Declarations of Truth

When Trump wins, what next? By Terry A. Hurlbut State primaries and conventions are still ongoing – and of course even the Republican National Convention has not yet taken place. But no one doubts that Donald J. Trump already has assured himself of the nomination. Now more and more legacy media organs and commentators believe that Trump has also assured himself of reelection. They are also weeping and gnashing their teeth, in a display of childish indignity that recalls the infamous Lyon-Griswold donnybrook in the House of Representatives in 1798. And now even some State officials have resigned themselves to a Trump victory – and are planning fresh attacks against him. Other officials, perhaps of better heart, would do well to plan for post-election violence – against Trump and his supporters. Oh, no! Trump is going to win! No one doubts any longer that the dizzying spate of lawsuits, indictments, and prosecutions of and against Donald Trump were no coincidence. Indeed, in the Florida “Documents Case,” unsealed documents demonstrate collusion between Jack Smith’s Special Counsel’s Office and the White House. Judge Aileen M. Cannon has vacated an earlier scheduled trial date and declined to set another one. She cited multiple pre-trial motions presenting classified information handling issues still not resolved. In essence she has postponed the trial indefinitely, and given solid grounds for doing so. Tellingly, she did not find Jack Smith or his team guilty of prosecutorial misconduct – which they almost certainly committed. So Mr. Smith has no grounds to appeal this indefinite postponement of a trial. United States v. Trump, 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, Order Setting Second Set of Pre-trial Deadlines/Hearings. In the one trial now ongoing (New York v. Trump), prosecution witnesses have only embarrassed themselves and the prosecution. The legacy media know this. They knew it last month, when the first weeping and tooth-gnashing began. The appearances of Stephanie Clifford (“Stormy Daniels”) and Hope Hicks in a New York courtroom at first brought excuse-making. Then the legacy media admitted the truth. Never mind what a likely biased jury decides. Trump will not lose a single vote over this case, and will likely gain votes. James Carville made this anguished statement, which Eric Abbenante captured: https://twitter.com/EricAbbenante/status/1788726060311281708 Tim Haines at RealClearPolitics provided a transcript, which Mike LaChance at The Gateway Pundit quoted: Trump’s more ahead than he’s ever been, more – fewer people think January 6 was any kind of what it was, an assault on the temple of democracy, our Constitution, whatever you want to say. It’s going the wrong way. It’s not working. Everything that we’re throwing is spaghetti at a wall, and none of it is sticking, me included. It's hard starting your 80th year, and like everyone else I have an opinion of myself. And the opinion I've come to is I don’t matter. It doesn’t matter. You can prepare and you can be on TV, you can write pieces, you can have a YouTube channel, you can have a podcast and nothing, nothing! We’ve got to try to think of something different because what we’re doing in really really not working. James Carville But of course… Carville is correct, beyond even admitting that he has no moral authority left, but he doesn’t understand why. Everyone knows by now that the January 6 Event was a false-flag pseudo-operation. Nancy Pelosi declined to ask for National Guard protection – and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were ready to disobey orders to make sure no National Guardsmen could possibly deploy if Trump gave the order anyway. To say nothing of Ray Epps, agent provocateur extraordinaire, and his antics (and preferential treatment). The Supreme Court has two cases before it that could make Trump’s January 6 problems go away. Beyond that, everyone recognizes the selective application of the law. In trying Trump in multiple courts of law, the Democrats also brought an action in the court of public opinion. But the trouble with public-opinion court action is that it can cut both ways and become extremely difficult to manage. Democrat management of this public-opinion court case has been a disaster. As a result, according to Dr. Stephen Turley, Democrats will fall back on the election fraud that put Biden into office in 2020. But, Dr. Turley also says, they haven’t the apparatus they once had. Eric Coomer, the chief suspect in arranging to alter tabulated vote counts in real time, is no longer in the employ of Dominion Voting Services. Dominion Voting has suffered tremendous embarrassment – in court. And thanks to Dan Schultz’ Precinct Strategy, Republicans have their apparatus – poll watchers and poll workers in position to stop such fraud. Making plans for a second Trump administration So now the planning begins. The best positive planners are the Heritage Foundation, who last year started a project – Project 2025 – to that end. Project 2025 – or the 2025 Presidential Transition Project – sets four vital goals for itself, Trump, and the country: 1. Prepare a comprehensive agenda affecting every agency of the government, with ideas for conservative reform. This includes rebuilding American military forces and doing away with “diversity, equity and inclusion.” It also includes “Schedule F,” to make tens of thousands of “civil service” jobs at the pleasure of the President. 2. Create and populate a database of qualified applicants for senior management positions. This “Conservative LinkedIn” will have names and resumes (or curricula vitarum) ready for Transition Team executives to review. 3. Create training courses and materials to turn idealistic applicants into effective administrators. 4. Write a “playbook” listing immediate actions over the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. Legacy media organs have already wept and gnashed their teeth over the very idea of Project 2025. The Los(t) Angeles Times actually called it a plan to replace the federal government with Trump’s vision of it. They chiefly object to a reinstatement of Schedule F. Prof. Mary Guy at the University of Colorado at Denver explicitly uttered the phrase spoils system to describe it. Then she said this silly thing: We have a democracy that is at risk of suicide. Schedule F is just one more bullet in the gun. Never mind that removing unelected bureaucrats is an essentially democratic reform. Leaving those bureaucrats in place is the real undemocratic gesture. The attack plans Which brings us to the negative side of planning for a second Trump administration: the attack plan. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, announced two days ago his own plan to sue the federal government, seeking all kinds of declaratory and injunctive relief to stop those plans. While conservatives read Project 2025 as a positive agenda, General Bonta is studying it to prepare federal court challenges against it. The Los(t) Angeles Times made the initial report, which Breitbart and The Gateway Pundit excerpted and quoted. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said he and his staff have been reviewing former President Trump’s second-term agenda in detail to prepare a potential onslaught of environmental, immigration and civil rights lawsuits in the event Trump defeats President Biden. … Bonta, a Democrat who is mulling a run for governor, said he has been reviewing the work of his predecessor, Xavier Becerra, who filed more than 100 suits against Trump policies before leaving the office to become Biden’s secretary of Health and Human Services. Bonta and his deputies are also looking closely at a document drafted by the Heritage Foundation, a Trump-aligned think tank, known as “Project 2025,” that offers a blueprint for Trump’s second-term policy goals. … Asked for comment on Bonta’s plans, Anna Kelly, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, said, “California liberals will try anything to spread their failed, fringe-left agenda far and wide, but they won’t stop President Trump from making America great again.” This kind of “lawsuit abuse” is nothing new with Democrats. But whether General Bonta would even have standing to seek injunctions against half of Project 2025 is far from clear. Standing or no, his chances of success are not promising, after Trump: • Made three Supreme Court appointments, • Brought balance to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, and • Made the greatest number of District Court appointments in history. But Eric Cortellessa of Time Magazine dropped a hint at some darker planning, in his interview with Trump. He tried to goad Trump into suggesting that violence would break out if he lost. Trump didn’t take that bait. But Cortellessa’s lines of questioning look like classic projection – accusing the other person of that which you yourself did, are doing, plan to do, or would like to do. More concrete projection More seriously, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) actually suggested that Trump had the support of several right-wing organizations … training up in the hills somewhere and targeting what communities they’re going to attack. https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1787470550320689252 Almost six years ago, this same Maxine Waters called on mobs to harass members of the first Trump administration. https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1356758777832300546 That’s demonstrable projection, this time with concrete evidence against the projector. If Rep. Waters is willing to “project” again, as she did three years ago (in accusing Republicans of threatening her life), what might she know of left-wing organizations training in the hills (or more likely in back alleys), targeting residential neighborhoods, churches, and (nowadays) synagogues that they are going to attack? This is not to say that any such plans have progressed beyond the fantasy stage. But: … [A]s [a man] thinks within himself, so he is. Proverbs 23:7 and so, even to utter such remarks, necessarily become suspect. Especially since some rioting took place in the nights following the Election of 2016. Once again, officials of better heart than General Bonta, should prepare for this or any other eventuality. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/05/11/foundation/constitution/trump-wins-next/ Docket page and postponement order in US v. Trump: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67643393/united-states-v-trump/ https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.651411/gov.uscourts.flsd.651411.530.0_1.pdf Video: James Carville expressing despair: https://twitter.com/EricAbbenante/status/1788726060311281708 Project 2025 Home: https://www.project2025.org/ Los Angeles Times articles: “Replacing the federal government with Trump’s vision”: https://web.archive.org/web/20240510040148/https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-08-30/conservative-groups-draw-up-plan-to-dismantle-the-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision Attorney General Bonta planning a slew of lawsuits: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-05-09/california-attorney-general-trump-lawsuit-term The Time “if Trump wins” interview: https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-interview/ Video: Maxine Waters calling for investigation of Trump supporters “training up in the hills somewhere”: https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1787470550320689252 Video: Maxine Waters calling for harassment of Trump people: https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1356758777832300546 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

FreedomWorks, cross purposes, and lies By Terry A. Hurlbut FreedomWorks, which (as everyone supposed) carried the conservative standard for twenty years, is no more. Its twelve-member Board of Directors voted this week to cease all operations. Wednesday (May 8) was the last day, though the organization’s 25 employees will continue to receive pay and health benefits for several more months, according to Politico. Adam Brandon, its President and CEO, fired at least two Parthian shots at Donald Trump on his way out. These were an interview with Politico, blaming Trump for his troubles, and an op-ed on RealClearPolitics announcing a “new realignment.” (CNAV published his op-ed, which RealClearWire, RCP’s free, term-less syndication service, offered in its line-up.) But FreedomWorks insiders tell another story – of ideological betrayal (by Brandon himself) and fiscal mismanagement – or “organizational suicide.” In fact, Brandon will likely announce a successor organization, with Never-Trump values. FreedomWorks current status FreedomWorks began in 1984, and in 2004 split from the Koch Brothers’ network. But two different FreedomWorks sites exist, and one seems to have nothing to do with the other. The organization that the Center for Public Integrity profiled in 2012 calls itself FreedomWorks for America and resides at this link. That site apparently has seen no update since the spring of 2023. But the site that Adam Brandon ran until this week has the simpler name FreedomWorks, at this link. They also have a YouTube channel, and a separate Foundation. The About page lists the latest draft of the FreedomWorks message: FreedomWorks exists to mobilize the center right and politically homeless in America who do not feel their values of limited government, social tolerance, and individual liberty are being represented in political discourse today. We seek to restore common sense and competence to public policy and American political life. Our vision is for a future where growth and prosperity results in opportunity for all Americans. In addition, Adam Brandon left this personal message under his by-line: FreedomWorks members know that government goes to those who show up. That's why we give them the tools to break through the media noise and provide the same access to Washington as the big-moneyed lobbyists. Preserving liberty depends on all Americans having access to their elected officials—not just special interests. FreedomWorks holds Washington accountable to the citizens that put them in office. Join Us. The FreedomWorks home page still looks like an active page, with no announcement whatsoever of its closing. The last entries on their News page are dated Tuesday, May 7. In fact they’re still advertising an “American Debt Crisis Tour” and still have their joining form up. And as your editor watched, donations rolled in, typically five dollars or more each. Why is the site accepting donations to an entity that has ceased operations? Why is the site still accepting online applications for admission? The answers to these and several other questions are simply not available. CNAV has reached out to FreedomWorks using its Contact form. Any present or former employee of FreedomWorks is welcome to provide them, in our comment space. How much have they spent? OpenSecrets maintains its own profile on FreedomWorks. That profile lists $305,685 in contributions since 1990, $8,437,457 in lobbying expenses since 1998, and $21,843,300 in “outside spending” since 2000. A spot check of spending by cycle shows that FreedomWorks spent substantial sums to support the separate group FreedomWorks for America, in the 2012, 2014, and 2020 election cycles. By far the group’s heaviest spending was in the 2012 election cycle, the oldest for which OpenSecrets makes records available. In 2018 the group reported no contributions whatsoever. And in 2024 it reported a single $500 contribution, by an individual, to the campaign of Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Miss.). The FreedomWorks foundation lists no activity since 2022. But it, too, seems to be accepting donations at time of writing. Coverage of FreedomWorks and its shutdown The best primary-source coverage of FreedomWorks and its shutdown comes from three sources. David Weigel at Semafor gave what tries to be a balanced report. Weigel takes some of his insight from Politico but contributes at least some insight of his own. According to Weigel, FreedomWorks has always been libertarian in bent. Donald Trump, by contrast, is an economic nationalist – and thus advocates tariffs, to protect domestic industry and enhance national security. Both concepts are foreign to libertarians, who seem to embrace globalization without globalism. That is, they wouldn’t care to follow the dictates of a one-world government – but neither do they recognize the threat of just such tyranny that globalism poses. Weigel speaks of the “victory of right-wing populism over big-tent libertarianism.” He also speaks of the group’s attempt, in 2023, to rebrand itself to appeal to independents and “centrists,” not conservatives. The problem, according to Weigel and the witnesses who talked to him, is that the independents didn’t trust FreedomWorks. FreedomWorks had worked to elect Republicans, and the independents wanted nothing to do with them on that ground alone. Most rank-and-file Republicans today follow Trump – and Trump advocates immigration restriction, in addition to tariffs. The Politico stories Politico has two major stories on FreedomWorks. Between them they offer a comprehensive narrative – but one with a leftist slant that compromises its accuracy. Last year they covered the attempted rebrand. They included this Letter to Donors and Staff from Brandon, dated July of 2023 – after the disastrous 2022 Midterms. Brandon obviously drew the wrong lesson from that election. The Republicans lost because they didn’t try hard enough – and many among them actively sabotaged the effort. Brandon didn’t see that – or perhaps, for his own reasons, sought to hide it. He said the conservative base was “not large enough to win elections,” and that independents would be decisive. (Brandon would sound that same theme in his Parthian-shot op-ed.) Brandon relied heavily on this quote from Ed Crane, founder of the CATO Institute, from 1985. I think there is a broadly defined libertarianism among yuppies [Young Upwardly-mobile Professionals]. They have a broadly tolerant view on social issues, [and] a deep skepticism of government control of the economy. The parties split those concerns. So where do you go? Then Brandon said, The yuppies of 1985 are today’s independents who dominate the districts up for grabs in today’s world. That’s flatly impossible. When you are young, if you are not “socially tolerant,” you have no heart. But as you get older, if you do not at the same time turn conservative, you have no brain. Everyone knows this. Yuppies, by definition, are young. That most of them should never have learned the folly of “tolerance” of abortion, adultery, and Alphabet Soup-ism in the nearly forty years since that quote, strains credulity. If that worldview were true, the United States Supreme Court would never have overturned Roe as it did. Faulty statistics Brandon also quoted a Gallup Poll from April 2023, that alleged that Americans broke down as 34 percent Republican, 41 percent independent, and 27 percent Democratic. He showed a set of proportional bar graphs showing these proportions by cycle, from 2019 to 2023. According to those, the “Independent” portion grew at the expense of the other two. Two observations are relevant here. First, Brandon included no other “crosstabs” in his quote of the Gallup Poll result. Second, Gallup Polls skew left, and always have. (The fictitious Gallup Poll result in 1964’s Seven Days in May, showing a President with a 29 percent approval rating after he signed a mutual disarmament pact with the old Soviet Union, has no sound basis – and in any case, is a plot device, not a fact with solid evidence.) In any case, Brandon sought to justify tolerance of abortion, adultery, and Alphabet Soup-ism – things his Politico interviewers all support. Never once did he consider working for a Second (Third?) Great Awakening – and obviously he wouldn’t want that. In fact he assumes that attitudes toward social customs, morals, and government size are static. In July of 2023, he might excuse himself for thinking that. After October 7, 2023, and Antisemitic Student Demonstration Time, that won’t fly. He either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gX_KAXT_60 A tissue of lies And on Wednesday, Politico published the story that too many other organs simply copied – though at least David Weigel tried to be original. This covers the actual shutdown – and bases itself entirely on interviews with Brandon and sympathetic directors. They all blame one man: Trump. The rebrand did not succeed. Money dried up, even before the rebrand, and especially after it. All this, they lay to Trump, who, they said, changed the game to make “social tolerance” unfashionable. Brandon did not explicitly blame Trump in his op-ed. But he did insist that independents, not moral philosophy, would govern from now on. Of course, the worst weakness of his position is that he identifies “Generation Z” and “Millennials” as the group that will hold the balance now and in future. Again, that assumes that no one gets out of the young-and-stupid phase of political and social thinking. To be sure, some leftists will never change; consider Rob “Meathead” Reiner of All in the Family fame. But he is the exception. Alan Brandon will never acknowledge that he proposes to build a movement of Meatheads. But that’s not the worst problem. Benjamin Wetmore of The Gateway Pundit tells us that in fact, Adam Brandon told Politico a tissue of lies. FreedomWorks witnesses lay bare the lies Wetmore’s witnesses refer to FreedomWorks laying off 40 percent of its staff in March 2023. But that was not downsizing in response to donation dry-up, but an ideological purge of Trump supporters. In fact Brandon admitted that following Trump’s consistent political and moral philosophy would have drawn the donors. Instead he chose to embrace the climate change panic and the abortion culture. Brandon has wrung Non-Disclosure Agreements from all remaining staff. One ranking executive broke his, at least in spirit, by talking to Wetmore on background. Others identified themselves readily, almost proudly. All are thoroughly disgusted with Brandon, whom they consider a poor manager and a worse liar. Like Merissa Hamilton, former Grassroots Director, who said: The Politico story is simply not true. The collapse of FreedomWorks wasn’t a rift between MAGA and non-MAGA; it was colossal bad management by CEO Adam Brandon who created a toxic internal culture and who doesn’t understand voters or donors. Or the background source: This was an organizational suicide. Big donors and an Anti-Trump board made this all happen on purpose…. Adam Brandon and his allies willfully orchestrated the means to end this organization. Adam had his priorities the entire time on starting another organization to succeed FreedomWorks, spent money on frivolous things, alienated donors, took money from the wrong donors, and alienated our grassroots networks. Adam’s been fleecing FreedomWorks from 2022 to present to build a parallel organization. From the same source: The prostitution for big donors at FreedomWorks and in many conservative groups, regardless of what they believe, was just staggering. It’s just disgusting. It’s all about whoring yourself out for the money. It doesn’t matter what the small donors say, they just cater to big donors who are obsessed with Nikki Haley. The source also cited several instances of poor financial decisions. Worst of all was hiring an inexperienced person to take charge of fundraising. Other bad decisions included overpaying for short telephone lists, and spending money on anti-Trump activism – under false pretenses. Brandon told Politico he plans to found a new organization. The disgruntled insiders told Wetmore that he wanted to shut down FreedomWorks to transfer its assets to the new group. This group, with the working name Center for Independence, will use the leftist-oriented ChatGPT, plus a home-developed A.I. entity, to reach out to black Americans on “libertarian principles.” Shortchanging of staff And those 25 employees remaining? Politico said they will receive salary and health benefits for an unspecified time. If FreedomWorks follows the usual procedure on severance, that could amount to six months. But many have reimbursements due them – reimbursements that, according to Wetmore’s witnesses, they will likely never receive. Analysis FreedomWorks, under Adam Brandon’s leadership, has veered left. Last winter, Adam Brandon published another essay to RCP to extol the virtues of “the independent voter.” He spoke eloquently – but facilely – of “working both sides of the aisle.” This closing statement was downright insulting: The candidate who shows they are up for the challenge of rejecting extremism, reaching across the aisle, and having adult conversations with these voters can win. Adult conversations? That implies that those who hold to principles, and know which principles do not allow compromise, are not talking on an adult level. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Sen. Barry M. Goldwater (R-Ariz.) It’s facile to observe that Goldwater lost. But Trump, copying Goldwater, won in 2016 and, properly speaking, in 2020. He will win again, for the same reason Richard M. Nixon won: There’s a riot going on – Student Demonstration Time! The Beach Boys And taking money under false pretenses is no way to win. Nor is appealing to youth just because they are youth, and assuming that those youth will never grow up. Again, some won’t. But most will. And it ill befits any conservative organization to sing the Lost Boys’ I Won’t Grow Up number from Peter Pan. That, even more than financial mismanagement – or ideological embezzlement – is FreedomWorks’ worst sin. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/05/10/news/freedomworks-cross-purposes-lies/ Multiple FreedomWorks and FreedomWorks for America links: https://www.freedomworks.org/ https://freedomworksforamerica.org/ https://www.youtube.com/c/FreedomWorksMedia https://foundation.freedomworks.org/ https://www.freedomworks.org/about/ https://www.freedomworks.org/news/ https://www.freedomworks.org/american-debt-crisis-tour-join/ https://www.freedomworks.org/join/ https://www.freedomworks.org/about/contact/ OpenSecrets profile on FreedomWorks: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/freedomworks/summary?id=D000045970 The Beach Boys’ Student Demonstration Time video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gX_KAXT_60 Letter to Donors and Staff: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018a-8b33-dd5e-abfe-8bf342880000 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

COVID narrative – retraction begins By Terry A. Hurlbut Two years and five months ago, CNAV observed that the COVID narrative – concerning the Corona Virus Disease of 2019 – had unraveled to the point at which no one had any further reason to believe it. The past week has seen partial retraction of that narrative – including the withdrawal of a vaccine from the market. Many are still trying to keep the narrative alive. These people are weeping and gnashing their teeth with every new admission of its basic falsity. As the World Health Organization tries to scare “member States” into ratifying the first instrument of one-world government – the Pandemic Treaty – these retractions couldn’t have come at a worse time. Cracks in the COVID narrative Two medical reporters for The New York Times, last Friday, made the first admissions that COVID vaccines injure people. Apoorva Mandavilli actually covered the vaccine-injury idea. Beginning in 2021, she’d built up a record as a propagandist who could have learned from Goebbels. This record included: • Calling any discussion of the Lab Leak Theory of coronaviruses “racist,” and • Suggesting that children could spread COVID like wildfire if schools did not close. The spectacle of her even admitting that vaccines can cause injury – significant in numbers as well as effect – shocked the scientific establishment. While Alex Berenson expresses extreme skepticism that she was actually telling the truth for once, vaccine advocates are howling with outrage. “Where did The New York Times and Apoorva Mandavilli go wrong?” asked one anguished vax advocate. And that for merely asking a question, and not even making a definitive statement. At Vaxopedia, their staff are claiming that vaccines saved 20 million lives in 2021 alone. Naturally, they present no evidence. David Leonhardt likewise merely asked the question. Then, apparently, he said the very notion of vaccine injuries made him uncomfortable. Why? Because he didn’t want those of us who know the truth about the COVID narrative to run with that. But give credit where it’s due. Two years ago he warned that children lost a year of learning, that they’ll never get back, during school closures. Last February he was clearly disenchanted with the COVID narrative even then. But he stuck with it. Details on vax injury On Monday (May 6) Steve Kirsch reported on a fresh analysis by Vinay Prasad, M.D., Professor of Epidemiology at the University of California at San Francisco. That analysis links the vaccines to myocarditis, pericarditis, Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura, Landry-Guillain-Barré Syndrome, Bell’s Palsy, and other adverse effects. This repeats what people have known for years – including those who have lost friends and relatives and associates. Kirsch nevertheless castigates Dr. Prasad for missing evidence that shows that the problem is worse than he says. Not all the news is dire. Also on Monday, Liberty One News posted an article listing nine vitamins and minerals that can stave off COVID infection. They include Vitamins A, B (the full complex), C, D, E, and K, plus calcium, iron and zinc. Any American should recognize zinc as a near-universal antiviral. One can find it in preparations effective against the common cold (zinc gluconate) and common respiratory allergies (zinc acetate). But yesterday brought four devastating revelations, from Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit: House Oversight’s COVID Subcommittee released documents saying the State Department knew the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They knew it in July 2020, and covered it up. (So much for trusting Mike Pompeo!) https://twitter.com/JoeKhalilTV/status/1787983136338391255 https://twitter.com/COVIDSelect/status/1787980593164058743 Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) admitted his administration acted without authority to impose COVID mandates. https://twitter.com/EricAbbenante/status/1787990343780061424 His brother Chris takes ivermectin, after scorning it. https://twitter.com/mazemoore/status/1788208724168859959 And: AstraZeneca withdrew its COVID vaccine from all worldwide markets, after admitting in court that their vaccine produces blood microclots. Where do the injured and the censored go for relief? The obvious question arises: where do those who: 1. Took the vaccine and suffered injury from it, 2. Lost their livelihoods and in some cases their liberties for refusing to take the vaccine, and 3. Lost reputation, reach and revenue because Big Tech refused content that promoted “vaccine anxiety” apply for judicial or other kinds of relief? The AstraZeneca story is most telling. Last month they had to admit that their preparation could cause a micro-clotting syndrome in people’s brains. https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1784689422174195822 https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1784944607085686934 This effect is called Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS), and was called Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura decades ago. BBC Presenter Lisa Shaw famously took the AstraZeneca vaccine, to be a Model Global Citizen. Then she died – and came to autopsy. The Final Anatomical Diagnosis included findings classic for TTS. At first everything suggested that the COVID vaccine was a death lottery. Then Dr. Michael Yeadon boldly asserted that the vaccines were weapons of mass murder. The “pandemic” had not been more than a few months old when a certain dog didn’t bark. Where were the diener squads, driving their meat wagons down residential streets, brap-brapping their sirens and blaring out on public-address circuits, “Bring out your dead!”? That never happened – not in the United States nor in any other country, except perhaps China. The deaths came afterward – from the vaccine. COVID-19 was never more than one percent case-fatal at any time. Discrediting the COVID narrative at an opportune moment The World Health Assembly, the legislative arm of the World Health Organization, will take up the Pandemic Treaty this June. Seven days ago, the entire Senate Republican Conference sent a letter to the Biden administration warning essentially of two things: 1. The Pandemic Treaty as drafted is a threat to the national sovereignty of the United States and other “Member States.” As such the administration should withdraw all support from it. Failing that, the Biden administration should remember that: 2. This is a treaty, within the meaning of Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. As such it requires the advice, consent, and concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present to take U.S. domestic effect. After the Senators sent that letter, key players in the COVID narrative started changing their stories. And, in one memorable case, withdrawing a vaccine from the market. What needs to happen next is: 1. A full investigation establishing the true origins of COVID-19. CNAV believes such an investigation will find that the virus began in a laboratory either in North Carolina or Ukraine. It then came to full form at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Then something went wrong – perhaps with WIV staff selling dead laboratory animals to the local food markets. And: 2. Re-examination and re-investigation of every vaccine now on the market, and the rationale for it. Do we need vaccines at all? For centuries the Western world especially has built shrines to Saints Edward (Jenner), Jonas (Salk), and Albert (Sabin). To say nothing of singing heroic-style ballads to Sir Gunnar Kasson, Knight Commander of the Most Honorable Order of the Iditarod, and his lead sled dog Balto, who get the credit for saving twenty-three lives (give or take one) from an outbreak of diphtheria in Nome, Alaska. That last was an example of artificial passive, not active, acquired immunity. (Kasson delivered a shipment of diphtheria antitoxin, not a vaccine.) But the psychological damage was done, and no one can imagine sending a child to school without The Childhood Vaccines. That’s because no one thought about strengthening the immune system in other ways, or the benefits of far simpler substances. Those nine vitamins and minerals likely confer benefits beyond COVID-19. More to the point, the possibility that better sanitation broke the Great Polio Epidemic has never seen any investigation. Every year millions of parents shell out billions of dollars for vaccines against every disease under the sun, it seems. What if, worse than wasting that money, they are risking worse side effects to no good purpose? And what if the WHO Treaty is in fact the final element in a centuries-old plan for one-world government? That surely bears investigation. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/05/09/news/covid-narrative-retraction-begins/ Discussion of David Leonhardt’s attitude at SUNY-Syracuse: https://resources.newhouse.syr.edu/awards/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2023/02/leonhardt-NYMag.pdf Posts describing State Department documents revealing the Lab Leak Cover-up: https://twitter.com/JoeKhalilTV/status/1787983136338391255 https://twitter.com/COVIDSelect/status/1787980593164058743 Video: Andrew Cuomo admits governors lack authority: https://twitter.com/EricAbbenante/status/1787990343780061424 Video: Chris Cuomo admits taking ivermectin: https://twitter.com/EricAbbenante/status/1787990343780061424 Posts about the AstraZeneca withdrawal: https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1784689422174195822 https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1784944607085686934 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

The Boy Scouts are no more By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday came the final announcement that the Boy Scouts of America, as your editor knew it, has now died. In its place is a bastardized outfit calling itself Scouting America, which pours contempt upon Scouting’s former ideals. That same elite who wants depopulation enticed the Boy Scouts to permit the “unnatural acts” which God forbids. For this gross and blatant violation of Point Twelve of the Scout Law, God visited bankruptcy on the organization. Now, with a misguided emphasis on building membership at the expense of ideals, Scouting America has embraced Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – in a word, Woke-ism. But God is as Providential as He is Just – meaning that an alternative exists, and has existed for a few decades. History of the Boy Scouts Contrary to popular belief, Scouting began spontaneously when boys, and then girls, made a bestseller of a military training manual for the British Army. Robert Baden-Powell, afterwards Baron Baden-Powell, wrote Aids to Scouting for Non-commissioned Officers and Men in 1899. Upon his return from the Boer Wars, Baden-Powell found that his manual had captured the imagination of boys. So well did boys love it that several youth organizations were using it for training. So Baden-Powell rewrote this manual for boys, and in 1907 held a camp to test the practicality of his ideas. Twenty boys showed up, and the experiment was, by all accounts, a success. In 1908 Baden-Powell published Scouting for Boys in six installments. Scouting, properly speaking, began with that work. Then in 1909, an American named William D. Boyce traveled to London and got lost in its notorious fog. One of Baden-Powell’s Scouts helped him find his way, then refused a tip from him. “I am a Scout,” he said, “and Scouts do not accept gratuities for courtesy or good turns.” Boyce, curious, asked this “Unknown Scout” for details, and eventually accompanied the boy to Scout Headquarters. He never got the boy’s name (hence “Unknown Scout”), but he met Baden-Powell and from him learned the really salient details. Returning to America, Boyce founded what became the Boy Scouts of America, or BSA. Incidentally they memorialized that Unknown Scout with a prominent plaque. Divisions In its beginning, the BSA had three divisions. Cub Scouts included boys from ages five through ten. Originally, Boy Scouts included boys from ages 11 through 18 inclusive. Explorers was available from ages 14 through 21; it was called Venturing at the time of the bankruptcy. The BSA also had Sea Scouting, an Explorer-like program focusing on nautical and maritime activities. The age ranges for Boy Scouts and Explorers, of course, depended on the “old” age of majority of 21. Perhaps the Explorers, or Venturers, started to die out after America’s legislatures ratified Amendment XXVI, which lowered the voting age to 18. From that time forward, anyone 18 or older was considered an adult. Precepts Your editor joined the Boy Scouts at the age of 11 and stayed in it to become an Eagle Scout. As such he knows first-hand the precepts and tenets of Scouting. They are the: Scout Oath, with its three points: duty to God and country, duty to other people, and duty to self. But that duty to self specifically focused on physical, mental, and moral fitness. On my honor, I will do my best: To do my duty to God and my country, and to obey the Scout Law, To help other people at all times, and To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. “Scout’s Honor” became a byword, and still was when your editor was part of Scouting. Scouting reinforced this Oath with the classic hand gesture, the Scout Sign. The three middle fingers, extended, stand for the three points. Thumb and little finger, arched over the palm, signify the binding nature of the Oath. This Sign is also part of the Scout Salute. One executes this exactly like a regular American military salute, except with the right hand forming the Scout Sign. Likewise the Scout Handshake – with the left hand, close to the heart – features three extended fingers. Scout Law, with its twelve points. Any Scout learned to recite those points as follows: A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. Scout Motto: “Be Prepared.” A Scout must prepare for any contingency, not only in camp (a regular activity) but in “regular” life. Scout Slogan: “Do a Good Turn Daily.” A commitment to a daily favor to at least one person, accustomed a Scout to do such minor favors frequently and as a part of good civil life. The education program of the Boy Scouts The Boy Scouts was a comprehensive extracurricular education program for boys. Scouting had an organizational structure that included: • Patrols (with fellow Scouts to lead them), • Troops (with both adult and “junior” leaders), and • Councils, that Scouting organized by region. It had a rank structure that originally had six ranks. (Scouting added another introductory “Scout” rank in the early Seventies.) The six ranks, and the required skills to attain each, were: Tenderfoot: precepts of Scouting as above, plus knot-tying and other elementary woodcraft skills. Second Class: hiking skills, from endurance to intelligent choice of supplies to mapmaking, trailing, tracking, and even stalking. Second Class Scouts also received an introductdion to first aid, which emphasized the “Hurry Cases”: external hemorrhage, pulmonary arrest (later cardio-pulmonary arrest), and internal poisoning. First Class: camping skills, from packing, carrying a backpack, making and striking camp, to cooking and “camp policing.” A Scout always learned to leave nature better than he found it. The Boy Scout Handbook included this couplet: Let no one say, and say it to your shame, / that all was beauty here until you came. A First Class Scout got his introduction to Merit Badges, awarded for mastering skills in about a hundred skill sets. These varied from essential outdoor skills to hobbies and household skills and thus gave Boy Scouts ample opportunities for excellence. The Advancement Trail to Eagle A Scout would then progress through three more ranks: Star Scout, Life Scout, and Eagle Scout. To achieve each rank, the Scout had to earn a certain number of merit badges, serve as a troop officer, and perform some kind of community or environmental service. The merit badge numbers were five for Star, ten for Life, and twenty-one for Eagle. Scouting required eleven specific merit badges of all who hoped to become Eagle Scouts. They were: • Camping, • Citizenship in the Community, • Citizenship in the Nation, • Conservation of Natural Resources, • Cooking, • First Aid, • Lifesaving (in the water), • Nature, • Personal Fitness, • Safety, and • Swimming. Troop officerships usually had to last for three months – except that rising Eagle Scouts needed to serve for six months. Community service projects needed to have ever higher levels of sophistication and effort. A typical Eagle Scout service project could easily occupy an entire summer, or longer. (Your editor collected used uniforms and equipment for donation to inner-city troops in his city.) Troops held at least three kinds of awards ceremonies: • Investiture, to induct new Scouts, • Court of Honor, to award merit badges and recognize most rank advancement, and • Eagle Scout Court of Honor, to recognize new Eagle Scouts. An Eagle Scout didn’t have to stop earning merit badges. Scouting created the Eagle Palms to recognize Scouts who earned merit badges beyond the twenty-one required of an Eagle Scout. The Order of the Arrow In your editor’s day, Scouting had the Order of the Arrow. Members of a Scout’s troop would regularly nominate those of their fellows whom they considered the best fellow Scouts they would want to have in their camp, for safety or other reasons. Then at a multiple-troop gathering, often in a Council summer camp, several burly Order members, dressed in Native American costume, would snatch a nominee out of his seat and hustle him to the front of the assembly. There the brawniest member of the Order would tap him three times on the shoulder. Order members would march them off to inform them of plans for the next requirement: the Ordeal. This was a twenty-four-hour experience of the most rigorous camping imaginable – with one meal consisting of bread and water. Ordeal participants typically would clear a forest of deadwood or perform another such task. If someone went through Scouting and never “made Order of the Arrow,” he could, as an Adult Scouter, stand for nomination again. Many Assistant Scoutmasters entered the Order of the Arrow that way. (A Scoutmaster led a troop, and would have any number of Assistants – all called Adult Scouters.) indeed, your editor witnessed father and son entering the Order on the same occasion. The unraveling In the later years of the Boy Scouts of America, that organization neglected to “vet” its Adult Scouters as carefully as they should have. Consequently, several men with Alphabet Soup – and pedophilic – bents entered the program. And they took advantage of the Scouts in their troop, in camp. That created a national scandal, despite a Supreme Court ruling that the BSA could set whatever leadership criteria they wished. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). The BSA, beginning in 2012, made a series of disastrous decisions, including: • Allowing adult males with Alphabet Soup tendencies to become Adult Scouters, therefore Scoutmasters and Assistant Scoutmasters, • Similarly allowing Alphabet Soup youth to join, and • Admitting girls to their ranks, this although girls had a Girl Scouts organization they could join just as well. In 2018, the BSA went bankrupt, or nearly so, as parents took their boys out or refused to enroll them. Now emerging from bankruptcy, the organization has changed its name. It will now call itself Scouting America, beginning February 8, 2025 – the 115th anniversary of its founding. This will not save the organization, and will now add disgrace to insolvency. What part of “A Scout is reverent” the leadership fails to understand, is beyond the comprehension of this Eagle Scout. Be not deceived; God is not mocked. Galatians 6:7 An alternative to the Boy Scouts Again, God is as Providential as He is Just and Uncompromising. Since 1940, an alternative organization has existed: the Christian Service Brigade. Joseph “Uncle Joe” Coughlin founded it then, after three years of taking boys on camping trips and inspiring other adult male leaders to do the same. Christian Service Brigade serves churches and the boys who go to them, It has four levels of membership, in order of increasing age: • Tree Climbers, for Grades K-2, • Stockade, for Grades 3-6, • Battalion, for Grades 7 up to high school seniors, and • The Herald of Christ program, mainly a internship program for young adult males, though older adults may also participate. Some describe Heralds of Christ as the counterpart to Eagle Scouts. The original Scouting movement invited boys of all faiths – though one of the disastrous BSA decisions was to admit atheists and agnostics, too. But Christian Service Brigade is for Christians only. Perhaps on that account, CSB will never made the kind of disastrous decisions that undid the Boy Scouts of America. Scouting once had another unofficial motto: “once a Scout, always a Scout.” Sadly, those of us who did Scouting in the old days are now Scouts without an outfit. Christian Service Brigades have not – yet – announced a program to “transition” Boy Scout Troops into CSB Brigade units. Perhaps they should, for the sake of the boys, and the country. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/05/08/editorial/talk/boy-scouts-no-more/ Boy Scouts v. Dale case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/640/ Christian Service Brigade Home: https://csbministries.org/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Rafah incursion under way By Terry A. Hurlbut The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are finally moving into the last redoubt of the Gazan army, otherwise known as the Islamic Resistance Movement (Arabic Harakah al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah, abbreviated HAMAS). With this incursion into the border city of Rafah, Israel hopes to bring the Fourth Arab-Israeli War to an end. From every pronouncement the Israeli War Cabinet is making, they seek the only possible honorable end: total victory. The Gentile world already is weeping and gnashing its collective teeth over “civilian” casualties. But in fact the only true civilians are the children – and these children are suffering from a mass paranoid personality disorder that their parents carefully taught them. One can only hope this will be the last chapter in the worst mass child-abuse case the human race has ever known. Timeline to Rafah On Sunday (May 5), HAMAS apparently launched rockets from Rafah into the Kerem Shalom crossing, according to Reuters. That crossing was then closed, though other crossings remained open. Three IDF soldiers died in that attack, of which HAMAS explicitly boasted. Reuters also said that cease-fire talks were taking place in Cairo at that time. In the article describing the rocket attack, Reuters spoke of “hopes dim[ming]” for a cease-fire. An immediate cease-fire has been the consistent demand of Gentile (and some Jewish) demonstrators in the United States and elsewhere, almost since the war began. Reuters estimated that more than a million Palestinians were “sheltering” in the city at time of writing. Also on Sunday afternoon, according to Axios, the Biden administration cut off ammunition supplies to Israel. This evidently violates the Impoundment Control Act. https://twitter.com/Bonnie_Glick/status/1787181502783975843 The intent had been to forestall any ground invasion of Rafah – and also to appease part of Biden’s base. In fact those protesting on college campuses against Israel’s actions – and indeed very existence – were already indicating that they would sit out the election. That goes for the bulk of the Muslim contingent in Minnesota, Michigan, and several other States. In fact, disdain for “Resident” Biden is the one thing that unites patriot and HAMAS sympathizer alike. Sunday was also Holocaust Remembrance Day, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the occasion to make a stark pronouncement. https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1787121526325551391 Distractions? Also on Sunday, Leo Hohmann reported that thirty-five Republican U.S. Senators signed a letter of protest against another Biden administration idea – to allow hundreds of thousands of “Palestinians” to take “refuge” in the United States. These Senators raised the obvious concern about terrorist connections. Also yesterday, Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit revealed that Bill Burns, Director of Central Intelligence, guaranteed to HAMAS that the administration would force Israel to accept any cease-fire. Caroline Glick actually accused Burns of that on Saturday. https://twitter.com/CarolineGlick/status/1786887496581644555 Then came this piece of news that might in fact have been a distraction: HAMAS said they agreed to a cease-fire. https://twitter.com/AviMayer/status/1787534566426558493 Apparently Egyptian and Qatari diplomats worked this out and got HAMAS to accept it. So said accounts at the time. But that agreement gave no guarantees whatsoever about the release of hostages. The best estimates have HAMAS still holding 100 or more living hostages from its October 7 attack. (This morning, HAMAS admitted that several of those hostages are now dead.) https://twitter.com/AviMayer/status/1787821763386122576 Peace demonstrators in Israel itself marched to demand that Netanyahu accept the terms. Instead the War Cabinet, by unanimous vote, decided to continue its bombardment of Rafah. https://twitter.com/AviHyman/status/1787571225423683805 In that message, Israel said it would send more mediators. But according to Politico, they already ordered all within a “Red Zone” to evacuate it immediately. About 100,000 people were still in that zone at the time. Moving into Rafah That last announcement had a “last edit” timestamp of 3:52 p.m. EDT, which would be 10:52 p.m. Israel Summer Time. In fact the IDF was already moving in. https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1787562636839735661 These posts contain footage and dispatches from the front: https://twitter.com/EyeonPalestine/status/1787558736304787505 https://twitter.com/MOSSADil/status/1787564589128839517 An announcement by American Family Radio host Tony Perkins of Washington Watch, aired beginning at 5:00 p.m. EDT, created confusion. He said the Israelis had accepted the cease-fire, when obviously they did not. The operation was already well under way when his program aired – but perhaps, as happens often, Perkins “taped” it earlier. Politico estimates that 1.1 million people, half of them children, remained in Rafah when the ground incursion began. The IDF blared out specific instructions of where people could go to stay out of harm’s way. At last report IDF elements had gained control of a crossing in East Rafah and were attacking specific spots where HAMAS elements were to be found. The report did not name the crossing but suggested this was the very staging area for Sunday’s rocket attack. Yet in the face of this, HAMAS has not suspended cease-fire talks. That, according to Tsionizm, is how it’s done in the Middle East. This is an important fact. The military pressure serves the Israeli negotiator. Negotiations under fire. This is how negotiations are done in the Middle East. The importance here is also in visibility. Israel takes initiative and action and does not play into the hands of Hamas, in negotiations from a position of weakness. What this means Obviously Israel knows that the only way to win is to win totally. This was the way in the era of the Shoftim – the “Judges” – and this is the way today. Israel also knows that the rest of the world will never sympathize with them. To suggest that the world is simply concerned with minimizing civilian casualties, is to overlook several key facts. First, ill-natured people will always find an excuse. Antisemitism has come out into the open since October 7, 2023. Sadly, even the conservative coalition has its share of antisemites, who insist that Israel is more trouble than it’s worth. They will seize on any “civilian casualty” figure, ignoring its source – which is the Gaza “Health Ministry,” which is to say, the HAMAS Medical Corps. Beyond that, this Jewish student at the University of Michigan starkly reminded a HAMAS sympathizer with just what she was sympathizing. https://twitter.com/TJVNEWS/status/1787247062435668169 … I hope all your people know you’re supporting terrorists. You’re supporting the genocide of Jews. You’re supporting raping women. You’re supporting killing babies and putting them in ovens. You’re just like Hitler. I hope all of you know that. Second, the concept civilian properly applies only to the children. Ninety-nine percent of adults not under arms in Gaza believe in all of HAMAS’ stated aims. Those aims include wiping every Jew from the face of this Earth. Many of these not-under-arms adults accompanied HAMAS elements into the Negev as irregulars on October 7. Third, HAMAS controls the education system in Gaza, in addition to acting as its army. HAMAS schools – and apparently every parent – teach their children to hate Jews, and not even regard them as human. Teaching children to hate You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, / You’ve got to be taught from year to year, / It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear—You’ve got to be carefully taught! You’ve got to be taught to be afraid / Of people whose eyes are oddly made, / And people whose skin is a different shade—You’ve got to be carefully taught. You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late, / Before you are six or seven or eight, / To hate all the people your relatives hate—You’ve got to be carefully taught! Lt. John Cable USMC, in South Pacific And as Rodgers and Hammerstein might have been aghast to observe, those Gazans have “carefully taught” their children to hate. That is how HAMAS can recruit one generation after another. That’s how they had so many spies even before October 7, many of whom took part as the second wave. And that’s how they maintained their hold though seven months of siege and invasion. Israel seeks to destroy the ability of HAMAS to make war, or even to govern. But rehabilitating the adults might prove impossible. Only the children deserve any sympathy at all – and how to handle them, given the ideological poison their parents have absorbed, will prove the greatest challenge. And once again, Israel can expect no help from the outside world – because that outside world, deep down where it counts, hates the Jews almost as badly as HAMAS does. The last of the prophets, especially Zechariah, warned of that very thing. We are seeing that warning fulfill itself today. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/05/07/editorial/talk/rafah-incursion-under-way/ Statement about violation of the Impoundment Control Act: https://twitter.com/Bonnie_Glick/status/1787181502783975843 Netanyahu’s pronouncement on Holocaust Remembrance Day: https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1787121526325551391 Letter of Protest by 35 Senators: https://www.ernst.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/gazan_refugees_letter.pdf Caroline Glick’s accusation that Biden’s DCI guaranteed a cease-fire to HAMAS: https://twitter.com/CarolineGlick/status/1786887496581644555 Report: HAMAS “agrees” to a cease-fire: https://twitter.com/AviMayer/status/1787534566426558493 Report: some hostages are dead: https://twitter.com/AviMayer/status/1787821763386122576 War Cabinet says: go anyway. https://twitter.com/AviHyman/status/1787571225423683805 IDF announces: we’re moving in https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1787562636839735661 Dispatches and video from the front: https://twitter.com/EyeonPalestine/status/1787558736304787505 https://twitter.com/MOSSADil/status/1787564589128839517 Sympathizing with atrocity: https://twitter.com/TJVNEWS/status/1787247062435668169 You’ve Got to be Taught to Hate song: https://rodgersandhammerstein.com/song/south-pacific/youve-got-to-be-carefully-taught/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

The Great College Suckerpunch By Terry A. Hurlbut When one person punches another totally without warning – often in mid-sentence – he has just delivered a suckerpunch. The suckerpunch is also a metaphor for a confidence trick, typically one that leaves the “mark” (i.e., victim) penniless. And the global and academic left has turned college into a great suckerpunch for most of its students. Once, a wise student could get value out of college by majoring in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Even that has become doubtful today – and this was never true of most other majors. In point of fact, college today has become a laboratory of indoctrination, promising the student a future the powers-that-be never intended to deliver. What was college supposed to provide? Jane Pauley once recorded some video clips for Intuit’s Quicken program, offering financial advice. Her most memorable advice (other than “What you don’t see, you can’t spend”) concerned the three reasons to borrow money: 1. Go to school, 2. Start a business, 3. Buy a house. “School” meant college or university, on the theory that one borrowed against future income. That might have applied thirty years ago when she said that – but not today. In fact the cracks were already starting to appear in the Seventies, with students graduating with useless degrees. Useless, that is, in the non-academic job market – while academic careers were closed to them. Many students failed to realize that major tracks in humanities (including languages) and social sciences were literal pyramid schemes. One would major in, say, history, and go on to pursue graduate studies in that discipline. They hoped to earn their Ph.D. and parlay that into a professorship. But academic positions can never accommodate all the undergraduates who major in their disciplines! A lucky few would get those professorships. A few slightly less lucky students would become museum curators. As to the rest, the academic system dumped them onto the non-academic job market with no marketable skills. They might as well have gone to trade school and learned how to do something useful. Instead they’ll be lucky to become the ditchdiggers their parents scornfully told them they’d wind up becoming. How one once could get real value from college About five years ago, CNAV warned of this problem, back when Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was promising the moon in forcing taxpayers to assume and repay student loans. (That’s the very thing “Resident” Biden is now doing, in a desperate – and illegal – bid to buy student votes.) As we said then, the most cost-effective way to use a college education is to: 1. Excel in your science and math classes (and other major areas, too) and earn advanced standing. Which means: acceleration credit when you reach college. 2. Major in STEM. 3. Cash in your acceleration credits and get your degree in three years, not four. And at some institutions, take advantage of combined-degree programs. You will save twenty-five percent of the cost of a bachelor’s degree. More than that, you will save time. Then you can get the high-paying job that will pay off your student loan in record time. Beyond STEM, degrees in political science might prepare someone for law school. But law school has its own problems, as this analysis will cover shortly. For now, let this suffice: law schools typically turn out more graduates than can actually make careers in law. That has been a problem for decades. So what do law graduates, or other poli-sci graduates, do instead? Find a Big Cheese Political Donor and run for the House of Representatives. Or “ace” an audition for a leftist political candidacy, as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cartez (D-N.Y.) famously did. The Marxist infiltration Which brings us to the worst problem with college today, especially in America but also throughout the Western world. Karl Marx, of course, bequeathed his intellectual poison to a cadre of people who resented the boss-employee system of the Industrial Revolution. They regarded this as no different from the lord-serf – or master-slave – relationship. Why, they asked, should anyone other than a “democratically” chosen public leader direct great projects, or the feeding, watering, clothing, and sheltering of the subjects of a civilization? And by democratic they didn’t necessarily mean by election. As in the old Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, it could mean co-optation from among loyal Party members. And the mission of the Party was simple: to make New Man, that would serve with a public spirit, without fretting about his “reward.” The Bolsheviks in Russia succeeded in organizing the peasants and the factory workers – and promised a Union of Peasants and Workers to run society. Such is the origin of the classic hammer-and-sickle symbol of Communism. Communist intellectuals tried the same thing in the United States and throughout the Western world. They achieved only a temporary success in creating a militant – often violent – labor union movement. From labor to college Two things stopped them: 1. People still dreamed of being rich, not of becoming New Man and joining a New Society. 2. A madman took their socialist message and gave it a German nationalistic flavor. He then directly attacked the country that meant Communism in that day – the Soviet Union – while also attacking the rest of the Western world. Fortunately for something called Russia, Generalya Zima – General Winter – saved Russia, as “she” had when Napoleon attacked. But after the war, Westerners were more interested in prospering than in leveling society. Eventually even the most militant labor unions elected anti-Communist leaders. So the Communists turned their attention to the colleges and universities. The first Great Student Riots, by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Youth International Party (Yippies), and others, resulted. Within eight years a cadre of tenured radicals had taken over most university departments. And also the law schools, with a theory called Critical Legal Studies, that says all law is politics. But not all departments succumbed to this influence. STEM departments resisted such change, because STEM is about hard, uncompromising reality. Even mathematics, the most abstract of the STEM disciplines, must remain consistent to be useful. Extensions like “the Imaginary Unit” (the square root of minus one) survived because they had real-world benefits. Engineers appreciated the boon that “complex numbers” gave to sinusoidal analysis, once an important part of electronic design. (Complex numbers are sums of real numbers and multiples of the Imaginary Unit.) Outworking of the Marxist Influence But perhaps that concession of mathematics to the treatment of abstractions beyond reality proved a dangerous wedge. If even mathematics can go beyond reality, why not the rest of the “hard” sciences? How else to explain why academic hospitals have become laboratories for “mad scientists” like three infamous Victorian scientific villains? Viktor Frankenstein sought to “bestow animation on lifeless matter.” Henry Jekyll sought to work out the chemical basis for criminal behavior and ended up transforming himself into a criminal. Dr. Moreau (whose first name H. G. Wells never gave) sought to “humanize” wild animals. The ideologies of these admittedly fictional characters survives today as the impetus behind: 1. Genetically Modified Organisms now appearing as designer foodstuffs to replace traditional dietary staples, 2. Psychiatry now trying to assign a chemical or genetic basis to all bad behavior, and 3. The Transgender Ideology – or the notion that gender is fluid, therefore operationally meaningless. This has produced what amount to vivisections almost as gruesome as those that Wells described. Even that is a suckerpunch. GMO foodstuffs are non-nutritive and even poisonous. Psychiatry, having apologized for all bad behavior, can offer no specific cure. And no person, transforming himself into a herself or herself into a himself, will ever be fertile. Of course not – because that’s not the plan. The plan is for humanity to die out. Beyond biology and medicine – the political scam Beyond these horrors is a wider, more far-reaching confidence trick. College today, under the Marxist influence, insists that a command economy can still succeed. Command economy appeals to the same foolish question: why should a private industry leader undertake to provide “basic needs” to people, or to run great “wondrous” projects? The spectacle of Elon Musk running his own space program, intending to settle humans on other worlds as a hedge against an event like the Cataclysm (i.e. the Noachic Flood) is anathema to those who have taken over the college system today. Two reasons explain this. First, a private individual has no business running a space program. Second – again, That’s Not the Plan. The Plan is for humanity to die out. So what do these powers-that-be promise college students today? 1. Command economy can work; all the college community need to is figure out how. Then: 2. This command economy will have places for all the college students to become its commanders. This is the worst suckerpunch. Never mind that the command economy can never work beyond a simple nuclear family. (And even the nuclear family incentivizes its children to perform household chores, through the allowance system.) In fact, the elite have no plans to welcome all college students even as junior officers in the command economy. Instead they will commission Artificial Intelligences to handle low-level administrative tasks. Eventually they will write one Big AI to handle all production, distribution, rationing, and even the administration of justice. Cracks in the system But the system has already begun to crack. Not that the students have begun to realize that the ultimate goal is for all humanity (except the elite) to die out. That’s too abstract a concept for these students, thanks to the “dumbing down” of primary and secondary education. But many of student age have laid aside the false stigma against “people in trade.” They’re going to trade schools – and when they hear of Biden’s plan for taxpayer assumption of student loans, they are declaring their rebellion. They knew that college was a scam, or at least promised what common sense told them it couldn’t deliver. So now they will refuse their assent to the Biden Plan – by voting against him. Lately, those in charge of the Marxist model – which requires a dichotomy between oppressors and oppressed – revived student riots in the context of the most atrocious attack by one people against another since the Holocaust. In designating Jews as oppressors, they actually sided with those who committed an atrocity. Never mind those (including, sadly, Covenant Theologians, especially in the Catholic and Orthodox faiths) who now say that attack was a false-flag pseudo-operation. (Meaning that the Israel Defense Forces killed some of their own people to drum up sympathy.) The organizers (and financiers) of today’s answer to the SDS actually promoted sympathy with those who committed the atrocity. That has brought a countervailing movement on at least half the college campuses. The recent “Battle of Chapel Hill” provides a prize example. Looking ahead Six months ago came proof that college does not prepare students for work. This applies not only to subject-matter education but also to work-habit education. Furthermore, employers everywhere are warning students who take part in antisemitic demonstrations, that they need not apply. Even earlier came the realization that the College Board promotes “woke” ideology in its Advanced Placement course offerings. Thus far CNAV has seen no evidence that AP STEM courses suffer from such distortion – yet. All this to say that more responsible adults are finding out about the problem, and its scope. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) recently did what he hinted at doing more than a year ago. He has introduced the Classic Learning Test as an acceptable substitute for the College Board’s SAT (which once stood for Scholastic Aptitude Test but which now is a mere initialism). The CLT site gives details: Thanks to legislation passed in 2023, Florida students can use CLT scores to apply to Florida state universities, earn Bright Futures scholarships, satisfy graduation requirements, and earn dual credit. Florida state also funds all school districts to administer the CLT to 11th graders. With expanded options for admissions testing, Florida students now have greater opportunities to showcase their academic potential and reach their college goals. That’s a beginning. Furthermore, the CLT organizers list more than 250 colleges who now accept their scores. These don’t include the Ivy League. But today several employers are blacklisting the Ivy League anyway, given what’s happening on their campuses. Thus a Parallel Academy is already forming. That, and a more realistic expectation of what college can do for someone, will break the suckerpunch scam. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/05/06/editorial/talk/college-suckerpunch/ Classic Learning Test https://www.cltexam.com/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Trump is not a paranoiac after all By Terry A. Hurlbut The prevailing fashion, in the legacy media and (of course) on the political left, is to suggest that President Donald J. Trump is a dangerous would-be authoritarian. Part of that narrative is to suggest that he is a paranoiac – having delusions of grandeur and persecution. Both parts of that narrative are now failing. Voters across the land are changing their votes, in fresh appreciation that Donald Trump did “make America great again.” (One appreciates a good thing the most when one loses it – or someone else steals it or destroys it.) Now evidence is surfacing everywhere that the persecution of Trump was as real as his grandeur – or more real. That persecution should concern all Americans, not merely former Presidents and other public figures. What is a paranoiac? In clinical psychiatry, paranoiac means someone suffering from a relatively simple psychosis called paranoia vera. Classic paranoia vera includes overweening pride, and a tendency to blame every misfortune on the bad acts of others. A paranoiac will suspect deliberate manipulation of events most would attribute to “bad luck,” or selective application of the law. But the key to diagnosing paranoia requires proving – or merely assuming – that the assertions the paranoiac makes are incorrect. Perhaps he has invented for himself a life he does not lead. Or either he does not suffer the persecution of which he complains, or what he really suffers is the natural consequence of his own bad behavior. This behavior can vary from simple obnoxiousness to actual (and potentially provable) violations of the law. It can also include behavior that would convince a reasonable and prudent person that the subject presents a danger to himself and others, prompting said reasonable and prudent person to warn the appropriate authorities. But can the diagnosis remain valid when the assertions the subject makes, turn out to be correct? Suppose a sheriff serves someone with a foreclosure notice, for nonpayment of mortgage installments. Now suppose that, upon an investigation of an unrelated lead, a bank examiner finds that the loan officer handling this person’s loan, received the payments but never processed them. Now that would be just the sort of persecution of which a paranoiac would complain. And a real hazard exists that it might never come to light. The Donald Trump case New evidence involving Donald Trump’s troubles, now reveal a breathtaking conspiracy – or conspiracies – against him. This evidence first began surfacing in one of four criminal cases now pending against Donald Trump. United States v. Trump, Nauta, and Oliveira, 9:23-cr-80101-AMC. On April 22, the former president’s lawyers filed a motion to compel discovery. Before the day was out, Judge Aileen M. Cannon had ordered the unsealing of the first of several documents that team had filed under seal last year. They filed it under seal because – allegedly – classified documents are involved. The judge, having reviewed the documents, decided they should come out into the open. Those specific documents showed that the Biden White House had repeated conversations with Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating Trump. Furthermore, the White House was colluding with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to lay a trap for Trump. This concerns how Trump came to be in possession of certain records. He didn’t carry them all out of the White House on January 20. NARA sent him several boxes. Then came the Mar-a-Lago Raid, in which the FBI hoped to find those boxes missing. They were going to charge Trump with malicious destruction of official Archives. Unable to charge him with that, they charged him with unlawful possession – of documents they had placed into his hands. https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1782488864562565149 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1782496686612402631 Julie Kelly, who dropped the above short thread, gave further details two days ago. Further evidence That was only the beginning. Judge Cannon unsealed more documents relating to why Smith indicted Waltine Nauta, the former president’s valet. A member of Smith’s team tried to suborn Nauta’s lawyer with promises of a judicial appointment. That member, or another member, also applied pressure on Nauta to “turn government’s evidence” against Trump. Neither ploy worked. On May 1, Judge Cannon dropped a hint that she would unseal documentary evidence that Judge Beryl Howell, who had been investigating the matter in Washington, D.C., ruled that another of Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran, was not entitled to claim the attorney-client privilege. Judge Cannon has scheduled a “sealed telephonic conference” on this matter for May 8. https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1785746113703649563 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1785754214087438510 Trump has now filed, not under seal, a motion to dismiss, alleging vindictive and selective prosecution. The voluminous unsealings now serve as supporting evidence. Trump’s motion runs to 27 pages, with 151 pages of additional exhibits. In it he cites retention and/or removal of classified documents by President Biden, former President Clinton, and seven others. (They include Sandy Berger, who famously removed documents in his socks.) https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1786142981264642224 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1786143933690503661 On Friday came fresh revelations that White House and Special Counsel’s Office operatives were meeting in September 2021, plotting how to set Trump up. https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1786380401809748040 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1786383754035888406 Incidentally, Ms. Kelly refers often to Jay Bratt, Smith’s lead prosecutor. He stands relatively short – only 5’2” tall – and displays his own symptoms of paranoid personality related to his short stature. Withholding of information from Trump – and disobedience of orders! Even that isn’t the worst revelation. Also on May 1, James O’Keefe released his first footage of interviews with Amjad Anton Fseisi, formerly of the CIA. He boasted that the Director of Central Intelligence, and the directors of several other “three-letter agencies,” conspired together never to brief President Trump on certain critical happenings around the world. O’Keefe released this very long-form post: https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1785782393414029738 Then he released this post revealing that the CIA fired Fseisi for talking too much. https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1785782753549582682 Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) angrily called for an immediate investigation. The next day, Trump himself gave an earful. https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1786071689899459011 Well, it’s shocking to see how stupid somebody can be. If this guy is for real, you[‘d] want to get rid of him. CIA, Central Intelligence Agency. This is not an intelligent guy to be openly talking to a woman [whom he just met] that walks up and starts asking him questions and talking that way. So he may be bragging or showing off to some young lady. I have no idea [what he] spoke, but I’d get rid of him real fast. If he’s for real, get rid of him. That last refers to the Classic O’Keefe M.O.: entice disclosures by using operatives who might appeal sexually to the subject. Yesterday morning, Jim Hoft (The Gateway Pundit) revealed findings of an April 10 hearing by the House Oversight Committee. They interviewed several National Guard officers – and a command sergeant major – concerning the January 6 Event. At issue is why the National Guard did not deploy to prevent any untowardness at the Capitol. These witnesses said the orders to stand down came from the Pentagon. Specifically, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley ordered all military personnel to disobey the President and not send in the National Guard. The charitable explanation was that they expected Trump to order the Guard to stop the Congressional election-certification proceedings. But one must ask: did General Milley, like then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and D.C. Mayor Bowser, want something to happen at the Capitol for which to blame Trump? Where is now the case for paranoia? A propos of the documents case, Christina Laila, Associated Editor at The Gateway Pundit, revealed that Jack Smith filed another motion before Judge Cannon that actually gets him into worse trouble. Waltine Nauta’s lawyers filed a motion for extension of a deadline Cannon had set for them. Nauta’s lawyer said the contents of some boxes of documents were “in a different order” than when originally scanned. In his response to that motion, Smith admitted that the FBI had moved some of the documents out of their original order in the boxes! His response then admits that this contradicts what the government originally told the Court. They said the boxes and documents were exactly as the FBI found them. And that’s not true! The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court. See, e.g., 4/12/24 Hearing Tr. at 65 (Government responding to the Court’s question of whether the boxes were “in their original, intact form as seized” by stating “[t]hey are, with one exception; and that is that the classified documents have been removed and placeholders have been put in the documents”) https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1786532208334852584 Again, one cannot sustain a diagnosis of paranoia, or a finding of paranoid ideation, if the subject’s assertions prove correct. If “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” then that evidence is now available and incontrovertible. But the evidence covers more than the persecution of a President, both during and after his tenure in office. It covers willful interference with the President’s ability to discharge his powers and duties effectively. And it covers a separate act of outright mutiny. As such it proves that the Deep State exists, and had nefarious motives. This is worse than mutiny. It constitutes treason – levying war against the American people. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/05/05/editorial/talk/trump-not-paranoiac/ Documents case docket page: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67643393/united-states-v-trump/ Julie Kelly’s threads: https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1782488864562565149 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1782496686612402631 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1785746113703649563 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1785754214087438510 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1786142981264642224 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1786143933690503661 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1786380401809748040 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1786383754035888406 Julie Kelly’s long-form article describing the revelations: https://cnav.news/2024/05/02/accountability/executive/white-house-early-involvement-trump-documents-case/ Unsealed motion to dismiss https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24630622-508-t-mtd-vindictive-selective-pros James O’Keefe’s posts: https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1785782393414029738 https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1785782753549582682 https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1786071689899459011 Response to Waltine Nauta’s motion for extension of time: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/522/united-states-v-trump/ https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.522.0.pdf Tom Fitton’s post: https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1786532208334852584 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Censorship Industrial Complex redux By Terry A. Hurlbut Two days ago a key House subcommittee released a massive (881 pages!) report on social-media censorship in America. This subcommittee used the phrase Censorship Industrial Complex, a phrase they likely borrowed from Matt Taibbi, a star witness. But this report tells only half the story. That half perhaps is the half that would concern citizen legislators the more: the carrots and sticks the government used to threaten and otherwise coerce and induce various social-media companies to do their bidding. But they leave out the other half: why would these social-media companies give the White House the time of day? Why do they leave the redemption of social media to an eccentric billionaire, and an inveterate antisemitic conspiracy theorist? The answer could lie in Founding Father Benjamin Franklin’s characterization of politics as “the art of the possible.” The Censorship Industrial Complex concept Fourteen months ago, Matt Taibbi released his thread describing the Censorship Industrial Complex. On the day before (March 9, 2023), he and Mike Shellenberger had testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Regular readers will remember that Del. Stacy Plaskett (D-U.S.V.I.) called those men “direct threats to all who disagree with him.” Subcommittee (and Committee) Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) struck this prize example of projection from the record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NLb9uWmLEk Even then, Taibbi accused Twitter of acting “more like a partner to government.” In fact he traced the activities of the Censorship Industrial Complex to 2020. That makes Twitter – the old Twitter, that is, before Elon Musk bought the company – guilty of election interference. Coercion is not the word for a company who puts in place the administration responsible for giving it unlawful orders. Collaboration is the real operative word. An argument that didn’t work for William Calley at My Lai; an argument that didn’t work for the Nazis at Nuremberg. Actor Kevin Pollack, as Lt. (jg) Sam Weinberg USNR, in A Few Good Men (1992) True enough, the orders came in 2020 from government agencies. Remember: the Deep State consists of hangers-on, “civil servants,” and putative law-enforcement agents who collectively act like a law unto themselves. The FBI and CIA were parts and parcels of this illicit process. And some of the user accounts they targeted, were telling obvious lies – like saying the election was postponed for a day. But how do we know the Deep State didn’t salt Twitter with those accounts? Why can’t that be yet another false-flag pseudo-operation? Their real mission Aaron Maté of Real Clear Investigations has definitively shown that Presidents Obama and Biden ran a secret war against Russia. They’re still running it, with Ukraine as their proxy, pawn, and money laundry. During the Trump years, the Deep State kept this war going and plotted to oust Trump at the earliest opportunity. But any tyrant running a war for his own twisted gain must employ censorship to hide the truth. So it is with this Censorship Industrial Complex. That’s why the Deep State gave Twitter Trust and Safety (“The Moderators”) the convenient fiction that Russia was running a sophisticated operation to wage an information (meaning a propaganda) war against the United States, and give (purely verbal and moral) aid and comfort to the putative enemy of the United States, the Russian Federation. The Framers of the Constitution knew that, if they weren’t careful, a would-be tyrant would accuse his opponents of treason. But they might not have anticipated the degree to which the modern tyrants Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and their minions would stretch the definition they gave. “To levy war” means to fight a kinetic war, with kinetic weapons. “Aid and comfort” must mean more than mere speech, because the First Amendment guarantees complete freedom of speech. Nevertheless we see the real mission of the Censorship Industrial Complex. And that is to continue its proxy war against Russia, and smear its opposition with a false attainder of treason. Latest Censorship Industrial Complex report Now the Weaponization Subcommittee has released a very large PDF file – too large for CNAV to host directly. https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1785743489747042791 Its Executive Summary – without which this report would be virtually incomprehensible – tells the tale. It begins with this email from a ranking officer at Meta (Facebook and Instagram): Just got off [an] hour long call with [Senior Advisor to President Biden] Andy Slavitt…. [H]e was outraged – not too strong of a word to describe his reaction – that we did not remove this post…. I countered that removing content like that would represent a significant incursion into traditional boundaries of free expression in the US but he replied that the post was directly comparing Covid vaccines to asbestos poisoning in a way which demonstrably inhibits confidence in Covid vaccines amongst those the Biden Administration is trying to reach. Sir Nick Clegg, Meta’s President of Global Affairs, former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, describing his efforts to explain the boundaries of the First Amendment to the Biden White House in April 2021. But of course the White House does not care about freedom of speech. They in fact argued for the continued authority to censor, in Murthy v. Missouri. https://rumble.com/v4ka6ar-supreme-court-divides-on-first-amendment.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 And when they did, at least one-third of the Supreme Court agreed with them! But part of their grounds for agreement is that the social media companies were free to refuse the government’s orders. Jordan’s Weaponization Subcommittee staff chose to dispute that, and lay the blame squarely on the Biden administration. The Executive Summary seems to focus on the COVID-19 “wild origin” narrative and vaccines. As “disastrous” as these things are, the proxy war with Russia is worse. At least neither virus nor vaccine will kill someone through spontaneous nuclear combustion. The Executive Summary goes on to accuse the White House of pressuring social-media companies to: • Change their content moderation policies to suit the government, • Remove true, satirical, and other perfectly legitimate content, and • Chill any further discussion on the “sensitive subjects” of White House interest. What threats could they make? Furthermore, they had credible policy threats to make, and thus a means of coercion. Nor did they limit themselves to social media. They pressured Amazon, the leading (indeed, the cartel leading) bookseller, to de-list books. Any book the Biden administration (or before them, the Deep State) considered sensitive, would lose promotion or even its listing. The report cites “internal email” apparently from Amazon staff, complaining of “pressure” from “the Biden people.” This applied, according to the report, mainly to books challenging the coronavirus and vaccine narratives. As was the case with Facebook’s Nick Clegg, Andy Slavitt got the blame for applying the “pressure.” If half the allegations about Slavitt are accurate, he imperiously did not care what Amazon’s customers wanted. And he wanted Amazon to stop caring as well. But the report says absolutely nothing about any communication with Amazon’s Department (or Office) of General Counsel. And opf course the public is hearing about this only now, after Republicans took over the House. The other half: collaboration Indeed – as we have said many times – never once did either the full Committee or the Weaponization Subcommittee consider the guilt that might attach to these companies for willingly accepting unlawful orders. When does a willing slave become, not a slave, but a trusty? And a cynically motivated trusty at that? Could not Meta, Alphabet (Google and YouTube), and Amazon have a baser motive: to have the government cancel their opposition? Amazon Web Services famously de-hosted the old Parler service after Donald Trump opened an account with them. They did so because they didn’t like Parler’s policies. Parler came back, all right – as a shell of its former self. It has never recovered. But Elon Musk bought Twitter. Then, for months he fought one battle after another – with Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, and the European Union. His is a constant struggle to find advertisers who either don’t mind the controversies now playing out on Twitter (which he renamed X), or welcome the controversies. Sadly, a parallel economy takes time to build. Meta has chosen to collaborate – and Alphabet and Amazon give every indication that they think they are the Deep State. Perhaps the real Deep State and their World Economic Forum masters find it convenient to let Alphabet and Amazon pretend. But pretenders or partners, they are definitely collaborators. Bypassing the Censorship Industrial Complex Andrew Torba knows all about the perils of relying on third parties. The Censorship Industrial Complex systematically chased him off one host after another, besides disallowing any true “app” he built. So he has built a completely independent infrastructure. Instead of building an app, he has made his site mobile-friendly, and provided browser shortcuts that require no maintenance. When conventional payment processors refused to handle his payments, he built his own processor! Today the Gab name stands, above all, for independence. His only problem lies in identifying, as his enemies, a group of people who are not a collective enemy. Which is to say: the Jews. But at least he’s good enough to host Laura Loomer (who is Jewish), so he has some honor. Dr. Steven Turley has come late to the realization that he must not rely on the Collaboration Axis. Alphabet (as YouTube) abruptly demonetized his channel – totally. Their first excuse was that his short videos – shorts they encouraged him to make! – showed copyrighted news footage with little original commentary. Take them down, they told him, and we’ll reconsider. So he took them down. Then they said, “Thanks; we’ll get back to you in a month.” Two weeks ago they gave him their answer: “No. Your channel is full of controversial content that harms our viewers.” Which is why he has expanded his separate Turley Talks social-media platform into a full-blown video server that directly supports livestreaming and chat. Other alternative platforms include Rumble, BitChute, Odysee, and Brighteon. What they have in common These other platforms have this above all in common: they don’t cooperate, collude, or collaborate. They fight. It has cost many of them millions, but they fight. Even Elon Musk does not fight as hard as they. (Though he comes close! Yesterday he reinstated the account of one Nicholas J. Fuentes, an even more rabid antisemite than Torba. Influencers everywhere virtually asked him Whiskey Tango Foxtrot did he think he was doing. He said it was better to have even toxic ideologies out in the open, than hidden in dark alleys.) More to the point, Jim Jordan’s Committee and Subcommittee leave out a vital part of the Censorship Industrial Complex story. Jordan could and should have called Andrew Torba and Dr. Steve Turley as witnesses. Those two did more than complain; they did something about it. Decades ago, the late Ayn Rand lamented that Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc.) and the House Un-American Activities Committee concentrated on ferreting out a conspiracy – with no attention to combating bad ideas, or improving the government’s own structure. So it is with Jim Jordan’s committees. If “weaponization of the federal government” is the problem, why not concentrate on disarming it? Why should anyone depend on a cartel of any kind, for telecommunications, sales and service, or the like? Matt Taibbi and Mike Shellenberger taught us much about the evils of censorship. But Andrew Torba and Steven Turley can teach us how to fight it. As they do all the time. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/05/03/news/censorship-industrial-complex-redux/ Strike that from the record! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NLb9uWmLEk The post introducing the report: https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1785743489747042791 The report: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Censorship-Industrial-Complex-WH-Report_Appendix.pdf Supreme Court divides on First Amendment (video): https://rumble.com/v4ka6ar-supreme-court-divides-on-first-amendment.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 Alternative media of all kinds: https://gab.com/home https://watch.turleytalks.com/ https://rumble.com/ Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

Antisemitism – and misguided legislation By Terry A. Hurlbut Antisemitism has become a plague on American political discourse ever since the Fourth Arab-Israeli War began. But last night the House of Representatives applied a cure worse than the disease could ever be. They have, quite simply, passed a federal hate-speech law. That law even targets certain foundational writings – of both the other Abrahamic faiths – that speak against Jews as a people. Under that new law, even quoting those Scriptures could become a criminal act. This law might also criminalize Covenantal Theology, to which more than half of all Christians adhere. Expect immediate judicial challenge to this law on at least two, perhaps three First Amendment grounds. Sadly, the most paranoid voices – on the American political right – will seize upon this law as vindicating their position. The result will be a severance of the special relationship between Jew and Christian. The problem of antisemitism Antisemitism always requires a conspiracy theory. This is an attempt to explain all political evils as the results of the bad acts of an ethnic gang. Most “conspiracists,” for lack of a better term, use the word mafia to describe their hate targets acting collectively. To condemn all conspiracy theories as ipso facto untrue is to oversimplify – the very thing antisemites do. So one must test the truth claims of any conspiracy theory against historical and other evidence. Of course, conspiracy thought by its very nature might dispute some evidence as fabrication by the conspirators one suspects. Nevertheless, objective standards of proof do exist, and applying them is part of critical thinking – literally, thinking like a judge. Different Gentile (literally, “from nations other than the Jews”) groups make different claims against Jews as such. Muslims bear them a grudge dating back to their rejection of Muhammad’s Koran in Medina. (The Fighting Words, as in “fight and slay the infidels!”, date from that encounter.) The only reason to mention Adolf Hitler’s elaborate conspiracy theory is the bitter fruit it bore, including six million murders. Hitler set out to conquer the world, and died ignominiously in Der Bunker beneath the Berlin Chancellery. So no one takes his claims seriously – except in an attempt to seek “external” validation of their own claims. Manifestations The spectacle of sympathizers for the Islamic Resistance Movement (Arabic Harakah al-Muqāwamah al-Islāmiyyah, abbreviated HAMAS) taking over classroom and administrative buildings in American colleges and universities, in a manner this country has not seen since the days of the anti-Vietnam demonstrations by the old Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Youth International Party (Yippies) is bad enough. And one expects antisemitism to divide the Grand Left Coalition, simply because a client group of that coalition attacked members of that ethnic group that supplies some (but by no means all) of the key leaders of the American political left. And those key leaders know it! Witness this declaration by Sen. Charles M. Schumer (D-N.Y.). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlEB0sgap4U But there’s more. Gentiles look at what Jews have achieved, through hard work and application of their talents. But instead of thinking how to emulate this work ethic and develop their own talents, too many Gentiles prefer to believe that Jews have conspired against them, to block achievements that should have been theirs. This attitude has sullied our literature; witness William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. How ironic, that the left regards the same group that has always provided much of its leadership, as “oppressors.” But the right has its own problem. Many of them look at the Jewish history of voting Democratic and supporting the causes of those “ideological fellow travelers” Schumer mentioned in his speech. Then, to their shame, they say, “It serves them right.” Covenantal theology Never mind, by the way, that at least one Jew recently urged her fellow Jews to stop embracing leftist politics. We now come to the greatest impetus for antisemitism among Christians: covenantal theology. CNAV has discussed this before. Covenantal theology says that the Church inherits all the promises God made originally to the Jews in the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. That would include a plot of land “from the river of Egypt [the Wadi al-Arish, not the Nile] to the river Euphrates.” What would the Church need with so little land? The Church is supposed to spread its Good Message worldwide. Covenantal theologians speak of “the false doctrine about Israel” and its “impact” on American politics. They also accuse Israel, without evidence or definition, of committing “atrocities” against usually unnamed targets. https://rumble.com/v4s809o-the-impact-of-false-doctrine-about-israel-on-the-us.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 (Separately, this particular influencer accuses Israel of creating HAMAS, forgetting that HAMAS is the Gazan chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.) In the face of the refusal of nearly half of Christendom to accept their ideas, the Covenantalists have come up with a new canard: there is no longer any such thing as an authentic Israelite. All who call themselves Jews, they say, are actually Khazars. These Khazars once ruled what is now Ukraine, then disappeared from history. According to the Khazar Theory, they all mass-converted to Judaism, then migrated north and west as the Ashkenazic Jews. (The Sephardic or literally Spanish Jews returned to the Holy Land after Ferdinand, Isabella and Torquemada expelled them from Spain.) The new law against antisemitism Now the House has seen fit to pass a law that antisemites on the American political right will seize upon. They will cite this as vindication of every claim they are now making about “Jewish control.” Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit summarizes this law (H.R. 6090, the Antisemitism Awareness Act). Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) proposed it and saw it through. https://twitter.com/RepMikeLawler/status/1785786891490501111 This bill passed 320-91. Three prominent Republicans posted their dissent on X: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1785755752432296283 https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1785762509187678637 https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1785686846426488942 This remarkably short bill simply asks the Department of Education to add antisemitism to a list of possible violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The problem is that this bill specifically refers to a definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA). That definition, courtesy of the Wayback Machine, includes without limitation: 1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. 2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. 3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. 4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust). 5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. 6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. 7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. 8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. 9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. 11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. No one but a radical Muslim would actually sympathize with Example One above. (At least, CNAV hopes not! Besides, it’s an endorsement of murder.) Dwight D. Eisenhower sought to head off Examples Four and Five at the pass. Then-Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously dissented from a United Nations vote directly following Example Seven. Example Two is a claim without evidence, and Three constitutes guilt by association. Six begs the question of why any “host nation” would have any “interest” that the State of Israel would threaten. Eight and Eleven violate a fundamental principle of justice, and Ten is simply absurd. Attacks on Scripture But Reps. Greene, Gaetz and Massie have every right to take alarm at Example Nine. The blood libel part is not so concerning. Who seriously believes that human blood, Jewish or Gentile, can ever be an ingredient in Passover matzoh? But when the IHRA speaks of “claims of Jews killing Jesus,” they now dispute Scripture, and history. Indeed, Loaves and Fishes Studios and Out of Order Studios are now producing a planned seven-season streaming show. It’s called The Chosen, and it treats the life of Jesus. That will certainly include a Passion play. Will the Department of Education slap a sanction on those studios under Title VI? Will they demand the impounding and destruction of motion pictures like Ben-Hur (three versions), The Robe, The King of Kings, The Greatest Story Ever Told, The Passion of the Christ, or earlier television efforts like The Bible? All these projects have Passion plays, and some are built around them. Indeed, Matt Gaetz cited three passages in Scripture that could provoke a Title VI citation. They are Acts 4:!0, 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, and Acts 3:14-15. CNAV could also cite: • Acts 6:11-8:1, recounting the arrest, trial, and execution by stoning of St. Stephen. • Acts 9:1-6, in which Paul of Tarsus sees the Light on the Damascus Road. Other scenes To say nothing of Acts 21:27 and every verse in Acts that follows, detailing scenes like the: • Manhandling and beating of Paul of Tarsus in a Temple riot that brought the Commander of the Garrison of Jerusalem marching in with a cadre of soldiers and centurions to quell it, • Jews screaming, “Rid the Earth of him!,” tearing their clothes, and scattering dust into the air, • Abortive hearing before the Sanhedrin in which the then-High Priest ordered Paul struck on the mouth, • “Self-anathematization” by several Jews who swore to kill Paul before they ate or drank, and • Paul’s motion to remove his case to the Imperial court when Marcus Porcius Festus suggested bringing Paul before the Sanhedrin a second time. And, of course, the four accounts of the Passion Itself, by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. For that matter, even some Jewish Scriptures specifically presage the Passion, as The Evangelists all make clear. Likely fate of the Antisemitism Awareness Act H.R. 6090 now goes to the Senate – and if any bill rated calling one’s Senator (of either Party) and urging said Senator to vote against it, this is it. For if this bill passes, the first person to get a Title VI citation will sue in federal court. Of course, someone who endorsed murder will likely not get the court’s sympathy, as such speech is never protected. But a Title VI “ding” based on Christian Scripture, like that cited above, will provoke a lawsuit for: • Prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity, which includes remembering that the Passion took place, and • Abridging the freedom of speech. Defenders of the bill will point to its Construction clauses that say that the Education Department must respect the First Amendment in its application. But when this reaches the Supreme Court, even the Originalists will find that a very weak protection. CNAV predicts a vote of 9-0 to strike it from the United States Code, if it gets that far. More likely, even the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will find against it. The Supreme Court will then deny review even if someone has the temerity to ask for it. Or else… But if this does not happen, all the conspiracy theorists will point to every enforcement action taken under this Act. They will then cry, “There! You see? We told you!” and start singing Juden, Juden uber alles, if not Horst Wessell Lied. That those calling themselves conservatives would make common cause with radical Muslims might seem difficult to imagine – but, sadly, not impossible. That could drive Congress from one extreme to the other – not only repealing H.R. 6090 but recalling the United States Ambassador, moving that worthy’s office back to the Tel Aviv Annex, and even breaking entirely the special relationship between America and Israel. And that could bring natural and political disasters worse even than Hurricanes Katrina or Ida, or the Great 1993 Floods. Genesis 12:3 is explicit: I will bless them / who bless thee, / And anyone who curseth thee / I will curse. The natural disasters mentioned, are all outworkings of the Genesis 12:3 Curse. No doubt some of those antisemitic personalities on the right will drown in such a flood, repeating the Covenantal Theological premise until the water rushing into their lungs stops them from repeating it any further. The real tragedy will be every other life that will be lost, in addition to theirs. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/05/02/news/antisemitism-misguided-legislation/ Charles Schumer’s speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlEB0sgap4U Two-plus-hour video lecture contrasting covenant theology with the alleged “false doctrine about Israel”: https://rumble.com/v4s809o-the-impact-of-false-doctrine-about-israel-on-the-us.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6 HR 6090: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr6090/BILLS-118hr6090ih.pdf Jim Hoft’s summary: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/house-gop-passes-controversial-bill-labeling-certain-christian/ Mike Lawler’s defense of the act: https://twitter.com/RepMikeLawler/status/1785786891490501111 Three Republican dissents: https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1785755752432296283 https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1785762509187678637 https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1785686846426488942 IHRA definition of antisemitism: https://web.archive.org/web/20240501141718/https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idaho prepares to defend its abortion ban By Terry A. Hurlbut The State of Idaho, fresh from a temporary victory in the U.S. Supreme Court, is heading back to that court. This time the State, or rather Rep. Mike Moyle (R-10A), Speaker of the Idaho House, will defend Idaho’s anti-abortion “trigger law.” That law was supposed to take effect thirty days after a decision vacating Roe v. Wade. But after that decision came down, the federal government rushed to sue Idaho to stop its ban from taking effect. The government sued under a law that shouldn’t even be related: the law mandating that patients in dire medical emergencies, presenting to Medicare-funded hospitals, at least get stabilizing treatment. But the real story is that a certain senior judge in Idaho is pursuing a single-handed enforcement of “woke medicine.” That judge signed a preliminary injunction that now has the State before the Supreme Court. Idaho goes to the Supreme Court The Idaho law at issue is the Defense of Life Act, or Idaho Code Section 18-622 (“Section 622” for short). That law, as currently amended, prohibits abortions, except: • As necessary to prevent the death of the mother, or • In any case of rape or incest. Idaho enacted this law as Thomas Dobbs, Mississippi Director of Health, was pressing his own case before the Supreme Court. On June 26, the Court decided that no judicial mandate should exist for abortion in the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022). The Biden administration, determined to see no abortion unperformed, jumped on the Idaho statute immediately. They sued the State in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. U.S. v. Idaho, 1:22-cv-00329, Barry Lynn Winmill presiding. The government alleged that Section 622 conflicted directly with the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA provides that any hospital accepting Medicare funds must “stabilize” any patient presenting with an emergency condition. Congress sought to address the once-common practice of hospitals “dumping” indigent emergency patients on the charity hospitals of the cities in which they operated. The CBS television program Sixty Minutes highlighted the practice. Oh, boy! Sending a compound tib-fib fracture fifteen miles in an ambulance just because [the patient] can’t pay, is such bulls**t. Actual protest by a hospital telephone operator upon receiving just such a transfer request But the government, in its complaint, alleged worse: that Idaho’s law would see women die in the emergency room. Details According to the complaint, a woman might present to emergency with a severe complication for which only abortion might serve. The complaint listed three possibilities: ectopic pregnancy, severe toxemia of pregnancy (“pre-eclampsia”), or any complication threatening sepsis or hemorrhage. Then the government alleged that the Idaho law would forbid abortion under those circumstances. They further alleged that a physician performing an abortion would have to wait until trial to present an affirmative defense. First, this law provides exceptions that can play out before a case even gets to trial. Second, only in this complaint does anyone conceive that this or any law would forbid a gynecologist to operate on a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. For the benefit of the layperson, an ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg cannot swim into the womb, and therefore implants in the wall of the Fallopian tube or sometimes in the abdomen. The unborn child usually does not survive this – but at least one medical team made it happen last year. Toxemia of pregnancy is a relatively rare complication involving very high blood pressure – and in the extreme case, seizures. (Toxemia with seizures is called eclampsia. Pre-eclampsia is toxemia that doesn’t progress to seizures.) Sepsis literally means infection of the blood – and hemorrhage, of course, means an uncontrolled bleed. These complications do not always require abortion, no matter what the complaint says. Importantly, EMTALA does not specify abortion anywhere in its text, as a treatment for these complications, or in any other context. History of the case The federal government filed their complaint on August 2, 2022. They swiftly moved for a preliminary injunction. Judge Barry Lynn Winmill granted that injunction – and cagily said this applied only to the extent that Section 622 conflicts with EMTALA. Judge Winmill held that EMTALA preempts the Idaho law because: 1. It is impossible to comply with both, because sometimes an abortion is the appropriate stabilizing treatment, and 2. Section 622 deters physicians from providing abortions when certain emergencies require them. The judge also accepted the government’s position that a physician must provide an affirmative defense at trial. Idaho’s legislature filed two motions to reconsider, saying the judge read EMTALA wrong. Judge Winmill denied these motions – after waiting eight months to rule. During that time, the Idaho Supreme Court delivered an opinion that Section 622 would not forbid a doctor to cut out an ectopic pregnancy or otherwise act when the unborn child had little chance of survival. That didn’t matter to the court. Nor did it matter that the legislature made sure that exceptions, not “affirmative defense at trial,” would govern. On July 3, 2023 the legislature appealed – to the Ninth Circuit. In September 2023, a three-judge panel stayed the injunction. But the federal government then filed for a rehearing en banc, and got it. In November, the full Ninth Circuit Court vacated the stay and restored the injunction. They also denied the Legislature’s emergency motion as moot. Application to the Supreme Court for a stay On November 20, Rep. Moyle applied to the Supreme Court for a stay. Then on January 5, 2024 the Supreme Court granted the stay. They also treated Mr. Moyle’s application, and another application from the State of Idaho, as petitions for review before judgment. These, the Court granted, and consolidated under Mike Moyle’s application. Moyle v. U.S., 23-726. The State of Idaho will argue the matter on Wednesday morning (April 24). Their argument will make these points: 1. The state will suffer irreparable harm, absent a stay of Judge Winmill’s injunction. 2. Idaho is very likely to succeed on the merits, because: 1. EMTALA cannot preempt the Defense of Life Act, 2. EMTALA is not a federal abortion mandate – and indeed Judge Winmill misread that law, 3. Judge Winmill also misread Section 622, and 4. The injunction violates Amendment X and the Spending Clause (Article I Section 8 Clause 1). Idaho will also argue that a stay is in the public interest, to protect a proper construction of EMTALA and the Constitution. In this context, Moyle’s application says Judge Winmill “misstates” the Defense of Life Act. The lower court relied on declarations prepared within a three-week period that have never been tested at trial, to portray section 622 as a brutal threat to Idaho women. Who is Judge Winmill? The real question to ask, to analyze this matter properly, is: who is Judge Barry Lynn Winmill? He is a senior judge of the District of Idaho, and received his appointment from Bill Clinton. Even that does not tell half the story. His jurisprudence is as “woke” as that of, say, the Liberal Bloc of the Supreme Court. His “noteworthy cases” include sentencing a business owner to seventeen years for sending a worker in to clean an empty toxic-liquid tank without proper Personal Protective Equipment. That’s the longest sentence ever for an “environmental crime.” In another case, he ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to put the sage-grouse on the Endangered Species List. And in a case involving an Idaho inmate, he ordered the State to “transition” said inmate from male to female. (That decision prompted a petition to have him removed from the bench.) More to the point, this same judge handed down another injunction against Idaho’s Vulnerable Child Protection Act. Worse, that injunction was truly universal in scope. The Supreme Court just struck that down, 6-3. Obviously Barry Lynn Winmill will see no person untransitioned. He now would appear to want no abortion unperformed. Idaho is in fact surrounded on all sides by abortion tourist trap States, according to this interactive map. But that’s not good enough for the Biden administration, nor, apparently, for Judge Barry Lynn Winmill. What next? The Supreme Court is likely to vote 6-3 in favor of Idaho in this matter – and could vote 9-0 with concurrences from the Liberal Bloc. For the Court to rule in the government’s favor is nearly inconceivable. After all, the Court granted the stay, which it didn’t have to do. But the Court also knows that it cannot escape abortion jurisprudence entirely. Furthermore, if ever any judge rated removal from the bench on impeachment for, and conviction of, wasting the Supreme Court’s time with unconstitutional rulings, Judge Barry Lynn Winmill has that dubious qualification. Sadly, the Senate has never removed a judge for other than such gross impropriety as accepting a bribe. Even if the Senate recognized ideological corruption as a high-enough judicial “crime or misdemeanor,” the Senate as presently constituted suffers from the same kind of ideological corruption at present. The more reason, then, to reconstitute the Senate at every opportunity – meaning during federal elections. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/21/news/idaho-prepares-defend-abortion-ban/ Docket pages: District court: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64862956/united-states-v-state-of-idaho/ Ninth Circuit: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67612311/united-states-v-state-of-idaho/ Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-726.html Abortion law interactive map: https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/abortion-state-tracking-trigger-laws-bans-restrictions-rcna36199 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

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

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

January 6 case comes down to selective prosecution By Terry A. Hurlbut Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the first January 6 criminal case to reach that Court. More than 300 persons who allegedly entered the Capitol (or not!) on January 6, 2021 face a great many charges. Among these is obstruction of an official proceeding. But the statute behind that charge involves tampering with witnesses, judges, jurors, court staff – or evidence – in criminal proceedings. Never once has anyone prosecuted someone under this statute for obstructing a proceeding of Congress or either of its chambers. But yesterday the Justices singled out the most glaring weakness of the government’s case. Which is: various demonstrators – and one Democrat in Congress – have arguably done things in violation of the statute. Congressional and judicial proceedings have been subject to obstruction by such acts. Yet – none of them faced prosecution! This constitutes selective application of the law, which is never tolerable. The January 6 event and the relevant considerations On January 6, 2021, President Donald J. Trump held a rally, with anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 people in attendance. He was twenty minutes late in beginning his speech. Toward the end, he spoke of people walking peaceably to the Capitol “to make your voices heard.” Never did he say anything about violence – except to condemn it when word reached him that violent altercations were taking place. Violence did take place – after elements of the Capitol Police fired rubber bullets at an inoffensive crowd. The American people have known this since Rep. Michael Johnson (R-La.), Speaker of the House, released several hours of footage from Capitol security cameras. That footage also shows some peculiarly selective treatment of “protesters” in the Capitol. In fact the Capitol sustained remarkably little damage, aside from a few broken windows. Not one painting, sculpture, or other work of art suffered even the slightest damage. This selectivity of treatment, plus recordings of provocative statements by persons (like Ray Epps) who didn’t face charges until very late, clearly show that this was a false-flag pseudo-operation. After that, the government laid on charges against hundreds of individuals, or perhaps as many as a thousand. One of them – Joseph Fischer – has doggedly pressed his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Fischer v. United States, Docket 23-5572. A financial-crime statute repurposed to punish January 6 protesters Mr. Fischer entered the “restricted area” around the Capitol, probably because Ray Epps and his confederates cut the fence down. In fact he did not gain entry until after Congress had already recessed. Nevertheless the government charged him under, among other laws, 18 USC section 1512(c)(1 and 2). This title, part of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, reads in relevant part: (c) Whoever corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio) passed this law in the wake of the ENRON scandal. Their object was to punish people for shredding documents or doing anything else with the intent to obstruct justice. Here we have the first “stretch.” The only “records” anyone could have been trying to “alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal” were the lists of Electoral College votes to be presented to Congress for counting. No one has credibly alleged that anyone tried to tamper with those vote lists, or tried to change their contents. So the government suggested that the January 6 defendants “otherwise … attempt[ed] to … obstruct, influence, or impede” the joint session of Congress that, under the Constitution, takes place to count those votes. On rebuttal, counsel for Mr. Fischer mentioned Subsection f, which reads: (f) For the purposes of this section — (1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and (2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege. This language speaks of criminal proceedings, and the giving or presentation of testimony and evidence. Furthermore, Subsection e did not bear mention, and likely should have. It reads: (e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully. The argument Mr. Fischer is arguing that he should never have faced a charge under Sarbanes-Oxley. But even so, he has the elements of an affirmative defense under Subsection e. No footage shows that he broke the law, other than being in a place where he shouldn’t have been – after someone removed the signs. Furthermore, his sole intention would have been to “encourage, induce or cause” the Vice-President to uphold election integrity. To do that he would need to disallow the electoral votes from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona. But, for political reasons, Mike Pence did not do this. None of this is relevant to Mr. Fischer’s case. The sole issue is whether a charge under Sarbanes-Oxley is appropriate. A federal district court threw out the charge. But a three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to reinstate the charges. Mr. Jeffrey T. Green argued for Mr. Fischer. His first session with the Justices occupies 33 pages of the 123-page transcript. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had the next session – which occupies 72 pages. Then came Mr. Green’s rebuttal. A grammatical question Mr. Green’s case is that the word otherwise refers to conduct similar to the alteration, destruction, mutilation, or concealment of documents or records. Justice Clarence Thomas – who unaccountably absented himself from Monday’s oral argument session – began the questioning. He recognized that Mr. Green’s point is grammatical: what does otherwise refer to? More to the point: did Congress concern itself primarily with obstruction, influence, or impediment of official proceedings? Or did it worry mainly about alteration, destruction, mutilation, or concealment of written evidence? Justice Thomas clearly was drawing out the second option. Justice Sonia Sotomayor apparently sought to quash that line of inquiry as irrelevant. Obstruction, influence, or impediment could include an obstreperous demonstration – like yelling (“Fire” or any other word) in a crowded theater to “impede” a stage performance or motion-picture showing. Justice Sotomayor went on to mention that mens rea (state of mind) need not be shown. Under Subsection g, that’s true – but Subsection g makes further references to criminal and other judicial proceedings, not Congressional proceedings. None of that seemed to matter to the Liberal Bloc, or even to the Moderate Bloc – for Justice Amy Coney Barrett chose explicitly to include the vote-counting session as a “proceeding” within the meaning of Subsection c, paragraph 2. Justice Alito’s clarifications Justice Sam Alito sought one clarification. In US v. Reich, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that forging a court order fell under paragraph 2. Mr. Green agreed with that. Later, Justice Alito said Green “may be biting off more than [he could] chew” by saying that the only way to read the otherwise phrase is in relation to document tampering. But then Justice Alito said something else that at least one gloating reporter missed. “It is also possible to read a [phrase] like this more narrowly,” he said, citing Judge Katsas’ dissent from the reinstatement of the charges by the D.C. Circuit. Mr. Green held firm, and cited two Latin “canons” of law: • Ejusdem generis – of the same kind or class. • Noscitur a sociis – one may know a thing by the company it keeps. These two phrases point to the full language of Section 1512. The sections everyone quoted – and even sections no one quoted – all point to criminal cases, and evasion of punishment. They have nothing to do with the deliberations of Congress, either of its chambers, or any of their committees. Justice Sotomayor tried to blunt the application of those canons. But she walked into an argument for them – when she mentioned the Enron scandal, the very context of Section 1512. General Prelogar’s ordeal Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for the government, lost no time in accusing Fischer and his co-defendants of trying to “obstruct, influence, or impede” the vote certification. Of course she had to emphasize the “violence” of the “attempt.” If she hadn’t, Mr. Fischer would have “lawfulness of conduct,” one of the two elements of an affirmative defense. (The other is that he was just trying to “encourage, induce or cause” Vice-President Pence to do his job.) Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch both weakened Ms. Prelogar’s argument on the key problem of selectivity of prosecution. Justice Thomas asked first whether the government had ever prosecuted anyone under Sarbanes-Oxley for obstructing a non-judicial proceeding. She said the government had – but could provide no example. The examples she did provide all involved attempts to beat a criminal rap. The cases might not have involved evidence tampering, but they did involve interference with grand jury and undercover investigations. Chief Justice John Roberts reminded Ms. Prelogar that the ejusdem generis doctrine definitely applies. He even cited a recent unanimous opinion that elucidates it. Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC, 601 U.S. ____ (2024), decided April 12, 2024. As the court unanimously held, courts interpret generic terms at the ends of lists of specific items in light of elements they share in common with those specific items. By this reading, paragraph 2, with the word otherwise introducing it, must refer to paragraph 1. Comparing January 6 to other protests that did not result in charges Justice Gorsuch, after following up on Chief Justice Roberts’ application of ejusdem generis, proceeded to pose some hypothetical situations: • A sit-in that disrupts a trial or obstructs access to a courtroom or courthouse, • Heckling, either of the oral argument session or, say, the State of the Union address, or • Setting off a fire alarm to delay a Congressional vote by provoking a pointless evacuation. The problem that Ms. Prelogar could not solve was: each of these situations has occurred. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s own confirmation hearings suffered delay from such sit-ins. Presidents often suffer heckling at their State of the Union addresses. And Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) famously pulled the fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building to delay a vote on a continuing resolution. None of the people involved faced any charges of any kind. So why did the government never prosecute in those cases? Ms. Prelogar tried to suggest the government needed to show mens rea. But according to Subsection g, it does not. And per Subsection f, a proceeding need not be then taking place. (Though if it already has taken place, then it is un-obstruct-able.) In any event, Justice Gorsuch heaped scorn on the argument: “We went around that tree yesterday.” He probably was referring to the Court’s argument session in Snyder v. U.S. (23-108). Then he asked, equally scornfully: So a mostly peaceful protest that actually obstructs or impedes an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered? That could refer to any of a number of BLM protests during the “Long Hot Summer” of 2020. Refusing to admit other prosescutable offenses Incredibly, Solicitor General Prelogar would not even admit that willful disruption of an oral argument session should be prosecutable. Perhaps the only reason why no such disruption actually occurred is the Court’s tight security protocols. Public seating for oral argument is limited, and the Supreme Courthouse is otherwise closed to the public on argument days. Justice Alito pressed the solicitor general very hard, particularly on the chargeability of mere impediment, short of actual obstruction. In fact, protests have occurred before – in the Supreme Courtroom – and no prosecutions have resulted. He then postulated a protest shutting down the Anacostia, Wilson, and other bridges spanning the Potomac River. Such a protest might prevent an argument session or hearing because the Justices and/or lawyers living/based in Virginia couldn’t attend. (This could also apply to a Congressional proceeding.) Still she would not commit to prosecuting in that case. Even Justices Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to have problems with that argument. And Justice Barrett certainly had trouble accepting that. As mentioned, Mr. Green, on rebuttal, destroyed all of General Prelogar’s arguments about requiring a “nexus” for prosecuting under Sarbanes-Oxley. According to Subsection f, the prosecution requires no such nexus. In closing, Mr. Green said the Court should consider carefully whether to entrust prosecutors with discretion in using a statute carrying a 20-year prison penalty. Summary Everyone who cares to know, knows that the January 6 event was a false-flag pseudo-operation. That was demonstrably not true of the particular events Justice Gorsuch described as hypothetical situations. More to the point, the government has never prosecuted under Sarbanes-Oxley for any offense other than an attempt to impair investigation or prosecution of a criminal case. Thus the government has been selective in applying Sarbanes-Oxley in contexts other than large-scale fraud, embezzlement, and other such crimes. Specifically the government did not prosecute Rep. Bowman for pulling the fire alarm. Nor did anyone prosecute anyone who disrupted the Senate Judiciary Committee when it held hearings on Brett Kavanaugh. Nor has anyone prosecuted a heckler at the State of the Union Address. But the most stunning double-down was Solicitor General Prelogar’s refusal to prosecute, under Section 1512, any hypothetical group of protesters who shut down all the Potomac River bridges and possibly impeding various court trials and proceedings of Congress. For those reasons, the Court is very likely to reverse the D.C. Circuit. It might even reverse on a 9-0 vote, with the Liberal Bloc filing concurrences. They’ve done it before – in Sackett et ux. v. EPA, for example. Link to: The article: https://cnav.news/2024/04/17/news/january-6-case-selective-prosecution/ Fischer v. U.S.: Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-5572.html Oral argument transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-5572_0pm1.pdf Sound recording: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/23-5572.mp3 Declarations of Truth X feed: https://twitter.com/DecTruth Declarations of Truth Locals Community: https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/ Conservative News and Views: https://cnav.news/ Clixnet Media https://clixnet.com/

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

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

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