Chris Johnson

I grew up a prepper. Most of the people I knew were preppers. The difference was that it was normal.

My parents were born at the tail of the great depression. They lived through WWII as children and suffered the rationing that took place in the US.

My grandparents planted and tended a garden every summer. It was just the norm.

We once lived a good 2 hours from any supermarket. There was a local grocery, but everything there was pricey. It was the sort of place you went if you ran out of eggs.

Once a month, my mother would drive onto base in DC and shop at the commissary. She would have three or four carts of food. She purchased a month’s worth of milk. When we got home, everything was put away in freezers. We had “fresh” milk for about 3 days per month, thereafter, it was from frozen.

When we could, mom had a garden. She was never happier than when she had an entire acre of garden.

People think about “getting started” with prepping.

I believe this is the wrong mindset. The correct mindset is to start thinking about what knowledge and skills do you need?

Skills and knowledge are entirely different things. You might know how to wire an electrical outlet, but do you have you done it? Do you know how to use the tools? Do you have the right tools? Can you do it without harming yourself or others?

Because of my parents, I started with a “being prepared” mindset. There was always enough food in the pantry, freezer, and refrigerator. It was just the way I grew up.

I remember the first major snowstorm in Maryland after my daughter was born. Wife number one wasn’t satisfied with what we had in the refrigerator. Our child would starve if I didn’t get some milk, right now.

I put on my calf high moccasins, my wide brimmed hat, my winter coat and walked to the 7/11 to get milk.

On the way there, I pushed a female cop’s car out of the snow bank three times.

My wife was in a panic. I was not. I had powdered milk, a supply of gravity feed fresh water, and a camp stove. There was nothing to worry about.

I was wrong. I had knowledge, but not enough skills.

I’ve spent the last forty years learning more skills. What skills I didn’t learn for myself, I found people I love and trust to have those skills.

When I lived in Maryland, it felt like there was a strong chance of a war engulfing the East Coast. Not American vs. American, but of actual foreign soldiers on our soil. I had the money, I spent that money on firearms for battle. I wasn’t thinking of hunting. I wasn’t thinking of food and shelter.

I was ignorant. But it was a step in the correct direction.

Today I have more skills, I have a better idea of what I don’t know. I still don’t know what I don’t know, but I can see that I have gaps.

One of the people making comments suggested that I have a flintlock style firearm. Amazingly enough, that is coming to my home shortly.

The Fort At #4 represents the time around of the French and Indian war. I am working with some reenactors to find a smoothbore that is period correct and a rifle. I want a Kentucky long rifle. I’ve loved the look of that rifle since watching Daniel Boone on TV.

I not only know how to make black powder, I’ve done it. I have extensive notes on how I did it. I have the tools to manufacture it, about 2 pounds at a time.

We are practicing making salt-peter but haven’t succeeded yet. I’ve made proper charcoal. And I have some sulfur. KNO3 is also around here.

I want to make my own primers, but it is not worth the risk.

I’ve made my own slow fuse and my own fast fuse. I’ve made fireworks. All cools stuff.

If I’m talking to somebody knew to prepping, I always start with the rule of threes.

1. You can live 3 minutes without air
2. You can live 3 hours without shelter
3. You can live 3 days without water
4. You can live 3 weeks without food
5. You can live 3 months without hope

Without air is first-aid, hygiene, medical. If you are bleeding out, you aren’t going to make it the 3 hours to die without shelter. If you aren’t breathing, nothing else will matter in a few minutes.

Without shelter includes fire making, proper clothing, proper shelter from the elements, and the skills to build a home.

While 3 hours sounds extreme, consider falling into a freezing river in winter. How long will you survive? How long will you survive in the desert without proper protection from the sun?

For whatever reason, most people put food before water. Water is life.

Back in the ’80s, the army was looking at the best way to hydrate their soldiers. One method was to only allow the men to drink at rest stops, and only as much as they wanted. Another was to make them drink a certain amount at rest stops. Another was drinking on the move and making sure they drank “enough”.

The test was simple, take a group of soldiers, make them hike a distance, then test them in a combat situation.

Method one had the men combat ineffective at the end of the march. They were combat ineffective for a couple of days after.

Method two had the men combat effective after a few hours of rest at the end of the march. They were combat ineffective for the next few days.

The third method? The troops arrived and immediately went into combat, they were effective. They were able to repeat the test the next day without issue.

There is a reason that the military has hydration rules that push water into the men. There is a reason that hydration packs are worn by sailors.

Three weeks without food is pushing it. People become less capable after only a few days without food.

Our family added, “Three months without hope.” Hope is having some form of joy with you. Pictures of loved ones. A deck of cards. Anything to help take your mind off what you are going through.

One of the biggest takeaways I can give you, if you are starting to prep, “Don’t plan on survival, plan on living. Life was strong before our modern society, and life was good.”

I close with a definition of a zombie. A zombie is that city dweller, from a deep blue city, that hasn’t eaten in a week, is drinking unfiltered water wherever they find it, and they are stripping the countryside clean of all food and goods.

We saw zombies burning down cities because a criminal died of heart disease while in police custody. When you think of zombies, think of those drones, living in a city with less than 24 hours of food.

There are five rifles on the wall. Four lever action and “Mrs. Pink”, an AR-15 platform with pink furniture. Don’t ask.

They are known as “Bear”, “Deer”, “Raccoon”, “Squirrel”, and “Mrs. Pink.”

Bear is a Henry Big Boy in 45-70. Deer is a Winchester model 94 in 30-30. Squirrel is a Henry Golden Boy in .22LR.

We do have bear around here, and I know that Bear has enough stopping power, with rapid follow-ups.

Deer has taken a couple of deer. She does a fine job with iron sights for me out to around 150 yards.

Squirrel isn’t used for squirrel hunting, but damn he’s fun to shoot.

That leave’s Raccoon. Raccoon is a Rossi R-95 in .357 Magnum. She eats .38 special just fine. She is a little loose where the stock attaches to the receiver, but she will put rounds on target out to 100 yards with no problem.

The lever action in .357 is a nice, mid-weight, rifle. I’ve used it for taken fat raccoon and opossums. One shot and they are down.

She is easy to reload for, and it is easy to police up all the brass. I cast hollow point bullets for her and have some commercial bullets for her as well.

All in all, she is a great rifle.

There is a matching wheel gun in .357 magnum. I don’t have enough time with that revolver. It is more than capable of putting rounds on target, I’m not. It doesn’t shoot like my Sig nor my 1911s.

Would I recommend an R-95 for a first-time gun buyer? No.

They don’t have a great reputation. The loading gate is nasty sharp, it needs a little care to get it to function easily. I found that finding ammo for it was a bit of a pain. With reloading, it is a joy.

Mrs. Pink as a red dot on her. She belongs to my wife. We run the manual of arms every so often, but I figure she has 30 rounds before she needs an assist to load the next magazine. But I know that those 30 rounds are going exactly where she wants them to go.

The iron sights on the four lever guns work fine for me today. I have another 30-30 that has a scope mounted on it. I need to spend a few dollars to replace the scope with something modern and then sight everything in.

All in all, those rifles make up the “go to” when needed now.

The other part of this are the LBV that are available for use. Each vest has 6 30 round mags of 5.56, at least 2 spare mags for the pistol that goes with the LBV, and a first aid kit.

Past Plans

When I was considering buying my first firearms, I was looking at “what happens if…” My thought process was based on the concept of availability of ammo after the fall.

That lead me to an AR-15 in 5.56, an AK type rifle in 7.62×39, a 9mm Glock, a bolt action in 7.62×51, a black powder revolver, and a black powder rifle.

The firearm I have the most fun with, to this day, are the AR’s. They are gentle on the shoulder, the ammo isn’t too expensive, they are easy to carry and are just plain fun.

Though I will note that they eat ammo rapidly. It isn’t an unusual range day when I won’t send 300+ rounds down range.

I still have .308 from the original ammo buy. I’ve augmented it with reloads, but I don’t feed much through that rifle.

Of course, once I started buying firearms, it hasn’t really stopped.

Regardless, as more than one person has said, when the SHTF, the best firearm is the one you have.

This is an outcome that I disagree with.

This was a 7-2 option in favor of the state (the bad guys).

Thomas wrote a great dissent, I agree with him about the correct outcome.

Alito did a better job of explaining why the court got it wrong.

Emphasis added.

Facial challenges that require the Salerno test are the most difficult to win. The challengers must prove there is no case in which the regulation is legal (or constitutional).

This is what happened in Rahimi. The court found that §922(g)(8) withstood a facial challenge because a person who had been found to be a violent danger to others could be temporarily disarmed.

The Court found that there was a tradition of disarming violent persons in the late 1700s. That the disarmament could only be temporary, and it had to be properly adjudicated.

Because of the very limited scope they found, the law survives the facial challenge.

By extension, a lifetime loss of Second Amendment protected rights runs against the opinion in Rahimi.

Here, the state slipped in a statement about Salerno. The respondents (good guys) didn’t feel it needed a response, so they didn’t respond.

The majority of the Court then took this as the respondents agreeing that Salerno should control.

Now that Salerno attaches, all the state need do is find ONE example where the regulation is acceptable.

In this case, they used an example, provided by the state, of a frame that required two plastic tabs clipped and filed, and a few holes drilled. Something any of you should be capable of doing in 10 to 15 minutes.

The other was a complete kit which contained everything to assemble a firearm. The time to assemble was listed as around 21 minutes.

As Alito points out, this means that those two are firearms, as defined by the GCA of 1968. It doesn’t say anything about the rest of the frames and receivers out there.

Regardless, background checks are unconstitutional, in my opinion.

This is 12 hours late. I am working a hard deadline for a client that has to be able to handle tariffs correctly by April 2nd. Sorry about that.

In computer languages, there are very few that are structurally different.

FORTRAN is like COBOL, which is like Pascal, which is like BASIC, which is like ADA, which is like …

Forth is not like those above. Nor is APL or Lisp.

Assembly languages can be used in structured ways, just like FORTRAN, COBOL, Pascal, and many others. It requires the discipline to use if not condition jump skip_label; do stuff in condition; skip_label:. The actual programming logic stays the same.

The two computer languages I dislike the most are PHP and Python. Both because they are weakly typed.

In a strongly typed language, you declare a variable’s type before you use it. The type of the variable is immutable for its lifetime.

In other words, if you declare a variable of being of type integer and then attempt to assign a string to it, it will barf on you during compilation.

In PHP, all variables look the same, any variable can hold any type at any moment. The type can change from line to line. And the language will do implicit type casting. It is hateful.

Python has all the same characteristics I hate in PHP, with the added hateful feature of using indentation instead of begin-and markers for blocks.

I’m lucky that Python has an optional typing capability, which I use consistently. The optional part is a pain when I want to use a module that has no typing information. When that happens, I need to create my own typing stub.

But the worse part of all of this is that they get jumbled together in my head. How many entries in an array? In PHP, that is determined by the count() function, in Python it is the len() function.

In Python, the dot (.) is used to access methods and attributes of objects. In PHP, it is the concatenation symbol.

I am tired of writing Python in my PHP files and I dread switching back to Python because I know my fingers will mess things up.

Every time I hear AOC trying to give a speech, this song comes to mind.

Immigration law in the United States is garbage. For many years, we did accept immigrants. Americans to be.

We were the melting pot. You came to the United States, proud of your original country, or hating it, then you work to become an American.

The stories of parents demanding that their children only speak English, to become even more American.

If you want to see a group of very proud people, just watch a group of immigrants become citizens. They work hard for that privilege.

But the Democrats had to ruin it. First, JFK signed the Community Mental Health Act. This is the act that closed mental institutions.

Yes, there were things wrong with mental health institutions. On the other hand, there are so many mentally ill people living on the streets.

But Teddy did worse. He pushed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This law abolished the discriminatory national origins quotas that favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe.

In other words, he made a person from a third world shithole in Africa just as eligible as an Engineer from Germany. In addition, it pushed family-based immigrant visas.

The fallout from this could be anticipated, and was. Since immigration law favors family connections over what is best for the United States, family connections became much more valuable.

Before the Immigration and Nationality Act, if a couple wanted to come to the United States, both applied for visas and both worked towards becoming Citizens. Both were vetted and the needs of the United States were taken into account.

Afterward, we saw the concept of anchor immigrants. These were people who were admitted to the United States. Once established, they then sponsored other members of their family for visas.

Having a single immigrant become a citizen often leads to their spouse, their children, their parents all being granted visas. If any of those became citizens, they could sponsor even more relatives.

As more and more people applied to become citizens, the wait times started to go up. But there was a shortcut.

There are two methods of creating a family-connection. By birth, or by marriage.

Under current law, marrying a US Citizen will get you a visa, a green card, and a good start towards citizenship.

It became so common that laws were put in place to stop “sham-marriages”.

A sham-marriage is a marriage that exists only for the purpose of becoming a citizen.

How common are these sham-marriage? Common enough, that I knew of a woman who was taken advantage of by a middle eastern man.

But what are the odds of knowing two such women?

Yeah, it turns out that I know another woman that was taken in by a Muslim, once he had his citizenship, he divorced her, tried to take her kid, failed at taking the kids but was now an American Citizen.

Please leave a comment if you know anybody who was taken advantage of or who participated in a sham-marriage. I’m curious.

Back in the depths of time, a foreign national wanted to become a U.S. Citizen. He married a young woman who was a U.S. Citizen, living in the U.S.

He received his visa to come to America.

When enough time had passed, he asked his wife to sponsor him to become a U.S. citizen. She did not want to. He offered her $5000 to do so. She refused, they divorced and he left the country.

This happens more often than you might think. It happened to a friend of mine.

She wasn’t a beautiful woman, she was very plain. A man from the Middle East in the US on a student visa “fell in love” with her. He wined and dined her. Treated her in ways nobody else had.

They got married. He got his green card. They had a beautiful girl together. She sponsored him for citizenship. He became a U.S. Citizen.

He then divorced her, took their kid back to his home country. Married the girl who had been promised to him before he came to the US.

In the case of Miss Bouarfa:

Miss Bouarfa appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which agreed with the state, his visa stayed revoked. She then appealed to the Federal District Court, claiming the state lacked sufficient evidence to support their determination.

The state got the case dismissed. 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) has this to say:

They appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court, which affirmed the inferior court’s ruling. His visa was still revoked.

The question the Supreme Court chose to resolve:

Conclusion

Once the back and forth with the inferior courts is completed, Khalil will lose.

The Supreme Court found, 9-0, that the Secretary has the choice to revoke any visa or green card for anything he feels is sufficient. Judicial review is not allowed under U.S. Law.

The ONLY challenge they would have is a Constitutional challenge, which they have not really made.

Networking should be simple. Even when it was big, it was simple. Plug the wires in correctly, assign the IP address your system administrator gave you, and you are up and running on the internet.

We built each node on the net to be able to withstand attacks. Each node was a fortress.

But when we put Win95 machines on the net, that changed.

The mean time to having a Win95 machine compromised was less than 72 hours.

Today, an unhardened Windows box has about an hour before it is compromised. Many IoT devices have windows in the 5 minute range.

To “fix” this issue, we introduced firewalls. A firewall examines every packet that enters, deciding if the packet should be allowed forward.

Since everything was in plain text, it was easy to examine a packet and make decisions. This “fixed” the Windows Vulnerability issue.

The next complication came about because Jon Postel didn’t dream big enough. His belief was that there would never be more than a few thousand machines on the Internet.

This was an important argument as it shaped the new Internet Protocol. He wanted 2 bytes (16 bits) for host addressing. Mike wanted more. He argued that there would be 100s of thousands of machines on the Internet.

They compromised on a 4 byte, 32 bit address, or around 4 billion addresses. But since the address space was going to be sparse, the actual number would be less than that. Much less than that.

This meant that there was a limit on the number of networks available at a time when we needed more and more networks.

Add to that, we had homes that suddenly had more than one device on the Internet. There were sometimes two or even three devices in a single home.

Today, a normal home will have a dozen or more devices with an internet address within their home.

This led to the sharing of IP addresses. This required Network Address Translation.

stateDiagram-v2
  direction LR
  classDef outside fill:#f00
  classDef both fill:orange
  classDef inside fill:green
  Internet:::outside --> DataCenter
  DataCenter:::outside --> Firewall
  Firewall:::both --> Server
  class Server inside 

Here we see that we have an outside world which is dangerous red. The Firewall exists on both and creates safety for our Server in green.

stateDiagram-v2
  direction LR
  classDef outside fill:#f00
  classDef both fill:orange
  classDef inside fill:green

  Internet:::outside --> DataCenter
  DataCenter:::outside --> Firewall
  Firewall:::both --> LoadBalancer
  state LoadBalancer {
    Server1
    Server2
  }
class LoadBalancer inside

Server1 and Server2 are part of the compute cluster. The load balancer sends traffic to the servers in some balanced way.

stateDiagram-v2
  direction LR
  classDef outside fill:#f00
  classDef both fill:orange
  classDef inside fill:green

  Internet:::outside --> DataCenter
  DataCenter:::outside --> Firewall
  Firewall:::both --> LoadBalancer
  state LoadBalancer {
    Ingress1 --> Server1
    Ingress2 --> Server2
Server1 --> Compute1
Server1 --> Compute2
Server1 --> Compute3
Server2 --> Compute1
Server2 --> Compute2
Server2 --> Compute3
  }
class LoadBalancer inside

The firewall sends traffic to the load balancer. The load balancer sends traffic in a balanced fashion to Ingress 1 or Ingress 2. This configuration means that either Ingress 1 or Ingress 2 can be go offline and the cluster continues to work.

The actual structure is that the Ingress process runs on the different servers. It is normal to have 3 ingress processes running on 3 servers, with more servers hosting other processes.

So what’s so complicated? What’s complicated is that each of the devices in that path must be configured correctly. Which gets more complex than it should be.

The path packets travel is configured by routing configurations. This is done by BGP outside the Data Center and OSPF inside the Data Center. The Firewall must be configured to only pass the traffic it is supposed to.

Firewall rules grow and can be complex. My firewall rules exist as “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” It is always a concern when modifying firewall rules. It is not unheard of to lock yourself out of your firewall. Or to bring down a thousand sites from one bad configuration rule in a firewall.

The load balancer must also be configured correctly. In our case, our load balancers offload SSL/TLS work to allow routing decisions. It then uses internal SSL/TLS for all traffic within the cluster.

The Ingress processes live on a virtual network for intra-cluster communications and on the load balancer network for communications with the load balancers.

Each of the compute instances communicates on the intra-cluster network only.

All of this is wonderful. Until you start attempting to figure out how to get the correct packets to the correct servers.

The firewall is based on pfSense. The load balancer is based on HAProxy. The ingress services are provided by Nginx. The intra-cluster networking and containerizing is provided by docker/K8S.

The issue of the day, if I upload large files via the load balancer, it fails. Implying that HAProxy is the issue. Uploading to the ingress services directly works.

Frustration keeps growing. When will it get easy?

What is the judicial branch of the U.S. Government?

There is only one court defined in the Constitution, all the others are created by Congress and are inferior to the Supreme Court.

The Congress can establish courts, which implies that they can delete courts. This has happened in the past, I believe. We have been looking to split the Ninth Circuit into multiple circuits for several years now.

Neither the Congress nor the President can reduce the salary for Judges. They can only increase their salaries.

There are two ways to remove a federal judge from inferior court: 1) Impeach them, 2) Find that they are not exhibiting “good behaviour”.

While the Constitution established the Supreme Court and authorized inferior courts, it doesn’t, explicitly, say what authority over the other two branches it has.

The President has the power of the veto. He has command of the military and the tools required to fulfill his responsibilities as the head of the executive branch.

The Congress has the power of the purse and the ability to create laws. They can override a presidential veto.

Our government was set up to be at odds with itself. To be inefficient in creating laws. No man’s home or wallet is safe when Congress is in session.

The power of the Court came when they took it in Marbury. They didn’t justify that power grab under the Constitution. They simply declared that it is the job of the courts to say what the law is.

As part of that task, they are now empowered (authorized) to judge the Constitutionality of any law.

The Supreme Court has put guard rails on that power. While we heard it in Bruen and in Heller, it is a consistent message, first look at the plain text of the Constitution. If the proposed conduct implicates the plain text of the Constitution, then the burden shifts to the Government to show this Nation’s historical tradition of equivalent regulation.

Yes, that sort of language is in many Supreme Court opinions, not just Second Amendment Opinions. Which is part of the reason the legal people of the Second Amendment Community get upset with rogue inferior courts.

The Trump Administration’s Attack on Judges

Maybe we should say, “rogue, inferior court, judges.” These are judges, sometimes making up an entire court, that seem to feel that they have the power to overturn presidential orders.

Unfortunately, these judges step outside the guard rails constantly.

Consider just one question, “Does the President have the Constitutional authority to hire and fire personal within the executive branch?”

When we look at the plain text of the Constitution, we find that he does have the authority to hire. Sometimes that requires the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Other times it does not.

With the authority to hire comes the ancillary authority to fire. This is the same as the First Amendment’s “freedom of the press” including the right of the press to purchase ink and to be free of targeted taxation.

Trump 2.0 came into office knowing that he would be subject to lawfare. The left has already played that hand.

When I read the filings of the state (good guys), it is obvious that they were prepared for these court cases. They have been extraordinarily careful to make sure they follow the court’s orders without letting the court win.

Battle Is Waged

There seems to be credible evidence that there are people in congress that are looking to start impeachment proceedings against those judges that they feel are going rogue. Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement that impeachment wasn’t the correct path to follow when a court’s ruling goes against you. Still, the undertones suggest that impeachments are coming.

Some lawyers are suggesting going after the good behavior aspect. If the judge is not staying within the guard rails created by the Supreme Court, they are not exhibiting good behavior. This means they can be removed. Is there good case law for this? I do not know. I suspect there is not.

You are welcome to read this article from the University of Notre Dame.

Regardless, there are judges out there that are seeing that they are getting into the “FO” stage of the equation.

Enter Judge Jesse M. Furman

Judge Furman is a member of the Southern District of New York District Court. When Khalil was detained, then transported before being deported, he was the lucky judge to get the case.

The case is a writ of habeas corpus.

The gist, in this case, is that the lawyers for Khalil want him in S.D.N.Y, and they want the court to have power over him. Currently, the federal government has power over him.

Unfortunately for Khalil, the state hit hard and fast. They detained Khalil, took him to the ICE Field Office in Manhattan for processing. The ICE Field Office does not have facilities for holding prisoners for more than 12 hours. Since he couldn’t hold him there, so they transferred him.

He was transferred to the Elizabeth Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey. Normally, this is where he would have been held until deported or released.

But, the Elizabeth Detention Facility was experiencing and continues to experience a bedbug issue that prevented [them] from accepting detainees as full transfers. In short, he couldn’t stay there.

This was known before Khalil was detained. They had transport ready and Khalil was on his way to the Louisiana Detention Facility in Jena, Louisiana shortly after he arrived in New Jersey.

This was happening so rapidly that the Judge is talking about where Khalil was at any particular minute. In some cases, he was removed from jurisdictions only a few minutes before court orders would have stopped the transfer.

Now Khalil is in Louisiana. The S.D.N.Y. did not have jurisdiction when the case was opened. That would have been in the District of New Jersey. By the time everything was sorted out, he was in the Western District of Louisiana.

This judge could claim he had jurisdiction and demand the return of Khalil. This would be fought, and is being fought. He is unlikely to win on the merits. It could be years before the Supreme Court makes a final decision. During that time, Khalil would be behind bars.

If the judge dismissed the case, his earlier TRO would be vacated and Khalil would be deported.

If the judge transferred the case to the W.D. of Louisiana, it is likely that the courts in that jurisdiction would not be issuing orders overriding the President.

Here is the thing. The Trump admin is going to put the same motions for dismissal or transfer in front of the judge in New Jersey.

How does a judge in New York decide that they don’t have jurisdiction because the person wasn’t in the district when the case was filed, believe that the case belongs in a jurisdiction where the complaint was never filed and where the person is currently being detained?

Bluntly, I think the judge in New York took a look at what was happening and decided, “I don’t want any part of this mess.” Then punted.

When my guy does something I like, I do cheer. When their guy does something I dislike, I’ll boo.

But what happens when my guy does something I like, but which I would boo if their guy did?

I worry about this.

In addition, I look at how I would react if something my guy is doing today, were to be done by their guy tomorrow. I need to be willing to accept both theirs and mine doing this thing.

I was extremely upset when Joe Biden’s masters were ignoring Supreme Court rulings. Is my guy ignoring court rulings?

One of the things to understand is how our Constitutional Republic works. We, The People, have rights. Our state has rights derived from The People of the state.

The federal government and the state government have power. They have power by existing.

The federal Constitution grants authority to the federal government to do certain things, and only those things.

Consider the following, a squad of cops breaks down your door, throws you in irons, transports you to the jail and locks the cage.

Under our Constitution, the cops only have the authority to do so if they have a warrant. If they don’t have that warrant, they do not have the authority to detain you. Did they have the power to do so? Obviously, they did because they did detain you, and they did throw you in jail.

The Supreme Court was not granted any authority under our Constitution. Our Constitution established a Supreme Court, but they didn’t explicitly give the Supreme Court any Authority.

With —Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 2024 604 U.S. 6 the Supreme Court took the authority to arbitrate what was and what was not Constitutional.

We, as a country, have accepted this.

When we look at the courts, they have significant authority, they do not always have the power to enforce their authority.

When the judge looks down from his bench and orders a person into jail, it is Law Enforcement that executes that order. In some cases, the court employs those people. In federal court, the enforcement power rests in the executive branch, such as the federal marshals, who report to DoJ.

So, in the cases I’m looking at, the court has the authority but lacks the power.

Tren de Aragua(TdA)

What is due process as it relates to TdA?

We start with what due process do you have? You are stopped while walking down the street and the cop demands your papers.

You do not have to produce papers when a cop demands them (IANAL). In some states, you might have to identify yourself, but that does not require you to provide papers.

If you have followed your state’s laws regarding providing identification, what next?

Go watch some YouTube videos and reach out to a lawyer in your state. I have nothing to say because I just don’t know.

As a citizen, you have the right to a jury of your peers. You have the right to due process. You have the right to legal representation.

They do not have the authority to just disappear you into a cell.

You will get your day in court. If you are not found guilty, you will be released. It can be expensive, but you don’t get thrown into a cage without due process.

But what if you are here illegally?

If you are an illegal alien, then they only need to prove that you are here illegally. Once they prove that, you can be deported.

The question arises, who do they have to prove legality to? To a judge? To some nameless official? To their drinking buddies? Who?

In the case of TdA and other gangs, like MS-13, they self identify as belonging to those gangs. As part of those gangs, they are not welcome in the United States. Because they are not wanted, they do not have visa or green cards. Since they are not here legally, they can be deported.

But what if they do have a visa or green card?

Simple, those can be revoked. Being a member of such a gang is enough of a reason for the State Department to revoke a visa and/or a green card.

Once they are deported, it becomes the responsibility of the receiving country to deal with those deported.

Well, we decided to fly TdA members to El Salvador. There is an interesting law in El Salvador. According to one source, TdA are by definition criminals in El Salvador.

Under El Salvadorian law, any member of TdA can be arrested and jailed.

When these deportees arrived in El Salvador, the El Salvadorian officials determined if they were indeed members of TdA.

Since they were in El Salvador, they are, by definition, criminals. Thus, they can be jailed.

They were then in processed and get to stay in the comfort of El Salvador super max prison.

Was due process served? Yes. Could it have been abused? Yes. Will it be abused when the democrats regain power? Yes, it will.

How do I know that it will be abused by democrats? Because they did so over the last four years.