Americans Will Kill U. S. Armed Forces Troops

When, and if, he invokes the insurrection act and sends regular troops to American cities to ‘keep the peace’, he will cross a bridge from which neither he nor the United States can return.  We hope and pray that he will not do so; but it appears highly possible soon. He has poor impulse control.  

 

Now, he is an ‘Enemy of the American State’; after that he becomes an 'Enemy of the American People.' That act is tantamount to a Declaration of War upon the American population.

 

Then it becomes the duty of every American to take up arms in defense of the Constitution. He may have some advantages in weapons and trained manpower, but Americans can and will use tactics similar to those used by George Washington and the Viet Cong to defeat the United States.

 

Here is my message to US Troops: Any order to shoot or otherwise harm citizens and residents issued by our mentally impaired mad man is illegal and violates the Constitution. Your sworn duty is to disobey any such order and LAY DOWN YOUR ARMS.

If you fail in your duty to disobey, then you become my personal mortal enemy. I will seek out and kill you wherever I can - in a restaurant, in the street, in your house, in your personal car or troop transport. You will never again know peace or freedom from fear. 

 

 

We will use the same tactics against you that were used by the Viet Cong to defeat the overwhelming might of the United States. The tactics were similar to George Washington’s tactics in the Revolutionary War.

These are the tactics used in Viet Nam, per ChatGPT:

 

The Viet Cong (VC) didn’t defeat the United States in a conventional battlefield showdown — instead, they used a wide range of asymmetric and guerrilla tactics that exploited their strengths (terrain knowledge, local support, mobility) against American and South Vietnamese weaknesses (reliance on conventional firepower, extended supply lines, and political constraints). Their approach helped make the war long, costly, and politically unsustainable for the U.S. 

Here are the major tactics they used:

1. Guerrilla Warfare and Hit-and-Run Attacks

·         The VC relied on ambushes, sudden strikes on patrols, supply convoys, and isolated units, then quickly withdrew before U.S. forces could bring superior firepower to bear. 

·         They used a tactic called “hugging the enemy” — closing to within very short range so U.S. forces couldn’t safely call in artillery or air support without risking friendly fire. 

2. Tunnel Warfare

·          

·         The VC built extensive underground tunnel networks (like the Cu Chi tunnels) that served as hidden bases, supply routes, living quarters, hospitals, and command centers. 

·         Tunnels allowed fighters to disappear from sight, evade air strikes and artillery, and re-emerge to attack unexpectedly. 

3. Booby Traps, Mines, and Improvised Devices

·          

·         They used countless booby traps, punji sticks, hidden mines, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to maim and slow down U.S. troops, hampering movement and lowering morale. 

·         These cheap, simple devices were effective psychologically as well as physically. 

4. Knowledge of Terrain and Camouflage

·          

         The Viet Cong made expert use of dense jungles, rural rice paddies, swamps, and mountainous terrain to conceal movement, set ambushes, and protect their forces from detection. 

·         They camouflaged positions, tunnels, and trap sites with natural materials to evade aerial or ground reconnaissance. 

5. Intelligence, Local Support, and Blending With Civilians

·          

·         VC fighters often lived among or near civilian populations, making it hard for U.S. forces to distinguish them from non-combatants. 

·         They gathered intelligence through local informants and coerced or voluntary support, which helped plan attacks and evade capture. 

·         Gaining hearts and minds in villages provided crucial food, shelter, recruits, and information. 

6. Sabotage and Disruption of Enemy Logistics

·         The VC targeted supply lines, bridges, roads, and communication networks to disrupt U.S. and South Vietnamese operations. 

·         Damaging infrastructure slowed enemy movement and forced extensive resources to protect logistics rather than fight. 

 

7. Psychological and Political Warfare

   

·         Beyond battlefield tactics, the VC used propaganda, rumors, and psychological operations to weaken morale among U.S. troops and erode public support for the war back home. 

·         They emphasized nationalism and resistance to foreign intervention to undermine the legitimacy of South Vietnam and U.S. involvement. 

Why These Tactics Worked

 

Rather than winning by defeating U.S. forces outright in set-piece battles, the Viet Cong’s strategy was to wear down American will and resources over time through attrition, uncertainty, and political pressure. Their tactics made the conflict costly, prolonged, and ultimately unpopular in the U.S., contributing to policy shifts and the decision to withdraw. 

 

 

  

America’s New Industry of Creating Pain, Misery and Despair for Profit

 

American concentration camps, or detention centers, are contracted to the Government and owned by profitable corporations which pay a share of the cash to President Trump’s administration.  This system replicates the Putin model of letting contracts to Oligarchs in return for a share of the proceeds.

 

ICE and other agencies have been assigned the job of keeping those camps full and profitable. Inmates in the camps represent cash income to the company; thus, the companies have incentives to keep expenses for things like food, sanitation and medical care as low as possible. Although the owners are required by law to allow inspection at any time by Congress, the system incentivizes avoidance of the laws.

 

This entire system is morally reprehensible, un-American and personally disgusting.

 

From GHATGPT: ‘Here’s an overview of major corporations that contract with government agencies to run prisons and detention facilities (including immigration detention), their top officers, and examples of specific facilities they operate. Most of the available information focuses on the United States private prison industry — especially firms contracting with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — but there are similar corporate actors internationally.

---

1) The GEO Group, Inc.

Type: Publicly traded private prison company
Headquarters: Boca Raton, Florida, U.S.

Top Officers (latest reported):

• George Zoley — Executive Chairman & Founder
• J. David Donahue — Chief Executive Officer
• Mark J. Suchinski — CFO
• Wayne H. Calabrese — COO

What They Do:
GEO is one of the largest private prison and detention operators in the U.S. with contracts for immigration detention, federal and state prisons, mental health facilities, and contract detention centers. It manages facilities under government contracts, with a significant portion tied to ICE.

Facilities Operated (examples):
(This is a representative list — GEO operates around 50+ secure facilities in the U.S.)

• Adelanto ICE Processing Center (CA) – Immigration detention
• South Texas ICE Processing Center (Pearsall, TX) – Immigration detention
• North Lake Processing Center (Baldwin, MI) – ICE detention
• Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center (Jena, LA) – ICE detention
• Denver Contract Detention Facility (CO) – ICE detention
• Joe Corley Processing Center – ICE detention
• Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center – ICE detention (CA)
• Golden State Annex – Immigration detention (CA)
• Broward Transitional Center (FL) – formerly ICE/intergovernmental
• Aurora Detention Facility (CO) – ICE contract
• Queens Detention Facility (NY) – federal detention (GEO contract)

---

2) CoreCivic, Inc.

Type: Publicly traded private corrections company
Headquarters: Brentwood, Tennessee, U.S.

Top Officers:

• Damon T. Hininger — President & CEO
• Mark A. Emkes — Chairman

What They Do:
CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America) is another major U.S. private prison and detention operator, with contracts for federal, state, local, and ICE immigration detention facilities.

Facilities Operated (examples):
(CoreCivic’s own directory lists dozens of facilities nationwide across categories)

• Stewart Detention Center (Lumpkin, GA) – ICE detention
• Adams County Detention Center (MS) – ICE & other contracts
• Otay Mesa Detention Center (CA) – immigration detention
• Eloy Federal Contract Facility (AZ) – immigration detention
• South Texas Family Residential Center (Dilley, TX) – family immigration detention (recently reactivated)
• California City Immigration Processing Center (CA) – ICE contract
• Midwest Regional Reception Center (Leavenworth, KS) (reopened under CoreCivic contract)

Plus numerous county jails and prisons under state/local correctional contracts.

---

3) Management & Training Corporation (MTC)

Type: Private corrections and services contractor
Headquarters: Centerville, Utah, U.S.

Top Officers:
(Public corporate leadership details may be less consistently published, but typically include CEO and senior operational executives)

What They Do:
MTC contracts with federal, state, and local governments to operate prisons, jails, and some immigration detention facilities.

Facilities Operated (examples):

• Otero County Processing Center (Chaparral, NM) – ICE
• El Valle Detention Facility – ICE detention
• IAH Secure Adult Detention Facility – ICE detention
• Imperial Regional Detention Facility (Calexico, CA) – ICE detention
• Willacy County Correctional Center (Raymondville, TX) – formerly ICE/USMS contract

(MTC also operates other prisons/jails/juvenile facilities under state/local contracts not exclusively immigration-related.)

---

4) LaSalle Corrections

Type: Private corrections contractor
Top Officers: Typically includes a CEO and senior management (less publicly reported in financial filings than GEO/CoreCivic)
What They Do: Manages several detention and correctional facilities, including immigration detention contracts.

Facilities (examples):

• Winn Correctional Center (LA) – ICE detention usage
• Jackson Parish Correctional Center (LA) – detention contracts

---

Other Corporations Involved in Related Detention Services

Some companies don’t operate prisons themselves but contract for key services (healthcare, services, or administration) inside detention facilities:

Company	Role
Wellpath	Healthcare services inside many prisons and detention facilities
Corizon / YesCare / Tehum	Prison healthcare provisioning
GardaWorld, Favorite Healthcare, Caliburn/Acuity International	Involved in support, shelter management, or subcontracted roles in detention contexts

---

Notes on Facility Types & Contracting

• Government agencies (ICE, U.S. Marshals Service, state Departments of Corrections) often contract facility operators — with some facilities dedicated solely to immigration detention and others holding multiple populations.
• Many facilities are listed on company sites or government directories; comprehensive facility lists are typically compiled by watchdog organizations tracking ICE detention stats.

---

Summary

Private prison and detention operation in the U.S. is dominated by a few key corporate contractors:

• GEO Group, Inc. — major ICE and corrections facility operator (hundreds of facilities globally, dozens in the U.S.)
• CoreCivic, Inc. — major U.S. prison and detention operator with extensive ICE contracts
• Management & Training Corporation (MTC) — mid-sized operator with immigration and other facility contracts
• LaSalle Corrections — smaller private corrections contractor active in ICE detention

Plus specialized service contractors in healthcare or support services.

---

If you want, I can compile a state-by-state table showing which contractor operates each ICE or privately contracted detention facility in the U.S. (and indicate the agency that holds the contract).

Top of Form

 

Bottom of Form

ChatGPT

  

What Happens After the Tyrant Dies - Navalnaya's Solution for Russia Offers Ideas for the United States

Yulia Navalnaya’s Forum of Russian experts has provided a model for transitioning to a Democratic government after a Tyrant - Putin - dies. There are some very good ideas for how the United States of America can manage the transition after our tyrant - Trump - dies.

Here are the Forum's recommendations:

'What happens in the first weeks after Putin — and why could those weeks decide everything?

This question was discussed by experts at Yulia Navalnaya’s Forum in the working group “Security, Justice, and Interaction with the Former Regime.” Their conclusions are not a ready-made action plan — but they help us prepare for a possible transition period.

The first weeks after Putin will be decisive.

We must be prepared — and we are.

The window of opportunity will be very short.

Whoever becomes acting president after Putin will almost certainly seek domestic support and international legitimacy, attempt to halt active hostilities, and push for sanctions relief. This may create space for limited liberalization — and it must not be wasted.

But experts expect the former regime to retain control over the core resources of power: money, the security apparatus, the courts, the state bureaucracy, and the media. It will not give up that power voluntarily.

The main risks during a transition

The experts list concrete threats:

   an attempt to preserve control over politics and finances while presenting “change” as purely symbolic;

    pressure on the opposition — physical, legal, and reputational;

    “co-optation” as a trap: bribery and the absorbtion opponents into old schemes under the “renewal” label;

    separate deals with international actors designed to exclude the opposition from negotiations;

    tight control over media and platforms, including internet and communications shutdowns;

    bureaucratic sabotage and the destruction or concealment of archives.

Why the security services pose the greatest risk

Russia’s security sector holds a monopoly on force: weapons, combat experience, and a long record of suppressing protests. Any transition scenario will depend on whether democratic forces can act strategically in the first critical weeks.

Experts also highlight a key constitutional deadline: presidential elections must be held within three months. It is crucial to ensure that genuine opposition candidates are allowed to participate. That moment will reveal whether the system is truly changing — or whether autocracy is simply being “repackaged” with a new face.

We know what needs to happen after Putin.

What to do: the experts’ recommendations

1) Don’t fall for the former regime’s traps

   negotiations should take place only through authorized intermediaries with a clear and strict mandate;

   assume bad faith by default;

   offers to “share power” or “join a transitional government” within old structures should be treated as attempts to neutralize and discredit the opposition.

2) Tie sanctions relief to concrete transition conditions

Experts call this as the only real leverage: partial sanctions relief should be considered only if specific transition requirements are met — not through “convenient compromises” that hollow out the meaning of the transition.

3) Protect society, the opposition, and evidence of crimes

   rebuild civil society infrastructure and public oversight mechanisms;

   operate transparently and lawfully — “in the open;

   prevent the destruction, falsification, or concealment of archives, and establish accountability for such actions;

   support internal witnesses and informants.

4) Justice during a transition

   demand maximum transparency: open trials and public broadcasts of court hearings;

   document individual responsibility for unlawful rulings, including through tools such as the ACF’s “Black Book”.

5) Security and the street

   support nonviolent protest if former elites break their commitments;

   push for a moratorium on prosecutions for exercising the right to peaceful assembly;

   invest now in technical solutions to counter communications shutdowns;

   build a professional security and civil protection service for democratic forces to protect rallies, offices, and activists.

Thank you for your support,

Navalny’s team'

He Is a Threat To the National Security of the United States - It Is Time for Him to Go

There is no doubt that Trump is a real and immediate threat to the National Security of the United States. 

He also threatens the entire international rules-based order that was established after World War II, and which has created economic prosperity and political stability for many nations ever since.

His actions threaten that order and its prosperity and security. Now is the time to remove him by any means necessary before he succeeds in creating poverty, wars and unimaginable chaos in the United States and many other countries.  

Below is a discussion of the legal means to remove him from office. While it is unlikely that any legal method will succeed, they are listed below.

Per chat GPT, in the U.S. system, there are only a few lawful ways to remove (or cause the removal of) a sitting president from office:

---

1. Impeachment and Conviction (Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution)

This is the primary constitutional removal process.

Steps:

1. House of Representatives impeaches the president by a simple majority vote (this is like an indictment).
2. Senate holds a trial.
3. Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict.

Result:

• If convicted, the president is removed from office.
• The Senate may also vote to disqualify the person from holding future federal office.

Grounds:

• “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (a political–legal standard, not limited to criminal convictions).

---

2. 25th Amendment – Removal Due to Incapacity

Used when a president is unable to perform the duties of the office (physical or mental incapacity).

Section 3 (Voluntary)

• The president temporarily transfers power to the vice president by declaring incapacity (e.g., during surgery).

Section 4 (Involuntary)

• The Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet declare the president unfit.
• The Vice President becomes Acting President.
• If the president disputes it, Congress decides.
• A two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate is required to keep the president sidelined.

Result:

• This can lead to effective removal, though technically it’s a transfer of power unless incapacity is permanent.

---

3. Resignation

• The president may voluntarily resign at any time.
• This immediately removes them from office.
• The Vice President becomes president.

Example:

• Richard Nixon (1974)

---

4. Death

• If a president dies in office, they are removed by circumstance.
• The Vice President becomes president.

---

What Does NOT Remove a President

• ❌ Court rulings alone (even criminal convictions do not automatically remove a president)
• ❌ Elections (they determine future terms, not current removal)
• ❌ Public opinion or protests
• ❌ Congressional censure (symbolic only)

---

Summary Table

Method	Who initiates	Vote required	Permanent removal
Impeachment & conviction	Congress	2/3 Senate	Yes
25th Amendment (Sec. 4)	VP + Cabinet + Congress	2/3 House & Senate	Potentially
Resignation	President	None	Yes
Death	N/A	None	Yes