Mr. Wonderful Strikes Again | Kevin O’Leary vs. New York

CNN Host Gets OWNED by Kevin O’Leary (See also TIMCAST’S take on this)

“Shark Tank” co-star Kevin O’Leary said Monday he will “never” invest in the “Mega-loser state” of New York following a judge’s ruling in former President Donald Trump’s civil trial.


Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary condemns AG Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron’s corrupt and baseless ruling against Donald Trump

“I would NEVER invest in New York now! And I’m not the only one saying that!”

“This $4 billion data center I’m talking about – not a chance I would put that in New York! Zero probability! Never!”

“I’m shocked at this. I can’t even understand or fathom the decision at all. There’s no rationale for it.”

“Every investor is worried because where is the victim? Who lost money? What does this say about the legal bar in New York? Aren’t they going to question this judge?”

“$355 million as a penalty plus interest at 9%, and there’s no victim?”

O’Leary said Governor Kathy Hochul’s “words fall on deaf ears to everybody. There’s nothing she can say to justify this decision.”

“This is a New York problem now.”

RED STATE notes this portion of the dialogue:

Neil Cavuto asked about what Gov. Kathy Hochul said about this decision not affecting other businesses. 

“Every investor is worried because where is the victim? Who lost money? This is some arbitrary decision by a judge. What does this say about the bar, legal bar in New York? Aren’t they going to question this judge? What is this??

$355 million as a penalty plus interest at 9%, and there’s no victim?

Her words fall on deaf ears, there’s nothing she can say that will justify this decision.”


Charles Payne delivers a powerful takedown of New York Democrats over political persecution of Trump and the impact on NY City:



Michael Rapaport Says Media Lied About Trump’s Charlottesville Statement

Actor Michael Rapaport has admitted that he helped spread the left’s Trump Charlottesville “very fine people” hoax, saying he was “wrong” to have promoted the lie.

  • “One thing about the Charlottesville — that I ranted about, and I was wrong. When you see the full quote, that wasn’t what he said.” (BREITBART | RIGHT SCOOP | DAILY CALLER)

And so I combine that with more — below, this should be married to my larger post:


DOJ Says Biden Too Senile To Stand Trial, WH Objects


  • Biden denied mental incompetence. “I know what the hell I’m doing,” he proclaimed at the event. His memory is fine. The windmills of his mind are spinning in good order. His confusion of the president of Egypt with the president of Mexico tended to belie his assertion. (POWERLINE | RED STATE | TWITCHY [Techno-Fog])

It’s not conspiracy to ask questions about Biden’s “mistakes” (more at RIGHT SCOOP):

Here is a challenge regarding this video from a comment on my site’s Facebook Page:


  • Like Trump is any better, Trump has days where he believes that he beat Obama in 2016. They’re both old & mentally declining…check yourself!

I respond (with an EXTRA addition here, at the end). For those unaware, POST MILLENNIAL’s headline and sub-title explain:

BREAKING: Biden’s DOJ says evidence shows President ‘willfully’ withheld classified docs—but he will not be prosecuted: The special counsel’s report said Biden’s memory “was significantly limited” during the 2023 interviews with Hur

SUE F., I wish to note that the DOJ has agreed with me and not with you. What do I mean? Here is a Tweet and a pic of the official report:

  • they [DOJ] said he [Biden] was too old and decrepit [memory loss] in 2015 for a jury to think he could have knowingly and willingly done these actions [kept top secret documents].

Are they dropping the same charges against Trump for the same reasons? No. You want to know why? Because he [Trump] has a good grasp on reality and a good memory. Trump doesn’t “Spins Yarns That Often Unravel” – as the New York Times says of Biden. Like,

  • Taught Classes At The University Of Pennsylvania;
  • Visited Ground Zero Day After 9/11;
  • Half his House ‘Almost Collapsed’ After a Fire;
  • House Burn Down with My Wife In It — She Got Out Safely;
  • Claims He Convinced Strom Thurmond To Support The Civil Rights Act;
  • He Began Career as Civil Rights Activist;
  • Saw Pittsburgh Bridge Collapse;
  • Ended Cancer;
  • Appointed To The [U.S. Naval] Academy In 1965;
  • Son Died in Iraq;
  • He Formed the Quad Alliance;
  • Born in the Same Hospital Where His Grandfather Died;
  • Was ‘Involved’ in Civil Rights Movement;
  • Went to a Black Church as a Teen;
  • Biden Says He Attended HBCU;
  • Biden Claims He Has Cancer (“That’s why I and so damn many other people I grew up [with] have cancer”);
  • Wrote Law Review Articles About Right to Privacy (claimed he had written “a number of law review articles” about the right to privacy referenced in the now-overturned Roe v. Wade decision)
  • Was A ‘Full Professor’ At The University Of Pennsylvania;
  • Grandfather Died In The Hospital I Was Born In Six Days Before He Was Born;
  • Offered A Job by An Idaho Lumber Company;
  • Used To Drive An 18-Wheeler;
  • Visited Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue After The 2018 Massacre;
  • Chatted With an Amtrak Conductor in His Seventh Year As Vice President, When The Guy Retired 15 Years Before;
  • Detained By South African Authorities While Trying To Visit Nelson Mandela In Prison In The 1970s.

Etc., Etc., Etc. I left out the many political lies because all politicians try to spin the economy, inflation, debt, etc. I chose those because they are lies that show cognitive dissonance. Even after staff telling him to zip it this stuff never happened, he told some again months down the road.

  • Prosecutors Decline To Charge ‘Elderly’ Biden Over ‘Poor Memory’ (FEDERALIST)
  • Hur’s Report: Biden Ready For Memory Care (POWERLINE)
  • Special Counsel Finds Biden Is Too Damn Old to Be Charged in Classified Docs Scandal (PJ-MEDIA)

  • Biden Lawyers Demand Revisions to Hur Report, Claim Descriptions of His ‘Limited Recall’ Are Inflammatory (RED STATE)
  • WH Lawyers Sent Special Counsel This Letter Asking Him to Revise the ‘Biden’s Senile’ Section (TWITCHY)
  • BREAKING: White House demanded Special Counsel CHANGE his report over Biden’s mental fitness (RIGHT SCOOP)
  • ‘Well-Meaning Elderly Man’: Republicans Seize On Biden Memory Issues Detailed In Hur Report (WASHINGTON TIMES)


  • I’m not part of your brainwashed propaganda group here, the weak minded grasp on to leaders like you & Trump. Trumps mind has been mentally declining due to the stress of losing his trials & millions, but he thanks people like you for paying his legal fees. A billionaire panhandling the weak for jingle you just gotta love it! Be sure to donate to him


  • Perfect ad hominem attack. I would expect no different from either an atheist activist or a progressive one.


Just a little leaven to deflate SUE F.’S argument:

Well, at least President Biden is “a president for everybody, whether you live in a red state or a green state.” (POST MILL X)

Trump Is the Bulwark Against This Different Kind of Nuts

I will forever remember this conversation when in Illinois with my wife’s father, mother, and brother as we were out there to see my youngest son graduate from the NAVY.. In one of our politically leaning conversation that bordered on common sense/#science vs. illogic, I mentioned that I am all for a time where there was some middle-ground in politics where both parties had some similar goals. But that this was an impossible task today for varied reasons. When my mother-in-law asked what a reason was, I mentioned that the Democrats — as a political whole — believe that gender’s can change and that men can give-birth and menstruate. This is an example of a “meeting in the middle” deal breaker.

My father-in-law said that only now do we have language advanced enough to define these conditions/genders. I simply pointed out that it is not an advancement but a diminution of language. And the previous VERY LEFT LEANING public is waking up to the fact a bit that biology is real. At least some of them. As these videos [and article] note.

Bill Maher Makes Guest Go Silent by Explaining the Real Reason Voters Want Trump

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” shares a DM clip of Bill Maher trying to get Adam Schiff, Stephen A. Smith and Seth MacFarlane to understand why people vote for Donald Trump on “Real Time with Bill Maher”.

Joe Rogan Goes Off on Why He’s No Longer a Liberal

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” shares a DM clip of Joe Rogan telling Bobby Lee why he is done with the Left and no longer considers himself to be a liberal.

The WASHIGTON TIMES notes the recent sit down with Martin Short where Bill Maher notes that what the Left is doing “is a different kind of nuts.” The Times continues:

That’s how comedian Bill Maher recently framed some of the current dynamics surrounding gender ideology and the “my truth, your truth” mantra increasingly eclipsing public sanity.

Mr. Maher, on a recent episode of his “Club Random” podcast, explained why some people are watching what’s happening on the secular left and essentially recoiling. 

“There’s people on the left who think that biology is just a theory. It’s that kind of stuff — ‘Men can have babies’ kind of stuff, that makes people go: ‘Trump is nuts, that’s true, we know that, but this is a different kind of nuts that’s closer to my house because my kids are coming home from school, and they’re like ‘Am I queer?’ … because like it’s great that we could like, let kids come out and be themselves when they are, but it’s gotten a little like entrapment with the FBI,” he said.

Mr. Maher likened what sometimes happens with kids and gender ideology to what can unfold when FBI officers suggest a crime to miscreants in an effort to get them to act on it. While these potential delinquents might not have acted on their own, the creatively crafted prompting could be enough to push them over the edge into criminality. 

Kids, he said, can be easily twisted into confusion in a similar way, and he said many parents are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the ways in which gender issues are being presented in schools.

“It’s like, ‘We’re not against homosexuality, but when every book is, you know, ‘Bobby Can Wear a Dress,’ the kid gets it in his head,” Mr. Maher said. “And it’s a confusing time.”


What Mr. Maher is essentially calling out — that “different kind of nuts” — is being fueled by the most toxic attribute plaguing our culture: a carcinogenic detachment from reality and truth and our obsession with the whims of the self.

Mr. Maher has arguably been wrong about a great many issues over the years, yet his reversal and march toward common sense is becoming more pronounced, particularly when it comes to the confusion being foisted upon children. 


While America is still mostly battling issues surrounding biological men competing in sports, Europe is facing more sweeping chaos. Scotland’s ruling party is weighing a proposal that would imprison parents who refuse to transition their children, a chilling turn in a series of bombastic events surrounding gender.

It’s no surprise the chaos here in the U.S. coincides with shifting tides, as worldview expert George Barna recently revealed just 4% of Americans now hold a biblical worldview. Naturally, fewer people now align with God’s perspective on matters of gender. 

But as Mr. Maher’s reaction shows, even an atheist can see that punishing loving parents, foisting confusion on children, deceiving parents, and convincing kids to lie to their moms and dads violates everything good and right in the world. 

It’s possible to treat people with dignity while telling the truth — and it’s absolutely essential to protect parental rights from an onslaught of bedlam. It’s far past time people speak up unless they want to see this “different kind of nuts” become a new kind of normal.

Trump Is the Bulwark Against Different Kind of Nuts

Bill Maher nails it on the extremeness of his Party. I disagree with his conclusion on climate change, but his point is salient. I have to say I am a Martin Short fan, and one should watch the entire episode.

AS AN ASIDE, a friend wrote the following after hearing Bill Maher’s point regarding Obama in the above video:

Ehhh I disagree with more than just climate change. For one, Barry was abso-fucking-lutely [will substitute effe/effing for the rest] a buffoon. “ISIS is not Islamic.” “They’re JV. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. “If I had a son, he’d look like Treyvon.” “Eh uhhhh aahhh uhh eeeeeeeeeh uhhhhhhhhhh.”

Second, I don’t know if it’s willful ignorance or just actual ignorance, but this escalation on the Left is 100% Barry’s doing. As bad as colleges were before, it was Barry appointing that bitch (I can’t remember her name, I’m sure you know who I’m talking about though,) to head of the collegiate system that basically turned universities into full blown Leftist indoctrination centers (significantly more so than before). It was under her that silence and cancel culture propagated, and the already rampant and extreme Left-wing rhetoric became even more zealous and violent. It’s not a coincidence that under Barry, college students started rioting to prevent speakers that countered Leftism from appearing on campus. Never happened, at least with such frequency or to such undeserving guests, under any other president.

Next, why the effe would he think GenZ would push the Democrats towards moderation instead of further extremism? What effing mechanisms in either the Democrat party, Leftist ideology, or the broad culture as it is, exist to do that considering it’s been going this way since the effing 60s!(There is some, but Maher isn’t aware of it and would be against it if he was) It started with the Boomers, got 100 times worse with GenX, doubled down with Millennials thanks to social media, and has gone full retard with GenZ, and everyone who wasn’t a full retard liberal was warning it was happening. How dumb do you have to be to just assume kids are going to know where the line should be drawn when a) you’ve encouraged ever increasing extremism for decades and b) the very nature of your ideology drives toward it. Leftism will always push towards authoritarianism. Whether it’s utilizing the eugenics of the Nazis, the Utopianism of the Soviets, or the climate change and gender theory of the Democrats. There’s no real fundamental difference. The latest is just extremely goofier.

Also and I wouldn’t really expect Maher to realize this, but Trump is largely beloved on the right. Even initial skeptics like us have come around to a degree, and it’s not primarily due to his anti-woke rhetoric. That’s just the sprinkling of dill on the MAGA sandwich. The actual meat and mustard is the America first agenda that prioritizes the prosperity of the individual as well as the country overall as opposed to the authoritarianism, social striation, and warped ideological dogma of the Left.

Lastly, as much as I love Martin Short, I have to point out, again ignorance. Either willful or general. Things eventually do swing back, but not automatically. Oftentimes, it must be done deliberately, and that usually means war. After a certain point of extremism, it takes a cataclysm to force things back to moderation.

This election will be a good determinate as to where we are, and we’ll know for sure once GenZ reaches full adulthood. Not to be all doom and gloom, but it doesn’t look good. It never came with GenX, it came way too late with Millennials. GenZ has the best chance to get it while still in that 24-30 age range thanks to internet culture and nerdom finally striking back against the creeping Leftism on the cultural front. However, just because GenZ has the best chance doesn’t mean they’ll take it. Memes and a firsthand account of cultural degradation and the indignation that it has ignited are at least something, but I don’t know if it’ll be enough.

Mamet Interviews on UnHeard | Why Trump Will Win in 2024

David Mamet: Why Trump will win in 2024 (28:01 – 36:20)

00:00 – 00:45 – Introduction
00:45 – 05:58 – When did David Mamet realise he was destined for the storytelling business, and how has the industry changed?
05:58 – 10:40 – The politicisation of the screenwriting industry
10:40 – 17:43 – David Mamet on being politically outspoken in a liberal industry
17:43 – 22:40 – The role of the mainstream media
22:40 – 23:28 – “Nobody cares about diversity”
23:28 – 28:01 – Does David Mamet feel any differently about being an American Jew in light of recent events?
28:01 – 36:20 – Will Donald Trump win in 2024?
36:20 – 38:44 – Does Mamet believe in banning speech?
38:44 – 42:28 – The future of Hollywood
42:28 – 43:06 – Concluding thoughts

Diplomacy is Back | Biden

Listen, I am not saying crazy Islamic fundamentalists would not have eventually made a move – even under Trump. But Republican administration foreign policy views are typically more realistic regarding the Middle East and Africa, and the spread of Islamo-Fascism. Under Biden one of the first things he did was remove the Houthis from the terrorist listing. And ignored [for the most part] Iran’s involvement in the hundred[+] attacks on bases in the Middle East and it took a record number of drone and missile strikes to garner a reaction [defensive] to these Iran backed terrorists.

The Biden administration has a skewed view of foreign policy that has created MORE unrest in a volatile area for evil opportunists “to pounce.” As well as a VERY porous border that is another opportunist wedge to get terrorists across the border who are creating cells in the country that will surely “pounce” when ordered.

Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., examines increased tensions in the Middle East after the U.S. struck Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen.

Remember, this was an “attack” [not preemptive, but retaliatory] with supported from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands. For the record.

And the night of the attack on Houthi terrorists [Iranian proxies] led to this exchange that is a rarity on news channels that are not FOX:

Will Trump’s 2nd Term Be a Dictatorship? Victor Davis Hanson Responds

Victor Davis Hanson critiques [destroys] the Democrat and mainstream media’s narrative regarding Trump’s 2nd term as a dictatorship. Must listen to response.

Santa Cruz’s “Okay” Skate Symbol (A #MAGA Hoax)



Of course the left thinks this “okay” symbol is racist, like everything is now “racist” (milk, the term “athletic,” criticizing the IRS, saying that Barack Obama lied, wanting lower taxes, Star Wars, your baby, craft beer, being white, lunch bags, etc., etc. TOWNHALL | TWITTER [Tucker Carlson] | WASHINGTON TIMES | NATIONAL REVIEW | ZERO HEDGE [Tucker Carlson]).

See, of course, my previous posts on the “okay” symbol, here and here. I assume that “racist things” and the list of things caused by “Global Warming” will compete with each other.

Of course, if you are not familiar with the original graphic from SANTA CRUZ, it made #3 in the TOP 50 GREATEST SKATE LOGOS.

I was happened upon DICTIONARY.COM’s definition of the “Okay” symbol — and can you guess what I found? And the reason for Savory Agent’s version of the Santa Cruz Symbol? Here is the WRONG DEFINITION description first:

Important context: While the OK hand emoji 👌 has many harmless meanings, it was co-opted as a white supremacist symbol in the late 2010s. One should now be mindful of context when using or coming across this emoji.

This is just factually wrong. The “okay” symbol as a white supremacist symbol was first a hoax by 4Chan dating to 2017, and, the media made such a stink about it [thinking  it was true] that after the media freakout, white supremacist groups adopted it.

Here is WIKIPEDIA’S noting of it:

In 2017, users on the message-board site 4chan aimed to convince the media and other people that the OK gesture was being used as a white power symbol as a joke. According to The Boston Globe, users on 4chan’s /pol/ (“Politically Incorrect”) board were instructed in February 2017 to “flood Twitter and other social media websites…claiming that the OK hand sign is a symbol of white supremacy,” as part of a campaign dubbed “Operation O-KKK”.

The satirical association of the gesture with white supremacy derived from the assertion that the three upheld fingers resemble a ‘W’ and the circle made with the thumb and forefinger resemble the head of a ‘P’, together standing for “White Power.” While some members of the alt-right used the symbol after the launch of the 4chan campaign, it initially remained ambiguous whether or not it was being used to communicate genuine adherence to white supremacy, or with deliberately ironic motives.

In September 2019 the ADL revised their earlier position and added the OK gesture to its “Hate on Display” database. The listing notes that the usage of the OK hand gesture is sometimes benign, but that it is intended as a symbol of hate in some contexts, as some white supremacists have begun using the OK symbol “as a sincere expression of White Supremacy”. White supremacists have acknowledged using the symbol as a gesture of White Power. As a result of white supremacists’ co-opting the symbol….

Dennis Prager says it often, “everything the Left touches it ruins.” The Mainstream Media and Democrats [the Left] had their grubby hands/paws/mitts all over this story as factual — and because of the perceived power play seen in using this politically — they even ruined the “okay symbol.”

Here is the ADL’s dealing with it — take note the “circle game” was ruined as well by the Democrats and Media:

In 2017, the “okay” hand gesture acquired a new and different significance thanks to a hoax by members of the website 4chan to falsely promote the gesture as a hate symbol, claiming that the gesture represented the letters “wp,” for “white power.” The “okay” gesture hoax was merely the latest in a series of similar 4chan hoaxes using various innocuous symbols; in each case, the hoaxers hoped that the media and liberals would overreact by condemning a common image as white supremacist.

In the case of the “okay” gesture, the hoax was so successful the symbol became a popular trolling tactic on the part of right-leaning individuals, who would often post photos to social media of themselves posing while making the “okay” gesture.

Ironically, some white supremacists themselves soon also participated in such trolling tactics, lending an actual credence to those who labeled the trolling gesture as racist in nature. By 2019, at least some white supremacists seem to have abandoned the ironic or satiric intent behind the original trolling campaign and used the symbol as a sincere expression of white supremacy, such as when Australian white supremacist Brenton Tarrant flashed the symbol during a March 2019 courtroom appearance soon after his arrest for allegedly murdering 50 people in a shooting spree at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The overwhelming usage of the “okay” hand gesture today is still its traditional purpose as a gesture signifying assent or approval. As a result, someone who uses the symbol cannot be assumed to be using the symbol in either a trolling or, especially, white supremacist context unless other contextual evidence exists to support the contention. Since 2017, many people have been falsely accused of being racist or white supremacist for using the “okay” gesture in its traditional and innocuous sense.

Other, similar-seeming hand gestures have also been mistakenly assumed to have white supremacist connotations as a result of the “okay” hoax. One of these is the so-called “Circle Game,” in which people attempt to trick each other into looking at an okay-like hand gesture made somewhere below the waist. Another is the hand sign of the Three Percenter movement, a wing of the anti-government extremist militia movement. Three Percenters, who are right-wing extremists but are not typically white supremacists, often make a hand gesture to symbolize their movement that uses the outstretched middle, ring, and pinky fingers to represent a Roman numeral “3.” This gesture, from certain angles, can often resemble an “okay” hand gesture and has been misinterpreted by some as a white supremacist symbol.

But hey…. our dictionaries. Lol.

You know who get’s it right? BLOG EMOJIPEDIA!

  • The myth of the OK gesture as a secret symbol of white supremacy begins in 2017 as a deliberate effort on 4chan to spread the sign as such. It was chosen in part due to its use by the controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos and some white nationalists in support of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election. Its creators also claimed that the fingers of the OK gesture represent a W for white and the ring a P for power, as illustrated below. (read it all, it’s good)

I rarely say anything positive about VOX, but the link in the bullet point above surprised me. Bravo.

The “OK Sign” Hoax | Joe Rogan & Tim Pool

Israel Declared War… Day 1

Hamas Fires 5,000 rockets Into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Israel declares ‘state of war’ — More than 100 Israelis are dead and 900 Israelis have been injured in the Hamas rocket and terror assault from Beersheba to Jerusalem, the Health Ministry said.

Israel Declared War…

“Since this morning, the State of Israel has been at war. Our first objective is to clear out the hostile forces that infiltrated our territory and restore the security and quiet to the communities that have been attacked.

The second objective, at the same time, is to exact an immense price from the enemy, within the Gaza Strip as well. The third objective is to reinforce other fronts so that nobody should mistakenly join this war.

We are at war. In war, one needs to be level-headed. I call on all citizens of Israel to unite in order to achieve our highest goal – victory in the war.”

— Benjamin Netanyahu

  • RED STATE | BREAKING: Hamas Fires 5,000 Rockets Into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Israel Declares ‘State of War’
  • RIGHT SCOOP | BREAKING: Benjamin Netanyahu announces Israel is at WAR after Hamas infiltrates Israel
  • RED STATE | WATCH: Horrifying Videos Out of Israel, as Biden Administration Delivers Shockingly Grotesque 
  • RIGHT SCOOP | Hamas terrorist group releases disturbing video showing Israeli women they have captured
  • JERUSALEM POST | Israel at War: IDF Confirms That Hamas Has Israeli Hostages
  • NATIONAL REVIEW | Israel at War: What We Know about the Barbaric Hamas Attacks

Rape Is The Norm In Illegal Immigration | “Rape Trees”

So the real question after going through this post is:

  • “Do you [government officials] dissuade or encourage illegal immigration?(deportation back to your country, build walls, etc. | VS. | cut razor wire to allow into country, invite to swarm the border, reverse previous policies shown to dissuade people making the trip up to our border, etc.)”

In other words, do you encourage more rape? Put another way: do you sacrificially offer more women up to the rapists? Or do you dissuade this offering?


Just read this DAILY WIRE story this morning, and thought of this post:

Migrant women are reportedly being raped on the Mexican side of the southern border as they wait and seek to enter the U.S.

Sexual violence has ticked up in the border cities of Reynosa and Matamoros, both of which are across the border at the southern tip of Texas, Reuters reported.

Both border cities are major destinations for migrants who make the treacherous journey north in hopes of coming to America.

The two cities have seen record criminal investigations into the rape of foreign nationals this year, state data stretching back to 2014 shows. Eight sexual assault survivors and more than a dozen local aid workers also confirmed the rise in sexual violence to Reuters.

The sexual attacks are often perpetrated by human smugglers who demand cash from migrants. The details are graphic.

One woman, Carolina, said she arrived in Reynosa on a commercial bus with her 13-year-old son, but she was quickly kidnapped and brought to a house where she and other migrants were raped. At dawn one morning in late May, she was pulled out of the stash house by the men and raped on a broken-down bus.

“It’s the saddest, most horrible thing that can happen to a person,” she told Reuters.

She was released when her family paid a $3,100 ransom, and she was interviewed by Reuters after she had arrived in Chicago.

Another woman from Ecuador said she was also held hostage in Reynosa, and her captors allowed a drug dealer to rape her in exchange for a white powder he gave them, possibly cocaine. She escaped through a window one night holding her Christ child figurine as her kidnappers were sleeping.

She was interviewed by Reuters after she arrived in New Jersey and said, “I still have nightmares.”

Rape is also reportedly one of the torture tactics used by smugglers to get migrants to pay them more money……


(As an aside, the “rape culture” Democrats always mention is being created at the border and the trip up here by their invitation to come, illegally.)

Just wanted to excerpt a portion of a larger post where I detail three lies by the media and Democrats about President Trump. Before that excerpt however, I want to add a more recent story regarding a portion of what will follow:

JUST THE NEWS reports on Senator Ted Cruz’s above mention of “rape trees”:

Mexican cartels are moving millions of people into the U.S. over the border, and “rape trees” are a reminder that the Biden administration isn’t doing enough to stop them, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said during a news conference with a group of Republican senators who visited the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We heard multiple reports of something, I’ll be candid, I had never heard of before until today — something called a rape tree, which are trees where the traffickers would violently rape young women and then hang their undergarments in the tree as a trophy,” Cruz said on Friday.

According to an Amnesty International report, about 60% of the women and girls who make the trek to the U.S.-Mexico border are raped.

Cartels reportedly charge thousands of dollars to bring someone through Mexico to the U.S. illegally. Republican senators have noted that migrants who cannot afford to pay the fee end up working for the cartel to repay the debt once they enter the U.S.

“How do you think the young women pay off their 5, 6, 7, 8 thousand dollar human trafficking fee?” asked Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson. “I think we all know,” he said, referring to the “rape tree.”

I mentioned this way back in November of 2016, as well as the Amnesty International report… here is the excerpt.


OKAY… I will now post three responses to items of discussion that my guess is those who are very distraught over Trump’s win and view either him or a large segment of the population who voted for him as racist or bigoted, or mean to disabled persons, is more complicated than these labels. First up is this:

Is Mexico Sending Rapists?

When I ask people to offer me an example of Trump’s “racism,” I get a reference to this example most often:

  • “The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems…. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you…. They’re sending people that have lots of problems…. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” ~ Donald J. Trump

Before I add information that I doubt a millennial has heard because either they or their friends are quick to label Trump as being bigoted or racist for saying this, and moving on without further reflection, I want to note that all Republican politicians said to round up illegals in America would be an impossible task. Trump has evolved on his statement that many understood as rounding up 11-million (actually, there are 30-million). ALSO, every Republican politician noted that the Constitution would not allow for the banning of all Muslims coming to our country. Again, our Constitution forbids this. It allows for banning all persons from a country, but not a religious or sectarian belief. He [Trump] has backed away from this as well, as all of us knew he would. In fact, this was removed from his site. Trump is not a politician, but his team is counseling him well.


Okay. What of Trump’s statement? It surely sounds bigoted at best.

I will shock the reader.

I think that is the most pro-woman statement in a long time by a politician regarding real — violent — crime against women.

Let me explain.

This is from the HUFFINGTON POST:

As the number of Central American women and girls crossing into the U.S. continues to spike, so is the staggering amount of sexual violence waged against these migrants who are in search of a better life.

According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report


Through May, the number of unaccompanied girls younger than 18 caught at the US-Mexico border increased by 77 percent.

But while many of these girls are fleeing their homes because of fears of being sexually assaulted, according to the UNHCR, they are still meeting that same fate on their journey to freedom

For clarity in the sources for the HUFFPO article, for those that are of the impatient and research non-oriented generation:

✦ 60% Amnesty International Report (PDF)
✦ 80% Is rape the price to pay for migrant women chasing the American Dream? (FUSION)

(UPDATED EDITORIAL BY RPT) To be clear, these rapes are happening by residents who live in towns and districts these migrants are passing through. Other rapes are happening by Coyotajes, as well as many by the men making the trip as well. We know that many Honduren gang-members make the trek, and so, a high percentage of these men (criminals) do in fact cross our border into our nation. Where American women of all ethnic background are subjected to assault. Since we know illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born rape is also part of these increased stats.


80% of C. American Illegals Raped on Trip to US, Still Dems Encourage Them to Come

“According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report,” the well-known news outlet continued….

So, many of the men they travel with are rapping them. Many of the Coyotajes as well take advantage of them. There are what are now being called “RAPE TREES,” which you can learn more about on a previous post of mine, here. Here is how a conversation using this understanding went in the real world:

  • The above exchange was discussed a bit wrong, like Trump, the main idea is lost in the presentation. Gavin McInness made it sound as if the rapes were happening at the border when in actuality they are happening during the entire trip. And the girl thought he meant Coyotes, the real animal. Not Coyotajes. (That was very funny BTW, and why I ended the video like I did.)

What would be the most compassionate step to take? I would say, to control our border. That would help the migrant woman AS WELL AS our own mothers, daughters, and wives. Many from these countries that are experiencing these horrible circumstances are experiencing it because of their government models they have chosen. But this is neither here-nor-there.

The bottom line is that Trump, while not explaining this well at all, was actually making a statement about policy that in the end will protect women. There is this as well dealing with drugs and violence aspect of the comment:

A fresh wave of crime from the infamously violent MS-13 gang in the District of Columbia is being driven by the heavy recruitment of young illegal immigrants.

A surge of minors crossing the U.S. southern border is helping the notorious gang boost their ranks and instigate a new string of violent attacks in the city, reported The Washington Times. Over the past few years a wave of illegal migrant children crossed the U.S. border, and MS-13 appears to be targeting them for recruitment.

“They are certainly susceptible,” Ed Ryan, gang prevention coordinator in Fairfax County, Virginia, told The Washington Times. “They are new, they have very little family, they don’t know the language very well. They are looking for someone who looks like them, talks like them.”

Experts say violence from MS-13, which originally started in California, historically occurs in waves. Currently MS-13, on orders from El Salvador, is ramping up efforts in cities across the U.S. to reestablish their dominance on the streets, reports The Washington Times….

This is just a very short clip of a longer audio (here: ) of John and Ken discussing Mollie Tibbetts and her murderer, Christian Bahena-Rivera. According to the DAILY CALLER, he was employed by a Republican small business owner

  • “He worked on Yarrabee Farms, which is owned by the family of GOP official Craig Lang, who was a former 2018 Republican candidate for state secretary of agriculture, according to reports by the Des Moines Register.”

who may have illegally had him in their employ? However, he was an example of the DACA young so did he have his temporary papers? I have no idea. Nor would I know if he immigrated legally if he would have passed all the checks/balances.

As an side…

Is this man a racist or bigot? He was the co-founder of the United Farm Workers union, and spoke out against the racist organization, La Raza, as well as calling workers who crossed the border “illegal immigrants” and “wetbacks.”

“In the mid 1970s, he conducted the ‘Illegals Campaign’ to identify and report illegal workers, ‘an effort he deemed second in importance only to the boycott’ (of produce from non-unionized farms), according to Pawel. She quotes a memo from Chavez that said, “If we can get the illegals out of California, we will win the strike overnight.”

“Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration,” Levin said during a Wednesday appearance on Fox News’ Hannity

After saying that the premise that “compassion is an open border” is a “new idea” that has been pushed in recent times, Levin said that “a nation has a right to secure its border” and its citizens have a right to know who is coming into their country. 

Chavez, who was also against ethnic organizations like La Raza, would tell illegal immigrants to get out of the country, especially because they lowered the wages of American workers. And he was often far from compassionate in handling illegal immigrants….


Steven Calabresi Now Says Trump Excluded from the 14th

This is a large “Sploosh” as a Part Three to the question of Trump’s ability to be on the ballot for the 2024 election. In my Part Two  dated Sept 7th, based on a great couple readings that: “I see nothing in the 14th Amendment including the President or Vice President in the outcome. In fact, I see language excluding them.” (Also Part One is worth reading through as well.)

The guy who popularized the article noted by the #NeverTrumpers and the Left is the co-founder of The Federalist Society, Steven Calabresi. And when he came out in support of by a couple Federalist legal scholars [as well as some Leftist scholars], the Left and said #NeverTrumpers were quick to memorialize it:

THE NATIONAL PULSE nails it with this link fested post!

Steven Calabresi – the law professor who co-founded the conservative Federalist Society legal organization – has conceded that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not in fact bar former President Donald Trump from the presidential ballot, despite claiming in a much-hyped op-ed from August that this was the case.

The Northwestern University law professor had been an outspoken proponent of the legal theory that Trump was barred from running for office on the grounds that he incited an insurrection on January 6th, 2021 – in violation of a Civil War era constitutional provision. It’s an initially floated by law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, with Calabresi quickly popularizing it.


The three men were originally in agreement that “an officer of the United States” included individuals elected as either President or Vice-President. However, Calabresi now says he believes that the President and Vice-President are not, due to “a technicality in the drafting of the disqualification clause of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment”, “officers” – that term being reserved for positions appointed by the President, rather than the President himself.

Additionally he concedes the events of January 6th do not constitute an ‘insurrection’. Calabresi credits former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey with changing his mind.

New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan has already rejected calls to disqualify Trump, via the 14th Amendment, from the state’s ballot.

The VOLOKH CONSPIRACY notes the change of mind: “Calabresi now agrees with Tillman that the President is not an “Officer of the United States.” And YAHOO NEWS also notes that last week professor Calabresi made an about-face

  • In a letter to The Wall Street Journal, he said he had been persuaded by an opinion article in that newspaper that the provision — Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — did not apply to Trump.

So I wanted to help out the #NeverTrumpers and pre-empt their correcting themselves:

Here is the WALL STREET JOURNAL “quick clip” by Professor Calabresi:

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s op-ed “Was Trump ‘an Officer of the United States’?” (Sept. 8) has caused me to change my mind about an argument that I have had with Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman for 25 years. Mr. Mukasey is right: Looked at in the context of the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment, the president is neither an “officer of the United States,” nor, obviously, a “member of Congress.” That must be why the Constitution prescribes a separate oath for the president.

As a result, former President Donald Trump isn’t covered by the Disqualification Clause, and he is eligible to be on the ballot in the 2024 presidential election. I am correcting the public record on this important issue by sending you this letter.

Prof. Steven G. Calabresi

Northwestern Law School

VOLOKH continues:

  • Last week, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. He contended that the President is not an “Officer of the United States.” Many of Mukasey’s arguments track a 2021 article that Seth and I wrote in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty. Long-time readers may remember that Tillman persuaded Mukasey on this issue back in 2015. (This issue also came up with the Mar-A-Lago raid.)

Here is key point from that WALL STREET JOURNAL article:

Was Trump ‘an Officer of the United States’?

A careful look at the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause shows that it doesn’t apply to him.

….A good deal of attention has focused thus far on whether the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was an “insurrection or rebellion” and, if so, whether Mr. Trump “engaged” in it. Those questions, however, need not be answered until two preliminary questions of law are addressed: Is the presidency an “office . . . under the United States,” and was the presidential oath Mr. Trump swore on Jan. 20, 2016, to support the Constitution taken “as an officer of the United States”?

The latter question is easier. The use of the term “officer of the United States” in other constitutional provisions shows that it refers only to appointed officials, not to elected ones. In U.S. v. Mouat (1888), the Supreme Court ruled that “unless a person in the service of the government . . . holds his place by virtue of an appointment . . ., he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.” Chief Justice John Roberts reiterated the point in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010): “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’ ”

Article VI of the Constitution provides that senators and representatives “and all executive and judicial Officers . . . of the United States” take an oath to support the Constitution. But the presidential oath is separately provided for at the end of Article II, Section 1, which would be superfluous if the president’s oath were required by the general language in Article VI. Mr. Trump took an oath as president pursuant to Article II, not as an officer pursuant to Article VI. Because the Insurrection Clause applies only to those who have taken an oath “as an officer of the United States,” he can’t be barred by that clause from serving in any capacity.

As for the former question, the language disqualifying a rebel from holding “any office . . . under the United States” follows the language disqualifying the rebel from office as “Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President.” If “any office . . . under the United States” is broad enough to cover the president, it is certainly broad enough to cover senators, representatives and perhaps electors. Such a reading would make reference to those specific offices superfluous.


As for the former question, the language disqualifying a rebel from holding “any office . . . under the United States” follows the language disqualifying the rebel from office as “Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President.” If “any office . . . under the United States” is broad enough to cover the president, it is certainly broad enough to cover senators, representatives and perhaps electors. Such a reading would make reference to those specific offices superfluous.

Is it plausible that the authors of the 14th Amendment specified senators, representatives and electors but meant to include the presidency and vice presidency under the general term “any office . . . under the United States”? Note that the term is “any office,” not “any other office,” which implies that the positions listed before it aren’t “offices under the United States,” because they are elected not appointed.

But that conclusion is uncertain. The phrase “office under the United States” appears four other times in the body of the Constitution, at least two of which—one barring officeholders from accepting a foreign title or emolument, and one barring anyone impeached and convicted from holding such an office—may well apply to an elected official, including the president. Also, if a holder of an “office under the United States” meant the same thing as “Officer of the United States,” why weren’t the same words used to specify it?

That may be puzzling, but as applied to Mr. Trump it is irrelevant, because—again—he didn’t take and thus didn’t violate an oath as an “Officer of the United States,” and so cannot be barred by the 14th Amendment from seeking re-election.

Even a criminal conviction wouldn’t bar him from seeking and winning the presidency. The Constitution specifies only that a person seeking that office be at least 35, a natural-born citizen and a 14-year U.S. resident. If Mr. Trump is to be kept from office, it will have to be done the old-fashioned way, the way it was done in 2020—by defeating him in an election.

Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general, 2007-09, and as a U.S. district judge, 1988-2006.

The 14th Amendment vs. Trump

This will be my first installment to a legal challenge just getting underway in keeping Trump from office. Some say this is new, it is not. Some say Trump being charged with “insurrection” isn’t needed, it is. David Frum correctly says the Court will decide in the end. Frum also notes that if this tactic is opened up, our body-politic will be riddled with keeping our political foes from office. More distortions of the law will surely come as the Left uses Lawfare to attack the “Democracy” they say they want to protect. As more is written on these challenges and the hyperbole from the MSM and politicians splash into our lives, I will be posting on this more in the future.

This old challenge reignited “anew” by a couple Federalist legal scholars [as well as some Leftist scholars] is that Trump can be barred from future office positions due to “insurrection.”

This will be a thing.


  • Two Federalist Society law professors have published their findings stating that Trump is disqualified from serving as President based on the originalist interpretation of the 14th amendment ban on anyone who has engaged in insurrection against the United States from running for office. (MTN)
  • Donald Trump is ineligible to become president again, leading conservative scholars argue. “The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 says that anybody who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and thereafter engages in or gives aid and comfort to an insurrection cannot hold any office under the United States, period,” Harvard University Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus Laurence Tribe tells Joy Reid. (YAHOO NEWS)

Firstly, as much as the Left opines that an insurrection conviction isn’t needed, it is, in reality, in order to bar Trump from office. If the Left tries to push this thru without a solid legal ground, the electorate will clearly note this and there will be hell to pay.

And, I assume, in the end the Supes will need to get involved. Especially if pushed thru before the election like Trump’s 2nd shampeachment.

More on SCOTUS from David Frum below.


Here is a recent news story of a Florida case already being pushed thru:

A Florida lawyer is challenging former President Trump’s ability to run for president in 2024 under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, citing the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

Lawrence Caplan, a tax attorney in Palm Beach County, filed the challenge in federal court Thursday, pointing to a clause in the amendment that says those who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the government cannot hold office.


Here is a video, also Left leaning, explaining the issue well:

  • MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on a new disqualification lawsuit filed against Donald Trump in Florida federal court under the 14th Amendment Section 3.


[As an aside: just to note officially on my site, the current cases against Trump are being rushed through the courts, however, Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley both say isn’t going to happen.]

THE FEDERALIST has this response to a recent 126-page paper on Trump not being eligible for the Presidency:

….Despite the scenes of the attack on the Capitol and extensive investigations, the American people do not seem to agree that Trump took part in an insurrection or rebellion. Almost half the respondents in a THE HILL rejected the claim that the events of Jan. 6 were an actual “insurrection” (with the divide tracking partisan lines), and 76 percent viewed it as a “protest gone too far.”

Other considerations also call into question the claim that Trump instigated an “insurrection” in the constitutional sense. If it were clear that Trump engaged in insurrection, the Justice Department should have acted on the Jan. 6 Committee’s referral for prosecution on that charge. Special Counsel Jack Smith should have indicted him for insurrection or seditious conspiracy, which remain federal crimes. If it were obvious that Trump had committed insurrection, Congress should have convicted him in the two weeks between Jan. 6 and Inauguration Day. Instead, the House impeached Trump for indictment to insurrection but the Senate acquitted him.   

The Senate’s acquittal is the only official finding by a federal or state institution on the question of whether Trump committed insurrection. The failure of the special counsel to charge insurrection and the Senate to convict in the second impeachment highlights a serious flaw in the academic theory of disqualification.

According to Luttig and Tribe, it appears self-evident that Trump committed insurrection. They assume Trump violated the law without any definitive finding by any federal authority. According to their view, he must carry the burden of proof to show he is not guilty of insurrection or rebellion — a process that achieves the very opposite of our Constitution’s guarantee of due process, which, it so happens, is not just provided for by the Fifth Amendment, but reaffirmed in the same 14th Amendment that contains the disqualification clause. It would be like requiring Barak Obama to prove he was native-born (a constitutional prerequisite for being president) if state election officials disqualified him for being foreign-born.

The Electoral College Chooses Presidents, Not State Officials

If this academic view were correct, it would throw our electoral system into chaos. One of the chief virtues of the Electoral College system is that it decentralizes the selection of the president: State legislatures decide the manner for choosing electors, with each state receiving votes equal to its representation in the House and Senate. States run the elections, which means that hundreds, if not thousands, of city, county, and state officials could execute this unilateral finding of insurrection. A county state election official, for example, could choose to remove Trump’s name from printed ballots or refuse to count any votes in his favor. A state court could order Trump barred from the election. A state governor could refuse to certify any electoral votes in his favor. The decentralization of our electoral system could allow a single official, especially from a battleground state, to sway the outcome of a close race in the 2024 presidential election.

Allowing a single state to wield this much power over the federal government runs counter to broader federalism principles articulated by the Supreme Court. In our nation’s most important decision on the balance of power between the national government and the states, McCullough v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall held that a single state could not impose a tax on the Bank of the United States. Marshall famously observed that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”

Marshall may well have frowned upon single state officials deciding to eliminate candidates for federal office on their own initiative. The Supreme Court lent further support for this idea in United States Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), which held that states could not effectively add new qualifications for congressional candidates by barring long-time incumbents from appearing on the ballot. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens argued that allowing states to add term limits as a qualification for their congressional elections conflicted with “the uniformity and national character [of Congress] that the framers sought to ensure.” Allowing state election officials to decide for themselves whether someone has incited or committed insurrection, without any meaningful trial or equivalent proceeding, would give states the ability to achieve what term limits forbid.


We are not apologists for Trump’s spreading of baseless claims of electoral fraud or his efforts to stop the electoral count on Jan. 6. But as with the weak charges brought by the special counsel, the effort to hold Trump accountable for his actions should not depend on a warping of our constitutional system. Prosecutors should charge him with insurrection if they can prove it and have that conviction sustained on appeal. Congress should disqualify Trump if it can agree he committed the crime. Ultimately, the American people will decide Trump’s responsibility for the events of Jan. 6, but at the ballot box in 2024’s nominating and general elections for president


Insurrection is still key in this endeavor, and, as mush as Laurence Tribe thinks it is self evident, the case has not been made. In THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR has a great little article worthy of noting,

For 31 months, the Democrats and their allies in the corporate media have characterized the Capitol Hill chaos that erupted on Jan. 6, 2021 as an “insurrection.” The House of Representatives reinforced this version of events by impeaching then-President Trump for “incitement of insurrection.” The Senate acquitted him, of course. Nonetheless, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th attack referred the case to the Justice Department for further investigation. Consequently, it was something of a surprise that the formal indictment unsealed last Tuesday by Special Counsel Jack Smith failed to charge Trump with fomenting insurrection.

This must have been particularly frustrating for those who have long insisted that the 14th Amendment prohibits Trump from serving a second presidential term. The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was, of course, to grant citizenship to emancipated slaves. However, it also includes language in Section 3 that bars anyone who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States]” from holding office in the federal government. This passage was included to prevent former officials of the Confederacy from returning to Congress and creating more mischief. The problem with using this clause against Donald Trump is explained by constitutional law professor Josh Blackman in Reason:

In some legal circles, advocates contend that it is so obvious that Trump committed insurrection. Yet, the special counsel, after studying the issue for months, opted not to bring that charge. Why? Perhaps Smith determined that he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump engaged in insurrection. Or maybe Smith determined there were considerable legal questions about how to obtain such a conviction – most critically, was there an actual insurrection? (Yes, for the Supreme Court to knock Trump off the ballot, you need five votes to say that there was an insurrection as a matter of law – good luck with that!)

It evidently never occurred to the victims of Trump Derangement Syndrome that “insurrection” is a legal term with an actual definition in the U.S. Code. In order to convict former President Trump of this crime, the Special Prosecutor must prove that he fits the following description in 18 U.S.C. § 2383: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.” Anyone convicted of insurrection can expect a long prison term and a hefty fine. It would be difficult to convict Trump under this statute, considering that not one participant in the Jan. 6 riot has been charged with insurrection…..


And it may be a 50-state attempt, which will push it to the Supes sooner rather than later. David Frum, a #NeverTrump guy, notes this will be a failed endeavor by simply stating in his ATLANTIC piece:

  • “The fourteenth amendment won’t save us from Donald Trump.”

Continuing he states:

….The least of these problems is the legal one: whether Trump’s scheme to seize the presidency by fraud, then violence, amounts to a “rebellion” or an “insurrection” under the amendment. There will be a lot of disagreement on that point, enough to generate litigation. But let’s suppose that the excluders win in court or that the courts abdicate altogether, kicking the dispute back to the elected branches of government as a “political matter.”

In that case, the use of the section to debar candidates would not stop at Trump. It would become a dangerously convenient tool of partisan politics.


No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Because Section 3’s meaning seemed so obvious in 1866, a lot of the hard questions about its interpretation and application were shrugged off. I’ll nominate just two examples.

First, the section does not apply only to candidates for president—it does not even mention the president. It mentions senators, House members, electors, and civil and military officers of the United States or any state. The section appears to apply to the presidency only as part of that final catchall category.

Second, that phrase “aid and comfort to the enemies thereof”—what does that mean? The language is copied from Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution. But there, the language was drafted to make it difficult to convict an accused person of crime: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

David H. Gans: The Fourteenth Amendment was meant to be a protection against state violence

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment strips away all of the 1787 restrictions: the overt act, the two witnesses, the requirement of public confession. The question of what constitutes “aid and comfort” is left to the judgment of … wait—Section 3 gives no clue about how it should be enforced or by whom. Again, that’s understandable. In 1866, none of this looked complicated. But in a modern context, that enforcement question of a reactivated Section 3 will be nasty.

Consider the scenario in which Section 3 is invoked against Trump in 2024. Although he has won the Republican nomination, Democratic secretaries of state in key states refuse to place his name on their ballots, as a person who engaged in insurrection against the United States. With Trump’s name deleted from some swing-state ballots, President Joe Biden is easily reelected.

But only kind of reelected. How in the world are Republicans likely to react to such an outcome? Will any of them regard such a victory as legitimate? The rage and chaos that would follow are beyond imagining.

And then what? If Section 3 can be reactivated in this way, then reactivated it will be. Republicans will hunt for Democrats to disqualify, and not only for president, but for any race where Democrats present someone who said or did something that can be represented as “aid and comfort” to enemies of the United States. Didn’t progressive Representative Ilhan Omar once seemingly equate al-Qaeda with the U.S. military? Do we think that her political enemies will accept that she was making only a stupid rhetorical point? Earlier this year, Tennessee Republicans tossed out of the legislature two Black Democrats for allegedly violating House rules. Might Tennessee Republicans next deem unruly Democrats “rebels” forbidden ever to run for office again?

Where are the federal courts in all this? Do they actually stand aside as local officials exercise veto power over who’s a loyal enough American to be listed on the ballot for county commissioner? Do they really let the “elected branches” decide? And what would that mean in practice? The section transfers an otherwise presidential prerogative, the pardon power, to Congress. If the courts step back, does that not imply that the House and Senate must somehow find a way to wield the power of the section together?

That seems unlikely. But the alternative of judicial decision is fraught with institutional risks too. Imagine a serious effort to block Trump from appearing on ballots in 2024, and then suppose he challenges that block in court—and ultimately wins a ruling in his favor from the Supreme Court, by a margin of 5–4 or even 6–3. Now the rage and chaos would be reversed. A pro-Trump Thomas-Alito-Gorsuch-Barrett-Kavanaugh majority might obliterate whatever deference the Court still commands among Democrats and liberals. Although much is wrong with the present Court, this country will not be in a better or happier place if it loses its last, imperfect arbiter….

UPDATED ON 09/18/2023 | CNN Transcript

A CNN interview was just pointed out to me where a “not-fan of Trump” said rationally what David Frum said, and that is, allowing states to go down this path will create vindictive cross-fire that will spread through our body-politic:

STERLINGWhat we need to do is focus on the voters. We have a Constitutional Republic of laws that essentially empowers voters to make decisions. They make good ones. They make bad ones. They generally come out OK. We have to trust the voters in this. And anybody using an electoral scheme or a constitutional interpretation to remove anybody from the ballots is going to be a dangerous precedent.

Because I can guarantee you what happens, it start up from the Bork hearings in ’86. One side does one thing, the other side does something else. The other side blames the last side for doing it. There will be a Republican saying, you have violated your oath of office under the Constitution. I’m barring you from the ballot. That’s all we’re going to see happening. We need to have grown-ups in the room look at the long term implications of these things. Whether we disagree with the individual candidate or loved a individual candidate.


Bottom line?


And Frum is exactly right on this point as well: Republicans will hunt for Democrats to disqualify. As much as I love the GOP using the Dems tactics against them. Take for instance Mitch McConnell’s warning to Harry Reid, which came to fruition when the Republicans [thankfully] used to get judges onto the bench that were center-right. If this “insurrection/sedition” tactic is unleashed, our system will have a ton of these potholes, forever disrupting the turnover of power peaceably.


The WASHINGTON TIMES also notes that this effort has already been unsuccessful with other Republican candidates

….According to the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and members of Congress, “Invocation of the Disqualification Clause raises a number of novel legal questions involving the activities that could trigger disqualification, the offices to which disqualification might apply, and the mechanisms to enforce disqualification.”

CRS’ analysis of the 14th Amendment relating to the Capitol events adds, “The clause has been seldom used, and the few times it has been used in the past mainly arose out of the Civil War—a very different context from the events of January 6.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have joined Free Speech for People with plans to hit Mr. Trump‘s campaign with legal broadsides under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

They have written letters to state election officials requesting them to block Mr. Trump from the ballot and are preparing voter lawsuits and state election board complaints.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War during Reconstruction, disqualifies someone from holding office after taking an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution but later engages in “insurrection or rebellion” against the country.

The clause was intended to deal with Confederate rebels who went to war against the Union or provided aid or comfort to national enemies.

Throughout 2022, liberal organizations such as Free Speech for People and Our Revolution sent letters urging election officials in all 50 states to disqualify Mr. Trump and his allies from qualifying for the ballot.

The groups cited the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, to make a case for barring lawmakers and the former president from running campaigns because of their perceived role in inciting the protest.

Liberal activists’ 2022 legal attempts under the 14th Amendment, however, to throw Republican House lawmakers they contended were “insurrectionists” off ballots in their home states were all unsuccessful.

These lawmakers were Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs of Arizona, Tom Tiffany and Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin, Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

A law firm recently filed a lawsuit arguing that former President Donald Trump can be disqualified from the elections. And while this is new, it pulls from an agenda that the establishment has been proposing since 2021. The basis is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 just after the Civil War. It says a person can be banned from election or appointment to any level of government office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” The establishment has been arguing this could apply to President Trump’s actions to challenge the 2020 election, and for his alleged role in Jan. 6.

HOWEVER, as pointed out, Joshua Philipp points out this has already been tried, and failed:


Federalist Bonus
John Yoo & John Malcolm

Below are four excerpts from a longer FEDERALIST SOCIETY discussion between John Malcolm and John Yoo:A Conversation on the Right: The Current State of Presidential Power”.

John Yoo Says That January 6th Was “Thee Most Important Legal Event”

In this excerpted discussion John Yoo notes that the January 6th stuff is not nearly as strong as the Mara-Lago case (and in the fuller video he throws cold water on that as well). John Malcolm also discusses the ability of counsel to delve into all sorts of avenues of legal thought and advice. Jack Smith laid out an argument that undercuts his and Georgia’s entire case [should watch the above linked video for more]:

3. The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. He w6as also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful. (HERITAGE FOUNDATION)

Insurrection and Sedition Not Part of Indictments | PLUS: Trump’s State of Mind

In this excerpted discussion John Yoo notes the lack of “insurrection” or “sedition” in the indictments. John Malcolm speaks to Trump’s clear words of “peacefully and patriotically marching” – which he says is not in the record of the indictment. Trump’s state of mind is discussed a bit.

Brad Raffensperger/Trump Phone Call Dissected by John Malcolm

In this excerpted discussion John Malcolm quickly notes the failure of any criminal law breaking in the phone call between Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Donald Trump regarding the “finding” of votes. The worst of intentions is applied to Trump by those that dislike him, however, the law done well looks beyond people’s opinions of him.

A Question About What Type Of Legal Advice John Eastman Gave

This is a question regarding John Eastman’s legal advice from the Q & A portion of the video.