Language (written and spoken) is how we communicate. Words really do mean things and when we misuse a word, we destroy the meaning of that word as well as the use and meaning of the proper word. A terrorist is a person who uses violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. To call someone who assaulted and robbed you a terrorist is marginally correct (the criminal did probably induce terror in you) but to apply that term to him destroys the terminology to use and describe true terrorists.

The term "Traitor" is getting tossed around a lot lately. I thought I should take the time to inform you clearly of what a traitor is and how it is different from a turncoat, a more accurate but mostly unknown term. Just to be clear, a traitor is always a turncoat, but a turncoat is not always a traitor.

The term "turncoat" means someone who has switched allegiances, and comes from the time when the professional armies had distinct uniforms from other countries. This was how one side could tell who were friendlies vs. enemies, preventing what we today call "blue on blue" events, or friendly fire. If you were to remove your coat and turn it inside out then put it back on, your coat would probably be a different color (and harder to fasten with the buttons being on the inside). The function of this is you will mask who you are to someone at a distance. If a British Redcoat had switched to the side of the Colonists, he would turn his coat inside out, thus making him look less like a Redcoat and somewhat more like the Blue-clothed Colonials. A red coat in a sea of blue would stick out pretty dramatically and make an easy sniper target.

A traitor is a turncoat who has done so during a time of war. A traitor is someone who "gives aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war." This means, according to the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11), that Congress must declare that a state of war exists between the United States and another country. If there is no war, you cannot have a traitor. In modern times when we have fought two wars against non-state armed forces that intentionally wears no uniform so they can blend into the local population, there is no entity or country to declare war against. A grey area would be where a soldier deserts his post and seeks out the enemy to surrender himself to them In a combat zone. There was a soldier who did that in Afghanistan and I refuse to mention his name. That was a traitorous act. The traitor did not give any strategic, tactical or operational information to the enemy, but did give them a morale boost, especially when several of their compatriots were exchanged for this single traitor.

If you followed my Facebook link here because you are outraged that "The Governor of Oklahoma is forcing banks and insurance agencies to not do business with Planned Parenthood," Good. Let's see if your outrage is selective or not. Please replace "Oklahoma" with "New York", "Planned Parenthood" with "NRA" and read it again. If your outrage dissipated, or worse, turned into smug satisfaction, congratulations, you're a hypocrite! Why? Because the business shouldn't matter.

To set the record straight, New York Governor Cuomo is persecuting the National Rifle Association by pressuring banks and insurance agencies to not do business with the them. The clear intent of this is to force the NRA out of New York State or out of business entirely. Here's what's going on. Worse than taking away guns, New York threatens to take away NRA's insurance.

Just to be clear, here is the definition of persecuted:

1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
2. to annoy or trouble persistently.

This happened to many businesses and individuals deemed "marginal" by Obama's government under Operation Choke Point. I wrote about it here.

Because I'm ideologically consistent, I don't care what the business or organization does. I would be speaking out if this was the ACLU, Planned Parenthood or even the Southern Policy Law Center. As long as the good or service produced by a company or organization is legal, I will stand up for them.

This started with an insurance product offered by the National Rifle Association called Carry Guard, an insurance policy for those citizens who lawfully carry a firearm in public. If that armed citizen should ever have to (God forbid) use their weapon to protect themselves, the policy will pay the legal fees for their defense. Because the truth of the matter is, even if a self-defense shooting is ruled justifiable by the police and there is no criminal prosecution, the family of the criminal often sues. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has since decided to declare the selling of this legal product as illegal. Not the actual insurance, mind you, but Cuomo is using the pretext of "The NRA is selling it and they are not licensed to sell insurance." Which is absurd on it's face and anyone with a minimum level of intelligence (and no agenda) can easily see what's going on.

Now it has gone beyond that. It has been made clear to the Insurance and Banking industries (both heavily regulated by the State) in New York in no uncertain terms that "Things will be difficult for you if you offer services to the NRA." No large organization can operate today without liability insurance or the ability to process electronic payments or bank accounts, so this is hurting the NRA.

This is a clear case of persecution. This act defines the "weaponization of government," meaning the full regulatory force of the government (federal, state or local) is being brought to bear on an organization that is engaged in legal business that is compliant with the law, with the intent to cause it to fail. If you are neutral or even in favor of this persecution, then all I can say is KEEP YOUR PIEHOLE SHUT IF THIS HAPPENS TO AN ORGANIZATION YOU LIKE. You started this dance, you like it when this happens to the NRA, expect it to happen to a Leftist organization. If you don't want it to happen to Planned Parenthood, et.al., then don't let it happen to the NRA.

This is why I argue for a smaller and less-intrusive government so it can't do things like this. Government is a brute-force weapon, if it goes after something, expect collateral damage.

This came out last week, and I had to sit on it for a few days so I could temper my words.

The "Senior Administration Official" who wrote this unmitigated piece of horseshit is a moral and physical coward. He has no testicles, no guts, no spine, no moral conviction and most of all, no loyalty. And to all of my Leftist friends, if this had happened during Obama's (or Hillary's) presidency, I would have said the same thing.

Every person who works for another has a societal obligation to do their best for whomever they are working for. To not do your best or even interfere with that your boss/customer has told you to do is a betrayal of trust that goes beyond all forgiveness. It is the highest violation of trust you can visit upon another, and it does nothing but destroy your own word and integrity. The consequences of this one action should result in your being unemployable, let alone having any position of authority for the rest of your life. No one will ever trust you again. If you pass on to your reward homeless and broke, you got off lightly.

I fully understand that there is private "in-fighting" with any group of people. Behind closed doors there will be loud words, hurt feelings and sometimes even blood spilled (metaphorical, not actual). That being said, if you cannot present a public face totally supportive of your boss, then don't be there. .

I can say this because this is what I did.

You can read my prior posts under Masonry to get the full story. When the Grand Master of Masons in Tennessee suspended two brothers for the heinous crime of loving each other, I stood to be counted to abolish this rule. When working within the system failed, I spoke out publicly. I did not hide, everyone who needed to know who wrote the words I posted here and on Facebook knew without a doubt who I was. Those words earned me a private meeting with the next Grand Master, who gave me the options of shutting up, quitting the fraternity or being expelled, I chose to be expelled.

I have completed my thoughts on the insipid, milquetoast, craven, turncoat coward who wrote this. Now it's the New York Times' turn.

To the editor-in-chief and the editorial staff of the New York Times: Jane you ignorant slut.

I seriously have to ask, how many journalistic ethics boundaries did you ignore, break or bypass? To publish something of such a salacious, unverified, undignified and disturbing matter speaks volumes about your lack of integrity. The Press is supposed to have standards and integrity, that what they report is true, correct and complete. That the reporting of events are clearly separated from opinion. That we can discuss points of opinion with the author. The trust and integrity you build while doing this is why the customer decides to part with some of their money to purchase your product. If your customers can't trust what you say to be true, why should they purchase your product?

I'm sure your aim in publishing this bullshit was to hurt Trump. A man who was elected on the premise that Washington is hurting the rest of the country. A man who has made great strides in returning freedom and money to the American People. While you have increased the volume in your Leftist echo chamber, you have done nothing more than further alienate half of the country. In my eyes, the Weekly World News has more credibility than you do.

This is what happens when the laws are easy to change and there is racial animus. 

Starting in 1980, as soon as Zimbabwe became independent from the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Robert Mugabe who came into power at the end of White minority rule, started a program that seized commercial farms from White farmers. At the start of this unnecessary catastrophe, Zimbabwe was known as the "breadbasket of Africa." Today, at least 75% of the country ranks "High to Very High" in food insecurity. While Zimbabwe used to export food, they are one of the biggest importers of food and a large part of their population would die from starvation if those shipments stopped.

Then this story comes out last week, South Africa farm seizure: Terrified white farmers plot escape as crackdown looms.

From the article:

And ANC chairman Gwede Mantashe sparked panic last week when he said: “You shouldn’t own more than 25,000 acres of land.
“Therefore if you own more it should be taken without compensation.
“People who are privileged never give away privilege as a matter of a gift.
“And that is why we say, to give you the tools, revisit the constitution so that you have a legal tool to do it.”

This is the kind of governmental abuses that are visited upon the people of a country when the government can either rewrite their constitution any time they want, or those vested with the responsibility of following it, don't.

Those who study history without an agenda can clearly see what happened (and is still in progress) in Zimbabwe repeating in South Africa. And just like Socialists who believe, "Despite the historical, documented proof that Socialism has a 99% failure rate (the last 1% hasn't failed yet, but they're close). It will get done right this time because we'll be the ones' in charge," those committing this land grab will think everything will turn out wonderfully. Which, of course it won't and millions of people will starve to death like with the various Five-Year Plans of the USSR, China and other Socialist countries.

The operative lesson for everyone, Capitalists, Socialists, Communists alike is this: "If you take the means of production away from those who produce and give it to those who can't produce, don't be surprised if nothing will get produced."

Masterpiece Cake Shop recently beat the proverbial snot out of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission with a 7-2 SCOTUS victory, affirming the right of the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop to refuse to apply his talents to a custom-made cake celebrating things he finds morally and spiritually objectionable, in this case a wedding cake for a same-sex couple (He also won't do Halloween cakes, either, just so you know). He would sell them any standard cake in the shop, however he would not make them a custom cake. I wrote in detail on it here. This comes from the Huffington Post, Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner Sues Colorado After Refusing To Bake Trans Woman’s Cake.

So, what does radical Leftists do when they lose like this? Get furious, double down and work harder to destroy those who disagree with them.

A trans-woman went to Masterpiece Cake Shop, just a few days after the SCOTUS decision and wanted him to make a custom cake for her to celebrate her anniversary for coming out as a woman. This woman is either stupider than a bag of hammers (for not knowing about the SCOTUS decision), or she went there intentionally to pick a fight. I'm leaning toward the latter. When the owner, Jack Phillips, refused on the same moral grounds to make this custom cake, she sued and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has forced Phillips into mediation with this woman.

When the highest court in the country says, "The owner has the right to not be forced by the State to apply his work and talents to things he finds morally objectionable" those of us who live in the rational world would call that "A CLUE" and would advise against poking that particular sleeping bear.

This is what escapes me:

A spokesperson for the Anti-Violence Project said the denial of services to LGBTQ community members fuels disrespect and violence.

“This is a concerted effort by Phillips, in concert with designated hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, to push anti-LGBTQ discrimination under the guise of so-called religious freedom,” the spokesperson, Eliel Cruz, told HuffPost. “These continued infringements on LGBTQ people’s access to public goods and services cultivates a culture of violence against us by promoting a narrative that LGBTQ people are less than. Sexual orientation or gender identity should not prohibit anyone from being treated with dignity and respect at any establishment.”

Okay. She can buy a cake from this business, she just can't get a custom cake celebrating her transition, that she could easily get from any of at least another dozen bakers in the city. This woman is supposedly offended that Phillips refused her service. Does her demand to force Phillips not to offend her by refusing to accept her money trump Phillips being offended for being forced to do something morally reprehensible to him?

Being offended is how you choose to respond to a situation. There is no law, legal or social, that says you have the right to get your way if you're offended. If you don't like how you're treated at business A, walk out their door with your money and give that money to business B. That's the best message I can think of. It's part of this funny concept we in the United States have, it's called freedom. You may or may not have heard about it, and it goes both ways.

Because this woman picked a fight and the CCRC decided to poke this bear (again), this time the bear is showing his teeth. Phillips is fighting back against this persecution. He's suing the Colorado Governor, the Colorado Attorney General and every member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, individually and by name. I hope he sues for damages equal to 10 times each individuals net worth, to send a clear message to let some sleeping bears lie.

Oh, I almost forgot. In a previous post of mine, A New Level of Temper Tantrum, Governor John Hickenlooper, just to show what kind of classy guy he is, made a quite overt promise (threats are usually idle) that he would pardon a mass murderer if he wasn't re-elected in 2014. I hope Hickenlooper pays dearly enough for this lawsuit that he will have to rent the spare bedrooms in the Governor's mansion to help him pay for what he owes Mr. Phillips.

Something is happening with this whole "Trump/Russia collusion" thing. It's starting to unravel and George Papadopoulos might be that thread that pulls everything apart.

Papadopoulos pled guilty to lying to federal investigators in October 2017. Lying to federal investigators is a minor process crime. You can get charged with this if you give your story twice (or more) and reword any statements, or add/forget even minor details in the statement. The plea deal to this lower charge is to avoid "more serious charges." We don't know what those "more serious charges" are because in the federal system, dropping charges after a defendant is indicted is difficult at best. The "more serious charges" are not brought to a grand jury if the defendant agrees to plead guilty to lesser charges. So, we have no idea what charges Papadopoulos were threatened with.

Anyway, his sentencing hearing is scheduled for September 7th. From what I understand, right about the time that Peter Strzok was fired from the FBI, Papadopoulos' lawyers filed a motion of discovery to see the evidence the FBI has against their client. According to Rachael Maddow, the Mueller team asked for and was granted a protective order preventing the release of this evidence to Papadopoulos and his legal team. The statement reads in part:

"Entry of a protective order restricting the use, dissemination, and disposition of discovery materials is essential to permit the United States to provide certain discovery to the defendant, which the defendant has requested in advance of his sentencing proceeding..."

This is interesting because things have come out in the past several days. While this whole thing is very complex and with multiple players, I am going to concentrate only on the events that started this ball rolling.

In May of 2016, George Papadopoulos was in a London bar and just so happened to strike up a conversation with Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat. During this conversation, Papadopoulos stated (upon prompting by Downer) that he "heard the Russians have dirt on Hillary." In June 2016, Downer reported this contact to US authorities in late June, about 6 weeks after the meeting. This event has been declared as what started the whole investigation.

It came out a couple of months ago that in April of 2016 (a month before the meeting with Downer), George Papadopoulos had a conversation with Cambridge Professor Joseph Mifsud. Here is a quote from the charging document filed by the Mueller team against Papadopoulos:

On or about April 26, 2016, the defendant Papadopoulos met the Professor [Mifsud] for breakfast at a London hotel. During this meeting, the Professor told defendant Papadopoulos that he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian government officials. The Professor told defendant Papadopoulos that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on then-candidate Clinton. The Professor told defendant Papadopoulos, as defendant Papadopoulos later described to the FBI, that “They [the Russians] have dirt on her”; “the Russians had emails of Clinton”; “they have thousands of emails.” [Emphasis added]

Now, based on that information, you might reasonably conclude that Mifsud could be a Russian agent of some kind. You would be wrong. Don't feel bad, that's what most people who knew about this thought as well. Evidence has surfaced in the past week that indicates Mifsud is an agent of a Western, not Russian intelligence agency. Which one is still not clear, however things are leaning toward a British intelligence agency.

Let me put it to you this way. Let's say someone you have never met before strikes up a conversation with you one day, and tells you, "Hey, I heard about some guys who want to rob a bank. Would you like to help?" Of course, most people would say "no." Then, a couple weeks later, another person asks you, "Hey, have you heard anything about a bank robbery?" When you say offhandedly, "some guy I've never met before told me about one..." At this point you're arrested and charged with "Conspiracy to Commit Robbery." It turns out both people you had conversations with were undercover police or a confidential informant of the police. In legal terms this is called ENTRAPMENT. This is where the police (or their agent) entices a person who is not intending to commit a crime to commit one.

Mifsud, an alleged Western intelligence agent, planted this bug into Papadopoulos' ear. Downer, another agent (who has direct ties with the Clintons, but I digress) pulled that information out of Papadopoulos and that was used to start the whole Trump witch hunt. With this revelation, it seems to indicate that Papadopoulos is going to withdraw his guilty plea on September 7th. If this goes to trial, some rather embarrassing facts could come to light. Facts that do not work in favor with the Mueller team, the FBI, the Justice Department or the Obama administration.

I am just speculating here. If Mifsud "pushed" this information into Papadopoulos on the orders of Mifsud's handlers (whomever he works for), that would seriously damage the relationship between the US and that country, because a friendly country caused all of this pain and heartache to happen. Let's speculate even further. Let's say a US government official asked this foreign intelligence agency to push this information to someone in the Trump campaign, namely Papadopoulos. What do you think that could mean? A senior-level Obama administration official, asking a friendly foreign intelligence agency to run an entrapment operation on Papadopoulos and by extension the Trump campaign. I would consider that a very serious allegation, wouldn't you?

This is what happens when you keep calling the United States a Democracy: Think the Constitution Will Save Us? Think Again.

Okay folks, words matter. Words have distinct meanings and must mean the same thing to everybody. Except for Leftists and people fooled by Leftists. In their case, words mean what they want them to mean and the same word at the beginning of a sentence can have a different meaning by the end of it.

Let's go over this. One. More. Time.

THE UNITED STATES IS A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

This country is called the United States and not the United People is because the Constitution was not written by or for the People, it was written by delegates from the thirteen State governments. The Constitution was not ratified by a popular vote, it was done so by the State governments.

Here's what those words mean:

1) FEDERAL - Pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states.

2) CONSTITUTIONAL - A system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed.

3) REPRESENTATIVE - Each declared district elects one person from their group to represent all of the citizens in that district in the body they are elected to.

4) REPUBLIC - A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

When I look up Democracy, I get this: 

Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

I know I live in a Republic and not a Democracy because of this simple fact: In Memphis, TN, 63% of the population identify as "Black or African-American" and a majority of City Council members, 7 of the 13 are Black. If this were a democracy (direct or indirect), a motion could be introduced to the people as a whole or to the City Council that would read, "Starting September 5th, 2018, any person who is a legal resident of Memphis, TN can bring the head of a White person to the courthouse steps, shall receive a bounty of $50 per head."

In a Democracy, if a majority of the people voted for this (either the citizens as a whole, or their elected representatives), that bounty would be law. There would be no court to overturn it because a Democracy is "the will of the people." And until the "will of the people" changes, it is the law. In a Republic, where the rule of law applies to all and is intentionally hard to change, this would probably never happen.

So when I read the article I posted at the top of this article, my head almost exploded, which is why this is filed under Duct Tape Alert. This is the first paragraph:

Consider a few facts: Donald Trump is in the White House, despite winning almost three million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. The Senate, the country’s most powerful legislative chamber, grants the same representation to Wyoming’s 579,315 residents as it does to 39,536,653 Californians. Key voting rights are denied to citizens in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other United States territories. The American government is structured by an 18th-century text that is almost impossible to change.

The Congress is a bicameral legislative body balancing the interests of the People (House) and the States (Senate). In order for a law to pass, it must advance the well-being (supposedly) of both the States and the Citizens. The House I believe is the most powerful chamber, as it controls the money of government. To balance that great power, the Senate was given many lesser things that have to do with the government itself, internally and externally. These are in the interests of the States, not the People, which is why those powers are invested in the Senate. The Constitution gave equal power in the Senate to each State (two Senators) for the declared purpose of that the larger States could not force their agendas down the throats of the smaller States.

The irony is thick in the second paragraph. First of all, they quote from Federalist #10, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection:

For James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 10, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention” incompatible with the rights of property owners.

I guess it's a normal and expected thing for the New York Times to misquote and take out of context people they don't agree with, especially Dead Rich White Males. Here's the whole sentence that Madison wrote and they misquoted and took out of context:

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. [emphasis mine]

Democracies are the tyranny of the majority. Because the "rule of the people" is the only measure, there can be no stability. What is the law one day can be changed the next. Republics, through the rule of law and hard processes to change those laws, actually protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Even some liberals like Vox’s Matthew Yglesias rightly worry that the current system of governance is headed toward collapse.

I agree that the current system is headed towards collapse. However, it's through the ballooning federal government, the overspending and a whole lot more rather than the structure provided by the Constitution.

Yet whether or not the president knows it, the Constitution has long been venerated by conservative business elites like himself on the grounds that it hands them the power to fend off attempts to redistribute wealth and create new social guarantees in the interest of working people. There’s a reason we’re the only developed country without guarantees such as universal health care and paid maternity leave.

Yes, there is a reason why we don't have universal health care and paid maternity leave. It's called the #1 economy in the world at $20 Trillion GDP. This derives from  the freedom to choose to do what you want to do with your money, not the government. If we redistribute all of the money from "the rich" to the "not rich," (with the government taking "its' fare share", of course) then we will not have an economy. Because the people who own the businesses lose their money, they can't run companies. No companies, no jobs.

While preserving and expanding the Bill of Rights's incomplete safeguards of individual freedoms, we need to start working toward the establishment of a new political system that truly represents Americans.

There they go again. The Bill of Rights do not "give" Rights from the government to the People, they recognize that Man has these Rights by the nature of his Birth. Thus, the Bill of Rights clearly restrict the government from infringing on those Rights. You might want to read the Preamble for the Bill of Rights, because it says it in there.

So here's the payoff for the article, but only the intermediary objective:

Our ideal should be a strong federal government powered by a proportionally elected unicameral legislature. But intermediary steps toward that vision can be taken by abolishing the filibuster, establishing federal control over elections and developing a simpler way to amend the Constitution through national referendum.

So let's break this down:

• Strong federal government - More power for Washington, less power for States and Citizens.
• Proportionally elected unicameral legislature - One House, no Senate. A great way for the big bully States to force their agenda on smaller States.
• Abolishing the filibuster - A senate procedural rule. Filibusters are stopped by a Cloture vote. The number of votes to invoke Cloture started at 2/3's (67 votes), it's now down to 60 votes and several subjects are exempt from it, namely Supreme Court nominees. This rule protects the minority party, which the Democrats are right now.
• Federal control over elections - Elections are currently run and certified at the county level, all 3,133 of them. Yes, there are corrupt and mismanaged counties. Which would you prefer, several counties that might have "incorrect" vote tallies, or a federally run system where one person could switch a million votes to the candidate they support? Stalin is credited with saying, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
• Amend the Constitution through National Referendum - Something like California's Proposition process? Too bad the courts have overturned at least 9 of them in recent years. And remember, the Constitution was set up for the States, not the People.

This is what you need to consider. Our system is meant for long periods of deliberation, then a vote to set the direction for the next several years. when you allow for a shorter cycle subject to the transitory will of the People, nothing but chaos will result. Look at how quickly high-heeled Crocs came and went. Do you want a Constitutional Amendment that is the legal equivalent of that?

Of course, I said "intermediary objective" for a reason. I am sure that Leftists want to either abolish elections altogether, or render them moot. As a real world history lesson, if you belonged to the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, you were required to vote. If you didn't belong to the Party, you didn't vote. Each elected office had one person on the ballot you could vote for and no write-ins allowed. If that's the kind of electoral system you want, please go somewhere else.

The other day it came out that Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys had a "toe-the-line" policy that no Cowboy will kneel during the National Anthem. I fully support that. It's his team, he signs the paychecks and If a player doesn't like it, he can play somewhere else. It's a free country. Or is it?

When Dak Prescott, the Quarterback for the Cowboys released this statement, Liberals went berserk:

I’d never protest during anthem, and I don’t think that’s the time or the venue to do so. The game of football has always brought me such a peace, and I think it does the same for a lot of people – a lot of people playing the game, a lot of people watching the game, a lot of people that have any impact of the game. So when you bring such a controversy to the stadium, to the field, to the game, it takes away ... from that. It takes away from the joy and the love that football brings a lot of people. For me, I’m all about making a change and making a difference. I think this whole kneeling, and all of that, was all about just raising awareness, and the fact that we’re still talking about social injustice years later, I think we’ve gotten to that point. I think we’ve proved it. We know about social injustice. I’m up for taking a next step, whatever that step may be for action and not just kneeling.

I’ve always believed in standing up for what I believe in, and that’s what I’m going to continue to do.

I find this statement to be thoughtful, full of personal emotion, a respectful recognition of other viewpoints and a call to action.

How was this regarded by Carron J. Phillips (Facebook, Twitter)? I took a screen cap of his tweet:

I have no idea why Mr. Phillips pulled that particular punch. After all, Mr Phillips and Mr. Prescott are both African-Americans, so Mr. Phillips' would have been within his prerogative to use the term "house nigger," because Blacks can use that word with Blacks. If you are not familiar with this particular pejorative, the slaves who worked in the fields did not like the slaves that worked in the house and served the Masters, because the "house niggers" received better food, slept in better conditions and didn't have to work under the hot sun in the fields all day long.

After such a Tweet, was Mr. Phillips apologetic, perhaps slightly amenable to moderating his position? Umm, no. Recalcitrant as ever, this was the follow up Tweet:

Like we have "Moore's Law" and "Godwin's Law," I thought about naming this as "Carron's law," then I realized, every radical leftist does this. If you disagree with a radical leftist, even if the difference is by 0.0001%, you will be name-called everything in the book and they will seek to destroy you. Personally, professionally and ideologically.

Then we have this incident, Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA were having a quiet breakfast in public when they were without provocation attacked by about 50 Antifas. Kirk had water thrown on him. Let me make something perfectly clear, if I see someone approaching me with a glass containing a liquid and they seem intending on throwing it on me, I will ENGAGE WITH DEADLY FORCE BEFORE THEY CAN THROW IT. Why? Can you tell from 10 feet away the difference between a glass filled with water and a glass filled with hydrochloric acid? Here's a couple of pictures of the results when acid gets thrown on people. It's not pretty:

With this being a possible outcome having an unknown liquid splashed on you, would you want to wait until it's on you to find out what it was? I didn't think so. If you think that anybody deserves this for any reason, you are lower than an animal.

When a response to a differing opinion is extreme epithets, personal attacks, threats of violence or actual violence, then there can be no reasoned exchange of ideas. This threat of violence and "mock violence" will escalate and inevitably lead to someone getting seriously injured or dead. And let me tell you Leftists, those of us on the Right have more guns than the police and the military. If it comes down to shooting, which I hope to God it never does, we will run out of targets (i.e. Leftists/Antifa) before we run out of ammunition.

It's been case law since 1856 when SCOTUS ruled in South v. Maryland that Law Enforcement has no duty to protect individual citizens. You cannot sue the police for damages if you call them for help and they do not respond in time (or at all).

One of the more brutal examples of this is Warren V. District of Columbia.

The story of the plight of disarmed D.C. residents really begins on the night of March 16, 1975, when three women, sharing a townhouse, were awakened by the sound of their door being kicked in. This was no ordinary burglary or home invasion; this was a horrific, unspeakable crime.

 

Two of the three roommates had rooms upstairs. They were awakened by the screaming of their friend downstairs who was being beaten, raped and sodomized by two men.

 

Carolyn Warren called the police and was told help was on the way. She and her other upstairs roommate watched in horror as a police car passed their home, merely slowing down. They called the police a second time. This time, there was no response at all. After an hour, hearing no sounds from the floor below, they called down to their friend, but merely alerted the rapists to their presence.

 

After that, all three women were forced to endure 14 unspeakable hours of sexual torture.

In essence, the government, short of a "special duty" has zero obligation to come to your aid if you are in distress. This is why the importance of having the Right to use the tools you determine necessary to defend yourself (i.e., firearms) is absolutely critical. I also spoke on this in my article The 'Why' of the Second Amendment, Part 1.

Teachers (as government workers in the public school system) are under the same non-obligation. In June 2018, a Michigan judge ruled the state has no duty to provide literacy services to children. Judge says there's no fundamental right to learn to read and write. In the "'Why' of the 2nd Amendment" article, I stated that the deputy who waited outside of the school during the Parkland school shooting had no legal requirement to enter the building and engage the shooter. His obligation was to arrest the shooter and bring him to the prosecutors. The human thing to do would have been to charge in and engage the shooter, even at the risk of his own life.

The government has no obligation to educate you. I can't say that enough. George Carlin in a rare moment said (paraphrasing), "...[those in charge] want workers who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but lack the critical thinking skills to see how bad things suck." The bad news is, the government pretty much is in charge of the People.

The decision to be literate is made by the person. No other person can force them to learn to read and write. Quite frankly, children can be taught by the parents that they don't need to learn these things, which is why if you read the article, you would find that only 44% of Detroit third-graders can read and write at their grade level. This just boggles my mind. I don't know if the parents don't care, if the children have learned helplessness from the parents and don't try, or the teachers are incompetent. Probably all three to varying degrees.

The advancement and enhancement of society in general depends on each citizen knowing as much as possible about a few things and being somewhat knowledgeable on many things. In my daily job, over 80% of my service calls are due to end-users not understanding the basics. They try to use equipment that clearly says "NOT IN SERVICE," or the screen is dark. They put documents into the wrong ports, the access cards they have to insert look like a Pringles chip and so on. One time a piece of equipment was getting removed from a site to allow for the installation of a newer unit. It was on the truck and ready to be hauled away and an end-user climbs up on the truck to use the old model. It had to be explained to the end-user that the unit on the truck would not work because it was not hooked to electrical power.

Common sense, the ability to acquire knowledge, to logically reason based on that knowledge and the ability to defend yourself are have to come from within yourself, through your own active efforts. If you let government give them to you, don't be surprised to find them not there to help you, or to be there to hurt you.

I have spoken before about the Muller Probe making a show when in February 2018 they indicted 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian companies, including Concord Management and Consulting, for interfering in the 2016 presidential election. Oh, this is delicious and I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

These indictments clearly shows that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. It turns out their case was so screwed up that one of the indicted entities was not even an incorporated entity (i.e., it did not exist) at the time of the alleged offenses. The fact of the matter is, these indictments were a media show to "prove" that Muller was "doing something," since the only things his team has uncovered to date were Flynn's and Papadopolous's lying to federal prosecutors, and Manafort's money laundering, which took place long before Trump was running for president. Of course, we don't have an extradition treaty with Russia, so Muller figured there is no chance that any Russians he charged would show up and his team would actually have to prosecute the case they supposedly had against them.

Then Concord Management actually showed up, demanded a speedy trial and demanded to immediately proceed to the discovery phase of the trial. In response to this, two things happened in a press conference by Rob Rosenstein on July 13th. The first was, the Mueller team has announced more indictments, this time of twelve Russian GRU (military intelligence) officers who will never show up in the US for any reason. Not only (again) do we not have an extradition treaty with Russia, the knowledge these men possess would be a security breach of the highest degree for the Russians. I am sure Putin would execute these men rather than have them set foot on US soil.

The second announcement at that press conference was that for the prosecution of Concord Management the Justice Department will now “transition responsibility for this case to our Department’s National Security Division while we await the apprehension of the defendants.” This means that this case will be buried in the Justice Department unit that deals with counterintelligence matters that do not result in public trials. So even if something does happen (which it won't), the results of that case will never see the light of day.

So now I have to ask an awkward question. If Muller and his team are there because the Justice Department can't or won't investigate, indict and prosecute crimes related to the Russian interference into the 2016 federal election, I have to ask why is he referring all of his indictments back to the Justice Department? If Mueller spent all of this time and resources to investigate and indict these people suspects, then referred the prosecution phase to the same people who wouldn't do the first two, why does he think they will execute the prosecution with enough vigor to earn a conviction?

Things that make you go "Hmmmmm....."

I believe tariffs are a bad thing. If you read Economics in One Lesson, you will learn that tariffs are a tax on incoming goods. While that was the way the government raised revenue in the 18th and 19th centuries (no income tax), from the late 19th century to today tariffs have been used to boost the cost (and thus the price to you) of foreign goods above the same goods produced domestically as a protectionist measure. This is a Bad Thing in today's global economy because we import from and export to just about every other country. There is almost no product you can purchase today where all of the components are manufactured in one country. Also, if we impose tariffs on incoming goods, there is nothing stopping the country we imported from to impose tariffs on things we ship them. In the end, no one wins because the company loses business and the consumer purchases less because the price is higher.

It's been all over the news since Trump took office about the tariffs he has imposed on the EU, China and other places. "TRADE WAR!!!!" is what all of our news outlets headlines have been.

Did you hear about this news? From CBS: Trump says U.S., EU working toward "zero" tariffs and NPR: Trump And EU Agree To Work Toward Zero Tariffs. It turns out that the EU had a tariffs on a variety of US goods.

If you had listened to Trump himself, rather than what the MSM talking heads are saying what Trump says, you would have heard Trump say he "wanted to negotiate better trade deals with other countries."

So in a trade relationship with the EU, they slapped tariffs on our goods, while we had few, if any tariffs on EU goods. So Trump equals and exceeds the tariffs on EU goods, the EU threatens to escalate their tariffs and back-and-forth several times. Then Trump meets with the EU and says, "These tariffs hurt both of us. Let's eliminate all of them. What do you think?" In a not-very-amazing move, the EU agreed. I say "not-very-amazing" because when you look at it from a global business point of view, tariffs are unquestionably A Bad Thing.

So, Trump has done a Very Good Thing. With EU tariffs on US goods gone, we should get more orders from Europe for our stuff. More orders == more demand == more jobs. Now all he has to do is rinse, wash, repeat for China.

The most terrible power of a Law Enforcement Officer, Federal, State or Local, is the power of arrest. When an LEO arrests you, this means to their belief and knowledge, you have violated a law and you need to be held to account for that crime. This simple act and the accompanying words, "You are under arrest for..." changes people's lives. Like the Dark Side of the Force, once you start down that path, it will dominate your future life. Guilty or innocent, your finances will be ruined, your family will be disgraced and your young children will not understand why this Bad Man is taking you away from them. That's all on top of any prison time you may have to serve. If you manage to get a "not guilty" decision from the jury, you are still out thousands, if not millions of dollars spent on your defense and there will always be whispers about you. In the words of former Department of Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan after his acquittal, “What office do I go to to get my reputation back?”

The following applies to ANY warrant, be it an arrest warrant, a surveillance warrant, whatever:

The integrity of an LEO has to be beyond question. His word when he appears before a judge to ask for a warrant has to be nothing less than impeccable. The LEO swears, "The information I am about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Every piece of information use to obtain a warrant must be true. Either the LEO can produce the physical evidence, or testify that they witnessed/heard the information, or can produce the witness who made the statement. One hundred percent, nothing less. The truthful information in a warrant can't be 51%, or 67%, or 95%, not even if 99 44/100% of the evidence is true, the warrant must not be signed. To have any amount of false information in a warrant and presented as the truth to the judge, the judge will make the incorrect decision.

The reason why the word of an LEO must be impeccable is this: If the LEO is caught lying/falsifying information in a case, for whatever reason, every other case he has been involved with, not matter how tangentially, is now cast doubt on. Every case this LEO has been involved with, every person who has been convicted because of information he gathered and his testimony can now be retried. If that LEO has put 1,000 people in jail in a 30 year career, every one of those convicts can now sue the LEO and the jurisdiction that tried them. For every case he testifies in going forward, the first question any good defense lawyer will ask will be, "You lied in [this case], how can we trust and believe you now?"

Now let's get to the meat of the matter. Here is the application for a surveillance warrant presented to the FISA court to monitor Carter Page, and it's three subsequent renewals.

The "TOP SECRET/NOFORN" at the top and bottom of every page declares that there is information in this document containing information that has been classified as Top Secret. The NOFORN means that this information is not to be shown to any non-US citizen, even if they possess a TS clearance. The (U), (S), (S/NF) and so on at the beginning of every paragraph declares if that bit of information is Unclassified, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret or NOFORN.

Let's start at page 15 of the original application, with the first piece of evidence supporting why this warrant should be signed:

First, according to information provided by an FBI confidential human source (Source #1), [REDACTED] reported that Page had a [REDACTED].

Source #1, who now owns a foreign business/financial intelligence firm, was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia (the identified U.S. person and source #1 have a long-standing business relationship). The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign.

Source #1 tasked his sub-source(s) to collect the requisite information. After Source #1 received information from the sub-source(s), described herein, Source #1 provided the information to the identified U.S. person who had hired Source #1 and to the FBI. [REDACTED]

Notwithstanding Source #1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible. [REDACTED].

Just to make things clear, Candidate #1 is Trump, Source #1 is Christopher Steele, and the "identified U.S. person" is Daniel Jones. Who is he? A former staff person for Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Jones raised $50 Million to hire Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to generate this dossier. This same dossier which in January 2017 FBI Director James Comey briefed President-Elect Trump about, which was in Comey's words, "salacious and unverified."

Now, if this was an intelligence or counter-intelligence operation, indirect information given by a reliable source is considered acceptable and "actionable," meaning we can use this information to conduct the operation. Except this is a criminal investigation. For a court of law, a "dependable source" who vouches for the information they got from someone else won't cut it. Vicarious credibility (I trust Bob, who says this fact he got from someone else is true, so I believe the fact is true) does not exist in a court of law. Well, it does, but it's called hearsay and it's not admissible.

No criminal charges can be brought against anybody using any information that is discovered from Page's texts, emails or phone calls from this warrant. Because the basis of the warrant to gather that information was false, this corrupts everything derived from it. This is known as the "fruit from a poisoned tree."

Bottom line: On page 54 of the document, it reads, "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information regarding Carter W. Page is true and correct." Signed October [REDACTED} 2016, [REDACTED], Supervisory Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation. When we the people find out that the agent who signed this application, his name will be MUD.

By the nature of physics, a vehicle with the steering wheels in the back (relative to the direction the vehicle is moving) can cause the vehicle to turn sharper, in less distance and for less turning of the steering wheel. When done properly, this is a great enhancement to the control of the vehicle. Done improperly, a catastrophe can occur.

The other day, Tom Perez, who is chairman of the Democrat National Committee, said this on The Bill Press radio show:

"What's this tell you about where the Democratic Party is going today?" Press asked the DNC chair.

Perez said his daughters both texted him about their excitement over Ocasio-Cortez's win.

"Because, she really, she represents the future of our party," Perez said, complimenting the self-described Democratic socialist for running a "spirited campaign."

The future of our party. I hope that the context of Mr. Perez’s remark spoke of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was, “young, female, minority” identity politics. While Conservatives are concerned about the ideological position of a person and what their plans are if they win office, Democrats generally look to checking off demographic points. If Mr. Perez was lauding Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’ political outlook as a “Democratic Socialist,” then they (and we as a result) are in deep trouble. Because she represents the amount of radicalization for the Democrats that has increased exponentially with every generation since the 60’s.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez in her campaign promoted a “Santa Claus” government, with free single-payer health care, federally guaranteed jobs, free college education, and the abolishment of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

If John F. Kennedy had been teleported from 1960 to 2016, he would, by his views not only been a Republican, he would have been to the Right of Trump. Think about that for a moment. The mainstream Democrat Presidential nominee in 1960, who was considered radical at the time because he was a Catholic, his views 56 years later would be considered a Right-Wing Hatemonger by the same party that they nominated to lead the country. This bellwether is why Conservatives use the term “run to the left” for Liberals and why Ronald Reagan (who was a Democrat in 1960) said in 1962, “I didn’t leave the Democrat party, the party left me.”

The radicals became radicalized in the early 2000’s, which led to the election of Obama in 2008 and his eight years in office. He was at least a borderline Socialist but never openly admitted it.

This radicalization continues its’ run to the Left today when Bernie Sanders (an openly admitted Socialist) became a viable candidate for the Democrats last bid for the White House. Of course, he never had a realistic chance going up against the Clinton Machine, but that’s beside the point. The fact-of-the-matter is, a significant number of Democrats “felt the Bern” and thought a Socialist as president was the best option for the country.

In statistics, one data point is nothing. Two data points can indicate a rough direction. With the primary win of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, and her likely election to the House (I don’t know if there is even a Republican running in that district), there will now be two Socialists in Congress. I am confident there will be three or four of them after the 2020 elections.

And then we have The New Republic, Bernie Sanders Is Not the Left.

This author makes no pretense about his views:

Sanders and his supporters have helped push the Democrats to the left, but the party has yet to truly embrace its left flank.

I suppose it’s a rhetorical question, but “why must the Democrats ‘embrace its left flank’?” If there were more than a minuscule few on the left flank, wouldn’t that then be the center? Why should the Democrats embrace the left flank and not the right flank?

A quote from the article:

…Sanders has never been a figurehead to everyone in the American left. His primary bid did draw the support of many leftists, but leftist voters in the United States aren’t spoiled for options—or at least they weren’t when Sanders launched his long-shot bid for president. That’s changing now, and it’s putting Sanders’s politics in perspective. He does not occupy the left-most band of the spectrum.

It’s certainly true that Sanders is to the left of most Democrats. But contrary to how he’s often portrayed in the media, he is not a doctrinaire leftist. His principal benefit to the left has been to mainstream certain beliefs—namely, that access to health care, education, and living wages are rights, not luxuries. But Sanders is not a revolutionary. His views aren’t even entirely consistent with democratic socialism, the political tradition he claims. It’s one thing to call for breaking up the big banks, and quite another to call for the nationalization of private industries. [emphasis mine]

When you couple the author’s call for the Democrats to “embrace their left wing,” then lament the only Socialist in the halls of DC power isn’t far enough to the left, then my statement of “radicalizing of radicals” rings true.

I can’t understand how anyone can look at the past 100 years of history and not see what has happened to the people under the rule of Socialist governments (100,000,000 dead by democide in the past century and rising every day) and say, “The Socialist system is sound, it’s just the right people weren’t in charge.”

I hate to tell these people, there never can be “the right people in charge” because a single person and especially a group of people will never have the pool of knowledge, the reasoning ability and the incorruptible character required to do the job properly. When the government owns and controls the means of production (which is the very definition of Socialism), the centralized control that is required to manage that system can never quickly enough or correctly allocate the resources at its’ disposal efficiently to meet the needs of the citizens.

We can also look at these Socialist governments and see that those in charge never truly wanted for anything. It was the poor schlubs at the bottom who starved to death eating mud pies while the ruling elite got fat.

Socialism has failed spectacularly 90% of the time it’s been tried. The other 10% are still in the process of eating themselves and haven’t gotten to the end stage yet. The Chinese are stubbornly trying to remain Communist, however since they took control of Hong Kong in 1997 and their involvement in global trade, they have been dragged kicking and screaming into a somewhat market-type economy.

Insisting Socialism works and not having a single successful example while saying all of the failed Socialist governments to date have failed because of “not the right people in charge” or “that wasn’t true Socialism” are exemplifying the adage, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.” A system where a few people are in charge of most everything while everyone else is forced to work against their own self-interest is going to fail, every time it’s tried.

I missed this yesterday. Listen to this. If this does not cause tears to come to your eyes, shivers to run up and down your body and a base anger against those who seek to oppress others, then please leave the United States for you do not belong here. This document and the words therein are truly timeless and speaks to every generation. If listening to this does not stir something within you, then you do not yearn to breathe free.

With the news of Justice Kennedy retiring, Liberals are having a shit fit because Kennedy is the infamous "swing vote" that almost sides with the more Liberal judges on social issues. President Trump has been appointing strict Constitutionalists to the lower courts and there is no reason to believe that he will not continue on that path with his pending SCOTUS appointment.

This means that there will be a solid four strict Constitutionalist votes and one part-time Constitutionalist in Mr. Roberts (whom long ago I said I can never use the title "justice" with him). With the two oldest Justices being "living" Constitutionalists (Ginsberg, 85 and Breyer, 79) If Trump is re-elected, it is entirely possible he could and would fill those seats with strict Constitutionalists as well.

This, of course, has Liberals in a full on seizure mode. Why? Simply put precedents like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges will be in great jeopardy of being overturned.

The ancestors of Liberals (crusading "do-gooders" who want to impose their morality on everyone else) pushed through the Eighteenth Amendment, the Constitution's only foray into social issues. It proved to be such a [sarcasm]wonderful success[/sarcasm] that it was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment only fourteen years later, the only Amendment to have that "honor." So these "Social Justice Warriors" turned to the courts to impose their will on the People. The reason why Abortion and SSM (same-sex marriage) are hotly fought debates across this country is because We The People didn't settle these issues, nine people wearing black robes in Washington did.

As I said in A Legacy Built on Sand, precedents like this that can be easily overturned (in this instance, "easily" is a bit understated) because someone with a different political perspective holds the office now and can undo improperly done things.

I never have been and most likely never will be in favor of any kind of direct democracy. Our Founding Fathers hated the idea of mob rule, which is why they created this government as a Constitutional Republic. That being said, there are in rare instances of large and dividing social issues like these, each State should put these issues to an "up or down" vote and make it unreviewable by the Judiciary (aka California's "Proposition XX was overturned by judges today..."). That way, the citizens of the States can decide the issue for themselves. Some States will probably vote in favor of abortion and SSM, some States "yes" on one and "no" on the other, and still other States will vote "no" on both. And just to be clear, while I am using abortion and SSM together as examples, each example needs to be treated slightly differently.

The issue of abortion pertains to the legality of performing an abortion in that State. If Arkansas does not allow abortions but Missouri does, I would not be against Arkansas pro-choice "family clinics" offering transportation to abortion clinics in Missouri where a woman could get an abortion. Hawaii may support SSM, while Montana might not. There is nothing preventing a same-sex couple from traveling from Montana to Hawaii and getting married. Under Article 4 Section 1 of the Constitution, a valid marriage certificate issued by Hawaii must be accepted by Montana. It doesn't matter if the certificate is for Mary and Mike or Richard and Randy.

And just because I'm a flexible guy on this "direct democracy" thing, we could revisit these (and other social subjects) every, say 20 years. That way if social norms change and evolve, the laws specific to these social subjects could evolve as well.

So here are (to me) the six most important cases to roll out of this Supreme Court session. Five of these were serious dealings in favor of individual liberty and against those who wish for discretionary government control. The last one will severely hurt small businesses, no matter what.

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD.,ET AL.v.COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL.

This was a "punt" by SCOTUS, leaving the decision about the Constitutionality of the law itself undecided. I am okay with this, because I am in favor of the feds keeping their nose out of state business unless it crosses state lines. That being said, when the state government is actively against selected (group or individual) people for whatever reason, then it becomes a SCOTUS issue.

The court found in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop in that the Colorado Civil Right Commission was openly hostile to and prejudiced against the baker. Part of the decision reads:

Held: (a) ...Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.

(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust...

Yeah, I like limiting the power and authority of unelected government bureaucrats who make up their own rules.

JANUS v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL.

This will hurt the public-sector employee unions very badly. This is actually the second case like this one, however, the first case, FRIEDRICHS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. was undecided due to Justice Scalia's unexpected passing, thus making a 4-4 split. In both Janus and Friedrichs, public sector employees resented having to pay dues to a union that they didn't belong to and didn't believe in the political objectives of those unions. The unions and government in both states agreed that the unions would represent both union members and non-union members, even if the non-members didn't want the representation of the union.

The fees confiscated from paid by non-members are "fungible" money, meaning that once it is received into the general fund of the union, you cannot say one way or the other that the money was or was not spent on any actions that the non-members objected to.

I am all for collective bargaining for those who want it and individual bargaining for those who don't want collective bargaining. If the non-union members end up with a worse deal than the union members, They are free to join the union. If the non-union employees get a better package than the union because, you know, they might perform their job better and know they don't have the "protection" of the union, then the better performing teachers might jump the union ship.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY AND LIFE ADVOCATES, DBA NIFLA, ET AL. v. BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

You can tell how overbearing this law is by the first sentience of the decision:

The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act) was enacted to regulate crisis pregnancy centers—pro-life centers that offer pregnancy-related services. [emphasis mine]

My question is, why weren't the clinics that are pro-abortion pro-choice clinics regulated under the same act? If this law required pro-life centers to advertise free or low cost abortions, why wasn't the pro-choice centers required to advertise the pro-life options? The rabid pro-choicers will undoubtedly say, "they offer adoption or other pro-life options as part of their information package." Of course they do. I'm sure the woman is given a brochure on adoption... that's 2nd from the bottom of 18 brochures about family planning, aftereffects of abortion, etc. while being carried on a whirlwind from waiting room to recovery room. And of course, the staff would never say the words "you could give the baby up for adoption" or let the woman see the ultrasound of the fetus while assessing how best to terminate the fetus.

This is a clear case of the state government restricting the freedom of speech by requiring an organization to say/display/advertise a position and an option that is antithetical to their purpose and mission. I am very glad California was kicked to the curb. To show my ideological consistency, if this was a pro-life state that was forcing Planned Parenthood to post pro-life posters, I would be happy that PP got the nod and the states law knocked down.

TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. HAWAII ET AL.

This was the case of a court actively interfering with the lawful daily business of the President. Trump enacted a 50-day hold on immigration from seven countries, Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. This list was developed by the State Department and Homeland Security under Obama. These countries were selected because either:

• They have no functioning national government so we have no one to confirm the identity of an applicant,
• The records of that government are unable to satisfy our government agencies as to the identity of an applicants information, or
• They are an actively hostile foreign power and thus have reasons to issue false documents to people meant to infiltrate the US for the purposes of spying or sabotage.

Here's what the decision said:

After a 50-day period during which the State Department made diplomatic efforts to encourage foreign governments to improve their practices, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that eight countries —Chad, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen—remained deficient. She [Acting Secretary of DHS] recommended entry restrictions for certain nationals from all of those countries but Iraq, which had a close cooperative relationship with the U. S. She also recommended including Somalia, which met the information-sharing component of the baseline standards but had other special risk factors, such as a significant terrorist presence.

I'm sorry, I don't think there's a lot of Muslims in either Venezuela or North Korea, so #MuslimBan doesn't seem to fit quite right. Also, those countries with a majority of people who practice the Muslim faith (Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen) make up less than 10% of the worlds Muslim population. Again, #MuslimBan doesn't hold up to the truth.

The lower court took into consideration the campaign statements of Candidate Trump. It looks to me that the lower court didn't adhere to the "Four Corners of the Law" standard that Judges should use for every such case before them. SCOTUS did adhere to the Four Corners principle, meaning they looked at the Presidential Proclamation that started this whole kerfluffle. The read what it said, noted the sections of the US Code in the proclamation, then read those sections of the US code and the majority (IMO, this decisionreally should have been a 9-0) concurred that the law of the land gives the President the discretionary power to enact such requirements and limit or withhold all immigration from those countries for not meeting our baseline documentation requirements.

CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES

Okay, let me make this clear. If you have a cell phone or tablet with you, that device is constantly broadcasting your location. If you're going to do something bad, don't take the cell phone/tablet that has your name on the account to where you're doing the bad thing. Carpenter was an idiot for doing this. Turn it off and leave it somewhere far away from the crime you're going to perform or have someone drive it around away from where you are while you're doing bad things.

I believe the court acted properly here in it's judgement of the location data obtained without a warrant is inadmissible in court, because no business should willingly surrender any of a customers' personal information to the government. To do so violates the trust between the company and the customer. If the police don't want to expend the manpower necessary to follow a suspect, then they should have to get a warrant.

I have been having it out with several of my liberal (small "L") and liberal-leaning friends today on Facebook about Trumps' Zero Tolerance policy, which includes separating children from their families while awaiting processing. I was shopping in a couple stores after work, trying to formulate how to explain what's going on, when I was hit by an epiphanial thunderbolt.

They are right. Trump is being very cruel and he is doing it intentionally.

That's when the second epiphanial thunderbolt hit me with what he is trying to do. It's obvious Trump does not like the current immigration situation, it's why he campaigned on a border wall. Now that we have all of this Liberal outrage over the current Zero Tolerance policy, Congress is now considering legislation to reform the immigration laws we currently have on the books and that Trump is enforcing to the maximum degree.

I have not heard any talking head expound on this, I may be the first with this idea.

If the immigration policies are rewritten to the point that the US becomes inhospitable to illegal immigrants, you don't need to build a wall on a border no one wants to cross. Physical walls can be climbed over, tunneled beneath and broken through if what's on the other side is worth it. If you get through that wall and the next thousand miles is an inhospitable wasteland, what's the point of getting through the wall in the first place?

I know why they do it. We are the only country in the world that can claim immigrants from every other country in the world. People spend two months locked in a shipping container crossing the Pacific to get here, they overload floating conglomerations of junk that sane people wouldn't use to cross a stream and cross 90 miles of open ocean to get here, they cross miles of open desert on foot or jammed into uncooled tractor-trailers. I understand all that. They risk their lives to escape abject poverty, war-torn countries, drug wars, religious persecution, all to come to a place that speaks two words to them: OPPORTUNITY and FREEDOM. Our ancestors who passed through Ellis Island thought the streets of America were paved with gold. These people who risk their lives to get here must still believe that on some level. I thank God every day that I was born here and I got the privilege to defend those ideals for thirteen years.

If any other country had what we had (or even more of it), these people would be going there, not coming here. All that being said, if we let any one enter at any time, this would not be a country. Life is inherently unfair and not everyone gets to grab a brass ring. But I digress.

There is another layer to this, again that I have not heard from anyone before. Trump is not going to get the immigration law he wants, that's a guaranteed outcome, even with the Republicans. But for every aspect (Democrat generated to be sure) that Trump doesn't like, He's going to use those Democrat-supported points to beat every Democrat over the head that supported the kooky parts of this immigration bill. Any potential "Blue Wave" will get dashed into inconsequential foam on the Shoals of Trump.

Even the timing for this is perfect, because the legislation should be crossing Trump's desk in the September-October time frame, when the campaigns are in full swing. This could flip a lot of wobbly Democrat seats, and put secure seats (like those in California) in jeopardy.

I could be wrong, I've been wrong before. All that being said, I see this situation, no matter the outcome to at a minimum not hurt Trump and probably help him while severely hurting the Democrats.

Trump is using this Zero Tolerance to lance an infected boil on the United States as a whole. The immigration issue is an issue that has greatly divided us. To lance and drain it, squeezing out the infection (and I am NOT implying illegal immigrants are the infection, rather our treatment of them) and causing short-term pain will heal it and make the US better and healthier in the long run.

A while back, in the post Oh, This is Delicious I made two predictions where I spoke about Mueller indicting a Russian company and how it was a very stupid thing to do. Admittedly I got the Manafort prediction wrong, but I think this will make up for it: And it’s all clearly explained here: Mueller is Trying to Keep Evidence from Defendants in Russian Trolls Case.

I spoke about the "discovery" phase of a criminal trial, where the prosecution must turn over all of the evidence, even the exculpatory evidence ("exculpatory" meaning it shows that you didn't do the crime you're accused of). I make a point of this because this is not a cornerstone of our legal system, it is the bedrock of it. In order for a person or company who is accused of a crime to properly defend themselves, they have to know what they are accused of doing and all evidence concerning the matter.

Except the Muller team doesn't want to turn it over. They are currently petitioning the Court to either totally bar the release of all evidence to the accused Concord Management and grant access only to their "domestic representation" (i.e., the US-based lawyers). Maybe, sometime in the future, two teams of lawyers (a second group of lawyers for the defense and a group of government lawyers not associated with the prosecution) could petition the court and if the two teams agree, let Concord Management see some of the evidence.

I don't care what reasons Mueller's team give for this reasoning, the accused cannot prepare an adequate defense if they cannot see the evidence against them. This legal Cirque du Soleil tells me the Muller team has exactly zero evidence. Thus, they are trying any legal maneuver they can to keep from publicly showing they are assholes.

If this motion is approved, or the indictment is not withdrawn, or the indictment is not thrown out of court, we will know without a doubt the fix is in. Stay tuned.

On June 4th, Trump cancelled the event where the Philadelphia Eagles (who I am told won the Super Bowl, I didn't watch) were scheduled to meet with Trump in the White House the next day. CNN even says so: Trump cancels Philadelphia Eagles visit to the White House.

Here are a couple of Torrey Smith's Tweets about the cancellation:

So many lies smh Here are some facts 1. Not many people were going to go 2. No one refused to go simply because Trump 'insists' folks stand for the anthem 3. The President continues to spread the false narrative that players are anti military,

There are a lot of people on the team that have plenty of different views. The men and women that wanted to go should've been able to go. It's a cowardly act to cancel the celebration because the majority of the people don't want to see you. To make it about the anthem is foolish.

Let me say up front that not one Eagle took a knee for the Anthem during the regular season. I also want to make clear I agree with Mr. Smith in that I believe a majority of NFL players are not anti-military. It has been a small minority of players who are kneeling and I will give those kneelers the benefit of the doubt that they are not anti-military.

What the CNN article doesn't say is in the security arrangements to visit the White House, everyone planning to attend an event like this has to submit an application with their name and other information for a security check. Eighty people submitted their applications to attend the White House event. Why is this important? You have an invitation to be part of a delegation to meet the President. You have to go through the effort to submit paperwork. I can understand, say, five people out of eighty might have to cancel at the last minute. Sickness, injury, family emergency, whatever. Those are, in Project Manager terms, "known unknowns." When seventy of eighty people cancel, that's a hearty "FUCK YOU" and an attempt to embarrass Trump. The White House was planning for seventy plus people attending, not ten. The prospective publicity photo released to the press, which should have been 30+ people would have been five, including the mascot. Trump would have been skewered by the press even if he had gone ahead with the event.

Judo is an Asian Martial Art. "Ju-Do" actually means "The Gentile Way" and this art teaches how to use your opponents own weight, inertia and body against them. I specify this because this past Friday, Trump answered some question on the White House Lawn on his way to the G7 Summit. This is what he said:

I'm gonna ask all of those [NFL players] to recommend to me ... people that they think were unfairly treated by the justice system and I'm gonna ask them to recommend to me, people that were unfairly treated, friends of theirs or people that they know about and I'm gonna take a look at those applications.

So why is this a brilliant Judo move? Trump directly addressed the main point that the NFL players were kneeling for, namely "social injustice," then said, "I will look at pardoning anyone you say has suffered "social injustice."

This puts the NFL players in an untenable position.

• They are going to have to submit some names, or Trump wins outright because by submitting zero names, the players admit by omission that there is no "social injustice."
• Whatever names they submit will be examined to almost the minutest detail. They would have to submit people like Alice Marie Johnson, whom Kim Kardashian advocated for at the White House and won her freedom. This means they can't submit names of those who have multiple violent convictions, deep gang ties, etc. Well, they can, but then the NFL players would look like fools.
• Trump is under no obligation to pardon or commute the sentience of anybody.
• If the NFL players do submit names and they are released, they will be in Trump's debt and will be forced to say nice things about him. They may follow up with sarcastic comments in the next breath, but that will only expose the players' hypocrisy and hurt their credibility, not Trump's.

I don't see Trump coming out on the bad side of any of these possibilities, even with a hostile press. I may have to start addressing Trump as "Mr. Miyagi." Start watching at 55 seconds.

Well played Mr. Trump. Well played.

For everything we do (or don’t do), we mentally perform a cost/benefit analysis first. Let me explain:

You wake up in the morning and you don’t want to get out of your warm, comfortable bed and go to work. After all, who wants to get out of a warm bed and go to work?

The benefit of staying in bed is that you continue to be warm and comfortable. The cost of staying in bed is you could lose your job, which leads to no housing, bed, utilities, food, car and so on. If the benefits outweigh the costs, then do it. If the costs outweigh the benefits, you might not want to do it.

Another example: In countries where Islam is the primary religion, theft was a rare crime because they tended to lop a hand off for being a thief. In the immediately preceding years, they have become “Westernized” and don’t do that as much today.

So, your benefit is whatever your stole, while the cost can include losing at least one of your hands and all the future handicaps associated with having only one (or no) hands.

I bring this up because for the past eighteen months, we have been pounded on an hourly basis about the “Trump collusion with Russia.” Up until recently, the whole story was, the event that started the “investigation” was when Papadopoulos told Downer (when specifically asked), “the Russians have Hillary’s missing emails.” We now know, thanks to the outing of Halper, that the entrapment started a month earlier, with Halper telling Papadopoulos, “Did you hear the Russians have Hillary’s missing emails?” Of course, the FBI had to approach Halper and prep him to do this, then there was the time invested in thinking this up before Halper was recruited, but you get my point. But I digress.

Those who have created and fed this "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative, have finally realized realized the jig is up because even their most ardent supporters are seeing that this entrapment wasn’t Kosher, have been trying to do a “Peace with Honor” kind of withdrawal, begging the Republicans to not put them through what they have been putting Trump through since he took office. They want to get away scot-free with just a “we’re sorry.”

The point here is the Trump Administration needs to set the cost/benefit analysis for anyone who wants to “weaponize the government” (use the massive investigatory and prosecutorial resources of the federal government to advance personal or political agenda) way into the “costs outweigh the benefits by several orders of magnitude” category so no one never even considers doing something like this again.

The best way to do this is to prosecute everyone involved in the decision-making progress to the harshest extent possible. This means a public trial and upon conviction, lengthy prison sentences for Obama, Hillary, Comey, McCabe, Clapper, everyone in a government leadership position who participated or did not hinder this plan. This also means Downer, Halpin, the partners of Fusion GPS, and anyone in that little incestuous circle of “Hillary’s Friends” who worked on this. Maximum sentences, running concurrently (10 convictions @ 10 years each = 100 years jail time).

We know Obama was briefed on what was going on because of the texting between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, things like “POTUS wants to know everything." If Obama was the as transparent and ethical as he wants us to believe, the investigation could have been stopped with five words by him, “Shut it all down. Now.”

I NEVER want to see the resources of the federal government used to advance illicit political objectives ever again. Men went to prison and Nixon resigned over the Watergate scandal. There should be negative consequences of equal stature levied against those in the Obama Administration and Hillary campaign for this heinous usurpation of federal power.

If you disagree with this, please comment as to why you think this spying was okay. Your choices are 1) you can toe the party line and use convoluted reasoning to justify it, or 2) just publicly admit you're in favor of an American Police State.

Let me make this perfectly clear: I *HATE* tobacco. Both my parents were 2 pack-a-day smokers. Growing up, other kids thought I smoked because I always smelled like cigarettes. For as much as I hate cigarettes, you can shift the decimal place to the right when it comes to cigars. To me, cigars smell like burning dog crap.

That being said, tobacco is as of I write this, a legal product to grow, process and use. I realize any attempt by the government to outright prohibit tobacco would be worse than the Volstead Act, the law that enforced the Nineteenth Amendment, otherwise known as Prohibition.

It came to my attention the other day that the FDA, in the infinite wisdom of the Philosopher Kings who run the agency, have decided to enact new regulations across the tobacco spectrum, including premium cigars. Much like when the BATF declared (not even using their own internal testing standards) that APCP (the only man-rated solid rocket fuel) was a "low-explosive" and subjected model rocketeers to 30 years of onerous and intrusive regulations. I speak of this and other examples in a previous post, Reasonable Restrictions.

Let me loop back here. I hate tobacco. I can smell someone smoking from 100' away. The smell seriously sickens me. When I was a Mason, several brothers smoked cigars. While they smoked, I was near them as little as possible. They were considerate in their use, the smokers sat in one corner of the public area and smoked near a return vent. You were free to join them or leave them be.

There is no "safe level of use" for tobacco. Every time you smoke, you purposefully introduce known carcinogens and toxic compounds into your body. The nicotine seriously stresses out your heart and other organs as well. Smoking even one cigarette enhances your risk of certain cancers and maladies for years afterwards. The "pleasure" one feels from lighting up is not pleasure in the usual sense, it is the relief of the symptoms associated with withdrawal from nicotine.

In order to be consistent in my Conservative beliefs about my opposition of Executive Branch agencies making law, I believe there should be zero regulations like this from the Executive Branch and minimal laws coming from the Legislative Branch in the first place. Products in demand by the public should not be banned at all. I can go with reasonably taxed and moderately regulated. I also fully support individuals to make stupid and self-destructive choices as long as it affects only themselves. I also have to stand with the hundreds of small "mom-and-Pop" cigar companies operating in the US who are going to be put out of business (and make thousands of workers jobless) because they don't have the resources to fight or adhere to these regulations and stay open.

In order for something built to stand for a long time, it must be built on a solid foundation. While you can just pour a concrete slab for a house on dirt (houses in the south don't have basements), if you want to build a skyscraper, you have to drive pylons deep into the ground until you hit bedrock and then build from there. A skyscraper built upon a poured slab on dirt will topple over before it's completed.

Jesus spoke on this in Matthew 7:24-27: “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

It is the same with the Obama legacy.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, The Paris Agreement, DACA, the Iran "deal" and more have all been, or are in the process of being nullified precisely because Obama did not lay the proper foundation. In each of these cases, Obama did all these using only "his pen and a phone." The Senate did not ratify any of these agreements, nor was there any legislation passed by the Congress to show assent by the Legislative Branch for these actions. Trump is now dismantling all of these "Obama Legacy" achievements and more piece-by-piece simply because there was no foundation that these "cornerstones" of Obama's were built upon to they could stand in the face of a president that doesn't share Obama's ideological beliefs.

This, more than anything shows Obama's arrogance, hubris and exactly how good of a "Constitutional Scholar" he really was. If Obama really were the "Constitutional Scholar" he claimed he was, he would have known that any future president could by the stroke of their pen, nullify all of his "great achievements."

Yesterday, the NFL came out with a new rule, "players may remain in the locker room during the playing of the National Anthem, however if they are on the field, they must stand and show respect."

Since Colin Kaepernick first knelt two years ago, I have fully supported his choice to kneel. I said so in my post Sitting down for what you believe in. And since I supported his right, I hoped he would support my choice to not watch football games where this disrespect was performed. The 3 hours of a Football game was a place I could be in and not think about politics at all. Colin and all who followed suit destroyed that safe haven for me. It seems that millions of other Americans shared my views, because since that first kneeling, NFL viewership is down some major numbers. Major enough that the sales downturn is enough that the yells of the accountants are now louder than the Social Justice Warriors.

I am not naive enough to think Colin's Caper is the sole reason. You have many people "cutting the cord" and abandoning cable TV services, plus Millennials who are starting their own households are not getting cable TV in the first place, opting for Internet only and streaming everything. It may be also that Football was the last reason why people had cable TV at all. I am sure there are at least one reason for everyone who stopped watching the NFL. All that being said, Colin may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. I personally gave up watching all TV except Football over 5 years ago. I stopped watching Football as of the Colin Caper. Right now, I have broken the habit and interest of Football for so long I have zero interest in watching again.

Now, if the NFL had been smart and saw what would happen (almost anyone with a modicum of common sense would have seen this coming) and had Colin apologize and beg for forgiveness the Monday after he first knelt, I might have been still watching Football. But they didn't so now I'm not.

I do support the NFL for making this change, I understand it's the best compromise they can make between the fans, the advertisers and the SJW's. For me, it's almost enough way too late.

Buh-Bye.

Again (and again...) Liberals can flout the law with impunity and the Liberals in power and who make the decisions over who gets prosecuted turn a blind eye to their fellow Liberals. Conservatives, on the other hand, are investigated to the 5th decimal place and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for even the slightest misstep.

Now, we can do one of several things. We can abolish these stupid and silly laws or we can prosecute everyone equally as hard. Since Liberals love prosecuting Conservatives for insignificant crimes, it seems only fair that the reverse should happen.

Dinesh D'Souza, a Conservative political commentator and the right's equivalent to Michael Moore screwed up and reimbursed some friends who had donated to a single political candidate for an election. Yep, he broke the law. D'Souza pled guilty to one felony count of making illegal contributions in the names of others and was sentenced to five years probation, eight months in a halfway house and a $30,000 fine.

Now we have this report, Rosie O’Donnell’s campaign donations to Dems went over legal limit. From the article:

Filings show O’Donnell gave a combined $5,400 in contributions over the limit to the five candidates, and used five different New York addresses and four variations of her name.

And what are Rosie's comments on this matter?

“Nothing nefarious,” the outspoken star and Donald Trump arch-nemesis wrote in an email to the Post. “I was not choosing to over donate.

“If 2700 is the cut off — [candidates] should refund the money,” she wrote. “I don’t look to see who I can donate most to … I just donate assuming they do not accept what is over the limit.”

I cannot adequately comprehend nor explain these words. So, I am going to quote Ambassador Londo Mollari of the Centauri Republic, a character from the TV show Babylon 5:

"Ahh, arrogance and stupidity, all in one package. How efficient of you."

Like I stated in my original premise, Conservatives should prosecute Liberals who break the same laws that Conservatives are prosecuted for. I fully anticipate that O'Donnell be convicted or plead guilty to her crimes and since she did it *FIVE* times, she receive twenty-five years probation, forty months in a halfway house and a $150,000 fine.

If Liberals want to weaponize government and prosecute Conservatives for BS process crimes, Conservatives need to return the favor. It's only fair.

On February 16th, 2018, Robert Mueller made a grand spectacle indicting 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian companies charged with “information warfare against the United States,” with the stated goal of “spread[ing] distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.”

I specifically mean "grand spectacle" because I am sure Mueller never thought that these people and companies would actually travel from Russia to the US and face the charges against them. In Russia, they are safe from Muller's prosecution because they are beyond the reach of the US Justice system. So Mueller's team must have been very surprised and shocked when lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC actually showed up on May 7th to enter a "not guilty" plea for the charges against them. Not only that, they requested a speedy trial (no delays) and also requested that the discovery phase of the trial start immediately.

For those of you not familiar with the Justice system, I need to cover a few things before I get to my punch line.

1. A prosecutor can "indict a ham sandwich" because in a Grand Jury hearing, because all that happens here is the prosecutor shows the Grand Jury his evidence that the parties he is charging committed the crimes they are charged with. The standard of proof ("proof beyond a reasonable doubt") does not apply here because the level of proof is much lower. The defense also does not appear during the Grand Jury because this is not the trial, this is just to determine that there is sufficient evidence to convict. With the standard of proof being very low and no opposition, obtaining an indictment is a lot easier than obtaining a conviction. Just because there is an indictment does not mean there will be a conviction.

2. The "discovery" phase of a trial happens before anyone actually goes into the courtroom. Here, the lawyers for the prosecution and the defense meet and the prosecutors give the defense all of the evidence they have and will use to try the accused. This is so the defense can inspect the evidence, verify it's veracity and build a defense to introduce doubt and make the government's case fall below the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

3. The Sixth Amendment clearly says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." This means that if the defendant(s) demand a trial right now, the prosecution cannot "drag it's feet" for any reason. If the prosecutors do drag their feet, the judge can throw the case out.

Taking these three points together, the Mueller team probably cobbled shoddy evidence together and stopped collecting evidence and its' investigation in that area once the indictment was obtained, because they must have thought that no one would actually show up to challenge the charges. It must have been shocking to the Mueller team when lawyers actually showed up, requesting that the trial move forward immediately. This means that the Mueller team does not have the time to go and do the investigative work that is necessary to actually solidify their case and obtain a conviction. They have to disclose everything they have right now and cannot gather more evidence.

The equivalent sports metaphor here is the Wide Receiver who catches a 50-yard pass and there are no defenders around him. He then does a high-stepping saunter towards the goal line and spikes the ball on the 4-yard line because he mistook the 5-yard line for the goal line. The result is he fumbles the ball and the defense has the opportunity to grab the ball, deny the touchdown and maybe even run it the 96 yards back for a touchdown of their own.

And, you see, that's not even all of it.

On May 4th, 2018, Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III was presiding over a hearing related to the Mueller team's indictment of Paul Manafort and the charges of "money laundering, failure to register as a foreign agent, making false statements to investigators, tax fraud, bank fraud, and failing to report foreign bank accounts" against him.

This stumble for the Mueller team here is that according to their scope document, they are tasked with "(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)."

Now, 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) actually reads:

The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted. [underlines are mine]

So, it appears (and Judge Ellis seems to be agreeing with the concept) that crimes that are alleged to have been committed by Manafort in 2005 fall outside of the scope of authority for the Mueller team to prosecute. According to Judge Ellis, the reason for these charges seems to be a cudgel to threaten Manafort into turning "States' Evidence" against Trump.

In Judge Ellis' own words:

"I don't see what relation this indictment has with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate," Ellis told prosecutors. "You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud ... What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment."

Ellis later quipped: "The vernacular is 'to sing.'"

It appears to me that Mueller and his boys have gotten a bit too big for their britches and are going to get not one, but two severe smackdowns to their integrity.