The Russians Did It!

Guest blog by Kelly Phyllis:


The Falcons lost the Superbowl. It’s the Russians’ fault! Heather Morris got kicked off of Dancing With The Stars even though she got a perfect score. The Russians are responsible! La La Land didn’t win the Oscar.  The Russians interfered! Hillary lost the election. Damn those Russians!

What do all of the above statements have in common? They are all totally absurd.  As is the claim that Russia interfered in the November 2016 Presidential Election.  The evidence just isn’t there.  While the left-wing media pounds the narrative that the Russians colluded with Trump and interfered in our election into the minds of their uninformed viewers, the right-wing media complains about the Dems and Liberals harping on their conspiracy theories and thwarting President Trump’s agenda in every way. But no one addresses the most obvious arguments against the theory that the Russian’s interfered in our election.


There is no evidence to support the theory that Russia interfered in the Presidential Election in any way other than influencing voters through their alleged hacking of the DNC’s emails and their subsequent posting on Wikileaks.  They did not tamper with any voting machines.  They did not assist in voter fraud (the Dems have that covered).  They did not somehow alter paper ballots.  They did not somehow alter the vote counts in any state.

Let’s suppose for a moment that they were indeed responsible for hacking the DNC emails and sharing that information with the world. So what? Isn’t disseminating information, whether it is through Wikileaks or the media, considered to be an influence on the election? And what about the fact that there would be absolutely no ability to sway the election in Trump’s favor if there was no incriminating information found in the emails that were hacked.  They could hack the DNC’s emails all day long.  If there is no information in those emails damning to the candidate, then it is a moot point. No influence.  However, there was damning information contained in those emails. Proof of the Dems colluding against Bernie Sanders. Proof that the DNC thought the voting public was just plain stupid.  Proof that the DNC used less than honorable tactics to support and promote their candidate. Proof that Hillary Clinton is a lying, devious, untrustworthy individual who doesn’t believe there should be any consequences to her actions.  The Dems and Hillary Clinton have not, even once, defended or denied the information contained in those emails. But no one ever mentions that! Frustration is thy name!


Oh wait, that was Obama and all his lefty friends.

The media did everything they could to tarnish Trump’s reputation and character before the election. The tape of him making derogatory remarks about women.  The fact that he wouldn’t release his taxes which, of course, meant he had something nefarious to hide.  Claims that he was a bigot, anti-Semite, and racist.  Fake news. Clearly the media worked overtime to influence the election.  Why is there no investigation into the media’s interference in the election? I’m sure that would be a much more fruitful search and a better use of my tax dollars rather than to continue to investigate Russia’s interference in the election in the hopes that some shred of evidence in favor of that theory is eventually found. Is that how our investigative agencies work now?  They investigate and investigate until they find evidence to support the conclusion they already came to long before the investigation even began? It is simply ridiculous.


Instead of protecting the safety and promoting the interests of their constituents, members of Congress continue to beat the dead horse of the “Russia/Trump conspiracy”, which is entirely a figment of their imaginations. In my mind, these yahoos are the true villains in this tale. Not Russia.



Stop a young adult and ask any question about our form of government or our Constitution.  I bet you will get either a very wrong answer or a shrug of the shoulders.  If you don’t know how it is supposed to be, if you don’t know why it is supposed to be, then you cannot understand when forces wish to abolish this government; or when your actions are counter productive to the public good.


Why does our form of government exist?  Didn’t we come together for a specific purpose, did we create a Constitution for a specific purpose; did we create a Constitution for a specific purpose?  The answer is yes.  And here is why we did what we did.  Please do share this with a young person.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I believe that most education jurisdictions have stopped teaching this.  If we don’t and can’t for lack of knowledge understand the reason for the United States of America to exist, we are lost and foundering, susceptible to radical government overthrow or civil breakdown – this appears to be the intent.  Break us down and rebuild us as an authoritarian type government.

Violent Protests Erupt At UC Berkeley Against Speech By Breitbart Writer

One look at Berkley and we can see that there is no understanding of the purpose of free speech and the rule of law.  Without free speech and the rule of law, it is “Lord of the Flies” played out.  (If you have not read this book, it is about the breakdown of society and the breakdown leads to tradgedy and the failure to accomplish any of the societal needs.  The highlighted link is to a synopsis, if you wish to learn more about “Lord of the Flies”.)


This country rose from the “little country that could” to the world leader it is, principally due to our Constitution.  It brought Justice (Rule of Law); domestic Tranquility (peace with a few internal hickups along the way); common defense (we have not been successfully invaded or taken over); general Welfare (the enumerated powers have served us well); and the Blessings of Liberty (fought for and retained for 228 years since the Constitution was ratified).  Open unfiltered free speech, one of those liberties, is currently in danger.

Yet our educators too often don’t teach the Constitution, too many don’t understand the Constitution, and in fact way to many want it gone.  The nature of our college professors and instructors, probably because they have never had to “do”, they just teach, is to see the Constitution as a problem or a document to be ignored or changed by popular opinion using the courts.


Ask your state legislators, why the Constitution is not being taught in middle school, high school, and college?  It is pretty clear that forces of the progressive left (maybe now even the facist left) see the Constitution as an impediment to radically changing our form of government to a “I know better than you” and will “tell you how to live” form from the monied establishment.

These forces don’t care that socialism, communism, facism, have never worked.  They use climate change as a means to politically move this world away from free enterprise, individual liberty, justice, and domestic tranquility, all in the name of a faux  general welfare.  A “we dictate what is your welfare” form of government.  The purpose is to have a few self appointed “I know better than you” in charge and the rest of us as knuckle dragging followers.

The Constitution is the one big impediment to their achieving the “ism” that they want, thus our educators intentionally don’t teach the structure of our government, the rule of law; and civics to the young as we had previously done.  I spent many a class involved in both federal and state level civics.  Did you?  Instead we keep impressionable minds in the dark about the one powerful document which contains a world class societal plan that simply makes society work in favor of a non-informed voter.

Ask a middle schooler to show you their American History book, then be stunned.  Ask to see their Civics book and get  blank stare.

I very recently came across a website affiliated with actor Richard Dryfuss, which seems to capture what I am saying and much much more.   It is impressive and much needed, and I suggest you take a look.

Continue reading

Want To Engage A Federal District Court Judge To Circumvent Our President Or Congress! It’s Easy.

Any of 677 federal district judges can stop the federal government in its tracks!  Pick a judge any judge – it is called shopping for a judge.  If you don’t like what the federal government is doing, or you didn’t vote for the President, then shop for a sympathetic judge and have an injunction issued – it is that easy.  Is this any way to run a country?


“But wait”, you say! Not so fast.  The judiciary is the equal of the executive and congressional branches – doesn’t the Constitution provide for this equality?  Why no, it doesn’t!  Surprise!

The judiciary according to the Constitution, Article III, Section 1, is the supreme Court which is the third and equal branch to the executive and congressional branches.   Federal district and appellate judges serve the inferior courts established by Congress.

The federal district and the appeals courts, called tribunals, pursuant to the Constitution, are not equal to the congressional and the executive branches.  Only the supreme Court is equal .

Article I, Section 8: “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court…” and Article III, Section 1: ” The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…”

So we should ask, why is it that any one of 677 federal district judges can stop the federal government in its tracks?  They are not elected, and they do serve for life, but most importantly, they are not equal to the executive or congressional branches, based on the Constitution.

supreme court
The cartoon may say judicial, but it is referring to the supreme Court, only.

However, when one of 677 federal judges decides to become political and stop or alter the workings of anyone of the two or even three equal branches that make up the federal government, they do so with absolutely no repercussions.  There is no downside to being a political activist.   What other country would have 677 unelected, unchecked overseers of the elected President, each with a different political bent – some straight shooters and others who want to and will actively champion political causes contrary to a current administration.

Can we fix this?  Most certainly!  The Congress established the “inferior” courts pursuant to the Constitution and the Congress did and does make rules for these inferior courts.  How about a rule that any challenge to federal government actions from any of the three branches SHALL NOT be handled by the inferior courts.  This leaves the supreme Court in the position of having to handle the challenge, per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution – …Controversies to which the United states shall be a party…

Alternatively, Congress can designate only one federal district court to hear these cases and then refer the cases with merit to one specifically designated appeals court, then on to the supreme Court, if it accepts the case.  Congress can then limit injunctions or any other negative federal government actions to one “designated” district/appeals court track and keep the activists from fomenting an out of control system.  A system where any one of 677 district court judges can act as an activist. Ultra care can then be made in appointing well-balanced federal district judges for that special district court.

Unhappy about the state of affairs?  Don’t just stew, tell your Congressman, that we need a change in the inferior courts or we can kiss our federal republic goodby.   The progressive left has already seized on this chasm in our governance to create havoc and to usurp the authority of the elected president.  The ultra minority now has a way to dictate to the majority!

(supreme is not capitalized in the Constitution, likely because it only recognized one Court, when written)

Continue reading

The Real Deal Behind a National Popular Vote (NPV Compact)? Beware!



NOT the standard around the world!


The current signatories to the NPV Compact have two things in common – progressive states and a heavy non-citizen voting population.  If you have not already read:

  1. Are you ill-informed about the electoral college?  Learn why it is important to your freedom!


  1. National Popular Vote: Master plan to eliminate states’ rights?

I encourage you to read these first to get the necessary background to a fuller understanding of the subtle and insidious march to a strong centralized national progressive government of the few, by the few, and for the few; and not of the people, by the people, and for the people.

During a decennial census the goal is to count anyone with a pulse, in fact, as many with a pulse as possible.  The plan for the progressive states: grow the population and create voters and electoral votes.

Residence or citizen status is not considered or asked by the census enumerator.  I was the manager for administration at the Marana, AZ census office during the last census and know first hand the overwhelming command from the U.S. Commerce Department to count any and all breathing persons.  Citizen, resident alien, illegal alien – it made no difference.  If they could get a way with it they would count tombstomes of dead people.

california illegal

california illegal drivers

California is making every effort o give non-citizens the ability to vote.

Look to the prime driver of the National Popular Vote Compact effort, California.

Los Angeles County’s massive population drove the 2016 presidential election popular vote.  Los Angeles County combined with five other coastal California counties voted over 70% for Hillary Clinton.  One additional county voted over 80% for Clinton and an additional eight were over 60%.

Los Angeles County has a population of over 10,000,000 with, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), one million illegal immigrants – 10%, yes ten percent.  Keep in mind that very lax California voter registration rules are a mindset in California voting and not a mistake.

California is not alone, as Chicago, Houston, and New York City all have massive populations of illegal immigrants.  DHS estimates that California alone has 2.7 million illegals or 6% of the population.  Illegals bloat the census and thus the electoral vote for that state.  This data is four or five years old.  Where do think we stand now?

Yes, citizens, legal non-citizen residents, and illegal residents are counted in the census to determine Congressional representation and the number of electoral votes for each state.  Do these folks vote?  You tell me.  It is pretty easy to vote in a federal election.

There is a distinct benefit to the progressive NPV Compact states , in fact all states under the NPV, to bloat the population as well as the vote, with non-citizens.

Is proof of citizenship required to register to vote in a Federal election?  NO!  These are the instructions found on the federal registration form, and with only a utility bill you can register and vote for the President of the United States – these NPV states, especially California know this well.


Federal Ballot Registration Instructions

Federal Ballot Regfistration Instructions Box 6

 As you can see, the federal registration form even has accommodation for those who cannot provide a social security number or driver’s license number.  I have underlined that section above in the federal voter registration form instructions – take note.


2016 pres election outcome by county
2016 Presidential Election results by county
Blue Hillary Clinton – Red Donald Trump

This map reflects the counties won by both Clinton and Trump – red is Trump and blue is Clinton.  The blue counties tend to have a high illegal and progressive population.  Trump wins the counties by 2,626 to 487, and even the media cannot agree on this, as the popular votes numbers are not officially tracked and reported by the federal government.  Only Certificates of Attainment as mentioned in a prior post track any semblance of the popular vote.


California 2016 lopsided vote by county

Note the similarity of California’s illegal population (blue) depicted in this chart to the previous counties map.


Tyranny of the Majority is the goal of the NPV Compact effort.  Clinton wins the national popular vote by 2.9 million, but without Los Angeles County and New York City providing a popular vote bump to Clinton of 3.2 million, Trump wins the popular vote.  Do we want the tyranny of NYC and LA to drive this nation forward?

This NPV effort is an effort by Californians to use the power of California to literally install their progressive choice as president.  It is as simple as that.

The NPV folks have a slick presentation, but it is not completely accurate.  However, it moves the unaware state legislator to support and even sponsor the NPV Compact Resolution in their state – your state?  Remember these folks need only 105 more electoral votes to take over this nation and make it a progressively run country, by concentrating all power in a central national government – states’ rights be damned.  Remember the states have already lost the Senate thanks to the progressive’s 17 amendment.

The California effort is led by a John Koza, PhD.  He is a heavy contributor to:

  • Federal Democrat candidates
  • State Republican legislative candidates in possible NPV states
  • California progressives driving this effort – why?
  • He funds a paid team of supporters presenting to legislators
  • He offers a very convincing presentation – I attended one

 This is clearly a progressive effort to be stopped!


obama plan

The caption reads: After repeatedly violating the Constitution and going against the will of American citizens, you have to create a new voting base.

There is a strong, slick push for a National Popular Vote.  The Electoral College stands in the way of an all powerful national (central) government.  Now that you have read “ARE YOU ILL-INFORMED ABOUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?” and can now be considered informed, we are ready for this post.

This push continues the progressive effort started with the 17th amendment to tear down the sharing of power and limited government.  The National Popular Vote Compact guarantees the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular, votes from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  They need not receive the majority of votes.  30% of votes can win.

This compact promotes an overwhelming lopsided vote from a few states.  It allows for a state to have a blind eye to voter fraud.  It actually expands a state’s electoral votes!  With the compact if a state can gin up a large enough popular vote to one candidate, then it can count on the electoral votes from other compact states.  As long as one state can move the needle on the popular vote, all the remaining electoral votes from other compact states flow to the popular vote winner, no matter how lopsided.

california illegal


The NPV is not a grass roots effort!


Yes, I am talking about California, but more on California later.

A key argument of the NPV people, published on their website is “Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. As shown on the map, two-thirds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were ignored.…”

Well, President Donald Trump blew this argument up in 2016 when he took the democrat firewall states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  His was not a four-state campaign.  In fact he blew up just about all their arguments on that web page.

How does it work:

A state signs the compact and agrees that all that state’s electoral votes go to the winner of the national popular vote, even if that state’s voters voted for the other person.  They have now amassed states totaling 165 electoral votes and need more states totaling 105.  California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington (state) have all signed on and take note these are heavily progressive states.

The NPV Compact has passed at least one House of the legislature of Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Oregon.  Six of these states are progressive states.  Committees in Georgia and Missouri passed the resolution as well.

These passed because the paid NPV people have a slick presentation and key donors out of California sprinkle dollars to Republican campaigns in state races.  Conservative representatives not only voted for the Compact in the Arizona House, but a few other conservatives actually sponsored the legislation.  They fell for the slick presentation.

The NPV people are dangerously close to states signatories totaling 270, and then it is all over – progressives win and the all-powerful national government starts.  Individual states will no longer matter, retail politics will be gone, the races will be based on national ads.  Liberty derived from local state governments will be lost.  Tyranny of the majority will be the rule.

How will a national popular vote work when each state has different rules on early voting, registering to vote, qualifying for the ballot, felon voting, and the timing and triggers for recounts?  Keep in mind that some states have an overwhelming desire to let anyone with a pulse, or maybe no pulse, vote for president, while other states are more concerned about the quality of the voter.

illegals voting

Voter fraud does exist and can be amped up by a state or states to manipulate the popular vote count.  Example: More votes were cast in 2016 in Wayne County, MI, than registered voters.  Details of and examples of voter fraud will be presented in a future posting.

With the National Popular Vote, a minor regional candidate could get 30% of the vote and sneak in with the most votes, if there are more than two candidates.  Keep in mind that there is no official tracking of the popular vote, other than the reporting of electors to the National Archives by the governor on a Certificate of Ascertainment.  These certificates list the winning electors and may list the popular vote for each winning elector.  However, it is submitted as soon as possible when the state result has winners, but there may still be changes to the popular vote when the vote count is concluded.

Yes, now we can talk the big talk, California progressives.  The intended effect of California progressives on the electoral vote and votes of non-citizen residents and illegal residents in the population, culminating in a loss of the sovereign states and establishing an all powerful national government.

This will be in the next post.  It will be eye opening.

illegal bill





Before we go right to why we need it, we need to learn why it exists.  What was and is its purpose?

The term electoral college is not found in the Constitution, which refers to “electors”.  This system provides the states the ultimate in local power for our federation of sovereign states.  These same “united” states had and still have varied issues and challenges among them.  When the founders created our system of government, they wanted a weak central government.  Ask yourself, why would a group of states, a federation if you will, band together for limited common reasons and create a powerful central government?  They didn’t!  They wanted to achieve a purpose and did not want to abdicate their power.

The purpose was to create a federal government with specific and limited power – eighteen enumerated powers (Article 1 – Section 8), with all the remaining governing powers reserved to the states and then codified in the Tenth Amendment: reserved for the states and the people.

Today, there is a movement challenging our electoral system, the progressive movement.  In order to better understand our electoral system, we need to learn about these progressives.

The first progressive era lasted from 1890 to 1920 and during this time the seventeenth amendment was passed and ratified.  This was the really big accomplishment of the progressives, because it removed the combined states’ power in the Senate.  No longer were the states able to send their “ambassadors” to the Washington to steer the federal government.  The states had been electing the executive, the president, and appointing their state’s Senators.  This closely held governing kept the federal government in line so to speak.  Remember that the original intent was that the only house of the federal government that directly represented the people was the House of Representatives.  Since 1913, thanks to those progressives, the Senators are directly elected by the people of their state.  State legislators lost control.


The domestic policy of the progressives has two main concerns: 1) protect the poor and victims of capitalism; 2) provide non-religious “spiritual” development of citizens, by protecting the environment, using education as personal creativity, and subsidizing and promoting the arts and culture.  Their understanding of democracy means to take power from the locally elected, place absolute power into the hands of a central government, and replace local politicians with “enlightened” bureaucrats.  We the people are nothing more than knuckle draggers.

electoral college

To manage the common interests of the states, the founders created a federation to meet the needs of the member states in areas of commerce, common defense, naturalization, etc.  A national government was specifically not created, where only limited power was ceded to the new federal government.

Plainly put: our country is a federation of sovereign states.  There is a supremacy clause in the Constitution proclaiming that the federal government’s laws are supreme to the state laws, but this only applies to laws falling into the granted enumerated powers.  State power is local power and local power drives freedom and liberty.

Was a national popular vote considered when the Constitution was ratified?  Well, it was not until 1824, that we even tracked popular vote: 36 years and 9 presidential terms into our new government.  Other than incidental reporting to the National Archives, the national popular vote is still not officially tracked.

Our electoral system allows the state legislators to decide how that state’s electoral votes are spent.  Most states now give all their electoral votes to the winner of that state’s popular vote.  The census mostly determines the states’ electoral vote based on the number of apportioned representation in Congress.  The size of the Congressional delegation, plus the two now directly elected senators determines the electoral vote.  Additional, the people of the District of Columbia, since a 1961 amendment, have three electoral votes in presidential elections.

The electoral system did not just happen.  Our founders had an idea of what they wanted and it was the opposite of a monarchy power system.  In fact, our electoral system might even be considered a hybrid of how parliament selects the national leader.  It is amazing how the founders new that a limited federal government, with the executive elected by the states made for strong states and a less potent federal government in domestic affairs, because it effectively divides power, spheres of control, between the federal government and the states.  This electoral system is a key pillar of our federal government in delivering individual liberty.

The lack of a national popular vote appointing the executive is not now, nor has it ever been, unique.  Notably, the British Prime Minister is elected by the British Parliament, and parliamentary governments around the world elect their prime minister/leader – and it is not by popular vote.

The current progressive era on steroids – they don’t go away – started around the economic collapse at the end of the first decade of the new century – circa 2006/2007.   Of course, the progressives never went away, instead they just really came alive in this latest era with Climate Change and the popular vote movement.  We now have an all-out assault on our electoral system.  It is called the National Popular Vote Compact.   More on the National Popular Vote Compact in the next post.

electoral college 1

Which branch of the federal government is the more powerful – Congressional, Executive, or Judicial?

Scotus 2

Well the Constitution is reasonably clear that they are equal.  However, in reviewing the wording of and the Articles affecting each branch, it appears that the Judicial branch was a step-child at the ratification of the Constitution.

In fact, the Constitution only created the supreme Court (supreme is not capitalized in the Constitution) as the Judicial branch.  It left it up to the Congress to create the inferior courts and the rules of the inferior courts.

The term “is it constitutional” only became an issue after Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 rendered an opinion for Marbury v. Madison.  The actual decision is not as important as Marshall’s extrapolation from the Constitution that the supreme Court could declare a law or action of the Congress or Executive Branch to be “unconstitutional”.  From then on, since this opinion was not challenged by the other branches, the Judicial branch had a new tool that arguably made them more powerful than or at least equal to the other two branches.

Once Congress established the inferior courts (district and appellate), the perceived authority of the supreme Court was also, almost by osmosis, applied to these courts as well.  In addition, nowhere is it written in the Constitution that the supreme and inferior Courts are the sole arbiters of what is constitutional.

Now for the “Political Question Doctrine”:

The “political question doctrine” was in play notably in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, again in 1832 with Worchester v. Georgia involving Andrew Jackson and the supreme Court, and numerous times in U.S. history with the most recent collision in 2017 being the Ninth Circuit appellate (inferior) court decision in State of Washington; State of Minnesota, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State; John F. Kelly, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; United States of America, Defendants-Appellants.  This question deals with whether the Judiciary has any say in political, and now diplomatic, matters or any matters that transcend the law and the Constitution.

In 1803, the Executive branch complied as part of the matter was law.  In 1832, the Executive branch – President Andrew Jackson, defied the court and continued his actions.   In 2017, the Executive branch is unsuccessfully trying to find accommodation with the court ruling.

In fact, during accommodation, the matter was extended by two district judges, with one even contemplating ordering the President to take an action that is clearly in the political province of the President.  So, I ask.  Is the Judicial branch more important, and more powerful under our Constitution?  We are not even talking supreme Court here, but the inferior courts established by Congress.  Really, have we come this far that our chief political arm is an inferior court?

What to do?  The Executive Branch can follow the action of Andrew Jackson.  Now, I am not arguing the merits of the Jackson matter, rather the authority afforded a president under the Constitution to manage international affairs.  The Constitution does not provide for any authority to the Judicial branch in these matters and is explicit in providing both the Senate and the President such authority.  To put it bluntly, the President should and authoritatively tell the Judicial branch to butt out of international matters.

Yes, I am saying the Executive branch needs to regain and retain the right of being equal and push back against grossly obvious Judicial overreach.  President Trump needs to publicly notify the Judicial branch that a president can declare a decision or opinion of the court, whether inferior or supreme, to be unconstitutional. He needs to declare that he will continue his actions unless both Congress and the Judicial branch wish to jointly rein him in.

Further, it must be established that only a supreme Court and the Congress can provide marching orders to the President.  Congress, having established and made the rules for the inferior Courts needs to restrict the inferior courts from hearing any actions in complaint of the President and/or Congress.  Matters involving the Executive branch and the Congressional Branch, should only be heard by an equal branch of government.

Napolitano freedom