The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).

The Trials of Trump

The legal indictments and trails of former President Trump are another example of Lawfare and The Weaponization of Government that have run rampant in modern America. They are also an assault on the principles of the American Judicial System. Herewithin are my collected Chirps on the topic of these assaults on our judicial system and the trials of former President Trump.

04/13/22 Presumption of Innocence

The Presumption of Innocence is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”). In the United States, the Presumption of Innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases, prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. In America, the Presumption of Innocence is inherent in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.

In the court of public opinion, the Presumption of Innocence is not required, but it is advisable, especially when a person is accused of criminal activities. For if you do not presume innocence, then the accused stands to lose their reputation, employment, wealth, future opportunities, and even family and friends based on unproven allegations or assertions. These items should not be lightly taken from anyone without proof of wrongdoing, and the proof being credible, verifiable, and substantiated. The question is, then, how can you judge an allegation or assertion of wrongdoing? The answer to this question is in another article I have written: “Who are you to Judge?”. I would encourage you to review this article at your convenience.

Today, in America, we have forgotten or have chosen to ignore this Presumption of Innocence in the court of public opinion. From a political zeal to discredit an opponent to disparage someone with whom we disagree, the presumption of guilt until innocence is proven is commonplace. For someone to have to prove their innocence is equivalent to Proving a Negative (i.e., prove you didn't say or do something). One of the things that western society has learned is that you cannot prove a negative and, historically, forcing someone to prove a negative has led to witches being burned at the stake, heretic’s being executed, lynching’s occurring, summary executions taking place, as well as many other violations of human rights. Today, in the court of public opinion, the presumption of guilt until innocence is proven has led to an uncivil society, as I have written in my Article, "A Civil Society".

From the very beginning (and even before) the administration of President Trump, Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists, and the Mainstream Media made little pretense of the Presumption of Innocence of President Trump and his associates. Statements by these parties and the pervasive news coverage were practically all based on rumors and innuendo that presumed guilt. To not keep an open mind and the Presumption of Innocence is an attempt to preordain an outcome, an outcome not based on evidence. It also led these parties to make many outrageous statements that were proved by the Special Prosecutor to be false in the Russian Collusion Delusion. Indeed, all of their presumptions of guilt of President Trump and his associates have been shown to be false presumptions of guilt.

Today, the Presumption of Innocence in the court of public opinion is being played out in the case of Hunter Biden’s activities in the last two decades. Assertions and allegations of pay to play, influence peddling, money laundering, and other criminal actions are being asserted against President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, as well as President Biden’s brothers Frank and James. Per an article in ProPublica, the brothers have become rich because of the ties to then-Senator, then Vice-President, and now President Biden. The veracity of these allegations is high, as we have had the public disclosure of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, which he abandoned at a computer repair shop. He is entitled to a Presumption of Innocence in any judicial proceeding that he may face, and the public should be concerned about his actions but be wary of any allegations and assertions of guilt in the court of public opinion.

My concern is that the very people that are asserting Hunter Biden’s Presumption of Innocence in the court of public opinion are the very people who asserted the guilt of President Trump and his associates in the court of public opinion. Their protestations of Hunter Biden’s Presumption of Innocence bespeak of rank hypocrisy and political gamesmanship considering their assertions of their Presumption of Guilt of President Trump and his associates in the recent past. Such people are not to be trusted nor heeded, as they are not interested in the concepts of the Presumption of Innocence but are only interested in politics. And when it comes to the questions of a person’s Presumption of Innocence, politics should never be a consideration.

10/27/22 Equal and Impartial Justice

“The most sacred of the duties of government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.”
- Thomas Jefferson

Today, the government has failed in that sacred duty. These failures are so numerous that it is nearly impossible to recall or list all these failures. But the American people are recognizing these failures. From how our government treats protesters favoring Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders versus prosecutions against Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders, to COVID-19 restrictions and inoculations for Yee and Thee but not for leftist protesters and illegal immigrants, to rhetoric and persecutions for anyone who would dissent or oppose Biden Administration policies and agendas, and to a host of other issues, the American people are awaking to a dual standard of justice in America that the Biden Administration and Democrat Party Leaders are imposing upon America. It has become a system of ‘Us versus Them’ as I have written in my Article “The Weaponization of Government”.

This is a dangerous course for America to undertake, as illustrated by the history of Nazi Germany who undertook this course. As the Nazis believed that as they were more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they were, of course, always correct. Any person that disagreed with them was considered not to be in the wrong but evil, and their elimination from German society was considered an act of purification for the greater good of the German people. In this quest, they deployed the Gestapo, The Reich Ministry of Justice, and a People's Court to achieve their goals.

The Gestapo was the political police force of the Nazi state. The Gestapo was a notorious organization tasked with destroying political opponents of the Nazi movement, suppressing any opposition to Nazi policies, and persecuting Jews. From its origins as a Prussian intelligence organization, it grew into a sprawling and greatly feared apparatus of oppression. The Gestapo investigated any person or organization suspected of opposing the Nazi movement. Its presence became pervasive in Germany and later in the countries that the German military occupied.

The Reich Ministry of Justice was responsible for legal prosecutions in the Nazi state. The Nazi (Volksgerichtshof), which was set up outside constitutional authority, handled political actions against Hitler's dictatorial regime by conducting a series of show trials. Equality under the Law and Equal Justice for All was of no consideration in Nazi Germany. The court systems in Nazi Germany were notorious for not pursuing Justice and implementing and enforcing The Rule of Law, as I have written in my Article "Justice and The Rule of Law in America".

The only consideration was the protection of the Nazi Party and its members and the suppression by intimidation, persecution, and removal via imprisonment or execution of any dissenters. The Gestapo and The Reich Ministry of Justice also assisted in the eradication of all persons, religions, or nationalities that the Nazi Party considered undesirable.

In today’s America, the Department of Justice has begun to operate as The Reich Ministry of Justice did, while the FBI is morphing into the Gestapo. The Department of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of various Intelligence Agencies, and the Department of Defense have also engaged in these activities. The people responsible for this are:

Department of Justice Attorney General Merrick Garland
Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin

However, it is The President of the United States, Joseph Biden, who bears ultimate responsibility for supporting and allowing this to happen. In this, he is violating his Oath of Office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”. Indeed, all the aforementioned persons are violating this same oath that they took upon entering office.

We are trotting upon a course that needs to stop and reversed, for as two wise men have stated:

"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
- Edmund Burke

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- George Santayana

This is another reason why the Democrats should not retain control of Congress, as they prefer and support this course. The Republicans, if they take control of Congress, need to illuminate this problem to the American people and take actions that will stymie, if not stop and revert this course. If not, we will lose our "American Ideals and Ideas" and put aside our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

04/04/23 Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Our Founding Fathers were very concerned about the Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, as the American Colonists had often been prosecuted and tried for their political beliefs and actions with the presumption of guilt and the necessity for the Defendant to prove their innocence. Indeed, this was one of the many important reasons for the American Revolution, and this concept of the Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt was incorporated into our Constitution.

The legal standard in the United States of America has always been innocent until proven guilty, as the following standard juror instruction illuminates:

“Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a matter of the most important substance.

The presumption of innocence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and to require the acquittal of a defendant. The Defendant before you, [insert Defendant Name], has the benefit of that presumption throughout the trial, and you are not to convict [him/her] of a particular charge unless you are persuaded of [his/her] guilt of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is always on the government to satisfy you that [Defendant] is guilty of the crime with which [he/she] is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not require that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict. This burden never shifts to [Defendant]. It is always the government's burden to prove each of the elements of the crime[s] charged beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. [Defendant] has the right to rely upon the failure or inability of the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt any essential element of a crime charged against [him/her].

If, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to [Defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, it is your duty to acquit [him/her] of that crime. On the other hand, if, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of [Defendant]'s guilt of a particular crime, you should vote to convict [him/her].”

You should always remember this when a person has been indicted and prosecuted for a crime, for without keeping this in mind, you are trampling on their Liberties and Freedoms and Liberties and the Freedoms of all Americans. If a person is found not guilty, that does not necessarily mean that they are innocent, but that the government has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have indeed committed the crime, but they may not have committed the crime, but all must assume that they were not guilty of a crime if that is the jury’s verdict.

With the impending indictment of former President Trump, this is especially important, for such an indictment of the former President and leading candidate for the next Presidential election has far-reaching political and social consequences, which I shall examine in another Chirp.

If you take the stance that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tweeted:

“The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law.
No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.
Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.”

If you believe this, you are demonstrating your ignorance, beyond a reasonable doubt, of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and the Constitutional protections against government tyranny and for the primacy of the government over the individual. It could even be said that you were more likely to be a Tory than a Patriot during the American Revolution.

09/13/23 Mistakes, Lies, or Truths?

In the recent indictments of former President Trump, the question of whether he was mistaken or lying, or perhaps telling the truth, has been raised. As I have pointed out in my chirp on “09/11/23 Truth as a Defense”, if President Trump was mistaken or was telling the truth, then the indictments are without merit on these points and need to be dismissed in a court of law. If he was lying, then the burden of proof falls upon the prosecution that these were knowing lies with the intent to commit criminal acts.

In all of science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the Burden of Proof" is upon the person or persons who make the assertion, or as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." The burden of proof must be based upon "Reasoning" rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false conclusion. If you do otherwise, you may fall into the trap of "if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right", which is obviously an untrue statement. You may also fall into the trap of trying to prove a negative, which is almost impossible to do. You should also remember that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

In American jurisprudence, the prosecution always bears the burden of proof (i.e., Innocent until proven guilty). Consequently, the prosecution must prove that President Trump knowingly lied for criminal intent purposes. If the prosecution cannot meet this burden of proof, then these trials are nothing but Show Trials to tarnish President Trump and to sway the electorate against President Trump. If it is the latter, then the prosecution is engaging in election interference, and if it is the former, the prosecution is engaging in smear tactics. In either the former or latter, the prosecution is perverting justice by not engaging in "Justice and The Rule of Law in America". There is also more than a hint of “Show me the man and I will find the crime” that Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent. By stretching the bounds of the law, the Trump prosecutors are attempting to find the crime. By prosecuting Trump’s advisors, both legal and others, they are also attempting to breach lawyer-client privilege and Presidential advisors’ communications confidentiality. They are also not considering the repercussions of their actions on the future of American society. If we allow this type of prosecution against one side, then when the other side controls the levers of power, then these prosecutions may become commonplace in American governance. We should also keep in mind the following dialog:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

Thus, the prosecutors in the Trump indictments are not giving “the Devil benefit of law” and are imperiling the safety of the law for all. They are, therefore, violating our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". They are also leading America down the path to a Banana Republic and instituting "Despotism in America".

03/02/24 Mega-Fines

In an article by Alan Dershowitz, “Is Trump's Mega-Fine Unconstitutional?”, he examines the constitutionality of the fines imposed upon Donald Trump in the New York state court case against him:

“Arthur Engoron, the New York Supreme Court judge in the real estate case brought against Donald Trump by the state attorney general, has fined Trump and members of his family $464 million. This raises the question of whether the fine – which does not reflect damages actually done – is "excessive" under the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, which reads as follows: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."”

I would also note that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in Section 1 states that:

“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.”

Consequently, this trial may have also been unconstitutional as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, as it deprived Donald Trump of property, without due process of law, nor with the equal protection of the laws.

This article is a perfect complement to his book, “Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law”. The actions of the state are also an example of "Lawfare", as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government". Thus, this trial and the fines imposed by Judge Engoron are an assault on the Constitution. As such, any person concerned about our "Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights" and "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All" should stand in opposition to this trial and the fines imposed. Thus, I hope that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes this and will declare the entire trial and fines as Unconstitutional under both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

04/04/24 Get Trump

The movie ‘Judgement at Nuremberg’, is about an American court In 1948, in occupied Germany, that tried four Nazis for war crimes. Specifically, the movie is about a trial after three years since the most important Nazi leaders had already been tried. A trial of four persons who used their judicial offices to conduct Nazi sterilization and cleansing policies, including an esteemed Judge Dr. Ernst Janning, as well as Prosecutor Emil Hahn, Administrator Werner Lampe, and Minister of Justice Dr Karl Wieck, who are ably defended by the German lawyer Herr Rolfe. Retired American judge Dan Haywood has a daunting task ahead of him. The Cold War was heating up, and no one wanted more trials as the German and Allied governments wanted to forget the past. The overarching question for the tribunal to decide is what the proper thing to do is.

This movie contains a lot of thought-provoking dialogue about justice and jurisprudence, quoted here within, which makes for a rather lengthy but important Chirp. The thoughts that have provoked me are, ‘Are we seeing the perversion of justice and jurisprudence in today’s America as depicted in this movie?’ The following lines of dialog are illuminative of this concern:

“Judge Dan Haywood: The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common: Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime - is guilty.”
__________________________

“Ernst Janning: There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all, there was fear. Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves. Only when you understand that - can you understand what Hitler meant to us. Because he said to us: 'Lift your heads! Be proud to be German! There are devils among us. Communists, Liberals, Jews, Gypsies! Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed.' It was the old, old story of the sacrificial lamb. What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country! What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be discarded... sooner or later. The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows. We will go forward. Forward is the great password. And history tells how well we succeeded, your honor. We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. The very elements of hate and power about Hitler that mesmerized Germany, mesmerized the world! We found ourselves with sudden powerful allies. Things that had been denied to us as a democracy were open to us now. The world said 'go ahead, take it, take it! Take Sudetenland, take the Rhineland - remilitarize it - take all of Austria, take it! And then one day we looked around and found that we were in an even more terrible danger. The ritual began in this courtroom swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a passing phase had become the way of life. Your honor, I was content to sit silent during this trial. I was content to tend my roses. I was even content to let counsel try to save my name, until I realized that in order to save it, he would have to raise the specter again. You have seen him do it - he has done it here in this courtroom. He has suggested that the Third Reich worked for the benefit of people. He has suggested that we sterilized men for the welfare of the country. He has suggested that perhaps the old Jew did sleep with the sixteen year old girl, after all. Once more it is being done for love of country. It is not easy to tell the truth; but if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it... whatever the pain and humiliation.”
__________________________

“Ernst Janning: Once more, it is being done - for love of country. It is not easy to tell the truth. But if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it - whatever the pain and humiliation. I had reached my verdict on the Feldenstein case before I ever came into the courtroom. I would have found him guilty, whatever the evidence. It was not a trial at all. It was a sacrificial ritual in which Feldenstein, the Jew, was the helpless victim.”
__________________________

“Judge Dan Haywood: Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and death of millions by the government of which he was a part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial. If he and the other defendants were all depraved perverts - if the leaders of the Third Reich were sadistic monsters and maniacs - these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or other natural catastrophes. But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men - even able and extraordinary men - can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination. No one who has sat through this trial can ever forget. The sterilization of men because of their political beliefs... The murder of children... How *easily* that can happen! There are those in our country today, too, who speak of the "protection" of the country. Of "survival". The answer to that is: survival as what? A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult! Before the people of the world - let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what ‘we’ stand for: ‘justice, truth... and the value of a single human being!’”
__________________________

“Emil Hahn: Today, you sentence me! Tomorrow, the Bolsheviks sentence you!”
__________________________

“Ernst Janning: Judge Haywood... the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people... I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it, You must believe it!
Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.”
__________________________

“Judge Dan Haywood: Herr Rolfe, I have admired your work in the court for many months. You are particularly brilliant in your use of logic...
[Rolfe nods with an appreciative smile]
Judge Dan Haywood: -so, what you suggest may very well happen. It is logical, in view of the times in which we live. But to be logical is not to be right, and nothing on God's earth could ever make it right!
[Rolfe wipes the smile from his face]”
__________________________

“Emil Hahn: Germany was fighting for its life. Certain measures were needed to protect it from its enemies. I cannot say that I am sorry we applied those measures. We were a bulwark against Bolshevism. We were a pillar of Western culture. A bulwark and a pillar the West may yet wish to retain.”
__________________________

“Emil Hahn: [During dinner in the prison mess hall] How dare they show us those films, how dare they? We are not executioners, we are judges!
Werner Lampe: You do not think it was like that, do you? There were executions, yes, but nothing like that, nothing at all!
[Turning to a man at the table behind him]
Werner Lampe: Pohl! Pohl, you were at those concentration camps, you and Eichmann. They say we killed millions of people. ‘Millions’ of people! How could it be possible? Tell them, how could it be possible?
Pohl: [In a matter of fact tone] It's possible.
Werner Lampe: How?
Pohl: You mean technically? It all depends on your facilities. Say you have two chambers that accommodate two thousand people apiece. Figure it out. It's possible to get rid of ten thousand in a half hour. You don't even need knives to do it. You can tell them that they are going to take a shower, and then instead of the water, you turn on the gas. It's not the killing that is the problem, it's disposing of the bodies. That's the problem.”
__________________________

In America today, we are seeing the corruption of the Judicial system to ‘Get Trump’ and his supporters, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "The Weaponization of Government". Judicial actions against Trump and his supporters that they justified with the same type of reasoning employed by the four Nazis tried for war crimes in the movie ‘Judgement at Nuremberg’. If this is allowed to continue, we are indeed sliding down the slippery slope away from our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our principles of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

In these prosecutions of Trump and his supporters there is also more than a hint of “Show me the man and I will find the crime” that Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent. By stretching the bounds of the law, the Trump prosecutors are attempting to find the crime. By prosecuting Trump’s advisors, they are also attempting to breach lawyer-client privilege and the confidentiality of presidential advisors’ communications. They also do not consider the repercussions of their actions on the future of American society. If we allow this type of prosecution against one side, then when the other side controls the levers of power, these prosecutions may become commonplace in American governance. In this, we should also keep in mind the following dialogue from another movie, A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

Thus, the prosecutions of Trump and his supporters are not giving “the Devil benefit of law” and are imperiling the safety of the law for all. They, therefore, are violating our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our principles of "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". They are also leading America down the path to a Banana Republic and instituting "Despotism in America".

05/17/24 True Justice

In Deuteronomy 16:18-20 of the Bible, it commands the people of Judges and Justice:

“18. You are to appoint judges and officials for your tribes in every town that the LORD your God is giving you. They are to judge the people with righteous judgment.
19. Do not deny justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.
20. Pursue justice, and justice alone, so that you may live, and you may possess the land that the LORD your God is giving you.”
- Berean Standard Bible

In addition, there are many other Bible verses about Judges and Justice. Some of the more pertinent verses for the purposes of this Chirp are:

“Furthermore, select capable men from among the people--God-fearing, trustworthy men who are averse to dishonest gain. Appoint them over the people as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.”
- Exodus 18:21

“You shall not follow the crowd in wrongdoing. When you testify in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd.”
- Exodus 23:2

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
- Exodus 20:16

“You must not pervert justice; you must not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the rich; you are to judge your neighbor fairly.”
- Leviticus 19:15

“Show no partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be intimidated by anyone, for judgment belongs to God. And bring to me any case too difficult for you, and I will hear it.”
- Deuteronomy 1:17

These commands of God are words of wisdom no matter what your beliefs or non-beliefs may be, for without steadfastly holding to these words of wisdom, it is not possible to have justice. Today, in modern America, we have forgotten these words of wisdom in our pursuit of social and political justice. Much of this injustice is promulgated by prosecutors and judges who are swayed by a sense of righteousness that overrides their duties and responsibilities to ensure true justice reigns supreme. The utilization of Lawfare in pursuit of social and political justice is a travesty of justice, and it destroys the integrity of our justice system and the confidence and support of the people in our judicial system.

Without true justice, it is not possible to have an orderly and peaceful society. People will live in fear that if they violate a prosecutor’s or judge’s sense of righteousness, even if they have been lawful in their actions, they will run afoul of the judicial system. Such a fear paralyzes society and will eventually lead to its ruin.

05/18/24 A Travesty of True Justice

In my previous Chirp on “05/17/24 True Justice”, I mentioned that without true justice, it is not possible to have an orderly and peaceful society and that some prosecutors and judges are swayed by a sense of righteousness that overrides their duties and responsibilities to ensure true justice reigns supreme. This has become most evident in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump and the lack of prosecutions of former Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden for similar alleged “criminal acts”.

The actions and inactions of the prosecutors and judges in these cases have been astounding and breathtaking in their violations of true justice, and they may be in violation of the law and the canon of ethics for prosecutors and judges. As Andrew C. McCarthy has written in many of his articles in National Review, as well as Jonathan Turley in many of his articles on his website, the shenanigans that are going on in the courtroom and behind the scenes by the prosecutors and judges of former President Donald Trump are a clear violation of true justice and current jurisprudence. They may also be violations of former President Donald Trump's Constitutional Rights. They are, however, a prime example of how Lawfare has taken hold in modern America. They are also an attempt to influence an election, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/08/24 Lawfare and Election Interference”.

These actions and inactions by prosecutors and judges in the cases against former President Donald Trump, former Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden have already damaged the integrity of our justice system and the confidence and support of the people in our judicial system. It is my contention that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to step in immediately to stop these shenanigans and restore the integrity and jurisprudence of the American judicial system. For them to not do so risks calamitous consequences for our American Ideals and Ideas. We, the American people, also need to step up and demand that these prosecutors and judges who have participated in these shenanigans be forthwith relieved of their duties and responsibilities. If this is allowed to continue, it may irrevocably damage our judicial system, lead to widespread civil unrest, and contribute to the possibility of a civil war, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/15/24 A Civil War Future”.

05/19/24 An Assault on the American Judicial System

Jonathan Turley is an American attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. A professor at George Washington University Law School, he has testified in United States Congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues. Jonathan Turley’s website Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks is a collection of his articles that are brief and easily understood by the general public, as well as being well reasoned and thoughtful. I am particularly impressed by Professor Turley’s articles on the defense of the Right to Free Speech and Due Process of Law. The sections on his website about Constitutional law, Criminal law, and Free Speech should be a must-read for all interested in these topics.

In a series of articles, he has eviscerated the legal travesty of the Trump prosecution by Alvin Bragg in Manhattan. These articles should be a must-read for all Americans to understand why this trial assaults the American judicial system. They are:

Please note that I will update this list as Professor Turley writes additional columns about the Trump trial.

Other legal scholars have also written and spoken of the travesty of justice that is occurring by both the prosecutor and judge in the Manhattan courtroom. Andrew C. McCarthy, the noted prosecutor and legal commentator and certainly no fan of Donald Trump, has written in his article “Trump Should Be Acquitted in Manhattan”:

“Let’s put aside all of the constitutional objections to Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Donald Trump — objections premised on the shredding of both federal and state due-process guarantees. Trump ought to be acquitted for the simplest of reasons: Prosecutors can’t prove their case — neither the case the grand jury actually charged, 34 counts of felony business-records falsification, nor the case that elected progressive Democratic district attorney Alvin Bragg has imagined into existence, an uncharged conspiracy to steal the 2016 election by suppressing politically damaging information in violation of federal campaign-finance law.”

Allan Dershowitz, a preeminent legal scholar and commentator, who is also certainly no fan of Donald Trump, has also written in his article “Trump’s trial is a stupendous legal catastrophe” that:

“Every American should be appalled at this selective prosecution. Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat. After that, you and me. The criminal justice system is on trial in New York. If Trump is convicted based on the distortion of law and facts that we’re seeing, the system would have failed us all.”

This trial is another example of the Lawfare occurring in modern America and the division of Americans into two camps, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "A Tale of Two Cities". A lawfare and division that is antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas and a perversion of our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. A lawfare that, for many Americans, has eroded faith in our justice system. A lawfare that, if it continues, will contribute to our society's disintegration and to the possibility of a civil war in America, as I have written in my Chirp on “05/15/24 A Civil War Future”.

06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic

With the conviction of President Trump and President Biden’s brief remarks on Friday from the White House, we have officially entered into an American Banana Republic. Trumped-up charges, a jealous prosecutor, a biased judge, and a jury swayed by passion rather than law are all earmarks of a Banana Republic. Coupled with a chief executive who utilizes this situation for electioneering and to avoid campaigning against an opponent that leads only to despotism and authoritative government. Such a state of affairs now exists in America.

The smirk and grin that President Biden gave when a reporter asked about the conviction of Donald Trump, and his decrying his fate as a “political prisoner” and blaming President Biden directly, was the look of a despotic person and a semi-fascist attempt to hold on to power. A semi-fascism that I have Chirped about on"11/04/22 Semi-fascism in America", and a power that is not for the common good of America but for the institution of their oligarchy, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Oligarchy in America". The excuse that they are attempting to save “Our Democracy” rings hallow, as hallow as what was said by a U.S. major after a battle in the Vietnam War, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”. Destroying our democratic principles and institutions is not the way to save “Our Democracy”; it is only the way to destroy “Our Democracy”, as I have Chirped on "01/11/22 Our Democracy".

This is the ultimate corruption of “Our Democracy”, and it is being brought into America by President Biden and his Administration, Democrat Party Leaders, and Progressives/Leftists. Legal appeals and the overturning of convictions are too time-consuming to be effective in correcting this situation. Therefore, the only immediate correction to this situation is the election of Donald Trump and Republican Party candidates in the forthcoming election. For this reason, and this reason alone, the Democrats need to be turned out of power; otherwise, we will have instituted an American Banana Republic.

06/03/24 A Corrupt State

In a New York Post editorial by Michael Goodwin, “A trial that exposes New York’s corrupt justice system”, he succinctly illustrates how New York has corrupted its judicial system to achieve the political goal of “Get Trump”:

“Only a top-quality case, beyond reproach and political taint, should have been used to bring the first-ever indictment of a former president. Instead, the city and state put on a show trial long on theatrics–porn star testifies about sex! — and short on evidence that any crime was actually committed.

And so the script has flipped, with the trial itself an assault on the notion that justice is blind. No matter what the jury says about Trump, the prosecutors, the judge, the state court system and the political class have been revealed as thoroughly corrupt.

This is the third time New York Democrats distorted the legal system to serve their partisan aim of destroying Trump. One case involved a change in a statute of limitations law that ultimately led to a defamation ruling against him and a ridiculous fine of $92 million.

Another murky case, brought by the overtly-partisan state attorney general, concocted a civil fraud charged aimed at bankrupting him. An amateurish state judge who enjoyed the spotlight far too much nodded yes and declared a fine of $355 million.”

The New York Sun editorial, “Judge Merchan’s Outrageous Jury Instructions”, is another example of how a New York judge has corrupted the judicial system, as they stated:

“President Trump’s fate went to the jury on instructions from Judge Juan Merchan that strike us as outrageous — and ripe for challenge. The judge’s instruction releases jurors from the obligation to make a unanimous decision on the key question. They “must conclude unanimously that” Mr. Trump engaged in an election conspiracy “by unlawful means,” the judge said. Yet, he added, “you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

At that point Judge Merchan supplied the jurors with a kind of à la carte menu for determining whether Mr. Trump had broken the law.”

These instructions, along with many of his rulings and gag orders, as well as his refusal to recuse himself due to his daughter’s involvement in Democrat Party fundraising, are outrageous and an affront to equal justice under the law. They are the rulings and instructions crafted to reach a guilty verdict and gag orders to restrict President Trump's freedom of speech. As such, as I have written in my Chirps on “05/17/24 True Justice” and “05/18/24 A Travesty of True Justice”, they are a corruption of justice and an assault on our First Amendment Constitutional Rights.

Our American Constitution guarantees a republican form of governance and the protection of all Americans' constitutional and civil rights. This is no longer happening in New York State, as the legislators, governor, and judges have conspired to deprive Donald Trump of his right to equal justice for all. Therefore, it is my contention that the Federal government needs to step in to correct this assault on our Constitutional and Civil Rights. I do not expect this to happen, as the Biden Administration and the powers in New York State seem to be in cahoots with each other to get Trump. Our only hope is that the United States Supreme Court will step in and put an end to these corrupt actions by the New York state authorities.

This is but another example of how we are becoming an American Banana Republic through the utilization of The Weaponization of Government and Lawfare. This also leads us further down the path of becoming a Banana Republic, as I have written in my Chirp on “06/02/24 Welcome to Our American Banana Republic”.

06/04/24 Under the Cloak of Legitimacy

In an article by Alan Joseph Bauer, “Why Do Despots Feel They Need Legitimacy?”, he raises this issue, which is apropos to the current prosecutions of President Trump. However, he is not the only person who has raised this issue regarding the prosecution of President Trump. Many legal scholars, on both the left and right, have become concerned that the prosecutions of President Trump have strayed far from our legal principles and the rule of law in America. Some of the first and loudest voices that have raised this issue are Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley, and Andrew McCarthy, who are on The Political Spectrum of left, central, and right, respectively.

Mr. Bauer begins his article by stating:

“There is a tendency for the most ruthless and autocratic countries in recent history to use democratic norms for cover. With the conviction of Donald Trump, the US has moved closer towards them.”

He then goes on to provide a litany of examples of the despots of the 20th and 21st centuries and the tactics they employed, and he then explains how these tactics were employed against Trump. Near the end of his article, he asks the question:

“What is the difference between the Soviet trials where the outcome was known from the start, the confession was obtained through force, and the judge understood his instructions and what we saw in New York?”

The answer is, of course, there is no difference—it is the same story of a cloak of legitimacy to cover up their illegitimacy. Finally, he asks, then answers, the following question:

“So where does America go? Will we have the perfunctory elections of Russia and the ersatz “people’s house” of Iran or will America still be the land of the free and the home of the brave? Tune in this November.”

06/05/24 The Rubicon Has Been Crossed

When Julius Ceasar crossed the Rubicon River, it signaled the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the rule by tyrannical Emperors. Ever since then, the phrase “crossing the Rubicon” has been an idiom that means the passing of a point of no return. Unfortunately, with the conviction of Donald Trump, we have crossed the Rubicon in The Weaponization of Government.

With the tens of millions of dollars raised by the Trump campaign after his conviction, and the rise in his poll numbers after the conviction, the American people have opened their eyes to the corruptions of our political norms and the judicial system by the Biden Administration and their lackeys in State and local governments. Many Americans over the last few years have been suspicious that our judicial system has been corrupted by politics. With the Trump conviction, most Americans have reached the conclusion that the judicial system is corrupted by politics and that this trial is only the latest example of the use of the justice system for political purposes. In a democracy, when a majority of the people believe that an essential function of government is corrupt, you have crossed the Rubicon into something other than democracy.

Many legal scholars are hopeful that the appeals process will overturn the conviction and that the American people will regain confidence in our judicial system via this process. Alas, it is not only Trump's conviction that the American people are concerned about, but also the entire process of the judicial system that they are concerned about. It is obvious to all intelligent persons that the Trump legal process was instituted in a presidential election year to harm the prospects of a Trump election. As appeals and an overturning of a conviction can take many months and even years, the legal process is being corrupted to achieve a political goal. Thus, this corrupt process will impact the election while the appeal process is ongoing. It is, therefore, the failure of the judicial system that is the root cause of the distrust that the American people feel.

Unless the United States Supreme Court steps in and immediately ends this travesty of justice and the fracturing of the Rule of Law, the Rubicon has been crossed, and there will be no going back. The judicial system would have been corrupted to achieve a political goal, and the political norms shattered as it opened the door to political prosecutions to obtain political goals. As Alan Dershowitz has pointed out:

The Rubicon has already been crossed, and like Humpty Dumpty in the Mother Goose nursery rhyme:

“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.”

In crossing this Rubicon, we may never be able to put the shattered pieces of our judicial system and political norms together again unless the Supreme Court forthwith stops this shattering.

06/06/24 The Obituaries for the American Justice System

Alan Dershowitz, Jonathan Turley, and Andrew McCarthy, who are on The Political Spectrum of Left, Central, and Right, respectively, have written columns that examine the travesty of justice and the fractured rule of law that has occurred in the Trump Trial:

Alan Dershowitz— “A prosecution so crooked it would make Joseph Stalin blush!”
Jonathan Turley— “The Ghost of John Adams: How the Trump Trial Harkens Back to a Dark Period of American Law”
Andrew McCarthy— “In Memory of Justice”

The last few lines of each article are illuminative of the seriousness of the impacts of the Trump trial:

“DA Bragg has demonstrated how easy it now is to get a conviction against a political opponent. Other ambitious DA's are likely to follow suit. And the ultimate losers will be the American public.”
- Alan Dershowitz

“In the faces of ecstasy of demonstrators and commentators alike this week, we see the same joyful release from the bounds of legal process. The addictive quality of rage.
For them, it was a cathartic moment that was described by one commentator as a reason to celebrate and a “majestic” moment.
For the rest of us, it was more menacing than majestic.
It could prove to be the moment that galvanized many outside of Manhattan; the moment when citizens saw where our rage has taken us.Sometimes we have to be forced to see what we have become to better understand who we are.
We are better than this.”
- Jonathan Turley

“What happened in Manhattan was monstrous. The fallout is the antithesis of a constitutional republic that presumes innocence, imposes the burden of proof on the state, venerates its due-process rules, and guarantees equal protection of law. The antithesis is now the norm. Regardless of what happens to Donald Trump, all of us will live to regret it.”
- Andrew McCarthy

These columns are sad commentaries on the current state of justice in America. A state of affairs that has been brought forth by the Biden Administration, Democrat Party Leaders, and their lackeys in State and local governments. In this, they have been assisted by the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate", who will not accurately portray the facts and truths of this situation due to their predilections for the political goals and policy agendas of Democrat Party Leaders and Progressives/Leftists.

The comments that President Biden made after the verdict about the trial proceedings and respect for the legal process are outrageous in their lack of understanding of the meaning of the Rule of Law and the travesty of justice that occurred in the Trump trial. The smirk and grin that President Biden gave as he left the stage are indicative that he is knowingly trying to bamboozle the American public into accepting this travesty of justice and the fractured rule of law as normal and acceptable, or at least delay the consequences until after the 2024 Presidential election in which he can exploit the improper conviction of Donald Trump.

Consequently, we are sliding faster down the slippery slope to despotism in America and the loss of our American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

06/07/24 There Will Be Fallout and Blowback

Make no mistake about it: there will be fallout and blowback from the Trump trial and verdict.

The immediate fallout is a loss of faith in the Judicial System and the Rule of Law by most Americans who have recognized that this trial and verdict is a sham. A sham that can be perpetuated against anyone who would disturb the powers that be. As Alan Dershowitz, a preeminent legal scholar and commentator, who is also certainly no fan of Donald Trump, has also written in his article “Trump’s trial is a stupendous legal catastrophe” that:

The excuse that the conviction can be overturned on appeal, which would be decided in the future, holds no water in the present. The present damage is appalling and has a deleterious fallout that will remain with us even if the conviction is overturned.

A deleterious fallout in the hesitation in decision-making by elected or appointed officials for fear of future legal actions by biased prosecutors and complicit judges. They will have to couch and frame their decisions with an eye to possible future frivolous prosecutions. Thus, limited paralysis will descend upon elected or appointed officials, which often results in poor, improper, or inappropriate decisions to cover possible future frivolous prosecutions.

Perhaps the most insidious and disguised fallout is in the inadvertent intimidation of future Republican or Conservative candidates who do not wish to place themselves in legal harm's way by possible frivolous prosecutions. A legal harm’s way that has deleterious impacts on their reputation and finances. This may deprive us of the best and brightest candidates who have unique and independent ideas, which will consign us to candidates who go along to get along to stay out of possible legal harm's way.

The blowback will occur in the 2024 election cycle and election. An ugly campaign will get uglier, and divisions between Americans will harden. Nobody will be satisfied with the election results no matter how the election turns out.

All of this strikes at the heart of our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our individual "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All". All of this leads to the corrosion of the American people’s belief that President Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg Address, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

06/08/24 There Will be No Consequences

In modern America, "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government" go unabated and, indeed, are expanding. One of the reasons for this is that there are no consequences for engaging in these improper actions, as I have Chirped on "03/15/23 Lack of Consequences - I" and "03/16/23 Lack of Consequences - II". In many cases, these actions are rewarded through future reelections and appointments (sometimes for a higher elected or appointed office), or when they leave office, they obtain lucrative positions as commentators or book-signing contracts. In no cases are they prosecuted for abuse of office or dereliction of duty as they should be. In no cases have they been removed from office, as I have decried in my Chirp on "04/27/24 Dereliction of Duty". Thus, we can expect that there will be no consequences to those which I have Chirped about on “05/18/24 A Travesty of True Justice”.

Much of this has been brought about by the loss of Religion, Morality, Ethics, and Virtue within Government and Society, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Virtue in America". A loss of these fixed values with a replacement by relative values has led us astray and allowed our elected and appointed officials and our populace into words and deeds that are harmful to society. There has also been an increase in Virtue Signaling without true virtue, which leads to confusion as to what our fixed values should be.

This lack of consequences must stop, or our elected or appointed officials will continue in their abuses of office or their derelictions of duty, and our society will continue to degenerate. A good place to start would be the removal from office of those persons responsible for the travesty of justice that is occurring in the prosecutions of President Trump. However, this removal is fraught with Constitutional and legal issues, which I have written about in my article “The Removal of Elected or Appointed Officials who Violate their Oath of Office or Are In Dereliction of Duty to the Constitution”. These removal issues need to be resolved forthwith, and the removal of elected and appointed officials who are abusing their office or in dereliction of their duties needs to begin to right the course of America.

06/09/24 Kangaroo Kourt Konviction Lessons to be Learned

With the ‘kangaroo kourt konviction’ (sic) of President Trump (and make no mistake about it, this was a Kangaroo Court), we have learned some important lessons.

The first large lesson is that in any court proceeding against a politician or conservative activist, the verdict should be suspect, as it may not be based upon the law but on the emotions of the prosecutor, judge, or jury. This has become all too common in modern America as we have traveled down the path of "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government". Thus, we must all beware of the label of “convicted criminal” and its variants when applied to a politician or conservative activist until we examine the circumstances in and around the legal proceedings. Of course, we should also be wary of the defendant declaring a political prosecution until we examine the circumstances in and around the legal proceedings. Therefore, do not place much credence on these verdicts when you adjudge the character of a person until you have all the pertinent information about the legal proceedings. Many of these prosecutions are done for reputational or financial harm to the defendant rather than serious illegal conduct. Indeed, much of the alleged illegal conduct has been for felonies wrapped around misdemeanors, which would normally be punished with a slap on the wrist.

We have also learned from the celebratory attitude of the "Mainstream Media", "Mainstream Cultural Media", "Social Media", "Big Tech", "Modern Big Business", "Modern Education", and "The Mainstream Information Conglomerate" entities that they have demonstrated they are now active enemies of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. They’re not just skeptical. They’re not just people who disagree with Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. They’re certainly not objective, neutral truthtellers whose only goal is to enlighten the public. They want to actively influence the public, yet they want the respect that objective commentators might be due. These entities have been thoroughly weaponized against anyone who would disagree with their progressive propensities, and they must be not just neutralized but actively thwarted for the facts and the truths to be known by the public. They have also demonstrated that they have no allegiance to our American Ideals and Ideas.

The biggest lesson to be learned is that the hyper-partisanship of Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders has overstepped the bounds of the political norms of politicking that were established prior to the 21st century. Progressives/Leftists and Democrat Party Leaders believe that as they are more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior, they are, of course, always correct and good. As such, they view Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders as not just being wrong and stupid but that they are bad or evil persons and that any means can be utilized to defeat them. Even the means of weaponizing the Government against their opponents and infringing on the Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All of Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders. Such means will eventually tear apart America and could possibly lead to civil strife or civil war as Conservatives and Republican Party Leaders assert themselves to regain their Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, as I have Chirp on "02/24/24 To Be Fearful of a Civil War or Civil Deconstruction"’.

For those who would respond that a majority of American people will not support the actions of those who insist on the preservation of their Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, I would retort that the majority does not get to violate our rights and impose its will on the minority, for that is antithetical to Natural and Constitutional Rights. I would also remind you that during the American Revolution, John Adams, one of the leading proponents of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Constitution, and the second President of the United States, said about majority support. When asked how many of the colonists supported the American Revolution, he stated that about one-third supported it, one-third opposed it, and one-third had no opinion on it. Clearly, there was not a majority in support of the American Revolution. The same could be said for the American Civil War. Should we have not fought the American Revolution or the Civil War as it did not have majority support? Absolutely not - as revolutions and civil wars are often fought by a minority that feels oppressed by the majority. So, it should be for those who are resisting governmental actions that disregard or abrogate our Freedoms and Liberties by the government. They are standing up for our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights, and although they may be in the minority, they have the right to stand up for our Natural, Constitutional, and Civil Rights.

06/10/24 The Penance That Must Be Paid

In the 2020 Presidential election, Americans faced a choice between the incumbent President Trump, who many Americans disliked because of his boisterous and bombastic manner, and challenger Joe Biden, who was presented as a return to normalcy and would put the “adults in charge”. As we were in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, the normal electioneering process and voting was circumscribed, and Biden ran a campaign from his basement. Thus, Americans did not get to know Joe Biden in the normal electioneering manner.

Other than in the COVID-19 period of the Trump Administration, America was experiencing economic growth and prosperity, and the international arena was relatively peaceful. Domestic disputes about social policy were still raging, and domestic tensions and mob actions (sometimes violent) were rising (many of which were stoked by Democrat Party Leaders words and sometimes deeds). Many Americans became weary of this situation and opted to vote for Joe Biden in a hotly disputed election in which Biden was declared the winner.

During the Biden Administration, America has seen many disgraceful events. On the International stage, the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukrainian War, the recent terrorism in Israel, and the threatening actions of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, and on the National stage, the impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Americans and our economy, to the increase in crime in our streets, to illegal immigration on our southern border, to the loss of energy independence, to the supply chain problem, to gas and food price increases, to inflation, to the Fentanyl drug addiction scourge, and to a host of other issues we have seen many disgraceful events in the Biden Administration. We have also seen inordinate deficit spending and the national debt balloon to crushing levels. We have also learned how Joe Biden and the Biden Family were involved in corrupt dealings throughout his career, despite their and their supporters’ denials and lies (Joe Biden was involved in the business dealings of his son, and the Hunter Biden laptop and Ashley Biden’s diary were real).

We have also seen an increase in "Lawfare" and "The Weaponization of Government" under the Biden Administration, culminating in the indictments and prosecutions of President Trump. A weaponization that is a travesty of justice and an assault on the rule of law in America, as my collected Chirps on "The Trials of Trump" have examined.

Consequently, the American electorate was bamboozled by the Democrat Party and Progressive leadership in the 2020 Presidential election, as there would be no return to normalcy, and there would be no adults in charge. In the 2024 Presidential election, we are facing a choice between the same two candidates, the difference being that now Joe Biden has a record to run on (and seems to be running away from), which can be compared to the Trump record.

Many Americans who voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election are beginning to question and doubt their vote for him, but they are hesitant to vote for Donald Trump for the same reasons they didn’t vote for him in the 2020 presidential election. In the 2024 Presidential election, however, they must confront the disastrous record of Joe Biden and ask themselves whether they want to continue on the path that Joe Biden has led America. To those Americans who question and doubt their vote for Joe Biden, I would say that we cannot proceed down this path, as it would lead to the ruination of our American Ideals and Ideas and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Thus, you must hold your nose and vote for Donald Trump to halt, and perhaps correct, the path of America. When you hold your nose and vote for Donald Trump, think of it as the penance that you must pay for being bamboozled and casting the poor vote you made in the 2020 Presidential election.

06/22/24 Are They the Same?

The attempts of Biden supporters to claim that the convictions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden are a refutation of a two-tiered system of justice, on the superficial reason that both a Republican and Democrat person were convicted of crimes, is ludicrous.

The difference is that the Donald Trump convictions were obtained by nebulous and improper charges and corruption of the due process of law, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "The Trials of Trump". Hunter Biden’s conviction was obtained by Hunter Biden’s clear violations of the law and by the application of the proper due process of law, but this only occurred after the Biden administration attempted to corrupt the legal system to Hunter Biden’s advantage. This attempted plea deal and the allowing of the statutes of limitations to expire for other Hunter Biden crimes is another example of a two-tiered system of justice in modern America.

The attempts of the Biden administration of a plea deal for Hunter Biden before the trial that would have given Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal that would allow him to get off the charges with a slap on the hand and a get-out-of-jail free pass for all previous illegal activities are an example of a two-tiered system of justice.

Thus, the claims of Biden supporters that the convictions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden are a refutation of a two-tiered system of justice is yet another attempt by them to confuse the American public by the utilization of Obfuscation, Smoke, and Mirrors. Therefore, I would say to all Americans, do not be confused, as we do have a two-tiered system of justice in America, accelerated by The Weaponization of Government that has occurred in the Obama and Biden Administrations. A two-tiered system of justice that is antithetical to our "American Ideals and Ideas" and our "Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All".

Table of Contents