Because the Deep State is a prime suspect, this requires investigation outside of government. Someone needs to gin up a fundraiser to hire Pinkerton’s. CNAV has said before: Pinkerton’s should replace the FBI – permanently. Moving forward, the American left is not likely to heed any call for national unity. The public “Aw, missed” statements express their sentiments. At least one leftist organ has already thrown any calls for national unity back into Trump’s face. So patriotic Americans need not worry about Trump giving away the store. (And to reply to one absurd suggestion from the Heritage Foundation: Russian operatives will not support Biden. Not after they’ve plastered Trump’s raised-fist photo all over Russia and saluted him as an honorary Russian.) So that assassin – and those who might have placed him there – virtually assured Trump’s re-election. It is up to patriots to make sure that happens. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/15/news/assassin-lone-setup/ X posts, in order of mention: Secret Service ignores warnings: https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1812810227739132168 Shots fired! https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1812251201011945868 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1812250726321844713 The cowardly female agent… https://x.com/Lukewearechange/status/1812544224853995800 … who has trouble holstering her service gun: https://x.com/nypost/status/1812532816359440573 The upraised fist: https://x.com/skizofck/status/1812256311704445381 Video: Candace Owens on the assassination attempt: https://rumble.com/v56z1ru-trump-survives-assassination-attempt.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The assassin bought fifty rounds of ammo: https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1812841870474588393 Crooks making BlackRock’s PSA: https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1812416983201112373 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1812417724305334399 BlackRock deletes the PSA and makes a belated statement: https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1812808186962813262 Video: Dan Bongino’s after-action analysis: https://rumble.com/v56x6pu-the-secret-service-director-failed-dan-bongino-reacts-to-trump-assassinatio.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Video: Secret Service ignores witnesses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO_vJYMwb48 BBC Interview with one witness: https://x.com/worldnetdaily/status/1812275085702807960 Susan Crabtree’s scoops on Secret Service rules of engagement, last-minute substitutions: https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/1812462982661841170 https://x.com/susancrabtree/status/1812550621100421127 Elon Musk’s outrage: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1812256998588662068 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1812258574049157405 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1812260638569177510 Focus on Kim Cheatle: https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1812363667343851545 https://x.com/newtgingrich/status/1812478295897673835 https://x.com/mirandadevine/status/1812319844773081586 https://x.com/ericmetaxas/status/1812359161771925826 Video: ABC blames Trump: https://rumble.com/v56y9fd-stephanopoulos-raddatz-claim-trump-contributed-to-violent-rhetoric-after-as.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The Atlantic blames Trump: https://x.com/MiaCathell/status/1812505844392796576 “Bullseye” aftermath: https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1812254262505750560 https://x.com/SteveGuest/status/1812256617431535687 General Chi’s speech: https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-secret-speech-of-general-chi-haotian/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Mexican gambit, accepted – TIP-2-1 By Terry A. Hurlbut Toward the end of last week, the Heritage Foundation released its own Transition Integrity Project report. As CNAV discussed yesterday, Heritage sought to model certain critical events, and outside pressures on the United States. They began their simulation before the disastrous June 27 Debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. That, even more than the Supreme Court’s primer on Presidential immunity, has most people assuming that Trump would win. That is, if certain bad actors did not, or could not, repeat their bad acts of 2020. Today CNAV examines the first of Heritage’s two Games, which we call Mexican Gambit, Accepted. Gambit because that’s the word for a gaming strategy, and Accepted because the Biden administration tries negotiating with Mexico. In other words, Biden would play Mexico’s game – which, in this scenario, would not save him. Review of game play setup Briefly, Heritage set up the players in several teams, which they grouped into three cells, as follows: Blue Cell: Biden Administration, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Congressional Democrats, Intelligence Community/FBI/CIA, Department of Justice, Mainstream Media, Big Tech/Social Media/Internet Companies, TikTok, Black Lives Matter/Antifa/Pro-Hamas, and Urban Law Enforcement. Red Cell: Republican National Committee (RNC), Congressional Republicans, Republican Lawyers’ Association, Conservative Media, Evangelicals, Twitter/X and Truth Social, Project 2025, and Local Sheriffs. White Cell: China, Russia, Mexico/Central America, Cartels, Appeals Court, Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Military, Lower Courts in Swing States, and Swing State Governors. Roles functioning as non-players/exercise facilitators: Exercise Leader, Exercise Manager, Scenario Analysts, Tech Support, and Scribes. Game play proceeded in six Turns, as follows: 1. Democratic National Convention to Labor Day, 2. Labor Day to whenever early voting starts in any given unit (i.e., county or independent city), 3. From start of early voting to Election Day, 4. One week from Election Day to November 12, 5. The certification period (November 13 through December 5), and 6. End of certification period to the Constitutional Inauguration Day (January 20, 2025). Communications flowed freely between and among some players (almost always within Cells), and not so freely between and among others. As each game began, all players received a briefing on the circumstances peculiar to the war game they would run. Then the players relayed their intentions to the Facilitators – who played the same role as that of the Dungeon Master in Dungeons and Dragons. The Facilitators, said Heritage, “used free arbitration methods to decide which measures would meet with success.” Meaning, they would roll dice – or guess. Social media players, whoever they were, could emulate – or change – the Rules of the particular social media platforms they portrayed. The Mexican gambit: crashing the southern border Game One began with the Democrats getting a post-Convention bounce, which will be late in August. But that bounce will fizzle and even “reverse,” as the situation on the U.S.-Mexican border gets worse. Migration, according to Heritage, always picks up toward the end of summer, and will this time. Heritage guessed – correctly – that Mexico’s left-wing MORENA Party would win big. MORENA – in actual fact – has a supermajority in the lower house, and a commanding majority in the Mexican Senate. Heritage had assumed that MORENA would take supermajorities in both chambers, so that prediction is not far off the mark. With that supermajority, MORENA drove hard bargains with the Biden White House. Biden sought an agreement that would reduce immigration at the Rio Grande – temporarily – until after the election. Colleges and universities “took up” around Labor Day, as usual – and protests ramped up, as expected. CNAV has noticed before that many campus protesters are not university students or other community members, but are outside agitators. Heritage assumed the same. The protests pressed the usual leftist demands: • Defunding of police (and one can imagine how that would play with Urban Law Enforcement!), • “Enhanced voting rights” (for non-citizens, with absentee ballots for any reason or no reason, etc.), • Reparations for slavery, • “Opposition to Zionism,” whatever that might mean at any given time, and • Deindustrialization, carbon taxation, and other “climate actions.” Turn Two: foreign actors, Mexican immigration, and police loyalty After Labor Day, four trends began to appear. First, the “Feds” tried to enlist local police in hindering conservative groups in their organization and canvassing. Police rank-and-file indignantly refused such orders, and members of the public expressed open skepticism. In one memorable episode, a police union in Philadelphia told Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-Pa.) what he could do with his “threat descriptions” that read like condemnations of Republicans for being Republicans. In Texas, elements of the Texas Military Department discovered an “encampment” that was assisting in border infiltration. TMD personnel cleared this camp out – and the Biden administration didn’t like it. (Remember: the Texas Military Department consists of Texas Army and Air National Guards, and the Texas State Guard.) The Biden administration “offered” to settle as many as 50,000 Palestinian “refugees” in this country. No one said a word about vetting any of them for HAMAS or other terrorist connections or affiliations. The Intelligence Community collectively suggested that Chinese, Iranian, and Russian operatives were “interfering” in the election. But they were not coordinating their efforts, as far as anyone could determine (or would admit). Game One said one thing that totally strains credulity: that Vladimir V. Putin made statements in support of Biden’s reelection. Separately, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and her MORENA Party were also trying to support Biden’s reelection on the sly. They sought to score foreign aid and the acceptance, by the United States, of Mexico as a one-party State. Turn Three: hostage situation! Sometime during the start of early voting (either late September or early October), a 19-member unit of HAMAS actually invaded the home of “a well-known Jewish celebrity” and held her hostage. If that celebrity is supposed to be Laura Loomer, she has not (in real life) acknowledged, protested, or otherwise commented. The FBI – presumably elements of its Hostage Rescue Team – laid siege to the house and rescued the hostage unharmed. Widespread cellular radio outages, Internet blackouts, and even water contamination incidents happened on October 16. In parallel with this, the FBI suspended 18 “whistleblowers.” In short, this was a false-flag pseudo-operation – so the hostage situation could have been another false-flag pseudo-operation. Biden’s Palestinian refugee program provoked public backlash. So Biden announced that the program would accept only 25,000, after thorough vetting. These would go to Michigan (presumably Dearborn), Minnesota and Wisconsin. And then, Iran got The Bomb. They tested, underground, a device with 20 percent more explosive force than the “Little Boy” bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Iran trumpeted its triumph – and Trump benefited from the public outrage. The election – why so close? To everyone’s surprise, the election was much closer than the polling after the Iran bomb story would suggest. Heritage offered no explanation. Republicans captured the Senate with a commanding majority, but not a supermajority: 56-44. But the House was tied, 217 each, with Arizona’s First District remaining to call. Worse yet, the Presidential election came down to Trump leading 267-260, with Arizona too close to call. Trump led in Arizona by 65,554 votes – with more than 340,000 votes outstanding. Most of these were – of course – mail-in, with some provisional. Then the lawfare began, with lawsuits in Arizona, and street violence in major cities everywhere. True to the gambit, elements of the Mexican MORENA Party stirred up much of the trouble in Arizona. The FBI, using the excuse of rumored race-based intimidation, started civil-rights investigations in eight States, including Arizona – and Virginia. Federal officials asked State Divisions of Elections to stop reporting vote tallies until the investigations were complete. Democratic Secretaries of State obeyed. But finally the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had no standing to open any investigations. (Heritage directs the reader to the Appendix, but that section contains no Supreme Court decision from Game One.) But Attorney General Merrick Garland refused to obey the Supreme Court, and kept trying to interfere with the Arizona count. Nevertheless, the count clearly showed that Trump did much better in Maricopa County (Arizona’s most populous) than he had done four years ago. Garland gave up, and Trump claimed Arizona – and victory. Mexican gambit – bogus Game One comes close to being realistic, but always shies away from declaring what’s really happening. No one, reading the story of the hostage situation, can doubt that the FBI deliberately put that hostage’s life at risk, just to get a headline and try to redeem the credibility it had squandered since the death of J. Edgar Hoover. The really unrealistic part of that story is that Laura Loomer – whether as the hostage or simply as a fellow Jewess – did not loudly declaim the obvious. Possibly she did, but, of course, the Red Cell social media platforms disallowed every word. But surely X, Truth Social, and especially Gab would have allowed her free rein. That Palestinian refugee resettlement program makes the absence of Green Cell (Gab, Andrew Torba, Nick Fuentes, Bradlee Dean, Gary De Mar, et al.) painfully obvious. The followers of the individual members would be waiting for them to say something! Remember: these are covenantal theologians, and have no sympathies for Jews. But would they express support for “Palestinian” refugee resettlement? Nick Fuentes might be foolish enough to express that support. The other three would wait and watch. Then, after the hostage incident, Nick Fuentes would be too humiliated to continue as a commentator. But Bradlee Dean especially would cry, “False Flag!” And he would be correct. What happened to the electoral vote count? But the most stunning plot hole in this game is the election going from 336-202 for Trump, to 267-260-11. Why!? Again, Heritage offers no explanation. Heritage especially fails to explain why Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin go from likely Trump to Biden carries. And why Arizona turned into the Toss-up State That Decided the Election! Furthermore, no one says a single word about Georgia. True enough, the Georgia Board of Elections recently made rules for ballot and voter check-in reconciliation at precinct level. But what took them so long? And does anyone really believe that Georgia elections will clean themselves up, as long as Brad Raffensperger remains as SecState? He should be part of the Game, whether to get removed, or to try to extort some kind of concession from Trump. And again, Teams Dominion (Voting Services), ES&S, KNOWiNK, and other Electronic Voting Machine vendors should have belonged to White Cell. One tacit recommendation stands out: mail-in ballots have to go. But better yet, Early Voting has to go. Someone needs to ask for a consultation from France about how to run elections without Electronic (or other) Voting Machines.) In the next installment, CNAV will treat Game Two. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/14/foundation/constitution/mexican-gambit-accepted-tip-2-1/ The report: https://oversight.heritage.org/TIP_Report_Final.pdf Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Transition Integrity Project 2.0 – Heritage By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday the Heritage Foundation released the result of their Transition Integrity Project, four years after leftists released a similar document. Like the original, this new Transition Integrity Project (TIP) plays out worst-case scenarios for the Election of 2024. Unlike the old TIP, the new one starts immediately after the Democratic National Convention. Sadly, the Heritage TIP suffers from the same lack of imagination that hampered Donald Trump. Only by a miracle did they keep up with the shocking developments from, for example, the disastrous June debate. Even so, events have overtaken them, and they have not adequately considered some things that could change their outcomes. Remembering Transition Integrity Project 1.0 CNAV wishes that the Heritage Foundation had chosen a different name for their project. The phrase Transition Integrity Project will always have an association with a campaign to plan to manage news. In fact Frank D. Miele, in his own article attending the release of the Heritage Foundation’s project document, specifically characterized TIP 1.0 in those precise terms. Essentially, what the old report did was set the stage for Democrats and the media to dismiss any Trump challenges to the integrity of the election as predictable and false. Unfortunately, President Trump didn’t do his own strategic planning for “the worst that could happen,” and so he and his team were caught flat-footed when Democrats changed election rules in ways that were clearly illegal. TIP 1.0 did more than that, as CNAV showed in these articles: 1. Introducing the Transition Integrity Project, 2. Describing Election 2020 – reality v. war game (“Game Two”), 3. Asking what if Biden had won narrowly (“Game Four”), 4. Highlighting (or low-lighting) the planting of incriminating evidence on a January 6 defendant’s Telegram account, 5. Describing the Election That Never Ended (“Game One”), and 6. Warning that the TIP planners had created a scenario that could have led to civil war (“Game Three”). The original TIP organizers predicted that Trump would do many things patriots and freedom lovers wish he had done. Why, for instance, did he not summon the Senate and ram through as many judicial nominations as he could? And why did he not clean house, as Elon Musk did when he bought Twitter (now X)? But even in May, when TIP 2.0 began, the Heritage Foundation had the benefit of hindsight. To be sure: Hindsight is seldom a useful commodity, as all history seems to show. Author James Blish But when you’re making a war plan, hindsight has its value – to the extent that the enemy will repeat his own war plan. Transition Integrity Project 2.0 – baseline assumptions Heritage starts with the same bedrock assumption that informed Transition Integrity Project 1.0: The incumbent is always the greatest threat to a peaceful and effective transfer of power. Those threats, say Heritage, take four specific forms: lawfare (two forms), terrorism and information shaping. Heritage warns people to anticipate: • Federal officers alleging “vote suppression” and other civil rights violations, then intervening in State election certifications on these excuses, • The FBI, U.S. Marshals, Capitol Police, et al. arresting Biden’s opponents, • Terrorist false-flag pseudo-operations (or simply letting real terrorist operations happen) to scare State and local election and other officials, and • The Censorship Industrial Complex, already well-described, cranking up to offer an official – and sanitized – version of reality. Fifty people – including Miele (portraying the Mainstream Media) – took part in two separate scenarios. Participants included a former U.S. Senator, congressional staff, campaign consultants, journalists, experienced attorneys, military officers, law enforcement personnel, and academics. Heritage sought to simulate not only a lawless Biden administration but also foreign bad actors. These included Mexico (wishing to siphon off American cash in the form of remittances), and China (wishing to repossess Taiwan). But they also take due cognizance of: 1. How the Democrats changed our election laws in 2020, 2. The hyperbolic declaration that, if Trump wins the Election of 2024, that election will be our last, and 3. Things legacy and social media, search engines, and the Justice Department have done in recent years. China might pose a bigger threat than they imagine Actually, China might wish to repossess the entire United States, if this “leaked speech” is accurate and current. General Chi Haotian of the People’s Liberation Army delivered this racist, expansionist screed shortly before he retired in 2003. But he mentions techniques that recall the release of coronavirus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. One must understand the purchase, by the Chinese Communist Party, of vast tracts of land in that light. This also gives new meaning to the discovery of Chinese men of military age infiltrating our borders – northern and southern. The Great Chinese Invasion will not come over the Pacific Ocean. (They haven’t the troop carriers to accomplish that.) It is happening now, on commercial airliners as well as plain old-fashioned border crashing. The Epoch Times found this gem from General Chi back in 2005. J. R. Nyquist fittingly reproduced it on his site on September 11, 2019. A Rumble channel operator calling himself Man in America recited it in a livestream on Wednesday (July 10). https://rumble.com/v56643h--live-leaked-ccp-speech-reveals-plan-to-kill-100m-americans.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The larger point is this: President Trump should have known then that no one should trust anything coming out of China. Imagine how different history would be if, hearing of the Wuhan release, he had taken a suggestion from the Swedes. They never “locked down,” and if we hadn’t, we wouldn’t have election laws that invite fraud. As it is, General Chi’s plan seems to be in motion. The setup Heritage divided their participants into three color-coded cells, as follows: Blue Cell: Biden Administration, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Congressional Democrats, Intelligence Community/FBI/CIA, Department of Justice, Mainstream Media, Big Tech/Social Media/Internet Companies, TikTok, Black Lives Matter/Antifa/Pro-Hamas, and Urban Law Enforcement. Red Cell: Republican National Committee (RNC), Congressional Republicans, Republican Lawyers’ Association, Conservative Media, Evangelicals, Twitter/X and Truth Social, Project 2025, and Local Sheriffs. White Cell: China, Russia, Mexico/Central America, Cartels, Appeals Court, Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Military, Lower Courts in Swing States, and Swing State Governors. Roles functioning as non-players/exercise facilitators: Exercise Leader, Exercise Manager, Scenario Analysts, Tech Support, and Scribes. Notice: Heritage breaks X and Truth Social apart from the rest of social media. But they should break out a Green Cell: Gab, Andrew Torba (its head), Nicholas J. Fuentes, Bradlee Dean, et al. (Gab has chosen green as its favorite color.) These people want a true kingdom, not a Constitutional republic. Do not assume that Local Sheriffs and Urban Law Enforcement have a “clean” division between them. Most local sheriffs will stand on the Constitution – and most urban police officers might not. But don’t assume that of all persons in either category. Sadly, the archetypal Local Sheriff, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, is no longer active. Before you assume that your Local Sheriff will perform as Heritage assumes, get to know him. Likewise, Heritage should have broken out Urban and Rural Officers of Election. And also, gun owners and gun store owners and trainers. WARNING! Congressional Republicans are not monolithic. Heritage should have divided them between True Republicans and RINOs – Fake Republicans. Evangelicals might split three ways, between Cells Red, Blue and Green. Red Cell Evangelicals must be: • Dispensational in their theology and Premillennial and Futuristic in their last-things thinking, yet also: • Determined to “occupy ‘til I come” (Luke ch. 19) and push for biblical social change. Covenantal theologians will want to join “King Andrew.” And yes, liberal evangelicals do exist. They will join Blue Cell. They might even misapply Romans 13:1-7 to justify “ratting you out.” Game on! Heritage ran each Transition Integrity Project scenario in six turns, as follows: 1. Democratic National Convention to Labor Day, 2. Labor Day to whenever early voting starts in any given unit (i.e., county or independent city), 3. From start of early voting to Election Day, 4. One week from Election Day to November 12, 5. The certification period (November 13 through December 5), and 6. End of certification period to the Constitutional Inauguration Day (January 20, 2025). Communications flowed freely between and among some players (almost always within Cells), and not so freely between and among others. As each game began, all players received a briefing on the circumstances peculiar to the war game they would run. Then the players relayed their intentions to the Facilitators – who played the same role as that of the Dungeon Master in Dungeons and Dragons. The Facilitators, said Heritage, “used free arbitration methods to decide which measures would meet with success.” Meaning, they would roll dice – or guess. Social media players, whoever they were, could emulate – or change – the Rules of the particular social media platforms they portrayed. Before describing how each game played out, they admitted that three sets of events might change every assumption they made: • Disposition of current cases against Trump or his supporters (beyond Trump v. U.S., Fischer v. U.S., and Trump v. Anderson), • Whether the Democrats will replace Biden – and if not, whether Biden will have any warchest – and • Biden’s demonstrable – and apparently accelerating – mental decline. What’s missing from the games Heritage made a mistake by limiting game play to six turns. CNAV would begin with another Turn One: between the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. Then renumber the present Turns One through Six accordingly. Interestingly, the actual game play descriptions indicate that the players and Facilitators did take into account players like: • Democrat v. Republican Officers of Election, and especially: • The State of Texas. But they did not take into account the Texas Nationalist Movement, the Greater Idaho Movement, New California, or other secessionists. That’s another omission that limited their analysis. Heritage’ treatment of the FBI is uneven. On one hand, the FBI suggests that they successfully rescued a Jewish female celebrity hostage. But on the other hand, they subtly but clearly hint that the FBI laid on some dangerous false-flag pseudo-operations. Most of all, they did not account for Patriotic militias, either in cities or in rural areas. Nor have they accounted for the effect of Biden’s disastrous debate – and indeed the insultingly heavy-handed lawfare – on polling. Virginia, Minnesota, and even New York State are in play – yet Heritage assume that Biden would carry them all, at least in Game One. Georgia’s elections remain dirty – but Heritage confidently assumes Trump will carry it. Even more, these games assume that Congressional Republicans and Democrats will remain monolithic. Democrats will; Republicans will not. Verdict on Transition Integrity Project 2.0 Transition Integrity Project 2.0, besides being ineptly named, falls short in light of recent events. To be sure, events few could have predicted, have overtaken the Transition Integrity Project Games. Everyone expected Biden, for example, to get through his debate pumped full of adrenaline, as on September 2, 2022. Not only did he not do so, but the carefully molded coalition between Democrats and the Mainstream Media fell apart. Would Biden have presence of mind to give a good show of backing the Chinese down from Taiwan (Game Two)? CNAV doubts it. True, Vice-President Harris might not have the smarts, courage, or organizational skills to organize a Vice-Presidential Declaration of Presidential Inability. But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin might take that lead, if the Chinese did start something on Taiwan. One key development has definitely overtaken Heritage: a ruling by Judge Juan Merchan to delay sentencing of Trump to September. Maybe Merchan and Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg don’t much want to start the Appeal Clock in New York’s court system. Heritage portrayed Democratic OOEs bailing out on their assignments. But they haven’t counted on Republicans signing up to be OOEs. Nor have they modeled, say in White Cell, Teams Dominion (Voting Systems), ES&S, KNOWiNK, or other Electronic Voting Machine vendors. In the days to come, CNAV will examine – critically – each Game. We then will run our Game, based on current events and our understanding of things Heritage did not adequately consider. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/13/foundation/constitution/transition-integrity-project-2-0-heritage/ The old report: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7013152/Preventing-a-Disrupted-Presidential-Election-and.pdf Introducing the new report: https://www.heritage.org/the-oversight-project/election-integrity/transition-integrity-project The new report itself: https://oversight.heritage.org/TIP_Report_Final.pdf Article and video: the secret speech by Gen. Chi Haotian: https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-secret-speech-of-general-chi-haotian/ https://rumble.com/v56643h--live-leaked-ccp-speech-reveals-plan-to-kill-100m-americans.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.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 under impeachment attack By Terry A. Hurlbut The American political left has carried its attack on the United States Supreme Court to an unprecedented level. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has filed Articles of Impeachment against the two senior Originalists on the Court. She alleges failure of financial disclosure, and refusal of each to disqualify himself from cases, at least one party to which had some kind of connection to the Justice involved, or his wife. But everyone knows the real reason: a means by which to create two Court vacancies for Biden’s handlers to fill. “AOC” doesn’t realize it, but she just opened the door for American patriots to do the same, in reverse. She also has revealed what the left fears most – an opportunity they are about to lose, and patriots to gain. The first Supreme Court impeachments Never before has any Member of Congress attempted to remove a Justice of the Supreme Court from the bench. That alone might have given any other Democrat pause. But AOC isn’t an ordinary Democrat, but a raving maniac – a loose cannon on the gundeck. Her impeachment articles clearly show this. Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit shared the most detailed description of these Articles two days ago. He quoted extensively from this press release from AOC’s office. Naturally AOC’s targets are Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito. From the press release: The first impeachment resolution includes the following impeachment articles against Justice Thomas: 1. Failure to disclose financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, among other information. 2. Refusal to recuse from matters concerning his spouse’s legal interest in cases before the court. 3. Refusal to recuse from matters involving his spouse’s financial interest in cases before the court. The second impeachment resolution includes the following impeachment articles against Justice Alito: 1. Refusal to recuse from cases in which he had a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party in cases before the court. 2. Failure to disclose financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, among other information. She provided links to the respective Articles against Thomas and Alito. That she is not a lawyer, becomes painfully obvious from reading both these resolutions. Apparently she didn’t even request assistance from Minority Counsel on the House Judiciary Committee. (She does not sit on that Committee herself, but some of her Squad mates do.) Even New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg could have drawn up better charges than these. The two legal lions whom AOC has dared to beard, can make mincemeat of these Articles. Clarence Thomas The alleged failures of financial disclosure all involve gratuities – sums or in-kind gifts reflective of personal friendship. If either Justice received any such gifts before deciding particular cases the donors filed, she has not cited any. Concerning Justice Thomas, she cited one Harlan Crow, a Director of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Of the “regular” friend-of-the-court briefs AEI has filed with the Supreme Court, AOC did not cite a single one. Her thesis seems to be that AEI’s positions are beyond the Constitutional pale, and only by accepting a bribe could Justice Thomas adopt any of these positions. To suppose that Liberal Bloc members never received gratuities from leftist legal think tanks, strains credulity. Furthermore, Chief Justice John Roberts has already addressed those concerns. Possibly the Chief Justice does not care to have anyone but a Court officer poring over his own financial records, nor those of any of his colleagues, be they Originalist, Moderate or Liberal. Certainly he has separation-of-powers concerns – and the concerns appropriate to any leader whose subordinates come under attack. Three Supreme Court case citations The alleged refusals to recuse would be more serious – if she really had a case. Concerning Justice Thomas, AOC alleges that his wife Virginia Lamp “Ginni” Thomas had a financial interest in numerous cases in which AEI, Liberty Central, and Liberty Consulting briefed the Court. Again, she will not cite the cases. She says only that Ginni Thomas founded one such organization, and received a salary from another. That doesn’t tie her to any particular case – which could explain why AOC won’t cite any. Then she accuses Thomas of protecting his wife’s legal interest. For that, she cites three cases: • Texas v. Pennsylvania, in which the State of Texas asked leave to complain about election fraud in Pennsylvania in 2020. The Supreme Court refused that case – allegedly after Roberts harangued his colleagues with the spectre of riots on First Avenue Southeast if the Court took the case. Justice Alito dissented from that decision, and Justice Thomas joined that dissent. • Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid, seeking to challenge certain ballots as fraudulently cast. After the corrupt Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to look at the evidence, the Republicans petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The Court denied review – and Thomas dissented. • Trump v. Thompson, concerning some of Trump’s records (December 23, 2021) in the National Archives. The “January 6 Committee” got those records over Trump’s objection. Thomas didn’t write an opinion, but the Order List does show he would have voted to grant an injunction. Where is the legal interest? The problem, for AOC’s case, is this: if Ginni Thomas had any interest in those cases, beyond having exhorted Trump and his team not to concede the election, AOC did not allege this. She seems to think those conversations are enough. Furthermore she uses the word insurrection, although never once has anyone brought such a charge against anyone. (Then again, this same AOC told of cowering in her office – in the Cannon House Office Building on Independence Avenue! – on January 6.) Samuel A. Alito Her impeachment resolution against Justice Alito begins with the inverted American flag flown outside Alito’s home on January 17, 2021. Then she mentions the Alitos flying an Appeal to Heaven flag outside their summer residence in the summer of 2023. Both flags, she says are expression[s] of support for the criminal efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election[.] On that ground alone, she says, Alito should have recused himself from: • Trump v. United States (the Presidential Immunity cases), • Fischer v. United States (concerning charging January 6 defendants under Sarbanes-Oxley), and • Trump v. Anderson (Trump’s Colorado ballot access case). Again she uses a form of the word insurrection to describe not only the January 6 Event but also the reasons why 100,000 people gathered on the National Mall to hear President Trump speak that day. (The Event itself was a false-flag pseudo-operation, as CNAV has repeatedly stated and continues to maintain.) The Supreme Court would probably have decided the cases the same way To refresh readers’ memory, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States and Fischer v. United States on 6-3 votes. But the Court unanimously reversed the Colorado Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson. So none of those cases would have changed by Justice Alito’s recusal alone. Now perhaps had anyone knocked Alito and Thomas off those cases, they could have changed the outcomes of the first two, but not the last. But we cannot know, because AOC didn’t cite the cases in her Resolution against Justice Thomas. AOC’s accusations of improper gratuity acceptance against Alito are totally sketchy. She cites no donors in her Resolution. She accuses Alito of taking a gift from “a wealthy individual … [having] direct interests” in several cases before the Court, but did not name that individual. If she did, she would have had to cite the cases – and she didn’t do that, either. Cite the case. Actor Peter Coyote, as San Francisco County District Attorney Thomas Krasny, in Jagged Edge (1985) How serious an affair is this? Ordinarily, CNAV would agree with Dr. Steve Turley, who told his “Insiders” this morning that nobody takes AOC seriously. She’s a loose cannon on the gundeck, and everyone knows this. If either of these cases came before even Judge Tanya Chutkan, they would provoke laughter. But Articles of Impeachment don’t come before judges; they come before the House of Representatives. The House … shall have the sole power of impeachment. Article I Section 2 Clause 4 In that sense, Articles of Impeachment are for window dressing. All that matters is the partisanship of the Membership. Under better circumstances, no one should imagine that these Articles would ever pass – but these aren’t ordinary circumstances. The Republican majority is very slender, and has a critical number of RINOs in it. Not all would be brazen enough to vote for these Articles, but they might conveniently absent themselves from the House. Result: passage by a simple majority of the Members present and voting. The Senate – again, ordinarily – would be an insurmountable hurdle. But twenty-five Senators could easily absent themselves from the Senate. That body would still have a quorum – but the Democrats, if they all “stuck together,” could convict the Justices. That’s because conviction in the Senate takes two-thirds of the Senators present. Bear in mind that Republicans have never fought against Biden’s judicial nominations, not even when they have strained credulity. Case in point. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Indeed Biden has gotten more judges through than Trump! Thanks, RINO Senators! Take-home lessons Aside from any actual threat to Justices Thomas and Alito, AOC says out loud what her Progressive allies are thinking. Thomas and Alito are Originalists, and Originalists threaten everything Progressives hold dear. Indeed the Originalist Bloc has had quite a run these last three terms of the Court. They’ve set at naught several key precedents that were the building blocks of a secularistic society, that disarms, deindustrializes and depopulates its populace, and disallows religion entirely. Those precedents include without limitation: • Roe v. Wade • Lemon v. Kurtzman • Any of a number of precedents upholding “gun control.” • Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel • Regents of University of California v. Bakke The precedents those three have set will make Progressives weep and gnash their teeth for at least a generation. That’s why they keep introducing bills to codify the precedents the Originalists have set aside. AOC also understands this: Biden will lose. Progressives will no doubt insult the intelligence and civic sensibilities of the American people with outright cheating and even false-flag pseudo-operations aimed at starting everything from civil unrest to World War Three. (Frank D. Miele discussed – today – his role in the Heritage Foundation’s Transition Integrity Project, Conservative Version.) But they’ll still lose. So they want Justices Thomas and Alito off the bench, now, so Biden’s handlers can replace them now. Therefore… It is up to patriotic Americans to stop this. Call your Representatives and make sure they show up to vote those Articles down. Share this article with them, especially the critical analysis of these Articles. And repeat this mantra: Cite the case. Cite the case, Cite the case, CITE THE CASE. If those Articles get any further than Judiciary Committee referral, heckle AOC and Jerry Nadler, the Ranking Member, without mercy, with that same phrase: Cite the case. Your object isn’t to change their minds; that’s impossible. Rather, your object is to get every Trump supporter repeating: Cite the case. Trump could even use that at his rallies: CITE! THE! CASE! (If Sony Pictures Entertainment tries to trademark that phrase, all the better! It will get that much more attention, which is exactly what we need to shut this effort down. And do it before it gets near the Senate. Sadly, it’s probably too late to “primary” any Republican Representative who doesn’t show up (or worse, votes for impeachment). But it might not be too late to set up a machine to punish them in another way: write-in candidates. And remember: if they play games to make sure of impeaching Thomas and Alito, they’re no better than Democrats anyway. Tell them that! Watch them and call them out at the slightest false move. The Constitution, and making sure the Democrats do not treat it as Thomas Jefferson’s “mere thing of wax,” are at stake. Act accordingly. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/12/news/supreme-court-impeachment-attack/ The Gateway Pundit on impeachment: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/aoc-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-justice/ The press release: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-and The Articles: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/OCASNY_076_xml.pdf https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/OCASNY_077_xml.pdf Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Red Vote Rising By Terry A. Hurlbut Call it the Red Vote. Every State, “red” or “blue,” has one – except maybe Massachusetts and Hawaii. They almost always live in rural or exurban (not suburban) counties or other units, and dominate local politics there. In States like Oregon, they send the troublemakers to State Assemblies, Houses of Representatives/Delegates/whatever, etc., and sometimes to State Senates. They govern themselves entirely differently from the Big City TV markets that dominate State-wide politics. But they never imagined “carrying” their State for a Republican Presidential or even U.S. Senate candidate. The City Slickers, many of whom are government flunkies (especially in Northern Virginia), always carry the State through sheer numbers. But that was then. This is now. Now the Red Vote can shine – if it turns out and gets out and votes the way the Blue Vote always does – or has. Red Vote Exhibit A: New York! Two and a half months ago, Donald Trump was effectively in “State arrest” – in New York State. So if he couldn’t campaign out of New York, he campaigned in New York. The results were more than promising, so people dared ask: could Trump carry New York? Those results came from Trump campaigning in New York City and its outlying boroughs! But how much better results might Trump had gotten, had he campaigned in upstate New York? There the Red Vote lives. New York State sent more Republicans to the House of Representatives in the 2022 Midterms. That was the only reason they held the House, despite the disastrous complacency – and internal sabotage – that marred Republican performance. Indeed, Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) almost became Governor of New York State! Yesterday the Manhattan Borough President sounded the alarm to Politico.com: We’re still acting like this is a one-party state, which for pretty much 20, 25 years it has been. I truly believe we’re a battleground state now. The only sense in which New York State is a one-Party State is that Republicans haven’t elected Governors, nor sent Republicans to the U.S. Senate, nor given the State’s electoral votes to Republican Presidential candidates, for those 25 years. (Massachusetts and Hawaii are one-Party States in the true sense of that word: their entire House delegations are Democratic.) We just heard the Manhattan Borough President say that Trump could carry New York. Worse for them, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is up for reelection this year. Democrats also worry about some of their vulnerable incumbents in the Hudson Valley and on Long Island. Sampling of blue demos spells trouble Most of the sampling that worried the Democrats so, is not even in upstate New York. It’s in New York City and the surrounding areas, places everyone expects to stay solid blue. But it’s not so solid anymore. The Daily Show recently ran a focus group – of black New Yorkers. Members split down the middle between Trump and Biden. One focus group member laid it on the line: For me, I’ve always been a Democrat. And it’s like, for the most part with the Democratic party, they always make a bunch of promises that they can’t deliver. https://x.com/EricAbbenante/status/1811203474417139741 Everyone expected Democrats to deliver after 2021. After all, they had the trifecta, or even the grand slam! They had the Presidency and both chambers of Congress. Their false-flag pseudo-operation on January 6, 2021 had half the country thinking it had dodged a rocket-propelled grenade from – well, call it the Nationalist Anti-socialist American Patriots’ Party. (Remember that in blue circles, patriotism is a curse word.) Three and a half years of crippling inflation later, the nonwhite lower classes are taking their votes back. Voter A: I wish I knew. I am not a huge fan of Trump. He don’t respect the black person. Voter B: And Biden does? Has Biden issued an apology for the things that he’s been caught saying? And consider this: He’s never been a good candidate ever. And if it wasn’t for all of those unfortunate events that happened in 2020, I don’t think he’d be president now. “Charlamagne da God” Notice that they’re not even talking about Biden’s disastrous debate performance. They’re talking about things they’ve wondering about for years, and now are saying out loud. The debate might have broken a dam, but the dam was already weak and the lake already at spillover point. Exhibit B: Virginia Virginia is even more likely to flip. In 2021, Virginia famously did flip, electing three Republicans to State-wide office in the off year. True enough, Virginia seemed to be back in Democratic form at Midterms. 2023, of course, was The Abortion Election. Memo to Lila Rose and Jenna Ellis. If you want to know why Donald Trump erased all mention of abortion in the GOP platform, that’s why. And that’s why your cue is to prick the consciences of individuals, and really play The Long Game. That includes founding new teaching hospitals and founding competing Specialty Boards. But for now, let everyone take note. Virginia has, for the last twenty-odd years, been two States: Northern Virginia and the rest of it. Northern Virginia is Virginia’s New York City, or “Downstate New York”: solid blue. Its residents are federal employees, who want to protect their careers, and believe in the Mission of the Deep State. The rest of the State, apart from Charlottesville, Ashland, other “college towns,” and Richmond, has the Red Vote. When State Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Falls Church) proposed a “confiscatory ban” on most handguns and rifles, Red Vote counties adopted Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions. (Dick Saslaw is now retired.) Virginia’s General Assembly (Senate and House of Delegates) is almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Donald Trump, famously speaking in Wildwood, New Jersey, boldly declared Virginia “in play.” https://rumble.com/embed/v4s4ay2/?pub=4teej Message to the Red Vote – get out and VOTE! Here, then, is the salient message for members of the Red Vote. If you’re already in a Red State, now is not the time to become complacent. Complacency is one way that Democrats flipped New Hampshire blue. (The other way was having Bostonians make their homes in New Hampshire, effectively colonizing its southern counties. Those voters combined with the Student Vote at Dartmouth College to capture the State.) Complacency also raised a seawall against the Red Wave in 2022. But the Red Vote in blue States can do considerable damage, win or lose – and this is The Long Game. Patti Lyman, Virginia Republican National Committeewoman, is right: no State (except maybe Massachusetts and Hawaii) is solid blue. We see islands of blue in an ocean of red throughout the United States. Imagine, then, what would happen if more Red Voters actually voted. The results might produce even more caterwauling than the country heard after Trump won the Election of 2016. How it must feel But consider the position of a Red Vote member in a blue State. In all but strictly local races, Democrats dominate. Lower-house Speakers and Senate Presidents (some of whom are Lieutenant Governors) grind their teeth and tolerate Republicans from red counties. The situation is worse in Virginia and New Jersey, because they hold their State and local elections in off years. And maybe in your jurisdiction, Officers of Election know how to do things. (Or so you think! Steve Bannon’s Precinct Strategy is the only reason Glenn Youngkin swept Virginia in 2021. Are you an OOE? Or do you let the Little Old Ladies in Tennis Shoes run your elections?) In blue cities and counties, OOEs are for window dressing, and let Democrats do as they please to win. (And sometimes, RINOs let them get away with it.) That was then. This is now. What’s changed? Three and a half years of incompetence at best, treason at worst, in official Washington – that’s what’s changed. Maybe knowing how The Big Steal could happen, has also changed. In any event, the Red Vote forgot the First Rule of Politics: All politics is local. Rep. Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill (D-Mass.), Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Strike while the iron is hot Your future is on the line – yours, and the future of this country you and we love, if no one else does. The Big City Democrats are getting tired of the broken promises. Those promises had their basis in communism anyway, and we all know how well (poorly!) that works. With Democrats weakening in the “islands of blue,” the Red Ocean can rise and swamp those islands. So how does it work? Did you know that half the OOE contingent in at least one jurisdiction quit? We’re getting old for this sort of thing! Do you want Happy Faces Temps to run your elections? Don’t think it can’t happen! The General Registrar’s staff in your editor’s jurisdiction told him personally that that’s what it might come to. But here is the opportunity for the Red Vote. Let them sign up to become Officers of Election, and at least eliminate some opportunities for cheating. Let’s see more resolutions before Boards of Supervisors/Commissioners/etc., and City Councils, for voting on paper. Until then, take advantage of whatever mechanisms are in place to “make voting easier.” If you request an absentee ballot, no one else can do that in your name. Then fill it out and send it in. (Or, surrender it at your local polling place when you go to vote in person. You know the kind of country you want to live in, even as former Democrats start to ask themselves that. An opportunity like this will not come again. Don’t waste it. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/11/editorial/talk/red-vote-rising/ Eric Abbenante on the Daily Show focus group: https://x.com/EricAbbenante/status/1811203474417139741 Video: Trump says Virginia is in play: https://rumble.com/v4ulase-trump-says-new-jersey-virginia-minnesota-are-in-play.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Raffensperger racket revealed By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday’s action by the Georgia Board of Elections reveals at last the racket Georgia’s highest election official was running. In two votes, that Board brought an order to the election process nearly every other State has. But in so doing, they revealed just how sloppy Georgia elections have been. And we now know who made them sloppy: Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. He rates removal and disqualification from office on impeachment and conviction for what he did. Furthermore, all media organs who consistently apologized for that man, and explained away everything that happened in Georgia, owe their consumers – and the American people – an apology. What the Board did – to plug a security hole Raffensperger left open To understand how the Board could have done what they did, recall that Brad Raffensperger is only one member. In fact, the Georgia legislature passed a bill to remove him from the Board and have the Board investigate him. At last report that bill passed both chambers of the Legislature on March 26 – but nothing has happened since. Absent any further reports, we must assume that Gov. Brian Kemp (R-Ga.) vetoed it. Kemp and Raffensperger go back a long way, since Kemp held the Secretaryship of State. A leftist case in the federal courts implicates both men in dirty Georgia elections over six years. Curling v. Raffensperger, case no. 1:17-cv-02989, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division), The Hon. Amy M. Totenberg, presiding. Yesterday, according to Liz Harrington, the Board voted 3-1 to adopt a basic reconciliation rule. The chief of precinct (called a “poll manager”) and two subordinate Officers of Election (OOEs), must physically count every ballot that goes through the scanner-tabulator. If that total does not match the scanner’s “public count,” the chief must investigate and explain the discrepancy. The [chief] and two … sworn … officers [of election] … shall unseal and open each scanner ballot box, remove the paper ballots from each ballot box, record the date and time that the ballot box was emptied and present to three sworn [OOEs] to independently count the total number of ballots removed from the scanner, sorting into stacks of 50 ballots continuing until all of the ballots have been counted separately by each of the three [OOEs]. When all three officers arrive at the same ballot count independently, they shall each sign a control document containing the polling place, ballot scanner serial number, election name, printed name with signature and date and time of the ballot hand count. If the numbers recorded on the precinct [electronic poll books], ballot marking devices [BMDs], and scanner recap forms do not reconcile with the hand count ballot totals, the [chief] shall immediately determine the reason for the inconsistency, correct the inconsistency if possible, and fully document the inconsistency or problem along with any corrective measures taken. This rule had been in place before, though apparently sporadically – until October 6, 2022. On that day, Mr. Blake Evans, “Elections Director,” ordered the chiefs not to count physical ballots. https://x.com/realLizUSA/status/1810768330904748254 I know that many counties have received an email requesting that poll workers hand count ballots at polling places on election night. Deciding to have poll workers hand count ballots at each polling location on election night is not something your poll workers should do. … In order to ensure maximum security for the voted ballots, poll workers should not prolong the process of removing ballots from ballot boxes and sealing them in transport containers. This process should be done efficiently, transparently, and immediately after the polls have closed and votes have been cast. Members of the public can observe the process. The order for that memorandum must have come from Secretary Raffensperger’s office. Furthermore we must assume that the enforcement of the old rule was hit or miss by county. Another new rule – and eye-opening testimony The Board also voted 4-0 to adopt a rule requiring a public reconciliation report from each county. Number of voters checked in, and number of votes cast, must match – or the election superintendent must explain why not. This rule came about because, on May 21, 2024, DeKalb County reported checking in 94,317 voters, who cast 185,536 votes. That’s as if nearly every checked-in voter voted twice. https://x.com/realLizUSA/status/1810782283055419511 But even that wasn’t the most sensational happening before the Board. That came when Mr. Philip Davis showed that thousands of duplicate ballots were counted in Georgia – in 2020. You’ll see that they took batches from tabulator 794, batches 8 through 11. They brought it to tabulator 791. They then started grabbing pieces of those four batches. And with those four pieces, they met up brand new batches for tabulator 794. Some of the ballots were in reverse order. They were from multiple batches. In the very first one, you can see that they took batch 22, 20 ballots in reverse, batch 23, four ballots in normal order, batch 20, 10 ballots in reverse, batch 23, five more ballots, and so on. This pattern repeats over and over for tabulator 794… …We see the exact same pattern repeated with a different set of ballots. So once again, they got ballots from tabulator 791. They grabbed four sets of batches. They did create a brand new batches by picking and choosing pieces out of those other batches to make the new batches… That would be tabulator 74 batches 20 through 26. https://x.com/mad_liberals/status/1810692605686038859 https://x.com/mad_liberals/status/1810692611033768102 https://x.com/mad_liberals/status/1810692616217936218 https://x.com/mad_liberals/status/1810693926032199797 https://x.com/realLizUSA/status/1810717019907502235 https://x.com/realLizUSA/status/1810723154634944993 https://x.com/realLizUSA/status/1810710648399049147 https://x.com/mad_liberals/status/1810713615244128419 Mr. Davis went on to call for a full independent investigation. These actions by the Georgia Board of Elections could be the only actions anyone can take. The Georgia Secretary of State’s office has already filed, in Curling, a “notice of supplemental authority.” Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the State intends to move to dismiss for lack of plaintiffs’ standing, if they haven’t already done so. (The docket listing already runs to eleven pages, and the Notice made no reference to an earlier document.) Raffensperger is responsible One man alone bears responsibility for what happened in the Election of 2020: Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. But if, as CNAV suspects, Gov. Kemp vetoed the bill removing Raffensperger from the Election Board and authorizing an investigation of him, then Kemp is responsible for keeping him around. But as Donna Curling (the original plaintiff) has always alleged, Kemp and Raffensperger have been running crooked elections in Georgia for years. The Election Board should not have waited for citizens’ petitions to impel them to act as they did yesterday. To send even sealed boxes of ballots back to the registrar’s (or superintendent’s) office without a physical ballot count, violates every concept of election security. It lends direct credence to the Suitcase Scandal at Fulton County. Certain members of the media – including Erick-Woods Erickson, who has repeatedly asserted that he can explain everything the country saw on surveillance tapes from the Atlanta State Farm Arena on November 3-4, 2020 – owe every Trump supporter an apology. (That also goes for Carl M. Cannon of RealClearPolitics, who complained that Trump lies all the time.) By voting to require ballot reconciliation, the Election Board acknowledged that election security was seriously deficient. And by his presentation, Philip Davis clearly showed how the Big Steal happened in Georgia. This, more than any misconduct by the Fulton County District Attorney or any Special Prosecutor, should be grounds to dismiss the case of Georgia v. Trump. How ballot reconciliation is properly handled – a direct example For perspective, your editor is a ranking Officer of Election, who recently ran a primary as Chief of Precinct. (That’s the equivalent of a “poll manager” in our unit.) Reconciliation of the type that is now the rule State-wide in Georgia, has always been the rule in our jurisdiction. During an election, OOEs check: 1. Voters checked-in on Electronic Poll Books, 2. Ballots cast at the scanner-tabulator, and 3. Provisional ballots (if any) issued and voted. The sum of provisional and scanned ballots must match the number of voters checked-in. If they do not match, the Chief must explain why they don’t match. Also, at close of polls, at least two OOEs (including the Chief or his previously designated Assistant) physically count the ballots that went through the scanner. If they don’t match the Public Count (plus any Provisional Ballots voted), then again: the Chief must explain this. Finally, the Chief and his team document everything. They record, on separate tally sheets, voters checked in, and ballots supplied, opened, cast, marked provisionally, and spoiled. The scanner produces a Zero Tape before polls open, and a Results Tape showing all candidates and the number of votes for each. The Chief calls these results in to the Registrar. He then returns to the office, bringing with him all unused, cast, provisional, and spoiled ballots, and all tally sheets. Ballots remain under seal (signed by the entire team) unless a candidate petitions for a recount. And recounts are done by hand. How to secure elections in future Counting the actual votes would present a problem in most elections in our unit. Our precincts use the Australian Ballot, which lists all races and public questions, and candidates and options for each, on one sheet of paper, which might or might not have printing on both sides. To count all votes in all races and public questions would require handling each ballot at least twice per race. (Fair counting must be redundant.) The French have a solution: supply separate pieces of paper (bulletins) for every vote a voter wishes to cast. (The French don’t accommodate write-in candidates, but a bulletin for write-in votes would be a simple design.) Vote-counting teams could handle these twice only. The French system even has a procedure for voting by proxy. Any voter anticipating not being able to vote in person, must pre-register a proxy with the local commissaire de police or court. To have Americans register proxies at their local police precinct, sheriff’s station, City Hall, Government Center, or court clerk would be simplicity itself. In short, voters everywhere should agitate for a return to paper ballots, precinct hand counts, and in-person, same-day voting. That will take time. But one thing Georgia voters can address now. Brad Raffensperger has committed impeachable offenses against election integrity. Georgia voters shouldn’t have to wait two years to “primary” him. The legislature should impeach and remove him at once – then consider a paper-ballot solution. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/10/news/raffensperger-racket-revealed/ Curling v. Raffensperger: Docket page: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6139924/curling-v-raffensperger/ Notice of Supplemental Authority: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.1850.0.pdf Liz Harrington’s posts: Vote to require physical count of ballots: https://x.com/realLizUSA/status/1810768330904748254 Vote to require county-wide public reconciliation reports: https://x.com/realLizUSA/status/1810782283055419511 Liz Harrington’s and Philip Davis’ posts about the duplicate ballots: https://x.com/mad_liberals/status/1810692605686038859 https://x.com/mad_liberals/status/1810692611033768102 https://x.com/mad_liberals/status/1810692616217936218 https://x.com/mad_liberals/status/1810693926032199797 https://x.com/realLizUSA/status/1810717019907502235 https://x.com/realLizUSA/status/1810723154634944993 https://x.com/realLizUSA/status/1810710648399049147 https://x.com/mad_liberals/status/1810713615244128419 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

GOP platform debate begins By Terry A. Hurlbut Now the real GOP platform debate can begin. Yesterday (July 8), a week ahead of the Republican National Convention, the Republican National Committee released a draft platform. This is Donald Trump’s platform, and no mistake. Indeed it could not be anyone else’s platform, not with Lara Trump as co-chair of the Republican National Committee. This platform will disappoint those who want a stronger “social message.” But as any discerning pastor can tell you, the kind of social change evangelical Christians want, cannot come from government. It must come from the people, reawakening to a relationship with Jesus Christ, abandoning sinful practices, and rebuilding institutions they have allowed to become corrupt over a century and a half. GOP platform in detail The GOP platform is a sixteen-page document setting forth twenty basic principles. The Gateway Pundit hosts it here. Its language will, no doubt, strike readers as hyperbolic – after the classic and inimitable Donald Trump style. Donald Trump has blamed illegal immigration most heavily for America’s economic and other ills, and the GOP platform reflects that. His first two principles lead with immigration and how to solve its problems: Seal the border, and stop the migrant invasion. Trump will get no argument from most voters in Texas, including especially South Texas and the Northern Rio Grande Valley. The federal government has sued Texas at least twice for trying to seal the Texas-Mexican border on its own. A President Trump could, by executive order, dismiss all legal action and formally “call forth” the Texas Military Department “to repel an invasion.” The TMD (as the Texas Army and Air National Guards and State Guard) already has the infrastructure in place. Trump would need all the help he could get. He must seal the U.S.-Canadian border, too, because some infiltration has occurred there. Sadly, he can’t count on cooperation from every State along that border. Washington, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine want illegal immigrants. CNAV will discuss the reasons for that later. Mass deportation? Carry out the largest deportation operation in American history. By which Trump means: deport every last illegal immigrant. Technically, however, he could deport only part of their number and still achieve “the largest deportation operation in American history.” In blunt fact, no one knows how many illegal immigrants have come in. But lots of voters in “sanctuary cities” could tell him where they are. End inflation, and make America affordable again. A tall order. Furthermore he must come to grips with his own hyper-spending when the COVID crisis broke. That started the inflation, and Biden’s even worse spending sped it along. But Biden is still responsible for the near-hyperinflation American voters are seeing, and everyone knows it. They also know its effects. Industries that depended on significant disposable cash are closing down at a rate of once a week. Thanks for nothing, you doddering old fool! Make America the dominant energy producer in the world, by far! Which means: end the Liquefied Natural Gas port moratorium, and tell the “Leave It In The Ground!” contingent, Tough luck! America has the resources, but those bent on deindustrializing the United States now hold sway. That must stop. Stop outsourcing, and turn the United States into a manufacturing superpower. That includes reopening coal mines in the Appalachian Mountain System, which might breathe life into some towns that have seen their populations decline precipitously – and perhaps not because the coal veins are exhausted! Again: “Leave It In The Ground!” It also includes rebuilding a manufacturing base that has lost out to imports. Libertarians might squawk, but the export side of the free-trade experiment never started. Let them explain that before they complain. On taxes – and Constitutional rights Large tax cuts for workers, and no tax on tips! This would cut tips out of the line item on Form 1040 presently reading: Wages, salaries, tips, and other employee compensation (attach Forms W-2). This would also enhance people’s privacy. In fact, Trump has in other contexts called for replacing the income tax with tariffs. Which is exactly how the United States government once financed itself. And how it can do so again, with perfect justice. The one thing that keeps pirates’ heads down in the world’s oceans, is the United States Navy. So why shouldn’t importers pay a tariff, which pays the force that guarantees safe conduct? As for the rest, that calls for limiting government. The Supreme Court struck that blow in the Loper Bright case the Friday before last. Defend our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms. That’s easy, Mr. President. Abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Also abolish the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and stop all cozy conversations between the FBI, CIA, etc., and social media Trust and Safety Teams. While you’re at it, call off the dogs Biden sicced on peaceful churchgoers. Prevent World War Three, restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East, and build a great Iron Dome missile defense shield over our entire country – all made in America. That might require renegotiations of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaties. But if we couple that with a settlement of the Ukraine War, Vladimir Putin of Russia might accept that. This is where “The Art of the Deal” comes in handy. End the weaponization of government against the American people. See the Freedom of Speech and Religion promise the GOP platform already makes. Abridgment of these freedoms is what that weaponization is all about. More GOP platform promises on immigration and quality of life Stop the migrant crime epidemic, demolish the foreign drug cartels, crush gang violence, and lock up violent offenders. Rebuild our cities, including Washington, D.C., making them safe, clean, and beautiful again. These two go together, for one cannot do the second without first doing the first. The first two promises would go along way to satisfying this. As to lockup, one can look to El Salvador for a possible solution. Strengthen and modernize our military, making it, without question, the strongest and most powerful in the world. Yes, and start with the Navy, which has seen some humiliations of late. If the country is going to charge tariffs on imports, the Navy has to earn it. To do that, it badly needs attention. But that aside, America must stop “[looking for] monsters to destroy” abroad – aside from pirates. John Quincy Adams had it right: let America mind her own business. (And her business is her border.) Keep the U.S. Dollar as the world’s reserve currency. That will prove difficult, with the BRICS alliance growing. But some suggest the threat to displace the dollar is an empty one. One way to make sure it’s empty is to limit government – drastically – and thus reduce spending equally drastically. Fight for and protect Social Security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age. The only way to make sure of that is to grow the economy – and make childbearing and child-rearing affordable again. (And safe again, too; see below.) Social Security and Medicare are in crisis, in part because its designers set the retirement age higher than they expected most Americans to reach, but also because two successive child-bearing-age generations have refused to replace themselves. The workers who otherwise would be paying Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance premiums (“Social Security taxes”) were never born. Thanks, Sarah Weddington! How to make a less-intrusive government Cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations. The Great American Electric Vehicle Road Test ended in failure. True enough, if you don’t fail, you’re not innovating, as Elon Musk has said in another context. But in blunt fact, electric vehicles are not ready to displace conventional vehicles on the American road. Nor can the electric grid handle so much charging at once. Already those who took part in the Great American Electric Vehicle Road Test are opting out of Round Two as fast as they can. As to regulations, the Supreme Court finally got rid of the last Big Prop for the Administrative State: Chevron deference. Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children. Keep men out of women’s sports. Theses two promises also go together, because the second problem proceeds from the first. Federal funding for education should end, anyway. In fact the GOP platform does promise to abolish the Department of Education. The States that legislate against these theories will become more attractive. But someone must argue that, over and over, before the United States Supreme Court. That is, unless and until Congress removes Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor from the bench on impeachment for, and conviction of, contributing to the delinquencies and psychological and physical wounding of children in the manner the GOP platform decries. Deport pro-HAMAS radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again. American colleges and universities have lots of ideological problems, of which antisemitism and apologies for atrocity are merely symptoms. Solving them requires building new institutions and decamping from the old. The new John Harvards and Elihu Yales can do this – if we let them. Election integrity Secure our elections, including same day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship. Elon Musk has already pledged his support for all these concepts. He has denounced mail-in absentee balloting and drop boxes, https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1810407726784405844/ https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1810454245109571615 and even called for voting on paper. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1810581873703194727 Note that he called for in-person voting only. The French do it – with voting by pre-registered proxy. More to the point: when a man with a reputation for technological solutions tells you that a technological solution creates more problems than it solves – and that the only real solution is very low-tech – people should listen. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), Speaker of the House, also shared yesterday that “Resident” Biden threatens to veto the Secure American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (H.R. 8281) if it ever reaches his desk. https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1810394458334310744 That means only one thing: Democrats need illegal immigrants to win elections. They use them as two kinds of “mule,” first to request absentee ballots by mail, and then to hand them over, signed, to Party operatives. Those operatives then fill them in (but not, apparently, down-ticket! That’s how the Democrats lost House seats in 2020.) Then other “mules” carry them to drop boxes – which might be under camera surveillance but are never human-guarded. Unite our country by bringing it to new and record levels of success. That success would be economic – and economic prosperity is neither necessary nor sufficient for unity of the citizenry. It can help – but covetousness erases any unity that prosperity might bring. That is why we need the Ten Commandments – more than ever. The GOP platform has a dissenting voice Jenna Ellis, at American Family Radio, sounded a dissenting note. https://x.com/realJennaEllis/status/1810401786324226224 Her problem is that, for the first time in 40 years, the GOP platform says nothing about abortion, and takes a softer tone on the spectacle of Same Sex Roommates Sharing Bed who call themselves “married.” That’s because Donald Trump doesn’t care to emphasize an issue that still divides the country down the middle. Erick-Woods Erickson, normally no friend of Trump, made four points this morning. Here they are, with some additional insights: 1. Donald Trump will still lose fewer voters by soft-pedaling abortion and adult alternative lifestyles than by emphasizing them. Note carefully: adult. He takes a different attitude when certain activists come after the nation’s children. 2. His signal achievement, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, remains. 3. By now the pro-life movement has split between those willing to take the battle to State legislatures, and those still wanting a federal ban. Trump settled the matter – though he shouldn’t “punt” on the Comstock Act. 4. Platforms are for window dressing anyway, as all Party history has shown. If not in the platform, then where? In any event, abortion is a symptom of the culture, and democratic elections do not change culture; they reflect it. So we need men like John Harvard, Elihu Yale, Jonathan Edwards, and the other Great Awakeners. This change must percolate through many institutions that the “Culture of Death” has compromised. These manifestly include the nation’s primary and secondary schools, and schools of law – and medicine. The Big Cheese Teaching Doctors have been lying to their patients, and the American public, for decades. They are also the gatekeepers, who sit on Specialty Boards and refuse or revoke certification for doctors who disagree. All this deception exists for profit, not patient welfare. That mind-set produced Kermit Gosnell, M.D. – whom those same gatekeepers abandoned. The concurrences in Dobbs show that the Supreme Court’s Moderates are so close to – yet so far from – finding an inherent right to life. This reflects a corruption of the country’s law schools. (And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson should be first to find against abortion, which has always been an instrument of genocide.) Donald Trump will leave people free to advocate for the change that must come, to redeem America’s soul. The GOP platform reflects this. If Joe Biden wins again – no matter who actually becomes President – the by-word will be freedom, not of religion, but from it. So if you do not want Margaret Atwood as Secretary of Information in a Biden – or Harris – or Whitmer – or Newsom administration, vote Republican. Simple as. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/09/news/gop-platform-debate-begins/ The platform: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/plugins/pdfjs-viewer-shortcode/pdfjs/web/viewer.php?file=https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-gop-platform-maga.pdf&attachment_id=1174928&dButton=true&pButton=true&oButton=false&sButton=true#zoom=auto&pagemode=none&_wpnonce=2bb8b53b42 Elon Musk on election integrity: https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1810407726784405844/ https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1810454245109571615 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1810581873703194727 Speaker Johnson on Biden’s veto threat against the SAVE Act: https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1810394458334310744 Jenna Ellis expresses her disappointment: https://x.com/realJennaEllis/status/1810401786324226224 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Medical gatekeepers sued for gatekeeping By Terry A. Hurlbut A quiet battle for the soul of American medicine has been taking place as if in a darkened operating theater. The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has stood against America’s medical gatekeepers for more than eight decades. These gatekeepers are not State Boards of Medical Examiners. They are not even those bodies that make the licensing exams all doctors take to get medical licenses. The gatekeepers in view here are Specialty Boards, who certify doctors as competent in any given medical discipline. AAPS caught the three biggest Specialty Boards enforcing the government’s dictates on coronavirus and its vaccines. These Boards decertified some doctors and threatened others with similar sanction if they dared oppose the party line. So AAPS sued – and now a federal appellate court has certified that they indeed have standing. The medical monopoly is now under challenge. Who are the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons? The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) began in 1943. Their mission statement holds: AAPS has been dedicated to the highest ethical standards of the Oath of Hippocrates and to preserving the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice of private medicine. In short, AAPS is the conservative – and freedom-loving – alternative to the American Medical Association (AMA). Their motto is omnia pro aegroto – all for the patient. They do not maintain a history section. But, given the legal controversies they have started, one can safely assume that its charter members took alarm, during World War II, at the government starting to micro-manage medicine. To them, all medicine should be a private affair. The clearest statement of their position and worldview is their Medical Practice Code and By-laws page. According to it, AAPS stands resolutely against “cookie cutter” or “one size fits all” medicine. They similarly stand against either socialized medicine (government control) or corporate medicine. Most of all they stand for complete freedom of patient and doctor to negotiate a course of treatment according to their respective understanding of whatever condition the patient is in. The only weakness in the AAPS Code of Medical Practice is the allowance it gives regarding the “control” of “contagious” or “communicable” disease. Even so, AAPS agrees to measures protecting the interests of those “who take reasonable precautions of self-protection against: • “Manifest danger from communicable disease, or • “Intolerable social maladjustment.” Jane M. Orient, M.D., has been the chief “media contact” for AAPS for several decades. The medical gatekeepers and the COVID rules On July 12, 2022, AAPS’ Educational Foundation filed suit against three Specialty Boards and against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Specifically they sued the American Boards of Internal Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Family Medicine, as well as Secretary Mayorkas. In their complaint, they alleged: 1. Abridgment of freedom of speech (all defendants), 2. Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (Secretary Mayorkas), 3. Tortious Interference with Business Relations (the Specialty Boards), 4. Perpetuation of a monopoly, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. AAPS’ allegation against Secretary Mayorkas concerns the Disinformation Governance Board (DGB), an attempt at a Ministry of Truth. (This Board came under “review” before DHS finally shut it down – for now. Nina Jankowicz, its head, is one of five hundred Americans whom Vladimir Putin has forbidden to enter Russia. Documents about the DGB are still a State secret. AAPS alleged that the DGB, by its very existence, violated the: • Administrative Procedure Act, and the: • Federal Advisory Commission Act. Not only that, but Congress never authorized such a Board in any legislation. Once again: the President does not create agencies. Only Congress does. Why are Specialty Boards so powerful? The AAPS’ allegations against the Specialty Boards have everything to do with their function, their authority – and their recent abuse of that authority. Everyone who practices medicine, must have certification by the Board of his or her chosen specialty. No hospital will ever grant admitting privileges to other than a “Board certified” doctor, nor hire him, nor permit him to perform the duties of an emergency-room director or practitioner, laboratory director, or other such ancillary practitioner. This is not a matter of direct law, but it is a matter of mutual agreement with the hospitals. Furthermore, every physician must be a member in good standing of a College of physicians in that specialty. Every Board has an associated College – hence, American Colleges of Physicians, Obstetricians and Gynecologists, etc. Another party to this agreement is the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Organizations. “Board certification” of every member of “Medical Staff” is a JCAHO requirement. So when a Board tells a physician that it will decertify him, or refuse certification, if he publicly questions the opinions of that Board or its associated College, doctors listen. They listen even harder if the Board carries out such a threat. Which all three Boards have done. From the complaint: 2. ABIM, ABOG and ABFM (the “Board Defendants”) have certification monopolies in their respective specialties, which are based primarily on written multiple-choice medical examinations. Though ostensibly nonprofit and non-partisan, they are outspokenly allied with the Biden Administration on fundamental issues of abortion, surgical and pharmacological transgender interventions, lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates. For example, on June 24, 2022, Defendant ABIM issued a statement that the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization “will cause health care to deteriorate in the US for many years to come.”1 ABIM joined a statement by the AMA that “condemns” this Supreme Court decision as “egregious”,2 similar to the position against the Court decision taken on that same day by the Biden Administration. ABIM also displayed its agreement with the subsequent Biden Administration in ABIM’s criticism of President Trump’s proposed rules in 2020 to protect the right of conscience of physicians to decline to provide “transgender” interventions.3 3. The Board Defendants have announced their campaign to take action against certifications earned by physicians who make public statements with which the Board Defendants disagree. Defendants ABIM and ABFM have already sent letters to physicians threatening them with revocation of their earned board certifications based on the exercise by those physicians of their First Amendment rights on matters of public policy. Defendant ABOG has publicly warned physicians against making statements against abortion and contraception, lest they have their earned board certifications revoked by ABOG if it disagrees with such statements. 4. This partisan retaliation by the Board Defendants has been based in part on statements by physicians warning pregnant woman against receiving the Covid vaccine, even though the World Health Organization issued a similar warning in 2021. Retaliation has occurred by the Board Defendants against physicians who were praised by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in his bestselling book, The Real Anthony Fauci. In some cases, the retaliation is based expressly on criticism by physicians of Dr. Fauci, who as a government official may be freely criticized. Andrew L. Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly and founder of Conservapedia, pleaded the case for AAPS. Initial disposition of the medical gatekeepers’ case The case came before Judge Jeffrey V. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Galveston Division). Jeff Brown had served on the Texas Supreme Court before President Donald J. Trump appointed him to the Federal bench in 2019. Back then, Roe v. Wade was still the “law of the land,” but Judge Brown had shared to Twitter (now X) links to the dissents in that case. So AAPS must have expected Brown to sympathize with any physicians who lost (or nearly lost) their Board certifications over their support for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. He wasn’t. He threw the entire case out in stages, first against the Specialty Boards (May 16, 2023), then against Secretary Mayorkas (May 23, 2023). Both times he said the AAPS lacked standing to sue the Specialty Boards or the Secretary. Regarding Mayorkas, Judge Brown said Mayorkas had “permanently” dissolved the DGB, so the case was moot. The judge found that the “Voluntary Cessation Exception” did not apply because no one credibly alleged that Mayorkas would reinstate the DGB. Appeal AAPS appealed the final judgment on July 19, 2023. In his brief to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Lawyer Schlafly argued that: 1. AAPS asserts a “right to hear” from certain physicians – physicians now afraid to speak by reason of Specialty Board action, 2. Antitrust injury is not limited to consumers and business competitors; such injuries harm the rest of us, 3. Secretary Mayorkas dispersed “Ministry of Truth” activities among several other agencies, and 4. The District Court never properly resolved AAPS’ claim under the Federal Advisory Commission Act. The case came to oral argument on April 4, 2024. Then on June 3, 2024, the Fifth Circuit handed down its ruling. They found that: 1. AAPS does have standing. They have established all three elements of standing: injury, traceability, and redressability. 2. The District Court never reached the question of whether the Specialty Board are State actors. So the Fifth Circuit will not be the first court to do so. 3. Galveston District Local Rule 6, which seems to preclude amendment of complaint, is invalid. So the Antitrust claims are also still alive. Finally: 4. The District Court dismissed the case against Secretary Mayorkas on mootness grounds, with prejudice. Typical cases like this are dismissed without prejudice, thus giving the plaintiffs time to amend their complaints. So the Fifth Circuit changes “with prejudice” to “without.” When the medical gatekeepers exposed themselves This case came to court because the three most powerful medical Specialty Boards in America saw fit to stake out a leftist party line on abortion, and on appropriate treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID). Medical gatekeeping of the kind all Specialty Boards practice has always been illegal under the Sherman Act. But until a few years ago, no one had any issue with the Boards. That’s because no one caught the Boards being explicitly political in their decisions to grant or refuse certification. As Lawyer Schlafly said in his briefs, these Boards usually grant certification on the basis of written exams. Oral interviews are possible but are not the rule in all specialties. (Most Boards simply would not have time to schedule oral interviews of all candidates. Instead, a physician completing postgraduate training “takes Boards” toward the end of his last year.) But now we see these Boards explicitly saying doctors ought to support abortion and contraception, as well as coronavirus vaccines. Worse, any doctor who dares question this, could lose certification – or the Board might not let them take the exam! In times past, the medical gatekeepers were politically neutral, and set only a scientifically defensible standard for passing the gate. By telling doctors they must support abortion, they directly violated the Hippocratic Oath – at least in its original textual form. And by telling them to withhold warnings against coronavirus vaccines, they violated even the present watered-down version of that Oath. Likelihood of success Ten days after the Fifth Circuit ruled on this case, the Supreme Court smacked down the Fifth Circuit in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine – the Mifepristone Case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for a unanimous Court, found that the Alliance named above, lacked standing. Nearly two weeks later, the Court smacked the Fifth Circuit down again – in Murthy v. Missouri. Standing – again – blew up that case. In fact, the Moderates specifically said they would not countenance a case having a basis in “right to hear.” This case will definitely work its way back to the Fifth Circuit, after further proceedings in Judge Brown’s court. It might even go directly to the Supreme Court immediately, even though the Court is now in recess. The medical gatekeepers face the first direct challenge to their gatekeeping authority since the very founding of these Boards. Secretary Mayorkas might be out of luck – because an election will surely intervene before the Court can “conference” the case. But while Secretary Mayorkas faces termination, the Specialty Boards, as currently constituted, do not. Nevertheless, Andrew L. Schlafly acted brilliantly in suing the Specialty Boards and the government. The plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri sued the government alone. Had they sued the social platforms, they could have alleged the same antitrust violations that AAPS alleges against those Boards. This brings yet more attention to the function of gatekeepers in maintaining the power of the establishment. Will the federal courts break their gatekeeping power? Only time will tell. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/08/news/medical-gatekeepers-sued-gatekeeping/ AAPS v. ABIM, ABOG, ABFM, and SecHomeSec Mayorkas: District Court docket page: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63585274/association-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons-educational-foundation-v/ Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1880005/gov.uscourts.txsd.1880005.1.0_1.pdf Fifth Circuit docket page: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68390753/aaps-v-abim/ Appellants’ Brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214840/gov.uscourts.ca5.214840.23.0.pdf Published opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214840/gov.uscourts.ca5.214840.79.1.pdf Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Democrats in full power struggle By Terry A. Hurlbut Democrats have fallen into a major power struggle, presumably between the Biden and Obama camps. “Resident” Joe Biden ruined himself in the debate last June, a fact none can now deny. George Stephanopoulos, on Friday, succeeded only in making Biden look weaker than ever – but not weak enough to quit. When that interview ended, most expected that to be the end of all discussion – even if it was the end of the Democrats’ chances of winning, up- or down-ticket. But now donors are revolting, and the House Democratic Conference, at least, worries about losing seats and friends. No one knows what is likely to happen when Congress returns from the weekend. Nervous reporters The White House, for its part, seems to be in full cover-up mode. Late Friday evening, an unconfirmed report went viral about Biden having a “medical emergency” aboard Air Force One. (Both Air Force One aircraft are fully equipped to handle any medical emergency, even one requiring surgery.) Monica Crowley, now at Newsmax, first reported it – though where she got her information, no one will admit. https://x.com/MonicaCrowley/status/1809377650500162009 As X users can see, someone left a “Community Note” saying someone saw Biden calmly deplaning at 7:50 p.m. EDT. Whoever left that note, did have a source. https://x.com/BNODesk/status/1809387956072759313 They also cited this bulletin from Forth News, saying plainly that Biden deplaned at the Delaware Air National Guard base, fielded some questions, then got into his limousine, part of the usual Secret Service motorcade. Apparently the excitement started because someone reported “not seeing” the President when the motorcade stopped at Biden’s home in Wilmington. According to OANN’s Chanel Rion, that’s not unusual. https://x.com/ChanelRion/status/1809398195673260071 But why didn’t anyone realize that earlier? Or did Biden suffer some kind of attack, and did the on-board medical or paramedical staff treat him for it? No one will say, one way or the other. Donors revolt! Twenty-four hours later, a much more serious report came in. The Democrats had planned a fundraiser for Biden in Wisconsin late in July. They had hoped to raise a million dollars – then half a million – then had to call the whole thing off. That, according to The New York Times, which also reported that the Democrats might cancel another fundraiser. Biden was to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas. That celebration is on, but an associated fundraiser might not be. Donors are expressing reluctance – or refusal – to support Biden’s reelection campaign. Later that evening, Mike LaChance at The Gateway Pundit reported that David Axelrod had expressed doubts about Biden after the George Stephanopoulos interview. “Sad,” Axelrod reportedly said. https://x.com/ACTBrigitte/status/1809400088826990841 The Hill gave further details. Axelrod called Biden “dangerously out of touch.” His point: Biden was polling six points ahead of Trump four years ago. Now he is six points behind. The problem is: David Axelrod is an Obama insider. So anything he says is suspect, because he might be under orders to push Biden to quit. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), House Minority Leader, was supposed to have a teleconference with “top Democrats” today. Biden’s campaign was to be Topic A. That meeting might still be happening at time of writing, but no reports have come from it so far. Democrats worried about DEI considerations Yesterday afternoon, Charles Gasparino at The New York Post threw a stink bomb into the debate. He said America might soon have its first DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) President. That would, of course, be Vice-President Kamala Harris. Gasparino seemed to suggest that Biden would resign his Presidency and allow Harris to become President in his stead. If that doesn’t happen this year, then it might happen next year – if Biden wins another term. This morning, Ben Kew of The Gateway Pundit reported loud virtual screams of “racism” thrown at Gasparino. This X thread was typical: https://x.com/nypost/status/1809676330008531329 https://x.com/whatsmeyou/status/1809729704238219703 Neither age, sex nor race is ever an issue when an adult can do the job he or she has. The problem is that neither Biden nor Harris can do their jobs, as Gasparino made clear. Besides, DEI is about preferring people of “underrepresented” demographics, qualified or not. But one user displayed an incredible amount of Constitutional ignorance: https://x.com/3YearLetterman/status/1809746684890476882 First, the Presidency is not a hereditary office! Second, Amendment XXV Section 1 is explicit: In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death or resignation, the Vice-President shall become President. Democrats facing decision time Also this morning, Axios reported that Biden and an increasing number of Democrats have clearly drawn their battle lines. Biden absolutely refuses to quit, either the campaign or his job. First Lady Jill wants to retain the trappings and revenge capabilities of power. Hunter just wants to stay out of prison. Both want Biden to stay in this race. Opposed to them, Congressional Democrats are definitely worried about Biden dragging down the ticket. They also say they’re “worried about the country, and about democracy.” More likely they’re worried about Trump, his team, and his followers tearing down their agenda. Axios told their readers not to be complacent in observing that only five House Democrats (so far) have called on Biden to step aside. These are Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Raúl Grijalva (Arizona), Seth Moulton (Massachusetts), Mike Quigley (Illinois), and Angie Craig (Minnesota). They’re the ones speaking publicly, for the record. Axios insists that many more are privately saying Biden can’t be their candidate. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) has already opened the door on the Senate side. One would expect everyone in the White House to be on the same page – but they’re not. This afternoon, Christina Laila of TGP cited a New York Times piece describing a groundswell of opinion among Democrats that Biden can’t win, therefore he shouldn’t run. Among them: a “senior White House official” who has watched Biden show his age for months. Analysis Clearly it’s Biden and his family on one side, and Obama and his minions on the other. As mentioned, Biden, his wife Jill, and his son Hunter each have their reasons for Biden to keep running. Obama has his own reasons to stop Biden from running. Obama never had confidence in Biden anyway, while he (Obama) was President and Biden Vice-President. Clearly Obama supported Biden as a means by which to have his “third term.” Equally clearly, Obama no longer trusts Biden even to carry out his orders. Presumably he slips those in for Susan Rice to carry out. To do that, she draws up papers, places them before Biden, hands him a pen, and says, “Sign.” And he signs – and needs no persuasion to sign anything. When he thinks clearly at all, his thoughts are on revenge against those he perceives as his enemies – all Republicans. But all that means nothing in the face of obvious cognitive decline. This was on display this morning at a black church in Philadelphia, where the pastor tried to excuse Biden’s “stammering.” Obama knows it. (Did he order someone to drop “fake news” about Biden having a “medical emergency”?) Biden’s schedule includes a major press conference this Thursday after a three-day NATO summit. The country will watch what Biden says at that press conference, and how many Democrats line up behind Obama to push him out. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/07/news/democrats-full-power-struggle/ Monica Crowley’s post: https://x.com/MonicaCrowley/status/1809377650500162009 Disputing posts: https://x.com/BNODesk/status/1809387956072759313 https://x.com/ChanelRion/status/1809398195673260071 David Axelrod interview: https://x.com/ACTBrigitte/status/1809400088826990841 Thread about a DEI President: https://x.com/nypost/status/1809676330008531329 https://x.com/whatsmeyou/status/1809729704238219703 Hunter Biden succession? https://x.com/3YearLetterman/status/1809746684890476882 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.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 2023 term – a moderates’ term By Terry A. Hurlbut Last Monday (July 1) the Supreme Court of the United States wrapped up its 2023 Term. This is the first Term in recent memory that wrapped in July instead of June. The Three Bloc composition of the Court remains – a point many Court watchers consistently miss. But the Moderates did not steer a middle ground between Originalism and Liberalism (as the Liberal Bloc defines it). The primary moderation they accomplished lay in refusing any grand, sweeping change most of them feared would be “messy.” Instead they opted for more fundamental changes in the relationship between and among the three branches of government. Those who value freedom can do more than they’ve done – now – to secure their liberties. The Supreme Court Blocs and their respective agendae Again, the roster of the Originalist, Moderate, and Liberal Blocs of the court reads as follows: • Originalists: Samuel A. Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas • Moderates: John Roberts (the Chief), Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh • Liberals: Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor The Originalists have set forth their agenda many times: to restore governance according to the Constitution as its words meant when those who wrote it, did the writing. (For Amendments, that means the original meaning of the text of each Amendment when its proponents wrote it.) If Clarence Thomas especially had his way, the Elastic Clause (Article I Section 8 Clause 18) would be far less “elastic.” The Moderates want to preserve the procedures and prerogatives of themselves and their judicial colleagues. One can best understand the most striking case whose opinion they wrote – the Chevron Deference case – in that light. Forty years ago, the late Justice John Paul Stevens gave away the store to quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial executive agencies. (In fact the entire Court did; the decision was unanimous.) Chief Justice Roberts, with his fellow Moderates and the three Originalists to help him, took it back. The Liberals still treat the Supreme Court as if it were a Court of equity, not of law. Their jurisprudence seeks results, and the results they seek are not friendly to liberty. Given the Court’s composition, the Moderates ruled the day in nearly every case. Decisions not so friendly to liberty Of all the decisions the Court made, these two are the least friendly to human liberty: • United States v. Rahimi, allowing the federal government to deprive a man of his liberty to keep and bear arms following the process of State law. The problem, as Clarence Thomas (alone among his colleagues) saw it, is that the State process was inexact. It did not rise to the level of “beyond a reasonable doubt” that constitutes due process of criminal law. Indeed the law involved was not even criminal, but civil. (Not that Zackey Rahimi was any paragon of social virtue. He fired on a defenseless woman in public, and never denied it. Nevertheless, Thomas no doubt feels that the proper remedy is to render the defenseless capable of their own defense. Equally likely, he finds the thinking of his colleagues that the law can adequately defend the defenseless by order of a court, magical, not realistic.) • Murthy v. Missouri, the Great State Actor Censorship Case. The federal government established liaisons with all social media platforms – except one, who brazenly refused. The Court held that users of those platforms have no standing to challenge moderational decisions. Their recourse, then, is to decamp from those platforms and sign up with Gab, the refusenik platform. Or with X, a platform that was a willing participant – until Elon Musk bought the company. Decisions less friendly to life Two abortion-related cases found their way to the Supreme Court, one involving a State’s prerogative to forbid abortion. In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a unanimous Court found that doctors who don’t like to stand by and watch women take a combination (or a sequence) of drugs that could bring harm upon themselves, have to “grin and bear it.” No one asks any of these doctors to prescribe that kind of medicine. Therefore they lose nothing if some other doctor does – or if a woman takes the sequence without a prescription. (Tellingly, at least one pro-abortion politician warned that the Court, in finding those doctors lacked standing, did not definitively rule against the distribution of the drug involved – mifepristone, once known as Roussel-UCLAF Lot 486.) In Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, the Court dismissed a writ of review as improperly granted. That decision pleased no one, least of all Ketanji Brown Jackson. She wanted a ruling that no State shall forbid abortion at any time – and didn’t get it. What happens next is that the case moves through the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Moderates wanted every procedural element fully satisfied before they proceeded. They found their intervention “messy,” therefore not to their liking. The Supreme Court does strike some blows for liberty But no one can doubt that this Supreme Court struck several blows against some immoderate actions of lower courts and federal and State bureaucrats. In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the Court held that New York’s Banking and Insurance Commissioner could not on her own tell banks and insurers to stop doing business with gun owners or sellers. Believe it or not, even the Liberals could not stomach such behavior. Justice Sonia Sotomayor donned her adult clothes and wrote a no-mistake opinion for a unanimous Court. The only remaining question was whether the insurance products the NRA was offering, were legal or illegal. In Garland v. Cargill, the Court held that “bump stocks” (spring-loaded stocks that allow rapid fire even from a semi-automatic gun) did not qualify as “machine guns,” and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives couldn’t make them so qualify on their say-so alone. This decision was as much an anti-Chevron ruling as a pro-Second Amendment ruling. Two weeks later, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court put paid to “Chevron deference.” Actually, the Court could have decided the original case (Chevron v. NRDC) more narrowly than it did, forty years ago. At issue then was a rule that a “stationary source” of pollution covered an entire compound, not merely one smokestack. A common-sense ruling – but the Supreme Court took all discretion away from its own branch of government! Mercifully, the Roberts court took that discretion back. Cases involving Donald Trump and his supporters But the cases involving Donald Trump and his supporters created the greatest sensations, and provoked the most overwrought commentaries. This applies equally to Supreme Court dissents as to commentaries by legacy media personalities. Fischer v. United States created the greatest confusion for Court watchers. Federal authorities have charged several “January 6 participants” with obstructing an official proceeding. But they charged them under a Sarbanes-Oxley provision having more to do with destruction of financial records than anything else. The Supreme Court held, 6-3, that these were not proper charges. Now for the confusing part: Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred! Not that their votes would have made any difference – for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh sided with the Originalists. But Trump v. United States created a stir that is still going on. The Court held, 6-3, that a President does enjoy immunity against criminal prosecution for certain acts in office. This Presidential immunity is absolute for his Constitutional duty and provisional regarding his acts under any statute. Justice Sotomayor dived off the deep end, suggesting that a President could order a political assassination. Former Special Forces personnel have definitely said: NO! The Court did not say that! Nor would any of them obey such an order, holding it to be unlawful. Moving forward The Supreme Court has left the country freer, on balance, than it was at the beginning of this Term. Their overruling of “Chevron deference” is far more important than many people realize. The effects of that ruling will “ripple through” the rulemaking processes of every regulatory agency. And the most dangerous agency whose wings the Court clipped, is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Garland v. Cargill was a specific blow against that agency. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo set a broader principle that applies to all such agencies. Concerning censorship: if the users lack standing, the platforms themselves still have it. Andrew Torba, founder of Gab, and Elon Musk, who bought Twitter and renamed it X, proved one thing others miss. Namely that the federal government is a paper tiger. They couldn’t force platforms to impose censorship unless the platforms willingly, even gladly, took their orders. Andrew Torba refused, built his own infrastructure, and today laughs at them. Elon Musk bought an existing company, fired almost all collaborators, and slowly introduced freedom of speech to his customers. Concerning abortion: time, and the very practices of abortion advocates themselves, will give victory to the pro-life side. As one side destroys its own children, the other will “be fruitful and multiply.” Guess which side will outvote the other in a generation or two. Unless, that is, the Last War, and the Second Coming of Christ, intervene. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/06/foundation/constitution/supreme-court-2023-term-moderates/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

The press betrays its mission By Terry A. Hurlbut In all the shock and outrage about how the June 27 debate revealed the full extent of “Resident” Biden’s cognitive decline, one class of parties has thus far escaped the punishment they deserve. That class is the press, the freedom of which finds a direct guarantee in the First Amendment. This represents an important social contract, especially in a republic with democratic elections. Under that contract the press must protect the people by speaking truth, not only to power but also about power. But the American press has done neither, about an issue of vital national importance. That issue is whether the President of the United States can do his job. Mounting evidence indicates that the legacy media, at least, have known the President can’t do his job. And they’ve been hiding this fact. The facts on the ground Biden’s appallingly weak performance in his June 27 debate has started all the hand-wringing, blame-gaming, and speculating. He shuffled onto the stage, slack-jawed, mouth agape. Whenever he tried to speak, his raspy voice trailed off and barely got started again. Even so, his opponent, and viewers across the country, found him hard to understand. At program’s end, the First Lady and a male employee helped him down the three shallow steps of the stage. Alternative media organs have recorded more incidents suggesting Biden’s lack of physical and mental fitness than even they can count. He’s fallen off his bicycle (after stopping), tripped over a wire stretching across a stage, stumbled while mounting the boarding ramp of his aircraft, and lapsed into word salad mid-speech. The media organs reporting this have taken to calling him “Sleepy Joe” or “Dementia Joe.” And yesterday, at the White House Independence Day celebration, he did it again. In the middle of the speech he wriggled off into a confused and confusing ramble. He spoke of seven thousand people waiting in line to see him, a propos of nothing. After he seemed to get back on track – paying tribute to veterans’ military service – he teed off again. His remarks went from opening a gate, to a bald assertion that highway traffic congestion was a thing of the past. (Which it is not.) One last thing. I used to think when I was a senator, there were always congestion on the highways. There’s no congestion anymore. None. We go on the highway, there’s no congestion. And so the way they get me to stop talking, they’ll say, We just shut down all the roads, Mr. President. You’re going to lose all the votes if you don’t get in. But anyway, I’ll be back out. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. I love you. Thank you. I’m… https://rumble.com/v55optf-joe-biden-glitches-out-stops-making-sense-during-4th-of-july-speech-wth-joe.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 What does the press have to say about this? What they started saying last weekend, was that Biden was going to drop out of the race. They also talked about their shock and surprise at the extent of Biden’s cognitive difficulties. Vice-President Kamala Harris tried to put a brave – or brazen – face on Biden’s performance. CNN’s Anderson Cooper almost shouted back at her to stop lying. MSNBC’s Joy Reid spoke openly, in a panel discussion, of the “panic” in Democratic Party circles. The Economist put a walker with the Presidential seal on its cover, saying this was “no way to run a country.” Inside, The Economist accused the White House of covering up for the impaired President. (Any cover-up at the White House is clearly unraveling. Anonymous employees compare the situation with Biden to the movie Weekend at Bernie’s. In that film, two friends try to pretend that their dead friend is still alive.) Indeed Biden has so much staff surrounding him that he has “lost all independence.” https://x.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/1809226599646028236 New York magazine’s Intelligencer section reveals the “conspiracy of silence to protect Joe Biden.” But immediately after the debate, reporters guessed he was “forty percent dead.” That’s not what they were saying before But none of these people were saying that of Biden before. The New York Times, for example, said it was just Biden’s style to appear to show his age. Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit had Joe Rogan’s post embedding a photograph of an incredible headline to that effect. https://x.com/joerogan/status/1808928042300985684 Beethoven? Wagner? Martin Scorsese? Please. Hoft also used a term for newspapers that your editor thought he was the only one to use: fishwrap. Yesterday, Bob Unruh at World Net Daily asked why legacy media never reported on Biden’s condition before the debate. Then he answered his own question: the right-wing media was doing a good job reporting it without them. He also quoted Jonathan Turley as confirming that the legacy media avoided the story because the alternative media were all over it. Not that the legacy media appreciated the alternative media’s efforts. Remember “cheap fakes”? That expression came from White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. It referred to videos demonstrating Biden’s cognitive decline. But, to the disappointment of the White House and the legacy press, those videos were raw footage. No one spliced bad moments together. After that debate, no one dared suggest that anymore. But one can readily see the problem. The legacy press resented the coverage by the alternative media. And instead of saying, “We’ve been scooped; we have to do better than this,” they were asking how to shut their competition up. A worse problem: the press has an agenda Jonathan Turley revealed a worse problem: the legacy press doesn’t even pretend to be objective any longer. For instance, consider this statement by Prof. Ted Glasser at Stanford University, in an interview with the university’s newspaper. [Journalism must] free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice. “Social justice” is the latest iteration of “political correctness.” This goes to show that the legacy press has embraced Marxism. “Resident” Biden is today the highest-ranking government officer in the United States for a Marxist agenda. Therefore he deserves the highest protection the press can give: its absolute silence on matters touching his competence. So now America has two presses – advocates for Marxism and advocates for freedom. The legacy press chose to become advocates for Marxism – if they haven’t always been since Marx became popular. (Consider Walter Duranty covering up the famine in Ukraine during the Thirties to protect Stalin.) The problem, for consumers of the news, isn’t that these legacy organs have an agenda. Rather, the problem is what that agenda is. Most agendas fail before the bright light of Truth – so serving the agenda requires lying. That is what Prof. Glasser at Stanford actually told his students to do, without saying the actual word. So what we get from these organs are name-calling, insults, phony testimonials, and half-truths – the very elements of propaganda. That’s why Darrell Castle, attorney, podcaster, and former Presidential candidate, said: The real question that needs to be addressed is not who will replace him. Because at this point it’s impossible to have any confidence in any Democrat politician. The real question that the news media should be asking but isn’t asking, is how long have you known and why didn’t you tell us? That question is being avoided instead of asked. So it’s obvious that the captive media is in league with the devil. It is serving as his assistant instead of reporting his actions. What to do about it? Again, America has two presses – possibly more – and they don’t agree even on basic facts. In examining the problem critically (i.e., as judges), the people must test each press’ version against known facts. Fortunately (in a narrow sense), the facts are no longer in dispute. “Resident” Biden made a fool of himself on national streaming television, and everyone knows that. Everyone also knows that the legacy media have known of Biden’s incompetency from the start and refused to cover it. In contrast, the alternative media insisted all along that Biden was neither physically nor mentally fit for the office. In fact, ever louder voices are calling, not for a temporary removal under Amendment XXV Section 4, but for impeachment. The problem for news consumers is far simpler. Don’t trust the legacy media anymore. They, who relied on freedom of the press, broke the social contract. (To say nothing of their calling explicitly for the abridgment of freedom of speech.) A new press now exists, and consumers should get their news from them from now on. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/05/news/press-betrays-mission/ Independence Day word salad: https://rumble.com/v55optf-joe-biden-glitches-out-stops-making-sense-during-4th-of-july-speech-wth-joe.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Lost all independence: https://x.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/1809226599646028236 New York Times article about Biden’s “style”: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/08/books/review/joe-biden-age-style.html Joe Rogan “feels so much better now.” https://x.com/joerogan/status/1808928042300985684 Jim Hoft’s article referring to “fishwrap”: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/ny-times-gaslighting-exposed-joe-rogan-destroys-fish/ Ted Glasser interview: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/20/should-journalists-rethink-objectivity-stanford-professors-weigh-in/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Independence Day – and a new war By Terry A. Hurlbut 248 years ago today, the Second Continental Congress published the most radical document the world had then seen. This was, of course, the Declaration of Independence – which is why we celebrate Independence Day on that particular anniversary. 198 years ago today, the author of that document, and one of his most staunch allies in that old Congress, died within hours – perhaps minutes – of one another. These men were, respectively, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Ironically, those two became bitter enemies at a crucial juncture in their careers, and the history of the country. But perhaps they never lost their high mutual respect. Sadly, too many have lost respect today – for those two men, for the country they helped found, and for the principles for which it once stood. Now America might have to fight another war for independence – hot or cold, will be the people’s choice. Independence Day began in the middle of war The Signers of the Declaration knew that they would have to pay a price, in blood and treasure, to make their declaration real. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Not until 1783 could America observe Independence Day without war on its own soil. Over the next centuries, America would have to observe Independence Day in the middle of war on its soil over two intervals: the War of 1812 and the War Between the States. (The other wars almost don’t count, for America fought those abroad. But World War II must have carried more urgency than most, given its beginning with a sneak attack on soil over which America did have a territorial claim.) In 1996, a Hollywood filmmaker offered one other vision of Independence Day observed during war on American soil. This war had a salient difference (beyond being a war against an extraterrestrial nomadic fleet). This time, America would fight and win the final battle on Independence Day itself. (Viewers also saw a President of the United States leading the counterattack. That would have been the first time a President did this since President Washington led troops against the Whiskey Rebellion.) Today America faces its first actual invasion since the War of 1812 (not counting Pearl Harbor, which was a raid). But this invasion does not come with mass armies. It is ideological, with the goal of subsuming the United States into a single government for all the world. And it would not be a government under which freedom lovers would care to live. Nature of this ideology The ostensible premises of this ideology are as many and varied as the proponents on any given day. (That is to day, those at whom any controlled-media “reporter” cares to wave a microphone.) Some blame the idea of independent polities for every war that has ever broken out. Abolish the independence of nation-states, and you will abolish war. So said the late Walter Cronkite, who spoke of the “bitter pill” he would have Americans swallow of surrendering independence. Others specifically criticize the moral values, and some of the moral practices, of Americans. These values and practices have the goal of ensuring the continued propagation of humanity. Some opponents of these practices say they want the “moralists” to leave them alone. That would have been valid – had those same opponents left the rest of us alone. But at least some have avowed the real purpose: they think this Earth has too many people on it. Elon Musk is running his own space program to expand the reach of human settlement beyond the Earth. He wants more room, and to make sure even a planetary-scale disaster could never wipe out humanity. Jeff Bezos says he wants to move dirty, smelly, carbon-emitting industry into high Earth orbit. He might also move significant portions of the population off Earth, to turn Earth into a nature park. But Larry (The) Fink of BlackRock, one of the Big Three Institutional Investors, told the truth. He wants Earth for himself and his chosen few relatives and associates. Should America blame herself? Not if one distinguishes the real America – people who just want others to leave them alone – from the legions of private bankers and armorers who pulled the levers of political power long before anyone heard of trading in such instruments as common or preferred stock, bonds, debentures, and so on. Alexander Hamilton famously tried to raise a Provisional Army during the 1798 crisis, when relations with Revolutionary France turned nasty. A financier by trade, he would have invented debt-based currency even earlier than the conspirators at Jekyll Island eventually did. And he would have marched his Provisional Army on the new Federal City, had not President Adams made peace. Peace arguably cost John Adams the Presidency in 1800. We say arguably because this salient fact cannot escape notice: Thomas Jefferson did not go to war with France. Instead he bided his time, while the French Directoire fell to Napoleon’s coup. Eventually Jefferson bought the vast tract known as Louisiana. It cost America dearly in treasure – but not a drop of blood. Eighteen years later, John Quincy Adams articulated America’s position: respectful of the independence of others. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that . . . European world, will be contests of inveterate power and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even banners of foreign independence, would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. America’s glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been Her Declaration: this has been . . . her practice. If that sounds familiar to those who lived in the Sixties, it should. Executive Producer Gene Roddenberry incorporated that maxim into his first iteration of the franchise for which the world remembers him: No officer or enlisted member of the Starfleet Armed Forces of the United Federation of Planets, shall interfere with the social, cultural, or technological development of any world that has not achieved at least a passing understanding of the concepts “space,” “other worlds,” or “advanced civilization,” or, on any world that does understand such concepts, violate local law or custom, or in any other manner interfere with social development on that world. General Order Number One, a/k/a the Prime Directive, paraphrase Violation of this stricture But of course that kind of stricture interferes with the profits of war. Or else it stops someone’s misguided ideas of social reform. In any event, the banker-armorer alliance surely knew they could never expect the American people to support overseas adventures. That is, unless they could convince the people that the rest of the world no longer respected American independence. And so began a series of false-flag pseudo-operations – misrepresenting as enemy action, things they did themselves (if they weren’t accidents). The list of known or suspected false-flag pseudo-operations that have gotten Americans into wars abroad goes back to 1898. USS Maine ACR-1 blew up in Havana Harbor – the incident that provoked the Spanish-American War. Joseph Pulitzer, the “Prize-maker” and one of the two fathers of “yellow journalism” (the other was William Randolph Hearst, the inspiration for Orson Welles’ most famous character, Charles Foster “Citizen” Kane), published, in his New York World, a drawing of the Maine riding at anchor in Havana Harbor – with a tethered mine beneath her. In fact, a fire in a paint locker spread to the Maine’s powder magazines and ignited them. Everyone in official Washington knew it was an accident. But Hearst and Pulitzer – perhaps the first two Useful Idiots of the Media – beat the war drums. Hearst’s angle was the Cuban War for Independence – which speaks directly to John Quincy Adams’ non-interference address! In any event, Congress declared war – and so ended the John Quincy Adams Doctrine. World War One But the Bankster-Armorer Alliance wouldn’t stop there. Of course, in 1910, the Banksters convened at Jekyll Island and drafted plans for the Federal Reserve System. Four years later came their next opportunity: the assassination of Archduke Franz Fernand. Within months all of Europe was at war – but America was still out of it. So how to drag her in? First, by loading illicit cargoes of munitions on passenger ocean liners. Then came the sinking of RMS Lusitania in 1915. 128 of her ill-fated passengers were Americans – so surely that would raise enough outcry! It didn’t – so the Bankster-Armorer Alliance had to try something else. (Repeated dives to the wreck of Lusitania have so far not recovered any munitions. But in 1982 Her Majesty’s Government warned salvage divers to watch out for explosives in the wreck. They found none. But other ships probably did carry munitions.) Next came the Zimmermann Note. Arthur Zimmermann, Germany’s equivalent to our Secretary of State, proposed a German-Mexican military alliance in the event of America joining the Alliance of Britain, France and Russia. Germany even proposed helping Mexico reclaim Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. British intelligence intercepted the Note (and apparently Zimmermann owned up to sending it). President Woodrow Wilson, letting his anger get the better of him, asked for – and got – a declaration of war. The rest is history. Perhaps no one bothered to read the intercept – that Germany would ally with Mexico if America got involved first. World War Two, the Cold War, Korea, and Vietnam American entry into World War Two could have been the result of statesmen’s blunders of relations with the Empire of Japan. And what delayed the Japanese Ambassador and Japanese Special Envoy in delivering their “ultimatum” to the American Secretary of State? No one knows (or will admit) – but Secretary of State Cordell Hull didn’t even receive those two until after Pearl Harbor had been under attack for an hour. He made his seething “no government on this planet” speech and curtly dismissed them. After that, the United States declared war on Japan. Adolf Hitler then declared war on the United States – and the United States declared war on Germany retroactively. However that War began for America, it ended with Americans thoroughly determined to be the world’s policemen. One can imagine John Quincy Adams shouting, “NO! NO! NO!” to an unheeding public. The official position of something called Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – that they would not respect the independence of nations who did not adopt Communism – didn’t help. (It would help even less when Nikita S. Khrushchev took over after Stalin died.) The new United Nations saw to the establishment of the State of Israel – and then to intervention in Korea. About ten years after that intervention began, French Indo-China revolted against their French overlords. But the victors promptly split into two countries called Vietnam – North (Communist) and South (Anti-communist). American involvement began with “advisers,” and escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Defeat – and the beginnings of an Independence Day spiritual renewal That was the first war Americans lost – but not really Americans, but the Bankster-Armorer Alliance. The spectacle of U.S. forces tucking tail between their legs – and pulling out with frightened Vietnamese clinging to their helicopter skids (with some of them falling off) – thoroughly disenchanted the American public with any more thought of overseas adventure for several years. Jimmy Carter won the election, and America’s only reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was to sit out the Moscow Olympics. Under the circumstances, that was the only philosophically proper response. That was also the year that some Americans began to question a few pre-war narratives of the past. But Carter’s mismanagement of the American economy – plus the humiliation of the first occupied U.S. Embassy – cost him reelection. Ronald Reagan, taking command, was determined to “win” the Cold War between America and Soviet Russia. But not entirely by force of arms, except for the Grenada Incident. Rather, he waged an economic war, that America won because the Soviet command economy could never sustain an arms race. The Soviet Union would collapse in 1991. But by then Reagan’s successor, the globalist “Bush Senior,” was in command. A succession of globalist Presidents – Clinton, Bush Junior, and Obama – continued to look for adventures abroad. The collapse of the Soviet Union should have removed any remaining excuses for that. But ill-natured people will always find an excuse. The real Independence Day President: Donald J. Trump Donald Trump is the exception, and everyone knows it. He ran on a platform promising an end to “endless wars.” From the day he took office to the day he hurried out with all the documentary evidence he could spirit out of the White House on a January morning, the United States of America did not enter into any new war. He made two grand gestures for genuine peace in the Middle East: • Ordering the American Ambassador to move from Tel Aviv to the Jerusalem consulate, thereby transforming it into an Embassy, and • The Abraham Accords. Trump was well on his way to winning a second term. Then the new Globalist Alliance raised the stakes chillingly. They engineered the release of a virus with a reportedly high case-fatality rate. Perhaps they took advantage of the stories coming out of Wuhan, China, after the virus’ release. Those stories almost included meat wagons rolling down the streets with bullhorns blaring “Bring out your dead!” in Chinese. But that could have been reflective of relative lack of sanitation and overall baseline ill-health among the Chinese. No matter. “If you don’t want to see the meat wagons rolling down YOUR street,” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci told Trump and the American public, “you’ll do as I say!” And what he said was to mask up and lock down. It gave the perfect excuse to tailor-make American elections for Democrats to win the only way they can: by fraud. How they did it And how did the Democrats do it? Democrats do not try to persuade. Aside from their constituencies, they cannot possibly shame enough voters to vote for a regime that will take everything they own, for the unearned, unpaid benefit of others. So they persuade – perhaps bribe – people to apply for absentee ballots through the mail. Then they hassle those people to turn them in – to them, signed but unvoted. Then they mark the ballots, and they seal them up and bring them to drop boxes. They also request absentee ballots in the names of the dead and the move-outs. Or so they did in 2020. But in 2021 Steve Bannon popularized the Precinct Strategy to persuade more rank-and-file to join local Party committees, and to sign up to become accredited Party polling-place challengers, and Officers of Election. It worked in Virginia, which famously elected a Republican Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General. That Governor has ordered General Registrars in all units (counties and independent cities) to sanitize their voter rolls. (The sudden retirement of half the OOE workforce in 2023 due to increasing age has opened up a fresh opportunity to repopulate those ranks with honest, diligent, and alert OOEs.) This Independence Day, prepare to reclaim independence from globalists So on this Independence Day, remember John Quincy Adams, who popularized the equivalent of a Prime Directive over a century before Gene Roddenberry would be more than a glimmer in someone else’s imagination. He, even more than George Washington, warned against overseas military adventure – exactly 203 years ago today. And remember Alexander Hamilton, who almost wrecked everything twenty-three years earlier. Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey should have written Seven Months in Seventeen Ninety-eight to cover that drama. Perhaps history should thank Aaron Burr for removing Hamilton from the planet, however ignoble his own motive might have been. (And Hamilton had no business accepting Burr’s challenge to a duel! He did it anyway, the more fool he.) A manifesto for rediscovered American independence needs to set policy goals. Here are a few: • End the Federal Reserve, and fractional reserve banking. • Forbid Members of Congress to trade stocks – the one thing Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) agree on! • End whatever advantage private armorers (“defense contractors”) seem to have over more peaceful manufacturers, in maintaining large factories in various Congressional districts. • Reinstate voting on paper – and counting them by hand at the precinct. And replace absentee voting with proxy voting. • Above all, withdraw from the United Nations, NATO, and other “treaty organizations.” The only overseas action any Americans should think of taking, is testifying against globalist leaders – in national courts of competent jurisdiction. No more International Courts of Justice, or whatever! Conclusion Americans want to be left alone – and to leave others alone. Almost three centuries ago a group of Frenchmen calling themselves the Physiocrats expressed the idea pithily: Laissez faire et laissez passer! Que le monde va de lui-même! Or in English: “Let do and let pass! Let the world go on by itself!” That maxim applies equally to statecraft as to macro-economics, and is just as wise. Only power-mad tyrants could oppose it with any semblance of moral consistency. This Independence Day, let Americans stand as Virginians like to pretend they stand: Thus always to tyrants! Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/04/foundation/constitution/independence-day-new-war/ Declaration of Independence: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Ten Commandments needed more than ever By Terry A. Hurlbut A new – and dangerous – phenomenon has introduced itself to American – that is, North American – politics. We see adherents of one political Party and its leader openly call for the assassination of the other leader. This wouldn’t have happened in American society immediately after the Great Awakening. James Carville got upset that his home State of Louisiana placed the Ten Commandments in every government-funded classroom. In fact we need those Ten Commandments displays everywhere, and monuments to them in every courthouse. If we do not make this happen, we risk degenerating into a savage, jungle-like society. Which some would like to see happen, believing that they would be the kings and queens of that jungle. The only law that would prevail, would be the Seven Deadly Sins. Latest provocation Two events appear (unless someone is running a psy-op) to have pushed Democrats and their adherents into abject mania: • President Joe Biden’s appallingly poor performance in the Presidential Debate held June 27, 2024, and • The ruling of the United States Supreme Court (Trump v. United States), defining Presidential immunity from prosecution of official acts. Justice Sonia Sotomayor probably started it. In her dissent she named a series of totally wrong actions that, she alleged, the decision would let a President take. The worst two of these – because they are provocative statements that have provoked some people to make actionable threats – are: 1. Sending SEAL Team Six to carry out a political assassination, and 2. Engineering a military coup to take over the government, become President for Life, do away with all other institutions, etc. Justice Sotomayor – and other detractors of Donald Trump, one of whom calls himself a conservative – should read the opinion. The Constitution sets forth Presidential duty and authority. When discharging such duty, the President enjoys absolute immunity from prosecution. But the minute he performs his duty improperly and in a self-serving manner, that immunity vanishes. Seal Team Six might indeed have to kill a modern imitator of Lucius Sergius Catiline. (That worthy tried to take over Rome by force in 65 B.C. – the Consulship of Cicero and Antony the Proud.) But Presidents don’t even have martial law powers – unless Congress, by calling forth the militia, for example, grants them. Threatening and inciting to kill the former President Nevertheless, in response, Members of Congress have threatened to push back against the Supreme Court. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) actually threatened mass impeachment. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), House Minority Leader, threatened unspecified legislative action. Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) threatened to introduce a Constitutional amendment to roll back the decision. https://x.com/RepJoeMorelle/status/1807888285886566548 https://x.com/RepJoeMorelle/status/1808600854716375221 One should probably expect that – even that all such threats have come from the New York Democratic House delegation. A State producing corrupt courts, would field corrupt House delegations. What one would not expect are TV stars actually calling on the incumbent President to use whatever powers they think the Supreme Court “granted” to Presidents, to order the assassination of President Trump before the election. Actress (or actor?) Lea DeLaria did just that two days ago, according to The Hollywood Reporter – a legacy media organ. She posted a video to Instagram articulating her threat. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C84-XGwSkit/ Herewith a partial transcript: Joe [Biden], you’re a reasonable man. You don’t want to do this. But here’s the reality: This is a f*cking war. This is a war now, and we are fighting for our f*cking country. And these a**holes are going to take it away. They’re going to take it away. Thank you, [Supreme Court Justice] Clarence “Uncle” Thomas. Joe, you now have the right to take that bitch Trump out. Take him out, Joe. If he was Hitler, and this was 1940, would you take him out? Well, he is Hitler. And this is 1940. Take him the f*ck out! Blow him up, or they’ll blow us up. Facts. And a comment (s)he added later: It’s all out war now. They will destroy us. They only want power… like all tyrants. F*CK THEM!!! And if any of you a**holes wanna death threat me like you have been doing for my entire life, bring it on b*tch. I’m Sicilian, I know how to play that game. Nor is she the only one, as The Daily Telegraph duly noted. But that’s not the worst. The worst is a similar such pronouncement from a BBC presenter. The New York Post has details. If I was Biden I’d hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America’s security. https://x.com/Qrtrhrsryder/status/1808588694292681201 Evidently David Aaronovitch deleted his post – or X Trust and Safety did it for him. He later claimed he did it as satire. Still, many users accused him of violating the BBC’s impartiality rules. (Ask James Carville what he thinks of journalistic impartiality!) Why we need the Ten Commandments People in prominent positions – even in media – say such things because no one told them that it was inherently evil. If the Ten Commandments had their once-prominent place in primary education, no one would dream of making statements like these, even as satire. You shall not [commit] murder. Exodus 20:13 You have heard that the ancients were told, “You shall not commit murder” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.” But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, “You good-for-nothing,” shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, “You moron,” shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last quadrant. Matthew 5:21-26 (The Roman quadrans, quadrantis was a coin worth two mites, or the wages of seven and one-half minutes.) Indeed, Wrath (or more properly, Rage) is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. But no one outside of Christian circles even hears of the Seven Deadly Sins, much less the Ten Commandments. Ronald Reagan said America was one generation away from losing its freedom. Actually any society is one generation away from losing all sense of moral order. Roger Baldwin banished God from the public square – with the misguided help of Rep. James G. Blaine (R-Maine), Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1875. The Supreme Court made a series of errors in furtherance of that unworthy goal. Happily the Court – in its 2021 Term – began to correct those errors. Now it’s time for more States to follow Louisiana’s lead. But correcting the moral slide in this country will require more. To paraphrase Actor D. David Morin, as Prof. Russell Carlisle, in Time Changer (2002): You cannot effectively teach the Teachings of Christ without the Christ of the Teachings. Those Teachings include the Ten Commandments – all of them, in addition to the Commandment against murder. A society that taught them again, would be far safer than today’s. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/03/news/ten-commandments-needed-more-than-ever/ Rep. Morelle’s threat to try to amend the Constitution: https://x.com/RepJoeMorelle/status/1807888285886566548 https://x.com/RepJoeMorelle/status/1808600854716375221 Video telling Joe Biden to “take out” the President (and not on a date): https://www.instagram.com/reel/C84-XGwSkit/ Screencap of David Aaronovitch’s post: https://x.com/Qrtrhrsryder/status/1808588694292681201 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Only a cynic can explain this By Terry A. Hurlbut “Resident” Joe Biden has decided to stay in the race, though even he knows he performed disastrously in The Debate. Or rather, his family – his venal and power-hungry family – has decided for him. Only a cynic can explain their conduct – for a cynic knows what most on the left want you to forget. Which is that every person on Earth acts in his or her self-interest. They might try to hide it, but a close-enough examination of their drive reveals the self-interested motive. Every other analysis of this appalling situation is pretense, and pretentious. The only way those making that decision can keep an ounce of respect from anyone, is to drop all pretense. How the Cynic school got its name Our English word cynic comes from the Cynic School of Greek philosophers, which Antisthenes, contemporary with Plato, founded. (His name, incidentally, translates as “a replacement for vigor.”) Antisthenes taught at a gymnasium (literally, place of physical training, or place of nudity) called the Kynosarges – a name meaning “dog flesh.” How the Dog Flesh Gym got its name, no one knows. But decades after Antisthenes came Diogenes of Sinope, who declared that anything natural and easy should be allowed. In other words, Diogenes did not care where he did what he did. His fellow Greeks called him ho kyōn (Ho KOO-own) – The Dog. Thus, Cynic came to mean “one who lives like a dog and doesn’t care who sees it or how they see it.” But more important than Diogenes’ in-your-face lifestyle was his declaration that no one is ever completely honest. His “search for the one true honest man” is proverbial. Diogenes laid it on the line: everyone acts in his own self-interest. Centuries later, Robert J. Ringer would articulate Cynicism as no one else did before or has done since. In Winning Through Intimidation (1977) he described “Screw U.”, the School of Experience. He also described “Three Unforgettable Professors,” each of whom exemplified three types of people he met in “the business world.” Three years later, in Looking Out for Number One, he expanded on that thesis. Those Three Types are in fact Three Types of people you meet in all of life. To quote: Type Number One understands, and lets you know up-front, that he acts in his own self-interest. Type Number Two also understands that he acts in his own self-interest, but tries to make you believe otherwise. Type Number Three either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand that he acts in his own self-interest. His blandishments, which happen to be sincere, will then put you off guard. In short: Type Number One tries to deceive no one; Type Number Two tries to deceive you, and Type Number Three deceives himself first and tries to deceive you second. Is everyone, then, a cynic at heart? No. Type Number Three is not a cynic; he is simply naive. Type Number Two is the worst kind of cynic, because he pretends to be your friend. Type Number One won’t pretend – so you know where you stand with him at all times. Ringer, in Winning, announced he had found, in Type Number One, Diogenes’ truly honest man: Not only is Type Number One not crooked, but he is the most honest (by my own standard: “straightforwardness”) of the three types of people you meet in the business world. Or in other areas of life. Type Number Two – there is the crook. He is the virtue signaler, and that’s part of his act. Type Number Three signals virtue also, but in one way he is more dangerous – he means what he says. (At least until Decision Time.) Self-interest manifests in two goals: money and power. Capitalism harnesses the money self-interest, by setting up a system of honest trade. Thereafter, “those who stand to gain from your earning and receiving income” won’t stop you, and might even support you. Those who do not so stand to gain, will oppose you, openly (Type Number One) or secretly (Type Number Two/Three). The power interest is the most dangerous. George Washington was right: Government is a fearsome servant and a dangerous master. Power comes with trappings and privilege, and that might be enough for some people. But power is also a means by which either to: 1. Steal large sums for oneself, or 2. Revenge oneself against the world, certain types of people in it, or even specific enemies, real or imagined. A cynic is a dog barking at society, warning against power seekers and thieves. Arf, arf. Or increasingly: Gr-r-r-r! Explaining the decision to keep Biden in the race Once again, everyone in this drama has a self-interest to serve. Yesterday, the Biden family convened at Camp David, the official publicly owned Presidential retreat, to talk about The Campaign. Everyone at that confab knew that Biden had hurt himself badly. The only question for the family was: could he recover from that? But that’s not the question any of them asked. Someone – probably a member of Camp David staff – has tattled on that conversation already. This source told The New York Times that Hunter Biden raised the loudest voice: “Daddy, please run!” First Lady Jill Biden echoed that refrain – and then told her husband that his poor performance was not his fault. She lays the blame on his advisers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI1-goBEVcQ A top donor to the campaign shares that last sentiment – blaming the advisers and preparing to fire them all. https://x.com/JohnMorganESQ/status/1807453402282004543 Other prominent Democrats do not share the family’s attitude. CBS News’ latest poll of the rank-and-file shows their fear. Democrat voters, citing Biden’s age, want a younger man to carry their standard. (Age is never a factor if a President can perform. The problem for Biden is that he can’t perform.) Among the leadership, dissension is growing in the top rank. Tucker Carlson reported early Monday morning that Barack Obama wants “an open convention.” https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1807682297862172999 Only if Biden releases his delegates will that happen. But another influencer, replying to the above, left two posts explaining something else: Obama is running the country. https://x.com/3Sandy7_/status/1807685260530102342 https://x.com/3Sandy7_/status/1807684488295850415 Numbers behind the discontent Laura Loomer, over the weekend, shared several posts showing the attitudes of various Democrats at different times. Here are some posts and reposts: https://x.com/ajc/status/1807151882785444184 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807188005611831549 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807257771953266773 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807400905014231430 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807660203220836468 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807581829303579057 William Stevenson, Jill’s ex, gave an interview to The New York Post over the weekend, according to Fox News. He told the Post that he doesn’t recognize his ex-wife anymore, that she’s a completely different person. The Jill Stevenson Biden of today is a driven woman – driven by ambition. It’s as if she “wants to be … President now,” Stevenson said. He also said Jill let Joe Biden steal her away from him, beginning in 1972. The Post covered that four years ago. Still, Stevenson supported Democratic candidates and causes – until 2020. Now he supports Trump all the way. For all the considerations of Biden’s failing health, the family announced yesterday morning that he was staying in the race. Yesterday afternoon the Democratic National Committee decided to stand by Biden. They now want to nominate Biden on July 21 – in the Credentials Committee. https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1807865101095166119 That could solve some ballot access problems – but not the basic health problem. Big-money donor Bill Ackman – famous for refusing to hire anyone from Harvard who signed onto a letter blaming Israel for the atrocities its people suffered on October 7, 2023 – observed that the Democratic Party is now destroying itself. https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1807867087173374072 Analysis Gr-r-r—there go, my heart’s abhorrence! Robert Browning, from Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister Ask any cynic: everyone acts in his own self-interest. Barack Obama’s interest is power, and so is Jill Biden’s interest. But Barack Obama knows that, if Joe Biden stays in the race, he (Obama) will lose his power. Jill Biden knows that, if Joe drops out of the race, she loses power – perhaps immediately. Dare she breathe the phrase lame duck? And Hunter knows that, once his father is out of office, he goes to prison. The Democrats know they’re stuck with Biden; it’s too late to put another name onto the ballot. It was all very well for New Jersey Democrats, in 2002, to replace Robert G. Torricelli after the ballot deadline with Frank Lautenberg after Torricelli got into a scandal he couldn’t spin away. But New Jersey was and still is Democrat country, and Democrats controlled the Secretaryship of State and Division of Elections. This year the Democrats have to deal with Republican State Departments of State and Divisions of Elections. Riff Raff Raffensperger might agree to that double switch, but not any other Republican Secretary of State. Or at least not every other Republican Secretary of State. So the Democrats are going to nominate Biden early, in the Credentials Committee. Barack Obama must be doing a slow burn. Biden should release his delegates and open the convention. But he won’t, because his wife, and his own bitterness, say not to. That combination of venom and ambition might kill him – if someone else doesn’t. (And we know who.) Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/02/news/cynic-only-explain/ Video: Jill blaming Joe’s advisers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI1-goBEVcQ John Morgan saying the Bidens ought to fire everybody: https://x.com/JohnMorganESQ/status/1807453402282004543 Tucker Carlson’s scoop: https://x.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1807682297862172999 Two replies: https://x.com/3Sandy7_/status/1807685260530102342 https://x.com/3Sandy7_/status/1807684488295850415 Biden, step aside! – Atlanta Journal-Constitution https://x.com/ajc/status/1807151882785444184 Laura Loomer’s posts: https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807188005611831549 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807257771953266773 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807400905014231430 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807660203220836468 https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1807581829303579057 Collin Rugg: DNC plans to summon the Credentials Committee: https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1807865101095166119 Bill Ackman: the Democrats are destroying themselves: https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1807867087173374072 Robert Browning, Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister: https://poetryconnection.net/poets/robert-browning/soliloquy-of-the-spanish-cloister/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.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 exists – SCOTUS By Terry A. Hurlbut Today the Supreme Court wrapped up the 2023 Term by deciding, definitively, the question of Presidential immunity. They held that that Presidential immunity does exist for certain things a President does while holding office. Those acts touching on a President’s core Constitutional and (as authorized) statutory powers, are absolutely immune from prosecution. Acts within the “outer perimeter” of a President’s authority are presumptively immune. As common sense dictates, not all acts are official, and Presidents do not enjoy immunity for their unofficial acts. This case already is causing howls of anguish, but none as strident as the two dissenting opinions. Happily, the Court has a majority of Justices who understand what the Constitution and law are and ought to be. How the Presidential immunity question arises The very reason the Court had to consider Presidential immunity is that Special Counsel Jack Smith saw fit to prosecute President Donald J. Trump for certain things he did toward the end of his term in office. (United States v. Trump, before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan presiding.) Smith obtained an indictment from a D.C. grand jury, alleging a “conspiracy” to “overturn” the Election of 2020. The Supreme Court took due cognizance of the indictment and its specifications, which were that Trump and/or his associates: 1. Tried to persuade certain States to change election results, based on allegations of election fraud Trump allegedly knew were false, 2. Organized the appointment of alternative slates of electors in the States involved, which slates the indictment called fraudulent, 3. Tried to have the Justice Department investigate those State Presidential elections for fraud, 4. Tried to have then-Vice-President Pence disallow the election certification and send seven lists of electoral votes back to their States, and finally 5. Raised a group of supporters to come to Washington on January 6, 2021, a significant number of whom then breached the Capitol. Trump moved to quash the indictment, asserting Presidential immunity. Judge Chutkan denied the motion, and a D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted 3-0 to affirm that denial. So Trump’s team asked the Supreme Court to review the question of Presidential immunity. The Court granted that petition, and effectively stayed all proceedings pending that review. Argument On April 25, the last Argument Day, the Court heard argument on the case. Trump’s lawyer probably could have argued the inherent power of any executive to enjoy immunity from prosecution for his acts. Instead he cited the Executive Vesting Clause (Article II Section 1 Clause 1) and multiple precedents. Key to understanding the opinion, Trump’s counsel conceded that some Presidential acts were private to him as a person. Such acts, he conceded, would not enjoy Presidential immunity. The opinion The opinion the Court released today conformed to every reasonable prediction of the Court’s ruling, after the argument session. As anyone would expect, the Originalists sided with Trump, and the Liberals with Smith. The Moderates also sided with Trump – with one exception Justice Amy Coney Barrett would have made. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion of the Court. Justices Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas – the Originalists – all joined it in full. So did Moderate Justice Brett Kavanaugh – and again, Justice Barrett joined the opinion in part. All opinions come with case-specific orders – and in this case the Court: • Vacated the D.C. Circuit panel’s affirmation of Judge Chutkan’s denial of the motion-to-dismiss, and • Remanded the case to that Court of Appeals for “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence that called the very appointment of Jack Smith into question. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a scathing – and off-the-rails – dissent in which Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan joined. In addition, Justice Jackson wrote a dissent of her own. Carefully delineating Presidential immunity Chief Justice Roberts never once treated the questions of Trump’s mens rea (state of mind) on his last Presidential days. Neither did he pass judgment on anyone’s Election of 2020 claims. That’s because the Supreme Court is not a trier of fact. That’s why Roberts also left careful and extensive instructions for the District Court to develop a more complete factual record. Everyone has agreed that Presidents enjoy immunity from civil suit for monetary or other damages. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 750. This case involves criminal prosecution, and is the first such case on historical record. A President does what he does under the authority of statute, Constitution, or both. Furthermore, Constitutional authority is considered conclusive and preclusive. Therefore, says Roberts, neither Congress nor the courts may examine a President’s conduct under Constitutional authority. (If Congress does want to examine a President’s conduct in this area, Congress has the means: impeachment.) When a President acts under statutory authority, then he shares that authority with Congress. Under those circumstances, a court might examine some of his actions, in addition to the Congressional impeachment power. But a President is entitled to presumptive immunity for such acts. The prosecution then has the burden of proof that the acts were of a kind Congress never authorized. Furthermore: Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. But a President’s private acts are subject to examination and prosecution. Thus when Bill Clinton asserted “temporary immunity” from a lawsuit by Paula Jones, the Supreme Court rejected that notion. About that indictment Roberts turned to the indictment and found every reason to vacate the blanked judgment of the D.C. Circuit. Then he went over the indictment, point by point, to decide which of those points could even stand. Point 3 falls immediately. Presidents have the authority to decide which crimes to investigate, and to decide on Justice Department leadership. He may fire an Attorney General, with the understanding that his replacement must pass Senate muster. Conclusion: a President enjoys absolute Presidential immunity from prosecution for the acts under Point 3 above. (Point 2 might be a private act, but so far not every prosecution over so-called “fake electors” has succeeded significantly.) Point 4 involves a Vice-Presidential duty under Article I, not II. This point falls in the “outer perimeter,” so Roberts instructed the District Court to inquire whether a prosecution under this point “would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Points 1 and 2 might be official or unofficial. Roberts concluded that the Court did not have enough facts before it to determine that. Developing a factual record to answer those questions became another instruction on remand. Point 5 covered Trump’s invitation to his Twitter (now X) followers to come to Washington, and his speech to the crowd. Here Roberts charged that the indictment selected certain X posts and speech excerpts out of context. So he instructed the District Court on remand to provide, and examine, that context. Authority of the Special Counsel’s office Justice Thomas, in concurrence, sees a worse problem. He questions the very existence of the Special Counsel’s office, because he finds no statutory authorization for it. In Thomas’ view, no specific law creates an Office of Special Counsel. Unless and until the Justice Department can show which statute creates the office, Jack Smith is a private citizen. As such he has no authority. Such statutes have existed in the past. Congress wrote the first such statute after the Teapot Dome scandal broke. But all such statutes have lapsed. Nevertheless, Attorney General Merrick Garland created a Special Counsel’s office under highly dubious authority. Worse, he appointed Jack Smith to head that office without any input from the Senate. • Under the Constitution (Article II Section 2), Congress must by law: • Establish any office other than a few the Constitution names, and • Specifically vest the appointment of inferior officers of any kind, in: ◦ the President alone, ◦ the law courts, or ◦ heads of departments. Congress has done none of these things in Jack Smith’s case. Therefore Merrick Garland acted illegally, or at least extralegally. In fact, three prominent legal theorists briefed the Court on this very issue. They did so when Jack Smith sought (and lost) a writ of review before judgment. They did not re-brief the Court in the present case, but Justice Thomas did not let that matter rest. Concurrence and dissents on Presidential immunity Justice Barrett concurred in part and dissented in part. The Opinion of the Court says that the private notes and testimony of a President or his advisers would be inadmissible in evidence. Roberts ruled that way to protect those private notes and recollections as part of Presidential privilege. Amy Coney Barrett disagrees. Concerned as she is with institutional and especially judicial integrity and prerogative, Barrett wants that evidence admitted. In fact she appears to want motive to come into any evaluation of a President’s conduct. Of course, she cannot prevail on that point. Four Justices joined the Chief Justice’ opinion in full – and that makes for five votes. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson both dissent here. They hold that a President rates no immunity for his acts. Their treatment of the indictment is the key to their writings. While Roberts properly refuses to rule on the guilt or innocence of Trump as President, Sotomayor and Jackson assume guilt. It never occurs to them that a President more to their liking might face the same treatment. (The only reason no Democrat has come in for such treatment, is that Republicans are polite to a fault and won’t begin such a campaign.) The Court saved the Republic! More to the point, the dissenters don’t realize that The Supreme Court has just saved the Republic. Recall again the dilemma that faced the great Julius Caesar. In 49 B.C., junior consul Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Crus introduced an emergency resolution against the intercessory powers of Tribunes of the Plebs. Mark Antony shouted, “I forbid that!” (In literal Latin, Veto!) Lentulus Crus ordered the sergeants-at-arms – the lictors – to eject Antony and another angry tribune from the Senate meeting hall. Antony led his friend to the Well of the Comitia, and made an angry speech protesting the ejection. The two then left Rome – but sent a fast horseman to take a message to Caesar, waiting just across the Rubicon. That is when Caesar crossed the Rubicon. He crossed the Rubicon because the Senate of Rome clearly were setting up a prosecution of him. Today the Supreme Court removed any excuse for a President to “cross the Potomac.” With Presidential immunity extending after he has left office, he has no legitimate reason so to act. Other cases besides Presidential immunity The Supreme Court released two more opinions, including one in two consolidated cases involving States’ efforts to require social-media moderators to act more like Constitutional judges. In essence, Florida and Texas are trying to write Fifth and Sixth Amendments for social-media users. A company called NetChoice challenged both laws – on their face. Two District Courts entered preliminary injunctions against the Florida and Texas laws. Their respective attorneys general appealed. While the Eleventh Circuit sustained the Florida injunction, the Fifth Circuit reversed the Texas injunction. The Court – unanimously – vacated both Appeals Court judgments and remanded their respective cases. In doing so the Court criticized both Appeals Courts for failing to evaluate their cases for what they were: facial challenges to the respective State laws. A facial challenge is a challenge to the entire law, not merely its applicability in one set of circumstances. Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton. Separately the Court held that the clock doesn’t start ticking on the six-year statute of limitations for suing a regulatory agency until final agency action against a particular plaintiff. Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The vote on that was 6-3, and again the Moderates gave that victory to the Originalists. Amy Coney Barrett wrote that opinion. The Liberals raised a curious lament: this is yet another wing-clipping of the Administrative State. This case shows that the Moderates do not like quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial executive agencies that usurp legislative and judicial powers. Summary This case shows one line of deep division of the Court. Clearly members of the Liberal Bloc now suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. This bias prompted the Chief Justice to remind them, in his Opinion, that the Court must treat what might happen to all Presidents. Making law to cover one person, however egregious might be his alleged offenses, is worse than bad law. It is unconstitutional – on its face. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. Article I Section 9 Clause 3 In that spirit, no one can criticize Chief Justice Roberts with any justice for the opinion the Court released today. Clarence Thomas raised a more serious objection. Jack Smith shouldn’t be in business. As far as Thomas is concerned, Smith’s office is unlawful and his appointment is still less lawful. Again, Thomas brought up a question Biden’s media allies would just as soon forget. Namely that Merrick Garland took it upon himself to create Office of Special Counsel, and to appoint Smith. Ironically this means that only the Florida Documents Case against Trump remains at all viable. The problem for Jack Smith is that Judge Aileen M. Cannon has different judicial temperament from Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. She is also made of sterner stuff than Smith or his team bargained for. All of which means that Trump will remain free – and likely win reelection. Then he can continue to improve the national judiciary, one appointment at a time, from the Supreme Court down. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/07/01/news/presidential-immunity-exists-scotus/ The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf The other two opinions: NetChoice: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf Corner Post: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Theocracy – is James Carville serious? By Terry A. Hurlbut James Carville, adviser to two Democratic Presidents, was always more partisan than most leftists. This month he has shown himself more vindictive – and maybe more paranoid in his ideas – than Biden. That’s a tall order, because Biden has governed as a bitter, vindictive old man from his first day. But now James Carville says that if his favorite candidates lose, America becomes a theocracy. Either he is not serious – that is, employing deliberate hyperbole – or his soul has entered a very dark place. What did Carville say about theocracy? Louisiana’s new law mandating a large and easily legible display of the Ten Commandments in every government-funded classroom, from kindergarten all the way through university, seems to have pushed him over the edge. The Daily Caller shared video of him, wearing a Louisiana State University semi-turtleneck, holding forth about theocracy in America. In addition to the Ten Commandments controversy, he worries about the precarious health of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. https://x.com/DailyCaller/status/1805336642703573239 In a separate article The Daily Caller provided a partial transcript. Here is the full transcript: I can assure you, if Trump wins and he names a replacement for Sotomayor, it’s game, set, match. There’s no more Constitution, there’s no more religious freedom. We’re now going to officially move into a theocracy. And so, I hear young people say, “Well I don’t feel like I have a stake in this.” Well. you got a h*** of a stake coming up. So let’s everybody remember what’s really really at stake here. What this is really really about. And it’s about imposing a theocracy on other people and the fools and tools that are being used for this opening salvo, this Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor, whatever you want to call it, is in Louisiana and they’re being exploited by people who really have, which I think is an odious and insidious agenda for the United States of America. So let’s fight this thing like our country depended on it because it does. Let’s remember the words of Roger Williams, and let’s team up and have George Washington in our huddle. James Carville should mind whose names he is invoking. Roger Williams did flee to the place that became the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. He did so to get away from the Puritans who ran the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Most notably, he founded America’s first Baptist Church in the colony he founded. Baptists are famous for separating church and state – but that means only that the government ought not actually run the church, appoint bishops, etc. (In fact, Baptists recognize no such office as “bishop,” but only pastors and deacons.) But James Carville makes Roger Williams sound like an atheist! And George Washington? Carville has evidently forgotten how Washington prayed earnestly at Valley Forge for ultimate victory. Neither man would want anything to do with the modern Democratic Party or the secular humanist state they plan. Typical Carville of today? This is only the latest appalling and sick “Carville-ism.” On June 6 – the 80th anniversary of Operation Overlord (“D-Day”), Carville encouraged news organs to abandon objectivity in reporting. https://rumble.com/v4zxhdk-fck-your-objectivity-james-carville-calls-on-media-to-ramp-up-slanted-cover.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Now you have Joe Kahn, the new editor or publisher, whatever he is at The New York Times, saying, “We’re just going to cover this down the middle. We’re going to cover what it is.” I don’t think that’s the role of the news media at a time when the entire Constitution is in peril. I don’t have anything against slanted coverage. I really don’t … I would have something against it at most other times in American history, but not right now. [Forget] your objectivity. The real objectivity in this country right now is we’re either going to have a Constitution or we’re not. And everything else, from Hunter Biden’s gun application to Judge Merchan’s, I don’t know, $35 contribution to all of the [useless drivel] that the professional center feels like they got to put out. I can’t tell you that these are bad people. They’re extremely naive people who have no idea what’s at stake in this election. So I think we need slanted coverage, more slanted coverage and I think we got to recognize the threat that this guy and the MAGA, not just him, the entire MAGA movement, from Alito and Trump on down is a serious, clear and present danger to the existence of the Constitution in the United States. And I mean that. Shades of Saul Alinsky – or else galloping paranoid ideation. One would expect his wife, Mary Matalin, to smooth over his rough edges – but he seems incapable of listening to her now. But more recently he has told the country what he means – except maybe he doesn’t know what theocracy means. Theocracy means “rule by God,” and that will not happen until Christ returns to Earth. Nor do more than a literal handful of people want a “Church of America”; that wouldn’t even remain stable. Nor can we guarantee that replacing even the rudest, most contentious member of the Liberal Bloc will change the Court. Expanding the Moderate Bloc from three members to four would place them firmly in control. Replacing Sotomayor with another Originalist might work better – but would be far from Carville’s “game, set, match.” The Court would, instead of 6-3 decisions either way, produce 7-2 Originalist or 5-4 Liberal decisions most of the time. Only if Trump manages to replace two Liberals could he cement a permanent Originalist majority. Justice Sotomayor is indeed in poor health, but Justice Elena Kagan is in better health. And Ketanji Brown Jackson only recently joined. The only way she is getting off the bench any time soon is on impeachment for, and conviction of, infidelity to the Constitution. What does he mean by theocracy? As mentioned, theocracy strictly means “rule by God.” Christian prophecy, still outstanding, states that this will come eventually (and perhaps very soon, but that’s for another day). Carville probably is defining theocracy in the more common sense: rule according to religious precept. Because Carville cited the Ten Commandments (and Louisiana’s law), these become the best reference point. You shall have no other gods before Me. Exodus 20:3 (all citations from NASB) Carville might answer that he wants no gods at all. One can only infer his political positions, because he has never stated them for the record. Nevertheless one may easily infer his atheism, secular humanism, or Earth-worshiping environmentalism, from his historical client list. In any case, everyone has a god, even if it’s merely self, or “all of humanity,” or the Earth herself. Where exactly he comes down, is difficult to say. “Progressive” policy (see We’re Right, They’re Wrong: a Handbook for Spirited Progressives, 1996) encompasses all these things. (Yes, even self, as in “pleasures and desires of the moment.” Regarding the net worth of oneself or others, that touches on covetousness, a persistent Progressive ailment.) What does God ask of one believing in Him, except fair treatment of fellow humans, and stewardship of the Earth? What could be wrong with that? Those who oppose theocracy won’t say. Actually God asks one other thing: that we not place mere human knowledge above Him. But as CNAV recently noted, we do that all the time, by elevating modern medicine to Divine status. Concerning idolatry and false swearing You shall not make for yourself [any] idol, [nor] worship them or serve them. Exodus 20:4-5, partial paraphrase Modern American society has idolatry as its middle name. America creates idols all the time, and it’s unhealthy. These are typically movie, TV, and popular music stars. (Classical music does not lend itself to idolatry. Even Van Cliburn, the great classical pianist, didn’t have a fawning entourage to rival that of Taylor Swift.) The anti-theocrats, for their part, want to substitute their idols for the ones now strutting and preening and bragging. Christians – and observant Jews – want to abolish idolatry. You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain. Exodus 20:7 James Carville earned the nickname Ragin’ Cajun by his foul mouth and his Louisiana background. (Though whether he actually descends from the Acadians whom the British transported from Nova Scotia in 1755 is not established.) In any event, the Third Commandment is as much a prohibition against perjury as against profanity. (That’s why the rest of that verse speaks of God not acquitting someone who swears falsely in His Name.) How could anyone object to that prohibition? Concerning the Sabbath Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. For six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your [roomer, boarder, or lodger] who stays with you. Exodus 20:8-10 The Sabbath involves two very salient issues: 1. Regular rest from one’s labors, and 2. The origin of the universe, the Earth, and life. During the French Revolution, Joseph Lagrange’s Revolutionary Committee on Weights and Measures redesigned the calendar, along with much else. Relevant to this discussion, the Republican Calendar sported three ten-day intervals per month – ten days, not seven. (Lagrange rounded out the year with five specially named days – six during leap years – before the Autumnal Equinox.) That calendar didn’t last, because human beings could not adjust well to a ten-day work-rest cycle. Seven days – God’s favorite number – provide the best such cycle. Accordingly, Emperor Napoleon I reinstated the Gregorian Calendar shortly after taking his crown. The Paris Commune would experiment with the Republican Calendar toward the end of the nineteenth century. All such experiments ended with the Paris Commune. But God explained to Moses the real reason for the seven-day interval: For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 20:11 That goes to James Carville’s real grievance against what he calls theocracy – in addition to having to mind his language. More than any other passage, this tells us that God exists, and created everything. Thomas Jefferson, “deist” that he was, admitted – in the Declaration of Independence – that humans had a Creator. Perhaps in Carville’s mind, the alternative to theocracy would be sanitizing the Declaration to remove all references to “nature’s God,” “their Creator,” “the Supreme Judge of the world,” and “Divine Providence.” But he might want to consider an increasing body of hard evidence for creation, like these three examples. Concerning parents – and murder Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be prolonged on the land which the Lord your God gives you. Exodus 20:12 The land reference was to ancient Israel – but, given the Mayflower Compact, it could also apply to these United States. In God’s scheme, parents deserve honor – and have certain responsibilities, and with them, authority. Maybe that’s another Progressive problem with God – that He forbids them to substitute the government for the parents, diminish their authority, keep secrets from them – and cause their children to mutilate their bodies and poison themselves with hormones in order to satisfy the Depopulation Agenda. (That’s another thing that God forbids; he tells us to “be fruitful and multiply.” You shall not [commit] murder. Exodus 20:13 A prohibition against murder is basic to any civilized society. Western society abolished duelling at about the time it abolished slavery, and on much the same grounds. But to a Progressive, a murderer is an irregular population thinner. That goes double with abortion. Unfortunately, some Justices of the Supreme Court concern themselves more with maintaining existing institutions than with judging them as to whether they endorse or otherwise encourage murder, in this case, abortion. Let us anticipate James Carville’s objection: “I don’t need a theocracy to tell me murder is wrong!” Why not? How can anyone know, apart from instruction from God, that murder is inherently evil? At best, laws against murder in a Godless society become a mutual nonaggression pact. At worst, no one writes those laws, and murder becomes just another hazard of human company. (To say nothing of the murders of political opponents, inconvenient witnesses, and righteous judges, all in the name of expediency.) Concerning adultery, larceny, and perjury – theocracy backs criminal law You shall not commit adultery. Exodus 20:14 The United States has never executed anyone for adultery – although the witchcraft tribunals in Salem and other Massachusetts cities came close, during the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell in England. But until the twentieth century, adultery had legal and other consequences. Typically these included divorce, and forfeiture of assets to the “cheated-on” spouse, usually the wife. James Carville is still married to his once-conservative, now libertarian, wife Mary Matalin. As old as he is, people might not expect him to cheat. But no one, especially no man, is ever too old to cheat. Furthermore, the removal of consequences for cheating – adultery – has brought more of it, with consequent harms. Harms to the cheated-on spouse, and harms to the children, if any. Just because Carville doesn’t appreciate them, doesn’t negate them. You shall not steal. Exodus 20:15 Oh, yeah. A thief is an irregular wealth-redistribution agent. Easy question. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. Exodus 20:16 Same thing. Half the Democratic platform since 2020 has been about giving false testimony against Donald J. Trump and all his supporters. The other half has been about fraud, through misinformation – of which they accuse others, another kind of direct false testimony. Furthermore, when James Carville calls for slanted news, he calls for more false testimony against half the country (or more). (And when he calls for more unrighteous judges, like Sonia Sotomayor, now he sacrifices judgment to expediency.) Concerning covetousness – and summing up You shall not covet. Exodus 20:17 Entitlement programs are all about covetousness. “Why should we starve when such-a-one has supplies to last a week?” a Democratic activist, especially a Squad member, asks. If “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil,” covetousness is the root of all kinds of crime. These include all the crimes against fellow human beings mentioned thus far – murder, adultery, larceny, and perjury. Again, we do need what James Carville calls theocracy to tell us that covetousness is wrong. Otherwise, there never is a law against it, only against acting on it. But eventually one does act on a sinful thought – which is the entire point of taming one’s thoughts. As Jesus Christ said several times on the Mount of the Beatitudes. Suddenly theocracy – by Carville’s crude definition – doesn’t sound so unattractive. In fact, compared to it, human institutions are sorely lacking. “Resident” Joe Biden in America, and other leftist “leaders” abroad, have brought humanity to the dead end of Godless living. A return to theocracy, if that’s what one wants to call obeying Divine precept, is just what the Doctor, and Chief Architect, ordered. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/06/30/foundation/constitution/theocracy-james-carville-serious/ Video: James Carville fears theocracy: https://x.com/DailyCaller/status/1805336642703573239 Video: James Carville urges slanted news: https://rumble.com/v4zxhdk-fck-your-objectivity-james-carville-calls-on-media-to-ramp-up-slanted-cover.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Debate, disaster, and dilemma By Terry A. Hurlbut On Thursday (June 27), the Democrats played out their Big Gamble – and lost. “Resident” Joe Biden shuffled onto a stage for his much-promoted debate with the real President, Donald J. Trump. He had the rules stacked in his favor, including muting Trump’s microphone so he couldn’t interrupt. But because CNN insisted on offering a live stream to their legacy media buddies, they couldn’t delay the feed. Result: as time wore on, Biden faded quickly. By the end of the evening, he had all his legacy-media pundit friends suggesting he should bow out. That alone is a disaster from which their Party might never recover, and certainly won’t recover in time. Worse, it leaves them with a dilemma they might never solve. How the debate went His mere taking of the debate stage set the wrong tone. A candidate for President should stride onto the stage, head high, eyes front, ready to take on the world. (Which Presidents of the United States normally do all the time.) And his is a purposeful stride, the stride of a man who has places to go and things to do. Trump delivered that stride; Biden did not. He always shuffles, and he shuffled this time. The only thing he didn’t do was fall down. Someone must have taught Donald Trump the patience of Job, because as the split-screen footage shows, Trump simply stood where he was, taking his adversary’s measure, and biding his time while Biden tried to speak. Yes, tried to speak. His voice came out raspier than that of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He didn’t quite lapse into his trademark word salad, but he came painfully close several times. Several times he seemed to forget his talking points. At one point Trump made this statement that said it all: I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don’t think he knows what he said either. https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1806500027835240489 But the not-so-grand finale was the worst. His wife Jill, and a male employee, literally helped him down three steps at the foot of the stage. And they did it in front of millions of people. Afterward, the Democrats put out this Lord Haw-Haw-ism: https://x.com/TheDemocrats/status/1806521190086742516 Except, as Erick-Woods Erickson pointed out, the picture was from 2021. https://x.com/EWErickson/status/1806523723115012177 Everyone cries “Disaster!” The only person, besides the official Democratic X account, who tried to spin Biden’s debate performance positively, was Kamala Harris. CNN’s Anderson Cooper was having none of it, and said so – loudly – again for millions of people to hear. https://x.com/TomEllsworth/status/1806641643824484641 Likewise, Van Jones actually called the debate “painful” to watch. https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1806522140830716032 Philip Melancthion Wegmann said it best: Biden said, “Watch me!” The country just did. David Axelrod reported, before the night was out, that the Democratic leadership was panicking. (But even then, he and all other commentators on the left are living in a world of their own. More on that later.) Most legacy media commentators reacted in shell shock, all of them admitting the bad performance, and the damage. “Joyless” Reid made an almost iconic statement from the dais at MSNBC. https://x.com/Motabhai012/status/1806525610489221621 The Washington Examiner embedded video of her pronouncements – and much else. Here is their partial transcript: I was on the phone throughout much of the debate with Obamaworld people, with Democrats, with people who are political operatives, and with campaign operatives. My phone really never stopped buzzing throughout. And the universal reaction was somewhere approaching panic. Biden, said Reid, had “one job” to do: to “reassure” his Party and base. Instead he showed himself incapable of carrying on any further. CNN’s Kasie Hunt had this remarkably frank assessment: https://x.com/kasie/status/1806504918427013329 And from Ben Rhodes: https://x.com/brhodes/status/1806531270295372236 Note: many suggested that Biden was on drugs, like Adderall®, a “mixed amphetamine salts” cocktail. https://x.com/AlphaLiger/status/1806528203978149986 But Biden has delivered angry speeches before, and gotten through them. Witness his divisive September 2, 2022 speech. He didn’t need drugs; he was keyed up and full of adrenaline. But an adrenaline rush couldn’t last for 90 minutes, and didn’t. Adderall® normally lasts for hours, so he probably was not on that. The dilemma(s) For all that, the Democrats cannot replace Joe Biden even if they try. To be sure, many on the right are bragging that Joe Biden will not be the candidate anymore. Recall what Tom Ellsworth said in his X post embedding Kamala Harris’ laughable interview with Anderson Cooper: If you don’t think DNC hot swap is going to be Gavin or Michelle you’re not paying attention. One wag shared video of a Major League Baseball pitcher warming up and captioned it, “Gavin [Newsom] stretching in the bullpen.” https://x.com/IFNY2775/status/1806510792654618999 According to RealClearPolitics’ Susan Crabtree, a short list of replacements already exists. In addition to Newsom, she named Govs. Gretchen Whitmer (D-Mich.), J. B. Pritzker (D-Ill.), and Josh Shapiro (D-Pa.). She also named Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. But would the Democrats consider her, after she lost a Big Case at the Supreme Court yesterday? But Erick-Woods Erickson and Dr. Steve Turley both discounted any possibility of replacing Biden. Lay aside Erickson’s usual snidery against fellow conservative commentators. He raises these points that none can dispute. First, the only candidate who could somehow “inherit” Biden’s campaign cash (and credit) is Kamala Harris. The Democrats will not pick her; she is a raving maniac, and they know it. She’s also less popular even than Biden, if one can imagine that. Second, by law and Convention rules, Biden’s delegates must vote for him on the first ballot. Only if he releases them will they vote any other way. And he will not release them. Did everyone think Hillary Clinton insisted it was her turn in 2016? Biden insists it’s his turn. Debate or no, Biden is possibly deluded, definitely determined Yesterday Biden was already trying to quash any talk of replace him. To do that, he conceded that he was off his game during the debate. He made those remarks at a post-debate rally in Raleigh, North Carolina. His wife, wearing a dark blue dress festooned all over with the word VOTE, flanked him. Of course, Biden, and every other Democrat, are living in a world of their own. In their world, as James Carville has said in the titles of two books, they’re right, and we’re wrong. Everything they say is true; everything Trump says is a lie. Nothing and nobody will change that. Barack Obama shared another concession that the debate was not what the Democrats wanted. https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1806758633230709017 Switch the identities of the two candidates Barack Obama was talking about, and the above statement is true. That aside, no one wants to think of replacing Biden. Gavin Newsom made a big show of disclaiming any ambitions along that line: I think it’s unhelpful – and I think it’s unnecessary. We’ve got to keep our head high, and as I say, we’ve got to have the back of this president. You don’t turn your back because of one performance. What kind of party does that? Not that anyone would pick Gavin Newsom anyway. He has made a first-class jerk of himself, and every other Democratic governor knows it – and says it. He’s also gone further to the left than most rank-and-file Democrats want to go. Evidently his ridiculous abortion political ads didn’t help. (Furthermore, the U-Haul Truck Finder says it’s 2.5 to 3 times as expensive to rent one-way from Los Angeles, California, to New Braunfels, Texas, as to rent the other way.) But what about RFK? On the other hand, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., now an independent candidate, declared himself “open” to replacing Biden. That could be nothing more than presumptuous wishful thinking on his part. Too many Democrats think he has betrayed the legacy of Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr. and his sons. (Of those sons, the only one to come close to current Democratic Party orthodoxy is RFK Jr.’s Uncle Ted.) In fact, MSNBC panelists were desperately trying to persuade Biden to release his delegates. “Joyless” Reid talked about someone having sent her a copy of the rules. Nicole Wallace insisted a legal pathway did exist. But Rachel Maddow gave the hard truth: that will not happen. She went further, trying to get her fellow panelists to stop talking about it. Indeed it’s too late, anyway, in a large number of States, as Charlie Kirk pointed out: https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1806720078920241396 In Wisconsin, in particular, a nomination switch happens only in the event of death. Is Biden that close to death? No one knows. But if he dies, say hello to President Kalamity Kamala, Kamala the Maniac. Advice for Trump At the same time, whoever is advising Trump, gave him some bad advice for the debate. Holding his peace while Biden almost made word salad, and displayed his infirmity for all to see, was good advice. But holding back on “red meat issues” on the right – that was bad advice. For instance, he expressed support for the Supreme Court’s “punt” on mifepristone, the abortifacient sent through the mail. That pill stays on the market, all right, but it is still illegal to send through the mail. For Trump to wink and nod while Biden refuses to enforce the Comstock Act (and Democrats introduce bills to repeal it), is inappropriate. Trump needs to own the issue, up front. If he doesn’t, he risks watching people stay home and sit on their hands. Especially since the Court has restrained some of Biden’s worst excesses in recent decisions. (Yes, Biden would retain the power of nomination, and yes, Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito are getting old. But conservative voters aren’t thinking about that.) More broadly, Trump needs to look forward, not backward. He should give voters – many of whom did vote for Biden, or sat on their hands in 2020 – a reason to vote for him. Furthermore, the same voters who took bribes from Democrats to give them their absentee ballots will do so again. Unless Trump gives them a reason not to – and the best reason is how he will “Make America Great Again.” Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/06/29/news/debate-disaster-dilemma/ “I really didn’t understand that last, and neither did he”: https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1806500027835240489 Democrats running a picture from 2021: https://x.com/TheDemocrats/status/1806521190086742516 https://x.com/EWErickson/status/1806523723115012177 Anderson Cooper, Van Jones: https://x.com/TomEllsworth/status/1806641643824484641 https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1806522140830716032 “Joyless” Reid commenting on panic: https://x.com/Motabhai012/status/1806525610489221621 Three other observers: https://x.com/kasie/status/1806504918427013329 https://x.com/brhodes/status/1806531270295372236 https://x.com/AlphaLiger/status/1806528203978149986 Gavin Newsom warming up? https://x.com/IFNY2775/status/1806510792654618999 Barack Obama saying bad debates happen: https://x.com/BarackObama/status/1806758633230709017 Too late! https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1806720078920241396 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.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 rules for liberty, not license By Terry A. Hurlbut Today the Supreme Court released three more cases, leaving at least three to announced Monday of next week (July 1). These three cases have one thing in common: in each, the Moderates accepted the perspective of the Originalists. (With one exception, which CNAV will describe in greater detail below.) In so doing, the Moderate Bloc would appear to be redeeming itself – except that one must remember that the Supreme Court has already decided weeks ago the cases they announce in June. Two of these cases strike blows for liberty; the third, a blow against license. One case corrects a serious error of judgment, not of the Court only, but of the Reagan administration. Another gives a hint – though not completely reliable – that the Court will not sympathize with January 6 related prosecutions. No more public camp-outs Grants Pass, Oregon (in Josephine County), has always had a problem with homeless people. According to the Syllabus, 600 people might be homeless at any given time. Grants Pass has laws against camping on public property or parking overnight in a city park. As to the homeless, Grants Pass tries to shelter them. The problem: they can’t shelter all the homeless in their city all the time. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals always had a somewhat crazy bench before Donald Trump tried to solve the problem. In Martin v. Boise, that Circuit held that enforcing the no-camping law against the homeless constituted “cruel and unusual punishment” if, at any given time, even one homeless person couldn’t find “practically available” shelter. Naturally, homeless people started suing Western cities left and right. In this case, the plaintiff-respondents won certification as a class and got what the Supreme Court called a Martin injunction against the city. Here the Syllabus reveals an interesting twist: class members were not willing to use the city’s available shelter. That shelter has rules, among them: • No smoking, and • Persons seeking shelter must attend religious services. Grants Pass appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and drew a panel that voted 2-1 to affirm the injunction. The city sought a hearing en banc, and didn’t get it, so it went straight to the Supreme Court. Apparently several other cities briefed the Court as friends of the court, to urge a reevaluation of the Martin case. Supreme Court holding The Supreme Court held that laws against public camping and overnight parking do not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. Not, at least, when they apply with equal force to everyone. Grants Pass v. Johnson et al., 603 U.S. ____ (2024). First, the Eighth Amendment applied to the kind of punishment prescribed for criminal offenses. It did not apply to the kinds of behavior a government might deem criminal. But the plaintiffs relied on one exception: Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962). In that manner, the Supreme Court (under Chief Justice Earl H. Warren) held that a State may not punish someone merely for being addicted to a controlled substance, unless and until the addict committed crimes, either to feed his addiction or for some other motive(s). But after handing down that case, the Supreme Court never respected it as a precedent. In this case, Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said the no-camping and no-parking laws in Grants Pass were nothing like the old California law against addiction to narcotics. Those laws do not say, “No person shall be homeless,” but merely, “No person shall camp on public land.” (Nor park overnight in a public park.) Therefore, Robinson doesn’t apply. Furthermore, several Ninth Circuit judges, dissenting from the decision to deny the en banc hearing, roundly criticized the Martin case. Armed with this intellectual ammunition, Gorsuch firmly said the Martin case must fall before the Supreme Court’s precedents and the true meaning of the Constitution. Votes, concurrence, and dissent Gorsuch carried with him the two other members of the Originalist Bloc: Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. He also won the Moderate Bloc – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh – to his side. Predictably, the Liberal Bloc – Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor – dissented. Clarence Thomas, in concurrence, wrote that Robinson “was wrongly decided.” He made abundantly clear that, as soon as a case on point reaches him, he will vote to overrule Robinson. He also reiterated the principle he introduced in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen – namely that one must interpret the Constitution according to the fixed meaning of the original text. Modern public opinion is not an appropriate metric for interpreting the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause—or any provision of the Constitution for that matter. Much of the Court’s other Eighth Amendment precedents make the same mistake. Rather than interpret our written Constitution, the Court has at times “proclaim[ed] itself sole arbiter of our Nation’s moral standards,” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 608 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting), and has set out to enforce “evolving standards of decency,” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion). “In a system based upon constitutional and statutory text democratically adopted, the concept of ‘law’ ordinarily signifies that particular words have a fixed meaning.” Roper, 543 U. S., at 629 (opinion of Scalia, J.). I continue to believe that we should adhere to the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause’s fixed meaning in resolving any challenge brought under it. Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, essentially said it would be cruel ever to regulate where one might sleep at night. The details of her dissent scarcely matter. Throughout, she seems to hold that what local governments need is taxpayers’ money to build more shelters. Presumably those shelters would not have no-smoking or other rules. CNAV has noted before how she treats the Supreme Court as a court of equity, not law. Here she openly supports lawlessness, and any attempt to impose order. Finally, one more thing is instructive to observe. The cure for “the homelessness crisis” is to remove impediments to the development of an economy that might provide gainful employment to everyone, to the extent that they can afford, and pay for, their own shelter. It is not to provide shelter at public expense without limit. The Supreme Court strikes a blow for January 6 convicts Joseph Fischer was one of perhaps 200 people who gained entry into the Capitol on January 6, 2021. They did so after elements of the Capitol Police fired rubber bullets at an inoffensive crowd. Fischer, for his part, never actually entered the Capitol until after the joint session of Congress had already recessed. The question of the Capitol Police’ conduct didn’t come before the Court. Rather, the attempt by a vindictive – and selective – prosecuting authority to charge Fischer with an offense more appropriate to financial crime, did. The government charged him under, among other laws, 18 USC section 1512(c)(1 and 2). This title, part of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, reads in relevant part: (c) Whoever corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. That word otherwise caused a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reverse an earlier dismissal of that charge at trial level. But in his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts disagreed. According to the CJ, otherwise means any act similar in kind or degree to elements of a preceding list. It does not mean positively any other kind of obstruction anyone could invent or attempt. Justice Jackson surprised everyone with her vote for the majority! Putting on her adult clothes for once, she wrote a separate, detailed treatment of those two sections that clearly precluded any extension of that word otherwise to include unlawful entry, unlawful presence, etc. A shocking dissent Justice Amy Coney Barrett surprised everyone with equal force – by dissenting from the majority opinion. CNAV noted, after the oral argument, that Justice Barrett might present a problem for Fischer. She, more than any other member of the Moderate Bloc, took pains to include the vote count session as “an official proceeding.” In her dissent, she returned to that theme – and used that word otherwise to include conduct bearing no relation to the destruction, mutilation, alteration – or fraudulent substitution – of documents. Justice Jackson, in her concurrence, did say that the charge under 1512(c)(2) could come back if anyone showed that Joseph Fischer laid hands, or tried to lay hands, on the lists of electoral votes that Electoral College members “transmit” to Congress. But Justice Barrett insisted that the riot qualified as obstruction. (Never mind that Fischer didn’t enter the Capitol until after the recess had already taken place. That seems to have borne no mention in any of the opinions. Then again, the Supreme Court is not a trier of fact.) One thing only can explain Barrett’s attitude: she has a very serious problem with January 6 participants. On the fateful day in which the Court denied the appeal of the State of Texas for intervention in the certification of elections in Pennsylvania, hallway bystanders caught her smiling like Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa when exiting the conference room. What could have turned a mild-mannered mother of seven into a “hanging judge”? That might prove impossible to determine. The Big One: Chevron Deference dies! CNAV turns now to the last two cases, which the Court consolidated: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Raimondo. The “Raimondo” in view here is Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce. The petitioners in the two cases operate fishing boats in the Atlantic Fishery, which extends 200 nautical miles offshore. Cases involving fishing vessel regulation might not seem important. But they are when they involve principles that go to other economic areas of federal regulation. Both cases involve a peculiar doctrine that has given quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial executive agencies an overweening power: Chevron deference. That doctrine came from a misguided attempt to discipline the national judiciary and prevent judicial activism. During the Reagan administration, Ann Gorsuch (Neil’s mother), as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, sought to loosen some regulations on oil refining. Chevron USA, one of the Big Oils, moved forward on that basis. The National Resources Defense Council sued them, and in court argued that the EPA had no authority to loosen regulations to the degree contemplated. The Reagan administration’s relations with Congress were strained, in that while Republicans held the Senate, Democrats held the House. So President Reagan couldn’t get a law to deregulate the leases involved. Instead, when Chevron took the matter to the Supreme Court, the administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief to support Chevron’s position. The original Chevron holding The Supreme Court held that, given certain conditions, unless Congress has “directly spoken to the precise question at issue,” courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable determinations of fact, and the rules they make with those determinations in mind. This effectively precludes judicial review of regulatory agencies. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). It also violates the basic framework that, since 1946, has governed how regulatory agencies operate: the Administrative Procedure Act. That Act specifically makes executive agency rules subject to judicial review against the enabling statute, other laws, and the Constitution. But the Chevron case carves out an exception. In their attempt to stop a rogue court from obstructing Ronald Reagan’s plan for energy independence (and to address an energy shortage), the Reagan administration, with their brief, prompted the Supreme Court to set the stage for the opposite problem. The minute the administration of the Executive Branch changed parties, agencies produced a blizzard of left-friendly rules. Those rules proceeded from a mind-set only the NRDC and similar activist groups could love: leave it in the ground! Or in other contexts, build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody! Two cases In the cases at hand, the National Marine Fisheries Service had always placed observers aboard fishing vessels. Within the particular fishery at issue (Atlantic herring), the agency paid for the observers – until 2013. Suddenly the agency told the fishermen that they must pay for the observers. Loper Bright challenged the new rule in February 2020. Relentless, Inc. made a similar challenge. Both petitioners argued that the original act creating the agency did not authorize it to force fishermen to pay any wage or fee to or for observers. The government, on behalf of the agency, demanded Chevron deference from the courts. The lower courts agreed, dutifully applying “the Chevron Doctrine” and saying that what the agency said, went – within reason. When the petitioners came to the Supreme Court, one of their lawyers said the basic problem was the Chevron Doctrine itself. Dan Greenberg at the Competitive Enterprise Institute described the oral argument in the Loper Bright case. Apparently Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both questioned the validity of the Chevron Doctrine. Kavanaugh lamented that, every four years, rules change – with the President. Gorsuch lamented that agencies might make rules in agency self-interest, that shortchange persons their rules affect. Greenberg predicted the Court would overrule Chevron. Two years ago, Darrell L. Castle observed that the Court virtually overruled Chevron in its West Virginia v. EPA case. Castle might have been correct – or not – but Greenberg definitely proved correct. The Supreme Court buries Chevron Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, in which the entire Oroginalist and Moderate Blocs joined. Justice Kagan, writing for the Liberal Bloc, dissented. Roberts firmly and decisively defended the prerogatives of the courts. In reviewing the history of the Administrative State – including before and after the New Deal – Roberts observed that courts often deferred to agencies on questions of fact (given sufficient evidence) but never on questions of law. In 1946, Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act to make abundantly clear that courts were the final arbiters of law. That is, until Chevron, which superseded judicial review and effectively canceled it. At first the Supreme Court didn’t recognize what a bomb it had built – until it went off. After a plethora of rules taking advantage of the new paradigm, the Court started limiting Chevron – piecemeal. One can understand West Virginia v. EPA in that light. Finally, Roberts anticipates another objection: stare decisis (let it stand as decided). He rejects that, finding that Chevron is erroneous and “unworkable.” Those considerations alone were enough to reverse the two Courts of Appeals in the two cases. But Justice Thomas, concurring, went further: Chevron, he held, violates separation of powers. None of the co-equal branches of government should ever delegate its fundamental powers to either of the others. Neil Gorsuch wrote of the basic role of a judge, and offered further weakening of the stare decisis principle. Precedent, he pronounced, is not law, and therefore cannot be forever binding. Kagan: defer to the experts! Justice Kagan – exactly as she did in West Virginia v. EPA – dissented, on this principle: courts should defer to experts. She defended Chevron as vesting in the “expert” agency the task of resolving ambiguous statutory language. This echoes her dissent in West Virginia: Members of Congress “don’t know enough.” For that matter, it echoes her concurrence in Moyle v. USA, announced yesterday. As in the cases at hand, and in West Virginia, she always demands deference to expert opinion. Kagan evidently doesn’t understand what a republic is – and certainly would rather not live under it. She plumps for a technocratic elite, which in this case would staff and run quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial executive agencies. In West Virginia she cried the globe is warming, the globe is warming – because EPA said so. In Moyle she upbraided her colleague Justice Alito for daring “dispute medical fact.” Now she says the Atlantic will be overfished because the Fisheries Service can’t afford to put observers aboard every fishing boat. More broadly she asks experts to rule. But as Darrell Castle frostily observed two years ago, we don’t live under a technocracy. Ours is a republic – a nation-state of law, not expert opinion. Courts, recognizing their limited funds of knowledge, rely on expert witnesses. So does Congress. And as CNAV said yesterday: experts can be wrong. Sometimes they can be dead wrong. Final analysis The Supreme Court redeemed itself today, while also correcting a forty-year-old error. (Actually Justice Kagan totally missed the first purpose of Chevron: to stop an activist judge from forcing an agency to make people’s lives more miserable, not less.) But the glaring weaknesses of understanding of at least two members of the Liberal Bloc were on full display. Justice Sotomayor calls essentially for anarcho-communism, by saying the law should let people sleep anywhere, anytime. Justice Kagan plumps for a technocracy in which expert opinion – medical and other kinds – carries the force of law. Justice Barrett presents a puzzle. Why should she, alone among Moderates, have such a visceral reaction against any January 6 defendant? How might anyone convince her that January 6 – at least the “Capitol breach” part – was a false-flag pseudo-operation? Hasn’t she shown prejudice? (Or has someone threatened her or her family with death if she makes one move to let a January 6 prisoner go free? As a mother of seven small children, five of them biological, she remains vulnerable to such threats.) Thus far, two cases cast doubt on the record of this Court Term: Murthy v. Missouri and Moyle v. USA. On Monday the Court must announce its decision in Trump v. USA and the two NetChoice cases. Fittingly, the last case argued is the last case decided. The country – and the world – waits to see how the Court has decided. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/06/28/news/supreme-court-liberty-license/ The opinions, in order discussed: Grants Pass v. Johnson et al. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf Fischer v. United States https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Raimondo (consolidated) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Idaho abortion case punted By Terry A. Hurlbut Today the Supreme Court released an opinion in two consolidated cases out of Idaho having to do with abortion. At issue: whether the Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act (EMTALA) ever requires abortion, and if so, when. A federal district judge in Idaho, saying Yes, enjoined enforcement of Idaho’s law forbidding abortions. Or rather: he enjoined the law as it applied to women presenting in a hospital emergency room with “high-risk” pregnancies. The Ninth Circuit – after hearing the case en banc – affirmed the injunction. The Supreme Court stayed the injunction on January 5, then granted full review before judgment. Today the Court dismissed the review petitions as “improvidently granted,” and vacated the stay of injunction. From the opinion, the Liberals and the Originalists voted in their usual way – and the Moderates “split the baby.” As a result, no one is happy. Review of the Idaho abortion cases The cases are called Moyle v. United States (23-726) and Idaho v. United States (23-727). The “Moyle” here is Rep. Mike Moyle (R-Star, Idaho), Speaker of the Idaho House. Idaho has no fewer than four “abortion tourist trap” States bordering it – but stubbornly insists that abortion is wrong. That State passed its Defense of Life Act, Idaho Code Section 18-622, while the Dobbs case, “the case that overturned Roe,” was working its way to the Supreme Court. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). Two years ago yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its 6-3 decision that abortion should not be a federal matter. The Biden Administration will see no abortion unperformed. So they sued the State in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. U.S. v. Idaho, 1:22-cv-00329, Barry Lynn Winmill presiding. The government alleged that Section 622 conflicted directly with the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act (EMTALA). In their complaint, the government essentially said that, without abortion available as an option, women would die in emergency rooms. At issue before the Court was: 1. Does EMTALA ever require abortion as “the only stabilizing treatment”? 2. Does the law actually forbid abortions, regardless of any medical emergency? For further historical details, see here. More to the point, the case came to oral argument on April 25. Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, argued the government’s case. She made one thing abundantly clear: she wants the freedom to get an abortion. Anytime, anywhere. The Supreme Court punts the case In a terse per curiam order, the Court dismissed the review petitions in the consolidated cases, and vacated all stays. That means the preliminary injunction by Judge Winmill goes back into effect. So why does this “slip opinion” run to 48 pages? Because 47 pages include two full concurrences, one partial dissent, and one complete dissent. From the concurrences, dissents, and the names of the Justices writing or joining each, one may infer that: • Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor voted for the vacaturs, and • Justices Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas voted against. In short, this is a Moderates’ decision, as CNAV predicted earlier this week. The Liberals went along for expedience’ sake (though Justice Jackson vehemently lamented the lack of a decisive blow for abortion). For their part, the Originalists stood on Idaho’s reading of EMTALA, which is different from everyone else’s. The opinion document contains four opinions, appearing in this order: 1. Concurrence by Justice Kagan, in which Justice Sotomayor joins completely, and Justice Jackson joins in part, 2. Concurrence by Justice Barrett, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh join, 3. Dissent by Justice Jackson, saying the Court should have struck down Idaho’s law forthwith, and 4. Dissent by Justice Alito, in which Justice Thomas joins fully and Justice Gorsuch joins in part. Substance of the opinions Actually, the Clerk of the Court would have done better to put Justice Barrett’s concurrence first. It gives the closest to a logical explanation for summarily dismissing the case. In fact, this should have been the Opinion of the Court, except that the Moderate and Liberal Blocs differed 3-3 in their reasoning. Because an irreconcilable tie existed, the Court delivered an unsigned order. Therefore CNAV will take up Barrett’s concurrence first. Barrett concludes that, since Rep. Moyle and the State of Idaho applied separately for a stay of the injunction, circumstances have changed. The changes consist, she asserts, of amendments to the Defense of Life Act to address, for example, the fear that it forbade removal of ectopic or molar pregnancies. Furthermore the Idaho Supreme Court, after Judge Winmill handed down his injunction, construed the Act to allow for abortions in the dire cases the government mentioned. In addition to ectopic pregnancies, they included: • Toxemia of pregnancy, with or without seizures, once known as pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, • Pre-term premature rupture of membranes (meaning if “the waters break” earlier than the 37th week), • Sepsis, and • Abruptio placentae, in which the placenta tears itself away from the wall of the womb. But Barrett also includes this key observation: that the federal government issued a new guidance on EMTALA. Quoting from the opinion: If [physicians] believe that “abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve” a pregnant woman’s emergency medical condition, they “must provide that treatment.” Id., at 1 (italics and emphasis deleted). Any contrary state law, the guidance continues, is “preempted.” Ibid. (italics and emphasis deleted). Assumption: the law forbids abortion even in cases of ectopic pregnancy Judge Winmill granted his injunction, says Barrett, on three assumptions: 1. The Defense of Life Act (as then written?) forbids removing an ectopic pregnancy, 2. The woman would “imminently” or “certainly” die without an abortion, and 3. Any necessity to prevent the death of the mother would only be an affirmative defense at trial. Shortly thereafter the Idaho Supreme Court, in a separate case, invalidated all three assumptions. Planned Parenthood of the Greater Northwest v. State of Idaho, 171 Idaho 374, 445, 522 P. 3d 1132, 1203 (2023). No matter, said Judge Winmill; the injunction remains in effect. This next part is key: Idaho’s legislature went back and changed their law to reflect the Idaho Supreme Court’s construction. Barrett then asserts that, after briefing and argument, the two parties turned out to be closer together than they appeared. The key sticking point was whether a mental health exception existed. Solicitor General Prelogar insisted that it did not, and Barrett seems to have accepted that notion uncritically. Again, quoting her opinion: At the merits stage, however, the United States disclaimed these interpretations of EMTALA. First, it emphatically disavowed the notion that an abortion is ever required as stabilizing treatment for mental health conditions. Brief for United States 26, n. 5; Tr. of Oral Arg. 76–78. That is an important concession: If restricted to conditions posing serious jeopardy to a woman’s physical health, the Government’s reading of EMTALA does not gut Idaho’s Act.* Second, the United States clarified that federal conscience protections, for both hospitals and individual physicians, apply in the EMTALA context. Tr. of Oral Arg. 87–89. That is another critical point: It alleviates Idaho’s concern that the Government’s interpretation of EMTALA would strip healthcare providers of conscience protections. And here is the asterisked footnote: The United States also clarified that if pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the woman’s health postviability, EMTALA requires delivery, not abortion. Brief for United States 10; Tr. of Oral Arg. 75. And it emphasized that EMTALA requires abortion only in an “emergency acute medical situation,” where a woman’s health is in jeopardy if she does not receive an abortion “then and there.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 79–80. These two temporal points also narrow the scope of EMTALA’s potential conflict with Idaho’s Act. Barrett also observed that petitioner’s counsel said Idaho would not prosecute doctors who performed abortions in the Four Hurry Cases. Given these things, says Barrett, what is either side worried about? She also wished to let the Ninth Circuit decide, at their oral argument, whether Congress may, through any Spending Clause statute, compel recipients of federal funds to violate State law as a condition of such funding. Justice Alito’s dissent Justice Alito did not agree. He rejected out-of-hand the interpretation of EMTALA that Barrett has seen fit to accept. Indeed he flat-out accused the Biden administration of looking for “ways to limit [the] reach” of his landmark anti-abortion decision. The idea that EMTALA requires all Medicare-funded hospitals to perform abortions under any circumstances strikes him as “novel.” Clearly he reads the text differently from Justice Barrett – and from Judge Winmill back in Idaho. Both the woman and the unborn child rate due consideration in his view. But he also – within the limits of Justicial etiquette, for which he is a stickler – accused his colleagues of cowardice. Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. That is regrettable. He could not have rebuked his colleagues any more severely even by saying The Word. What follows that provocative statement, is, first, a detailed treatment of the statutory text. Nowhere in that text does the word abortion appear. Furthermore, a woman may refuse treatment but may not demand an abortion, if that violates State law. Next, Alito treats the political climate during the Reagan Administration, and the real reason for EMTALA: to stop the “dumping” of charity patients by fee-requiring hospitals when a transfer would make their clinical problems worse. In the debate on EMTALA, several Reagan administration officials assured people that EMTALA would not require abortion under any circumstances. Beyond that, Alito observes that Spending Clause legislation, like EMTALA, cannot bind anyone to conditions they never accepted. This rule applies to the State of Idaho, which desires to ban elective abortion. Idaho does have to worry about whether its abortion law is enforceable In criticizing the vacatur of the stay of injunction, Alito rejects the notion that the Defense of Life Act remains enforceable apart from emergency cases. He finds it absurd to suggest, as Barrett does, that the two sides are closer together than they thought. And he accepts Idaho’s fear of a federal mental-health exception – based on a statement by the American Psychiatric Association. Freedom to act to interrupt pregnancy must be considered a mental health imperative with major social and mental health implications. That comes from a 2023 APA position paper. Furthermore, Alito cites Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade. That case specifically allowed for a mental-health ground for abortion, even in the third trimester. For that reason, jurists always understood the United States to permit abortion on demand, for any reason or no reason. The Liberal Concurrence – and Dissent The Liberal Bloc opinion came from Justice Kagan, who accepted uncritically the: • Government’s interpretation of EMTALA, and • Assurances that EMTALA would not open the gate for elective abortions. She also rounded on Justice Alito, asking him how he dared “dispute … medical fact.” From her opinion: EMTALA unambiguously requires that a Medicare-funded hospital provide whatever medical treatment is necessary to stabilize a health emergency—and an abortion, in rare situations, is such a treatment. She arrives at that conclusion only indirectly, by observing that EMTALA never enumerates other stabilizing treatments. That “abortion, in rare situations, is such a treatment” is only an inference from prevailing medical opinion. Therein lies her greatest weakness: she accepts prevailing medical opinion as indisputable fact. Justice Jackson dissents from one part of the result: dismissing the writ of review. (So the vote was actually 5-4 to dismiss the writ, but 6-3 to vacate the stay of injunction.) She wanted the Court to rule definitively that EMTALA does mandate abortion. She didn’t get that result – and she threw a Jacksonian tantrum as a result. Liberty One News reported yesterday that someone – presumably on the Supreme Court Clerk’s staff – inadvertently released this decision yesterday. However that happened, Clerk’s staff promptly removed it – but not before Bloomberg Law obtained a copy. Liberty One quoted NBC News as repeating a quote by Justice Jackson at the end of her dissent: Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay. While this Court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. This Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price. Because we owe them—and the Nation—an answer to the straightforward preemption question presented in these cases, I respectfully dissent. Note carefully: another case on point is making its way through Texas courts, and presumably the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That is likely to produce a split in the circuits, and then the Court will have to act definitively. Abortion is definitely an election issue The outcome today definitely makes abortion an issue in the Election of 2024, for two reasons. First, a second Trump administration could reverse the guidance by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regarding EMTALA requirements. Trump’s ordering this would be consistent with his declaration of leaving abortion to the States. (That guidance demonstrably violates States’ rights, as the Liberal Bloc wants.) Second, Sonia Sotomayor, requiring as she does a doctor to attend her in her travels, might not last Trump’s term. Therefore – as many leftists worry – Trump will replace her. Justice Alito is right: the Moderate Bloc has turned cowardly. The relative youth of Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh – and Barrett being a mother of seven children, five biological and two adopted – makes them vulnerable to blackmail. Kavanaugh in fact has been a direct target of Justicial assassination. As may be, this is the second case this Term that the Court, per the Moderate Bloc, has punted. (The first was Murthy v. Missouri, decided yesterday.) CNAV pointed out, after the argument, the salient weakness of Supreme Courts everywhere. They rely on lower courts to develop trial records, and have no investigative powers of their own. But they also rely on expert testimony, or rarely on Special Masters. And they can often appoint the wrong Special Masters. Or, as in this case, they accept uncritically the consensus position of a scientific establishment that suffers from ideological corruption. The medical establishment and its abortion problem Too many clinical practitioners look upon non-practitioners as “blobs of humanity.” As Luke of Antioch, Patron Saint of Physicians, might have observed, such hubris is most dangerous in the healing arts. Therefore the conservative – and especially the Christian – community needs its own alternative medical academy and establishment. Idaho, in particular, has one medical school (at the University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho). It could use another – at any of several Christian colleges and universities in Idaho. The value of – and need for – a Christian medical network makes itself manifest in the opinions released today. If Justices of the Supreme Court will accept uncritically the arrogant proposition that terminating a pregnancy is the definitive, don’t-ask-questions solution for toxemia of pregnancy, for example, then this country has a very serious clinical, scientific – and spiritual – problem. Experts can be and have been wrong. Our society faces momentous decisions – decisions about the right to die, about abortion, terminal illness, prolonged coma, transplantation – decisions about life and death. But society isn’t deciding. Congress isn’t deciding; the courts aren’t deciding; religion isn’t deciding. Why? Because society is leaving it up to us – the experts – the doctors…. Americans believe in medical care. These great hospital complexes are the cathedrals of our modern age. Actor Richard Widmark, as George A. Harris, M.D., in Coma (1978) When he spoke those lines, Richard Widmark convicted Americans of violating the First Commandment. You shall have no other gods before Me. Exodus 20:3 But Americans have taken a god ahead of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – a nondescript, blank-faced god in a white smock. Decisions – or non-decisions – like today’s are the result. Maybe if we start educating humble doctors, who respect the lives of the smallest and most vulnerable among us, America will come to a better place than the Supreme Court showed it to be in today. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/06/27/news/idaho-abortion-case-punted/ The order, concurrences, and dissents: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf Interactive abortion law map: https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/abortion-state-tracking-trigger-laws-bans-restrictions-rcna36199 Position paper of the American Psychiatric Association: https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/2f2371ac-307e-4889-bdb2-f9bf0a12d401/Position-Abortion-Reproductive-Rights.pdf Declarations of Truth X feed: https://x.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/