The True Objective

Of course, we all know that the prosecution of Trump is being carried out to interfere with his election chances. If there were any doubt, the fact that the prosecutors in the documents case have asked for a gag order because his statements “endanger law enforcement agents.”

The goal here is to shut him up. I contend that the NY case will see him go to jail, and he will die there. They are going to do whatever it takes to prevent him from seeing the inside of the Oval Office again, and have been doing so since he denied Hillary her turn at the White House. I have been saying this for over three years.

Talking Points

Donald Trump is under a court order that prohibits him from speaking about, well, pretty much anything. The stated reason for this order is to prevent Trump from exercising undue influence on the outcome of the trial. The witnesses in the Trump case, the judge’s wife, and the prosecutor are not under similar restrictions. The reason for this is simple- the court is trying to railroad Donald Trump.

The left has all of its minions singing in unison that Trump’s free speech rights aren’t being infringed upon because he still has the ability to speak under oath from the witness stand. That’s ridiculous. No one has to give up their Fifth Amendment rights in order to exercise their First Amendment rights.

The left claims that, since Trump is on trial, the only place that he should be permitted to speak is on the witness stand as a witness against himself. As I have been saying, this is a show trial that is designed to destroy Joe Biden’s opponent, and ensure that Biden serves another term. If this were happening in any other nation, the US would be screaming to all who would listen that the elections were being tampered with.

Trump should continue violating the gag order. Dare the court to toss you in jail on contempt charges, then have your PR apparatus scream on every single media outlet about Joe Biden jailing his political opponent. It will raise Trump’s popularity numbers and destroy Joe Biden’s.

The response from Washington would probably also be the spark that begins CW2.

Go ahead, make DJT into a martyr. I dare you.

Illegals Don’t Vote- It’s Illegal

When Biden gives illegals auto-parole they get social security numbers and with the last four digits of an SSN they can register to vote without any other form of ID. While it is illegal, there is no way to catch them under the current law/system. Then they can request a ballot.

On top of that, Biden is now giving illegals free healthcare.

Amen, brother

The only part of this that I disagree with is the statement “Donald Trump is going to crush these people in November.” They are proving, through these actions, that they will stop at nothing to cheat their way into victory. I don’t think that the election will be a fair one, and for that reason, I believe that Biden will win. They will make it look close so it appears just close enough to give the left a fig leaf, but the outcome is certain.

But Illegals Can’t Vote…

I have been informed that illegals can’t vote, so there is no way that the Democrats are using the open border to rig the election. With that being the case, we don’t need a law requiring an ID and proof of citizenship to cast a ballot.

Until flyers being distributed by a US NGO that helps facilitate the illegal crossing of the US-Mexico border were intercepted. The flyers distributed in Mexico encourages illegals to vote for President Biden.

The flyer reads:

“Reminder to vote for President Biden when you are in the United States. We need another four years of his term to stay open”

Not Yet

I keep getting comments to the effect of “They are cheating, the election is a guaranteed loss, so why bother?”

I disagree. It isn’t in the bag. If it were, they wouldn’t be trying so hard to put Trump in jail. Since they are still doing so, they still consider him a threat. That tells me that there are weaknesses in the system of cheat and the vote isn’t as sure of a thing as they would have you believe.

If the system were in the bag, gun bans would already be in place. SCOTUS would already have 23 justices. The electoral college would be gone.

They don’t have it all, yet. They want you to think that they are unbeatable and simply roll over, but it is plain that they aren’t that powerful, yet.

Don’t give them more power than they already have. It takes just a few minutes to vote, and you make it that much harder for them to cheat themselves more power than they already have.

So you ask why I should bother? Because I will do everything that I can to make their lives and their lust for power more difficult.

Even if it is in the bag, I am going to make it as difficult on them as I can. Be a pain in the ass.

Vote Harder

Wisconsin is registering thousands of illegal immigrants as voters.

In Wisconsin, for instance, there is a Form EL-131.Form EL-131 says if you are homeless, check the box. You can register to vote with no supporting ID.For you election deniers, and Republican types – read this slowly so you can comprehend this madness.

I am still going to vote. Why? Because it costs nothing but a few minutes of my time. I am just not counting on it making a difference.

Be ready for what’s coming.

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.