Advertisement

You probably saw the story in yesterday’s newsletter about President Obama taking a lunch with President Biden before the holidays to express concern with how the Biden campaign was going and to advise him to surround himself with different people.  Obama reportedly expressed anxiety about a possible Trump return to power.

But what we didn’t get into yesterday was the question of why that story would appear now.  It first appeared in the WASHINGTON POST, in a piece by Tyler Pager, and so would have been leaked there, perhaps by someone in the White House, perhaps by someone allied with the Obamas (though I may repeat myself).

WAPO reported that Obama “suggested to Biden’s advisers that the campaign needs more top-level decision-makers at its headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, or else must empower the people already in place.  Obama hasn’t recommended specific individuals but did mention David Plouffe, who managed Obama’s 2008 race, as the type of senior strategist needed at the Biden campaign.

“During the lunch,” the report said, “Obama noted the success of his re-election structure in 2012, when some of his top presidential aides, including David Axelrod and Jim Messina, left the White House to take charge of the re-election operation in Chicago.”

So, here we go.  Putting an Obama-style campaign in place.  Will it eventually be moved to Chicago to work for...someone else?

“Obama also recommended that Biden seek counsel from Obama’s own former campaign aides,” WAPO reported, “which Biden officials say they have done…”  In conversations with Biden’s associates, Obama has been even more explicit about the need to be more “agile.”

Matt Margolis in PJ MEDIA made the point that Biden’s problem isn’t his campaign --- it’s his record of utter failure.  But he doesn’t tie Biden’s catastrophes to this insidious involvement of the Obamas in his presidential race.  We hypothesize a direct connection.

Biden’s gonna be out, you know.  And stories about the Obamas’ involvement in the ‘24 race appear to be very strategically timed.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/01/06/barack-obama-hits-panic-button-on-biden-campaign-n4925271#google_vignette

AXIOS wrote about the WAPO story, mentioning that “Biden and his allies will spend over $1 billion this year telling voters Trump is terrible.”  It occurs to me that if Trump really had been so terrible as President, they wouldn’t HAVE to spend a billion dollars to convince voters of that!  We’d all just know.  They’re spending that much money because the situation is the opposite:  we know that Trump was right about so many things and made some great decisions as President.

According to their report, top Democrats who’d been thinking the Biden campaign was being too complacent were relieved at Biden’s speech, because they liked the horrid thing.  They called the speech the campaign’s “we get it” moment.  So expect to see a lot more darkness and lying about Trump and January 6.

AXIOS likes to answer for its readers the question of “why it matters?”  In this case, they say it reflects a need by “someone” to “light a fire” under Biden’s campaign people.  But we don’t think that quite captures it.  The “someone” is most likely Obama, and the fact that this story was leaked to WAPO at this particular time reflects the Obamas’ strategy for their own comeback.

https://www.axios.com/2024/01/07/obama-biden-trump-2024-election

Adding to the picture of the Obamas’ growing involvement, Sean Hannity reported Monday night that Michelle Obama appeared in a recent wide-ranging interview on what is billed as “the Number One health and wellness podcast” to express her own Trump-fear, which she said keeps her up at night.

“I am terrified about what could possibly happen [in the next election],” she said on the Jay Shetty “On Purpose” podcast, “because our leaders matter.  Who we select, who speaks for us, who holds that bully pulpit, it affects us in ways that I --- sometimes I think people take for granted.  You know, the fact that people think that government, you know, doesn’t even do anything.  And I’m like, ‘Oh, my God!  Does government do EVERYTHING for us.  And we cannot take this democracy for granted.  And sometimes I worry that we do.  And those are the things that keep me up.”

Never mind her disturbing observation that government does everything for us.  Michelle, without mentioning Trump by name, launched into problems with the tone of messages, and we know exactly who she’s talking about: “The tone and tenor of the message matters.  We just can’t say...the first thing that comes into our minds.  That is not authenticity to me.  That’s childish, and we see childish leadership right before us --- what that looks like and how that feels, where someone is just base, and vulgar and cynical in a leadership position.  It doesn’t trickle down well.  You know, that just begets more of that.”

It’s as we’ve said for a long time: that if Michelle were running against Trump, she would be offered up as the nation’s “healer,” the strong but gentle antidote for the rawness that is Trump.  She reinforced that image during this interview.

“I think we are obligated to model,” she said, “for those of us that have a platform, because it resonates.  And I want to resonate good.  I want to resonate reason and compassion and empathy.  And that’s more important than my feelings. ‘Cause my feelings, I can take care of those.”

“That’s a master class in communication,” Shetty responded with an admiring chuckle.  Michelle’s combination of empathy and energy “is so empowering for everyone who’s listening and watching.”  Tellingly, she said she learned this perspective “on the campaign trail.”

Michelle also made it clear that after living so closely with the leader of the free world, she knew a LOT.  Some of it she didn’t want to know, and it kept her up at night.

She did a skillful cleanup job on remarks she’d made years ago about “not loving my country.”  “People will distort you whenever they can,” she said, obviously not thinking about how relentlessly the Democrats distort Trump.  She said people tried to “other-ize” her and her husband, as “the first black people,” accusing her husband of “being a terrorist” (what, not a Russian agent?), labeling her as “an angry black woman,” etc.  It was “to make people afraid of us,” which is “a strategy that gets played again and again and again.”  (What, like calling someone a dictator and a threat to democracy?)

She oh-so-pleasantly dropped a nasty dig at Trump at the end: “I mean, the bars [levels of expectation] are different for people in life.  That I’ve learned.  This is the thing about being an ‘other’ [as in, being black].  You learn how to be excellent all the time, because you can’t be ‘less than.’  Other people can.  Other people can be indicted a bunch of times and still run for office.  Black men can’t.” This teaches you to be good, she said, and you end up benefiting from that “extra resilience.”

“But it’s still not fair.” 

By the way, if Michelle would like to see a list of black men who were indicted and went on to run for office (and win), we’ll see what we can do.  For now, two words:  Marion Barry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry

Certainly, the Obamas aren’t getting involved in this campaign for Biden’s sake.  The Obamas famously can’t stand the Bidens.  Besides, President Biden has his own problems with “tone” these days, most recently in his dark, divisive, foreboding speech at Valley Forge.  Michelle didn’t mention THAT, of course, but we all know it’s true.

The opening to Michelle’s podcast interview, which runs a little more than an hour, looks like a brief promotional piece for her.  Watch about the last ten minutes and tell me she’s not running for President, and essentially a socialist one.  Low-information voters who know little about Obama-style leadership and the REAL “threat to democracy” currently residing in DC thanks in large part to him will be mightily impressed.  Don’t say you weren’t warned.

https://news.yahoo.com/michelle-obama-am-terrified-could-154821087.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

 

Related: I didn’t want to say much more about Biden’s kick-off speech last Friday for his 2024 Scaremongering Tour, but this blog post from John A. Lucas that analyses Biden’s Kim Jong Un-like propaganda tactics, expose some of the outrageous lies Biden spouted, and sums it up as the “worst presidential speech ever,” is well worth reading.

https://johnalucas6.substack.com/p/worst-presidential-speach-ever

The Experts Speak!

January 8, 2024

The “experts” predicted that once the large field of GOP presidential contenders started winnowing down, they’d stop splitting the anti-Trump vote and Trump’s wide lead would dwindle to his hardcore MAGA base of 35%. Well, the field is now down to only three serious contenders (Trump, Haley and DeSantis – Christie should drop out; I’d say his audition for a job at CNN is already accomplished. And Stephen Kruiser at PJ Media says the perfect job for Vivek Ramaswamy would be Trump’s press secretary, based on how deftly he filets biased reporters…

https://pjmedia.com/stephen-kruiser/2024/01/05/the-morning-briefing-ok-ive-got-the-perfect-gig-for-vivek-ramaswamy-n4925210)

…And here he is, doing it again…)

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2024/01/05/watch-vivek-does-it-again-flips-script-on-nbc-reporter-as-she-has-meltdown-n2168319

Yet according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, with the vote mostly now split in just three ways, Trump is currently at nearly 63%.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/republican-presidential-field-shrinking-not-trump-lead

Of course, I always warn people not to put too much faith in polls, particularly not those that are taken before a single primary vote has been cast. But it seems clear that the Democrat lawfare effort to destroy Trump with bogus felony charges and frivolous lawsuits has backfired bigly, enraging fair-minded Americans and rallying them to Trump. Anyone who might disapprove of porn in schools, wide open borders or abortion up to the age of weaning must look at the legal persecution of Trump by these leftist zealots and think, “There but for the grace of God go I.”

It might also be a factor in black voters turning away from Biden (the idea that the criminal justice system is always fair and unbiased against system outsiders doesn’t play very well with that demographic.) But of course, that could just be due to the fact that Biden is a horrible, horrible President.

Related: This news will have Democrats rushing to squeeze some Play-Doh. A new survey by the Daily Mail finds that Biden’s support among young women aged 18-29 has plummeted by 18 points since last June, from 60% to 42%.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12919689/female-voters-Biden-poll-collapse-young-support.html

This is the “Life of Julia” demographic, the young women that Democrats condescendingly view as dependent on Big Daddy government. They’re the main reason the expected 2022 red wave was blunted. The Dems think they’re single-issue voters (abortion), so I guess they think they’ll forever overlook issues like inflation, crushing interest rates, rampant crime and having their rights systematically stripped away from them in order to appease the trans cult.

We can expect the Dems to react to this news with panic, and by turning up to 11 the shrill accusations that Trump will take away abortion rights (he’s actually pretty moderate on that issue, while it’s the Dems who’ve become extremists and back unlimited abortion far beyond any laws in Europe) or that he’s a Hitler-like dictator. I would hope that any women who are old enough to remember when he was President for four years might remember that it was a time of widespread peace and prosperity, law and order, dismantling of government power, restoration of individual rights and the first Administration in years that started no new wars.

Still, as the article predicts, the left hopes that young women will come around to voting for Biden as “the lesser of two evils.” I hope I am never in the same room with anything that could be described as a greater evil than this presidency.

Due to bad weather in both Iowa & Little Rock tomorrow, the plane we were to use to get there & back for the @realDonaldTrump

events is unable to go & we have to cancel. I hope IA caucus goers turn out next week and send a MAGA message by voting for @realDonaldTrump

------------------

See you in Iowa?

Sarah (the fine new Gov of Arkansas) & I are headed to Iowa Monday to campaign for Donald Trump ahead of caucuses. I hope you can make it to one of these events:

Team Trump Iowa Faith Event featuring Governor Sarah Sanders and Governor Mike Huckabee (donaldjtrump.com) in Ottumwa, Iowa

Team Trump Iowa Faith Event featuring Governor Sarah Sanders and Governor Mike Huckabee in Des Moines, Iowa (donaldjtrump.com)

Today, January 5, is supposed to be the day the Colorado secretary of state certifies the ballots.  So it looks as though the ballots will have to be certified with Trump’s name on them.  Even so, unless/until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in, we don’t know if they’ll be able to get away with not counting Trump votes, as the Colorado Supreme Court has determined they don’t have to count legally-cast votes, at least the write-in ones.  And if they don’t have to count write-in votes, why should they necessarily have to count Trump votes at all?  (We’re not attorneys but find the question intriguing.) 

By the way, in shocking-but-not-surprising breaking news, the totally objective and nonpartisan Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who publicly supported taking Trump off the ballot, attended a private fundraiser for Biden in November.  The state attorney general was apparently there, too.  Here you go.  This is what we’re up against...

https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/04/colorado-secretary-state-jena-griswold-support-remove-trump-ballot-biden-campaign-fundraiser

While awaiting a ruling from SCOTUS on the decision to remove Trump from their state primary ballot, Trump released a looooong analysis on “X” including all the documented ballot hanky-panky surrounding the ‘20 election.  The implication:  any sane person in his position would think the election had been stolen from him.  If it wasn’t, they sure were working feverishly for nothing.

And surely that will be part of Trump’s defense if it comes to that.  Special Counsel Jack Smith is alleging that Trump willfully committed fraud when he said the election was stolen and made moves to have the allegations looked into.  By putting all this out, Trump is saying he truly believes the election WAS stolen from him, and that once you go through all this, you’ll likely think so, too.

The problem, of course, is that those who already believe Trump is guilty will find some way to discredit (in their minds) all of this evidence.  But as Kanekoa the Great, who posted all this, says, “I look forward to fact-checkers debunking this, citing sources from the corporate media that spent four years claiming Trump was a Russian agent and dismissing Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation.”

And, voila, there’s already one such post, from “Grok,” and it’s particularly amusing.  Why, he informs us that Trump’s allegations have been debunked by none other than “PolitiFact, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning website,” and also (hold your breath) the BBC.  And the results were certified by Congress in 2021.  And multiple recounts in swing states such as Arizona and Georgia (recounts of the same ballots that were counted before), “have confirmed Biden’s win.”  Well, that’s good enough for me!

https://twitter.com/RomanValentinus/status/1742702839657316729/photo/1

This reaction was inevitable.  Kanekoa simply says, “I encourage you to review the numerous citations in this report and reach your own conclusions.”

Here are summaries of just a few examples:

Wisconsin was called by 20,682 votes.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled dropboxes illegal under Wisconsin law, and they had plenty of them in pre-determined locations, funded by outside groups.  It was election commissioner Meagan Wolfe who unilaterally declared dropboxes could be used, but the commission never voted to establish this.  You’ll want to read the decision by Justice Rebecca Bradley, as well as about the other ways they apparently “faked the vote” in Wisconsin.

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1742670652472205596

Then scroll down and you’ll see Pennsylvania, which was called by a margin of just 80,555 votes.  Later it was determined that there were 121,240 more votes cast than there were voters.

Then there are Arizona and Georgia; what a mess.  We can’t have another election that’s as much of a mess as this one was.  It’s too bad that Trump released this at the same time the Epstein “names” were dropped, as the media can now conveniently ignore it all.

https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1742670652472205596

(Side Note: I’ve long said that you don’t even need claims of hacked voting machines or trucks full of fake ballots to be suspicious of the 2020 election. The way the media and the government colluded to silence conservative voices and suppress negative news about Democrats to tilt the table, while Democrats across America waged legal warfare to illegally change voting laws without legislative approval so deeply undermined public trust that it was inevitable that many people would refuse to believe the results before they were even announced. One of the pillars of American society that keeps so many people of widely diverse views united is faith in the honesty of our elections, and the Democrats have been swinging a wrecking ball at it for years.)

Speaking of Georgia, as we previously mentioned, True the Vote just won a decisive legal victory there, in their legal battle against Stacy Abrams' Fair Fight, legal teams led by Marc Elias, and the Biden Department of “Justice.” As announced in their press release, “a federal court in the Northern District of Georgia today affirmed that citizens have the right to lawfully petition their government in support of election integrity without fear of persecution or prosecution.” 

Their release is a must-read, and it includes a link to their video, “The Georgia Story Through the Eyes of True the Vote.”  Their president is Catherine Engelbrecht, a dear friend.

https://wethepeopleconvention.org/articles/True-the-Vote-wins-Important-GA-Case

Dr. John Gentry, a Georgetown University professor who was a CIA analyst for 12 years, is worried about the “significant problem” of politicization of the intel community and confident that those agencies will try to interfere with the 2024 election in ways similar to their efforts in 2020.

He’s researched this topic, past and present, for his new book, “NEUTERING THE CIA:  Why US Intelligence vs. Trump Has Long-Term Consequences.”  That sounds like one for the top of the reading list.  As he said to FOX NEWS Digital, “My guess is that the proverbial deep state within the intelligence community will re-emerge because presumably a Republican candidate will again be seen as a threat to the internal policies that many intelligence people like.”  Downplaying the Hunter Biden laptop was “clearly political,” he said, as a highly placed source told him “in no uncertain terms” that it was done “explicitly” with “intent to help the Biden campaign.”

He’s been reading the tea leaves in recent weeks and says former intel officials are likely to resume their political activity against Trump “or whomever the Republican presidential candidate is next year...The activities of the ‘formers’ have resumed already, a bit earlier than expected.” (This is consistent with what we’ve been saying about trying to set aside the conflict by choosing someone else.  How foolish --- they’ll do this regardless of our choice. In fact, they’re already trying to remove other Republicans who questioned the 2020 election from the ballot using the “insurrection” canard, and never mind that Democrats have also questioned every election they’ve lost for decades.)  

Gentry blamed DEI culture for the politicization of the CIA by shifting their attention away from day-to-day operations to “woke” policies.  (He must be familiar with those CIA recruiting films, too!)   We can thank President Obama for a huge step in that direction, Gentry said, courtesy of an executive order that pushed it.  Two other top-level activists were former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

We want to see what he says in his book about “soft totalitarianism,” which he says they were actually starting to talk about (in those actual words) during the Obama administration.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-cia-analyst-says-intel-agencies-politically-active-again-2024-election-significant-problem

The interview with Gentry doesn’t get into solutions, as is so often the case.  Let’s hope his book does.  In the meantime, we’ll offer a few starting tactics going into this year...

DON’T BELIEVE THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ABOUT ANYTHING.

DON’T BELIEVE LEAKS TO MAJOR MEDIA THAT PROBABLY CAME FROM THEM.

IF THEY ACCUSE THE RIGHT OF SOMETHING, TRUST THAT THEY’RE DOING IT THEMSELVES AND BE DULY WARNED.

INTEL WHISTLEBLOWERS – CULTIVATE YOUR COMMUNITY AND SPEAK UP RIGHT AWAY.

ANTICIPATE SOME “BLACK SWAN” EVENT THAT HAS PROBABLY ALREADY BEEN PLANNED.

Finally, as of this writing, we still haven’t heard from the U.S. Supreme Court about Colorado.  Jonathan Turley said on Wednesday that if the Court doesn’t come back with some answer, the Colorado court could seek to “moot” (temporarily) the appeal and avoid review.

This is a must-read column.  You’ll detect the deep note of sadness as Turley watches our country going through so much lawfare in so many states.

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/01/03/a-sad-day-how-the-colorado-disqualification-decision-is-bringing-back-some-bad-memories-for-the-supreme-court/#more-213662

On Wednesday, President Trump appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that found him ineligible to be on the primary ballot in that state.  Those justices, 4-3, claimed he engaged in and incited an “insurrection” on January 6, 2021, and is thus prevented by the 14th Amendment from running for any office.

It asks SCOTUS this question:  “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?”

This appeal is no surprise to anyone who knows President Trump, and in case anyone misread him, his attorneys announced their intention shortly after the Colorado ruling.  And on December 27, the Colorado GOP, joined by six voters and the secretary of state’s office, also filed a petition for immediate review by the Supreme Court.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/colorado-secretary-of-state-urges-supreme-court-to-expedite-trump-ballot-challenge

The significance:  President Trump remains on the ballot unless SCOTUS were to reject the petition by January 4 or otherwise rules against Trump.

January 4 --- that’s today!

Why so soon?  In that state, it’s the day before certification of the ballots for the primary.  January 5 is the deadline for the Colorado secretary of state to certify all those ballots, and it cannot be changed.  Once they’re certified, no challenge is allowed.  As they say, it is what it is.

Catherine Yang at THE EPOCH TIMES has an informative report on the President’s legal argument.  They say that over the past few months, more than 60 (!) lawsuits and administrative challenges have been filed against him to keep him off the ballot.  All of these are based on allegations that Trump engaged in insurrection and is therefore disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

“First, the events of January 6, 2021, were not ‘insurrection’ as that term is used in Section 3,” Trump’s petition reads. The amendment was passed after the Civil War, and insurrection was understood to mean “the taking up of arms and waging war upon the United States,” they argued. More than 600,000 died in the war, and “focus on war-making” in the text was the “logical result. 

(As you certainly know, this amendment was ratified after the Civil War, to prevent those who had picked up their guns and literally waged war against the United States from serving in public office.  And even they could be permitted that privilege again with a two-thirds vote of Congress.)

“By contrast, the United States has a long history of political protests that have turned violent. In the summer of 2020 alone, violent protestors targeted the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, for over 50 days, repeatedly assaulted federal officers and set fire to the courthouse, all in support of a purported political agenda opposed to the authority of the United States.”

They also argue that the courts don’t have jurisdiction on this question: “Indeed, every federal court that addressed this issue with regard to the eligibility of President Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, and Senator Ted Cruz held that the issue was for Congress and not the federal courts.”

Of course, you know that Maine Secretary of State Shanna Bellows singlehandedly decided that Trump couldn’t be on the GOP primary ballot up there.  (And, gosh, something tells me she’s not even in the GOP!)  Surely knowing how far over the line she had gone, she did at least put her dastardly plan on hold: “I will suspend the effect of my decision until the Supreme Court rules on any appeal or the time to appeal has expired.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-takes-ballot-disqualification-battle-to-supreme-court

For when you have time, the NEW YORK POST has a more detailed story that we highly recommend…

https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/news/trump-attorneys-appeal-colorado-ballot-ruling-to-supreme-court/?&utm_campaign=nypevening

Attorney General Bill Barr has made it clear he does not want Trump to get the GOP nomination, but said this week that “the efforts to knock him off the ballot are legally untenable, politically counterproductive, and, most ominously, destructive of our political order.”  I wonder if he’s considered, though, that for the left, being “destructive of our political order” is not a bug; it’s a feature!

They also could backfire and help Trump, a scenario that, knowing Barr, likely motivates his words as well.

“As a legal matter,” he said, “states do not have the power to enforce the disqualification provision of the Fourteenth Amendment by using their own ad hoc procedures to find that an individual has engaged in an insurrection.”  It’s Congress --- not the individual states ---who has the authority to do that, he said.

Our whole election system could “collapse in chaos,” he warned, if each state uses its own definition of insurrection and its own procedural standards to block candidates.

He had additional words of criticism, specifically for the left: “[This effort] is much like the left’s previous schemes to sidetrack or defeat Trump politically through legal ploys that stretched the law beyond its proper bounds...Nothing is more destructive to democracy than for one faction to try to win in the political arena by disenfranchising its adversaries.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/bill-barr-efforts-to-remove-trump-from-ballot-are-destructive-of-our-political-order

As you know, Special Counsel Jack Smith did not specifically charge Trump with insurrection, and he certainly would’ve done that if he thought it would stick.  Instead, he charged him with four other felonies:

--- conspiracy to defraud the United States

--- “conspiracy against rights”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 

(If you read the description at the link, you’ll find it sounds very much like what Jack Smith is trying to do!)

--- conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding

--- “obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding”

The Supreme Court is going to be ruling on two of these charges soon, in the case United States v. (Joseph) Fischer (one of the OTHER J6 defendants)…  As legal analyst Margot Cleveland says, ”It is likely a majority of the Supreme Court will rule that the ‘crimes’ the special counsel charged are not crimes at all.”

If you’d like to get into the weeds on statutory interpretation and how it relates to Trump’s J6 case, we recommend taking time with her article.  Cleveland says a reasonable prosecutor would put the brakes on Trump’s criminal trial until the issues about these charges can be resolved by the Supreme Court, but that the special counsel and the district court “have both proven themselves anything but reasonable and have revealed their real goal is to obtain a conviction against Trump before the 2024 election, which is now less than a year away.”  Smith may be trying Trump on charges that don’t even exist, she says, lamenting that half the country doesn’t seem to care.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/01/02/why-scotus-will-likely-smack-down-two-of-jack-smiths-get-trump-charges-as-non-crimes/

Melissa Hart.  Monica M. Marquez.  Richard L. Gabriel.  William W. Hood III.

These four unelected Colorado Supreme Court justices, in a 4-3 ruling, are guilty of one of the most preposterous cases of judicial overreach in the history of “our democracy.”  Until this travesty can be reversed on appeal before the United States Supreme Court, our Republic is LESS democratic because of them.  Democratic principles and the Constitution founded on them have been tossed out the window.

They ruled that Trump is ineligible to be on the Colorado ballot for President under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies sworn officials who “engaged in insurrection.” This is the dream of Trump-haters who were willing to do anything, sacrifice any principle, to strike him from the ballot and nullify the choice of Americans who support him.

Oh, and if you think those voters can just write in his name, you’re in for a shock.  They thought of that, ruling that “the Secretary [of State] may not list President Trump’s name on the 2024 Presidential primary ballot, nor may she count any write-in votes cast for him.”

If anyone is a threat to democracy and unfit for public office, it’s these judges whose brains have been so eaten away by the TDS virus that they can’t be trusted to honor the Constitution and uphold the most basic rights.

https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/19/donald-trump-disqualified-colorado-ballot-supreme-court/

This is election interference right out in the open.  To accomplish this, they had to contort history and the law so much that these can hardly be recognized any longer.

Let’s look at history.  As you probably know, the 14th Amendment was ratified soon after the Civil War, in 1868, for the purpose of disqualifying members of the Confederacy from holding U.S. office.  The people who wrote it had just just been through a REAL insurrection that killed hundreds of thousands of people.  I wonder if those Colorado judges have the slightest idea what that was, or if they even care.  They were just grasping at whatever they could use.

Now, as to Trump himself engaging in “insurrection.”  The barracuda currently masquerading as Trump’s special counsel would eagerly have prosecuted him for that if he thought for a minute he’d be able to make that stick, but he didn’t.  Trump not only hasn’t been convicted of insurrection, he hasn’t even been charged with it, not by the most Trump-deranged prosecutor on the planet.

Dissenting Colorado Chief Justice Brian Boatright recognized this, arguing that Colorado’s election law “was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection.  In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code.”

Another dissenter, Justice Carlos Samour, said in a lengthy opinion that this suit is not a “fair mechanism” for determining Trump’s eligibility for the ballot because it deprives him of his right to due process, as he has not been convicted.  “Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past --- dare I say, engaged in insurrection --- there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office,” he wrote.

Hard to believe we’re linking to NEWSWEEK on this, but they actually have good coverage on what the dissenters (all Democrats, incidentally) said.

https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-supreme-court-justices-defend-trump-there-was-no-fair-trial

In Colorado alone, there are 3.8 million voters, including close to a million registered Republicans (that ratio, by the way, gives you a clue as to what’s wrong with their Supreme Court.) And this outrage is going on all over the country.  As Kayleigh McEnany pointed out on FOX NEWS last night, there have been 31 cases seeking Trump’s’ removal from the ballot.  More than a dozen cases remain pending, some in “red” states such as Texas and South Carolina.  (One was dismissed in Florida.  Thank you, Florida.)

Well, so much for the will of the people.  In McEnany’s words, “If you can’t beat them, disqualify them.”

Former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker made a great point: “This was a close call for them.  It was a 4-3 decision.  And when you take someone off the ballot and disqualify a candidate, it should be with unbelievable evidence…”  The facts are “very thin” here, he said, based on the findings of the ultra-partisan January 6 committee “from Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and others.”  Trump, he noted, told his supporters to go “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol building to make their voices heard.

“This court just ignores anything that is evidence that helps President Trump.”  He pointed out that other state Supreme Courts have looked at this issue and “nobody’s been willing to go out as far” as this one.  It’s a completely partisan attempt that the left is celebrating right now.

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say.  Colorado only has till January 5 (!) to have this settled, so law professor Jonathan Turley says it’ll be put on the “rocket docket.”  The U.S. Supreme Court absolutely must get involved, he says, because the Colorado Supreme Court is “dead wrong.”  To get to their opinion on this, the Colorado court had to have a “sweeping interpretation on every single issue in order to get where they wanted to go” --- except on one particular issue, that of free speech.  “Then they adopt a narrow interpretation.  They suggest that Trump DOESN’T have free speech protection.”  They even hearken back to speeches Trump made in 2016!

This opinion truly is a product of Trump-deranged minds.  As Turley says, “The factual and legal basis of this opinion is really so porous that the Supreme Court will make fast work of it.” And they'll get their chance quickly: Trump wrote to his followers, "The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/12/19/turley_colorado_had_to_have_a_sweeping_interpretation_on_every_single_issue_to_get_to_their_opinion_on_trump

“The path that this court has put us on could not be more dangerous,” according to Turley.  “...You know this country needs some healing. And what the Colorado Supreme Court did is they basically took a blow at democracy in the name of democracy...We never needed the democratic process more. We need voters to be able to make a decision. Because at some point we have to come back together.”

If this sort of thing were ever to be allowed to stand, we would no longer be recognizable as America.  As Turley has written, “Such ballot-cleansing is common in countries like Iran, where citizens await to learn which opposition candidates will be allowed to run.”  That’s why, we would add, this abomination has to be a shocking wake-up call for American voters, as it reveals just how far the left is willing to push the boundaries.  They HAVE no boundaries.  They say they care about “democracy”?  Give me a break.

Here’s what Turley wrote about the lower-court judge’s opinion in November, before the case went to the State Supreme Court.  Judge Sarah Wallace was right, he said, in rejecting the 14th Amendment argument but very wrong in her analysis when she said Trump’s speech was inciteful and unprotected.

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/11/18/colorado-judge-rejects-14th-amendment-disqualification-effort-to-bar-trump-from-ballot/comment-page-3/

As for legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, he had no problem calling this election rigging.  Again, an “insurrection” means taking up arms against the United States, as the South did during the Civil War.  “To remove Donald Trump from the ballot for an offense that he hasn’t even been tried or convicted of --- what is that?  It’s violating his right to due process, which happens to be guaranteed by [that] very amendment, the 14th, and elsewhere in the Constitution.”

Importantly, Jarrett also pointed out that the language in the amendment doesn’t even apply to the office of President.  Colorado officials have “brazenly manipulated the clause for purely political reasons, another example of election interference by Trump opponents.  This is an effort --- make no mistake --- to deprive Americana voters of THEIR right to make the decision as to who should be President.  It is ANTI-democratic.  It’s the equivalent of rigging the ballot box.”  Jarrett sees it as inflaming voters and further boosting Trump’s support (as it should).

 

RELATED:  Republican presidential primary candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has said he’s removing his name from the Colorado ballot, on the principle that Republicans --- not the courts --- should be able to pick their own nominee.  He’s calling on the other GOP candidates to remove their names as well.  He sees failure to do so as “tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country.”  Good for him!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/vivek-ramaswamy-withdraw-colorado-primary-trump-ballot

 

Here, Vivek is included in a round-up of explosive social media reaction…

https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2023/12/19/outrageous-form-of-lawfare-social-media-explodes-after-colorado-supreme-court-tosses-trump-off-ballot/

Ron DeSantis and even Trump’s staunchest Republican critic Chris Christie also slammed the decision, as did Robert Kennedy Jr., who tweeted, “Let the voters choose, not the courts!”

This outrageous ruling not only is a body blow to the rule of law and our democratic process, it also has done serious damage to America’s international standing, giving other nation’s the perfect response when we criticize their rigged elections. El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele warned that "The United States has lost its ability to lecture any other country about ‘democracy.’”

 

COMPARE AND CONTRAST:  This isn’t the only courtroom travesty going on.  The six alternate Trump electors from 2020 in Nevada were indicted earlier this month.

https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/06/nevada-jury-indicts-six-republican-alternate-electors-trump-won-2020-election/

And here’s some potentially good news for several January 6 defendants, including Trump.  Watch this 7-1/2-minute video and see how the Supreme Court is getting involved...

https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/supreme-court-drops-jan-6-surprise-after-2-years-3-appeals-get-accepted-facts-matter

For when you have time, here’s Julie Kelly with more on that…

https://www.declassified.live/p/a-red-flag-is-scotus-poised-to-overturn?

 

FINAL WORD:  We’ll give that to President Trump, who posted on Truth Social: “‘Justice’ weaponization is a very dirty game to play, and it can have repercussions far greater than anything that Biden or his Thugs could understand. They ought to withdraw all of their Fake, Political Indictments against their Republican Opponent, me, immediately. This is a Pandora’s box, that works two ways, and it should be closed and tightly sealed RIGHT NOW.”

We talk a lot here about election interference, and not just the direct kind that might have happened with mail-in ballots on Election Day.  Much of that interference --- perhaps the type that, overall, bore the most fruit in 2020 and likely affected the outcome --- has to do with the suppression of information that Americans deserve to know before casting their votes.  And nowhere is this more obvious than with the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020.  At that time, the government was working overtime to make sure you didn’t see it, or, if you did, that you quickly discounted it as “foreign disinformation.”  This from the party that professes so loudly to care about “our democracy.”

Oh, they love democracy, all right, as long as they can game the system and manipulate enough voters to vote their way.

Even as the 2020 election recedes in our rear-view mirror, we’re able to piece together more of what was done then to censor needed information.  This discovery comes to us thanks in large part to outside-government organizations such as Judicial Watch, whose Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests continue to bear fruit, as you’ll see below.  And now there’s America First Legal, headed by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who has shown himself to be eminently worthy of The Second Trump Administration if that’s where he would like to be.  Maybe as communications director/press secretary?

In late October, AFL filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging a “coordinated communication” and an unreported in-kind contribution to the Joe Biden presidential campaign and related entities in violation of federal law.  This has to do with that bogus “classic earmarks” letter signed by 51 former U.S. intel officials, with the goal of censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 election.

“There are reasons to believe that the public statement by 51 former intelligence officials was a coordinated political operation to help elect Vice President Biden in the 2020 election...” the complaint reads.

The full complaint runs 13 pages with 110 pages of exhibits, stating that “the Biden for President Campaign in 2020, the Biden Victory Fund, the Democratic National Committee, and the Biden Action Fund should have reported on coordinating efforts” as in-kind donations.

It’s hard to say how the value of that letter to Biden’s campaign can even be determined.  At the risk of sounding like a parody of the old MasterCard commercial, we’d say it’s...priceless.

As is now well known, that “classic earmarks” determination by the intel “experts” was completely bogus.   In late 2019, a year before the letter was signed, the FBI had taken possession of Hunter’s laptop from computer shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac and were perfectly aware of what was on the hard drive.  They had to know without a doubt that every disturbing entry was real.  But it didn’t matter --- the officials who unquestioningly signed that letter hadn’t even seen the contents of the laptop.  They did it to help Joe Biden win, perpetuating yet another hoax on the American people to interfere with an election.

As FOX NEWS reports, “The Obama administration officials who signed include former [CIA] Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence [DNI] James Clapper, and former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.  Former George W. Bush DNI Michael Hayden, a vocal Trump critic, also signed.”  We would add the note of sad irony that both Brennan and Clapper, and additional signatory Paul Kolbe of the CIA, have recently been named by DHS Director Alejandro Mayorkas to a new intelligence “expert” board.

The complaint also mentions that Clapper and Panetta donated to the Biden Victory Fund and the Biden for President campaign in 2020.

Based on testimony from former CIA Deputy and Acting Director Mike Morell to the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, we know that then-Biden campaign adviser (now Biden’s Secretary of State) Tony Blinken spearheaded the effort to create this letter.  Morell testified that he’d been recruited by Blinken to write the letter.

According to the Judiciary Committee, Morell also explained that Biden campaign manager Steve Ricchetti called him following the October 22 debate to thank him for writing it.  (During the debate, Biden had played the letter up big, using it as evidence that the laptop story was “Russian disinformation” when he had to know it wasn’t.)  “Morell also explained that the Biden campaign helped to strategize about the public release of that statement,” the committee said.  “Morell further explained that one of his two goals in releasing the statement was to help then-[former] Vice President Biden in the debate and to assist hm in winning the election.”  In other words, it was FOR THE CAMPAIGN.

This bogus letter was also used to provide cover for the censorship by Twitter and Facebook of the Hunter laptop story.  Why, how could it not have been Russian disinformation when 51 intel experts had encouraged that conclusion?    

Reed D. Rubenstein, senior counselor and director of oversight and investigations for America First Legal, concludes that we’re seeing a “pattern” of election meddling, citing intelligence officials’ failed attempt to help Hillary Clinton win in 2016 by lying about “Trump/Russia collusion.”  (Recall examples such as Alpha Bank?)

As Rubenstein said, “The [FEC’s] charge includes election integrity --- Americans have the right to know who is coordinating with federal candidates.  But this right is only as effective as the agency that enforces it.  The FEC must act here.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fec-complaint-alleges-coordinated-disinformation-campaign-bidens-2020-run

In other censorship news, thanks to yet another FOIA request, Judicial Watch has uncovered more government censorship through private entities, this time about COVID, as evidenced in dialogue between the Biden Surgeon General and Facebook in mid-2021.  No wonder we can’t believe anything we hear from either the government or social media on this (or any other) subject.

In just 14 pages of conversation between U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and top FB executives, we see the path to stunning submission to the government by FB, as they sought “to better understand the scope of what the White House expects of us on misinformation going forward.”

Murthy enumerated several helpful suggestions for combating misinformation, such as focusing on addressing “misinformation in live streams, which are more difficult to moderate due to their temporary nature and use of audio and video.”  Also, FB should “prioritize early detection of misinformation ‘super-spreaders’ and repeat offenders” and “impose clear consequences.”  They also should “amplify communications from trusted messengers and subject matter experts” (presumably those agreeing with Dr. Fauci and the CDC).

It’s fascinating to read the correspondence between Murthy and Nick Clegg, VP of Communications and Global Affairs at Facebook, to see how Clegg diplomatically pushes back on some of this, saying they’re “partners in the same battle” but that he “thought the way we were singled out over the past few days has been surprising and misleading, and I believe unproductive to our joint efforts, too.”  Still, Clegg later seems to have resolved his concerns and settled into his role as co-censor, later writing that he “wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing...as well as steps we are taking to address the ‘disinfo dozen’:  we removed 17 additional Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts tied to the disinfo dozen...(resulting in every entry of the disinfo dozen having had at least one such entity removed.”

Aren’t you intrigued to know who the “disinfo dozen” were and what they were daring to say in their social media posts?  Were they saying that masks didn’t stop the spread?  That vaccines didn’t guarantee protection against infection and transmission?  That COVID might have started in the Wuhan lab?  That mRNA vaccines were experimental and might be dangerous to some?  “Misinformation” like THAT?

Well, we looked them up and found them identified in an article from the FORBES archives that supported “removing their platforms.”  (Not that the writer was calling for censorship, he said as he called for censorship.)  The heretics included Dr. Joseph Mercola and (yes) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  Ironically, if you want to see some REAL misinformation about COVID vaccines, read this now-horribly-dated FORBES article, which is rife with it, such as that the vaccines are “highly effective” and are “the only realistic way to end the pandemic.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2021/07/19/de-platform-the-disinformation-dozen/?sh=5cd8a14d7378

Anyway, Clegg later writes to Murthy about “how we can partner in this next push to vaccinate children.”

There’s much more to this; I hope you’ll read the Judicial Watch press release at the link.  Tom Fitton, president of JW, said, “These emails confirm that Facebook censored Americans at the direction of the Biden White House and Biden’s Surgeon General’s political operation.  This is a massive violation of the First Amendment.”

https://www.judicialwatch.org/facebook-covid-censorship

There’s no way to deny the sad truth that Democrats had a good election day. They see the results of the Ohio vote enshrining the “right” to abortion as their golden key to turning out voters who will ignore all other issues just for that. So expect to see a lot more demagoguing about abortion in 2024, and attempts to put more laws and constitutional amendments on the ballots in swing states to turn out Democrat voters. It might even turn off some moderate Republicans, who’ve been swayed to think of abortion as a “personal freedom” issue.

Paula Bolyard at PJ Media has more on that Ohio vote, what it might mean, and what it doesn’t really mean. And yes, a large reason for it was that a heavily-funded pro-abortion lobby frightened voters by lying through their teeth about what pro-life legislation would do, while the Republicans did virtually nothing to counter their false narratives.

https://pjmedia.com/paula-bolyard/2023/11/08/if-not-republicans-who-will-stand-up-for-the-little-ones-n4923758  

I was on Sean Hannity’s show last night, talking about the messaging problem that pro-lifers and Republicans have on abortion.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6340774418112

We need to stop playing defense and go on offense. We need to start fighting back against the left’s false rhetoric about killing babies in the womb being “women’s health care” and that anyone who isn’t all-in on abortion wants to harm women. We must make it clear that we recognize that an abortion has two victims: both the baby and the birth mother, who in many cases got talked into the abortion by the father, a relative, or even the abortion providers themselves, for whom dismembering unborn babies is a lucrative business.

We must let women know that we are not out to punish the mother, but to help her, whether it’s to keep her baby or to find a loving adoptive home, but never to condemn her. And to counter the slanderous claim that we don’t care about women’s health, we need to talk about the fact that women are exploited by abortion proponents. They’re not told about the long-term consequences of abortion, physically, emotionally or spiritually.

And instead of getting bogged down in arguments over “how many weeks,” we should talk about something everyone understands and can relate to, like the heartbeat. We all know that when your heart stops beating, you die. It stands to reason that if a baby’s heart has started beating, it’s alive. Everyone gets that.

Remember: surveys show that most people agree that there should be limits on abortion, but they vote for the “no limits” crowd because they’ve been led to believe that pro-lifers are extremists when it’s really the pro-abortion crowd who are far more extreme than most Americans.

We need to stop making the mistake of acting like we need to be afraid of this issue. We don’t. We need to say, “We are for life. We may disagree on how exactly we’re going to make that work, but all of us agree that if an unborn child is in the eighth month of development, nobody should be allowed to slice it to pieces and call it 'women’s health.' It isn’t healthy at all, for the baby or the mother." 

Last night was the third GOP primary “debate,” hosted by NBC News and moderated by two liberals and Hugh Hewitt (Breaking News: The next one will be moderated by Megyn Kelly.) The participants this time around were whittled down to Ron DeSantis, Nicky Haley, Chris Christie, Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy. The general consensus was that there were no breakthroughs. DeSantis did the best, with Haley second. Vivek started strong with a flamethrower opening about NBC News and the repeat loser RNC, but went downhill from there.

You can read more about it here: 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republican-candidates-clash-third-presidential-primary-debate-while-trump-tries-steal-spotlight

https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-vivek-ramaswamy-rips-debate-moderator-fiery-opening-statement/

https://www.westernjournal.com/video-vivek-exposes-dick-cheney-3-inch-heels-rise-millionaire-status-leaving-govt/

This is a good analysis by Guy Benson…

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2023/11/09/analysis-sparks-fly-but-no-breakthrough-at-third-gop-debate-n2631005

And just for fun, scroll back through the comments on Redstate.com’s live blog…

https://redstate.com/liveblog/2023/11/08/redstate-live-blog-of-the-3rd-2024-gop-presidential-debate-n250

I’m not going to do a blow-by-blow recap, or recount who got called “scum,” or who called whom “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels,” or other petty in-fighting. That just plays into what the media wants: turning these events into divisive sideshows that make Republicans look bad. Why else did the moderators wait until an hour into it, when many viewers had no doubt tuned out, before even addressing the major domestic issues most important to voters, like the economy or the #1 issue for many, our wide-open border? That’s taken on even more urgency, now that people are finally waking up to the dangers of letting terrorists pour across it.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/issue-dominates-voters-minds-year-presidential-election

I’ve stood on the presidential debate stage many times, and in 2016, the moderators tried to get me to attack Trump. I refused, and for the same reason I’m not going to critique this (not really) debate. I follow Reagan’s 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. Just as I said then when we were running against Hillary Clinton, we might have our differences, but there’s not a single person on that stage who wouldn’t be an exponentially better President than Joe Biden.

Besides, I’ve already said I back Trump, he’s ahead in the polls by up to 30 points, and as one commentator said, it’s likely most of the candidates by now have resigned themselves to the idea of Trump being the nominee, and they’re just auditioning for Cabinet posts.