Jeffrey Neil Jackson

On November 4, 1979, “students”   took over the U.S. embassy in Iran and held the occupants of the embassy for 444 days. In case you were not aware, the taking of an embassy is, by international law, an act of war. Officials of the Iranian government allowed the occupation, taking, as far as anyone can tell, no efforts to relieve the situation.  What nation would allow “students” to overtake an embassy (under international law, an act of war) for 444 days?

Operation Eagle Claw, an effort to rescue the hostages in April of 1980 failed due to numerous failures too intricate to describe here. Iran freed our embassy personnel on January 20, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan was sworn into office. While hindsight is easy, there is still considerable speculation that if Jimmy Carter had been able to free the hostages, he might have won the presidential election for another term.

In December of 2025, the federal government of the United States was in debt to the tune of thirty-eight trillion, four-hundred seventy nine billion, seven hundred and sixty three million, eight-hundred thousand, three-hundred ninety-three dollars. That’s a lot of money that we owe, and sooner or later someone is going to have to pay it.

Former President Biden’s cognitive abilities were noticeably in decline by the end of 2023. There are five people of which you probably haven’t heard. At least I didn’t because I don’t take particular interest in the aides of the president. However, as quoted in an interview with Joe Scarborough, the authors of a recent book about the Biden administration, Original Sin quoted the following people:

“The people in charge were [top Biden advisers] Mike Donilon, Steve Riccheti, Bruce Reed, Anthony Bernal, the first lady’s chief of staff, the first lady, and Annie Tomasini,” Thompson responded. “Those are the people that saw him the most and that had the most control over what he was doing and his day-to-day.” Five people who attend meetings to which you will not likely be invited. Five people who, on a regular basis, occupy rooms that you will likely never see. Five people who, according to mounting evidence, ran the executive branch of our government, as our president’s mental abilities declined. I voted in the election of 2020, and I didn’t see any of those names on the ballot. I don’t think I missed them.

“Never allow your adversary to underestimate what you would do in response to a challenge. Never tell him in advance what you would not do.”- Richard M. Nixon

Now, in 2025, Donald Trump has returned to the presidency, something that has not been done since 1893. The Democrats attempted several times to “weaponize” the law, to put Donald Trump behind bars where he could not be a threat to them. Obviously, their plan didn’t work. Weaponizing the law isn’t new. People who were not in favor of our government’s leaders have been prosecuted for some time, with black citizens who were prosecuted in the South just one of the more morally reprehensible examples of weaponizing.

America has always been a land of opportunity; especially for people of other nations who, through no fault of their own, had no other opportunities. As Bill Murray described in the movie “Stripes” about Americans: “We’re still a nation of loyal, sometimes lovable mutts whose forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world.” 

Warning: I am not endorsing Donald Trump for any political position.

Some Democrats have weaponized the law, with the trial of former president Donald Trump. Federal officials declined from prosecuting Trump, mainly because of the statute of limitations, which had run out. The New York district attorney decided that if the crimes were raised to felonies, the violations of law were still within the range of prosecution under New York law. 

While I’m not a lawyer, it seems that most prosecutions need to have a victim. Trump’s prosecution didn’t seem to have any. One of the “witnesses” former porn star Stormy Daniels, mostly testified that she was paid to have “relations” with Trump, and that she was paid to keep quiet about it.

Trump had bodyguards at the time, and none of them were available to verify her testimony. It seems to me that one of those bodyguards could have been subpoenaed by the prosecution to verify this tryst. There was no point in Trump calling the bodyguard in question, because, logically, it is difficult, if not impossible, to verify something that didn’t happen. You can’t verify a negative very easily, if at all. Perhaps Trump’s lack of presenting the testimony of one of his bodyguards proves his guilt, but then, again, verifying something didn’t happen is quite difficult. You can only prove what happened, not what didn’t happen. (Proving something didn’t happen is a logical fallacy, by the way.)

Interestingly enough, Stormy Daniels was interviewed by Bill Mahr in 2018, and her description of that encounter in that interview resembled nothing like what she testified at the trial.

In an April 22, 2024 article in The Wall Street Journal, Allysia Finley described the mentality of college students. If you give “safe spaces’ to college students, soon they will insist that entire groups have their own spaces, and then professors as well as speakers from outside the college be silenced because the students disapprove of what the professor or visitor is saying. The new intellectual elite are incapable of hearing anything that disagrees with their unquestionably correct ideology.  This permissive attitude toward students soon  leads to high grades without work,  and eventually college graduates who insist that they will only work thirty hours a week; for full-time pay, of course. As my law professor described, this is the “slippery slope” situation, where you indulge one behavior and many more follow, in tyrannical abuse of your original intent.

Presidents have ignored rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States for quite some time. In order that you understand the context of events, the following paragraphs offer some perspective. The Supreme Court of the United States, in 1832, decided the case Worcester v. Georgia (31 U.S. 515).  The question before the court was: Does the state of Georgia have the authority to regulate the intercourse between citizens of its state and members of the Cherokee Nation?

The answer was: No.

“In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court held that the Georgia act, under which Worcester was prosecuted, violated the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States. Noting that the “treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from that of the states; and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on exclusively by the government of the union,” Chief Justice Marshall argued, “The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community occupying its own territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States.” The Georgia act thus interfered with the federal government’s authority and was unconstitutional.