Cohen sentencing memo

I like others, sat and read the Cohen sentencing memo searching it and came up with this. not much in it. there were lengthy paragraphs about how he defrauded the banks, and the IRS, using his taxi medalians. then they had a section that the only way I could see the President implicated, 1 sentence. that sentence basically meant that the President said can you fix this, or fix this. and cohen, wanting to prove himself more than he was, said ok. cohen then “fixed”it (he thought of himself as a fixer). it does not mention that Trump had any knowledge of where the funds came from. it did say that Cohen was paid about a 1/2 million out of the campaign funds for legal services. and they tried to link the payments to the the legal service payments. They really played up the part of interfering with an election by not letting the public see something.(over played IMO). All in all it looked to me to be written by someone that was pissed they didnt get their way.


I am going to add this thought that I had today –

do you realize what else the Cohen memo showed? It showed a prosecutor that is hell bent on proving something no matter the facts. How? Look at the charges that have been filed so far. Cohen mostly charged with irs and bank fraud. why did the Mueller team look at these kind of things? they did a big dig to find other chargable actions to make cohen testify the way they wanted, and when he didnt or couldnt, they threw him to the wolves and told them, he didnt work out fry him up. This kind of prosecution leads one to think if anything they actually do get on Trump can not be suspect. that the means and methods used to bully the witnesses to testify the way they want are akin to water boarding.This makes the Mueller prosecution illegit.

Go ahead and try to change my mind.

New Jersey and gun rights

Just for fun, I was going through the New Jersey State Constitution and comparing it to the United States Constitution, and found an interesting item. In the New Jersey State Constitution there is no mention of guns. There is mention of the militia and how it is formed. But no mention of guns. Then going to the United States Constitution we find that nobody shall be refused the ability to own a weapon. Also in the United States Constitution we find that there is an article that states that anything in the United States Constitution is reserved for the feds anything that is not is reserved to the states and the people respectively.

Now going by that we find that any law that is created by the state on guns is unconstitutional. The state by United States Constitution can not regulate guns. As a matter of fact in the New Jersey Constitution we go to section 1 article 1 rights and privileges, and we read this
-all persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.-

So by all this reading on the constitutions, what have I come up with?  In my opinion the law  in New Jersey that says may issue is unconstitutional .the only permit you need is the Second Amendment.  And the only qualifications are that you are a citizen and not a felon .what will this little missive do ,nothing.  I know some fancy lawyer would put my argument to bed  and provided a  legal argument that would say that everything I’ve just stated is wrong .but that is okay, this was just an exercise in futility  and an exercise for the mind .

As always your comments are welcome.  and this may have seemed rambling , but , I am no lawyer.


On Acosta’s removal from the White House

We all know that Mr Acosta is a jerk. But this recent lawsuit is kinda worry some. What CNN has done is put in question everyone’s rights. They are suing on the grounds that due process was not used to remove his hard pass. let’s talk about the hard pass first. This is an instrument meant to facilitate entry into the White House. It allows the person to enter with out having to go thru normal entry procedures. (like the pass you use to get into your workplace.) And like the pass you use at work, It remains the property of the White House. The White House did not deny him the ability to enter the grounds using the normal visitor routine.

Ok, so now to the ruling. They said his due process rights were denied. ok. Let’s look at the amendment they are using –

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

First let us actually read it with punctuation. I will attempt to break it down in sections. This is the first part of it, showing all that is included in the thought.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

now the next ,AFTER the semi-colon.

; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.

then the next after the semi-colon.

; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This is the line they are using to promote this case. First, was his life deprived? or his liberty? or his property? nope. (the hard pass remains the property of the White House).  Next we get into what this statement is talking about. If you notice it says in a criminal case. Was there a criminal case here? Not that I heard. no police or law enforcement were called on him. So, according to this part there is no due process expected, is there? This case is equivalent to this:
I rent a house, I invite you in, we have a fight, I ask you to leave. Now according to this, my asking you to leave is now against due process.  Now think of it. Since courts use precedents to decide law,  we now have a decision that says you are within your rights to sue me because I asked you to leave my residence.

Does this sound right? Not to me.

In this case I would ask that the President follow thru on this lawsuit to ensure the protections that the rest us would enjoy.

To go further, we will stipulate that yes the White House is the peoples house. But for either you or I to go in it takes a number of things to happen. we must have an invite, be on a tour, all after a security check normally.  Has that right been taken from him? No. all that happened was his quick pass that allows him easy entry, was taken. He could still go thru the normal procedures to get in.

Your comments as always are welcome


on the 14th amendment

I am going to copy an article here as a start to the facts. then I will delve into the language and stuff.

From the website the daily signal, authored by hans von spakovsky. titled birthright citizenship: a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment.

  • What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.

    Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

    The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

    Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

    But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

    The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

    This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

    Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

    As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

    In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

    American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

    Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

    Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

    The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

    It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

    Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

    We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.

    Originally published by Fox News in 2011

  • Now to read the actual text (not the text they show you in the school books) –
  • 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let’s break it down. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does this mean according to the original framers? the main word to concentrate on is under the JURISDICTION.  Those are the key words. you see to be under the jurisdiction in this case means that you have no allegiance to a foreign land. If you come in to our country and have not declared your citizenship then you are not under our jurisdiction.

The principal authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment — Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio — elucidated the meaning of jurisdiction in those provisions. The point was to stress “complete” jurisdiction, as in “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

When the original framer of this amendment created it, he said it was not for any foreigner, thus the word jurisdiction.(paraphrased) this amendment was originally created to give slaves official citizenship. It was never meant to create what the recent courts have done. Since the recent courts have gone well past the original framers intentions, a new court can over turn.

Now for a little sideways look at the rest of section 1. (going out on a limb in logic here).

According to this…. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. a foreigner is not entitled to any of the protections of our laws or the protection of life, liberty and happiness. because as you see we have that pesky phrase again.  Or do we? well it might be interpreted like that, but the qualifier ,within it’s, so that means? in the country or territory? I can leave that one up to the lawyers. So you see it is all in the words and their meaning at the time as explained by the people that wrote them.

I am including a link to another article that helps understanding –



On the message they think the Kavenaugh hearing is sending

 We have by now all seen this meme –

Posted by Jd Copeland on Tuesday, October 2, 2018


posters are getting the message all wrong. the message isn’t that if your are assaulted you have no recourse. its more a message that if you are assaulted report it immediatly, if not to the cops , to your parents. It may still be a he said / she said. but it will be much more credible. The message is not to wait 30 years to report what you can’t remember right, but to report it immediatly when you remember every detail.

If it is reported it they will  be able to collect evidence that is essential in this kind of case. DNA is very important if raped or assaulted. This is the positive message that needs to get out there. No one is subject to violating your body in this manner or any other.

Please ladies, Do not make an assault on your person to be an embarrassment or shame. You were attacked and did not deserve it. On the other hand, Please do not bear false witness to destroy a man, as it only does wrong to all the other women out there that have actually been harmed.


Dr Ford and her accusation

I have seen a lot of responses to Dr Fords accusations. here is my opinion (not a trained anything, just life)

I am seeing a lot of how there are no real details. my explanation is that, Yes, something may have happened to her in the past, but, it’s not the way she is testifying.  Some Psychobabble here.

You have a traumatic event happen early in your life. you pretty much block it in your conscious mind. Later in life as you “remember” the details of what happened, your mind tries to fill in the blanks. the mind does not like disorder and holes. So it reaches out for any clue as to what it needs to fill in the details. 30 years later, your talking about the incident, you cant recall enough detail to make it right in your mind so you take and fill in the blanks with any clues you can get. you had a date that you got drunk with and he groped you, and you didn’t want to go that far, but because you liked that guy, your mind says no it wasn’t him. at this point you reach out in your subconscious to make it someone you don’t like. then because you can’t remember some other details your mind makes up a story based on your life experiences. You have gone to a lot of parties, and have fantasized about certain things. the mind says,ok, lets use all that to fill in the missing pieces.

So now you have gone from a date grope, to an assault at a party from a figure you would love to destroy. Don’t you love how the mind works? Is this scenario any less plausible than what you have heard from all the testimony and document releases?

Comments as always welcome.

booker censure

I want to congratulate Mr Booker, really I do.  He is a magician. He has mostly been able to use slight of hand to mostly confuse and redirect the majority of people. You see,  He was able to make a grandstand play with that whole sparticus stuff.  That threw everyone off of the real facts. Well I did say mostly. there were a few of us that were watching the right hand while the left hand was distracting everyone else. You may be interested in what the right hand was actually doing.

 The issue is not the data dump on thurs. that was declassified on thursday at 3 am by Mr Lee’s staff. The issue is ,while questioning the judge on weds. night he read into the public record in open hearing a document marked classified. He was warned about it. for those that want proof I offer this video and the following time marks –

Booker starts at about 10:56, at about 11:02 he reads the classified document, at about 11:18 Senator Lee tells us that that doc was classified.

So to you Mr Booker, I say great performance, but like on the Penn and Teller show, sorry you did not fool us.  And for that reason I am calling for your ouster from the senate. You see, we can not afford to have a man that would release trusted information to our enemies. And that sir is exactly what you have shown us you would do. If you have any semblance of honor you would resign right now.


Full Body Scanners?

I was watching the news again, (boring), and saw a piece about how Los Angeles is now deploying full body scanners. This bothers me. (not that I will ever be in California). The fact that they are now able to do a search without permission going against our Constitutional rights and get away with it?

4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How are we allowing a non invasive search with out a warrant? I realize this is in Ca. and they want socialism and damned the constitution, but, this could go other places.  Ever since 9/11 and before, we have been complacent and allowed for the slow erosion of our rights under the guise of security.

As any lawsuit that I might bring from my home state will be thrown out for reasons that I don’t live in the state, I am asking somebody in that state that is of thoughtful mind to file suit against this violation of our Constitutional Rights before it can spread.

What is next? A microphone hooked up to a computer in all public places to gather our private conversations? (who needs a warrant for a cell phone tap, just turn on the mic and listen in?) and then charge us with some inane crime just for saying something that was just a thought and never an action?

Murphy and guns?

Words taken directly from My “great” governor here in NJ on his gun control stance.

“Murphy said of the 485 gun deaths in New Jersey in 2016, 80 percent of those involved a gun that came from out of state.”

Is he actually saying that 80% or approx. 400 gun deaths were due to unlawful weapons? And this is the reason that those of us that are legal gun owners need even more restrictive gun controls?  And that will stop the criminals from shooting people? That will stop the trunk loads of unlawful weapons from coming into NJ? REALLY????????????

I think it is time for the gun lobby to do what the left just loves to do, file suit on NJ for disobeying the constitution. Mr Murphy you are going down a path that will lead to your impeachment for failure to follow your oath of office.


I have been seeing a lot of post about ABC’s  reboot of Rosanne. I did watch the 1st 2 shows the other day and was disappointed. I came away with the view that it was a veiled attempt by the left to make the right think it was a show for them. This could not be further from the truth.

As I watched I saw all sorts of progressive agendas being pushed. you see a 9 year old cross dressing, a mixed marriage. 2 divorced women, Darleene lost her job (supposedly due to ?Trump?) and moving back in. All the while the “conservative” parents, .Dan and Roseanne, being given no choice but to live with it in their own home.

Though Roseanne does seem to make fun of the left leaning agenda, she still  has to acquiesce to everyone else’s wishes. This appears to be a “we are the left and we are here to make a change and there is nothing you can do about it”  style show.  There are a lot of other symbols of this agenda pervasive thru out the show that are way too numerous to mention. The question most seem to be asking, will you watch ? I can only answer, NO!

This show is on the level of the indoctrination that we received from shows like the west wing and the secretary, that attempt to push the lefts agenda. In the case of the west wing it was to get a dem elected, in the case of the secretary it was to get Hillary elected. All feel good shows that try to program the public to do what the left want’s.

A little further note. the show also made gun owners to be irresponsible people. In it, Dan says he should go find his gun because he forgot where he hid it. next scene it has him finding it in the freezer in a empty tub of ice cream. Never mind the fact that all the gun owners I know of would have put it in a gun safe or lock box. just one more of the digs they made.