The Dept of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) waiting until Friday afternoon to drop the latest statistics on illegal alien apprehensions at the U.S. southern border. [DATA HERE] As a current surge is underway, the August apprehension rate was 304,162, the highest of any month so far on record.
[Press release here] Since Joe Biden took office over 7.5 million illegal aliens have been encountered and released into the United States. Of that number 5.18 million were single adult males. This is a wholesale invasion of illegal aliens on a scale never before fathomed. Joe Biden has created this crisis, and it is getting worse.
As an example of the current surge. The city of Eagle Pass, Texas, has a population of 28,000 residents with a total of 58 municipal police officers. Mayor Rolando Salinas of Eagle Pass recently told The New York Post they are bracing for “anywhere between 4,000 to 9,000 migrants” over the next few days.
(NYP) – The tiny city has been besieged by a huge influx of around 11,500 migrants in the last 10 days, a record setting surge.
For comparison, the entire Southern Border set a record when 10,000 people attempted to cross from Mexico in a single day in May.
Salinas signed a new law Wednesday night in anticipation of the influx, making it illegal to trespass in a local park and golf course often used by migrants to enter the city. It will also allow state troopers to arrest migrants who trespass on city property.
“I’ve never seen people cross like this,” said the mayor, who is also a life-long Eagle Pass resident. “If they’re going to come, they must enter through the port of entry. I know people are desperate, but this is a nation of laws.
“Our cops are overwhelmed. Our firefighters are responding to calls for care for migrants. We don’t have the resources to handle this. “We’ve seen robberies, they’ve broken into homes.” (read more)
Posted originally on the CTH on September 19, 2023 | Sundance
I should have presented this a week ago, but now it seems more important.
Joe Biden will almost certainly not be the DNC nominee in ’24 coming out of the convention. Most likely, in the next 90 days, something is going to surface that will indicate exactly why and how this move is going to take place.
Biden was installed by the Obama network for a single four-year term with multiple intentions – the rapid escalation of far-left progressive objectives and policies, in combination with a need to control the outcomes of DC systems to protect the Obama network from scrutiny. This is the reason why the Lightbringer maintained an operational residence in DC that was more akin to a policy and control command center.
The entire Biden administration is seeded with like-minded travelers from the tribe of Teh One. However, in/around the time Susan Rice was withdrawn from the Biden team in the White House, a shift was visible. Team Obama began a slow withdrawal of influence, and the shallower, less strategic, team of Biden became more autonomous. The shift was subtle, but people -even media- began to notice increased blunders and Biden contradictions.
If my suspicions are correct, we are likely to see a gradual Obama team exit from DC, culminating in a sale of his Kalorama neighborhood “residence.” Team Obama are very skilled at timing exits to avoid being impacted by collateral damage inside crises they create. Unlike what some might claim, there is not going to be an Obama approved ’24 candidate, and Big Mike is not part of the equation.
Inside the modern Democrat wing of the UniParty there have always been two factions of power. The Obama (progressive, activist) faction, and the Clinton (power, greed) traditional faction. The two teams hate each other, each seeing only a limited pie for sharing, but they align under common interests.
You might remember how it was Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who dragged Barack Obama into the Libya/Egypt mess. Aloof and above the fray, Obama didn’t want to participate in what was going to be a predictable failure. Within that dynamic, Obama was focused on the radical transformation of domestic politics. Other than feeding the Lightbringer’s ego, foreign policy wasn’t really the Obama team’s focus.
After Clinton left the Obama administration, she and Obama agreed to insert John Podesta for the purpose of safeguarding her interests and relaying information back to team Clinton. Again, neither Clinton nor Obama trusted each other.
Fast forward to this current time of slow and quiet Obama withdrawal, while Biden remains tenuously in office. Team Obama have carried out almost three years of extreme transformation within the US body politic. Whether this transformation is reversible is an argument for another day, but now the consequence phase begins. This establishes the predicate for the Obama influence removal – the ‘exit’ per se’.
Anthony Blinken (current Secretary of State) and Jake Sullivan (current National Security Advisor) are/were part of Team Clinton – the more power/greed centric Democrat apparatus that sells govt influence to corporations as a business model. You will note this overall Clinton outlook aligns with the Biden family enterprise.
Put it together, stand back and look from the 30,000 ft level, and what you will notice is a lean backward by Team Obama (mission accomplished), and a lean forward by Team Clinton, opportunities exist now.
(Via AP) – […] The need to “Keep Going” is the theme of this year’s Clinton Global Initiative, or CGI, as Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Clinton Foundation Vice Chair Chelsea Clinton say they will convene political, business and philanthropic leaders to build on the momentum of the conference’s return last year after a six-year hiatus.
CGI plans to announce the launch of the CGI Ukraine Action Network, as well as numerous financial pledges, to support nonprofits working in the country.
The CGI Ukraine Action Network is the result of a collaboration between Hillary Clinton and Olena Zelenska, first lady of Ukraine, that began last year. The new organization, which will be formally announced Tuesday, is designed to mobilize existing CGI partners, as well as new leaders from around the world, to create and finance new commitments for Ukrainians, according to CGI. Numerous monetary commitments for Ukraine are also set to be announced Tuesday,
In 2022, CGI announced more than 140 commitments, including a $1 billion plan from Water.org, co-founded by actor Matt Damon, to help 100 million people in Africa, Asia and Latin America get lasting access to water and sanitation. This year, leaders including World Bank President Ajay Banga, Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky, World Central Kitchen founder Jose Andres and Ford Foundation CEO Darren Walker, will attend and make their own commitments, which are required for attendance at the conference.
However, for nonprofits working in Ukraine, the spotlight CGI is offering them, 18 months after Russia’s invasion of the country, may be just as important as the monetary commitments.
The nonprofit Save Ukraine, which has opened community centers across the country to help families and especially children traumatized by the war and works to rescue Ukrainian children who have been detained in Russia, is set to receive commitments of support during CGI that it plans to use to open more centers, said Olga Yerokhina, spokeswoman for the charity. (read more)
Yes, the multinationals are always the controlling factor. After all, they control the politicians. However, the politicians control the distribution of the treasury assets, and the Clinton family legacy of affluence is driven by controlling the destination of those govt funds.
The fundamental change Obama initiated is deeply ingrained in the domestic intelligence systems now. DHS, CISA, and on down the line to FBI and Main Justice, are fully weaponized for political targeting. Into this status, enhanced Artificial Intelligence is about to be launched; the system is indeed overloaded, and social crisis will ultimately be the outcome as the threads that bind the republic are torn. Obama doesn’t need to stand close and watch; their mission is essentially complete.
Worrisome statutes of limitation have been purposefully run out. Energy policy is structurally changed. Pipelines destroyed, leases cancelled, green new deal embedded in the policy which will manifest the outcome of solar and windmill nonsense. The borders are wide open, and tens-of-millions of illegal aliens have flooded in. Lisa Monaco has the DOJ’s Trump targeting operation well under control with a compliant media to assist. The treasury is broke, and the military is woke.
Three years of extreme leftist agenda, and now the eyes turn to 2024.
Obama doesn’t want anything to do with that, but Clinton sees a financial opportunity.
Joe Biden will not be the DNC ’24 nominee….. and there’s no way in hell he will be the 2025 POTUS with Obama in retreat.
Posted originally on the CTH on September 17, 2023 | Sundance
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) created the systems that permit intelligence weaponization. The SSCI is the organizational institution that supports the Fourth Branch of Government, the intelligence branch. Keep in mind, the SSCI previously created a bipartisan “Restrict Act,” to deal with what they deemed dangerous information on the internet (under auspices of TikTok ban). SSCI Chairman Mark Warner is the current enabler of the continued weaponized intel operations.
In this video segment below, notice how Chairman Warner leads off his remarks. Two flares triggered. First, you can tell by his response, that President Trump’s “classified documents” were exactly what we thought they were; evidence against those who constructed the Trump-Russia claims from inside govt. Second, notice how Warner now wants to block any President from controlling intelligence as defined by the Fourth Branch. This stuff is getting brutally obvious. WATCH:
“I’ve got bipartisan legislation that would reform the whole classification process. We way overclassify. We, frankly, should have a process in place so that no president or vice president ever takes documents after they leave office.”
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. He is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Great to have you here.
REP. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Thank you, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I have to pick up where your Republican colleague just left off. Are the Trump and Biden classified documents that were in their personal possession, and not in controlled areas, equally egregious?
MARK WARNER: Well, Margaret, three things quickly. One, the administration took way too long to get us these documents. Two, while Mike and I have a great working relationship, I believe, based on the documents I’ve seen, that there is a difference in terms of the potential abuse that came from the Trump documents. And, third, it’s one of the reasons why I’ve got bipartisan legislation that would reform the whole classification process. We way overclassify. We, frankly, should have a process in place so that no president or vice president ever takes documents after they leave office. That is kind of the lowest common fruit.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
MARK WARNER: We ought to get that passed. We’ve got part of that in the intel authorization bill and I hope becomes the law of the land so we can prevent this from happening going forward.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve said based on documents you’ve seen, but you want to see more documents?
MARK WARNER: We have actually — I’m about at 98 percent satisfaction at this point.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK, 98 percent satisfaction.
There’s a lot more on the national security front that we’re tracking right now, including this potential prisoner swap with Iran to bring five Americans home. Are you comfortable with the trade?
MARK WARNER: I’ve not gotten the brief. The Senate Intel Committee has not gotten the brief. We will be getting it shortly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Wasn’t the staff briefed?
MARK WARNER: Well, I can tell you, I have not been personally briefed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You weren’t? OK.
MARK WARNER: I think we need to start with the premise, it’s always the policy of our country to try to bring back Americans, who are held hostage. That was not only under Biden, it was Trump, it was Obama, Bush. I want to hear what kind of constraints are being put on in this exchange in terms of what has been reported of the $6 billion that was South Korean payments to Iran that would be released. I want to hear that and get those details before I weigh in further.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you have concern that money is fungible and there could be abuse?
MARK WARNER: I – you know, there is obviously — money is fungible. The administration has said there are guardrails. I want to get a better description of those guardrails first.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have been very active on artificial intelligence. And we talked about this back in January.
Microsoft just announced a few days ago that China has a new capability to automatically generate images for use in influence operations to mimic American voters across the political spectrum and create controversy along racial, economic and ideological lines. How much of a risk is this to our upcoming elections?
MARK WARNER: It’s an enormous risk. And artificial intelligence, I’ve spent as much time on this I think as any member of the Senate, and I never spent something where you — the more time I spend, in certain ways the more confused I get. The whole economics around these large language models, which used to be, you know, who had the most data, who had the most compute power would win. That fundamentally changed after Facebook released its so- called llama model into the wild in the spring.
We just had a major session, Leader Schumer put together, had the kind of the who’s who in the room. And what it – what I’m concerned about is even the AI leaders who say they want rules, guardrails, I’m concerned that when you actually put words on paper will those major tech companies support that? Because you’ve seen, we in social media have done zero.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
MARK WARNER: Now, in terms of China, China is a major player in AI. And where I think we ought to start, where AI tools, whether it comes from China or domestically, could have the most immediate effect would be the public (INAUDIBLE) in our elections –
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. And (INAUDIBLE) legislative reaction.
MARK WARNER: Which Microsoft just cited. And hear — hear me – hear me out – hear me out on this. But the other area beyond elections is faith in our public markets. These same tools could completely disrupt the confidence in our public markets by using these same deep fake tools.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
MARK WARNER: So, I believe we ought to start. If we can put together an alliance between the capitalists and the small d democrats, we might at least get guardrails coming in the next year with the elections and the concerns about our markets.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you’re concerned not just about spooking, you know, the stock market. We’re talking about misleading people going into an election. Congress isn’t going to legislate ahead of the election, are they? I mean Leader Schumer said this is the most difficult thing we’ve ever undertaken.
MARK WARNER: I think this is – this is why the notion of trying to solve it all, the bias questions, the whole questions around deep fakes –
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
MARK WARNER: The questions around what’s called hallucination, where you get answers that have no relationship to what the question was asked. But we ought to at least start with some guardrails around trust in our public election, trust in our public markets. There I think we can move before our elections. I think it will be bipartisan. Let’s start on that framing point. I think we can all agree there could be huge disruption in both of those areas. And that’s where I’m focusing my time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You may have heard our CBS polling there at the top of the program. And one of the data points I want to show you here. It says, when people compare their finances now to how they were before the pandemic, by two to one they say they’re worse, not better. And when they feel worse, they tell us they’re voting for Donald Trump.
How can President Biden win over those voters?
MARK WARNER: Well, I think we’ve seen from President Biden’s actual record, record amounts of job growth coming again after Covid. We’ve seen major legislation. There are now laws in infrastructure, in the so-called CHIPS bill, and transition in our energy economy, and most of that has only been about 10 cents on every dollar spent out. So, I think the positive effects of that will really continue to penetrate this coming year.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do the people in Virginia feel that, that you talk to?
MARK WARNER: I – listen, I think there is a general feeling, oh, my gosh, everybody seems to be at each other’s throats here in Washington.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
MARK WARNER: You know, the notion that we’re going to potentially go into a government shutdown. Mike Turner and I work very closely together.
But I do think – I wish the House leadership would be spending a little more time on what would happen with a government shutdown, which makes us look bad around the world, and, frankly, in a state like mine, in Virginia, where we have so many government workers, government contractors, it will be a disaster. And yet the attention coming out of the House leadership is on impeachment and putting forward things they know will not ever pass the Senate in any kind of bipartisan fashion. And I think that is part of the underlying unease that voters feel.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you believe we are headed for a government shutdown?
MARK WARNER: I would like to say no, but we’re eight or nine days away and we’ve not even been able to see the House pass the most basic defense appropriations bills. I hope and pray that Speaker McCarthy will say, hey, I’m going to throw over the far right, and I’m going to put together a bipartisan effort with the Democrats and mainstream Republicans to keep the government funded. I think that would get, again, 350, 400 votes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator, good to have you here in person.
Various governments are quietly acknowledging the dangers of the COVID-19 experimental mRNA vaccines. The Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency announced that families are entitled to compensation if their relative dies within 90 days of receiving the vaccine. The max one can receive is 30 million won or $22,500 – a strange price to put on a person’s life.
They are not even requiring an autopsy if that is any indication of how dangerous these vaccines have been. They are also providing additional government aid for families who had a relative die within THREE days of the untested experimental jab. “Korea had a higher inoculation rate than the rest of the world because people trusted the state and got vaccinated,” People Power Party Rep. Park Dae-chul stated at a National Assembly meeting between the party and the administration. “In this regard, the state must address the blind spot in helping those harmed by the vaccination policy.”
Yes, the state should be held responsible for coercing people into a lethal medical decision. This was not the government’s first choice, as the Seoul Administrative Court demanded that the KDCA compensate families. There are also 11 different medical side effects, such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and anaphylaxis that the government admits are a result of the vaccine. Over 480 million won has been distributed so far. The government recognizes 15 additional ailments caused by the vaccine, such as Bell’s Palsy, but will not compensate individuals for those side effects.
South Korea has begun paying burial fees for those who died from the COVID vaccine. The government forced 45 million men, women, and children into receiving these vaccines. So why in the world would South Korea continue to provide COVID vaccines at all? Rest assured Big Pharma is not making any payouts for deaths or irreparable harm.
Posted originally on the CTH on September 13, 2023 | Sundance
I try not to cuss much, but I will admit when New Mexico Governor Lujan Grisham declared a “public health emergency” then issued a regional gun ban for the Albuquerque area, I was cussing quite a bit. I was cussing because this approach was instantly predictable, as the result of Americans allowing various governors to take control over free-range citizens during COVID-19 by declaring the same “public health emergencies.”
Thankfully, there was a massive backlash from citizens, local law enforcement, state law enforcement and the New Mexico Attorney General’s office. Now, fortunately, a federal judge has stepped in and blocked the unconstitutional gun ban. The blood pressure lowers a bit, but we have got to be on guard for the next test; they won’t quit.
New Mexico – A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily halted a 30-day order from New Mexico’s governor suspending the open and concealed carrying of guns in the Albuquerque area that had sparked bipartisan condemnation.
[…] During the hearing, U.S. District Judge David H. Urias, an appointee of President Joe Biden who took his seat on the bench last year, indicated that the numerous Supreme Court precedents on the Second Amendment suggested that the governor’s order would cause irreparable harm to citizens seeking to exercise their gun rights. Thus, he said, he had to issue a temporary strike of the ban — a move that does not rule on its merits.
“To be honest with you, I think you have kind of a hard road here to get up,” Urias told Holly Agajanian, the attorney for the governor’s office defending the rule.
In briefs and during Wednesday’s court session, lawyers for the various gun rights groups argued that Lujan Grisham and her administration went far beyond constitutional powers in issuing the order.
“The Second Amendment has no exception. It has no part of it that says as long as the state governor can issue an emergency, you’re allowed to take our citizens’ firearms,” Jason Bowles, an attorney representing the National Association for Gun Rights, said during the hearing. “There’s no historical evidence of that. There’s no support for it.”
[…] The court will hold a hearing to evaluate the merits of arguments on the rule on Oct. 3, Urias said on Wednesday. The temporary restraining order will extend until then, even though it would normally be limited to 14 days. The extension was accepted by both parties because counsel on both sides did not have availability for a court date within that two-week time frame.
The judge specifically enjoined two sections of the executive order that restricted gun use. Other parts of the governor’s order not in contention included instruction for various state agencies to analyze the sale and use of guns in New Mexico and monitor the presence of illegal substances such as fentanyl in the wastewater. (read more)
Fighting for Democracy when the People are Not Allowed to Vote, with approaching 10 million having Fled Ukraine and would Eagerly Mail-in Ballots to Overthrow Zelensky, who promised peace, and then waged all-out war and totally destroyed Ukraine to occupy the Donbas, which Kiyv waged civil war on the direction of American Neocons since 2014. Suspending election = dictatorship.
COMMENT: When will the people stay a boycott of Pfsir as they did with Bud Light?
HB
ANSWER: The court in South Africa ordered the government to release the contract with Pfizer that they were preventing the public from having access. Quite honestly, ANY politicians who voted for the vaccines by Pfizer should be voted out of office. This contract states, “Accordingly, Pfizer and its Affiliates shall have no liability for any failure by Pfizer or its Affiliates…” id/2.1(d), Page 8. This is completely outrageous that ANY politicians would waive all liability for a vaccine. Suppose a car manufacturer produces a car that blows up when you start it, but only one in 500. If they have no liability, then why fix it?
Under capitalism, every company is liable for its product that is manufactured. Where does Pfizer get off with this with the appearance of paying bribes and gifts to politicians? People questioned our forecast made back on August 26th, 2021, that that should have been the high and that: “Something is very strange when it comes to Pfizer. The rally should not extend beyond 2022…”
This is why Socrates is so important. The criticism I got for that forecast was that their profits would continue to rise, so why should the stock collapse? The computer forecasts are better than any human. Why? Because humans get all caught up in the fundamental news when the computer is analyzing it dispassionately.
When will the people rise up and boycott Pfizer? Personally, I refuse to accept anything from Pfizer for myself or my dogs. I would never advise Pfizer, nor would I advise any company in bed with Pfizer. I wouldn’t say I like their way of doing business. I believe the company has rigged the game, and the politicians sold our rights, which I believe was unconstitutional. But find a judge who will honestly address this question. Good luck!
A year-end closing below the $33.20 level, and we may see crash mode for 2024. Anyone who has family working at this firm should look for employment elsewhere. I would not rule out that some people may seek revenge against those who worked there during the coming civil unrest. You never know anymore. They have pushed the envelope way too far on all of this. A break of that level points to a test of the $28 range, and a break of that area will warn that Pfizer could be looking at the $6-7.00 level by 2032.
Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) want President Joe Biden to run again, according to a poll published on August 17th by the Associated Press. Even 55% of Democrats do not think he should run. As far as his approval rating is concerned, he remains one of the most unpopular presidents in American history. Meanwhile, he has allowed the Republican presidential front-runner to be charged criminally, who is now under indictment for 91 felonies in four criminal cases. RFK, the Spectator, proclaimed that “everything about him screams amusing sideshow rather than [a] serious contender.” They reduce him to “the country’s most prominent antivaxxer — a fringe role almost by definition.”
They seem oblivious to all the people who have been injured by the Pfizer vaccines and those who died. My own lawyer took the shot to show he could travel, got the blood clots, and now his doctor warns he should not fly. My neighbor had COVID-19 and was forced to get the vaccination to go on a cruise. The next day, the ambulance rushed her to the hospital, where she almost died at the age of only 27. Another man who works for me and his entire family gets seriously ill from any vaccine. These pro-vaccine people are ruthless, untrustworthy, and brainwashed. They should all be deported to California. We are NOT all clones. I hate to tell them there is NO constitutional authority to force medical treatment on any citizen.
The word circulating is that the Democrats are not very happy about the Big Guy. They are searching for a replacement, but the Neocons need another stooge. It cannot be someone anti-war. That is why they must defeat Trump, which will not be easy – they have made him an international martyr. I believe that the Neocons will assassinate Trump before his hand every hit the book to be sworn in. They will blame China to justify that we should wage war on China.
The Democrats are totally out of control. These charges against Trump are solely to interfere in the 2024 election. They are absolutely desperate to impose their tyranny and overthrow the people’s rights. This is only going to lead to the collapse of the United States. They have gone to the Supreme Court asking them to ORDER the lower court to allow TV cameras in and broadcast Trump’s trial like a soap opera to convince people not to vote for Trump. This proves this whole thing is to interfere in the 2024 election, which is frightening since our computer forecast that the 2024 election will never be accepted, which was 5 years ago.
As a student of Constitutional Law, I have read Blackstone, Coke, and Monesque. What they are doing to Trump is such a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause because the courts have been so PRO-GOVERNMENT against the common people that the prohibition against being put in Double Jeopardy demonstrates the true tyranny that the American Legal System has devolved to. By creating numerous agencies, each passes a law prohibiting the same crime. The Supreme Court has refused to honor the spirit of the Founding Fathers, and the worst example is 91 felony counts against Trump for the same pretend crime.
Let’s say that three agencies outlaw killing your spouse. Each agency could then charge you with murder. Two out of three juries find you innocent. The third is pressured by the judge and rules in favor of the government. They will not be Double Jeopardy since they allow the definition of an offense to be a statute rather than the actual crime it is supposed to outlaw. Never in history have so many agencies and states been allowed to create a plethora of statutes prohibiting the same conduct that has allowed them to charge Trump with 91 counts for the same conduct. This is as if someone shot the same person and killed them, but they charge them for each bullet he fired as a separate murder, but there is only one person.
Many have written in and said I would have made a great Constitutional lawyer. If I had chosen such a path, they would have charged me with 91 counts of contempt and imprisoned me for life without a trial. I do not tolerate fools or tyrants. The concept of Double Jeopardy has a long history, but the American courts have seriously abused its development. Its meaning has been distorted to hand the government limitless power.
The English view of Double Jeopardy, under the influence of Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) and William Blackstone (1723-1780), meant that a defendant at trial could plead former conviction or former acquittal as a special plea in bar to defeat the prosecution. ( Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 32–36 (1978), and id. at 40 (Powell, J., dissenting); United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 340 (1975))
In this country, the common-law rule was, in some cases, limited to this rule. However, in other cases, it was extended to bar a new trial even though the former trial had not concluded in either an acquittal or a conviction. The constitutional prohibition against Double Jeopardy was intended to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. Blackstone in his Commentaries, greatly influenced the Founding Fathers when they adopted the Constitution. Blackstone wrote:
“. . . the plea of auterfois acquit, or a former acquittal, is grounded on this universal maxim of the common law of England that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence.” id/Blackstone’s Commentaries 335.
If we look at the Supreme Court ruling BEFORE with this plethora of statutes and agencies, we find the same view was taken in Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, at 85 U. S. 169 (1873):
“The common law not only prohibited a second punishment for the same offence, but it went further and forbid a second trial for the same offence, whether the accused had suffered punishment or not, and whether in the former trial he had been acquitted or convicted.”
“The prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial.”
Before the court turned pro-government in the 20th century, it was being put in jeopardy twice, not that you could create ten statutes for the same crime. The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State, with all its resources and power, should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for the same conduct, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity.
The New Hampshire Constitution pt. I, art. 16 was adopted in 1784 and preceded the US Constitution, and it included a bill of rights that included the new nation’s first Double Jeopardy clause, stating: “No subject shall be liable to be tried, after an acquittal, for the same crime or offence (sic).” The Supreme Court of New Hampshire construes the Double Jeopardy prohibition of the state’s constitution to bar successive trials regardless of the identity of the initial prosecuting authority. State v. Hogg, 385 A.2d 844, 847 (N.H. 1978). The New
The text of the Constitution is also silent on many fundamental questions of constitutional law, including questions that its drafters and those ratifying the document could not have foreseen or chose not to address. Nonetheless, the philosophy behind the Fifth Amendment has long been settled, as stated in US v Ball back in 1896. Thus, it is one of the elemental principles of our criminal law that the Government cannot secure a new trial by means of an appeal even though an acquittal may appear to be erroneous. This has been the standard held in US v. Ball, supra; Peters v. Hobby, 349 U. S. 331, 349 U. S. 344-345 (1955). Cf. Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100 (1904); United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310 (1892).
We are looking at constructive amendment of the Constitution that there is ABSOLUTELY no possible way that the Founding Fathers would have allowed the same conduct to violate a multitude of statutes that would allow the government 91 chances to convict Trump for the same conduct. Not even the tyranny of King George III ever dared to get around the Double Jeopardy Clause in this manner. It is an embarrassment to the United States to the world.
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution (Article VU, Claus 2) prohibits no state from writing any law that overrules the federal law. Hence, no state may charge Trump for the very same conduct that he stands charged in a federal court. The Framers of the Constitution were silent on this idea of Dual Sovereignty in criminal law, and no court can rule in that favor without the 50 states having a go at the same conduct. Naturally, the Supreme Court would never entertain that argument because it would actually benefit the people – not our tyrannical government abuses. When 2032 comes, and we get to rewrite the constitution, there should NEVER be allowed multiple prosecutions for the same conduct regardless of how many sovereigns they want to pretend to exist.
The elevation of Double Jeopardy to fundamental status by its inclusion in several state bills of rights following the Revolution demonstrated its restraint against this type of abuse by the government. The Bill of Rights, which had been adopted at the New York Convention and transmitted to Congress with its ratification of the Federal Constitution, included a declaration that.
“no Person ought to be put twice in Jeopardy of Life or Limb for one and the same Offence, nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same Offence.”
James Madison’s version of the guarantee, which was introduced in the House of Representatives, and it read:
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense.
What we do know from the “intent” is that some Members opposed this proposal because it could be construed to prohibit a second trial after a successful appeal by a defendant. They viewed that as problematic. First, they argued that such a rule could constitute a hazard to the public by freeing the guilty. Second, they reasoned that prohibiting re-trials after successful appeals might make appellate courts less likely to reverse improper convictions (id/1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)). Ultimately, the language, barring a second trial, was dropped in response to these concerns. However, in Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 40 (1978) (dissenting), Justice Lewis Powell attributed this failure to broaden the Double Jeopardy Clause to incorporate the common law rule against the dismissal of the jury before the verdict, which remains a question the majority passed over as being of academic interest only.Id. at 34 n.10. This was what I mean that the Supreme Court has allowed the abuse of the Double Jeopardy Clause to the detriment of the nation, which we are now witnessing with Trump.
Unfortunately, we no longer believe in liberty in the United States. The same conduct may violate the laws of two different sovereigns, multiple agencies, and countless statutes that criminalize the very same thing by rephrasing it in myriad ways. This has allowed a defendant to be charged innumerable times until the government wins. The Trump cases will be the epitaph of the United States and the Rule of Law. It is over. We must wait for the body of liberty to be cold before she is buried.
After the Death of Nero and the Civil War that engulfed the Roman Empire, here we have the coin issued by one of the contenders, Vitellius, with the coin declaring the Restitution of Liberty.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 