All public forums should be open and uncensored

A US District Court judge has ruled that President Trump may not block even rude or obnoxious criticism from his Twitter account, because it is a public forum that is protected by the First Amendment. The Justice Department says it might appeal, but I argue that the DOJ, White House and Trump Administration should instead embrace the decision, expand on it, and apply these legal principles and free speech guidelines to other arenas.

After all, with the multitude of race, sexual orientation and other civil rights now protected by force of law, shouldn’t arguably the most vital and fundamental civil right also be protected? The right of free speech and free assembly, especially regarding one’s beliefs, interests and political viewpoints, and one’s ability to participate in discourse over important political and public policy matters?!?

Thank you for posting my provocative article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,


All public forums should be open and uncensored

Trump should embrace (and expand) court ruling that his Twitter account is free speech forum

President Trump may not block even rude or obnoxious criticism from his Twitter account, because it is a public forum that is protected by the First Amendment, US District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald has ruled. The President’s use of his Twitter account to comment on important policy, personnel and personal announcements made it a public forum, akin to a park or town square, she concluded.

Blocking unwanted tweets is thus viewpoint discrimination, which public officials are not permitted to engage in. Indeed, his Twitter account is not just a public forum. It is also “government space,” and thus may not be closed off, Judge Buchwald continued – rejecting a Justice Department argument that, since Twitter is a public company, it is beyond the reach of First Amendment public forum rules.

Free speech proponents hailed the ruling as a groundbreaking decision, saying it expands constitutional protections deep within the realms of social media. The executive director of Georgetown Law School’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection called it “a critical victory in preserving free speech in the digital age.” Blocking people from responding critically to presidential tweets is unconstitutional, because it prevents them from participating personally and directly in that forum, others said.

The Justice Department said it disagreed with the decision and was considering its next steps. Here’s another option: Embrace and expand on the decision. Assess how these District Court principles and free speech guidelines can be applied in other vital free speech arenas. Take it as far as you can.

Some will then predictably want to construe the decision narrowly, saying it applies only to government officials, perhaps especially conservatives who support this president. Conservatives, the White House and the Trump Administration should not feel bound by such partisan, self-serving assertions.

As Supreme Court and numerous lower court decisions have interpreted the Civil Rights Act and other laws, no person may employ race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, disability status or other categories, to discriminate in admissions, hiring or anything else under any program or activity receiving any form of federal financial assistance, including loans or scholarships. Those that do discriminate will lose their Internal Revenue Service non-profit status and their government funding.

Should that list of categories not include one of the most vital and fundamental civil rights of all – the one addressed and protected by the very first amendment to the United States Constitution? The right of free speech and free assembly, especially regarding one’s beliefs, interests and political viewpoints, and one’s ability to participate in discourse and debate over important political and public policy matters?

Our colleges and universities were once society’s crucible for developing and thrashing out ideas. Sadly, as anyone with a milligram of brain matter realizes, they have become bastions of one-sided ideological propaganda and intolerance. Every conceivable element of “diversity” is permitted and encouraged – nay, demanded – except for our most fundamental civil right of personal views, free speech and robust debate.

That right now applies only to liberal-progressive-leftist views and ideologies. Anything that challenges or questions those teachings is vilified, denounced and silenced, often violently – as being hurtful, hateful, objectionable or intolerable to liberals. Faculty members are hired, protected, promoted or fired based on their social, scientific or political beliefs. Viewpoint discrimination, bullying and mobbing are rampant.

It’s time for pushback. Judicial and Executive Branch decisions and guidelines hold that even private universities that receive federal money for faculty research, student loans and scholarships, or campus facilities, are subject to Civil Rights Act rules. Presidents, administrators and faculty members of public universities are arguably public officials. Campuses and classrooms are clearly public forums.

If they tolerate or encourage viewpoint bullying, mobbing or violence, they are violating the civil rights of students, professors and speakers whose views have been deemed inappropriate, discomforting, hurtful or intolerable to the fragile sensitivities of climate alarmist, pro-abortion, atheist and other liberal factions.

Judge Buchwald’s ruling and the reactions of free speech advocates provide useful guidelines to buttress this approach. The Trump Administration, state attorneys general and free-speech/individual rights advocates should apply them to help restore intellectual rigor and open discourse to our campuses.

The ruling and reactions could also help expand constitutional protections even more deeply in the realms of digital age social media. As they suggest, today’s most popular social media sites have become our most vibrant and essential public forums: today’s parks, town squares and town halls. People, especially millennials, rely on them for news, information and opinions, often as substitutes for print, radio and television (and classrooms). But they now seem far better at censorship than at education or discussion.

Google algorithms increasingly and systematically send climate realism articles to intellectual Siberia. Unless you enter very specific search terms (author’s name, article title and unique wording), those sly algorithms make it difficult or impossible to find articles expressing non-alarmist viewpoints.

Google thus allies with the manmade climate cataclysm establishment – which has received billions of taxpayer dollars from multiple government agencies, but has blocked Climate Armageddon skeptics from getting articles published in scientific journals that often publish papers that involve hidden data, computer codes and other work. Even worse, it facilitates repeated threats that skeptics should be jailed (Bill Nye the Science Guy and RFK Jr.), prosecuted under RICO racketeering laws (Senators Warren and Whitehouse), or even executed (University of Graz, Austria Professor Richard Parncutt).

Google is a private entity, there are other search engines, and those seeking complete, honest research results should see if those alternatives are any better. But there is something repugnant about mankind’s vast storehouses of information being controlled by hyper-partisan techies, in league with equally partisan university, deep state, deep media, hard green and other über-liberal, intolerant elements of our society.

Meanwhile, Google YouTube continues to use its power and position to block posting of and access to equally important information, including over 40 well-crafted, informative, carefully researched Prager University videos – because they contain what YouTube reviewers (censors) decreed is “objectionable content” on current events, history, constitutional principles, environmental topics and public policies.

Scholar-educator Dennis Prager sued YouTube for closing down yet another vital public forum to views that question, contest or simply fail to pay homage to liberal ideologies and agendas.

District Court Judge Lucy Koh concluded that YouTube did indeed apply vague standards and the arbitrary judgments of a few employees, and did indeed discriminate against Prager U by denying it access to this popular social media platform and digital public forum. However, she ruled that Google YouTube is a private company, and thus is under no obligation to be fair, to apply its services equally, or to refrain from imposing penalties on viewpoints with which its partisan officers and employees disagree.

In other words, YouTube may operate as a public forum but it is a private business and thus may discriminate as it wishes – since it does not bake cakes or provide food or overnight accommodations … or deal with any civil rights that Judge Koh would include among protected constitutional rights.

These actions are the hallmarks of communist, fascist and other totalitarian regimes that seek to control all thought, speech, economic activity and other aspects of our lives. They drive policies that further limit our freedoms, kill countless jobs, and cost us billions or trillions of dollars in lost productivity.

The Left is clearly afraid of conservative ideas and principles. It refuses to participate in discussions or debates that it might lose, and instead resorts to mobbing, bullying and violence to silence our voices.

Up to now, lower courts have not always been supportive of the analysis and prescriptions presented in this article. But appellate courts and the Supreme Court have yet to weigh in on the Trump Twitter, Prager YouTube, Google search bias and similar cases. So we are still in uncharted territory.

Conservatives, climate chaos skeptics and true free speech advocates should build their own social media forums – while helping to create the legal precedents that will protect our hard-won rights and freedoms, and exposing, ridiculing, embarrassing and challenging the dominance of the Intolerant Left.

Paul Driessen, JD is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.

Fake Patriots are Everywhere

Be weary of the false patriot…. they are full of hubris and fail to be self aware enough to see their own complete hypocrisy. It’s very easy to see who the patriots are in America right now. The False patriots should check their alliances before it gets too late.

It’s all about laws.

People should get familiar with them.

Time to SERIOUSLY start draining the swamp and see what the hell we are sending them our money for.

To sit around and align themselves with foreign agents to sell out Americans all day?

I don’t think so.

Career bureaucrats should take account. We’re coming after you. Prove your value… you’re on our dime. Don’t be a traitor.

Seems more likely that mueller is working for trump. It’s what a little bird hasn’t told me.

Great Mark Levin here. Educational. Factual. We aren’t the standard republic… this is America. We’re exceptional.

The Clinton Cartel Finding Themselves on the Receiving End of Their Own Witch Hunt


“This Ain’t a Hill Worthy of Dying On”
-James Comey  translation (Oh LORDY, gee whiz, I’m glad I bailed!)

Everyone, grab your “VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY” hat and let’s take a journey to the center of it all…. Putin is giving SPIES AND BOTS a graduation speech to all his wizards. They were able to influence an entire election but definitely didn’t sway the vote of 9 board members to sell off U.S. unharvested Nuke minerals.


The Clinton Foundation

The Clinton Foundation (founded in 1997 as the William J. Clinton Foundation),[2] and from 2013 to 2015, briefly renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation[3]) is a nonprofit corporation under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code. It was established by former President of the United States Bill Clinton with the stated mission to “strengthen the capacity of people in the United States and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.”[4] Its offices are located in New York City and Little Rock, Arkansas.

Through 2016 the foundation had raised an estimated $2 billion from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups and individuals.[5] The acceptance of funds from wealthy donors has been a source of controversy.[5][6] The foundation “has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support”.[5]

Charitable grants are not a major focus of the Clinton Foundation, which instead uses most of its money to carry out its own humanitarian programs.[7]

This foundation is a public organization to which anyone may donate and is distinct from the Clinton Family Foundation, a private organization for personal Clinton family philanthropy.[8][9]

According to the Foundation’s website, neither Bill Clinton nor his daughter, Chelsea Clinton (both are members of the governing board), draws any salary or receives any income from the Foundation. When Hillary Clinton was a board member she, too, received no income from the Foundation.[10]

Clinton Corruption

Something strange is going on with the Clinton Foundation.

Donors to any cause have expectations.

Money does not change hands without reason.

The people, organizations and countries who make up the network of donors are not fools, and they don’t settle for failure.

Relative to the budget, the Clinton Foundation’s philanthropic successes are dismal at best.

The Clinton’s have done nothing outside of politics.

Their ability to generate wealth personally, as well as for their associates, is rooted solely in political office.

Most their massive fortune was accumulated while Hillary held positions in the US Government.

A large portion of the remainder can be linked to programs initiated during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Hillary Clinton was a US Senator from 2001 – 2009, she served on 5 separate committees, wielding legislative power in a wide range of policies, foreign and domestic.

Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State from 2009 – 2013. The duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of State include: supervision and organization of the entire community of United States Department of State and the United States Foreign Service including the oversight of weapons transfers to foreign nations, supervision of US immigration policy, and communication of foreign policy issues to Congress and US citizens.

In other words, Hillary Clinton supervised the agency that is responsible for regulating U.S. arms exports.

From 2009 – 2013 the pattern of arms exports shifted dramatically.

State Department exports approvals substantially increased to governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation.

The U.S. government approved $40 billion in worldwide private arms sales in 2009, including more than $7 billion to Mideast and North African nations that are struggling with political upheaval, the State Department reported.

Under Clinton’s leadership (2009 – 2013), the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation.

During Clinton’s tenure at State, the foundation operated in at least 29 countries, including places that contained rampant corruption such as Nigeria, Uganda, Ukraine, Haiti, Mozambique, China and South Africa.

In Diplomatic Cables published by Wikileaks dated December 2009, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan had no interest in cracking down on terror financing occurring within their respective borders.

More recently, Wikileaks published an email correspondence between John Podesta and Hillary Clinton dated August 29, 2014 in which the continuation of terror financing is acknowledged again.

The US Defense Contractors who benefitted from these deals, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and General Electric also paid millions of dollars in lobbying fees to the Podesta Group.

Within the law?

The Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, and a significant number of their close friends and direct associates are knowingly involved in numerous, separate schemes, the purposes of which are to leverage the power of political office and/or positions of bureaucratic authority to accumulate personal political and financial capital.

Investments yield return.

It can be said with 100% certainty that a considerable portion of the proceeds moving into the Clinton Foundation (and the Podesta Group), from persons and organizations, foreign and domestic, were invested (donated) with the expectation of return in some form, the value of which ultimately being greater than the initial deposit. Which again, is not necessarily illegal. Under certain conditions, it is.

Contrary to Hollywood’s portrayals of the wealthy, the overwhelming majority of wealthy individuals do not go around writing million dollar checks for absolutely no reason.  Most likely:

They believed it was for a good cause.

They hoped to gain favor and collect return.

Sure, some people, maybe even the majority, donated with the hope of contributing to something good. Among the small donors, this is likely the case, especially early on. The Clinton Foundation was founded in 1997. Since then, what positive difference has it made? What evidence can be produced? Relative to the size and budget, it has done nearly nothing. They certainly haven’t solved any problems. It is safe to say that the contributors writing million dollar checks are no fools. They are industry elites. The corporations and key executives responsible for the largest companies in the world. Slick Willy aint that slick.

What are they selling?

The Clinton family, not having done any sort of work outside of politics, do not produce any products, physical or intellectual, nor do they perform any services that do not derive value from past political positions or relationships developed as the result of those positions.

Graduates of Yale, and lawyers by trade, Bill and Hillary Clinton have both spent their entire careers in politics. After graduating in 1973, Bill was a law professor at the University of Arkansas, ran for the House of Representatives, and was elected Arkansas Attorney General before being elected Governor of Arkansas.

Hillary, after graduation, taught law at the University of Arkansas, served as a defense counsel and eventually joined the Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence, before becoming the First Lady of Arkansas.

Somehow the Clinton family has amassed a combined fortune estimated to be over $200,000,000, not including the tens, or even hundreds of millions spent on their lavish lifestyle. This also does not include the Clinton Foundation (which apparently paid for Chelsea Clinton’s multi-million-dollar wedding).

Earning this money primarily from speaking fees averaging just over $210,000 each, the Clintons have been jetted around the world at the expense of private banks, big business and foreign nations. From 2001 to 2014, they spent $95,000,000 on taxes. By any estimation, they made more money flapping their jaws than anyone else in history.

Career Politicians

Realistically, what did the Clintons have worth paying for? What could they possibly offer to people in exchange for hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars? The only answer to that question is political influence.

Conflict(s) of Interest

A substantial portion (likely the vast majority) of this wealth was collected while Hillary held public office.

As Senator of New York, she served on the Committee on Budget (2000 – 2002), Committee on Armed Services (2003 – 2009), Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001 – 2009), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001 – 2009), and the Special Committee on Aging. She was also a member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (2001 – 2009).

As Secretary of State from 2009-2013, using the authority of her office, Hillary Clinton brokered the sale military equipment and technology, including fighter jets, attack helicopters, missiles, missile defense systems, many of which were transferred to nations deemed complicit in support of terrorist activities against the United States and allies. The annual sum of these sales shattered records.

During this time these same foreign nations donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

Coincidentally, again during this same time frame (actually, dating back to the late 1990s and early 2000s), the defense contractors who ultimately received contracts for these deals paid tens millions of dollars to the lobbying group owned and operated by John and Tony Podesta. (among other lobbying firms)

John Podesta served as White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton from 1998-2001. During the Obama Administration, John Podesta served as co-chair to the transition team and Senior Advisor to the President.

The Podestas also received millions of dollars from several corporations and organizations owned in part by many of the same foreign nations who were approved by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to purchase American military weapons and technology.

The Clinton Foundation since its inception, has received over $2,000,000,000 in contributions from a vast network of people and organizations all over the world. The organizations mission is a war on various world problems ranging from poverty to gender equality. The positive results of the Clinton Foundation’s programs remain unclear.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $25,000,001 – No maximum
Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) $25,000,001 – No maximum
Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation $25,000,001 – No maximum
Fred Eychaner $25,000,001 – No maximum
Nationale Postcode Loterij $25,000,001 – No maximum
The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation $25,000,001 – No maximum
UNITAID $25,000,001 – No maximum
AUSAID $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Cheryl and Haim Saban & The Saban Family Foundation $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
COPRESIDA $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Government of Norway $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Stephen L. Bing $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
The ELMA Foundation $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
The Hunter Foundation $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
The Victor Pinchuk Foundation $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Theodore W. Waitt $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Tom Golisano $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Inc. $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Commonwealth of Australia, DIICC $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Denis J. O’Brien $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Elton John AIDS Foundation $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Government of the Netherlands $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Irish Aid $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
J.B. and M.K. Pritzker Family Foundation $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
John D. Mackay $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Michael Schumacher $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
S. Daniel Abraham $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
State of Kuwait $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
Susie Tompkins Buell Fund of the Marin Community Foundation $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
The Coca-Cola Company $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
The Rockefeller Foundation $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
The Swedish Postcode Lottery $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
The Wasserman Foundation $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
100 Women in Hedgefunds $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Absolute Return for Kids (ARK) $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Amar Singh $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
American Federation of Teachers $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Angelopoulos Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Anheuser-Busch Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Ariadne Getty $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Arnold H. Simon $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Barclays Capital $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Bernard L. Schwartz $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Booz Allen Hamilton $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Bren Simon $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Carlos Slim Helú & Fundación Carlos Slim $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Christy and John Mack Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Cisco $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Citi Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Dave Katragadda $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Donald L. Saunders $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Dubai Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Duke Energy Corporation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Entergy $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
ExxonMobil $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Frank White $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Friends of Saudi Arabia $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Fundacion Telmex $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
GEMS Education $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Gerardo Werthein $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Gianna Angelopoulos $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Gilbert R. Chagoury $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
GIZ – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Harold Snyder $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Hewlett-Packard Company $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Hult International Business School $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Humana Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
ICAP Services North America $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Inter-American Development Bank $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Issam M. Fares & The Wedge Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
James R. Murdoch $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Jay Alix $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Joachim Schoss $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Jonathan M. Orszag $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Joseph T. Ford $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Kessler Family Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Lakshmi N. Mittal $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Laureate International Universities $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Lukas Lundin $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
MAC AIDS Fund $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Mala Gaonkar Haarman $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Mary Bing and Doug Ellis $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Michael and Jena King $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Michael Smurfit $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Microsoft $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Nasser Al-Rashid $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Newsmax Media Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Nima Taghavi $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation) $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
NRG Energy, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
OAS S.A. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
OCP Corporation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Open Society Institute $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Paul D. Reynolds $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Peter G. Peterson Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Pfizer Inc $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
PGA Tour, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Presidential Inaugural Committee $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Princess Diana Memorial Fund $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Procter & Gamble $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Richard and Jackie Caring $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Richard Blum and Blum Family Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Rilin Enterprises $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Robert Disbrow $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Robert L. Johnson $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Robertson Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Roy E. Cockrum $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Salida Capital Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Sanela D. Jenkins $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Smith and Elizabeth Bagley $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Sol Goldman Charitable Trust $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Standard Chartered Bank $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Starkey Hearing Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Starkey Hearing Technologies, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
State of Qatar $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Stephen J. Cloobeck $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Sterling Stamos Capital Management, LP $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Steven Spielberg $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Stewart Rahr $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Suzlon Energy Ltd. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Swedish Postcode Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Swiss Reinsurance Company $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
T.G. Holdings $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Tenet Healthcare Corporation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Annenberg Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Boeing Company $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Clinton Family Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Dow Chemical Company $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The ELMA Philanthropies Services (U.S.) Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The ERANDA Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Ford Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Government of Brunei Darussalam $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Howard Gilman Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The James R. Greenbaum, Jr. Family Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Marc Haas Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The New York Community Trust $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Roy and Christine Sturgis Charitable & Educational Trust $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Sherwood Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Sidney E. Frank Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Streisand Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Sultanate of Oman $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Walmart Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Walton Family Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Wyss Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Zayed Family $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Thomson Reuters $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Torres-Picón Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
UK Department for International Development (DFID) $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
United Arab Emirates $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Verein Aids Life $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Victor P. Dahdaleh & The Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Charitable Foundation $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Vin Gupta $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Walid Juffali $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Wallace W. Fowler $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Walter H. Shorenstein $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Worldwide Support for Development $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
YPY Holding Limited $1,000,001 – $5,000,000

For Full List of Donors below $1 million visit our partner – iDrainTheSwamp

George Nadar: 3 Fast Facts

James Mueller Special Counsel
Mueller Probe Widens It’s Scope Hoping to Find a Crime for the Man in the Oval Office
  1. George Nader plead guilty to a child pornography charge in the United States in 1991.[1] In 2003 he was convicted of 10 cases of sexually abusing minors in Prague.[2]
  2. According to the Associated Press investigative report, George Nader was one of two individuals close to the President selling access to Trump and lobbying Congress to push pro-Saudi/UAE and anti-Qatar policies in the Middle East.[3]

Broidy and his business partner, Lebanese-American George Nader, pitched themselves to the crown princes as a backchannel to the White House, passing the princes’ praise — and messaging — straight to the president’s ears.

…In return for pushing anti-Qatar policies at the highest levels of America’s government, Broidy and Nader expected huge consulting contracts from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, according to an Associated Press investigation based on interviews with more than two dozen people and hundreds of pages of leaked emails between the two men. The emails reviewed by the AP included work summaries and contracting documents and proposals.

…Neither Broidy nor Nader registered with the U.S. government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a law intended to make lobbyists working for foreign governments disclose their ties and certain political activities. The law requires people to register even if they are not paid but merely directed by foreign interests with political tasks in mind.

Violating the federal law carries a maximum $10,000 fine or up to five years in prison.

3. George Nader is a cooperating witness to Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation and has already testified before a grand jury.[4] Nader is well known as an advisor to the United Arab Emirates, but the New York Times has discovered that he has ties to Russia too.[5] George Nader used his ties to the CEO of a Russian sovereign wealth fund[6] to set up the Seychelles meeting between Trump advisor Erik Prince and Kirill A. Dmitriev to, allegedly, establish a Trump-Putin back channel.[7] Prince had told Congressional investigators and journalists that his meeting with the CEO of the Russia Direct Investment Fund, Dimitriev, was unplanned and that he just happened to run into him.[8] George Nader contests that testimony, Nader says that Prince planned the meeting well in advance.[9] Another interesting tidbit is that the wife of the RDIF CEO that Erik Prince was introduced to by George Nader is close friends with Putin’s younger daughter.[10]

Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, is known to have met with Prince shortly before President Trump’s inauguration, and Prince admitted to the meeting while testifying before the House Intelligence Committee late last year.

Six sources cited by the Financial Times say Dmitriev’s wife, Natalia Popova, is close friends with Putin’s younger daughter, Yekaterina Tikhonova, and also serves as the deputy director of her Innopraktika foundation.

1) Politico – Mueller witness was convicted on child porn charge

2) Bloomberg – Mueller Witness Is Convicted Pedophile With Shadowy Past

3) Associated Press – The princes, the president and the fortune seekers

4) New York Times – Adviser to Emirates With Ties to Trump Aides Is Cooperating With Special Counsel

5) New York Times – Witness in Mueller Inquiry Who Advises U.A.E. Ruler Also Has Ties to Russia

6) Foreign Policy – Nations Are Wielding Their Sovereign Wealth Funds as Tools of Power

7) Washington Post – Blackwater founder held secret Seychelles meeting to establish Trump-Putin back channel

8) Washington Post – Erik Prince discussed trade, terrorism with Russian banker in Seychelles, interview transcript says

9) Washington Post – Mueller gathers evidence that 2017 Seychelles meeting was effort to establish back channel to Kremlin

10) The Daily Beast – Report: Russian Financier in Erik Prince’s Seychelles Meeting Traced Back to Putin

SEE ALSO: The 5 Eyes Group

First Indictment into Uranium One?

Former President of Maryland-Based Transportation Company Indicted on 11 Counts Related to Foreign Bribery, Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme

Executive Allegedly Paid Bribes to a Russian Official So His Company Could Win Highly Sensitive Nuclear Fuel Transportation Contracts

An indictment against a former co-president of a Maryland-based transportation company that provides services for the transportation of nuclear materials to customers in the United States and abroad, was unsealed today for his alleged role in a scheme that involved the bribery of an official at a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation.

Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Acting U.S. Attorney Stephen M. Schenning of the District of Maryland, Principal Deputy Inspector General April G. Stephenson of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General (DOE-OIG) and Assistant Director in Charge Andew W. Vale of the FBI’s Washington, D.C. Field Office made the announcement.

Mark Lambert, 54, of Mount Airy, Maryland, was charged in an 11-count indictment with one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to commit wire fraud, seven counts of violating the FCPA, two counts of wire fraud and one count of international promotion money laundering. The charges stem from an alleged scheme to bribe Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official at JSC Techsnabexport (TENtEX), a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation and the sole supplier and exporter of Russian Federation uranium and uranium enrichment services to nuclear power companies worldwide, in order to secure contracts with TENEX.

The case against Lambert is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the District of Maryland.

According to the indictment, beginning at least as early as 2009 and continuing until October 2014, Lambert conspired with others at “Transportation Corporation A” to make corrupt and fraudulent bribery and kickback payments to offshore bank accounts associated with shell companies, at the direction of, and for the benefit of, a Russian official, Vadime Mikerin, in order to secure improper business advantages and obtain and retain business with TENEX. In order to effectuate and conceal the corrupt and fraudulent bribe payments, Lambert and others allegedly caused fake invoices to be prepared, purportedly from TENEX to Transportation Corporation A, that described services that were never provided, and then Lambert and others caused Transportation Corporation A to wire the corrupt payments for those purported services to shell companies in Latvia, Cyprus and Switzerland. Lambert and others also allegedly used code words like “lucky figures,” “LF,” “lucky numbers,” and “cake” to describe the payments in emails to the Russian official at his personal email account. The indictment also alleges that Lambert and others caused Transportation Corporation A to overbill TENEX by building the cost of the corrupt payments into their invoices, and TENEX thus overpaid for Transportation Corporation A’s services.

In June 2015, Lambert’s former co-president, Daren Condrey, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and commit wire fraud, and Vadim Mikerin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering involving violations of the FCPA. Mikerin is currently serving a sentence of 48 months in prison and Condrey is awaiting sentencing. The indictment includes allegations against Lambert based on his role in effectuating the criminal scheme with Condrey, Mikerin, and others.

**The charges in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.**

The case is being investigated by DOE-OIG and the FBI. Assistant Chiefs Ephraim Wernick and Christopher J. Cestaro and Trial Attorney Derek J. Ettinger of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, as well as Assistant U.S. Attorneys David I. Salem and Michael T. Packard of the District of Maryland, are prosecuting the case.

The Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs has provided significant assistance in this matter. The Department also thanks its law enforcement colleagues in Switzerland, Latvia and Cyprus for providing valuable assistance with the investigation and prosecution of the case.

The Criminal Division’s Fraud Section is responsible for investigating and prosecuting all FCPA matters. Additional information about the Justice Department’s FCPA enforcement efforts can be found at

Foreign Corruption
Component(s): Criminal Division USAO – Maryland
Press Release Number: 18-34

Per Fredericknewspost:

The founder and owner of Frederick’s Dragon Distillery was indicted Friday on charges related to his alleged role in bribing a Russian atomic energy official to win government contracts for the company he formerly co-owned.

Mark Lambert, 54, of Mount Airy, faces 11 charges including violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and wire fraud, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement released Friday.

#We categorically reject the charges and are eager to dispute and defeat them in court,” William M. Sullivan Jr., attorney for Lambert, said in an email Friday.

Lambert, who owns Dragon Distillery in Frederick, is the former co-president, along with Daren Condrey, of a Maryland-based nuclear fuel transportation company. The company, referred to as Transportation Company A in the indictment, provided logistical support for transporting nuclear materials in the United States and to foreign clients.

In the indictment unsealed Friday, prosecutors allege that Lambert and others concealed corrupt and fraudulent payments with fake invoices, offshore bank accounts and shell companies in Latvia, Cyprus and Switzerland, the release states.

Authorities believe that from at least 2009 to October 2014 Lambert and other company executives conspired to bribe Vadim Mikerin, an official at the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation subsidiary JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX), in order to secure contracts for transporting nuclear fuel, according to the Justice Department release.

TENEX, which supplies uranium and uranium enrichment services to international companies, wholly owned a U.S.-based company called TENAM Corporation, according to the indictment.

The case is being investigated by the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Energy and FBI.

Around 2009, Lambert and Condrey began working with a third, unnamed executive at Transportation Company A to bribe Mikerin, according to the indictment. In exchange, Mikerin would help steer contracts to the transportation company.

Investigators believe Lambert and the others discussed the scheme in emails, using code words such as “lucky figures,” “lucky numbers” and “cake” to talk about bribes and kickbacks.

Prosecutors also believe that on Dec. 21, 2011, Mikerin sent Condrey an invoice purportedly from TENEX requesting payment of $125,930.53 for services that were never provided to Transportation Company A, according to the indictment. On Dec. 22, 2011, Lambert allegedly authorized a wire transfer from the company’s Maryland bank account to a shell company bank account in Latvia for the same amount.

Investigators identified eight similar wire transfers from Transportation Company A to the shell companies in Latvia and Switzerland made between 2011 and 2014 for amounts ranging from $48,089 to more than $142,000, according to the indictment.

**This is just speculation at this point as to any relation to Uranium One so we will have to track closely to see what unfolds.

TENAM Website: Tenam-USA

See also: The 5 Eyes Group

Educational Lobotomy: The Progressive 44 Magnum

With all due respect to everyone who is sure they have a solution to school shootings, and, really, any other violence, I ask, let’s be real for a minute, let’s look at the root of this “issue.”


REALITY: Schools teach abortion and are progressive propaganda centers (see Teachers fill kid’s minds with the teacher’s values and thoughts by opines, often arrived at by policies of their union, using touchy-feely classes, where expression is encouraged after the teacher’s opinions (usually challenging the student’s views learned from family) are made, engrossing the child over their 12 years of public education in – and this is the “mental illness” appearance key here – mental activities that are entirely based on outside stimuli, coreless, without the development of thought that comes from problem solving and wonder.


Empty vessels. Today education is promoting, creating, and entirely immersed in assuring every student is an empty vessel, core-less, own thought mindless, incapable of valuing anything but what opines of others have told them and absolutely void of all thought by one’s own initiative, one’s own, here’s a word we don’t hear often, “volition.”


While these children, these empty vessels who we’re supposed to help become capable, reasonable, and good individuals in our society through helping them develop their own cognitive function and appreciation for life, are sent to institutions we assume will help them learn, they are instead inundated with opinions and otherwise useless information that someone, somewhere, usually a PhD or a dozen of em as a “board of education,” with some study claim “students need to learn.” It is by this that the student’s teacher becomes a parrot of whatever is required to be taught to assure the school’s liability/obligation according to their funding is covered. No one is caring if the student is taught to think for themselves by their own mind, say by showing them a video of something they’d never seen in the subject of science, or a transcript of some genuinely life changing event that they’d never seen or heard before, to then have the student develop their own views, think for themselves, write and discuss their own thoughts. Examples would be a pulsar emitting an energy pulse 60 times the speed of light, or a citation of the Federalist Papers indicating Our Founders tried to end slavery through Article I, Section 9 (Federalist 42 first 3 paragraphs).


But no! No! No! No! Instead schools teach, what it appears Jean Baudrillard referenced in Simulacra & Simulation as “contactotherapy.” The constant is world events, and discussing the teacher’s opinion to teach the student how to express themselves (transferring the parroting method to the student), without even the slightest anything for the student helping them learn how anything actually works, such as a pulsar or the American Constitution limiting government. And of course there has to be the steering Progressive agenda question “….and how do you think what that corporation did negatively impacted society/community/environment?”


The Progressive 44 magnum bullet to destroy America from within is the constant of “babies are just tissue” and, as we were all babies once, by extension: life has no meaning. That’s what every gunman holds inside, why they do not value life, do not question their actions after the first person they injure or kill, after whatever sounds they hear from their victims during the course of their shooting people, seeing the blood spew from the wound they made, which, it appears is because these are all physical attributes only affirming the “we are just tissue” abortion baseline.


And what must be said at all cost: Guns and other arms that we Americans have had the Right to Bear before the United States government even existed is a statement by ownership of ones valuation of their own life, that their life is valuable to them! Does this mean a gunman who doesn’t hold that view, who shoots up a school of the unarmed because they know they will be unarmed has a gun for the same reason the Right to Bear Arms exists? Answer: No. And it is incumbent upon us (another rarely used word of self-responsibility) to recognize this difference and that it is indicative of a failure of our education system and policies, not mental health issues, not that Rights no longer should be respected but that the core of these individuals is being denied sustenance by assuming it doesn’t exist, by assuming “we are just tissue.”


So while folks want to claim someone has mental illness, it is notable that in this recent Santa Fe Texas shooting the shooter had bombs placed around the school and even emulated the Parkland shooting by pulling a fire alarm, both of which are acts of pre-meditation and cognitive capacity. Thus I submit there is no mental-illness involved but instead a lost society bent on keeping life valueless in what is taught to our children, especially in teaching abortion and omission of God from the schools. I submit that if we do not help students and children develop a core that values life, all efforts otherwise are foolish Progressive traps to change the whole society to appease a never to be changed absence of existence of meritorious thought inside the individuals in our society today. Exploiters and those who want to enslave or otherwise treat others inhumane need empty vessels looking for a home, for a place to land. MS-13, Progressives, and anyone else who can promote a communist/family replacement are loving every second of this emptiness of individuals as theirs to exploit to America’s detriment and destruction.


God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this

Toddy Littman

Glory Days for Missouri Republicans

I had a friend  was a big baseball player
back in high school.

He could throw that speedball by you
Make you look like a fool boy.

Saw him the other night at this roadside bar
I was walking in, he was walking out.

We went back inside sat down had a few drinks
but all he kept talking about was Glory Days.

—Bruce Springsteen, Glory Days

My father-in-law said it.

The man did a few tours in Vietnam as a Marine. He’s as right-wing as they get. Trump all the way. Honorable. Honest. Very good man. You’d be lucky to know one as good.

“I’d never trust a Republican,” he said.

He votes Republican. But he doesn’t trust them.

“The Democrats stick together. You could glue Republicans together and they’d still break apart.”

He was talking about the Greitens case, and he was 100% right. Never trust a Republican.

For the record, I am not a Republican. I vote Republican over 95% of the time. (Libertarian the rest of the time.) I support many Republican candidates, like Donald Trump and Eric Greitens and, of course, Dottie Bailey. But I stopped identifying as a Republican when Bob Dole bought the GOP nomination for President in 1996.

Many Republican politicians follow dull scripts that try to relive the past. Their anthem is Bruce Springsteen’s “Glory Days.” They often lack imagination and integrity. They tell others how to live but apply no standards to themselves. They don’t take cold showers, and they don’t do deadlifts.

In other words, many Republican politicians are almost indistinguishable from Democrats.


Unlike Republicans, Democrats fight tooth and nail for their own. Democrats are tribal and social, while Republicans look out for themselves. Republicans confuse rugged individualism with every-man-for-himselfism.

The Missouri Republican legislators who voted in favor of a special session to consider impeaching their governor Eric Greitens sort of proved my father-in-law’s point. They acted on impulse to protect themselves. They didn’t even consider the good of the party or the good of the state. They apparently considered only themselves and their precious invitations to Jefferson City’s weird and depraved nightlife. Glory Days.

In a couple of weeks, those Republican will slither back to their districts to face their constituents. Constituents who voted overwhelmingly for Governor Eric Greitens. Constituents who don’t get invited to Scott Faughn’s weird party pad in JC.

Those Republicans will wish they had some spine. And some friends. They’ll be talking about their Glory Days.

When those Republican legislators return to places like Dent County, they’ll probably hear things that will shock them. Shock them like a live wire. Quick and painful. They’ll long for their Glory Days.

And they earned it.

Well there’s a girl that lives up the block
back in school she could turn all the boy’s heads
Sometimes on a Friday I’ll stop by
and have a few drinks after she put her kids to bed
Her and her husband Bobby well they split up
I guess it’s two years gone by now
We just sit around talking about the old times,
she says when she feels like crying
she starts laughing thinking about

Glory Days

—Bruce Springsteen, Glory Days


Hi everyone,

Hope you guy’s had a great day


USD: PPI m/m, Core PPI m/m.EUR: N/A.GBP: N/A.JPY: N/A.



My Bias: Long to a new all time high above 1827.Wave Structure: Impulse structure to a new high.Long term wave count: wave [iii] above 1666.

GOLD has been very quiet of late,Even todays announcement by the U.S administration to scrap the Iran deal,has had little impact on GOLD traders!The evidence all points to a contracting triangle,Where the range contracts and pressure builds for the final move down in wave ‘5’ of  an abc correction wave.

Tomorrow;Wave ‘4’ cannot last forever!I expect wave ‘5’ will come tomorrow with the likely target remaining at 1295.

Once this larger correction completes in wave [ii], GOLD will then begin possibly the largest run up in prices in its history!

This one is worth waiting for.



My Bias: topping in a large correction wave [4].Wave Structure: Double combination higher in wave [4] red.Long term wave count: wave [4] target $70

Has crude topped out for the long term?It sure looks like it might have according to this elliott wave pattern.

The decline off the high could be interpreted as a possible wave (i) grey.The rally of todays low is in a clear three waves so far.So, that qualifies a wave (ii) grey.

Todays low reached 67.63 cash.A further decline below that level,which carries on below 66.37 at key support will be the decider for crude.

Mondays high at 70.74 must hold to stay within the elliott wave rules,but the early signs are good.

Tomorrow;watch for that three wave pattern in wave (ii) to hold at 70.40.And a further decline to kick off a possible wave (iii) grey.

If this market has now turned,Then we are in for a serious decline phase ahead.

Are Term Limits the Answer? That Depends.

Well, here we go again. Yep, the silly season is once again upon us. I’m talking about the upcoming election cycle. And the hot-button issue the politicians are talking about is term limits. It is a political buzz term that, according to polls, not only gets the electorate’s attention but finds the electorate in full accord with the idea that too many politicians stay in office far too long.
While I find merit in “term limits” I feel those who promote this idea fail to see the whole picture and the long-term consequences.
 Consider, when you seek help with a medical problem you undoubtedly look for a physician with the best credentials. If you were to require open-heart surgery I am confident you would choose a cardiologist with experience as opposed to one fresh out of medical school. Experience in any field counts for much, including politics.
Walt Mueller was a good friend who served for many years in the Missouri State Legislature, both House and Senate. He was a rarity in politics as he avoided the political limelight choosing instead to do his best in the interest of his constituents. He viewed term limits with skepticism and with good reason.
Senator Mueller pointed out that when you first attain elective office you, as a novice, are at the mercy of the bureaucracy – the executive branch. Through years of experience bureaucrats know how the political game is played. They are experts at bureaucratic slight-of-hand and can run rings around the political novice. Lack of experience, he pointed out, empowers the executive branch made up of unelected bureaucrats.
As I noted earlier, I believe there is merit to limiting the time politicians hold office, but in the interest of good government term limits needs to be more narrowly defined.  
Those who understand how the legislative process works know that in the legislature power lies with those who chair committees. It is they who can kill a Bill by assigning it to an unfriendly sub-committee or not allowing a Bill out of their committee. It is for this reason I believe consideration of limiting time in office should be more broadly considered.
  1. If the electorate wishes to limit the terms of office it should be for not more than twelve years.
  2. As real power lies in those who chair committees, the time in which a legislator can consecutively serve as Chair or Vice Chair of a committee on which he/she currently sits should be limited to no more that 4 years.
It is my contention that this approach will rein in the power of politicians who because of their seniority wield nearly unfettered power for years out of sight of the electorate.
Politicians who declare their support for term limits point to the Founders who believed the office to which they were elected was to be a “part time” job and not the lifetime career it has become for too many. Today, many running for office are critical of those who have served for years if not decades.
But after being elected too many of these same politicians ignore their campaign slogans and promises as they have become a member of the legislative club and to get along are reluctant to rock the boat by pushing term limits. Sure, there are those who will sponsor term limit legislation knowing it will make them look good to their constituents, but they are also confident that it will be as dead as road kill and they will blame others for its defeat.

Eric Greitens Might Actually Fix St. Louis

By K.C. the Hairdresser who’s husband “Is not after anything, I am not a part of politics, I am not a part of anything, I just want to move on with my life.” – but don’t confuse me with anyone you’ve heard in the news.

Where to begin with this? So many different angles and information that has yet to come to light. Possessing the information by doing the research that nobody does is a very gratifying experience when you actually do it. 99% of people let the narrative and news create their reality, even their beliefs as a person and their behavior so long as it’s socially rewarded. Just ask europe 70 years ago how powerful the narrative can be to their behavior and morals. The extermination of a whole class of people because everyone knew they were the problem. Why would anyone raise question to something that everyone agrees is true? It must be true.

Okay so… Post Dispatch never gets a story right. The post dispatch is the worst paper in america as far as I’m concerned. Their sports reporting is decent, but they didn’t keep the rams. Kronke played the city and the media like fiddle on that deal which they’re still paying for (sans stadium)

Now… How in hell could Eric Greitens actually help liberals? Trick question… they can never be helped by a Republican. Their brain doesn’t detect the benefits that they gain and it only allow them to hate them. It’s more a personal issue than anything. They don’t really want to see anyone except their side succeed because everything is broken up into a pie with groups and sides all fighting to get the most of that pie. Teamwork doesn’t register with liberals when it comes agreeing with a republican. That’s like Dogma or Cardinal Sin or something. It’s been so long since I was liberal its hard to remember all the justifications I gave myself at the time. They all generally involved distrust and some form of hate that I overcame.

Well I’m open to the possibility that Eric might have taken the bullets in order to bring about change that was never going to be possible before given the stronghold democrats have on the city of st. louis. It’s comparable to chicago in the fact that people get murdered every single day and the crime only continues to rise and all the constituents are a lock for democrat votes because they’ve got the post dispatch to tell them how horribly bad anyone other than a democrat would be fore their life. In fact if you’re a republican, you can’t really be anything more than a threat and menace to society thinking only about yourself and totally corrupt. Just looking to gain power so that you can then use that power for yourself and never to help anyone else. This is easily believed by those who have very little and can’t understand having nice things. They simply can’t afford to be that naive given their circumstances. Survival is dependant on shrewd thinking and defending for yourself and you’re group. There’s very little opportunity for those who grow up in the city of st. louis. The fake news will tell you its silicon valley, but it’s closer to Fallujah 2004 than “silicon valley”.

I’m short staffed here so the research / information is still at early stage, but here’s how I see this playing out going forward.

  • A special prosecutor will be appointed to handle subsequent legal proceedings with Eric Greitens. A real one… One that gives Eric a fair chance for his story to be heard. The special prosecutor that was working this case before was a harvard law professor (going out on a limb but ties to Attorney Dierker ammater. Dierker was a judge in the city of st. louis before stepping down for this case to end out his career from what I gather) the harvard law professor listed a small legal practice from Orlando, FL as his firm. Just so happens to be the same firm that represented Casey Anthony and Aaron Hernandez. REAL WINNERS there -Meanwhile Josh Hawley the Attorney General for Missouri has said he can only help the DA office by handing over information and adding yet another voice to the witch hunt against Eric. He could only sit on the sidelines and urge the governor to step down. He decided to do that instead of ensure civil liberties were not being violated. Yes, the same Josh Hawley who is tied up in a campaign for senate of missouri against Claire McCaskill. He’s actually a very pathetic individual for what he’s doing (and not doing) for the state of missouri.
  • Grietens has the best attorneys in the world working for him and they just happen to be here in the city of St. Louis. Some of which are democrats and have donated to the party. This isn’t about politics with them. It’s about serving their client and giving eric the best defense which we are entitled to. Eric has done nothing Illegal and has been found guilty of nothing illegal. In America… that means you’re innocent regardless of what one person says about you. The legal proceedings are there to protect us against false positives where someone who is innocent is found guilty of crime they did not commit.
  • Greitens attorney’s are calling for the City of St. Louis Police Department to Investigate Gardner the DA who is running the politically motivated witch hunt while dropping murder charges due to lack of evidence or resources available which is doing nothing to deter the crime and homicide rate in the city. It’s actually going up more than than the year before. This is typically the biggest focus for the attorney’s office.
  • The Police Department must always rely on the prosecutors to present the case and lock up the criminals they bring in that have been arrested. In high crime areas such as the city of st. louis, it is very difficult to get a witness to agree to testify because they fear for their life. This leaves the city at an essential stalemate of catch and release with the police officers who’s loved ones worry about their safety every second they are at work. Quite frankly, it’s a very very hard, if not impossible job keeping safe residents when they are the same people who don’t want any interaction or involvement with the police because they view them as the problem.
  • The city of St. Louis Police Department now sits in a position where it may not need Gardner and they can investigate the courts and politicians to see what’s really going on behind the front lines where they’ve been forced to do a near impossible job because the narrative is so negative and the situation is so bad due to such horrible leadership within the government. I think if you are to peel back the curtains and take a look at the system that operates in Missouri, you’d find only corruption and ignorance from the elected representatives. They’ve certainly responded like their gravy train is being threatened by someone or something.
  • That someone or something could just as very well be Eric Greitens himself. As far as the evidence goes, the public has seen none and frankly, his private life before he entered office is of no real concern to myself and certainly deserves the same rights and protections as anyone else. We can’t keep blaming people like the government, the police and politicians for our problems or lack of success and then totally destroy the lives, careers and families of those that get elected while we sit on the sideline crying wolf over and over. Just as soon as you get one person to start crying, they’ll get beamed onto every screen and audio waves 24/7 everyone is ready to join up the with the lynch mob and attack people and communities in an effort to have someone actually do something about their situation which they themselves either won’t or can’t do. Who in their right minds would want to do that if they are successful, likeable people with families and people who count on them daily to be there for them? You know how many mothers and wives and pushing their son or husband to join the policy academy in the city of st. louis right now? I’d say none. No sane ones at least. Most people would say no thanks and hightail it away from anything like that. Most people don’t have the courage to say what they believe for fear of peer pressure telling them to fall in line with a more agreeable or universally accepted idea or narrative. Most people are cowards. Eric seems to be the least cowardly person in the state of missouri. He seems to someone who would rather prove himself than talk or try. That’s what effective people. It’s in their nature to only prove themselves and they generally have a big ego because it takes one to be tough enough mentally. A weak ego will provide for a weak leader.
  • Eric, the st. louis police department and our best problem solvers should now come together and get to the bottom of whatever it is that is causing all the crime and violence in the city. Red Lines should be drawn and those that do not want to be here or who cannot try to be contributing solution should be sent off jail. Conversely, this may present an opportunity for the police and local governments are not sending victimless crime offenders to jail simply because they didn’t have their life together to oblige with society or B.S. laws meant only to draw up revenue or trap otherwise harmless people into a violation. If this piece can get resolved then we have a fighting chance in St. Louis. Otherwise we’ll continue to get more and more publically funded events and venues that nobody feels safe using or conducting business. If we can get the crime removed we can then start provide nicer things to the area that will attract more investment, talent and resources to provide more those who have so little as it is.


If MAGA hats and trump rallies stir up so much hate in you that you must physically attack a person for wearing a MAGA hat… then you might be the problem. You might be on the Wrong Side. Maybe… just a little bit. Red MAGA hats are okay to hate against and now turns a black person into a maga hat wearing person so the the difference there is truly something that is amazing to me. The irony is so thick and rich almost like a slice of cheesecake if you’re able to eat it peacefully that is. MAGA hats piss people off so don’t you go around wearing that hat interrupting people’s safe spaces. That kind of stuff deserve deserve a beating. (((((BIGOT)))) That was trump’s first big accusation that he got. He’s a BIGOT. It’s quite funny really. How we’ve gotten this far with th liberal derangement. You’d have thought they’d grow up at some point.

Cheesecake Factory suspends workers in MAGA hat incident

The Cheesecake Factory says it has suspended workers involved in an incident in which a black customer reportedly was subjected to verbal abuse by restaurant staff over his “Make America Great Again” cap.

Now let’s get back to making Missouri and America Great Again. Fake News is consumer problem… not a publishing problem. The narrative is the disease and the disease is the narrative. Either you’re a part of the problem or a part of the solution. The true victims are everywhere and they don’t want a diagnosis or help even if they don’t deserve it, they still don’t want it.

Dedicating this blog post to Wildwood’s finest… Tony Messenger because he’s simply the messenger putting his hands up in innocence when his agenda shatters into a million pieces can’t wait for the next story so he doesn’t have to come to terms with how much of Nazi he really is.

Begon fake news… History has proven that lies, if they get big enough, can lead to atrocities. Who controls the narrative and what will the record show at the end of the day. That maybe there were victims of their bias reporting and agenda driven narrative blinding mobs of people into burning cities and destroying peoples lives only to sit back and find the next story to write about while perched at the desk in wildwood, MO.

Hypocrites and cowards are a dime a dozen… The effective citizens actually crazy enough to throw their hat in the mix and try to get elected to take on the corrupted and ineffective system of government that can’t even protect the lives of their citizens are becoming more and more extinct. Soon you’ll just get candidates that say all the right things and people literally love them regardless of their lives getting actually worse. Its the narrative or character that matters regardless of how incompetent or bad they are at leading! (spoiler alert…we’re past that stage) Now, a deeply flawed candidate but can be effective and bold enough to make a dent in this never changing always losing government,  carries more weight now-a-days and that’s due to our fake news consumption problem. Don’t shoot the messenger just realize he’s a crazy liberal who doesn’t know better and he needs to be shown how to be a part of the solution rather than the problem.

We must #FreeKekistan which is really just a glass half-full thing.

Shadilay! Onward with liberty for and justice for all.

I won’t be shy about my support for candidates because they need our support more than ever to help fix the liberals and cure us from this marxist brainwashing. Liberals who still have have half a brain… try talking reason to the radical left. We can have a country without laws or borders and expect it to work. It’ll turn into complete anarchy just what they want to have happen. They hate success and everything america stands for. That’s not okay. Liberty is responsibility in which rights are given and respected but it is predicated on responsibility. The less we take on, the less free we are.

Some people are incurable and choose to miserable and worthless and that’s fine but it doesn’t mean we have listen or agree. Maybe they need to realize they are being worthless and miserable. Maybe not telling them is actually hurting them. Maybe not facing the facts and reality is really the issue. If you don’t want to be brought to the table to listen, then nobody else will do it for you.

I Am America


By John R. Stoeffler

I lost my first child on the day I was born on April 19, 1775…I am America. He fell on the green at Lexington, his heart pierced by a British musket ball. Many more of my sons and daughters would fall on that day and in the years to come until the guns grew still and peace came to me on that glorious day at Yorktown.

Eighty-six years later my heart was nearly broken as my sons and daughters donned the blue and grey and took up arms against each other. At Manassas, Missionary Ridge and elsewhere my children fell. And I grieved. During this devastating time, my son Abraham Lincoln eloquently expressed my feelings at a place called Gettysburg when he pledged that those who had fallen “shall not have died in vain; and that Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Fifty-two years had passed when I was called upon to aid my cousins in Europe. This time my children crossed the sea and “over there” at places like the Somme and the Meuse-Argonne many gave their last great measure of personal sacrifice to stem tyranny’s tide.

In the 1940s my children became embroiled in the biggest war the world has ever known. From a harbor called Pearl to Iwo Jima, Anzio, Bataan, and Bastogne they fought and died that the peal of freedom’s bell would not be stilled. And only then, when it was done, did Johnny come marching home again.

In 1950, my loved ones were again off to stay tyranny’s iron hand in a faraway place called Korea. At places with names like Pork Chop Hill and Heartbreak Ridge did my children again fight and die for freedom, and again I wept for those who fell.

In the 60s and 70s my children took up arms in freedom’s name. From the Mekong to the DMZ to a valley called the Ia Drang many gave some and some gave all. The pride I have in them for the courage and the sacrifice each made has never faded.

Since Vietnam, more of my sons and daughters have given their all on freedom’s behalf in places with equally strange sounding names like Mosul, Fallujah, the Korengal Valley and Helmand Province.

Memorial Day
On Memorial Day, Remembering the Values American Soldiers Died For 

There are those who hate me and what I stand for. Given the chance they would snuff out the inseparable essentials of my existence, liberty and freedom. They have different names and faces, but their nefarious goal remains the same – to destroy my children and me. Nothing made this so clear as the attack on September 11, 2001 when those dark forces ended the lives of nearly 3,000 of my children for the sole reason that they are Americans.

For some, time passes and memories fade, but through all this I tell you that I remember each of these my children. The faces of those who fell at Bunker Hill are as fresh in my mind today as those who perished at Gettysburg, Chateau-Thierry, Normandy, Pusan, Baghdad, and, yes, on United Flight 93. I know of the dreams each had for their family, and those their family had for them. And where they now lie, be it in my bosom or in some distant land makes no difference as every name and face is forever etched in my mind and heart.

No, I can never forget these my children for I AM AMERICA, and I shall always remember.

My Declaration of Concern by John Stoeffler

Our Declaration of Independence cites numerous offenses as justification for the colonies’ intent to seek independence from England. Were Thomas Jefferson alive today I am convinced he would be questioning the legitimacy of many Federal government actions, actions which many have come to believe have more in common with the oppressive hand of King George III and his Parliament than the vision of a free and democratic Republic?

With that in mind, I have taken the liberty of listing what might well be grievances he would include in what I call “My Declaration of Concern.”  What follows is but a partial list of grievances that belong to our generation. There are four parts – beginning with the Supreme Court.

Part I – The Supreme Court

“If in fact the (U.S. Supreme) Court is acting without the consent of the governed, the people, then the rights it purports to secure in their name are counterfeit, their benevolence a fraud.” Missouri Chief Justice Robert T. Donnelly addressing the Missouri General Assembly 1982

The Court amended the Constitution by decree when it declared that part of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which guarantees that property may be taken only for “public use” null and void. In its decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the Court stated that under Eminent Domain privately held that property may now be taken and turned over to another private party for what the Court deemed a “public purpose.” In its ruling, the Court fraudulently excised by judicial fiat this part of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment without the consent of the people.

In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Court rightly held that Linda Brown, a Negro, was the victim of de jure segregation in that she was not permitted, by law, to attend the school closest to her home. However, the Court’s decision ultimately resulted in lower federal courts uprooting hundreds of thousands of our Nation’s children and transporting them beyond their neighborhood schools under the guise of racial discrimination when in fact it was a racial balancing of the classroom the inferior courts of the United States sought to achieve. Our Nation’s children thus became pawns in achieving a social objective for which there is no constitutional basis, nor grant for the exercise of such authority.

In the 1990 case of Missouri v. Jenkins, the Court declared the federal judiciary has a constitutionally based authority to order taxes levied or increased without the consent of the People. This assertion clearly contravenes Article I, Sec. 8   of the Constitution which grants this authority to the Legislative Branch of government alone.

The First Amendment to the Constitution as it pertains to religion states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Emphasis mine) On numerous occasions, the Court has shown its hostility toward religion. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) The Supreme Court found that a New York school district was violating the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment that prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. But it was not Congress that authorized a prayer in school but the school district. So how is the so-called “Establishment Clause” based on the words “Separation of Church and State”, words found nowhere in the Constitution, constitutional? It is not.  

Consider, a government paid chaplain can offer a prayer before each session of Congress which is published in the Daily Journal of the Congressional Record at taxpayer expense, yet the Court has ruled it is unconstitutional for students to read those same words in school. Displays of the Ten Commandments have likewise been subjected to the same hostile treatment. In ruling against displays of the Ten Commandments the Court ignores the fact that the Supreme Court Building itself contains depictions of the Commandments. Furthermore, similar depictions of the Commandments appear on numerous government buildings and monuments throughout our Nation’s Capital.

The Court declared in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) the republican form of government the states enjoyed for nearly 200 years “unconstitutional.” The Framers provided for two branches of government, one, the House of Representatives, reflecting one-man-one-vote and the other, the Senate, guaranteeing an equality among all the states.”

The rationale for this was to prevent large states from unduly amassing power at the expense of smaller states. But when the states incorporated this principle in their constitution to protect the more sparsely populated rural areas from heavily populated urban areas the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964 declared this to be unconstitutional and ordered states to draw senate districts based on population. The result, that which is constitutional for the federal government is “unconstitutional” for state governments.

The Justices of the Supreme Court have declared their decisions to be the “Law of the Land.” However, in 1982 Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert T. Donnelly asked: “Where, then, do we find a delegation of power by the people to the United States Supreme Court to declare ‘the supreme Law of the Land’ under Article VI of the United States Constitution?” The answer is nowhere.

The foregoing is but a small sample of numerous rulings by the Court, rulings so sweeping as to clearly resemble an ongoing constitutional convention.

In view of the foregoing one might ask, “What then is the limited role our Founders envisioned the Court was to play in the new republic?” The answer may be found in the Federalist Papers Number 78 written by Alexander Hamilton where he stated in part, “It may be truly said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.” As used here the word FORCE is a noun for the Executive Branch. As the Court has neither a police force not an army it must depend on the Executive Branch to “enforce” its decisions. The Court could not exercise its WILL, again used as a noun for the Legislative, law making Branch of government. Parsing these words, “It may be truly said (without question) that it (the Court) may exercise “merely judgment”. In other words, the limited role the Court was to play was to lay a law next to the Constitution and pronounce it constitutional “yes”, or constitutional “no” – that is all.

As I see it, too many Supreme Court opinions are not tethered to the Constitution’s text. Today the Justices have gone far beyond the role envisioned by the Founders and thus present a direct challenge to our republican form of government.

Part II, Congress

Our Declaration of Independence cites numerous offenses as justification for the colonies’ intent to seek independence from England. Were Thomas Jefferson alive today, I am convinced he would be questioning the legitimacy of many acts by Congress acts which many have come to believe have more in common with the oppressive hand of King George III and his Parliament than the vision the Founders had for a free and democratic republic?

Consider, Social Security taxes not immediately paid out are alleged to be placed into a “trust fund” the purpose of which is to hold surplus Social Security contributions. But the record shows any surplus is “borrowed” by Congress to pay for other programs our senators and representatives deem worthy. And who is paying the interest on this borrowed money? The American taxpayer.

You will recall that Congress asked the American people to put their trust in them as they sought to completely overhaul this Nation’s health care system. But what they proposed for us they will not accept for themselves and their family. And when responding to a crescendo of voices that arise in protest, the politically powerful in Washington sought to intimidate and silence these loyal Americans by charging they are “trying to sabotage the democratic process,” and comparing them to “Nazis,” “Evil-mongers,” and “mobs.”

The Constitution’s Twenty-Seventh Amendment clearly states: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” In spite of this, Congress receives an automatic increase in its compensation virtually every year – unless it votes NOT to accept it. Congress’ failure to follow the clear letter and intent of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment shows an unbelievably callous disregard for the will of the People by circumventing the amendment’s unambiguous language. And when challenged their response is that the increase they receive is not a pay raise but rather a “Cost of Living Allowance,” a COLA. (A distinction without a difference as I see it) In this, Congress is making a fraudulent claim that is patently self-serving.Our Founders created an honorable institution to protect and defend the people. However, by their own words and deeds too many of our senators and representatives have shown that congress has become a den of thieves.

In his Commentaries on the Constitution Joseph Story wrote: “War, in its best estate, never fails to impose upon the people the most burdensome taxes and personal sufferings.” Knowing this, the Founders left the sole power to commit the armed forces to the people’s branch – Congress. (U.S. Constitution – Article I, section 8, clause 11)

Since the end of World War II Congress has authorized the United States armed forces to become engaged in no-win armed struggles with both irregular forces and the armed forces of other nations. These include Korea, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Clearly, Congress appears bound and determined to defend virtually everyone, but in doing so ignores the sound admonition of Frederick the Great who declared: “He who wants to defend everything defends nothing, and he who wants to be everyone’s friend has no friends in the end.”

And while Congress is busy spending billions to defend foreign nations whose friendship is most often temporary at best our country is under assault from illegal aliens whose presence here has placed an ever-growing financial burden on taxpaying citizens and state governments. To add insult to injury, in 2010 Congress counted every illegal alien in the census and included those numbers to reapportion the U.S. House of Representatives. This could only result in states with an abundance of illegal aliens being awarded with additional seats in numerous government bodies, local, state and national, and by fiat an increased political clout at the expense of every American.

While often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, it was David Thoreau in his essay Civil Disobedience who wrote: “That government is best that governs least.”  Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were crafted by the Framers to protect the States and the personal liberties of citizens from a strong central government. That said, there is irrefutable evidence that legislation being passed and unfunded mandates forced on the states by Congress are considerably at odds with and present a direct challenge to the republican form of limited government envisioned by the Framers.

Part III, the Presidency

As our nation’s Chief Executive, the President is charged with executing the laws passed by the peoples’ representatives and senators in Congress. He is also charged with enforcing the laws of the Nation which are predicated upon a clear and unambiguous understanding of the Constitution’s words and the intent of those who wrote those words. However, when the President enforces constitutionally baseless Court opinions/decisions he aids and promotes rulings by what is euphemistically referred to as an “activist Court.

It should be disconcerting to every citizen to see a president place his hand upon a Bible and swear to Almighty God that he will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and then turn around and enforce a decision by the Court that forbids the mention of God or the Bible in public schools, such decisions being based on an assertion that the U.S. Constitution demands a “separation of church and state.” But these words are found nowhere in the Constitution. That history of chief executives of both political parties have enforced these and other constitutionally baseless rulings is beyond the pale.

It is appalling to watch as Presidents have ordered the Nation’s armed forces into harm’s way when no threat to the Nation or its citizens exists. In some cases, the armed forces of the United States were employed, not in the name of the United States but on behalf of the United Nations or treaties that are of a questionable nature given the blood and sacrifice made by thousands who are no longer among us and the loved ones they leave behind.

Since 1945, there have been numerous deployments of our nation’s armed forces by presidents acting in the capacity of Commander-in-Chief. Many of these deployments have ended up as either a stalemate (Korea), defeat (Vietnam), humiliation (Somalia), an unrealized stated objective, to wit: stemming the flow of drugs into the U.S.(Panama); unfinished business; and leaving a tyrant characterized as “Worse than Hitler” in place for years. (Iraq – 1991). In the case of the latter, the result for not seeking total victory finds the United States military currently tied down in Middle East conflicts that have lasted longer than World War II.

It is irresponsible and constitutionally questionable to continue to give or loan hard-earned monies of our citizens to foreign governments under the guise of aid, especially so when those corrupt leaders continually squander these proceeds while their people live in squalor and the constant fear of being murdered, raped, having what meager possessions they may possess stolen, or being sold into slavery.

It is unacceptable that presidents whose constitutional responsibility to spend the monies Congress appropriates permits the ongoing raid on the Social Security “Trust Fund.” It is equally unacceptable to watch as the president fails to use the power of his office to rein in spending of taxpayer dollars, millions of which are squandered annually by congress on politically motivated and highly questionable “pork barrel” projects.

It is a travesty of yet-to-be-seen proportions when a president seeks to expand the scope of government programs and in doing so incurs monumental debt which will mortgage the future of our children and our children’s children for decades to come.

It is unconscionable that our borders remain un-secured. And it is an outrage when ordinary citizens who take it upon themselves to do what the Federal Government cannot or refuses to do to adequately protect and secure this Nation’s borders are denigrated as “vigilantes.”

In these and numerous other ways presidents of both political parties, past and present have failed to execute the authority of and uphold the duties of president which the Constitution clearly commands.

The conduct evidenced by those who have ascended to the nation’s highest office clearly shows a record replete with abuses and neglect of the Constitution’s grant of authority and restrictions therein to which they have sworn a sacred oath to “protect and defend.” This is especially telling seeing as how that oath ends with the words: “so help me God.”

Part IV, to preserve our Republic

I have listed what I see are serious breaches and blatant challenges to restrictions the Constitution places on those who hold positions of power in the Federal Government.

Recognizing the threat to liberty these actions pose, tens of thousands of voices have been raised in protest, but to no avail. In entreaties, written and oral, the President, Congress and the Supreme Court have been reminded on numerous occasions of the dangerous precedents they are setting, precedents which can only lead to further abuses of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and a continued erosion of economic and personal liberties. As repeated calls to end unconstitutional activities and actions have been answered by repeated injuries it remains clear that change must be made.

There are those who understand that the Constitution and the Amendments made thereto are a contractbetween the People of the United States and their government. It is an agreement that has been entered into voluntarily, and which requires both parties to fully comply if liberty and the freedoms we have enjoyed for over 200 years are to survive for the benefit of future generations. It is axiomatic that when any contractual agreement is continually violated by one of the parties, and the other party continues to suffer injuries and injustices, that the injured party has, as Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence, a “Right” and a “Duty” to alter or abolish that relationship in order “to provide new Guards for their future security.”

There are those who, seeing the abuses being heaped upon the citizens and states of this Union, are beginning to question how much longer this relationship shall continue. That said, the relationship the People of the United States have enjoyed with their government has existed for two-hundred twenty-two years and should never be ended or changed without every effort being made to repair that relationship. Therefore, let it be known that this Declaration of Concern is a clarion call to the President, members of Congress and the Supreme Court to review the vision and aspirations the Founders had for our Republic and reexamine the restricted role the Federal Government was to play then and must return to now. Let them again embrace those principles the Founders instituted which when adhered to will most assuredly guarantee the safety and freedoms to which so many have pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

The Constitution is the cornerstone of our Republic. It has changed little throughout this nation’s history since its adoption on September 17, 1787. What has changed, however, is a misguided view that it is a “living Constitution” that must be kept in tune with the times. Yes, it is a living document but must only change with the consent of the governed – We the People, and ONLY the people.

If we are to truly be a government of, by, and for the people it must be the people who make changes and not the few and the politically powerful. It is for this very reason the Founders provided for an amendment process to safeguard the people from the hand of tyranny.

Since its adoption as this nation’s governing document the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times. But, as has been previously noted, it has been members of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch who have chosen on numerous occasions to ignore the Constitution’s clear proscriptions and overstepped the authority the Constitution grants to each. In doing so it was they, and not the people, who have determined the future of America, and not always for and in the interest of the people. Unchallenged, these self-proclaimed platonic guardians of our liberties have become emboldened in their pursuit of a vision that is not in the interest of the people.

Unquestionably, the freedoms our Constitution was written to protect are ever so slowly being eroded. Nevertheless, the mischief done by our Federal Government is not beyond repair; but only – only – if the President, the justices of the Supreme Court, and our senators and representatives in Washington set aside personal feelings and ambitions and submit themselves to the authority which our Constitution embodies and for which so many have given their all to protect and sustain. Only then will the flame of liberty and freedom the Founders lit to continue to cast its light over a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

We Are at War and It Is Painfully Obvious

At War With Government

There are certain things we now know to be true or, at the very least, we should expect to be true at this point. It is no different than what we knew to be true 2 years ago. We are at an extremely high stakes war with the traitors within our federal government, their agencies, and quite nearly everyone within the political elite class (Washington DC) given what we know and it is all within public domain.

Those truths leave us at a crossroads. I personally think we, the citizens, should prepare and plan whatever is necessary to take out the enemies who have crept their way into the government only to grossly violate every right we have as an American while protecting only their own.

Often times many of those who consider themselves to be pragmatic and logical rarely stop to look at the big picture of what has transpired and what facts are available in the public domain to really make the assessment that should now be abundantly clear to everyone. We are at war with our own government whether we recognize it or not. We must defend ourselves and our country and the evidence is there to conclude the following:

A)   The vote used to elect the president is no longer something that is respected. This is something that can be overridden if it is determined by the Deep State to be critical to the national security in their opinion even if their opinion is unfounded and bias against the president you voted for.

B)   The evidence is already there. The time has already come and gone only to come and go once more. We should assume there will not be any justice brought. The damage is now entering a place that is truly unrepairable.

C)   You really have no say when it comes to the government and the justice system in America. This is a system that operates under its own rules depending on how they see fit at any given time. There is no constant that we can rely upon. We must assume that we wouldn’t have a necessarily fair trial for a crime we were not guilty of committing, and expect to see those that are guilty framing us walk free.

D)  We must assume that all information and knowledge we have available, is also available to our adversary and not only that, unfettered access to our thoughts and communications at all times. The control reaches beyond there to also the information we process can be controlled Even further, our requests to documents that are our ours through the Freedom Of Information Act, are repeatedly delayed or denied after much much time and patience and with very little feedback. This triangle of control is extremely powerful.


E) The OIG Report must prosecute the enemies within, to the fullest extent for justice and this country to ever expect to operate as a free nation. The federal government does not fear it’s citizens, rather it’s citizens fear them. We must plan to take things into our own hands and make citizen arrests and hold trials. We have no other choice.

We must expect that they will allow the circus to continue while fake news peddled by intel agencies is used whenever needed to elimate any competitor and without consequence.

The list, really, goes on and on and on, but the buck stops with blind lady justice and altering the rules in which we’ve all come to understand and operate within this country and society. We need timelines and hard answers from the crooks in chief in DC. I could care less what anybody on the news, or in Congress has to say on these issues. The crimes and intent are known and what is known is a massive criminal operation has been operating unfettered and they will stop at nothing to get power. Power was the only thing that mattered, Power to control, manipulate, lie, and snoop on those below them.

Collectively, people should be making plans and issuing fair warnings to the proper individuals within government. A massive fight will be needed. The enemies have all but self-revealed and they don’t follow even their own rules…

Very dangerous indeed! The projection never comes full circle as it should. The projection only applies to their opposition and the exact words put to use are never used as their own standard. If the fake news is dangerous in the hands of citizens… then what kind of dangers does fake news in the hands of those with actual power present?

Informatics, privacy, speech, counterintelligence, etc…. There may not be a physical war at this time, but this war is very real and it has been waged against the citizens for far too long. The standard is not set with the government, it is set by the people and resides with the citizens.

The failure to recognize and respect the vote of its own people means we have entered into a situation where the speech and words of the citizens mean nothing. When you take away the ability to be heard and the rules are broken, then what peaceful remedies remain? The court of public opinion does not matter, and seems as though it may not have mattered for quite some time, but rather as long as the fabricated public opinion appears authentic.

We have reached judgment day and we’ve seen enough. I think we’ll be disappointed with the OIG as the swamp simply cannot be trusted and they shouldn’t be trusted to do any sort of self-regulating or governing.

Lots and lots to do and only additional crimes continue to stack up while ignoring the known offenders.


Time for a Constitutional Convention?

By John Stoeffler

Knowing human nature as they obviously did the Founders provided for two ways to amend the Constitution. Under the provisions of Article V Congress could propose amendments which if ratified by three-fourths of the states would be come part of the Constitution. The second method for amending the Constitution was included by the Founders to insure states had a way to address and correct abuses by Washington through a convention of the states when, as Michigan Law Professor Kauper put it, “they are deeply troubled.”

There is currently a movement to call a Constitutional Convention to address what many perceive as overreach and abuse of the States by the Federal Government on a myriad of issues. This has run into a buzz saw of opposition, mainly by those who call themselves “Conservatives.”

The principle argument used for years by those opposed to a Constitutional Convention is that such a convention would not be limited and could exceed the specific purpose or “call” of the convention by introducing other amendments not germane to the call. But the conclusion of a 1987 report to then Attorney General Edwin Meese titled Limited Constitutional Conventions under Article V of the United States Constitution was that “Article V does permit a limited convention.” The report offered three arguments in support of this conclusion.

First, “Since Congress may limit its attention to single issues…the states also have the constitutional authority to limit a convention to a single issue.”

Second, “The consensus about the need for constitutional change is a prerequisite to initiating the amendment process.”

Third, “History and the practice of both the states and the Congress show a common understanding that the Constitution can be amended issue by issue.”

But what those who fear what they characterize as a potential “runaway convention” forget or ignore is that there is a lengthy process required to ratify any proposed amendment(s).

First of all, there must be a consensus by two-thirds (34) of the states on the subject of the new amendment to be proposed. Each state must, in the words of Article V, submit an “Application” to congress calling for a convention for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” the subject of which being clearly spelled out in each state’s Application.

Once this is achieved Congress would send to the states the language of the amendment(s) called for by the states. Each state would then call for a convention to be held to vote on the proposed amendment(s). It is at this point in the process where those who fear a runaway convention assert that the U.S. Constitution could be rewritten. But it is here that their argument falls apart.

First, the call for a convention is based on the subject submitted in the applications of thirty-four states. For any vote of convention delegates to go beyond the subject of the call would render their vote(s) null and void.

Secondly, since ratification of any amendments to the Constitution by conventions in the various states requires a consensus of three fourths (38) of the states it defies all logic to believe that thirty-eight states would ignore the subject of the original Applications made by thirty-four states and agree to rewrite the United States Constitution.

Finally, the last and only time the convention method was used was to add the 21st Amendment to the Constitution. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, also known as the prohibition amendment. No attempt was made then to rewrite the Constitution – so why now?

In decrying calls for a Constitutional Convention which is authorized under Article V of the United States Constitution, Eagle Forum, the John Birch Society, and the Constitution Party are in point of fact empowering a strong central government at the expense of the states. This is strange considering how often these conservative groups point to the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment when criticizing Washington’s assault on “states’ rights.”

In their wisdom the Founders included in Article V the power of the states to correct abuses by the federal government should they deem it necessary. Those who recognize the purpose of and necessity for calling a federal constitutional convention when warranted should be applauded and supported for their efforts.

See Also: Constitutional Convention: Term Limits and Right to Referendum