Okay, class, we are going to start the day with a pop quiz. Simple two question test on current affairs. Ready?
Who WAS Alejandro Carranza?
Who IS Juan Orlando Hernández?
Come on, now. This should be easy. Okay, times up. Can anybody tell me the answers? No? Okay, I’ll explain.
Alejandro Carranza was the name of a Columbian fisherman on a boat allegedly smuggling cocaine into the United States. While the identification is unconfirmed, as is the allegation of drug smuggling, Mr. Carranza now resides in the digestive tract of any number of species of fish or other ocean going carnivores having been obliterated by a US Navy missile(s).
Juan Orlando Hernández, on the other hand, is the former president of the Honduras arrested, tried, and convicted under our due process procedures after an extensive multi-year investigation by the Department of Justice for orchestrating and benefitting from smuggling 400 ton of cocaine into the United States.
Now, here’s an easy bonus question. Besides one being alive and breathing and one being disintegrated, what is the difference between them?
In Mr. Carranza’s case, the President of the United States unilaterally ordered him executed. In Mr. Hernández’s case, the President ordered him pardoned and released.
So the policy of the United States government, this most Christian nation born of the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth and, apparently, less than enthusiastic about innocent until proven guilty, is to kill people on the lower end of the drug cartel hierarchy we “think” might be smuggling drugs and to pardon those of the upper echelon we CONVICTED of smuggling drugs.
I can see how this will indeed make us great again.
While we are at it, in keeping with our new naming policy of various departments within government, i.e. Department of War, let’s rename the Department of Justice to the Department of Smiting Offenders without Having a Trial (SO WHAT)
A lightly sarcastic post on Facebook about the ineptness of certain members of the Trump administration, illustrated with an image of the Three Stooges, brought an unusually virulent torrent of criticism from those who blindly and enthusiastically support this administration.
Now I enjoy these moments, but I thought I should explain the facts and reasons behind the sarcasm and criticism of the administration.
These individuals rising to the defense of the President seem to be thrilled by the specter of the American military being tasked with blowing up boats, ostensibly trafficking in narcotics, with little evidence other than a few war whoops from the Secretary of War and similar chest pounding by Mr. Trump.
So, let’s play devil’s advocate here.
Assuming these boats are transporting drugs—and in all likelihood they are, but that is beside the point—how effective will this policy be in interdicting the flow of narcotics into the United States?
Here are some interesting facts from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
According to ICE, 95% of Fentanyl is seized at Points of Entry (P.O.E.). The overwhelming majority of which are land-based border crossings or airports.
Of the Sea-based routes, 75% are Pacific Marine Routes.
China plays an integral part in providing precursor chemicals to Mexico, where the majority of Fentanyl is produced and then smuggled into the US through P.O.E.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, 90 percent of heroin seized along the border, 88 percent of cocaine, 87 percent of methamphetamine, and 80 percent of fentanyl in the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year were caught trying to be smuggled in at legal crossing points, and that trend has continued.
While other means are certainly used, including boats offloading offshore and coming in under cover of darkness, the statistics are a good indication of the preferred methods of smuggling.
Because most fentanyl seizures occur at ports of entry, the majority of fentanyl is smuggled by people who can enter the United States legally. These individuals can evade detection by posing as normal travelers entering or re-entering the United States. As a result, transnational criminal organizations tend to recruit U.S. citizens, who receive the least scrutiny on entry.
From FY 2018 through FY 2024, over 92 percent of all fentanyl was seized either at a port of entry or at a Border Patrol vehicle checkpoint.
Importantly, fentanyl seizures peaked in spring 2023 and have been declining since. CBP fentanyl seizures hit record levels in April 2023 at 3,220 pounds. Although the exact reason is not yet clear, seizures fell nearly every month after that, and by March 2025, had dropped to just 760 pounds. This drop in seizures occurred almost entirely at ports of entry, with nationwide Border Patrol fentanyl seizures in April 2025 (133 pounds) remaining at roughly the same levels as April 2024 (140 pounds) and April 2023 (137 pounds), despite dramatically fewer migrant crossings.
Evidence suggests that less fentanyl may be coming into the country because there is less demand for it in the U.S. as opioid overdoses fell dramatically in 2024, with official CDC data through November 2024 showing that overdose deaths dropped in all but two states (Arizona and Hawaii). Should these trends continue, it suggests the worst of the fentanyl crisis may be behind us.https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/fentanyl-smuggling/
This policy of targeting drug boats in international waters focuses on the least common method of smuggling drugs into the country. Perhaps, if one can believe the information from DEA and ICE, by not stripping resources away from P.O.E. and redirecting them to capturing Walmart shelf stockers and McDonald’s hamburger flippers, we could focus on the routes delivering the overwhelming majority of drugs to the US and, perhaps, catch more Americans who are active and willing participants.
Mr. Trump’s administration may lack many things, but creativity is not one of them. They crafted a convenient end run around domestic law and inconvenient principles like Posse Comitatus and designated organizations like Tren de Aqua as terrorist organizations and declared them as enemies engaged in attacks on US sovereignty.
In this particular instance, I agree with them. When Nixon declared drugs to be “public enemy number one” and started the War on Drugs campaign, it was anything but a war. Like other failed policies with good intentions, it lacked a clear purpose, a clear method of application, and a clear goal.
It was never a war.
Mr. Trump’s designating the issue as one of armed aggression against the United States is a wise one, but it shouldn’t be the basis for derailing our system of justice and, at the very least, should operate under the rules of war.
The United States, unlike many other nations, always weighs the value and purpose of a military action against the risk to innocent civilians. The history of the world reflects very few countries that do so. Yet even the United States resists some limits imposed by well-articulated international law.
One of those is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This defines the principle of self-defense in international waters. UNCLOS+ANNEXES+RES.+AGREEMENT
The principle of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter only allows the use of force against an imminent threat. It is hard to see how a drug-laden speedboat in international waters hundreds of miles from U.S. territory posed an imminent threat to the United States. (Interestingly enough, the US Congress, despite decades of lobbying by other Presidents and supporters, refuses to ratify this treaty.)
With the level of surveillance sophistication available to the military, tracking these boats to our territorial waters, then interdicting them by whatever means necessary, including destruction, would not only be lawful but also offer the kind of proof needed to justify the actions.
And maybe, in our on-again off-again relationship with China, our on-again agreement on trade can be expanded to get the Chinese to cooperate in stopping the flow of precursor chemicals.
Thus, my criticism and sarcasm are based not on the method or goal of this policy, but that they are focusing on the least effective methods and areas at risk. And the process and willingness to ignore accepted military and civilian law enforcement protocols is clearly un-American.
Why, you might ask, should we care about some smugglers getting blasted out of the water when it is clear they are trafficking? Because if we are willing to accept that blurring of the lines, where does it end?
The Founding Fathers were wise in devising our form of government. Power is not concentrated in any one branch. If we allow one branch to ignore that balance, and subvert the equal parts of government, we face a reduction in our rights and an inexorable march toward totalitarianism.
In simplest terms, you can blow up all the boats you like, twelve miles off the coast, as long as you follow our laws.
“Fortunately, I keep my feather numbered for just such an occasion.”
By most estimates (except, of course, by those who routinely produce attendance numbers of the crowds at MAGA Events that are beyond believable), seven million Americans took to the streets all across the country to protest the abomination that is the Trump Administration.
And the reactions of those who support Mr. Trump were pathetically predictable.
Speaker Mike Johnson called them “unAmerican.”
Veterans Affairs Secretary Douglas Collins wrote on X,
“Good Morning to my fellow Americans who are celebrating No Kings Day today. While most of us celebrate this reality on July Fourth, you do you.”
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Douglas Collins.
Note to Mr. Collins and Mr. Johnson.
The Fourth of July celebrates the end of the Revolutionary War where we fought to rid ourselves of a King. It was the culmination of decades of protests and resistance over unfair government policies and the use of military troops occupying the cities and towns in America. Actions that ultimately ended with troops firing upon protesting civilians under orders of this Monarch.
Perhaps you missed this in history class. Perhaps you prefer willful ignorance. Perhaps, since you enjoy the favor of this wannabe King, you long for a return to a monarchy.
Does any of this sound familiar? Could this be one of those moments of history that rhyme?
There is nothing more American than peacefully protesting the wrongful actions of the government. You’ll also notice the lack of violence by these millions of Americans and the low number of arrests. These protests are clearly anti-fascist in nature, yet none of these protests in any way resembled the actions of a “militarist, anarchist enterprise that calls for the overthrow of the U.S. government…” as Mr. Trump has designated them.
Mr. Trump sees opposition to his policies as anarchy, something to be suppressed by all means. Those of us who have actually read the Constitution and support it understand better that these disagreements are the very foundation of our success.
At least up to this point in history, the future is more precarious.
Perhaps Mr. Johnson would have preferred these protests take the form of violent storming of the US Capitol building and the threatened lynching of government officials? It is clear Mr. Trump, by pardoning the J6 insurrectionists, and Mr. Johnson, by supporting such actions, prefer that form of “American” protests.
Their concept of a patriot also has precedents in history, generally attired in brown shirts and particularly proficient at breaking glass.
We should take heart in the number of Americans peacefully voicing their open disgust at this march toward totalitarianism. Seven million Americans of courage and conviction took the most patriotic of actions and “petitioned their government for a redress of their grievances.” Something those patriots of the Revolutionary War gave their lives to obtain for future generations, Mr. Collins, but you’ll ignore that reality out of blind fealty to your dear leader.
Take heart, for this large gathering of Americans is the sign of hope rising.
Come this mid-term election, and, more importantly, the next Presidential election, the world we see that the American people can weather the worst of storms raging against us, even those we create ourselves, and restore these United States to the country our forebearers intended it to be.
Mr. Trump and his maniacal band of charlatans will become just another scab on a long history of self-inflicted wounds in this country, soon enough to heal and fade away.
Now the President intends to send the National Guard into Memphis so they can “fix it like we did DC.” This wasn’t his original plan; he did a T.A.C.O. in Chicago, no surprise there. Guys with a brain like J.D. Pritzker scare him.
The “fix it like DC” requires some huge assumptions about the effectiveness of the deployment, but, for the sake of argument, let’s say there’s been a reduction in crime because of the presence of the Guard and additional law enforcement resources.
That would be a positive. But what is the long-term plan? Do we flood the streets of America with military force as our long-term crime reduction strategy?
In 1972-1973, the Kansas City Police Department conducted a landmark study about police deployment. The study had several goals.
Would citizens notice changes in the level of police patrol and crime?
Would different levels of visible police patrol affect recorded crime or the outcome of victim surveys?
Would citizen fear of crime and attendant behavior change as a result of differing patrol levels?
Would their degree of satisfaction with the police change?
The design took three different police beats in Kansas City and varied patrol routines in them. The first group received no routine patrols. Instead, the police responded only to calls from residents. The second group had the normal level of patrols, while the third had two to three times as many patrols.
The experiment had to be stopped and restarted three times because some patrol officers believed the absence of patrols would endanger citizens. This full study went twelve months, from 1 October 1972 to 30 September 1973.
Victim surveys, reported crime rates, arrest data, a survey of local businesses, attitudinal surveys, and trained observers who monitored police-citizen interaction were used to gather data. These were taken before the start of the experiment (September 1972), and after (October 1973), giving ‘before’ and ‘after’ conditions for comparison.
The results of the study;
Citizens did not notice the difference when the frequency of patrols was changed.
Increasing or decreasing the level of patrol had no significant effect on resident and commercial burglaries, auto thefts, larcenies involving auto accessories, robberies, or vandalism–crimes.
The rate at which crimes were reported did not differ significantly across the experimental beats.
Citizen-reported fear of crime was not affected by different levels of patrol.
Citizen satisfaction with police did not vary.
The Kansas City Police Department concluded that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe and that resources normally allocated to these activities could safely be allocated elsewhere.
A significant factor derived from the study was that crime prevention was more highly dependent on the willingness of citizens to report suspicious and/or criminal behavior to police than on the levels or types of patrol.
(Kelling, G.; Pate, A.; Dickman, D.; Brown, C (1974). “The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment: A technical report”. Police Foundation. Braga, Anthony (27 June 2012). “Hot spots policing effects on crime” (PDF). The Campbell Collaboration. The Campbell Collaboration. p. 23. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 January 2017. Retrieved 10 January 2017.)
There have been targeted programs of increased police presence (Operation Hot Pipe in San Diego during the crack cocaine epidemic) that have been successful. However, all were characterized by intense planning, officer training, a defined implementation and scope, and a limited duration. (https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/benefits-and-consequences-police-crackdowns)
Both pre- and post-implementation analyses were used to evaluate the process and adjust future projects. None of that is taking place with the deployment of the National Guard.
What does this tell us? A great deal.
Anecdotal data (or more accurately, public proclamations) showing a positive effect on reducing crime with the deployment of National Guard and other resources to aid local law enforcement is incomplete at best and political confirmation bias at worst.
Now I am certain those who support this approach will say it makes people feel better when they see the guard on the street. So does morphine when you break your leg, but the leg is still broken and will take proper treatment and a long time to heal. The morphine eventually wears off.
Deploying the National Guard is an improperly prescribed analgesic applied to a false perception of rising crime. It is a crisis with no basis in fact. And even if it has some positive effect in certain areas, it is not a long-term solution.
Until one is willing to take a three-pronged approach to deterring crime– strong, effective, and equitable enforcement, available economic opportunities, and providing access to solid education and vocational programs –a single-focus approach will not reduce crime in the long run.
But that doesn’t lend itself to as pithy a slogan as “Lock’em up and throw away the key.” We’ve done that to an entire class of individuals (look into minority incarceration rates and US incarceration rates). All that’s accomplished is creating a new (and lucrative) industry of private prisons.
I would argue our abandonment of public education to the false and inherently biased promise of “school choice” is a fundamental cause of inequity in our country and a significant contributing factor to criminal behavior in those who don’t have the luxury to “choose” their school.
None of this is news to anyone with any background in criminal justice. None of this is absent from the mountains of information available to criminal justice agencies and the political entities that control them.
Where it is absent is from the current management team at the Department of Justice and in the Office of the President.
The choice to have National Guard troops patrolling the streets of our cities is optics, pure and simple. And it is a lesson in the propagation of propaganda and unadulterated politics influencing decision-making.
Contrary to all valid measures of crime conclusively showing it is decreasing, the President contends that we are in a tidal wave of violence and criminality. Strange how he focuses on Democratic led cities and ignores issues in the red states.
The reason is apparent and the manner transparent.
Invent a problem, demonize a convenient entity as the cause, focus your solution on those in the political opposition, and declare victory after a few weeks.
All this amounts to wasted resources that could have been used to reduce crime (which already was in decline) in a more effective and lasting manner.
One has to wonder if this is more about making people fearful about turning out to vote in the mid-terms or, more troubling, creating a false crisis, an opportunity to declare martial law, and a suspension of basic human rights than it is about any concern over crime.
The following is a priceless example of the nonsensical, unoriginal, and idiotic pablum being offered by and to Trump supporters. Like a call for the government to come clean on UFOs and the aliens we have in custody and asking people to share the absolute truth of this deep government conspiracy, this stuff floods social media like a tidal wave of noxious effluence too toxic for a waste treatment facility.
Without further adieu, here it is in all its unedited glory…
I offer no apology for what I am posting for this is truly how I feel. Please know this is my opinion and not open for debate. If you don’t agree that’s your prerogative but I will not be responding to any or all comments. I have lived through several United States Presidents prior to our current President Trump. In my lifetime I have never seen or heard of a President being scrutinized over every word he speaks, demeaned by the public to the point of disgrace, slandered, ridiculed, insulted, lied to, threatened with death, threatened by some to rape our First Lady, and have his children also insulted and humiliated.I am truly ashamed of the people of MY country. I am ashamed of the ruthless, insufferable, cruel, Trump haters who have no morals, ethics or values and the irresponsibility of the reporters who feel they have the right to deliver personal opinions just to sway their audiences in a negative direction even if there is no truth in their message. After every other President was elected and took the oath of office they were allowed to try to serve this country without constant negative scrutiny from our news sources. ALWAYS BEING PRESSURED while news sources search only for negative results from our President will not serve the people of our country. Nor will it create informed Americans. ENOUGH is ENOUGH is ENOUGH. Nor have I ever known a President to serve in that capacity at no salary to line their bank accounts until PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP! He gave to other departments those funds! I am very proud to have and I still do stand with my PRESIDENT!
Now, leaving aside the horrific grammar, run-on sentences, apparent aversion to paragraphs, rampant cognitive dissonance, inconsistency of thought, not to mention a complete absence of originality or creativity, it offers a perfect view inside the mind (or lack thereof) of the most common of Mr. Trump’s supporters, the willfully ignorant.
They are part of a phenomenon in this country where ignorance is seen as a badge of honor. Education beyond the most basic seems to be a reach for them. Those who post this nonsense are witless valedictorians with a Summa cum Laude in incomprehension.
Now, by education, I do not necessarily mean college, but for the love of all that is precious, read a history book once in a while.
It was challenging to resist interjecting comments directly into the text, but why bother? They would be ignored or misunderstood.
It’s not that most of those who post this idiocy do not know better; it is an intentional disregard of the clear contradictory evidence right before their eyes. The motivations are varied: intellectual laziness, a myopic view of current affairs, or a lack of understanding and historical ignorance.
There’s a phenomenon in this country where many celebrate ignorance. Education beyond basics seems to be a reach for them. Those who post this nonsense are witless valedictorians with a Summa cum Laude in incomprehension.
Joe Broadmeadow
The main point of this inexplicably viral post is that Mr. Trump faces a level of criticism for his actions that previous administrations did not. This is just one example of a falsehood within the piece.
Pointed and intelligent criticism of the President, or any government official, is a necessary tool in balancing the power of government and the rights of the governed.
Lyndon Johnson (perhaps one of the presidents the author of this nonsense references) had an almost psychotic dislike of the media. When asked about this relationship to the press, Johnson said this.
“I could walk across the Potomac on a bright sunny summer day, and the headline would read, ‘Johnson Can’t Swim!’
I will continue to take great pleasure in reading these postings and savaging them. Although the joy is tempered by the thought that these people are out there, perhaps unmedicated, congratulating themselves in their ignorance, embracing the Second Amendment, wrapping themselves in the flag, and ignoring the reality right before their eyes.
And they somehow managed to vote.
(Insert name of your personal favorite miraculous being here) Save Us!
“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” Miquel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Let me state the obvious. Anyone who has already decided which candidate to vote for in the upcoming election will not be persuaded differently by the debate.
Despite the reluctant consensus that the Vice President was poised, composed, and articulate (according to a significant number of Republican pundits) compared to the unhinged rants by the ex-President rehashing long debunked complaints of election fraud, Haitian family meals involving domestic pets, and millions of lunatics and criminals personally invited to cross the border by the Biden-Harris (or, as some would prefer the Harris-Biden) administration, no one will change their already-made-up minds.
What I find most interesting is the almost fanatical desperation for an explanation of Trump’s poor performance, other than that Vice President Harris was the clear winner based on her innate abilities.
It had to be favoritism by ABC.
It had to be that she had Miracle-Ear technology feeding her answers.
It had to be that she had the questions beforehand. (author’s note: Everyone with any intelligence knew the questions beforehand. For the VP, she’d be asked about immigration, the economy, and shifting positions on fracking and guns. For the former President, he’d be asked about election denial, race-baiting, pandemic performance, health plan replacing ACA, Project 2025, and abortion rights.)
She couldn’t possibly be better, brighter, and more competent.
None of this matters, and nothing I can say here will change the mind of anyone who supports Mr. Trump. Still, I bet it will spark some outrageous responses and criticisms, mostly of childish insults rather than rational arguments over policies.
But consider this. If you think so little of the Vice President’s abilities despite her being able to rattle the former President on a political debate stage, you should be terrified of the prospect of another Trump administration dealing with the likes of China, Russia, and Iran. They won’t just eat his lunch; they’ll steal his pocket money and use it against us.
I’ve been asking for months for someone to present sound arguments about why someone should support Mr. Trump. All I’ve ever seen is a bunch of yeah-but-what-about malarky. If anyone is willing to take up the challenge and write a piece listing President Trump’s qualifications, accomplishments, and policies, and why voters should support them, I will gladly post it here without comment.
But I would like to make this observation by borrowing a line from P.G. Wodehouse. Mr. Trump, during and after the debate,
“…had the look of one who had drunk the cup of life and found a dead beetle at the bottom.”
It is far from over, but it is closer to a satisfying end of this bizarre American history chapter.
JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us helpmake your publishing dreams a reality.
Recently uncovered in a hack into Mr. Trump’s campaign is a list of the updated Ten Commandments proposed to be required reading and forced memorization in all schools, workplaces, and the public square.
And Our Lord Trump Doth Declare…
I am who am, the Lord thy real president. Thou shall not have any false presidents before (or after) me. (Vote for me this time and you won’t have to (be able to) vote again Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord Trump in vain Remember to keep holy my day (everyday) Take possession of all monies and property from thy father and mother despite any will to the contrary and deny thy siblings a rightful share Thou shall not kill (me, all others on a case by case basis) Thou shall not point out my (alleged?) adultery Thou shall not steal elections from me despite any evidence to the contrary Thou shall not bear false witness except in support of my goals. Thou (I) shall not covet my neighbor’s wife unless she is younger and prettier than thou (my) current one Thou (I) shall not covet my neighbor’s goods. Thou (I) shall simply buy them, then fail to pay for them BONUS COMMANDMENT (BECAUSE I’M ALWAYS BIGGER AND BETTER THAN ANY OTHER COMMANDMENT GIVER) Thou shall not point out my plethora of children from multiple women. For I am doing as I commanded you, be fruitful and multiply so as to have dominion over all the world.
JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us helpmake your publishing dreams a reality.
“Yeah, yeah J.D. Vance wrote the foreword to a book by the principal author, but so what? Maybe he didn’t read it? Ever think of that? Besides, we have our own agenda called Project 2025 Agenda 47. Completely different. No resemblance. Not the same thing. Not even close. Ours is more betterer. The best agenda in the history of agendas. Read it for yourself it’s spectacular.” (Link to Agenda 47)
To paraphrase the Bard once again, “Methinks they doth protest too much!”
I thought I would just do a brief comparison of some highlights from the published versions of Project 2025 (entitled Mandate for Leadership The Conservative Promise) and 2024 Republican platform known as Agenda 47 (cleverly yet mysteriously entitled 2024 GOP Platform Make America Great Again!)
The comparison, a look at the overall policy proposals and the Border policy just as examples, is at the end of this piece. But a couple of interesting notes.
Abortion is mentioned once in Agenda 47. It is mentioned 198 times in Project 2025 and not in a supportive kind of way.
Voting rights are mentioned once in Agenda 47 (falsely claiming Democrats are letting illegal aliens vote.) There is no mention in Project 2025. Speaks volumes.
“I read your damn book!”
General George S. Patton
Climate Change is not mentioned at all in Agenda 47. It is mentioned sixty times in Project 2025, mostly contradicting the existing science and downplaying the anthropogenic effect.
Both Agenda 47 and Project 2025 call for the elimination of the Department of Education. Now that’s an agenda worth paying attention to.
Let’s face it. Agenda 47 is the Cliff Notes version of Project 2025 with critical aspects strategically left out in the hope nobody is paying attention to the similarities.
There’s a scene in the movie “Patton” starring George C. Scott. It depicts the Battle of El Guettar pitting Patton’s USII Corps against The Desert Fox, General Johannes Erwin Eugen Rommel’s Afrika Corps. Granted it’s a movie and isn’t 1oo% accurate, but it is illustrative.
When the German’s fall into Patton’s trap and are decimated by the unexpected tactics by Patton, Patton looks on gleefully over the battlefield and says, “I read your damn book!” Referring to Rommel’s writings on tactics. That aspect is historically accurate.
You can learn a great deal about someone or an organization by reading the things they write.
When you publish a 922 page document you are betting most people won’t read it. When you publish a 16 page platform that mirrors elements within that same 922 page document you are telling the faithful this is just a preview of the real show.
But don’t take my word for it. Read them, I did. They would be comical if they weren’t so deadly serious.
Project 2025
Agenda 47 aka Republican Platform
Policy List: PROMISE #1: RESTORE THE FAMILY AS THE CENTERPIECE OF AMERICAN LIFE AND PROTECT OUR CHILDREN
PROMISE #2: DISMANTLE THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND RETURN SELF-GOVERNANCE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
PROMISE #3: DEFEND OUR NATION’S SOVEREIGNTY, BORDERS, AND BOUNTY AGAINST GLOBAL THREATS.
PROMISE #4 SECURE OUR GOD-GIVEN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO ENJOY “THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY.”
Policy List: 1.SEAL THE BORDER, AND STOP THE MIGRANT INVASION 2. CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY 3. END INFLATION, AND MAKE AMERICA AFFORDABLE AGAIN 4. MAKE AMERICA THE DOMINANT ENERGY PRODUCER IN THE WORLD, BY FAR! 5. STOP OUTSOURCING, AND TURN THE UNITED STATES INTO A MANUFACTURING SUPERPOWER 6. LARGE TAX CUTS FOR WORKERS, AND NO TAX ON TIPS! 7. DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND OUR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS 8. PREVENT WORLD WAR THREE, RESTORE PEACE IN EUROPE AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND BUILD A GREAT IRON DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY — ALL MADE IN AMERICA 9. END THE WEAPONIZATION OF GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 10. STOP THE MIGRANT CRIME EPIDEMIC, DEMOLISH THE FOREIGN DRUG CARTELS, CRUSH GANG VIOLENCE, AND LOCK UP VIOLENT OFFENDERS 11. REBUILD OUR CITIES, INCLUDING WASHINGTON DC, MAKING THEM SAFE, CLEAN, AND BEAUTIFUL AGAIN. 12. STRENGTHEN AND MODERNIZE OUR MILITARY, MAKING IT, WITHOUT QUESTION, THE STRONGEST AND MOST POWERFUL IN THE WORLD 13. KEEP THE U.S. DOLLAR AS THE WORLD’S RESERVE CURRENCY 14. FIGHT FOR AND PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH NO CUTS, INCLUDING NO CHANGES TO THE RETIREMENT AGE 15. CANCEL THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE MANDATE AND CUT COSTLY AND BURDENSOME REGULATIONS 16. CUT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ANY SCHOOL PUSHING CRITICAL RACE THEORY, RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY, AND OTHER INAPPROPRIATE RACIAL, SEXUAL, OR POLITICAL CONTENT ON OUR CHILDREN 17. KEEP MEN OUT OF WOMEN’S SPORTS 18. DEPORT PRO-HAMAS RADICALS AND MAKE OUR COLLEGE CAMPUSES SAFE AND PATRIOTIC AGAIN 19. SECURE OUR ELECTIONS, INCLUDING SAME DAY VOTING, VOTER IDENTIFICATION, PAPER BALLOTS, AND PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP 20. UNITE OUR COUNTRY BY BRINGING IT TO NEW AND RECORD LEVELS OF SUCCESS
Border: Title 42 authority in Title 8. Create an authority akin to the Title 42 Public Health authority that has been used during the COVID-19 pandemic to expel illegal aliens across the border immediately when certain non-health conditions are met, such as loss of operational control of the border. Mandatory appropriation for border wall system infrastructure. The monies appropriated would be used to fund the construction of additional border wall systems, technology, and personnel in strategic locations in accordance with the Border Security Improvement Plan (BSIP). l Appropriation for Port of Entry infrastructure. Border security is not addressed solely by systems in between the ports of entry. POEs require technology and physical upgrades as well as an influx of personnel to meet capacity demands and act as the literal gatekeepers for the country. This is the first line of defense against drug and human smuggling operations.
Border: Republicans offer an aggressive plan to stop the open-border policies that have opened the floodgates to a tidal wave of illegal Aliens, deadly drugs, and Migrant Crime. We will end the Invasion at the Southern Border, restore Law and Order,protect American Sovereignty, and deliver a Safe and Prosperous Future for all Americans. 1. Secure the Border Republicans will restore every Border Policy of the Trump administration and halt all releases of Illegal Aliens into the interior. We will complete the Border Wall, shift massive portions of Federal Law Enforcement to Immigration Enforcement, and use advanced technology to monitor and secure the Border. We will use all resources needed to stop the Invasion— including moving thousands of Troops currently stationed overseas to our own Southern Border. We will deploy the U.S. Navy to impose a full Fentanyl Blockade on the waters of our Region—boarding and inspecting ships to look for fentanyl and fentanyl precursors. Before we defend the Borders of Foreign Countries, we must first secure the Border of our Country. 2. Enforce Immigration Laws Republicans will strengthen ICE, increase penalties for illegal entry and overstaying Visas, and reinstate “Remain in Mexico” and other Policies that helped reduce Illegal Immigration by historic lows in President Trump’s first term. We will also invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove all known or suspected gang members, drug dealers, or cartel members from the United States, ending the scourge of Illegal Alien gang violence once and for all. We will bring back the Travel Ban, and use Title 42 to end the child trafficking crisis by returning all trafficked children to their families in their Home Countries immediately. 3. Begin Largest Deportation Program in American History President Trump and Republicans will reverse the Democrats’ destructive Open Borders Policies that have allowed criminal gangs and Illegal Aliens from around the World to roam the United States without consequences. The Republican Party is committed to sending Illegal Aliens back home and removing those who have violated our Laws. 4. Strict Vetting Republicans will use existing Federal Law to keep foreign Christian-hating Communists, Marxists, and Socialists out of America. Those who join our Country must love our Country. We will use extreme vetting to ensure that jihadists and jihadist sympathizers are not admitted.
JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us helpmake your publishing dreams a reality.
An amazing transformation has taken place with conservatives. They have a newfound appreciation for due process.
This from a group who decried legal loopholes (their old term for due process), decriminalizing marijuana (took money from the pocket of private prisons owners and donors), and activist judges who, they claim, threw aside precedent and made their own rules of criminal procedure (interpreted the law more favorably to those accused but not convicted.)
At first darkness enveloped the devoted when two different, unconnected, entirely independent yet obviously still corrupt courts found Mr. Trump civilly liable for sexual assault and slander and criminally guilty for trying to cover up the matter with false documents.
And then, lo and behold, they saw the light out of the darkness, e tenebris lux.
It had to be divine intervention.
The Supreme Court of the United States chose to abandon both the all equal under the law foundation of our jurisprudence and decades of precedent by granting presumptive immunity to official acts by a President.
This was immediately interpreted as full immunity for every action by Mr. Trump going back to just after his birth (which in some circles is believed to be the second divine human parthenogenesis in history.)
And then…
Judge Cannon, who several times before had her barely understandable decisions overturned on the simplest of grounds—she was wrong—snatched a single paragraph from a concurring opinion in the immunity case with no weight of law by the most jurisprudentially suspect Supreme Court Justice and dismissed one case against Mr. Trump, setting aside two centuries of precedent.
(Apologies for the preceding paragraph, but I was on a roll and too much punctuation would interfere.)
And this was perceived as brilliant justice. Due process at its finest.
And then…
With the rise of Vice President Kamala Harris as the presumptive nominee for President, the Trump campaign is now highlighting what they perceive as miscarriages of justice by Ms. Harris when she was AG in California.
The faithful are horrified and claim that Ms. Harris withheld evidence in a death penalty case that might free an innocent man. And that Ms. Harris was aware of failures within the state drug lab which led to dismissal of over one thousand cases.
Setting aside for the moment their fervent support for the death penalty which cases like this should cry out for abandoning as barbaric, they conveniently leave out relative information.
In 2001 when the post conviction relief motion was filed seeking the use of DNA to exonerate the defendant, most Attorneys General routinely objected to such motions. At that time, DNA was relatively new technology so the objection was more firmly grounded in letting the finding of the trial court stand.
Over time, prosecutors and the courts have embraced the value of DNA in all cases but none more than death penalty cases. Different times, different standards.
When the court granted the motion,the subsequent DNA test confirmed the defendant’s DNA at both scenes. Subsequent reviews over twenty years have affirmed the original verdict.
In the drug lab case, the lab was not run by Ms. Harris and she had no operational control over it. When the matter became known she dismissed the cases. Of course she argued against it initially. That’s what advocacy is. There are two sides to every issue. Once the court rendered a decision,she complied.
It remains to be seen if this jurisprudential enlightenment continues…but I doubt it. Watch what happens if Cannon gets overturned, again.
JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services. Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into reality.
TRUMP v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 23–939. Argued April 25, 2024—Decided July 1, 2024
With the recent 6-3 SCOTUS decision, or lack thereof, primarily consisting of waffling, sniveling, and babbling, the court has descended to depths of disingenuousness and dereliction of duty heretofore unimaginable.
The fact that there is a case before the court with a former President, we had a right to expect a brilliant and well articulated decision. It was anything but that. The dissenting opinions don’t just disagree on points of law, they sound a clarion call of an impending Constitutional disaster.
The case itself is compelling and consequential. If we genuinely desire equality under the law, this decision fails miserably. Anyone with any fundamental understanding of criminal matters would know that seeking an indictment against a former President or anyone of high political status must be based on the most solid evidence and criminal procedure. This is not partisan politics, this is a test of our national resolve for equity among all citizens regardless of status or station in life.
One does not go after a former President without thoughtful consideration, this case should have reinforced that everyone is the same under the law.
The fact that there has been legal maneuvering and appeals on appeals about the process, let alone a trial, should surprise no one. Although one might consider whether the average defendant would be afforded such latitude. This clearly is a peek into the inequities in the law. The courts seem to believe the veneer of being the former President confers special privileges, it should not when it comes to criminality.
Some men (in the universal sense) are more equal than others.
But the Supreme Court should be the last bastion against the politics that frequently corrupt the system.
It seemed a simple question. Is the President immune from prosecution from unlawful or corrupt acts committed while President?
Now, I would concede one limited level of immunity. A sitting President should never face criminal charges or civil liability while in office. In our zero-sum game of politics, corrupt individuals on both sides of the political spectrum would subvert the Courts to their own purpose by interfering with a President’s responsibilities.
Such a standard was already set by the court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) in which the court found,
“…a president “is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.” But the court also said this, “it is settled law that the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States.”
It is clear the court was talking about official actions taken in the course of Presidential duties. It is also clear the court recognized that unofficial actions, which one would think would include the commission of a crime, are not immune from external jurisdiction or protected by separation of powers.
The key word in all of this being “official.” What the court should have determined is does a criminal act by a President, committed while in office, ever constitute an “official act.” If so, does it carry the presumption of immunity once he is no longer in office. If the answer is no, go to trial. If the answer is yes, case closed. Although it would open a whole slew of other options for the current sitting President.
But there is one way to guarantee these cases reach a jury. Turn out in November and vote to ensure Mr. Trump does no further damage to the republic.
Joe Broadmeadow
A sitting President can only face impeachment. If those in the House and the Senate subvert the process through partisan politics, the peoples’ recourse is the ballot box.
However, once a President is out of office, he should face the consequences of any criminal acts. Especially ones directly impacting the peaceful transfer of power, the Congressional proceedings to certify the election, and the sanctity of the vote.
In the case before the court, they chose to muddy the difference between official acts and unofficial acts. Placing a presumption of immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts, leaving it to the trial court to determine whether the actions of the President met the definition of official or unofficial.
(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.” Majority Opinion, Roberts J.
Leaving a gaping hole in their decision. Here’s what has to happen, but we are not the ones to make that determination.
Why did they grant certiorari in the first place?
But like everything in the court’s decisions, the devil is in the details. The court claimed they offered guidance in this matter. One section of this guidance is this gem.
“Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.” Majority Opinion, Roberts. J.
What?
Let’s pick a generally applicable law, say US Code on Elections. Specifically, 52 U.S. Code § 20511 – Criminal penalties
(2) knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by— (A) the procurement or submission of voter registration applications that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held; or (B) the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held,
So, suppose a President violated this law by coercing a state official to “find” 11,000 votes. In that case, SCOTUS claims the court cannot deem this an unofficial act simply because it violates the law.
Double what?
And one Justice felt the need to go beyond just this presumption of immunity. You get nine guesses and the first eight don’t count.
Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion has this to say about the office of Special Counsel.
“I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2.
By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.
No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.” Concurring opinion, Thomas, J.
Clearly failing to convince the majority that the President should have absolute immunity, Thomas snuck in this malicious code to complicate matters further. It is nothing more than a backdoor way to delay the trial, provide an avenue of appeal to bring the case back to the court in the event of a conviction, and, should Mr. Trump be re-elected before the trials reach a jury, provide a roadmap to derail these cases entirely.
Mr. Trump wouldn’t have to grant himself a pardon; he could just have whatever lackey he chooses this time for the Attorney General claim the Office of Special Counsel is unconstitutional and disband it.
But all is not lost. The decision wounded the cases against the former President; it did not kill them. Even Justice Thomas recognizes the cases survive, much to his chagrin.
But there is one way to guarantee these cases reach a jury. Turn out in November and vote to ensure Mr. Trump does no further damage to the republic. We can then begin repairing the damage already done.
And if you’re hesitant about Mr. Biden, should he turn out to be the nominee, keep in mind what the country would look like after four more years of an incompetent charlatan and convicted felon occupying the Oval Office.
A convicted felon who now believes he has a get out of jail free card for life!
Meanwhile, we change the acronym SCOTUS to mean Supreme Cowards of the United States.
The Writing of Joe Broadmeadow 