UPDATE - ICE Hires Bounty Hunters as Domestic Terrorists

Let us be clear.

47 is not a legitimate Constitutional officer of the United States of America.

Instead, he is a Fascist dictator wannabe who ignores any and all laws including elections and election results to consolidate his exclusive control.

ICE is his Gestapo whom he tasks with creating fear and anxiety in the population; the goal is to ensure that that most citizens will distrust any Federal Officer, Politician and/or laws.

There is no concern whatsoever for the welfare of any individual abductee or family member of an abductee detained by ICE; the abduction and resulting fear of abduction is the point.

More than 3.5% of the entire population of the United States demonstrated against 47 and his goons a few days ago. Political scientists have evidence that tyrants lose their power when that happens.

Let us hasten that along by congregating in public places where Congress and other legislatures conduct business and BOO loudly. Make him feel our anger.

VIDEO LINK HERE - 

ICE will hire bounty hunters to capture people for a fee; that's our future as prey.

 

Text of Lawsuit: American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, et al.,

The ABA has filed suit against the President., click below for full text  .pdf

American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, et al., 

BOOOOOOO Them

BOO ICE.

BOO GOP.

Tell them, loudly, we do not like them. 

We are more than 3.5% of THE ENTIRE POPULATION! 

Tyrannies fail when more than 3.5 % of the population demonstrates against them. We can help that that failure happen.

ABOUT BOOING:

WHY: They will feel our antagonism. They are helping a tyrant hurt us.

WHERE: Any public place you see ICE or GOP. Ideally, in Congress, City Halls and Statehouses or in any street whenever they are there.

WHEN: Any time you see ICE or GOP.

HOW LONG: Every day, all day until the tyrant is gone.

WHO: All of us, whether in groups, crowds or alone. Continuous small groups are as effective as sporadic large groups. 

 

What's Next ?

 

"3.5% rule" says that when 3.5% of a population shows up to resist a dictator, his rule always collapses. We're at 3.8%.

FINAL RESULTS: 13.14 million showed up to 2,300+ No Kings protests nationwide. 💪 

Political scientists' "3.5% rule" says that when 3.5% of a population shows up to resist a dictator, his rule always collapses. We're at 3.8%.

Now is the time to take the PEACEFUL, NON-VIOLENT protests inside the City Halls, County Supervisors, State legislatures and Congress itself.

Sit or stand in the areas open to the public and when our announcer says 'Here is GOP member [name], we all BOO.

And when we annouce a progressive member, we all CHEER ! 

We do this for perhaps a day, perhaps a week.

We stop when we meet our goal: Our goal is the resignation of 47 and a new election for national offices. 

The Law About Crimes Committed by ICE

Here's what I understand after an off the record conversations with a US attorney.

ICE can arrest a person legally with a probable cause

The law allows police officers including ICE agents to arrest people whom the agent thinks have a probable cause of a criminal act. That cause can be formal as in a warrant or less formal as in a name on a list of criminals.

Interfering with an agent is a crime.

HOWEVER, if the agent does not identify himself as a police or federal agent, the person targeted is free to defend himself from the act as though it was committed by any random criminal. 

Deportation 

My question: 'is it a crime to deport a person without a formal court order to do so?'

ChatGPT said:

Yes, in most democratic countries with established legal systems (such as the United States, Canada, EU nations, etc.), deporting someone without a formal court order or proper legal process can be unlawful—and potentially a crime or serious civil rights violation, depending on the circumstances.

Here’s a breakdown:

1. Due Process Is Required

In countries like the United States, deportation (or removal) generally must follow due process, which includes:

Notice of charges

Right to a hearing before an immigration judge

Opportunity to appeal

Summary deportations without legal review or court oversight are rare and only allowed under very specific circumstances, like:

Expedited removal for undocumented individuals who are apprehended at or near the border and meet certain conditions.

Even these require documentation and oversight—not just arbitrary removal.

2. Deportation Without a Court Order Can Be Unlawful

If a government agent or official removes someone from a country without legal authority or court order, it can be:

A violation of immigration law

A civil rights violation

Grounds for criminal charges in cases of abuse of power, kidnapping, or false imprisonment.

3. Exceptions & Special Cases

Military zones, wartime scenarios, or national security cases may allow more discretion—but are still typically governed by laws or special tribunals.

In authoritarian regimes, deportation without court process may be common—but that doesn't mean it's legal under international law.

4. International Law

International human rights law (e.g., UN conventions) typically requires:

Protection against arbitrary expulsion

Right to seek asylum

Non-refoulement (not sending someone back to a country where they face persecution)

In Summary

✅ Yes, deporting someone without a formal court order or proper legal process can be a crime or civil rights violation, depending on the legal framework of the country involved. It’s not just unethical—it may be legally actionable.

If you're thinking about a specific case or country, I can look up the relevant laws for you.

 

Is It Right to Shoot An ICE Agent At Your Door?

 

That is a hard question. 

On one hand it is both illegal and immoral to kill another human being. That stricture applies to any physical violence one human being does to any other human being. All such violence is wrong on its face. It is wrong even when taken in self defence. 

However, the moral component of violence becomes murkier when it is done for defence of life and property. If the threat of violence and/or deportation is imminent and credible such that the alleged target of ICE can be killed or sent to a prison in another country, then many will consider that violent action against a perceived threat by an ICE target justified even if it results in death of the ICE agent.

If a victim of ICE prosecution and/or imminent arrest fears for his deportation, life and/or property it may be that violence in defence of self, family and home is justified. But it is probable that the other agents will react by spraying the home with machine gun fire. Justified or not, lethal violence is a bad idea for that reason alone.

Doxing the agents so that the agent's family can be threatened is an immoral act; however, ICE agents committing deportation will not face such threats if they use proper documentation and allow due process. When the ICE agents do not follow Constitutional procedures they should not be surprised that neither do their targets.

 

The real problem is that the ICE agents most likely will not have a lawful warrant for the arrest of a person. Further the ICE agent can and may well violently take custody of that person and deport them to an ICE camp in another country, state or locality WITHOUT ALLOWING DUE PROCESS FOR THE TARGET. All such acts are crimes whether the person committing that crime is a sworn police officer, an ICE agent with invalid credentials or a random kidnapper. While it may seem reasonable for the subject of the arrest to let the reprocess proceed under the existing laws of the country, State and locality, standard ICE practice consists of immediate deportation and/or imprisonment WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

Self defence in that circumstance can be moral.

Creating Nuremburg Justice for the Executive Office

 

It is never too early to create a mechanism to bring the GOP to justice. My question is this: 'How can we structure a Joint Congressional Committee to investigate crimes in the executive offices including but not limited to the president similar to the Nuremburg trials of Nazi's after WW 2.'

Perhaps some Senators and Representatives can start work on the idea now in readiness for the next election where it is both desirable and likely that the Democrats will be the majority Party in both houses. 

ChatGPT said:

Creating a Joint Congressional Committee to investigate alleged crimes within the executive branch — including those potentially committed by the President — and structuring it similarly to the Nuremberg Trials would be highly complex. The U.S. system of government, bound by constitutional protections like separation of powers and due process, limits Congress’s authority compared to post-war international tribunals. That said, here is a step-by-step conceptual framework for how such a committee could be structured within the bounds of U.S. law:

---

⚖️ 1. Legal Foundation

A committee with this kind of extraordinary scope would need a clear legal and constitutional basis:

• Congressional Resolution or Act: A joint resolution passed by both chambers could create a Temporary Joint Investigative Committee on Executive Conduct, defining its mandate, powers, and limitations.
• Supreme Court Review: Expect challenges to the legitimacy and scope; a preemptive review or legal defense strategy is essential.

---

🏛️ 2. Committee Structure

A high-level structure might include:

Role	Function
Bipartisan Leadership	Co-chairs from both parties, likely senior members from Judiciary or Oversight Committees.
Subcommittees	Organized by type of alleged crime: abuse of power, obstruction, corruption, civil rights violations, etc.
Legal Advisors	Constitutional and criminal law experts to ensure legal compliance.
Fact-Finding Teams	Subpoena power, field investigators, forensic accountants, etc.
Public Communications Office	To ensure transparency and maintain public trust.

---

🔎 3. Scope of Authority

Define jurisdiction carefully:

• Crimes Under Federal Law: Fraud, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, espionage, etc.
• Violations of International Law or Human Rights: If applicable, referencing treaty obligations like the Geneva Conventions or the Rome Statute.
• Abuse of Office: Patterns of unethical or unlawful executive conduct, potentially including use of pardons, national security powers, or foreign influence.

---

📜 4. Powers and Tools

Like the Watergate and Church Committees, this one could have:

• Subpoena Power (for testimony and documents)
• Contempt Proceedings (if witnesses refuse to cooperate)
• Immunity Grants (to compel testimony)
• Collaboration with DOJ, IGs, and GAO (for law enforcement and auditing)
• Public Hearings (modeled after Nuremberg/Watergate for transparency)

---

🌐 5. Accountability and Justice Mechanisms

This committee wouldn’t itself try cases like the Nuremberg Tribunal but could:

• Refer Evidence to DOJ for Prosecution
• Recommend Articles of Impeachment
• Propose Structural Reforms (e.g., limit executive privilege, create an independent prosecutorial body)

---

🧭 6. Nuremberg-Like Features

To mirror the moral clarity and legal rigor of Nuremberg, the committee should:

Feature	Implementation
Documented Record of Abuses	Create a detailed historical and legal archive.
Clear Ethical Framework	Use international human rights principles as a guide.
Independent Judges or Review Panel	Consider appointing retired federal judges or special masters.
Transparency	Public reports, televised hearings, access to findings.

---

⚠️ 7. Limitations

• No Judicial Authority: Congress cannot convict or imprison.
• Political Risks: Can be dismissed as partisan unless handled with extreme fairness.
• Constitutional Constraints: Especially regarding executive privilege and due process.

---

✅ Example Precedents to Study

• Nuremberg Trials – For legal structure and moral clarity.
• Watergate Hearings – For oversight and public engagement.
• Iran-Contra Investigation
• Church Committee – For intelligence and executive abuse oversight.
• Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (South Africa, others) – For moral legitimacy.

 

 Here's a model draft resolution: 

I'm sure this framework needs a lot of work before calling for a vote, but it is a beginning.

ChatGPT said:

Here's a model draft resolution for establishing a Joint Congressional Committee to Investigate Executive Branch Crimes and Abuses, structured to align with U.S. law but inspired in part by the investigative rigor of the Nuremberg Trials:

---

🏛️ Model Congressional Resolution (Joint)

"Joint Resolution to Establish the Select Committee on Executive Accountability and Integrity"

---

116th CONGRESS
1st Session

JOINT RESOLUTION
To establish the Joint Select Committee on Executive Accountability and Integrity to investigate alleged violations of federal and international law by current or former officials of the executive branch, including the President of the United States, and to ensure constitutional accountability, transparency, and justice.

---

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

---

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Joint Resolution may be cited as the “Executive Accountability and Integrity Act.”

---

SECTION 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.

There is hereby established the Joint Select Committee on Executive Accountability and Integrity (hereafter referred to as “the Committee”).

---

SECTION 3. PURPOSE AND MANDATE.

The purpose of the Committee shall be to:

1.      Investigate credible allegations of criminal conduct, corruption, abuse of power, or violations of federal or international law by executive branch officials, including current and former Presidents, Vice Presidents, Cabinet Secretaries, and senior advisors;

2.      Document a full public record of findings and make recommendations for criminal referrals, civil liability, or structural reforms;

3.      Uphold the rule of law and constitutional accountability in the highest offices of government.

---

SECTION 4. COMPOSITION.

·         The Committee shall consist of 20 members, 10 from the Senate and 10 from the House of Representatives, appointed equally by the Majority and Minority Leaders of both chambers.

·         The Committee shall have two Co-Chairs, one from each major political party, elected by the Committee members.

---

SECTION 5. POWERS.

The Committee shall have the authority to:

·         Issue subpoenas for testimony, documents, and records;

·         Administer oaths and compel witnesses;

·         Work in cooperation with the Department of Justice, Inspector Generals, Special Counsel Offices, and relevant state attorneys general;

·         Hold public and closed hearings;

·         Appoint independent special legal advisors, including experts in constitutional law, international law, and human rights;

·         Commission independent investigations and forensic audits.

---

SECTION 6. INVESTIGATIVE AREAS.

Investigative authority shall include, but not be limited to:

1.      Obstruction of justice

2.      Abuse of pardon power

3.      Improper use of executive privilege

4.      Foreign interference or collusion

5.      Unlawful enrichment, fraud, or misuse of federal resources

6.      Human rights abuses or war crimes

7.      Suppression or manipulation of federal agencies or intelligence

---

SECTION 7. REFERRALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

The Committee may:

·         Refer evidence of criminal conduct to the Department of Justice or other prosecutorial authorities;

·         Recommend Articles of Impeachment, if applicable;

·         Propose legislative reforms to prevent future abuses;

·         Publish a Final Report of findings and recommendations.

---

SECTION 8. PUBLIC ACCESS AND TRANSPARENCY.

·         Hearings shall be televised or live-streamed, except where classified information is involved.

·         All findings shall be made available through an official public website and Congressional Record.

---

SECTION 9. DURATION AND FUNDING.

·         The Committee shall operate for a period of 24 months from the date of enactment, with the option of extension by majority vote of both chambers.

·         Funding shall be appropriated by Congress as necessary.

---

SECTION 10. PROTECTIONS AND IMMUNITIES.

·         The Committee shall ensure compliance with constitutional due process protections.

·         Witnesses may be granted limited immunity where necessary to obtain testimony.

·         Protections for whistleblowers, government employees, and civil society informants shall be guaranteed.

---

SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected.

---

SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This resolution shall take effect immediately upon enactment.

 

Our Courts TRY To Save Us From Tyranny

Heather Cox Richardson..May 28

Political scientist Adam Bonica noted last Friday that Trump and the administration suffered a 96% loss rate in federal courts in the month of May. Those losses were nonpartisan: 72.2% of Republican-appointed judges and 80.4% of Democratic-appointed judges ruled against the administration.

The administration sustained more losses today.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that 14 states can proceed with their lawsuit against billionaire Elon Musk and the “Department of Government Efficiency.” The administration had tried to dismiss the case, but Chutkan ruled the states had adequately supported their argument that “Musk and DOGE’s conduct is ‘unauthorized by any law.’” “The Constitution does not permit the Executive to commandeer the entire appointments power by unilaterally creating a federal agency…and insulating its principal officer from the Constitution as an ‘advisor’ in name only,” she wrote.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon struck down Trump’s March 27 executive order targeting the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, more commonly known as WilmerHale. This law firm angered Trump by employing Robert Mueller, the Republican-appointed special counsel who oversaw an investigation of the ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives.

Leon, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, made his anger obvious. “[T]he First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating against individuals for engaging in protected speech,” Leon noted. “WilmerHale alleges that ‘[t]he Order blatantly defies this bedrock principle of constitutional law.’” Leon wrote: “I agree!” He went on to strike down the order as unconstitutional.

Today NPR and three Colorado public radio stations sued the Trump administration over Trump’s executive order that seeks to impound congressionally appropriated funds for NPR and PBS. The executive order said the public media stations do not present “a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.” NPR’s David Folkenflik reported White House spokesperson Harrison Fields’s statement today that public media supports “a particular party on the taxpayers’ dime,” and that Trump and his allies have called it “left-wing propaganda.”

The lawsuit calls Trump’s executive order and attempt to withhold funding Congress has already approved “textbook retaliation.” “[W]e are not choosing to do this out of politics,” NPR chief executive officer Katherine Maher told NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly. “We are choosing to do this as a matter of necessity and principle. All of our rights that we enjoy in this democracy flow from the First Amendment: freedom of speech, association, freedom of the press. When we see those rights infringed upon, we have an obligation to challenge them.”

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis today denied the administration’s motion for a 30-day extension of the deadline for it to answer the complaint in the lawsuit over the rendition of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man sent to El Salvador through what the administration said was “administrative error.”

Despite five hearings on the case, the administration’s lawyers didn’t indicate they needed any more time, but today—the day their answer was due—they suddenly asked for 30 more days. Xinis wrote that they “expended no effort in demonstrating good cause. They vaguely complain, in two sentences, to expending ‘significant resources’ engaging in expedited discovery. But these self-described burdens are of their own making. The Court ordered expedited discovery because of [the administration’s] refusal to follow the orders of this court as affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.”

Trump is well known for using procedural delays to stop the courts from administering justice, and it is notable that administration lawyers have generally not been arguing that they will win cases on the merits. Instead, they are making procedural arguments.

Meanwhile, stringing things out means making time for situations to change on the ground, reducing the effect of court decisions. Brian Barrett of Wired reported today that while Musk claims to have stepped back from the Department of Government Efficiency, his lieutenants are still spread throughout the government, mining Americans’ data. Meanwhile, Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought will push to make DOGE cuts to government permanent in a dramatic reworking of the nation’s social contract. “Removing DOGE at this point would be like trying to remove a drop of food coloring from a glass of water,” Barrett writes.

Political scientist Bonica notes that there is a script for rising authoritarians. When the courts rule against the leader, the leader and his loyalists attack judges as biased and dangerous, just as Trump and his cronies have been doing.

The leader also works to delegitimize the judicial system, and that, too, we are seeing as Trump reverses the concepts of not guilty and guilty. On the one hand, the administration is fighting to get rid of the constitutional right of all persons to due process, rendering people who have not been charged with crimes to prisons in third countries. On the other, Trump and his loyalists at the Department of Justice are pardoning individuals who have been convicted of crimes.

On Monday, Trump issued a presidential pardon to former Culpeper County, Virginia, sheriff Scott Jenkins, a longtime Trump supporter whom a jury convicted of conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and seven counts of bribery. Jared Gans of The Hill explained that Jenkins accepted more than $70,000 in bribes to appoint auxiliary deputy sheriffs, “giving them badges and credentials despite them not being trained or vetted and not offering services to the sheriff’s office.” Jenkins had announced he would “deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms,” if the legislature passed “further unnecessary gun restrictions.” Jenkins was sentenced to ten years in prison.

Although Jenkins was found guilty by a jury of his peers, just as the U.S. justice system calls for, Trump insisted that Jenkins and his wife and their family “have been dragged through HELL by a Corrupt and Weaponized Biden D[epartment] O[f] J[ustice].” Jenkins, Trump wrote on social media, “is a wonderful person, who was persecuted by the Radical Left ‘monsters,’ and ‘left for dead.’ This is why I, as President of the United States, see fit to end his unfair sentence, and grant Sheriff Jenkins a FULL and Unconditional Pardon. He will NOT be going to jail tomorrow, but instead will have a wonderful and productive life.”

Today Trump gave a presidential pardon to Paul Walczak, a former nursing home executive who pleaded guilty to tax crimes in 2024. The pardon arrived after Walczak’s mother donated at least $1 million to Trump. The pardon spares Walczak from 18 months in prison and $4.4 million in restitution. Also today, Trump announced plans to pardon reality TV stars Julie and Todd Chrisley, who were sentenced to 7 and 12 years in prison for conspiracy to defraud banks of $36 million and tax evasion. Their daughter spoke at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

Bonica notes that delegitimizing the judicial system creates a permission structure for threats against judges. That, too, we are seeing.

Bonica goes on to illustrate how this pattern of authoritarian attacks on the judiciary looks the same across nations. In 2009, following a ruling that he was not immune from prosecution for fraud, tax evasion, and bribery, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi railed about “communist prosecutors and communist judges.” In 2016, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Türkiye rejected the authority of his country’s highest court and purged more than 4,000 judges. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe pushed judges to stop protests, and the judiciary collapsed. In the Philippines in 2018, Rodrigo Duterte called the chief justice defending judicial independence an “enemy,” and she was removed. In Brazil in 2021, Jair Bolsonaro threatened violence against the judges who were investigating him for corruption.

But, Bonica notes, something different happened in Israel in 2023. When Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition tried to destroy judicial independence, people from all parts of society took to the streets. A broad, nonpartisan group came together to defend democracy and resist authoritarianism.

“Every authoritarian who successfully destroyed judicial independence did so because civil society failed to unite in time,” Bonica writes. “The key difference? Whether people mobilized.”

—

Notes:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0429-93

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-wilmerhale/

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/27/trump-leon-wilmerhale-mueller.html

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278933/gov.uscourts.dcd.278933.110.0_3.pdf

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/27/nx-s1-5413094/npr-public-radio-lawsuit-trump-funding-ban

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.163.0.pdf

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-stepping-back-doge-final-form/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/us/politics/trump-pardon-paul-walczak-tax-crimes.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/27/trump-pardon-reality-tv-couple-convicted-fraud-00371950

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5319140-trump-pardons-scott-jenkins/

Donald J. Trump, Truth Social post, May 26, 2025, 3:19 p.m.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/oct/07/silvio-berlusconi-immunity-law-uncontitutional

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/27/1253209931/npr-trump-lawsuit-funding

Bluesky:

adambonica.bsky.social/post/3lpv4a3ynpk2l

adambonica.bsky.social/post/3lq45lt6pnt2t

peppapaxpippa.bsky.social/post/3lq4eurqhjk26

A NEW Dem Administration: This Old Boy Can Dream

 

My Wish List

t-rump will die eventually. 

Here's what I want:

1. All GOP officeholders prosecuted for all crimes

2. Dems win House, Senate, White House

3. All 47's  EO's revoked

4. Marginal Tax rate restored to Pre Reagan 75%, Social Security payments exempt from income tax

5. All Federal computers' hard drives wiped clean to delete DOGE back doors, data reinstalled and thoroughly encrypted, DOGE people who commit crimes are prosecuted

6. All 47's pardons revoked

7. All assault rifles banned permanently

8. All private contracts and entities which conduct sensitive or critical national interest matters are terminated and each entity is then nationalized and run by civil servants and/or military, specifically to include Musk Space X, Star link and ALL of Palantir government contracts and properties

9. Health care is nationalized and all private companies dissolved

10. Anti-monopoly and Anti-trust activities ramped up

11. NLRB expanded and given adequate funding and regulatory structure and personnel 

12. Right to Vote standards established so that any State law which does not comply is terminated.

13. Strict inheritance taxes invoked so that any estate assets in excess of $10.0 million are confiscated

14. BANK regulation enhanced and strict criminal penalties installed

14. ICE dissolved, criminals jailed

15. Immigration laws overhauled and funding increased to allow US to fulfil legal obligations in a timely manner

16. Birth right citizenship recognized

17. Path to citizenship enshrined in law

18. Dreamers recognized with laws

19. Excess profits tax installed to punish price gouging

20. Bitcoin, et al regulated with bank style regulation and criminal penalties

That takes the first 30 days of the new administration, then we can work on the rest.................

Is you is, or is you ain't ? UPDATED.......

Here's our only political question today:

Is you a Fascist, or is you ain't a Fascist?

The question was posed in 1943 by Louis Jordan about a lover. That question perfectly defines our issues today. 

You can hear the song here 

We don't have political parties anymore. 

They are gone.

What we have is a Fascist movement and a counter Fascist movement.

T-rump's GOP is the Fascist party, complete with its very own Gestapo/ICE, concentration camps, and fear inducing rhetoric and actions. Its manifesto is the Project 2025 program

The Anti Fascist movement consists of every person who acts to protest and/or delay the Fascist agenda.

Unfortunately, neutrality is NOT an option in this fight: Those who remain silent enable the Fascist movement to proceed. 

 

Choose now before choice is no longer possible.

UPDATE - FROM DAVID BROOKS NYT MAY 27, 2025

Yesterday, the neoconservative David Brooks wrote this in an OpEd in the NY Times,

"Trumpism… is primarily about the acquisition of power — power for its own sake. It is a multifront assault to make the earth a playground for ruthless men, so of course any institutions that might restrain power must be weakened or destroyed. Trumpism is about ego, appetite and acquisitiveness and is driven by a primal aversion to the higher elements of the human spirit — learning, compassion, scientific wonder, the pursuit of justice. …

What is happening now is not normal politics. We’re seeing an assault on the fundamental institutions of our civic life, things we should all swear loyalty to — Democrat, independent or Republican.

It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising. It’s time for Americans in universities, law, business, nonprofits and the scientific community, and civil servants and beyond to form one coordinated mass movement. Trump is about power. The only way he’s going to be stopped is if he’s confronted by some movement that possesses rival power. …

I’m really not a movement guy. I don’t naturally march in demonstrations or attend rallies that I’m not covering as a journalist. But this is what America needs right now."

Tell It To The Judge

 

It is not rocket science. When a sworn peace officer - city, county or state - sees a crime in progress the officer must arrest the persons committing the crime.

The United States government is encouraging some of its officers to detain and deport immigrants, and even some citizens, regardless of whether or not the said officers have proper legal authority.

Those actions are crimes. 

When a sworn officer of the law in any city, county or state of the United States witnesses anyone including alleged Federal agents detaining anyone, they are required to ensure that the purported Federal agent is acting legally with due process.

If the officer determines that the purported agent is acting illegally, the officer should arrest, book and jail that alleged Federal agent for committing a crime. Then that person will have the opportunity to defend him or herself in a court of law. The officer should then release the detained person unless the officer thinks the detained person is a criminal.

But, if the officer determines that the purported Federal agent has adequate evidence of legal authority granted by due process to detain the person SIGNED BY A REAL JUDGE ONLY, then the officer should take custody of that person and book him or her into jail. The officer may choose to thank the Federal agent for their help. 

A SWORN PEACE OFFICER MUST NOT ALLOW THE FEDERAL AGENTS TO REMOVE THAT PERSON TO ANY FACILITY OUTSIDE OF THE OFFICER'S JURISDICTION. 

There is a likelihood that the Federal agent will commit a crime of deporting or jailing that person without due process.