Declarations of Truth

Ukraine as proxy for war with Russia By Terry A. Hurlbut Last night, of course, CNAV discussed the legacy media expressing fears of Trump’s re-election and revenge against them. In that discussion, CNAV mentioned Ukraine – and specifically this article by “Real Clear Investigator” Aaron Maté. That article is worth discussing in greater detail, for it illustrates that the Deep State, and the Obama Machine, used Ukraine in their joint bid for one-world government. Something called Russia – once the darling of the political left – is now an inveterate existential enemy to them. So is the first person to carry the Republican banner and actually take seriously the ostensible Republican message. Ukraine has been their proxy against both, but especially against Russia. But their real agenda is an agenda against all of humanity – except themselves. Who is Aaron Maté? Aaron Maté would at first seem a very odd choice to expose a plot of the left. That’s because, for years, he has belonged to the left, and stood for the “traditional” things for which the left stands. One need only read his biography, which he appends to his every article at the Real Clear Foundation: Aaron Maté has provided extensive coverage of corruption within federal intelligence agencies as a contributor to RealClearInvestigations. He is also a contributor to The Nation, and his work has appeared in Democracy Now!, Vice, Al Jazeera, Toronto Star, The Intercept, and Le Monde Diplomatique. Maté is the host of the news show Pushback with Aaron Maté. The Nation? Democracy Now!? Vice? The Intercept? Since when would CNAV ever quote those outlets? Well, we did – when The Intercept reported on (and probably boasted of) the role of the Deep State in turning social-media companies into State actors. Nevertheless, Aaron Maté took time to interview a former diplomat for Ukraine – who now has sought asylum elsewhere in Europe. (Maté will not name the country, probably at his subject’s request.) Andrii Telizhenko was more than a member of Ukraine’s diplomatic corps; he also worked closely with the Democratic Party. He did this because he genuinely believed that Ukraine ought to be free of something called Russia – which he and others conflated with a Russia that once was – something calling itself Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. Now he sees the bitter fruit of a campaign he helped. Quoting Maté: Although he once welcomed Washington’s influence in Ukraine, Telizhenko now takes a different view. “I’m a Ukrainian who knew how Ukraine was 30 years ago, and what it became today,” he says. “For me, it’s a total failed state.” In his view, Ukraine has been “used directly by the United States to fight a [proxy] war with Russia” and “as a rag to make money for people like Biden and his family.” Of course his old allies have turned against him. That includes the Deep State – and the State Department. They, who once relied on him to further their plans, now say he worked with Russia to influence American elections. That’s a lie. Russia didn’t mess into American elections; Ukraine did. The grooming of a warmonger Aaron Maté goes back to November of 2013, and the roots of the Maidan Revolution. But actually one must look back further – to the Election of 2008. George W. Bush oversaw the tanking of the American economy. The Republican Party ran that election to lose. It began with the selection of the least-inspiring Presidential candidate they could have chosen: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Then it continued with the collapse of several investment houses, and the ripple effects from Wall Street to Main Street. The timing couldn’t have been more propitious for a one-worlder whom other one-worlders had groomed from his birth: Barack Obama. Born in Kenya (as that country boasted), carried into America in his mother’s arms (in a week for which archives of arrivals at American airports are missing), installed in Hawaii where one can fix any birth record or birth announcement – the one-worlders surely had their plans for him already laid. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona tried to put paid to speculation about Obama’s birth certificate – until he found a level of evasion more consistent with a criminal conspiracy than with honest record-keeping mistakes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk3KRxTfkLM X influencer Dom Lucre shared extensive findings on that issue eleven months ago. Barack Obama was the perfect Manchurian Candidate to set in motion a chain of events leading to war with Russia. Joan Swirsky, watching his inauguration, said then: The sole mission of Barack Obama and his henchmen is to destroy Israel. Actually, it was to remove all obstacles to the one-worlders. Israel is one; Russia is another. Why Russia? Russia today is an obvious target of the American political left. They don’t tolerate the Alphabet Soup movement. More tellingly, when Vladimir Putin feared a U.S. military intervention at the orders of a “President Hillary,” he returned home abruptly from a European junket – and ordered his people to arm themselves. Small arms in civilian possession is anathema to the American left. They want no person, except a law-enforcement (or “violence prevention”) officer, an active-duty military service member, a Very Important Person, or his/her/their bodyguard, to own, carry, or so much as touch, much less discharge, a firearm. But Russia wasn’t always the enemy of the left. Back when it called itself Soviet Union, Russia was the darling of the left. Russia represented the ultimate in human progress and political development: New Communist Man, or New Man for short. New Man was not supposed to worry about profit or reward. He would serve the State, and the State would take care of anything material he could ever legitimately need. And to her fluttering scarlet banner, / Selflessly true we always shall stand! Or as Paul Robeson translated the World War II/Great Patriotic War version: Long live our Soviet motherland, / Built by the people's mighty hand. Long live our people, united and free! Strong in our friendship tried by fire. / Long may our crimson flag inspire, Shining in glory for all men to see. Except that Russia doesn’t fly a crimson banner anymore, but the original tricolor, lacking only the Romanov crest. Russia has revived the tune of the Hymn to the USSR – but not the lyrics! How Vladimir Putin, former light colonel in the First Chief Directorate of the KGB, must disappoint the Left! His conversion to, and embrace of, the Russian Orthodox Church is final shame to their dreams. Timeline to war in Ukraine In November of 2013 came the first flames that Obama – as President – could strike. Telizhenko names two names from that administration: John Brennan, head of the CIA, and Victoria Nuland from the State Department. Regular readers of these pages will recognize both names. In that month, then-President Viktor Yanukovych delayed signing a trade agreement with the European Union. Yanukovych, with his severe venal corruption, had little to recommend him. But he was never going to sign a trade agreement that stated, as a condition, that he curtail trade with Russia. The Russia trade was quite lucrative for his base in eastern and southern Ukraine – meaning the Crimea and the Donbas. He much preferred to put Russia and the EU in competition with one another. Nevertheless a protest took place on Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Kyiv. It started out peacefully enough – until the ultra-nationalist forces took it over. And here’s another irony everyone missed: the ultra-nationalists accused the Jews of collaborating with the Russians. That made their movement less than palatable to European sensibilities. But Obama, his officials, and the “neoconservatives” whom he never truly acknowledged, insisted on working with such people. To them, Ukraine was a prize – and a potential spear to aim at the heart of Russia. Little things like Nazi-like ideology and blatant antisemitism didn’t matter. (Why it didn’t stop the Israelis from supplying them later is far from clear. Perhaps this is yet another bad decision on their part.) False-flag pseudo-operations Affairs in Ukraine went from bad to worse. Then on February 20, 2014, snipers killed several Maidan Square protesters. But those snipers were not government forces. Estonia’s foreign minister charged then that this was a false-flag pseudo-operation. Nationalist forces literally killed some of their own followers to drum up popular sympathy. From that point forward they refused to consider any solution that would keep Yanukovych in office. But Telizhenko reveals worse: Victoria Nuland was hand-picking those who would assume power immediately. Yanukovych, stripped of all power, fled to Moscow. Not long afterward, Russia started looking after her interests – and those of ethnic Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine. Crimea was first; Russia annexed it after a hasty referendum on independence from Ukraine and reunion with Russia. Not long thereafter, Donbas separatists seized government buildings in three Donbas cities: Donetsk, Lugansk, and Kharkiv. This time Putin was willing to wait on any referenda in that region. But CIA chief Brennan flew to Kyiv for secret meetings with several officials of the new Ukraine government. At that meeting – according to Telizhenko – Brennan virtually authorized Ukraine to use force against the Donbas. Which they did. They almost erased the Donbas rebels, but Russia intervened then, and blunted the advance. Obama must have thought better of escalating matters any further. That’s the only reason the Russia and Ukraine war did not begin then and there. The Minsk Accords – and corrupt businessmen The Minsk Accords date from this period. Ukraine agreed to afford the Donbas peoples limited autonomy, if Russia would withdraw and the Donbas demilitarized. Obama would have let the matter rest; he had little taste for carrying the conflict further. But Victoria Nuland, among others, was pressing the matter – behind his back. Also, the CIA essentially re-created the Ukraine intelligence establishment. That establishment became an extension of the CIA itself. More to the point, the United States Embassy in Kyiv was effectively running the government. In December 2015 matters came to a curious head. Then-Vice-President Biden called Ukraine officials and ordered them – on pain of loss of $1 billion in aid – to fire prosecutir Viktor Shokin. That worthy, at the time, was investigating officials of the Ukraine gas company, Burisma. And that company was one of many ventures in which Hunter Biden was involved. Ukraine, not Russia, intervened in an American election Telizhenko also says flatly that Ukraine intervened in the Election of 2016 – on Hillary Clinton’s side. They tried to “get dirt” on Donald J. Trump. But of course, Trump has committed no more serious offense than to speak rather crudely of women he’s dated. He has not accepted any bribes – or sexual favors from children. The Russia Hoax also originated in Ukraine. It served both them and the White House to paint Trump, the outsider, as a Russian asset. That explains the apparent theft of Democratic Party emails and their release to WikiLeaks. That also is a false-flag pseudo-operation. But of course that was to no avail. Trump won anyway, by carrying Pennsylvania – the last thing anyone expected. Perhaps from that moment on, Democrats were looking to remove Trump through impeachment. They redoubled their efforts when Trump began to get a little too close to the truth for their comfort. The Articles of Impeachment referred to a telephone call between Trump and new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But they did not discuss the Burisma Gas Company, as Impeachment Floor Managers would later allege. Instead, Trump encouraged Zelensky to patch things up with Vladimir Putin of Russia. The problem is, ultra-nationalist elements in the Ukraine high command threatened to “frag” Zelensky if he did any such thing. Road to open war with Russia Impeachment resulted in a “hung Senate,” of course. Republicans in the Senate didn’t know half the story behind that phone call. They knew only that no one could prove that it was a dirty as the Democrats said it was. And perhaps they were in no mood to give the Democrats a chance to muck things up with a Vice-Presidential appointment and confirmation fight. Not with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, they didn’t. Of course, Trump lost the Election of 2020 – or had it stolen from him. If Ukraine had a hand in that, it was probably the development of the coronavirus that caused the P(l)andemic which in turn gave the Democrats the perfect excuse to conduct fifty Presidential Elections with heavy use of mail-in absentee ballots mailed to all voters, whether they requested them or not. Zelensky learned early how to continue in office without benefit of support. Seeing himself about to lose to a pro-Russian candidate, he: 1. Shut down three opposition television stations, 2. Seized assets belonging to the opposition candidate’s family, and 3. Charged his opponent with treason. And “Resident” Joe Biden cheered him on. From then on, the road to open war was clear. Ukraine and Russia stationed troops across the border from one another. Then in February 2022, Putin, all his efforts at a peaceful resolution having come to nothing, invaded. Ukraine can’t win – but gets aid anyway By now everyone recognizes that Ukraine cannot possibly win the war it, and the Obama-Biden machine, provoked. Morale in the Armed Forces of Ukraine couldn’t be lower. They expect Russia to capture the Donbas by October. Nevertheless the machinations continue. That explains Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), Speaker of the House, reneging on a promise to shut off the money spigot. Worse yet, we now hear of definite plans to invite Ukraine into NATO. The revelations by Andrii Telizhenko and others prove that elements of the Deep State – with Barack Obama as their figurehead: 1. Changed the duly elected government in Ukraine into one willing to start a suicidal war with Russia, and 2. Are dragging the United States into a flat-out, blood-and-flames, nuclear war, also with Russia. There is no excuse for that. And now that the Democrats have set the precedent, Trump should prosecute Victoria Nuland, John Brennan, and several other officials. The Bidens’ venal till tapping is bad enough – but these officials are guilty of treason. What’s more, the House and Senate needs to impeach Obama and Biden for their roles in starting this war. Wanton violation of rules by which they expect others to abide, surely counts as treason. If that doesn’t suffice, aiding and abetting a biological weapons developer and child-trafficking nexus surely would. And even beyond civil-service reform, Trump has grounds to place all the Obama hangers-on under arrest. Maybe then, at least one corner of the world can return to a semblance of peace. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/05/01/accountability/executive/ukraine-proxy-war-russia/ Aaron Maté’s article https://cnav.news/2024/04/30/editorial/guest/ukraine-10-years-us-meddling/ Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s examination of Obama’s birth certificate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk3KRxTfkLM Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Legacy media already assume Trump wins By Terry A. Hurlbut Legacy media organs and personalities already are sounding dire, paranoid alarms not only about Trump winning the upcoming election, but what he will do to them, and to those with whom they sympathize, when he returns to the White House. Of course they oversimplify, as is usual with paranoid ideation. Furthermore, much of what they say they fear, they themselves would do in his place. But much of it is actually the reverse of what they and the Biden administration have done to President Trump. Naturally they have none to blame but themselves, and already they begin to know it. Latest legacy media alarm CNN reported this definite cold, hard fact about the Presidential Election of 2024. Their polling among registered voters shows Trump leading Biden 49 percent to 43 percent. They also acknowledge that 55 percent of their sample considered Trump’s Presidency a success. That’s the exact reverse of how people felt about Trump immediately after the January 6 event. That’s telling. It really means that Joe Biden’s “Residency” has been an abject failure, worse than Trump warned it would be. By now, everybody knows it – except those who wanted it that way. Leftism likes to say that right-ism is the ideology of selfishness. Theirs is the ideology of spite. As the late Ayn Rand might have said: they don’t want to live; they want us to die. James Carville, according to Margaret Flavin of The Gateway Pundit, gave the perfect illustration. [If Trump wins] There will be no government left, there will be no rights left, you will live under theocracy, you'll end up with Christian Nationalism. But that’s [all right], you little … 26 year old[s]. You don't feel like the election’s important. https://twitter.com/EricAbbenante/status/1784749016321765780 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6866RmVwFY From the above we can assume that James Carville is a militant atheist, like the Bolsheviks of the last century. Mike LaChance, also of The Gateway Pundit, reported that Joe Scarborough expressed fear that the violent pro-HAMAS protests on American college campuses would ensure Trump’s re-election. Specifically he compared those protests to the violent demonstrations that attended the Democratic National Convention in 1968. (And the student demonstrations in that day, that shocked a country that had never before seen the like.) https://twitter.com/d_ewinger/status/1785055653859328231 He actually called out university administrators for allowing such violence to go on. But considering his history, those complaints ring hollow. Worried for their jobs? Jim Hoft reported on Nicolle Wallace’ rant on MSNBC about whether she would even have a job if Trump wins. The immediate source of her concern was the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which apparently was a public-relations disaster. When Trump was President, he never attended it – but he still let it go on. Joe Biden attended it, and apparently he made a fool of himself, and Trump called him on it. So now Nicolle Wallace is suggesting that Trump, if he wins, will cancel the dinner. More broadly, she said: Depending on what happens in November, this time next year, I might not be sitting here. There might not be a White House Correspondents Dinner or a free press. While our democracy wouldn’t exactly fall apart immediately without it, the real threat looms larger: A candidate with outward disdain, not just for a free press but for all of our freedoms. And for the rule of law itself. https://twitter.com/EricAbbenante/status/1785097752520626326 Eric Abbenante, whom we have to thank for these clips, reminded everyone of the low ratings for her show. Low ratings, circulation, etc., seems to be a pervasive problem for the legacy media. Beyond that, notice the hypocrisy of Wallace’ claim that Trump has “disdain for a free press.” CNAV doesn’t recall her protesting the censorship regime of Big Tech and Big Intel beginning before the Election of 2020. No one, who pretends to care for a free press, has any business complaining about “misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation.” Those are the price one pays for freedom of the press, and the proper counter to lies, is the truth. Another TIME piece But the most stunning piece of paranoid ideation in the legacy media today comes from Time Magazine. Time editorialist Eric Cortelessa scored an interview with Trump, and published it in this week’s edition. His piece made the cover, too. Time showed the former President, wearing a dark suit against a jet-black background, with this caption: “If he wins.” https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/TIM240527-Trump-Cover.jpg Ben Kew at The Gateway Pundit summarized it. https://twitter.com/RealAndyHidalgo/status/1785275178726949304 Cortelessa got maybe one thing right: Donald Trump thinks he’s identified a crucial mistake of his first term: He was too nice. Nice, that is, to advisers he never should have appointed. He knows it, and it shows. Take heart from this assessment: Now he is in charge. The arranged marriage with the timorous Republican Party stalwarts is over; the old guard is vanquished, and the people who remain are his people. If he had come to Washington with his team in 2017, he’d still be in the White House today. More to the point, when he returns, Cortelessa outlines the program he expects: 1. Deporting at least 11 million people who have come into the country illegally after Biden let them in, 2. Withholding appropriated funds if he doesn’t think they are going to a good purpose, 3. Firing United States Attorneys who fail to carry out the law, 4. Pardoning the January 6 defendants, and 5. Reforming the Civil Service to get rid of the hangers-on. Cortelessa betrayed his own hypocrisy when he poured contempt on Trump’s announcement that abortion would be a matter for State, not federal, law. Obviously he would see no abortion unperformed, as is typical – but Trump stands for States’ rights, and he stands against them. Legacy media and its double standards That’s only one of the double standards the legacy media, like those for whom they apologize, have. For instance, Eric Cortelessa complains that Trump might, or might not, “come to the aid of an ally.” Well, if he’s talking about Ukraine, that’s one “ally” that an America First administration should cut loose from the first. Aaron Maté, in seventeen pages of prose, illustrates brilliantly that the Democrats conspired for ten years to get the United States into a war with something called Russia today. Ukraine has been their pawn, and their money laundry – a laundry that RINOS used as well. Worse, it has been a center for biological weapons development – and child trafficking. President Trump needs to use the evidence Maté developed – from his interview with former Ukrainian diplomat Andrii Telizhenko – to complete the investigation House Democrats interrupted with their impeachment of him. But if Cortelessa wants to talk more about allies – well, he cagily qualified the word ally with the phrase in Europe. Obviously he means to exclude the one ally who deserves any American support: the State of Israel. The American left deliberately loses sight of the atrocities a declared enemy of Israel committed. Indeed they seem to think Israel deserved what it got on October 7, 2023. Never mind that Israel takes care of its artistic and architectural antiquities, better than any other country in the world. Remember, too, that Israel does not traffic in children – or develop biological weapons. People haven’t heard the truth The major sin of the legacy media is one of omission – not so much outright lies as dissemblance. But to support that omission, they told the lie that anyone exposing the truth was spreading “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.” For that reason only, people were ready – once – to believe that: 1. A hapless Chinese citizen made a batch of bat soup and, by that act, unleashed a plague that threatened to decimate the human race. (The World Health Organization would still have people believe that such a thing almost did happen, and could happen. It is how they propose to institute one-world government.) 2. The Maidan “Color Revolution” in Ukraine represented a home-grown movement for self-determination against a cruel and cynical would-be master. 3. That same master, which today calls itself the Russian Federation, is a would-be empire builder. Furthermore it represents a step back in time, to oligarchy and theocracy. (How ironic! Once upon a time, Russia represented the ultimate in human progress! But that’s when it called itself “Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.”) Today we know better. We know that coronavirus was a biological weapon, developed in Ukraine. Likewise the vaccines were another kind of weapon. Russia is not the enemy of humankind – but she is the enemy of that Deep State seeking to rule, then depopulate, the world. Furthermore, Russia didn’t intervene in the Election of 2016. Ukraine did. The legacy media did not report any of this – because they had orders not to. What is likely to happen More broadly, the legacy media would have you believe that a President Trump will directly shut down legacy media outlets. He doesn’t have to do any such thing, apart from Constitutional considerations. The American people are doing it for him, by depriving the legacy media of viewership, circulation, and revenue. But one thing he can and should do, is to dis-accredit certain reporters who have sullied their profession by lying. (Likely he won’t. If Ronald Reagan could tolerate Helen Thomas for as long as he did, Trump will do likewise. Maybe he’ll want the Joe Scarboroughs and Nicolle Wallaces around as foils. Then again, the American people might do it for him.) One definite thing he should do, is to disband National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service. As Charles Lipson pointed out two weeks ago, no government should ever fund a domestic news organ. The conflict of interest is obvious. Let the current sponsors of the Masterpiece programs port them to the Arts and Entertainment Channel. The C-SPAN channels can remain, to cover Congressional proceedings and Supreme Court oral arguments. But news must have private funding only. The legacy media dug their own grave, with their lies, their tolerance for fornication and theft, and promotion of covetousness. They can’t blame their troubles on Trump, who will mostly let the market exact its justice. And do what the American people want him to do. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/30/editorial/talk/legacy-media-already-assume-trump-wins/ James Carville’s temper tantrum, in excerpt and full-length video: https://twitter.com/EricAbbenante/status/1784749016321765780 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6866RmVwFY Joe Scarborough calling out university administrations: https://twitter.com/d_ewinger/status/1785055653859328231 Nicolle Wallace’ lament: https://twitter.com/EricAbbenante/status/1785097752520626326 Direct link to the cover of TIME: https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/TIM240527-Trump-Cover.jpg Post showing the cover of TIME: https://twitter.com/RealAndyHidalgo/status/1785275178726949304 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Precinct Strategy scores again By Terry A. Hurlbut Last weekend, the Arizona Republican Party passed a resolution denouncing the coronavirus vaccines. But far more important than the content of the resolution, was who put it forward and passed it – and how. That resolution is a product of a movement calling itself Precinct Strategy. That movement scares leftists and RINOS alike, and with good cause – at least from their point of view. Those who care about their country and their freedom should take heart – and take part. The latest victory Yesterday, Dr. Joseph Sansone published to Substack his report on a “Ban the Jab” resolution at the Arizona Republican Convention. A Jonathan Kopel – who might or might not be a house officer in Georgetown University Hospital’s Neurology program – submitted the essay to The Gateway Pundit. According to the report, Dan Schultz, founder of Precinct Strategy (visit their Web site), submitted the resolution. Arizona’s Republican convention passed it with 95.62 percent of the vote. Three months earlier, Schultz had submitted a similar resolution at the Maricopa County Republican Committee. They passed it with 87.4 percent of the vote. The resolution reads as follows: Whereas: Strong and credible evidence shows Covid 19 and Covid 19 injections are biological and technological weapons, and Pfizer’s clinical data revealed 1,223 deaths, 42,000 adverse cases, 158,000 adverse incidents, and approximately 1,000 side effects, and an enormous number of people have died and or have been permanently disabled after having been injected by the Covid 19 injections, and strong and credible evidence from Sweden exists that Covid mRNA shots alter human DNA, and government agencies, media, and tech companies, and other corporations have committed enormous fraud by claiming Covid injections are safe and effective, and The Florida Department of Health has called for a halt to the mRNA injections, and continued experimentation on humans and denial of informed consent are violations of the Nuremberg Code and therefore constitute crimes against humanity, [now therefore be it] Resolved: [That] On behalf of the preservation of the human race, the 2024 Arizona Republican Party Presidential Nominating Convention Delegates call upon Governor Hobbs and the state legislature to prohibit the sale and distribution of Covid injections and all mRNA injections in Arizona, and for the Arizona Attorney General to immediately seize all Covid injections and mRNA injections in Arizona and perform a forensic analysis on these so-called “vaccines.” The first state to pass such a resolution was Idaho. A similar resolution passed in Florida, which makes Dr. Sansone’s count of Arizona as “the second Republican Party to pass a Ban the Jab resolution” a trifle confusing. Commenters on Dr. Sansone’s Substack page received the news enthusiastically – but commenters at The Gateway Pundit were openly skeptical. Most called it a useless virtue signal. But they all missed one thing: that Dan Schultz and his Precinct Strategy movement got it passed. How they did it is even more important. Passing this resolution involved more than reintroducing it until someone had to act. It also included putting the votes in place to pass it when it finally came to a vote. To understand that, one must first understand what Precinct Strategy is and how it works. What is Precinct Strategy? Precinct Strategy is Dan Schultz’ brainchild, a project he has been working on since before 2013. But for years his ideas gained little traction. Then came the Election of 2020. Two things happened that prompted Steve Bannon, a long-time Trump activist, to go back through his email archives (or discards) and fish Dan Schultz’ message out of storage. First, the infamous Stairstep Graph happened, with Joe Biden seemingly taking the lead from Trump overnight and instantaneously. Second, too many Republican county and other unit committee chairs failed – indeed refused – to act. According to a ProPublica article published early in 2021, Bannon invited Schultz on his new Bannon’s War Room program. Bannon asked Schultz what happens if Republican legislatures failed to nullify elections in the “Stairstep States” of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona. Schultz answered that activists should then take over the Party by standing and campaigning for little-known precinct chairmanships and committee spots. Bannon didn’t let him explain then – but brought him back on February 6, 2021. Precinct Strategy is about two things: • Joining the Republican apparatus at the local level, in sufficient numbers to outvote those presently in charge, and: • Signing people up to become accredited Party election challengers (poll watchers) and Officers of Election (poll workers). The rationale is simple: it is better to become a precinct officer than to complain about the conduct of one. That goes double for Officers of Election. Lightning fast recruitment Until 2021, Republican and Democratic Party county and other unit committees had few members. Those members might have been totally apathetic. Your editor actually heard some attendees at campaign events complain about their beauty parlor appointment schedules conflicting with activism! But after that February 6 podcast, that ended. Maricopa County, Arizona tells the tale. Shortly after that podcast, the Maricopa County Republican Committee, which had been steadily shrinking, abruptly started growing. And growing, and growing. The Maricopa County Democratic Committee was registering growth – but its growth rate changed little on that day. If the 2022 Midterms is any indicator, activists in Maricopa County have a long way to go. But in other counties they have clearly succeeded. Such activists in Virginia – both as cold callers and door knockers and as poll workers and watchers – helped Glenn Youngkin become the first Republican Governor in eight years. Today the success of Precinct Strategy tends to be spotty. Some Republican unit chairs welcome the new recruits. Others try to shut them out of the party – like Kathy Petsas in – you guessed it – Maricopa County, Arizona. Being motivated by conspiracy theories is no way to go through life, and no way for us to build a high-functioning party. That attitude can’t prevail. WRONG! If you don’t want people to accuse you of conspiracy, don’t conspire! And don’t conspire through inaction, either. As an aside, ProPublica made much of the “Q-Anon conspiracy theory” that focused on President Trump’s efforts to stop child trafficking. The Angel Studios release Sound of Freedom provided all the proof anyone needs, that a worldwide child trafficking network exists. Crow, anyone? How Precinct Strategy can flip more blue States Patti Lyman, Virginia’s representative to the Republican National Committee, told CNAV recently that there are no blue States. Rather, there are States whose Republican Parties have let a handful of the most populous cities dominate State-wide elections. Any “county carry” map tells the tale: even the bluest State has islands of blue in a sea of red. In a State like Texas, a much lower proportion of city dwellers vote Democratic – and the State Republican Party has organized the rurals to vote, a thing they once almost never did. Lyman challenges other State Republican Parties to do as Texas does. Precinct Strategy terrifies leftist activist groups, like the League of Women Voters. “The Deniers Are Coming, The Deniers Are Coming!” squeal these activists, who nevertheless don’t know how to stop them. They have every ground for concern. Before 2021, not only were Party committee elections among the sleepiest, but Officers of Election were almost always Little Old Ladies in Tennis Shoes – or Democratic Party activists. Officer parity – having equal numbers of Republican and Democratic OOEs in most precincts – was almost unknown. No more! Thanks to Precinct Strategy, and the example it sets, Republican activists are becoming OOEs, and even precinct election chiefs. That means those activists who brought pre-filled-in ballots in their “suitcases” (OOE carry cases for equipment and supplies) are either out of jobs, or have relative strangers ready to ask, “What is [the meaning of] this?” Taking over the Party and the Board of Elections In this patient, painstaking way, Precinct Strategy motivates activists to take over the State Republican Party and the elections. Their goal at Party level is to ensure support for candidates for reasons other than the venal corruption that, too often, prevails. This, and not “open primaries,” is how “We the People” clear the smoke out of the smoke-filled room. This is also how activists ensure that their Party will not let the Deep State steal any more elections like 2020 – or Midterms 2022, especially in Arizona. That debacle surely informs Dan Schultz of how long a way he has to go. More to the point, the next step after recruiting more poll watchers and poll workers, is to switch to hand-counted paper ballots, one unit at a time. A handful of counties have already moved to that system. Hand-counting will require hiring more people, for an hourly wage. But OOE payroll pales in comparison to voting-machine security, maintenance – and legal defense. More to the point, France has been voting on paper and hand-counting votes for half a century. They can turn a national election around in twenty-four hours. In short, Precinct Strategy is the way to a Party more responsive to voters’ concerns – and elections the people can trust once again. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/29/foundation/constitution/precint-strategy-scores-again/ Precinct Strategy home: https://www.precinctstrategy.com/ Joseph Sansone’s essay containing the Ban the Jab resolution: https://josephsansone.substack.com/p/breaking-arizona-republican-party Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Title IX revision sparks State revolts By Terry A. Hurlbut A week and a half ago, the Biden administration finished a sweeping revision, that they began two years ago, of rules for implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 – or “Title IX” for short. The proposals from two years ago started enough alarm – concerning disciplinary process for sexual harassment complaints on campus. Indeed the alarm concerned possible sanctions against male students, not only male faculty or staff. But the new rules turned out to include something that almost negates all the alleged “protections” for sexual misconduct complainants. Under these new rules, men can pretend to be women and – before or after undergoing any Dr. Moreau treatment – enter the most intimate of women’s spaces. Five States have signaled their refusal to comply, thus assuring a legal showdown. What the new Title IX rules do As mentioned, the Biden administration started talking about amending the Title IX rules two years ago. Reason magazine detailed the changes that would affect certain due-process protections the Trump administration had put in place. By all accounts, those proposals are in place – along with other proposals to implement part of the Alphabet Soup agenda. (More on that below.) Under the new rules, a male teacher, other employee – or student – facing an accusation that he: • Demanded sexual favors of a female member of the community, favors she was in no mood to grant, or worse: • Forced intimate contact, or even his mere company, upon such a female member without an invitation, would face a judicial regime only Franz Kafka could love. Specifically: 1. Sexual harassment would include “unwelcome conduct” either severe or pervasive enough to make the woman feel she could not continue her education or other participation in the community. That could include the telling of bawdy jokes, or offering sexually charged compliments. All a woman need say is that she took such compliments as a threat, and that would suffice. Furthermore, the accused would face a process: 2. That need not include any hearing, 3. Conducted by one investigator only, 4. With no guarantee that he could see the evidence offered against him. Furthermore: 5. The educational institution would have to report the incident, whether the female complainant wished that or not. Furthermore the standard of proof would be preponderance of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt. Concerning Alphabet Soup Margaret Flavin of The Gateway Pundit described other new Title IX rules that Reason did not discuss. Specifically, female athletes – at all levels of schooling, not only at college or university – must: 1. Share bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms based on “gender identity,” which a person only need declare, 2. Compete directly against biological men, and 3. Accept biological men as members of their teams. https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1781438364547424411 Furthermore, anyone who refers to a “transgender” by other than said person’s “preferred” third-person singular pronouns, violates these new rules. Former college swimmer Riley Gaines lost a trophy to a mediocre male – Will Thomas – who changed his name to Lia and put on women’s swimwear, but, by all accounts, did not submit to the Dr. Moreau-style surgical and hormonal treatments to “transition” him into the likeness of a woman. (Whether Will “Lia” Thomas has actually had his name changed legally, in court, or ever found a Dr. Moreau to “transition” him medically, remains unclear.) Gaines tried to make her point at San Francisco State University. Alphabet Soup activists assaulted her, chased her into a room, and demanded a money “ransom” in exchange for safe conduct. The university dismissed her complaint and – adding insult to injury – insisted the incident was peaceful. Several States now have laws against all of the above, plus the Dr. Moreau-like surgical mutilation and hormonal poisoning. Ohio passed one such law over the veto of Gov. Mike DeWine. The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging it. Reactions by various States to the new rules Governors, Attorneys General, and/or State Superintendents of Education in five States have revolted against the new rules. Key to understanding why superintendents of elementary and secondary education, not merely higher education, must concern themselves with this rule, are these X posts by May Mailman, Director of the Independent Women’s Law Center. https://twitter.com/MayMailman/status/1781318900728189104 https://twitter.com/MayMailman/status/1781312568436408581 Attorney General Andrew Bailey of Missouri said flatly that such changes would not occur “on [his] watch.” https://twitter.com/AGAndrewBailey/status/1781373205829058673 The site NBC Montana reported similar revolts from Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Florida. Louisiana’s Superintendent of Education said the new rules contradict Louisiana’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. He sent a letter to various school boards telling them to hold off on any changes. (The new rules apparently take effect on August 1.) South Carolina Superintendent Ellen Weaver sent a similar letter to district superintendents in her State. Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters said the new Title IX rules contradict State and federal law. https://twitter.com/RyanWaltersSupt/status/1783519273899442177 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=embed_video&v=973423213984540 Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) said simply, “We will not comply.” https://twitter.com/GovRonDeSantis/status/1783536464317255919 Florida rejects Joe Biden’s attempt to rewrite Title IX. We will not comply, and we will fight back. We are not going to let Joe Biden try to inject men into women’s activities. We are not going to let Joe Biden undermine the rights of parents. And we are not going to let Joe Biden abuse his Constitutional authority to try to impose these policies on us here in Florida. We stand with opportunities, we are not going to let Biden get away with it. We will not comply. Deconstructing Title IX and the changes Title IX will always be The Federal Law That Canceled Many Men’s Sports. Title IX was supposed to ensure equal opportunities for women in sports. But its implementation amounted to equal proportions of male and female students on varsity and, where applicable, junior varsity teams. Thus athletic directors canceled most sports that could never attract equal numbers of male and female participants. That’s why boys’ wrestling is no longer offered at most high schools in America today. Football and basketball are – mainly because the alumni donors will support them but will not support other “men-only” sports. But these new rules make a mockery of any good intentions those who wrote Title IX might have had. CNAV is of two minds about the rules involving complaint-handling process for males accused of inappropriate and especially “unwelcome” conduct toward females. On one hand, depriving any male of employment or educational opportunity, without due process, violates the spirit of the Constitution. An adult would have a cause of legal action – and a minor would get a poor civics lesson if such lack of due process ever became the norm, in any context. On the other hand, school – especially elementary and secondary school – is no place for sexual relations. Likely no real problem exists that a return to good old-fashioned chaperonage wouldn’t repair. Perhaps a return to separate institutions for males and females, with provision for classroom exchange (except in athletics and physical education) would be in order. But about the Alphabet Soup…! But the Transgender Folly rules are worse. Women’s sports were never intended as the refuge for mediocre males. As many have already observed, these rules end Title IX. At least the old Title IX sought to enhance women’s opportunities. These new rules destroy them. This could be grounds – along with interpreting EMTALA to mandate abortion – to end the current federal-funding regime. Five States have already said, “No” to the new rules. The Education Department will likely take legal action, and cite the receipt of federal funds to claim standing. States can and should consider foregoing federal funds to negate, or nullify, such standing. Nullification could accomplish much to restore the autonomy the States thought they were retaining when they: • Ratified the Constitution, or • Applied to Congress for admission to the Union after the Constitution came into force and effect. However it happens, if any federal program required nullification, it’s Title IX. That Title is totally out of control – especially when it normalizes turning schools into Islands of Dr. Moreau. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/28/editorial/talk/title-ix-revision-sparts-state-revolts/ New Titlx IX unofficial rules: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-unofficial-final-rule-2024.pdf Reason articles about Title IX revisions: https://reason.com/2022/06/23/title-ix-rules-cardona-biden-sexual-misconduct-campus/ https://reason.com/2024/04/19/new-title-ix-rules-erase-campus-due-process-protections/ Margaret Flavin’s summary of Alphabet Soup changes: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/biden-regime-proudly-abolishes-title-ix-will-now/ X post quoting interview with Biden’s SecEd: https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1781438364547424411 May Mailman’s posts: https://twitter.com/MayMailman/status/1781318900728189104 https://twitter.com/MayMailman/status/1781312568436408581 X post by AG of Missouri: https://twitter.com/AGAndrewBailey/status/1781373205829058673 Ryan Walters’ video: https://twitter.com/RyanWaltersSupt/status/1783519273899442177 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=embed_video&v=973423213984540 Ron DeSantis’ video: https://twitter.com/GovRonDeSantis/status/1783536464317255919 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Will Trump flip New York? By Terry A. Hurlbut Will President Donald J. Trump actually carry the State of New York? That has become an open question – and given the State’s electoral history, that’s a miracle. How could a State with the largest city in the country – a city seemingly built on government handouts – a city at least as close as, if not closer than, any other city in America to creating New Communist … well, one mustn’t say Man anymore … turn away from that goal, seemingly at the last second? What has possessed the people in that city and State? Today many people are asking that question. Most of those asking it are RANTING AND RAVING AND SCREAMING IT AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS. Usually people who behave that way have none to blame but themselves for their predicament. So it is with the Democratic Party today. Political and demographic history of New York New York State has a population of about 19.6 million, making it the fourth most populous State in the Union. And that, is a come-down. The 2020 Census recorded a population of 20.2 million. New York State has lost more than three percent of its population since that Census. The last time New York lost any of its population was before the 1980 Census, which recorded 3.7 percent fewer people in the State than the 1970 Census. More than half the people in the State live in the City of New York, or on Long Island. Most of those vote Democratic. In fact the distribution of Party loyalties follows the nationwide pattern: Democrats in the cities, Republicans in the “sticks.” Besides the City, Democrats concentrate in Westchester, Rockland, and Nassau Counties, plus the cities of Albany, Buffalo, Ithaca, Rochester, and Syracuse. Republicans live in Upstate New York, the Hudson Valley, and the east of Long Island. Ithaca is especially telling, and perhaps Republicans will never penetrate there. For Ithaca is home to Cornell University, the newest Ivy League college. Ithaca once developed its own currency: the Hour, meant literally to translate into an hour’s work. One Hour equated to ten dollars – no matter who earned it; the pay scale was the same for everyone. After its inventor moved out of town, and people got used to credit cards and online bill payment, the Ithaca Hour died. Who’s been winning elections? The last Republican to keep winning reelection as governor was Nelson A. “Rocky” Rockefeller. When Gerald Ford appointed “Rocky” as his Vice-President in 1974, his seat-warmer, Malcolm Wilson, lost to the Democrat. Then in 1994 George Pataki took the governorship away from Mario Cuomo – whose wife predicted riots in the streets, riots that never came. But in 2006 Democrat Eliot Spitzer took the governorship, which has stayed in Democratic hands ever since. But Republican Lee Zeldin came within three points of taking the governorship away from Kathy Hochul. Not only was she a caretaker succeeding a disgraced predecessor (Andrew Cuomo, Mario’s son, removed on impeachment over his inter-office dalliances with eleven unwilling women), but she also has been a very poor governor, hanging on through Communist-like ideology alone. But, as ever, she has always been able to count on New York City, Westchester, Rockland, Nassau, etc. No Republican candidate for President has carried New York State since Ronald Reagan in 1984. His opponent then, Walter F. Mondale, was a bigger disaster than George S. McGovern had been in 1972. But ever since then, Democratic candidates have carried New York with 58 percent or better of the vote. Biden carried it with 60.8 percent in 2020. With numbers like that, no one – ever – has called New York a swing State. But that was before Lee Zeldin. It was also before the biggest political mistake the Democrats could have made. Putting Trump under State arrest in New York Alvin Bragg, District Attorney for New York County (i.e., Manhattan), won an indictment against Trump for allegedly paying for the silence of one “Stormy” Daniels, with whom he might – or might not (she denies it!) – have had an affair. Judge Juan Merchan, overseeing the trial of the case, has threatened to arrest Trump if he misses one day of the trial. This makes any travel by Trump to any State other than New York impractical – thus placing him under “State arrest.” And that was the mistake. Democrats had hoped to sideline Trump at a time when, according to conventional wisdom, he should be gallivanting all across the country, holding his signature rallies. They expected his momentum to dry up, since he couldn’t be physically present in these other States. And they never expected New Yorkers to break their loyalty to their party. They couldn’t have been more wrong – on both counts. Elsewhere, the people know why Trump can’t appear, and they sympathize. Everyone who cares to know, knows that the charges are unfounded and amount to selective prosecution. That’s the nearest thing to a bill of attainder (trying someone in the legislature) that can happen in America. That has enraged Trump’s base and caused Democratic rank-and-file to wonder – a thing they should never have risked. Trump, for his part, walked among the people of New York City. He’d never done that before – and the people love him for it. Visiting a bodega For example, Trump visited the Blue Moon, a bodega in Manhattan. Two years ago someone robbed the store, then came back for more. Shop assistant Jose Alba defended himself against that robber and ended up killing him. The New York County District Attorney charged him with murder! Later the D.A. thought better of that and dropped the murder charge. But Alba, in disgust, left the country for his native Dominican Republic. Any public prosecutor has discretion. They almost never charge someone with murder, under circumstances that clearly show that he can affirmatively defend himself at trial. Not only are public prosecutorial offices on fixed budgets, but everyone in them is also on fixed salary. So why should they waste their time, a court’s time, their budget, and court costs? That Alvin Bragg was willing to do that, shows that he, like all Democrats in New York, sympathize with criminals. A thief, to them, is an irregular wealth-redistribution agent. And a murderer is an irregular population thinner. Remember: Democrats answer to an elite who literally think this Earth is too small to hold them and the masses. Trump visited the Blue Moon, and the neighborhood – and the people still remembered, and welcomed him. https://twitter.com/kleavittnh/status/1780367768052801846 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yEJnYJ5Mh8 Of further note: when “Resident” Biden tried to do the same at a gasoline station, he got a cold reception. And now (would you believe it!) his Equal Employment Opportunities Commission is suing the chain for racial discrimination in hiring. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it’s enemy action. Ian Fleming Breaking a union stronghold – or is it really? Two days ago, Trump, on his way to trial, stopped by a construction site. (Yes, they’re still building things in New York City.) The construction gang loved it. Then Bob Bartels, head of Steamfitters Local 638, made a thunderclap announcement. Presidential preferences among his membership trends 3 to 1 for Trump! And he gave an enthusiastic reason why that’s happening. https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1783510198017229048 Or rather, reasons: high prices for groceries and gasoline, illegal immigration, and crime. The immigration part he squarely lays on Biden. Even though many of the immigrants arrive on buses from Texas – and he surely knows that Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) paid for those buses – he also knows where those immigrants come from, and who effectively let them in. That’s why, when someone asked him how he felt about the “Resident,” he uttered a blistering sexual obscenity. Bartels did actually work for Donald Trump once. But that was in 1986, and back then, Trump was a Democrat. No more, of course. Trump loves (the people of) New York It’s high time Trump did campaign in New York, regardless of the circumstances that stop him from campaigning elsewhere. He made his fortune in New York, and should be the State’s favorite son. But in all honesty, he has neglected the City and State, in the belief that no Republican is going to carry the State for love nor money. He acknowledged that – sort of. When people asked him how he’s doing, he first talked about his polling in “swing States,” which is better this time than in 2020. He then said explicitly that he felt he had a shot at carrying New York. For that he cited crime, inflation, and the governor’s poor performance in office. (That thirteen-minute video contains this interview.) This is not the first time he’s said such things. In August of 2020 he boasted of putting New York in play. Sadly, it didn’t work out that way. Biden carried the State with more than sixty percent of the vote. Mike Lindell might wonder whether that margin was accurate. But no one doubts that Biden’s lead in New York has shrunk badly. Biden leads by ten percent in the latest Siena College poll. Not only is this way down from September 2023, but the sampling was taking place while Trump was visiting the Blue Moon. And: Siena College skews left, given its partnership with The New York Times. Overcoming fears More than this, Donald Trump has never wanted to mingle among the people before. He literally was afraid of contracting infection that way. That’s a real concern, but smart people can take steps. Trump won’t actually get close enough for a handshake, but still he gets much closer to ordinary folks than he ever is when he’s standing on a stage. The thirteen minutes of footage from his visit to the Blue Moon shows that. People notice something else. Trump doesn’t get lost; Biden does. That’s why Biden’s handlers must tightly script his every appearance. Not so with Trump. Not everyone likes everything he has to say, but he will never trail off, mumble, or make “word salad.” More to the point, he reaches people where they live, and makes them think. And as Bob Bartels said, registered Democrats – among them, his members – are rethinking the kind of Party to which they want to belong. In New York City, the Democrats are the party of bodyguards for their Upper East Side donors, and crime for everyone else. (The City has no middle class.) And their courts are the most ideologically – if not venally – corrupt of all State courts. Their defiance of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen shows that. Those same courts confined Donald Trump to New York. But they did not reckon with Trump’s superb adaptability – and recognition of the folly of “writing off” any State. Summary Bearing this success in mind, Donald Trump must not abandon New York when his trial, as it must, concludes. He might even want to risk arrest by skipping trial to attend his son Barron’s high-school graduation. Such an arrest would instantly identify him with Nelson Mandela – if not Eugene V. Debs or even Sacco and Vanzetti! (Though the charges against Trump are not capital, Keith Olbermann made an intemperate remark sounding like a call for assassination.) All speculation aside, Trump should go on mingling with the people, especially in New York. He might try that in California, too. For too long Democrats in those States have lived in an ideological bubble. That no one was willing to burst it, speaks of lack of imagination – which Democrats spin as contempt. If anyone is being contemptuous of the masses, it’s the Democrats, with their policies that destroy any concept of ordered civic life. Trump is showcasing that, in strictly impromptu campaign appearances. People who live in bubbles shouldn’t try confining, within them, enemies wielding big needles. Democrats in New York did. Now they’re about to suffer explosive decompression – or an implosive crushing by a now-undeniable reality. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/27/news/trump-flip-new-yo/ X and YouTube video of Trump visiting the Blue Moon: https://twitter.com/kleavittnh/status/1780367768052801846 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yEJnYJ5Mh8 X post showing interview with Bob Bartels, President of Steamfitters Local 638: https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1783510198017229048 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Presidential immunity question goes to SCOTUS By Terry A. Hurlbut This morning, a lawyer for President Donald J. Trump argued his case for Presidential immunity before the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump could not attend; he is under effective “State arrest” in New York, as his “hush money” trial continues. But that clearly did not matter. Parties to Supreme Court cases are never required to attend an oral argument session. That aside, Trump picked the best surrogate he could have picked, to argue his case. An excellent advocate for Presidential immunity At issue in this particular case is whether President Trump acted criminally in encouraging members of several State Republican Parties to recruit alternate slates of elector-candidates while he challenged election results in those States (Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona). Trump’s team stopped all proceedings in that case with motions to dismiss on the basis of Presidential immunity. Trump claimed that his calls to various State Republican committees – and some Secretaries of State – were on an issue of vital national importance, to wit: whether an organized conspiracy to defraud him of victory in the election had resulted in the improper appointment of the Democratic Party’s slates of elector-candidates in those States. As such, Trump was acting as the President and not as a candidate for re-election. The attorney who argued his case was D. John Sauer. He is a private attorney whom the Attorney General of Louisiana hired to press the case of Missouri v. Biden. As such he has argued that case before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and testified before Jim Jordan’s committees. This has given him extensive experience in preparing and arguing cases with obvious political import. D. John Sauer was the perfect advocate for Presidential immunity on behalf of Donald Trump. Citing precedent, not inherent power Sauer did not argue that heads of state enjoy immunity inherent in their offices. He already knew that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit did not agree with that. So he argued: 1. The Supreme Court’s own precedents on point, of which he found too many to cite, and: 2. That never in United States history had any President faced prosecution in Article III courts for his official acts. The argument session (follow links to transcript and sound recording) took two hours and forty minutes. Michael R. Dreeben, “Counselor to the Special Counsel,” argued Jack Smith’s case. Sauer began by citing three Presidents whose acts have come under scathing criticism. Could President George W. Bush have been sent to prison for obstructing an official proceeding or allegedly lying to Congress to induce war in Iraq? Could President Obama be charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strike? Could President Biden someday be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the country illegally for his border policies? The answer to all these questions is no. Prosecuting the president for his official acts is an innovation with no foothold in history or tradition and incompatible with our constitutional structure. The original meaning of the Executive Vesting Clause, the Framers' understanding and intent, an unbroken historical tradition spanning 200 years, and policy considerations rooted in the separation of powers all counsel against it. As seems to have become traditional, Justice Clarence Thomas, as senior Justice now serving, opened the questioning. From what source, he asked, does Presidential immunity derive? For answer, Sauer cited the Executive Vesting Clause – Article II Section 1 Clause 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Then he cited precedent after precedent, including some of Thomas’ own opinions. He did not cite any inherent power of a head-of-state. Next, Thomas asked how to distinguish official from private acts of a President. Again, citing precedent, Sauer argued that official acts were those that concerned actual policy. Private acts were acts that concerned only the President as a person and not powers or duties of his office. Interpersonal Justicial dynamics Chief Justice John Roberts was next to start questioning Sauer after Thomas had finished. This is unusual; usually the Chief Justice waits a little longer. Typically members of the Liberal Bloc are first to “jump in” when questioning a conservative advocate, and Thomas’ fellow Originalists “jump in” when questioning a leftist advocate. That the Chief Justice felt the need to press certain questions early, shows that this case concerns him greatly. He made that fact abundantly clear in his questioning of Mr. Dreeben. He picked up on this statement in the opinion of the D. C. Court of Appeals: A former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has allegedly acted in defiance of the laws. That is a classic tautology – literally “this is this.” Roberts called Dreeben out on this straight-out. Dreeben tried reminding the Court that this particular prosecution got a grand jury indictment. Roberts almost said how easy it was to “indict a ham sandwich”! He also hinted darkly that prosecutorial good faith was not always reliable. “I’m not suggesting [that] here,” Roberts said – but clearly he was. Justice Samuel J. Alito now seems to command a certain amount of deference from the Moderate Bloc. At least twice during the session, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh started talking at once. But when Sam Alito effectively said, “I will speak,” the other two Justices held their peace. The liberals put forth absurd hypothetical abuses of Presidential immunity Each of the three members of the Liberal Bloc challenged Mr. Sauer with an absurd hypothetical. Justice Elena Kagan asked whether a President could get away with ordering the military to seize power. Sauer reminded the court that officers (and enlisted) are specifically enjoined to refuse unlawful orders. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether a President could order the assassination of a rival, saying said rival was corrupt. Not only would that qualify as an unlawful order, but the very act would be impeachable. (In fact, the judges of the D.C. Circuit Court panel had posed that same hypothetical.) Similarly, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested a President enjoying such immunity could turn his office into a nexus for organized crime. No one saw fit to mention that this is very close to what President Joe Biden seems to have done. In fact (as Christina Laila at The Gateway Pundit observed), Justice Jackson made a fool of herself at another point. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me put this worry on the table. If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn't there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they're in office? It's right now the fact that we’re having this debate because [the Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents from the beginning of time have understood that that's a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning. But, once we say no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want, I'm worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he's in office. MR. SAUER: I respectfully disagree with that because the regime you’ve described is the regime we’ve operated under for 234 years. There has not been an expectation based on 234 years of unbroken political or legal prohibition that [such a thing] might occur. Justice Jackson then hastily changed the subject. Separately, the Liberals several times referred to the alternate slates of elector-candidates as “fake electors,” and to “false election fraud allegations.” Sauer stuck to his story and conceded nothing. The Originalists score tellingly against Dreeben and Smith The Originalists each asked the most withering questions of all, of Mr. Dreeben. Justice Thomas, after Dreeben made his opening statement, asked why President John F. Kennedy never faced prosecution for Operation Mongoose. In that operation, the CIA ran terrorist operations against Cuban civilian communities, in an effort to goad Fidel Castro into tightening his grip. Very likely those attacks accomplished nothing except to make Castro a more beloved figure than ever. Dreeben actually said that operation was not a crime. He then made a potentially invalidating statement – that a President might not be liable if he acted on advice from his Attorney General. Why should that matter? Because Attorneys General require Senate confirmation, unlike anyone’s private attorney. Justice Neil Gorsuch, following up on questioning by Justice Kavanaugh, extracted a key concession from Dreeben: JUSTICE GORSUCH: Did you agree that there are some core functions of the executive that a president conduct that Congress cannot criminalize? MR. DREEBEN: Yes. Whoa. Gorsuch sarcastically suggested that they “call it immunity … for shorthand’s sake.” Then he said: You concede that on official acts that Congress cannot criminalize. And now we're just talking about the scope. After that, Gorsuch asked whether one might prosecute a President for leading a sit-in in front of the Capitol that then delayed a key vote. Could he face prosecution after he left office? Dreeben answered again: No. Bear in mind the significance of that exchange. Neil Gorsuch just wrung from Dreeben a concession that Trump cannot face prosecution for his words on January 6, 2021. And as he said during argument in the Fischer case, Gorsuch scornfully said: Nobody knows what corrupt intent means? We've been around that tree twice. Alito’s score Sam Alito scored an even more telling blow against Dreeben. Why, he wanted to know, is Trump the only President ever to face charges for his official acts? After all, President Franklin D. Roosevelt never faced prosecution for his internment of American citizens of Japanese extraction. And he did so, even though Attorney General Francis Biddle and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover doubted that any of those people would commit sabotage. Then he asked whether acting on advice of his Attorney General would be an absolute defense. Dreeben answered: Yes. So, asked Alito, what’s to stop a President from appointing a Yes man as Attorney General? The Senate, said Dreeben – conveniently forgetting that U.S. Attorneys General have always considered themselves part of the President’s Team. (If Trump is the exception, that’s because he’s upsetting some sensitive apple carts.) Can a President pardon himself? Mr. Dreeben didn’t know! Alito tore into him, essentially for lack of preparation of his case. He next asked what’s to stop every President from pardoning himself for acts someone might prosecute later? Dreeben denied that this would happen. Then Alito asked: Now, if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail. Dreeben answered with the tale about mechanisms for contesting an election, and judges who (except in one case) dismissed Trump’s challenges. Of course, they dismissed those challenges for lack of standing. Never mind – the answer was irrelevant anyway. “Contested election,” as Alito meant it, referred not so much to election fraud as to a bitter, savage campaign. They laughed at him! Even that wasn’t the final humiliation. That came when Dreeben argued motives with Justice Gorsuch, toward the end of the session. Dreeben finally said, I’m going to say something that I don’t normally say, which is [political motives are] really not involved in this case. Some member of the public, whose name will likely forever remain unrecorded, burst out laughing. If one plays the recording, one can hear a sarcastic “HA!” Dr. Steve Turley, in a livestream on his new Turley Talks Platform, said it best. Michael Dreeben was lying through his teeth, and everyone in that courtroom knew it. After that, Justice Kavanaugh heaped scorn on the very notion of independent counsels. I think one of the Court's biggest mistakes was Morrison versus Olson… I think that was a terrible decision for the presidency and for the country. And not because there were bad people who were independent counsels, but President Reagan's administration, President Bush's administration, President Clinton's administration were really hampered, in their view, all three, by the independent counsel structure. Morrison v. Olson set up that independent counsel structure that is the source of Jack Smith’s authority. Kavanaugh, quoting extensively from Justice Antonin Scalia’s withering dissent, asked: What would the reaction be if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person? Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as picking the man and then searching the law books or putting investigators to work to pin some offense on him? Coming as this did from a Moderate, it is the most stinging rebuke Dreeben suffered all day. Kavanaugh pressed him hard on whether a decision for him would not lead to a similarly negative result. Dreeben lamely said no independent counsel prosecution had ever “gone off on a runaway train.” Kavanaugh retorted, Well, I think President Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton, whether rightly or wrongly, thought opposite, thought contrary to what you just said. Touché. Perhaps out of necessity, Dreeben denied that any vindictive prosecutions had taken place. Again, everyone in that courtroom surely knew that everything Jack Smith has done, has been vindictive in the extreme. Wrapping up the case for Presidential immunity Justice Barrett asked almost as many questions as Kavanaugh did, more gently perhaps, but along the same line. Justice Jackson took almost as long, probably looking for a way to help Dreeben. Dreeben gave an answer that might convince her (and Kagan and Sotomayor) but might not convince any of the others. When Chief Justice Roberts asked Sauer for rebuttal, Sauer – no doubt knowing that he had nothing to rebut – declined. Thus the chief justice intoned the time-honored phrase, “The case is submitted.” The only remaining questions most commentators now seem to have are: 1. How many Justices will constitute the majority (five or six)? And: 2. How much immunity will Presidents, moving forward, enjoy? Reuters suggests that even if the Court will not recognize absolute immunity, it would instruct Judge Tanya Chutkan (now handling Trump’s case) to analyze which offenses were still chargeable. That alone will delay any trial until after the election. What at least some commentators miss, was Justice Kavanaugh suggesting that independent counsels should not even exist. Furthermore he recognizes, though he could say so only obliquely, that this entire exercise has been a vindictive – and selective – prosecution on the orders of a vindictive opponent. That unnamed spectator, barking out the bitter laugh, said volumes with that one syllable. No doubt every Originalist and Moderate knows it. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/25/news/presidential-immunity-question-scotus/ Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f204.pdf Sound recording: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/23-939.mp3 Morrison v. Olson: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/654/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Idaho defends against abortion mandate By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday morning the State of Idaho defended its position before the Supreme Court – against a radically pro-abortion administration. As has become fashionable, the Solicitor General badly misconstrued the rest of Idaho’s laws. She also miscounted the number of States that make exceptions for the life, but not the health, of the mother. Likewise, one Supreme Court Justice hinted at a State-level debate that is simply not taking place. Even without this misconstruction, the Liberal Bloc sought to paint a dire picture of life for women in Idaho that the law does not require. But for the first time, the Court – and the public beyond Idaho – heard of what CNAV construes as a demeaning – and dangerous – form of Kabuki Theater involving helicopter ambulance services. The remedy goes beyond vacating the preliminary injunction (now stayed) and dismissing the federal case. It will require a drastic change in medical education in America. Summary of Idaho law, and the case CNAV has discussed the particulars of US v. Idaho, case no. 1:22-cv-00329, before. (See docket pages in the District of Idaho Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court.) Briefly, thus: Title 18, Idaho Code, Section 622, says that abortion shall be a felony unless it is done: • To prevent the death of the mother (in cases other than suicidal tendencies), and • In cases of rape or incest. And here is a point many have missed. Title 18, Idaho Code, Section 604 defines abortion as “use of any means” to terminate a pregnancy, knowing that such means will likely cause the death of the unborn child. But! Abortion does not include: • Use of Intrauterine Devices (which are probably obsolete anyway) or oral contraceptives, • Removing a stillborn, • Removing a molar pregnancy or an ectopic pregnancy, or • Treating a woman who was, but is no longer, pregnant. CNAV discussed ectopic pregnancies before. Molar pregnancies are more dangerous. (Source: the Mayo Clinic.) In them, the placental tissue swells to form fluid-filled cavities called cysts. The unborn child cannot survive, and in complete molar pregnancy the out-of-control placental tissue absorbs it. Such a pregnancy cannot continue – which is likely why Idaho does not include its removal in the definition of abortion. Judge Barry Lynn Winmill laid on a preliminary injunction. A Ninth Circuit panel stayed that – but then the full court, sitting en banc, lifted the stay. The Supreme Court stayed it again on January 5, 2024. Essence of the government’s and State’s cases The federal government, in its complaint, alleged that Idaho law would cruelly deny a woman emergency treatment in certain cases. One of the cases they named was ectopic pregnancy – which, by definition, does not constitute “abortion” under Idaho law! The others are: • Toxemia of pregnancy, which the government calls by the obsolete terms pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Eclampsia (from the Greek eklampto I shine forth) means toxemia with seizures. When toxemia becomes as severe as that, it could lead to kidney failure. Typically a doctor will “manage” this condition with magnesium sulfate, and try to nurse the mother along until her baby would be viable outside the womb. At that time, the treatment is to deliver the child, even if it’s premature. That’s not always possible – or so says the medical literature. • Premature rupture of membranes (PROM). If the “waters” break before the baby can live outside the womb, the baby might be doomed. • Placental abruption – in which the placenta tears itself free of the womb – or placenta praevia – in which the placenta has implanted directly athwart the cervical opening. Abruption especially can cause hemorrhage, and that hemorrhage could kill. In its reply brief, Idaho reiterates that the handling of molar or ectopic pregnancies does not even constitute “abortion”. (Turn to pages 8 and 9.) The other three cases would clearly fall under the life-of-the-mother exception. No less an authority than Idaho’s Supreme Court set forth this guidance. The government goes overboard But that wasn’t good enough for the Biden administration, or Judge Winmill; hence the injunction. That injunction should have no practical effect, because Idaho law is far more sensible than the federal government lets on. The problem, as the State sets forth, is: The administration demands that EMTALA’s application turn not on objective clinical standards, U.S.Br.26 n.5; id. at 34 n.9, but on emergency-room doctors’ subjective “medical judgment.” E.g., Resp. in Opp’n to Appls. for a Stay at 35, Moyle v. United States, Nos. 23A469 and 23A470 (U.S. Nov. 30, 2023). The consequence is that EMTALA would not be limited to the truly life-threatening scenarios the government highlights, or even to abortion. If the administration’s position is accepted, doctors at Medicare-funded hospitals would become essentially unregulated, with their own medical judgment superseding all state laws regulating the practice of medicine. That is the exact opposite of 42 U.S.C. 1395’s premise that doctors continue to be governed by state law. And no clear statement suggests that is what Congress intended. The real problem is that the Biden administration would see no abortion unperformed. They show that by advancing absurd theses that Idaho law, and the Idaho Supreme Court, contradict. But now we see a complication. A campaign of fear-mongering must have started after the Dobbs decision (“the case that overturned Roe”) came down. Reportage in Roll Call, The Idaho Capital Sun, and Boise State Public Radio tell the effects of that campaign. After the stay of the injunction: • 22 percent of Idaho’s practicing obstetricians have left the State. • 55 percent of obstetricians specializing in high-risk pregnancies have left Idaho. • Three labor and delivery departments have closed. • Helicopter ambulance services airlifted six women out of State for emergency treatment in neighboring States. While the injunction remained, only one woman required such an airlift. The federal government cited these airlifts as reasons to put that injunction back into effect. But no one (except CNAV) is asking who laid on that fear-mongering campaign that scared these doctors out. (Finding that out might require a private investigator.) Had those doctors stayed, those airlifts would not have been necessary. CNAV challenges any competent medical authority to dispute this. Idaho and the federal government argue their cases Oral argument in the consolidated applications for stay lasted for nearly two hours. (Listen to it here.) Joshua N. Turner, Chief Constitutional Litigation and Policy Officer for Idaho, argued the State’s case. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar argued the federal case. Or perhaps she was really arguing her own case. Her voice betrays her as a radical feminist who – again – would see no abortion unperformed. She argued as “friend of the court” on the losing side of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Dobbs. Therefore she counts that case as a personal loss, and it surely rankles. The three Liberal Justices (Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor) spent their time relentlessly pressing the government’s points. They did so without regard to the actual text of Idaho’s laws, and made light of the Idaho Supreme Court’s opinion that the maternal life exceptions allowed a high-risk obstetrician absolute discretion in managing any of the “trouble cases” the government named. Sadly, Mr. Turner let those Justices rattle him, leading him to concede too much. The Originalists – with consistent help from Moderate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and even Chief Justice Roberts – concentrated on how far the federal government would take their reading of the Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act (EMTALA) – and the Medicare Act. Justice Samuel A. Alito especially pounced on EMTALA’s mention of the life of the unborn child. How, he asked, does that square with an apparent abortion mandate? The Solicitor General could not give a satisfactory answer. A mental-health exception? Ms. Prelogar clearly fretted about the mention of a “mental health exception.” In an earlier brief she had written in a footnote: Idaho badly errs in asserting that construing EMTALA according to its terms would turn emergency rooms into federal abortion enclaves by allowing pregnancy termination for mental health concerns. In other words, she bitterly resented the very suggestion. Furthermore she asserted that EMTALA would not consider an abortion an appropriate emergency treatment for a pregnant woman’s mental-health crisis. Her reason: such a measure would do nothing to address the underlying cause of the crisis. But Mr. Turner pointed out that the American Psychiatric Association had said that abortion would be their recommendation in such a case. He cited this 2023 position paper decrying any restriction on abortion. Indeed the APA said in part: Freedom to act to interrupt pregnancy must be considered a mental health imperative with major social and mental health implications. Justice Sotomayor made another egregious misreading of current law for which she has made herself famous. She actually said some States were considering whether to have no exceptions, even for the mother’s life: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But what you're saying is that no state in the nation – and there are some right now that don't even have that as an exception to their anti-abortion laws. What you are saying is that there is no federal law on the book that prohibits any state from saying, even if a woman will die, you can't perform an abortion. MR. TURNER: Your Honor, I know of no state that does not include a life-saving exception. But, secondly, the government – JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Some have been debating it at least, and if I find one – but your theory of this case leads to that conclusion. Wrong! The Washington Times quoted the Kaiser Family Foundation as denying that any State has such a law. (Even the Alan Guttmacher Institute agreed with that.) Five States, including Idaho, speak of a mother’s life but not health. (Ms. Prelogar counted six States in addition to Idaho. Mr. Turner accepted that – but according to Kaiser, he shouldn’t have.) The NBC Interactive Abortion Law Map should dispel any confusion. Ms. Prelogar, in defending the federal government’s prerogatives, cited one case that Justice Neil Gorsuch made her instantly regret citing: GENERAL PRELOGAR: … I want to make sure to make clear that there are a long line of cases that stand for this principle, including cases that have addressed it directly like In re Debs – JUSTICE GORSUCH: Oh, Debs. GENERAL PRELOGAR: – Wyandot, so – JUSTICE GORSUCH: Do you really want to rely on Debs, General? I mean, that wasn't exactly our brightest moment. GENERAL PRELOGAR: I do think, though, that it reflects the history and tradition of this nation in recognizing that it's entirely appropriate for the United States to seek to protect its interests in this manner. And let me say, Justice Gorsuch – JUSTICE GORSUCH: What do you – GENERAL PRELOGAR: – this is a really important issue to the United States. It wasn't pressed below. It wasn't passed upon. Zounds! A leftist citing Eugene V. Debs, the Railroad Striker, as a villain? When an Originalist has doubts about his case? Conclusion Ms. Prelogar does not appear to have gotten the required sympathy of the Moderate Bloc – not even from Amy Coney Barrett, who questioned both her and Mr. Turner very closely. She certainly did not have the sympathy of Justice Kavanaugh or Chief Justice John Roberts. Without that, the Liberal Bloc cannot prevail, and the Originalist Bloc will no doubt vote to vacate the injunction and remand the case. They could even remand with an instruction to dismiss the government’s case completely – though they might prefer to see the District Court test certain assertions at trial. If this case were to go to trial before an impartial judge, Idaho would win easily. Idaho’s law is clear, and it does not impose any Draconian regime that would create a population of sick women. But this case points out two weaknesses that the federal courts have. First, they depend on the lower-court record. Someone must investigate, for the record, who misinformed all those doctors to the point of scaring them out of Idaho. But perhaps the solution is for a Christian ministry to establish a medical academy in Idaho. Such an academy would train a cadre of doctors far more humble than the typical medical-school graduate tends to be. Of greater concern is that the federal government is perpetrating a fraud on the federal courts. They have willfully misrepresented Idaho law as well as federal law. Therefore this is a case of “lawfare,” as damaging as the specious cases against Donald J. Trump. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/25/news/idaho-defends-against-abortion-mandate/ Docket pages: District court: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64862956/united-states-v-state-of-idaho/ Ninth Circuit: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67612311/united-states-v-state-of-idaho/ Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-726.html Reply brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-726/307435/20240412104107924_23-727%20Reply%20Brief.pdf Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-726_2c8f.pdf Recording: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/23-726.mp3 Idaho law: Section 622: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch6/sect18-622/ Section 604: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch6/sect18-604/ American Psychiatric Association position paper: https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/2f2371ac-307e-4889-bdb2-f9bf0a12d401/Position-Abortion-Reproductive-Rights.pdf Abortion law interactive map: https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/abortion-state-tracking-trigger-laws-bans-restrictions-rcna36199 In re Debs syllabus, opinions and dissents from Justia.com: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/158/564/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Newsom plays silly abortion politics By Terry A. Hurlbut Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) no doubt wants to become President someday. Perhaps he wants to stand in for Joe Biden should the Democratic National Committee tell him to decline the nomination. Newsom knows that abortion is the one issue that might galvanize the Democratic base to vote when they otherwise wouldn’t. Naturally he would look for any opportunity to “ding” Republicans on abortion. Why, then, would his staff show such ignorance as to recommend singling out a State (Alabama) that has no border with an abortion tourist trap State? That is what Newsom has just done – and he has only brought ridicule upon himself. He richly deserves that – because now he is on the side of corrupting a minor’s morals, interfering with the parent-child relationship, and a whole host of offenses against a moral order at least half the country still supports. Newsom and his silly ads Gavin Newsom bought a domain – RightToTravel.org – to host his ads and start a petition drive. The domain actually redirects to a landing page on Gavin Newsom’s own Web site. The site refers to an organization called the Campaign for Democracy and has a petition signature form. That form asks for first and last names, email address, and ZIP Code. But the disclaimer about consent to receive campaign mail refers to a provision for a telephone number. The sloppiness of this landing page mirrors the sloppiness of the advertisement that by now has gone viral. Two days ago Gov. Newsom dropped the ad on his own X account. https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1782082600368283715 The landing page holds an embed of another ad, which YouTube hosts, depicting a woman in a hospital bed. This ad, titled Hostage, harps on Tennessee’s decision not to allow an exception for rape or incest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DCJNRUv2SU The landing-page text refers to three bills allegedly pending in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Alabama, which, they say, would: ban minors from traveling out of state to get an abortion without parental consent – no matter if it's a case of incest or if there is abuse in the family. Note, for what it’s worth, that the word rape does not appear in the text. Before the exhortation to sign the petition, it speaks of a “right to travel … guaranteed by the 4th Amendment.” Details of the ads Herewith a plot synopsis of the first ad, which highlights interstate travel. A car rolls down a road past a sign that reads STATE LINE, 1 MILE. Inside, one young woman, a blonde, is driving; another, a brunette, looks out the rear window. Then she turns to the driver and says, We’re almost there. You’re gonna make it. Suddenly they hear a police siren behind them. Sure enough, a highway patrol car is pursuing them, lights flashing. As the driver gasps – and prepares to pull over and stop – a woman’s contralto voice narrates: Trump Republicans want to criminalize young Alabama women who travel for reproductive care. With both cars stopped, a State trooper gets out of his Ford Explorer® cruiser and approaches the terrified blonde driver. Speaking in an exaggerated Southern twang straight out of The Dukes of Hazzard, he sniggers, Miss, I’m gonna need you to step out of the vehicle… And here he holds up a sample tube by the specimen-introduction end, contaminating it – but who cares about medical accuracy? He continues, … and take a pregnancy test. In the very next scene the trooper is handcuffing the young woman behind her back. The voice-over narrator continues, Stop them by taking action at RightToTravel.org. Then she adds, rapid-fire, in the tone voice-over narrators use to quote legal disclaimers, Campaign for Democracy Group is responsible for the content of this advertising. The second ad is almost as bad. A young woman wakes up in a hospital bed, to a background of instrument beeps and voice pages. On the tray before her are the parts of a rape evidence kit. Then she realizes she is handcuffed to the side rails! “Help!” she cries – and no one answers. This time a lilting voice-over narrator says, Trump Republicans want to criminalize young women who travel for the reproductive care they need. Don’t let them hold Tennessee women hostage. Take action at RightToTravel.org. Plus the same disclaimer. Reactions The “Hostage” ad received about a 50/50 mix of raves (positive) and rants (negative). One comment picked up on laughter in the background, five seconds in, over the doctor’s voice page. Obviously whoever staged this scene knew this was not a serious depiction of a remotely real event. So they giggled – and the post-production crew didn’t even notice. Sloppy – like that landing page. The comments also referred to Google blocking the video in its search algorithms, and mentioned one Jessica Valenti. She is a feminist writer specializing in abortion – how to obtain one, laws in each State, and everything possible to promote it. That half the victims of abortion are female, doesn’t seem to register in her mind. The reaction to Gavin Newsom’s post of his Alabama fugitive ad consisted of rants – almost exclusively. Some reminded Newsom of how many people are fleeing his State, with its unaffordable housing and rampant crime. Others highlighted his legislative program aiming at gun confiscation (and running into injunctions proceeding from New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. In fact Newsom has called for an Article V Convention to propose repeal of Amendment II in all but name.) Still others pointed out the absurdity of the vignette which the ad depicts. Laughter is fine – but these ads might fool enough women into believing such scenarios – involving them – might take place. Which is why CNAV chooses to address them. Newsom and his theater of the absurd Of the Tennessee “Hostage” video, the less said the better. No hospital will ever be the scene of the kind of bondage eroticum that video depicts. The Alabama ad is more absurd. First, look at the NBC Abortion Map. Of the three States Newsom names, every State that borders Alabama restricts or bans abortion. Florida has a 15-week ban, Georgia a 6-week ban, Tennessee allows an affirmative defense that the mother’s life was in danger – and Mississippi in fact has a rape/incest exception. So that breathless run for the State line from Alabama would not be realistic at all. From Tennessee (into Virginia) and Oklahoma (into Kansas, Colorado, or New Mexico), maybe. But not from Alabama. The only place where such an apprehension might be remotely realistic, is an airport. Second, no State trooper is going to develop a “profile” of women who “look under age” and are driving with scared looks on their faces. Such “profiling” of drivers might never be probable cause to stop a young woman driver. And in any case, any collection of bodily fluids today requires a search warrant. Amendment IV doesn’t necessarily protect a “right to travel.” But that hypothetical pregnancy test, without an authorizing warrant, would violate the driver’s security of her person. That, of course, does involve Amendment IV. (To say nothing of the smirking trooper holding the pregnancy-test tube at the wrong end, thus rendering any result meaningless.) The actual laws under consideration Newsom admits, on the landing page, the real issue: laws criminalizing the trafficking of under-age women from States where abortion is illegal, into States where abortion is legal. Here, then, is the governor’s position: that a minor ought to be allowed to travel to an abortion tourist trap State to get an abortion without the consent, or even the knowledge, of her parents. Then, of course, the political left wants to emancipate all minors. This same movement wants to offer Doctor Moreau-like “transitioning” of minors. Furthermore, let’s imagine this scene playing out, not in Alabama, nor even in Tennessee or Oklahoma, but in Idaho. Idaho already has a new anti-trafficking law to protect its minor children. Gov. Brad Little (R-Idaho) signed it into law last year. Gov. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) threatened to make a Constitutional crisis out of the first violation of this law to involve anyone trying to get an under-age girl out of Idaho and into Washington State. Inslee even half-boasted of doctors leaving Idaho for Washington to continue their abortion practices. And unlike Alabama, Idaho is surrounded on nearly all sides by abortion tourist-trap States: Montana, Washington, Oregon, and (for the moment) Wyoming. Re-imagining So let us re-imagine the State Line scenario as it would actually play out. A standard-sized car heads for the Idaho-Washington State line. This car is using a relative “back road”: Highway 53 north of Post Falls, next to a double railroad track. But this time the young woman driver has a middle-aged female companion. She glances out the rear window, then turns to the driver and says, in an ice-cold voice, You’re almost home. Don’t blow it now. Just. Stay. Calm. Suddenly they hear the broop-broop-broop of a police siren. Ice Queen glances back to see the Idaho State Police cruiser, lights flashing, pursuing them. Blurting out a blistering scatological obscenity, she says, We’re too close to the State Line. They’ll never catch us. Floor it. The girl hesitates, and that makes Ice Queen furious: Are you going to let some NASCAR wannabe stop you when you are this close? FLOOR IT!!! So she floors it. But then she has to stop – because as she passes North High Prairie Road, she sees a row of ISP cruisers, lights flashing, lined up at the turnoff to the now-closed Red Canoe Farms, blocking the highway in both directions. She stops. And then a car that the girl recognizes instantly, pulls out of that Red Canoe Farms driveway. It stops – and out step a man and a woman, at the sight of whom she breaks down and cries. The woman speaks: Jennie, honey, it’ll be all right. Please don’t do this. You know you’re always welcome, and the baby, too. No problem is too much for us. We’re family. “Jennifer” opens the door – and stops cold. Ice Queen has pulled out her handgun – for which she has a permit in Washington State, of course. Stop right there, you little b*tch, or I’ll kill you. But someone raps on the front-door window. Ice Queen turns – and Jennifer dives and rolls out of the car. Then a man’s voice barks, Drop that weapon right now and come out with your hands up. Who really gets arrested The scene ends with Jennifer in the loving arms of her mother – and Ice Queen in handcuffs. For Ice Queen is an experienced escort, specializing in the trafficking of minor girls from Idaho to Washington State. She would also take advantage of Idaho’s “Constitutional Carry” law and Washington State’s “shall-issue” law. But of course neither Gov. Inslee nor Gov. Newsom would care to admit that anyone but a law-enforcement officer would have any legitimate use for a handgun. Remember: this is CNAV’s idea for how such a scene would play out. It is not an actual campaign ad. More to the point, Idaho’s law punishes the adult responsible for the trafficking and not the minor girl. Logically, the proposed laws in Alabama, Oklahoma and Tennessee would do the same. The scene might play out with considerably less drama in any Alabama airport. For one thing, the Transportation Security Administration allows no guns in the Secure Area that includes the flight gates. For another, the parents, and the Alabama Police, would have plenty of time to wait immediately past the screening checkpoint. As before, the adult would face arrest, not the minor girl. Perhaps neither Planned Parenthood nor any other activist group would care to risk trafficking girls through an airport. That leaves Tennessee and Oklahoma to decide how they’re going to stop trafficking into Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, or New Mexico. What does Newsom gain? As it turns out, Gavin Newsom gains nothing, and in fact loses. The reaction to his Alabama State Line video shows this. Users ridiculed his willful ignorance of the proposed laws, and of basic State Police procedure, especially regarding search and seizure. They also pointed out that people are fleeing California’s taxes, crime and housing costs. If anyone doubts this, let them try the U-Haul Truck Finder, between California and any “Red” State. (One user pointed out California’s “exit tax law,” that taxes unrealized capital gains in a Californian’s last tax return.) No one has yet mentioned that Newsom’s ad depicts two under-age girls crossing a State line without a chaperon. Sadly, that is still legal, even in Idaho. What’s illegal in Idaho is for an adult to make that travel happen. Ironically, the governor has created an opportunity for conservatives to show a “caring side,” by depicting a story of successful minor trafficking. Clearly he has shown that he would see no abortion unperformed. In fact he is on record as welcoming abortion tourism – presumably regardless of maternal age. For that matter, so has Gov. Inslee of Washington State. Ridiculous scenarios aside, those two seem to be spoiling for a Constitutional crisis. Each of them should be careful what he wishes for. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/23/news/newsom-plays-silly-abortion-politics/ The Right to Travel landing page: https://act.gavinnewsom.com/signup/right_to_travel/ The Alabama State Line ad: https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1782082600368283715 The Tennessee Hostage ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DCJNRUv2SU The NBC Abortion Map: https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/abortion-state-tracking-trigger-laws-bans-restrictions-rcna36199 The U-Haul Truck Finder: https://www.uhaul.com/Reservations/RatesTrucks/ California’s exit tax law: https://www.flclaw.net/understanding-the-california-exit-tax/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Earth Day – part of cultural Marxism By Terry A. Hurlbut Earth Day is here, yet again, and for the fifty-fifth time. As CNAV did two years ago, we will review the history of Earth Day and discuss what it really means. In fact, Earth Day represents yet another variant of critical theory, which today has become a core principle of Marxism. When and how did Earth Day begin? The first Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970. Most people alive today cannot appreciate the real pollution concerns that existed then. Factories belched smoke, and their owners spared barely a thought for that smoke as unpleasant at best, poisonous at worst. Other factories dumped toxic sludge into rivers. Some of us remember the Public Service Announcement campaigns of the period, including: • The Native American paddling down a polluted river, then walking beside a highway. An uncaring car passenger throws litter literally at his feet, and he looks up, shedding a tear. Or how about: • The boy hiking beside a river – and past industries dumping sludge and noxious brews into it. Or how about Comedian Pat Paulsen’s spots? He made at least two: • He’s in a junkyard, catching his foot on a discarded pipe, and eventually taking out a key chain and twirling it. “I could have sworn I parked my car around here someplace!” he says. Or: • He’s standing in an intersection, talking about noise pollution. Then the noises start drowning him out, so he talks ever louder to talk over the noise. Suddenly the noise stops, and chirping birds replace it. “What was that?” he asks. To this day, Earth Day has its own advocacy group, which keeps the official history of the event. That history mentions certain things ordinary people did without the slightest thought. Like using gasoline containing tetraethyllead, and driving cars that consumed a prodigious amount of fuel per mile. About Ira Einhorn One name this organization does not mention, is that of Ira Einhorn – the Unicorn Killer. That’s because he likely “conned” others into believing he was the founder of the movement. He even stood on a stage, proclaiming himself to be the founder, so that someone took his picture. But before the decade was out, he killed someone. A jury would, decades later, find him guilty of killing his girlfriend and trying to turn her into compost. Apparently a landlord broke into his apartment to clear the bad smell, and found the body. Ira Einhorn went to prison for that act in 2002, and died shortly before Earth Day 2019. Which goes to show that “murder will out.” https://twitter.com/PhillyNewsGuy/status/1246173655450693632 A made-for-TV movie chronicled Ira Einhorn, his “unicorn” moniker, and how he misrepresented himself as the chief organizer of the first Earth Day. At least the official keepers of the history say that, and CNAV has no good reason to believe they’re lying. But Ira Einhorn’s case illustrates one other thing: how easy it is to con the legacy media with a message they want to hear. Time Magazine admits that Ira Einhorn fooled them and many others into believing he planned the Philadelphia Earth Day event. According to one witness: He was not even a member of the committee of 33 men and women who did [organize the event]. The photo you ran was taken during a one-hour period when Einhorn literally occupied the podium, refusing to get off the stage and delaying Senator Edmund Muskie’s keynote speech. It was an unsuccessful attempt — at least at that time — to seize 15 minutes of fame. Now a notorious murder, flight, trial in absentia and foreign capture are giving Einhorn the national media attention he so desperately craved. It also gave Earth Day bad publicity, which it probably didn’t deserve – on this account. The real significance of Earth Day is as a reflection of the environmental movement as a whole. The Marxist origins of Earth Day Cultural Marxism relies heavily on critical theory – the imperative to criticize “dominant,” therefore “oppressive,” peoples and activities. Recall the essences of critical theory, as they apply to race, sex, and the Alphabet Soup movement. Racist ≡ white, sexist ≡ male, homophobic ≡ heterosexual, and transphobic ≡ cis-gendered – or in general terms, oppressive ≡ normal. (The mathematical operator ≡ means “is identical to.”) Earth Day comes with this essential message: Polluter ≡ captain of industry. And: Accessory to pollution ≡ end-user of industrial products. Any human activity (except maybe for speech) more sophisticated than the behavior and habits of a wild animal, is ipso facto a polluting activity, or one that enables pollution. In a seminal speech last year to the European Parliament, Dr. James Lindsay set forth the principles of “Woke.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVZPYQS1dFA He discussed “woke” in terms of equity, the new substitute for equality of opportunity. In this context he discussed classical economic Marxism (“Communism”), radical feminism, and critical race, “queer,” and post-colonial theories. But he left out what CNAV calls critical environmental theory, which is what Earth Day is all about. If all other critical theories require a religion of the socialization of humankind, then critical environmental theory requires the religion of worship of the Earth. The first time anyone referred to “Mother Nature,” anti-Marxists should have taken a clue. They didn’t, and that’s why we are at our present pass. From redress of legitimate wrongs, to invention of wrongs The best way to play grievance politics starts with identifying legitimate wrongs. All critical theory starts with such a wrong. Race-based slavery, abject (and unloving) subjugation of women, and simple bullying are the classic legitimate wrongs that excuse critical race theory, radical feminism, and Alphabet Soup primacy, respectively. And the headlong rush to industrialization, lacking consideration for the side effects of wasteful practices, excuses critical environmental theory. The Bible tells us that carelessness about the environment is as old as the Exodus. Shortly after the Red Sea crossing, the Israelites came to a certain body of water. Very soon they called it Marah, which means bitter – because they had embittered the waters with their unhygienic camp practices. Moses – following Divine instructions – had his people place logs of “sweet wood” into the water – to depollute it. He then gave them strict guidelines on camp hygiene to avoid a repeat of that episode. (Exodus 15:22-27.) Thus the Bible teaches environmental stewardship, which derives from the principle of not trashing your own house. (Ecology literally means study of the house.) But critical environmental theory invents outcomes that are not polluting. That’s because its real purpose is not to tell you to take care of your own house. It is to tell you to tear your house down – and not even to have one. In fact, the real goal of critical environmental theory is that you not exist. The Green New Deal Earth Day will no doubt highlight the manifestations of critical environmental theory – and its demands, and the Green New Deal. “Anthropogenic climate change” is the latest craze. It starts with bad assumptions and lately has reached an absurd conclusion – the indictment of an entire nation-state. As Rea Hederman of the Buckeye Institute points out, the United States has led the way in genuine environmental stewardship. That demonstrably includes substituting natural gas for coal. Natural gas consists of simple molecules that yield carbon dioxide and water vapor when they burn. Contrary to propaganda, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. In fact it is the preferred oxidizing agent for plants, and enriching the atmosphere with it makes plants grow. (The oxygen that plants release comes from water. Plants reduce carbon dioxide to make sugar, starch, and cellulose.) More to the point, natural gas does not produce the particulates or noxious gases that often come from burning coal. But that doesn’t satisfy the Green New Dealers. They insist that automakers build a class of vehicle that failed its Great American Road Test. Furthermore their unworkable policy prescriptions for farmers and ranchers clearly shows they want to abandon farming and animal husbandry. For that same reason they push “cultured beef” and a diet of engineered sheet mushrooms – and insects. Four years ago, Michael Moore produced a film, Planet of the Humans, detailing the failures of many environmental “substitute technologies.” The problem is: Moore and producer Jeff Gibbs ended up saying humans should simply die. Reject the Marxist anti-religion All these attitudes bespeak a new pseudoreligion – or an anti-religion – whose object of worship is the Earth itself. Earth worship provides an excuse for a regime of engineered scarcity, central planning, and rationing. All this appeals to a twisted desire for control for control’s sake – the essence of Marxism. One could almost believe that Ira Einhorn did found Earth Day after all. The mania for control on the part of many environmentalists, parallels whatever mania ultimately drove Ira Einhorn to kill his girlfriend and try to turn her into compost. If he didn’t actually found Earth Day, then he found its inherent totalitarianism attractive. Americans – and other freedom-loving peoples – should reject this idea. Sensible principles of stewardship are one thing – but a deliberate preference for scarcity as a means of control, is another. So start with Exodus 15:22-27, and the basic principle it articulates: don’t trash your own house. Bear in mind that this Earth is a gift that one should not abuse, but is not an object of worship. America was once on track to building a sensible environmental policy. We should use this occasion to get back onto that track. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/22/editorial/talk/earth-day-part-cultural-marxism/ Joshua Crompton’s announcement of Ira Einhorn’s death: https://twitter.com/PhillyNewsGuy/status/1246173655450693632 James Lindsay speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVZPYQS1dFA Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Idaho prepares to defend its abortion ban By Terry A. Hurlbut The State of Idaho, fresh from a temporary victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, is heading back to that court. This time the State, or rather Rep. Mike Moyle (R-10A), Speaker of the Idaho House, will defend Idaho’s anti-abortion “trigger law.” That law was supposed to take effect thirty days after a decision vacating Roe v. Wade. But after that decision came down, the federal government rushed to sue Idaho to stop its ban from taking effect. The government sued under a law that shouldn’t even be related: the law mandating that patients in dire medical emergencies, presenting to Medicare-funded hospitals, at least get stabilizing treatment. But the real story is that a certain senior judge in Idaho is pursuing a single-handed enforcement of “woke medicine.” That judge signed a preliminary injunction that now has the State before the Supreme Court. Idaho goes to the Supreme Court The Idaho law at issue is the Defense of Life Act, or Idaho Code Section 18-622 (“Section 622” for short). That law, as currently amended, prohibits abortions, except: • As necessary to prevent the death of the mother, or • In any case of rape or incest. Idaho enacted this law as Thomas Dobbs, Mississippi Director of Health, was pressing his own case before the Supreme Court. On June 26, the Court decided that no judicial mandate should exist for abortion in the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). The Biden administration, determined to see no abortion unperformed, jumped on the Idaho statute immediately. 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). EMTALA provides that any hospital accepting Medicare funds must “stabilize” any patient presenting with an emergency condition. Congress sought to address the once-common practice of hospitals “dumping” indigent emergency patients on the charity hospitals of the cities in which they operated. The CBS television program Sixty Minutes highlighted the practice. Oh, boy! Sending a compound tib-fib fracture fifteen miles in an ambulance just because [the patient] can’t pay, is such bulls**t. Actual protest by a hospital telephone operator upon receiving just such a transfer request But the government, in its complaint, alleged worse: that Idaho’s law would see women die in the emergency room. Details According to the complaint, a woman might present to emergency with a severe complication for which only abortion might serve. The complaint listed three possibilities: ectopic pregnancy, severe toxemia of pregnancy (“pre-eclampsia”), or any complication threatening sepsis or hemorrhage. Then the government alleged that the Idaho law would forbid abortion under those circumstances. They further alleged that a physician performing an abortion would have to wait until trial to present an affirmative defense. First, this law provides exceptions that can play out before a case even gets to trial. Second, only in this complaint does anyone conceive that this or any law would forbid a gynecologist to operate on a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. For the benefit of the layperson, an ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg cannot swim into the womb, and therefore implants in the wall of the Fallopian tube or sometimes in the abdomen. The unborn child usually does not survive this – but at least one medical team made it happen last year. Toxemia of pregnancy is a relatively rare complication involving very high blood pressure – and in the extreme case, seizures. (Toxemia with seizures is called eclampsia. Pre-eclampsia is toxemia that doesn’t progress to seizures.) Sepsis literally means infection of the blood – and hemorrhage, of course, means an uncontrolled bleed. These complications do not always require abortion, no matter what the complaint says. Importantly, EMTALA does not specify abortion anywhere in its text, as a treatment for these complications, or in any other context. History of the case The federal government filed their complaint on August 2, 2022. They swiftly moved for a preliminary injunction. Judge Barry Lynn Winmill granted that injunction – and cagily said this applied only to the extent that Section 622 conflicts with EMTALA. Judge Winmill held that EMTALA preempts the Idaho law because: 1. It is impossible to comply with both, because sometimes an abortion is the appropriate stabilizing treatment, and 2. Section 622 deters physicians from providing abortions when certain emergencies require them. The judge also accepted the government’s position that a physician must provide an affirmative defense at trial. Idaho’s legislature filed two motions to reconsider, saying the judge read EMTALA wrong. Judge Winmill denied these motions – after waiting eight months to rule. During that time, the Idaho Supreme Court delivered an opinion that Section 622 would not forbid a doctor to cut out an ectopic pregnancy or otherwise act when the unborn child had little chance of survival. That didn’t matter to the court. Nor did it matter that the legislature made sure that exceptions, not “affirmative defense at trial,” would govern. On July 3, 2023 the legislature appealed – to the Ninth Circuit. In September 2023, a three-judge panel stayed the injunction. But the federal government then filed for a rehearing en banc, and got it. In November, the full Ninth Circuit Court vacated the stay and restored the injunction. They also denied the Legislature’s emergency motion as moot. Application to the Supreme Court for a stay On November 20, Rep. Moyle applied to the Supreme Court for a stay. Then on January 5, 2024 the Supreme Court granted the stay. They also treated Mr. Moyle’s application, and another application from the State of Idaho, as petitions for review before judgment. These, the Court granted, and consolidated under Mike Moyle’s application. Moyle v. U.S., 23-726. The State of Idaho will argue the matter on Wednesday morning (April 24). Their argument will make these points: 1. The state will suffer irreparable harm, absent a stay of Judge Winmill’s injunction. 2. Idaho is very likely to succeed on the merits, because: 1. EMTALA cannot preempt the Defense of Life Act, 2. EMTALA is not a federal abortion mandate – and indeed Judge Winmill misread that law, 3. Judge Winmill also misread Section 622, and 4. The injunction violates Amendment X and the Spending Clause (Article I Section 8 Clause 1). Idaho will also argue that a stay is in the public interest, to protect a proper construction of EMTALA and the Constitution. In this context, Moyle’s application says Judge Winmill “misstates” the Defense of Life Act. The lower court relied on declarations prepared within a three-week period that have never been tested at trial, to portray section 622 as a brutal threat to Idaho women. Who is Judge Winmill? The real question to ask, to analyze this matter properly, is: who is Judge Barry Lynn Winmill? He is a senior judge of the District of Idaho, and received his appointment from Bill Clinton. Even that does not tell half the story. His jurisprudence is as “woke” as that of, say, the Liberal Bloc of the Supreme Court. His “noteworthy cases” include sentencing a business owner to seventeen years for sending a worker in to clean an empty toxic-liquid tank without proper Personal Protective Equipment. That’s the longest sentence ever for an “environmental crime.” In another case, he ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to put the sage-grouse on the Endangered Species List. And in a case involving an Idaho inmate, he ordered the State to “transition” said inmate from male to female. (That decision prompted a petition to have him removed from the bench.) More to the point, this same judge handed down another injunction against Idaho’s Vulnerable Child Protection Act. Worse, that injunction was truly universal in scope. The Supreme Court just struck that down, 6-3. Obviously Barry Lynn Winmill will see no person untransitioned. He now would appear to want no abortion unperformed. Idaho is in fact surrounded on all sides by abortion tourist trap States, according to this interactive map. But that’s not good enough for the Biden administration, nor, apparently, for Judge Barry Lynn Winmill. What next? The Supreme Court is likely to vote 6-3 in favor of Idaho in this matter – and could vote 9-0 with concurrences from the Liberal Bloc. For the Court to rule in the government’s favor is nearly inconceivable. After all, the Court granted the stay, which it didn’t have to do. But the Court also knows that it cannot escape abortion jurisprudence entirely. Furthermore, if ever any judge rated removal from the bench on impeachment for, and conviction of, wasting the Supreme Court’s time with unconstitutional rulings, Judge Barry Lynn Winmill has that dubious qualification. Sadly, the Senate has never removed a judge for other than such gross impropriety as accepting a bribe. Even if the Senate recognized ideological corruption as a high-enough judicial “crime or misdemeanor,” the Senate as presently constituted suffers from the same kind of ideological corruption at present. The more reason, then, to reconstitute the Senate at every opportunity – meaning during federal elections. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/21/news/idaho-prepares-defend-abortion-ban/ Docket pages: District court: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64862956/united-states-v-state-of-idaho/ Ninth Circuit: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67612311/united-states-v-state-of-idaho/ Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-726.html Abortion law interactive map: https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/abortion-state-tracking-trigger-laws-bans-restrictions-rcna36199 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Civil War (2024) – an incomplete prediction By Terry A. Hurlbut Herewith a review of Civil War, writ./dir. Alex Garland. With Kirsten Dunst, Wagner Moura, Calleee Spaeny, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Nick Offerman, et al. A24 and DNA Films, 2024. (Follow the link at the Internet Movie Database.) Civil war – a mere snapshot In an hour and forty-nine minutes of his film Civil War, Alex Garland provides only a snapshot of a civil war that could break out across the United States. Its main characters are journalists, including some striking out on their own, and others embedded with rebel forces. Never once does Garland provide any kind of backstory. A good writer, as author Nancy Rue once explained to this reviewer, Resists the Urge to Explain. But Garland refuses to explain. Perhaps he has an important reason: any explanation he gave would alienate half his audience. (Furthermore his sympathies are necessarily obscure, for he is not American at all, but English. What he would do either with the American War for Independence or the War Between the States, one can’t imagine.) Garland practices his deliberate ambiguity as his film begins, with his apparent casting guide for a President. Nick Offerman has the face of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), an exaggerated flab suggesting a distorted picture of Donald J. Trump, and the reckless disregard for the truth of any of “Resident” Joe Biden’s press secretaries or their deputies. And (spoiler alert) he acquits himself very poorly as soldiers of the Western Forces summarily execute him. When an ad hoc embedded journalist asks him for his last words, all he can manage is a pathetic “Don’t let them kill me.” But how did he come to that pass? Why would elements even of a rebel faction execute him summarily? Garland’s film doesn’t say. What one can infer Garland refuses to tell anybody how his Civil War started, or why it ends as it does. So every viewer must infer the causes of the civil war, and explain for himself several things that defy explanation. This reviewer does not speak here of Kirsten Dunst using an oversize zoom lens to photograph various combatants. (Other reviewers, more knowledgeable about photography, have explained the incongruity of that zoom lens, apparently appropriate for African safaris.) Consider, rather, the spectacle of the treatment of “The Press.” Apparently the premier press agency left in the world today is Reuters. Has the war destroyed the Associated Press, United Press International, The New York Times, The Washington Post, et al.? As ever, Garland never says. But Reuters seems to enjoy universal respect. The film follows a crew of Reuters journalists who strike out on their own, driving from New York City to Washington, D.C., by a roundabout route. An obviously renegade militia engaged in mass murder and mass burial, murders one of them. They also murder two more journalists the first crew runs into along the way. And allegedly, loyalist forces shoot journalists on sight. But every other military organization they encounter carefully avoids wounding them, and lets them document whatever they like. The victorious Western Forces especially brag what they intend to do to the President, and want them to capture their triumph for posterity. What are the warring factions? From the obvious Lord Haw-Haw-esque empty boast of the President, and how one journalist rehearses the interview he wants to have with him, the viewer can infer this much. The President (whose name never bears mention) insisted on staying in office for a third term. (How did he get enough States to appoint 270 Electors willing to vote for him, despite Amendment XXII? Garland doesn’t say.) Several States took exception to that and formed three secessionist alliances. (See this detailed discussion.) Of these, the Florida Alliance seems to fold first. But two States – California and Texas – secede early and form a coalition which they call the Western Forces. These are the best-equipped, most disciplined faction, and must have a general to match Robert E. Lee in his brilliance. Their flag is brutally simple: thirteen red and white stripes, and two large white stars on a blue union. Beyond those two rebel factions are, of course, the States remaining loyal to Washington, D.C., and the unnamed President. (A New People’s Army Alliance also exists, consisting mainly of the “woke” States from Washington to Minnesota.) Why do California and Texas secede? Again, from the journalist rehearsal, we hear that the President imposed martial law and even ordered airstrikes against some populations. But why and how would California and Texas ever combine to form the most effective fighting force? The American economy has collapsed, except for one town whose residents “stay out of it.” How? The film doesn’t say. How might the Civil War have broken out? So here is what this reviewer infers, from the “President Haw-Haw” speech, the interview rehearsals, and the journalists’ travels. A future President – which could be an out-of-shape Gavin Newsom – serves two terms, then tries to serve a third. At some point in the process, he committed certain unconstitutional acts. (Abolishing the FBI would not be one of them; in fact this reviewer maintains the Constitution requires that.) And before the final break occurred, California had a civil war of its own. Militias in the California counties east of the San Andreas Fault Line banded together and marched against Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego – the centers of population and power in California today. Once they took over, they would proclaim a Republic of California. Their immediate provocation would be the refusal of the President to control immigration. The Eastern Californians might, or might not, have taken inspiration from the people of Texas. Texas did pass a Texas Independence Referendum Act. That referendum – in which elements of the Texas State Guard hand-counted paper ballots – returned a Yes vote. Subsequently the Texas Legislative Joint Select Committee on Texas Independence recommended a flat-out declaration of secession. Perhaps the President provoked Texas, first by stealing the Election of 2024 (with the aid of the electronic voting-machine vendors’ association) and then by issuing an Executive Order setting all immigration laws at naught. (Or else a federal judge follows up on his preliminary injunction and declares an absolute right of immigration.) First blood In any event, Texas and a newly conservative California would declare independence in rapid succession. Then perhaps the President would invoke the National Popular Vote Compact. He would need, not 270 electoral votes, but 223 – one more than half of a 444-member Electoral College. By then the NPVC would “kick in” with the departure of California and Texas. With those “votes,” the President would claim a third term. Then when most career Inspectors and Special Agents of the FBI quit in protest, he would abolish the agency. Then he would call airstrikes against Texas and California cities. That would enrage both populations, who would then form a special Western Alliance. Their forces, marching under the Two-star Flag, would consist of: • Elements of the California and Texas Army and Air National Guards, who would resign to become State Guardsmen, • Elements of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force who would sign on with the Western Forces, in outrage over the President’s conduct, and • Such equipment, supplies, and other materiel as these military forces could seize. This equipment would consist of large numbers of: • Highly Mobile Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (Humvees), • Apache helicopter gunships, and • Chinook “flying banana” helicopter troop carriers (the ones with the twin counter-rotating main rotors). They might also consist of A-10 Thunderbolts, F-15 Strike Eagles, and MV-22 Ospreys (not shown). Separately, the Florida Alliance would form “before they hit us next.” “Progressive” Californians would join fellow leftists as the New People’s Army. The brunt of the attacks Exactly who would make airstrikes against Interstate Highways 81, 78, and/or 76, leaving burned-out cars for those journalists to drive around, is not clear. What is clear is that pockets of neutrality would exist, chiefly in the Appalachian Mountains. (The journalists stop in one such town which maintains an eerie normalcy, shutting out the turmoil beyond the town limits.) Alaska would remain carefully neutral – though a Russian incursion to reclaim it would be far more likely. Hawaii (which the film does not treat) would reinstate its independent Kingdom under the House of Kawānanakoa (“Queen Lil”’s cousins). Whoever bombed the Interstates, would also bomb New York City. Again, the identity of that force is never made clear. But given that elements of the United States Military “shoot journalists on sight,” perhaps the President’s loyal military is bombing its own people. A President who does that would be, quite simply, insane. That could explain why the Western Forces, when they finally capture Washington, D.C., summarily execute the President. But this is the least congruous development in this story. Texans, no matter how provoked, would not summarily execute a captured enemy leader. They would try him first, as publicly as possible, to demonstrate the justice of their cause and their acts. The crazy militiamen who execute two journalists who fall into their toils do have an historical analogue: Quantrill’s Raiders. Their leader, of course, was William Clarke Quantrill, the Butcher of Lawrence, Kansas. Plausibility of the Civil War scenario Most reviewers have heaped scorn on the traveling journalists, asking how such embedding as the film depicts, is plausible. But recall: the United States Army refuses all embeds and even executes journalists summarily. (As does the hot-pink-glasses-wearing Quantrill imitator.) The Western Forces welcome journalists, in supreme confidence in the justice of their cause. The widely circulated map (apparently an official poster) https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/14563/IMG_9220-3063095.jpg showing Idaho within New People’s Army territory begs explanation. More likely, a Greater Idaho Militia would break the back of the NPA and perhaps welcome Western Forces intervention. The same holds for the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah. (Labeling the region “Western Forces” is misleading.) The spectacle of the journalists having to offer $300 Canadian, not U.S., to buy precious gasoline might seem jarring. But in a civil war scenario, the Federal Reserve would be dead. “Not worth a Fed” might become as common a proverb as “Not worth a Continental” was during the American Revolution. Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM)head Dan Miller, in his review of the film, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqnKyhMDO5A speculates that 44 percent of the U.S. military would mutiny after the first airstrike order. If all those soldiers joined the Western Forces, that could explain how they are so powerful and well-equipped. Furthermore, in real life, the U.S. military is not meeting its recruitment quotas. For that, blame the Alphabet Soup implementation, and the God-awful spectacle of Admiral Richard “Rachel” Levine, Assistant Secretary for Health. Implausible suggestions A few legacy media reviewers have made other suggestions that are, frankly, absurd. The unnamed President is not “Trumpian,” to reply to the movie critic from The New York Times. Donald Trump is on record as saying the only reason Texas would not secede is that “they love me.” Dan Miller has said that Trump’s main flaw is that he is one man alone, trying to reform the un-reform-able. A stolen election – the only way for any Democrat to win in 2024 – would provoke Texas to hold its Referendum. Then again, The New York Times has committed itself to promoting false narratives of current events. That this would affect the quality of their movie reviews, is only logical to suppose. On the other hand, the Civil War movie cannot “normalize” the assassination of a President. Then again, that speaks to the worst flaw in this movie. The forces of General Sam Houston, at the Battle of San Jacinto, captured Mexican Presidente Santa Ana in his camp. (In fact he was in the sleeping bag with a field whore.) Sam Houston did not order Santa Ana’s execution; instead he forced his prisoner to sign off on Texas independence. Similarly, the Western Forces, under Texas leadership, would capture, not kill, the President. They then would try him publicly – and, if the U.S. armed forces suffered another mutiny (in addition to the one that plumped up the Western Forces), turn the President over to the mutineers. Conclusion CNAV gives this movie two and a half stars out of five. It suffers from its maker’s refusal to provide a backstory – though the backstory some critics tried to foist on it would have been an order of magnitude worse. The final sequence is over-the-top; any student of Texas history would have known why. But the film’s “canon” lets the viewer fill in an eminently plausible backstory that follows logically from current events. Aside from oversize zoom lenses, the journalists – often letting their ambitions negate common sense – are believable. So is the Lord Haw-Haw style Presidential briefing. Any Japanese will recognize the victory announcements getting ever closer to home, until finally … Hiroshima. Or, if one prefers, Adolf Hitler executing himself in Der Bunker. So are the horrors of war the film shows, and the almost desperate attempt by some to carry on as “normal.” The only problem is that the war would destroy any supply chain, making such normalcy impossible. (Unless the townsfolk returned to cottage industries, including spinning and sewing.) Aside from the willful ignorance of Texas history and tradition, even the summary execution of a renegade President is believable. Witness the executions of Benito Mussolini and his mistress – or Nicolae Ceaucescu and his wife. Alex Garland made the film only because some kind of civil war scenario is more likely now than ever before. See it while it is still fiction, like 1959’s On the Beach? More likely, see it and be careful what you wish for. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/20/news/entertainment/civil-war-2024-incomplete-prediction/ “Screen Rant” discussion of the A24 map: https://screenrant.com/civil-war-united-states-america-map-state-alliances-explained/ The A24 “Civil War” map: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/14563/IMG_9220-3063095.jpg Review by Dan Miller of the Texas Nationalist Movement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqnKyhMDO5A Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Biden ballot woes continue By Terry A. Hurlbut “Resident” Joe Biden still can’t win for losing, it seems, regarding securing ballot access in “all fifty States.” Secretaries of State (or their deputies in charge of elections) in three States have warned the Democrats that Biden and Harris will not be on the general election ballot if they miss their respective State deadlines. Those deadlines fall before the Democratic National Convention gets to Presidential Voting Day, or in some cases before it convenes. CNAV thought then that this was a ruse to replace Biden before the election. On the other hand, Dr. Steve Turley expected these election officials to “cut deals” with the Democrats. But yesterday the Attorney General of Ohio flatly refused to entertain any quick fix. Now either the Ohio legislature passes a special act to give Biden a pass – or the Democrats do replace Biden. It’s that simple. Review of the Biden ballot access problem Recall the problem Biden and the Democrats face. https://rumble.com/v4pb5ux-biden-november-ballot-woes-a-ruse.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 On April 9, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio), or its on-line presence called Cleveland.com, carried the first story. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose officially notified Democrats that they must certify a nominee on August 7. Otherwise, that candidate’s name would not appear on the ballot this fall. The problem for the Democrats is that their nominating convention begins August 19, in Chicago, Illinois. That’s Keynote Day. Platform Day comes next, and then Presidential Voting Day, and last, Vice-Presidential Voting Day and Acceptance Speeches. The only way the Democrats could certify Biden (and presumably Vice-President Harris) to run, is that their Convention begins on July 29 – three weeks earlier than planned. August 7 is the ninety-day deadline that Ohio has required since 2009. To date the Party in power has never met that deadline – because Parties in power always convene later. In 2012 and 2020 the Party out of power got a special waiver from the legislature. But this time the Democrats sought to certify Biden and Harris provisionally, subject to any changes on the Voting Days. Not so fast, said Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. Provisional certification, he said, “simply is not provided for by law.” Instead, the law mandates the Democratic Party to actually certify its president and vice-president candidates on or before August 7, 2024. No alternative process is permitted. Fox News Channel provided the full text of the correspondence between Yost and Donald J. McTigue, the Democrats’ Ohio lawyer. At time of posting, McTigue has not answered Yost’s letter. Problems in other States Besides Ohio, Alabama also has an early ballot certification deadline of August 15, still earlier than the Democratic Convention. The Alabama Reflector discussed that issue. At first, only two Republican States were raising the issue. Biden carried neither State in 2020, and in fact Hillary carried neither State in 2016. So leaving Biden off the ballot will probably not affect his chances of winning 270 electoral votes. (No Democrat since Jimmy Carter has carried Alabama in modern times.) But if no Democrat appears at the top of the ticket, this could severely impact other races down-ticket. That applies mainly to U.S. House races, and county and municipal races either in big cities, or the counties seated in such cities. It also affects legislative races, because Kentucky, New Jersey and Virginia are the only three “off-year States.” So if the Democrats hope to make any inroads in those two States, they must have someone at the top of the ticket. In fact a third State has an early deadline: Washington State. Their deadline is August 20, which is Platform Day. According to ABC News, Washington State’s election officials are willing to offer provisional certification. The real problem: Biden can’t campaign Again, the more likely solution the Democrats will find is to replace Biden. Biden showed several times that he can’t campaign as a normal candidate would. He can’t even manage to stick to the simplest script. This affects not only his campaign events but also his official pronouncements. The Gateway Pundit has multiple examples. In a speech addressing the latest action in the Middle East, Biden apparently warned Israel not to attack Haifa. The problem: Haifa is Israel’s third largest city, and is not currently under any Arab occupation. While addressing members of United Steelworkers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the Resident regaled them with a false story of his “Uncle Bosey” being eaten by cannibals. Not only that, but he took yet another occasion to approach a little girl inappropriately. Grant Stinchfield said Biden set a record for most gaffes in one speech. https://rumble.com/v4q77aw-joe-bidens-gaffe-ridden-campaign-stop...-possible-record-for-most-screwups-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Later he stopped by a Sheetz station in Pittsburgh; one supporter greeted him, and he left after two minutes. This morning a reporter pointed out that Pennsylvania had stretches with lots of Trump signs and very few Biden signs. “You haven’t been driving in the right places, pal!” snarled the Resident, who couldn’t describe those “right places.” This afternoon he appeared in Philadelphia, and actually said, Are you ready to choose freedom over democracy? Because that’s America! Later he stopped in a Wawa and, according to script, ordered a take-out meal. He struggled with it, and then wandered off to get a milkshake. Sweet frozen dairy desserts seem to be his staple diet. But Trump can In sharp contrast, Donald J. Trump has been making real lemonade out of the lemons a New York judge keeps handing him. The judge has threatened the former President with arrest if he misses one day of the trial. Whether he will defy the court and dare it to arrest him for attending his son Barron’s upcoming high-school graduation, no one besides Dr. Steve Turley has speculated. But for now he is appearing in New York spots infamous for illustrating Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s soft-on-crime policies. This includes a bodega where a clerk briefly faced attempted murder charges after he defended himself against a robber. The D.A. subsequently thought better of that and dropped the charges. But the bodega clerk, furious, announced plans to leave New York and go back to the Dominican Republic. Though the clerk wasn’t there, the bodega still stands – and patrons and staff greeted him very warmly. https://twitter.com/TheStevenCheung/status/1780387436268282023 Trump has some observers speculating that he might carry New York. Even if he doesn’t, he will force Democrats to spend money in New York that they didn’t plan to spend. That will drain their resources that they need in other States. If not Biden, who? The Democrats have been whispering about replacing Biden since December of 2023. Their most recent speculation happened in February. John L. Dorman of Business Insider listed seven possible candidates then: • Kamala Harris, moving up from Vice-President to President, • Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), • Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-Mich.), • Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), • Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), • Gov. Roy Cooper (D-N.C.), and • Gov. Wes Moore (D-Md.) Each of these people would have a good incentive to try for the prize. Kamala Harris has been measuring the drapes from day one. Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer each has a socialist, civilian-disarmament, and Doctor Moreau-like agenda to push. (On Monday the Supreme Court stayed an injunction against Idaho’s new Anti-Doctor-Moreau law.) The two blue-State Senators have much the same stake. Wes Moore would love the limelight. And Roy Cooper, a Democrat with a veto-proof Republican legislature basically telling him how to run his State, is the lamest of lame ducks today. But let’s not neglect that scion of the Democrats’ favorite political dynasty, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He differs from Democrats on one major issue: the folly of artificial active acquired immunity. Kennedy has opposed the current childhood vaccination schedule as assiduously as he opposed the coronavirus vaccines. For what it’s worth, he also opposes the “Doctors Moreau” who seek to turn little boys into girls and vice-versa. But on every other issue, he toes the line. Bottom line Never before has ballot access been a problem after a late-in-the-year convention. The Washington State incident gives the game away. Presidential nominating conventions are a formality. That goes double for the party in power, renominating their incumbents. The last time anyone had any doubts about the outcome of a nominating convention was in 1976. Ronald W. Reagan and incumbent Gerald R. Ford came to a convention full of “uncommitted delegates.” Neither man had a clear majority. The gamesmanship – and games-woman-ship between Nancy Reagan and Betty Ford, with their competing Grand Entrances – ultimately settled the matter. And no one – ever – brought up whether Ford and Bob Dole were too late to get on the ballot. But if this is Kabuki Theater, then it seems to be setting a new record for verisimilitude. Whether Ohio officials will stick to the resolve they seem to be showing, is an open question. Perhaps Ohio Republicans are sending a message: if you want to replace Biden, get a move on – and don’t expect us to help you. But surely the Democrats know Biden cannot win. Stephen A. Smith at ESPN said they know it, and that’s why they’re waging “lawfare” against Trump. But maybe they have Bobby Kennedy or Roy Cooper or Gavin Newsom waiting in the wings. Which should remind President Trump of the folly of campaigning on Whether You Want The Other Guy. Trump needs to campaign on what he will do for the people, not on what Biden has done to them. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/18/news/biden-ballot-woes-continue/ Earlier video about Biden’s ballot woes: https://rumble.com/v4pb5ux-biden-november-ballot-woes-a-ruse.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Grant Stinchfield’s show: https://rumble.com/v4q77aw-joe-bidens-gaffe-ridden-campaign-stop...-possible-record-for-most-screwups-.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Steven Cheung covers Trump at the bodega: https://twitter.com/TheStevenCheung/status/1780387436268282023 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

January 6 case comes down to selective prosecution By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the first January 6 criminal case to reach that Court. More than 300 persons who allegedly entered the Capitol (or not!) on January 6, 2021 face a great many charges. Among these is obstruction of an official proceeding. But the statute behind that charge involves tampering with witnesses, judges, jurors, court staff – or evidence – in criminal proceedings. Never once has anyone prosecuted someone under this statute for obstructing a proceeding of Congress or either of its chambers. But yesterday the Justices singled out the most glaring weakness of the government’s case. Which is: various demonstrators – and one Democrat in Congress – have arguably done things in violation of the statute. Congressional and judicial proceedings have been subject to obstruction by such acts. Yet – none of them faced prosecution! This constitutes selective application of the law, which is never tolerable. The January 6 event and the relevant considerations On January 6, 2021, President Donald J. Trump held a rally, with anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 people in attendance. He was twenty minutes late in beginning his speech. Toward the end, he spoke of people walking peaceably to the Capitol “to make your voices heard.” Never did he say anything about violence – except to condemn it when word reached him that violent altercations were taking place. Violence did take place – after elements of the Capitol Police fired rubber bullets at an inoffensive crowd. The American people have known this since Rep. Michael Johnson (R-La.), Speaker of the House, released several hours of footage from Capitol security cameras. That footage also shows some peculiarly selective treatment of “protesters” in the Capitol. In fact the Capitol sustained remarkably little damage, aside from a few broken windows. Not one painting, sculpture, or other work of art suffered even the slightest damage. This selectivity of treatment, plus recordings of provocative statements by persons (like Ray Epps) who didn’t face charges until very late, clearly show that this was a false-flag pseudo-operation. After that, the government laid on charges against hundreds of individuals, or perhaps as many as a thousand. One of them – Joseph Fischer – has doggedly pressed his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Fischer v. United States, Docket 23-5572. A financial-crime statute repurposed to punish January 6 protesters Mr. Fischer entered the “restricted area” around the Capitol, probably because Ray Epps and his confederates cut the fence down. In fact he did not gain entry until after Congress had already recessed. Nevertheless 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. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio) passed this law in the wake of the ENRON scandal. Their object was to punish people for shredding documents or doing anything else with the intent to obstruct justice. Here we have the first “stretch.” The only “records” anyone could have been trying to “alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal” were the lists of Electoral College votes to be presented to Congress for counting. No one has credibly alleged that anyone tried to tamper with those vote lists, or tried to change their contents. So the government suggested that the January 6 defendants “otherwise … attempt[ed] to … obstruct, influence, or impede” the joint session of Congress that, under the Constitution, takes place to count those votes. On rebuttal, counsel for Mr. Fischer mentioned Subsection f, which reads: (f) For the purposes of this section — (1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and (2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege. This language speaks of criminal proceedings, and the giving or presentation of testimony and evidence. Furthermore, Subsection e did not bear mention, and likely should have. It reads: (e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully. The argument Mr. Fischer is arguing that he should never have faced a charge under Sarbanes-Oxley. But even so, he has the elements of an affirmative defense under Subsection e. No footage shows that he broke the law, other than being in a place where he shouldn’t have been – after someone removed the signs. Furthermore, his sole intention would have been to “encourage, induce or cause” the Vice-President to uphold election integrity. To do that he would need to disallow the electoral votes from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona. But, for political reasons, Mike Pence did not do this. None of this is relevant to Mr. Fischer’s case. The sole issue is whether a charge under Sarbanes-Oxley is appropriate. A federal district court threw out the charge. But a three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to reinstate the charges. Mr. Jeffrey T. Green argued for Mr. Fischer. His first session with the Justices occupies 33 pages of the 123-page transcript. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had the next session – which occupies 72 pages. Then came Mr. Green’s rebuttal. A grammatical question Mr. Green’s case is that the word otherwise refers to conduct similar to the alteration, destruction, mutilation, or concealment of documents or records. Justice Clarence Thomas – who unaccountably absented himself from Monday’s oral argument session – began the questioning. He recognized that Mr. Green’s point is grammatical: what does otherwise refer to? More to the point: did Congress concern itself primarily with obstruction, influence, or impediment of official proceedings? Or did it worry mainly about alteration, destruction, mutilation, or concealment of written evidence? Justice Thomas clearly was drawing out the second option. Justice Sonia Sotomayor apparently sought to quash that line of inquiry as irrelevant. Obstruction, influence, or impediment could include an obstreperous demonstration – like yelling (“Fire” or any other word) in a crowded theater to “impede” a stage performance or motion-picture showing. Justice Sotomayor went on to mention that mens rea (state of mind) need not be shown. Under Subsection g, that’s true – but Subsection g makes further references to criminal and other judicial proceedings, not Congressional proceedings. None of that seemed to matter to the Liberal Bloc, or even to the Moderate Bloc – for Justice Amy Coney Barrett chose explicitly to include the vote-counting session as a “proceeding” within the meaning of Subsection c, paragraph 2. Justice Alito’s clarifications Justice Sam Alito sought one clarification. In US v. Reich, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that forging a court order fell under paragraph 2. Mr. Green agreed with that. Later, Justice Alito said Green “may be biting off more than [he could] chew” by saying that the only way to read the otherwise phrase is in relation to document tampering. But then Justice Alito said something else that at least one gloating reporter missed. “It is also possible to read a [phrase] like this more narrowly,” he said, citing Judge Katsas’ dissent from the reinstatement of the charges by the D.C. Circuit. Mr. Green held firm, and cited two Latin “canons” of law: • Ejusdem generis – of the same kind or class. • Noscitur a sociis – one may know a thing by the company it keeps. These two phrases point to the full language of Section 1512. The sections everyone quoted – and even sections no one quoted – all point to criminal cases, and evasion of punishment. They have nothing to do with the deliberations of Congress, either of its chambers, or any of their committees. Justice Sotomayor tried to blunt the application of those canons. But she walked into an argument for them – when she mentioned the Enron scandal, the very context of Section 1512. General Prelogar’s ordeal Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for the government, lost no time in accusing Fischer and his co-defendants of trying to “obstruct, influence, or impede” the vote certification. Of course she had to emphasize the “violence” of the “attempt.” If she hadn’t, Mr. Fischer would have “lawfulness of conduct,” one of the two elements of an affirmative defense. (The other is that he was just trying to “encourage, induce or cause” Vice-President Pence to do his job.) Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch both weakened Ms. Prelogar’s argument on the key problem of selectivity of prosecution. Justice Thomas asked first whether the government had ever prosecuted anyone under Sarbanes-Oxley for obstructing a non-judicial proceeding. She said the government had – but could provide no example. The examples she did provide all involved attempts to beat a criminal rap. The cases might not have involved evidence tampering, but they did involve interference with grand jury and undercover investigations. Chief Justice John Roberts reminded Ms. Prelogar that the ejusdem generis doctrine definitely applies. He even cited a recent unanimous opinion that elucidates it. Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC, 601 U.S. ____ (2024), decided April 12, 2024. As the court unanimously held, courts interpret generic terms at the ends of lists of specific items in light of elements they share in common with those specific items. By this reading, paragraph 2, with the word otherwise introducing it, must refer to paragraph 1. Comparing January 6 to other protests that did not result in charges Justice Gorsuch, after following up on Chief Justice Roberts’ application of ejusdem generis, proceeded to pose some hypothetical situations: • A sit-in that disrupts a trial or obstructs access to a courtroom or courthouse, • Heckling, either of the oral argument session or, say, the State of the Union address, or • Setting off a fire alarm to delay a Congressional vote by provoking a pointless evacuation. The problem that Ms. Prelogar could not solve was: each of these situations has occurred. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s own confirmation hearings suffered delay from such sit-ins. Presidents often suffer heckling at their State of the Union addresses. And Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) famously pulled the fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building to delay a vote on a continuing resolution. None of the people involved faced any charges of any kind. So why did the government never prosecute in those cases? Ms. Prelogar tried to suggest the government needed to show mens rea. But according to Subsection g, it does not. And per Subsection f, a proceeding need not be then taking place. (Though if it already has taken place, then it is un-obstruct-able.) In any event, Justice Gorsuch heaped scorn on the argument: “We went around that tree yesterday.” He probably was referring to the Court’s argument session in Snyder v. U.S. (23-108). Then he asked, equally scornfully: So a mostly peaceful protest that actually obstructs or impedes an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered? That could refer to any of a number of BLM protests during the “Long Hot Summer” of 2020. Refusing to admit other prosescutable offenses Incredibly, Solicitor General Prelogar would not even admit that willful disruption of an oral argument session should be prosecutable. Perhaps the only reason why no such disruption actually occurred is the Court’s tight security protocols. Public seating for oral argument is limited, and the Supreme Courthouse is otherwise closed to the public on argument days. Justice Alito pressed the solicitor general very hard, particularly on the chargeability of mere impediment, short of actual obstruction. In fact, protests have occurred before – in the Supreme Courtroom – and no prosecutions have resulted. He then postulated a protest shutting down the Anacostia, Wilson, and other bridges spanning the Potomac River. Such a protest might prevent an argument session or hearing because the Justices and/or lawyers living/based in Virginia couldn’t attend. (This could also apply to a Congressional proceeding.) Still she would not commit to prosecuting in that case. Even Justices Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to have problems with that argument. And Justice Barrett certainly had trouble accepting that. As mentioned, Mr. Green, on rebuttal, destroyed all of General Prelogar’s arguments about requiring a “nexus” for prosecuting under Sarbanes-Oxley. According to Subsection f, the prosecution requires no such nexus. In closing, Mr. Green said the Court should consider carefully whether to entrust prosecutors with discretion in using a statute carrying a 20-year prison penalty. Summary Everyone who cares to know, knows that the January 6 event was a false-flag pseudo-operation. That was demonstrably not true of the particular events Justice Gorsuch described as hypothetical situations. More to the point, the government has never prosecuted under Sarbanes-Oxley for any offense other than an attempt to impair investigation or prosecution of a criminal case. Thus the government has been selective in applying Sarbanes-Oxley in contexts other than large-scale fraud, embezzlement, and other such crimes. Specifically the government did not prosecute Rep. Bowman for pulling the fire alarm. Nor did anyone prosecute anyone who disrupted the Senate Judiciary Committee when it held hearings on Brett Kavanaugh. Nor has anyone prosecuted a heckler at the State of the Union Address. But the most stunning double-down was Solicitor General Prelogar’s refusal to prosecute, under Section 1512, any hypothetical group of protesters who shut down all the Potomac River bridges and possibly impeding various court trials and proceedings of Congress. For those reasons, the Court is very likely to reverse the D.C. Circuit. It might even reverse on a 9-0 vote, with the Liberal Bloc filing concurrences. They’ve done it before – in Sackett et ux. v. EPA, for example. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/17/news/january-6-case-selective-prosecution/ Fischer v. U.S.: Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-5572.html Oral argument transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-5572_0pm1.pdf Sound recording: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/23-5572.mp3 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Biology, the Supreme Court, and truth By Terry A. Hurlbut Two days ago the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of yet another “universal injunction.” But what caught the country’s attention, was the subject of that injunction: Idaho’s new Vulnerable Child Protection Act. That act seeks to outlaw the surgical mutilation and hormonal poisoning of children, in the name of “critical transgender theory.” This drama of course illustrates that many judges have abandoned basic biology and truth in their judgments. Worse, it shows that a liberal faction has arisen in the federal courts, with a foothold in the Supreme Court. We know this because an opinion, dissenting from the grant of stay, is worse than specious. In lamenting the outcome, the latest Liberal Bloc member has outdone herself in proposing a “remedy” so outlandish that two of her fellow Justices effectively asked Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! As well they might. Where biology goes to court: the case of Poe v. Labrador Raul Labrador is the Attorney General of Idaho. A minor individual who now goes by the name of Pam Poe is a “trans girl,” according to court papers. The Vulnerable Child Protection Act says that a doctor may not prescribe puberty blockers (the hormonal poison of choice) to, or remove healthy body parts (especially the testes or ovaries) from, a child under the age of eighteen. The doctor who does, could go to prison for as long as ten years. ‘Transitioning,” even of children, has, sadly become fashionable in my former profession. This fashion reminds one of H. G. Wells’ most controversial novel, The Island of Doctor Moreau. So controversial was it that no motion-picture studio dared dramatize it until 1977. (And again in 1996, as a vehicle for that most over-rated of actors, Marlon Brando.) That’s significant, because the motion-picture industry eagerly dramatized Wells’ other works, including The Invisible Man, The War of the Worlds, and The Time Machine. Wells’ Doctor Moreau mutilated wild animals to transform them into likenesses of human beings (complete with the power of speech!). These modern Doctors Moreau surgically mutilate and hormonally poison adults – and children, when they can get away with it – to transform them into likenesses of the opposite sex. Instead of determining why anyone would even express a desire for such treatment, these Doctors Moreau – for ideological or simply venal motives – have embarked on an experimental program to set basic human biology at naught. Idaho takes a stand The legislature of Idaho decided they wouldn’t stand for that. So they forbade the practice. Now enter the Poes – two misguided parents who evidently had begun puberty blocking treatments for their son – er – “trans daughter.” They sued the State in federal court, seeking to continue to transform their son into a daughter. Judge Lynn Winmill, of the U.S. District Court for the Idaho District, favored the Poes with a preliminary injunction. But she did not limit her injunction merely to say, “Pam Poe may continue her treatments.” Oh, no – she must needs rule that the State may not threaten to throw any of its Doctors Moreau into prison for “treating” a minor. Indeed the Poes aren’t even at the surgical stage yet. (Whether they intend to get there, the court record does not make clear.) No matter. Judge Winmill ordered that any Doctor Moreau may begin a full transform, medical and surgical, at will. Or at least as soon as said Doctor Moreau finds a willing subject. Attorney General Labrador appealed. Sadly his appeal came to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. During his presidency, Donald Trump was able to reform half of that court. Mr. Labrador drew three old-line liberals, who all voted against staying the injunction. Mr. Labrador then went to the Supreme Court. (Application 23A763, Labrador v. Poe.) The Supreme Court rules The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to grant a stay of the injunction, as it might apply to any party other than the “Pam Poe” and “John Doe” now seeking the “Doctor Moreau” treatment. Normally, the Supreme Court doesn’t comment on a stay application. But this time, three Justices wrote a total of thirty-four pages of opinions. Judge Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Originalist Bloc (himself and Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito) summed the case up. He found that the injunction went too far in saying no part of the Vulnerable Child Protection Act is enforceable. Thus Mr. Labrador is likely to prevail on appeal of the preliminary injunction. Gorsuch also found “irreparable harm” to other Idahoans from not enforcing the law, no harm to “Poe” and “Doe” as long as they can get their treatments, and a sound public policy interest in letting a duly enacted law go into force and effect. Similarly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for himself and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, lamented that the Court had to act. Nevertheless, he expressed a willingness to act, and joined Justice Gorsuch in thumping District Courts generally for flooding the Supreme Court with so many universal injunctions. Now enter Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Liberal Bloc. She actually said the Supreme Court should defer to the lower courts when said lower courts do not disagree. Throwing up clouds of terminology, she basically denied that Idaho needed “immediate relief.” The biology challenged Justice Recall that this same Justice, when sitting before the Senate Judiciary Committee, professed ignorance of biology. A Senator asked her what a woman was, and she declined to answer. Biology lies at the heart of this case. Yet she speaks of a Court not being so quick to stay an injunction. But, her colleagues shot back, what about a District Court being so quick to enjoin an entire new law? Or an appeals court being equally quick to affirm a universal injunction? Sauce for the goose. Indeed more than biology might challenge Justice Jackson. The outrage of her colleagues at her totally outlandish and specious suggestion was palpable. “Abject deference,” Justice Gorsuch said she was demanding. One can sum up his reaction in two words: since and when. Justice Kavanaugh, for his part, said in effect, “You know, this Court could always ‘grant cert’ before judgment.” In other words, Jackson’s appeal to the “weight” of the “issues” was equally specious, and Kavanaugh was not impressed. The learned Justices are very clever at steering clear of saying the quiet part out loud. Accordingly, Justice Jackson did not dare predict how many minors would commit suicide if they couldn’t see their Doctors Moreau. But read between the lines. She willfully distorts Mr. Labrador’s stay application to say he conceded the point about the particular plaintiffs. Then she said that only a broadly sweeping injunction could protect the plaintiffs’ interests! News flash! Poe and Doe are not class-action proxies for every gender-dysphoric child! A disingenuous opinion This opinion lends itself to one interpretation only. Justice Jackson clearly does not want the Vulnerable Child Protection Act ever to go into force or effect. Nor would she permit any other State to pass such a law. Because she will see no child un-transformed. Or at least, she will see no boy un-transformed into a girl. If H. G. Wells’ original character had engaged a barrister, it would have been Ketanji Brown Jackson. (At least, if Doctor Moreau were a modern character, which he almost certainly would have to be.) All those Poes and Does and Doctors Moreau could move out of Idaho if they wanted to. Let them move to California, Oregon, or Washington State. The Great Sortation is one-way, but it need not be. A time must come, someday, when Congress must reclaim biology and stop these Doctors Moreau from doing any further injury. But until that time comes, the Great Sortation can be two-way. Of course, the defiance of biology will correct itself – because these Doctors Moreau will never produce fertile subjects. The Alphabet Soup lobby knows this. The World Economic Forum knows this. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson knows this. Hence the lawsuit, and Jackson’s desperate attempt to stop a State from protecting its children from a repugnant confidence trick. What should happen? Thankfully, this case goes back to the District Court, and the law goes into full force and effect. Now everything depends on the way Mr. Labrador manages his case. He should never concede that any of these Doctors Moreau have any indication to induct children into their experimental program. That this is even arguable in any court, puts him at a disadvantage he should never accept. God surely reserves enough child counselors who have not sullied their smocks. (Revelation 3:4.) They must step forward to testify against these Doctors Moreau, and defend good medicine against the twisted version that prevails today. Idaho has passed, and now may enforce, a model law for all the States. This is, to paraphrase Justice Gorsuch’ opinion, “a welcome development.” A rock-solid defense of that law is now necessary to keep it that way. Link to: Poe v. Labrador, District Court docket page: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67457948/poe-v-labrador/ Labrador v. Poe, 34-page opinions relating to the stay order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a763_n7io.pdf Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Iran attacks Israel, and what that tells us By Terry A. Hurlbut Two nights ago the Islamic Republic of Iran launched its threatened “retaliatory” attack against Israel. To remember seven ranking officers they lost in a raid on their embassy in Damascus, Iran sent 185 slow-flying one-way drones, 110 “intermediate range” ballistic missiles, and 36 cruise missiles toward several targets in Israel proper, Judea, and Samaria. The results probably will impress no one. Far more important is what this attack tells us, about the respect America has thrown away, the real capabilities of Israel’s enemies, and the attitudes of an entire world against a people numbering remarkably little – for a people some suppose to rule the world. Particulars about the Iran attack The first drones likely took off from Iran at around 11:00 p.m. Iranian Time, which is offset three hours and thirty minutes from “Coordinated Universal Time.” (At this time of year, Israel keeps its Summer Time, which is three hours ahead of UTC.) https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1779232573979246865 https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1779241885074153799 About a half hour into the attack, came the official statements – from the Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Israel Defense Forces. https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee1/status/1779248358411882763 https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1779249964281160128 https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1779242779182288964 https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1779253657185251522 Obviously those drones had to traverse several Arab countries, including Iraq, Yemen and Jordan. All those countries closed their airspace to civilian traffic. But not more than five percent of these aircraft and missiles came anywhere near their targets. American forces shot down several of the drones, all of which were on hours-long flight plans. Those drones that reached the skies over Jerusalem, largely fell to the Iron Dome antimissile system. https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1779280803677036803 https://twitter.com/i24NEWS_EN/status/1779283539009159632 https://twitter.com/emilykschrader/status/1779281991935926453 https://twitter.com/emilykschrader/status/1779282762140209435 https://twitter.com/emilykschrader/status/1779282818440343992 The sightings, regrettably, caused mass panic among the residents of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. https://twitter.com/PattyLovesTruth/status/1779295202965856504 https://twitter.com/CensoredMen/status/1779282428684587150 No doubt those residents expected those missiles to have nuclear, chemical, or perhaps biological warheads. Three hours after the operation began, Iran declared it “concluded.” https://twitter.com/Iran_UN/status/1779269993043022053 President Trump rightly said this would never have happened, had he been in office. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112266013797003144 Apparently Resident Biden planned to release a pre-recorded speech on the Iran attack. You can imagine Trump’s reaction: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112266086574713677 Live speeches, if you please, Mister President, Trump said in so many words. Biden canceled his plans to release a recording. https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1779271522663674309 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112266139175825548 Biden caught trash-talking As dawn was breaking over the Middle East, NBC News blew the gaffe. They carried leaks of Biden and his advisers talking trash about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They spoke of lack of a coherent strategy, and accused Israel of trying to drag America into a wider war. But for public consumption, Biden spoke of calling a Group of Seven conference today. https://twitter.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/1779301775352230330 https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1779321541320142918 By the next morning, the bragging began. Iran’s official news agency claimed $100 million in damages, largely to Israeli military facilities, and injuries and property damage at Arad, 45 km (28 mi.) south of Beer-sheba, in Judea, and Umm al-Fahm, in Samaria. Here is some representative footage: https://twitter.com/paul_serran/status/1779517559320047874 https://twitter.com/paul_serran/status/1779518146107281645 https://twitter.com/paul_serran/status/1779518452316639368 Paul Serran, who provided the footage above, cites his own sources in Israel. They told him to expect Israeli retaliation against Iran “within 48 hours.” The President of the Islamic Republic boasted of “teaching the Zionist regime an unforgettable lesson.” And in the Majlis (their parliament), several parliamentarians shouted “Death to Israel.” https://twitter.com/IsraelNitzan/status/1779498579192627698 Those are, of course, tall words for a country that just launched more than 300 missiles and aircraft at a country the size of New Jersey, and have maybe five percent get through. (Israel claimed 99 percent interception, but the math works out to 95 percent.) Worth remembering also is that the Biden administration relieved Iran of billions of dollars in sanctions only a month ago. https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1779243940178538737 https://twitter.com/RepNancyMace/status/1779275150162108454 Lack of respect First, as President Donald Trump says, this shows that the world – especially the Middle East – does not respect America anymore. “Resident” Biden actually told Iran not to retaliate for the killings of those seven IRGC officers. Iran did it anyway, however ineffectual that retaliation might have been (more on that below). It was left to George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s This Week, to point out this irony. National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby preferred to concentrate on what support the U.S. Navy and Air Force gave Israel during the attack. https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1779529649690702108 https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1779295631514751395 Apparently several Navy and Air Force assets – and Royal Air Force assets, British and Jordanian – scored a good portion of those intercepts. True, but not relevant to the (lack of) respect for America in that part of the world. Worse yet, Biden calls on Israel to “take the win,” said “win” being the 95 percent intercept rate. That’s not how war works. An act of war invites retaliation. If it doesn’t come, further acts of war will follow. Of course, the Biden administration threw that respect away for another reason. One week ago, American Secretary of State Anthony Blinken actually said Israel risked “becoming indistinguishable from HAMAS.” Anyone who knows the actual record of the Fourth Arab-Israeli War, and of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Arabic Harakah al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah, abbreviated HAMAS), should reject any such suggestion as laughably absurd. More to the point, “moral neutrality” is not an option when one side commits atrocities as a matter of policy. Is that the best Iran can do? But Iran has created a problem for itself. Fifteen missiles “getting through” to Nabatim AFB in the Negev, and that base remains in action. (Furthermore, they sent up an F-35 that scored many intercepts, over Jordan and Syria as well as Israel.) A few injuries in one town in Judea and maybe an (Arab!) town in Samaria. Is that the best they can do? Israeli civilians clearly expected them to do much worse. They bought into the hype, and for that reason supplied the obligatory running-through-the-streets scenes in the inevitable movies dramatizing the event, or telling ancillary stories about people (real or fictitious) whom the event affected. But for actual impact, this attack had not much greater effect than some stray fireworks might have had. Then Iran followed it up with a “next time it’ll be worse” announcement. That’s worse than pathetic. When a country goes to war, it must strike a devastating blow on the front end. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto understood at least that much when he attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. Then he found out his attack preceded the delivery of an ultimatum to American Secretary of State Cordell Hull. That caused him to worry that he had “awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.” If this is all Iran can do, they will learn to regret not doing more. Israel has wanted to strike against Iran’s nuclear research facilities for some time. They now have the perfect excuse. You were saying about Jews running the world? But the worst thing this attack brought out is the attitudes of the Gentile world toward Jews. This is worse even than Cordell Hull sending the Steamship St. Louis (the “Ship of the D____d”) back to Germany. We see people – on the left and the right – sympathizing with Muslims as they take up the refrain of Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and other leaders of the Radical Muslim “Reformation” of the Twentieth Century. Andrew Torba, founder of Gab, positively gloated when news of the attack broke. Providing links to his posts is now useless; he has elected to hide his posts from most viewers. As the attack began he said: When the righteous wrath of God pours out on the apostate State of Israel, what will the Christian Zionists say to cope? Or words to that effect. Here is my reply: When the Immortals (or whatever Iran's crack armored cavalry unit calls itself these days) suffer 83% casualties and 100% materiel losses - and when the Israelis start counting their seven years' burning the weapons of war with fire - what will the triumphalistic Covenant (Replacement) Theologians say then? And when George "Spooky Dude" Soros rolls out his biomedical/biometrical cattle-brand-like chip and requires that for all economic transactions, without exception - well, I don't expect the quoted user to take "the mark," because that would be dreadfully un-libertarian, but will he then apologize to me and others for the insulting remark he delivered below? John Nelson Darby was correct, and I am no more ashamed of him than I am of God Himself. https://twitter.com/ConservNewsView/status/1779285097834746232 Andrew Torba might or might not have deleted the post. X’s notices sometimes create confusion when a user “protects” posts. He also said, directly to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), that the True Israel is the Church, not the 1948 State of Israel. That’s classic Covenantal, or Replacement, Theology. Here is my thread in reply. https://twitter.com/ConservNewsView/status/1779288402820579712 https://twitter.com/ConservNewsView/status/1779290619455623403 Briefly, the Revelation of St. John of Jerusalem details several specific events, the fulfillment of which is subject to debate. Replacementists insist that all those events have already taken place. They will say that those events were to happen “soon.” “God knows how to tell time,” said Torba in another deleted/protected post. Oh, really? So when did they happen? Who is the Prince Who Shall Come (Daniel 9:26)? Or the Two Witnesses of Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-15)? So what happens next? At the moment, Israel is saying nothing. Which is as it should be; one keeps one’s enemies guessing until the last second. Iran lost 95 percent of expended missiles and drones, killed no one, and injured one seven-year-old child from shrapnel. Those are the latest, most detailed reports. Israel might decide that Iran’s lack of results constitutes humiliation enough, and that they are not in the fly-swatting business. Or that they should wait about nine months for an American Presidential Inauguration. Grant Stinchfield said this morning that nothing is likely to happen. He says the Chinese approved Iran’s attack plan, knowing that plan would achieve so little results. After that, the weak Joe Biden would tell Israel to stand down. In fact, neither China nor Russia would lift a finger if Israel did decide to swat a Persian fly. Or would they? https://rumble.com/v4phirb-there-is-one-reason-why-bidens-ineptitude-and-weakness-will-not-lead-to-wwi.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Consistent with the above, Trump is right – this didn’t happen and would never have happened on his watch. (Then again, the Fourth Arab-Israeli War wouldn’t have happened on his watch, either.) But neither is this Ezekiel’s War. Enemy materiel losses were total, of course – by design. Iran sent no ground forces, and neither did the Russians, nor the Ethiopians, the Libyans, the Sudanese, or anyone else. As an escalation, this was an abject failure. Iran’s idle boasts don’t change that fact, and make them look ridiculous. And all the pro-HAMAS demonstrators the world over, probably know it. Link to: X posts: https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1779232573979246865 https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1779241885074153799 https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee1/status/1779248358411882763 https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1779249964281160128 https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1779242779182288964 https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1779253657185251522 https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1779280803677036803 https://twitter.com/i24NEWS_EN/status/1779283539009159632 https://twitter.com/emilykschrader/status/1779281991935926453 https://twitter.com/emilykschrader/status/1779282762140209435 https://twitter.com/emilykschrader/status/1779282818440343992 https://twitter.com/PattyLovesTruth/status/1779295202965856504 https://twitter.com/CensoredMen/status/1779282428684587150 https://twitter.com/Iran_UN/status/1779269993043022053 https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1779271522663674309 https://twitter.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/1779301775352230330 https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1779321541320142918 https://twitter.com/paul_serran/status/1779517559320047874 https://twitter.com/paul_serran/status/1779518146107281645 https://twitter.com/paul_serran/status/1779518452316639368 https://twitter.com/IsraelNitzan/status/1779498579192627698 https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1779243940178538737 https://twitter.com/RepNancyMace/status/1779275150162108454 https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1779529649690702108 https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1779295631514751395 https://twitter.com/ConservNewsView/status/1779285097834746232 https://twitter.com/ConservNewsView/status/1779288402820579712 https://twitter.com/ConservNewsView/status/1779290619455623403 Truths: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112266013797003144 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112266086574713677 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/112266139175825548 Grant Stinchfield’s video: https://rumble.com/v4phirb-there-is-one-reason-why-bidens-ineptitude-and-weakness-will-not-lead-to-wwi.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Biden November ballot woes – a ruse? By Terry A. Hurlbut Does Joe Biden really face exclusion from the general election ballot by reason of delay of certification? Now three chief State election officers have written precisely that to the Democratic National Committee. This has generated a great deal of noise about “partisan” official nitpicking in two States, and the making of an irregular exception in the last. But all of it could be a sham. In point of fact, the Democratic Party does not want to get “stuck” with Biden. They will do everything within their power to substitute another candidate, one they believe has a better chance of winning. This ruckus about candidate certification could be their means of choice. That holds especially since this has never been a problem before, no matter how late the Party in power holds its nominating convention. Warnings about Biden losing ballot access The first warning about Joe Biden not being on a Presidential election ballot came from Ohio on Tuesday. Among other organs, Cleveland.com, the Internet counterpart to The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio), carried the story. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose officially notified Democrats that they must certify a nominee on August 7. Otherwise, that candidate’s name would not appear on the ballot this fall. Cleveland.com noted that this has been a problem in nearly every Presidential election cycle for more than ten years. The problem has always been with the lateness of the schedules for nominating conventions. By tradition, the Party out of power holds its convention in July, and the Party in power holds its convention in August. But how late in August? The Democrats will not actually convene until August 19, and that only for keynote speeches. Their only alternative – officially – is to convene beginning July 29 instead – three weeks earlier. On the other hand, never before has any Presidential candidate failed to qualify for the ballot in all States. At least, not on procedural grounds alone. Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson were off the ballot in Alabama in their respective elections. But that’s only because Alabama’s Democratic Party refused to support them. And, of course, the Democrats made much of Mr. LaRose being a Republican. They accused him of sending the letter merely to call attention to himself. Previous warnings about this issue Typically, State legislatures end up passing special acts to waive the administrative deadline for the late convention. This happened in 2012 and 2020 in Ohio. Before then, Ohio required a ninety-day deadline beginning in 2009. And the Party in power has never met that deadline. The National Association of Secretaries of State passed three resolutions urging the Parties to hold their conventions “on time.” Frank LaRose became co-chair of the NASS elections committee in 2020. LaRose is the first Secretary of State to notice the deadline conflict. But later this week, the Alabama Secretary of State noticed the same issue. The Alabama Reflector discussed that issue, and carried the same kind of criticism from Democrats. Again, the Secretary of State is a Republican. Alabama’s deadline is August 15 – somewhat later than Ohio’s, but still too early. Technically, exclusion from the ballot would make no difference to Biden, or to Vice-President Kamala Harris. Ohio ceased to be a “bellwether,” “battleground,” or “swing” State in 2016. The last Democrat to carry Alabama was Jimmy Carter in 1976. So Trump is likely to carry those States anyway. But if neither Biden nor any Democrat appears on either ballot, down-ticket Democrats will suffer. This applies especially to House candidates, and county and municipal officeholders. In big cities. Think Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, Ohio, and Montgomery, Birmingham, and Mobile, Alabama. And now a Democratic State has this problem? But Thursday came the development that could blow the gaffe. Washington State’s Deputy Secretary of State in charge of elections has sent a similar notice! Washington State’s deadline is August 20 – which is platform debate day for the Democrats. But because Washington State’s officials are Democrats, they were the first to offer a quick fix. They have asked the Democrats to certify Biden – or some candidate – provisionally by August 20. ABC News cites “experts” as accusing “red-State officials” of sticking to the rules as they never did before. One such “expert” is at the Brookings Institution. Elaine Kamarck – a senior fellow at Brookings and a Democratic National Committee member – said: This has not been something anybody has ever dealt with. … [The GOP Secretaries] just cooked it up. No, this has never happened before. Dr. Steve Turley cynically predicted that Ohio’s officials would cut a deal. “Democrats own; Republicans rent,” he said. https://rumble.com/v4oaix0-biden-may-not-be-on-the-ballot-in-this-key-swing-state.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Thus far the Biden campaign has been writing back to offer provisional certifications – and to threaten a Constitutional crisis if Biden does not appear on the ballot in every State in the Union, regardless of deadlines. Where Biden might be going instead Elaine Kamarck is not being entirely correct or honest. After all, the National Association of Secretaries of State has warned the Parties repeatedly that they are needlessly delaying their nominating conventions. 2020, the Year of the P(l)andemic, was a special case, which no one questions today. But the Democrats have a worse problem, and they know it. Their President (Resident!) has nothing to run on. Economic statistics have come out that even their tame legacy media could not ignore. One could readily see the moues of disgust, and the obvious gorge swallowing motions, as various anchorpeople had to admit that the effective rate of inflation is eighteen percent. Recall also the MSNBC anchorwoman who threw her script into the air at the anchor desk in frustration. Then listen to the man himself. A typical listener cannot understand what he is saying – and he gives every indication of not knowing himself. In 1973, Robert J. Ringer described a “mumbler” who mumbles for effect, to hide his cleverness in negotiation. Biden is not an example of this. If not Biden, who? The Democrats have been whispering about replacing Biden since December of 2023. Their most recent speculation happened in February. John L. Dorman of Business Insider listed seven possible candidates then: • Kamala Harris, moving up from Vice-President to President, • Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), • Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-Mich.), • Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), • Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), • Gov. Roy Cooper (D-N.C.), and • Gov. Wes Moore (D-Md.) Each of these people would have a good incentive to try for the prize. Kamala Harris has been measuring the drapes from day one. Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer each has a socialist, civilian-disarmament, and Doctor Moreau-like agenda to push. (The “T” in the Alphabet Soup of “alternative lifestyles” is something only Jules Verne’s most detestable villain could love.) The two blue-State Senators have much the same stake. Wes Moore would love the limelight. And Roy Cooper, a Democrat with a veto-proof Republican legislature basically telling him how to run his State, is the lamest of lame ducks today. But let’s not neglect that scion of the Democrats’ favorite political dynasty, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He differs from Democrats on one major issue: the folly of artificial active acquired immunity. Kennedy has opposed the current childhood vaccination schedule as assiduously as he opposed the coronavirus vaccines. For what it’s worth, he also opposes the “Doctors Moreau” who seek to turn little boys into girls and vice-versa. But on every other issue, he toes the line. Bottom line In sum, the latest dust-up about Biden missing a ballot access deadline is a sham. Never before has this been a problem – and the Washington State incident gives the game away. Of course those election officials will accept provisional certification. After all, Presidential nominating conventions are a formality. That goes double for the party in power, renominating their incumbents. The last time anyone had any doubts about the outcome of a nominating convention was in 1976. Ronald W. Reagan and incumbent Gerald R. Ford came to a convention full of “uncommitted delegates.” Neither man had a clear majority. The gamesmanship – and games-woman-ship between Nancy Reagan and Betty Ford, with their competing Grand Entrances – ultimately settled the matter. And no one – ever – brought up whether Ford and Bob Dole were too late to get on the ballot. So don’t let the Kabuki Theater among these Secretaries of State (including Republicans from the RINO Wing) fool you. This is about substituting a candidate who might be able to win, for an incumbent who cannot win. Not even Dominion Voting (or Election Systems and Software) can save Biden now. They know it, so they have Bobby Kennedy or Roy Cooper or Gavin Newsom waiting in the wings. Which should remind everyone, including President Trump, of the folly of campaigning on Whether You Want The Other Guy. Trump needs to campaign on what he will do for the people, not on what Biden has done to them. Link to: Dr. Steve Turley’s take on the Ohio incident: https://rumble.com/v4oaix0-biden-may-not-be-on-the-ballot-in-this-key-swing-state.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Tucker Carlson embarrasses himself on Israel By Terry A. Hurlbut Tucker Carlson, until recently, enjoyed the implicit trust of anyone skeptical of legacy media on a variety of subjects. But two days ago he violated that trust, perhaps illustrating the folly of reposing implicit trust in anyone. He granted an interview to an obvious covenantalistic pastor in Bethlehem – that Bethlehem – and accepted uncritically the distorted picture that pastor presented of the conduct by Israel of the Fourth Arab-Israeli War, and even of what life is like for a professing Christian either living in Israel or making any kind of pilgrimage to it. The problem is that a simple Internet engined search (with a reputable search engine) belies a particularly disgusting allegation. Failure to do such elementary due diligence makes this the most disappointing Tucker Carlson show on record. Tucker Carlson lends credence to anti-Jewish pastor Herewith Episode 91 of the Tucker Carlson show, on his account on X. https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1777800149818822809 https://rumble.com/v4ohlzx-the-real-impact-of-american-aid-on-palestinian-christians.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Tucker’s “meta-description” reads thus: How does the government of Israel treat Christians? In the West, Christian leaders don’t seem interested in knowing the answer. They should be. Here’s the view of a pastor from Bethlehem. For forty-five minute Carlson interviewed The Rev. Dr. Munther Isaac – a self-identifying “Palestinian Christian.” According to this summary by Patrick Houck at American Liberty News, Dr. Isaac advanced two main theses in the interview: 1. No Christian can support Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza. Those who do have lost sight of their Christian values. But neither Dr. Isaac nor Tucker Carlson bothered to define those values. 2. The State of Israel has always treated Christians badly, and this foul treatment continues to this very day. The booby-prize example of this is an apparent “ancient Orthodox Jewish custom” of spitting on or at Christians in public. On the first point, Dr. Isaac laid great stress on the damage to an Orthodox church in the Gaza Strip. This church, Saint Porphyrius, is the oldest Orthodox Church still functioning in Gaza City. The second allegation has received a great deal of attention since the war began. Those harping on it seem to say that “the Jews” deserved what they got on October 7. The spitting incidents, and alleged custom, are their justification for so saying. But the evidence does not support either point that Dr. Isaac saw fit to make. Tucker Carlson could have settled this with some elementary show prep, using a proper search engine. That he did not, will redound to his everlasting shame. Which search engine should you use? Before treating these points, I have a specific search engine to recommend. I have never, of course, used to Google as a verb. Google is not a verb. The verb-ifying of common trademarks, besides violating various companies’ intellectual property rights, unfairly slights the competitors of the companies involved. (Which likely explains why no company has bothered to protect its trademarks in court against such improper usage. No doubt you’ve heard other examples, like to Xerox.) Today my favorite search engine is Result Hunter. Without exception, every other search engine downgrades results that do not “toe the woke line.” That makes them inherently unreliable, in addition to their support for an agenda I despise. I recommend Result Hunter without reserve to anyone who wants reliable results emphasizing primary sources whenever they are available. (At the present time they are not a sponsor of mine.) I also need to take notice of the difference between dispensational and covenantal theology. I’ve covered this before. Briefly: Dispensationalism says that God relates to human beings in different dispensations – and right now we are in the Dispensation of Grace. And here’s the key: as regards ethnic Israel, Divine divorce is not an option. In contrast, covenantal theology holds that the Church replaces ethnic Israel in the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, and inherits the promises made to ethnic Israel. That includes the geographical promises, which totally negates the statement that God’s Kingdom shall have no end. Not in time – nor in space, either. On the spitting allegation In March and April 2011, I made my own “pilgrimage” to Israel, along with a tour group from Pennsylvania. Never once did anyone spit on me, nor did I ever see that happen to anyone else. Not in the Old City of Jerusalem, nor indeed anywhere else. The results from a Results Hunter search on the phrase “Jews spit on Christians” are instructive. The earliest article even hinting that the practice had any currency is datelined April 7, 2010. It describes an interfaith forum among Christian and Jewish senior clerics, hoping to stop the practice. The usual targets are not foreign tourist, but are Orthodox priests in their traditional vestments. As the other search results show, on October 4, 2023, police arrested five ultra-Orthodox Jews over a particularly public incident. Competing Christian and Jewish processions crossed paths, and those five saw fit to “hawk up.” Apparently Pope Francis expressed outrage at the incident – which would seem to reflect its rarity. Regrettably, Itamar Ben Gvir, who became National Security Minister in the latest coalition negotiation, downplayed the incident. Other members of the government were not so cavalier. But that was before the war began. After that, the next such incident took place on February 3, 2024. That resulted in two arrests. A Jewish historian in Germany, in reply, suggested those involved violated “elementary” principles of their faith by so acting. But obviously Tucker Carlson couldn’t trouble his staff to do even elementary fact finding or checking. About that church The case of St. Porphyrius Church in Gaza City is more tragic – yet at the same time more confusing. This much we know, again starting with a search on the phrase “Israel bombed Orthodox church.” First, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Arabic Harakah al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah, abbreviated HAMAS), and/or their sympathizers on social media, circulated a false rumor to the effect that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had obliterated that church in initial shelling of the region. Five days after debunking that rumor, they were boasting of giving shelter to Christians and Muslims. Second, on or about October 19, 2023, the church did sustain damage to its annex and its compound entrance. From that point forward, the account becomes confused. In the first place, HAMAS, and the government that is the glove of which HAMAS is the hand, reported that the Israeli Air Force had bombed a hospital. Nothing could be further from the truth. As it turned out, Islamic Jihad, which is an auxiliary Muslim militia, damaged the hospital with a stray missile. And in the second place, we see an organ calling itself The Christian Post citing, of all people, The Washington Post – who in turn are citing “Palestinian health officials.” Palestinian health officials can only be the HAMAS Medical Corps! The Washington Post is already a chequered source. Beyond that, anyone who cites “Palestinian government” sources for anything but a claim-of-responsibility for Israeli casualties, should have his head examined. Tucker Carlson and his worst failing Part of the problem a Tucker Carlson faces is that objective intelligence on the true state of civilians on the ground, is lacking. Another part is deciding whether the concept civilian even remains valid in Gaza. Many who would be called “civilians” in any other context: • Accompanied elements of HAMAS into Israel as irregulars and took an active role in their atrocities, or else: • Danced in the streets and mocked Israeli hostages – and half-naked corpses – as HAMAS paraded them in those same streets. It’s all very well for someone to proclaim, “We are all HAMAS now.” But whoever does that, should at least try to understand the full implications of what he’s saying. If Tucker Carlson wants to criticize a country for counterattacking another country that has visited atrocities upon its population, atrocities evoking the memory of the Holocaust, he owes his viewers the best research he can do. Two simple engine searches belie his entire presentation, and that of his interview subject. He also missed much else, as Donald Trump’s Ambassador to Israel – who relocated his office to the American Consulate in South Jerusalem, thereby transforming it into an Embassy – points out. https://twitter.com/DavidM_Friedman/status/1777824962335666310 Tucker, my friend, before the Palestinians took over Bethlehem pursuant to the Oslo Accords in the mid-1990’s, Bethlehem was under Israeli control and its population was 80% Christian. It was one of the centers of the Christian world. Since Oslo and the resulting Palestinian rule, Bethlehem became 80% Muslim and Christians are afraid. But they don’t speak out against the Palestinian Authority because you just can’t and survive. Joel Pollack, Senior Editor-at-large at Breitbart, left this thread: https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875038903087440 https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875048973640087 https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875059543339239 https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875068678484342 https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875077654261976 https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875573190344842 Allow me to respond to Tucker Carlson’s interview here with Munther Isaac by talking about the facts, rather than speculating about whether Tucker hates Israel, or is an antisemite. He says he is concerned about Christians; I'll accept that. But there's no excuse for this. First, a fact about Bethlehem. Christians used to be a majority there; they are now a minority. The Palestinian Authority has been Islamizing the city since taking control of Bethlehem 30 years ago. Israeli "occupation" is hardly the primary issue. Another fact: Bethlehem has become an antisemitic city under Palestinian control, far worse to Jews than even to Christians. In 2007, I was told not to speak Hebrew there; in 2023, I was told to remove my yarmulke, or cover it with a hat. In the birthplace of Jesus, a Jew. Rev. Isaac does not believe Israel should exist, a fact Tucker does not discuss. He also repeats many false claims about Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza, like the claim Israeli snipers killed 2 civilians in a church, which the IDF (which admits other mistakes) refuted. Remarkably, Rev. Isaac criticizes the Abraham Accords, a peace agreement between Israel and several Arab states. One who is truly interested in peace should welcome that development. For Rev. Isaac, that peace deal is bad because it distracts from the Palestinian struggle. Rev. Isaac is an activist who campaigns worldwide against evangelical Christian support for Israel. He tells Carlson evangelicals should not use the Bible as a basis for supporting Israel. He is entitled to these beliefs but they are not authoritative in any broader sense. Rev. Isaac says Israel is "not as free as people say" for Christians, claiming it is tough to register conversions. (Bureaucracy is tough for everyone in Israel, due to laws dating to the Ottoman era.) Tucker extrapolates, falsely, Christians have "fewer rights" in Israel. Carlson adds some of the interview's most incendiary comments, suggesting that the U.S. should not give Israel aid if one Christian is killed and should not support a foreign government that he says is guilty of "blowing up churches and killing Christians," which is false. One suspects Carlson's real target is Republican foreign policy. He mocks "self-professed Christians" in the U.S. whom he says are "sending money to oppress Christians," another false and inflammatory statement. He attacks evangelical Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), Speaker of the House, for supporting Israel. There are many pro-Israel Christian Arabs (talk to Yoseph Haddad, for example). Concern about Christians would suggest backing Israel against Islamist HAMAS and opposing Palestinian Authority policies. Tucker has taken his opposition to a U.S. role in foreign wars to an absurd extreme. Apologies for typos; I'm on a flight to Israel. Analysis First, The Rev. Dr. Munther Isaac will not earn a place in Foxe’ Book of Martyrs, Quatercentenary Edition, by subordinating truth to his convenantal, or replacementistic, theology. The Ninth Commandment reads: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Exodus 20:16, KJV And he who repeats the lies of others, breaks that commandment just the same as if he originated them. Furthermore, George Washington said, Be not hasty to believe flying reports to the disparagement of any. Rules of Civility For Dr. Isaac, his covenantal theology is an excuse. He is letting his racial heritage trump the Christian values he says he embraces. Again he forgets that: There is neither Jew nor Greek, … slave nor free, … male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 Or neither Jew nor Mamluk – for this Third Race of Philistines, now calling themselves “Palestinians,” are Mamluks. And they didn’t even live in the region when Emperor Hadrian coined the name Palaestina for the region. But at least one expects Dr. Isaac to have an agenda, though one loathes such tribalism. (And naivete, because Isaac, being a Christian, is a dhimmi.) Tucker Carlson indeed has no excuse. He should have done his homework, so he could call out lies when he heard them. Why Tucker Carlson would want to believe that Israel blows up churches and treats Christians like second-class citizens, is incomprehensible. But only that can explain why he forgot to do elementary research when he is supposed to be a professional. The “show prep” for this episode was not up to professional standard. But once again, the Fourth Arab-Israeli War brings out the worst in many people. Link to: Tucker Carlson’s interview, on many platforms: https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1777800149818822809 https://rumble.com/v4ohlzx-the-real-impact-of-american-aid-on-palestinian-christians.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensored-munther/ Result Hunter search engine home: https://resulthunter.com/ Two Result Hunter searches: https://resulthunter.com/search?q=jews+spit+on+christians&engine=1&channel=9048333085 https://resulthunter.com/search?q=Israel+bombed+Orthodox+church&engine=1&channel=9048333085 Ambassador Friedman’s reply: https://twitter.com/DavidM_Friedman/status/1777824962335666310 Joel Pollak’s thread: https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875038903087440 https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875048973640087 https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875059543339239 https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875068678484342 https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875077654261976 https://twitter.com/joelpollak/status/1777875573190344842 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Will America break apart? By Terry A. Hurlbut America is now watching – and taking sides in – the most savage federal election campaign in its history. Active interstate and international secession movements have added complications that one or both sides are – for now – ignoring. But ideology, far more than geography or even economics, drives the forces that could tear America apart. The American political left has embraced dangerous authoritarian – even totalitarian – tendencies. And they, to paraphrase a noted World War Two era novelist, are “juggling dynamite and giggling happily.” Have they no thought for the explosion they might trigger at any moment? Or do they want the explosion, in supreme confidence of a total Leninite/Trotskyite victory? And if they do, should the right take them seriously? Trump carefully assigns the two sides By now the ideologies of the two sides of “Campaign 2024” have sorted themselves out. President Donald J. Trump dropped in the last puzzle piece, by announcing that he would not seek a nationwide ban of, or restriction on, abortion. That issue, he said, he would leave to each State to decide for itself. Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Supreme Court would heartily approve. In his concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, he specifically said: The Constitution does not grant the nine unelected Members of this Court the unilateral authority to rewrite the Constitution to create new rights and liberties based on our own moral or policy views. https://rumble.com/v19sqbz-roe-v.-wade-has-fallen-has-fallen.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 When Trump did that, he deprived “Resident” Biden of a campaign issue his handlers were itching to exploit. This video analysis gives greater detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrhT3DNl968 This influencer’s theory predicts that the abortion issue will be of no moment in the Election of 2024. Or at least, it will have no national import. “Team Biden” now finds itself saying, “See how Donald Trump has permitted misogynists to deprive women of their reproductive rights in several States!” Lay aside the rank hypocrisy, coming from the same team that would permit biological men to play women’s sports. “Abortion tourism” by now has raised abortion rates nationwide to pre-Dobbs levels. Women inclined to promiscuity and cold-hearted sex addiction will avail themselves of this – and women having more sense, will not. More to the point, what is now the left’s case? “We must not permit any State to abridge the right of women to kill their unborn children!” (Excuse me: “control their own bodies,” forgetting, as usual, the Third Body.) In “red States,” that won’t fly. Gun control So Trump took the abortion issue “off the table” for his election, and those of like-minded candidates for Congress. But that issue remains “on the table” as regards the kind of America each side wishes to build. Indeed it is one of several that separate the freedom- and life-loving right from the totalitarian – and death cultish – left. Gun control is another such issue. Recently a “haole” (i.e., white) resident of Hawaii has the bad sense to defy Hawaiian law regarding his right to keep and bear arms. No doubt his lawyers hoped to abolish Hawaiian gun control law with a single citation: New York Stat Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. https://rumble.com/v19q6r1-second-amendment-wins-big.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Not so wiki-wiki, said the Hawaiian Supreme Court. That case, they said, has no applicability under Hawaiian law. The Court cited a “Spirit of Aloha” that simply does not permit people to walk about, armed with deadly weapons. They even cited a television script to negate the central holding in Bruen: that the Constitution, or at least any specific part thereof, means what the original or added words meant at the time of their writing or adding. Again, not so wiki-wiki. “The thing about the old days, they [are] the old days,” the Court said, quoting the HBO television drama The Wire. Now maybe enough Hawaiians would be content to revive their monarchy and secede. But California wants to extend draconian gun control nationwide. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) even filed an Article V Convention application seeking that end. https://rumble.com/v2t1mx8-gun-grabbers-finally-admit-it.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 America – land of the free, or the collective? These are only two of the biggest issues that have created a breaking point in America. https://rumble.com/v4iw17c-liberty-curse-word-in-america.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 In America today, the right stands for the right of individuals to go about their business, without interference. In short they stand for the “right to be left alone.” Laissez faire et laissez passer; le monde va de lui-même. The left claims one ground to dispute that – again, regarding the death cult of abortion. That they stand for the interests of irresponsible men who casually impregnate women and then tell them to “take care of the problem,” is too rich an irony for them to grasp. But let’s not forget that Planned Parenthood began as a eugenicist movement literally “conning” women of color to (from founder Margaret Sanger’s point of view) avoid “polluting the gene pool” with their progeny. But now such “confidence tricks” are beginning to lose their effectiveness. So the left wants to use force. As Gov. Newsom shows, outlawing guns in any particular State is not enough. They seek to outlaw guns everywhere. That includes worldwide; witness the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. https://rumble.com/v3a2e7d-un-arms-trade-treaty-being-discussed-this-week-global-gun-control.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Weaponized illegal immigration The Biden administration is also bringing in mendicant migrants, in violation of every existent law on immigration. They’re not merely letting them in through a porous border; they’re flying them in. And they are flying them into “red States,” hoping to “flip” them. That could explain why Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) started busing – then flying – these migrants to certain cities whose mayors had declared them “sanctuaries.” Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) has been doing the same thing. He achieved a hilarious height of absurdity by sending several busloads to Martha’s Vineyard. But lately Gov. Abbott decided to do more than send migrants to mayors who foolishly expressed misguided “solidarity” with them. He wants to send them back the way they came, or stop them from coming to begin with. (Or both, if he can.) That has gotten him in Dutch with the federal courts. In response, he has started to behave like a President of the Republic of Texas in all but name. He has erected physical barriers to immigration and sought power to arrest people merely for crossing into Texas from Mexico. (Any State or local police may arrest anyone, regardless of status, who commits criminal acts in addition to unlawful presence.) And besides all that, Gov. Abbott is negotiating not-quite-treaties on international trade with foreign governments. https://rumble.com/v4khvg9-texas-will-it-set-secession-in-motion.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4kpxl0-state-sovereignty-and-its-defense.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Is he preparing to campaign actively for Texas secession? Dan Miller, head of the Texas Nationalist Movement, thinks he might be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FrsT7xTeS0 Or is Mr. Miller “nudging” Gov. Abbot? America near the breaking point Nudging or not, Mr. Miller says two things no American can ignore any longer. First, Texas is closer than ever to setting secession in motion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtVBy3PdvA All it would take, according to Miller, would be one major provocation. Type One: Biden wins the Election of 2024. Even if by some dark chant Biden defies his current dire polling, as well as the Law of Averages (that perennial unmasker of gambling cheats, fraudsters, and designers of biased experiments), that could mean only that a majority of the American people no longer wanted to live in a Constitutional republic. Biden stands squarely on the side of the authoritarians and totalitarians. Those who call Donald Trump authoritarian, are merely complaining that he would assert his authority to protect individual rights. And rights are not the same as the allowances that socialism and communism promises (but often doesn’t deliver). In contrast, Biden agrees with the regime of abortion on demand (or infanticide after a probationary period!). Plus disarmament of the civilian population. Type Two: the Supreme Court rules that no State shall do anything about immigration, even if the federal government refuses. Or as a corollary, Biden tries to “federalize” the Texas Army and Air National Guards. Do that, Miller warns the feds, and you will see the ranks of TNM swell to an unimaginable extent. And then Gov. Abbott will wake up to a sea of pickets around his mansion, demanding a special session. And he will call it. Other States thinking of breaking away Now if the only question were what would Texas do, several influencers have already said Texas would lose. Texas, they say, could never win a war against the full might of the United States military forces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dgiHDOGpH0 But would Texas face the full might of the United States military and the National Guards of 49 States? No. For one thing, Alaska and Hawaii would be too far away to count. For another, eight States are themselves working on State and local illegal immigrant arrest-power laws. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqkj5cf1DtA Which brings us to the second thing Dan Miller has said lately. More than twenty States have significant support for the idea of their own State seceding from the Union. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-6UJJFzv3Q In fact Alaska tops the list with 36 percent support. Interestingly, Miller believes in Tipping Point Theory, which predicts that, once an idea has ten percent die-hard adherence in any population, adoption of that idea becomes inevitable. Maybe not immediate, nor even imminent – but inevitable. I’ve mentioned several secession movements before, and Mr. Miller names a few more: • Alaska Independence Party • Greater Idaho • State of Jefferson (that is, southern Oregon, northern California, and southwestern Idaho) • “Calexit.” • New California (an entirely different movement, with different goals and ideology.) • A “Greater West Virginia.” And, of course, the Texas Nationalist Movement. https://rumble.com/v1pccnj-interstate-secession-a-new-movement.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Different motives Different States would have different motives. Some would want to protect leftist values. Hawaii is an obvious candidate. In fact, the late “Queen Lil” has two surviving relatives, each of whom might be ready to reclaim the title of King of Hawaii. (One of those two gentlemen might or might not have been the subject of a fictional drama involving a greedy heir, a crooked real-estate developer, the ancient Hawaiian pantheon, and Hawaii’s favorite fictional chief-of-detectives, Jack Lord as Stephen P. McGarrett. See Hawaii Five-O (1968), Season One, Episode Twenty-five, “The Big Kahuna,” aired March 19, 1969.) Failing that, at least two U.S. Senators seem to have made bids for the honor: Danial Akaka and Maisie Hirono. Chin Ho Kelly (Kam Fong): Sounds as though you’re nine-tenths Hawaiian and one-tenth cop, eh? Kono (Zulu): You bet, brother! My great grandfather carried a spear for his great grandfather. Besides that, the “Calexit” movement began shortly after the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Its motive can only be to protect “California values” from federal judicial invalidation. On the other hand, Greater Idaho, New California, the “State of Jefferson,” and TNM are all conservative movements. Alaska is a special case. Dan Miller did not touch on this, raising the question of whether he even knows about it. But Members of the Russian Duma, and even Vladimir Putin himself, have all expressed interest in reclaiming Alaska. So if a “Texit War” does break out, expect Russian intervention. National divorce – or one way for America not to go to war with itself Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has, of course, proposed an alternative to mutual secession and a permanent American break-up. She called it a national divorce. https://rumble.com/v2autk4-national-divorce-is-and-isnt.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 This entails: • Elimination of all but a handful of Cabinet departments. The best candidates for the Departments with staying power are State, Treasury, Defense and Justice. The State Department would take over the Bureau of the Census. And: • A severe redefinition of the “privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.” This goes beyond assuring that “abortion tourist traps” could retain that status, if they so desire. It means that no longer could the Supreme Court intervene to protect the Bill of Rights in all States. That means: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen – gone. Hawaii’s Supreme Court could indeed rule that no civilian may carry deadly weapons. But then, Gov. Newsom could never run for President on a platform of a Great Gathering of Firearms, either. “Reciprocity,” allowing people to transport their firearms through States in which they are not resident, would depend on interstate compacts. But such compacts would not require the consent of Congress, even absent “invasion” or “imminent danger.” Carson v. Makin (ending anti-religious discrimination in government programs or operations) – gone. But Lemon v. Vitale and Lemon v. Kurtzman wouldn’t return, either. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s would remain – but the Court would not entertain a case arguing for federal protection of human life. Or is it? But even if lovers of liberty were willing to be part of any combined polity that did not respect life, liberty or property any better than this, the enemies of these concepts are not willing to be a part of any combined polity that allows any of its members to respect those things. The account “Based Boy Scout” summed it up most succinctly. Rep. Greene finished her thread thus: Imagine if America decided to just go ahead and have a national divorce. Hollywood elites and celebrities and all the brainwashed leftists women who watch the nasty women on the View, men who identify as women, and Democrat voters who suffer from the lifelong debilitating disease Trump Derangement Syndrome they caught from CNN wouldn’t have to see much less tolerate deplorables anymore. They could live in their safe space blue states, own nothing, let their government decide and control everything, and most importantly protect their fragile minds from being shocked and insulted by those of us on the right who believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then Americans could choose which way, left or right, provides them with the best quality of life, and we don’t have to argue with one another anymore. I am starting to feel like it’s the right thing to do for everyone. And Based Boy Scout said in reply: They don't want their own country because they want to rule over us in this one. If they have to rule amongst themselves, the power structure changes extensively a lot of them end up at the bottom of it and they don't like that idea. https://twitter.com/basedboyscout/status/1628078253637349382 And that is the problem. The two sides cannot even agree to disagree. Imagine the scenario: a commercial airliner, or a chartered private plane (prop job or jet), makes an emergency landing. Except this aircraft, carrying a manifest of Texas gun enthusiasts, with their guns, must land in San Francisco. The Attorney General of California – or the District Attorney for San Francisco – arrests everyone on board, and confiscates the cargo. What rights do those hapless travelers have? None! Dan Miller, for one, would never accept that. And none could blame him. But not only would Texas have allies in a secession scenario, but the U.S. military would be split, and hard-pressed. Under the circumstances, the administration might decide to let Texas go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SWFSVBaq-I Nevertheless, liberty lovers should pray that Trump wins, and the Supreme Court does not blow up the Texas-Mexican border. Though if the Court does so act, a victorious Trump could reverse the bad effects. A “Texit Study Committee” might not even convene its first meeting. But if Biden wins…! Link to: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s, from US Reports, vol. 597: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/597us1r58_gebh.pdf All Rumble videos, in order of mention: https://rumble.com/v19sqbz-roe-v.-wade-has-fallen-has-fallen.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v19q6r1-second-amendment-wins-big.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v2t1mx8-gun-grabbers-finally-admit-it.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4iw17c-liberty-curse-word-in-america.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v3a2e7d-un-arms-trade-treaty-being-discussed-this-week-global-gun-control.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4khvg9-texas-will-it-set-secession-in-motion.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4kpxl0-state-sovereignty-and-its-defense.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v1pccnj-interstate-secession-a-new-movement.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v2autk4-national-divorce-is-and-isnt.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 All YouTube videos, in order of mention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrhT3DNl968 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FrsT7xTeS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtVBy3PdvA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dgiHDOGpH0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqkj5cf1DtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-6UJJFzv3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SWFSVBaq-I X post from Based Boy Scout: https://twitter.com/basedboyscout/status/1628078253637349382 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Legislative elections and special favors By Terry A. Hurlbut The most glaring weakness in our Constitutional republic has always been how to manage legislative elections. In fact that’s been the most thorny problem in any country having an elected legislature, with elections for the chief executive running a close second. The United Kingdom finally redrew their Parliamentary district map in 1831 after decades of neglect left many districts unpopulated. (That neglect also left the burgeoning cities of the Industrial Revolution underrepresented or unrepresented.) Israel elects all members of its Knesset at-large. (That’s one way to solve the districting problem: abolish the concept district!) This is an outrage, and derives from the overrating of a principle, not of a republic, but of democracy. This problem has one solution: remind ourselves that we are a republic, and approach legislative elections accordingly. Legislative elections problem one: the lower house The U.S. House of Representatives presents the most obvious problem with managing legislative elections. Under the Constitution, the federal government must number the “population” every ten years. (The Census has another weakness relating to the counting of illegal immigrants on one hand, and convicts on the other. That’s a discussion for another time, but certain House Members definitely know about it.) Since 1911, the House has had a permanent size of 435 Members. So the Clerk of the House, on information from the Census Bureau, decides how many Representatives each State may send. The Constitution specifically says each State must have at least one Representative. (In 1959 the House set a precedent of temporarily increasing its size whenever Congress admitted new States. The size goes back down to 435 with the next Census.) State legislatures draw district maps, unless the State has only one Representative. The problem always has been that the Constitution provided no principle for deciding where to draw those lines. That’s how Elbridge Gerry’s party could draw a district having the vague outline of a salamander – hence Gerrymander. But even they did not go so far as modern “gerrymandering” does today. They draw district maps without regard to city limits, county lines, or the like. In the worst example, one legislature drew a district that roughly followed the service roads of a major Interstate Highway. They drew it that way for one reason only: to create a Black majority district. Creeping proportional representation That last part comes from one of the worst mandates of the Sixties-era Voting Rights Act. Someone decided that Blacks as a group were entitled to representation in proportion to their numbers. For reasons of lack of imagination – or maybe no one daring argue against it – the United States Supreme Court has upheld this inherently unjust principle. Proportional representation has no place in the Constitution, and never had. The State of Israel made the bad decision to award “slots” for at-large candidates to their various Parties. The Voting Rights Act does the Israelis one better: an attempt at proportional ethnic representation. Proponents of that system might as well abolish Congressional districts and award “slots” for representation by ethnic group! This is the end result of a principle called “one person, one vote.” Now that was supposed to mean that no one person has more than one vote. But it has come to mean that all Representatives from a State must each represent the same number of people. And if that means drawing districts that cross city limits and county lines, so be it! Something’s wrong there. Representatives should properly represent groups of governing sub-units. Again, remember what a republic is. A republic is not merely a “representative democracy.” It is a multi-level government with each level managing one level down, from national government to individual adult. Legislative elections should respect that; sadly they do not. The latest story along that line The history of our country since the 2020 Census has seen a raft of federal cases regarding representation in Congress. In Moore v. Harper, the Speaker of the North Carolina House, frustrated with a North Carolina Supreme Court insisting on the proportional ethnic representation model, argued that the Elections Clause of the Constitution vested redistricting in the legislature, and that neither governor nor court may interfere. He lost that case for two reasons: 1. North Carolina’s voters changed their Supreme Court radically so that they accepted Moore’s map, and 2. Moore’s lawyers performed badly at oral argument, and the Moderate Bloc decided his “independent legislature theory” was crazy. https://rumble.com/v1zo67e-election-case-at-argument.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v2xigv8-supreme-court-2022-term-in-review.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The South Carolina district map is the subject of another major court case. Yesterday a newsletter calling itself Capital B posted a column illustrating the flawed thinking on legislative elections. The South Carolina NAACP challenged a map that, they argued, didn’t give Blacks their due in representation. A district court ruled against them, and at least for the 2024 election cycle, the present map stays. (They probably told the NAACP they waited too long to challenge the map.) Here is the quintessential illustration of that columnists thinking on proportional ethnic representation: Without a fair map, it would be enormously difficult for Black voters to elect a representative who has their interests at heart and who would fight for them on issues ranging from education to criminal justice to health care. Excuse me? What kind of special favor are you demanding? Change “Black” to “White” and someone would likely attribute that to “white supremacists,” if such people still exist. But again: that comes of thinking of our society as a democracy, not a republic. Legislative elections problem two: the upper house We turn next to the United States Senate. One of the worst Amendments the Constitution has is Amendment XVII, providing for popular elections of Senators. What happens when a Senator dies, or resigns, or gets expelled? Under the Constitution, a State legislature may empower a governor to appoint an Interim Senator. That appointee serves until the State can hold a special Senate election. Not all State legislatures have “empowered” their governors to appoint Interim Senators. Kentucky did – but then, at the urging of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the Kentucky legislature decided to limit that power. The problem: Kentucky has a Democratic Governor (Andy Beshear) and a Republican-controlled Legislature. That Legislature is not only Republican-controlled, but veto-proof. When Sen. McConnell started showing his age, the solons did not want Andy Beshear to appoint an interim Senator of his choice. So they passed a law directing the executive committee of the Party that had the now-absent Senator to supply three names. The governor would then appoint a Senator from among those three. Fornicate that stool sample, cried Beshear in so many words. I’ll appoint whom I d____d well please! The legislature would then have to go to the Supreme Court. But given their decision in Moore, the Court might have found that “empowerment” could only be absolute. If they granted them standing! Not wanting to take that chance, the Kentucky Legislature has now disempowered their Governor from appointing Interim Senators. If Mitch goes, his seat waits for a special election. Worse problems in the States Such wrangling between Legislatures and Governors is bad enough. But the Voting Rights Act brought another principle into play for the election of State Senators. Now every State must elect Senators from districts drawn under the same no-boundaries rules that govern Congressional districts. What is a Senator, under that system, but just another Representative in a house having fewer members? Shortly after the Election of 2021, your correspondent proposed a new model for managing legislative elections. This model addresses all the problems with the flawed version of “one person, one vote” and proportional representation. It also addresses the spectacle of people electing “governors of the cities” and even a “President of the cities.” Alexander Hamilton was wrong. City dwellers are not better educated than rural folk. They are indoctrinated, not educated. (Then again, he was a city slicker himself, so what could one expect?) The “Hurlbut Model” would follow these principles: • District lines do not cross city limits, county lines, or the like. Representation in State lower houses would be apportioned according to populations (excluding inmates and illegal aliens) of cities and counties. • State Senates would consists of one Senator from each county or independent city. Boards of Supervisors (or Commissioners, Chosen Freeholders, etc.) or City Councils would choose them. • “Gubernatorial Electoral Colleges” would elect Governors and Lieutenant Governors. The college vote One other problem deserves mention here: the college vote. Of what polity should a college student be considered a lawful resident? Town-Gown tensions, which are as old as the city and university of Oxford, clearly indicate that “Townies” do not regard college students as fellow residents. The only “Townies” that do regard them as fellow residents, are political candidates drumming up votes. More to the point, everyone knows that college populations skew to the Party to which the faculty give their allegiance. For most colleges, that Party is the Democratic Party – and the reasons are ideological, not traditional. Back when the voting age was twenty-one, this wasn’t a problem. But since Amendment XXVI, it has become one. “Re-upping” the voting age to twenty-one might solve it – except for the college seniors. Herewith a refinement, both to the Census and to voting procedures, to remedy this situation. Undergraduate students, whose parents pay their bills, should be counted as members of their parents’ households. And in partial emulation of the French voting system, they should give their proxies to their parents. If they want to vote as State residents instead, let them “work their way through college,” and/or buy – not rent – an off-campus house or condominium to live in. In short, those who vote in a republic ought to invest more heavily in the community in which they live, than merely going to school in that community. Summary: how to fix legislative elections Legislative elections should help, not hinder, the key feature of a republic: multi-level government of entities having some sovereignty. But people have forgotten that, which is why they refer to our system as a democracy, not a republic. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. The actual calls for proportional representation – and indeed proportional ethnic representation – reflect such lycanthropic thinking. The first step in repairing the current flawed system of legislative elections is to repeal Amendment XVII. Along with that, the population must learn again what a republic is and how it works. Benjamin Franklin famously told a Mrs. Powell that the Constitutional Convention had provided: A republic, if you can keep it. America will soon find out whether we can keep it or not. Link to: Previous videos: https://rumble.com/v1zo67e-election-case-at-argument.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v2xigv8-supreme-court-2022-term-in-review.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Column about the South Carolina district case: https://capitalbnews.org/south-carolina-voting-maps/ Story about Kentucky’s new Senate vacancy law: https://local.newsbreak.com/kentucky-state/3384288152656-republican-passed-bill-removes-role-of-democratic-governor-if-senate-vacancy-occurs-in-kentucky?s=dmg_local_email_bucket_12.web2_fromweb Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Mifepristone, the FDA, and the unborn child By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday two consolidated cases – the Mifepristone Cases – came to oral argument before the Supreme Court. At issue is whether the Food and Drug Administration acted properly in first approving mifepristone – the current chemical abortifacient of choice – and whether the FDA still acted properly in removing at least three safeguards regarding its use. It has turned into an issue of whether anyone has any oversight whatsoever over the FDA for its decisions. But it also illustrates the current obstacle toward a goal of forbidding abortion in the United States today. The courts of this land – except in certain “red States” – simply will not allow anyone to argue for the forgotten entity in the abortion debate – the unborn child. What is mifepristone? Mifepristone is the generic name for 11β-[p-(Dimethylamino)phenyl]-17α-(1-propynyl)estra-4,9-dien-17β-ol-3-one. Before the assignment of that generic name, it carried three other development names, most notably RU-486. (The “RU” in this case stood for Roussel-UCLAF, a French drug maker now long since bought out. The company that now makes the only variant available in the United States is Danco Laboratories. Mifeprisone is an antiprogestogen and an antiglucocorticoid. As an antiprogestogen, it causes the lining of the womb to become inhospitable to an implanted unborn child. The child, starved for oxygen, dies. Then the patient takes a prostaglandin analogue, called misoprostol, to expel what’s left. (Internists also use the drug to treat certain cases of Cushing’s Syndrome.) In June 2022, the Supreme Court vacated the blanket prohibition against State regulation, or bans, of abortion. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). https://rumble.com/v19sqbz-roe-v.-wade-has-fallen-has-fallen.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 In December of that year, the FDA removed all existing restrictions on the use of mifepristone, which originally required a physician visit. Now, patients would be able to order it through the mail. The Justice Department then declared that no State may ban mifepristone. And though sending mifepristone through the mail violates the Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. section 1461), the Justice Department refuses to prosecute. https://rumble.com/v25xq08-abortion-pills-by-mail-not-so-fast.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine sued the FDA, alleging violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. That case came before Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas. (See docket page.) Danco Laboratories later petitioned for acceptance as an intervenor in the case. Not without side effect In the last action on mifepristone, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an injunction against the FDA’s removal of certain restrictions that prevented the sending of the drug through the mail. (See Docket Page here.) The Fifth Circuit could not support enjoining the original approval, because the statute of limitations has run out. While the oral arguments were taking place, Commentator Elijah Schaffer released this video describing the key issues the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is raising: the complications that occur to women taking it. https://rumble.com/v4lp2sc-beyond-the-headlines-a-landmark-case-on-abortion-goes-before-the-supreme-co.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The New York Times admits that mifepristone now accounts for more than two thirds of abortions in America today. The problem is that in 2.9 to 4.6 percent of uses, the women involved land in the emergency room. Obstetricians on call to these emergency rooms face a dilemma. They do not want to perform abortions, and hospital superintendents must respect that. But often a patient bleeding from a mifepristone complication requires completion of the abortion to save her life. The doctor does not have time to decide why the patient is even before him. So he must treat the patient, no matter how she got there. No one seriously suggests that this doctor withhold care. Thus the Alliance relies on the statements of two of these doctors (one from Indiana, the other from Texas) that they face crises of conscience virtually every night they spend on-call. The arguments for mifepristone The two cases (now consolidated) before the Supreme Court have Docket Numbers 23-235 and 23-236. Transcript and audio recording are available at the Court’s site. Yesterday’s argument session lasted for slightly more than an hour and a half. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the Alliance has no standing, because no physician can definitely show that he or she will face that moral dilemma. Several Justices asked her, if the Alliance had no standing, who would? Her answer: no one, because she also said the courts ought never “second-guess… the agency’s expert judgments.” Furthermore, she said allowing this injunction would “inflict grave harm on women across the nation.” Why? Because: Some women could be forced to undergo more invasive surgical abortions. Others might not be able to access the drug at all. Justice Alito especially found Prelogar’s argument, that no one had standing to challenge the FDA, hard to swallow. Naturally, the Solicitor General chose to evade the question. Jessica Ellsworth, lawyer for Danco Laboratories, made much the same arguments. Her position seemed only slightly less tenable for a big reason: the Comstock Act. That Act forbids the sending through the mails of anything for “immoral purposes,” the then-current euphemism for abortion. Justice Thomas especially made the point that Danco likely stands in violation. Ms. Ellsworth answered that the law has seen no enforcement action for “nearly a hundred years.” Both lawyers made the astounding claim that the FDA had absolute authority to approve or disapprove of a drug. No court, they said, could gainsay the FDA on any ground whatsoever. The argument against it Erin M. Hawley, arguing for the Alliance, asserted her organization’s standing, and raised the most important argument. Which is that the FDA violated the Administrative Procedures Act in clearing the sending of mifepristone through the mail. She also presented the figures that 2.9 to 4.6 percent of women who take it, require an emergency room visit. Sadly, the questioning by Justice Thomas and especially Chief Justice Roberts suggests that the weight of precedent stands against them. To her credit, she pressed on, reiterating that a doctor doesn’t have time to screen out a case violating his or her conscience. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the most consistent defender of the FDA and Danco, in her questioning of all three. Clearly she sought to get the Court to leave mifepristone alone. So also did Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, though they seemed less comfortable with General Prelogar’s arguments than did Jackson. The strongest arguments seem to be the ones that matter the least. A 2.9 to 4.6 percent severe complication rate does not seem “infinitesimally rare.” Yet that is what General Prelogar called it – though she didn’t say the rate out loud; Ms. Hawley did. Then we have the party no one will acknowledge: the unborn child. A woman who suffers such a complication, and lives to tell about it, is far more likely to change her lifestyle so she would never have to go through that again. But a cold, hardened sex addict with no feelings for unborn children, will not. Analysis Your correspondent is not a lawyer, but he did train as a physician. The physician’s observation is that any drug having a frequency of severe side effect comparable to that of mifepristone, would not long remain on the market. The only reason mifepristone does remain, is that the current Commissioner of Food and Drugs wants to preserve abortion access. As such this person displays all the ideological corruption of the current administration. This administration, furthermore, will not enforce the Comstock Act, for the same reason they will not enforce the immigration laws. The reason is: those laws run counter to their ideological agenda. The Resident does not even hold himself subject to the directive to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” (Article II Section 3.) Solicitor General Prelogar offers a totally specious argument to allege “grave harm on women.” No, General Prelogar, no woman would be forced to obtain a surgical abortion. No woman is forced to obtain an abortion at all – at least, not by any current laws. Sadly, before the Court even gets to that point, it must conclude that a party before it has standing. In that regard, General Prelogar offers an argument even more dangerous, considering its wider implications. Lay aside that she forgets that courts may at any time appoint expert Special Masters. She asserted that the FDA is accountable only to the President. If that’s true, Congress needs to correct that legislative error forthwith. But at least one Justice doubts that. The forgotten individual But this case illustrates yet again the most tragic flaw in American constitutional and case law. No one speaks for the unborn, either individually or as a class. Beyond an FDA that holds itself accountable only to Presidents, and that cheerfully sets its own rules aside to preserve “access to abortion,” is that significant proportion of women who actually want it. These are the women who practice abortion tourism, and who may or may not risk arrest by ordering mifepristone or other abortifacients through the mail. https://rumble.com/v420ufb-abortion-need-for-a-great-awakening.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The most exquisite irony of yesterday’s events was Justice Jackson, a Black woman, arguing for access to a procedure originally designed to wipe out her race. New York State Attorney General Letitia James doesn’t understand that any better, it seems. She was demonstrating in front of the Supreme Courthouse for continued access to this drug. https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1772682644913799268 Some will say that this desire for abortion is self-correcting and self-terminating. Few indeed of the women who seek abortion will settle down with children of their own. (If they can have children; have one abortion too many, and a woman loses that option.) Those who do have children, will raise them to value life and deprecate “sexual freedom.” That might have produced the Dobbs result, but even that is not 100 percent effective. Only a Second Great Awakening can avail to stop spectacles like lawless administrations, and the continued abortion curse. https://rumble.com/v4hb3b6-a-great-awakening-for-america.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Link to: Docket pages for Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA: District Court: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65768749/alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-v-us-food-and-drug-administration/ Appeals Court: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67164167/alliance-hippocratic-medicine-v-fda/ Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-235.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-236.html Elijah Schaffer’s commentary: https://rumble.com/v4lp2sc-beyond-the-headlines-a-landmark-case-on-abortion-goes-before-the-supreme-co.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Oral argument transcript and audio download: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-235_q8l1.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/23-235.mp3 Tish James’ post: https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1772682644913799268 Previous videos: https://rumble.com/v19sqbz-roe-v.-wade-has-fallen-has-fallen.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v25xq08-abortion-pills-by-mail-not-so-fast.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v420ufb-abortion-need-for-a-great-awakening.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4hb3b6-a-great-awakening-for-america.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Texit – a blueprint for secession By Terry A. Hurlbut Miller, Dan. Texit: Why and How Texas Will Leave the Union. Conroe, Texas: Defiance Press & Publishing, 2018. More than a quarter-century ago, Dan Miller founded the Texas Nationalist Movement, which he dedicated to making Texas an independent republic once more. Six years ago – during the Trump administration – Miller published his manifesto for Texas Independence. He calls it Texit, as a play on the name Brexit, or the exit of Britain from the European Union. In about 275 pages, he sets forth a proposition that seems radical today: that the United States of America is no more a single nation-state than is the European Union. Which means that an orderly secession is not only possible but perfectly legal. And it is high time – and way past time – for Texas to take its leave. What is Texit Texit means what it sounds like: Texas should exit from the federal union called the United States of America. That notion was not so radical, in the early history of Texas, as one might suppose. Texas, or Tejas (a corruption of the Native American word Taisha meaning “friendly”), began as a State within the first independent polity called Mexico, after the Mexican War for Independence. Miller carefully presents the history of what became the Texas Revolution. It begins with the Battle of Gonzales (and the COME AND TAKE IT flag), continues with The Alamo, and ends with the Battle of San Jacinto in what is now the city of Houston. Independence brought with it two challenges. The “Lone Star Republic” had racked up crushing debt during its War for Independence. Furthermore, Mexico wanted it back! So President Sam Houston made the fateful decision to apply to the United States Congress for formal admission. The United States at first refused the application – but then accepted it so that Texas wouldn’t ally itself with the United Kingdom. Texas did get help with its debts – by selling its western and northwestern lands. Dan Miller makes the point that Sam Houston probably wouldn’t have accepted that deal, if he knew then what Americans and Texans alike know today. In fact, Texas was part of the Confederacy during the War Between the States. After that, a pivotal Supreme Court decision stopped all further talk of Texas independence – until today. Texas v. White The case of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 19 L. Ed. 227, and 7 Wall. 700 (1869) revolved around the Texan Indemnity Bonds – the form of payment for those western and northwestern lands mentioned earlier. The United States had issued $10 million of those bonds. In 1861, Texas sought to sell all the bonds still unsold. But Texas’ secession and “rebellion” complicated matters. After the War Between the States, Texas pressed its case against certain bondholders, who had consistently refused to honor the bonds. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, writing for the Court, said Texas was entitled to its bonds – but at a price. The price was an acknowledgment that Texas had joined an indissoluble union from which secession was unlawful. Dan Miller knows that he must dispose of Texas v. White, or Texit would remain illegal, or at least extra-legal. Though he doesn’t say it in so many words, Miller strongly suggests that the War Between the States was an unlawful war. The only reason anyone sympathizes with the aims in the War, is that the Confederates adhered to a practice regarded as heinous today: slavery. No slavery, no War – as all historians now agree. Indestructible union of indestructible States? Besides that, Miller relies on the dissent by Justice Robert C. Grier, and also points to Chase’ characterization of the United States as “an indestructible union of indestructible States.” That last part is demonstrably incorrect. Though Miller doesn’t raise this specific issue, Article IV Section 3 specifically lets parts of States secede from the rest. True, that requires the consent of Congress, but it is possible. And it has taken place, several times. Kentucky formed from Virginia, Tennessee from North Carolina, Maine from Massachusetts, and Alabama and Mississippi from Georgia. West Virginia deserves special mention. The counties that formed it did not ask the consent of the Virginia legislature. Instead, Major General William Rosecrans, commanding Ohioan troops, captured the area, and stopped the argumentative Confederate generals from retaking it. Thus West Virginia is a province in the literal sense of the word: a conquered region. Miller mentions West Virginia only briefly. But he mentions several mentions of States as independent entities in four historical Documents. These are the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. As another key word on this subject, Miller reminds his readers that the Supreme Court is not perfect. Any scholar of the Supreme Court would have to concede that. Recently the Supreme Court reversed an error of forty-nine years’ standing: Jane Roe v. Henry Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). See Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). https://rumble.com/v19sqbz-roe-v.-wade-has-fallen-has-fallen.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Texit in popular culture Before continuing, one must consider Miller’s astute observation that Texit, or something like it, has found expression in popular culture. Miller asserts that Texit first appears in popular fiction in the 1979 novel The Power Exchange by Alan R. Erwin. In it, the Energy Crisis attendant upon the Yom Kippur War precipitates Texas independence. Then came Daniel Da Cruz’ Texas Trilogy: The Ayes of Texas, Texas on the Rocks, and Texas Triumphant. All deal with Texas declaring independence in light of a very strange treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. Miller then reveals an “explosion of Texit fiction” in the first decade of this century, with works like: • Shattered Union, a 2005 video game that begins with Texas secession, • Jericho, a 2006 TV series in which Texas declares its independence after a nuclear attack against the United States, • Lone Star Daybreak by Erik L. Larson, • Patriots of Treason, a series by David Thomas Roberts, and • Bushwick, a 2017 movie following two men from Brooklyn who flee a paramilitary incursion. Somehow an independent Texas is the cause of this. But Miller leaves out two novels that predate all of these, perhaps because they both paint Texas in a bad light. They are: The Texas-Israeli War: 1999 (1974), in which Israeli mercenaries rescue a kidnapped U.S. President from the Texas Rangers, and A Specter is Haunting Texas (1969), in which a fortune seeker makes revolution against a hormonally boosted Greater Texas population. Why Texit Miller understands what Thomas Jefferson did: when one people must break away from another, they need to say why. In his third chapter, he carefully documents the grievances Texas has (or should have) with the federal government: 1. A “super-state,” indeed a police state; 2. Unrepayable national debt, 3. Texas receiving far less funding than it contributes in taxes (with figures to back this up), 4. Illegal immigration and the burden this imposes on “host” communities, 5. An “irredeemable” progression toward tyranny, and 6. Behavior by the present federal government that echoes that of, for instance, Dictator Santa Anna of Mexico. In 2018, Miller recognized one problem for his purposes: the President of the United States was Donald J. Trump. It was no longer Barack H. Obama, nor was it Hllary Rodham Clinton. Naturally he reminded his readers sharply that Trump was only one man. In short, Miller strongly cautioned his readers to hold little hope that one man, even Trump, could reform the un-reformable. Time and events have proved Miller correct. If he exaggerated any part of his grievances – the “causes that impel” Texas to Texit – then his prose presents no exaggeration today. Every problem he mentioned has gotten an order of magnitude worse. Indeed, when Resident Biden, on his first day in office, ordered contractors on the Texas-Mexican border wall to down tools and go home, the present pass became inevitable. The FUD Factor Next, Miller discusses what he calls “Project Fear”: – the instillation of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. That, besides that uniquely Texan practice called chubbing, remains today the only practical way to oppose Texit. He knows it, and he attacks the FUD Factor directly. Is Texit illegal? Does any law forbid it? No. In fact, nor did any such law in 1860, when South Carolina seceded after the election of Abraham Lincoln. Miller’s attack on Texas v. White is his main line of attack against the allegation of illegality and unconstitutionality. But further to that, United States foreign policy, for whatever motive, has always emphasized self-determination of nations. (Or at least, it has paid lip service to that concept, as has the United Nations organization.) How, he asks, can the United States deny any right of international secession from itself if it supports such secession in the contexts of other nation-states? His answer: it can’t, without laying itself wide-open to a charge of hypocrisy. Would the federal government let Texit happen – and let Texas go? That isn’t the question, says Miller. The question is, how would the federal government stop Texit? By military force? Sorry, but the federals have no heinous crime against humanity, like slavery, to avenge this time. Furthermore, he suggests that the “blue States” would be more inclined to let Texas go. Two fewer Republican Senators, twenty-five fewer Republican Representatives, and forty fewer Republican electoral votes. How the Texit War might play out And the red States? They would split, Miller says. Perhaps some would join Texas. Mr. Miller’s treatment of the reaction of the international community might not be accurate after all. For example, he proposes that many countries might impose economic sanctions on a federal government trying to hold onto Texas. Actually, member States of the World Economic Forum might decide to send in their own troops to support the federals. Texit goes squarely against the one-world government they seek. The BRICS countries would split on this. China is the Middle Kingdom to Rule The World. They wouldn’t want Texit to succeed, so they might offer their troops in exchange for Taiwan. (And ask the U.S. Navy to transport those troops.) India would remain carefully neutral. Brazil, unless a freedom-loving faction comes back, would throw shade on Texas, but perhaps do little else. South Africa might do the same. But Russia – ah, that would be a different kettle of fish. They might open a new battlefront by launching a Special Military Operation to reclaim Alaska. Russian forces might even fight side-by-side with Texans, to distract the federals from the dream of “redeeming” Alaska. Furthermore, many of the “red States” would secede and join forces with Texas. Texas Army and Air National Guardsmen would instantly resign their National Guard commissions and become State Guardsmen. In short, if the United States did start a Second War Between the States, we have reason – beyond the reasons Miller sets down – to believe Texas would win. What next? Miller discusses extensively the resources Texas would have at its command. Among the items he mentions is Texas having its own power grid. That is true: the Texas interconnection covers nearly all of Texas, except for parts of El Paso, Far Northern Texas, and the western bank of the Sabine River. Extending the interconnection to cover those areas would be simplicity itself. Miller did not treat currency and banking as well as he might have. True, Texas could use the U.S. dollar as its currency, no matter what Washington (or the Federal Reserve) had to say about it. But why bother? Texas has its own gold reserve. Why not, then, coin gold or produce warehouse receipts denominated in gold Troy pounds? (Or even minas and talents?) His solution to Texas’ share of the national debt is as uproariously funny – but workable – as it is simple. Texas should remind the federal government of all the taxes Texas individuals and businesses have paid since the federal income tax became effective. Texas has been, quite simply, a net tax producer, and has overpayed for what it’s gotten over the years. Crediting that overpayment against Texas’ national debt share should more than cancel that share out. How does Texas make it happen? Aside from the FUD Factor, Texit faces many challenges, mostly from the attitudes of Texans themselves. From atomization (“I’m all alone!”) to apathy (“What’s the use?”) to campaign finance, Miller covers them all. He sternly exhorts his people to “get with The Program” and take seriously the advantages of independence. Any advocate for human liberty often must make the same argument with his neighbors who actually want the federal super-state. After that, he discusses in detail the wording of a referendum on Texit. Since Miller wrote this work, two sympathetic Texas legislators have introduced “Texit Bills” calling for such a referendum. In his discussion of this point, Miller names many familiar names, including present Governor Gret Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and Speaker of the Texas House Dade Phelan. In short, he knows who his enemies are. Political enemies of Texit have “chubbed” both those referendum bills to death. Miller’s Texas Nationalist Movement has responded by “primarying” them – and that last tactic shows every sign of success. Indeed, Dade Phelan might not even be a member of the Texas State House next year. Real-life – and larger than life – personalities Again, Miller couldn’t have predicted all present events in 2018, but those events seem to bear him out. Dan Patrick and Attorney General Ken Paxton have publicly expressed their frustration with the Texas-federal relationship. Gov. Abbott has acted like a President of the Republic of Texas in all but name, on immigration matters. It remains only for him to summon the legislature into special session. The United States Supreme Court almost provoked that special session call with its ruling in Texas v. D.H.S., vacating an injunction against the Border Patrol. Gov. Abbott didn’t do that, but instead excluded the Border Patrol from a key stretch of the border. The original Texians of Gonzales said, “Come and take it.” Gov. Abbott has said, “Come and push us aside.” Now suppose the federal courts provoke Texas again, with an injunction, or vacatur, affecting either the physical barriers Texas has erected, or its new law making unlawful presence in Texas a State crime. https://rumble.com/v4kpxl0-state-sovereignty-and-its-defense.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Does Abbott call his special session then? Imagine the scenario: a Texit Referendum on the ballot in a Presidential election. Now consider another larger-than-life figure: Elon Musk. Already he is seeking to reincorporate his signature automobile maker in Texas, after reincorporating his space company in Texas. The above provocation could see Musk becoming Texas’ chief armorer. Imagine, if you will, his heavy-lifting rocket ship seeing service as a rapid-deployment vehicle – or a strategic bomber. Summary Six years ago, Dan Miller laid out grounds for Texit, all the obstacles (both real and illusory) in its path, and a plan to overcome them. Only one real thing that can stop Texit, if its people are angry enough to seek it. And that would be for the election of a President sincerely determined to redress Texas’ grievances. A President, furthermore, ready to act and having adequate support. (And if Texans ever get angry enough about their overpayment of income taxes and other excises, even that will not avail.) So says Miller, or at least so one may infer from his book. He evidently didn’t want to make a flat declaration that the War Between the States was an unlawful war. But he clearly meant that, and that it had not justification, but excuse – the desire to abolish slavery. True enough, before one can believe any part of Miller’s thesis, one must first accept the notion that the United States is not “an indestructible union of indestructible States.” Beyond that, he lays out a strong case, and one with which his opponents would have to reckon. His case is twofold: that Texit is legal, and that Texit is feasible. That applies equally to the winning of independence, and carrying on once independent. The only thing Miller hasn’t thought of, is that perhaps the very threat of Texit would impel the rest of the States to “reset” the federal-State relationship. With that, everyone would win. Link to: Defiance Press & Publishing: https://defiancepress.com/ The Texas Nationalist Movement: https://tnm.me/ Two prior videos: https://rumble.com/v19sqbz-roe-v.-wade-has-fallen-has-fallen.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4kpxl0-state-sovereignty-and-its-defense.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Trump does have the money By Terry A. Hurlbut The last several days have seen some striking updates on the financial situation of President Donald J. Trump. This should reassure his followers, to the chagrin of his detractors. Simply put, he will be able to satisfy the “appeal bond,” one way or another. So those same detractors, who had hoped to seize every asset he had within their reach, will find that harder to justify. At the same time they have cast doubt on the willingness of the State of New York to respect the Constitution they ratified at its beginning. Trump gives an update The first update came at 7:14 a.m. EDT Friday (March 22) – on Truth Social, the only social medium Trump uses. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112139048661343988 THROUGH HARD WORK, TALENT, AND LUCK, I CURRENTLY HAVE ALMOST FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN CASH, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WHICH I INTENDED TO USE IN MY CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT. THE OFTEN OVERTURNED POLITICAL HACK JUDGE ON THE RIGGED AND CORRUPT A.G. CASE, WHERE I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG, KNEW THIS, WANTED TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME, AND THAT’S WHERE AND WHY HE CAME UP WITH THE SHOCKING NUMBER WHICH, COUPLED WITH HIS CRAZY INTEREST DEMAND, IS APPROXIMATELY $454,000,000. I DID NOTHING WRONG EXCEPT WIN AN ELECTION IN 2016 THAT I WASN’T EXPECTED TO WIN, DID EVEN BETTER IN 2020, AND NOW LEAD, BY A LOT, IN 2024.THIS IS COMMUNISM IN AMERICA! In fact he had dropped an earlier hint in the “wee hours” of the morning: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112137789568182401 Of course, not wanting to tie all his money up in paying an appeal bond directly, Trump sought to use a bonding company. But at least one company (Chubb) refuses to deal with him for political reasons. They preferred to finance E. Jean Carroll in her defamation action. The others have found the large amount beyond their means. https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1770956864685047987 So Trump is simply soliciting small donations for his campaign, while preparing to satisfy the appeal bond with current funds. But he might not have to do that, either. Truth Social is going public – with a market capitalization of $5 billion. Trump owns sixty percent of that – a $3 billion stake. Technically he wouldn’t be able to sell any of it for six months. But the board of directors of the newly-merged company (NASDAQ:DJT) could vote to remove that disability. Nor would he have to sell all of it. He need only sell half a billion dollars’ worth to restore his cash position. As if that weren’t encouraging enough, evidence emerged that the Mar-A-Lago property could be worth as much as $240 million. That would amount to more than half the judgment. https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1770963198021165466 New York loses business New York State, meanwhile, is rapidly losing real-estate investors. Shark Tank judge Kevin O’Leary, who has been beating that drum ever since Judge Arthur Engoron handed down that judgment, teed off again this Wednesday. https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1770645922667540695 He says this has nothing to do with Donald Trump anymore, but represents “an attack on America.” According to him, no investor will want to take a chance on such a judgment against them. The reason: they all do the same thing Trump did, and no one has ever questioned it before. Jonathan Turley confirmed this: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112139579611985351 This puts New York’s Governor and Attorney General on the horns of a dilemma. If they insist, as Gov. Kathy Hochul already has, that these businessmen need not worry because they are “not Trump,” then they have just admitted to an act that violates at least four parts of the Constitution of the United States: • Passing a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law. (Article I Section 10 Clause 1. The Appellate Division of New York’s superior-court equivalent has already said the acts charged against Trump are older than the statute of limitations.) • Abridging Trump’s privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States. (Article IV Section 2; Amendment XIV Section 1.) • Depriving Trump of his property without due process of law. (Amendment XIV Section 1.) • Denying Donald Trump the equal protection of the laws. (Amendment XIV Section 1.) https://rumble.com/v4ew5tu-new-york-provokes-a-constitutional-crisis.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Warning: don’t mess with Trump! Yesterday (Sunday, March 24), several commentators gave two sets of warnings about even trying to take any of Trump’s property. Cristina Laila at The Gateway Pundit shared comments from Jonathan Turley about steps New York Attorney General Letitia “Tish” James is already taking to effect a seizure. Prof. Turley explained this to Larry Kudlow on the Fox Business channel: These properties are partnerships, they have leveraged debt – all of that has to be unraveled. So these aren’t just this, you know, the one-to-one Trump versus James type of equation. So in order to seize that property, she’s going to be pulled into court, there’s going to be challenges. It’s not going to happen overnight. While everyone is celebrating this idea that she’s going to padlock Trump Tower. It’s not likely to happen, and it’s certainly not likely to remain very long. And: The other thing is that she could be harming the value of the property that she’s trying to seize with some of these actions. I don’t think that matters to her, but it might matter to a court. The day before yesterday, Jack Davis at The Western Journal shared a more dire warning. Frank Luntz – no friend of Trump – shared this to CNN on the very day “Tish” James started filing judgments to seize some of Trump’s properties. Luntz’ message was plain: “Lay off, or you’ll elect Trump. Simple as.” Jamie Frevele posted a transcript of the CNN segment to Mediaite Friday morning: I want you to remember this moment, and don’t forget it. If the New York Attorney General starts to take his homes away, starts to seize his assets, it’s all going to be on camera. Pundits are going to sit there and scream about this, “This man cannot be elected.” You’re going to create the greatest victimhood of 2024, and you’re going to elect Donald Trump. If they take his stuff, he’s going to say that this is proof that the federal government and the establishment in the swamp in Washington, and all the politicians across the country and the attorneys generals and all of this, that this is a conspiracy to deny him the presidency. He’s going to go up in the polls just like he went up every single time they indicted him. The indictment, and let’s not talk about whether it’s justified or not, but it will prove the things that he’s saying on the campaign trail, and he will go up, and it may just elect him president. Do not forget that. And I say this to the attorney general right now, if you play politics on this, this is what the Secretaries of State did in Colorado, and what they did in … Maine, his numbers went up in both states. I don’t understand. I’m almost speechless in how pathetic the opposition to Trump has been and how completely misguided. And this is a perfect example of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGg7uQkT6hM https://twitter.com/d_ewinger/status/1771497806143914475 The future of Constitutional federalism New York State’s posture raises the question of whether that State wants to be part of a Constitutional union. One can say the same of the State of Hawaii. Recently they declared that the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence must yield to Hawaii’s “Spirit of Aloha.” https://rumble.com/v4da99o-hawaii-defies-the-supreme-court-in-the-spirit-of-aloha-gregory-hood-article.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Or Washington State criminalizing any speech against “protected” groups. https://rumble.com/v4iw17c-liberty-curse-word-in-america.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Or for that matter, the three Texas cases. https://rumble.com/v4khvg9-texas-will-it-set-secession-in-motion.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The point of having a Constitution for several independent States is to make sure that one has the same rights in one State as in any other State. New York State, like Hawaii and Washington State, has violated that precept. That’s why we have seen a net ex-migration from those States, into States that don’t do things this way. Of course, it means those States will have even less chance of electing conservatives State-wide. But it also means that the country is dividing geographically as well as by Party affiliation. The irony is as painful as it is rich, that New York was the last State to ratify the Constitution before the original Federalists were willing to declare it effective. (They had the nine States they needed, but without Virginia and New York it was a no-go.) Will New York now be the cause of the United States dividing into two separate non-contiguous countries? https://rumble.com/v10yz1g-great-sortation-gets-mainstream-media-attention.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Thus, as between New York and Texas, which State really stands in violation of the Constitution? Link to: Trump’s Truths saying he has the cash on hand: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112139048661343988 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112137789568182401 Post: interview on MSNBC: https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1770956864685047987 Post: Benny Johnson shares information about what Mar-A-Lago is actually worth: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1770963198021165466 Post: Kevin O’Leary sounds off on whether New York real estate is worth it: https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1770645922667540695 Truth: Jonathan Turley confirms exodus from New York: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112139579611985351 Video: New York Constitutional crisis: https://rumble.com/v4ew5tu-new-york-provokes-a-constitutional-crisis.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Frank Luntz warns: don’t do it, if you don’t want to elect Trump! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGg7uQkT6hM https://twitter.com/d_ewinger/status/1771497806143914475 Videos: Hawaii Supremes flout the U.S. Constitution: https://rumble.com/v4da99o-hawaii-defies-the-supreme-court-in-the-spirit-of-aloha-gregory-hood-article.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Is liberty a curse word? https://rumble.com/v4iw17c-liberty-curse-word-in-america.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Texas secession: https://rumble.com/v4khvg9-texas-will-it-set-secession-in-motion.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 The Great Sortation: https://rumble.com/v10yz1g-great-sortation-gets-mainstream-media-attention.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

State sovereignty and its defense By Terry A. Hurlbut The three current Texas immigration and border-control cases illustrate a serious problem with the federal-State relationship. In 1787, delegates to a national convention agreed that a “confederation” between and among sovereign States wasn’t working. They proposed that States give up a measure of their sovereignty in certain contexts, “to form a more perfect union.” The result was, of course, the Constitution of the United States, the oldest such instrument now in force and effect. That Constitution survived a bloody challenge in 1861-65. Now it faces another challenge, which is bloodless – so far. What happens when the federal government, having promised to protect the States from invasion, fails in that promise? What happens when the chief executive fails to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”? Specifically, what shall a State do when suffering real harms the federal government will not remedy, or even acknowledge? We’re about to find out. What is an invasion? The Constitution spells out that the United States today is a republic. Article IV Section 4 reads: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. Article I Section 1 Clause 3 reads in relevant part: No State shall … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Before examining what happens when that protection fails, one must first define the word invasion. Sadly the Constitution does not do this. Relying on this oversight, Judge David A. Ezra, in his opinion supporting an injunction against a Texas law, carefully defines an invasion as a hostile entry by an organized, uniformed, trained, and disciplined army. A horde of illegal immigrants does not an army make, in Judge Ezra’s opinion. But is that correct? And even if it were, what facts has Judge Ezra overlooked? In fact he admits that: some small fraction of immigrants may cross the border with malicious intent and some small fraction may be affiliated with paramilitary cartels. As to those immigrants having hostile intent: first, when they avail themselves of government charitable benefits intended for lawful residents, they are no better than gate crashers who help themselves to a buffet intended for family and invited guests only. That, is plunder. And when they come with a view to registering to vote and demanding plebiscites for land cession or retrocession, that is an attempt at conquest. All these things are elements of invasion, even according to Black’s Law Dictionary. Furthermore, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) recently admitted that at least ten “known or suspected terrorists” have gained entry by mingling with those illegal immigrant hordes. A terrorist is a saboteur. Sabotage is often the mission of the vanguard of any invading force. The sovereignty principle and the Constitutional contract Thus if Texas has not been “actually invaded,” it is “in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” But this judge, in the case at hand and a related case involving a physical barrier, refuses to acknowledge that. To him, these immigrant hordes present no danger. The survivors of Lakin Riley would beg to differ. The Constitution is a contract between the several States and a new, heretofore nonexistent entity. That entity promised to forestall invasions of this kind. But more than that: the federal government stands on federal laws with which it says Texas is interfering. Yet they are not enforcing those laws. Article II Section 3 of the Constitution says in specific relevant part: [The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. President, or rather, Resident, Joe Biden has consistently failed to execute laws against illegal immigration. So what happens next? Nothing should happen, according to the Biden administration. Texas is wrongfully taking the law into its own hands, like a totally irregular, unauthorized – and dangerous – vigilance committee. In fact, Texas is exercising sovereignty, and is within its natural rights under natural law. Indeed Texas joined the Union to begin with, to seek protection from an invasion in the traditional sense. Judge Ezra has dangerously reinterpreted the contract, even as the federal government has flagrantly reneged on it. Now the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Judicial Circuit has the opportunity – and duty – to correct this error. The Court of Appeals holds the balance The Fifth Circuit has before it three cases, all having to do with measures Texas is taking against the invasion: U.S. v. Abbott, in District Court and Appeals Court. Texas has strung ballards, or buoys, along the Rio Grande. The Biden administration wants them removed. Judge Ezra ordered the removal, and a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed. But then Texas applied for a rehearing en banc – and won it. Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, in District Court, Appeals Court, and Supreme Court. Texas strung lengths of concertina wire along the northern Rio Grande Valley, along certain property lines, with the owners’ consent. Border Patrol agents cut the wire away in places. Texas sued. The Fifth Circuit entered an injunction pending appeal, and the Supreme Court vacated it. Whereupon Texas evicted the Border Patrol and took direct control. (The last twenty-four hours have seen a direct breach of the fence, with migrants swarming it. Such behavior certainly suggests an army, even if it’s an army of irregulars.) U.S. v. Texas, in District Court (consolidated with another case), Appeals Court, and Supreme Court. This is the case involving Texas Senate Bill 4, a measure to define unlawful entry as a State crime and empower Texas law-enforcement agencies to arrest those migrants if they see them crossing the international border. This is also the case in which Judge Ezra denied that Texas is under invasion. https://rumble.com/v3za9tj-texas-buoy-case-mistakes-all-around.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v48xehx-texas-border-dispute-and-defiance.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4khvg9-texas-will-it-set-secession-in-motion.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Sovereignty clashes with misplaced compassion Yesterday, U.S. v. Texas came to oral argument, on a motion for a stay pending appeal. An earlier administrative stay of Judge Ezra’s injunction is now dissolved. This case is now consolidated with an earlier lawsuit by the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways, and the County of El Paso. Aaron Lloyd Nielson, arguing for Texas, set forth four principles defining likelihood that Texas will prevail on the merits: 1. The organizational or “non-profit” plaintiffs lack standing. Nothing in the law would exact a penalty against them for what they do. Furthermore, the United States has no cause of action, because SB 4 does not set or change anyone’s status. 2. SB 4 is not pre-empted, because it does not address any exclusively federal question, and “mirrors rather than conflicts with” federal law. Neilson also accused Judge Ezra of misreading Arizona v. United States to find pre-emption. 3. Texas has a right to defend itself – and at least some provisions of SB 4 are Constitutional. Judge Ezra admitted that sometimes drug cartel agents cross over with malicious intent. 4. Judge Ezra did not apply severability to determine which portions of SB 4 might still be constitutional. (This is correct. Judge Ezra held that SB 4 was “an intertwined whole” and severing any part of the law would be pointless.) The opposing argument – and unforced errors Daniel Bentele Hahs-Tenny, arguing for the Biden administration, seemed to say that even illegal immigrants were untouchable by any State law-enforcement officers, unless they committed crimes in addition to the crime of being in the United States illegally. Cody Wofsy, arguing for the American Civil Liberties Union (which represents the organizational plaintiffs), asserted that they have standing because they would have to divert substantial resources to deal with their clients who ran afoul of State authorities. Sadly, Mr. Nielson made three unforced errors in his argument. First, he didn’t argue about the cartels forcefully enough. Their security forces are armed, and thus constitute an organized, disciplined force, if paramilitary. Why didn’t Mr. Nielson mention this, especially as Judge Ezra admitted it in his opinion? Second, Nielson did not prepare adequately to state what would happen to an illegal immigrant in all contingencies. For example, the law provides that the State would “remove” someone by taking them to a lawful point of entry and handing them over to immigration authorities. What happens if – as is likely under Resident Biden’s orders – the immigration authorities turn the immigrants loose? Then the Texas LEOs would arrest them all over again. That obviously looked bad. But Judge Priscilla Richman (the Chief Judge of the Circuit) then asked: suppose an immigrant unlawfully infiltrates the border elsewhere than the Texas-Mexican border, and then enters Texas across an ordinary State line? What then? Nielson said he didn’t know. He should have found out. Another judge takes issue with the administration But Mr. Hahs-Tenny had his own problem with Judge Andrew Oldham, the one Trump appointee on the panel. Hahs-Tenny essentially accused Texas of unsupportable vigilantism. Then Judge Oldham reminded him that SB 4 did not propose to create an alien registry or work-permit system. The judge caught the Biden administration solicitor flatfooted, reducing him to such vocalizations as “uh” and “ulp.” Mr. Wofsy didn’t fare much better – but neither the judge nor Mr. Nielson (in rebuttal) asked the right question afterward. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot was Mr. Wofsy doing there? He’s saying – as Judge Ezra said – that Las Americas and American Gateways have standing because they would have to divert substantial resources to fight new State “raps” under this law. But does an attorney in criminal practice have standing in his own right if, say, federal law makes a new “federal beef” out of murder or kidnap, in other than an interstate context? If not, how does Las Americas or American Gateways gain standing just because Texas makes their missions more difficult? Indeed, what is their mission, other than to facilitate the invasion? How, indeed, can they have any legitimate mission in aid of persons who entered the United States illegally? Twenty-two States defend their sovereignty as well On the very day the Fifth Circuit panel heard oral argument, twenty-two States filed their own friend-of-the-court brief supporting Texas. The apparently arbitrary way Judge Ezra said the Supreme Court’s Arizona decision pre-empted Texas SB 4 suggested that their own State laws might be in similar jeopardy. In fact the tone of the brief suggests that many of these States would like to write their own laws making unlawful presence a crime, subject to arrest by State LEOs. That would be in accord with several expressions of frustration your correspondent has seen on several social media. Typically, someone will ask, “Why won’t our governor declare an invasion and start deporting these migrants?” (In fact, Bradlee Dean at Sons of Liberty has repeatedly called for State governors to do precisely that.) These twenty-two attorneys general point out that courts should avoid finding conflict whenever possible. Then they pointed out two features of SB 4 and the challenge to it: 1. The Biden administration, and the two non-profits, challenged the law on it face. 2. SB 4 “implicates multiple Constitutional provisions.” Tellingly, the attorneys general invoked the Invasion Clause – the very clause at issue here. Finally, they said that if the Arizona case were as broad as Judge Ezra seemed to think, then it’s time for someone to go to the Supreme Court and say it ought to overrule the precedent. What about overriding Arizona? Tellingly, two dissenters from that decision – Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas – are still on the Supreme Court. Neil Gorsuch replaced the third dissenter, which was Justice Antonin Scalia. The dissenting opinions all speak to sovereignty and how this decision violates it. Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent. … Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent. Justice Scalia This is exactly why an increasing number of Texans are considering the drastic step of attempting secession from the Union. Arizona, even more than the surrender instrument of Appomattox, makes the phrase “sovereign State” inapplicable to American “States.” They might as well be provinces. Sadly, the language of every Constitutional Amendment from Amendment XV forward, echoes that refrain. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State… Amendment XV Previously such a text would have read “by the United States or by any of them.” Thus by striking directly at the Arizona case, those twenty-two attorneys general go to the heart of the problem. This administration spits on State sovereignty by essentially refusing to curb illegal immigration in any way. Then it castigates any effort by any State – especially Texas, the State having the longest international border – to step into the breach, as no better than a taking of the law into his own hands by a vigilante. The Fifth Circuit has an opportunity, in the three cases involving Texas, to stop these outrageous attacks. If it does not, then it invites Texas and its twenty-two “friends of the court” to re-evaluate the benefits of our federal union, as this administration is running it. Link to: The Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/ Various court dockets: U.S. v. Abbott: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67630985/united-states-v-abbott/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67770228/united-states-v-abbott/ Texas v. DHS: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67909144/state-of-texas-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68058529/state-of-texas-v-dhs/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a607.html U.S. v. Texas: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68134300/united-states-v-state-of-texas/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68100418/las-americas-immigrant-advocacy-center-v-steven-c-mccraw/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68304081/united-states-v-state-of-texas/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a814.html US v. Texas documents: Preliminary injunction: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172770230/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172770230.42.0_5.pdf Oral argument, audio and video: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/23/23-30305_3-13-2024.mp3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiJtxvl0JQw Friend-of-the-court brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049/gov.uscourts.ca5.218049.129.0.pdf Arizona v. United States: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/387/ Previous videos: https://rumble.com/v3za9tj-texas-buoy-case-mistakes-all-around.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v48xehx-texas-border-dispute-and-defiance.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v4khvg9-texas-will-it-set-secession-in-motion.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

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

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