Rediscovering
Character: The Quest for Integrity, Courage, and Truthfulness
In an era where headlines are
dominated by scandals, trust seems fleeting, and integrity often
takes a backseat to expedience, the concept of character has become a lamented
relic of the past. Once revered and celebrated, qualities like honesty,
truthfulness, integrity, and courage now seem like rare gems in a world
increasingly defined by cynicism and self-interest.
Character traits are the foundational
elements of human virtue, the moral compass that guides our actions and shapes
our identities. They are the bedrock upon which civilizations are built, the
glue that holds societies together, and the beacon that inspires future
generations. Yet, in our modern landscape, they have been relegated
to the periphery of our collective consciousness.
Gone are the days when we spoke of
individuals in terms of their character with admiration and respect. The notion
of an "elder statesman" or a "pillar of the community"
seems like a quaint relic of a bygone era. Instead, we find ourselves
confronted with a culture that often rewards cunning over integrity, where the
loudest voice drowns out the voice of reason and where self-promotion eclipses
selflessness.
But amidst this apparent dearth of
character, there remains a flicker of hope—a recognition that the absence of
these virtues is not inevitable and that their revival is not beyond reach.
Indeed, the fact that we mourn their loss speaks to their enduring value and deep-seated yearning for their return.
So, what are these elusive qualities
that we so sorely miss?
First and foremost is honesty. In a
world plagued by misinformation and deceit, honesty is a beacon of
clarity and trustworthiness. It is the foundation of all meaningful
relationships, the cornerstone of a just society, and the hallmark of authentic leadership.
Linked closely with honesty is
integrity—the unwavering adherence to moral and ethical principles, even in the
face of adversity. Integrity gives substance to our words, credibility
to our actions, and authenticity to our character.
Then there is courage—the willingness
to stand up for what is right, even when it is unpopular or dangerous. Courage
is the fuel that drives progress, the antidote to complacency, and the catalyst
for change.
And let us not forget humility—a trait
often overlooked but essential in tempering the ego and fostering genuine
connection. Humility is the antidote to arrogance, the bridge to empathy, and
the cornerstone of true wisdom.
So, how do we rediscover and cultivate
these virtues in a world seemingly overrun by their absence?
It begins with a collective
reaffirmation of their importance—a recommitment to values that transcend
individual gain and societal trends. We must consciously strive to embody these
traits, leading by example and inspiring others to do the
same.
Education also plays a crucial role in imparting knowledge, instilling values, and nurturing
character. Schools, families, and communities must work together to cultivate
environments that promote honesty, integrity, and empathy, fostering a new
generation of leaders guided by principle rather than expediency.
Moreover, we must hold ourselves and
others accountable for our actions, refusing to turn a blind eye to dishonesty,
corruption, or injustice. We must demand transparency, integrity, and
accountability from our leaders, recognizing that authentic leadership is not
measured by power or prestige but by character and service.
Character revival requires a collective effort—recognizing that our cherished values are not
relics of the past but timeless principles that transcend cultural, political,
and social divides. It is a journey of self-discovery and collective renewal—a
quest to reclaim our humanity and rebuild a world guided by honesty, integrity,
and courage.
In the end, the true, accurate measure of a
society is not its wealth, power, or prestige but the character of its people. We hope to build a future worthy of our highest aspirations by reclaiming and nurturing the virtues of honesty, integrity, and courage.
Understanding the
Boundaries of Presidential Immunity: Serving the Public Interest
In the realm of governance, presidential immunity is both a shield and a sword, wielded to
protect the highest office in the land from undue scrutiny and legal
entanglements. However, this immunity is not without its limits. While it safeguards the integrity of the presidency, it is firmly tethered to the
actions undertaken within the scope of the president's duties and for the
exclusive benefit of the public, not the individual occupying the office.
At the heart of the matter lies the
principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law. This notion is
enshrined in the legal framework of many democracies worldwide, including the
United States. Yet, the interpretation and application of presidential immunity
have often sparked debates and legal battles, mainly when allegations of
misconduct or wrongdoing arise.
Presidential immunity finds its roots
in the need to shield the head of state from frivolous lawsuits and
distractions that could impede their ability to govern effectively. It ensures
that the president can carry out their duties without constant fear of legal
repercussions for every decision made or action taken. However, this immunity
is not a carte blanche for unchecked authority but a carefully
balanced protection designed to serve the greater good.
One crucial aspect of presidential
immunity is its limitation to actions undertaken within the scope of the
president's official duties. This means that while in office, the president
enjoys protection from legal liability for acts performed in their
official capacity. For instance, decisions related to foreign policy, national
security, and executive orders fall squarely within this domain. However,
actions taken for personal gain or outside the purview of presidential
authority are not shielded by this immunity.
Furthermore, presidential immunity is
contingent upon actions that benefit the public exclusively. In other words,
any act shielded by this immunity must serve the nation's interests as a whole rather than the president's personal interests. This distinction is
crucial in ensuring that the privilege of immunity is not abused for
self-serving purposes but remains a tool for advancing the common good.
The rationale behind this limitation
is clear: the presidency is an institution entrusted with immense power and
responsibility, and its actions must be guided by the principles of
transparency, accountability, and the public interest. Granting immunity solely
for actions that serve these ideals upholds the integrity of the office and
reinforces the bond of trust between the government and the governed.
Moreover, presidential
immunity is not static but subject to interpretation and evolution. Over the
years, courts have grappled with defining boundaries and weighing their implications in changing societal norms and legal precedents. For instance, the landmark Supreme Court case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald in 1982 established the doctrine of absolute immunity for the president from civil
lawsuits for official acts. However, subsequent rulings and legal challenges
have refined and sometimes constrained this doctrine, underscoring the dynamic
nature of presidential immunity in the legal landscape.
In conclusion, presidential immunity
serves as a vital safeguard for the effective functioning of the executive
branch, shielding the president from legal distractions that could hinder their
ability to govern. However, this immunity has its limitations. It is
limited to actions undertaken within the scope of the president's duties and
exclusively benefiting the public interest. By upholding these principles,
presidential immunity strikes a delicate balance between protecting the
presidency and ensuring accountability to the people it serves.
Look up its propaganda: https://www.heritage.org/about-heritage/mission. Yes, read and consider what it actually is doing. It supported Trump and handpicked the Supreme Court majority to name but a portion of America it has in its scorpion claws. Here is the stinger. They plan to take over ultimate power through DJT, dismantle the government, and install a permanent oligarchy/theocracy. Read their propaganda and the 2025 plan. Kiss the Constitution and civil rights goodbye.
This is not a conspiracy theory. Today's best evidence is the errant SC that tossed the stare decisis rule of law and overturned Roe. Now, it is signaling the postponement of all actions against DJT, except the NY trial, which is in progress until they go away. Again, it ignores precedent and the rule of law on executive immunity. Its precedent in Winstar will be sidestepped if and when it rules on DJT's immunity.
The Heritage Foundation is a shadow fascist political party supporting means to its end. The end is to replace individual rights with total government control to benefit the rich and the Christian religion. "From empowering parents in education, reversing growing spending and inflation, and protecting the unborn, to securing America’s borders, countering the threat of Communist China, holding Big Tech accountable, and ensuring free and fair elections—Heritage is on the front lines in the fight to help Americans thrive."
The Heritage Foundation hand picked Supreme Court Justices so that the court could kill the rule of law by eliminating stare decisis, the basic principle that prior precedents must be followed. We now have official anarchy as sanctioned by the highest court.
Clever, intelligent, well-financed, and well-connected, this juggernaut is silently rolling all over the sleeping majority on its way to total dominance. The Supreme Court majority are shills and sycophants for installing the hand-picked operatives. Again, just look at how it eviscerates the rule of law.
We who swear to defend the Constitution are duty-bound to fight against the Heritage Foundation and its henchmen on the bench. We must speak out and vote with Joe Biden to remain the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Watch the short video of Ricky Gervais, who says all should be taught the burden of proof. He explains.
I would leave behind the purpose in life is to discover as many true facts as you can. Two ways. Through evidence peer-reviewed by scientists or by evidence in a court of law ruled admissible by a judge and determined by a jury of peers.
Nothing is true without verified evidence. Verification never ceases. Anything not verified as evidence is belief based on faith which by definition is the absence of proof. There is no need to look for evidence something does not exist. The burden of proof is on the proponent. You do not need to prove there is no tooth fairy.
When asked why she supports him, she says, "Because he's a straight shooter." Another member of the DDE (dumbed-down electorate) says it's because he tells it like it is. Another, he's not a politician. Still another, he will drain the swamp like he said.
Over the last several decades, we've achieved the world's superior position for gullibility, failure of critical thinking, and stupidity. We have managed to produce an appalling number of brain-almost-dead citizens while at the same time allowing a few clever oligarchs to hoard most of our wealth with impunity.
From FDR to Trump, America has steadily lost its understanding of reality. In post-World War II, Americans had a firm grasp of the realities of war and the means and methods to recover and build a great nation. Its institutions served reality. The secular government was strong, academia was grounded in liberal arts and sciences, secondary education taught the basics and the classics, and religion spoke quietly of good, trustworthy charity.
America was an honorable republic and an emerging world leader in the goal of peace and prosperity. The factual-based reality was the currency of the realm. Science was the arbiter of facts. The rule of law was the sacrosanct fabric of society. A united people had fended off fascism. Brave men and women, many of whom made ultimate sacrifices, returned to take up the yoke of liberal democracy. America was the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The institutions of government, politics, education, commerce, and religion were grounded in the reality of purpose and promise. Social ills were diagnosed, and treatments were begun. Secular morality strengthened to fill any void left by religion's lingering wartime memory.
The social safety net was mostly firm but for discrimination, racism, and unequal treatment. Those realities were recognized and exposed to the light of redress. The course was clear. However, the bottom dropped out thanks to Reagan and the Heritage Foundation. That latter gang of would-be oligarchs has silently taken over everything except the federal government until now.
And now, the result we reap is the election of the stupidest, most vile human being on the planet because he is a straight shooter? Do you understand what he intends to shoot? What the Heritage Foundation is doing and will do? They already have stacked the Supreme Court and ushered us back to the 19th century. With Trump as its puppet, the Heritage Foundation will dismantle the federal government and install an oligarchy/theocracy. No more federal government-enforced civil rights and social benefits. No more democracy. The inmates have taken over the asylum.
We, the people, are "they." Yes, voters for Trump, listen to him. We, the people for whom lives have been sacrificed for our freedom from tyranny and for our way of life, are referred to as "they" by your despotic leader. Think about it. E pluribus unum? We, the people? No. We are the "they" he aspires to rule, and you are voting for him. We are the country he will take over, turn into a theocracy, and wreak terror on all of us who dare to resist. A dead giveaway in a single word.
You, his faithful, believe he is above the law, but you defend him as if he is subject to these laws. What laws are there, and what evidence is there that he is guilty of tyranny? Ninety-one felony charges, thousands of lies, and his unequivocal insistence he won in 2020 are evidence of tyranny. All the more so, his recent behavior, oral allusions, and admissions promise dictatorship and theocracy. He acts like he is above the law. However, the objective, scientifically verifiable evidence supports the warning that Trump is hands down guilty of tyranny.
Tyranny is a form of oppressive and unjust rule where a single individual or a small group exercises absolute power over others without regard for their rights or welfare. It often involves the abuse of authority, suppression of dissent, and the violation of fundamental human rights. The tyrant maintains control through coercion, intimidation, propaganda, or force.
That is what you are voting for.
Tyranny can arise in various forms, including dictatorship, theocracy, or oligarchy. Throughout history, many societies have struggled against tyranny in pursuing freedom, justice, and democracy. Now is the time to engage in resistance movements, civil disobedience, or revolutions to overcome Trump's tyranny. The odds are there will not be another open and fair election for decades. Dictators do not leave office willingly.
Evangelicals wake up. You also are "they." Trump will turn his back on you as soon as he is elected. Doubt my words? Look at what he did for you when he was President. Nothing. In fact, he made sure the rich got more money. You did not get any. He made sure women stayed at home breeding, and he eliminated their most precious civil rights. Look at the record objectively. Your guy was in office, but your life did not improve as he had promised. This time, with the backing of the Heritage Foundation, he will become the dictator he has promised.
The Republicans turned ultra-conservative, turned maniacally religious, turned racist, and misogynistic have sent women packing back to the 1800s to start all over again trying to obtain their Constitutionally ordained rights of citizenship. Shame on sociopathic men and women in the distinct minority for cheating and stealing their way into a complete subjugation of half the population. When will the American people wake up and realize democracy is dying. Today, minority rules. Tomorrow, fascism and theocracy.
Put Democrats back in charge of both houses of Congress, the Whitehouse, and expand the Supreme Court to include 6 fair-minded women.
The Backward March:
How the Evangelical Theocratic Movement is Rolling Back Women's Rights
Introduction: In recent years, the
United States has witnessed a resurgence of the evangelical/theocratic
movement, a political and social force that wields significant influence.
Unfortunately, one of the most alarming consequences of this resurgence has
been the erosion of women's rights, threatening to roll back hard-won progress
by at least a century.
Historical Context: For decades, the
United States has been a battleground for women's rights, with significant
strides in suffrage, reproductive rights, and workplace equality. However, the
rise of the evangelical/theocratic movement has posed a formidable challenge to
these advancements, advocating for regressive policies rooted in religious
ideology.
Erosion of Reproductive Rights: Under
the guise of morality and religious conviction, evangelical groups have
spearheaded efforts to restrict access to reproductive healthcare. Across the
country, restrictive abortion laws have been enacted, effectively limiting
women's autonomy and access to safe and legal abortion services. Furthermore,
attacks on organizations like Planned Parenthood have undermined essential
reproductive healthcare services for millions of women.
Undermining Gender Equality: Central
to the evangelical/theocratic ideology is the promotion of traditional gender
roles, which perpetuate stereotypes and reinforce inequality. The concept of
complementarianism, which asserts male leadership and female submission, is
championed by many within this movement. Consequently, women find themselves
relegated to subordinate roles in marriage, education, and the workplace,
hindering their ability to participate and thrive in society fully.
Backlash Against Gender Justice: As
movements advocating for gender justice, such as #MeToo and LGBTQ+ rights, have
gained momentum, the evangelical/theocratic movement has mounted a fierce
backlash. Leaders within this movement have actively opposed efforts to combat
sexual harassment and discrimination, citing religious beliefs as
justification. This has created a hostile environment for those seeking justice
and equality.
Impact on Education and Healthcare:
The influence of the evangelical/theocratic movement extends into areas such as
education and healthcare, where policies are shaped to align with conservative
values. Abstinence-only education programs, endorsed by evangelical groups,
withhold vital information about sexual health and contraception, putting young
people at risk. Additionally, efforts to defund or dismantle comprehensive sex
education programs further exacerbate the problem, perpetuating ignorance and endangering
public health.
The Role of the Judiciary: The
appointment of conservative judges sympathetic to the values of the
evangelical/theocratic movement has profound implications for women's rights.
These judges can shape court decisions on reproductive rights and gender
equality, potentially rolling back decades of progress. Their influence
underscores the urgent need for vigilance and advocacy to defend women's
rights.
Conclusion: The resurgence of the
evangelical/theocratic movement in the United States represents a significant
threat to women's rights and gender equality. Through legislative initiatives,
cultural influence, and judicial appointments, this movement seeks to turn back
the clock on decades of progress, relegating women to second-class status. To
combat this regressive agenda, advocates must mobilize,
resist, and persist in the fight for women's rights and social justice. Only
through collective action can we ensure a future where all individuals,
regardless of gender, are truly equal and free.
Choosing the best
contract management tool for your business involves several steps to ensure it
aligns with your needs and requirements. Here's a structured approach
to help you make the decision:
Assess Your Needs and
Objectives: Understand your business's requirements and objectives. Consider factors such as the volume of contracts, types of
contracts, collaboration needs, compliance requirements, and integration
with existing systems.
Research Available
Options: Research different contract management tools available in the
market. Look for reviews, comparisons, and testimonials from other users.
Consider features, pricing, user interface, scalability,
security, and customer support.
Define Key Features: Identify the
key features essential for your business. These may include
contract creation, document storage, version control, e-signature
capabilities, contract tracking, reporting and analytics, integration with
other tools (like CRM or ERP systems), and compliance management.
Evaluate Ease of Use: Choose a
contract management tool that is intuitive and easy to use. It should
require minimal training for your team to adapt to it efficiently.
Check Customization
Options: Assess the contract management tool's customization options. It can be tailored to meet your specific
business processes and workflows.
Consider Integration: Determine
whether the contract management tool can integrate seamlessly with other
software systems used within your organization. Integration with CRM, ERP,
accounting software, and document management systems can streamline
processes and enhance efficiency.
Assess Security
Measures: Security is critical when managing contracts and sensitive
business information. Verify that the contract management tool offers
robust security measures such as encryption, access controls, data backup,
and compliance with relevant regulations (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA).
Evaluate Scalability: Choose a
contract management tool that can scale alongside your business as it
grows. Ensure that it can accommodate increasing contracts
and users without compromising performance.
Trial or Demo: Before making
a final decision, request a trial or demo of the contract management tool.
This allows you to test its features, usability, and compatibility with
your business processes firsthand.
Consider Customer
Support: Evaluate the vendor's level of customer support.
Ensure that they offer timely assistance, training resources, and ongoing
support to address any issues or concerns that may arise.
Cost Consideration: Compare the
pricing plans of different contract management tools and consider their overall value to your business needs and budget.
Seek Feedback: Gather
feedback from vital organizational stakeholders who will use the contract management tool. Their insights can help you make a more
informed decision.
By following these steps and
thoroughly evaluating your options, you can select the best contract management
tool that effectively meets your business's needs and supports your contract management processes.
Lawyers in contract management, and there are many, rely on Lexis/Nexis.
The new MAGA/Heritage Foundation slogan and key lyric in the treason anthem is "the truth does not matter."
The truth does not matter. "Constipation, oh constipation, thy joyful sound proclaim, 'til man's remotest entrail shall praise its makers' name." Mark Twain's Letters From the Earth. Lies, more lies, thy noise may now be heard, for now, thy rectum utters every other word.
Wake up America. Trump is winning in the battleground states. Project2925, Trump's rants, and Heritage Foundation propaganda are paying off to the point that the party line has the fortitude to pronounce it has memorialized the practice of lying by enshrining it in the catch phase slogan and anthem as Truth Does Not Matter.
There are two immutable tests of truth, of actual facts. One is the scientific method, and the other is the one I practice, the courtroom trial. Both share a reverence for evidence. Evidence is something you can feel, touch, see, test, double test, peer review, and present to impartial judges. We have a system to live by. What we know as truth comes to us through the crucible of trial, either in the lab or the courtroom. Nowhere else, Not the Bible.
Throw the truth out, and you have anarchy. I can make up what I want, and so can you. Yup, we can live that way. I'll have more guns and bullets than you, and I will bury you. That's the world I want. Yessiree, THE TRUTH DOES NOT MATTER.
THIS ALSO IS TRAITOROUS. IT IS A VIOLATION OF OATH AND GIVES AID AND COMFORT TO OUR ENEMIES. YOU HAVE BECOME OUR ENEMY.
Does Biden have the authority to make Trump ineligible to hold office as president? The Constitution says so. That is the law. Who enforces the law? The Executive branch of government. Who is in charge of that? Biden. What about the Supreme Court? Did they not say Congress has to act to enforce the Constitution? Yes, but they were making a political decision and are worthy of being ignored as political partisans, and Biden certainly has the power to ignore them, if not the guts. Does Biden subvert the rule of law? No, not at all. The Executive branch enforces the law, which is what he does. Also, extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures to support the Constitution and save democracy. The oath of office is explicit and implicit in the Constitution, which is the obligation to keep democracy sacrosanct. So why doesn't Biden do what you say? Intestinal fortitude, my friends, intestinal fortitude.
This is simple and straightforward. The Constitution is clear, and the facts are indisputable. We all saw and heard Trump's violations of the Constitution.
When the Supreme Court decided Colorado could not disqualify Trump, it adjudicated Trump a President who incited an insurrection against the United States. Trump is guilty, as a matter of fact. Now, what to do about it.
Biden and the Executive branch enforce the law. The preservation of democracy demands that Biden ignore the Supreme Court precedent. That opinion was vitiated by the grossest abuse of judicial restraint.
The only issues here are not integrity, propriety, adherence to the rule of law, or the efficacy of the electoral process. Democracy is at stake (see Trump's public statements and Project2025). The survival of our way of life depends on Biden's actions.
The only issue is whether Biden has the strength of character to act. He does. Will he?
The Supreme Court said Congress had to pass legislation. Not so. Not regarding every other Constitutional provision. The executive branch enforces the law. The Supreme Court writes wrong opinions often, and President Biden stands atop a powerful and equal branch of government. He can be our hero.
Myopic is too kind. Think this through. Study the Heritage Foundation's history, purpose, positions, and promotions. Read Project2025. Understand Trump. I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, including domestic ones. Did you? Trump and the Heritage Foundation will rewrite the Constitution. They want an oligarchy to theocracy. The branches are separate and equal. We ignore bad laws in defense of liberty. Under the exigent circumstances, the political court needs to be ignored. A bold leader, a Lincoln, FDR, or JFK, would not hesitate to do what is right.
The Supreme Court made a law from whole cloth for political reasons to support Trump. The Executive Branch enforces the law. The Constitution is a law. In no other case must Congress act before the executive enforces the Constitution. The court again ignores stare decisis, the bedrock of the rule of law. That aside, the Executive Branch is free to ignore bad legal precedent from the Supreme Court.
No one has deigned to discuss our proposal to preserve democracy in the face of a Trump/Heritage Foundation victory. If it is because you do not think he can win, look at the battleground states where he is ahead and could win. If it is because we can live with a Trump victory, listen to him and read Project2025 and the plan to dismantle the federal government and turn the country into a theocracy. Think that can't happen? Nazi Germany happened.
Section three of the 14th Amendment provides:
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and VicePresident, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Who executes and enforces this mandate? Under our system of three co-equal branches of government, which branch executes and enforces the laws? Not Congress. Not the Judiciary, which, by the way, erroneously said Congress enforces Section three. No, President Biden can enforce the provision. We can discuss it. But keep in mind, we are talking in the context of a Trump victory and his plan to flout the Constitution and make this country a theocracy. The issue is how to stop him.
We propose that if Trump wins, President Biden declares him ineligible as one who engaged in insurrection and rebellion and gave aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution. Biden deploys whatever is necessary to maintain law and order and undertakes any lawful means to protect the American people from domestic terrorists. If the Supreme Court eventually says Biden acted illegally, so what? That court has demeaned itself and has become, by the majority, a group of political hacks.
You say it's radical. Crazy. We are talking about democracy, where everyone has a vote, and the majority wins, like in kindergarten. We are talking about the freedoms we enjoy and our everyday lives. All of that goes up in smoke. Listen to him. Read about Project2025. Read Heritage Foundation Propaganda.
Call it radical, but admit that changing to a dictatorship and theocracy is also radical. Extraordinary problems demand extraordinary solutions.
President Biden can do this for us. Just as Lincoln, FDR, Truman, and JFK would have done it.
Does Biden have the authority to make Trump ineligible to hold office as president? The Constitution says so. That is the law. Who enforces the law? The Executive branch of government. Who is in charge of that? Biden. What about the Supreme Court? Did they not say Congress has to act to enforce the Constitution? Yes, but they were making a political decision and are worthy of being ignored as political partisans, and Biden certainly has the power to ignore them, if not the guts. Does Biden subvert the rule of law? No, not at all. The Executive branch enforces the law, which is what he does. Also, extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures to support the Constitution and save democracy. The oath of office is explicit and implicit in the Constitution, which is the obligation to keep democracy sacrosanct. So why doesn't Biden do what you say? Intestinal fortitude, my friends, intestinal fortitude.
No one has deigned to discuss our proposal to preserve democracy in the face of a Trump/Heritage Foundation victory. If it is because you do not think he can win, look at the battleground states where he is ahead and could win. If it is because we can live with a Trump victory, listen to him and read Project2025 and the plan to dismantle the federal government and turn the country into a theocracy. Think that can't happen? Nazi Germany happened.
Section three of the 14th Amendment provides:
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and VicePresident, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who,
having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or
as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support
the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of
each House, remove such disability.
Who executes and enforces this mandate? Under our system of three co-equal branches of government, which branch executes and enforces the laws? Not Congress. Not the Judiciary, which, by the way, erroneously said Congress enforces Section three. No, President Biden can enforce the provision. We can discuss it. But keep in mind, we are talking in the context of a Trump victory and his plan to flout the Constitution and make this country a theocracy. The issue is how to stop him.
We propose that if Trump wins, President Biden declares him ineligible as one who engaged in insurrection and rebellion and gave aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution. Biden deploys whatever is necessary to maintain law and order and undertakes any lawful means to protect the American people from domestic terrorists. If the Supreme Court eventually says Biden acted illegally, so what? That court has demeaned itself and has become, by the majority, a group of political hacks.
Radical, you say. Crazy. We are talking about democracy, you know, each person has a vote, and the majority wins like in kindergarten. We are talking about the freedoms we enjoy and our everyday life. All of that goes up in smoke. Listen to him. Read about Project2025. Read Heritage Foundation Propaganda.
Call it radical, but admit that changing to a dictatorship and theocracy is also radical. Extraordinary problems demand extraordinary solutions.
President Biden can do this for us. Just as Lincoln, FDR, Truman, and JFK would have done it.
Trump is a mere puppet for the real bad actor: the Heritage Foundation. A few rich men with a multi-million dollar budget are writing a plan to overthrow and dismantle the U.S. Government. Their plan is public, Project2025. Here it is:
The members of the Heritage Foundation, including at least one Supreme Court Justice, are not rednecks. They are mostly DC lawyers and very wealthy businessmen. They are opportunists who saw a stupid con man and made him their banner carrier. Read their plan. They would tear up the Bill of Rights and rewrite the Constitution figuratively and practically. Dumbed down, America will buy the snake oil, and low and behold, we are an imitation of Russia.
Just read what they will do. Don't take my word for it. Take away all you hold dear, dear clueless one, and give up the freedoms and posterity you enjoy today.
What can you do?
Vote in favor of our way of life. This is not politics. It is the existential question of who we are and how we want to live. Live in a dictatorship? Not on my watch. See my ultimate solution.
Think it is radical? Think it won't work? This is a solution to the worst crisis this nation has ever encountered. FDR, Lincoln, Truman, Churchill, Jefferson, and JFK would do it. It is legal. The Executive branch executes and enforces the law, not Congress, as the Stacked Court held. It is the preservation of the Constitution against all domestic enemies. Duh. Then, when the Heritage Foundation got the order from the Stacked Court, it was illegal; these same gentlemen would tell the court to pound sand. The Constitution is protected under oath, even against the tainted court.
Joe Biden can be our greatest President. He can save the Constitution, democracy, and our way of life. He can retire as a statesman and turn the reins over to Kamala Harris, ushering in a new generation of leadership.
The Heritage Foundation has been working toward the overthrow (my description) of the federal government for years, using Reagan and Trump in the process. Read the Project 2025 plan. Vote in favor of our way of life. This is not politics. It is the existential question of who we are and how we want to live. Live in a dictatorship? Not on my watch. See my ultimate solution.
We copy here an article from Wikipedia describing the plan to overthrow the U.S. Government to support the Trump/Heritage Foundation Agenda. http://www.project2025.org.
We invite your assistance in verifying all the information in this article. However, it is our intention to call to everyone's attention Project 2025 is written proof of the Trump Party effort to overthrow our existing government.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROOF THAT DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND OUR WAY OF LIVING WILL BE CONVERTED TO A DICTATORSHIP AND COMPLETE SUBVERSION OF OUR CONSTITUTION.
Project2025 envisions widespread changes across the entire government, particularly with regard to economic and social policy and the role of the federal government and federal agencies. The plan proposes slashing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, gutting environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, and eliminating the cabinet Departments of Education and Commerce.[9] Citing an anonymous source, The Washington Post reported in November 2023, prior to the project's release, that Project2025 includes immediately invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and directing the DOJ to pursue Trump adversaries.[10] Project Director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, said in September 2023 that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."[11]
Project2025 consists largely of a book of policy recommendations titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and an accompanying personnel database open for submissions. There is also an online course called the Presidential Administration Academy, and a guide to developing transition plans. Reactions to the plan included variously describing it as authoritarian, an attempt by Trump to become a dictator, and a path leading the United States towards autocracy, with several experts in law criticizing it for violating current constitutional laws that would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers.[9] Additionally, some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in relation to climate change.[12] The Mandate states that "freedom is defined by God, not man."[13]
The Heritage Foundation has published new editions in its Mandate for Leadership series coinciding with each presidential election since 1981.[14]Mandate for Leadership: A Conservative Promise is the ninth report in the series and was published in April 2023, earlier than any past releases. Heritage refers to the publication as a "policy bible".[14]
In April 2023, the Heritage Foundation published a 920-page blueprint written by hundreds of conservatives,[17] most prominently former Trump administration officials.[3] Nearly half of the project's collaborating organizations have received dark money contributions from a network of fundraising groups linked to Leonard Leo, a major conservative donor and key figure in guiding the selection of Trump's federal judge nominees.[5]
Advisory board and leadership
Project2025's advisory board consists of "a broad coalition of over 80 conservative organizations" — mainly conservative think tanks, as well as several universities and the magazine The American Conservative.[18] As of February 2024, the project has over 100 partner organizations.[19]
Project 2025 is "undeniably a Trump-driven operation".
In the Mandate's foreword, the Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts writes: "The long march of cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass. The federal government is a behemoth, weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before."[21] Project2025's director is Paul Dans, who served as chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration. Spencer Chretien, a former special assistant to Trump, serves as associate director.[22] Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, explains that Project2025 is "built on four pillars": PillarI, a 30-chapter, 920-page book called Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, which presents "a consensus view of how major federal agencies must be governed"; PillarII, a personnel database to "be collated and shared with the President-elect's team", open to the public for submissions; PillarIII, an "online educational system" called the Presidential Administration Academy; and PillarIV, a "playbook" designed for "forming agency teams and drafting transition plans to move out upon the President's utterance of 'so help me God.'"[23] In November 2023, Trump made a similar proposal to create a federally funded "American Academy" that would deliver online courses and grant free degrees that excluded "wokeness or jihadism". The plan would also be funded by taxing the endowments of major universities which he asserted were "turning our students into communists and terrorists and sympathizers of many, many different dimensions."[24]
Axios reported that while Heritage had briefed other 2024 Republican presidential primaries candidates on the project, it is "undeniably a Trump-driven operation", pointing to the involvement of Trump's "most fervent internal loyalty enforcer" Johnny McEntee as a senior advisor to the project. The 2024 Trump campaign said no outside group speaks for the former president, referring to its "Agenda47"[25] as the only official plan for a second Trump presidency.[8] Two top Trump campaign officials later issued a statement seeking to distance the campaign from what unspecified outside groups were planning, although many of those plans reflected Trump's own words. The New York Times reported the statement "noticeably stopped short of disavowing the groups and seemed merely intended to discourage them from speaking to the press".[26] The two officials released a similar memo days later, after Axios reported Trump intended to staff a new administration with "full, proud MAGA warriors, anti-GOP establishment zealots, and eager and willing to test the boundaries of executive power to get Trump's way", which would include targeting and jailing critics in government and media.[27]Axios also reported on people being considered for senior positions in a second presidency, which included Kash Patel, Steve Bannon, and Mike Davis, a former aide to senator Chuck Grassley who has promised a "three-week reign of terror" should Trump name him acting attorney general.[28] Patel had said on Bannon's podcast two days earlier: "We will go out and find the conspirators – not just in government, but in the media... We're going to come after you. Whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out."[29][30]
While Project 2025 cannot explicitly promote him, Trump's campaign rhetoric has reflected its broad themes. He stated: "If I happen to be president and I see somebody who's doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them."[31] He added that he would fire "radical Marxist prosecutors that are destroying America".[32] He has said he would "totally obliterate the Deep State" and appoint "a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family."[32]
Roger Severino, Heritage Foundation vice president of domestic policy, told a Students for Life conference that Project 2025 was "working on those sorts of executive orders and regulations" to roll back Biden abortion policies and "institutionalize the post-Dobbs environment."[33]
Severino writes in the project's manifesto that the Food and Drug Administration is "ethically and legally obliged to revisit and withdraw its initial approval" of the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol.[23] He also recommends that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "update its public messaging about the unsurpassed effectiveness of modern fertility awareness-based methods" of contraception.[23] Severino says that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should require that "every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method."[23]
In Project 2025's "Department of Justice" section, Gene Hamilton calls for enforcement of federal law against using the US mail for transportation of medicines that induce abortion.[23] Project 2025 seeks to revive provisions of the Comstock Act of the 1870s that banned mail delivery of any "instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing" that could be used for an abortion. Comstock laws have been narrowed by Congress and courts over ensuing years, including to allow contraceptives to be delivered by mail. Project 2025 aims to enforce Comstock more rigorously to prohibit sending abortion pills and medical equipment used for abortions through the mail; the plan would allow criminal prosecutions for the senders and receivers of abortion pills.[33]Politico reported in March 2024 that legal experts said the adoption of the Project plan would cut off access to medical equipment used in surgical abortions to create a de facto national abortion ban.[34]
The project seeks to revive a Trump administration effort to include a question of whether an individual counted in the decennial U.S. census is an American citizen. The census population count is used to reapportion congressional seats and the Electoral College. The Trump administration publicly argued it wanted the new question to prevent racial and language discrimination under the Voting Rights Act, an argument the U.S. Supreme Court found to be contrived in rejecting the question for the 2020 census. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the congressional apportionment figures must include the "whole number of persons in each state", rather than citizens.[35][36]
Christian nationalism
As the leader of the Center for Renewing America, Russell Vought has spearheaded an effort to instill precepts of Christian nationalism into government and public life should Trump win a second term. In a 2021 opinion piece, Vought wrote Christian nationalism "recognizes America as a Christian nation" but makes "a commitment to an institutional separation between church and state, but not the separation of Christianity from its influence on government and society." Politico reported in February 2024 that Vought "has embraced the idea that Christians are under assault" and he sought to use his regular contacts with Trump to "elevate Christian nationalism as a focal point" in a second administration. Vought has close ties with another former Trump administration official, Christian nationalist William Wolfe, with whom he said he was "proud to work with ... on scoping out a sound Christian Nationalism." Wolfe said at an October 2023 "Jesus and Politics" conference that he thought "we are getting close" to needing to "heed the call to arms" in defense of Christianity as "the art of war becomes a part of our religion." The online manifesto document found by the Beacon identifies Wolfe as an editor, titled "The Statement on Christian Nationalism & the Gospel", and which seeks to implement a Scripture-based system of government whereby Christ-ordained "civil magistrates" exercise authority over the American public.[37] Former Christian nationalist Brad Onishi, who now studies religion and extremism, noted in February 2024 that Lance Wallnau of the New Apostolic Reformation, who has said Trump was "anointed," had recently announced he was partnering with Charlie Kirk, a Project 2025 member. Onishi observed that Speaker Mike Johnson has direct ties to the New Apostolic Reformation.[13][38][39][40][41]
Project2025 proposes dismantling strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change, including by gutting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and abolishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which the project calls "one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry."[42][43][44] Heritage Foundation energy and climate director Diana Furchtgott-Roth has suggested Americans should use more natural gas (e.g., methane), despite concerns among climate scientists that this would increase leaks of methane, a greenhouse gas that is more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short term.[12] Project2025's blueprint includes repealing the Inflation Reduction Act (a landmark law that offers US$370 billion for clean technology), closing the Loan Programs Office at the U.S. Department of Energy, eliminating climate change from the U.S. National Security Council agenda, and encouraging allied nations to use fossil fuels. The blueprint supports Arctic drilling and declaring that the federal government has an "obligation to develop vast oil and gas and coal resources".[12] Project2025 would reverse a 2009 finding from the EPA that determined that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health, preventing the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The climate section of the report was written by several authors, including Mandy Gunasekara, the EPA's former chief of staff who considers herself principal to the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017. Bernard McNamee, a lawyer who has advised several fossil fuel companies, drafted the section of Project 2025 describing the EPA's role. Four of the report's top authors have publicly engaged in climate change denial.[12]
Economy
The project provides a range of options for economic reform which vary in their degree of radicalism. It is critical of the Federal Reserve system, assigning the institution blame for the business cycle and advocates for free banking and/or commodity-backed currency such as a gold standard. Additionally, it recommends eliminating full employment from the Federal Reserve's mandate, instead focusing solely on the inflation target.[23]
It also recommends reducing individual income taxes to two brackets, one 15%, and the other 30% with the later applying to income above the Social Security Wage Base "to ensure the combined income and payroll tax structure acts as a nearly flat tax on wage income beyond the standard deduction". Additionally, it recommends reducing the corporate tax rate to 18%, describing it as "the most damaging tax in the U.S. tax system". After these reforms are implemented, it recommends that a three-fifths vote threshold be required to pass legislation that would increase individual or corporate income tax, to "create a wall of protection for the new rate structure".[23]
Expansion of presidential powers
Project2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the DOJ, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies.[3] The plan bases its presidential agenda on a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, arguing that Article Two of the U.S. Constitution vests executive power solely in the president.[15] Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, stated in 2019 that Article Two of the U.S. Constitution granted him the "right to do whatever as president", a common claim made by supporters of unitary executive theory. A similar remark was echoed in 2018 when he claimed he could fire special counsel Robert Mueller.[15] Trump is not the first president to consider policies related to unitary executive theory;[45][46] the idea has seen a resurgence and popularization within the Republican Party following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001.[47]
In November 2023, The Washington Post reported that deploying the military for domestic law enforcement under the Insurrection Act would be an "immediate priority" upon a second Trump inauguration in 2025. That aspect of the plan was being led by Jeffrey Clark, a Trump co-defendant in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution and an unnamed co-conspirator in the federal prosecution of Trump for alleged election obstruction. Clark is a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, a Project 2025 partner.[48] The plan also reportedly includes directing the DOJ to pursue those Trump considers disloyal or political adversaries. After the Post story was published online, a Heritage spokesman said there were no plans related to the Insurrection Act or targeting of political enemies within Project2025.[10][49]
Throughout the project document, unspecified federal workers at the DOJ, EPA, and USAID are described as "radical Left ideologues" and "activists" who are "embedded" in their departments.[23] In response to rising concerns on the topic, during a December 2023 televised town hall in Davenport, Iowa, Fox News host Sean Hannity twice asked Trump if he could assure he would not abuse presidential power to seek retribution against others, as he was reported to have privately told to friends and advisers;[30] Trump replied "except for day one" before pivoting to other subjects.[50]
When discussing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Severino called for the rescinding of regulations "prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc."[51]
Stephen Miller, known for his anti-immigration views, was and remains a key figure in forming Trump's immigration policy.
Stephen Miller, a key architect of immigration policy during the Trump presidency, is a major figure in Project 2025 and under consideration for a senior role in any Trump second term.[8] Trump asserted in January 2024 that he would conduct "the largest domestic deportation operation in history" should he be reelected. Miller told Project 2025 participant Charlie Kirk in November 2023 that the operation would rival the scale and complexity of "building the Panama Canal." He said the operation would include deputizing National Guard forces in red states as immigration enforcement officers, under Trump's command. These forces would then be deployed into blue states. Miller was also considering deputizing local police and sheriffs for the undertaking, as well as agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Drug Enforcement Administration. He said these forces would "go around the country arresting illegal immigrants in large-scale raids" who would then be taken to "large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas" to be held in internment camps prior to deportation. Trump has also spoken of rounding up homeless people in blue cities and detaining them in camps.[52]
In the foreword of Project2025's manifesto, Roberts writes,[51]
Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.[23]
— "A Promise to America", Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 5, Project 2025
Project 2025 established a personnel database shaped by the ideology of Donald Trump. The project uses a questionnaire to screen potential recruits for their adherence to the project's agenda.[1] Throughout his presidency, Trump was accused of removing individuals whom he considered disloyal regardless of their ideological conviction, such as former attorney general William Barr. In the final year of his presidency, White House Presidential Personnel Office employees James Bacon and John McEntee developed a questionnaire to test potential government employees on their commitment to Trumpism; Bacon and McEntee joined the project in May 2023.[53]
Project2025 is aligned with Trump's plans to fire more government employees than allocated to the president using Schedule F, a job classification established by Trump in an executive order in October 2020. Although the classification was rescinded by Biden in January 2021, Trump has previously stated that he intends to restore it. The Heritage Foundation plans on having 20,000 personnel in its database by the end of 2024.[15] Russell Vought stated that the project's goal of removing federal workers would be "a wrecking ball for the administrative state".[54]
In an interview, Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, said, "People will lose their jobs. Hopefully their lives are able to flourish in spite of that. Buildings will be shut down. Hopefully they can be repurposed for private industry."[55]
Project 2025 seems to be full of a whole array of ideas that are designed to let Donald Trump function as a dictator, by completely eviscerating many of the restraints built into our system. He really wants to destroy any notion of a rule of law in this country ... The reports about Donald Trump's Project 2025 suggest that he is now preparing to do a bunch of things totally contrary to the basic values we have always lived by. If Trump were to be elected and implement some of the ideas he is apparently considering, no one in this country would be safe.[9]
The plans being developed by members of Trump's cult to turn the DOJ and FBI into instruments of his revenge should send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares about the rule of law. Trump and rightwing media have planted in fertile soil the seed that the current Department of Justice has been politicized, and the myth has flourished. Their attempts to undermine DOJ and the FBI are among the most destructive campaigns they have conducted.[9]
Max Stier of the Partnership for Public Service and others voiced concern that the project would revive the early-American spoils-and-patronage system that awarded government jobs to those loyal to a party or elected official, rather than on the basis of merit. The Pendleton Act of 1883 mandated that federal jobs be awarded on merit.[56] Former Trump campaign and presidency senior advisor Steve Bannon has advocated the plan on his War Room podcast, hosting Jeffrey Clark and others working on the project.[9]Georgetown University public policy professor Donald Moynihan wrote that Schedule F would demand the loyalty of public officials to the president, in conflict with their constitutional obligation to swear a loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution.[57]
Peter M. Shane, a law professor who writes about the rule of law and the separation of powers, wrote:
The [New York] Times quotes Vought's impatience with conservative lawyers in the first Trump administration who were unwilling to do Trump's bidding without hesitation. Criticizing the timidity of traditional conservative lawyers, Vought told the Times: "The Federalist Society doesn't know what time it is." As for making the Justice Department an instrument of White House political retribution, Vought would unblinkingly jettison the norm of independence that presidents and attorneys general of both parties have carefully nurtured since Watergate. "You don't need a statutory change at all, you need a mind-set change," Vought told the [Washington] Post. "You need an attorney general and a White House Counsel's Office that don't view themselves as trying to protect the department from the president."[21]
Spencer Ackerman in The Nation and Chauncey DeVega of Salon.com have described Project 2025 as a plan to install Trump as a dictator, warning that Trump could prosecute and imprison enemies or overthrow American democracy altogether.[58][59] Longtime Republican academic Tom Nichols wrote in The Atlantic that Trump "is not bluffing about his plans to jail his opponents and suppress—by force, if necessary—the rights of American citizens."[60] Writing in Mother Jones, Washington bureau chief David Corn described Project 2025 as "the right-wing infrastructure that is publicly plotting to undermine the checks and balances of our constitutional order and concentrate unprecedented power in the presidency. Its efforts, if successful and coupled with a Trump (or other GOP) victory in 2024, would place the nation on a path to autocracy."[61] Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, the author of Just Faith: Reclaiming Progressive Christianity, criticized Project 2025 in an MSNBC article for appealing to Christian nationalism. In particular, Graves-Fitzsimmons criticized Severino's chapter on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and his opposition to the Respect for Marriage Act, a landmark law that repealed the Defense of Marriage Act and codified the federal definition of marriage to recognize same-sex and interracial marriage.[62]
Project 2025 has been criticized by LGBTQ+ writers and journalists for its intended removal of protections for LGBTQ+ people and declarations to outlaw pornography by claiming it as an "omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children".[51] Writing for Dame magazine, Brynn Tannehill argued that the 902-page document "The Mandate for Leadership" in part "makes eradicating LGBTQ people from public life its top priority", while citing passages from the playbook linking pornography to "transgender ideology", arguing that it related to other anti-transgender attacks in 2023.[63]
Republican climate advocates have disagreed with Project 2025's climate policy. Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy president Sarah Hunt considered supporting the Inflation Reduction Act crucial, and Utah representative John Curtis stated it was vital that Republicans "engage in supporting good energy and climate policy". American Conservation Coalition founder Benji Backer noted growing consensus for belief that climate change is human-induced among younger Republicans and called the project wrongheaded.[12]
^ Jump up to:abArnsdorf, Isaac; Dawsey, Josh; LeVine, Marianne (December 6, 2023). "Trump 'dictator' comment reignites criticism his camp has tried to curb". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 5, 2023. Retrieved November 5, 2023. The news reports prompted Trump campaign senior adviser Susie Wiles to complain to the project's director, Paul Dans of the Heritage Foundation, saying that the stories were unhelpful and that the organization should stop promoting its work to reporters, according to a person familiar with the call.
^Brownstein, Ronald (February 8, 2024). "Trump's 'Knock on the Door'". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on February 10, 2024. Retrieved February 11, 2024.
^Moynihan, Donald (November 27, 2023). "Trump Has a Master Plan for Destroying the 'Deep State'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved November 27, 2023. The framers included a requirement, in the Constitution itself, that public officials swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, a reminder to public employees that their deepest loyalty is to something greater than whoever occupies the White House or Congress. By using Schedule F to demand personal loyalty, Mr. Trump would make it harder for them to keep that oath.
Project2025 envisions widespread changes across the entire government, particularly with regard to economic and social policy and the role of the federal government and federal agencies. The plan proposes slashing U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funding, dismantling the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, gutting environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuel production, and eliminating the cabinet Departments of Education and Commerce.[9] Citing an anonymous source, The Washington Post reported in November 2023, prior to the project's release, that Project2025 includes immediately invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and directing the DOJ to pursue Trump adversaries.[10] Project Director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, said in September 2023 that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."[11]
Project2025 consists largely of a book of policy recommendations titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and an accompanying personnel database open for submissions. There is also an online course called the Presidential Administration Academy, and a guide to developing transition plans. Reactions to the plan included variously describing it as authoritarian, an attempt by Trump to become a dictator, and a path leading the United States towards autocracy, with several experts in law criticizing it for violating current constitutional laws that would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers.[9] Additionally, some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in relation to climate change.[12] The Mandate states that "freedom is defined by God, not man."[13]
The Heritage Foundation has published new editions in its Mandate for Leadership series coinciding with each presidential election since 1981.[14]Mandate for Leadership: A Conservative Promise is the ninth report in the series and was published in April 2023, earlier than any past releases. Heritage refers to the publication as a "policy bible".[14]
In April 2023, the Heritage Foundation published a 920-page blueprint written by hundreds of conservatives,[17] most prominently former Trump administration officials.[3] Nearly half of the project's collaborating organizations have received dark money contributions from a network of fundraising groups linked to Leonard Leo, a major conservative donor and key figure in guiding the selection of Trump's federal judge nominees.[5]
Advisory board and leadership
Project2025's advisory board consists of "a broad coalition of over 80 conservative organizations" — mainly conservative think tanks, as well as several universities and the magazine The American Conservative.[18] As of February 2024, the project has over 100 partner organizations.[19]
Project 2025 is "undeniably a Trump-driven operation".
In the Mandate's foreword, the Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts writes: "The long march of cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass. The federal government is a behemoth, weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before."[21] Project2025's director is Paul Dans, who served as chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management during the Trump administration. Spencer Chretien, a former special assistant to Trump, serves as associate director.[22] Dans, also an editor of the project's guiding document, explains that Project2025 is "built on four pillars": PillarI, a 30-chapter, 920-page book called Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, which presents "a consensus view of how major federal agencies must be governed"; PillarII, a personnel database to "be collated and shared with the President-elect's team", open to the public for submissions; PillarIII, an "online educational system" called the Presidential Administration Academy; and PillarIV, a "playbook" designed for "forming agency teams and drafting transition plans to move out upon the President's utterance of 'so help me God.'"[23] In November 2023, Trump made a similar proposal to create a federally funded "American Academy" that would deliver online courses and grant free degrees that excluded "wokeness or jihadism". The plan would also be funded by taxing the endowments of major universities which he asserted were "turning our students into communists and terrorists and sympathizers of many, many different dimensions."[24]
Axios reported that while Heritage had briefed other 2024 Republican presidential primaries candidates on the project, it is "undeniably a Trump-driven operation", pointing to the involvement of Trump's "most fervent internal loyalty enforcer" Johnny McEntee as a senior advisor to the project. The 2024 Trump campaign said no outside group speaks for the former president, referring to its "Agenda47"[25] as the only official plan for a second Trump presidency.[8] Two top Trump campaign officials later issued a statement seeking to distance the campaign from what unspecified outside groups were planning, although many of those plans reflected Trump's own words. The New York Times reported the statement "noticeably stopped short of disavowing the groups and seemed merely intended to discourage them from speaking to the press".[26] The two officials released a similar memo days later, after Axios reported Trump intended to staff a new administration with "full, proud MAGA warriors, anti-GOP establishment zealots, and eager and willing to test the boundaries of executive power to get Trump's way", which would include targeting and jailing critics in government and media.[27]Axios also reported on people being considered for senior positions in a second presidency, which included Kash Patel, Steve Bannon, and Mike Davis, a former aide to senator Chuck Grassley who has promised a "three-week reign of terror" should Trump name him acting attorney general.[28] Patel had said on Bannon's podcast two days earlier: "We will go out and find the conspirators – not just in government, but in the media... We're going to come after you. Whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out."[29][30]
While Project 2025 cannot explicitly promote him, Trump's campaign rhetoric has reflected its broad themes. He stated: "If I happen to be president and I see somebody who's doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them."[31] He added that he would fire "radical Marxist prosecutors that are destroying America".[32] He has said he would "totally obliterate the Deep State" and appoint "a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family."[32]
Roger Severino, Heritage Foundation vice president of domestic policy, told a Students for Life conference that Project 2025 was "working on those sorts of executive orders and regulations" to roll back Biden abortion policies and "institutionalize the post-Dobbs environment."[33]
Severino writes in the project's manifesto that the Food and Drug Administration is "ethically and legally obliged to revisit and withdraw its initial approval" of the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol.[23] He also recommends that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "update its public messaging about the unsurpassed effectiveness of modern fertility awareness-based methods" of contraception.[23] Severino says that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should require that "every state report exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother's state of residence, and by what method."[23]
In Project 2025's "Department of Justice" section, Gene Hamilton calls for enforcement of federal law against using the US mail for transportation of medicines that induce abortion.[23] Project 2025 seeks to revive provisions of the Comstock Act of the 1870s that banned mail delivery of any "instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing" that could be used for an abortion. Comstock laws have been narrowed by Congress and courts over ensuing years, including to allow contraceptives to be delivered by mail. Project 2025 aims to enforce Comstock more rigorously to prohibit sending abortion pills and medical equipment used for abortions through the mail; the plan would allow criminal prosecutions for the senders and receivers of abortion pills.[33]Politico reported in March 2024 that legal experts said the adoption of the Project plan would cut off access to medical equipment used in surgical abortions to create a de facto national abortion ban.[34]
The project seeks to revive a Trump administration effort to include a question of whether an individual counted in the decennial U.S. census is an American citizen. The census population count is used to reapportion congressional seats and the Electoral College. The Trump administration publicly argued it wanted the new question to prevent racial and language discrimination under the Voting Rights Act, an argument the U.S. Supreme Court found to be contrived in rejecting the question for the 2020 census. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the congressional apportionment figures must include the "whole number of persons in each state", rather than citizens.[35][36]
Christian nationalism
As the leader of the Center for Renewing America, Russell Vought has spearheaded an effort to instill precepts of Christian nationalism into government and public life should Trump win a second term. In a 2021 opinion piece, Vought wrote Christian nationalism "recognizes America as a Christian nation" but makes "a commitment to an institutional separation between church and state, but not the separation of Christianity from its influence on government and society." Politico reported in February 2024 that Vought "has embraced the idea that Christians are under assault" and he sought to use his regular contacts with Trump to "elevate Christian nationalism as a focal point" in a second administration. Vought has close ties with another former Trump administration official, Christian nationalist William Wolfe, with whom he said he was "proud to work with ... on scoping out a sound Christian Nationalism." Wolfe said at an October 2023 "Jesus and Politics" conference that he thought "we are getting close" to needing to "heed the call to arms" in defense of Christianity as "the art of war becomes a part of our religion." The online manifesto document found by the Beacon identifies Wolfe as an editor, titled "The Statement on Christian Nationalism & the Gospel", and which seeks to implement a Scripture-based system of government whereby Christ-ordained "civil magistrates" exercise authority over the American public.[37] Former Christian nationalist Brad Onishi, who now studies religion and extremism, noted in February 2024 that Lance Wallnau of the New Apostolic Reformation, who has said Trump was "anointed," had recently announced he was partnering with Charlie Kirk, a Project 2025 member. Onishi observed that Speaker Mike Johnson has direct ties to the New Apostolic Reformation.[13][38][39][40][41]
Project2025 proposes dismantling strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change, including by gutting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and abolishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which the project calls "one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry."[42][43][44] Heritage Foundation energy and climate director Diana Furchtgott-Roth has suggested Americans should use more natural gas (e.g., methane), despite concerns among climate scientists that this would increase leaks of methane, a greenhouse gas that is more powerful than carbon dioxide in the short term.[12] Project2025's blueprint includes repealing the Inflation Reduction Act (a landmark law that offers US$370 billion for clean technology), closing the Loan Programs Office at the U.S. Department of Energy, eliminating climate change from the U.S. National Security Council agenda, and encouraging allied nations to use fossil fuels. The blueprint supports Arctic drilling and declaring that the federal government has an "obligation to develop vast oil and gas and coal resources".[12] Project2025 would reverse a 2009 finding from the EPA that determined that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health, preventing the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The climate section of the report was written by several authors, including Mandy Gunasekara, the EPA's former chief of staff who considers herself principal to the United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017. Bernard McNamee, a lawyer who has advised several fossil fuel companies, drafted the section of Project 2025 describing the EPA's role. Four of the report's top authors have publicly engaged in climate change denial.[12]
Economy
The project provides a range of options for economic reform which vary in their degree of radicalism. It is critical of the Federal Reserve system, assigning the institution blame for the business cycle and advocates for free banking and/or commodity-backed currency such as a gold standard. Additionally, it recommends eliminating full employment from the Federal Reserve's mandate, instead focusing solely on the inflation target.[23]
It also recommends reducing individual income taxes to two brackets, one 15%, and the other 30% with the later applying to income above the Social Security Wage Base "to ensure the combined income and payroll tax structure acts as a nearly flat tax on wage income beyond the standard deduction". Additionally, it recommends reducing the corporate tax rate to 18%, describing it as "the most damaging tax in the U.S. tax system". After these reforms are implemented, it recommends that a three-fifths vote threshold be required to pass legislation that would increase individual or corporate income tax, to "create a wall of protection for the new rate structure".[23]
Expansion of presidential powers
Project2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the DOJ, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies.[3] The plan bases its presidential agenda on a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, arguing that Article Two of the U.S. Constitution vests executive power solely in the president.[15] Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, stated in 2019 that Article Two of the U.S. Constitution granted him the "right to do whatever as president", a common claim made by supporters of unitary executive theory. A similar remark was echoed in 2018 when he claimed he could fire special counsel Robert Mueller.[15] Trump is not the first president to consider policies related to unitary executive theory;[45][46] the idea has seen a resurgence and popularization within the Republican Party following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001.[47]
In November 2023, The Washington Post reported that deploying the military for domestic law enforcement under the Insurrection Act would be an "immediate priority" upon a second Trump inauguration in 2025. That aspect of the plan was being led by Jeffrey Clark, a Trump co-defendant in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution and an unnamed co-conspirator in the federal prosecution of Trump for alleged election obstruction. Clark is a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, a Project 2025 partner.[48] The plan also reportedly includes directing the DOJ to pursue those Trump considers disloyal or political adversaries. After the Post story was published online, a Heritage spokesman said there were no plans related to the Insurrection Act or targeting of political enemies within Project2025.[10][49]
Throughout the project document, unspecified federal workers at the DOJ, EPA, and USAID are described as "radical Left ideologues" and "activists" who are "embedded" in their departments.[23] In response to rising concerns on the topic, during a December 2023 televised town hall in Davenport, Iowa, Fox News host Sean Hannity twice asked Trump if he could assure he would not abuse presidential power to seek retribution against others, as he was reported to have privately told to friends and advisers;[30] Trump replied "except for day one" before pivoting to other subjects.[50]
When discussing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Severino called for the rescinding of regulations "prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc."[51]
Stephen Miller, known for his anti-immigration views, was and remains a key figure in forming Trump's immigration policy.
Stephen Miller, a key architect of immigration policy during the Trump presidency, is a major figure in Project 2025 and under consideration for a senior role in any Trump second term.[8] Trump asserted in January 2024 that he would conduct "the largest domestic deportation operation in history" should he be reelected. Miller told Project 2025 participant Charlie Kirk in November 2023 that the operation would rival the scale and complexity of "building the Panama Canal." He said the operation would include deputizing National Guard forces in red states as immigration enforcement officers, under Trump's command. These forces would then be deployed into blue states. Miller was also considering deputizing local police and sheriffs for the undertaking, as well as agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Drug Enforcement Administration. He said these forces would "go around the country arresting illegal immigrants in large-scale raids" who would then be taken to "large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas" to be held in internment camps prior to deportation. Trump has also spoken of rounding up homeless people in blue cities and detaining them in camps.[52]
In the foreword of Project2025's manifesto, Roberts writes,[51]
Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.[23]
— "A Promise to America", Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 5, Project 2025
Project 2025 established a personnel database shaped by the ideology of Donald Trump. The project uses a questionnaire to screen potential recruits for their adherence to the project's agenda.[1] Throughout his presidency, Trump was accused of removing individuals whom he considered disloyal regardless of their ideological conviction, such as former attorney general William Barr. In the final year of his presidency, White House Presidential Personnel Office employees James Bacon and John McEntee developed a questionnaire to test potential government employees on their commitment to Trumpism; Bacon and McEntee joined the project in May 2023.[53]
Project2025 is aligned with Trump's plans to fire more government employees than allocated to the president using Schedule F, a job classification established by Trump in an executive order in October 2020. Although the classification was rescinded by Biden in January 2021, Trump has previously stated that he intends to restore it. The Heritage Foundation plans on having 20,000 personnel in its database by the end of 2024.[15] Russell Vought stated that the project's goal of removing federal workers would be "a wrecking ball for the administrative state".[54]
In an interview, Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, said, "People will lose their jobs. Hopefully their lives are able to flourish in spite of that. Buildings will be shut down. Hopefully they can be repurposed for private industry."[55]
Project 2025 seems to be full of a whole array of ideas that are designed to let Donald Trump function as a dictator, by completely eviscerating many of the restraints built into our system. He really wants to destroy any notion of a rule of law in this country ... The reports about Donald Trump's Project 2025 suggest that he is now preparing to do a bunch of things totally contrary to the basic values we have always lived by. If Trump were to be elected and implement some of the ideas he is apparently considering, no one in this country would be safe.[9]
The plans being developed by members of Trump's cult to turn the DOJ and FBI into instruments of his revenge should send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares about the rule of law. Trump and rightwing media have planted in fertile soil the seed that the current Department of Justice has been politicized, and the myth has flourished. Their attempts to undermine DOJ and the FBI are among the most destructive campaigns they have conducted.[9]
Max Stier of the Partnership for Public Service and others voiced concern that the project would revive the early-American spoils-and-patronage system that awarded government jobs to those loyal to a party or elected official, rather than on the basis of merit. The Pendleton Act of 1883 mandated that federal jobs be awarded on merit.[56] Former Trump campaign and presidency senior advisor Steve Bannon has advocated the plan on his War Room podcast, hosting Jeffrey Clark and others working on the project.[9]Georgetown University public policy professor Donald Moynihan wrote that Schedule F would demand the loyalty of public officials to the president, in conflict with their constitutional obligation to swear a loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution.[57]
Peter M. Shane, a law professor who writes about the rule of law and the separation of powers, wrote:
The [New York] Times quotes Vought's impatience with conservative lawyers in the first Trump administration who were unwilling to do Trump's bidding without hesitation. Criticizing the timidity of traditional conservative lawyers, Vought told the Times: "The Federalist Society doesn't know what time it is." As for making the Justice Department an instrument of White House political retribution, Vought would unblinkingly jettison the norm of independence that presidents and attorneys general of both parties have carefully nurtured since Watergate. "You don't need a statutory change at all, you need a mind-set change," Vought told the [Washington] Post. "You need an attorney general and a White House Counsel's Office that don't view themselves as trying to protect the department from the president."[21]
Spencer Ackerman in The Nation and Chauncey DeVega of Salon.com have described Project 2025 as a plan to install Trump as a dictator, warning that Trump could prosecute and imprison enemies or overthrow American democracy altogether.[58][59] Longtime Republican academic Tom Nichols wrote in The Atlantic that Trump "is not bluffing about his plans to jail his opponents and suppress—by force, if necessary—the rights of American citizens."[60] Writing in Mother Jones, Washington bureau chief David Corn described Project 2025 as "the right-wing infrastructure that is publicly plotting to undermine the checks and balances of our constitutional order and concentrate unprecedented power in the presidency. Its efforts, if successful and coupled with a Trump (or other GOP) victory in 2024, would place the nation on a path to autocracy."[61] Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, the author of Just Faith: Reclaiming Progressive Christianity, criticized Project 2025 in an MSNBC article for appealing to Christian nationalism. In particular, Graves-Fitzsimmons criticized Severino's chapter on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and his opposition to the Respect for Marriage Act, a landmark law that repealed the Defense of Marriage Act and codified the federal definition of marriage to recognize same-sex and interracial marriage.[62]
Project 2025 has been criticized by LGBTQ+ writers and journalists for its intended removal of protections for LGBTQ+ people and declarations to outlaw pornography by claiming it as an "omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children".[51] Writing for Dame magazine, Brynn Tannehill argued that the 902-page document "The Mandate for Leadership" in part "makes eradicating LGBTQ people from public life its top priority", while citing passages from the playbook linking pornography to "transgender ideology", arguing that it related to other anti-transgender attacks in 2023.[63]
Republican climate advocates have disagreed with Project 2025's climate policy. Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy president Sarah Hunt considered supporting the Inflation Reduction Act crucial, and Utah representative John Curtis stated it was vital that Republicans "engage in supporting good energy and climate policy". American Conservation Coalition founder Benji Backer noted growing consensus for belief that climate change is human-induced among younger Republicans and called the project wrongheaded.[12]
^ Jump up to:abArnsdorf, Isaac; Dawsey, Josh; LeVine, Marianne (December 6, 2023). "Trump 'dictator' comment reignites criticism his camp has tried to curb". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 5, 2023. Retrieved November 5, 2023. The news reports prompted Trump campaign senior adviser Susie Wiles to complain to the project's director, Paul Dans of the Heritage Foundation, saying that the stories were unhelpful and that the organization should stop promoting its work to reporters, according to a person familiar with the call.
^Brownstein, Ronald (February 8, 2024). "Trump's 'Knock on the Door'". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on February 10, 2024. Retrieved February 11, 2024.
^Moynihan, Donald (November 27, 2023). "Trump Has a Master Plan for Destroying the 'Deep State'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 27, 2023. Retrieved November 27, 2023. The framers included a requirement, in the Constitution itself, that public officials swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, a reminder to public employees that their deepest loyalty is to something greater than whoever occupies the White House or Congress. By using Schedule F to demand personal loyalty, Mr. Trump would make it harder for them to keep that oath.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Does Biden have the authority to make Trump ineligible to hold office as president? The Constitution says so. That is the law. Who enforces the law? The Executive branch of government. Who is in charge of that? Biden. What about the Supreme Court? Did they not say Congress has to act to enforce the Constitution? Yes, but they were making a political decision and are worthy of being ignored as political partisans, and Biden certainly has the power to ignore them, if not the guts. Does Biden subvert the rule of law? No, not at all. The Executive branch enforces the law, which is what he does. Also, extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures to support the Constitution and save democracy. The oath of office is explicit and implicit in the Constitution, which is the obligation to keep democracy sacrosanct. So why doesn't Biden do what you say? Intestinal fortitude, my friends, intestinal fortitude.