TEN POINTS WORTH CONSIDERING by Andrew Wallace

 

It is Impossible for Trump to Drain the Swamp Unless He Obeys the Constitution!

By Andrew Wallace|November 19th, 2024

By Andrew Wallace

November 20, 2024

To save the economy from hyperinflation, a worthless currency, and a great depression, the federal budget must be reduced by about two trillion dollars, requiring also a return to Constitutional Law!

I support President Trump because his promises will stop the destruction of the Republic, TEMPORARILY. But near-term survival requires reducing the budget by at least two trillion dollars a year, which can be easily accomplished by following the mandates of the Constitution. Now, a majority of the federal government is unconstitutional and is a functioning criminal enterprise. We all should agree.

Following are only some of the changes that must be made to return to Constitutional government and economic survival:

1. Terminate unconstitutional departments such as Education, Agriculture, Labor, Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. The Constitution limits these functions to the states, and definitely NOT to the federal government. It should be required that some income taxes collected by the federal government in a state be returned back to that state. Federal government can make up the difference with tariffs and by elimination of unconstitutional departments and functions, as the creators intended.

2. Terminate the private, unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank and return to gold and silver currency as required by the Constitution. We have fiat money because swamp can’t print gold to finance wars for profit or boondoggles, and to enable them to rob the people with inflation. The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve Bank inflating and deflating fiat currency, allowing the wealthy to buy property for pennies on the dollar. The Federal government was financed 100% by tariffs and excise taxes until 1913, when unconstitutional fiat money and the income tax replaced tariffs. Remember, you can’t print gold or control its quantity to finance wars, etc.

3. The Federal Government should return to funding its functions by tariffs and excise taxes (as it was until 1913). Tariffs protect industry, jobs and wages. Tariffs are not a sales tax on the people, as proclaimed by the Communists. Tariffs should be more than adequate if Trump obeys the Constitution. This also assumes that the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank is abolished and we have returned to Constitutionally-mandated gold and silver money. This will stop wars for profit, Inflation, and support economic stability (the return to this country of many factories). Most negative factors in our country were caused by the Deep State for their benefit alone.

4. The Constitution specifies that the Federal Government can’t spend money on the states or for foreign aid. Social Security and Medicare are legal insurance programs without any reserves; Congress spent the money elsewhere.

5. Climate change is a fact, but we can’t control it. Government efforts to tax people to control climate is a scam. We all know this.

6. Democrat voters are supporting Communists and don’t know it. Most Democrats support the family, free enterprise, the Constitution, and religion, but Communists who control the Democrat party do not!

7. Only Congress can pass laws. Therefore, Presidential Executive Orders and orders from bureaucrats in the administrative state have no power over the general population.

The federal government has no power unless Constitution gives it to them. See Article 1, Section 8: (https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_a1sec8-html/) That is why there can be no federal law on abortion or why the government can’t order production of electric vehicles or anything else except in wartime. But our government is mostly unconstitutional and operated as a criminal enterprise doing what they please.

8. Terminate unconstitutional FEMA and return its functions to the states, as is Constitutional. The legitimate power of the federal government is limited by what the states gave to it in the Constitution. To the extent that the federal government operates without Constitutional authority, Congress, the president and participating outsiders are functioning as a criminal enterprise. It is accepted fact that all important federal officials are being bribed by a specific economic group to act in their private interest rather than that of the People, in violation of their Constitutional Oath of Office.

9. Financial aid to Israel and Ukraine or to any other country Is unconstitutional! Many people believe that the support for Israel aid for genocide is a result of an outside political power that controls our government (through bribery/blackmail). I refuse to name this purported political power because I don’t want to be vilified, slandered, indicted, attacked or murdered as is their wont. But you can surely guess!

10…Remember that any support given by government or anyone to invaders is Constitutional treason.

In Conclusion, let me say again, it would have been impossible for President Trump to win the election without the financial support of the Israeli Lobby.

Let me also state that it will be impossible for Trump to drain the swamp or avoid devaluation and a great depression unless he follows the Constitution in all respects. I will support President Trump as long as he takes this unique and rare opportunity (first time in history) to return to a Constitutional government and economic stability. Trump, like all men is less than perfect but he is the only man with the courage, following, and opportunity to return a prosperous Republic to the People by following the Constitution, as his Oath requires. But he has not indicated that he will do this. If he violates his qualifying Oath, he vacates his office.

But remember no governor, congressman or administrative state bureaucrat obeys the Constitution, they obey the deep state (money).

© 2024 Andrew Wallace – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Andrew Wallace: natlmktg@gte.net

Twitter

Andrew C. Wallace is a former Kentucky State Trooper, Kentucky Native, Korean War Veteran, Commercial Pilot in Alaska, University of Kentucky Undergraduate in Business, Four years of Graduate School in Economics and Marketing at University of Kentucky and University of Iowa., Assistant Professor, Thirty years as Director of Marketing Firm developing and implementing national Marketing programs for manufacturers and now retired doing research and writing. E-Mail: natlmktg@gte.net

FBI Intentionally Blocking Security Clearances for Trump Officials

FBI Whistleblower Says FBI Intentionally Blocking Security Clearances for Trump Officials

November 18, 2024

It should not come as a surprise to see the same methods deployed against President Trump in 2024 that were used by the FBI in 2016. The difference is now that President Trump understands the full power of his office in the security clearance process and that he doesn’t need the FBI.

In 2016 the FBI used their power to conduct security clearances as a tool to stall and block President Trump appointments. Historically this is one of the ways a very corrupt and political FBI interfere in any system that might be against the interests of the Intelligence Community that controls them. However, in 2024 President-Elect Trump and his transition team have already taken a different approach.

First the report:

WASHINGTON DC – An official at FBI headquarters in Washington is warning that the bureau’s security clearance division is politicized and can’t be trusted to screen President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees for top administration jobs.

The allegations of political bias at the FBI’s security division, or SecD, were revealed in a protected whistleblower disclosure sent to the House Judiciary Committee, which The Washington Times reviewed.

The official said the security clearance process has been “contaminated by the political agendas of [security division] officials and other executives in the FBI.” (more)

This is not any earth-shattering revelation. We painstakingly discussed this in a multitude of prior research discussions. The motive of the Whistleblower to come forth now, is likely because President Trump is already working around the problem.

WASHINGTON DC – President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is skipping the protocol of using the FBI to conduct background checks, according to a report.

Instead, the president-elect’s team is turning to private companies to vet administrative appointees, people familiar with transition planning told CNN. Trump has criticized the FBI for its slow investigation process and feared it would delay his ability to roll out his agenda.

A security clearance is needed for some Cabinet positions, such as attorney general, and the process of obtaining one includes an FBI background check.

Dan Meyer, a national security attorney, told CNN Trump’s mistrust of the FBI and the deep state has made him go completely rogue. [They] “don’t want the FBI to coordinate a norm. They want to hammer the norm,” Meyer told CNN.

The Trump transition team’s decision to bypass the FBI background check comes as Trump has nominated former Reps. Matt Gaetz and Tulsi Gabbard for attorney general and National Intelligence director, respectively — both controversial picks. (more)

Because President Trump is making civics great again, it’s worth reminding everyone that President Trump has unilateral decision-making authority to grant anyone a security clearance. The President (atop the executive) can give anyone he chooses a top-secret security clearance status, simply by saying this person has top-secret security clearance. Yes, it really is that easy.

The President can choose his advisors and choose to share anything – even the most top-secret information in the country – with his advisors and cabinet members. That’s what we elect him/her to do; to use his/her judgement to make decisions.

This is one of the powers within the office that cannot be challenged by any other silo, branch or institution. The security clearance rules are what President Trump says the security clearance rules are.

There is no outside silo in the Executive Branch, who can supersede the decision of President Trump.

DOGE is just not an acronym; it's an idea long overdue

Posted for wider dissemination.  

November 19, 2024

Why the DOGE initiative makes sense

By Ronald Beaty

In an era marked by federal fiscal irresponsibility, the announcement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), spearheaded by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy under President-elect Trump's upcoming administration, is not just a policy proposal; it's a clarion call for a revolution in governance. 

The United States, once the beacon of economic freedom, is now staggering under a debt load that threatens to crush the very foundations of our prosperity. The DOGE, while not a traditional department but an advisory council, represents more than a mere attempt at cost-cutting; it is a profound statement about reclaiming the ethos of limited government, accountability, and economic prudence.

 

Conservatives have long argued for a government that does less but does it better. DOGE would audit, streamline, and optimize federal operations. This endeavor isn't about dismantling the government but about excising the inefficiencies that have crept into its operations like an administrative cancer.

 

Here's why this initiative should resonate with every conservative:

We are looking at spending like this:

As a reminder, excess government spending is what causes inflation https://t.co/J9wdaHwV9h

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 18, 2024

Note typographical error in chart below: $26,679 should be $27,679 

 

Leading to national debt like this:

 

 

Immediate action is needed to stop the de facto bankruptcy of America https://t.co/DqyhxY2YZp

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 18, 2024

Kevin O’Leary on Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy at @DOGE: “I don’t see any reason why these two can’t just release the hounds and go nuts…This is fantastic… we haven’t had anything quite like this and I absolutely love it.” pic.twitter.com/IQiZ75RfDM

— America (@america) November 18, 2024

2. Reducing Bureaucratic Overreach: The initiative aims to cut through the red tape that strangles innovation and productivity. By simplifying regulations, DOGE could unleash the private sector's potential, which thrives under less governmental interference.

 

There are so many regulators that it’s like a sports game with more refs than players on the field! https://t.co/0YCoJMQwLS

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 18, 2024

 

3. Accountability and Transparency: Musk's commitment to transparency aligns with conservative values of government being a servant to the people, not a secretive entity. Public accountability of DOGE's operations could set a new standard for government transparency.

 

4. Empowering the Private Sector: By potentially reducing the government's footprint, DOGE would foster an environment where the private sector can innovate, grow, and solve problems more efficiently than any government program could.

 

While the initiative has its detractors, their arguments demand scrutiny:

 

- Legal Concerns: Critics argue about potential conflicts of interest with Musk's involvement. However, the beauty of DOGE lies in its advisory nature, not in direct governance. This structure allows for external expertise to guide without the entanglements of formal government service.

 

- Job Losses: Fears of widespread layoffs are exaggerated. Musk has stated that excess workers are likely to take home gargantuan pay packages to tide them over into productive work in the private sector, bringing up two years' wages. Efficiency often leads to reallocation, not elimination of jobs. Moreover, a leaner government could lead to tax reductions, stimulating private sector growth, which historically creates jobs.

 

- Service Cuts: There's a knee-jerk reaction that efficiency equals cuts in essential services. Yet, the real question should be efficiency in what? DOGE could focus on cutting waste, not services, by improving how services are delivered.

If successful, DOGE could:

 

- Set a Precedent: Future administrations might be more inclined to seek private sector expertise, fostering a culture of innovation and pragmatism in governance.

 

- Influence Policy: By demonstrating that government can be run with business acumen, DOGE could shift the political narrative from how much to spend to how efficiently to spend.

 

- Global Example: With the U.S. leading, other nations might follow suit, creating a global movement towards government efficiency, potentially leading to a leaner, more effective international governance model.

 

The establishment of DOGE should not be viewed merely through the lens of immediate political gain but as a long-term redefinition of government's role. Conservatives must rally behind this initiative, not just for the potential savings but for the philosophical realignment it represents. Here's how we can support:

 

- Educate: Explain to fellow citizens and legislators that efficiency in government does not equate to neglect but to better service through smarter resource allocation.

 

- Advocate: Push for legislative support to implement DOGE's recommendations, ensuring they have legal backing and are not stymied by bureaucratic inertia.

 

- Watchdog: Ensure that DOGE operates with the transparency promised, advocating for real accountability in how it achieves its objectives.

 

- Prepare for Resistance: Understand that any significant change will meet resistance from those comfortable with the status quo. Conservatives must be prepared to defend this initiative against such opposition.

 

The Department of Government Efficiency is more than an administrative tweak; it's a potential renaissance for American governance. It embodies the conservative principle that government should be a facilitator of prosperity, not its obstacle. As we stand on the precipice of this new era, conservatives must engage with this initiative not just as a fiscal policy but as a philosophical commitment to the founding principles of limited government and personal responsibility. If DOGE succeeds, it might not just save trillions; it might save our republic from the perils of unchecked governmental growth. 

 

It's a blueprint for a future where government serves rather than overshadows its citizens. Let us support, scrutinize, and ensure the success of DOGE, for in its success lies the resurgence of conservative governance ideals.

 

Lt. General Richard Clark "infects" the Department of the Air Force

 

Governor Maura Healey: A Defiant Stance or a Legal Quagmire?

REPOSTED HERE FOR WIDER DISSEMINATION

It is my opinion that Governor Maura Healy should be incarcerated for knowingly violating her oath of office.  Further, the State Police should not comply with any directives coming from the governor's office that of and in themselves are clearly unjustifiable (unjust laws are no laws).  I am a firm believer of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution; without which there would be no confederation of the United States of America. ~ N.E. Hooben 

Neighbor News

Governor Maura Healey: A Defiant Stance or a Legal Quagmire?

Ronald Beaty

Posted Fri, Nov 15, 2024 

Massachusetts State House

Governor Maura Healey: A Defiant Stance or a Legal Quagmire?

In the politically charged arena of immigration policy, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey's recent declarations have sparked a significant debate on the balance between state autonomy and federal jurisdiction. While some laud her for standing up for sanctuary policies, a closer legal and ethical scrutiny reveals a tangled web of potential legal violations, challenging the very fabric of constitutional governance.

**The Sanctuary Conundrum**

Governor Healey's firm refusal to involve state police in what could be the largest deportation effort in American history, as proposed by President-elect Donald Trump, is emblematic of a broader pushback against federal immigration enforcement. This stance, while popular in certain circles, raises critical legal questions. The Constitution's Supremacy Clause dictates that federal law trumps conflicting state actions. By choosing not to assist or even obstruct federal immigration enforcement, Healey might be skating on thin legal ice.

**Legal Violations: A Closer Look**


1. **Obstruction of Federal Law Enforcement:**
- Healey's directive to state police to not assist in federal deportation efforts could be interpreted as obstructing justice, specifically under 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which penalizes the harboring or shielding of undocumented immigrants from detection. While not directly harboring, her policy stance aids in creating an environment where undocumented immigrants might feel shielded from federal action, potentially fitting the legal definition of obstruction.

2. **Interference with Federal Authority:**
- The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution ensures that federal law prevails over state law when there is a conflict. Healey's policies could be seen as an attempt to override federal immigration law by creating a state-sanctioned sanctuary environment, which directly conflicts with federal directives on immigration enforcement.

3. **Conspiracy to Violate Immigration Laws:**
- If there's coordinated action among state officials to systematically thwart federal immigration enforcement, this could elevate to a charge of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371. This statute doesn't require the act itself to be illegal but criminalizes an agreement to commit an offense against the United States. By aligning state policy with non-cooperation, there's a plausible case that state officials are in conspiracy to obstruct federal law enforcement.

4. **Misuse of State Resources:**

- Utilizing state resources to counteract federal immigration policies might veer into the territory of misappropriation of public funds. If state funds are being used to support or shelter undocumented immigrants in ways that explicitly or implicitly aim to bypass or resist federal law enforcement, this could be scrutinized under state laws concerning the use of public resources.


**Political and Ethical Considerations**

Healey's stance isn't merely a legal issue but also a deeply political and ethical one. Critics argue that by choosing a path of non-cooperation:

- **She undermines the rule of law** by allowing state policy to dictate how federal law is enforced within Massachusetts, potentially setting a precedent for further state-level defiance.

- **There's a risk to public safety**; while the focus is on non-violent immigrants, this policy could inadvertently shield those with criminal records from federal scrutiny, potentially endangering residents.

- **This creates a patchwork of enforcement** across the country, where one's legal status might depend more on the state of residence than on federal law, leading to a fragmented national policy approach.

**A Call for Clarity and Compliance**


The essence of federalism is the balance between state innovation and national unity under the law. While states have the right to set priorities, they do not have carte blanche to ignore federal mandates. Here's where Governor Healey must tread carefully:

- **Legal Compliance**: Healey should ensure her policies align with federal law or face legal challenges that could drain state resources in court battles.

- **Transparency**: If state policies are designed to protect certain groups, this should be communicated transparently, not as a covert operation to circumvent federal enforcement.

- **Public Safety**: Any policy should consider the broader implications on public safety, ensuring that state actions do not inadvertently compromise the security of its citizens.

- **Federal Dialogue**: Engaging with federal authorities to discuss immigration enforcement in a manner that respects state concerns while upholding federal law could mitigate legal risks.


In conclusion, while Maura Healey's policies might resonate with those advocating for immigrant rights, they walk a fine line between state rights and legal obligations. Her actions, if unchecked or unaddressed legally, could set a precedent that challenges the very structure of federal law enforcement authority. For the integrity of our legal system, and for the sake of maintaining a coherent national policy, it's imperative that we address these issues head-on. The balance between state autonomy and federal supremacy must be maintained, or we risk a legal and political fragmentation that could undermine the constitutional framework we all hold dear.

Governor Healey's approach, while bold, invites a critical examination of where the limits of state action lie, prompting us to ask not just what is politically favorable, but what is legally tenable in our shared constitutional republic.

Ronald Beaty