Category Archives: politics

SCOTUS overstepping it’s authority

I have been thinking. (that is never good).

I am charging the judiciary with over stepping their article 3 rights into article 1 items.  I have seen where the judiciary has, where congress can not, created laws that are against the constitution. How is this happening? Simple, They get a case, judge it, then that judgment is used in all future cases as fact and standard. Yes this is called precedence gone amok.  Instead they should look at precedent as it is, someone else’s decision, a guide, not law.


If for example, You have a case that says you can not have a cross in a senate chamber, they decide that is true based on the 1st. they have just created a law that says freedom FROM religion. when in fact that law says that congress can not ESTABLISH a national religion, nor can they deny religion to those that want it.  Thus creating a LAW that says from now on you can not do that, no matter the legal argument later on, it just gets denied based on that precedent. they wont even look at it. thus bypassing congress and invoking article 2 powers, (congress makes the laws, the judicial enforces them) and bypassing congress.

This is totally unconstitutional.

Precedents should be used as to the manner they were prescribed. That is, as a guide, not fact. To do otherwise would be to make the judiciary greater than congress or the President.

a few rough notes on the Mueller report part 2

I read thru the Mueller report part 2 (didn’t have time for part 1), made some rough notes , well here they are.


talking points for report:

pres asking for loyaty(did this happen or was it just the MSM
pres asking comey not to investigate flynn supposedly
the pres asking comey to say publicly he wasnt under investigation
trump asking his doj people on status of russia investigation
firing comey
the lie about the adoption meeting.
some focus on his russia tower project that never went beyond a letter of intent.
trump saying he could get along well with russia.
dns servers hacked? or as I heard a thumb drive given to wl
disgraces cohen saying that trump said good when the  wl released

the discussion of talking points:
russia saying they were in contact with trump people?
report went on for pages about the flynn thing
Private meeting with comey, about flynn, and there is apparent substantial evidence? wiretaps? what evidence?
why was cohen really afraid to be alone with the president?
there seems to be a lot that depends on “press reports”
trump attempts to get rid of mueller as special council due to previous dealings . mcgahn refuses. and thinks of resigning. however, it appears that after that “order” the president took no actions against Mcgahn. if no action taken was it a direct order? no follow thru for failing to follow an order?

If sessions firing was about his recusal, why didnt the pres accept the letter that was offered. and required a new letter later? theres more behind this than the recusal.

a thought: we all know one of the presidents famous sayings is – your fired – so if all this was happening with his advisors not following thru on orders, was were none of them punished? the report shows one of 2 things, either a lot didnt actually happen? or that the president was not in control of his senior aids and lawyers.

on the june 9 meeting, the presidents efforts to obstruct the release of information appears to be primarily against the press and the public. knowing how the MSM likes to blow things up he wanted to avoid the press doing what it did. the emails were never supposed to see the light of public day. no attempt to withhold from congress or prosecutors evident.
trump moscow tower project, a nothing burger again. a canadate trying to pursue business with no deal in place other than a letter of intent. deal dropped prior to election. nothing.

a thought after reading the whole of vol 2, while there may have been an attempt? at obstruction there was no obstruction due to various factors. and that the evidence of the intent is specious at best in most cases.

Mr. Booker and Reparations

An Open Letter:

Mr Booker;

I write this in answer to your obvious pandering for votes in your call for reparations. Sir it is obvious that you are doing the usual politicians promise,  to promise something you will never be able to deliver. How do I come to this conclusion?

Two things.

First you can not charge a crime for something that was not a crime at the time.  This is what you are doing by saying that we have to pay for a crime that, at the time was not such.

Second, The constitution, which you swore an oath to serve and protect when you were given the job you have, specifically says there can not be reparations.  Yes that is in there.  In the ONLY crime that the constitution defines, and sets the baseline for all other crimes, Treason, specifically says there will be no corruption of blood. Do you know what that means? It means that No one other than the offender can be made to be punished for a crime.

I would advise you to get a copy of the constitution and read it before you call for more unconstitutional laws. I would note that this tack has been tried in almost every election to pander to the black vote, and has failed. The people are generally smarter than you think. Yes it might sound good, but it is not.

In case a hard copy of the Constitution is too much for you to carry, here is the link to the OFFICIAL online constitutional page.

A very dissatisfied resident of NJ.


some thoughts on the red flag law

So let me see if I got this right. I go and go thru the whole process that can take up to a year to get a rifle. I have spent in the order of 2500$ to go thru all this and acquire the weapon. My neighbor(who happens to be anti gun) sees me bring it home. This neighbor then goes to the magistrate and tells them that she is afraid of what I will do with the gun. That she is afraid of me. That I have threatened her in the past(in the course of just not getting along with your neighbor). Now with the red flag law, this magistrate issues a warrant to seize my gun and take any means needed to do so. All this without me knowing anything or even being able to defend myself or confront my accuser. Do I have this right so far????

This to me would break a few of our constitutional rights. First off are we not guaranteed the right that we are innocent until proven guilty? (the seizure of the gun would make it that I am already guilty with out a trial).

Ok so the 4th is taken care of, I will give you that, there was an oath that I was a danger by my neighbor and a warrant issued.

now as to the 5th amendment, has the grand jury been involved? Is the grand jury needed? after all you are charging me with an offense bad enough to take my gun.  Has there been the common due process that is required to deny me my property and my rights? NOPE!

now to the 6th. Prior to their taking, have I been informed of the charges and been able to face my accuser or defend myself from the charges? I don’t think so. I have not been given the ability to present witnesses or have legal representation.

The way this law SHOULD HAVE been written is:

Upon oath from an accuser the magistrate will issue a warrant for detention to have the person taken into custody and brought without delay to the magistrate for a hearing. This hearing will determine if the person is a danger to himself or others.  This is a just cause hearing. If upon determination of the magistrate a true finding of a danger to himself or others is found, only then will a warrant be issued to seize the property in question. and a further hearing will be scheduled giving enough time for all to gather evidence for the case.  If it is determined that the person is a danger then that person will be referred to professional help. If in the opinion of that professional the person is no longer a danger, upon application to the court , all rights and property will be returned.

A thought after NZ on Gun Control

I had a thought or two, just watching and observing.

It appears to me that there is a global effort to rid the free man of weapons. I have no clue by whom, and will not even venture there. From what I have seen over the last few years I have seen the same scenario play out in multiple countries. It typically goes something like, a ?crazy? gunman goes on a shooting spree taking out a bunch of people in some protected or vulnerable group. ex: school kids. And invariably we see a manifesto that is rambling and seems crazy that hits all kinds of talking points. Then with in hours we hear the war cry that typically goes – we must take away that weapon from everyone for the safety of the protected group.

The protected group in the USA was school kids. This tactic appears to have some moderate rate of success. We have seen in the States where multiple states have enacted what may be unconstitutional, bans on guns and accessories.  This has been going on for a number of years.

In New Zealand, we just had the one guy that shot up a mosque, and in doing so has accomplished a couple of things. First we saw the almost immediate war cry from the PM. (at her first presser after) She had called for the banning of guns within 2 hours of the shooting. never mind any investigation or anything. It was almost like it was a reflex.  Along with this expected call may have been yet another benefit for whom ever is coordinating this attack. That being, with all the hate and distrust of one group, it has caused a sudden change in attitude towards that group that makes them now “those poor people”. I will not get into some of the stuff I have seen about that mosque or other things that were going on,  as that would be a distraction from these thoughts.

In London we have seen that due to a small attack with a KNIFE (2 killed 5 injured, if I remember right), where they are now outlawing kitchen knives with out a permit? come on.

I have not put everything together yet, as I am too busy living my life. These are just some simple observations over a number of years. I can, at this time, not provide a solution or the root cause. I will not be like Alice, and go down a rabbit hole in search of answers. For that I leave it up to time and you to explain the 4 w’s and the answer.

NZ shooting, False flag?

Just a little free thinking here.

We are told that the NZ shooter visited Turkey and a few other Muslim countries.  We are also told that he acquired his 5 AR-15’s legally? we are told that he wrote a rambling manifesto. We are told that he picked NZ because it would be the last place anyone would expect it. We are shown what appears to be his weapons with all kinds of writing on them that is luney.

Do I appear to have the basics right so far?

Next we have heard that muslim immigrants to AU are being shipped to NZ. We are also told that there was an expected release of an ISIS terrorist into the population in NZ. We are shown Multiple attacks and violent acts by muslims in a bunch of countries.  We have seen many towns and countries ruling structure taken over by muslims.  We see the anger on both sides rising. We see the media not reporting that which is told to us by other means.

So far does this all seem to be correct?

Now a thought framed around 2 words – physiologic operations(physi-ops).

What if, based on a growing fear and a need to redirect the narrative, you are tasked to change the narrative?  How would you do it? Would you get a guy, train him(he obviously had some skills with the 15. 180 shots? in about 2 minutes? then knowing the gun would need a cleaning after that many rounds, simply gets a new one for the next batch? shooting someone and wounding them then walking up to them and shooting them in the head?). Would you either make the guy appear off his rocker or get one that is off his rocker a bit (as evidenced by his manifesto?). And then tell him to go out and shoot as many as you can based on a profile? sacrificing a few for the narrative of the many? Have the media report tales of heroic sacrifice (??proven or not??).

If this is indeed the case then It would appear to have worked as for the moment public opinion has turned like expected. What is to be the next step? Simple , Look at the rules in the book for these types of operations.

Like I said this is all a thought exersize with the few facts we have been shown. A big what if with no proofs. And now we see all the usual political stuff coming out. Like a call for more gun control… etc.

Your thoughts?



National Popular Vote

Is the National Popular Vote unconstitutional?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of February 2019, it has been adopted by eleven states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 172 electoral votes, which is 32.0% of the Electoral College and 63.7% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

By awarding the votes based on who ever gets more nationally this compact would virtually eliminate the electoral college. And allow 6 states to elect the President.

breakdown of Presidential Emergency order

Lets break this down

This part I am unsure of as the references don’t appear to match up. at least as far as my research.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),


this part says he is calling up the ready reserve regardless of any other authority(iow:states can not pull their troops)

hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States, and that section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretaries of the military departments concerned, subject to the direction of the Secretary of Defense in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force

this part lets him use military construction funds that haven’t been obligated yet.(allocated but not yet used). (for the simple folks this is like I am doing the house budget and put 50$ on the table for food, then you go and use 10$ for candy)

that the construction authority provided in section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments

As far as I can tell, the only thing I can find that would bother the states is that he is calling up the ready reserve without the states being able to say anything about it. If it were up to me as a judge, I would have to throw out the states claims as lacking standing.

Is the National Emergency Order right?

I sit here attempting to figure out if President Trumps latest National Emergency order is valid and right.

I went thru all the other such orders (58 of them) and found that in all but approx. 4, they all dealt with other countries. There was the 9/11 ones, and the ones about the elections. But all in all they mostly did not concern our nation directly.

in all but a couple it was restricting funds from other countries.

next I looked at the constitution.  and that was fuzzy on this.

It gives congress the power to raise revenue,

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;  

and to appropriate funds for such laws as they should pass.

“Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 9 – Limits on Congress

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

This last is where congress I would guess is fighting the President on his order. You see the constitution says no money can be drawn except by congress making a law.

The constitution gives the President executive power.  What does that entail? It does not say. The article describing the Presidency is very short.  Cornell law school Legal information institute shows that he can issue executive orders, which have the force of law but do not have to be approved by Congress. Now this next part is kinda fun and by this definition is where the President may have basis for his order, again this is from Cornell Law School.

Executive Orders

In times of emergency, the President can override Congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued numerous ones related to US involvement in World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order

Now what would constitute an emergency? We know that the past 4 Presidents have all declared a national emergency at the border. We also know that there is a war on drugs and terrorism(loosely legislated by Congress).

Websters defines it as :

1 : an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action

2 : an urgent need for assistance or relief
So by definition 2 we see we do have an emergency.  And it rises to a national emergency. All this time we have heard from everyone, if it is such an emergency, why did he not take action sooner? I think I can answer that. Mr Trump has an odd way to govern. He actually wants the people that should be doing a job to do a job. In this case congress.  He has let it go this long to prove that they will not do the job. Now since they have failed he is forced to take action to fix the problem.  He has said that he didn’t have to do this action, true. He didn’t have to take this action if he wanted to wait 20 years for it to maybe get done. But since this is wrecking this country it has to be fixed now.
Does congress have reason to fear that he is overriding their authority? Maybe.  Does this set a precedent for future Presidents to simply declare an emergency to get the laws they want? I don’t think so, as this situation has been declared by previous Presidents and has been in the past authorized by congress to fix. This order takes nothing from the citizens and protects them.  This order does not break the constitution. It uses the powers given by the constitution and congress.
So based on all this, yes I can support his decision to issue an national emergency order, that actually is in defense of the nation. If you can find how I have gone wrong or made a mistake in this logic, Please let me know




Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute

websters definition emergency :

The United States Constitution :


Dem Leaders Hate the People

Here is my take on this shutdown and the President opening government. Yes It is yet another opinion piece more than likely badly written.

What I saw was the President asking for a pittance.  The democratic leadership in their hate for him decided they were not going to give him anything he asked for, especially anything from his campaign promises. We have seen this time and time again, The President issues an EO, Dems immediately go to court to block. In comparison under Obama as far as I know NO EO was ever blocked.

Now today we have seen how much the Democratic leaders hate the “little people”. During the 35 day shutdown we consistently saw the President and the republicans try to make a deal. From the democratic side it was all no deal, we won’t even talk. Speaker Pelosi’s own words when asked if he opened it up would they deal? her answer a big fat – NO!!!!.

Yes we have seen all the planned releases from the left on how it is hurting people and all the sad and crying eyes on the news. We saw how TSA was starting to have issues with people not able to go to work.  We saw air traffic controllers starting to call out. We saw reports that the FBI was unable to do it’s job (but was able to get a swat team to arrest Mr Stone). We heard all about how people were suffering due to missed paychecks. We saw federal employees going to the food banks. (the left media made sure we, the public saw all this). BUT, did the left even attempt to deal? Nope. It was their way or the highway. they didn’t care how much everyone suffered. You see, this was Trumps shutdown after all. They had no hand in it at all.

The President saw all this too. He saw that we were getting to a tipping point where national security and safety was being impacted, and he made a decision.  He decided  that the people were more important than a political power play. He decided that the safety of the nation was more important. He saw that the left had no interest in the nation and didn’t care.  What is a President, who has more than just his political aspirations to do? Play a little poker and turn the story around. open it up,  show that the left doesn’t care and wait. Once the Democratic leadership shows that they are not even interested in coming to the table he will be able to pull out his ace in the hole. Yes we might see one or two meetings with low level democrats that are not even allowed to make any real deals show up to these meetings.  However you will not see the people from the left that can actually do something. At that point we will be back to where we were and it will all be on the left.

And why are we to be punished in this way by the left? Because they thought Hillary should have won and they hate Trump. And now they are looking to 2020 elections and thinking this will win them the day and the election. People have short memories as a whole, but after this game of cards, I think they will remember how bad the left tried to screw America.  I expect very little out of this lame duck congress for the next 2 years other than they will show us all how much they hate the people and the constitution.

Trump never wanted to be President, it is actually a step down for him. He only ran because he saw how bad the country was getting and wanted to fix it. He has always said “America First”. So, let’s see where this goes from here.  We will definitely see a lot of crowing from the left, and disappointment from the right. But I am of the camp, let’s wait and see and verify what you are actually seeing.

Here is the Presidents tweet on this –

I wish people would read or listen to my words on the Border Wall. This was in no way a concession. It was taking care of millions of people who were getting badly hurt by the Shutdown with the understanding that in 21 days, if no deal is done, it’s off to the races!