According to the New York Post:

The oldest-ever commander-in-chief, who turned 80 last month, has “vented to allies” about how much the topic is discussed in the media as he sizes up a bid for a second term in 2024, Politico reported Tuesday.

“You think I don’t know how f—ing old I am?” an exasperated Biden — who reportedly has a penchant for profanity — ranted to one of his acquaintances earlier this year, according to the outlet.

Biden, who has said he expects to run for another four years in office but has pushed a final decision back until early next year, would be 86 years old when he leaves office if he completes a full second term. 

Maybe there's a reason for that, except that Biden doesn't seem to have any awareness of what that might be. He gets lost. He forgets which country he's in. He garbles words. He reads teleprompters verbatim. He's led around by Jill, or random little kids on stages. He forgets names. He stumbles on steps. He falls off his bike. He forgets where he is. He flies into bizarre rages. 

The list goes on and on, all of it evidence of his mental decline.

The rage itself at the public noticing all of these signs of senility, is itself a sign of Biden's mental decline, and the public knows it's unlikely to get better.

Yet Joe Biden continues to rage on, even as tells the media to pretend it's not happening, and he gaslights the public to take a look at how sharp he is. Remember this interview with MSNBC?

According to the Post:

That same month, Biden himself acknowledged during an interview with MSNBC that his age is a“legitimate” issue.

“I think it’s a legitimate thing to be concerned about anyone’s age, including mine,” Biden said in an interview with MSNBC. “And I think the best way to make the judgment is to watch me. Am I slowing up? Do I have the same pace?” 

Yes, Joe, the public is watching you -- and watching, and watching, and watching, as this is a slow-motion train wreck.

Biden's plea to the press to quit bringing up his age is a tall order, given the number of polls showing that the public is concerned about his failing mental acuity.

A separate Post article that ran today points out that just 30% of the voters think that Biden should run for re-election, given his declining mental faculties.

Nearly 60% of voters say that President Biden should not run for reelection in 2024, with most citing his age as the reason for their views, according to a new survey. 

The Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll, done for Newsweek and released on Tuesday, found that 58% of voters do not want the 80-year-old commander-in-chief to seek a second term.

Only 30% of eligible voters polled said that Biden should run again in 2024, and 42% said the president’s advanced age was the most significant reason for their answer. 

That indicates that a large amount of Democrats don't want to see the front of him in the White House for another four years any more than conservative Republicans do.

Biden of course, is of the mind that the public and press should ignore that. That may be because he's convinced he doesn't have to campaign anymore because Democrats have sufficiently cheated and rigged the process for him to win again, as happened in 2020. So, in his mind, why shouldn't it be given to him on a platter even as he can't tell what day it is, the name of his nursemaid, or where he's at? Were he required to campaign as has been done in the past, he might conceivably have a more realistic view.

Well, he doesn't, so now it's all rage and babble as he denies reality and large numbers of voters ask why this guy should be let in there a second time at the White House.

Expect to see more of that rage go public as Joe loses ever more of his faculties and the senility bites harder.

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary.”
— Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

If there is one point on which there should be no political parsing, no legal jockeying, and no disagreement, it is this: for anyone to advocate terminating or suspending the Constitution is tantamount to a declaration of war against the founding principles of our representative government and the rule of law.

Then again, one could well make the case that the Constitution has already been terminated after years on life support, given the extent to which the safeguards enshrined in the Bill of Rights—adopted 231 years ago as a means of protecting the people against government overreach and abuse—have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded with the support of Congress, the White House, and the courts.

Consider for yourself.

We are in the grip of martial law. We have what the founders feared most: a “standing” or permanent army on American soil. This de facto standing army is made up of weaponized, militarized domestic police forces which look like, dress like, and act like the military; are armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; are authorized to make arrests; and are trained in military tactics.

We are in the government’s crosshairs. The U.S. government continues to act as judge, jury and executioner over a populace that have been pre-judged and found guilty, stripped of their rights, and left to suffer at the hands of government agents trained to respond with the utmost degree of violence. Consequently, we are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.” With alarming regularity, unarmed men, women, children and even pets are being gunned down by the government’s standing army of militarized police who shoot first and ask questions later.

We are no longer safe in our homes. This present menace comes from the government’s army of bureaucratized, corporatized, militarized SWAT teams who are waging war on the last stronghold left to us as a free people: the sanctity of our homes.

We have no real freedom of speech. We are moving fast down a slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts. In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices. The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American who criticizes the government an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

We have no real privacy. We’re being spied on by a domestic army of government snitches, spies and techno-warriors. This government of Peeping Toms is watching everything we do, reading everything we write, listening to everything we say, and monitoring everything we spend. Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it is all being recorded, stored, and catalogued, and will be used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

We are losing our right to bodily privacy and integrity. The debate over bodily integrity covers broad territory, ranging from forced vaccinations, forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws and forced breath-alcohol tests to forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, and forced inclusion in biometric databases: these are just a few ways in which Americans continue to be reminded that we have no real privacy, no real presumption of innocence, and no real control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials. The groundwork being laid with these mandates is a prologue to what will become the police state’s conquest of a new, relatively uncharted, frontier: inner space, specifically, the inner workings (genetic, biological, biometric, mental, emotional) of the human race.

We no longer have a right to private property. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Hard-working Americans are having their bank accounts, homes, cars electronics and cash seized by police under the assumption that they have allegedly been associated with some criminal scheme.

We have no due process. The groundwork has been laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.

We are no longer presumed innocent. The burden of proof has been reversed. Now we’re presumed guilty unless we can prove our innocence beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Rarely, are we even given the opportunity to do so. The government has embarked on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database. Having already used surveillance technology to render the entire American populace potential suspects, DNA technology in the hands of government coupled with artificial intelligence will complete our transition to a suspect society in which we are all merely waiting to be matched up with a crime.

We have lost the right to be anonymous and move about freely.  At every turn, we’re hemmed in by laws, fines and penalties that regulate and restrict our autonomy, and surveillance cameras that monitor our movements. Likewise, digital currency provides the government and its corporate partners with a mode of commerce that can easily be monitored, tracked, tabulated, mined for data, hacked, hijacked and confiscated when convenient.

We no longer have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups. In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

We have no guardians of justice. The courts were established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet through their deference to police power, preference for security over freedom, and evisceration of our most basic rights for the sake of order and expediency, the courts have become the guardians of the American police state in which we now live. As a result, sound judgment and justice have largely taken a back seat to legalism, statism and elitism, while preserving the rights of the people has been deprioritized and made to play second fiddle to both governmental and corporate interests.

We have been saddled with a dictator for life. Secret, unchecked presidential powers—acquired through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president—now enable past, president and future presidents to operate above the law and beyond the reach of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, we have done this to ourselves.

We allowed ourselves to be seduced by the false siren song of politicians promising safety in exchange for relinquished freedom. We placed our trust in political saviors and failed to ask questions to hold our representatives accountable to abiding by the Constitution. We looked the other way and made excuses while the government amassed an amazing amount of power over us, and backed up that power-grab with a terrifying amount of military might and weaponry, and got the courts to sanction their actions every step of the way. We chose to let partisan politics divide us and turn us into easy targets for the government’s oppression.

Mind you, the powers-that-be want us to be censored, silenced, muzzled, gagged, zoned out, caged in and shut down. They want our speech and activities monitored for any sign of “extremist” activity. They want us to be estranged from each other and kept at a distance from those who are supposed to represent us. They want taxation without representation. They want a government without the consent of the governed.

They want the Constitution terminated.

“We” may have contributed to our downfall through our inaction and gullibility, but we are also the only hope for a free future.

After all, the Constitution begins with those three beautiful words, “We the people.” Those three words were intended as a reminder to future generations that there is no government without us—our sheer numbers, our muscle, our economy, our physical presence in this land.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, when we forget that, when we allow the “Me” of a self-absorbed, narcissistic, politically polarizing culture to override our civic duties as citizens to collectively stand up to tyranny and make the government play by the rules of the Constitution, there can be no surprise when tyranny rises and freedom falls

Remember, there is power in numbers.

There are 332 million of us in this country. Imagine what we could accomplish if we actually worked together, presented a united front, and spoke with one voice? (read more)

This week, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the case of Lorie Smith, a Colorado designer who refuses to create websites with messages that conflict with her faith — among them, gay wedding announcements and celebrations. The case not only gives the court the opportunity to strengthen the right to free expression, but to fix its useless Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision, which empowered the government to level debilitating fines against Christian businesses just as long as bureaucrats didn’t openly convey any animus towards their victims.

In The New York Times today, David Cole, the national legal director of the ACLU — which has come a long way since defending the Nazis of Skokie on neutral principle grounds — says “The First Amendment Is Not a License to Discriminate” (before the headline was edited post-publication). Why? Because otherwise, “interior decorators, landscape architects, tattoo parlors, sign painters and beauty salons, among countless other businesses whose services contain some expressive element, would all be free to hang out signs refusing to serve Muslims, women, the disabled, African Americans or any other group.” During Monday’s arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor similarly claimed that the case would be “the first time in the Supreme Court’s history” that it would allow a business to “refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.”

This is the lie at the heart of the debate.

First off, if leftists insist on framing the speech debate as a binary choice between compulsion and discrimination … then yes, free expression, explicitly laid out in the Constitution, should trump the right of a stranger to walk into a store and demand the owner say something he does not believe. Using Sotomayor’s identitarian calculus, a shopkeeper would never be able to refuse the demands of any customer who happened to be gay.

But neither Lorie Smith nor Jack Phillips turned away any customer because of an immutable characteristic or sexual preference or religious belief. Rather, they refused to create a message that conflicted with sincere convictions. If a straight cousin of a groom asked for a same-sex wedding site, Smith would have turned that person away, as well. If a gay customer wanted a website for his business, Smith would have created it. If a straight couple asked for a bawdy website or a website that declared Xenu the one true Lord of the universe, they too would have been rejected, because that idea also runs afoul of her evangelical Christian beliefs. It’s a shame that Cole and Sotomayor pretend not to comprehend the distinction.

Progressives like to act like Christian (or Islamic or Jewish) opposition to same-sex marriage is some newfangled ruse cooked up by activists to allow them to put “no gays allowed” signs in the shop windows. I assure you that the notion that true marriage is exclusively between one genetic man and one genetic woman is a generational notion. Before his “evolution” on the question, Democrat icon Barack Obama had tethered his opposition to gay marriage to theology.

Whether you agree with this stance or not is entirely irrelevant when it comes to the matter of speech. There is no Hurt Feelings clause in the Constitution. Rather than dealing with the question, Cole, who has a difficult time seeing anything in nonracial terms, lists a slew of scary slippery slope hypotheticals — among them: “Should an architecture firm that believes Black families don’t deserve fancy homes be permitted to turn away Black clients because its work is ‘expressive’?”

Here is a better question: Would Cole, who says the “A.C.L.U. has been this nation’s leading defender of free speech for more than a century,” call for the state to intervene in the case of an evangelical customer who wants to compel a gay designer to create a website for an organization that works to overturn same-sex marriage laws or preaches that acts of homosexuality are a mortal sin? Christians, after all, are also a protected group under anti-discrimination laws. The answer is: highly unlikely.

The point is, and has always been, punishing wrongthink. As Cole argues, “no artist has to open a business to the public in the first place.” Christians, he advises, should not open businesses, they should follow the example of noted photographer Annie Leibovitz, and choose their subjects. So, if your career entails any measure of creative expression, but you still cling to ancient faiths — start espousing the prevailing societal mores, or forget the open marketplace.

If we want a diverse and open society — and I’m highly skeptical that’s the goal of Cole or Sotomayor — one side of the cultural divide can’t be empowered to crush the economic lives of anyone who dissents. There are thousands of businesses that will bake the cake or create the website. Public-accommodation laws were meant to stop discrimination against minorities, not compel minorities to promote the political and theological positions of the majority. (read more)

Subtle is not a word that will ever be associated with these knuckleheads. They managed to stop Kari Lake and Blake Masters from getting elected — but you can’t really say they got away with it.

After all, the entire world watched them do it.

As Seth Keshel noted: “Maricopa County is an illegitimate governing body, most correctly defined as an organized crime ring using massive corruption to conceal its own lawlessness.”

Maricopa County is merely the latest example of the Biden regime’s shredding of our Constitution. Since when can the FBI show up unannounced to seize the cell phones of American citizens who haven’t been charged with a crime — like Mike Lindell? Since when can government officials order Twitter employees to disappear the messages of American citizens on a daily basis? Or snoop through their DMs on Facebook?

Indeed, the Department of Justice actually posts bulletins on its website to announce the illegal and unconstitutional things that it’s doing — like monitoring state elections.

Of course, the Left understands the Biden regime’s usurpation of the Constitution very well — because it’s largely in favor of it — but even leftists have started to issue warnings about the Orwellian drift of our national security agencies.

Notice that America’s national security agencies want to “police” public opinion about the very things that they’re responsible for doing. Naturally, DHS would prefer for Americans to forget that “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic” involve Dr. Fauci funding the Wuhan Lab of Virology — as they would also prefer for you to forget that the COVID-19 vaccines have no efficacy at all. Who left our soldiers behind in Afghanistan? What is our money buying in Ukraine? This isn’t a misinformation report — it’s a laundry list of America’s illegal covert activities.

What’s the ultimate aim? I continue to maintain that these national security agencies are openly violating the Constitution in order to transform our country into a permanent surveillance state under their control — which is why our election system has to be subverted as well.

That’s why the Biden regime’s sudden plunge into totalitarianism includes allowing Democrat candidates for office like Katie Hobbs to silence their Republican opponents on Twitter during election campaigns.

President Donald Trump came under massive amounts of fire recently for saying, “So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

Obviously, it would be frustrating for President Trump to ask legal advisors what can be done about certified results from fraudulently constructed elections.  The reply from the legal advisors around the state certification would frustrate anybody, because the constitution permits fraudulent elections.   The decision on how to conduct elections is entirely up to the states.

The states, via state legislature, determine their election rules, laws and outcomes that eventually lead to state certification.  If a state wants to block voters, impede voters, or manipulate the voting outcome, there is generally nothing in federal law to stop them – as long as the state or county does not break federal laws protecting classes or protected categories of persons.

Federal law does not prohibit disenfranchisement based on ideology, political affiliation or outlook.  If a state or local election system wants to block voters based on affiliation or ideology, they can…. as long as it doesn’t have a disparate impact on the protected category.

If a state legislature wanted to assign 1/2 value to each Republican vote, there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit that rule.

If a state election outcome results in the loss of 50% of the republican votes in the local or state election, there is nothing in the federal law that would correct the issue.  The state is responsible for certifying the results.

The supreme court will not hear an election controversy issue or legal challenge based on certified results from states.  The constitution permits states to conduct their own elections, and as long as federal laws are not violated, the state certification ends the discussion.  This is the great dichotomy within U.S. election around election manipulation by a state or local election officials.  There is no federal recourse if no federally protected category was adversely impacted.

The DNC argues election disenfranchisement, rules, dates, times, locations, etc based entirely on protected federal categories, i.e.. the date or method of the election has an adverse impact to a specifically protected category of racial minorities.  This is the typical DNC lawsuit.

EX. the RNC or DNC candidates have no legal footing to sue in federal court if everyone wearing a green shirt was turned away from county polling locations; unless they can prove that a green shirt was worn by a higher percentage of a protected category of persons (i.e., disparate impact).

Additionally, due to the private nature of the corporations that run candidates, notably the RNC and DNC, there is also no prohibition to stop the RNC or DNC from disapproving candidates unless they also were discriminating based on a protected category.   Not coincidentally, political parties are not recognized in the U.S. constitution.

This election reality is why control over state level elections is where the battle has to be fought.   Once a state certifies the election outcome, there is almost no way the federal courts can/will intervene unless the lawsuit is based on a claim that federally protected voters were specifically targeted. (read more)

The Russians would swap either U.S. citizen for the return of arms dealer Viktor Bout; however, the White House would have to decide which American they wanted in return.  The White House decided there was greater benefit to getting LGBTQ+ hero Brittany Griner returned, and left Paul Whelan in a Russian prison.

Obviously, this context of the NBC report [archived original version] makes the Biden administration look bad.

A political and ideological decision within the selection of the Biden administration preference.   Realizing this, perhaps after contact from the White House, NBC stealth edited their story after publication in order to eliminate the political problem.

In the original version: “the Kremlin gave the White House the choice of either Griner or Whelan — or none.”

In the stealth revised version: “the Kremlin ultimately gave the White House the choice of either Griner or no one after different options were proposed.”

Even with the modified and carefully worded changes, it looks like Joe Biden chose the trans basketball player over the former U.S. marine, which, given the arc of history, does seem to make sense. (read more)