It Has Nothing to do with TikTok

I see so many people online who are cheering on the bill that is being advertised as shutting down TikTok. If you are one of them, then you aren’t looking at the reality of what is happening. The bill is called the “Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.” The name, as is usual of government sponsored laws, is misleading. Go on, read it yourself. Of course, I read it.

There is a reason why the establishment of both parties is endorsing it, and it has nothing to do with getting those kids to stop doing those annoying dances everywhere. Let’s start with who is covered by the law:

The term “covered company” means an entity that operates, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that—

(i) permits a user to create an account or profile to generate, share, and view text, images, videos, real-time communications, or similar content;

(ii) has more than 1,000,000 monthly active users with respect to at least 2 of the 3 months preceding the date on which a relevant determination of the President is made pursuant to paragraph (3)(B);

(iii) enables 1 or more users to generate or distribute content that can be viewed by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application; and

(iv) enables 1 or more users to view content generated by other users of the website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application.

OK. So what can’t a covered company do?

It shall be unlawful for an entity to distribute, maintain, or update … a foreign adversary controlled application by carrying out … any of the following:

(A) Providing services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application (including any source code of such application) by means of a marketplace (including an online mobile application store) through which users within the land or maritime borders of the United States may access, maintain, or update such application.

(B) Providing internet hosting services to enable the distribution, maintenance, or updating of such foreign adversary controlled application for users within the land or maritime borders of the United States.

emphasis added

OK. So what does the law say is a prohibited foreign adversary controlled application? A application that is owned or operated by a foreign adversary. So what is a foreign adversary? It does name TikTok by name, but then goes on to say it is basically anything that the President says that it is:

a covered company that—

(i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and

(ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of—

(I) a public notice proposing such determination; and

(II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture.

Then the law goes on to say that if you want to challenge this law, you have to do it under the DC circuit or the DC court of appeals, and you have to do it within 165 days of it passing.

This law is squarely aimed at shutting down Twitter, or at least taking its ownership away from Elon Musk. Since Twitter (X) is the only social media platform that isn’t taking its marching orders from the FBI. We are on the cusp of seeing our media and information channels being 100% under the control of the President.

Typical Politician

A settlement in Florida proves to me that Ron DeSantis has been doing what politicians always do– grandstand for the voters in order to get elected. The lawsuit in question was over a law that prohibited teachers from discussing sexuality or faggotry to children, and prohibited schools from exposing children to pornography.

The settlement again allows teachers to talk about their sexual deviancy with their students, as long as it isn’t part of the curriculum. It also allows schools to expose children to porn, as long as the book isn’t used as a part of classroom instruction.

This is pure bullshit. Now that DeSantis isn’t in the running for President, he all of a sudden isn’t interested in the things that he claimed to hold dear. It’s almost like he was telling people what they wanted to hear in order to get elected.

This is the biggest problem that I have had with the Republican party for years- they are only interested in power and money for themselves. They are not any better than the Democrats. Remember- just because the Democrats are your enemy doesn’t make the Republicans your friends.

The Republicans will work with the Democrats to destroy Trump, so they can try to return to the grift that they had going before the MAGA movement came along. Of course, they are too stupid to realize that they are being used by the Communists in the Democrat party and will be done away with as soon as it is convenient to do so.

Not Rape

The next time some idiot tells you that Trump has been found guilty of a rape, you can counter with these facts:

  • It was a civil trial. Civil trials determine liability, not guilt.
  • The standard for a civil trial is preponderance of evidence
  • the standard for a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher standard
  • Even under the looser standard of preponderance of evidence, as well as a left leaning NY jury, the prosecution still couldn’t meet that standard:

Don’t Criticize the Dear Leader

A man sent Joe Biden a box containing hundreds of sex toys on Valentine’s Day, along with a note telling the President to go f*ck himself.

He was arrested by the Secret Service, and is being held incommunicado in an undisclosed location.

He has been vzyali. That’s what you get for speaking out against the most popular President ever.

EDIT: So it appears that the above link is a satire site. They got me. The best satire is that which is indistinguishable from reality.

Stupidity is giving me a headache

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Funny, it’s Congress that has the power. Not the states. Not Colorado. It says so right there, and anyone with a third grade reading comprehension understands that.

No, because Article III doesn’t have anything like the Section 5 that is found in the 14th Amendment, and neither does the 22nd Amendment. The left loves to look at every word and twist it to their advantage, (well-regulated militia) but then ignores words that it finds inconvenient. (“Congress has the power,” “right of the people,” or “reserved to the states”)

The left is made up of petulant children who throw temper tantrums whenever anything doesn’t go their way. You point that out, and they immediately began screaming “J6! J6!”

I know that CW2 would be a disaster, but this slow motion collapse is really beginning to wear on me. The left is playing for all of the marbles.

Let’s just get it on, already. This is one of those days for me. I am just over these assholes.

OK, I have to go do something else, something productive for a while, or I am going to blow a gasket.

Trump and the Courts (Long Post)

The left has their unisex panties in a bunch because SCOTUS voted 9-0 that a state doesn’t have the power to remove a candidate from the ballot. The decision was based upon the 14th Amendment, Section 3 of which the left claims granted states the authority to bar a person (in this case, Trump) from running for office if they were involved in an insurrection.

Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

However, SCOTUS denied this claim, saying that Section 5 of the same Amendment vests that power solely in the Congress.

Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I am not going to go into too many specifics of this case, because I don’t really want to get into this case. Instead, I want to talk about the next Trump case, explain how SCOTUS is going to rule in Trump’s favor, then explain why it won’t matter. The above points matter in the upcoming case, and I will explain why.

The case involves the actions taken by Trump while he was contesting the results of the 2020 election. He is facing criminal prosecution for those actions which have resulted in 91 criminal charges spread among four cases. Trump is arguing that he has immunity for these actions because they were taken in furtherance of his official duties. I believe that he is correct for the following reasons:

Civil Immunity

After Nixon left the White House, he was sued for actions that he had taken while he was President. Nixon argued that a president cannot be sued for official actions taken while he is in office. The case is Nixon v. Fitzgerald, and it clearly establishes that Presidents have immunity from civil liability for acts taken while executing their official duties, even if they are sued for those acts after leaving office.

Criminal Immunity

The left counters that this doesn’t apply to criminal immunity. I think that they are wrong, because of the Federalist papers, debates at the Constitutional Convention, and the early history of constitutional interpretation demonstrate an assumption of absolute Presidential immunity. One of our founding fathers (Gouverneur Morris1– the youngest signed of the Articles of Confederation- see below)argued that the President can do no criminal act without accomplices who may be punished. In the event that the President were to be re-elected, that will be sufficient proof of his innocence. I assume that the unlawful act Morris referred to was taken as an official duty. I also assume that pulling out a handgun and shooting the first lady, accepting bribes, and the like would not be covered by immunity because they were likely not official acts. Note that actions taken while executing official duties need not be lawful, as long as they are official acts. The remedy here for the punishment of unlawful, official acts is impeachment and elections. To do otherwise would mean that Presidents would need to clear every decision and act through White House legal counsel, making the President a slave to his attorneys.

To me, this is important because it’s the reason why Obama can’t be prosecuted for assassinations of American citizens that were carried out on his orders. The fact remains that Obama, through his orders, committed murder of an American citizen, but since he did so in furtherance of his official duties, the only remedy available to the US is impeachment or subsequent elections. It has to be this way, or Truman could very well have been executed for the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima as a war criminal.

The reason for this, is that the Executive is the only branch of government that consists of a single person. Congress has two houses, Constitutionally made up of at least 50 Senators and 50 Representatives, and the Supreme court, made up of multiple Justices. The Executive is the only branch with one member, meaning that it is the only one who needs criminal immunity for actions taken in official duties.

Official Duties

So the question remains, were the acts that Trump took to dispute the veracity and accuracy of the election official acts? I would say yes, they are. There are numerous laws about elections and how they are to be carried out. Enforcing those laws is the responsibility of the Executive and well within the purview of the Chief Executive.

Now this doesn’t mean that Trump is above the law. He was impeached for those actions less than a week after the end of his term, but the Senate failed to convict. Trump was indicted on August 1, 2023, for the conduct for which he was impeached, which is what this entire case is built upon. It’s important to note that his opponent in the election, who happens to be the current President, waited three years to file the indictment, an obvious attempt at election tampering.

The question for SCOTUS is this: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” For the above reasons, I believe that SCOTUS has no choice but to vote in support of Presidential Immunity, or else it endangers the entire concept of the peaceful transition of power, meaning that Trump’s current criminal cases will disappear, at least at the Federal level.

So What Then?

With all of this being said, the left simply won’t allow Trump to return to the Oval Office. The Federal Bureaucrats simply can’t allow it, or he will begin swinging the metaphorical budget slashing machete. Should Trump regain the Presidency, a lot of Federal careers will come to an end- perhaps even entire departments.

The left simply HATES Trump, and will see him dead before he is permitted back into the White House. They can’t let Trump ruin their communist takeover.

For those reasons, expect violence when lawfare doesn’t work. Perhaps Trump will even be assassinated. I don’t think that they are desperate enough to take him out like Sadat was killed, but I don’t see Trump ever again being President.


1Gouverneur Morris was an important figure in the First Continental Congress. He cast the deciding vote against Court Martial for George Washington, which would have removed him from command of the Army, which would mean that he would not have been our First President. The other thing is that he argued that the poor would sell their votes to the rich and that voting should be restricted to property owners.

The IRS War on the Right

Do you remember when Obama used the IRS to target his political enemies? I do. The IRS even settled a lawsuit and apologized. So did Obama.

IRS leaks have targeted Democrats’ political enemies, such as the National Organization for Marriage, to which the IRS was obliged to pay a settlement after leaking the identities of the group’s donors in order to enable political retaliation against them. For some reason, Barack Obama’s Justice Department never got around to prosecuting that case. Or the case of the IRS director lying to Congress about targeting conservative political groups, or … well, you get the picture.

That was before the Treasury Department investigated itself and found that it did nothing wrong. So now the left is claiming that it was all fake news. Next they will say that the Russians did it because Trump asked them to.

So why am I posting about things that happened more than 7 years ago? Because it is still happening. The House Oversight Committee is looking into allegations that the IRS is selectively not enforcing its tax-exempt rules against liberal nonprofits.