What if Putin was another globalist actor pretending he invaded Ukraine….nah nvm

Trump was full of energy good to see

The advantage of Camp David is that there can be intense meetings with lots of people out of sight of some of the Washington prying eyes.

There is significant housing there, some much nicer then others. That means they can work late and early with everything at their fingertips.

I pray the, OUR, President of our beloved Republic, can pull this off.
So much evil, so much negativity, so much B.S. behind all of the ghouls too stupid or too in need of easy money to see the satanic influence driving these “mostly peaceful protests.”

I wondered about the way he left it open about foreign leaders too. Of course, he could be just trolling the globalists.

My personal crazy thought is I’ve been wondering if the PDJT and Musk breakup was all a put-on. My sense is that it was not genuine.

“No, Mr. President, we do not want to ask Marco anything. You’re basically nice to us. He’s not.”

Hopefully this means a better response to the coming “summer of peaceful demonstrations” than FBI agents and other Federal Employees doing the BLM sidewalk kneel … maybe even something preemptive this time like … confiscating the prepositioned stuff BLM puts in place before their “peaceful assemblies” and since its there why not turn the tables on the democrats and use the Patriot Act stuff vs the real bad guys this time??

Would also be nice to see the withdrawal of ALL the augmenting forces sent to NATO at the start of the Ukraine Conflict.

Ramble on. Your ramblings are a lot more insightful and forward thinking that those professional you-tube ruminators.

“Crazy impossible thought…”
what if PP is headed to Camp David??
EPIC!!

I can’t imagine Putin would trust America to that degree.
Others possibly.

The Press is so incredibly stupid. What the hell? L.A. is burning, people are at grave risk, Governor Nuisance is a complete failure, and all they care about are their precious illegal criminals.

Ignore my rambling.

Well, Putin was spotted “suddenly” returning to the Kremlin about two hours ago (23:00 Russian time) so there’s that.

Evidence Suggests LA “Riots” Over ICE Raids Could Be Government‑Funded

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/report-evidence-suggests-la-riots-ice-raids-could/

Did he misstep about 2/3s way up the stairs? That’s going to be on continuous loop 24/7.

Here are a few simple suggestions:

1. Send ICE buses to pull a dozen or three from prisons, not 1-2.

2. Instruct Kash Patel – IMMEDIATELY – to restart hiring new FBI Agents from the Military as in decades past – not Liberal colleges.

3. Shut down Antifa. Can Kash back up all his tough talk?

4. Infiltrate the Resistors in SoCal.

5. Investigate rioters leaders – SEIU? Antifa?

6. TRACK THE BRICKS AND TRUCKS THAT DELIVERED THEM – back to their source. Conspiracy?

7. Raids on a weekend are asking for bigger – more numeric – trouble. How about 6 AM in Bakersfield on a Tuesday.

The “rent a mob” isn’t 100% organic.

So regarding RU. We know 1) Trump would not commit troops or any massive us escalation with RU.

2) we know president Trump doesn’t like the Europeans (except maybe macron?) or Zelensky.

3) we know Trump doesn’t want to back the Graham sanctions plan.

Peace planning, ukr drop planning outside the silo?

Knew about all of this during the Prop 187 time period in California. Newt Gingrich was House Speaker and GOP Senate leader was Trent Lott, they could have put up the Buchanan border wall, deported, and finally fixed the immigration problem they never want solved. Instead the GOPe Uniparty was to busy helping China owned Bill Clinton pass every economic treasonous Free Trade deal he could and allow Clinton & Co to committ high treason aka ChinaGate. If only PDJT got the same cooperation that Clinton did with the Republican party.

There is a huge fifth column of foreign and domestic enemies within America. If America had not been betrayed by both Democrats & republicans, we never would have and should have gotten to the point of Civil War we are now at. If only we had a real opposition GOP in the 90’s.

These are the verbatim transcripts:
1) Armando Navarro, Prof. Ethnic Studies, UC Riverside at Latino Summit Response to Prop 187, UC Riverside, 1/1995
“These are the critical years for us as a Latino community. We’re in a state of transition. And that transformation is called ‘the browning of America’. Latinos are now becoming the majority. Because I know that time and history is on the side of the Chicano/Latino community. It is changing in the future and in the present the balance of power of this nation. It’s a game – it’s a game of power – who controls it. You (to MEChA students) are like the generals that command armies. We’re in a state of war. This Proposition 187 is a declaration of war against the Latino/Chicano community of this country. They know the demographics. They know that history and time is on our side. As one community, as one people, as one nation within a nation as the community that we are, the Chicano/Latino community of this nation. What this means is a transfer of power. It means control.”

When President Trump was asked if there would be any foreign visitors at Camp David, he said, “I didn’t say that.”

Nothing gets past Sundance! Outstanding!!

If invoked, ‘The Insurrection Act’ might allow PDJT to suspend Habeas Corpus for illegal aliens, and deport them wholesale.

The money supporting this “insurrection” has to be coming from somewhere….
Start pulling on that string….use RICO to it’s fullest extent…once the dots align…
Show them….

NO MERCY!

1:43

Q: Will there be any foreign people at Camp David?

A: I can’t say that.

That responsive phrase is being used a bit recently whenever PT gets a question that (like SD’s thought process) alerts me to what he isn’t saying. The fake-news reporters are so ill equipped they interpret that response to be a ‘no’.I interpret it as PT not lying but not telling the full aspect to the response. There is more to the response than he can tell or is willing to disclose.

Darn it, Sundance. I hate finding out, I’m still miles behind you, still.

Note to self: start thinking crazy impossible thoughts, while praying.

Another Summer of Love funded by our tax dollars to marxist commie organizations. The media can’t get any more ridiculous with their reports of mostly peaceful demonstrations while rocks fly and cars burn.

Besides what Sundance is suggesting, perhaps Rubio is sharing all that he knows about the scumbags in the Senate and what needs to be revealed in order to get the BBB passed?

I think that this meeting is much much bigger than what they have done since Jan 20th.

Love the “Spit & Hit”

Can someone please tell me if there is any chance we will see any RICO cases out of this attempted color revolution?

Message for the LA peaceful rioters: carry a camera and get a city lucrative pay-out.

Independent photojournalist Nick Stern needed surgery after being shot in the leg with a non-lethal round by police in Los Angeles while taking pictures of the anti-ICE protests. Expect a federal lawsuit to follow.

Getting hit by non-lethal rounds while covering riots has proved a lucrative side-line for Stern. He was paid $150,000 in a settlement last year with Los Angeles City Council after being hit in the leg (again) covering the George Floyd protests in the city.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14792383/British-photographer-shot-police-LA-riots-emergency-surgery.html

At this point: insurrection act.

Massive military action. Detain all protestors at a military base. ICE will sort out the illegals. Transport illegal Mexicans to Mexican border and forcibly repatriate. Forget the ER (expedited removal) paperwork. Alien Enemies. Non Mexican illegals, out by military aircraft or vessel.

When JFK wanted to regain control over Oxford MS he deployed over 30,000 troops.

LAPD not helping much. LA Sheriff Dept unknown. Governor and LA mayor basically encouraging a riot.

Yes, this is the time.

“what if, Putin or similar (Iran/Gaza?). Nah,.. crazy thought. Nuts. ”

I would like to see President Putin come to Camp David.

We could have “splody heads” all over the world at the same time 😀

If J-6 is the left’s definition of the word ‘insurrection’ then LA exceeds it, visually and actually. Go for it.

Iran + Turkey?

🤣 🤣 🤣

Gotta love Trump’s response to the fake news. He doesn’t hem and haw. Just tells it like it is. He is teaching those around him how to respond to the fake news or the crooked dems.

No political correctness and that is why he is so popular among us commoners.

PDJT is really liking on Marco Rubio ! Gosh, shucks I expected Marco to kick his instep, and look down.

(From AI):

On June 7, 2025, President Trump ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell protests against [illegal] immigration raids, over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom.  The Insurrection Act of 1807, which authorizes the president to deploy the U.S. military and federalize the National Guard to suppress insurrections or enforce laws, was not officially invoked for this action.

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a federal law that permits the president to deploy the U.S. military and federalize the National Guard to enforce civil law and suppress civil disorder, insurrection, or rebellion within the United States. It provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

Since the discussion of silo imposition on our communications verse lateral it seems that finding a way, and in my case, forwarding a confidant in the historical use of the Federalist Papers in use of Constitutional control of the Judicial branch. In case this desire to end the Judicial attempted coup, a post and the omnipotent professor Joanna Martin, ( Publius Huldah ), whose I produced a couple of works.
Why Supreme Court opinions are not the “Law of the Land”, and how to put federal judges in their place.
By Publius Huldah

Central to the silly arguments made by the “Convention of States Project” (COSP) is their claim that 200 years of Supreme Court opinions have increased the powers of the federal government (as well as legalized practices such as abortion); that all these opinions are “the Law of the Land”; and we need an Article V convention so we can get amendments to the Constitution which take away all these powers the Supreme Court gave the federal government.

But the text of Article V contradicts COSP’s claim. Article V shows that our Constitution can be amended only when three fourths of the States ratify proposed amendments. The Supreme Court has no power to amend our Constitution. And it’s impossible for an amendment to take away powers our Constitution doesn’t grant.

1. First Principles 

Let’s analyze COSP’s silly argument. We begin by looking at First Principles:

♦The Judicial Branch was created by Art. III, §1, US Constitution. Accordingly, it is a “creature” of the Constitution. 1

♦The federal government came into existence when the States, acting through special ratifying conventions held in each of the States, ratified the Constitution.2

Since the Judicial Branch is merely a “creature” of the Constitution, it follows that it is subordinate to the Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms. It may not annul the superior authority of the States which created the Judicial Branch when they ratified the Constitution; 3 and as a mere “creature” of the Constitution, it may NOT change the Constitution under which it holds its existence! 4 

 2. Supreme Court Opinions are not “the Law of the Land”

Article VI, cl.2, US Const.., the “supremacy clause”, defines “supreme Law of the Land” as the Constitution, and acts of Congress and Treaties which are authorized by the Constitution. Supreme Court opinions aren’t included!

Furthermore, Art. I, §1, US Const., vests all law-making powers granted by the Constitution in Congress. Our Constitution doesn’t grant any lawmaking powers to the Judicial Branch.

So why does everybody say, as we heard during the Kavanagh confirmation hearings, that Roe v. Wade is “the Law of the Land”? Because Americans have been conditioned to believe that the Supreme Court is superior to our Constitution; that their opinions about our Constitution are “law”, and we are bound by them unless and until they issue new opinions which release us from their previous opinions.

All here, who are of Constitutionally Conservative position, can go to Publius Huldah Blog, and gain superb and in my humble opinion should be council to Bondi of DOJ, as the Judiciary ( socio-communist ) in many case, is damaging our Society be ignoring Constitutional connecting and using of the Federalist Papers for validation and intent. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/birthright-citizenship/

Her site, and I wish someone could gain Presidential attention, we must win this, for the delaying is a specific tool of the socio-communists.

Be blessed all –

 
3. Organic & statutory law and the totally different “common law” precedent followed in courts

Americans have been conditioned to ignore the huge distinctions between organic and statutory law, on the one hand; and the common law which is embodied in the precedents followed by judges in litigation.

Organic Law

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “organic law” as

“The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten; 5 that law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government.”

The organic laws of the United States are

The Declaration of Independence – 1776
Articles of Confederation – 1777
Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government
Constitution of the United States – 1787
The Articles of Confederation was our first Constitution. It was replaced by our Constitution of 1787 when it was ratified June 21, 1788. The Northwest Ordinance was superseded by the transformation of the area covered by the Ordinance into States [pursuant to Art. IV, §3, cl. 2, US Constit.].

Do you see how absurd is the claim that the Supreme Court, a mere “creature” of the Constitution of 1787, has the power to change the Organic Law of the United States?

Statute Law

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “statute law” as the

“Body of written laws that have been adopted by the legislative body.”

As we saw above, all legislative Powers granted by our Constitution are vested in Congress (Art. I, §1). Acts of Congress qualify as part of the “supreme Law of the Land” only when they are made pursuant to Authority granted to Congress by the Constitution (Art.VI, cl. 2). When Acts of Congress are not authorized by the Constitution, they are mere usurpations and must be treated as such.6

Common Law

The “common law” applied in courts in the English-speaking countries came from the Bible.7 The Bible has much to say about our relations with each other: don’t murder people, don’t maim them, don’t steal, don’t bear false witness, don’t tell lies about people, don’t be negligent, don’t cheat or defraud people, and such. The Bible provides for Judges to decide disputes between people and empowers Judges to require the person who has violated these precepts to pay restitution to the person whom he harmed. So, e.g., the Biblical prohibitions against bearing false witness and slandering people became our modern day concepts of slander, libel, and defamation. These principles were applied in the English courts from time immemorial, and are applied in American Courts. Modern day American attorneys litigate these common law concepts all the time. So if I am representing a client in an action for say, fraud, I look at the previous court opinions in the jurisdiction on fraud, and see how the courts in that jurisdiction have defined fraud – i.e., I look for “precedents” – the courts’ previous opinions on the subject – and I expect the Judge on my case to obey that precedent. 8

THIS is the “common law”. It is “law” in the sense that it originated with God’s Word; and from “time immemorial” has been applied in the Courts of English speaking countries. But this precedent is binding or persuasive only on courts. 9 As precedent for judges to follow, it is never “the law of the land”!

So, keep these three categories – organic, statutory, and common law – separate, and do not confuse court precedent with the “Law of the Land”. The latter is restricted to the Organic Law, and statutes and treaties authorized by the Organic Law.

Now let’s look at the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal courts.

4. What kinds of cases do federal courts have constitutional authority to hear?

The ten categories of cases the Judicial Branch has authority to hear are enumerated at Art. III, §2, cl. 1, US Constit. 10

The first category is cases “arising under this Constitution”. In Federalist No. 80 (2nd para), Hamilton shows these cases concern “provisions expressly contained” in the Constitution. He then points to the restrictions on the authority of the State Legislatures [listed at Art. I, §10], and shows that if a State exercises any of those prohibited powers, and the federal government sues the State, the federal courts would have authority to hear the case (3rd & 13th paras).

So if a State enters into a Treaty, or grants Letters of Marque & Reprisal, or issues paper money, or does any of the other things prohibited by Art. I, §10, the controversy would “arise under the Constitution” and the federal courts have constitutional authority to hear the case.

Likewise, if a State passed a law which violated the Constitution – say one requiring candidates in their State for US Senate to be 40 years of age – instead of the 30 years prescribed at Art. I, §3, cl. 3 – the federal courts have constitutional authority to hear the case.

So the purpose of this category is to authorize the Judicial Branch to enforce the Constitution – not re-write it!! 11

Now let’s look at one way the Supreme Court butchered our Constitution in order to strike down State Laws they didn’t like.

5. How the Supreme Court violated the “arising under” clause to hear cases they have no constitutional authority to hear

Let’s use “abortion” to illustrate the usurpation. Obviously, “abortion” is not “expressly contained” in the Constitution. So abortion doesn’t “arise under” the Constitution; and the constitutionality of State Statutes prohibiting abortion doesn’t fit into any of the other nine categories of cases federal courts have authority to hear. Accordingly, federal courts have no judicial power over it. The Supreme Court had to butcher words in our Constitution in order to usurp power to legalize abortion. This is what they did:

The original intent of §1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to provide constitutional authority for the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866. That Act protected freed slaves from Southern Black Codes which denied them God-given rights. 12 

Now look at §1 where it says, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

That’s the “due process” clause. As Professor Berger points out [ibid.], it has a precise meaning which goes back to the Magna Charta: it means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial.

But this is how the Supreme Court perverted the genuine meaning of that clause: In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, “liberty” in the due process clause and said, “liberty” means “privacy”, and “privacy” means “a woman can kill her unborn baby”. 13

And they claimed they had jurisdiction to overturn State Laws criminalizing abortion because the issue arises under the Constitution at §1 of the 14th Amendment! [ibid.]

The Supreme Court redefined words in Our Constitution to justify the result they wanted in the case before them.

The Supreme Court didn’t “enforce” the Constitution – they butchered it to fabricate a “constitutional right” to kill unborn babies.

And the lawyers said, “It’s the Law of the Land”; the People yawned; and the clergy said, “the Bible says we have to obey civil government – besides, we don’t want to lose our 501 (c) (3) tax exemption!”

6. What are the remedies when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution?

The opinions of which the convention lobby complains constitute violations of our Constitution. 14 The three remedies our Framers provided or advised for judicial violations of our Constitution are:

1. In Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton shows Congress can impeach and remove from office federal judges who violate the Constitution. Congress is competent to decide whether federal judges have violated the Constitution! Impeachment is their “check” on the Judicial Branch.

2. In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Hamilton shows the Judicial Branch must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce its judgments. If the President, in the exercise of his independent judgment and mindful of his Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, determines that an opinion of a federal court is unconstitutional; his Duty is to refuse to enforce it. The President is also competent to decide whether federal judges have violated the Constitution! Refusing to enforce their unconstitutional judgments is his “check” on the Judicial Branch.

3. On the Right & Duty of the States – who created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution – to smack down their “creature” when their “creature” violates the Constitutional Compact the States made with each other, see Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense.

Endnotes:

1 “Creature” is the word our Founders used – e.g., Federalist No. 33 (5th para) & Jefferson’s draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (8th Resolution).

2Art. VII, cl. 1, US Constit., sets forth ratification procedures for our Constitution.

3 Madison’s Virginia Report of 1799-1800 (pp 190-196).

4 Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 shows that on July 23, 1787, the Delegates discussed who was competent to ratify the proposed new Constitution. Col. Mason said it is “the basis of free Government” that only the people are competent to ratify the new Constitution, and

“…The [State] Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators…”

Madison agreed that State Legislatures were incompetent to ratify the proposed Constitution – it would make essential inroads on the existing State Constitutions, and

“…it would be a novel & dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence….”

It’s equally novel & dangerous to say that the Supreme Court may change the Constitution under which it holds its existence.

5 It is said England doesn’t have a written constitution.

6 Acts of Congress which are not authorized by the enumerated powers are void. They are not made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution and have supremacy over nothing. Federalist No. 27 (last para) says:

“…the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [capitals are Hamilton’s]

See also Federalist No. 33 (last 2 paras) and Federalist No. 78 (10th para).

7 John Whitehead mentions the Biblical origin of the common law in The Second American Revolution.

8 Art. III, §2, cl.1 delegates to federal courts power to hear “Controversies between Citizens of different States.” Much of the litigation conducted in federal courts falls into this category. These lawsuits aren’t about the Constitution. Instead, they involve the range of issues people fight about in State Courts: personal injury, breach of contract, business disputes, fighting over property, slander & libel, etc. In deciding these cases, federal judges are expected to follow the “common law” precedents.

9 In Federalist No. 78 (next to last para), Hamilton discusses how judges are bound by “precedents” which define and point out their duty in the particular cases which come before them.

10 In Federalist No. 83 (8th para), Hamilton says:

“…the…authority of the federal …[courts]…is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…” 

11 James Madison agreed that the purpose of the “arising under this Constitution” clause is to enable federal courts to enforce the Constitution. At the Virginia Ratifying convention on June 20, 1788, he explained the categories of cases federal courts have authority to hear. As to “cases arising under this Constitution”, he said:

“…That causes of a federal nature will arise, will be obvious to every gentleman, who will recollect that the states are laid under restrictions; and that the rights of the union are secured by these restrictions. They may involve equitable as well as legal controversies…”

12 This is proved in Harvard Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously documented book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

13 In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court said under Part VIII of their opinion:

“…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”

14 Many Supreme Court opinions violate our Constitution. Wickard v. Filburn (1942), discussed HERE, is another of the most notorious. But we elect to Congress people who don’t know our Constitution or The Federalist Papers; and they are unaware of their Duty – imposed by their Oath of office – to function as a “check” on the Judicial Branch by impeaching federal judges who violate our Constitution.

Bless Sundance for his shepherding and education,

I have a lot of questions for Secretary Rubio.

Jus’ sayin’

can IC Deep State accidentally crash Black helicopter into Camp David

Ezekiel 37-39…..Gog/Magog, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, Libya, and all the crapustans coming against Israel

Vance wasn’t invited to Camp David?

sounds like a course correction ahead?

Regarding your crazy thought, I just got a notice from an airline that Washington DC airspace will be restricted on June 14