Tagging/Tracking Phone App?

By: T.F. Stern | Self-Educated American

Some of the new cell phone Apps have me blown away; my being from an older generation where we put coins into a payphone to let our parents know we were on the way home and might be a few minutes late.  Take for instance the camera functions that let you take a snapshot of someone.  When you look at the image in your gallery the GPS program has automatically identified and marked the image as per the location where that photograph was taken via a GPS satellite synchronized with Google Maps.

No, I’m not making this up; it’s already a part of our everyday lives.  Now take that another step forward, maybe three or four days from now…

You take a picture and your fancy cell phone not only captures the image but latches onto the digital signature of the other person’s cell phone and combines this information so that the next time you view the photograph it gives you an update on where the holder of that cell phone is located in real time.  Sounds a little far fetched, doesn’t it?

I love the creativity presented by J.K. Rowling and the talented folks who’ve transformed her books into Harry Potter movies; the earlier ones being my favorites compared to the dark and ominous later movies.  Take for instance The Prisoner of Azkaban with the Marauder’s Footstep Map showing the real time location of anyone at Hogwarts Castle; Roaming the halls at night with only his magic wand and this magical map exposed lots of secrets, some of which are quite interesting if you’re a true Potterfan.

How interesting would it be if your cell phone camera could mimic the Marauder’s Map, showing the location of anyone you’d taken a picture of?

“Hey, ya’ll, Fred’s at the Texas Burger down in Madisonville.  Let’s drive on over and surprise him”.   Or perhaps, “I didn’t see John at church today.  Never mind”, pointing to a thumbnail image of him on Goggle Maps up in Dallas, “…he’s visiting his sister this weekend”.  The opportunities would be endless.

Could such an App be used as a tool for police to catch criminals, “Suspect is westbound on Main, just went behind the drug store and appears to be hiding in the alley”.  Then again… would it be another violation of privacy the NSA uses to compile information on citizens in their supposed quest to keep track of terrorist activity?  All they’d need is a snapshot taken with this new fangled technology…

My trip to the near future was a bit unsettling; maybe we should go back to using old fashioned film cameras…lucky for me I still have my old Kodak Brownie, somewhere.


Treasonous Chelsea Manning Releases First Campaign Ad For Maryland

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Maryland, you had better not elect this radical. He’s not only a traitor and mentally unstable, he hates cops and America. He’s an activist that joins with Black Lives Matter and Antifa. And Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning) is now running for the US Senate in Maryland. It wasn’t bad enough that he released hundreds of thousands of national intelligence documents to WikiLeaks, a Russian propaganda outlet, now this traitor wants to be elected to foment chaos in our political system.

Manning just released his first campaign ad today and it ends by saying, “You’re damn right we got this.” This is a cop-hater. He also hates the military, the government, our leaders and America in general. He will now challenge Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) for his Senate seat. This is an outright gift to the Republicans in that state. Manning doesn’t stand much of a chance of winning unless someone with lots of money backs him… like say, George Soros. Manning’s statement of candidacy was filed with the Federal Election Commission last week. He confirmed his bid today on Twitter.

Manning, 30, has now turned into a transgender activist who claims that he is “a Washington D.C. based network security expert and former U.S. Army intelligence analyst.” Only in regards to leaking documents and betraying the military. At an appearance in New York in October, Manning was asked whether he’d been afraid that his disclosures would hurt people by exposing the names of informants. He insisted the material included no such sensitive information.” If you weren’t mad already, get ready for it. “These aren’t intelligence documents,” Manning said. “It’s historical data. There’s nothing sensitive in there, there’s no troop movements,” Manning said. “It was a historical record of everything that had happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.” What a lying traitor.

“We live in trying times. Times of fear, of suppression, hate,” Manning says as images of the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, VA and protesters clashing with police are shown. “We don’t need more or better leaders, we need someone willing to fight,” he continues. The ad then shows images of lawmakers, including Democrats meeting with President Trump. “We need to stop expecting that our systems will somehow fix themselves, we need to actually take the reigns of power from them,” Manning says. “We need to challenge this at every level. We need to fix this. We don’t need them anymore, we can do better. You’re damn right we got this,” he says to end the ad, using his well-known hashtag #WeGotThis.

Then Manning tweeted a link for campaign contributions. A felony conviction does not appear to preclude his Senate run. However, Manning has yet to file for the primary with the state elections board, which he must do in person by Feb. 27, according to the board’s website.

Manning got 35 years for releasing confidential military and State Department documents. One of the last things Obama did was to pardon him. Since leaving prison, Manning has become known for controversial tweets, often accompanied with a series of emojis and the hashtag #WeGotThis. Manning recently tweeted out the message “f—k the police” on Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, along with the hashtag #DisarmThePolice. Manning has also referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement as “literally the new gestapo.”

Maryland can do better than a commie, cop-hating transgender traitor. We have enough radicals in the streets. We don’t need any more in the Senate.


Proposed DACA deal would give parents ‘temporary protected status’

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Protest for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) September 2017 Milwaukee

President Trump publicly rejected a proposed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty deal put together by a “bipartisan” group of Democrats and RINOs that would have given parents of so-called DREAMers “temporary protected status.” Worse, the deal would have opened up to illegal aliens who are “eligible for DACA but didn’t sign up.

Piecing together the proposal is difficult because “[D]etails about the Democrats’ plan are still secret,” as explained by Neil Munro at Breitbart (follow him on Twitter), who goes on to say that “advocates say it extends the amnesty to include the several million illegal immigrants who brought up to 3.25 million illegal-immigrant children into the United States.”

President Trump responded to the proposal on Twitter, referring to it as “a big step backwards.” The plan was presented by Sens. Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Cory Gardner, Michael Bennet and Bob Menendez, all of whom are pro-Amnesty. According to CNN, Sens. Tom Cotton, David Perdue and Rep. Kevin McCarthy “pushed back at the Durbin and Graham proposal.”

Further, the “fence barrier” is not “not properly funded” according to the President, who tweeted in part (see all tweets below):

“I want a merit based system of immigration and people who will help take our country to the next level. I want safety and security for our people. I want to stop the massive inflow of drugs.”

NBC Capitol Hill reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell tweeted out the clearly unacceptable terms of the deal “per multiple GOP and Dem sources.” Caldwell mentions that the deal is “[N]ot yet final,” but it certainly would explain President Trump’s reaction, as well as back up Neil Munro’s reporting:

DACA: Path to citizenship for DACA recipients and those eligible for DACA but didn’t sign up.

BORDER SECURITY: 1.6 billion for fence barrier, technical surveillance, training and retention for agents. AND AN ADDITIONAL 1.2 billion for other border priorities.

FAMILY BASED MIGRATION: Parents of DACA cannot become citizens but will get temporary protected status.

VISA LOTTERY: Some of the 50k slots will be used for people in the country who have lost their temporary protected status and some will be used for low immigration countries.

President Trump must resist any DACA deal, as Democratic strategists know that passing DACA is crucial for the Democrats “long-term electoral prospects,” as explained in a memo by Jennifer Palmieri and Navin Nayak of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

As previously proven at TrevorLoudon.com, DACA is about the vote.

President Trump responded:


Book Review: Equal Justice for Victims – Lester Jackson, Ph.D.

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Purchase at Amazon.com

Recently, I had the honor and privilege of reading “Equal Justice for Victims: A Blueprint for the Rightful Restoration of Capital Punishment,” by Lester Jackson, Ph.D. It’s a fantastic book that covers capital punishment and why it is needed more today than ever before. Long time readers of mine know that I am a big fan of capital punishment, so this book is right up my alley, so to speak.

One of the things that has always bothered me as our legal system has become progressively more liberal, is the lack of actual justice for victims of vicious criminals. Many times, it seems that the legalistic sympathies lie more with those who have committed heinous crimes than the victims they have killed or damaged irreparably. This book addresses that issue in depth.

Far too often politicians decide the fates of both the aggrieved and the transgressors. Judges many times are put into positions because of political connections rather than a glowing track record of following the precepts of the rule of law. They care not at all about those who are the victims of the beasts among us and justice tends to go in the direction that benefits a political agenda rather than to assuage the grief and hurt of the victims and their families caught up in brutal crimes. This is an excellent book that highlights all of that by a brilliant and gifted author. I highly recommend it.

Amazon’s Synopsis for “Equal Justice for Victims: A Blueprint for the Rightful Restoration of Capital Punishment”:

Equal Justice for Victims A Blueprint for the Rightful Restoration of Capital Punishment
by Lester Jackson Ph.D.

The title is based on two shocking facts, one never reported by the media: (1) the disgracefully scandalous official abuse of violent crime victims; and (2) the ghastly gap in the value placed on the lives of victims vs. barbaric criminals.

The rulers who abuse their power, by forcing their will on the unwilling, are passionately devoted to the most depraved violent criminals.

With contempt for murder victims and their suffering survivors, who are also victims, America’s rulers have values vastly contrary to those of most decent people. In practice, our rulers consider the life of a convicted murderer to be worth far more than 584 times the life of his victim; and a victim’s life to be worth far less than 0.17% of his or her murderer’s.

Many millions of victimized survivors of murder victims believe it is long past due to provide Equal Justice for Victims. This book is written not only for them but also for anyone dedicated to justice, public safety and honest representative government; and who is repulsed by the current massive mockery of these widely accepted objectives.

Based on his training in American Government and Politics, Lester Jackson contends that capital punishment is a POLITICAL rather than a LEGAL issue. Politics involves conflicts between groups, interests and values. The death penalty clash is between victims and their vicious tormentors. The latter include not only convicted barbaric criminals but also their champions in and out of government.

Equal Justice for Victims describes evil and injustice. Good innocent human beings experience protracted excruciating suffering at the hands of not merely premeditated murderers, maimers and rapists, but also the people who love them, defend them and protect them, needlessly enabling additional savage crimes.

The defenders, protectors and enablers are at least as evil as those to whom they are so devoted. These include United States Supreme Court justices who (a) express deep concern for the most depraved and utter contempt for the most decent people; (b) save convicted premeditated rapists and murderers by lying about facts and law; (c) don’t care about the additional depraved crimes and suffering that they knowingly cause; and (d) for the benefit of the guilty, subject the innocent to unspeakable, unending and unnecessary agony. Because such justices know, or should know, exactly what they do, they are the epitome of pure evil.

Justices on today’s Supreme Court have declared war on public safety. In order to do so, they have declared war on the people’s right to self-government by dishonestly and arrogantly usurping the Constitutional powers of elected representatives.

EJV has three parts.

The first part describes the death penalty’s conflicting political combatants.

The second part explains why one side has prevailed over the other. Although the author considers the late Justice Antonin Scalia to have been one of the greatest justices ever, this book also is critical of Scalia.

The final and most important part explains how to compel this country’s rulers to adopt a policy that values the lives of past and potential victims of savagery at least as highly as those of savages. The solution can only be political. Political justices must be fought in the political arena. It must be made clear to the public that the United States Supreme Court decides the most controversial cases on the basis of politics rather than law. It is imperative that the public understand that the most activist justices are politicians with same low integrity associated with politicians.

EJV details a political campaign to educate the public about the Supreme Court’s fraudulent illegitimacy. The worst justices concede that they would fail if The People refuse to accept their “demands.” The People must be persuaded to declare that enough is enough and, therefore, to demand that their elected officials put an end to unlawful and unconstitutional judicial “demands.”

The background of the author is also impressive:

Lester Jackson, Ph.D. (political science) is a former college teacher (for example: City College of New York, Rutgers University and New York University). The author has written numerous articles about capital punishment, the United States. Supreme Court and American politics. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Accuracy in Media, the highly regarded American Thinker (18 articles), Intellectual Conservative, Red State, Western Journalism, Free Republic and elsewhere.

After years studying the United States Supreme Court, Dr. Jackson came to agree with University of Texas Law Professor Lino A. Graglia that “constitutional law” has virtually nothing to do with the United States Constitution. In other words, what passes for “constitutional law” is mostly fabrication and fiction.

Dr. Jackson’s writing has received accolades from Prof. Graglia and many others, including experts, victims, editors and general readers. For example, Prof. Graglia has described the author’s prior work as “…very impressive … well written and argued … enormous amount of research.”

The late great Justice Antonin Scalia complained that his colleagues abuse of power was limited only by their “sense of what [they could] get away with.” Long ago, Dr. Jackson concluded that activist Supreme Court justices could not succeed if the public were aware of their arrogance and dishonesty. Dr. Jackson views himself as a translator into plain English of what Scalia called “gobbledy-gook.” Thus, readability is his top goal. But that does not require sacrificing proof. Because deceitful Supreme Court power abuses are so shocking and so unbelievable, the author documents every factual statement he makes.

Over the years, Dr. Jackson has tried to present the plight of judicially tortured grieving survivors of murder victims, who are also victims, despite the denial of that obvious fact by Justice John Paul Stevens and his cohorts. Dr. William A. Petit, Jr. wrote to Dr. Jackson: “Thank you very much for your very well written and cogent remarks on the death penalty and victims… I truly appreciate you defending we the victims-very few people do; at least very few people do so publicly. There is very little truth out there about the DP, mainly obfuscation… You have clearly hit the mark and have stated the case well.”

Victims need to stand together for reform in the legal and judicial systems of this country. There should be the harshest penalties that can be imposed on those that attack, hurt and murder others. The death penalty has its place in this country and it serves as not only a deterrent, but the ultimate form of justice.

Dr. Jackson speaks for the victims here of others and he speaks for justice. This book is a must read not only for the victims of crime, but for all out there interested in justice and the rule of law. I highly recommend it. You can get a copy at Amazon.com.


Respecting the rank without regard for the individual

By: T. F. Stern | Self-Educated American

In the movie, No Time For Sergeants, Private Stockdale, played by Andy Griffith, gives every indication he’d fallen off the proverbial turnip truck as a female officer approached. He’d never seen a female officer as his jaw dropped to indicate the stupor of thought.   The lecture by the Captain for not saluting an officer, regardless of gender, is taken to heart as Stockdale gathers himself, still holding the salute long after the Captain has walked off.

A very short while later he’s at the mess hall prior to having an eye exam, part of the processing tests to determine the next level of training and assignment.  When a rather nice looking female Captain walks in, one that has most everyone turning to admire her form, his sergeant asks him if he sees the attractive female Captain.

Squinting his eyes as he studies the situation over, “I don’t see no woman, I only sees a Captain”.  His sergeant rolls his eyes up in his head considering the necessity of having each and every new enlistee being processed out; his own job is threatened.  There’s no way this idiot’s going to pass any eye exam, there’s no way he’s going to process out.

Now apply this comical example of obligatory respect to the office of President of the United States.  At one time we had people who were referred to as the Loyal Opposition, folks who didn’t’ want Donald Trump, folks who thought Hillary Clinton should have won or folks who believe any and all the negative propaganda being shared on public forums or the large news media outlets; apply the same basic obligatory respect, not because you now have to respect Donald Trump; but because he is in fact the President.  It really is that simple.

Repeat in your mind, even if you don’t quite understand the principle just explained, “I don’t see Donald Trump, a man I can’t stand and who has no business being President.  I only see a President.”

Now act in a civil manner and wait for the next election; but stop the never ending whining and belittling of our President.  The rest of the world is watching and this childish behavior is embarrassing.


God Forbid the Further Oprah-rizing of America

By: Lloyd Marcus

The American Left’s Oprah-mania about her running for president in 2020 is truly absurd. What on earth qualifies Oprah to run our country? I do not consider myself White House material. But if Oprah qualifies, I am a far superior candidate.

Years ago when Oprah became a national phenomenon, I coined the phrase, the Oprah-lizaton of America. It seemed like Oprah seduced many Americans into placing feelings above facts and logic.

Fake news media and most politicians have become Oprah-rized, behaving as though feelings trump everything. For example. Rather than honestly dealing with the negative consequences of illegals invading our country, Leftists and politicians are most concerned with the emotional side of the issue. God forbid we hurt the feelings or harm the self-esteem of illegals who do not give a rat’s derriere about our country or assimilating.

So now, the American Left is giddy over the thought of Oprah becoming our first queen. We’ve seen this horror movie before titled, “Eight Years of Obama”. Fake news media and wimpy republicans would allow Oprah to behave as queen, free to overrule the Constitution; given full reign to cram extreme liberalism down our throats. Opposing or disagreeing with Oprah would be deemed racist and sexist.

In 2008, over 90% of my fellow black voters were hypnotized by Obama’s skin color. I tried to warn black family and friends that Obama was not black in terms of being one of us. Obama was first and foremost a liberal Trojan Horse disguised in black skin; totally focused on furthering the liberal agenda rather than dealing with issues plaguing black Americans. http://bit.ly/2CYfrEl

Consequently, blacks moved economically and culturally backwards during Obama’s reign. http://bit.ly/1VJG0jM Yes, Trump has been economically “mo’ better” for us blacks than Obama. http://bit.ly/2kJJ1FV

Oprah’s presidency would be a continuation of Obama’s with more touchy-feely mindless emotion driven stupid punish-America policies. Our ultra-Oprah-rized America would give away everything to everybody; confiscating the earnings of achievers to spread to deadbeats.

In 1976, I worked with Oprah at WJZ-TV in Baltimore. As a graphic designer in the art department, I provided graphics for our morning talk show, “People Are Talking” which Oprah co-hosted with Richard Sher.

Psychic Jeane Dixon was a guest on “People Are Talking”. After the show, Oprah, Ms Dixon, other staffers and I were gathered chatting. Ms Dixon took Oprah’s hand and enthusiastically predicted that Oprah would achieve huge success. I am not saying I believe psychics. I am simply reporting what happened.

Oprah’s rise to fame was truly remarkable; evidence of the good heart of the American people. From her early days of co-hosting “People Are Talking”, I thought Oprah’s gift was an ability to be herself on camera. In those days, blacks on TV seemed overly concerned with convincing white America that they were intelligent. Oprah was simply herself and viewers related to her, an average looking, overweight dark-skinned black woman. Blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population. Therefore, it is obvious that white America made Oprah a billionaire.

And yet, on several occasions, Oprah has passionately helped her fellow America-hating Leftists’ sell their lie that America is a hell-hole for blacks.

While promoting her movie, “Selma”, Oprah despicably claimed that blacks are still suffering the same persecution today as they did in the 1950s. http://nydn.us/2D0qsoU

Clearly, selling movie tickets and furthering Leftists’ America-sucks narrative trumped the truth about how truly far we have come regarding race and being fair to the country that has practically worshiped her.

Oprah no more belongs in our Oval Office than Donald Duck. The idea is totally absurd. We all know how fake news media would treat Democrat presidential candidate Oprah Winfrey. Every word out of her mouth would be deemed the height of brilliance, wisdom, fairness and compassion. Fake news media would brand the Republican presidential nominee the secret head of the KKK, a white supremacist and a sexual predator.

Make no mistake about this folks. Along with changing America by flooding America with a tsunami of illegals, Leftists are obsessed with furthering their sexual revolution; making deviancy normal. http://bit.ly/2CYQtEY Oprah would surely champion her fellow Leftists’ government mandated sexual transformation of America.

A lot of American voters would once again be hypnotized by Oprah’s skin-color and fake news media hype, ignoring Oprah’s instincts to punish-America. I pray that a majority of American voters would learn from their mistake of electing extreme Leftist Obama solely because of his skin-color.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth: http://bit.ly/2kZqmUk


Donald Trump’s “Read My Lips” Moment?

By: Thomas Wigand | New Zeal

Are we about to find that we have President Two-faced Trump?

The Democrats well remember their success in baiting George H. Bush into alienating his base by persuading him to renege on his campaign pledge: “Read my lips … no new taxes!”  Well the new taxes came, the already suspicious base could no longer rationalize to themselves that Bush would continue the Reagan legacy, and Bush was a single-term President.  His successor being none other than Bill Clinton.

Mere days ago this contributor posted a piece discussing the dangers of DACA and immigration generally, and making the comparison of Donald Trump to Winston Churchill.  That piece was inspired by two motivations: 1) concern about the smoke signals coming out of the Republican Party last weekend (e.g., Lindsey Graham) implying that an immigration deal betrayal was imminent; and 2) expectation that, like Churchill, Trump recognized the existential threat to this nation and would hold the line on his campaign promises to his base.

That optimism concerning Trump was borne of pleasant surprise at (most of) his moves thus far.  This writer began the 2016 race as a Ted Cruz supporter; and while appreciating (amongst other things) Trump’s strong stance on illegal immigration, tended to discount it as (frankly) bull to lure the “bubba vote.”  After all, Trump was from New York and hobnobbed with Democrats all his life; his campaign utterances had to be a ruse.  That said, after Cruz dropped out, and the race became a choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, the choice was easy — roll the dice on Trump and hope for the best.  As many of us experienced, we were glad to have (apparently) misjudged the man, for up until today his record was, if not perfect, solidly and aggressively conservative, i.e., pro-American.

That was then; today, January 9, 2018, is another day.  The White House DACA-fest bodes ill.  This from President Trump at his press confab afterwards:

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I also think that, after we do DACA — and I really believe we should be able to be successful — I really think we should look in terms of your permanent solution and to the whole situation with immigration.  I think a lot of people in this room would agree to that also, but we’ll do it in steps.  And most people agree with that, I think, that we’ll do the steps.  Even you say, ‘let’s do this, and then we go phase two.’

Let us not forget that DACA was an unconstitutional “executive amnesty” diktat by President Barack Hussein Obama.  President Trump now apparently supports enshrining that amnesty into law.  In other words, President Trump is beginning to embrace the Obama agenda, including, apparently, a “phase two” toward “comprehensive immigration reform.”  If granting amnesty to illegal aliens — who are trespassers in this land — does not equate to a “read my lips” level betrayal, it’s hard to imagine what would be.  The White House would have us believe that we’ll get (some form of, or some portion of) the campaign-promised border wall in return.  Or at least some initial funding toward that.  Well, been there, done that.  Does anyone reading this believe that a “comprehensive border wall” will be quickly erected, and to completion across the southern border?  Me neither.  Besides, why should we have to “trade” anything for the wall?

Donald Trump is an experienced negotiator, and so is familiar with the concept of “BATNA.”  That stands for “best alternative to a negotiated agreement.” Which in turn means that (amongst other things) having a decent alternative means that you retain the ability to walk-away from negotiations if you can’t arrive at terms at least acceptable to you (if that is your internal bottom-line), if not advantageous to you (if that is your internal bottom-line).  The party which is willing to walk-away from the table has the advantage.  Well Trump could have called the Democrats’ bluff, could have had his BATNA, stating that: “Fine Democrats, close down the government and refuse to fund the wall all on behalf of a bunch of illegal alien trespassers, and see how that works out for you in 2018.  I’ll worry about funding the wall after the 2018 elections and my appearances around the country highlighting how you care more about illegals than about American citizens.”  In other words, Trump merely had to call their bluff.  Instead, we’re getting signals of a massive cave by the Trump administration.  From the January 9, 2018 post-DACA confab briefing by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

MS. SANDERS:  I think the President is setting himself up to achieve what everybody in that room agreed they wanted to see happen, and that is a deal on DACA, a deal on border security, talking about chain migration, and visa lottery.  That’s where we are in this process.  Those are the four principles.

Time to engage in some Clinton-reminiscent “parsing” of carefully chosen words intended to give a misleading impression to the cursory listener.  Note that the word “deal” precedes the words “DACA” and “border security.”  On the other hand the terms “chain migration” and “visa lottery” are preceded merely by “talking about.”  This signals that a fix is in for a DACA amnesty, and for some fig-leaf “we can declare victory” border security in the form of, e.g., a promise to build (some sort of) wall, for some small distance, someday.  The DACA amnesty will occur almost immediately and be permanent; the wall (or other security) will await an uncertain and reversible future.  It ALSO signals that eliminating “chain migration” and the “visa lottery” are now off the table.  “Talking about” is far less significant than “deal” and,  worse, once the Democrats and Establishment Republicans have DACA amnesty in hand after this “deal,” how many millions more will have to be given amnesty in order to procure something on “chain migration” and “visa lottery?”  The DACA chip will already have been cashed-in by President Trump.

One hopes that this is not fallout from the recent brouhaha and falling-out between Donald Trump and Stephen K. Bannon.  But there are disturbing signs that perhaps, in a pique, President Trump is not only rebuffing Bannon but the positions that Bannon championed.  The positions now, in the President’s mind, being tarred by association with Bannon?  After all, within the past week President Trump also flamboyantly announced that he’s embracing Establishment Republicans — swamp Republicans — by pledging to support them, and not primary challengers against them.  Doing so might make sense if he got something significant in return — but him falling-in with the likes of Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham on DACA amnesty makes it look like it’s Trump conceding to them, not the other way around.  It’s almost as if Donald Trump is channeling Ivanka!

This writer hopes and prays that, as before, his concerns regarding President Trump prove wrong, and that we all end up pleasantly surprised and optimistic again that we have a President actually fighting for the best interests of America and its American citizens.  But one would have to be a fool to not be gravely concerned about developments over the past several days.  Just when it was really starting to feel like we finally had the first Republican President since Ronald Reagan that wouldn’t stab us in the back once in office, we get a “bipartisan” knife-sharpening party at the White House.  Pray that this is a false alarm.  If not, this could be the final Progressive nail in the coffin of this country as originally founded.


Is there a single Democrat anywhere who gives a damn about America?

By: Doug Ross @ Journal

We now have ironclad evidence that the Obama administration mounted at least two distinct and extraordinary efforts to weaponize government against its political opponents.

It used the instrumentalities of government to target members of the opposite party and — worse still — to influence the outcome of a presidential election.

Citizens United and the IRS

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not ban movies and books (the Citizens United case, which protected political free speech). Shortly thereafter, during a State of the Union address, President Barack Obama went so far as to hector Supreme Court justices to their faces regarding that decision.

Not long after, key officials of the Internal Revenue Service began targeting conservative groups based upon their name or mission. The terms they looked for included “Tea Party”, “Patriot” and “9/12”.

Not only did the IRS methodically delay targeted applications for non-profit status but they also interrogated the applicants with lengthy and frivolous questionaires. In one case, the agency asked a pro-life group to list “the content of their prayers“.

In spite of a largely uninterested media, the IRS scandal generated a sufficient uproar that the Obama FBI and the DOJ were both tasked with investigating the agency.

Both probes resulted in no criminal charges, although there was overwhelming evidence that key officials in the IRS had conducted politically motivated targeting of these groups.

But a two-headed scandal of significantly more import was about to be revealed.

The 2016 Election

Over the course of 2015 and 2016, a set of parallel investigations — both politically motivated — were unfolding. Led by the topmost officials in the DOJ and the FBI, the two probes consisted of:

  1. Ensuring that Hillary Clinton, the putatitve Democrat nominee for President — would be exonerated for mishandling classified information. In March of 2015, The New York Times reported that as Secretary of State, she had operated a private email server for all official business. This led to widespread speculation that she was avoiding both Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests as well as the strict requirements for handling classified information. Clinton denied at first that she had possessed any classified documents, which proved false; she then stated that the documents had been retroactively classified (also false); and finally asserted that she was unaware what classification markings meant. The investigation into Hillary’s emails was a whitewash from its onset, with money changing hands (e.g.,
    the FBI’s Andrew McCabe), overlooking multiple subjects lying to the FBI, witnesses not being placed under oath nor recorded, etc.
  2. Trying to fix the 2016 presidential election. Beginning in April of 2016, as the Republican primary process was unfolding, various wings of the Democrat Party — including the DNC, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and Barack Obama’s OFA group — were using a law firm to fund an opposition research group called Fusion GPS. Fusion, in turn, hired researchers (including the wife of a senior DOJ official, Bruce Ohr) to create a “dossier” of incriminating information regarding Donald Trump. The dossier consisted of “salacious and unverified” (as described by FBI director James Comey) anecdotes that tied Trump to Russian business interests. Since then, virtually the entire dossier has been debunked, with even mainstream media outlets generally refusing to publish it.

Most troubling, it now seems clear that the origins of the dossier were disguised; it was apparently repackaged by the DOJ and the FBI into a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant (a FISA application), which would allow the Obama administration to wiretap the Trump campaign, and later his transition team.

In the days leading up to the general election, the Russian conspiracy theory was relentlessly marketed by the Clinton campaign itself as well as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The lie was to no avail.

After Trump’s victory, the Obama administration then conducted illegal surveillance on his transition team, wiretapping Trump Tower. The Democrats’ intent was clear: to somehow prevent the inauguration of the GOP candidate. These illegal activities occurred until NSA director Mike Rogers became sufficiently concerned of the outgoing administration’s actions that he personally warned Trump of the Obama administration’s machinations.

The very next day, Trump moved his headquarters to a location in Bedminster, New Jersey. For Rogers’ troubles, top Obama intelligence officials, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, recommended the NSA chief be removed from office.

Bueller? Bueller?

We have briefly summarized two of the most dangerous scandals in American history.

  • Using the IRS to suppress political opponents
  • Worse yet, trying to fix a presidential election

So, tell me: is there a single Democrat who has decried these tactics?

I do not know of a single one.

President Obama’s use of the Executive Branch to crush the opposition party is without precedent. And yet, the media and prominent Democrats have been either silent on these affairs, or have simply tarred them as standard political antics.

They are not.

They are diabolical and criminal efforts to undermine the American system of government.

And Democrats, until and unless they themselves are targeted, could give a damn.

The danger is obvious. If weaponization of government becomes the norm, this country is doomed.

I ask: Is there a single Democrat left who gives a damn about America? Who among you will speak up?


Trump’s Unnoticed Great First Year Accomplishment

By: Lloyd Marcus

Conservatives and Republicans gave President Trump kudos for his remarkable list of accomplishments in his first year in office. http://washex.am/2DosDQd

One crucial Trump accomplishment appears to have gone unnoticed. Trump repeatedly spoke the truth about issues fake news media demanded that we either embrace its lie about the issue or stay silent. Single-handedly, Trump has opened the door for Americans to freely speak truth again.

Before Trump entered the political arena, fake news media controlled public speech with an iron-fist. Citizens and politicians knew they had better toe-the-politically-correct-line or suffer severe consequences.

When fake news media demanded that we ignore biology and pretend that Bruce Jenner is a woman, Americans played along with Bruce’s mental disorder http://bit.ly/2lLcpZE for fear of public humiliation and economic crucifixion by fake news media.

NFL player Don Jones broke fake news media’s ban on speaking truth publicly. When Michael Sam kissed his boyfriend on national TV, Jones tweeted what tens of millions of Americans were thinking. “OMG, horrible.” Jones was immediately high-tech lynched by fake news media, sentenced to forced mind-altering therapy. http://bit.ly/1Utv0XZ

When Trump announced that he was running for president, Trump said he would deal with the problem of criminal illegals invading our country. Illegals and the accompanying criminals are another issue fake news media forbids us to speak truthfully about. http://bit.ly/2rUT1dZ Trump, in essence, said screw fake news media’s rules about what truths we are allowed to state publicly.

Trump honestly addressing the problem of illegals invading our country sparked a fake news media firestorm against him. Fake news media launched a bogus story line that Trump is a racist who hates all Mexicans. In their usual fearful submission to fake news media, Conservatives and Republicans ran to microphones to condemn and distance themselves from what fake news media decreed to be Trump’s “racist” remarks.

However, a majority of American voters did not buy fake news media’s bogus Trump-is-racist narrative. Quite the opposite. We the People were elated by Trump’s unprecedented lack of fear of fake news media. Trump remained steadfast in speaking truth, exposing the negative impact of illegals invading our country with no desire to assimilate. Trump boldly disobeying fake news media’s ban on speaking truth inspires all Americans to begin speaking truth again.

Folks, we are at war; fake news media vs America. Fake news media believes America is the greatest source of evil on the planet. Its 24/7 laser-focused mission is to bring down America from her throne as the world super power. Fake news media also seeks to transform America away from her foundation of Christian values and principles. Fake news media relentlessly sells its lie that a majority of Americans share its disdain for our homeland.

That horrifying Sunday when Americans watched the entire NFL (players, coaches and management), in essence, taking a knee against our country, Americans were stunned with disbelief. How on earth could the NFL think a majority of Americans and football fans agreed with them disrespecting our flag, National Anthem, country, fallen-veteran-active military and brave men and women in blue? In short, the NFL believed fake news media’s bogus story-line that America and cops routinely abuse blacks and football fans would support the NFL protest. Polls confirm the NFL made a huge miscalculation. http://bit.ly/2Cx7Z2R

As I stated folks, we are at war; fake news media vs America.

Fake news media has suppressed our first amendment right of free speech for years. Anyone who dares speak truth which contradicts a fake news media lie is severely punished; branded stupid; crazy or guilty of hate speech.

While you were sleeping or taking your kids to soccer, fake news media began the process of criminalizing speaking truth; disagreeing with its socialist/progressive agenda.

Outrageously, fake news media seeks to criminalize scientists expressing skepticism regarding man made climate change. Fake news media actual says “climate change deniers” should be thrown into jail. http://bit.ly/2DRwg0s

Fake news media appears to love all things Islam while hating Christians. Obama’s DOJ threatened to jail anyone caught speaking badly about Islam. http://bit.ly/1mxTG1G Meanwhile, Obama was unprecedented in his relentless presidential trashing of Christians. http://bit.ly/2plTsy0

Fake news media’s sole purpose is to block truth while spreading lies and deception. By controlling speech, fake news media can use pretty words to paint a smiley face on evil, depravity and sin unabated. Trump courageously speaking truth has caused a serious crack in fake news media’s control-what-truths-Americans-are-allowed-to-publicly-express armor. Thank you Mr President.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth: http://bit.ly/2kZqmUk


COS Project’s “Simulated Convention” Dog and Pony Show and What They Did There

By Publius Huldah

1. Foundational Knowledge
Our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government.  But 100 years ago, we started electing Progressives (Fabian socialists) to State and federal office.  With the enthusiastic approval of the American People, the Progressives set up the socialist regulatory welfare governments (state and federal) we now have.  It’s unconstitutional; but Americans didn’t care because they were being taken care of by the governments, and their children were getting “free” public school educations.

So for the past 100 years, the federal and state governments and the American People have ignored our Constitution.

Now that our socialist system is collapsing, along comes the “Convention of States” Project (COS), blames all our problems on the federal government, and claims we can fix the federal government’s violations of our Constitution by amending the Constitution. 1

And they say amendments which will “rein in the abuse of power by the federal government” when it “violate[s] its constitutional limitations”, 2 can be obtained only at a convention called by Congress pursuant to Article V of our Constitution.

Article V provides that if two thirds of the States apply for it, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. 3 However, Delegates would have the right, as recognized in the 2nd paragraph of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off the Constitution we have and write a new Constitution which creates a new government.  This has happened before!

Our first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation.  It had defects, so on February 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention to be held in Philadelphia “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.  But instead of proposing amendments, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution, with an easier mode of ratification, 4 which created a new government.  In Federalist   No. 40 (15th para), James Madison invoked the Delegates’ right to abolish our form of government, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, to justify ignoring their instructions and drafting a new Constitution which created a new government.

So!  Ever since the federal convention of 1787, it has been known that any convention called to address our Constitution under Article V provides the opportunity to impose a new Constitution. 5 That’s why the enemies of our Constitution periodically push for an Article V convention. 6

In response to the current push, constitutionalists are warning Americans that if Congress calls an Article V convention, a new constitution with a new mode of ratification is likely to be imposed – probably a new constitution which moves us into the North American Union.

2. COS’s “simulated” Article V convention
So during September 2016, COS held an “invitation only” “simulated convention” in Williamsburg, Virginia  attended by State Legislators handpicked by COS, 7 to show us that Delegates to a real Article V convention called by Congress will do nothing more than propose amendments.

And lo!  At the “simulated convention”, all the handpicked invitees did was propose six amendments to our Constitution – they didn’t “run away” and propose a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification!

COS would like us to believe that their “simulated convention” proves that a real Article V convention called by Congress also won’t run away when, in fact, it proves nothing except that handpicked COS invitees fall in line with the COS agenda.

Now let’s look at the proposed amendments:  COS posted them HERE; an archived copy is HERE.

3. COS’s six amendments
Like Newspeak in George Orwell’s “1984”, the amendments would do the opposite of what COS claims.

Fiscal Restraints Proposal 1”:

“SECTION 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and only for a period not to exceed one year.

SECTION 2. No state or any subdivision thereof shall be compelled or coerced by Congress or the President to appropriate money.

 *     *     *”

So!  Congress can’t increase the debt unless they decide to increase the debt.  Wow. This is “fiscal restraints”?

If you read through the Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to the federal government, you will get a list of the objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money.

The reason we have a huge debt is because for 100 years, Congress has been spending on objects which aren’t on the list of delegated powers.  The States go along with it because they get federal funds for implementing unconstitutional federal programs in their States.  31.9% of the States’ annual revenues is from federal funds.  All this federal money is borrowed and added to the public debt!

To say that State Legislators display hypocrisy when they decry “out of control federal spending” when they have their hand out for all the federal money they can get, is an understatement. The amendment authorizes such spending to continue for as long as Congress continues to approve increases in the debt!  The amendment legalizes – makes constitutional – all such spending and debt increases!

Section 2 gives us nothing.  Our existing Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to require States or local governments to spend money.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 1:

“SECTION 1. The power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states shall be limited to the regulation of the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons. Congress may not regulate activity solely because it affects commerce among the several states.  [boldface added]

SECTION 2. The power of Congress to make all laws that are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States. [boldface added]

SECTION 3. The Legislatures of the States shall have standing to file any claim alleging violation of this article.  Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit standing that may otherwise exist for a person.

*     *     *”

Section 1: The original intent of the interstate commerce clause (Art. I, §3) is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on merchandize as it is transported through the States for purposes of buying & selling; and to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports & exports, both inland & abroad. 8

With Roosevelt’s “New Deal”, the federal government began to pervert the original intent so as to exert power over whatever they wanted to regulate.

The amendment legalizes the perversions!  It delegates to the federal government powers it has already usurped to regulate the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods and articles.

Furthermore: the amendment delegates to the federal government a sweeping new power over the movement or transportation of persons across state lines!  It would, e.g., authorize the federal government to prohibit use of privately owned vehicles to cross state lines, and to require prior written permission to cross state lines.  I saw in communist East Europe & the Soviet Union a system where governments control movement of persons.  Will “Papers, please” be heard at checkpoints in America?  This malignant amendment would be constitutional authority to impose such a system here. 9

Section 2: The federal government has no existing constitutional authority to regulate intra state commerce, so the first clause of this section adds nothing our Constitution doesn’t already prohibit.

But the second clause delegates to the federal government another significant new power over persons: it comes verbatim from Randy Barnett’s so-called “bill of federalism”:  10

 “…Congress shall have power to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.”

Why does Barnett, who attended the “simulated convention” as “Committee Advisor”, want the federal government to have this new power?  What’s an “act of war against the United States” – doing what the Bundys and their supporters did?  The amendment delegates to Congress the power to define “acts of war against the United States” – and to re-define it from time to time – to encompass whatever they want!

We need to understand the implications of delegating such power to Congress.  As with “treason” under the Tudors in England, anyone can be accused of “acts of war against the United States”.  Does Randy Barnett, law professor, understand the implications?  James Madison understood them and thus said that “treason” must be defined in the Constitution; 11 obviously, no one of Madison’s caliber was at the “simulated convention”.

Section 3:  Our Framers didn’t advise the States to file lawsuits against the federal government when it violates the Constitution!  Our Framers told the States to nullify such violations. 12

 “Federal Term Limits & Judicial Jurisdiction Proposal 1”:

“No person shall be elected to more than six full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall be elected to more than two full terms in the Senate. These limits shall include the time served prior to the enactment of this Article.”

This amendment is a feel-good palliative which caters to Americans’ pervasive desire for a quick “fix” which permits them to avoid dealing with the real causes of their problems.  See Term Limits: A Palliative not a Cure.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 2”:

“SECTION 1. The Legislatures of the States shall have authority to abrogate any provision of federal law issued by the Congress, President, or Administrative Agencies of the United States, whether in the form of a statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, decision, or other form. [boldface added]

SECTION 2. Such abrogation shall be effective when the Legislatures of three-fifths of the States approve a resolution declaring the same provision or provisions of federal law to be abrogated. This abrogation authority may also be applied to provisions of federal law existing at the time this amendment is ratified.

*     *     *”

Section 1: Article I, §1, US Constitution, provides that all legislative powers granted by the Constitution shall be vested in Congress.  Only Congress may make laws [and laws are restricted to the powers granted in the Constitution].

Accordingly, executive orders and federal agency rules and orders are not “law”.

The amendment would supersede Art. I, §1.  It would elevate to the status of “federal law” every order or regulation burped out by bureaucrats in the executive branch; every executive order signed by every President; and every order barked out by jack-booted thugs working for federal agencies.  And unless three fifths of States agree that you don’t have to obey – you must obey or bear the consequences of violating what would be – thanks to this amendment – “federal law”.

Section 2: James Madison, Father of our Constitution, showed how individual States or several States could carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments.  But the amendment would require 30 States to agree before any one State or person could defend itself!

Fiscal Restraints Proposal 2:

SECTION 1. Congress shall not impose taxes or other exactions upon incomes, gifts, or estates.

SECTION 2. Congress shall not impose or increase any tax, duty, impost or excise without the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately present such to the President. [boldface added]

SECTION 3. This Article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the Sixteenth Article of amendment is repealed.”

This amendment doesn’t impose “fiscal restraints” – it authorizes Congress to impose new and different taxes on us! 

The words in boldface authorize Congress to impose “any tax” if three fifths of both Houses agree.  “Any tax” includes a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT).  Statists love the VAT because it raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments”.  This is what will replace the income, gift, and estate tax.

Federal Legislative & Executive Jurisdiction Proposal 3”:

“Whenever one quarter of the members of the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate transmits to the President their written declaration of opposition to any proposed or existing federal administrative regulation, in whole or in part, it shall require a majority vote of the House of Representatives and Senate to adopt or affirm that regulation. Upon the transmittal of opposition, if Congress shall fail to vote within 180 days, such regulation shall be vacated. No proposed regulation challenged under the terms of this Article shall go into effect without the approval of Congress. Congressional approval or rejection of a rule or regulation is not subject to Presidential veto under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.”

As shown in The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster, rulemaking by federal agencies is unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1 of our Constitution.

The proposed amendment would supersede Art. I, §1 and legalize such rulemaking!  And the existing Code of Federal Regulations and the rulemaking process itself – which now violate the Constitution – would be made constitutional!

The solution to the burden created by unconstitutional federal agencies is to do away with the agencies!  Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers!

4. Conclusion
The “simulated convention” was a dog and pony show put on to produce amendments to con us into believing that a real Article V convention called by Congress won’t “run away”.

But it’s impossible to fix federal usurpations of non-delegated powers with amendments, because amendments can’t take away powers the Constitution didn’t delegate in the first place.  Thus, the amendments the hand-picked attendees approved legalize powers already usurped or delegate sweeping new powers to the federal government over States and individual persons!

Statecraft is serious business which requires systematic study to master. The “simulated convention” shows we live in a time of constitutional illiteracy where people of good intent can be misled by persons of “insidious views”.   Heed the words of Daniel Webster in his 4th of July Oration, 1802:

“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow, is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.”


1 If your spouse commits adultery, will your marriage be saved if you amend the vows to permit adultery?  When People violate the Ten Commandments, will morality be restored if we amend the Ten Commandments to permit sin?

2 Michael Farris’ words in “Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V” or HERE.

3 None of the Delegates to the convention of 1787 said the purpose of amendments is to rein in the fed. gov’t when it usurps power. They said the purpose is to fix defects in the Constitution.  See The George Mason Fabrication at subheading 4.

4 Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation  (AOC) required Amendments to the AOC to be ratified by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States.  But Article VII of the new Constitution (the one we now have) provided that it would be ratified by 9 States.

5 The enemies of our Constitution knew from day one that they could get rid of our Constitution at an Art. V convention!  Our present Constitution was ratified by the 9th State on June 21, 1788.  In Federalist No. 85 (mid-August 1788), Hamilton addressed the arguments of the anti-federalists who were agitating for another convention in order to get rid of our new Constitution.

On Oct. 27, 1788, anti-federalist Patrick Henry introduced into the Virginia Assembly a Resolution asking Congress to call an Art. V convention.  In Madison’s letter to Randolph of Nov 2, 1788 (pages 294-297), he speaks of Henry’s “enmity” “agst [against] the whole system” [the new Constitution]; and “the destruction of the whole system I take to be still the secret wish of his heart, and the real object of his pursuit.”

6 New Constitutions are already prepared or being drafted:  e.g., the Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum (Art. XII, §1).  Globalists [e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations] who want to move us into the North American Union (NAU) need a new Constitution to transform us from a sovereign nation to a member state in the NAU.

7 COS’s page is archived HERE. See “who attended the simulation” in right column. [Archived list of attendees is HERE or HERE.]

8 Proof of the original intent of the interstate commerce clause & how it was abused is HERE.

9 Yet, Legislators from 44 of the States at the “simulated convention” approved this!

10 See Barnett’s Amendment 2 – Limits of Commerce Power”.  It’s archived HERE.

11 “Treason” is defined at Art. III, §3.  In Federalist No. 43 (at 3.) Madison warns that the definition must be locked into the Constitution.  Otherwise, malignant people fabricate definitions as needed in order to condemn their enemies.

Compare Art. I, §8, cl. 10 which delegates to Congress the power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”.  In Federalist No. 42 (1st & 4th paras), Madison points out that this class of powers is among those which “regulate the intercourse with foreign nations” and so must be handled by the general [fed.] gov’t.  And since everyone’s definition of the terms is different, the fed gov’t should define them.  This class of powers wouldn’t affect private Citizens.  For more on the limited criminal jurisdiction of the fed gov’t over private Citizens, see What Criminal Laws are Congress Authorized To Make?

12 See Nullification made Easy.  And remember: State officials are required by the Oath at Art. VI to “support” the federal Constitution – not to obey the federal government!