Resisting the Elites: What does an actual A.I. recommend?

By Tim Gamble

Join the Resistance! Subscribe by email

Since this website is devoted to resisting tyranny in the modern world of technology, technocracy, and artificial intelligence, I thought it would be interesting to see what an actual A.I. would recommend. So I asked one to write a guest article on the subject. I present it here without any comments or editing. The A.I. that wrote the article is Gab.AI. (By the way, I also asked it to write an article on surviving dystopia, which you can read on my Dystopian Survival website, by clicking this link.) 

Resisting Tyranny in the Age of Technocracy: Strategies for Preserving Freedom in a High-Tech World

 As technology advances and becomes increasingly intertwined with every aspect of our lives, the potential for tyranny and technocratic control grows. This article explores strategies for resisting these oppressive forces and preserving individual freedom in a high-tech age.

1- Digital privacy: Protect your personal data and online activities from surveillance by using encryption, secure messaging apps, and privacy-focused browsers. Be cautious about sharing sensitive information online.

2- Cybersecurity: Strengthen your digital defenses by regularly updating software, using strong passwords, and being wary of phishing attempts. Educate yourself on the latest cyber threats and how to combat them.

3- Decentralization: Support decentralized technologies and platforms that reduce reliance on centralized authorities and promote individual autonomy. Examples include blockchain-based systems and peer-to-peer networks.

4- Grassroots activism: Engage in grassroots activism to raise awareness about the dangers of technocratic control and build support for policies that protect individual rights and freedoms.

5- Education and awareness: Stay informed about the latest developments in technology and their potential implications for privacy, security, and freedom. Share this knowledge with others to foster a more informed and engaged citizenry.

6- Civil disobedience: When faced with unjust laws or policies, consider engaging in peaceful civil disobedience to draw attention to the issue and inspire change.

7- Strengthening human connections: In an increasingly digital world, prioritize real-world human connections and relationships. Building strong communities can provide a bulwark against technocratic control and foster resilience.

By implementing these strategies, individuals can resist the encroachment of tyranny in the high-tech age of technocracy and preserve their hard-won freedoms. It is essential to remain vigilant, proactive, and committed to the cause of liberty in the face of evolving challenges.

----------------

Ad: The Wuhan Cover-Up: And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race (Amazon Link) - by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 

Governors Attempt To Secure U.S. Elections and Prevent Non-Citizen Voting

By Tim Gamble

Join the Resistance! Subscribe by email

The following is an unedited press release from the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), dated August 27, 2024. 

8-24-2024 WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed an executive order to secure his state’s elections and prevent noncitizens from voting. The executive order aligns with the America First Policy Institute’s (AFPI) model executive order on election integrity published today.

“Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic. Every time an illegal alien votes, it cancels out a legal vote, and this only diminishes the rights of American citizens,” said Governor Landry. “I was proud to sign this executive order—because here in Louisiana, we will always protect the integrity of our elections and defend the rule of law.”

AFPI’s model executive order is based on orders issued by Idaho Governor Brad Little and Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin. All three governors have taken critical steps this summer to enforce their states’ election laws and prevent illegal non-citizen voting.

AFPI’s model executive order ensures awareness and enforcement of state laws that:

Validate U.S. citizenship during the voter registration process; Remove non-citizens from our voter rolls; and Train registrars in ballot security measures, counting machine testing, and election result accuracy procedures. “One of the most basic founding principles of our country is the right of the people to vote in free and fair elections,” said Brooke Rollins, AFPI President & CEO. “That right is in jeopardy as millions of illegal aliens flow across our wide-open Southern Border and, in some cases, are able to illegally register to vote. While the current administration may be content to allow this constitutional violation, AFPI is partnering with America First governors to preserve election integrity in the states.”

A recent report from the office of U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson highlights the ample evidence that noncitizens are voting in U.S. elections. The report found overwhelming evidence that noncitizen voting has occurred in several states over the last four years. In some cases, the report found that illegal voting could have been enough to change the outcome of a race, even as far back as 2008 and 2010.

Governor Little and Governor Youngkin have led the nation in combatting this alarming trend, issuing Idaho Executive Order No. 2024-07 and Virginia Executive Order 35 to protect their states’ election processes.

“Idaho was proud to be the first state to take executive action to ensure only citizens will vote in our elections. I am grateful to AFPI for taking steps to ensure all states have an executive order modeled after Idaho’s to scrub the voter rolls across our country and make sure America’s elections do not fall prey to the consequences of the Biden-Harris lawless open border,” Governor Little said.

AFPI encourages America First governors across the country to take all possible steps to preserve election integrity in their states, including issuing executive orders to enforce state election law, working with their secretaries of states to implement best practices, and partnering with their legislatures to codify election integrity measures into state law.

“Our mission is simple: make it easy to vote and hard to cheat,” said Hogan Gidley, Vice Chair of AFPI’s Center for Election Integrity. “By enacting this Executive Order and ensuring that the law is enforced, governors can prevent against cheating and secure the integrity of their citizens’ right to vote.”

----------------

Ad: The Wuhan Cover-Up: And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race (Amazon Link) - by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 

Secret Service Documents: DEI Is Prioritized for All Agency Employees in ‘Every Action, Every Day’

By Tim Gamble

Join the Resistance! Subscribe by email

The following is from a press release by Judicial Watch, dated August 23, 2024. All links are to pages of the Judicial Watch website.

8-23-2024 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received 311 pages of U.S. Secret Service (USSS) records that show the Secret Service has made it a top priority that “diversity and inclusion is not just ‘talked about’ – but demonstrated by all employees through ‘Every Action, Every Day.’” [Emphasis in original]

The records show the Secret Service, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), demands that 12 percent of its workforce be composed of “persons with disabilities,” and that it is the policy of the Secret Service to provide equal employment opportunity without regard to such non-merit factors as “disability (physical or mental).”

Judicial Watch obtained the records in a FOIA lawsuit against DHS for records relating to an incident in April at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland in which a Secret Service agent assigned to protect Vice President Kamala Harris got into a scuffle with colleagues (Judicial Watch v. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:24-cv-01705)).

According to an April 24 report by the Washington Examiner, a Secret Service agent was removed from her duties after physically attacking the commanding agent in charge and other agents who tried to subdue her.

A later report states: “The agents involved in restraining [Michelle] Herczeg were especially concerned because she still had her gun in the holster. They wrestled her to the ground, took the gun from her, cuffed her, and then removed her from the terminal.” The report also states that, following the incident at Joint Base Andrews, which is the home base for Air Force One and Air Force Two. “Secret Service agents and officers are privately questioning the hiring process and whether the agency had adequately screened Herczeg’s background.”

The newly obtained records include an undated document titled “Secret Service Inclusion and Engagement Council Charter: Changing the Game of Diversity and Inclusion,” in which the Secret Service puts forth a strategy for the council and establishes an “SES-level Executive Champion for Inclusion and Engagement:

The IEC’s collective duty is to help the Secret Service build, foster, create, and inspire a workforce where diversity and inclusion is not just “talked about” — but demonstrated by all employees through “Every Action, Every Day.” [Emphasis in original]

The document notes that the Secret Service’s Inclusion and Engagement Council “will not rely solely on the legal requirements underscoring the principles of EEO and the voluntary initiatives in Diversity programs; rather, the IEC will seek innovative solutions outside the agency’s mandated requirements to create a culture where differences are valued and appreciated, and employee engagement is encouraged.”

The “Inclusive Diversity Vision Statement” instructs: “To be the employer of choice and ‘gold standard’ for leveraging inclusive diversity by modeling the qualities of mutual respect, admiration, and appreciation for cultural differences and varying perspectives.”

A document dated fiscal year (FY) 2023 and titled “Affirmative Action Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and Retention of Persons with Disabilities” states that the Secret Service should have a “numerical goal” to have “persons with disabilities” (PWDs) make up 12 percent of its workforce.

In a 2005 Secret Service “Human Resources and Training Manual,” the general provisions state that it is the policy of the Secret Service to provide equal employment opportunity without regard to such non-merit factors as “disability (physical or mental):”

It is the policy of the Secret Service to provide equal employment opportunity throughout the Service for all employees, former employees, and applicants for employment who are otherwise eligible and qualified, without regard to such non-merit factors as race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability (physical or mental), parental status, protected genetic information, sexual orientation, age, or reprisal for objecting to discrimination or prior or current participation in the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint process. This policy applies to appointments, details, career development, training, reassignments, promotions, and assignments of work, and to any other actions or situations affecting employment status where the possibility exists for consideration of non-merit factors.

The document also outlines a program within Secret Service called “Special Emphasis Programs” that:

[A]re designed to assist the organization in meeting its affirmative action responsibilities. SEPs are affirmative action programs established to increase the representation, retention, and advancement of their constituent groups in underrepresented occupations and grades. SEPs are also charged with promoting cultural awareness, identifying policies, procedures, and practices affecting their groups and advising management on actions, which may increase in participation of minorities, women and persons with disabilities in all Secret Service programs and activities. The Secret Service delivers the following six programs:

Federal Women

Hispanic Employment

African American

Asian/Pacific Islander

Persons with Disabilities/Disabled Veterans

American Indian/Alaskan Native

A document titled “Diversity Management Program” dated February 2001 explains: “The Diversity Management Program has been established in the Secret Service as a means of achieving an organizational culture which value diversity and utilizes employees to their fullest potential regardless of age, gender, race or other factors.”

The document also establishes the “Duties, Functions and Responsibilities” of the Diversity Management Program, including the goals:

Promotes awareness of diversity within the workplace, enhances interpersonal relationships, and strives to create an organizational culture that is free from racism, sexism, and other biases.

Actively supports the recruitment, development, advancement, and retention of a diverse workforce.

An undated Secret Service Human Resources PowerPoint training slideshow, titled “SAITC-UDITC [Special Agent Introductory Training Course-Uniformed Division Introductory Training Course] Zero Tolerance Briefing” outlines “Special Emphasis Programs” as focusing “special attention on groups that are not represented or have less than expected participation rates in specific occupational categories or grade levels within the agency’s workforce,” including among others, “Federal Women’s Program,” “Hispanic Program,” and “LGBT Program.”

“These documents show that the Secret Service, for years, has seemed to place woke politics over their protection and law enforcement mission in, as their DEI policy states: ‘Every Action, Every Day,’” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch recently uncovered records from the district attorney’s office in Butler County, PA, detailing the extensive preparation of local police for the rally at which former President Trump was shot, including sniper teams, counter assault teams and a quick response force.

On August 9, in response to a separate open records request, Judicial Watch obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department.

On August 12 Judicial Watch reported that the FBI withheld information on a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information about its coordination with the U.S. Secret Service regarding the July 13 Butler, PA, rally.

On July 31, Judicial Watch reported that the United States Secret Service completely denied multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documents about the assassination attempt on former President Trump.

Judicial Watch has more than 25 FOIA and open records currently pending on the shooting of Trump with the Biden administration and local and state officials and agencies in Pennsylvania.

----------------

Ad: Gas Can Spout Replacement Kit, 5 pack (Amazon Link) - An answer to those modern gas cans that spill gas all over the place - a return to normal spouts that actually worked. 

Update: State of Washington Allows Shelters to Provide Services to Children with “Gender Dysphoria” without Parental Consent

By Tim Gamble

Join the Resistance! Subscribe by email

The following is from a press release by America First Legal (AFL), dated August 22, 2024. All links are to pages of the AFL website. 

8-22-2024  WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, America First Legal (AFL) filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to continue its legal fight to stop the enforcement of a bill signed into law by the Washington Legislature last year that allows shelters in the state to take in children struggling with gender dysphoria and provide them with life-altering gender transition services without parental consent or knowledge.

In August 2023, AFL, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP, and local counsel sued the Governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, the Attorney General of Washington, Robert Furguson, and the Secretary of the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Ross Hunter on behalf of Washington parents and parental rights organizations to stop the enforcement of Senate Bill 5599.

Under this new statute, the state can refer minors for “behavioral health treatment” without disclosing these services or what they entail. This means that young children who run away from home could be receiving chemical sterilization drugs or even genital mutilation without the consent or knowledge of their parents.

This law creates a dangerous incentive for minors who disagree with their parents on “gender-affirming care” to run away to a shelter or host home. Further, it deprives parents of their fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution to direct the care and upbringing of their children.

Yet the District Court found that the parents and organizations could not bring this suit because their children had not yet run away and thus been directly subjected to the new laws. Instead the court dismissed the other concrete harms the parents have asserted as “speculation.” Now, before the Ninth Circuit, AFL and Schaerr Jaffe are arguing that parents do not have to wait until their children have been permanently harmed to challenge these Washington laws.

AFL is proud to continue fighting to defend parental rights and end this radical policy exploiting our nation’s children.

Statement from Gene Hamilton, America First Legal Executive Director:

“We are committed to fighting for parental rights, and will gladly stand in the gap to defend the rights of families across the country who are being oppressed by activists obsessed with using state power to advance a radical agenda. SB 5599 is part of a pernicious plan to substitute the judgment of the State for that of a child’s parents, and we are proud to continue to fight for our clients in this matter,” said Gene Hamilton.

Read the brief here.

----------------------

Ad: Shooter's Bible Guide to Firearms Assembly, Disassembly, and Cleaning (Amazon link).

Lawsuits Filed Against Biden-Harris Executive Amnesty Giving Citizenship to Over 1 Million Illegal Aliens

By Tim Gamble

Join the Resistance! Subscribe by email

The following is from a press release by America First Legal (AFL), dated August 23, 2024. All links are to pages of the AFL website. 

August 23, 2024  WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, America First Legal (AFL), partnering with the States of Texas and Idaho, along with a coalition of fourteen state Attorneys General–Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming–filed an urgent lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against the Biden-Harris Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for unlawfully creating a program that effectively provides a new pathway to citizenship for more than a million illegal aliens. The coalition also seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the Biden-Harris Administration from proceeding with its plans to provide immediate executive amnesty.

Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from adjusting their status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident in the United States if they have been unlawfully present in the United States–a commonsense measure that acts as a disincentive to anyone who might come to the United States illegally. Other individuals who desire to live in the United States often wait years for their turn to come into the United States legally, but they follow the law and wait their turn. Allowing illegal aliens to adjust their status in the United States eliminates any disincentive to coming to the United States illegally–and will actually encourage even more illegal aliens to attempt to obtain release into the interior of the United States.

The Biden-Harris Administration–claiming to have “unfettered discretion”–has flipped that paradigm on its head and created the Parole in Place (PIP) Program. PIP would allow aliens who have been unlawfully present in the United States for ten or more years to receive a grant of “parole”–without leaving the United States and attempting to come back and apply for admission at a port of entry–if the alien is the spouse of a U.S. citizen. Stepchildren of U.S. citizens have it even easier–they only need to have entered the United States before June 17, 2024.

However, the immigration parole authority can only be used on “a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit” for aliens coming temporarily to the United States. DHS “cannot use that power to parole aliens en masse,” which is precisely what PIP aims to achieve. Nor can it be used to allow aliens to permanently migrate to the United States. Furthermore, because the parole power may only be exercised to allow an alien to come “into” the United States, it may not be lawfully exercised for aliens already present in the country.

The implementation of this blatantly illegal program will only further fuel the greatest immigration crisis in history and cause irreparable harm to states like Texas and Idaho. AFL is proud to partner with brave Attorneys General to fight yet another lawless Biden-Harris plot to destroy the United States from the interior.

Statement from Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas:

“Under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the federal government is actively working to turn the United States into a nation without borders and a country without laws. I will not let this happen. Biden’s new parole workaround unilaterally grants the opportunity for citizenship to unvetted aliens whose first act on American soil was to break our laws. This violates the Constitution and actively worsens the illegal immigration disaster that is hurting Texas and our country,” said Attorney General Paxton.

Statement from Stephen Miller, America First Legal President:

“Since our founding over three years ago, America First Legal has led the courtroom fight against the open borders agenda of Biden and Harris. We have sued time and again to fight their catastrophic policies. Today, we are proud to represent a coalition of sixteen states in filing a lawsuit to block an unconstitutional Biden-Harris amnesty program. This executive amnesty gives over one million illegals legal status, work permits, and a path to voting citizenship. It is brazenly unlawful, a deadly accelerant to the ruinous border invasion, and we will use every lawful tool to stop it,” said Stephen Miller.

Statement from Gene Hamilton, America First Legal Executive Director:

“This case is about fighting blatantly illegal action by the Biden-Harris Administration, while simultaneously fighting for fundamental fairness for any legal immigrant who followed the laws passed by Congress. The Biden-Harris Administration announced–without so much as the opportunity for the public to comment on their proposal–the creation of yet another blatantly illegal immigration program. In flagrant disregard of black-letter laws passed by Congress, they aim to provide amnesty to over a million illegal aliens in the United States and to lay the foundation for an even larger future amnesty. It must be stopped,” said Gene Hamilton.

Read the lawsuit here.

--------------------------

Ad: Shooter's Bible Guide to Concealed Carry (Amazon Link) - 2nd Edition: A Beginner's Guide to Armed Defense 

Trump Issues Strong Defense of Gun Rights

By Tim Gamble

Join the Resistance! Subscribe by email

8-22-2024 - On Saturday, August 17, at the Gun Owners of America’s national conference, President Donald Trump virtually addressed the crowd of attendees with both words of encouragement and a warning about the siege facing Second Amendment rights in the lead up to the November election.

President Trump’s speech, which was warmly received by the crowd, comes at a time when our Second Amendment rights face some of their greatest threats in history. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the anti-gun tyrants in Congress and state legislatures across the country have unleashed a relentless assault against gun owners and dealers nationwide.

In his speech, President Trump addressed Gun Owners of America by name, saying among other things:

“When I am President, I will always listen to Gun Owners of America. I want to congratulate all of you, because you’ve really come a long way in a short period of time…” 

“Kamala Harris has supported gun confiscation schemes throughout her career…”  

“I ask all of the gun owners to get out and vote…” 

Watch the full video address here:

Tim Macy, the Chairman of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement:  

“We’re incredibly grateful to President Trump for taking the time to address our attendees. Without a doubt, this was President Trump’s strongest take on gun rights to date, and coupled with Senator Vance as his running mate, gun owners have a clear choice this November.” 

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, added: 

“Our rights are absolutely on the ballot, and it’s essential that gun owners do everything we can to turn out the pro-gun vote and ensure Kamala Harris is not the next occupant of the White House.” 

Sources: 1) Press release by the Gun Owners of America (GOA), dated August 21, 2024. 2) Video of President Trump's Speech (url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfDDnDNVCsw)

---------------------------------

Ad: Shooter's Bible Guide to Home Defense: A Comprehensive Handbook on How to Protect Your Property from Intrusion and Invasion. This is not a catalog of gimmicks, gadgets, and drills that only a Navy Seal can perform, but is an intense look at how to fortify your home discreetly and protect yourself from home invaders. Learn how to choose weapons and use them under stress. Gain legal perspective, sharpen your verbal defensive skills, and learn how to recognize criminal intent.

Could the US Military Be Used to Secure the Border?

By Tim Gamble

Join the Resistance! Subscribe by email

Could the US military be used to secure the border? Illegal immigration has skyrocketed during the Biden-Harris administration, leading to huge increases in government (taxpayer) costs to support these illegals, as well as sharply increased crime rates. What can be done about the situation? This question has lead many people to ask if the military could be used to control the border. The answer to that question involves three considerations: the practical (is it legal), the strategic (is there the political will), and the tactical (how exactly would the military secure the border). 

The strategic and the tactical will be left for future articles. This article answers the practical. Is it Constitutional and legal to use the military to secure the border? The answer is unequivocally, yes. 

To back that answer up, I turn you to the Center For Renewing America (CRA) (CRA website link), a Constitutionalist think tank. In July, the CRA released a policy paper (link to the full paper as a .pdf) on this very topic. Below, I present their brief of this paper. 

The US Military May Be Used to Secure the Border

by Center For Renewing America (CRA) Staff 

July 31, 2024

The following is a summary of a full-length legal case for the President’s authority to deploy the military against border invasion.

The President of the United States may at any time deploy the military to stop the border crisis. His constitutional authority to do so is supplemented by numerous statutory provisions, including the Insurrection Act. Uninformed naysayers claim the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) prevents the military from being used to stop the border invasion. Precisely the opposite is true. The PCA explicitly protects the President’s constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief of the military, and as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. As demonstrated in the policy brief by senior fellow Ken Cuccinelli and co-writer Adam Turner summarized below, the President can and should use the military to stop America’s border crisis now.

Introduction

• The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA), standing alone, does not preclude using military force to solve the border crisis. 
• The PCA does not derogate the President’s constitutional power to use the military to enforce laws and any attempt to do so would be unconstitutional. 
• The President’s law enforcement power is explicitly protected by the PCA’s proviso that allows the conscription of a posse comitatus when “expressly authorized by the Constitution.” The President’s perpetual constitutional power to command the military and enforce the laws fits into this proviso.
• Further, the Insurrection Act expressly authorizes the President to deploy the military for law enforcement purposes, which fits into the PCA’s proviso that allows for the conscription of a posse comitatus when “expressly authorized by. . . [an] Act of Congress.”

Part I: The PCA Alone Permits the Use of the Military to Solve the Border Crisis

• To violate the PCA, someone must: (1) willfully (2) use the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force (3) as a posse comitatus or otherwise (4) to execute the laws (5) in a way that is not expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.
• The PCA originated with Southern Democrats during Reconstruction who opposed the use of the military to enforce laws in the postwar South. pgs. 11-14.
• House and Senate debates show the PCA was meant to restrain U.S. Marshals from commandeering a posse comitatus, and was not intended to limit the President:
  • Rep. James Knott (D-KY): “[T]his amendment is designed to put a stop to the practice, which has become fearfully common, of military officers of every grade answering the call of every marshal and deputy marshal to aid in the enforcement of the laws.” pg. 14. 
  • Sen. William Windom (R-MN): “As a matter of course, you cannot limit the power of the President as authorized and granted by the Constitution.” pg. 15.
• The PCA was passed into law by both Republicans and Democrats seeking to prevent disruption to the military’s chain of command. The PCA bars U.S. Marshals, local sheriffs, and other government officials from commandeering the U.S. military. Southern Democrats also sought to limit the use of the military to execute the laws, in order  to end Reconstruction in the South. pg. 16.
• President Hayes and President Arthur both deployed troops to New Mexico and Arizona, respectively, to enforce the laws, with the understanding that their actions were perfectly legal under the Constitution and the PCA. Neither was prosecuted under the PCA. pg. 18-19.
• The PCA fell into obscurity by 1948, but in recent decades the PCA has reemerged, ironically, as a defense asserted by criminal defendants at trial. It has rarely been used to prosecute executive branch violators of the PCA, and no prosecution has ever been successful in convicting an official. pg 19.
• During the Bush II administration, DOJ’s John Yoo and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 both explicitly stated that the PCA does not apply to the President. pg. 22.

Part II: The Insurrection Act Allows the Military to Solve the Border Crisis

• The Insurrection Act, standing alone, and as fitting into the proviso of the Posse Comitatus Act, reinforces the propriety of using the military to combat the border crisis. pg. 23.
• 10 U.S.C. § 252: “Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”
• When order is threatened by unlawful obstructions, combinations, assemblages, or rebellion, the President may use the military or national guard to suppress threats as long as the emergency is such that “the ordinary course of judicial proceedings” have become impracticable. Looking realistically at the situation in 2024, federal and state law enforcement resources are overwhelmed by the scale and severity of the border crisis. Hence, the President can appropriately call out the military to enforce federal law. Additionally, the Mexican cartels and the hordes of illegal aliens are engaging in unlawful obstructions of the law, as well as unlawful combinations to thwart the law. pg. 24
• 10 U.S.C. § 253:  The President may act if the insurrection “so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any. . . of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection.”
• Cartels and illegal aliens vitiate protection by the government; interfere with the enjoyment of life and liberty; strip people of property rights; destroy happiness and safety; and interfere with travel rights, for instance, by kidnapping. As such, Section 253 readily allows the President to use the military to put an end to the border crisis. pg. 25.
• The Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials Act (MCCLEOA) further encourages cooperation between the military and law enforcement, and does not infringe upon the constitutional powers the President retains or those granted by the Insurrection Act. pg. 29.
• The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) states that the President “may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel [an] invasion, suppress [a] rebellion, or execute [the] laws. ” pg. 30.

Part III: The President Has Inherent Constitutional Authority to Use the Military to Secure the Border

• When the President wields his constitutional powers to use the military for law enforcement, he also typically acts consistently with his statutory powers under the Insurrection Act, the MCCLEOA, and the NDAA. pg.32.
• Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
• Article II, Section 3: The President shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.
• John Yoo, commenting on Article II, Sections 2-3: “These powers give the President broad constitutional authority to use military force in response to threats to the national security and foreign policy of the United States… By their terms, these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President.” pg. 35.
• John Yoo, Congressional Testimony, 2001: “To the extent that the [Constitution] does not explicitly allocate to a particular branch the power to respond to critical threats to the nation’s security and civil order, the Vesting Clause provides that it remains among the President’s unenumerated executive powers…. [T]he Framers understood the executive and commander in chief powers to give the President the full constitutional authority to respond to an attack. It was clearly understood that this authority included the power to use force domestically as well as abroad.” pg. 36-37.
• Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
• History gives many examples of the Executive using military force to keep order and respond to emergencies.
  • In 1794, Washington used the military to put down the Whiskey rebellion, and in 1799, Adams used federal troops to put down the Fries Rebellion. pg. 41-42.
  • Lincoln and Grant used federal troops to keep order in the South during Reconstruction, and established military tribunals to administer justice. None of this was opposed by Congress or the courts. pg 44.
• Presidential authority to safeguard the interior of the Nation through use of his Commander-in-Chief and his Chief Magistrate powers, used either alone or together, clearly includes efforts to control the border. pg. 45.

---------------------------

Ad:  Mossy Oak 14-inch Bowie Knife (Amazon link) Full-tang Fixed Blade, Wood Handle Hunting/Survival Knife with Leather Sheath. I bought one of these just to check it out. For a $20 knife it is rather impressive. A good option for a budget survival knife.