Declarations of Truth

Georgia election cases take a sharp turn By Terry A. Hurlbut The Election of 2020 saw the most important questions in Georgia, including the infamous Fulton County Suitcase Scandal. Perhaps because Fulton County saw the greatest questions, District Attorney Fani Willis, who won her own election on the same day, vowed to punish anyone who dared question the award of Georgia’s Electoral College delegation to Joe Biden. But now she herself has come under investigation. And so has Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who refused to investigate irregularities in that election when a citizen election integrity advocate pointed them out to him. This is the most serious instance yet of the hunters becoming the hunted. Georgia case 1: Fani Willis Recall that Fulton Co. D.A. Willis obtained indictments against President Donald Trump and 18 current and former associates. She alleged that their contest of the Election of 2020 was a racket, within the meaning of Georgia’s Racketeer-influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute. The essence of her case is that: 1. Trump lost, 2. Trump knew he had lost, 3. No dirty work took place at any crossroads, 4. Any allegation of such dirty work at the crossroads was and is a lie, and therefore 5. Trump and his allies conspired criminally to defraud the people of Georgia, who had spoken in favor of Biden. In fact she asked for and got a Special Purpose Grand Jury (SPGJ) nearly two years ago for this very purpose. Shortly after the indictment came down, Trump said he would release “irrefutable and overwhelming evidence” that fraud decided the Election of 2020. He didn’t do it then, on the advice of counsel. But on January 2, he abruptly changed his mind and released a 32-page report on irregularities in five States. The States are Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona. Back in August, the House Judiciary Committee started investigating Willis, questioning the timing, the obvious partisanship, and the possible encroachment on federal interests that her case represents. Willis on the hot seat A week later, Michael Roman, one of the Trump Eighteen, filed an electrifying motion. He alleged an improper – indeed romantic – relationship between Willis and the lawyer (Nathan J. Wade) she hired in November 2021 as a “special prosecutor” against Trump. But what made the case even more egregious was that Wade met with White House Counsel’s associates. He then billed the State for it. Roman’s motion seeks dismissal of the charges against him – and disqualification of Willis, Wade, and the entire Fulton D.A.’s office. On Wednesday, Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit reported (citing The Wall Street Journal) that lawyers for Wade’s wife subpoenaed Willis to testify in their divorce case. The game did not end there. Judge Scott McAfee, the trial judge in Georgia v. Trump et al. held a “motions hearing” on Friday (January 12). According to The Epoch Times, Judge McAfee scheduled a full hearing devoted to Roman’s motion in mid-February. Steve Sadow, attorney for Trump, asked for the “option” to “adopt” the motion at a later date. Mr. Sadow would do so if he developed evidence independent of Mr. Roman’s attorney, to support the allegations against Willis and Wade. The judge has allowed that option. Jim Jordan expands his investigation to include Wade More than that, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has clearly widened his investigation of Willis. Also on Friday, he sent a letter to Mr. Wade demanding documentation of Wade’s communications with the: • Department of Justice and its employees, including Special Counsel Jack Smith, the: • Executive Office of the President, including the White House Counsel’s Office, and the: • House January 6 Committee. Jordan also demanded all “notes, memoranda, documents, or other material in [Wade’s] possession” relating to the above. Furthermore, he demanded copies of Wade’s invoices, contracts, financial arrangements, and financial transactions with the Fulton Co. D.A.’s office. The five-page letter is available at this link. That letter includes the infamous Invoice 14, with line items referring to meetings with the White House and the January 6 Committee. What rankles with Jordan the most is that the January 6 Committee shared information with Wade and not House Judiciary. The letter gives Wade until Friday, January 26 to comply. Georgia case 2: Brad Raffensperger, Secretary of State Recall again the 32-page report Trump released on January 2. That report devotes seven pages to election irregularities in Georgia alone, including: • 315,000 early votes cast without the Chief OOE and at least two colleagues signing them, as Georgia law requires. • Failure of the Chief OOE or any of his colleagues to sign scanner-tabulator tapes. • Incompleteness of those tapes, i.e., failure to include some of the ballots. • Counting absentee ballots six months or more ahead of the election. Furthermore, elections in Georgia have been problematic for years. A lawsuit filed from the left led to the first finding of vulnerability of the voting machines. These include scanner-tabulators and Ballot Marking Devices, the output of which is not even human-readable. Brad Raffensperger is the long-serving Secretary of State in Georgia, elected independently of the Governor. The integrity and security of elections are his responsibility, as senior elections officer. (He also is currently a member ex officio of the State Board of Elections, though he has no vote.) Investigation of Raffensperger Yesterday, William Quinn of The Georgia Record reported that T. Matthew Mashburn, Acting Chairman of the Georgia Board of Elections, sent a letter to Rep. Jon Burns (R-Effingham), Speaker of the Georgia House, and Lt. Gov. Burt Jones (in his role as President of the Georgia Senate), asking whether the Board had jurisdiction to investigate Raffensperger for violations of election law. Apparently the Board has been receiving complaints about Raffensperger ever since the Election of 2020. Joseph Rossi, private citizen, testified before the Board of finding serious “errors” in 2020 election reporting. Those errors had to do with the conduct of Raffensperger’s office. Rossi then said that then Assistant Attorney General Charlene McGowan and several Board members tried to block his investigation. But Rossi got to Gov. Brian Kemp – and he seems to have thrown Raffensperger under the bus. He issued a written statement saying Rossi’s findings were factual. In response to that letter, several Georgia Senators have introduced a bill (SB 358) to remove Raffensperger from the Election Board and confirm the Board’s authority to investigate Raffensperger. This bill has twelve sponsors at time of review of this article. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyTOYNEjCTg At 3:44 p.m. EST yesterday, George Behizy dropped a three-post thread on this news: https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1746272152112779750 https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1746272156688732338 Reaction to that thread is overwhelmingly positive. Most users feel the events vindicate their low opinion of Raffensperger, and their charge that he gave away the election. Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit reported on this. Analysis This same Brad Raffensperger refused to testify under oath in the earlier case alleging civil-rights violations arising from insecurity of voting machines. More to the point, these two cases reveal two things. First, Trump was right all along that Democrats – and Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) – defrauded him of victory. (And not him alone, but the American people.) Second, Georgia is a political cesspool. Brad Raffensperger, like Brian Kemp before him, seem to run selections, not elections, at least whenever they see fit. No one, up- or down-ticket, can be confident of having a fair shake in running for State-wide or Congressional office. Not in Georgia – not until someone makes some serious changes. At a minimum, the Georgia House needs to bring Articles of Impeachment against Raffensperger. The various investigations already in train should yield more than sufficient evidence to convict him and remove him from office. Ideally, Acting Chairman Mashburn should then run an election to replace Raffensperger. Other things that need to happen in Georgia: 1. Judge McAfee should deliver a directed verdict of acquittal in Georgia v. Trump et al. 2. Fani Willis rates removal from office and possible prosecution for the public-service equivalent of embezzlement. 3. All Georgia counties and other units should get rid of “The Machines” and vote on paper. They can run elections as the French run them – and that can be a fit example for all American elections. These parallel investigations could be steps in that direction. But the people must press for it – hard. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/14/news/georgia-election-cases-take-sharp-turn/ Trump’s 32-page report of evidence of election fraud in Georgia and elsewhere: https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/e0/e04e630c-63ff-4bdb-9652-e0be3598b5d4/summary20of20election20fraud20in20the20swing20states.pdf The Roman Motion: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24352568/roman-motion-to-dimiss-010824.pdf Jim Jordan’s letter to Nathan Wade: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-01-12-jdj-to-wade-re-fulton-da-1.pdf SB 358: https://www.georgiarecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20232024-221230.pdf “Underdog v. Riff Raff the Fox”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyTOYNEjCTg George Behizy’s thread: https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1746272152112779750 https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1746272156688732338 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Absentee voting – how NOT to facilitate it By Terry A. Hurlbut 2024 could be the year of straightening out voting rules, if Republicans continue to fight for good rules in court. On Monday (January 8), the Circuit Court of Racine, Wisconsin ruled against a novel form to facilitate absentee voting. Specifically, the court held that mobile voting precincts were not legally authorized, and that if any county or city wanted to use them, the Wisconsin legislature must specifically legislate them. CNAV proposed a mobile voting precinct to handle the “hard cases” of voters who could not vote in person. But the tale in Racine involves abuses that made it no more secure than an unattended drop box. Herewith the details on how the Racine, Wisconsin City Clerk’s office actually used a mobile voting precinct, differs drastically from how a county or municipal clerk or board of elections should use it. Absentee voting – what’s the problem? Absentee voting means any way to cast a ballot on behalf of a voter who cannot – or would rather not – appear in person, on the appointed Election Day, to cast a ballot. Unfortunately, in the United States today the usual absentee voting method is to let a voter mail his ballot in. This is an open invitation to fraud – for how is even a good-hearted Officer of Election to know whether the person filling out, signing, and returning an absentee ballot, the same as the person lawfully registered to vote? Signatures are notoriously subject to forgery. Processing large numbers of absentee ballots can delay an election for days, or else must proceed without effective signature verification. This has caused many activists, concerned for election integrity, to abolish absentee voting altogether. But this creates another problem. Voters find themselves unable to vote in person on Election Day for various reasons. Persons in military service might be deployed elsewhere on Election Day. Business conferences often do not suspend in Election Season. OOEs assigned out-of-precinct either vote early or not at all. And, of course, people fall ill. Unfortunately, some activists’ reply to such hard cases is, “How often does that happen?” Which means “Tough [fornicating] luck!” But “Tough [fornicating] luck” will never stand up in court. Among other reasons for this, the French, which have their own unique method of handling absentee voting, report that seven percent of votes cast use that method. Disenfranchising seven percent of voters can never be acceptable. The Mobile Voting Precinct CNAV proposed the Mobile Voting Precinct two years ago. CNAV intended this to address the hard cases without allowing the bedlam that is early or mail-in absentee voting today. To review: The Mobile Voting Precinct, as CNAV proposed it, was to have the following staff: • Driver and driver’s mate, who would have charge of the physical safety of all other staff on the road. • Security officer, in charge of physical security at any stop. • Sanitation officer, to sanitize equipment against infectious agents. • Chief Officer of Election (or Election Judge), who makes final decisions on balloting, provisional ballots, and so on. • Assistant Chief Officer of Election (or Election Inspector): an Officer of Election from the opposite Party to the Chief. • A number of Officers of Election sufficient to carry out the functions of a precinct. Some of these could function as Security and Sanitation officers. Chief and Assistant Chief could function as driver and driver’s mate. All personnel for the mobile voting precinct would take an oath of office as Officers of Election. The total staff might be less than the number of positions listed above. The MVP would carry all the equipment a conventional precinct carries, including voting booths, ballots, scanners, signs, etc. Dispatching the mobile voting precinct This vehicle would not dispatch regularly, but only upon specific voter request. It might also dispatch to any institution or installation where one would expect to find many transportation-impaired voters in one place. The obvious candidates include: • Long-term care homes. These go by names like “nursing home,” “assisted living community,” and the like. • Hospitals. Hospital staff would have one of the priorities for in-person early voting. Hospital patients, however, can’t always plan such things ahead of time. The mobile voting precinct exists to serve them. • In-patient physical medicine and rehabilitation centers. The same considerations apply. In addition, a much smaller version (say, a crossover vehicle), perhaps with driver and driver’s mate (of opposite Parties), could visit a shut-in voter at home. A “mid-sized” version could visit any apartment complex where several voters need the mobile voting precinct to visit them. Voters would pre-apply for this service, instead of applying for mail-in absentee ballots as they do today. Poll watchers and reporting Accredited poll watchers would have two choices, depending on the type of dispatch. They could either: • Meet the mobile voting precinct at its destination (typically the long-term care home, hospital, rehab, or apartment complex), or • Ride around in it, especially if the registrar dispatches it to go door-to-door to voters’ single-family houses. Today Chief Officers of Election report vote totals after closing. Chief Officers of Election for mobile voting precincts would do the same, and on the same channel: their personal cellphone. Poll watchers would of course stand by, with a copy of the scanner tape. (One other necessary reform might involve including the poll watcher on the reporting call, in conference-call mode.) How Racine, Wisconsin actually handled absentee voting But that is not how Racine, Wisconsin used its mobile voting precinct for absentee balloting, according to the challenging lawsuit. According to the Associated Press (via WXIN-TV, Channel 59, Fox Broadcasting Network, Indianapolis, Ind.), Racine officials abused the MVP. Specifically: The Racine City Clerk sent the MVP to Democratic neighborhoods only, as a regular service. What’s more, they used it to collect ballots, and to take all comers, not those who pre-applied for the service. According to Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit, the MVP never dealt with any Party-accredited poll watchers. That puts the process out of the view of parties interested in the election outcome. Republicans grew suspicious when they found that the city of Racine ordered a custom-built panel van as an MVP. They paid for it with a $222,045 grant from the Center for Technology and Civic Life. Which is Mark Zuckerberg’s operation – Zuckerbucks! https://twitter.com/GadgetCan2/status/1422021615257362438 Ground News gave more information on the improper use of this concept: The vehicle could be used as an early voting location or voter registration booth in different predetermined locations throughout the year. The purchase for the vehicle was approved in August 2020 for up to $250,000. It is being paid for through the city’s grant from the Center for Tech and Civic Life. CTCL is the nonprofit that received more than $300 million donation from Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg. Again: the Clerk of Elections should dispatch a Mobile Voting Precinct only upon request, to a voter’s home, long-term care home, hospital, or PM&R center. Instead the city was dispatching it to prearranged locations – and not even offering to coordinate with poll watchers. The court says, no more Racine County Circuit Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz (gah-SYOHR-key-witch) permanently enjoined the use of Racine’s MVP. In his ruling, he said: Nowhere can this Court find or has been provided any authority allowing the use of a van or vehicle as an alternate absentee voting vehicle. Just because the law did not specifically disallow an MVP, did not automatically allow it. If Racine or any other Wisconsin city wants to use a Mobile Voting Precinct, let the legislature pass a law. Until then, no. The Wisconsin Elections Commission and Wisconsin Department of Justice won’t say whether they will appeal. This case came to national attention because Elon Musk, new owner of X, had reason to weigh in on it. A liberal journalist named Judd Legum dropped an angry thread about some of Musk’s recent posts about elections. Specifically, Musk charged that non-citizens were permitted to vote. Judd Legum disputed that: https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745443611401932916 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745444313612562697 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745444881739186586 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745445678678257738 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745446525139054600 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745447029860708781 More accurately, perhaps, the enforcement against non-citizen voting in federal elections is lax. That’s because current case law does not permit a State to demand proof of citizenship for voting in federal elections. So Arizona is issuing “federal-only” ballots. Musk did not mention, but perhaps should have, that this violates the Elections Clause of the Constitution. It is taking “time, place and manner” of electing Senators and Representatives out of State legislative hands. Professor Yann LeCun of New York University scornfully suggested that a “properly-run site” would censor election information. https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1745632754371350769 Given Elon Musk’s struggle to fight against the “stakeholder capitalism” of advertisers, that remark was like hanging a red flag in front of a bull. Elon Musk responded thus: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1745921308943069202 How else to handle absentee voting? Needless to say, more than half the replies to Elon Musk’s post above mentioned: • The irregularities in the Election of 2020 and how the Democrats profited from them (even if not down-ticket), and • Facebook’s complicity therein. In any event, this exchange has called more attention to the absentee voting problem. Clearly the government of Racine, wishing to stay Democratic, acted in bad faith. How they used their MVP, is equivalent to not running a voting precinct in a Republican area at all. But Republicans must argue in good faith, too. Telling people they get only one shot at voting, and if circumstances do not permit them to vote, “tough [fornicating] luck,” will likely persuade a court to rule for the opposite extreme. The French, as mentioned, have another solution. Any voter, anticipating a problem with showing up on Election Day, may pre-register, together with someone they trust to vote on their behalf, with a local law-enforcement precinct or municipal court. If a voter is too homebound or bedridden even for that, an LEO or court officer can come to them. A proxy can vote for one other voter. Officers of Election by definition rate special consideration. Any Clerk of Elections should be able to design a system to accommodate OOEs assigned to “foreign” precincts. In theory, the Clerk “knows” the OOEs better than any other voters. Absentee voting in the military The military today relies on federal Voting Assistance Officers – who are not always in the military! This is not secure. The best outfits to handle military absentee voting would be the respective uniformed law-enforcement arms of the different services. The only other way to handle military absentee voting is to abolish it altogether. But that evokes memories of the allegations against President Abraham Lincoln about his conduct of the Election of 1864. The [Lincoln] Administration … had made a doubtful play for the soldier vote, allowing voting only in units where Republican sentiment was strong. Voting by voice made it difficult for soldiers in the field to oppose the general will. On the home front, military units were stationed in areas of strong peace sentiment to discourage Democrats from voting. Blum JM, Morgan ES, Rose WL, Schlesinger AM, Stampp KM, and Woodward CV. The National Experience: A History of the United States, 3rd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973, p. 353. Of course modern Democrats dare not complain about that, because Democrats in that election voted as they did from racism. But those interested in election integrity must avoid even the appearance of such manipulation. Republicans in Wisconsin have two choices in the likely appeal. They can oppose Mobile Voting Precincts altogether, or propose the kind of policies listed here. Or they can examine the French proxy registration system. Present systems operate with no chain of custody – and when 17 percent of voters surveyed admit to fraudulent activities, that becomes unacceptable. Furthermore the sensitivity of the left to Elon Musk’s criticisms of lax election policies signals a clear intent to cheat. Republicans have an imperative to take all necessary measures to prevent this. That demonstrably requires getting control of absentee voting. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/13/foundation/constitution/absentee-voting-facilitate/ Original Mobile Voting Precinct proposal: https://cnav.news/2022/01/03/accountability/executive/mobile-voting-precinct-election-reform/ X post detailing the Zuckerbucks role: https://twitter.com/GadgetCan2/status/1422021615257362438 The Judd Legum thread: https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745443611401932916 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745444313612562697 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745444881739186586 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745445678678257738 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745446525139054600 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1745447029860708781 Yann LeCun’s post: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1745632754371350769 Elon Musk’s post: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1745921308943069202 French paper voting outline: https://cnav.news/2023/06/24/editorial/talk/france-votes-paper/ 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Bill O’Reilly rebukes leftism like never before By Terry A. Hurlbut Bill O’Reilly, once host of The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News and now host of his own domain and podcast, yesterday burned every bridge he ever had with anyone on the left. Until recently – and certainly while he was at Fox – he prided himself on political neutrality. “Caution: you are about to enter a no-spin zone,” he’d say, and would cut no slack to the right, either. And never did he deliver an unqualified rebuke of either side – until yesterday. His was the most breathtaking criticism he’d ever dished out – and one the left richly deserves. What Bill O’Reilly said The latest rant by Bill O’Reilly appeared on X at 12:08 p.m. EST on January 11. A user who goes by “Big Fish” or “Big Fish 3000” posted it, with a brutally simple text: https://twitter.com/BigFish3000/status/1745492923020448181 He appears on the set of his No Spin News podcast, wearing a white shirt and cobalt-blue tie. Telling how recent the podcast is, is impossible – because he has not worn that costume in the last twenty-four regular videos that appear on his Rumble channel. The segment runs for a minute and twenty seconds and is an obvious excerpt. But no one can mistake the meaning of his words: … these other progressive things, we’ve got to stop this now! I’m telling you, I don’t have any progressive friends anymore. They’re gone, because I can’t stomach them. Criminals running wild, murdering people, because progressive D.A.’s, funded by George Soros, don’t want to punish these violent criminals? That’s what you’re giving me? You support that? Get out of my house. Out! I’ve had it! [President Joe] Biden is not going to get any better – and the Democratic Party has got to get destroyed next November. I don’t care whether you like [President Donald J.] Trump or not. Trump governed this nation in a responsible way, where everybody prospered. And if you don’t believe that, you’re a moron. Every single thing, every single indicator, was on positive territory. All the working people, no matter what color they were, were making more money, and there were more jobs. We didn’t have inflation, we didn’t have supply problems, we didn’t have any of it. Now we’ve got all of it, in addition to an open border…. Citizen Free Press picked up the segment at 12:30 p.m., with a nod to “Big Fish.” https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1745498470377472378 Allison Anton at The Western Journal posted about the segment on that site. At 9:00 p.m., Mike LaChance at The Gateway Pundit picked it up from there. He also shared several other X posts quoting the Big Fish post: https://twitter.com/ericmmatheny/status/1745501992087077330 https://twitter.com/QueenMother1976/status/1745520491987620048 https://twitter.com/MatthewPezzone/status/1745497704522817687 Another user, replying to Citizen Free Press, embedded a video of a segment Bill O’Reilly did during the 2020 campaign. https://twitter.com/Rapidsloth_/status/1745499664521060715 Biden, appearing in Michigan, apparently mixed up Michigan and military COVID-19 incidence and mortality statistics. O’Reilly concluded that the then-candidate literally did not know what he was saying. Sadly, not everyone, replying to or quote-posting the two copies of the segment, appreciated O’Reilly’s point. Then again, no one ever ran for public office without getting a single vote. That applies to Biden, too. Backing it up Of course, no one can dish out harsh criticism the way Bill O’Reilly does. But every honest person knows he’s right. George Soros did fund the campaigns of several public prosecutors who won’t prosecute. The message is always the same: the law belongs to the white man, and exists only to persecute the non-white. Elect me, or my opponent will arrest you next, just to be mean and racist. (Oh, yes: according to critical theory, racist ≡ white.) That works, right up to the point at which crime accelerates out of control. Because most crime, even today as Democrats deliberately stoke racial tension, is still opportunistic. And the opportunities to commit crime involve being part of the neighborhood, and often knowing the targets. So the people in the neighborhood voted in a new D.A. who wouldn’t arrest them. And no, nobody arrested them. But the criminal perpetrators know that this D.A. is a soft touch. So the voter who didn’t want to get arrested for the “crime” of non-white-ness, is now dead. That’s what Bill O’Reilly meant by “criminals running wild, murdering people.” And true, Joe Biden will not get any better. In fact he made a Second Speech, a sequel to That Speech of September 2, 2022. Then again, Biden might not be running for reelection. Michelle Obama might – a fact Bill O’Reilly knows. https://rumble.com/v463o9k-no-spin-news-january-9-2024.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v37m8bu-no-spin-news-august-14-2023.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 It’s as easy to show that the economy was better under Trump than it has ever been under Biden. A failure of civility Allison Anton took extra time to contrast the comparative civility of the last century with the marked incivility of today. Whereas, even at the beginning of O’Reilly’s journalistic career back in the 70s and 80s, people on both sides of the aisle could have cordial discussions and disagreements about their political beliefs. But now, many conservatives never speak about their politics in public or at the workplace for fear of reprisal from our elite institutions. Or even at church, the one place where conservatives need to start talking about politics. Because if we don’t, we soon won’t have any churches to go to. Is it lawful for you to [examine by] scourg[ing] a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? Acts 22:25 (KJV) And worse: And, by contrast, many progressives feel emboldened to display their sexual deviancy or call for violence against their political enemies in public forums. And let a conservative do either – which CNAV does not recommend – and the censors come. Your ordinary American and average progressive operate in completely different, and directly opposed, belief systems. The Democrats and Republicans of the 60s, the 70s and 80s could happily coexist with each other, having at least a decent amount of beliefs in common. But today’s conservatives and progressives have almost none. Former Rep. Scot Klug (R-Wisc.) knows what Ms. Anton is talking about. He wants to institute an American National Civility Award. Sadly, that award is likely to be one-sided, if anyone qualifies for it at all. In any case, an Israeli has observed that sometimes one cannot resolve a conflict, short of “just winning.” True, he said it in the context of the Fourth Arab-Israeli War. The American political divide isn’t that dangerous. Yet. Almost five years ago, George Khalaf suggested building bridges, by reminding people of the good things conservative policies bring about for everyone. The problem is that progressives don’t want these good outcomes, though sometimes they say they do. They are like the angry Fabian who swats a dime out of the hand of someone offering it to a beggar. “Don’t delay the revolution!” he snarls. Bill O’Reilly clearly understands that, too. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/12/editorial/talk/bill-oreilly-rebukes-leftism/ The two posts with Bill O’Reilly’s segment: https://twitter.com/BigFish3000/status/1745492923020448181 https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1745498470377472378 Bill O’Reilly’s channel on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/BillOReilly Reactions to the posts: https://twitter.com/ericmmatheny/status/1745501992087077330 https://twitter.com/QueenMother1976/status/1745520491987620048 https://twitter.com/MatthewPezzone/status/1745497704522817687 https://twitter.com/Rapidsloth_/status/1745499664521060715 Bill O’Reilly on Michelle Obama: https://rumble.com/v463o9k-no-spin-news-january-9-2024.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v37m8bu-no-spin-news-august-14-2023.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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Michelle Obama plotting for nomination? By Terry A. Hurlbut Rumors are surfacing that Michelle Obama is about to replace Joe Biden for the 2024 Democratic Presidential nomination. Chatter that began ten months ago has now given way to a definite prediction of a “hostile takeover.” Obviously all questions about the health or mental fitness of Joe Biden would become moot. But policy questions would not, because Michelle Obama advocates the same theory of government as Joe Biden himself. Current Michelle Obama chatter Two events have happened this week to lend credence to a rumor about Michelle Obama replacing Joe Biden. Most Americans know about Michelle Obama herself expressing “terror” about President Donald J. Trump winning reelection this fall. (Trump would then become the second President to return to office for a non-consecutive second term since Grover Cleveland.) The Blaze had a brief prose story, and an X post: https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1744421185520087544 Headline USA also carried a transcript of Mrs. Obama’s remarks, which she made on a podcast hosted by Jay Shetty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2vNGwMCw-M Apparently she believes people on the left have lost interest in voting. Then she expressed this fear: There’s such a thing as knowing too much and when you’ve been married to the president of the United States, who knows everything about everything in the world — sometimes you just wanna turn it off. What keeps me up are the things that I know. … Those are the things that keep me up because you don’t have control over them and you wonder where are we in this, where are our hearts? What’s gonna happen in this next election? I am terrified about what could possibly happen because our leaders matter, who we select, who speaks for us, who holds that bully pulpit. It affects us in ways that I think sometimes people take for granted. … You know, the fact that people think that government — “Eh, does it really even do anything?” — And I'm like, “Oh my God, does government do everything for us, and we cannot take this democracy for granted.” And sometimes, I worry that we do. Those are the things that keep me up. Lay aside whether she believes in God or not. (Her actions and attitudes suggest not.) Concentrate instead on that statement about “government do[ing] everything for us.” That was never the intention of the Framers. Then again, her husband Barack famously lamented that the Constitution was, as he put it, “a charter of negative liberties.” The substitution plan But what people might not realize is that Barack Obama has lately been intervening – or interfering – in the Biden campaign. Juliana Frieman of The Daily Caller reported that Barack Obama had a secret lunch meeting, apparently with Biden. She cited The Washington Post and this X post from The Daily Mail: https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1743760359855362359 Meetings like this have been happening at least since August of 2023, again according to The Daily Caller. This time, Obama told his former Vice-President to hire more people to concentrate on defeating Trump. Obama did not make any specific recommendations. Then came Michelle Obama’s podcast interview on Monday. That very day, Jesse Watters said flatly that the Obamas intended a “hostile takeover” of the campaign. In sum, if they can’t sink Donald Trump’s poll numbers by (Democratic) convention time, Michelle Obama will offer herself to replace Biden. https://rumble.com/embed/v43bvl3/?pub=4teej Bill O’Reilly offered his own perspective: that Michelle Obama would not have appeared on Jay Shetty’s podcast “without a reason.” He also reminded viewers he had warned them in August to “keep an eye on” her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFNXPveXTP4 In fact, Merrill Matthews of The Hill said in March 2023 that Michelle Obama would be the Democrats’ best candidate. Moreover, Roger Stone predicted in August that Michelle, not Biden, would be the candidate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AnCI9dAxeU This stands in stark contrast to Michelle’s attitude in the summer of 2020. Then, she told The Daily Mail’s women’s section she considered herself clinically depressed. Other shrill, “terrified” voices Mrs. Obama is not the only prominent Democratic or Democratic-aligned female voice to say desperately that they can’t afford to see Trump come back. In November of last year, Hillary Clinton said the same, according to influencer Deep Blue Crypto: https://twitter.com/DeepBlueCrypto/status/1722605938819916258 More recently, Charlie Kirk (Turning Point USA) shared video of Whoopi Goldberg, member of the View panel, expressing similar sentiments. She even tried to persuade former Rep. Liz Cheney (RINO-Wyo.) to run for President as an independent. https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1745143070407164353 Lay aside that not only did Liz Cheney lose her primary by a lopsided margin, but she also faces a lawsuit over her handling of her job as Vice-Chairman of the House January 6 Committee. Liz Cheney did indeed position herself as a third 2024 candidate – in August of 2022. But since Republicans flipped the House at Midterms, the country has not heard from her again. More recently, Whoopi Goldberg wasn’t finished. https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1745500216470724882 In using such language, Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Goldberg make clear they would support “any means necessary” to stop Trump. What are they afraid of? What must they really fear? Have either of them done something that would cause anyone to with them “put away”? Hillary Clinton certainly has. Apart from recent revelations in the Jeffrey Epstein files, she has a reputation for embezzlement and influence peddling. Whoopi Goldberg shouldn’t have to fear paying penalties for anything that severe. More likely she’s afraid that all the things she wants government to do for her and her fellow ethnics, and to whites (especially white males), would be non-starters in a Trump administration. Michelle Obama, on the other hand, is not so much expressing fears, as playing to them. That Barack Obama has been the shadow President since January 20, 2021, should be no secret to anyone. “Private luncheons” with Biden himself are strictly for show. Surely Barack Obama knows better than anyone that Joe Biden couldn’t organize a group bathroom trip, much less a campaign. (Well, perhaps the White House Physician knows that better even than the Obamas.) In fact, Barack Obama must be fed up with his proxy being the butt of so many old-fogey jokes. The Constitution – thus far – will not allow him to run for President for a third term. Joe Biden was his third term. Michelle Obama is to be his fourth and fifth. And she (he?) is more than willing. But can Michelle Obama pull it off? Or so they think. In August of 2023, Bill O’Reilly expressed concern Michelle Obama could stitch together a leftist female/minority coalition none could beat. That was then; this is now. Now the Democrats are losing the support of the very people who would be part of that coalition. Those people want practical results, and those results have not been forthcoming. Lately some have looked to Donald Trump to deliver those practical, tangible results. And he could deliver them – without stealing from other people. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/11/news/michelle-obama-plotting-nomination/ The Blaze video of Michelle expressing her terror: https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1744421185520087544 The Jay Shetty program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2vNGwMCw-M The Daily Mail report on Obama’s lunch with Biden: https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1743760359855362359 Jesse Watters’ segment: https://rumble.com/v45x7ou-jesse-watters-reveals-who-he-thinks-dems-will-replace-biden-with-in-2024.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Bill O’Reilly segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFNXPveXTP4 Roger Stone segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AnCI9dAxeU Hillary Clinton’s fear: https://twitter.com/DeepBlueCrypto/status/1722605938819916258 Whoopi Goldberg’s fears: https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1745143070407164353 https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1745500216470724882 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

The transgender distortion of medicine By Terry A. Hurlbut This afternoon the Ohio State House of Representatives overrode the veto by Gov. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) of House Bill 68. This bill, should the Ohio Senate support the House, will, among other things, forbid doctors to mutilate surgically, or poison hormonally, any child under the age of 18 (officially a “minor individual,” or simply “minor”). These “medical interventions” are two of the three broad categories of transgender medicine. (The third consists of mental-health counseling to accept as valid the notion that someone was born into the wrong sex.) Transgender medicine is one of the worst distortions of medicine anyone calling himself a physician has ever invented. But the transgender distortion goes beyond medicine – because other distortions of the good in our society allow it. HB 68 is a noble attempt to straighten out the distortion. But society must do much more, and re-awaken some proper, God-given sensibilities. Elements of transgender medicine and jurisprudence the bill addresses One can read the full text of HB 68 here. HB 68 addresses not only transgender medicine but also transgender jurisprudence, even before its obligatory definition section. Transgender jurisprudence refers to that body of case law, precedent, and judicial practice in the family courts of a society (including ours) that favors opting a child in for transgender medicine. In the very first paragraph, this bill forbids judges to prejudice themselves against parents who opt out of transgender: 1. Child-rearing, 2. Medicine (including puberty blockers, other hormonal treatments, and surgery), and/or: 3. Mental-health counseling. Then, after laboriously defining certain terms (including “minor”), the bill forbids doctors to perform transgender medicine on a minor. The bill then forbids a doctor to “engage in conduct that aids or abets [such] practices.” This obviously means referring the minor patient to an out-of-state doctor who will practice such medicine. Obviously to avoid federal First Amendment action, the bill does not forbid a doctor to advocate such medicine generally. Furthermore, no mental-health professional may offer transgender counseling without: 1. The consent of at least one adult responsible for the child’s well-being, and: 2. First screening the child for: 1. Conditions that might cause “gender dysphoria,” including “depression, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, [and] autism spectrum disorder,” and 2. Physical, mental, sexual, or emotional abuse, or any event (called trauma, the Greek word for a wound) that might have similar effect. Exceptions HB 68 offers all the exceptions a doctor of good heart could ask for. (Your editor, having had medical training, can tell the difference.) The bill says any physician who has begun such treatment before the bill takes effect, may continue it if, in his judgment, stopping it would cause more harm than good. Any patient suffering from an infection from prior treatment along this line may get treatment for that infection. Other than that, such treatment is still available for cases of: • Ambiguous genitalia in which no one can genuinely tell a boy from a girl, • Chromosomal abnormalities or sex-steroid non-production or insensitivity. Any doctor learns the classic sex-chromosomal abnormalities, including the Turner (XO) and Klinefelter (XXY) Syndromes, in medical school. In addition, doctors learn about testicular feminization. These are chromosomal males in whom testosterone has no effect. The body then turns testosterone into estrogen, producing an outwardly female form. Sadly, nothing will avail except removing the gonads before they turn cancerous. And sometimes a baby presents with an organ having both testicular and ovarian tissue. Sensibly, nothing in HB 68 forbids a doctor to offer the classic treatment for any of these conditions. It merely forbids subjecting a genotypical and phenotypical male or female – a normal child – to such treatment. Penalties and other prohibitions The law deems any professional who breaks it, guilty of unprofessional conduct, with which the proper licensing board must deal. Such professionals would be subject to private malpractice or other legal actions, or State legal action. Medicaid will not cover such surgical mutilation or hormonal poisoning as this law forbids. Males shall not compete against females in female-only sports divisions. If a girl thinks she can “cut it” against male athletes, she may. (Notice, however, that they never do, because whenever they try it, the biological males always outclass them.) Schools may maintain separate men’s and women’s (or boys’ and girls’) divisions in any sport, without anyone suing for discrimination. And: any athlete “blowing the whistle,” or any school trying to do the right thing, may sue for injunctive relief against anyone who retaliates against him, her, it, or them. Section 2 of HB 68 summarizes a plethora of legislative findings, all of which any doctor of good heart would accept as valid. To summarize, such surgical mutilation and hormonal poisoning has complications. This section also acknowledges that patients wanting transgender transforms “often” have something else wrong going on with their minds. This medical degree holder would replace often with always. Why did the governor side with transgender medicine? As mentioned, Gov. DeWine vetoed HB 68 on Friday, December 29, 2023. He waited until the last minute – the “eleventh hour” – so to act. Before the day was out, reports surfaced that Gov. DeWine has received more than $40,000 in political donations from children’s hospitals that support transgender medicine. These donations, over more than five years, all went to the Mike DeWine and John Husted Transition Fund. A transition fund, according to Ohio’s campaign finance handbook, may pay “transition team” salaries and expenses, and for inaugural festivities. An influencer named Parker Thayer dropped this thread expressing his outrage – and giving the sordid details. https://twitter.com/ParkerThayer/status/1740783161909350865 https://twitter.com/ParkerThayer/status/1740786686747906212 https://twitter.com/ParkerThayer/status/1740807524297613410 Mr. Thayer also dropped a “mention” to Riley Gaines. https://twitter.com/ParkerThayer/status/1740796279075254615 An obviously left-leaning physician sarcastically asked: https://twitter.com/RyanMarino/status/1740818172322693513 Well, maybe Hillsdale College should “go for” university status and establish a school of medicine! That sort of “parallel medical academy” would be more than appropriate. Perhaps they could graduate their students with Medical Baccalaureate services, at which the graduates swear the Oath of St. Luke. In any case, the governor, a week later, thought better of what he had done. He signed an Executive Order banning the surgical mutilation but not the hormonal poisoning. His order also proposed that anyone seeking any kind of transgender medicine first see a team comprising, at least, an endocrinologist, a bioethicist, and a psychiatrist. Ohio’s legislature passed HB 68 initially on December 13, with lopsided margins: 24-8 in the Senate and 61-27 in the House. Today’s override vote in the House was 65-28. https://twitter.com/VoteJenaPowell/status/1745191175663837576 https://twitter.com/clickforohio/status/1745191396280058165 What is wrong with our society? The text of HB 68, and Gov. DeWine’s actions on it, clearly show something very wrong with the laws, morals, and mores of our society today. (Mores are customs, of thought or action. The word derives from the Roman mos, moris a body of customs – the mos majorum, or “customs of the majority.”) Why does any part of our jurisprudence even countenance transgender medicine as appropriate? Does anyone truly believe that a person can have been “born into the wrong gender”? CNAV disputes that. So why does any hospital offer such regimens? Money. Follow the money. Money talks. And sometimes money tells lies. That explains those hospitals paying $40,000 in bribes to Gov. DeWine. What shall we say of any governor who takes stands of this kind? As a former physician, your editor finds transgender medicine in violation of the Oath of Hippocrates. It does a patient no good – and even does harm – to sympathize with such an erroneous notion as “having been born into the wrong gender.” It is a lie, agreed-upon, either for money, or to serve a twisted end. This could be the end of a parent who wanted a child of a different gender. It is definitely the end of certain transnational organizations who want a lower population. The funder of the Georgia Guidestones called for a population of half a billion people, down from seven billion. A few days ago someone started raising funds to rebuild them – after lightning struck them. https://twitter.com/Mary00088/status/1744176552609190229 How to repair society Aside from that monument to one-world-ism, our society clearly needs a spiritual reawakening. To begin with, transgender jurisprudence generally appears in the context of divorce. A family-law reform like covenant marriage would go far to solve the basic problem. HB 68 took one good step toward curtailing transgender counseling. It requires screening for things that lead to “gender dysphoria,” the usual prerequisite for transgender transformation. Actually those screening procedures should detect an adverse “soul-wound” event in all cases. The bill’s sponsors would do well to consider making that a legislative finding, not simply a screening requirement. Particularly when “mental-health professionals,” having signed on to the transgender ideology, would simply “look the other way.” They wouldn’t want to find depression, anxiety, hyperactivity, autism, or an abuse history. More to the point, transgender medicine is bad medicine. But only an already distorted society would allow it. Indeed the two distortions each make the other worse. Whether an adult has the right to fund his own transgender transform – or some of the other more ridiculous transforms one hears about today – is debatable. What should never be debatable is whether to allow anyone to so transform a child. The answer is NO. N-O, NO. Mary Shelley warned against such distortions and perversions of medicine – but gave an incomplete warning. How she would shudder, or even shriek, to behold what modern medicine has now become! Perhaps if her novel were required reading in medical school, our society would not be in its present absurd position. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/10/news/transgender-distortion-medicine/ The bill: https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_135/bills/hb68/EN/05/hb68_05_EN?format=pdf Ohio campaign finance handbook: https://www.ohiosos.gov/globalassets/candidates/cfguide/2022/campaign-finance-handbook-chapter4.pdf Parker Thayer’s thread: https://twitter.com/ParkerThayer/status/1740783161909350865 https://twitter.com/ParkerThayer/status/1740786686747906212 https://twitter.com/ParkerThayer/status/1740807524297613410 Mention to Riley Gaines: https://twitter.com/ParkerThayer/status/1740796279075254615 Sarcastic question: https://twitter.com/RyanMarino/status/1740818172322693513 Posts reporting the override vote: https://twitter.com/VoteJenaPowell/status/1745191175663837576 https://twitter.com/clickforohio/status/1745191396280058165 Post reporting Georgia Guidestones rebuilding effort: https://twitter.com/Mary00088/status/1744176552609190229 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Trump Georgia case connects to Biden admin By Terry A. Hurlbut The case of Georgia v. Trump et al. has erupted in scandal. It started with a sordid tale of the hiring of an adulterous lover to a sensitive prosecutorial position. But in the twenty-four hours since that story broke, another story broke – that the Fulton County District Attorney has been coordinating her prosecution of Trump and his eighteen co-defendants with the Biden administration. Whether this will lead to an official sanction against that office is an open question. But it will definitely energize the Trump voter base. It might even cost Biden the votes of traditional Democratic Party constituencies who will now wonder why this administration seems to be wasting time it should be spending to make their lives better, as he promised during the campaign. The relevant part of the Trump Georgia case In August of 2023, Fani Willis, the Fulton County District Attorney, obtained an indictment against Trump and 18 other people. One of them was Mike Roman, an official with the former President’s campaign. Willis charged these people under Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, for conspiring to overturn an election they “knew” was fair. The 41-count indictment charges Roman, among others, with recruiting an alternate set of Presidential electors. The indictment charges seven counts against him, including conspiracy to impersonate a public officer, forgery, and “false statements and writings.” As anyone should know, elections in Georgia (and Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona) had legitimate questions. In fact, on January 2, 2024, Trump released a 32-page summary of all the evidence he had that elections in those States were highly irregular. Seven of the thirty-two pages covered irregularities in Georgia alone. Yesterday afternoon, according to NBC News, Trump filed a motion in the Fulton County Superior Court to dismiss the charges. He argued essentially that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over acts a President committed while President. In addition, he filed motions-to-dismiss on the grounds of lack of due process, and trying him twice (or more often) for the same offense. (Technically, the Fifth Amendment forbids “double jeopardy” only in capital cases. But by tradition, the rule against “double jeopardy” applies to all criminal matters tried in the United States.) But before the day was out, Michael Roman filed his own motion to dismiss. The Roman Motion The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has the details. Apparently Ashleigh Merchant, Roman’s lawyer, had occasion to review the file in a divorce case involving Nathan Wade. Wade is a private attorney whom Willis hired as a “special prosecutor.” Merchant discovered that Willis was the “co-respondent” in that divorce action. That case is now under seal – without a hearing, contrary to Georgia law. Merchant has moved to dismiss all charges against Mr. Roman, and to disqualify Willis, Wade, and the entire Fulton County DA’s office from any further prosecution of the case. The AJC further said that Nathan Wade’s appointment lacked the approval of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. Wade began serving as special prosecutor on November 1, 2021. One day later he filed for divorce in Cobb County. And why did Fani Willis hire him? So that she could put him on an expense account and they could take lavish vacations together. The motion has all the details, including names of luxury destinations and cruise lines. In fact, since January of 2022, Wade has received nearly $654,000 in legal fees. Most of them have to do with Special Purpose Grand Jury (SPGJ) activity. The Daily Caller filed its own report on this finding last night. Trump responded to the sensational allegations in six Truths. (Intro, and pages one, two, three, four, five.) In most of these Truths, Trump rehashed the AJC article. But in the last, he made this statement: <iframe src="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/111723318322334956/embed" class="truthsocial-embed" style="max-width: 100%; border: 0" width="600" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><script src="https://truthsocial.com/embed.js" async="async"></script> Worse revelations But the revelations did not stop there. An influencer named Marco Polo reviewed the motion in its entirety. In the course of his review, he discovered this invoice: Note the sixth itemized charge: Interview with DC/White House, 11/18/22, 8 hrs @$250, $2,000,00 Marco Polo published his own screencap of the invoice while quote-posting Greg Price’ post about the impropriety of the relationship. https://twitter.com/MarcoPolo501c3/status/1744505965326553356 Christine Laila at The Gateway Pundit shared the post and her own copy of that invoice, and one other invoice. Note the sixth charge: Travel to Athens, Conf. with White House Counsel; 5/23/22; 8 hours @$250; $2,000.00 Steve Bannon discussed all this today with Mike Davis of the Article III Project on his War Room podcast. https://rumble.com/embed/v43fum9/?pub=4teej Jim Hoft has a partial transcript here. Commenting on these two invoices, Mike Davis said: Wade is stupid enough to put in his billing, that’s publicly disclosed, that he met with the White House counsel related to President Trump’s prosecution. So Nathan Wade has two meetings with someone from the White House Counsel’s office, in May and November of 2022. He blocks out eight hours for each meeting. The indictment against Trump comes down in August. This, according to Davis, establishes clear coordination between the White House Counsel’s office and the Fulton County District Attorney’s office. Even if such coordination with a Federal Special Counsel is proper, coordinating with a county prosecuting attorney cannot be. Fox News Correspondent Jesse Watters covered the story late this morning. https://twitter.com/JesseBWatters/status/1744531747562258541 Analysis: coordination against Trump This goes directly to the investigation of Willis by the House Judiciary Committee, shortly after the indictment came down. Recall that she began her investigation of Trump in February of 2021. (And hired Mr. Wade in November of that year.) Only when the election season was in full swing did she move for the indictment. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Chairman of the Committee, had wondered officially about State-Federal coordination against Trump. Now he would appear to have evidence of what he suspected. In sum: the Fulton County District Attorney seeks to make a name for herself, take ideological revenge, or both. Accordingly, she begins an investigation of Trump and his associates for “election interference” in February of 2021. Note that her targets did nothing more serious than Stacey Abrams did – or, for that matter, Donna Curling. She sued the State after her favorite candidate lost a special election. And in contrast to Abrams, her claim makes sense. We see no District Attorney prosecuting either of these two election challengers. But then Ms. Willis puts her illicit (and married to someone else at the time) lover on the county payroll. And he, as it turns out, invoices the State for expenses relating to coordinating with the White House! Mike Davis said Wade acted stupidly. CNAV says, on the contrary, that he acted brazenly. The “brass” that the Biden White House and its allies have shown, should stun any observer. Trump should file his own motion, like Roman’s, apart from Presidential immunity. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/09/foundation/constitution/trump-georgia-case-connects-biden-admin/ The Roman Motion: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24352568/roman-motion-to-dimiss-010824.pdf Trump’s response: https://truthsocial.com/users/realDonaldTrump/statuses/111723374434310844 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111723348798852142 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111723325764679792 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111723323567845398 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111723320408461664 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111723318322334956 Invoice 14: https://cnav.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Wade-Invoice-14-screencap.jpeg Invoice 8: https://cnav.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Wade-Invoice-8-screencap.jpeg Marco Polo’s post: https://twitter.com/MarcoPolo501c3/status/1744505965326553356 Steve Bannon’s War Room clip, and Jim Hoft’s transcript: https://rumble.com/v4616q0-mike-davis-obliterates-fani-willis-and-buffoon-lover-boy-for-exposing-biden.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/update-fani-willis-buffoon-lover-boy-met-white/ Jesse Watters’ post: https://twitter.com/JesseBWatters/status/1744531747562258541 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

War on the next generation By Terry A. Hurlbut CNAV has said before that population has become a theater of war. The United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and other elite-controlled organizations repeatedly say this Earth is not big enough for all the people on it. Accordingly, they – or some agent(s) acting on their behalf – are engineering a population collapse. In contrast, Elon Musk warns that a population collapse would be a problem, and threatens to become one. And our own Linda Goudsmit, who has been fighting this war for years, has a new book preparing for release. People like Goudsmit and Musk are afraid for the next generation. The elites are afraid of the next generation. Strategies of the war on the next generation Linda Goudsmit has made a career of discussing one strategy in the elite war of extinction of everyone but themselves. These elites seek to influence all adults to think and behave like children, with a narrow timespan – what’s happening now. So they gave us a virus they could convince everyone would drop people like flies. Then they gave us a vaccine that dropped our elders like flies – and many people of childbearing or child-siring age as well. Those this preparation did not kill, it sterilized. In the meantime these medical maniacs warn of a need for “meat wagons” that didn’t roll the last time. And if they roll this time, they’ll roll for a cause of their own making. But much more than this concerns Goudsmit, as it should. The elites have corrupted the education establishment in a way that should make Horace Mann and John Dewey green with envy. The dumbing-down of “free public schools” was bad enough. Worse is the introduction of the concept “gender fluidity” to make parents willingly send their children to the Frankenstein’s clinics our hospitals have become. Surgical mutilation and hormonal poisoning are now the prescription of the day. This can have only one object: sterilization of all but the children of the elite. Would James G. Blaine turn green with envy? Or would the unintended consequences of his campaign horrify him and make him run to the nearest not-necessarily-Catholic pastor, screaming, “Bless me, Minister, for I have sinned!”? We might never know. Don’t believe this promise…! Incredibly, the medical profession preens with reports like this one – of “successful” uterine transplants into women lacking a uterus. Now the LGBTQIA+ lobby demands trials with biological males as well as genetic females. But the fine print tells us this cannot work at scale. More than 42 [uterine transplant] procedures have now been performed globally, and at least 12 live births have been reported. A ratio of two live births for every seven uterine transplants is not promising. Nor should anyone expect even that degree of success in biological males. Being male or female involves more than gross anatomy; one must also consider endocrine function. (Endocrine derives from two Greek words meaning to judge the internal environment.) And, of course, the production of eggs and seed. In any case, this is a distraction. Sterilization is the object. Any promises of producing fertile transgender subjects, are utterly empty. Perhaps some particular modern Doctor Frankenstein might actually believe (s)he can succeed at this aim. But the donors know better. They appeal to the vanity of these Doctors Frankenstein as well as the twisted hopes of millions of psychologically child-abused subjects who present with LGBTQIA+ psychiatric syndromes. (And those of the occasional parent who wanted a child of a different gender and will stop at nothing to turn the child they have into the child they wanted.) And they are lying. These donors want the planet to themselves, and are holding out a promise they never intend to fulfill. This also shows that Marcus Porcius Festus was accusing the wrong person of going crazy with book-learning. (Acts 26:24.) Dangerous fanaticism Recently an episode took place in New Hampshire that shows how a twisted sense of justice has driven more than a few legislators over the edge. House Bill 619 will forbid doctors to mutilate surgically or poison hormonally any minor child. It will also forbid them to refer such child to an out-of-state doctor who would do the same. Republicans in the New Hampshire House of Representatives introduced this bill last year, only to see it die in committee. But they re-introduced the bill this year, as a “carry-forward.” This time, it passed the State House, 199-175, with nine abstentions and thirteen absences. (Four seats in this 400-person body are currently vacant.) Twenty other States have already passed such laws, according to US News and World Report. Incredibly, the debate on this bill centered on which set of doctors to believe. The contest was between Doctors Frankenstein maniacally eager to press forward, and their colleagues who said, “Moment mal!” The “wait-a-minute” sayers won out. Twelve Democrats and two independents joined all Republicans present to pass the bill, according to NH Journal. One Democrat (Rep. Jonah Wheeler of Peterborough) delivered a speech to announce his vote. Perhaps his vote swayed others, and it might even have been critical to success. (Had all fourteen voted Nay instead of Aye, the bill would have died.) But the rest of the Democratic Caucus behaved like deadly fanatics. He had to change seats! Mr. Wheeler, upon entering the anteroom, found several Democrats confronting him angrily. “An old-fashioned struggle session,” said one anonymous Republican. (This refers to a mass shaming common in Communist China.) Another Republican – Rep. Tom Mannion of Pelham – did speak for attribution: It was the bravest thing I’ve seen from a Democrat; it was powerful stuff.… When Jonah went to the anteroom, a bunch of Democrats were aggressively confronting him, saying he owed an apology to [transgender] members. He didn’t back down. I heard him say, “This is called ‘legislating.’” And they said he should go in the other room and hang out with Republicans if he wasn’t going to toe the line. Said Wheeler himself: I was told in the anteroom that I “didn’t belong.” I responded by saying that I was elected by my constituents and I have just as much a right to be here as anyone else. I did say this is legislating, and I have to give credit where credit is due: it was Rep. Michael O’Brien (D-Nashua) who came in and calmed everyone down. But the game didn’t end there. The Democratic Caucus Leader, Rep. Matt Wilhelm of Manchester, called a meeting of the caucus. Witnesses say it degenerated rapidly into the utterance, by members, of threats against Wheeler’s life. Several House Sergeants-at-arms, overhearing the threats, called the police. Elements of the State House Security Unit arrived, took information, and told Wheeler that some of his fellow members had threatened him. They did not elaborate. But then the Clerk of the House actually moved him to a back-row seat for the rest of the day. What can explain such fanatical devotion to depopulation? Does anyone actually believe that “aspiration,” when it runs contrary to anatomy or physiology, is an imperative that doctors (and laypeople) must respect at all costs? More likely, the elite has conditioned many people to believe that. Such conditioning vindicates Goudsmit’s theory – for if her theory were incorrect, such conditioning could never “take” nor hold. Other States making war on the next generation In contrast, Gov. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) vetoed a bill that would have had similar import, plus forbidding biological men to compete against biological women. Within days, reports surfaced that he has accepted $40,000 from children’s hospitals that allow such mutilating and poisonous procedures. (If hospitals can afford that kind of campaign donations, what must their “generous communities” think of that? Or: who among members of those communities are willing to finance this kind of activity, and why?) Likewise, the State of California now extends surgical mutilation and hormonal poisoning to illegal immigrants – to adults, anyway. Actually that runs counter to the Great Replacement – for they now offer to sterilize the very “replacements” that have come. Last month Florida’s teacher’s union sued the State to block a new law curtailing their discretion in speaking of their pupils using their “preferred” third-person singular pronouns. Notice how this debate happens only in America and other countries that speak English. That’s because English reintroduced the neuter gender after different conquering armies assigned different genders to certain classes of inanimate objects. When the Angles and Saxons declared the sea male, and the Danes declared it female, the common folk said, “Screw it! It’s an ‘it’!” Now they want to abolish gender, not only for inanimate objects, but also for humans and lower animals. Without recognition of biological gender, the next generation will not come to be. Conclusion All the above shows that a war is raging against the next generation, to make sure it never comes to be – at least, not a fertile one. Only the worst sort of misanthrope would want such an outcome. Recognizing the motive is the first step in plotting and mounting a counterattack. The second step is to outline changes in the law to rein in these Doctors Frankenstein. “Aspiration” must have a limit, and when someone “aspires” to change biological gender, then that someone has reached the limit. Therefore “affirmation” of “identified” or “aspired” gender is never appropriate. What is appropriate is finding out, and correcting, the bad influences that would lead anyone to so “aspire.” In turn this requires forbidding any lesson plans that treat any such “aspiration” as anything more than a life-altering mistake. Laws like those now in force in Florida are a good start. But proper instruction in moral philosophy must become part of any high-school curriculum. That, in turn, requires setting a standard of value that follows logically from the premises that: 1. Our bodies have a design, and 2. That design comes from an Architect Who left us a Manual of Instructions to follow. We would do well to follow it. And – spoiler alert – that Manual does not allow anyone to arrogate to himself the title of Chief Executive Officer, or Chairman of any Board of Directors, for a human State to rule the world. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/08/editorial/talk/next-generation-war/ “Scientific” articles treating the idea of equipping biological males with female reproductive organs: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492192/ https://www.futurity.org/transgender-women-uterus-transplant-2536292-2/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-transgender-woman-could-get-pregnant/ HB 619: https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB619/2023 https://legiscan.com/NH/bill/HB619/2024 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Washington Post might fail completely By Terry A. Hurlbut The Washington Post, slightly more than 145 years old, might be ready to die. Not even one of the left’s richest men can save this paper now, it seems. The Post has come back from bankruptcy before – but times are different today. Washington, D.C.’s premier broadsheet has offended half the country – and can’t rely on the other half to carry it. Latest crazy doings at The Washington Post Readers will remember that The Washington Post actually excused, even defended, the atrocities with which the Fourth Arab-Israeli War began. They took down this cartoon depicting the hypocrisy of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Arabic Harakah al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah, abbreviated HAMAS). https://twitter.com/Ramireztoons/status/1723425345037009363 They then ran a report on people who “have lost their jobs, or faced criticism or backlash, for their criticism of Israel.” https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1712549470003442029 But the Post neglected to report that this criticism extended to supporting HAMAS and blaming Israel for the war. Fox News pointed this out. Their worst gaffe was accusing the Israeli Defense Forces of firing on a Doctors Without Borders (French Médecins sans frontières, abbreviated MSF) evacuating premature babies from an unidentified hospital. Compare this original version (via the Wayback Machine) to the corrected version. Any news organ can make a mistake – but The Washington Post never admitted to the mistake. On or about January 3, 2024, the Post accused The Gateway Pundit of lying about election fraud in Michigan during the Election of 2020. The report (through Microsoft Start) accused Jim Hoft’s organ of making this allegation without proof. Hoft, yesterday, served up that proof, which the Post’s Sarah Ellison failed to mention. He cited the original report (from August 23, 2023) that had its basis in a report from a Michigan State Police officer. (See also here.) Losing subscribers, engagement and money More recently came a report that the Post is in serious – perhaps terminal – financial straits. In fact it has been in trouble since August of 2022, according to The New York Times and Fox News. After Donald Trump left the White House, the Post lost half a million subscribers in the ensuing two years. Other news organs expressed shock that the paper would lose money, after Jeff Bezos returned it to profitability in 2016. Last month 750 members of its in-house guild went on strike, according to Politico. Writer Jack Shafer observed that all newspapers would eventually die. Politico had already noted that the paper was charging an astronomical sum – $700 a year – for home delivery. Politico blithely assumed that loyal readers would cover the paper’s costs. But now RedState reports that the Post will lose $100 million for 2023 – as it predicted last summer. The paper also lost half its online engagement, from 139 million visitors per month to 60 million. Josh Kraushaar, editor-in-chief of Jewish Insider, dropped this thread with quotes from Puck News: https://twitter.com/JoshKraushaar/status/1743429303604547770 https://twitter.com/JoshKraushaar/status/1743429610426237268 Mike LaChance at The Gateway Pundit linked to the RedState report and also gathered several other pithy X posts: https://twitter.com/EdMorrissey/status/1743631562887799236 https://twitter.com/Me3535429145181/status/1743637602517864904 https://twitter.com/RealLillyWilson/status/1743634370127171699 In reply to Lilly Wilson’s post, another user offered this criticism of Woodward and Bernstein (see below): https://twitter.com/freetotem/status/1743760048151830534 History of the Post The Washington Post began on December 6, 1877 when Stilson Hutchins, Democrat and Southern sympathizer, founded it. The irony of the founding history of this paper is especially rich. Hutchins thoroughly imbibed the racism of the Democratic Party in those days and promoted it shamelessly throughout his tenure. But eventually he lost his mental faculties, and sold the paper in 1889. Though before he did, he bought out the capital city’s only Republican paper, The Republican National. The new owners, former Postmaster General Frank Hatton and former Rep. Beriah Wilkins (D-Ohio), actually commissioned a John Philip Sousa march to headline an essay contest. Anyone who listens to a United States Marine Band concert, or watches the Frank Sinatra movie The Manchurian Candidate, will surely recognize it. https://rumble.com/vnrd5z-u.s.-military-march-instrumental-washington-post-march.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 In 1893 the Post moved to the headquarters it would use until 1950. A year later, Hatton died, and Wilkins acquired Hatton’s share. The Washington Post is no stranger to “yellow journalism.” It even gave William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer a run for their money. For in 1898 it ran Clifford K. Berryman’s famous “Remember the Maine” cartoon. The McLean, Meyer and Graham eras In 1903, Wilkins died. Two years later his sons sold it to John Roll McLean, who owned The Cincinnati Enquirer. He ran the paper for eleven years, and when he died he put the paper into a trust. His son Edward “Ned” McLean broke the trust and ran the paper into the ground. (Some say McLean self-dealt with company funds to support his lavish lifestyle.) But soon after he gained control, he ran a story – the veracity of which CNAV cannot independently verify – of an interracial sex crime. That started the 1919 Washington Race Riots. The Washington Post would finally acknowledge its role in that affair a century later. In 1929, Eugene Meyer offered McLean $5 million for the Post. McLean refused. But four years later, The Washington Post was bankrupt. Meyer bought the paper at auction for $825,000. Only under his tenure has The Washington Post been anything other than a Democratic rag. Meyer restored the paper to health, but in 1946 he received an appointment to head the World Bank. So he turned the paper over to his son-in-law, Philip Graham. The Grahams returned the Post to the Democratic fold. Katherine Graham, Meyer’s daughter, was a personal friend of Saul (Rules for Radicals) Alinsky, and paid tribute to him in the pages of the Post. The Washington Post Company and its successor Jeff Bezos The Washington Post Company went public in 1971 at the height of the Pentagon Papers affair. Ben Bradlee, Executive Editor since 1968, gave carte blanche to the famous reporting duo, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The wrecking of Richard M. Nixon’s career culminated a campaign of Communist sympathy that began with the paper’s initial opposition to the investigation by Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc.) and with Katherine Graham’s repeatedly having British spy Donald Maclean as a guest. Indeed The Washington Post gained a new nickname: Pravda on the Potomac. The Post has a mixed record on Operation Enduring Freedom, the Bush (Junior) administration’s adventure in Iraq. Why the Post wrote 27 editorials in support of a hypothetical invasion of Iraq, no one will say. In 2013, Jeff Bezos bought the Post for $250 million. He left behind the WaPo company’s other assets, including Kaplan Test Prep and Admissions. That company took the name Graham Holdings afterward. Under Bezos’ leadership, the Post has become an exclusively liberal paper. In 2017 it put on its masthead what had been an unofficial motto: Democracy dies in darkness. But the Bezos history also includes the Nick Sandmann controversy and lawsuit. And, of course, shadings of fact about everything from the January 6 event to the Fourth Arab-Israeli War. Now, subscribers and online visitors seem to be abandoning the paper. Analysis Anyone would think The Washington Post would have learned from its earlier history. But it seems rather to follow the law of inertia. A body in motion remains in motion, along the same vector (course and speed), until compelled to change. From misrepresenting the destruction of USS Maine ACR-1 to apparently helping America get into the Second Iraq War; from the 1919 Washington Race Riots to the Fourth Arab-Israeli War; the observation must remain the same. The Post did not learn from its earlier institutional mistakes. Or if it did, it learned exactly the wrong lesson. Mike LaChance closed his article with this observation: People are tired of their same old leftist spin on everything. In the internet age, there are so many more interesting choices for media. The Washington Post is a dinosaur. And so it is, not only in form (how many people read print editions anymore?) but also in substance. In fact the form criticism isn’t entirely just; The Epoch Times publishes a weekly print edition and does quite well. But the substance criticism remains. Except perhaps during the Meyer years, The Washington Post never seems to have learned the first rule of journalism: never lie to your readers. Julius Caesar, inventor of the first Western newspaper (Acta Diurna Senatus Romani), could have told the current editorial board. Sadly, they might not have listened. Even now, they’ll make excuses – and the American people are as tired of those as they are of the lies. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/07/editorial/talk/washington-post-fail-completely/ The Ramirez cartoon: https://twitter.com/Ramireztoons/status/1723425345037009363 Story about criticism of Israel costing people their jobs: https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1712549470003442029 Two versions of the Doctors Without Borders story: https://web.archive.org/web/20231119234312/https:/www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/19/gaza-babies-shifa-hospital-who/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/19/gaza-babies-shifa-hospital-who/ Josh Kraushaar’s thread: https://twitter.com/JoshKraushaar/status/1743429303604547770 https://twitter.com/JoshKraushaar/status/1743429610426237268 Other criticisms of the Post: https://twitter.com/EdMorrissey/status/1743631562887799236 https://twitter.com/Me3535429145181/status/1743637602517864904 https://twitter.com/RealLillyWilson/status/1743634370127171699 https://twitter.com/freetotem/status/1743760048151830534 Video: the Washington Post March (United States Marine Band): https://rumble.com/vnrd5z-u.s.-military-march-instrumental-washington-post-march.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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

What can a President do? By Terry A. Hurlbut Today, of course, is the third anniversary of an event that currently divides America between critics and worshipers of government. In fact it was a false-flag pseudo-operation to excuse persecuting half the country, in the eyes of the other half. Last night the installed President made a speech at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, to “commemorate” that event. He sounded many of the same themes he sounded on September 2, 2022. Of the particular content of last night’s speech, the less said the better. What does need saying is what the Constitution lets a President do, for the edification of those who constantly cry out to a President to “do something” about a dire situation. Powers and duties of a President Article II of the Constitution sets forth the powers and duties of a President of the United States. Article IV sets forth the duties of the federal government to the States. No other part of the Constitution treats Presidential powers and duties. Amendment XII treats Presidential elections in detail, and Amendments XX and XXV treat Presidential regular and emergency secession, respectively. Amendment XXII sets a limit on Presidential terms of service. Further, Amendments XIV, XXIII and XXIV indirectly treat Presidential elections. But no other Amendment, or section of an Amendment, specifically begins, “The President shall have power…” Specific statements The specific enumerated powers and duties of a President are these: • Commander-in-chief of the armed forces (and of any State militia called into federal service). But, only Congress may declare war or call up the militia. • “Require” written reports from Cabinet members. • Grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, except in cases of impeachment. • Make treaties, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators “present.” • Nominate and, with Senate approval, appoint: ◦ Ambassadors, other “public ministers,” and consuls, ◦ Judges of the Supreme Court, and ◦ Any other officer whose appointment is established either in the Constitution or by law. (A Cabinet officer may appoint his inferior directly, if Congress grants him that authority.) • Make recess appointments. • Summon Congress into emergency session. • Adjourn Congress on his own authority if the two chambers cannot agree on adjournment. • Receive foreign diplomats. • “Take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” • “Commission all … Officers of the United States.” Federal duties to the States The Article IV duties are the most controversial today, given the inattention to many of them by this President. Section Two has two clauses relevant today: • The Privileges and Immunities Clause, which predates Amendment XIV. Amendment XIV Section 1 reinforces Article IV Section 2 Clause 1; it does not supersede it. • The Extradition Clause. Section 2 had a third clause providing for the extradition of runaway slaves. Amendment XIII, of course, supersedes that. Section 4 sets forth a duty of the federal government to “guarantee to every State in this union a republican form of government.” In addition the federal government must protect each State from: • Invasion of any kind, and: • Domestic violence, if the State legislature (or its governor if the legislature cannot convene) asks for such intervention. The duties of a President to the States derive from Article IV Section 4. Therefore a President may not send troops into an American city (other than in a non-State territory) whenever he pleases. A President may so act only to: • Eject a foreign invasion force, however constituted, or: • Quell or prevent riots, if the legislature (or the governor if the legislature cannot convene) so requests. Note that the word emergency never appears in the Constitution. The most it contains are definitions, like “in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” When a President exceeds his authority Custom – and sloppy thinking – have, sometimes, extended the powers of the President beyond those which the Constitution enumerates. The existence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency has given many the impression that a President may indeed send troops to American cities (within States) whenever he pleases. Furthermore, legacy media have often criticized a President for failure to act, even when no State legislature or government has authorized him to act. The landfall of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 is a case in point. When George W. Bush did not send federal troops or other first responders at once, entertainer Kanye West famously said, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” In fact, Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D-La.) didn’t ask until several days after the event. Not only that, but she actively hampered the federal response when it came. She did not seek re-election when her term ended. More to the point: never once did Louisiana’s legislature pass any joint resolution asking for federal aid. A federal response to a great storm, flood, or other such event, might find justification in the Domestic Violence clause. Looting and rioting are almost predictable consequences of a disaster that hampers, or severely strains, local police and other response. But a sloppy custom has arisen that a governormay “declare an emergency” without even trying to convene the legislature. Yet George W. Bush came in for criticism, essentially for staying within the limits of Presidential authority. Applicability to recent events President Donald J. Trump has had many accuse him of acting, or wishing he could act, like a dictator. Specifically that would mean exceeding his lawful authority in domestic-violence contexts. Yet never once did he send troops into American cities to quell riots during the “Long Hot Summer of 2020.” He didn’t send them because neither governor nor legislature in the States involved, asked. (Federal buildings are on federal land by definition, so any protection of those assets would be within Presidential authority. See Article I Section 8 Clause 17b.) The Congress shall have power … To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, … over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings. “Federal buildings” house federal courts, which the Constitution permits. (Article III.) But other than that, the Legislatures and Governors of Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, and Wisconsin never “applied” for “protection … against domestic violence.” Riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin drew a militia response, including some militia effectives from out-of-State. One such effective, Kyle Rittenhouse, faced prosecution after he killed two rioters in self-defense. (A jury eventually acquitted him, when testimony established that he did not “start the fight.”) Domestic violence is often the perfect excuse for dictators to “dictate.” The Framers understood that, and therefore enjoined the federal government from acting against it except whenever a legislature or governor asks. No President can do that which the government itself may not. Dereliction of Presidential duty on the other side On the Democratic side, we see dereliction of Presidential duty. Part of the problem is that the Constitution does not define invasion. It says a State may “engage in war [if] actually invaded,” and obligates the federal government to protect against “invasion.” But it never says what constitutes an invasion. The American Heritage Dictionary defines invasion thus: 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. 2. The entry into bodily tissue and subsequent proliferation of an injurious entity, such as a pathogen or tumor. 3. An intrusion or encroachment. 4. In phytogeography, the phenomenon of the movement of plants from an area of one character into one of a different character, and their colonization in the latter. 5. The act of invading a country or territory as an enemy; hostile entrance or intrusion. 6. A harmful incursion of any kind; an onset or attack, as of disease. 7. Infringement by intrusion; encroachment by entering into or taking away what belongs to another: as, an invasion of one's retirement or rights. 8. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass. 9. A warlike or hostile entrance into the possessions or domains of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Likewise it defines the verb to invade thus: 1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage. 2. To enter as if by invading; overrun or crowd. 3. To enter and proliferate in bodily tissue, as a pathogen. By those definitions, when migrants swarm into a country without doing its officers any of the courtesies one expects of an invited guest, that constitutes invasion. An invasion does not require an “armed force.” It does not even require such a force, if present, to wear a uniform. Given the mendicancy of these migrants, and their desire for handouts, their entry constitutes an “infringement by intrusion.” But not only has President Biden failed to “protect against invasion,” but he is actively forbidding and otherwise hampering the efforts of some States to repel this invasion. He has sued the State of Texas to enjoin it: • From maintaining a riparian barrier to entry along the Rio Grande, and • To allow federal agents to degrade a physical barrier which the State has erected along riverfront property lines – with the consent of the landowners. And now that Texas’ legislature has authorized all law-enforcement officers to arrest these migrants, the federal government threatens to sue to enjoin them from that as well. A former President responds President Trump held President Biden’s Valley Forge speech up to ridicule, according to Cassandra McDonald at The Gateway Pundit. https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1743378973671710877 https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1743460475172515922 https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1743405503030624762 He would do better to point out that he never exceeded his lawful authority. Biden, on the other hand, has abused his discretion as to his authority. (Also that “democracy” is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. And now “democracy” would appear to be two wolves stopping the lamb from voting, then voting on what’s for dinner.) If the American people are to remain free, they must insist that their President respect the limits of his authority – and also exercise his duty and responsibility. Biden has exceeded the one and failed at the other; Trump has done neither. The choice for voters is therefore crystal clear. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/06/foundation/constitution/president-do/ The Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ Embeds of Biden’s speech and of Trump’s response: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1743378973671710877 https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1743460475172515922 https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1743405503030624762 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Epstein documents – and the real story By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday afternoon, the second tranche of documents came out in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. These consists of exhibits, including trial transcripts, describing the activities and associations of Jeffrey Epstein. But although the court released the second tranche, already it has ordered striking and refiling of five documents from the first. The refiled documents display redactions of contact and other “personally identifiable information.” But all this could be a distraction – because the real story is that Jeffrey Epstein was never the prime mover. Someone else was, and that someone ordered his death. The latest Epstein tranche To review, Virginia Roberts Giuffre sued Ghislaine Maxwell, girlfriend and chief procuress for Jeffrey Epstein, in 2015. She sued after the sex offender and purveyor to the powerful all but skated on his activities. These involved minor girls transported for immoral purposes, in violation of the Mann Act. But no one ever charged him with this, and in fact he received “kid gloves” treatment in his first criminal case. Accordingly, several of his victims, including Giuffre, sued to recover at least some damages. CourtListener.com is still having difficulty processing all the requests for information. This is adversely affecting some of their services. (For example, a RECAP Archive search is not always available; attempts to do so sometimes produce a technical-difficulty page.) But CNAV has docket page, complaint, motion-to-unseal, order, and notice-of-documents links. The following documents appear in the case docket, after the first tranche (Document 1320): 1321: letter asking for unsealing of Document 1026-3, which remains under seal. 1322: notice and refiling of Attachment 40 from Document 1320. 1323: letter from Alan Dershowitz’ attorney also asking to unseal Doc. 1026-3. 1324: order to strike Attachments 13, 14, 15, 39, and 40 and refile them. 1325: notice for the latest tranche, and attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. (See also this article by Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit.) 1326: notice and refiling of Attachments 13, 14, 15 and 39. Latest reaction Yesterday afternoon, Christina Laila of The Gateway Pundit reported a spotting of former President Bill Clinton – in Mexico. The Mayor of San Miguel de Allende (SAAHN mih-GELL deh ah-YEN-day) saluted him in this X post. https://twitter.com/MauricioTrejoP/status/1742559306401116374 Shortly after the release of Document 1325, Ms. Laila reported some fresh insights. From her review, she says: • A “Jane Doe 3,” underage, complained that Epstein trafficked her to “prominent American politicians.” He did this for blackmail purposes and to “ingratiate himself” to advance his other business interests. • The second set contained more damaging information against HRH Prince Andrew Duke of York. • Epstein and Maxwell forced another minor teen to recruit for them. https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743051558433223150 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743059464909898025 In addition, Cullen Linebarger revealed that Bill Clinton once “stormed” into the offices of Vanity Fair to demand their silence. (See Attachment 2.) This, according to The Daily Mail. I have reports here about you, your husband – I have everything under the sun that was sent to me by people who want to be helpful. Bill Clinton, to Vicky Ward, journalist for Vanity Fair But Anthony Scott produced the strangest report of all. He quotes Megyn Kelly as saying the world would hear from Jeffrey Epstein again. We’re not done with Jeffrey Epstein. I can tell you that for a fact. Can’t tell you how I know, but I can tell you for a fact…. We’re gonna hear a lot more about Jeffrey Epstein in the coming year… and you may even be hearing from him directly. More on that, as I’m allowed to tell it. Megyn Kelly https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1743085644065185828 https://twitter.com/braydimonika/status/1743089386009317664 https://twitter.com/TheCalvinCooli1/status/1743087770527059982 Does that mean a voice recording of Epstein giving a deposition now exists, waiting for someone to find it? Or did the warden of the New York Metropolitan Correction Center, on orders from Attorney General Barr, have someone murder a look-alike inmate, substitute him for Epstein in his cell, and secretly remove Epstein to a Deep Underground Military Bunker or something of that kind? Stay tuned! A break-in at an Epstein fixer’s office At 11:20 a.m. EST, Christine Laila made another report, this one quoting Los Angeles magazine. Sitrick and Company handles “crisis public relations” for many elite clients, Jeffrey Epstein among them. In short, they are “fixers,” as the magazine’s headline calls them. A team of professional burglars – or special intelligence operatives – broke into the offices of Sitrick and Company, and stole several client and server computers. (In information parlance, a server stores information for an entire office suite. A client sits on a user’s desk and handles actual creation of letters, presentations, and other documents.) The problem: this break-in occurred hours before the release of Document 1320 and its forty attachments. Michael Sitrick, head of the firm, gave an interview to the magazine. He cagily denied that the break-in was anything but coincidental. Then, perhaps more to assure his firm’s clients than for any other purpose, he said: His San Vicente Boulevard offices had no information on Jeffrey Epstein, nor “any compromising information about any of his clients.” The office building had several other business offices, all of which also suffered breaking-and-entering and theft that night. Every lost computer carried protection with passwords and two-factor authentication. (Anyone who has had to have an online firm text him an access code in addition to requiring his password, knows what two-factor authentication is.) The firm also has encrypted all files. The Fleming Test Any regular reader will expect this statement: that account doesn’t pass the Fleming Test. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and the third time it’s enemy action. Ian Fleming Several points will suffice: 1. Michael Sitrick is a “fixer.” So he’s had plenty of practice in delivering comforting “spin.” As Bill O’Reilly (or the YouTube influencer Diktor van Doomcock) would say: treat anything Michael Sitrick says as an unverified personal defense, and take it with a grain of salt. 2. We have only his word that his office had “no information on Jeffrey Epstein.” 3. Furthermore, we have only his word that neighboring offices in the building also suffered burglaries. The Los Angeles Police Department won’t say. And even if anyone else did suffer a burglary: if the burglars are who CNAV suspects they are, they would certainly burglarize other offices – as cover. 4. Any off-the-shelf computer system has a “back door.” Sitrick didn’t even say anything about having “white-boxed” his information systems (that is, built his own servers). And again: if the thieves are who CNAV suspects they are, don’t assume any information system is safe from them. 5. This is a scene straight out of a Hollywood movie. The Purveyor to the Powerful dies nastily in a prison cell – in a prison one step below Maximum Security. (And with malfunctioning surveillance cameras, to boot.) Every time a court releases sensitive records about him or his clients, something untoward happens. Add to it: this break-in recalls the Watergate break-in, or the break-in at the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. The real conspiracy So who are the real conspirators, who probably murdered Jeffrey Epstein, covered up his manner of death, had him arrested to begin with, and just possibly broke into the offices of the premier Hollywood “fixer” and made off with physical servers? (And unauthorized access to data might not even be the objective. Even if it is, the thieves would have a secondary objective: malicious destruction of data. This is a real 18 U.S.C. § 1512 case.) Many influencers, like “Jeremy at The Quartering,” suspect the Bill Clinton machine, or perhaps His Majesty’s Secret Service. But remember: Michael Cernovich, who fought so long for the unsealing, knows that Epstein was an FBI asset. https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1742768924213854519 He actually is an asset of something bigger than the FBI, because now it includes the FBI. (Maybe it always did.) It’s also bigger than Bill Clinton. It is an interlocking elite bent on capturing all of humanity into one State to rule the world. And like Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein was a tool. He “got dirt” on the enemies of the One-world State – and what he couldn’t find, he created. The Oldest Profession has always been a blackmail factory, and that goes double when the “professionals” are underage. Then when he became a liability, the One-world State gave orders for his summary execution. Josef Stalin did the same to his rival, Leon Trotsky. Not that the two didn’t deserve each other – but still. And…? The most important lesson of the Epstein Files isn’t the incrimination of Bill Clinton, or the exoneration of Donald Trump. It is the reaction to their release. Possibly the most important news to break in the last twenty-four hours was the break-in and burglary at the offices of Sitrick and Company. Or, it was: at time of preparation, Judge Loretta Peska has released Document 1328 – the third tranche – with forty-four attachments. The influencer Techno-Fog revealed that this third tranche reveals the removal of computers from Epstein’s mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, before the FBI could search it. https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743352207758487985 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743355738972438936 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743358636921876862 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743364779375235322 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743366748085059620 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743373134181351882 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743373986958909791 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743384395367456849 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743393663856615773 This last thread drops several more celebrated names. Donald Trump curiously turns up as having come to Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion and taken meals, not with honored guests, but with household staff. That’s the only mention he bears. More seriously, Virginia Roberts Giuffre alleges that Epstein trafficked her to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. (He was “former” even before that encounter.) All of which to say: these revelations are “small potatoes.” Furthermore, redactions appear everywhere, and we don’t know how important the blacked-out names might be. Again, the removal of the computers is the important part. Someone, even then, was protecting highly sensitive information, and no doubt still is. (Michael Cernovich mentioned a missing house safe.) The Donald Trump mentions are red herrings. Perhaps the One-world State knew even then that Trump would be a threat to them. As ever, stay tuned. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/05/news/epstein-documents-real-story/ Giuffre v. Maxwell docket page: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/giuffre-v-maxwell/ Mexican Mayor’s post: https://twitter.com/MauricioTrejoP/status/1742559306401116374 Techno-Fog’s posts about minors forced to recruit other minors: https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743051558433223150 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743059464909898025 Quotes and comments about Megyn Kelly’s prediction: https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1743085644065185828 https://twitter.com/braydimonika/status/1743089386009317664 https://twitter.com/TheCalvinCooli1/status/1743087770527059982 Mike Cernovich’s long-form post: https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1742768924213854519 Techno-Fog’s thread today: https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743352207758487985 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743355738972438936 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743358636921876862 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743364779375235322 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743366748085059620 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743373134181351882 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743373986958909791 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743384395367456849 https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1743393663856615773 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Epstein List released By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday a federal judge in New York unsealed many court documents in a case against an associate of Jeffrey Epstein. That associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, is in prison herself, but the case has gone on for eight years. Jeffrey Epstein, of course, is notorious for sexually abusing many women, most of them underage, and trafficking these women to high-profile male clients that read like a Who’s Who in politics, geopolitics, and the law. (And to this day no one believes that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself in his prison cell.) The release of that list promises to change many political – and geopolitical – games. Previous history of Jeffrey Epstein Jeffrey Epstein was in and out of court for the last eighteen years of his life, beginning in 2005. In that year the mother of a minor girl made the first of many complaints against him. The details of these complaints are not important. What is important is that Epstein received special treatment that made his “confinement” strictly pro forma. But beginning in 2008, many, many women filed lawsuits against Epstein, and against Ghislaine Maxwell. That includes the case at issue today: Giuffre v. Maxwell, 1:15-cv-07433, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; The Hon. Loretta A. Preska presiding. CourtListener has this docket page on that case. (The reason for the near-impossibility of visiting CourtListener’s home page at this time will become apparent later.) Virginia Giuffre, then known as Virginia Roberts, was one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, according to her twelve-page complaint. Giuffre sued in the federal courts to protect her rights, which authorities ignored as part of Epstein’s special treatment. That treatment included a Non-Prosecution Agreement that meant she would not have her own day in court. Giuffre sued Epstein initially – and then sued Maxwell after the latter undertook to “fix” Giuffre with a campaign of lies. The entire case proceeded under seal, it seems, and in 2017 Giuffre reached a settlement, also under seal. But the matter didn’t end there. Motion to intervene and unseal Michael Cernovich, independent investigator and journalist, moved in January 2017 to intervene in the case, and unseal its files. Cernovich explained his involvement in a long-form post on X. (Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit alerted his readers to the post.) https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1742768924213854519 Following that post, Cernovich left this post embedding part of an interview he did with Candace Owens. https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1742773663165038923 Note that Cernovich charges that Jeffrey Epstein was an FBI asset. Cernovich also asked, after Epstein’s 2019 arrest, several pointed questions about failure to prosecute Epstein under the Mann Act. Whether Cernovich had read the complaint and knew about the Non-Prosecution Agreement, is not clear. On August 10, 2019, of course, authorities “found” Jeffrey Epstein dead in his cell. Suspicion has centered largely on former President Bill Clinton, because: • Many people knew or suspected Bill Clinton of visiting one of Epstein’s two private islands as far back as 2016. Furthermore he made those visits without his Secret Service detail. • “The Clinton Body Count” is proverbial. Former CNAV contributor Ariel Natan Pasko dropped this dark hint about anti-Semites citing Jeffrey Epstein as typical of Jews. This, of course, was twelve days after Epstein’s arrest. The next day, Darrell L. Castle commented on the implications of the Epstein case for American legal and judicial corruption. The day after Jeffrey Epstein died, Linda Goudsmit became one of the first to suggest that he did not kill himself. Two weeks later, Darrell Castle was sure of it. From 2019 to the present As Ghislaine Maxwell now prepared to stand criminal trial, rumors began spreading about just who, in addition to the Clintons, maintained an association with Jeffrey Epstein. Media attention focused on Bill Clinton, but also centered on HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York. (Ghislaine Maxwell later would say she felt sorry for the Duke.) Melinda Gates accused Epstein of helping break up her marriage to Bill Gates. His private islands went up for sale for $125 million. A jury ultimately convicted Maxwell on five of six criminal counts. The court sentenced her to 20 years – after the prosecution asked for 30 years. Authorities also placed her on suicide watch. A year later, her former lawyers sued her to recover $878,000 in unpaid legal fees. But the taint of Jeffrey Epstein seems spread far and wide. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, one of three judges involved in the Mar-A-Lago Raid, once represented one of Epstein’s “Lolita Express” pilots. A former Epstein business associate, Steven Hoffenberg, turned up dead in his home in August of 2022. Former victims have sued Deutsche Bank and J. P. Morgan Chase for having profited from Epstein’s trafficking activities. Jeffrey Epstein also had apparent connections to Les Wexner, founder of Victoria’s Secret. Wexner’s foundation recently severed ties with the Harvard Kennedy School over unpunished harassment of Jewish students at Harvard. Alan Dershowitz apparently represented Epstein. Virginia Giuffre initially accused him of abusing her – but dropped that charge fourteen months ago. Release of the Jeffrey Epstein list That last is important today because Alan Dershowitz appears on flight manifests on flights to and from one of Epstein’s private islands. Today Dershowitz repeats his denial of any involvement with Epstein’s nefarious activities. Judge Preska issued an order on December 18, 2023, setting forth her intention to unseal documents in the Giuffre case. Upon the release of that order, the new lawyer for a “Doe 107” sent a letter to the judge asking for more time to keep his client’s name out of public mention. The judge granted the extension of time, leading to widespread speculation that she had canceled the unsealing. The grant read as follows: Doe 107's request for a 30-day extension is approved. Doe 107 shall, by January 22, 2024, submit to the Court for in camera review an affidavit (1) supporting her assertion that she faces a risk of physical harm in her country of residence and (2) providing detail concerning the hate mail she has received. Doe 107's counsel may also provide by this date any additional factual support for Doe 107's contention that unsealing the relevant records would put her at risk of physical harm. But the judge did not hold up the release of documents unrelated to Doe 107 – or Does 105 and 110. (Doe 110 also asked for special consideration.) Yesterday she issued this order. (See also this article from Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit.) List of links Pursuant to that order, she released forty documents, as Attachments to Docket Entry 1320. (See also this article by Christina Laila at The Gateway Pundit.) Almost immediately thereafter, so many people sought downloads of those documents, that CourtListener’s servers crashed. Even today, CourtListener’s home page will not load, not for any browser. But any other page will load. Herewith a list of forty-one direct links to the released documents. (The first link is to a cover letter explaining the “rolling release” process.) The Gateway Pundit managed to download thirty-seven of them before their connection became hopeless. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.1_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.2_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.3_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.4_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.5_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.6_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.7_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.8_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.9_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.10_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.11_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.12_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.13_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.14_4.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.15_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.16_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.17_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.18_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.19_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.20_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.21_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.22_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.23_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.24_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.25_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.26_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.27_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.28_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.29_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.30_4.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.31_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.32_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.33_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.34_5.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.35_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.36_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.37_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.38_4.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.39_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.40_2.pdf Today lawyers for The Miami Herald sent another letter to Judge Preska, asking for unsealing of another document. This involves Document 1026, Attachment 3 (Exhibit C). To anyone asking why CNAV did not mention any of this activity earlier, CNAV offers this disclaimer. CNAV has watched as judges have, in the past, ordered release of information – then canceled it. When the December 18 order came down, CNAV decided we would believe it when we saw it. Now we see it. Notably, CourtListener is still having trouble processing requests for information on its home page and even from some “push-buttons.” CNAV therefore urges caution and patience in trying to read or download these files. Various insights on the Jeffrey Epstein list The Gateway Pundit has a plethora of reports on the release of the Jeffrey Epstein list. In chronological order: • Sarah Kellen, once a personal assistant to Epstein, might have additional evidence she could use to bargain for early release. • The Duke of York is definitely involved! Attachment 26 describes some very un-princely behavior by The Duke. • Donald J. Trump is not involved in nefarious activity. One witness cleared him completely, along with Alan Dershowitz (see above) and George Lucas. (Attachment 12.) Other reports reveal that Donald Trump ended his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein years before his notoriety. He knew what Epstein was – and did not like it. https://twitter.com/TheCharlesDowns/status/1742907056066118028 • At least one attachment reveals a “kissing game” Maxwell invented to condition underage girls to “pleasure” Epstein. • Bill Clinton was not only involved but had definite pedophile tastes. “He likes them young,” said Epstein, according to one witness. https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1742696660969586759 • NBC News sullied its own coverage of the release. They tried to defend Bill Clinton even in the face of the above revelation. • Thomas Pritzker, of the Pritzkers of Hyatt Hotels fame, was also a client. Jim Hoft captured two posts by Kanekoa the Great on this point: https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1742711108597911581 https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1742728607284494512 • Jeffrey Epstein would call Leonardo di Caprio, Bruce Willis, and other Hollywood celebrities. See Attachment 12. This may or may not be significant. No witness mentions having met any of those Hollywood types. https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/1742906750116802959 • Former FBI Director Louis Freeh might have tried to cover for Clinton. Other revelations In those documents, Virginia Giuffre revealed that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to at least one foreign President. https://twitter.com/patel_patriot/status/1742726419329798307 She did not name him, but could only describe him. In related news, Tucker Carlson, in today’s show, suggested that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered – and the Attorney General covered it up. That Attorney General would be none other than William Barr, who betrayed Donald Trump over the Election of 2020. This insight comes from Epstein’s brother Mark. https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1743044638125310124 Laura Loomer published another link to all 943 pages of documents, on Document Cloud. https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1742711465306398856 She has also teased out some other questionable associations. Among them: Tony Lyons, of Skyhorse Publishing – and a known associate of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1742939928307322977 She mentioned how quiet several Members of Congress, government officials, and foreign dignitaries have been lately. https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1742943209972506858 Analysis The documents Judge Preska released thus far do not constitute an entire “client list.” They tell us little that we didn’t know before – except that Donald Trump was not involved in nefarious activities. Alan Dershowitz’ involvement seems to be nothing more serious than representing Jeffrey Epstein. Though in 1997 he did plump for lowering the age of consent from 18 to 15. He said so in The Los Angeles Times, and people took notice. https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/1155949595324588032 In response, Dershowitz dropped this mini-thread: https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1155962389776351238 https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1155962393148579840 Of course, he wrote those posts nearly three years before Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In any event, he distinguished the constitutional case from the moral case. This release confirms Bill Clinton’s involvement, and that of the Duke of York. But Tucker Carlson’s interview with Mark Epstein suggests that someone else had a motive for murdering Jeffrey Epstein. In fact, if Epstein was a tool of the Deep State, the list of suspects goes beyond Clinton. And now it includes former Attorney General Bill Barr. Did Barr know of plans by Trump for a general crackdown on child sex traffickers and molesters? Would that explain his cooperation with a campaign to defeat Trump at all costs? In any event, the court has promised many more revelations. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/04/news/epstein-list-released/ Giuffre v. Maxwell: Docket page: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/giuffre-v-maxwell/ Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1.0_8.pdf Motion to intervene and unseal: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.550.0.pdf Order for unsealing: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1315.0_3.pdf Letter re Doe 107: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1315.0_3.pdf Memo endorsement: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1318.0_2.pdf Final order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1319.0.pdf Main document and attachments: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.1_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.2_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.3_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.4_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.5_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.6_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.7_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.8_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.9_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.10_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.11_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.12_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.13_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.14_4.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.15_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.16_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.17_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.18_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.19_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.20_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.21_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.22_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.23_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.24_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.25_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.26_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.27_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.28_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.29_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.30_4.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.31_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.32_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.33_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.34_5.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.35_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.36_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.37_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.38_4.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.39_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1320.40_2.pdf Gateway Pundit partial list of attachments: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/breaking-here-are-epstein-documents-released-tonight/ Mike Cernovich’s posts: https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1742768924213854519 https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1742773663165038923 Post about Trump banning Epstein from Mar-A-Lago in 1999: https://twitter.com/TheCharlesDowns/status/1742907056066118028 Post quoting Epstein: “Clinton likes them young” https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1742696660969586759 Posts about Thomas Pritzker’s involvement: https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1742711108597911581 https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1742728607284494512 Daily Express post about Epstein calling Hollywood celebs: https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/1742906750116802959 Post about Giuffre being trafficked to a foreign president: https://twitter.com/patel_patriot/status/1742726419329798307 Tucker Carlson’s interview with Mark Epstein: https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1743044638125310124 Laura Loomer’s posts: https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1742711465306398856 https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1742939928307322977 https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1742943209972506858 Post protesting Alan Dershowitz’ stance on age of consent, and Dershowitz’ response: https://twitter.com/RWPUSA/status/1155949595324588032 https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1155962389776351238 https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/1155962393148579840 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Claudine Gay departure in perspective By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday, as CNAV reported, Claudine Gay, the 33rd President of Harvard University, resigned. Today her resignation has provoked both cheers and jeers. The cheers one can understand, but the jeers reveal much about the character of those doing the jeering. Apparently being a member of a critical-theoretically favored group is more important than either academic integrity or consistent and non-selective application of university community discipline. Considering the poor work output in support of “diversity, equity and inclusion,” this should surprise no one. It stands as yet another reason to reevaluate either going to college, or to which colleges one might apply. Why did Claudine Gay resign? Claudine Gay became a target after she made a God-awful appearance before the House Education and Workforce Committee. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), incidentally the Chair of the House Republican Conference, asked a simple question of three university presidents: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate [your university’s] code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment? Recall Claudine Gay’s answer: It can be [violative], depending on the context. An answer she repeated, finally prompting an exasperated Rep. Stefanik to call on her to resign. Which, again, she did. But that is not why she resigned. The Harvard Corporation stood by her, despite her appearance before the Ed. Committee and despite other allegations against her. Bill Ackman of Pershing Square, who has started a Donors’ Revolution, knew it. https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1734394682413588949 https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1734401275142291640 But those other allegations ultimately brought her down. They were of plagiarism, the worst sin an academic or writer can commit – the theft of another person’s work. According to The Washington Free Beacon, over half her published work carries this taint. Even her doctoral dissertation carries the taint – though whether it started with her dissertation is an open question. (Probably it doesn’t. Plagiarism is a bad habit one usually acquires when one first receives composition assignments in middle or even elementary school.) Though no one at the Harvard Corporation wants to admit it, the embarrassment finally became too great. In her letter of resignation, she played the race card. Laura Loomer, who embedded it in photographs, was not impressed. https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1742260546118795546 Disclaimer CNAV has decided not to refer to or address Claudine Gay with the title of Doctor. In the late Seventies, a professor of economics at Yale University told your editor that Ivy League professors did not usually address one another as “Doctor.” “A kind of self-imposed snobbery,” he called it. But he went on to explain that, in the Ivy League, everyone was a “Doctor” of something – generally Philosophy. To avoid confusion, they reserved the title Doctor for Doctors of Medicine (or Osteopathy or Dental Surgery). Such at least was the custom then, and it seemed a good custom. But that’s not why Claudine Gay doesn’t rate that title. Quite simply, she stands accused of at least fifty instances of plagiarism during her career – beginning with her doctoral dissertation. And because she wrote and defended that dissertation at Harvard, her violation of academic integrity is doubly serious. Not only did she regularly violate academic standards that Harvard itself upholds, but she violated them while they applied to her as a student at that very institution. For the reasons enumerated above, CNAV refuses to dignify Claudine Gay with any academic title and recommends that Harvard revoke her Ph.D. diploma and terminate her employment. Sadly, the Harvard Corporation won’t do that. Instead they will retain her as a member of the faculty – with an annual salary of $900,000, no less. (And she is definitely not “worth her salt.”) Reaction Several conservative influencers, among them Dr. Steve Turley, gave their cheers in video: https://rumble.com/embed/v42b3zx/?pub=4teej https://rumble.com/embed/v4264du/?pub=4teej But the jeers have also begun. The Gateway Pundit reported many of the jeers on the night after the resignation. Mike LaChance reported that Ibram X. Kendi gave everyone an eyeful. LaChance collected these X posts from Kendi and other “woke activists”: https://twitter.com/ibramxk/status/1742261273520198080 https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/status/1742259954940076385 https://twitter.com/jemelehill/status/1742295674031591780 https://twitter.com/WajahatAli/status/1742248328220549267 Observe that Ibram Kendi’s post drew a Community Note reminding readers of the plagiarism charge. Among the works cited: Race Redistricting and Representation: the Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts, by David Cannon. (1999.) LaChance also reported that a CNN reporter tried to excuse what Gay did as mere sloppiness. But according to Harvard’s own rules, even a sloppy scholar is just as guilty as a willful intellectual thief. As several outraged observers promptly reminded their followers on X: https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1742252559543193991 https://twitter.com/damintoell/status/1742264265208102913 https://twitter.com/capeandcowell/status/1742258770619609135 https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1742292919170576497 This morning, Kristinn Taylor reported that The Rev. Al Sharpton will lead a protest at Bill Ackman’s New York offices. She also collected a few more whining posts on X: https://twitter.com/JamaalBowmanNY/status/1742334850953101385 https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1742282193697648695 https://twitter.com/pronounced_ing/status/1742260263456235685 https://twitter.com/Deggans/status/1742257227916796231 https://twitter.com/JNelsonLDF/status/1742257053077270836 But Dr. Carol M. Swain, the first identified “victim” of Claudine Gay’s plagiarism, also weighed in on the controversy: https://twitter.com/carolmswain/status/1742373622591754407 Claudine Gay and selective community discipline But Claudine Gay did earn the wrath of concerned people everywhere with her initial reaction to the Fourth Arab-Israeli War. Bill Ackman definitely weighed in. He hasn’t forgotten the Harvard Corporation’s initial decision to stand by Gay. Nor has he forgotten those student groups who blamed Israel for everything. Now he wants all the Fellows of the Corporation to resign, including its chair, Penny Pritzker. Margaret Flavin has the details. Ackman began with a condemnation of Gay for her initial statement – but went on to condemn the very concept of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1742441534627184760 In that post Ackman linked to the site Penn Forward, which proposes a new constitution for the University of Pennsylvania. That constitution sets forth six guiding principles: 1. Intellectual diversity, not merely diversity of ethnic or political heritage, 2. Civil discourse and an expectation of civility, 3. Political neutrality from the administration, 4. Institutional neutrality (meaning, no favoritism among schools of thought), 5. Scientific neutrality, and 6. Mutual respect for and tolerance of community members from all origins. Ackman urges all universities to embrace these principles, plus an admissions policy that emphasizes fair treatment of applicants as individuals. Incidentally, Bill Ackman announced his intention to target Sally Kornbluth, president of MIT, next. Though a Jew herself, she has been grossly negligent in policing antisemitism on her own campus. As was Liz Magill at UPenn, until she finally had to resign. Jeers on the conservative side? Regrettably, at least one conservative commentator (or pretender) actually defended Claudine Gay. Nicholas J. Fuentes has gained a reputation for denying that Adolf Hitler’s war machine murdered six million Jews. When Claudine Gay resigned, he left his incredible defense, in three Telegram posts. (One, two, three.) The Israel Lobby has finally succeeded in ousting Harvard President Claudine Gay after she was accused of insufficiently condemning Hamas in the wake of the al-Aqsa Flood attack. For 3 months Harvard has been subjected to a donor revolt and series of digital billboard guerrilla protests, both sponsored by Jewish billionaire Bill Ackman. Gay was also hauled before a congressional hearing and interrogated, alongside presidents of UPenn and MIT. It just so happens that Gay was one of only three non-Jewish presidents of the eight Ivy League universities. She has been replaced by a left-wing Jew named Alan Garber, who criticized her response to the October 7th attack. He also supports DEI and was a signatory on Harvard’s letter protesting the SCOTUS decision on affirmative action earlier this year. This development underscores the power that organized Jewry wields in the United States. Two Ivy League presidents have been sacked in under three months, and not for any ambiguous reason: because their support for Israel was not absolute and unconditional. To that end, Organized Jewry orchestrated a sustained, multi-faceted, high pressure campaign from their perch on Wall Street, Congress, conservative advocacy, and the media to overthrow the top provosts of two of the most prestigious and rich universities in the world. At UPenn’s Chair and Harvard’s President have both been replaced by liberal, DEI, Zionist Jews. Much has been said in the last three months about how Whites may benefit from the rightward shift of World Jewry or from the infiltration of nationalistic Zionist Jews in the wake of the October 7th attack. People said that we could instrumentalize Zionist power to attack the left wing universities or deport Muslim refugees or use BLM’s affinity for Hamas to crack down on them. But despite all the talk about mass deportations or the common struggle of Whites and Jews as “oppressors”— Whites have accrued no benefit from this supposed awakening. Rather, predictably, Jews have been the exclusive beneficiaries of this crisis, and have used it to demand unconditional US support for Israel, sack “antisemitic” provosts and replace them with Zionists, and censor pro-Palestinian content and rallies. As long as Zionists are in the drivers seat, any arrangement with them will not have a mutual benefit. Five points should suffice to refute this statement. First, Claudine Gay not only let those thirty-odd student organizations blame Israel for everything. She inspired them to do this by her own statements. In so doing she actually justified atrocious acts. A combatant that launches an atrocious sneak attack deserves no quarter, and nothing but annihilation will serve. This is not a penalty, but a recognition that the combatant is at war with all the rest of humanity. But Claudine Gay didn’t recognize that – because the Jews were her enemy. Second, if Claudine Gay was one of three Gentile Ivy League university presidents, the remaining Gentile President was a better community disciplinarian than she. Business Insider carried this synoptic treatment of the reactions of all eight Ivy League Presidents to antisemitism on their campuses. The article fails to mention that Gay and Magill let antisemitism get totally out-of-hand on their campuses. None of the other Ivy League presidents committed any such negligence. So even that “other Gentile,” whichever it is, either jumped on the problem – or never let it develop. Those other Presidents distinguished themselves from Gay and Magill, not by words alone – but by deeds. Other points Third, Sally Kornbluth is Jewish herself – but she let antisemitism reach the point of creating no-go zones for Jews. That’s why Bill Ackman has made her his next target. Fourth, Claudine Gay was no more friendly to the principles of respect for the individual than her interim successor, Provost Alan Garber, is likely to be. Garber was probably obeying her orders when he signed on to the statement protesting the Supreme Court’s anti-DEI decision. SFFA v. Harvard/UNC. Fifth, Fuentes compounds his logical errors with actual defenses of and excuses for the Islamic Resistance Movement (Arabic Harakah al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah, abbreviated HAMAS). That HAMAS gets a free ride from the political left is bad enough. Anyone on the right who does the same, stains the honor of the political right. However, the distinction of the other Ivy League schools is a small one at best. If any of those schools were to adopt the Penn Forward Constitution, that school might return to the reputation these schools once held. Unfortunately, Marxist infiltration of those schools might be too deep for that, so concerned parents should probably shop elsewhere. In short, “Zionist infiltration” isn’t the problem at Harvard or anywhere else. Cultural Marxism is, together with a lack of academic integrity. For those things – plus inconsistent application of community discipline – these universities must apologize. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/03/editorial/talk/claudine-gay-departure-perspective/ Bill Ackman’s reaction to Harvard Corporation standing by Gay: https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1734394682413588949 https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1734401275142291640 Laura Loomer carries the resignation letter: https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1742260546118795546 Videos: cheers for the resignation: https://rumble.com/v44wgd9-harvard-humiliated-as-woke-president-implodes.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 https://rumble.com/v44rgs0-harvard-fires-woke-clown-president-claudine-gay-after-massive-plagiarism-bu.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 First batch of outraged posts: https://twitter.com/ibramxk/status/1742261273520198080 https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/status/1742259954940076385 https://twitter.com/jemelehill/status/1742295674031591780 https://twitter.com/WajahatAli/status/1742248328220549267 Posts expressing outrage at changing the definition of plagiarism: https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1742252559543193991 https://twitter.com/damintoell/status/1742264265208102913 https://twitter.com/capeandcowell/status/1742258770619609135 https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1742292919170576497 Second batch of outraged posts: https://twitter.com/JamaalBowmanNY/status/1742334850953101385 https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1742282193697648695 https://twitter.com/pronounced_ing/status/1742260263456235685 https://twitter.com/Deggans/status/1742257227916796231 https://twitter.com/JNelsonLDF/status/1742257053077270836 Dr. Swain’s post: https://twitter.com/carolmswain/status/1742373622591754407 Bill Ackman’s post: https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1742441534627184760 Penn Foward home: https://pennforward.com/ Nicholas J. Fuentes’ defense of Gay: https://t.me/nickjfuentes/12235 https://t.me/nickjfuentes/12236 https://t.me/nickjfuentes/12237 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Trump renews call to dismiss January 6 case By Terry A. Hurlbut In the New Year, President Donald J. Trump renewed his call from five months back, to dismiss the case against him arising from allegations he orchestrated, incited, and provoked the “attack” on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. At issue are the activities of the show tribunal that was the House January 6 Committee. In August of 2023, Fox News reported that this Committee destroyed much of the evidence behind their conclusion. Last night Trump charged that much of this evidence could have been exculpatory of him. Accordingly he now demands publicly that a court dismiss his case, as well he should. But the people have a grievance, too. In the hours since the release of his statement, other evidence has come forward. That evidence shows that he actually won the Election of 2020 – and his own staff betrayed him. Trump posts again about January 6 On January 1, 2024, at 6:31 p.m. EST, President Trump left this post: In it he accused then-Rep. Liz Cheney (RINO-Wyo.), then Vice-Chair of the January 6 Committee, of destroying the evidence. Thus for the first time he has named a single individual as responsible for the loss of evidence. Earlier he simply accused the entire seven-member Committee, which included five Democrats and two Republicans. Neither Republican Member sits in the House anymore. Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., “primaried” Cheney, and the Democratic-controlled Illinois legislature drew Rep. Adam Kinzinger, RINO-Ill., out of his District when that State lost a District in the census. Kinzinger also had the tacky temerity to raise funds by selling $100 autographed copies of the committee’s final report. But Liz Cheney has been the more vocal of the two, ever since she lost her primary. She even launched an attack ad against Trump to air while he was doing his on-air CNN town hall interview. In his post, Trump went on to detail the specific evidence that would exculpate him, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), then Speaker of the House, turning down Trump’s offer of 10,000 National Guardsmen to guard the Capitol that day. Trump concluded by saying he considered the entire case compromised, and a court should dismiss it. The case is now before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, on appeal from Trump on a question of Presidential immunity. The Supreme Court refused to review the case before Appeals Court judgment. Earlier history of the January 6 Committee In August of 2023, it became clear that the January 6 Committee destroyed evidence. CNAV covered it at the time. Cheney and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the Chairman, did not even believe they had an obligation to preserve it. Trump discussed this in two successive posts: The essence of his charge is that, as a defendant in a federal case, he has subpoena power. So to avoid having to respond to any subpoena from him, the Committee destroyed evidence. The story, as The Gateway Pundit reported on it at the time (see here and here), is as follows. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), after Midterms, wrote to Rep. Thompson demanding preservation of evidence. Conveniently, the original link to the letter “broke,” but not before the Wayback Machine archived it. https://twitter.com/FarnoushAmiri/status/1598078908007559168 https://twitter.com/ryanobles/status/1598098087343697920 For the record, the Committee’s final report and other supporting documents are available at GovInfo.gov. But on August 8, Fox News reported that the Committee did in fact destroy records. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee of the Committee on House Administration, made the charge in December 2022. At issue were missing records of communications between the Committee and the Biden White House. In addition, records of a team tasked to investigate deficiencies in Capitol security are all missing. An exchange of letters Thompson and Cheney sent this moderately redacted letter to the White House Counsel’s office a week after issuing their final report. In it Thompson and Cheney mention turning over certain records to the White House. On June 26, 2023, Rep. Loudermilk sent this letter to Rep. Thompson, asking his “assistance” in locating the missing records. Thompson shot this letter back to Loudermilk, denying any responsibility to preserve more than is available at GovInfo. This morning Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit quoted the brazen denial of obligation. To clarify Hoft’s reportage, he was quoting from a lengthy footnote on the first page of the letter: Guidance from the Office of the Clerk states that a permanent record is “[m]aterial created or received by a person, family, or a public or private organization that is preserved because of its enduring value. The value stems from the information it contains or the evidence it provides of the functions and responsibilities of the creator.” See “Records Management Manual for Committees,” Office of Art and Archives, Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives (Aug. 2021), p. 8. Consistent with guidance from the Office of the Clerk and other authorities, the Select Committee did not archive temporary committee records that were not elevated by the Committee’s actions, such as use in hearings or official publications, or those that did not further its investigative activities. Accordingly, and contrary to your letter’s implication, the Select Committee was not obligated to archive all video recordings of transcribed interviews or depositions. Based on guidance from House authorities, the Select Committee determined that the written transcripts provided by nonpartisan, professional official reporters, which the witnesses and Select Committee staff had the opportunity to review for errata, were the official, permanent records of transcribed interviews and depositions for the purposes of rule VII. First, no one knows whether the “temporary committee records” included, or did not include, raw surveillance footage of the Capitol, the West Portico, or the West Lawn from that day. Second, if the Committee really thought they could convict Trump of engaging in insurrection or rebellion, that one intent obliged them to preserve all records, and to consider all records, however trivial, permanent. If that was not according to House Rules as they then should, it should have been. On August 8, 2023, Loudermilk wrote to the Special Counsel to the President asking for the return of the records. There the case rests, until President Trump saw fit to mention it again last night. Preliminary analysis President Trump is correct: that case should be dismissed. Loss of allegedly incriminating evidence, either accidental or through deliberate and malicious destruction, is almost always grounds for directed acquittal. This holds especially in the absence of further incriminating evidence. But this Committee obviously had reason to destroy evidence, deliberately and maliciously. The evidence of other observers clearly indicates that the January 6 event was not an insurrection or a rebellion. First, a crowd a large as the estimated crowd for the rally on Constitution avenue would have had the strength of at least ten divisions of infantry, and possibly twenty. Such a force, if trained and even if unarmed, could have made short work of the Capitol Police. Even a single division of National Guardsmen, which Trump requested, couldn’t have handled them. And anyone planning insurrection would certainly have run in enough guns to achieve the objective. An armed force of even two divisions would have sufficed. Second, the evidence actually indicates a false-flag pseudo-operation. Then-Speaker Pelosi’s refusal to station a division of National Guardsmen on the day of the rally, clearly indicates her collusion. Ray “Into the Capitol!” Epps cannot explain his intemperate proposals as anything other than provocation. Finally we have the spectacle of Capitol Police firing rubber bullets at people – to get a rise out of them. If they were not trying to provoke them, their use of such munitions constituted gross negligence. More evidence to support Trump emerges This morning, at 10:32 a.m. EST, Trump shared a link to a new PDF file hosted here. The domain redirects to this campaign service center, offering “Software as a Service” for political or marketing campaigns. Why a file-sharing domain should redirect there, is not clear. The authorship of this report is less clear, because the document does not state authorship. As a precaution, CNAV has submitted it to the Wayback Machine for permanent archiving. The document appears well-sourced, with traceable references, many of which are hyperlinks. The sources include the Rumble channel “Georgia Ballots,” the site UncoverDC, and several legislative offices. This thirty-two-page document does make clear that: Procedures in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Michigan were highly irregular, to say the least. In many cases, chains of custody broke, something no Division of Elections should permit. All five States produced abrupt gains for Biden that violated any concept of the Law of Averages. In Georgia especially, several undervoted ballots made it into a “second machine count.” This kind of finding explains why Democrats did not pad their majority in the House, nor flip the Senate immediately. Dinesh D’Souza anticipated this very finding in his 2000 Mules documentary. CNAV repeats what it said then: One can well imagine that Nancy Pelosi wanted to strangle whoever organized such an effort and neglected to allow enough time for down-ticket voting. Gross negligence – and betrayal of Trump This paragraph especially excites the curiosity – and the ire – of your correspondent, giving his direct experience as an Officer of Election: None of the 315,000 votes cast during early voting in Fulton County were witnessed to and signed by the poll manager and two poll workers, as required by state election rules. The closing tapes for these votes are all unsigned, showed more tabulated votes than the tabulators had recorded as scanning in their protective counters, and recorded improbably low percentages for President Trump. For example, President Trump received only 0.9 percent, 2.4 percent, 3.7 percent from some of the tabulators, as if he was a third party candidate, or in a third world country. The anomalies indicate ballots were not scanned on the tabulators that printed the closing tapes, making the closing tapes fraudulent. What Chief Officer of Election ever closes a scanner-tabulator without running the tape and asking every member of his team to sign it? Your editor has worked elections in three precincts, and never once has any Chief been so negligent. And for this to happen at the Central Voting Precinct is unthinkable – and indeed inexcusable. But that wasn’t the only rule that election officials broke. That document refers to absentee ballots accepted and counted more than six months ahead of time. It also refers to absentee ballots sent to well-known cities located out-of-State, but with Georgia listed as the State. The ZIP Codes resolved out-of-State, though the document provided no specific examples. Worse yet, the report reveals that Attorney General Bill Barr ordered relevant United States Attorneys to stand down from investigating voter fraud in their States. This applied to Pennsylvania and Michigan. Finally, the report mentions donations that Mark Zuckerberg made to election officials in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump announced the release of this file in three Truths (one, two, three): Final analysis The evidence revealed today, and rediscovered yesterday, clearly supports the notion that Trump won the Election of 2020. At a minimum, the House of Representatives should not have accepted any Electoral College votes from the five Swing States. Instead the House of Representatives should have chosen the President by bloc vote, and Trump would surely have won. This report also shows that certain law-enforcement officers close to the President betrayed him. They took affirmative steps to hide the fraud others were discovering in at least two States. Brad “Riff Raff” Raffensperger had Georgia “covered,” though this report doesn’t mention that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyTOYNEjCTg RINO officials in Maricopa County, Arizona’s most populous, had Arizona similarly “covered.” And still do. One can readily see why Trump saw fit to accuse former Rep. Cheney of orchestrating the destruction of evidence. She has more likely conspired to do this with Chairman Thompson and all other members of the Committee. But Trump was concentrating on chicanery by RINOs, not Democrats. The most common thing any tyrant does is to throw off on his opposition. That’s what Democrats and RINOs alike did to President Trump. By extension they did this to the American people, too – calling more than half of us National Socialists. (Another flaw in leftists is their lack of irony.) Ideally this next election needs to use paper ballots, with paired-off Officers of Election hand-counting them. If this does not happen, vigilance will be the order of the day. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/02/foundation/constitution/trump-renews-call-dismiss-january-6-case/ Trump recalls the destruction of evidence: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/111683296409531201 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110857162338915853 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110857555815063677 Letter demanding preservation of documents, courtesy of the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20221130215255/https://republicanleader.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Rep-Lead-Sharp-MFP_20221130_124326.pdf Two posts reporting on the letter: https://twitter.com/FarnoushAmiri/status/1598078908007559168 https://twitter.com/ryanobles/status/1598098087343697920 Collection at GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report?path=/GPO/January%206th%20Committee%20Final%20Report%20and%20Supporting%20Materials%20Collection Swing State election fraud summary, direct and archived: https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/e0/e04e630c-63ff-4bdb-9652-e0be3598b5d4/summary20of20election20fraud20in20the20swing20states.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20240102175411/https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/e0/e04e630c-63ff-4bdb-9652-e0be3598b5d4/summary20of20election20fraud20in20the20swing20states.pdf Trump summarizes the summary article: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111687076142669367 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111687074741876048 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111687072771506848 Theme: “Underdog” v. “Riff-Raff the Fox”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyTOYNEjCTg 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

2024 – objectives for liberty By Terry A. Hurlbut Another year begins, and with it another assessment of the standing of human liberty, especially in America. This year is obviously the do-or-die year: the Presidential Election of 2024. The enemies of liberty know its importance; hence their efforts to disqualify President Donald J. Trump from reelection. But beyond that, CNAV has identified three more objectives that those who value their liberty must capture. If we do not, then we lose our liberties – for these objectives are the source of most of the attacks against ourselves, including our lives, liberty and property. Objectives begin with January 6 The January 6 Event began the most serious attacks – the ones resulting in wrongful arrests and imprisonments. Thankfully, a key January 6 case has already gone to the Supreme Court. Fischer v. United States, Docket No. 23-5572 (December 13, 2023). Joseph W. Fischer stands convicted of obstructing a Congressional proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1512. So do many of his co-defendants. The particulars of his case seem very badly flawed. (For example, he gained entry into the Capitol after Congress had already recessed. What proceeding, then, was under way for him to obstruct?) But the “question presented” in that case is: does that statute apply when no criminal investigation, nor the gathering or preservation of evidence, was active or happening at the time? That question is directly relevant to one of Donald Trump’s cases – and to many others. If the Supreme Court rules in Fischer’s favor, this could empty out a few cellblocks and open the door to many wrongful-conviction or false-imprisonment lawsuits. That, in addition to destroying at least half of one of Trump’s cases. Evidence that could exonerate everyone This morning, the site Open Ink released an hour-long video, J6: A True Timeline. It contains information directly relevant to any January 6 prosecution. Its producer: A. J. Fischer, who might or might not be a relative of Joe Fischer. He heads an organization called Investigate J6 and also faces January 6 related charges. Nearly four months ago he shared a “less lethal timeline” with UncoverDC. It covers many allegations CNAV has covered before, including: 1. Removal of “snow fencing” that was allegedly supposed to demarcate a restricted area, and 2. The firing of rubber bullets at the heads of those who were still protesting peaceably. The first part constitutes entrapment; the second, provocation. Not only that, but the rubber bullets and other weapons could have been lethal, besides being provocative. Furthermore, at least one U.S. House member is tracking reports of two “ghost buses” that delivered people to Union Station, with instructions to blend into the crowd. All this to say: authorities have deliberately misled the public. Of course, many Biden supporters likely welcomed the misleading versions of events. Perhaps they know instinctively – but will never admit – that they need a story to justify their “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” and it is always better to quote others. The worst tendency of die-hard leftist rank-and-file, apart from special pleading, is offering, and standing by, hearsay evidence. Election interference Attempting to bar President Trump from the ballot is the most insultingly direct form of election interference. This has come, thus far, from Colorado and Maine. Last night, Victor Davis Hansen dropped a long-form post on X in protest. https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1741663468728799534 Hansen warned that Republicans could retaliate just as easily: We can see where the ultimate trajectory of this usurpation is going—once a single official decides to remove the leading primary and general election candidate of the opposition from the ballot by fiat. Tit-for-tat will likely follow and would unwind the republic. This morning Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit called on Hansen to admit that Republicans haven’t retaliated in the past. This despite far more extensive and obvious provocation. For evidence, Hoft cited, among other things: • Spying on Trump and his family by FBI and Justice Department operatives – with no accountability. • Divisions of election in seven States abruptly suspending their ballot counts during the Election of 2020. They then produced hundreds of thousands of votes for Biden. This resulted in the infamous “stairstep curve” of votes for Biden, against a smooth curve for Trump. • The denial by the Supreme Court to take up the case of Texas v. Pennsylvania. • Locking out Republican accredited challengers during the count in several major cities. • The Atlanta Suitcase Scandal. Here the real scandal is in scanning ballots more than once. The real problem in Georgia is that its election system has been corrupt since long before the Election of 2020. And this corruption is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Georgia voters have their own set of problems. But their solution – and the likely solution nationwide – lies in voting on paper, and counting the paper ballots. Highest of the objectives: the concept of public health But by far the most important of the objectives – the one that probably set up the other two – is the very concept of “public health.” Yesterday afternoon, Jack Davis at The Western Journal covered an obscure interview that took place between Francis Collins, M.D., former Director of the National Institutes of Health, and activist “Wilk” Wilkinson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1eAvh1sWiw Dr. Collins was the nominal superior of Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID). In this role Dr. Fauci behaved as if he were Capo di tutti i capi di stato maggiore di tutti gli ospedali americani. (Translation: Chief of All Chiefs of Staff of American Hospitals.) More to the point, Fauci recommended lockdown as the strategy to combat the 2019 Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19). But this summer, Dr. Collins confessed that lockdowns were a mistake. And how did the medical establishment come to make that mistake? By “putting public health bureaucrats in charge,” to quote Davis paraphrasing Collins. The most important confession: the public-health bureaucrats were thinking only of preventing large numbers of death in a city. Cities concentrate people, and, in theory, viruses can spread like wildfire – or fire in any building. So you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruins the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never quite recover from. So, yeah, collateral damage. No meat wagons Add to it that never did COVID-19 produce the kind of nightmare scenario Dr. Collins said he and his colleagues sought to prevent. This did not happen even in the big cities. Does anyone remember seeing “meat wagons” rolling slowly down residential streets or apartment-complex or “Project” driveways? Does anyone remember voices on bullhorns blaring, “Brrrrinnnng ouuuuttt you’re deadddddd!”? Of course we don’t remember that – because no such thing ever happened. But for at least two years, beginning with the year of the election, we heard, “Either lock down, or see the meat wagons! Your choice!” Yes, like Chief Justice John Roberts angrily pointing toward a conference-room window everyone knew overlooked First Avenue Southeast, though it was probably draped, and haranguing his colleagues: “If you want to see riots on that street, take this Texas case! If not, not! Simple as!” And we know what Justice Clarence Thomas wistfully said in reply: “Then that’s the end of democracy, John.” But what we didn’t hear was Justice Samuel A. Alito saying, “Let it be riots, then! John, you’re asking us to lay aside our judicial robes and pretend to be a Commission of Public Safety doing something expedient. We are the Morality Corps of our society, and our mission is justice, not expediency!” Sadly, Justice Alito didn’t say that at a critical moment – though he said something like it in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, more than a year later. How to prevent a recurrence Jack Davis quoted plenty of others who had a few choice words for Dr. Collins. Jay Bhattacharya (incidentally a named plaintiff in Missouri v. Biden) offered this: https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/1741260686234415121 The Wall Street Journal’s editors reminded everyone of the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for a targeted response, sheltering the elderly and most vulnerable while letting society go on. This is how the Swedes weathered what everyone said was a storm, but was no more than a fresh breeze. And Rich Lowry at The National Review reminded everyone that Dr. Collins is saying now what would have gotten people punished two years earlier. Not too long ago, anyone who said that epidemiologists might be overly focused on disease prevention to the exclusion of other concerns — you know, like jobs, mental health, and schooling — were dismissed as reckless nihilists who didn’t care if their fellow citizens died en masse. In short, the bullies conjured up visions of the meat wagons – and yet never did any meat wagons roll. But in truth only one thing can stop this from happening again. And that is to encourage every individual to fortify himself against infection – and stop assuming that no defense other than lockdowns will suffice against any new pathogen. In fact, as free people we need to prepare to take our chances even with a recurrence of Yersinia pestis. (And “fortification” does not include artificial active acquired immunity – vaccination. It means encouraging the development of a robust immune system that can handle any challenge.) In short, the very concept of “public health” is now suspect. It has become yet another excuse to curtail human liberty. Positive objectives – encourage self-reliance and individual strength Not all objectives in the war to reclaim liberty must be – or even can be – negative. The positive objectives all concern building up one’s own strength. In the context of criminality (and, to a lesser extent, foreign attack), this leads to the recognition of self-defense. That includes recognizing the right to keep and bear arms, and encouraging individuals to keep and bear arms. And to use them responsibly. But now we see another context: the public-health context, in this case involving infectious disease. Some diseases we can defeat through responsible practices involving direct – especially intimate – contact. Others we have defeated before through cleanliness, applied on either an individual scale or a grand scale. For a handful of others, individuals can fortify their immune systems, through several ways, all easy to discover. (And again: this does not include vaccination. Tellingly, 231 current and former service members want to see some courts-martial over forced vaccination in the military.) https://twitter.com/BradMiller1010/status/1741748064883282387 Why are these positive objectives important? Because the same architects of January 6, election interference, and the COVID-19 “public health” debacle, rely on people being weak. They prefer a population of wimps. Wimps cannot be free in any case; their “wimpiness” is their chain. Psychological chains can also exist – and are the excuse for censorship. So the achievement of these objectives for freedom amount to a New Year’s Resolution for Liberty: I resolve to strengthen and harden myself as a target, whether of criminals, invaders, infectious agents, or the puerile barbs of my fellow dwellers on this Earth. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/01/01/foundation/constitution/2024-objectives-liberty/ Fischer v. United States, docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-5572.html J6 True Timeline video: https://open.ink/collections/j6 Victor Davis Hanson’s post: https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1741663468728799534 Interview between Francis Collins, M.D., and “Wilk” Wilkinson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1eAvh1sWiw Jay Bhattacharya’s indignant response: https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/1741260686234415121 The Wall Street Journal editorial: https://www.wsj.com/articles/francis-collins-covid-lockdowns-braver-angels-anthony-fauci-great-barrington-declaration-f08a4fcf The National Review editorial: https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/12/francis-collinss-covid-confession/ Post about the Declaration of Military Accountability: https://twitter.com/BradMiller1010/status/1741748064883282387 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

2023 – year of war By Terry A. Hurlbut As 2023 draws to a close, war continues in Ukraine, and has broken out in the Middle East. Whether civil war will break out in the United States, will depend on the 2024 Presidential election – and not only who wins it, but how. War in Ukraine The war in Ukraine is winding down. The Ukraine government is conscripting men who in any other context would be considered over-age. Russian forces continue to tighten their hold on the Donbas and the Crimea – regions filled with ethnic Russians. These people want reunion with Russia, and nothing is going to stop that. The only remaining question is, how much of the rest of Ukraine will Russia take back? (And, how much does Russia want back?) For patriotic Americans, the worst consequences of the Russia-Ukraine War are these: • American forces are running out of ammunition – because our government has shipped it to Ukraine, in a futile gesture. • Volodymyr Zelensky presumes to say Americans will fight and die in central Europe if he goes down. • One of the “small fry” Republican candidates for President would like to send Americans to fight and die in Europe. And it’s not Ron DeSantis. Who it actually is, likely proves why, perhaps, a woman might not make a suitable President. Israel at war all over again On October 7, 2023, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Arabic Harakah al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah, abbreviated HAMAS), together with some willing irregulars, started the Fourth Arab-Israeli War with an incredible series of atrocities. The Israel Defense Forces have responded by carefully digging HAMAS out, one tunnel at a time. (And one weapons cache at a time, usually associated with hospitals and schools.) But this conflict has split American political coalitions, on both the left and the right. American Jews have always taken the side of the political left – right up to the time Gentile leftists turned against them and actually denied – or else, incredibly, excused – the HAMAS atrocities. On the right, the Dispensational-Covenantal Dispute has escalated to a fresh level of vitriol. The conflict seemed to spread even to the iconic Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. Antisemitism has broken out in many American universities, almost all of them among the elite. This has caused many “boosters” to stop “boosting” the universities where this is happening. That’s only one of the consequences such antisemitism is now having – at least one university president has already resigned. (Another one hasn’t resigned – yet – but the “corporation” that decided to support her is facing its own pressures as faculty members call on “corporation fellows” to resign also.) President Joe Biden seems able to please no one. Jews dismiss his support for Israel as tepid at best – and Arabs resent any degree of support for Israel. Civil conflict in America? America has seen many actions the like of which one sees only in banana republics. Federal authorities have formally arrested a former President three times. At least one State Supreme Court and one other Secretary of State refused to list him on primary ballots. This suggests that the Democrats know they cannot win in 2024 as they won in 2020 – by whatever means. Joe Biden is polling lower than Donald Trump – something he never did in 2020. (Neither did Hillary Clinton do it in 2016.) Commentators are offering no shortage of reasons for Biden’s numbers being in the tank. Evidence is now accumulating that Joe Biden did not win his election honestly. At least 17 percent of voters surveyed admitted taking part in activities some might consider fraudulent. One possible culprit in that election is not the Biden campaign, but a (nominally) Republican Secretary of State. Georgia politics turns out to be thoroughly compromised by a corrupt “RINO” establishment. That compromise has extended to Georgia elections – and Secretary of State Brad “Riff Raff” Raffensperger turns out to be an equal-opportunity offender. (Now he demands millions of dollars to fix a problem he refuses to fix until after the 2024 elections.) In the Supreme Court The United States Supreme Court finished its 2022 term with more decisions generally favorable to human liberty. It also illustrated the division of the Court into three blocs – originalists, moderate conservatives, and liberals. Each member of the Liberal Bloc broke Court decorum at least once: • Jackson in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC (discriminatory Diversity, Equity and Inclusion admissions to college), • Sotomayor in 303 Creative v. Elenis (religious conscience in artistic expression in contracted services), and • Kagan in Biden v. Nebraska (forgiveness of student loans). Which is not to say that every decision of the Supreme Court was 6-3 for originalism. One decision, reining in an out-of-control quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial executive agency, was effectively unanimous. Another went the Liberal way after the petitioner “blew” his case. None of the decisions in the 2022 Term touched on gun control. But the weight of the Bruen decision from the 2021 Term, and the number of other conservative-favorable decisions in the term completed this summer, prompted a gun-grabbing State governor to take a drastic step. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) wants an Article V Constitutional Convention to achieve virtual repeal of the Second Amendment. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence In the current Supreme Court term, freedom of speech is on the line. The case of Missouri v. Biden, which hasn’t even come to trial, is now before the Supreme Court. At issue are the multiple decisions by social-media platforms to “play ball” with the Deep State. Did the government leave them no choice? Or rather: do users have recourse when their platform, willingly or unwillingly, cooperates with the government to shut them up? The Court is also examining the abortifacient compound, mifepristone (formerly “Roussel-UCLAF Lot 486”). This compound threatens to render meaningless the distinction between “abortion tourist traps” and the safe havens for unborn children that several “red States” have lately chosen to become. Abortions are occurring less frequently but not that less frequently. This confirms CNAV’s initial impression after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Which is: the country needs a Second Great Awakening. The Court proved that when it declined a case giving it a chance to declare a fundamental right to life. Gun control will also come before the Court, in the form of several cases from States who seem bent on defying the Court openly. But by far the most striking case the Court has taken, involves a January 6 defendant. It involves the most common charge leveled against those defendants, other than insurrection, which the prosecution seems to know it could never prove. If the Court decides this case for the petitioner, it could lead to a lot of instant releases – and malicious-prosecution lawsuits. Looking ahead A group calling itself the Transition Integrity Project played out four scenarios, including one that could have provoked civil war. Or so they seemed to say, though whether they fully thought the matter through is far from clear. What is clear is that Democrats seem bent on provoking civil war in America. Moves to deny Trump ballot access – and even refuse to count write-in votes for him – have some leftists already hemming, hawing, and demurring. That hasn’t stopped them all, however – and that might prove an even more important Supreme Court case. In any case, the left and right have drawn several clear battle lines. One can hope that those on the right have the imagination Trump didn’t have in 2020. For they must be twice as smart as the political left – anticipate their moves, and plan how to defeat them. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2023/12/31/editorial/talk/war-year-2023/ 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Government strenuously defending censorship By Terry A. Hurlbut Government officials at many levels are filing a slew of alarming friend-of-the-court briefs in support of continued social media censorship. All these briefs amount to special pleading for privileged positions, by virtue either of the offices some of these “friends” hold, or the particular concerns of the issues at hand. Jonathan Turley, a commentator on constitutional law, alerted readers to one of the briefs. But friends of free speech should also take alarm at two of the others. The government doesn’t trust you anymore, if it ever did The United States government – or elements of it that outsiders call The Deep State – clearly fear the people. For that reason, it does not want the people to speak freely about political issues of the day. And they certainly do not want anyone casting suspicion on their activities. So we saw social media turning into State actors – and willingly, too. Evidently the heads of these media needed no persuasion, as Andrew Torba at Gab Social has pointed out. The Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana, together with a handful of alternative-media platform directors and medical practitioners that had run afoul of this “thought police,” filed their landmark lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden. They filed their case in Monroe, Louisiana, but the government has appealed it twice. They have appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and lately to the Supreme Court. These appeals come after Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a massive preliminary injunction against all social media censorship activities. (See CourtListener’s docket listings at the District Court and Appeals Court levels. See also two Supreme Court docket listings, for the application for stay, and for a petition for review.) The Supreme Court has stayed the Big Injunction in its entirety and is now receiving friend-of-the-court briefs. (Technically, courts call these “briefs amicus curiae,” from a Latin phrase literally meaning “friend of the curia.” The Latin curia, once standing for a meeting place of the Senate of Rome, today stands for a court.) Nature of the briefs At time of posting, the Supreme Court has received fifteen such briefs. Many of these are “in support of neither party.” These briefs fall into the following broad categories: • Excusing the conduct of the social media platforms themselves, because “the government made them do it.” • Asserting that the courts lack jurisdiction over the private conduct of private moderators, curators, and editors. • Saying government censorship is right and proper, because the respondents demand the freedom to commit actionable fraud. Not only is this fraud actionable, but it also poses a clear and present threat to public health. This is the official position of the American Academy of Pediatrics. • Seeking to preserve the “editorial freedom” of social media platforms in their role as elements of the press. • Asserting that State and local governments have reason to censor as well. • Complaining about “election mis- and disinformation.” • Suggesting that to enjoin the government from communicating with social-media companies might impair “independent technology research.” These briefs come from parties, other than actual government officials, trying to carve out special protections for their own interests. In addition, Stanford University, the parent of several projects at the heart of the Missouri controversy, filed its own friend-of-the-court brief. They held that the respondents had lied about them, and about the “independent research” they were doing. In short their brief defends the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, and the Stanford Internet Observatory. (America First Legal is also suing EIP and VP.) Government actors filing briefs In contrast, the briefs that concern us today come from actual government officials trying to preserve an authority to censor. In this context, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) rates a “dishonorable mention.” He briefed the Court to sound Chicken Little-like alarms about “foreign malign influence over social media.” in other words, to paraphrase a famous Sixties-era motion-picture title: The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming! In fact Sen. Warner specifically cited Robert Mueller’s indictment against a Russian-affiliated company, and several Russia Bogeyman “reports.” But Jonathan Turley took alarm at a different brief: the New York Brief. The State of New York held that States have a power and duty to prevent the “spread of harmful content.” Twenty-one other States, and the District of Columbia, signed on to this brief. The brief defines “harmful content” far too broadly. In its Interests section, it directly conflates: • Protection of minors “against online predators, inappropriate conduct, and cyberbullying” and institution of parental controls, with: • Sharing of raw footage from mass-shooting events, every one of which becomes an excuse for more gun control. As Amici States’ experience confirms, maintaining open lines of communication between the government and social-media companies on topics such as extremist violence, child safety, and consumer protection is mutually beneficial, furthers the public interest, and fully comports with the First Amendment. Mutually beneficial, that is, to the government (apart from the people) and social media moderators acting like bullies. Distinctions without differences The New York Brief makes two distinctions without differences. First, it tries to distinguish between persuasion and coercion. In fact, “persuasion” is a euphemism for “coercion.” “It would be a shame if such-a-dire-thing happened to this person/project whom/that you love” sounds persuasive but is actually coercive. (In fact, counsel for the Missouri plaintiff/respondents have used that precise metaphor in their own briefs, from time to time.) Likewise, “you wouldn’t want such-a-thing to happen to such-a-type-of-person, would you?” is another coercive trope masquerading as persuasion. It assigns moral responsibility where none actually exists, or it precedes a policy solution that will not actually address any problem that might exist. Second, the brief tries to distinguish between the existence of governmental authority, and its actual exercise. That distinction is never important. The mere display of a weapon is often sufficient to deter a criminal act – or to command obedience to a law-enforcement officer in the lawful exercise of his duty and authority. Any LEO knows this – and so does any lawyer. “Brandishing” is also a way a criminal commonly compels his target to cooperate with him. When any authority exists, a court must ask whether the exercise of that authority, in any context, is lawful. The mere existence of an authority is equivalent to an LEO brandishing his service gun or other weapon. How to address actual harms To address the harm-to-minors problem, why permit minors to use social media? If it’s that dangerous, make the medium for adults only, and have done with it! Furthermore, certain kinds of communication are unlawful on their face anyway. Telephone directories, regrettably obsolete today, once had the most helpful advice possible for anyone receiving malicious, annoying, or threatening communications. “Just hang up,” they advised anyone receiving “annoyance calls.” If that didn’t work or if the caller issued threats (credible or not), the recipient could call the police. Teachers, pastors, and any other persons who counsel minors in dealing with social challenges need to teach a practical philosophy. Those who bully others with mere words (apart from violent acts or threats) rely on their targets caring what others think. One who doesn’t care, is not subject to verbal bullying – it simply does not work. Teaching minors not to care, and how not to care, would eliminate cyberbullying as a problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33R85hgxVdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d30xJnL1hUI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB-W8g1nGdY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLOB6hj3M_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63mKyppqgWo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSAGq_RA2yQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05mVvWpo5pQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KahiLDtE-rA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V_Pso2HM10 Existing law already covers such harms as “revenge pornography” and anything else that involves the sharing of information, the owner of which had a reasonable expectation of privacy. But that law also relies on some time-honored advice few parents seem willing to give anymore. “Don’t talk to strangers” had a sound basis, and that basis still holds. Furthermore, many adolescents tend to share too much, thus making themselves vulnerable. Aside from making social media participation adults-only, parents (and teachers) should teach responsible use of social media. New York denies the exercise of authority The New York brief, from the beginning, proposes to excuse all government communication as a mere sharing of information. Nowhere, the brief argues, did anyone give a direct order. CNAV has already explained why that’s a distinction without a difference. New York compounds its problem by referring to its own “broad regulatory and law-enforcement authority.” Maybe the breadth of this authority, is the problem. The brief refers repeatedly to “nonbinding guidance.” But when does guidance from an entity that can shut you down, not bind you to do as they say? “A government entity has the right to ‘speak for itself,’” they say. Fine – so if the government has anything to say, let the government post it publicly. Posts for public consumption were never at issue, and still aren’t. Not one plaintiff has ever said the government may not have a channel of communication with the public. (CNAV has not read any suggestion to discontinue the Emergency Alert System, for example.) But the government telling certain companies that some of their accountholders are trying to defraud the public, is at issue. If actionable fraud is an actual threat, let the government prosecute. They don’t prosecute because they know they’d lose. Not only is “truth… a complete defense,” but even lies require actual malice or deceptive intent to be prosecutable. An example A post saying, “See how vaccines have saved countless lives” would always be appropriate. It would also give the people a chance to check the government’s facts. Then, if necessary, they could reply to the post, saying things like: 1. Can you answer such-a-person’s concern that, we feel, you have not adequately addressed? Or: 2. We challenge you to a debate of such-a-resolution. CNAV is sure that Contributors John Anthony, Bradlee Dean, and others would welcome the opportunity to engage directly with, say, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy (the named Supreme Court petitioner), former “Doctors’ Doctor” Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., or the head of the American Academy of Pediatrics on the question of vaccine safety and effectiveness. So why didn’t Dr. Fauci ever make himself available for such discourse while he held public office? Why won’t Dr. Murthy do the same now? Why won’t the American Academy of Pediatrics send a representative to address issues that properly concern every parent today? What do they actually fear? They say they fear the public harm from people not taking their advice. But maybe they actually fear exposure of themselves, for telling, or merely repeating, a pack of lies. One does not win a debate by restraining another, a priori, from offering an opposing argument. To those who insist, “Vaccine safety and effectiveness are not debatable,” CNAV says: Get off your high horse and debate, or we will take our business elsewhere! That, is what they fear. Open disclosure? Not! The New York Brief also speaks of “open disclosure.” Again, if the government wants to disclose anything, let the government post it. But the government is not interested in open disclosure. They are interested in preventing the disclosure of information contrary to their narratives. When the New York brief discusses assistance to social media companies in enforcing their own policies, they tell two lies. First they conveniently fail to mention that some of the conduct at issue, brought about changes in moderation policies. Those changes would not have occurred, absent the government’s “significant encouragement.” Second, to the extent that any moderation team needed no persuasion, the New York brief has just given the customers of the company in question, another reason to decamp from that medium. They’ll go to Gab Social, or Rumble, or maybe to X, if Elon Musk roots out the troublemakers. As a specific example, the New York brief cites the Buffalo Shooting. The shooter (since L-WOPPed) said he wanted to kill those of a different race than himself. He then “streamed” his act with video shot from his point of view, and offered a “manifesto.” First, New York is still a may-issue State (in defiance of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen). Had those Buffalo store patrons been armed, we’d be having a different conversation. Second, the “content” need not “harm,” if viewers don’t care. (See above.) Some of that content might provide vital clues. But that’s not good enough for “Nanny State.” Other government briefs Twenty-one other States, and the District of Columbia, signed onto the New York brief. Jonathan Turley listed them all: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and District of Columbia. The Supreme Court has received two other briefs along this same line. Secretaries of State of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont submitted one – the SoS Brief. The Court also received an Election Officials Brief from a smattering of current and former Secretaries of State and county or municipal election clerks and commissioners. They represent the States of Pennsylvania, Virginia, California, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Michigan, or governmental subunits of those States. Those two briefs addressed alleged election fraud consisting of outlandish rumors about how elections actually run. Some of the rumors defy common sense, so people should easily recognize them as false. Beyond that, the government can easily post its own information, and share with the public the addresses of “official accounts.” Again, direct communication with the public was never at issue. Restraining others from communicating with the public, was and is. Ronald Reagan famously said, The nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” He might – or might not – have been paraphrasing Sen. Edmund S. Muskie (D-Maine). But the sentiment is still valid. So is this one: Among the most terrifying words in the English language are these: I’m from the government, and I don’t think you should listen to this. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2023/12/30/foundation/constitution/government-strenuously-defending-censorship/ Missouri v. Biden: 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: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a243.html Cert Petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-411.html Briefs: American Academy of Pediatrics: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-411/294091/20231222102540387_FINAL%20Murthy%20Amicus%20for%20filing.pdf Stanford University: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-411/294255/20231226143930837_Murthy%20v.%20Missouri%20--%20SCOTUS%20Amicus%20FINAL.pdf Senator Warner: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-411/294259/20231226144150391_2023.12.26%20FOR%20PRINTER%20Senator%20Warner%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20Murthy%20v%20Missouri.pdf New York Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-411/294283/20231226181233355_23-411_Amicus%20Brief%20for%20NY%20et%20al%20in%20Support%20of%20Petitioners.pdf SoS Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-411/294256/20231226143954514_SoS%20Amicus%20Brief%20v12.26.23%20FINAL.pdf Election Officials Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-411/294238/20231226164724890_Election%20Officials%20Amicus%20Brief%20Missouri%20v.%20Murthy%20No%2023%20411.pdf Nine Stoic videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33R85hgxVdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d30xJnL1hUI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB-W8g1nGdY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLOB6hj3M_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63mKyppqgWo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSAGq_RA2yQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05mVvWpo5pQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KahiLDtE-rA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V_Pso2HM10 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Texas immigration war escalates By Terry A. Hurlbut The State of Texas raised the stakes last week in its continuing struggle to stop the flood of illegal immigrants. On Monday December 18, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) signed a new law granting Texas law-enforcement officers the authority to arrest illegal immigrants which they find within the State. In response, the federal government threatens to sue the State if it enforces that law. If it does, this will be the third such legal battle between the State and federal governments. These battles clearly arise out of the federal government’s failure to protect against what Texas calls an invasion. Furthermore, some elected officials have made statements suggesting the federal government is using that illegal immigrant flow for its own political ends. The latest between Texas and the federals On December 18, Gov. Abbott signed Senate Bill 4, a measure allowing Texas law-enforcement agencies to arrest illegal immigrants. Usually, such arrests are a federal function, not a State function. But what is a State to do if the federals refuse to arrest illegal immigrants? Arrest them themselves. https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1736869211052417168 NBC News had the full particulars on the signing ceremony, and the new law. This law makes it a misdemeanor – criminal trespass – to cross the border into Texas at any place other than a lawful point of entry. But this X post, from five days earlier, highlights the real issue. https://twitter.com/GriffJenkins/status/1735043118691438935 That video describes a freight train, with illegal migrants clinging to it, that was already headed to the U.S.-Mexican border. On Christmas Eve, Reuters reported on another massive illegal migrant caravan headed for the U.S. (Jim Hoft at TGP noted it as well.) Gov. Abbott has previously tried to stop illegal immigrants in two ways: 1. Placing physical barriers, specifically concertina wire and the recent string of buoys along the Rio Grande, and 2. Transporting migrants to any place other than Texas where they might want to settle, including New York and Washington. The second part has engendered the most controversy to date. Bradlee Dean has accused Abbott (and Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla.) of “importing, not deporting,” and doing what President Joe Biden wants. Lately, Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago has started to impound buses bringing migrants into his city. Abbott responded in part – by airlifting migrants instead. The barriers The transportation program has already borne a curious fruit. Mayor Johnson – and Mayor Eric Adams of New York – are complaining about the migrant load. And they are calling on Joe Biden to stop it. The Biden administration responds by insisting that Govs. Abbott and DeSantis ought to take care of the migrants in their own States. (And presumably register them to vote, thus sacrificing their jobs.) But the physical barriers has provoked the legal controversy. Abbott strung concertina wire along property lines fronting the Northern Rio Grande Valley. Border patrol agents have, on several occasions, cut the wires. Lately Texas has won injunctive relief against the wire cutting. When Abbott placed a floating buoy barrier along the Rio Grande, the government sued to have it removed. The government said that the barrier was a menace to navigation, in violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Texas has petitioned the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear the case en banc. And now, the arrests But recently the governor, by his own avowal, raised the stakes. By declaring illegal immigrants guilty of a misdemeanor, he has empowered Texas State and local law-enforcement personnel to arrest them. He first announced this on Sunday, December 3. He must have been talking about SB 4 then. On December 18, he actually signed it into law. https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1736869211052417168 The law takes full force and effect on March 5, 2024. In response, Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, sent Gov. Abbott a letter. The message is plain: either Texas declines to enforce this law, or the federal government will sue to enjoin it. Boynton says the new Texas law exceeds the lawful authority of the States. It does this, says Boynton, by asserting a power the Constitution delegates to the federal government alone. That power is the power to secure the border and decide who stays in the United States – and who goes. He cites Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012). https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1740476033495617701 (Note: this CBS picture shows the floating barrier and the concertina wire – the physical barriers Abbot has already tried using.) Boynton suggested that if Gov. Abbott could cite facts or law to support SB 4, he should share. This is what Gov. Abbott shared in reply: https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1740491497357893853 Reaction to the Texas law, and the threats When CBS News released its X post about the threatening letter, that post got some pointed reaction. Most of it was negative – toward the Biden administration, and perhaps toward CBS. https://twitter.com/Throttle_This/status/1740481789687451720 https://twitter.com/FrankDeScushin/status/1740486159619227822 https://twitter.com/GHHILL1911/status/1740487515818348651 https://twitter.com/My_tucker_acct/status/1740494756646703144 https://twitter.com/StevePender/status/1740532912091472052 This user cited Amendment X as the source of Texas’ authority. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. https://twitter.com/EmTeaVe/status/1740482382640357867 Perhaps that user should have cited Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. But in reaction to Gov. Abbott’s quote of the CBS post, one user suggested Texas LEOs might arrest federal agents. https://twitter.com/albert1776/status/1740495064789574031 In fact the most arrogant federal response to the Texas position comes, not from the Justice Department, but from a Member of Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) openly decried all talk of an invasion from Mexico (or anywhere else). https://twitter.com/DonaldTNews/status/1740168062513631635 So often people wanna (sic) say, “Why are you talking about the border crisis?” (Or, “why are you talking about it in this way?”) Well, we’re talking about it; they just don’t like how we’re talking about it. Because it’s not a border crisis. It’s an imperialism crisis, it’s a climate crisis; it’s a trade crisis. Because these … this is not a “surge.” These are children. And they are not insurgents, and we are not being invaded. Which, by the way, is a white-supremacist idea, philosophy,… Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) That didn’t go over very well, either. Analysis Throughout this process, Texas has merely sought to try to protect the border when the federal government would not. Does the government wish to leave the border unprotected? Cullen Linebarger of TGP says yes, and suggests why. Three weeks ago he recalled Vivek Ramaswamy’s statement that the Democratic Party wants to replace those who vote against it, with others more likely to vote for them – and the handouts they offer. https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1732585805128892673 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1732736633223483676 Ramaswamy has a point – because more than a year ago, Sen. Charles M. Schumer (D-N.Y.) gave it to him. https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1592928904112922625 When he said that, Schumer vindicated Tucker Carlson, who said the same six months earlier: https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/1526754013437255680 The Biden administration might be vindicating both men, through their reckless disregard not only of the truth but of the clear public knowledge of it. In any case, the threatened lawsuit against Texas makes no legal sense, apart from a motive to go on importing indigent – and mendicant – people. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2023/12/29/foundation/constitution/texas-immigration-war-escalates/ Gov. Abbott signs SB 4 into law: https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1736869211052417168 Portrait of a migrant caravan: https://twitter.com/GriffJenkins/status/1735043118691438935 CBS report of the lawsuit: https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1740476033495617701 Text of the DOJ letter: https://www.scribd.com/document/695371577/Department-of-Justice-Letter-to-Governor-Abbott-Re-SB-4 Abbott’s response: https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1740491497357893853 Reaction to CBS Report: https://twitter.com/Throttle_This/status/1740481789687451720 https://twitter.com/FrankDeScushin/status/1740486159619227822 https://twitter.com/GHHILL1911/status/1740487515818348651 https://twitter.com/My_tucker_acct/status/1740494756646703144 https://twitter.com/StevePender/status/1740532912091472052 https://twitter.com/EmTeaVe/status/1740482382640357867 Post suggesting arrests of federal agents: https://twitter.com/albert1776/status/1740495064789574031 Post embedding AOC’s statement: https://twitter.com/DonaldTNews/status/1740168062513631635 Discussion of Great Replacement: https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1732585805128892673 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1732736633223483676 https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1592928904112922625 https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/1526754013437255680 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Georgia elections insecure statewide? By Terry A. Hurlbut The election integrity issue in Georgia now has gone State-wide and involves more than Fulton County alone. In fact it involves elections with “sore losers” from both ends of the traditional ideological spectrum. The corruption reaches as high as the Secretary of State himself – the chief election officer. And we know that because this officer is asking a federal appellate court to quash a bench order that he testify under oath about how well – or how poorly – he has been doing his job for lo, these many years. He must testify – and explain why he refuses to fix the problem until after the Election of 2024. Georgia elections – problems from both sides After the Election of 2020, all attention focused on the result of the Presidential election, and after that the Senate Runoffs of January 5, 2021. In fact, President Donald J. Trump is facing criminal charges for trying to urge Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find more votes” so that he, not Joe Biden, could carry the State. Raffensperger definitely, even indignantly, refused even to investigate whether anything untoward happened in Fulton County, the State’s most populous. (Fulton is the county where lies the city of Atlanta, which hires temporary workers as Officers of Election.) Raffensperger certified Joe Biden has having carried the State. Two months later he would similarly certify the elections of two Democratic Senators, thus handing the Senate to the Democrats. (Technically the Senate was tied – but Vice-President Kamala Harris became the Queen of Tiebreakers in the 117th Congress.) But no one thought of a sleepy sore-loser case from the political left. Donna Curling, of the Coalition for Good Governance, sued the State after Democrats narrowly lost a special election in Georgia’s Sixth District in 2017. Brian Kemp – now the Governor – was Secretary of State at the time. When Kemp ran for Governor in 2018, Brad Raffensperger ran for Secretary of State and won. Interestingly, then-Rep. Karen Handel (R-6th), winner of that special election, lost to incumbent Rep. Lucy McBath (D-6th). But that was after Donna Curling, her Coalition, and several other Democratic voters sued the State. Leftist voters raised questions about voting machines six years ago Handel won that special-election runoff in June 2017 with 51.87 percent of the vote. The New York Times called her victory “demoralizing for Democrats,” but that doesn’t half say it. The Coalition for Good Governance bitterly resented the results and looked for any reason to contest them. And they found one. The case now called Curling v. Raffensperger (1:17-cv-02989) began in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia. It is now in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division). That’s because then-Secretary of State Kemp filed a Notice of Removal one month after Ms. Curling and her fellow plaintiffs sued in the Fulton County court. The original State court complaint names the key issues: 1. Direct Recording (DRE) devices that produce ballots the voter cannot even read, and 2. Software vulnerabilities that a Georgia computer expert discovered, affecting the entire State election infrastructure. The Logan Lamb investigation Logan Lamb, a private citizen, began his investigation on August 23, 2016. His affidavit appears as Exhibit A of the original complaint. At the time, Georgia’s election infrastructure was in the hands of the Center for Election Services at Kennesaw State University. From the beginning Lamb knew something was wrong. He first discovered voter-registration information in a cache at the Google search engine. Then he accessed a download address at CES/KSU and found a treasure trove that should never have been publicly available. This included voter-registration databases, Election Management System databases, and Microsoft Windows executable and Dynamic Link Library (DLL) files. But most damning of all, he found a PDF file with election supervisor passwords. Worse yet, the server was running a content management system called Drupal – in an obsolete version. That version had a known vulnerability to a Drupal exploit called “Drupageddon.” This article in Linux Journal describes it in detail. More to the point, the Drupal community knew about the vulnerability in 2014. Linux Journal recommended patches and “defense in depth” in 2015. Mr. Lamb’s findings clearly show that no one at CES/KSU bothered to address this issue. Georgia refuses to act – and other vulnerabilities surface Lamb advised Merle King, his contact at CES/KSU, of the problem. Mr. King told him verbally that the Center would work on it. But in February of 2017 Lamb found out that the system was just as vulnerable as he originally found it. Lamb ended his affidavit with his discovery of training videos that instruct Chief Officers of Election (OOEs) to download files from the CES/KSU website, load them onto memory cards, then insert those cards into local voting machines. In short, he found how easily a hacker could spread malware throughout the entire Georgia election system. Lamb’s investigation, and that of his colleague Chris Grayson, began a process that continued with the FBI taking physical possession of the server. The complaint refers to the Russia Hack rumors, thus confusing the issue. Why the Russians would be interested in a down-ticket special election in Georgia, the plaintiffs have never made clear. But far easier to believe, is that Georgia politics has been corrupt for years. That corruption is the source of the negligence (at least) at CES/KSU, and the refusal to address key security vulnerabilities. But that’s not all. Apparently on April 15, 2017, an OOE in Cobb County was transporting Electronic Poll Books in his truck while shopping. Some person(s) unknown, stole the poll books. A special election with its own problems The Special Election itself was a “jungle primary,” and was fraught with such issues as: 1. EPB software issues prompting OOEs to send voters to different precincts – then send them back. 2. The “uploading of improper and unauthorized memory cards,” resulting in delays in results reporting. Shades of the Arizona Midterms! Despite that, Kemp insisted on using the same system for the June runoff. The issues detailed thus far were bad enough – but ballot marking devices that produce ballots voters can’t read, compounded the problems. Furthermore, other experts knew how vulnerable those DREs could be since 2006. The plaintiffs wanted a system of paper ballots – and Georgia election officials refused. Defendants commonly “remove” cases to federal court hoping to dismiss them. But that did not happen in this case. When the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a federally actionable claim, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Judge Amy Totenberg denied the Motion to Dismiss as moot. More complaints, a trial date – and Raffensperger refuses to testify The docket now runs to eleven pages covering six years of motions and countermotions – and more amended complaints. Donna Curling and two other individuals filed their Third Amended Complaint on October 15, 2019. The Coalition for Good Governance and the remaining individuals filed a Supplemental Amended Complaint the same day. On January 9, 2023, the State of Georgia filed two Motions for Summary Judgment (here and here) against these complaints. This took place after many hearings and other actions, including action by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. On June 7, 2023, at the request of Donna Curling, the court unsealed the infamous Halderman Report. That Report indicates how vulnerable Dominion Voting Systems’ Ballot Marking Devices can be. Judge Totenberg’s order denying summary judgment reveals that the original Direct Recording Electronic system, with its known issues, is no longer in use. The present Ballot Marking Device system by Dominion Voting Systems replaced it in 2020. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment as to the original systems but denied it as to the current system. That case will go to trial on January 9, 2024. But yesterday morning, Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit reported that Brad Raffensperger doesn’t want to testify under oath about the use of electronic voting machines! https://twitter.com/Crimsontider/status/1739645776005874108 James Magazine Online has further details: Last month U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg ruled that a lawsuit against Georgia’s use of electronic voting machines must go to a non-jury trial in January. She ordered Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to defend the state’s utilization of electronic voting prior to the upcoming presidential primary election because the lawsuit questions whether Georgia’s current system of computerized voting is safe or whether it is vulnerable to potential hacking. However, the state (spending taxpayer money) is now appealing to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to keep Raffensperger from testifying. Says one lawyer to James Magazine Online familiar with the case: “Raffensperger selected the system, repeatedly defends the system as secure, but now can’t take an hour or so in federal court to defend it.” At time of writing, the Notice of Appeal hasn’t made it onto CourtListener’s docket listing. Furthermore, Erick-Woods Erickson, who runs a radio program in Georgia, has never discussed this case. Analysis The Curling v. Raffensperger case reveals one thing above all: Georgia politics is dirtier than any outsider could have imagined. Erick-Woods Erickson thinks – or would have his listeners and subscribers believe – he knows Georgia politics. He either doesn’t, or he’s lying to his listeners and subscribers to cover up. Erickson is not a government official; Brad Raffensperger is. But this case clearly demonstrates that the Secretary of State’s office has been corrupt for years. Brian Kemp either corrupted the process or inherited an already corrupt process. When he ran for governor, Brad Raffensperger ran for SOS to replace him. That officer has been running a corrupt system ever since, and is in a perfect position to dictate election results as he sees fit. That would include making sure that: • Joe Biden, not Donald Trump, would carry Georgia in 2020, • Rafael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, Democrats both, would enter the Senate, if only to spite the Republican rank and file, • He (Raffensperger) and his friend Brian Kemp can assure themselves of endless reelections, and • Madison Cawthorn would lose reelection after revealing the sexual shenanigans into which senior Members of the House invited him. (Recent events have vindicated Cawthorn in that sensational revelation.) In short, Democratic and Republican rank and file alike have reason to suspect that Georgia elections are selections. The role of Stacey Abrams becomes less clear. Nowhere in the docket of Curling v. Raffensperger does her name appear. Why not? What Georgia voters and legislators must do about it Nevertheless, two things are readily apparent. First, no one can be sure, anymore, of any elections in Georgia. Second, Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger are equally guilty of corrupting Georgia elections, or maintaining existing corruption. Brad Raffensperger is not doing his job. Georgia voters need to vote him out as Secretary of State. If the legislature has enough collective character, they can and should remove him on impeachment. How easy any of the above will be, will depend on the upcoming trial. The Secretary of State’s attempt to avoid testifying is a sign of guilt and fear. A judgment for the plaintiffs is not likely to result in a mandate for paper ballots. Judge Totenberg, in her order, disclaimed the authority to issue such an order. She hinted at reforms that might make the system more open. She could, for example, order Georgia to switch to a BMD that produces voter-readable ballots. That would solve one problem, at least, but leave the scanner-tabulators in place. So voters need to make a consistent issue that electronic voting machines are inherently unsafe. All jurisdictions should move back to paper ballots. Spalding County in Georgia has already taken a step in that direction. Other counties can do the same, and maybe force the issue State-wide. The listing of all races on one ballot would have to end, so that large teams of OOEs can count them all at once. The French do it. Americans should do the same. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2023/12/28/editorial/talk/georgia-elections-insecure-statewide/ Curling v. Raffensperger: Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6139924/curling-v-raffensperger/ Original complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.1.2_1.pdf Notice of Removal: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.1.0.pdf First Amended Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.15.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.627.0_2.pdf Coalition Supplemental Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.628.0.pdf Motions for Summary Judgment: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.1567.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.1568.0.pdf Order denying summary judgment: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.240678/gov.uscourts.gand.240678.1705.0_1.pdf Article in Linux Journal describing Drupageddon: https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/drupageddon-sql-injection-database-abstraction-and-hundreds-thousands-web-sites X post reporting Raffensperger’s refusal to testify: https://twitter.com/Crimsontider/status/1739645776005874108 Previous article describing the French voting system: https://cnav.news/2023/06/24/editorial/talk/france-votes-paper/ 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Disney must sink or swim By Terry A. Hurlbut The Walt Disney Company just lost a major institutional investor. The State of South Carolina, which holds $105 million in Disney “commercial paper,” will not renew any of it. Furthermore, State Treasurer Curtis Loftis told the public, through Fox Business Digital, what it already knows. Which is that The Walt Disney Company is firmly in the hands of the Council of Woke. We know that the public knows this, because they have withdrawn their patronage and told everyone who will listen, why. An experienced troubleshooter offers to help Disney get back to business – and current management refuses to cooperate or listen. If they don’t listen, they will die as a company – but they already have their rainbow-colored parachutes. Where does Disney stand? Disney (NYSE:DIS) opened at $90.44 per share this morning, already down from $90.95 at yesterday’s close. This puts it slightly less than midway in its fifty-two-week range ($78.48 to $117.80). Yesterday, South Carolina Treasurer Curtis Loftis announced the divestment from Disney for all of South Carolina’s funds. Moneywise carried the story. I think it's clear to anybody paying attention that there's a structural rot inside of Disney. It's deep, it’s pervasive, and I suspect Bob Iger, since his return as the CEO, now realizes it can't be fixed. Curtis Loftis Mr. Loftis went further, saying that all the top talents that built Disney are now gone. In their place is “the gender studies crowd” who clearly want to send a cultural-Marxist, critical-theoretical message to Disney’s customers. Mr. Loftis offered few details, but we all know the details. A litany of bad – and ideological – decisions After buying Twentieth Century-Fox (at a premium), Disney shelved Sound of Freedom. Its producers had to fight to get their rights back. Then Angel Studios distributed the film and made at least $250 million worldwide. This, on a film that cost only $14.5 million to produce and $5.5 million to market by word-of-mouth alone! At the same time, Disney has destroyed at least two major franchises it acquired with Fox. It did this by changing the motives of its characters and selling a version of male-female relations that none but an LGBTQIA+ ideologue could appreciate. We have seen a “Mary Sue” female lead take the place of a beloved male lead who was only a shadow of his former self. (Worse, she serves a rebel force with an all-female high command of dubious military competence.) In the other franchise, a new female lead humiliates the old male lead as he tries to pretend he is still his younger self. (The initial plan was worse: she was to supplant him in time.) And in the ultimate humiliation, Sound of Freedom eclipsed Indiana Jones Five in domestic box-office take. Add to it that Disney’s rides, apart from their “Woke” themes, are unsafe. Several accidents have happened that would have gotten ride crews fired at any other theme park. Consequences Small wonder, then, that former Disney customers are not attending Disney movies or parks, nor buying Disney toys (nor any of their traditionally overpriced souvenirs), nor streaming on Disney channels. The toymaker Hasbro has laid off 20 percent of its workforce and closed an office by reason of lost sales. Why? Because they sell Disney toys, and those toys are not moving. Recently Disney’s management had to admit how “Broke” they’re going after getting “Woke.” Every year, every publicly traded company has to answer to one agency that will make no allowances for political messaging. That agency is the Securities and Exchange Commission. So far, that agency has not adopted “stakeholder capitalism” to measure attention to fiduciary duty. Disney’s SEC report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2023 says it all. Jonathan Turley, on November 27, quoted from that report, which tells some hard truths: We face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products. The success of our businesses depends on our ability to consistently create compelling content. Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance. Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands. Translation: “We haven’t given the public what they want. We are in the compelling content business. But the public no longer wants what we have to sell. To make it worse, we can’t please everybody with our stands on the environment and society.” Anyone could have told them that from the beginning. But they would not listen – until it started to hurt their bottom line. And even then they blame the public for not wanting their message. Why is Disney in this fix? Julian Adorney, writing in The Washington Examiner, identifies a litany of excuse-making across the entertainment industry. Whenever a movie gets criticized for “going woke” and then bombs at the box office, some cultural commentators on the Left insist that America is just too bigoted to appreciate diversity. When The Little Mermaid was remade into a live-action movie starring Halle Bailey, the Guardian chalked up its poor performance to a “racist backlash.” When the gay rom-com Bros flopped, director Nicholas Stoller blamed the failure on straight people . “Gay men are the only people who saw the movie,” he complained. Adorney guesses the real problem is that “Woke” scriptwriters opt for “simplistic stories and heavy-handed moralizing.” That’s certainly part of the problem, and reflects a general lack of talent in the industry today. To illustrate the problem, consider three movies from the early Sixties that struck a decisive (and leftist) moral tone: • The Manchurian Candidate, • Seven Days in May, and • Fail-Safe. All three sent a definite message: better to risk conquest by the Soviet Union, than mutual nuclear annihilation. But none of the three featured the kind of cardboard-character leads typical of films today. The villains were incredibly complex characters that made thwarting them the more challenging. Likewise, the heroes often made choices of which many would not approve. (Doctor Strangelove was the exception – but Stanley Kubrick wrote it for laughs, and his cast played it for laughs.) Contrast that with the “Disney Star Wars Sequel Trilogy” or with Indy Five as originally conceived. The messages there were insultingly plain. All men, especially heterosexual men, are incompetent oafs. Only homosexual men are safe for women to be around. Even better, let’s kill all the men and let the women make love to one another. (The next generation? The attitude varies from “our scientists are working on a fix” to “who cares?” Except that the scientists are not working on a fix! They say they are – but they’re lying.) The messages are the problem But CNAV disagrees with Adorney. The messages themselves, are the problem. Sidney Lumet, John Frankenheimer, Rod Serling, and George Axelrod – some of the director-producers and writers of those three Sixties-era films – could get away with their own high-handed leftist moralizing for the same reason Lyndon Baines Johnson won election as President in 1964 with the “Daisy” campaign advertisement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riDypP1KfOU That reason is: the American people were still ambivalent at best about whether to fear the Soviet Union. The programs of Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc.) and Gen. Edwin Walker made people think maybe “the Russians” were right! Ronald Reagan would have to wait a decade and a half before the people would receive his pro-America message well. Today it’s different. Whether Joe Biden won the Presidency legitimately or not, everyone now knows that leftism is a public-policy disaster. Movies, books, and other entertainment projects that reflect leftism will not sell well today. But Disney – obeying the commands of Larry Fink (what an apt name!) of BlackRock – is still pushing The Message. Nelson Peltz would like to help One major investor would like to set things right. Nelson Peltz of Trian Management makes his money by buying troubled firms cheap, then turning them around. He has been offering to do the same for Disney for nearly a year. And Disney is having none of it. Like Twitter when Elon Musk came calling, they are putting in poison-pill rules changes. Meanwhile, Ike Perlmutter, former chairman of Marvel Entertainment, recently gave Peltz his proxy. Yet the fight continues, and now Nelson Peltz has issued an ultimatum. Business Wire quotes him: Since we gave Disney the opportunity to prove it could ‘right the ship’ last February, up to our re-engagement weeks ago, shareholders lost ~$70 billion of value. Disney's share price has underperformed proxy peers and the broader market over every relevant period during the last decade and over the tenure of each incumbent director. Investor confidence is low, key strategic questions loom, and even Disney's CEO is acknowledging that the Company's challenges are greater than previously believed. While James Gorman and Sir Jeremy Darroch represent an improvement from the status quo, the addition of these directors will not, in our view, restore investor confidence or address the root cause behind the significant value destruction and missteps that this Board has overseen. Trian intends to take our case for change directly to shareholders. And what is that root cause? Going woke, that’s what. And according to Brandon Morse at RedState, they are stubbornly continuing to go woke. Bob Iger, now serving his second non-consecutive term as head of Disney, knows what the problem is. He says he intends to correct it – but he does not. Iger probably has a deeper commitment to the Woke Ideology even than his master, Fink of BlackRock. The skeptic in me sees a lot of what Iger is saying and doing as a way to put shareholders at ease and make them think Disney is righting the ship on its own without the guidance of Peltz and Trian. It makes me wonder if this is all an act meant to get shareholders to vote for Disney's choice of board members and not for Trian's so that they continue doing wrong by the American people once power is secured again, and the message pushing can continue unabated. Brandon Morse CNAV doesn’t wonder; we know. This is “all an act” for the dubious benefit of shareholders. Iger is in the proxy fight of his life, and he’s fighting to win. Woke warriors are often bigger liars than Muslim clerics have been on recent occasion. Disney has rivals In the meantime, rivals are rising, or consolidating their own power, every day. The American Heartland park will rise near Vinita, Oklahoma – after poaching Disney’s talent, apparently with Disney’s complete “cooperation.” The Six Flags and Cedar Fair empires announced a merger that will take full effect next season. Meanwhile, alternative movie studios are springing up and releasing uplifting content – the kind that built Disney. So the House of Mouse has a choice: return to its roots, or die. The next question is: do that company’s managers even care? Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2023/12/27/editorial/talk/disney-sink-swim/ The SEC Report: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001744489/000174448923000216/dis-20230930.htm The Daily Ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riDypP1KfOU 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Washington did the impossible By Terry A. Hurlbut Two hundred forty-seven years ago this morning, the Continental Army, General George Washington commanding, ambushed a large force of Hessian mercenaries in the Battle of Trenton. Not only did the Continental Army win a stunning victory, but morale, which had suffered greatly in the half-year following the Declaration of Independence, climbed high enough to sustain the war effort at a crucial time. But to bring this about, Washington had to do two things no one, friend or foe, would have suspected. He attacked in the middle of winter – and in those days, armies did not fight in winter. But before then, he and his army had to cross an ice-cold river – the Delaware. His advisers told him he couldn’t do it – because no one could – but he did it anyway. That one act made the difference between victory and defeat. What Washington faced The Continental Army probably never had any of the advantages an army guarding an established society enjoys. “Not worth a Continental” was a common saying then, and it referred to the new country’s currency. So pay in the Continental Army was hit or miss. British forces under General William Howe had chased Washington out of New York that summer and fall, taking many prisoners. Those that escaped – going as far as Pennsylvania – were already demoralized. Many of their mates had deserted or simply “not re-upped” when their enlistments expired. Worse, two of his generals – Horatio Gates and Charles Lee – evidently preferred to argue with and disobey him. (Even one bad general can defeat two or more good generals who argue.) But on December 19 can an event that demonstrates the value of propaganda in boosting troop morale. Thomas Paine (Common Sense) published his American Crisis pamphlet. This pamphlet begins with this salient quote: These are the times that try men’s souls: the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. Apart from the universal truth of that statement, Paine, in those words, gave Washington what he needed most: a moral-philosophical doctrine to remind his troops of what victory would require. He ordered his officers to read that to his troops – and they took the hint. The troops gather Washington had made his camp near McConkey’s Ferry, across and slightly upriver from Trenton. On December 20, General Charles Lee’s division arrived. That arrival is interesting in itself, because it had come about from a change of command. Charles Lee had ventured beyond the protection of his troops, and the British had captured him. General John Sullivan took command and followed Washington’s original order to join him. General Gates’ division was not so large – only 600, net of enlisted who didn’t “re-up.”But 1000 militiamen soon joined the gathering force. With so many forces now available to him, Washington decided to attack. He sent his Adjutant General, Joseph Reed, to cross the river alone and meet with militiamen stationed near Mount Holly, New Jersey. Reed found a force of troops in poor condition, and signaled that an assault at Mount Holly would likely fail. So Washington decided to attack the Trenton garrison directly. But those Mount Holly militiamen did create a crucial diversion – the Battle of Iron Works Hill, on December 23. That battle drew some Hessians away from Trenton – and the rest never expected any further action. The crossing and the attack That’s because the Hessians (and the British) never expected any general to try to cross a major river, and bring artillery and cavalry as well as infantry, unless the river were frozen over first. In fact, Washington’s spies reported the suspicion that the British would try to cross when the river was frozen over. So on the night of Christmas Day, Washington took his army across – or at least part of it. (Of the other two parts, one didn’t cross at all. The other cross, but after the battle was over and Washington had already recrossed into Pennsylvania.) But Washington made it across with his largest contingent of troops, including cavalry horses and artillery pieces. Here the famous Marblehead Rowers earned their fame: all night long they rowed, to ferry Washington’s troops and materiel across. The last of the artillery pieces made it across at 3:00 a.m. At 4:00 a.m. the army was ready to march. Once they were ready, Washington split his army into two columns and thus attacked Trenton from two directions. To add to the complete surprise, the postmaster of Trenton, Abraham Hunt, who had pretended to be a Loyalist, entertained the British commander and some of his officers at his house. Likewise, the Trenton garrison were celebrating Christmas – and Washington caught them completely unaware and unprepared. The Continentals suffered very light casualties: three killed and six wounded. They took a far heavier toll on the enemy: 22 killed, 98 wounded, and nearly 1000 captured. Washington goes back across – and then back for more Now Washington had to bring his troops – and those prisoners, and the large quantity of supplies they had also captured – back across to Pennsylvania. To make things more difficult, his troops had captured several casks of rum during the battle. Instead of destroying them, many of the troops drank it up – with predictable results during the recrossing. Still, Washington succeeded in the recrossing. The next day he heard that the British and Hessians had retreated to Princeton. So he took his entire force back across the Delaware, though he couldn’t complete the crossing until New Year’s Eve. The enemy attacked him at Assunpink Creek on January 2, 1777, but without success. The next day he attacked Princeton and chased the British away. So the Continental Army wintered in Morristown, New Jersey that year. This time the losses struck a little closer to home: Washington’s personal friend Hugh Mercer died in that operation. To this day the State of New Jersey remembers him: the country that includes Trenton is called Mercer County. Incredibly, Abraham Hunt created such confusion that he stood trial for Loyalist sentiment! The court acquitted him on the testimony of several Patriots who attested to the crucial role he played at Trenton. Lessons learned The American people can take several lessons from the campaign that began with Washington crossing the Delaware. First, of course, is Thomas Paine’s lesson, which the Continental Army put into practice. Second is the importance of follow-up. Whoever wins a victory and then fails to follow up on it, wastes it. Third is the importance of unity of command – and understanding that, when the commanding general cuts an order, he’s thought about it, and it’s best to obey it. But the most important lesson is never to assume that anything is impossible – either for yourself or for your adversary. The British learned that the hard way – and the Americans learned it, again, by practicing the lesson. Sadly, Thomas Paine’s other lesson also applies. “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly,” he said – and that goes double for a legacy. The day might indeed come when Americans have to pay as high a price for liberty as Washington and his troops paid. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2023/12/26/foundation/constitution/washington-did-impossible/ Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis: https://americainclass.org/sources/makingrevolution/war/text2/painecrisis1776.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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Oumuamua catches the collective eye – again By Terry A. Hurlbut Comet Oumuamua, the longest-period comet ever observed, has long since departed our solar system. But questions remain – because no one, looking at this object, can make up his mind what it is or was. Recently another scientist released a paper saying only that one theory to explain its behavior, won’t wash. Immediately a popular YouTube influencer jumped on that finding to say, “There! You see! It’s not a comet, and not an asteroid! It’s an alien probe!” The scientist he quoted would probably not be happy to hear such an “un-nuanced” speculation. But even he can never grasp what Oumuamua really represents, without discarding a bedrock assumption of conventional science. Which, sadly, is that we are lucky (or unlucky) products of a cosmic roulette cast billions of years ago. As we prepare to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, we ought to make some effort to understand that the evidence, far from disproving the Account of His Birth and Mission, actually supports it. Observations about Oumuamua, and the problems they create Oumuamua (Ooh-MOO-wah-MOO-wah) (Hawaiian: “scout”) likely began entering (or reentering) our solar system early in 2015. Astronomers at the Haleakalā Observatory didn’t notice it until October 19, 2017 – when it was already heading back out. It follows an apparently hyperbolic path, which would make it the first-ever suspected interstellar object. It must have passed perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) on September 9, 2017. By now it’s long gone, far too dim to observe. By the time anyone had seen it, it was too late even to plan a mission to send a probe to fly in formation with it. Oumuamua is supposed to have started into our system from the Galactic Standard of Rest. This is a frame of reference equivalent to the Galaxy itself as it spins about its core. But the source of the most fevered speculation about it is its “non-gravitational acceleration.” It traveled faster by 17 meters per second than it had before – without passing any bodies that could have accelerated it by gravity. The speed difference works out to 38 miles per hour, or 33 knots. No one can yet explain what accelerated that object, if it didn’t pass close enough to a planet. But that hasn’t stopped astronomers from trying. Three competing theories Abraham “Avi” Loeb insists that Oumuamua is a light-sail craft. Late in 2018 he published his paper explaining his thesis. It’s either a lighe-sail craft, or a broken piece of a Dyson Sphere. Most of his scientific colleagues heap scorn on him even for believing that extraterrestrial aliens exist. On Wednesday March 22, Jennifer Bergner and Darryl Seligman published their theory in the journal Nature. They conclude that Oumuamua is a comet – specifically a water-ice comet that underwent thermolysis to form molecular hydrogen and oxygen. This thermolysis allegedly occurred in interstellar space. As Oumuamua passed incredibly close to the Sun, it released its hydrogen load. That release propelled it on its outbound leg, when the Hawaii astronomers first saw it. Loeb discounted that theory from its first appearance – and now, perhaps, he can claim some small measure of vindication. Niels Ligterink of the University of Bern, in reply to Bergner and Seligman, says hydrogen outgassing is very difficult to reconcile with observations. On November 30, he sat for an interview with Brigit Bucher, also of the University of Bern. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkLeaglvtbM Ligterink knew at once that the observed acceleration would require an enormous amount of hydrogen. He and his team tried to simulate hydrogen formation in interstellar space. This would require an age of at least a billion years, and an icy surface with methanol and ammonia, not water ice alone. Astronomers have never seen any object with such composition among the Mavericks of the Solar System. But is it a space probe? Not so fast! Ligterink is willing to speculate that Oumuamua is an active space probe – he even says the possibility excites him. But he does not consider that likely. Furthermore: Unfortunately, some astronomers have hijacked this debate for personal gain with un-nuanced scientific work. He didn’t name any names, but he might well be talking about Avi Loeb. Ligterink’s work is in trying to understand the “icy moons” of the solar system, particularly Europa (Jupiter) and Enceladus (Saturn). The physical characteristics of Oumuamua make it even less likely to be a spacecraft. It measures 120 meters (nearly 400 feet) in length – or diameter. The full set of physical dimensions make it a disk, not a “cigar.” But apparently it tumbles, instead of spinning like a top. Furthermore, radio telescopes designed to listen for alien signals have detected no such signals from this object. Nevertheless, Jordan “The Angry Astronaut” Wright seized upon the Ligterink paper to shout, “See? I told you so!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig_9oiUr0pU Wright included an artist’s concept of Oumuamua as a metal probe tied with shrouds to a gigantic light “spinnaker.” (As sailors know, a spinnaker is a sail strongly resembling a parachute, that one deploys when running before the wind.) He also said flatly, “It’s official! Oumuamua is neither comet nor asteroid!” That is not what Ligterink said. He said an object producing enough hydrogen to accelerate it as proposed, would have an composition radically unlike any asteroid or comet thus far observed. So what is Oumuamua? CNAV returns to its original theory – that Oumuamua is a long-period comet, now returned to Earth. Fifty-four hundred years ago (give or take a century) came the most violent event Earth has ever known: the Flood. That event was violent enough to eject four percent of the Earth’s substance into space. That substance, consisting of water, rock and mud, formed the Mavericks of the Solar System. It also formed: • The moons of Mars, Jupiter (except the Galileans), Saturn (except Titan), Uranus, and Neptune, • Dwarf planets Pluto and Charon and their four known co-orbiting satellites, • Dwarf planet Eris and its one known satellite, and • All meteoroids, comets, asteroids, and trans-Neptunian objects. The oldest candidate date for the Global Flood is 3344 BC. If Oumuamua formed from material launched in that year, then in 663 BC it would have reached aphelion (the farthest-away point from the Sun). Aphelion, for a long-period comet, would be at or close to the Galactic Standard of Rest. Then it would start to fall back, to arrive in 2017. On its way in, it would leave behind several other objects that originally slowed it to an elliptical orbit. This explains the hyperbolic orbit astronomers observed. And the acceleration would be due, not to hydrogen outgassing but to water outgassing. This theory would not depend on thermolysis or radiolysis of hydrogen-bearing compounds like methanol or ammonia. Conclusion Jordan Wright, with all the respect due him, is in a spiritually dark place. Refusing to believe in a beneficent God, he actually prefers to believe in a maleficent, or else negligent, alien civilization. A civilization that, for whatever reason, stationed a buoy outside our solar system. Yet it could build gigantic and powerful radio lighthouses that, he says, are the pulsars we see today. So that “buoy” was no navigational aid, but an automatic spy station that sent a spy balloon to reconnoiter Earth six years ago. (Oh, those Chinese must be pea-green with envy! Their spy balloon didn’t get away!) Christmas is coming. It might not be the exact anniversary of the birth of Christ, but it will do for our purpose. Which is to wish everyone a truly Merry Christmas, in the full confidence that an Infinite God created us – and loves us, despite our failings. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2023/12/23/civilization/christianity-today/creation/oumuamua-catches-collective-eye-again/ Scientific articles: Abraham “Avi” Loeb: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/acc10d Bergner and Seligman: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05687-w Ligterink: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06697-y Interview with Niels Ligterink: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkLeaglvtbM Presentation by Jordan Wright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig_9oiUr0pU 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Trump Colorado ballot case backfiring By Terry A. Hurlbut The case of Anderson v. Griswold, or the Trump Colorado ballot case, is still in the news today. But this does not please those who brought the case or wanted someone to bring similar cases. True enough, many of the principals still believe they are doing justice, however illogical and spiteful that might sound. But the rest of the country is reacting in anger, and already the proponents begin to know it. A consensus is now setting in, that the Colorado Supreme Court jumped the gun (or the shark), and that the principals have done nothing except to ensure the nomination, and eventual reelection, of President Donald J. Trump. Legal eagles excoriate the Colorado Supremes I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve. Actor Sō Yamamura, as Vice-Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto IJN, in Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) Many lawyers have weighed in after the opinion in Anderson came out. Almost all of them have said the Colorado Supreme Court judged the case incorrectly. Lanny Davis, an adviser to two Presidents, agreed with Chief Justice Brian Boatright’s dissent in the case. He might as well have agreed with all three dissents, for they all said the same thing. Namely that none of the Colorado courts even tried to have a trial of Trump on a charge of insurrection. Instead they accepted, uncritically, the report of the House January 6 Committee – or a dictionary definition of the word insurrection. The process, says Davis, denied Trump due process of law. Alan Dershowitz furiously condemned the decision as “anti-democratic,” “unconstitutional,” and “absurd.” (Prime source: Tim Haines at RealClearPolitics.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6-lZtJl_kI He maintained that disqualifying a President from running for office again requires impeachment, not a court trial. (Trump has faced impeachment – twice – and gained acquittal each time.) Furthermore, Amendment XIV Section 5 gives to Congress – and only Congress – the power to enforce any other section. Finally, this decision effectively deprives Coloradans the right to vote for him if they so choose. (Actually, it’s stayed until January 4 – or until the Supreme Court acts, if anyone asks it to act.) Former administration lawyers weigh in Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr told CNN (according to Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit) that the court was wrong to find facts that had not been tried by a jury. In fact he called the proceedings a “procedural Frankenstein.” But his greatest fear was how the people would react to it, and how Trump could play it. I think this kind of action of stretching the law, taking these hyper-aggressive positions to try to knock Trump out of the race, are counterproductive. They backfire. As you know, he feeds on grievance just like a fire feeds on oxygen, and this is going to end up as a grievance that helps him. The federal government, said Barr, should have set up the procedure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiiyPek8Pbs Of course, no one thus far has commented on the effects of the Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898. Those Acts, especially the 1898 Act, should apply in perpetuity, as CNAV has said here and here. Jonathan Turley made an even stronger statement. This country is a powder keg and this court is just throwing matches at it. https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1737317930679804043 Furthermore, Ty Cobb, a former White House lawyer, told The Hill he expected the U.S. Supreme Court to vote 9-0 to reverse, on the theory that a President is not an “officer” within the meaning of Amendment XIV Section 3. Retaliation, by Trump and his friends Officer or no, Trump has friends, and those friends are already preparing to retaliate. Colorado’s Republican Party has threatened to cancel the primary and run caucuses, with which the State could not interfere. https://twitter.com/cologop/status/1737292783835103476 Grant Stinchfield suggested on his streaming show that Trump hold a rally in Colorado to show the strength of his support. https://rumble.com/embed/v3zrfbb/?pub=4teej Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R-Texas) suggested Texas might exclude Joe Biden from the general election ballot by reason of his failure to protect Texans from the 8 million migrants who have illegally crossed the U.S.-Mexican border. (Source: The Hill.) https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1737528070599319621 Wayne Allen Root suggested three ways Republicans could retaliate: 1. Remove President Joe Biden from the ballot in every State under Republican control. They could charge him with failure to protect against invasion, as Article IV Section 4 requires. 2. Have State Attorneys General indict Biden, Vice-President Kamala Harris, and SecHomeSec Alexander Mayorkas on treason charges. 3. Hold a Trump rally in Colorado, as Grant Stinchfield suggested. Jim Hoft reported this morning that one Republican State Representative each from Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona are introducing legislation to exclude Biden from the ballot in their respective States. (Prime source: Breitbart.) One of them (Cory McGarr of Arizona) released a joint statement: https://twitter.com/CoryMcGarr/status/1738192949153022319 Popular reaction But even without such retaliation, the people seem to be lining up on Trump’s side. Jim Hoft, this morning, reported poll results showing Trump leading among voters between the ages of 18 and 34 inclusive. https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1738155954506535302 https://twitter.com/AureliusStoic1/status/1737934146469576956 Fox News Host Greg Gutfeld laughed at Democrats for “opening Pandora’s box.” So thankfully, much like Joe without his rubber soled shoes, this almost certainly won't stand. But what's sad and amazing is if Donald Trump had not swung the Supreme Court, it could have. That's tragic and scary because as the Colorado Supreme Court accuses Trump of insurrection and election interference, today's Democratic Party should hold that thought. You opened a Pandora's Box that would make the Unabomber sue you for plagiarism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2cnORWz8Pk Other news related to Trump and ballot access Yesterday Cullen Linebarger listed sixteen States where Democrats are trying to keep Trump off the ballot. Working from this map by Lawfare Media, he came up with these names: 1. Alaska 2. Arizona 3. Maine 4. Michigan 5. Nevada 6. New Jersey 7. New Mexico 8. New York 9. Oregon 10. South Carolina 11. Texas 12. Vermont 13. Virginia 14. West Virginia 15. Wisconsin 16. Wyoming Scratch West Virginia; Jim Hoft reported today that Judge Irene Berger of the West Virginia District Court dismissed that lawsuit. The lawsuit came from a Texas resident and write-in candidate for President. Judge Berger flatly accused him of running in bad faith. https://twitter.com/realJohnACastro/status/1737974190597116269 Courts in Minnesota, Florida, New Hampshire and Rhode Island have also dismissed attempts to remove Trump from the ballot. Mr. Castro withdrew his suit in California, but Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D-Calif.) asked California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, in writing, whether California could still keep Trump off its ballot. On the other hand, the Democratic Parties of Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina and Massachusetts will have Joe Biden’s name only on their primary ballot. Challenger Marianne Williamson protested. https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1737524664560185831 https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1737524690011193454 Summary In sum, the Trump Colorado case has done nothing but turn a sleepy story into an active one. Admiral Yamamoto might – or might not – have said what that movie actor portrayed him as saying. But he could have been speaking of the Democratic Party today, as well as the Imperial Japanese Navy. Democrats have indeed awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2023/12/22/foundation/constitution/trump-colorado-ballot-case-backfiring/ The ruling: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf Informal legal opinions: Lanny Davis: https://cnav.news/2023/12/22/editorial/guest/trump-colorado-case-right-analysis-wrong-outcome/ Alan Dershowitz (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6-lZtJl_kI Bill Barr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiiyPek8Pbs Jonathan Turley: https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1737317930679804043 Retaliation suggestions: Colorado GOP: https://twitter.com/cologop/status/1737292783835103476 Grant Stinchfield: https://rumble.com/v42csgz-president-trump-needs-to-hold-a-rally-in-co-asap.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R-Texas): https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1737528070599319621 State Rep. Cory McGarr (R-Ariz.) https://twitter.com/CoryMcGarr/status/1738192949153022319 Popular reaction: https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1738155954506535302 https://twitter.com/AureliusStoic1/status/1737934146469576956 Greg Gutfeld’s take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2cnORWz8Pk The Lawfare Map: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker Plaintiff reacts to West Virginia dismissal: https://twitter.com/realJohnACastro/status/1737974190597116269 Marianne Williamson protests exclusion from Massachusetts ballot: https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1737524664560185831 https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1737524690011193454 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Great Sortation continues By Terry A. Hurlbut The Great Sortation is definitely continuing, with people moving out of Democrat-controlled (“blue”) States and into Republican-controlled (“red”) States. Recent Census Bureau data now confirm the trend – and show the South gaining more population than any other region. The population shift, if it continues at present rates, could flip 13 Congressional seats from blue States to red States. This might not necessarily translate to Republican gains in the House. But it will definitely affect the Electoral College, and inspire louder screams for abolition of that body. Latest population trends The U.S. Census Bureau released new population snapshots and trends two days ago (December 19). According to the Bureau, the United States as a whole gained 1.6 million people, a 0.5% increase. That increase results from immigration, fewer deaths, and possibly new births. But the South and West (other than the West Coast) gained the most, while the Northeast lost people. Of the ten most populous States, California, New York Pennsylvania, and Illinois continued to lose people. Ohio and Michigan reversed their losses from earlier in the decade, to gain people last year. Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina all continued to gain people. Politico reported yesterday that domestic migration, not international immigration or new birth, drove population gains in the South. The American Redistricting Project has a map that tells what this means for the House of Representatives. If these trends continue, California and New York will lose four and three seats, respectively. Texas and Florida will pick up four and three seats. Illinois will lose two, and Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island will lose one each. Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia will pick up one seat each. Likely effects on representation Of the States standing to lose seats, New York, Illinois, Oregon, and Rhode Island are under full Democratic control. California’s districts are in the hands of an independent commission. Minnesota and Pennsylvania have split legislatures. Of the gainers, Idaho and Arizona have independent commissions; the rest are under full Republican control. Just as happened after the 2020 Census, the “blue States” (except maybe California) will insist that Republicans lose every seat each State loses. Then again, the red States will likely see Republicans gaining all the new seats. (Arizona is “purple.”) So the worst-case scenario will see 13 Republican seats transfer from blue States to red States. Membership of the House Party Conferences will not change. (Exception: Oregon’s legislature will be hard-pressed to take away the one remaining Republican seat. That seat now represents Oregon East of the Cascades, whose people are pressing to join with Idaho.) But the Republicans likely to succeed the ousted Republicans in “blue” States will more likely be “real” or “Trump” Republicans. Republicans in “blue” States are more likely to be RINOs, inclined to “go along to get along.” More to the point, this will shift thirteen electoral votes from blue States to red States. That one fact will likely alarm the Democrats and the globalists. Donald J. Trump will not, of course, be re-eligible by then (if he lives that long). But other Republicans who share his philosophy are more likely to be elected President. What that means for the Great Sortation Texas and California both have active secession movements, though the Texas Nationalist Movement is more active than “Calexit.” Texas will likely have an active secession question on the Republican primary ballot next year. California’s international secession movement has been silent of late. But the “New California” movement is still active, trying to create a “New California” east of the San Andreas Fault. North of California, Oregon East of the Cascades has been trying to move the Idaho border west of the Snake River, to encompass it within a “Greater Idaho.” The prospect of more conservative control of the United States will probably dampen the Texas Independence movement. Conservative Texans might reason: why secede and throw away a greater say in Presidential elections? Greater Idaho might be more likely to get Congressional consent, because the feared shift in Congressional and Electoral College representation will likely happen with or without a shift in the border. But interstate secession movements might spring up elsewhere. People in “blue” States, if they’re not moving out-of-State entirely,l are moving into “red” counties in those States. People moving into “red” States are not moving into those States’ big cities. They are instead moving into “red” counties, mostly rural. This rural-urban divide will see increased tensions in the “blue” States. If they can’t secede, the people of those counties might elect more “Constitutional sheriffs” likely to nullify gun-control and similarly obstreperous laws. The Great Sortation moving forward These changes are continuing the trend CNAV noted at the beginning of the year. Back then, CNAV predicted that blue States would lose House representation and Presidential electoral votes. The latest Census data vindicate that prediction. Ironically, the Democrats will only accelerate the trend by their policy prescriptions. Their insistence on gun-control and LGBTQIA+-friendly policies will accelerate domestic migration. (The latter will also negatively affect the natural-change difference between births and deaths.) And their promotion of abortion on demand for any reason or no reason will ensure net negative natural change. CNAV predicted that, too, and again the Census data vindicate this. The only red-to-blue migration will be of women 18-29 who want their “right” to abortion. And they won’t reproduce, because they don’t want to. Of course the Democrats came up with a plan: ensure international immigration, preferentially by panhandlers. But now their own mayors and governors are abandoning that plan. (One who is not – the Mayor of Chicago – is hearing from his own people, and it is not pleasant.) Result: the “blue” States will continue to lose people. The women who do not move out, will have fewer than the 2.1 children per woman needed to replace people who die. In a generation or two, those States might flip – permanently. The conservatives who remain, will have most of the children. And eventually, they will vote – and will be around to vote. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2023/12/21/editorial/talk/great-sortation-continues/ The Census Bureau data: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/population-trends-return-to-pre-pandemic-norms.html American Redistricting Project map: https://thearp.org/blog/apportionment/2030-asof121923/ 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Trump off the Colorado ballot? Not so fast! By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday afternoon the Colorado Supreme Court broke the Internet with the announcement of a decision. On appeal from a lower court, the high court disqualified President Donald J. Trump from a Republican Presidential primary ballot. But they stayed their ruling until January 4, 2024 – one day before the deadline to print the ballots. Furthermore, if the U.S. Supreme Court grants review of the matter, then the stay lasts until the Supreme Court acts. This has led one influencer to suggest the Colorado Supreme Court acted to provoke unlawful behavior by conservatives. CNAV would agree and strongly urges its readers: let President Trump handle this. He has already announced his intention to petition the Supreme Court for review. Furthermore, those jurists have embarrassed not only themselves but also every RINO in all fifty States. The Colorado ruling Christina Laila of The Gateway Pundit provided the reportage yesterday (December 19). The Colorado Supreme Court issued a 213-page opinion. Anderson v. Griswold, case 23SA300. Six Colorado voters, both Republican and unaffiliated, sued to keep Trump off the primary ballot. (A separate challenge seeks to keep Trump off the general election ballot in November 2024. That case will come before the Colorado Supreme Court later.) Earlier this year, Judge Sarah Wallace of the Denver District Court rejected the idea of keeping Trump off the ballot. She said the State courts lacked jurisdiction. But the State Supreme Court disagreed, apparently relying on a friend-of-the-court brief from a law professor. Gerard N. Magliocca, Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, 36 Const. Comment. 87, 91-92 (2021). Magliocca apparently rejects the notion that the Amnesty Act of 1898 applies in perpetuity. (See also here.) More than that, the Colorado court asserted that Colorado’s own legislature had created a process to determine someone’s disqualifications for “participating in insurrection or rebellion.” Key to the court’s action is their determination that Amendment XIV Section 3 is self-executing. Merriam-Webster defines self-executing as requiring no further legislative or judicial action to take immediate force and effect. Furthermore, the court asserts, each State may make its own rules as to what constitutes insurrection, rebellion, and participation therein. Congress need not be the sole actor. This, the jurists say, flows from the directive to each State to appoint Presidential electors in such manner as the[ir] legislatures … direct. How they arrived at Trump participating in insurrection and rebellion Justices Richard L. Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Márquez, and William W. Hood jointly signed a per curiam opinion. Which means that no one Justice actually “rode point” on this opinion. Chief Justice Brian Boatright and Justices Carlos Samour and Maria Berkenkotter dissented. https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1737264288471904299 The jurists essentially rely on Trump’s posts on his X (formerly Twitter) account- to say that he called on his supporters to “fight.” When they do that, they essentially have tried Trump for making rebellion. CNAV is not aware that any State Supreme Court has original trial jurisdiction in any matter. Furthermore their evidence includes “anonymous tips” from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Regular readers already recognize that the FBI is compromised, and has become an enforcement arm of the Democratic National Committee. The opinion reeks with lurid accounts of how January 6 rally attendees responded to his exhortation to walk (quietly) to the Capitol. CNAV has not heard from one witness that can corroborate the Court or its sources as to someone shouting “storm the Capitol” or anything else of the kind, on the day of the rally. Ray Epps’ recorded statement that “Tomorrow … we need to go into the Capitol!” doesn’t count. Apart from his being an agent provocateur, he said that the night before, not the day of. Furthermore the opinion omits completely the recent evidence that the Capitol Police provoked the crowd deliberately. They fired rubber bullets and/or tear gas in three separate volleys before anyone made one single response in kind. Delayed effect In short, this Court has acted as judges, jury, prosecutors – and now executioners. According to their ruling, not only does Trump not appear on the ballot, but neither may anyone write him in. But they stayed their ruling. But we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires, it shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court. President Trump has already sought review, as he explicitly said he would. Though all seven Justices are Democrat appointees, three dissented. Chief Justice Boatright said flatly that the Election Code statute does not empower any court to determine whether a candidate “participated in insurrection or rebellion.” Similarly, Justice Samour excoriated the District Court, which evidently found positively that Trump had made insurrection. Samour said that court had no business trying such a case – and denied due process of law while so doing. Thus, based on its interpretation of Section Three, our court sanctions these makeshift proceedings employed by the district court below—which lacked basic discovery, the ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses, workable timeframes to adequately investigate and develop defenses, and the opportunity for a fair trial—to adjudicate a federal constitutional claim (a complicated one at that) masquerading as a run-of-the-mill state Election Code claim. And because most other states don’t have the Election Code provisions we do, they won’t be able to enforce Section Three. That, in turn, will inevitably lead to the disqualification of President Trump from the presidential primary ballot in less than all fifty states, thereby risking chaos in our country. This can’t possibly be the outcome the framers intended. Samour also disputes the self-executing nature of Amendment XIV, given its Section 5 – the Enforcement Section. This, and Amendments XV, XVIII, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI all have nearly identical Enforcement Sections: Congress shall have the power to enforce this Article through appropriate legislation. To date Congress has passed no legislation to enforce Amendment XIV Section 3. That’s not even to count the two Amnesty Acts that make Section 3 moot today. Justice Berkenkotter, reasoning similarly to Justice Samour, said the Colorado Supreme Court exceeded its Constitutional and lawful authority. Colorado’s solons, she concluded, did not authorize any court to do what the district court tried to do. From Colorado to… President Trump’s campaign announced their intention to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review that evening. https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1737258567554502990 Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat-appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits. They might have reason for their confidence. Ty Cobb, a frequent Trump critic, told CNN, as quoted in The Hill, that SCOTUS might rule 9-0 for Trump. At issue: whether Trump is “an officer of the United States” within the meaning of the Constitution. Cobb cited several cases to suggest that the President is not such an officer. The Trump campaign also said they would ask SCOTUS to stay the decision themselves. But that might be a moot point. The minute Trump’s team files a petition, the stay continues until SCOTUS denies the petition or issues a mandate. Different States have taken different attitudes. Last month, the Minnesota Supreme Court refused to issue any such disqualification order. But this afternoon, Jim Hoft reported that Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D-Calif.) asked California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, in writing, whether California could also keep Trump off its ballot. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1737546261308330122 https://twitter.com/ccadelago/status/1737538069505745356 In that letter, the lieutenant governor referred to a decision by then-Judge Neil Gorsuch, that States had a duty to determine ballot eligibility according to Constitutional restrictions. In Hassan v. Colorado, Gorsuch held that the: state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. That case involved a naturalized citizen trying to run for President. As no one would dispute, he was not a natural born citizen. However, that case turned directly on Article II Section 1 of the Constitution – which treats appointment of Presidential electors. Other legal eagles weigh in Prof. Orin Kerr of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, doubted that the courts could bar Trump from running. https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1737297113611133155 Late that evening (Berkeley time), Prof. Kerr scorned an article in The Washington Post talking about how “momentous” the decision was. https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1737364462884294942 Trump condemned the decision in a speech to his supporters in Iowa: https://twitter.com/TheCharlesDowns/status/1737247066819101007 Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy withdrew his name from the Colorado Primary until Trump regains his ballot access. He challenged the other candidates – Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), former Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.), and former Gov. Nikki Haley (R-S.C.) to do likewise. If they do not, he suggested, they would then be accessories to an unconstitutional act. https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1737290316527370495 Furthermore, the Colorado Republican Party suggested they might cancel their primary and hold caucuses instead. https://twitter.com/cologop/status/1737292783835103476 But Gov. DeSantis put forward an interesting conspiracy theory. He suggested that the Democrats pulled a “stunt” to make Trump’s nomination more likely, rather than less. The Democrats would then be more likely to beat Trump than, say, DeSantis in the general election, his theory states. https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1737492717104398430 The President of El Salvador became the first foreign head-of-state to heap scorn on the ruling. https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1737267137155088520 https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1737273300316020772 A psy-op? Influencer Viva Frei pointed to the stay of the ruling and accused the Colorado Supremes of running a psy-op. Do not, he warned his listeners, do anything “stupid” – meaning rash. Let Trump handle it. https://rumble.com/embed/v3zm6he/?pub=4teej Influencer Legal Mindset, for nearly an hour, tore the decision apart. He suggested SCOTUS should vacate the judgment and remand the case with instruction to dismiss it – for lack of standing. Presidential eligibility, he said, was a federal issue, for federal, not State, courts. https://rumble.com/embed/v3zng5e/?pub=4teej Those two influencers are correct. The Colorado Supreme Court cleverly hid the stay of their own ruling – so cleverly that at least one legacy media organ (The Washington Post) trumpeted the triumph of the left over the right. They did this without regard to the stay, or what it meant. Furthermore, several legal experts have already said the Colorado Supreme Court made several reversible errors. Dick Morris suggested that Justice Gorsuch, as Supervising Justice of the Tenth Circuit, could dispense with the case himself. To do that he would likely issue a stay, or an injunction, on his own authority. The late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor once wrote: Today, the Circuit Justices (that is, Supreme Court justices who are assigned to supervise a certain circuit) “no longer sit as judges on appellate panels…[instead], acting alone, [they] have the power to grant stays or injunctions in both civil and criminal cases, to arrange bail before and after conviction, and to provide other ancillary relief, such as extensions of time for various filings and other procedural variances.” Whether Justice Gorsuch really has that power in a State case is unclear. Almost certainly the full U.S. Supreme Court will grant review and reverse the judgment. In the meantime, by reason of the stay, nothing happens. So if those four Colorado Justices – or anyone else – really were bating Trump supporters, they should not rise to it. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2023/12/20/news/colorado-trump-ballot/ The ruling: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf ZeroHedge post listing Justices signing onto the opinion: https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1737264288471904299 Citizen Free Press’ post embedding Trump campaign statement: https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1737258567554502990 Posts discussing letter to California SOS about that State’s “legal” options: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1737546261308330122 https://twitter.com/ccadelago/status/1737538069505745356 Prof. Kerr’s posts: https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1737297113611133155 https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1737364462884294942 Vivek’s withdrawal and Colorado GOP threat to go caucus: https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1737290316527370495 https://twitter.com/cologop/status/1737292783835103476 Quote of Gov. DeSantis’ conspiracy theory: https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1737492717104398430 El Salvador’s President weighs in: https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1737267137155088520 https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1737273300316020772 Video: Viva Frei says don’t fall for the psy-op: https://rumble.com/v427job-breaking-colorado-supreme-court-bars-trump-from-ballot-dont-fall-for-the-ps.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Video: LegalMindset suggests SCOTUS will vacate case for lack of standing: https://rumble.com/v428tb2-trump-disqualified-by-colorado-chaos-incoming-live.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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Abortion – need for a great awakening By Terry A. Hurlbut Abortion is in the news once again, affecting elections and judicial process alike. Now a new piece in The New York Times, and at least one of its supporting documents, illustrate the serious problem with the abortion debate today. Once again, courts, political consultants, and commentators have forgotten the most important person in the debate: the unborn child. Until someone in authority reminds them of the unborn child, more unborn children will die. And each of those deaths brings our society closer in temperament to Germany under the Nationalistich Sozialistich Deutsche Arbeiters Partei. Current state of abortion law The Supreme Court, in 2022, removed the “penumbras” and “emanations” that protected abortion at any stage at the federal level. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). Since then, the States within the United States have divided themselves between pro-abortion and pro-life; any middle ground is vanishing. NBC News’ interactive abortion map tells us the current state of the law in each State. Fourteen States either ban it or have seen the last clinic close. Eight more restrict it at least after fifteen weeks. The rest – a majority – make it legal, and protect it. The off-year Election of 2023 turned into “The Abortion Election,” in part by reason of the failure of the Republican National Committee to support candidates who might have argued forcefully for the protection of human life at all stages. Ohio has constitutionalized abortion on demand, at any stage, for any reason or no reason. Virginia, already an abortion tourist trap, now has its General Assembly fully in Democratic hands. Democratic Senate and House of Delegates Leadership plan to pass on first reading a similar constitutionalization of abortion on demand. The Texas abortion ban and its challenge Texas has a near-total ban on abortion, and is in a unique spot. The only neighboring abortion tourist trap State to it is New Mexico. But most of Texas’ population lives across the State from it, in the Texas Triangle. That is no small consideration, because Texas has the largest land area of the forty-eight contiguous States. (In fact it has more than half again as much area as its next runner-up, California.) Moreover Texas is spread out, so that overland travel distances are great. So women have a choice: 1. Abandon the Nineteen Sixties retrograde “Swinging Singles” lifestyle, or: 2. Have the children that result from that lifestyle. Texas has its “Baby Moses Law” that lets women bring babies to hospitals, fire stations, or paramedical stations. Staff will ask no questions beyond a family or medical history. But that, evidently, isn’t good enough for women who – married or not – wish to decouple intimacy from reproduction. So Meidas Touch Network reported Friday (December 15) that 51 Texas businesses signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief by an online dating site, supporting a lawsuit by 22 women to overturn Texas’ ban on abortion. Texas v. Zurawski, Docket No. 23-0629, argued November 28, 2023 before the Texas Supreme Court. Bumble, the dating site, says that abortion bans harm business recruitment and cramp women’s lifestyles. Evidence in the Zurawski case: As evidence they have a study from Ms. Magazine saying the debate affects their moving preferences. The report reads in salient part: The Supreme Court overturning of Roe v. Wade has already made a dramatic impact on young women voters in battleground states as they plan for the future. Over half (53%) of young women voters have had their plans affected in some way: they have either considered moving to a state where abortion is protected (28%) or they’re making plans to move to a state where abortion is protected (16%); they have declined a job in a state where abortions are banned (10%) or have looked for jobs in states where abortion is protected (10%) as a result of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. And apparently, Party affiliation – or the lack of it – makes little or no difference. But the study talks about battleground States, which it neither lists nor defines. Texas isn’t a battleground State, regardless of the wishful thinking of ultra-death-cult publications like Ms. The chief “battle” in Texas concerns whether Texas will secede from the Union and reclaim its original sovereign national identity. More to the point: if 53 percent of women in these “battleground States” are that obsessed with protecting their right to destroy the products of their self-prostitution, 47 percent won’t. Meidas Touch also mentions an Institute for Women’s Policy Research estimate that the abortion ban has cost Texas $15 million. This represents taxes uncollected from women who either don’t work outside the home or move out-of-State (or don’t move in). The mifepristone case In the middle of this drama, the case of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Danco Laboratories is now before the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Amarillo Division) that the FDA erred in placing this abortifacient on the market, and should take it off. So the Supreme Court will now hear an argument that those doctors lack standing. To be sure, the doctors claimed only their own emotional distress in treating women who had taken the abortion pill and regretted it. No one is claiming to act or speak for those unborn children who lost their lives when their mothers decided to poison themselves. While those 51 businesses were signing on to that sloppy, weakly supported friend-of-the-court brief, The New York Times published a report claiming inside knowledge of how Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s came to be argued, then decided, as it was. The Times piece The Times begins with the passage of the Mississippi Gestational Age Act of 2018. That law made it unlawful to perform an abortion after 15 weeks. Mississippi’s solons reasoned that, after that time, ending a pregnancy is a gruesome, risky business for the mother. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the last of Mississippi’s abortion clinics, immediately sued. Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Currier, 3:18-cv-00171-CWR-FKB.) In his order granting summary judgment, Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi said: The State chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. This Court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature. Judge Reeves is an Obama appointee, and that likely explains his not exactly judicial tone. Mary Currier, the original defendant, was Thomas Dobbs’ predecessor as Director of the Mississippi Department of Health. The State appealed in Dobbs’ name to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Dobbs, 18-60868. The published opinion, by Judges Patrick Higginbotham, James L. Dennis, and James C. Ho, opened: This case concerns a Mississippi law that prohibits abortions, with limited exceptions, after 15 weeks’ gestational age. The central question before us is whether this law is an unconstitutional ban on pre-viability abortions. In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions. The law at issue is a ban. Thus, we affirm the district court’s invalidation of the law, as well as its discovery rulings and its award of permanent injunctive relief. The vote was 3-0, with Higginbotham (a Reagan appointee) writing the lead opinion. (Dennis was a Clinton appointee.) Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee, wrote a concurrence in judgment. He opened: Nothing in the text or original understanding of the Constitution establishes a right to an abortion. Rather, what distinguishes abortion from other matters of health care policy in America—and uniquely removes abortion policy from the democratic process established by our Founders—is Supreme Court precedent. The parties and amici therefore draw our attention not to what the Constitution says, but to what the Supreme Court has held. He then grudgingly acknowledged the weight of that precedent that required the court to affirm. Then he added this scathing indictment of Judge Reeves: I am nevertheless deeply troubled by how the district court handled this case. The opinion issued by the district court displays an alarming disrespect for the millions of Americans who believe that babies deserve legal protection during pregnancy as well as after birth, and that abortion is the immoral, tragic, and violent taking of innocent human life… Instead of respecting all sides, the district court opinion disparages the Mississippi legislation as “pure gaslighting.” It equates a belief in the sanctity of life with sexism, disregarding the millions of women who strongly oppose abortion. And, without a hint of irony, it smears Mississippi legislators by linking House Bill 1510 to the state’s tragic history of race relations, while ignoring abortion’s own checkered racial past. The judge hints at the next challenge to abortion That last is a powerful indictment of abortion – for it refers directly to Margaret Sanger’s real reasons for founding the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Sanger didn’t merely seek to preserve the right of “Flappers” to “Flap,” though that in itself would be bad enough. She also sought to eliminate “undesirable” people – meaning non-whites and the “deformed.” (CNAV cannot leave this subject without condemning Langdon Down, first describer of Trisomy 21, for calling it “Mongolian idiocy.” Future generations of doctors redeemed Down’s mistake by renaming the syndrome after him. And today, Down’s Syndrome remains the most common excuse, other than the woman’s convenience, for abortion.) More to the point, when he referred to the “right to an abortion” as a Supreme Court right, he was practically begging the appellees to petition for a review by the Supreme Court. Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak, writing for the Times, utterly missed this point. So what points do they try to make, and how do they support them? They claim: internal documents, contemporaneous notes and interviews with more than a dozen people from the court — both conservative and liberal — who had real-time knowledge of the proceedings. Bear in mind, when assessing the probable truth or falsity of that statement, that the Times has its own checkered history of problems with the truth. This is the paper of Walter Duranty, and the paper that accepted the Steele dossier as fact, permitting no question. The actual history of the Dobbs case First, some actual history. The Supreme Court docketed the case (19-1932) on June 18, 2020. Five months earlier, the Fifth Circuit had denied panel rehearing. (No losing counsel lightly petitions for an en banc rehearing, if they know what’s good for their clients. Not in the Fifth Circuit, they don’t – except in extraordinary, once-in-a-million circumstances.) The losing party had ninety days to petition for review – so in March they moved for extension of time. Justice Samuel A. Alito, supervising Justice for the Fifth Circuit, put the motion before the full Court – which granted it. Dobbs filed the petition on June 15. Briefs came in almost at once, mostly friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the Dobbs position. The respondents filed their brief on August 19, 2020. Notably they stood on the Roe precedent, and that of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. They essentially told the Court that the law was “settled” and the Court had “no reason” to revisit it. On September 2, 2020, the Court distributed the case for conference on September 29. Death of an abortion advocating Justice Then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. https://twitter.com/business/status/1307101594463465473 Four days after her death, the Court rescheduled the conference. And re-re-scheduled it. And re-re-re-scheduled it. Dobbs filed a supplemental brief referring to two more cases indicating a split between the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. The Court accepted that, and afterward accepted two supplemental briefs from Jackson Women’s. After this, the docket records six reschedulings, and then thirteen distributions for conference, almost one a week! Finally, on May 17, 2021, the Court granted the petition, on one question only: whether all pre-viability prohibitions of elective abortions were unconstitutional. A long list of friend-of-the-court briefs continued after that. The docket also lists a brief by Mr. Dobbs, dated July 22, 2021. That brief does go further than the original petition, which declared only that “viability” was not an appropriate standard. In the new brief, Dobbs directly stated that the Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to abortion. He then suggested the Court should “overrule its precedents subjecting abortion restrictions to heightened scrutiny.” Why did the Court allow that brief? Perhaps because – as CNAV theorized later – Justice Alito interpreted respondents’ brief as an ultimatum. “Leave our precedents alone!” it seemed to say. “Oh, yeah? This Court will see about that!” Alito effectively said in return, by allowing the new petitioner’s brief. A decision Finally, on December 1, 2021, the case came to oral argument. It may or may not be significant that Sarah Weddington, original petitioner’s counsel in Roe, died the day after Christmas in that month. The next filing is a letter from the administration of Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-Va.) changing Virginia’s position on the matter. That filing came on January 21, 2022. On February 10, 2022, Justice Alito circulated his opinion. Then on May 2, 2022, some person(s) still unknown, leaked it. CNAV analyzed it in detail on May 14. Then on June 24, 2022, the Court issued its final judgment overruling Roe and Casey. Except for a few colorful turns of phrase that Alito struck from the final draft, the leaked draft survived intact. What does the Times piece say? The Times piece seeks to confuse the reader by jumping back and forth in time. Its authors refer to the July 2021 brief by Dobbs “a bait-and-switch” of the type “that has prompted dismissals of other cases.” (They cite no examples.) They also cite Prof. Richard M. Re of the University of Virginia as saying the Court compromised its own deliberative process and prevented the public from adequately preparing for an avulsive shift in the law. Prof. Re did say that. But he also said: The joint dissent’s treatment of precedent was, if anything, even less persuasive. The dissent’s own uses of precedent demonstrate how readily case law is thrown overboard – not just in the past few years, but throughout many decades. And new personnel can offer a uniquely compelling basis for revisiting case law. So, if the majority had reason to moderate, the dissenters did, too – by joining a gradualist opinion like the Chief’s. The Times authors did not see fit to mention one word of that second quote. Of course, the Liberal Bloc (now of Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor, with Jackson replacing the retired Stephen C. Breyer) has a nasty habit of treating the Supreme Court as if it were a Court of social justice and equity, not of appellate jurisdiction and law. And the professor is right about the dissent. Had they chosen to join Roberts, the effect would have been to move the viability line back to 15 weeks. But, like Jackson Women’s Health, they were having none of that. (And since then, their dissents have often turned downright nasty – in fact drawing written reprimand in majority opinions. See Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard/UNC and 303 Creative v. Elenis.) But CNAV condemns Re for that quip about an “avulsive shift in the law.” How was Roe v. Wade itself not an “avulsive shift in the law”? And not only avulsive but revulsive. Other less-than-persuasive points The Times piece lays great stress on the health of Justice Ginsburg – who, they now assert, received privileges any other observer would call unprecedented. “Transforming her home into a makeshift office, taking turns there, and quarantining beforehand” – amazement doesn’t do justice to those events. They also speak of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia – but fail to mention the circumstances surrounding his death. CNAV considers his death an unsolved murder. Replacing one originalist by another is almost certainly a Divine miracle. Furthermore, the Times case accuses Justice Alito of arranging all those reschedulings. His motive: to enable the new Justice Amy Coney Barrett to vote on it. But they had earlier said the Court sought to distance the Dobbs matter from Ginsburg’s death. Which is it? They suggest that Justice Barrett suggested “this was not the time.” But that meant only to argue the matter in the next or 2021 Term, not the 2020 Term. So the authors undercut their own argument that Barrett didn’t want the Court to hear the matter at all. So what are we to make of the Times piece? It tells the public nothing it couldn’t learn from the public record, and tries to hide part of that record. Abortion still a divisive debate that shouldn’t be But the Times piece illustrates yet again the tragic divide of the country on the subject of abortion. The protection of unborn life should be inarguable and incontrovertible. Yet the Court now has before it a case arguing standing – while every day, someone is murdering another unborn life. As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out, the last time the Court denied standing to a person almost as egregiously aggrieved, civil war broke out to decide the issue. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857). Furthermore, the Court overlooked another chance to recognize pre-born life as protected under the law. Doe v. McKee, in the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. The U.S. Supreme Court denied that petition for lack of standing of the unborn. Another generation might have to grow up and replace existing judges to bring about true justice on this issue. Perhaps only then will a court recognize that the unborn have a right to life. That will require a Second Great Awakening in a country already in a spiritual, if not a shooting, civil war. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2023/12/18/foundation/constitution/abortion-need-great-awakening/ The interactive abortion map: https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/abortion-state-tracking-trigger-laws-bans-restrictions-rcna36199 Texas’ description of its Baby Moses Law: https://www.dfps.texas.gov/Child_Protection/Child_Safety/Resources/baby_moses.asp The Times piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/us/supreme-court-dobbs-roe-abortion.html Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and previous cases: Jackson Women’s v. Currier, at District Court: Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6338340/jackson-womens-health-organization-v-dobbs/ Opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mssd.98904/gov.uscourts.mssd.98904.89.0.pdf Jackson Women’s v. Dobbs at Fifth Circuit: Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7771/jackson-womens-health-v-dobbs/ Opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.186010/gov.uscourts.ca5.186010.505236528.1.pdf Case at Supreme Court: Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1392.html Petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/145658/20200615170733513_FINAL%20Petition.pdf Response: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/150668/20200819155412230_39883%20pdf%20Scott.pdf Supplemental Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/158482/20201022120939370_19-1392Petitioners%20SupplementalBrief.pdf New Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf Decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s obituary: https://twitter.com/business/status/1307101594463465473 Prof. Re’s commentary: https://www.law.virginia.edu/scholarship/publication/richard-m-re/1823491 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/ The CNAV Store: https://cnav.store/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/