An anatomy of the 2024 presidential race.

Kamala Harris’s campaign was as aimless as the fabled lost Dutchman ghost ship, drifting with no course, no solutions, and empty promises to fix what her administration had already failed to address over the last three and a half years. She presented no real plan, leaving us with the grim certainty that her administration would continue on the same disastrous path we had already suffered through.

Even the Hollywood celebrities she paraded around could barely rally their own followers, let alone real supporters of Harris. It was painfully clear that they weren’t fans of her, just hired faces. And it was hard to ignore Harris’s inability to string together coherent thoughts without a Teleprompter, as if drug abuse might explain her struggles to communicate. She could only recite short talking points in her infamous word salads. If she had won, it’s doubtful she would have been in control; it would likely be the same unelected insiders pulling the strings, just as they have with dementia-ridden Biden.

Donald Trump, on the other hand laid out clear, concrete plans for America’s future. He isn’t hiding behind vague statements or accusations thrown by the Democrats. His top priority is to restore order, removing illegal aliens, particularly those from foreign prisons and those committing crimes here in the U.S. His vision includes empowering American workers, giving them tax breaks on overtime and tips, boosting productivity across the board. And he aims to dismantle the modern-day slavery of income tax, imposed as a “temporary” measure during the Civil War but abused ever since.

We will hold Trump accountable, ensuring he keeps his promises. Energy independence is on the horizon, and with it, reduced fuel costs that will drive down the price of everything, especially food. This is the leadership we need to reclaim America’s strength, and we’re ready to see Trump deliver on his word.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Bill of Rights is not absolute?

The fact is these rights were crafted to be absolute.  Until early in the 20th century, they were absolute and then things changed. The concept that rights are not absolute, particularly in the context of the Bill of Rights, was famously articulated by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). In his opinion, Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” This statement marked one of the earliest and most influential judicial crossroads that this certain right—specifically the First Amendment right to free speech—is not absolute and may have limitations under specific circumstances. The Schenck case was later used extensively to gut the second amendment along with search and seizure and due process rights. 

Weighing public safety and modern times simply became an accepted method that brought on the flawed idea that the Constitution was a living document that could be changed along with the needs of the nation without going through the proper political process. 

It wasn’t until District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010); and finally New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) that the current Supreme Court effectively put an end to interest balancing regarding the Second Amendment. 

Now, we must explore other avenues to reverse the effects of interest balancing that have eroded our rights—especially concerning search and seizure and due process protections.  Simply put, modern times or public safety cannot be used as an excuse to take our rights away.  We do have a proper political process that would allow those kind of restrictions.  

Propaganda and the Power of Influence on the Mind and Donald Trump

Decades ago, New York’s Madison Avenue advertising agencies discovered a powerful truth: repetition in messaging has a profound and lasting effect on the human mind. The more frequently a message is shared, the more likely people are to believe it, eventually accepting the products being promoted as the best. This perception is often an illusion, yet people spend their money on these products, sometimes even if they have no need for them.

Children are especially vulnerable to advertising. They quickly develop loyalty to brand names they hear repeatedly on television, even requesting medications they see advertised, believing these products will solve their imagined problems. Adults, often without realizing it, also start favoring whatever brands or ideas they’re exposed to through propaganda or advertising.

One of the masterminds behind the use of propaganda was Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, who famously said, “If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.” This principle applies equally to modern political advertising. For example, a continuous stream of political attacks directed at Donald Trump over the past decade has influenced public opinion, much of it generated by Washington insiders. Many who dislike Trump struggle to provide reasons beyond superficial criticisms often picked up from the media.

Our natural tendency is to seek out sources that align with our political beliefs, reinforcing what we already think we know. However, it’s essential to examine our views and question whether they are rooted in facts or influenced by repeated propaganda. Careful research is crucial, as we can’t rely solely on the statements of TV personalities or politicians.

Democrats Promising a Smooth, Peaceful Presidential Transition? Not a Chance!

The election is over, but the war against President-elect Donald Trump is far from cooling down. In fact, it’s only heating up as the coup d'é·tat continues.  As we approach a critical date—the so-called “hush money” sentencing on November 26—it’s clear that the deep-state efforts to block Trump haven’t slowed; they’re accelerating.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just politics as usual. We are witnessing what amounts to a well-orchestrated coup. Democrats, led by partisan operatives like Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, are doing everything in their power to twist and weaponize the legal system against Trump. Here’s the playbook: the Biden Justice Department had previously investigated this case and declined to prosecute. That alone should tell us something. But Bragg, a staunch Democrat operative, took matters into his own hands, bending and distorting the law to push for an indictment. And where? In Manhattan—hardly neutral ground—where a show trial with a hostile jury delivered the verdict they were all but expected to reach.

In a case this high-profile, a change of venue and jury sequestration would be basic steps to ensure fairness. But those safeguards were cast aside in favor of a trial by public opinion. The media circus, the influence, the clear bias—there’s no denying it: this was no fair trial. Trump’s legal team will undoubtedly appeal, and the case could very well end up in the Supreme Court. But here’s the immediate concern: Judge Juan Merchan, another member of this machine, could order Trump into custody come November 26, despite there being zero threat to public safety.

And don’t be fooled—if Trump is taken into custody, it won’t be the end. It will be just one more step in the political elite’s relentless pursuit of his downfall. His enemies, some of whom are sitting comfortably in Congress, are not done. They’ll continue to throw every roadblock they can at him, whether through attempts to decertify the election, stall the transition, or disrupt any chance of progress. Given the stakes, further attempts on Trump’s life cannot be ruled out.

As for the key players orchestrating this chaos—Bragg, Judge Merchan, and their cohorts—they’ve made their choice. They’ve joined a campaign against a sitting president, and they’ll likely be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their miserable lives. The impact of their actions will follow them, leaving them to contend with the consequences of this disgraceful attempt to manipulate justice.

The battle isn’t over; it’s just beginning. This November 26, we’ll see yet another chapter in the deep state’s relentless,  desperate and dangerous attempt to subvert the will of the people.

President Donald Trump’s newDepartment of Justice and gun law court challenges.

 

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to appoint a new Attorney General, the nominee will receive confirmation from the Republican-majority Senate. This appointment could have significant implications for how the Department of Justice (DOJ) approaches the defense of federal gun control laws currently facing legal challenges in the courts. Traditionally, the DOJ defends federal statutes when challenged. However, there have been notable exceptions; for instance, the DOJ opted not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) during the Obama administration, arguing it was unconstitutional. 

A similar scenario may arise with federal gun laws, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022). The Bruen ruling set a higher constitutional bar for upholding firearm regulations, mandating that any restrictions must align with the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition as understood at the time of the Founding. This decision has essentially invalidated thousands of gun laws throughout the nation. This shift in precedent could serve as a compelling rationale for the DOJ to abstain from defending certain gun laws it deems indefensible under this new framework.

If the incoming Attorney General decides not to defend particular gun laws, it could significantly influence the outcome of these cases, potentially leading to those laws being struck down if no other parties intervene. Alternatively, Congress or advocacy groups might attempt to step in to uphold the statutes.

While the Attorney General does have the authority to decide whether to defend federal laws, exercising this discretion could be politically charged, especially concerning gun control. A decision not to defend could face scrutiny from both sides of the debate, but Bruen provides a legitimate legal basis for declining to defend laws that may no longer pass constitutional muster. This approach could have profound implications for the future of firearm regulation in the United States.

Donald Trump Should Order Immediate Pardons for Three Heroes

It’s time for Donald Trump if elected to act decisively and grant immediate, full pardons to Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning. These individuals are not criminals; they are heroes who risked everything to expose the deep-rooted corruption and abuses of the American government—revelations that all Americans have the right to know.

Assange, an Australian journalist, simply exercised his right to publish the truth through WikiLeaks, standing firmly on First Amendment principles. His only “crime” was revealing to the world what the U.S. government wanted to hide. Snowden, a government contractor, blew the whistle on the NSA’s sweeping, illegal mass surveillance of American citizens, exposing how our own government was secretly intercepting and storing our private phone calls and Internet communications. Manning, a United States Army soldier, courageously followed her conscience, providing Assange with key evidence of government misconduct and upholding the spirit of the Nuremberg principles by refusing to stay silent about illegal actions.

For Manning, the consequences were severe: prosecuted in a general court-martial, dishonorably discharged, and twice imprisoned. But in following her conscience, Manning refused to obey illegal orders and did the only right thing by ensuring that the American people were not deceived by their own government. This was no different from Daniel Ellsberg’s courageous release of the Pentagon Papers, which exposed lies about the Vietnam War.

As a society that claims to value truth, transparency, and justice, we must recognize Assange, Snowden, and Manning for what they truly are—heroes who sacrificed their freedom to defend ours. They deserve comprehensive and immediate pardons. Manning should also receive full back pay, veterans benefits, and a reclassified honorable discharge.

While the Democrats have shown no interest in doing what’s right, Donald Trump must make these pardons a priority as our 47th President. Assange, Snowden, and Manning have paid enough for exposing the truth. Now, it’s time to recognize their bravery and honor their contributions to justice and freedom.

Working from Home: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Working from home has drastically shifted the landscape for both employers and employees, offering new benefits but also revealing some complex challenges.

The Financial Impact on Businesses

Commercial real estate, office furniture, and employee parking are costly expenses for businesses. For companies that had to maintain large office spaces, these costs piled up quickly. However, with the shift to remote work, businesses no longer need extensive office space, reducing their expenses on rent, utilities, and cleaning crews. This has offered substantial savings, particularly in the post-COVID era, where companies have embraced virtual solutions to reduce overhead.

COVID-19 accelerated the adoption of technology, allowing for effective remote communication and collaboration. Video conferencing tools like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Slack enable teams to hold meetings and manage projects without needing physical office space. This shift has benefited many office-based roles but has limitations for industries reliant on physical presence, such as manufacturing and service sectors.

The Convenience for Employees

For employees, remote work eliminates commuting, saving hours of daily travel time and reducing transportation costs. For parents, the savings extend to daycare, allowing more flexibility in balancing work and family life. Furthermore, the need to dress formally for work has lessened, and employees can work comfortably in their own space, often in pajamas or loungewear.

Remote work also led to some unplanned, humorous moments, like children interrupting Zoom calls, pets vying for attention, or even spouses accidentally joining meetings. These moments have added a human touch to the workplace, breaking down barriers and adding levity. But it also reminds us that our “office” is now wherever life happens—a reality that sometimes leads to unintended consequences, as seen in high-profile missteps like that of CNN legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin, who famously forgot to turn off his camera and inadvertently exposed himself masturbating during a call, offering a cautionary tale on the importance of camera awareness.

Enhanced Productivity and Technology

As technology continues to advance, remote work setups have become more efficient. File sharing, project management tools, and cloud storage solutions streamline workflows and make it easier for teams to remain productive outside of a traditional office. The flexibility allows employees to customize their work environment, which can lead to higher productivity for self-motivated individuals.

The Downside of Remote Work

While remote work has clear advantages, it’s not without its downsides. One significant drawback is the loss of spontaneous collaboration. Physical offices allow employees to communicate, brainstorm, and troubleshoot problems in real time, which often sparks new ideas and strengthens teamwork. Without face-to-face interaction, employees may feel isolated and disconnected from their colleagues.

Distractions at home can also impact productivity. From household chores to family obligations, the home environment isn’t always conducive to focused work. For those who live alone, the lack of social interaction can lead to feelings of loneliness or depression, which could negatively affect their motivation and mental health.

Another issue is that remote work may make it difficult for employees to separate their work and personal lives. The boundaries between “work hours” and “personal time” can become blurred, leading to burnout. Some people may find themselves constantly on call, responding to emails and messages outside traditional working hours.

The Future: Hybrid Models

Many companies are adopting a hybrid approach, encouraging employees to come into the office a few days a week to maintain team cohesion while allowing remote work on other days. This hybrid model could provide a balance between the benefits of remote work and the collaborative advantages of office environments.

Conclusion

Working from home has opened new doors in flexibility and cost savings, but it’s a complex arrangement with both positives and negatives. As technology continues to evolve, it will likely improve the remote work experience further, but businesses and employees must find ways to address the social and psychological impacts.

Whether it’s children hilariously interrupting Zoom calls or the occasional reminder to stay vigilant on camera, remote work is a dynamic, ever-evolving reality that has changed the way we view “the office” forever.

America is on the brink of massive civil unrest.

The United States is home to more than 18 million veterans, most of whom are seasoned and experienced, even if age has slowed some of us down us down. We may no longer sprint into battle, but our knowledge and skill with firearms remain intact. The government trained us well to combat communists and we are keenly aware of our responsibility to disobey any illegal orders issued by officials. History, notably the Nuremberg trials, has taught us that “just following orders” is never a valid excuse for participating in atrocities.

Veterans understand what is right, and most of us are deeply committed patriots. The political Left dislikes us precisely because we take our oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution seriously. We are prepared to vigorously oppose any attempt to undermine or suspend our constitutional rights, including the imposition of martial law. Many veterans have sons and daughters currently serving in the military, who would recognize threats to our freedoms and respond accordingly, even if that means turning their guns on officials who prioritize their own agendas over the American people.

Leftist politicians seem oblivious to these truths as they push relentlessly to dismantle America’s foundations, hoping to rebuild it in a Marxist image. We stand now at a pivotal juncture, with the upcoming election representing a boiling point for our country.

Regardless of the election outcome, a peaceful resolution seems increasingly unlikely. The deep divisions within our nation have reached a fever pitch. Military leadership appears compromised, with generals who have advanced by currying favor with figures like Biden, Harris, Obama, and Clinton. Their loyalty, tragically, seems directed more toward personal gain than toward serving the nation.

With our precious Second Amendment and over 400 million firearms in civilian hands, tyranny will find no easy foothold in America. But the question looms: how high a price, in lives lost, must we pay to defend our freedoms?

Conservatives and veterans alike have prepared for the possibility of a worst-case scenario. We pray that those on the Left realize their dreams of a communist utopia have no place in this nation. If such ideals are what they desire, perhaps they should seek them elsewhere.

Prepare for Election Day Chaos: Protect Your Business and Family

This Tuesday, we’re facing the most divisive elections of our lifetimes, and with it, a surge of violence likely funded by sources like Soros. In every major city, expect opportunistic criminals to wreak havoc—arson, looting, and worse. These individuals don’t care about politics; they’re just looking for an excuse to destroy and loot.

Expect Strategic Sabotage: Just like before, you may see pallets of bricks mysteriously appearing on main streets—not for construction but for chaos. These aren’t coincidences; they’re intended for ANTIFA and BLM thugs to use as weapons, escalating destruction as soon as the polls close, especially if early results favor Donald Trump.

Protect Your Livelihood: If you own a business, shut it down on Tuesday night and stay closed on Wednesday. Remove cash and valuable merchandise from your premises. In high-risk areas, board up now. If calm returns by Thursday, you can breathe easier, but until then, your property is a target.

Prepare for Potential Shortages: If violence is prolonged, expect delivery trucks to be grounded. Essential items, from food to medicine, may run out fast. Stock up now on necessities.

Defend Against Arson: Arson is the greatest threat. Check that all fire extinguishers are functional and accessible. Be ready to act as your own first responder; in a worst-case scenario, police and fire departments may not be able to respond.

Consider getting out of town if you can—safely away from the potential unrest. And above all, ensure your insurance is up to date. Let’s hope these precautions are unnecessary, but history tells us that preparation now is crucial. Stay vigilant, stay safe, and be ready.

State v. Wilson: The Battle Over Public Carry Rights Reaches the Supreme Court

The Second Amendment debate has taken a new turn, and all eyes are now on the U.S. Supreme Court as it considers whether to take on State v. Wilson, a case with the potential to reshape the landscape of gun rights in America. At the heart of the issue is Hawaii’s stringent requirement for permits to carry firearms in public. State v. Wilson poses a significant question: does a state’s licensing requirement infringe upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms? With a scheduled conference on November 1, 2024, this case could mark a major shift—not by expanding gun rights, but by restoring them to the people, where they rightfully belong.

The background of State v. Wilson is rooted in Hawaii’s restrictive stance on public firearm carry, requiring residents to obtain a permit to carry guns outside their homes. The state justifies these measures as essential for public safety, given its unique cultural and legal history. However, opponents argue that these restrictions are unconstitutional, especially in light of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Court ruled that gun regulations must be consistent with historical norms and cannot impose undue barriers on the right to bear arms. Many view Hawaii’s permit requirements as a direct contradiction to this precedent.

The impact of a potential Supreme Court ruling in favor of Wilson could extend far beyond Hawaii. Should the Court decide to hear the case and ultimately side with Wilson, it would reinforce a broader trend toward “constitutional carry”—the right to carry a firearm without a permit. Currently, over half of U.S. states have adopted some form of constitutional carry, signaling a movement toward a more permissive approach to public carry rights. A ruling in Wilson’s favor could limit states’ ability to impose restrictive licensing laws, moving the nation closer to a uniform standard that aligns with the Second Amendment as traditionally understood.

If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, this case could set a national precedent by affirming that the right to bear arms in public is indeed fundamental and not subject to restrictive state licensing schemes. For states with strict gun control measures, a decision favoring Wilson could necessitate a reassessment of their laws and bring about a nationwide shift towards constitutional carry.

As the Supreme Court prepares to discuss State v. Wilson on November 1, gun rights advocates and state governments alike are paying close attention. This case stands as a critical test of the balance between state authority and individual rights under the Constitution. While some view the potential outcome as an expansion of gun rights, others see it as a return of these rights to the people—a restoration of freedoms that have long been safeguarded by the Second Amendment.

The Menendez Brothers: A Different Perspective

Beverly Hills, CA—Eric and Lyle Menendez were born into a family deeply entrenched in the entertainment industry. Their father, Jose Menendez, was a successful entertainment executive, having held prominent positions at RCA Records and later as the president of LIVE Entertainment (also known as International Video Entertainment), a major company in film production and distribution. His influence helped shape the entertainment landscape during the 1980s, making the Menendez family a powerful name in Hollywood.

It’s fair to assume that other relatives of the Menendez brothers remain influential in the entertainment industry. This family network could have the reach and resources to greenlight projects that reshape public perception, making the creation and promotion of films about these two infamous brothers a strategic move. With the case already high-profile, leveraging such media influence today to cast them in a sympathetic light isn’t far-fetched. As a result, it seems the Menendez brothers may be on the fast track toward parole before the holidays.

In this context, it’s hard to ignore the role wealth and privilege play in shaping justice. While 35 years behind bars is significant, many other offenders typically begin to reenter society after serving 20 years or more. For the Menendez brothers, serving three decades was a long sentence, but the power of their family’s influence appears to be changing their fate.

Let’s be clear: our criminal justice system is many things, but fair isn’t always one of them. In this case, wealth and influence played a major role, highlighting the disparity between those who have resources and those who do not. The Menendez brothers have the advantage of both, a luxury most serving life sentences without parole can only dream of.