These sites below have webcam feeds around the Middle East. They have been up for a while and there are a bunch of people commenting live in the youtube stream.
Might be worth it to have these up or bookmarked. Sites are below.
While browsing GAW this morning it hit me just how many wars Trump has not only been able to stop or solve, but how many more the cabal is trying to push us into. It is actually pretty shocking until you remember that the cabal can't survive without the money they make off of wars.
Everyone knows they wanted to pull us into Ukraine - and they also want us (and Europe) to get into a war with Russia. Those aren't exactly hidden. However, there are over a dozen that I can remember off the top of my head that could easily develop into actual wars if we didn't have Trump at the helm.
Consider the list below. We have actually bombed some of the countries on the list, some we have embargoed (or will soon), some have been sanctioned, and some come back into the fold consistently every few years or so. All are in the news.
I know there are some I am forgetting. Feel free to add more in the comments. Also remember - while the MIC really wants wars, they also make money on quick bombing campaigns, huge weapons deals with various countries under threat, and defensive equipment like Patriot/Iron Dome missiles. That can appease them in the short term but they will still want (and push for) full-blown war(s).
China/Taiwan
- This is a no-brainer. China is our biggest adversary - while also being our biggest trading partner. Both sides currently need each other, but one day we won't. The big question is when that day will come, and what the result will be. Will we get pulled into a China/Taiwan war? Fortunately, nuclear weapons on each side should keep either from launching and destroying each other (hopefully). Don't forget about BRICS either.
Panama
- Hopefully this one is over. There was a lot of talk about invading Panama early this year. Trump rightfully was complaining about Chinese involvement in the Canal zone, and how we were getting shut out. Looks like diplomacy won over an invasion.
Colombia
- President Petro (a "former" leftist guerrilla) wants to end the war on drugs, and has nearly stopped working with our forces to go after the cartels. He tried to deny us from deporting Colombian citizens back to Colombia, and we ended up in a mini trade war for a bit. They have also recalled their ambassador to the US back home.
Honduras
- President Castro appears to be cozying up to China. There have been issues with the main airport there, where they are restricting our flight activities. China appears to be involved to some extent with the airport. Deportations from the US to Honduras are also a big issue. A large percentage of our illegals come from Honduras and we are sending them back. Castro is not happy with this, and is also threatening to expel US forces from a major base used for counter-drug operations if we don't stop. There are also bad feelings over the US supposedly interfering with Honduran elections, with Biden jailing the former President, and with Trump pardoning him.
Brazil
- President Lula is a socialist that possibly stole the last election from President Bolsonaro (his opponent and close US ally) and imprisoned him with the help of a corrupt Supreme Court. This is one of those elections that was probably stolen with the help of USAID and corrupt Biden diplomats in Brazil. Bolsonaro's son (a Brazilian congressman) is in exile in the USA. To date, US diplomats from the Biden admin have not been replaced, and a new Ambassador has not been confirmed after the former Ambassador's term expired - not sure why... There are also trade and tariff issues, complaints about the US having ships in the Caribbean, attempts by Luna to censor/sue X and other platforms, and of course BRICS.
Venezuela
- This is another no-brainer. Deportations, Drugs, Narcoterrorism, Sanctions, Gangs, Elections, and voting machines are the biggest issues. This one right now has the biggest chance of developing into a hot war, although it appears that President Maduro may take Trump's offer to flee. We currently have a "no-fly-zone" near Venezuela by way of an active NOTAM, and are about to implement a blockade. Personally I believe Maduro will flee soon.
Mexico
- Immigration, drugs/cartels, human trafficking, water treaties, sewage being pumped into the Pacific and moving into our west coast (including training bases for the Navy SEALs and Marines, and trade/tariffs. President Sheinbaum (totally a Mexican name) has resisted working with Trump in many aspects, although she has participated in others. The biggest issues are her lack of cooperation in taking down the cartels and eliminating the drug and human-trafficking coming into the USA from her borders. The water issue is because Mexico is violating a long-standing treaty requiring them to release a certain amount of water each year to Texas, because historically they have rerouted water from the Rio Grand into Mexico, resulting in catastrophic issues with crops in Texas. They are about to violate that treaty again in the next 2 weeks. The sewage issue was supposedly fixed but it is happening again. That endangers not only our wildlife and our coastline, but it endangers our SEALs who are going through their BUDS training in Coronado. The surrounding areas have been frequently closed due to dangerous health warnings resulting from billions of gallons of raw (Mexican) sewage. I personally don't expect a US/Mexico war any time soon, but one bad attack from a Mexican cartel could result in the US finally bombing them inside Mexico. Then all bets are off.
Yemen
- Iranian-backed Houthis from Yemen have been attacking ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden since 2023 - including US Military ships, ultimately resulting in a large bombing campaign this year. In the mean time, Yemen itself is in a civil war. It does not appear that we will get involved with internal Yemeni politics under Trump, but we do tacitly support the government that was ousted by the Houthis and will likely be involved in humanitarian issues if the Houthis are defeated. The US military continues to patrol the area to stop shipping attacks.
Syria
- Syria is a tough one. After Assad was ousted a new government took over, with President Al-Sharaa becoming a statesman versus an Al Qaeda aligned rebel in his "previous position". Trump seems to like him, and is working with him to help Syria. However, ISIS is still active in the area and killed 2 US guard members in the past week. We will know more about Syria in the coming months.
Lebanon
- Lebanon is another tough one. The USA is actually an ally of Lebanon, but Iranian-backed Hezbollah operates there. President Aoun (newly elected this year) is trying to get rid of Hezbollah and regain control of Lebanon's borders and sovereignty, but it will take time. A war here is unlikely - unless Hezbollah decides to attack one of our allies and we have to get involved. Then it would be possible that the war ends up expanding into the USA trying to free Lebanon. Let's hope not.
Iran
- Another no-brainer. Iran funds a lot of the terrorism in the world. Their supreme leader is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - an 86 year old nutcase - will likely won't be around much longer. The US bears a lot of the responsibility for Iran becoming an Islamic republic since it was the CIA that interfered and backed the Shah back in the late '70s. That led to the hostage crisis under Carter, and their release during the 1st day of Reagan's presidency. It also ushered in the hardcore islamists, and the Ayatolla concept. This one is personal for me, since the terrorist that killed both the guy I replaced and an Egyptian ambassador while I stationed in Turkey with the USAF was Iranian-backed. That goes all the way back to 1991. Since then there have been a ton of other terrorist attacks, human rights abuses, wars with their neighbors, and the development of a nuclear program. We have sanctioned them, killed high-ranking officials, unleashed malware on them, and bombed their nuclear facilities. War is always a possibility with Iran, but what is unknown is what will happen when Khameni finally dies.
Afghanistan
- I don't foresee another hot war in Afghanistan. Early on this year there was a lot of talk of us taking back Bagram AFB, but that didn't go anywhere. Hopefully Trump is able to stop the US funding going to the Taliban weekly (still) and we move on while they destroy everything we tried to build there, and continue to live in the stone age. I think we are more likely to suffer an internal attack from the many Afghanis Biden allowed into the USA during their disgraceful withdrawal. If that happens, they will underestimated the capabilities of the average US citizen and will regret it quickly.
Gaza
- The biggest external threat with Gaza is that we get roped into helping Israel when they do a false flag that makes it look like they were attacked from Gaza by Hamas and a large number of Israelis were killed in major cities. Even worse, we could be in Gaza providing humanitarian relief efforts and get caught up in the middle of the action. The big question is how would the rest of the Middle East respond. External issues are not the only threat. We have seen numerous protests and violent uprisings inside of the USA (including the latest one at Brown) from "Palestinians" and their collegiate useful idiots. These appear to be well-funded by international groups like the UN, various terrorist groups, and billionaires like the waste of skin George Soros and his mini-me. I expect them to be co-opted during the upcoming election seasons and deployed across the country in major cities.
South Africa
- u/purkiss80 would be better to explain the issues here. I'll see if I can explain a little bit. Major issues here are the current black-led government attacking, threatening, and killing whites, SA growing closer to China and Russia, BRICS, and the recent raid on the USCIS refugee processing center that briefly had US government employees and Kenyans detained. There is also the G20 issue, where the US skipped this year's G20 meeting held in South Africa and we banned SA from attending the 2026 meeting that will be held in the US. I don't see us in a war against South Africa - unless they do something REALLY stupid like storming our embassy (do we still have one there?) or attack our ships or something. Purkiss probably has more thoughts on this...
Somalia
- So far this year we have had 80+ airstrikes inside of Somalia, supposedly targeting al-Shabaab and ISIS. Although Somalia doesn't have a strong government due to the terrorist activities, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has asked us to help train his army and coordinates with us to carry out the frequent strikes against the terrorists. We also have a Somali problem inside the USA thanks to the Obama and Biden administrations, which has led to massive monetary and voter fraud. We have active operations in Minnesota currently to remove illegal Somalia immigrants, and are eyeing other states where they have started to move to. If things go completely off the rails in Somalia and somehow we lose planes/helicopters/soldiers we could be pulled into a war there.
Thoughts?
I wanted to find out whether a President is required to sign certain documents or not so I researched.
There are a lot of people saying POTUS is not required to sign pardons, the letters to the Senate officially notifying them of a Presidential Appointment (judges, justices, etc.), and other documents. Well - the only thing that is 100% certain is a President is not required to sign pardons. In fact there is not even a requirement for a written pardon - it can be oral, though by tradition it is a document signed by a President.
That said, I found firm evidence that a President is required to sign all official commissions (military, judicial including SCOTUS, and other government officer appointments). Note - that requirement is for the actual commission, which is required to be signed before the appointed (and confirmed) person can take the oath of office and start their job. Presidents are also required to sign all Treaties, Official communications with other heads-of-state, and some other docs I didn't look into.
I give you "The Records Act".
- https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/rbc/rbpe/rbpe21/rbpe212/21201700/21201700.pdf
- also codified in 5 U.S. Code § 2902 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2902#:~:text=Except%20as%20provided%20by%20subsections%20(b)%20and,commission%20has%20been%20signed%20by%20the%20President.
Section 4 of the Records act states:
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the said Secretary shall keep the seal of the United States, and shall make out and record, and shall affix the seal of the United States to all civil commissions to officers of the United States to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or by the President alone:— Provided, That the said seal shall not be affixed to any commission, before the same shall have been signed by the President of the United States. nor to any others
Now, that act was changed, changed back, and otherwise messed with several times in history, but it is still substantially the same. I asked Grok for some context on this and this is what it gave me:
Section 4 is the core provision often cited in discussions of presidential signatures, explicitly mandating that commissions for civil officers must be signed by the President before the Secretary of State can affix the seal. This aligns with Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which requires the President to "Commission all the Officers of the United States." Legal analyses, including a 2005 Department of Justice memorandum, interpret this as allowing the President to direct the affixing of their signature (e.g., via autopen or facsimile) without personally handwriting it, drawing on common law precedents from the 17th and 18th centuries (e.g., Lord Lovelace’s Case, 1632; Statute of Frauds, 1677) that treat directed signatures as valid. However, the decision to approve or appoint cannot be delegated; only the ministerial act of signing can. Historical DOJ opinions (e.g., from Attorneys General in 1824, 1917, and 1918) and precedents for bills and commissions support this flexibility, emphasizing technological adaptations over strict personal inscription.
Grok cited a DOJ opinion from 2005 on the signing via autopen or facsimile:
The most important part of this section is:
However, the decision to approve or appoint cannot be delegated; only the ministerial act of signing can
That really muddies the water in the case of Autopen Joe. It is known that most documents that were signed as/for Joe Biden were done by autopen (save Hunter's pardon). What is not 100% known is if Biden directed someone to sign them. If it can be conclusively proven that these "signers" were acting on their own authority without Joe's knowledge then ALL OF THEM are void. This would probably take a whistleblower with strong evidence to prove Joe didn't know. It will certainly go to court and probably take a long time to flush out.
Personally I think there is likely a whistleblower (or more than 1) due to the fact that Trump declared all of the autopenned pardons as null and void. That would also bring into play all of the commissions Biden made, including federal judges, KBJ herself, any US Marshals he appointed, any military officers he appointed, and any other officer appointees - including the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and all of it's Directors. It could also affect any bills or treaties he signed - including budget bills.
The big question is - does anyone have the balls to press this?
By the way - the SCOTUS case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) is important here.
I asked Grok for a brief explanation:
Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review, allowing courts to strike down laws or government actions that violate the Constitution. The case arose when William Marbury, appointed as a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams, sued Secretary of State James Madison for failing to deliver his commission under the new Jefferson administration. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that while Marbury was entitled to the commission, the Judiciary Act of 1789—which granted the Court authority to issue a writ of mandamus in this original jurisdiction—was unconstitutional, as it expanded the Court's powers beyond Article III of the Constitution. By denying its own jurisdiction, the Court asserted its power to review and invalidate acts of Congress, shaping the balance of powers in the U.S. government.
You can see why this is relevant to the autopen stuff. President Adams was leaving office but he appointed Marbury as a justice of the peace just before leaving, to try to stick it to incoming President Thomas Jefferson. Well Jefferson wouldn't sign the commission, and James Madison (Jefferson's SoS) couldn't affix the great Seal to an unsigned document.
The relevant part of the Marbury SCOTUS case decision is this:
It is therefore decidedly the opinion of the Court that, when a commission has been signed by the President, the appointment is made, and that the commission is complete when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the Secretary of State.
Because the commission wasn't signed (and sealed) the commission was null and void. Sound familiar?
Hopefully this helps explain what needs to be signed by a POTUS, and how it needs to be signed.
Edited for a stupid typo.
I asked Grok about possible crimes Comey could be charged with if the whole "CORNY/COMEY" thing was proven. Grok knocked it out of the park. I wanted to see what else - read: more substantial charges/punishments - he could be subject to in order to give him a fitting sentence.
The possible charges Grok outlined had fines, and possible prison terms of up to 20 years for one of the charges, 5 year terms for two more charges, 3 years for one, and disqualification from ever holding Federal Office again.
If Comey was found guilty on all charges outlined below, received the statutory maximum time, and the judge decided to make the time run consecutively (possible due to Comey being the FBI Director and should know better) - instead of concurrently (the normal Federal procedure), Comey could get 33 years. Interesting number, 33.
Everything below here is the text response from Grok, including the synopsis of my question. This sure beats obstruction and perjury charges...
If James Comey, while serving as FBI Director, intentionally altered his last name from "COMEY" to "CORNEY" in official FBI documents subject to FOIA (with the goal of exploiting font similarities to frustrate keyword searches), or directed subordinates to do so, this could potentially violate several federal statutes related to record falsification, obstruction, and tampering. These actions would be interpreted as an effort to undermine FOIA's transparency mandate (5 U.S.C. § 552), which requires agencies to maintain accurate, searchable records. Prosecution would require proving corrupt intent to evade FOIA, not a mere typographical error or legitimate correction. No known cases exactly match this scenario involving Comey or similar high-level officials, but analogous situations—such as officials misspelling keywords in communications to dodge FOIA—have prompted investigations for records violations. Below are the primary crimes that could apply, based on their statutory language and judicial interpretations.
1. Destruction, Alteration, or Falsification of Records in Federal Matters (18 U.S.C. § 1519)
• Description: This broad statute prohibits knowingly altering, falsifying, mutilating, concealing, or making a false entry in any record or document with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any federal matter, including in anticipation of such matters (e.g., potential FOIA requests). Changing a name's spelling to exploit visual similarities and evade searches could qualify as falsification or concealment, especially if done across multiple documents.
• Penalty: Fine, imprisonment up to 20 years, or both.
• Why it applies: The law covers anticipatory obstruction and has been applied to efforts to frustrate agency administrative functions, including record accessibility under FOIA. As Director, Comey's direct involvement or orders to employees would demonstrate the requisite intent and control over FBI records.
2. Concealment, Mutilation, or Falsification of Public Records (18 U.S.C. § 2071)
• Description:
◦ Subsection (a): Criminalizes willfully and unlawfully concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, or destroying (or attempting to) any record filed or deposited in a public office.
◦ Subsection (b): Targets custodians of records who willfully and unlawfully conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate, falsify, or destroy them.
• Penalty: Fine, imprisonment up to 3 years, or both; for (b), also disqualification from holding U.S. office.
• Why it applies: Altering a name in official documents to hinder FOIA searches could be seen as mutilation or falsification, particularly since FBI Directors are custodians of agency records. Directing employees to make the change would implicate Comey under (b) via aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2).
3. Obstruction of Proceedings Before Departments, Agencies, and Committees (18 U.S.C. § 1505)
• Description: Prohibits corruptly influencing, obstructing, or impeding (or endeavoring to do so) the due and proper administration of the law in any proceeding before a U.S. department or agency. FOIA request processing constitutes an administrative proceeding.
• Penalty: Fine, imprisonment up to 5 years, or both.
• Why it applies: Courts interpret "proceedings" to include agency administrative duties like FOIA compliance, and altering records to evade them fits as corrupt obstruction. Ordering subordinates would strengthen the case, as it shows an endeavor to obstruct through others.
Additional Considerations
• Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371): If Comey directed employees to alter the records, this could lead to conspiracy charges for defrauding the U.S. or committing an offense against it, punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment. This often accompanies obstruction cases involving multiple parties.
• Aiding and Abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2): Directing others to commit the acts would make Comey punishable as a principal.
• Other Ramifications: Beyond criminal charges, this could trigger civil penalties under the Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. §§ 2101 et seq.), requiring agencies to report unauthorized alterations to the National Archives, or ethics violations under the Hatch Act or FBI internal policies. Prosecution challenges include proving specific intent to evade FOIA (versus a benign change) and overcoming defenses like official immunity, but the statutes' broad language supports potential applicability.
First - thanks to u/Tetartos_Ippeas for his post tonight on Jack Smith. It got me thinking.
I want to add an angle to that post I think may be why DOJ is using the Hatch Act.
Ok - hear me out...
Who was Trump fond of mentioning in his last run for POTUS? Al Capone.
He mentioned Capone numerous times on the campaign trail.
Why is that important here? Al Capone was a notorious gangster, but he wasn't taken down for those crimes (directly). Prosecutors were afraid he would beat the rap again, so they went after him for tax evasion. That was a far easier crime to prove.
So - what's the connection here? Jack Smith is likely guilty of a lot of major crimes, and one of them could be interfering with a Presidential election in order to affect the results. Why the Hatch Act of all things?
Again - Al Capone. The DOJ knows it will be really hard to prove treason/sedition or whatever big crime they want to indict Jack for, so the Office of Special Counsel at the DOJ is pulling a Capone and investigating him for something they feel they have a better chance of proving. The Hatch Act. I think that is their "tax evasion" this time around.
According to the GP article Tetartos_Ippeas posted:
An email reviewed by The Post states The Hatch Act Unit, which enforces a law restricting government employees from engaging in political activities, has begun reviewing the former Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice. The email was written by Senior Counsel Charles Baldis at OSC.
Now - The Hatch Act is not really a big deal - especially for a former govt employee. It is civil - not criminal, so no jail time. He could get a $1000 fine, a suspension from govt work for 5 years, and a reprimand (big deal...). There are a few more penalties if the violator is still a govt employee but Jack is not.
However - I asked Grok what would happen if it was proven Jack did this to affect the election. The penalties are pretty much still the same. That said, a Hatch Act conviction could be used to further charge Jack with other crimes. This time with jail time.
Grok:
If the violation involved actions beyond the Hatch Act, additional consequences could arise such as Criminal Charges: Hatch Act violations are civil, not criminal, so jail time is not a penalty. However, related misconduct (e.g., obstruction of justice, falsifying documents, or misusing government resources) could lead to separate criminal charges under other statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (obstruction) or 18 U.S.C. § 641 (misuse of public resources). Also Civil Litigation: If Smith’s actions caused demonstrable harm (e.g., to Trump’s campaign), civil lawsuits could be filed, though this is speculative and depends on legal standing.
Grok didn't mention any possible action from the DC Bar Association but I assume that could be possible, though they probably would ignore it.
My thought is, if Jack is guilty of a Hatch Act violation for attempting to affect the election, DOJ would then go after stronger charges. They would tell him about the possible jail time, fines, felony issues, a very much likely Trump lawsuit for hundreds of millions of dollars - and let him sweat for a bit. Then it could be deal time.
Jack Smith could possibly be used to take down Biden, Comey, much of the White House and DOJ, a fair amount of CONgress, judges, US Attorneys, and likely others. There were very likely a lot of people pulling the levers on Jack to take down Trump. They would all be vulnerable, but for much more serious crimes. I think Jack would sell them out in a minute to get a deal. A deal could keep Jack with an Al Capone moment, rather than a John Gotti or Whitey Bulger conviction. They both got multiple life-in-prison sentences and ultimately died in prison. One died of natural causes and the other was murdered - both still in prison.
I wonder if Trump had this in mind the whole time? It wouldn't surprise me a bit since he loved to mention Al.
So it took me a little while to wrap my brain around this undoubtedly fake story. Once I stopped being pissed off about yet another cover-up I was able to think calmly and logically. I think I got it.
The House doesn't come back until today July 7th, and there were rumors they might take another week off. The Senate is supposed to be back on the 8th.
What if the evidence is really chock-full of compromise material about CONgress? As in the kompromat that is rumored to be collected on nearly everyone... Perhaps some CONgress critters caught wind of the evidence about to be shared and the FBI was afraid all of CONgress would disappear so they wouldn't be jailed. I would have to change my way of typing CONgress to GONEgress. They would likely also notify others they knew were on the list.
Maybe the FBI decided to release false information to make sure CONgress came back and could be easily arrested. Then once they all go into session the feds move in and conduct mass arrests. The whole thing about CONgress not being able to be arrested while in session is BS - except for civil cases. The Constitution says they can only be arrested for "treason, felony, and breach of the peace"...
However...
The Supreme Court has interpreted "treason, felony, and breach of the peace" to cover all criminal acts, meaning members can be arrested for any crime while in session. They are not immune from criminal law enforcement, even during legislative duties.
I think this is disinformation to ensure CONgress is back and in session so they can be easily arrested. It's a CON on CONgress. If it is, we will know either this week or next week (if they take another week off as "comp time" for working the holiday weekend to pass the BBB).
I was reading the fine post from u/aslan_is_0n_the_m0ve https://greatawakening.win/p/19BGmFpF0U/democrat-rep-ted-lieu-is-now-tel/c/ and had some disagreements with some of the commenters, so I was starting to reply and decided this needed a post of it's own because of what Lieu said - but more importantly what he DIDN'T say.
This part was going to be my comment, until I realized Lieu very likely knows about what I am writing below. Bear with me because it is important to the rest.
-- start of my intended comments on the other post --
Libs of TikTok have what he said wrong. That scumbag Ted Lieu skirted the line perfectly. Here is a transcript:
Speaker (Rep. Ted Lieu): The legal authority Trump is using is 10 USC section 12406. I encourage all of you to read it. It very specifically says the only way he can do this is through the orders of their governors. Of the states. Governor Newsom clearly has not given this order. The National Guard troops are following unlawful orders. I ask every National Guard person who was under this order to read the order to see if it came from Governor Newsom and then read the law and then decide for themselves if they were following unlawful orders.
He didn't tell anyone to disobey orders - he told them to read and decide for themselves. Of course what he said was legal. Look at his military career:
Ted Lieu served in the United States Air Force. He joined in 1995 and served four years on active duty as a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He continued serving in the Air Force Reserve from 2000 to 2021, eventually reaching the rank of colonel. During his active duty, he served as a military prosecutor and advisor to commanders and received several awards for his service.
JAG, prosecutor, Colonel. He knew exactly how far to go. I can't stand this guy, but everything he said was legal.
-- end of my intended comments on the other post --
I can't, however, vouch for what he said about the authority that President Trump used. Trump could've declared the Insurrection Act, or even The Dick Act (yeah - lol) for all any of us know.
Look at this article, from the strangest of places - John Brennan's "Brennan Center for Justice"!
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained
Note this section (I bet he is kicking himself)...:
Section 253 has two parts. The first allows the president to use the military in a state to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “so hinders the execution of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy relied on this provision to deploy troops to desegregate schools in the South after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
The second part of Section 253 permits the president to deploy troops to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” in a state that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” This provision is so bafflingly broad that it cannot possibly mean what it says, or else it authorizes the president to use the military against any two people conspiring to break federal law.
It gets better.
This article goes much deeper.
https://cis.org/Fishman/President-Trump-Doesnt-Need-Invoke-Insurrection-Act-He-Already-Has
(This article is OUTSTANDING and is too long to completely quote here, but I'll put part of it here)
- START QUOTE
How did the Militia Act come to be? Zeigler et al. wrote that:
[Secretary of War Elihu] Root recognized that militia reform would be a critical step in building a more powerful and reliable Army. To this end, he revived proposals first circulated by other[s] … such as George Washington, Henry Knox, and Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, who after the Revolutionary War sought to standardize training requirements across the state militias. Two obstacles quickly emerged. First, Root recognized that Guardsmen’s part-time status required that training programs be sufficiently flexible to accommodate civilian work rhythms and limitations … . Second, Root wanted methods to compel states to build and maintain high-quality militia outfits, which would require substantial increases in federal funding.
Then, as they explained, “In 1903, Congress codified Root’s proposals in a law.” That law was the Dick Act. It represented “a turning point in U.S. military policy”, for “After over a century of congressional inactivity, the legislation replaced the long-obsolete 1792 Militia Act and began a period of substantial reform.”
But as Zeigler et al. wrote, the Dick Act “also spelled out when and how the President might federalize the militia”. Further:
Significantly, the Dick Act unambiguously tied the Guard to the Constitution’s militia clauses and referred to federalization in terms of the President “calling forth” the militias for the sake of domestic duties — more specifically, quelling rebellion, repelling invasion, and enforcing federal laws. … National Guard units, when in federal service, remained militias and were thus constrained by the legal limits associated with them.
[T]he Dick Act recognized the National Guard as the organized militia identified in the militia clauses, which explicitly limited the militia’s purpose when federalized to suppressing internal insurrections, repelling invasions, and enforcing the laws of the United States.
Secretary Root enthusiastically supported the bill, writing to Chairman Dick on March 18, 1902, that it “makes reasonable and proper provision ... for [the militia’s] special employment by the General Government … in time of war or public danger, such use being made subject of special statutory limitations with respect to time, place, and occasion of its employment”.1
The Dick Act specifically allowed the president to “call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to … execute th[e] laws” of the United States. Those are the magic words President Trump needs to utilize the National Guard to engage in direct immigration law enforcement roles in full compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act.
- END QUOTE
I encourage everyone to read both articles I linked above. They prove Trump is a genius, is executing the Insurrection Act without actually invoking it (by using the Dick Act), and you can't make this up.
Keep paying attention, because at some point POTUS probably will actually invoke the Insurrection Act - once rogue judges try to use Ted Lieu's reasoning and logic. They will fail miserably.
I picked up on this today but didn't have a chance to post until just now. We are starting to see more and more "coincidences" lately. Keep your eyes and ears open. X posters picked up on it as well.