Category Archives: President Donald Trump

Breaking: Democrats Make Humiliating Partial Climbdown in Ludicrous New York Case Against Trump

Posted on by
Reply
Paul Adam Engelmayer is the judge who granted the temporary restraining order against Elon Musk. It is one of the most lunatic lawsuits and court orders this law graduate has ever seen.

Paul Adam Engelmayer is the judge who granted the temporary restraining order against Elon Musk. It is one of the most lunatic lawsuits and court orders this law graduate has ever seen.

Yesterday I reported that US President Donald Trump had responded swiftly and robustly to a Federal lawsuit and interim order in New York, restraining him from allowing Elon Musk and DOGE members access to US Treasury records. Now, as the court prepares to rule on Trump’s motion to overturn the order, the Democrats have already humiliatingly made a partial climbdown, agreeing to limit the scope of their order which was stopping technical support contractors having access to the systems. Sadly, in a spectacular return to delusional, anti-democratic form, they have then clarified they really do mean the US Treasury Secretary, appointed by the President, vetted and confirmed by the Senate, should not have access to the systems of his own department – an outrageous demand which appears to violate the US constitution and its provisions on separation of powers.

As Trump’s filings now point out, in negotiations the Democrats have agreed at a minimum, a modification to the restraining order. They concede they were blocking, “routine maintenance” “necessary to allow Treasury systems to operate”:

Trump's lawyers, in legal filings, note the Democrats now agree to modify their order which was stopping technical contractors from routine maintenance of US Treasury systems, "such language is necessary to allow Treasury systems to operate without interruption".

Trump’s lawyers, in legal filings, note the Democrats now agree to modify their order which was stopping technical contractors from routine maintenance of US Treasury systems, “such language is necessary to allow Treasury systems to operate without interruption”.

Democrats returned to form however, and continue to undermine democracy by arguing the Treasury Secretary should not be allowed access to his own department’s systems as set out in an extract from their filings here:

Democrats filing opposing Trump's motion to overturn the restraining order confirms they really do mean they want to stop the US Treasury Secretary accessing Treasury systems.

Democrats filing opposing Trump’s motion to overturn the restraining order confirms they really do mean they want to stop the US Treasury Secretary accessing Treasury systems.

Papers in this case are publicly available online here. Anyone who wishes to follow this darkly comic rape of the judicial system and US democracy by Democrat activists is encouraged to take a look for themselves.

Share Button

Breaking: Trump Lawyers Move Swiftly to Overturn Bizarre Order Restraining DOGE from Access to US Treasury Records

Posted on by
Reply
Paul Adam Engelmayer is the judge who granted the temporary restraining order against Elon Musk. It is one of the most lunatic lawsuits and court orders this law graduate has ever seen.

Paul Adam Engelmayer is the judge who granted the temporary restraining order against Elon Musk. It is one of the most lunatic lawsuits and court orders this law graduate has ever seen.

Late on Friday it was reported that New York Federal District Judge Paul Adam Engelmayer had made a court order restraining Elon Musk and DOGE from access to US Treasury records, along with anyone other than vetted employees of the Bureau of Fiscal Services (excluding employees who are political appointees). This was based on a without-notice application  by 19 Democrat-run US States making histrionic allegations that DOGE was accessing the systems, “for the purpose of blocking federal funds from reaching beneficiaries who do not align with the President’s agenda”, a plainly counter-factual assertion when it is well known that DOGE only has access for the purpose of an audit. The bizarre order, which on a facial reading bars Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from seeing his own department’s records appears to this UK law graduate to be totally unconstitutional. Trump’s lawyers have moved swiftly to seek the order be overturned and had a compelling emergency motion filed by Sunday. All the documents are on the public New York Court system: lunatic grounds for the Democrat injunction application [1], notice of motion to overturn by Trump lawyers [2], grounds for Trump application [3].

Readers will know I am qualified in UK law. I do not practice as a solicitor (attorney) but I have passed the exams and have a Master’s Degree in Law. I do help people in court pro-bono as a McKenzie Friend and I have been praised in Parliament and by judges for my legal skills assisting the vulnerable in legal cases and in court. For example, here is a link to the minutes of Parliament (Hansard) – a petition before Parliament about a case where I stopped a woman wrongly being declared mentally incapable. Part of my course work for my qualifications involved some American Federal Law. I have also successfully represented myself in libel and other High Court cases. Sometimes I read US case law for pure interest and entertainment.

I feel confident to say that Paul Engelmayer has made the most obviously unlawful injunction I have ever, ever seen. The whole Democrat case reads like the rantings of a raving lunatic. Neither the US Constitution nor statute make any meaningful distinction between political appointees and civil servants. Also, as Trump’s lawyers kindly point out the Treasury uses external IT contractors, appointed before Trump took office, to keep its systems running so they ask the court please vacate its order before they shut down the US financial system, or at least the Treasury.

An extract from President Trump's urgent motion to overturn the New York restraining order points out the order bars external IT contractors from keeping US Treasury system running along with Federal Reserve Bank Employees who host Treasury systems on Federal Reserve Servers.

An extract from President Trump’s urgent motion to overturn the New York restraining order points out the order bars external IT contractors from keeping US Treasury system running along with Federal Reserve Bank Employees who host Treasury systems on Federal Reserve Servers.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Big Tech Unites Planet … Against Them, Over Political Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

I never thought I would see a day when German President Angela Merkel would defend Donald Trump (archive). But, she gets it. Social media is now a key way people discuss politics. So, when a person is banned for their opinions, it is like the phone company saying you cannot talk on their phones, because they do not like what you say. That is not to say some measure of control is important – terrorism is illegal on an old fashioned phone and it should be illegal on social media. However, it is not for Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey to be deciding what is acceptable speech.

ScaredChild

Social media censors the speech of vulnerable groups but frequently fails to censor child pornography and extremist anti-Semitism.

Imagine you are a politician. You observe, in the middle of a US Election, a group of powerful companies undermine a candidate’s campaign then ban them on contentious grounds. That candidate is the incumbent President of the United States of America. Regardless of party or nation, a chill would hit your stomach. Because, if it can happen to the most powerful politician on Earth, it can happen to you. Boris Johnson here in the UK gets it. He got it in November, according to the Daily Mail (archive). Merkel gets it. the French get it. It is now a priority in nearly every Western Nation. Trump’s ban hit them where they live.

The ban of Parler too was crass. It was as if Dorsey, Jeff Bezos, Zuckerberg put on tutus and, “We am r hav oligarchy an’ monopoly iz sexi” t-shirts before doing a high-kicking song and dance routine about their excessive market power on the front page of YouTube. In the short term it revealed their power. In the long term it all but guaranteed that power will be taken away.

The problem is that Zuckerberg and Dorsey are not politicians. They had a metallic fist that they had hidden in a velvet glove behind impenetrable walls of complexity such as post ranking algorithms. Their soft power, had they kept it soft, would have been hard to challenge and could have stayed obfuscated – at least enough to deter politicians and keep it a lower priority issue. Instead, they made the fatal, politically maladroit decision to take off that glove and reveal the stainless steel cyborg fist by starting banning mainstream commentators and politicians. They had the power but not the wisdom as to use it discreetly.

Big Tech are alleged to have sought to influence elections not just in the United States but in other countries such as Uganda, which has banned them until at least after the election. North Dakota already has legislative proposals (archive).

Every politician in the world now agrees there needs to be regulation to protect speech. In the UK and US this favours the right. Because, as soon as the government becomes the arbiter of who and what the social media companies can ban the 1st Amendment applies. In the UK, whilst our free speech laws are weaker they are still more permissive than Twitter. In a December judgement, British judges held that mis-gendering was protected speech (archive). In the UK, when a private institution is carrying out a public function, it is subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 (which includes the UK equivalent of the 1st Amendment).

Another group likely to benefit is #GamerGate. For years, they complained of social media censorship. Now, nearly every government in the world has rushed it to near the top of their agenda. The politicians have been hit where they live. Suddenly, the arguments of the likes of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian seem immeasurably less convincing. Even in defeat, Trump may end up winning one of the most important fights in the free world today.

Share Button

NewProject2 – It was MHN not Leopirate

Posted on by
3

The closure of 9chan / Kiwi Farms / Joshua Moon funding site Newproject2 was not caused by Leopirate (although his channel is great and so is his recent video). It is not a free-speech issue. It was me. I had their account closed and it is going to stay closed whilst Josh is a member. Newproject2 is owned and run by low-rent internet shock-jock Dick Masterson. Dick Masterson appears to have ignored the complex regulatory requirements that apply to would-be financial institutions like Newproject2 LLC.

Master Card Closes New Project 2 2020-05-29

MasterCard required that NewProject2 be investigated by its acquiring bank due to its provision of services to Joshua Conner Moon and various regulatory breaches. The investigation led to termination of the account.

I have been quiet for a while on the dreg-o-sphere (my pet name for the embarrassing fringe of the fringe of the Right who actually associate with Joshua Conner Moon and Ethan Ralph). That is because I have been doing productive things. I passed my law exams and whilst I have not sought to practice law as solicitor I have been helping celebrities and politicians pro-bono in high profile lawsuits in the Queen’s Bench as a McKenzie Friend.

Aside from the Coronavirus lockdown I have been earning very much in the higher income tax bracket from the IT business I own. I have been writing articles on major issues. In this recent judgement (archive), a woman called Esther Baker made 200 pages of complaints about me to a High Court judge. The complaints were all rejected, as having, “no merit”. Baker had to pay the costs of making us read her complaints about my articles.

I was praised in a newspaper recently for defeating two of Britain’s biggest and most prestigious libel law firms in a case –

Continue reading →

Share Button

Supreme Court: the US Federal Government Can in Fact Regulate Private Company Editorial

Posted on by
Reply
Earl Warren

Earl Warren, left leaning Supreme Court Justice, ruled in favour of regulating private corporate speech to be fair to all sides.

The recent decision by the Trump administration to collect evidence of political bias at social media companies is to be welcomed. However it has led to gloating on the Left, and concerns on the Right about the legal issues. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is said, prohibits interference by the Federal Government or by Congress. Rubbish! The Supreme Court has already upheld such legislation, and not even the recent, Conservative leaning Supreme Court but the Left-leaning activist Warren Court. I am speaking of course, of the FCC Fairness Doctrine (archive).

The Fairness Doctrine was a rule imposed on early, analog, radio broadcasters as well as television broadcasters. Because there were few radio television channels, they operated as gatekeepers to the national political conversation. As a result, over a number of cases the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began treating them somewhat like utilities.

The Mayflower Doctrine was a ruling of the FCC in 1941 that radio stations were prohibited from editorialising in matters of news or politics for fear that they would otherwise simply be used to propagandise on behalf of Conservative business owners. It was superceded by the later, ‘Fairness Doctrine’. The rule required that broadcasters dealing with controversial issues present both sides, grant equal time to both sides and give those publicly criticised the opportunity to respond.

Eventually, a company called Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the rule and the litigation made its way to the Supreme Court. Which ruled unanimously in favour of the FCC. The full case name is, Red Lion Broadcasting Company, Incorporated, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al. and the court’s opinion can be found here.

HELD (amongst other things) – The fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules do not violate the First Amendment.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Persecuted Bakers Vindicated in United States Supreme Court

Posted on by
2

I am entitled to equal rights under the Equality Act 2010. Does that mean I should be able to go into a local halal or kosher butcher and demand a pork chop? Should I be able to demand the local LGBT t-shirt and craft shops print me a t-shirt with Leviticus 18:22 spelt out in rainbow colours? A similar question was asked of Christian bakers who disagree with gay marriage for religious reasons and were asked to spell out a message contrary to their fundamental beliefs. Now the cake shop owner who stood up for their religious beliefs has been vindicated in a historic 7-2 victory in the United States Supreme Court. The ruling bucks a sinister left-wing trend to compel conduct, with extreme social justice warriors recently arguing for compelled sex under discrimination laws.

WeddingCakeMessage

This Wedding Cake bears a message – which may amount to protected speech for the purpose of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a pivotal case in United States jurisprudence. In 2012 the eponymous cake shop was visited by two homosexuals who wished to get married and asked for a custom cake. The owner refused to create a custom cake as they felt it would violate their Christian faith, although they were welcome to buy any other standard goods in the shop.

The couple sued successfully in the Colorado Courts but yesterday the Supreme Court overruled. The arguments used and the reasons given were extremely technical and worth examining in detail.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Child Abuse Controversy Author Judith Newman Shares Tweet About Bombing Israeli Donald Trump Train Station

Posted on by
1

Controversial Harper Collins Author Judith Newman is presently embroiled in a storm over alleged abuse of her son. Now she has invited further outrage by sharing a tweet about potential bombing of an Israeli train station if it is named after Donald Trump.

JudithNewman2013

Judith Newman in 2013. This woman literally uses her repeated re-reading of a lurid passage from paedophile molestation story “Lolita”, her admitted “favorite” 20th century novel, as an analogy to her son’s interest in escalators. Source – Wikipedia commons. CC-BY-SA-3.0.

Judith Newman was first covered by MHN yesterday in relation to her book, which discusses her underage children in excruciating detail including detailed comment one son’s penis and foreskin and both of their porn viewing habits. She also announces she intends to obtain power of attorney over her autistic son Gus for the purpose of having him sterilised. Newman also states that her “favorite” 20th century novel is infamous tale of pedophile obsession and abuse, “Lolita”.

Predictably, the book’s disturbing content has led to criticism of Newman, executives at Harper Collins and numerous negative reviews even with Amazon restricting them to verified purchasers. Details of email contact details for complaints are included in my last article. This is well worth reading for newcomers as it deals in more detail with the sexual concerns.

Another group of people who may wish to complain are Trump supporters, about this tweet (archive) –

JudithNewmanBombIsraelStation

Doubling down, Judith Newman shared this troubling tweet. Click for full size.

The tweet is capable of multiple interpretations, all of them problematic. At its most benevolent it could be taken as meaning that in the febrile environs of the Middle East naming a station after a divisive leader could make it a target. Unfortunately, unstable individuals and members of violent extremist groups like Antifa could interpret it as encouraging violence. More generally the use of excessive hyperbole is one of many contributors to our current highly polarised society. Continue reading →

Share Button

Abaddon Publishing’s David Moore, FantasyCon 2017 and Punching Trump Supporters (and the Disabled)

Posted on by
Reply

Racism on our streets is a repugnant sight but this author has campaigned against the extremists for 20 years without the need for violence. Vigilante violence is never acceptable, leading to harm against bystanders, victims of mistaken identity and the vulnerable. That is why it is so serious when extremists like Abaddon Books’ Commissioning Editor David Thomas Moore (who is attending FantasyCon 2017 this year) normalise or advocate violence. HWS Events, which is organising the event, has made a statement about this after receiving legal correspondence from MHN, reminding attendees of its harassment policy and right to exclude anyone who threatens violence.

PunchTheSith

“IS IT OK TO PUNCH THE SITH?” asks this image on David Moore’s timeline. Comments by his followers make it clear they take it to mean Nazis. And by Nazis, they mean Trump supporters. Click for full size.

“Is it okay to punch Nazis?”, asks the far Left. The question is seductive, bringing to mind the first recent Captain America film or perhaps Indiana Jones, exciting stories of a world at war in a simpler time. Abaddon Books’ Commissioning editor David Moore poses the question on his Facebook timeline in a somewhat loaded form, “Is it okay to punch the Sith?” In a wartime drama or a science fiction fantasy world the answers might seem simple – but the real world is no longer at war and the questions are no longer simple at all. Looking at the replies to the question, what David’s followers understand is “Is it okay to punch people whom I disagree with?” And the troubling answer they give is, “yes”. A specific example given is Donald Trump’s presidency.

A dictionary definition of extremist is here – “A person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action.” (archive).

Continue reading →

Share Button

Trump Nails It – Alt-Left (Antifa) Shares the Blame for Tragic Death

Posted on by
Reply

This. Trump nails it. In a past article I said that the Klan and Neo-Nazis were vile and to be condemned … but the Klan and the Nazis are a tiny minority of weirdos. They would have had their little protest and left. The alt-left however are a violent group who arrived looking for a fight. Through out our society the left seek to silence other voices and excuse themselves from civility on the basis that the other side are “evil”. Since we are talking about Nazis anyway, was that not their argument for the genocides they committed?

Trump is absolutely right to condemn the Nazis but right to condemn the thugs who riled the situation up. Anyone involved in political violence must be charged, convicted and punished.

Trump also raises valid questions about a revisionist approach to history.

Share Button

ANTIFA and the Social Justice Left Cannot Escape Their Share of the Blame for the Tragic Death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville

Posted on by
Reply

In light of the tragic events of this weekend, it is important  (as President Trump says) to condemn hate and extremism in all its forms. It is equally important to put matters in their proper context. On Saturday 12th August 2017 a beautiful young woman called Heather Heyer was killed when a car (apparently driven deliberately) crashed into her during a protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States.

HeatherHeyer

Heather Heyer is a tragic victim, but why was she even at the rally? Click for full size.

A suspect has been arrested for the crime and if guilty, they will pay. Even so, how did things reach this stage? Neo-nazis and Ku Klux Klan members like those in Charlottesville used to be laughed at as a pathetic and irrelevant fringe – a sort of far-right live action roleplay group in their weird costumes.

I believe that the answer lies in the legitimisation of violence and intimidation by members of the anti-free-speech, far-left, “Social Justice Warrior” movement and their organisations such as ANTIFA. As a society we need to end extremist left-wing radicalisation of our youth and this may require laws to curb the excesses of those on the far left as well as the far right who contribute to any promotion of violence.

On April 15 of this year, violent riots broke out at Berkeley when black-clad far left thugs associated with the ANTIFA organisation (self described “anti fascists”) caused mayhem along with $100,000 of property damage. The protestors were ostensibly aggrieved at a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, an openly gay right-wing journalist and agitator. Needless to say, the property damaged did not belong to Yiannopoulos but to the campus. The main victims were not, “Nazis” but innocent students, the majority of whom could not care less about either side.

The events were part of a broader trend of rising violence and intolerance in the United States and Europe, fuelled by extremist leftists – predominantly students and unemployed recent graduates. University culture has shifted over the years, to the extent that even the Guardian Newspaper has criticised the trend, stating that “voices are being silenced”.

Equally sinister, as noted in the Guardian, left-wing student activists are increasingly describing offensive words and images, as “violence” – even a statue of Cecil Rhodes. This redefinition of words or even inanimate statues as “violence” is then used to justify a literally violent response.

Continue reading →

Share Button