A nice idea and while we don’t believe the Founders were naive, it’s possible they never could have envisioned a press that mostly disregards their privilege as government watchdogs and would become blatant cheerleaders for one political party over another. The bias is obvious to the point of extreme journalist malpractice. The public is either given one side or not given relevant information at all, to the detriment of everything from civil discord to affecting election outcomes.

A bias, moreover, can be the foundation for investigative journalism. It may prompt the news organization to right a wrong and take up an unpopular cause. Thus, the job of journalists is not to stamp out bias. Rather, the journalist should learn how to manage it. And to do that, the journalist needs to become conscious of the biases at play in a given story and decide when they are appropriate and may be useful, and when they are inappropriate.
— American Press Institute

As a new reporter at the Guam Tribute in 1989, I was told by the newspaper’s editor, “It’s the job of the media to report the news; not incite it.” It’s NOT the job of the media to right wrongs or take up any cause. There should be NO biases, useful or inappropriate. It’s that kind of manipulative thinking that leads to bias-by-omission where, in one example, the medias (legacy and social) intentionally withheld pertinent information we later found swung an election.

A belated “My bad” doesn’t cut it, especially when these same people would be screaming bloody murder if it had happened to them.

The media’s First Amendment protection must be revisited as they have proven themselves undeserving. There are too many recent examples of false reporting and plagiarism that makes them unworthy of any kind of Constitutional privilege and protection. When they lie and are proven to have done so, especially when it damages individuals or groups, the aggrieved should be able to be sue until the offender offers genuine contrition; verbal and monetary. The fact they believe they alone can dictate what is fact and what is not, just because they say so, is obviously not what the Founders intended. “Misinformation” is the latest excuse they use to steer the public towards narratives the press and their preferred politicians desire.

So, let’s go there; declare the Constitution a “living document” and when the press is targeted, bites them in the ass, and costs them jobs, remind them we gave them what they wanted.

Due to a system they’ve set up, lawyers command exorbitant fees for their services and offer no guarantee of success. They’re portrayed as a higher class than the rest of us. One has to pass an exam in order to be admitted to most state bar associations in order to “practice” law in those states. Federal and state legislatures have voluntarily deferred legal status to state bars.

But there’s one major issue: bar associations are NOT official government agencies. Bar associations are nonprofits. If that sounds incredible and unbelievable, search for your state bar association and you’ll see a dot org in the URL after their name. Lawyers pay dues to be a member of a state bar. The bar has more of an obligation to protect lawyers than protect the public from lawyers.

Did you know that lawyers, in some states, are required to report (to a state Bar of Overseers) any fraud or illegal activities other lawyers are committing that violates their so-called “Rules of Professional Conduct”? When was the last time you’ve ever read a news report of a lawyer busting another lawyer? It very seldom happens so lawyers can hold their clients and opposition to standards they ignore for themselves while charging hundreds of dollars an hour for their time or attaching a generous percentage (contingency) against something they had no involvement in creating.

I was curious to what the Founders may have written in the Constitution regarding any rule or law that said you needed to have a lawyer with regards to a legal proceeding. I didn’t find anything, however the clear disdain they did have for lawyers is documented: the Founders wanted lawyers nowhere near the government process and for logical reasons. It’s a travesty that the very protection they put in place to protect the American people from lawyers… disappeared.

I DID find the following illuminating essay by William-Arthur Sassman II on Linkedin regarding the fraudulent status of lawyers in America.

ARE LAWYERS AND ATTORNEYS LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

Below, you’ll read an exhibit from a lawsuit that will explain in some detail the answer to that question and why no attorneys ever call-in to dispute that statement. (And, yes, at least a few attorneys do listen to Freedom’s Questions.)

Lawyers and Attorneys Are Not Licensed To Practice Law
Lawyer Deceptions
By Ben Gates August 03, 2006

THE NATURE OF LAWYER-CRAFT IN AMERICA AS PER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT;

The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239)

The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT! (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))

The “CERTIFICATE” from the State Supreme Court ONLY authorizes to practice Law “IN COURTS” as a member of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, can ONLY represent WARDS OF THE COURT, INFANTS, PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND (SEE CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM,VOLUME 7, SECTION 4.)

“CERTIFICATE” IS NOT A LICENSE to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM!!!

The “STATE BAR” CARD IS NOT A LICENSE!!! It is a”UNION DUES CARD”. The “BAR” is a “PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION”;
1. like the Actors’ Union, Painters’ Union, etc.
2. No other association, EVEN DOCTORS, issue their own license. ALL ARE ISSUED BY THE STATE.
3. The State Bar is a NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION – and dues must be current to sustain membership.

The State Bar is; an unconstitutional Monopoly. AN ILLEGAL CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE; Violates Article 2, Section 1, Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution.

There is NO POWER OR AUTHORITY for joining of Legislative, Judicial, or Executive within a state as the BAR is attempting. BAR members have invaded all branches of government and are attempting to control de jure government as agents of a foreign entity!

It is quite simple to see that a great fraud and conspiracy has been perpetrated on the people of America. The American Bar is an offshoot from London Lawyers’ Guild and was established by people with invasive monopolistic goals in mind. In 1909 they incorporated this TRAITOROUS group in the state of Illinois and had the State Legislature (which was under the control of lawyers) pass an unconstitutional law that only members of this powerful union of lawyers, called the ABA, could practice law and hold all the key positions in law enforcement and the making of laws. At that time, Illinois became an outlaw state and for all practical purposes, they seceded from the United States of America.

The BAR ASSOCIATION then sent organizers to all the other states and explained to the lawyers there how much more profitable and secure it would be for them, as lawyers, to join this union and be protected by its bylaws and cannons. They issued to the lawyers in each state a charter from the Illinois organization. California joined in 1927 and a few reluctant states and their lawyers waited until the 1930’s to join when the treasonous act became DE FACTO and the Citizen’s became captives. Under this system, the lawyers could guarantee prejudged decisions for the privileged class against the lower class.

This was all made possible by the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION to favor the right and have unlawfully substituted them in place of Constitutional Laws. The Constitution was written in plain English and the Statutes passed by Congress were also in plain English, with the intent of Congress how each law should be used and not the opinions of various Judges as the codes list. Any normal person can read the Constitution and Statutes and understand them without any trouble.

The public in California was shocked to learn that the State Government has no control or jurisdiction over the Bar Association or its members. The state does not accredit the law schools or hold Bar examinations. They do not issue state licenses to LAWYERS. The Bar Association accredits all the law schools, holds their private examinations and selects the students they will accept in their organization and issues them so-called license but keeps the fees for themselves. The Bar is the only one that can punish or disbar a Lawyer. They also select the lawyers that they consider qualified for Judgeships and various other offices in the State. Only the Bar Association or their designated committees can remove any of these lawyers from public office. The State Legislature will not change this system as they are also a designated committee of the Bar.

On August 21, 1984, Rose Bird, Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, another of the Bar Associations Judicial Committee’s, stated in essence that the Bar should determine the legality of all initiatives before they were allowed to go on the ballot. This is contrary to both State and Federal Constitutions, as well as the Laws of this Nation instituted By and For the People as a Sovereign UNITY of Independent States of We The People, not a fraudulent Corporate entity of Lawyers. This is a tremendous amount of power for a PRIVATE union that is incorporated and headquartered in Illinois to hold over the Citizens of California or any other state. The only recourse is through this initiative process and vote by the people.

After the Founding Fathers had formed the Constitution, outlining the laws as to the way our government was to be run, Thomas Jefferson said, in essence, “This proves that plain people, if given the chance, can enact laws and run a government as well as or better than royalty and the blue bloods of Europe.” The American people must stop thinking that lawyers are better than they are and can do a better job than they can before the courts of America. Under the Common Law and the Laws of America, no where is it expressly given for anyone to have the power or the right to form a Corporation. Corporations are given birth because of ignorance on the part of the American people and are operating under implied consent and power which they have usurped and otherwise stolen from the people. By RIGHT AND LAW THEY HAVE NO POWER, AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION, and must be put out of business by the good Citizens of America in their fight for FREEDOM.

The U.S. Constitution GUARANTEES to every state in this union a REPUBLICAN FORM of government. Any other form of government is FORBIDDEN. No public officer or branch of government can be limited to a RULING CLASS of any kind, or the states become ARISTOCRACIES and NOT republics. Also, the lawyers have made themselves 1st Class Citizens, where many public offices and branches of government are open to lawyers only. All other people are limited to only two branches of government and to only certain offices in those two branches of government, making all people who are non-lawyers into 2nd class subject citizens.

In a nation with 1,327,910 licensed attorneys and growing, can you name ONE that offers a money-back guarantee like legitimate businesses that care about customer satisfaction?

When the courts belong to the people, as the United States Constitution REQUIRES, (Article IV, Section 4, we the people, will NEVER rule against themselves.) In these Unconstitutional courts foreign tribunals (hoodlum centers), “men” in black dresses, that are Unconstitutional ROBES OF NOBILITY. (Article 1, Section 9 and 10) dispense a perverted ideology, where the people are terrorized by members of the BLACK ROBE CULT (lawyers and lawyer judges in the courtrooms).

The legislative branch of government does NOT have the Constitutional Power to issue Court Orders or any other kind of Orders to people, as a fiction court or a court/corporation for profit and gain cannot reach parity with a lawful man. ONLY presidents and governors have the Constitutional Power to grant PARDONS, but lawyers and lawyer-judges are unconstitutionally granting PARDONS with “immunity from prosecution.”

Citizens are not permitted to act like people in the courts. The Citizen (2nd class) is told that he does not know how to fill out fancy lawyer forms; that he is not trained in the law; that he does not know court rules and procedures; etc. This is Unconstitutional “lawyer system,” only HEARSAY SUBSTITUTES (lawyers) NOT under oath, have access to the fiction/for profit and gain courts, even though ONLY sworn testimony and evidence can be presented in court. Anything else is Bill of Attainder, NOT permitted under the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Sections 9 and 10). The U.S. Constitution does NOT give anyone the right to a lawyer or the right to counsel, or the right to any other HEARSAY SUBSTITUTE. The 6th Amendment is very SPECIFIC, that the accused ONLY has the right to the ASSISTANCE of counsel and this ASSISTANCE of counsel CAN BE ANYONE THE ACCUSED CHOOSES WITHOUT LIMITATION.

With that, everyday terms we’ve also heard like “statute of limitations” are also unconstitutional. If you think about it, who would be best protected by such a statute created by the law profession that would have malfeasance or illegal activity not revisited if belatedly discovered?

The affected elite and/or lawyers…?

The 14th Amendment is very concise and clear.

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.

There is nothing that says if an act is not detected and/or acted upon within a certain time frame, it’s like it never happened. The Constitution makes no mention of a “statute of limitations”. This is just another bar creation we’ve all been fraudulently conditioned to accept.

LAWYERS and LAWYER-JUDGES: Created Unconstitutional “lawyer system” pre-trial “motions” and “Hearings” to have eternal EXTORTIONISTIC litigation’s, which is BARRATRY and also is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, as this places defendants in DOUBLE JEOPARDY a hundred times over. Defendants only have a right to A TRIAL (singular), NOT TRIALS (plural.)

When a criminal is freed on a TECHNICALITY, HE IS FREED BECAUSE OF A FIX and a PAY-OFF, as a defendant can only be freed if found innocent BY A JURY NOT BY ANY “TECHNICALITY.” Whenever a lawyer is involved in a case directly or indirectly, as a litigant or assisting in counsel, ALL LAWYER-JUDGES HAVE TO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES, AS THERE CANNOT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL and also there would be a violation of the conflict of interest laws, along with the violation of separation of powers and checks and balances, because “OFFICERS” OF THE COURT ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BENCH. These same LAWYER-JUDGES are awarding or approving LAWYER FEES, directly and indirectly, amounting to BILLIONS OF DOLLARS annually, all in violation of conflict of interest laws. As long as there are lawyers, there will never be any law, constitution or justice. There will only be MOB RULE, RULE BY A MOB OF LAWYERS.

CASE “LAW” IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

As CASE “LAW” IS ENACTED BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

When a lawyer-judge instructs, directs, or gives orders to a jury, the lawyer-judge is TAMPERING WITH THE JURY. He also tampers with testimony when he orders the answers to be either “Yes” or “No.” The lawyer-judge also tampers, fixes, and rigs the trial when he orders anything stricken from the record, or when he “rules” certain evidence and the truth to be inadmissible. This makes the trial and transcript FIXED and RIGGED, because the jury does not hear the REAL TRUTH and ALL THE FACTS. Juries are made into puppets by the lawyers and lawyer-judges. All lawyers are automatically in the judicial branch of government, as they have the Unconstitutional TITLE OF NOBILITY (Article 1, Section 9 and 10), “Officer of the court.” Citizens have to be elected or hired to be in any branch of government but non-lawyer Citizens are limited to only 2 of the 3 branches of government. Lawyers as 1st class citizens, can be hired or elected to any of the three branches of government. Lawyers, “Officers of the Court,” in the Judicial Branch, are Unconstitutionally in 2 branches of government AT THE SAME TIME whenever they are hired or elected to the executive or legislative branches. This is a violation of the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the conflict of interest laws.

District attorneys and State’s attorneys have taken over the Grand Juries FROM the people, where the people are DENIED ACCESS to the grand juries when they attempt to present evidence of crimes committed in the courtrooms by the lawyers and lawyer-judges. The U.S. Constitution, being the Supreme Fundamental Law, is not and CANNOT be ambiguous as to be interpreted, or it would be a worthless piece of paper and we would have millions of interpretations (Unconstitutional amendments) instead of the few we have now. That is why all judges and public servants are SWORN TO SUPPORT the U.S. Constitution, NOT interpret it.

Under INTERNATIONAL ORDERS: ALL LAWYERS, whether they left law school yesterday or 50 years ago, are EXACTLY THE SAME. All lawyers have to file the same motions and follow the same procedures in using the same Unconstitutional “lawyer system”. In probate, the lawyers place themselves in everyone’s will and estate. When there are minor children as heirs, the lawyer-judges appoint a lawyer (a child molesting Fagin) for EACH CHILD and, at times, the lawyer fees EXCEED the total amount of the estate. An OUTRAGEOUS amount of TAX “MONEY” is directly and indirectly STOLEN BY LAWYERS. Money that is budgeted to County Boards, School Boards and other local and federal agencies eventually finds its way into the pockets of lawyers, as ALL of these agencies are “TRICKED” and “FORCED” into ETERNAL EXTORTIONISTIC LITIGATION.

What’s interesting was one comment (from a butthurt lawyer) on Linkedin was adamant against the writer because HE couldn’t find a link for a case mentioned included in the post. We found it; how much would he charge for incorrect advice? Also interesting was the silence from the lawyer class that has profiles on the platform.

It would be nice if a non-lawyer politician would look into correcting this.

Unfortunately this will not happen any time soon because too many politicians are lawyers, hundred of thousands of cases would have to be revisited to verify Constitutionality, and worst of all; the opulent lifestyles of campaign donors would be put in financial peril.

We can’t have that, right?

One can understand why they are in fear of the people. We don’t hold them with the esteem they expect anymore because we have documented good reasons not to believe or trust them.

1. Incompetence

There are roughly 535 congresspersons and senators on Capitol Hill representing the citizens of the United States. One would think, in a country of 332.5 million people (non including the unknown growing number of illegal aliens), it would be easy to find exceptional citizens to become our elected. But when you can easily find a fifth-grader who’d never believe putting soldiers on a small Pacific island would make it tip over or would be astonished by the revelation that plants come from dirt, yet some of today’s officeholders really are that stupid and the competency of the elected class can rightfully be called into question.

2. Blowing Off The People

Americans are justified to question the motivations of politicians who campaign as those who’ll represent the sentiments of their constituents while their votes on important pieces of legislation is, in many cases, a total opposite to the will of their people.

The latest example is a vote in the United States Senate….

Senate Democrats failed to secure enough votes Monday to move forward with legislation that would codify Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision giving women a right to an abortion up until viability. In a 48-46 vote, the legislation failed to meet the 60-vote threshold.
— Washington Times, 3/1/22

How can slightly less than half of politicians honestly claim to be representing their constituents on a topic while a supermajority of the people clearly disagree with them?

A survey conducted by You.gov with the pro-life group Americans United for Life found that 66 percent of U.S. adults who identify as pro-choice opposed third-trimester abortions, and 68 percent oppose abortions the day before a baby is born. As expected, the opposition was stronger among all adults surveyed: 79 percent rejected late-term abortion, and 80 percent opposed day-before-birth abortion.
— Associated Press, 2/12/19

Seeing how a good number of congressmen and senators are documented, functioning morons, the excuse can’t easily be made that they’re more informed than their voters. It could be that politicians are primarily introducing and voting on legislation favored by those squeaky wheel-types who contribute generously to their campaigns as we all know money is their primary driving motivation.

Seriously, whom would you trust with an economy? Politicians, some of whom have minimal work experience (if any) in the private sector, or a successful businessman who’s actually met a payroll? Well, this question can be answered with a clear contrast of results that Americans will have to endure until at least January 2025.

3. Crooks…

It’s often mused how the elected on Capitol Hill earn around $177k annually but within a few short years emerge as millionaires: a feat more Americans would love to be able to achieve… legally. There are many reasons but among the top is the legal practice of insider training.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) on Monday requested that the Senate Select Committee on Ethics probe Blumenthal’s sale of Robinhood shares worth up to $2.5 million. Blumenthal, one of the wealthiest members of the Senate, failed to disclose the trades within the 45 days required under federal law, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
— Washington Free Beacon, 2/28/22

 A politician who knows legislation he or she may introduce in two days, can buy or sell affected stock tomorrow which can result in a monetary personal windfall. The practice, which is illegal for private citizens, was publicly exposed in 2011, and was basically blown off by politicians to this day.

In a Tuesday complaint, The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) called for the inspector general to immediately investigate Biden Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm for potentially violating federal conflict of interest and transparency laws by improperly reporting up to $250,000 in stock transactions.
— Fox News, 2/15/22

And we won’t even get into the escapades of politicians who routinely break federal campaign finance rules only to be cleared by partisan judges, or selling out the nation in favor of well-funded lobbyists, foreign and domestic. Not like it’s a close-to-the-vest secret.

“The best thing money can buy is American officials, because they are the cheapest of the cheapest-costing officials in the world.”
— Kuwati-born Canadian businessman Alan Bender, quoting Qatari officials

Probably “cheapest” because many of our elected are too stupid to know what their positions of influence are really worth (see #1).

4. … and Liars

It’s ironic that so many on the Democrat left, to this day, call Donald Trump every iteration of a liar while he’s also the only elected politician (in recent memory) who actually kept every one of his presidential campaign promises.

Meanwhile certain politicians told lies that had profound monetary ramifications for millions of Americans.

Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’
President Barack Obama said — many times — of his landmark new law. But the promise was impossible to keep. So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans, the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong. A Pew Research/USA Today poll conducted Dec. 3-8 found the percentage of people viewing Obama as “not trustworthy” has risen 15 points over the course of the year, from 30 percent to 45 percent.
— Politifact, 12/12/13

The lie, that also resulted in significant increases in health care premiums and deductibles for Americans, was admired in the partisan media as politically clever and effective.

But remember those Republicans who pleaded for Americans to give them the House so they could “repeal and replace” that piece of troublesome legislation (while knowing they wouldn’t have the veto-proof majority to do so). A few years later those same Republicans pleaded with Americans to give them the Senate so they could “repeal and replace” the legislation (while knowing they wouldn’t have the veto-proof majority to do so), and later pleaded with Americans to give them the presidency so they could “repeal and replace” the legislation. Once they got all they asked for, they sent a lame “alternative” to the president that neither repealed or really replaced Obamacare.

That’s why very, very few believe anything politicians tell them and that won’t change anytime soon.

5. They Remind Us They’re Special

More like they arrogantly rub it in our faces.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, politicians acted as though they really cared about the health and welfare of the American people. Governors and mayors shutdown their economies, ordering businesses to close and throwing millions into a temporary state of unemployment. But while Americans were reminded “We’re all in this together”, politicians made sure they and their employees’ personal taxpayer-funded paychecks would continue to be dispersed uninterrupted to this day.

And despite the politically-fluctuating “science” of masks and the need to wear them inside-and-outdoors, politicians and their friends and family members were repeatedly caught breaking the rules they mercilessly mandated on those they claim to serve. Despite the initial outrage, they came up with lame apologies, justification, and rode out the controversy. None of them have lost jobs despite the blatant hypocrisy because they’re special and want us to know it.

But that also translated to the politically-connected celebrity class who enjoyed special status when it came to the blow off of mask mandates at their award ceremonies, red carpets, and parties. These are the same people who went batshit crazy about the impertinent unvaccinated while enjoying lavish maskless soirées where the masked help needed to keep their germs to themselves.

What seems to have angered the elite most is the fact that they were called out on their hypocrisy. Note how there’s not been ONE piece of legislation addressing politicians who break the rules they impose on their citizens.

Because they’re special and they want us all to know it.

6. Peaceful Protest is Now ‘Insurrection’

There was a time when the left patted themselves on the back while encouraging taking it to “the man”. Protests were considered patriotic free speech.

That officially changed in 2009 when Republicans, Democrats and independents took to Washington, D.C. in opposition to Obamacare because they were Taxed Enough Already. The Democrats counted on the media to label protesters as conservatives and the Tea Party became a right wing thorn in their side. The problem was that these weren’t normal protesters the left was used to: they were always peaceful, never destroyed local areas and businesses, and the rally area was normally left cleaner than when they arrived. In fact, the only time when Tea Party rallies were interrupted by any semblance of violence was when liberal “counterprotesters” showed up on the scene.

Most conservatives have condemned the right-wing mob that assaulted the U.S. Capitol. But 10 years ago, Democrats embraced the left-wing mob that occupied the state Capitol in Madison. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the occupiers for an “impressive show of democracy in action” and tweeted as they assaulted the Capitol that she continued “to stand in solidarity” with the union activists. In other words, Democrats were for occupying capitols before they were against it.
— Washington Post, 1/14/21

After a previous summer where liberals justified looting and burning cities, resulting in injuries, deaths, and billions in public and private property damage, the Capitol Hill riot was called the “greatest threat to our democracy” since 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, who could protest (and why) changed on January 6, 2021. Now, any kind of peaceful dissent is called “insurrection”; a violent attempt to overthrow the government. Let’s not forget parts of the pesky run-on sentence that interferes with politicians having the ability to really come down hard on their petulant dissenters.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Imagine what the power-tripping elected could do to protesters if it weren’t for the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

We could be treated like Canadians!

7. Politician Self-Preservation

It’s no wonder why the disdain for the political class is so high and why (as of this posting) 31 Democrats have decided it’s not worth trying to run for reelection in November 2022. But it’s not only for the reasons you may think.

Between now and the midterms, politicians have to raise millions of campaign dollars to try and hold their seats. If they lose, it’s harder to go back to a well-connected donor and get hooked up for a really good paying job they’re probably unqualified to perform. But if they drop out early, there’s lots of time to approach those who were helped in the past and cash in without any new reelection solicitations. And if anyone in the media pays attention after the midterm election, we’ll see that most Democrats who’ve jumped the Biden ship will land softly because their taxpayer-funded, lifelong pension benefit of $139,200 just won’t be enough.

8. The Enemy

The political class has declared anyone who opposes them as enemies of democracy.

That includes Americans from parents to veterans. While millions of people illegally cross our southern border for a variety of reasons including possible terror motivations, Democrat politicians have unleashed federal agencies on the petulant who question school boards, vaccine and mask mandates, and veterans who’ve honorably served our nation and are aghast that their sacrifices to defend the Constitution and those who are supposed to uphold it have been for naught.

Too many, who are quick to send our sons and daughters into conflict, did everything they could to avoid serving themselves. While many point to Donald Trump’s deferments from service, they conveniently decline to mention the current Commander-in-Chief who obtained more than twice Trump’s. And we also have those who either embellished or made up service just to get election props.

9. Trust (or the lack thereof)

It’s really quite simple.

We can’t trust the word of most politicians and they know it.
We can’t trust the legacy media and they know it.
We can’t trust Big Tech and they know it.
We can’t trust federal intelligence, law enforcement, health agencies and they know it.

It all comes to a near-total breakdown of trust in many so areas and if that’s “anti-government”, it’s no one’s fault but the politicians, media, Big Tech types who’ve been caught lying and adding insult it injury, they callously inflict pain on those they’re supposed to be serving and shield themselves from the inconvenient ramifications.

When the people decide to speak out, they’re called insurrectionist, a threat to democracy, while making themselves victims who quickly cower in pitiful displays of cowardice. It sucks to experience what their “defund the police” policies inflicted on millions of innocent Americans.

The next two elections can’t come fast enough

In simpler words, Joe Biden won the election, there was no cheating, the “media” said so; shut the fuck up… or else.

Dominion Voting Systems is even going as far as issuing million dollar lawsuits against anyone who dare imply their machines did anything to alter the solemn votes of Americans in favor of one candidate over another.

Lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems have asked Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Parler to preserve posts about the company, even if the material was already removed for spreading misinformation.

The posts need to be kept “because they are relevant to Dominion’s defamation claims relating to false accusations that Dominion rigged the 2020 election,” according to the demand letters from Dominion’s law firm Clare Locke. Dominion sued Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sidney Powell for more than $1.3 billion each in January, alleging that the lawyers defamed Dominion by saying the machines were used to steal the election from President Donald Trump.

Dominion warned in its letters to the social media companies that more lawsuits would be coming.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all have policies against spreading election-related misinformation. They have been removing — with varying degrees of success — posts falsely suggesting the election had been rigged since the baseless rumors began spreading in November. Parler was effectively knocked offline in January when Amazon, Apple and Google stopped providing it technical services for violating their policies against online posts that incite violence.
— Washington Post, 2/4/21

If ANY mention of voting machine “irregularities” can and will be met with a lawsuit, why are voting machines being blamed for an election loss?

Respondent the Oswego County Board of Elections (“Oswego County”) encountered “voting machine issues in Constantia Districts 1 and 3 and Williamstown,” which required all ballots cast to be “hand counted and added to the machine totals in those election districts.”

In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes, (supra at 4), and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi, (id.).
— Memorandum in Support of Proposed Order to Show Cause of Respondent Anthony Brindisi, Perkins Coie LLP, 2/1/21

Upstate New York’s Oswego County uses voting machines and software provided by IMAGECAST®.

Who makes IMAGECAST® machines and software?

Uh oh.

And what lawyer, who values his or her license to practice and speak freely, would risk it all to imply a Dominion voting system provided problematic results in an election?

Marc Elias, the election lawyer who represented Democratic challenges to state rules throughout the 2020 election, alleged in a court filing this week that a close congressional race in upstate New York was marred by faulty voting machines.

In the congressional race for New York’s 22nd district, Republican Claudia Tenney currently leads incumbent Democrat Anthony Brindisi by a razor-thin margin of 125 votes. Tenney declared victory on Tuesday, though challenges continue. In a legal filing Monday requesting a manual audit of the election, Elias, whose Perkins Coie law firm is representing Brindisi, argued that there were “substantial errors and irregularities in the conduct of the election.”

Citing alleged discrepancies between votes counted by hand and votes counted by ballot machines, Elias argued that the error rate, extrapolated across the entire district, could mean that thousands of votes were improperly counted by the machines.

Marc Elias has made a nice living casting doubt and trying to overturn the results of elections; ONLY elections where the Democrat lost.

Elias is also representing defeated Democrat Rita Hart in Iowa’s 1st congressional district, who lost by six votes to Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller Meeks (R-IA). He is asking the Democrat-controlled House to overturn the result of the election and seat Hart, despite certification of the vote by state election authorities, bypassing Iowa courts in the process.

In addition, as Breitbart News has noted, “Elias was responsible for hiring opposition research firm Fusion GPS, on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, [which produced] the fraudulent “Russia dossier” on then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016.”
— Breitbart, 2/3/21

Of course, and as usual, the hypocrisy is in your face.

If you’re a Democrat who lost a race in 2020 due to voting irregularities with a Dominion voting machine, everything necessary can and will be done to overturn the results of that election with no fear of media criticism and legal repercussion on the horizon.

However, if you’re a Republican who makes similar claims and dares mention Dominion, you will be publicly labeled a kook sharing fact-checked and debunked misinformation, be banished from social media and sued into oblivion.

Welcome to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, circa 2020-21.

Many of us have been sitting uneasy while being consistently and gleefully taunted by the left of the legal “losses” by Trump campaign lawyers and cases brought to courts by Lin Wood and Sidney Powell. But good defense lawyers don’t always go for the win; they try to hang a jury with reasonable doubt.

Thanks to a media that depends on the ignorance of their consumers, it’s believed the Trump strategy is to flip states that voted for Joe Biden. That may not be the sole objective. Instead of going from blue to red, the goal may be to get the electors to not certify their state for any candidate. That would mean the Electoral College votes would not go to either candidate and in the case of states where Biden was declared the winner by the media*, his vote count would be reduced and as Fareed Zakaria reminded us in September, it would bring both candidates below the required 270 votes needed to outright win the presidency.

According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives settles the matter. Of course, the ignorant left would be reassured Biden would win because the Democrats control the House, but hold on.

That’s not how it works….

Instead of a full vote among House members, each state is awarded one vote and seeing how there are currently more Republican-controlled states than Democrat states, that vote will fall in President Trump’s favor and he would win a second term.

So, tolerate the minutia and collateral damage (on both sides) for the time being: the drama over voting machines and “spikes”, count irregularities, public hearings and pundit hand-wringing that we don’t just bend over and accept the election result they prefer. That’s all being compiled for the long-overdue Democrat coup d’état-deep state-swamp-fake news media reckoning.

For now, it’s all being accumulated to create reasonable doubt and give electors the cover required to do the Constitutional thing.

Over the years, we’ve seen many displays of what could be considered obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, indecent language, suggestions or proposals of an obscene nature, and threats of illegal or immoral acts. Whether those displays originate online or at public protests, the left is the most egregious of offenders, they’re proud of it and consider such First Amendment-protected free speech.

When a bully gets a taste of his or her own medicine, that bully usually backs down. That is unless we’re talking about an aggressive Democrat majority in Virginia who now deams offensive speech issued towards them something that should be treated as an act of  criminality.

Included in House Bill No. 1627, offered January 16, 2020 by Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne (D-Richmond)….

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
— § 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty

Public officials, candidates, government employees can and have called taxpaying constituents everything from stupid, uninformed, racists, haters, fascists, religious bigots, homophobes and worse, but the thought of someone calling them something mean could soon become a criminal offense punishable by up to 12 months in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.

Virginia Democrats appear to believe the citizenry must show them due reverence and respect they believe they (as “public servants”) are due, and we may soon have our First Amendment right of free speech criminalized when it comes time for any kind of Constitutionally protected dissent. And let’s be real, while we all have our crazies, liberals are far and away more rude, obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, publicly display indecent language, making suggestions or proposals of an obscene nature (i.e. “fuck yourself”) than anything you’ll see or hear at a conservative and/or Republican gathering.

And as is the ongoing pattern, overreaching Democrats will high five themselves when H.B. 1627 passes but seeing how politics IS cyclical, there will be a Republican majority in Virginia again and these same Democrats will be whining how their inability to hurl an insult is a violation of their freedom of speech.

Well, until Democrats demand future Republicans repeal that law, fuck you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— United States Constitution, Amendment I

The “right of the people peaceably to assemble” is obviously interpreted today as the right to protest, but when that phrase is also referred-to in conjunction with the “right of association”, all fingers appear to point back to the 1st Amendment.

“It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech…. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.” It would appear from the Court’s opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment.
— Find Law, Right of Association

So, it’s kind of settled that Americans have the right to be around people we like for a myriad of reasons, but nowhere in the straightforward language of the 1st Amendment does it say anything about protections from being around people we don’t. We’re subject to being around people we don’t like every time we leave the house. Granted, we can obtain restraining orders to keep people who’ve committed legally-proven degrees of unlawful activities against another person, but after that we kinda’ have to suck it up and have people around us we may not have chosen to be with.

While it’s easy to steer clear of people we may not want to associate with in public places, there are also places where a certain amount of tolerance is required. In a movie theater, a bar, a sporting event, the workplace, and Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner….

 
When it comes to the workplace, as long as people act in a professional manner and the tasks are completed to the satisfaction of the employer, all should be all well and good.

However, anyone who’s worked in Hollywood, Washington D.C., Silicon Valley, New York City, almost every education establishment, or anywhere liberals collect in large enclaves, there’s an unwritten rule that’s not so unwritten anymore: if you’re not a Democrat, you had best keep your ideology secret, or else. That “or else” can range from public harassment to termination, despite your not doing anything fireable.

Vince Vaughn faces liberal outrage after he was seen with Trump during national championship game

In some cases, that conservative and/or Republican can’t have anything that verifies his or her preference, even if not verbally stated. Social media posts can do-in a prospective Republican employee from gaining employment.

If you were to replace the words “Republican” or “conservative” in the paragraph above with “liberal”, “progressive”, “Democrat”, “black”, “woman”, “gay”, “handicapped”, “Muslim” etc., you’d be talking about serious social media backlash and the very real prospect of prosecution for civil rights violations.

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status and national origin.
— Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division

But for some reason, liberal Democrats feel empowered to discriminate against anyone they discover is a Republican, are free to verbally harass and even do anything and everything to get that Republican terminated. If they have any say in the hiring process, they have no problem not even considering a qualified conservative just because of who they support and vote for.

I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.
— Barack Obama, Elko, Nevada, 9/18/08

There are serious monetary ramifications for workplace discrimination. Aside from the tense atmosphere, blacklists are created and enforced with impunity. That can result in the obvious negative financial issues for someone who was one day gainfully employed and a valued employee to someone who now can’t find a similar job in their immediate industry despite experience and professionalism. Those ramifications include possible loss of car, home, marriage, and more; losses not considered when gleefully ridding the workplace of someone that doesn’t think the way tolerant liberals demand.

And let’s not forget the opposite when it comes to political discrimination: political nepotism and official favors for the obviously unqualified but well connected.

In many parts of the world, the children of powerful political figures go into business and profit handsomely, not necessarily because they are good at it, but because people want to curry favor with their influential parents. This is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. But for relatives of some prominent political families, we may already be talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
— Peter Schweizer

Political discrimination is NOT considered a civil rights violation because mostly liberal Democrats do it. It should be considered a criminal act way beyond protected political speech, especially when it’s used as a club far removed from the ballot box. The harm caused is more than hurt feelings but real world damage that can last days, weeks, even years while any recovery can be relatively disproportionate.

As it’s something he’s obviously experienced, hopefully this is something President Trump can address down the road.

UPDATE

If you think the environment in the federal workplace is bad enough, here’s something to contemplate should Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election….

Let’s break it down, just based on the very United States Constitution our politicians swore to uphold when they assumed their various offices.

The 1st Amendment is violated in that the entire process can start from a badly worded opinion on a social media post taken out of context or an argument with a family member that disagrees with your political views which can then escalate to legal actions based on speech.

Given current events and the tendencies of some to weaponize law enforcement purely for partisan yucks, it’s more than easy for anyone to sic the police on you, setting in motion a series of events that can get ugly and quick. It doesn’t even have to be some anonymous pro-Democrat family member or punk that can get you in trouble.

You take your kid in to the pediatrician and the pediatrician says, “Oh, there’s a history of mental illness in your family, and guns in your house! Hang on a minute while I call the authorities.” They call authorities, they come over, the red flag law’s in place, guess what? In this case, take your gun because you have a mentally ill child in your house. This is what they’re gonna do. Do not doubt me. This is the objective of red flag laws.
— Rush Limbaugh, 8/6/19

The possible scenarios are abundant and are only limited by the imagination and/or ill will of the provocateur.

The 2nd Amendment is violated by confiscating lawfully owned guns from law abiding citizens without due process.

Think about it: you have your rightfully purchased and registered firearm taken from you even if you didn’t do anything wrong.

Democrat dream scenario, we know….

“Red flag laws” now being proposed to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable persons will actually legitimize and institutionalize “swatting.” Such laws will enable anyone, anywhere, essentially to call down a police raid on another person, no matter how spurious the “evidence” of mental instability, for the purpose of seizing the “unstable” person’s firearms.
— American Thinker, 8/9/19

Lest you require a refresher, “swatting” is a so-called prank.

Swatting is an internet prank/crime where someone finds your address either through your IP or because your name and location is known. Then they call 911 anonymously and report a fake emergency. Example, someone can call and say that someone at that address is being held at a gun point or someone is going to commit suicide and a SWAT team would be dispatched to the address.

It’s becoming a trend, it is only a matter of time before somebody gets killed.
— Urban Dictionary

Very few have died as a result of being swatted, that is until the political mechanism got involved. Funny how that happens… again.

Doubts about the legality and Constitutionality of this should also be a no-brainer.

The 4th Amendment is violated through unlawful search and seizure, not only of the respondents home, but also of any place the government thinks the respondent may store firearms including the homes of neighbors and family members, violating their rights as well, all off of one court order.

It doesn’t take a consumer of lawyer or cop television shows to know that a warrant from a judge (or “probable cause”) is required to have any law enforcement official search your home or property. Depending on the state in which red or blue state you live, this could be quite problematic.

Red-flag laws typically allow petitions to a judge to temporarily remove a gun from someone believed to be dangerous. A temporary confiscation order is usually followed by a hearing at which the judge weighs barring the person from having a gun for a longer period.

In Florida, Rhode Island and Vermont, only law enforcement officials can petition for gun-removal orders, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Roughly a dozen states have adopted laws that empower household members to seek the petitions, while a few states also allow mental-health workers to do so.
— Washington Post, 8/8/19

Your right to self defense could be in the hands of a pissed off family member or hypersensitive social worker. Great….

An activist judge (not too fond of our 2nd Amendment) may be all too ready to take someone’s word, your door can be bashed in at any time of day or night and your home searched just because a person said something about you that raised (pardon the pun) a red flag and a judge gleefully bought it.

The 5th Amendment is violated in that the respondent is being deprived of liberty and property without due process of law.

You can be detained, arrested and jailed without any initial charges being filed against you. You could be accused of being unreasonable or potentially crazy.

Federal law has long prohibited the mentally ill from owning firearms. But that restriction does not come into play unless a person had been committed to a psychiatric facility, or a judge has ruled that the person is mentally ill. The state red flag laws have a lower threshold, generally requiring only that a judge find that a person presents a significant threat to himself or others.
— New York Times, 8/8/19

Have you noticed government only tends to make things easier when it comes to their ability to take action against citizens?

In this case, all based on the word of someone whose information may not have been verified for accuracy or under oath. This could all be set in motion via a rumor that’s acted upon from a judge on down to your local police.

The 6th Amendment is violated in that the respondent is not afforded the right to face their accuser or the right to due process before a warrant is issued and executed.

Depending on where you live, whomever ratted you out may have the benefit of having their identity protected while your world is turned upside down. Kinda’ sounds like a college campus tribunal.

The petitioner’s residential address, residential telephone number and workplace name, address and telephone number, contained within the records of the court related to a petition shall be confidential and withheld from public inspection, except by order of the court; provided, however, that the petitioner’s residential address and workplace address shall appear on the court order and shall be accessible to the respondent and the respondent’s attorney unless the petitioner specifically requests, and the court orders, that this information be withheld from the order. Such confidential portions of the court records shall not be deemed to be public records under the provisions of clause twenty-sixth of section 7 of chapter 4.
— Massachusetts, Chapter 123 of the Acts of 2018

Seriously, how fair is that? Then again, when it comes to politicians who’re under that “Do something!” pressure, fair is an acceptable casualty.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 is violated through denying citizens liberty and or property without due process of law and denying equal protection of the law.

After your home is raided and property seized, you may be hauled into a jail cell and the next morning you find yourself in front of a judge.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you free of charge.
— Legal Dictionary

But guess what: when it comes to an accusation based on a Red Flag complaint, you have no right to legal representation if you can’t afford it. Say goodbye to Miranda rights, it turns out, you never had.

It would allow law enforcement to take away your guns and force you to attend a court hearing where you must prove you’re not dangerous to get them back. If you want legal counsel to help you defend yourself in this guilty-until-proven-innocent proceeding you’ll have to pay for it yourself. If you can afford it.

This would be a civil proceeding. Public defenders only work criminal cases.
— Minot Daily Press, 2/5/19

Ya gotta love loopholes that will be exploited by elites who are either connected or have money. Everyone else is screwed.

So, unless you’ve binge-watched every episode of Perry Mason, you’ll be representing yourself unless you can personally afford a lawyer and as we all know, they ain’t cheap, the pro bono ones can be problematic and not readily available on short notice.

Like most gun confiscation legislation, the main targets are those who have yet to break the law. Those who break the law, especially aided by firearms, are not mentioned in this current national discussion.

One would think those on the Republican side of the aisle; those who claim (especially during campaign season) to support and defend our 2nd Amendment, would have every reason to oppose Red Flag laws for the very easy enumerated reasons stated above.

If they DO support Red Flag laws, they should be reminded of their Constitutional oaths while we look for an alternative candidate who’ll take that oath a little more seriously.

h/t For more on Red Flag Laws, visit Patriots vs. Tyrants

According to the Constitution, a congressman and/or senator can say ANYTHING they want about ANYONE on the floor and can’t be held in any way liable in any body outside of that building.

The Senators and Representatives shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
— United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1)

While some academics consider this clause “practically obsolete”, it clearly gives cover for today’s dishonest partisan.

As congressmen and senators were originally paid $6 per day, protecting a politician’s personal business and/or assets was a necessity. In the age of professional politicians who now make around $725 per day (aside from their ballooned portfolios that vastly outperform their salaries), knowing their personal freedom and finances are shielded from the ramifications of slander or libel has brought out the worse in our elected.

Harry Reid put his foot in his mouth before regarding Rush Limbaugh and the gleefully repeated “phony soldiers” lie prompted by Media Matters. Reid was proven dishonest, didn’t have to apologize and never has because he knows there is no redress in any venue.

If a Member’s actions meet the “legislative process” test, his immunity is absolute; and that is so even if he has acted contrary to law.

In Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund (1975), the Supreme Court acknowledged that the clause may shield Members from civil or criminal liability “even though their conduct, if performed in other than legislative contexts, would in itself be unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to criminal or civil statutes.”
— James L. Buckley, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

We’ll see how many more times federal politicians can slander private citizens, candidates or not, because this won’t be the last time.