Previous month:
December 5, 2022
Next month:
December 7, 2022


As Georgians trek off to the polls to decide a crucial Senate seat, protected from “white supremacists” by the armed “black communist supremacists,” I am reminded that our nation is traveling fast down the highway to hell…


Polls are being monitored by a real black supremacist hate group to “protect” against an alleged non-existent white supremacist hate group…

Georgia runoff: New Black Panther Party deploys armed guards to some polling locations

Leaders of the New Black Panther Party announced they would be deploying armed guards to a number of polling places in the Atlanta area to monitor “white supremacist violence” as voters cast their ballots in the Georgia Senate runoff election.

“No one will come and touch, harm, threaten, do anything to any person walking into that voting booth to exercise that right. This is a legal position that we are taking. We are in position so that if anything happens to anyone, we are here to offer you legal representation. We are here to offer you security. And that’s that. And may the best person win,” Khallida Ramla Bastet said at a press conference Monday.

The armed patrols will be conducted at polling locations in Brunswick, Georgia; Savannah, Georgia; and Atlanta between 7 a.m. and 11 a.m. and then again between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m., according to the group. The intent is not to intimidate voters as they cast their ballots, the group said, maintaining it does not endorse either candidate.

Several organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, consider the New Black Panther Party to be a hate group, accusing its leaders of being racist and anti-Semitic. <Source>

[OCS: Where is the proof that the threat exists and cannot be handled by local authorities? Why is the Democrat Party not condemning the appearance of any armed communist hate group at any polling place? What about those intimidated and “triggered” by armed black men in pseudo-military gear? Why do the Democrats continue to scream voter suppression when voters are asked to identify adequately themselves to maintain election integrity?]

An illegitimate House Committee that violated the constitutional protections of Americans issues criminal referrals… 

Jan. 6 committee to make criminal referrals to Justice Department

The Jan. 6 committee will make criminal referrals to the Department of Justice as the panel wraps up its investigation into the events that led up to the deadly riot.

“We have made decisions on criminal referrals,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), the chairman of the committee, told reporters, saying “we will” on the question of whether referrals will be pursued. He added that consideration of witnesses potentially committing perjury is “part of the discussion,” per CNN.

Though the committee decided to send referrals to the DOJ, it is reportedly still considering whom to refer and on what grounds. <Source>

[OCS: In a Mueller-like one-sided investigation that refused to examine the real issues surrounding the January 6 riot, we are told that we should respect the liar, leaker Bolshevik of Burbank, Adam Schiff, to present the truth to the American public.] 

When will the FBI protect America?

FBI Ramps Up Spending to Fight MAGA Terrorism

The FBI is conducting three times as many domestic terrorism investigations than it was five years ago, with 70 percent of its open cases focused on “civil unrest” and anti-government activity, according to FBI documents and government specialists. The Bureau has also quietly changed the general classification of white supremacy, antisemitism, abortion-, and anti-LGBTQI+-related extremism to “hate crimes” rather than “terrorism.” Since terrorism remains the top national security priority, this has lowered the visibility and resources dedicated to those issues.

The FBI considers all violent acts (and threats of violence) with a political motive to be terrorism, a senior government official explains to Newsweek. But not all acts of extremism are considered terrorism. “If an act is focused on the government, it’s terrorism,” the source says. “But if extremism is focused on private individuals or institutions, it’s considered just a crime or classified as a hate crime.” The source was granted anonymity to speak about classified matters. <Source>

[OCS: I see black terrorism, including murder and mayhem, in the inner cities every day – but yet to have seen “MAGA” terrorism outside the legacy and social media propaganda. I see the progressive communist democrats in a power play while the FBI protects the regime.]

The supreme irony of an FBI graphic…


Our Vision

Ahead of the threat

[OCS: Why? Ever wonder why so many terrorist cases, like the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping, appear to have FBI fingerprints all over the case? How many confidential informants like Christopher Steele earn megabucks to manufacture false narratives?

Our Mission

Protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States

[OCS: It appears that the FBI is a significant violator of the U.S. Constitution and the protections afforded to American citizens.]

Our Priorities

  • Protect the U.S. from terrorist attack

[OCS: It appears that the FBI is concentrating on domestic politics and promoting the progressive communist democrats rather than protecting us from terrorists crossing our wide-open Southern border.]

  • Protect the U.S. against foreign intelligence, espionage, and cyber operations

[OCS: I would suggest that we have a record number of Chinese communist and communist Russian spies operating in the United States, many in government, our educational institutions, and our corporations. ]

  • Combat significant cyber-criminal activity

[OCS: Remember the Russian hacking of the DNC that was not properly investigated? How about the laptop of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Pakistani infiltration of Democrats in Congress?]

  • Combat public corruption at all levels

[OCS: This is a cosmic joke as it appears that FBI leadership is complicit in public corruption and its subsequent cover-ups.]

  • Protect civil rights

[OCS: Except for the civil rights of conservatives or anyone connected with Republicans.]

  • Combat transnational criminal enterprises

[OCS: Why are so many former FBI agents involved in the security of multi-national organizations, and are they leaking information extrajudicially back to the agency?]

  • Combat significant white-collar crime

[OCS: Define crime outside of politics?]

  • Combat significant violent crime

[OCS: Our nation’s inner cities are awash with violent crime, so where are those RICO investigations of criminal gangs?]


Bottom line…

In the world of progressive communist democrat politics, words are weapons and often mean the opposite of their common definition. Political promises and lofty words are meaningless. Actions and their consequences are all that matter.

And from what we have seen, the actions of the progressive communist democrats are to destroy America from within, by weakening our moral fiber, imploding our economy, and accepting the infiltration of hostile foreign powers into our government, institutions, education, and corporations.

While our premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies jockey for power and surveil the American public.

We are headed down the road to hell with a corrupt, mentally-defective driver at the wheel of a bus being directed head-on into traffic by the progressive communist democrats. It is time to reform the leadership of all top agencies.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS



Since the elevation of John Roberts as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roberts’ fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Court’s impartiality above partisan ideological bias, has been challenged.

1. Shelby County v. Holder. The Roberts Court's evisceration of the most important civil-rights legislation passed since Reconstruction was its lowest moment. The impact of the decision to reverse a key part of the Voting Rights Act is anti-democratic, allowing numerous illegal voter-suppression schemes to go into effect, and making it much more difficult to stop them. But what makes Shelby County especially egregious is its threadbare legal reasoning, which can't even be called "constitutional law."

2. NFIB v. Sebelius. This case is generally seen as a liberal triumph because Chief Justice Roberts ultimately decided not to rule Barack Obama's signature domestic policy achievement unconstitutional. But its Medicaid expansion holding might actually belong at the top of list. In terms of its policy impact, it would be hard to identify a worse decision in the history of the Supreme Court. Thousands of people a year will literally die because Roberts re-wrote the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act to make it much easier for states to opt out.

3. Connick v. Thompson. This case involved an almost-certainly innocent man who spent 18 years in prison largely because the state illegally suppressed exculpatory evidence. According to a 5–4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, however, nobody in the prosecutor's office could be held accountable for this egregious, willful rights violation.

4. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. In this case, the Court held (in an opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia) that federal law preempted California's limits on forced-arbitration agreements. This decision makes it much harder for consumers to get effective remedies when companies rip them off.

5. Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. I actually think that this, not Citizens United, is the very worst of the Roberts Court's campaign-finance decisions. The Court struck down an Arizona law that gave matching funds to candidates based on the money raised by their opponents. <Source>

There is little doubt in anyone’s mind that since Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in on Sept. 29, 2005, by Justice John Paul Stevens, he has been a feckless jurist and not the constitutional conservative he was portrayed to be by the media. In fact, he was appointed by George W. Bush and was, in actuality, an establishment “go along to get along” Bushie. 

Now, we are about to find out whether or not the Roberts Court’s fidelity to the text, structure, history, and constitutional hierarchy is real and if the Court is a legitimate forum for Americans to redress their grievances.

The test: Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al. (Docket #22-380), a petition for a writ of certiorari filed on October 20, 2022.

Basically, the parties are alleged to have known that there were outstanding allegations of widespread election regularities on January 6th and violated their oath of office when they failed to investigate the matter of electoral irregularities prior to certifying the election and allowing Joe Biden to assume the Presidency.



A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from this Court and lower appeal courts, along with constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of this case.

This case uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress, while deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal, State, County or local Governments found within the United States of America, and at the same time the trial court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court, to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs for President and Vice President of the United States.

In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each other found in this case affecting every court in this country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation of the object principle of justice also partially created by this Court and supported by other appeal courts and constitutional provisions.

These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be, settled by this Court without delay.


Petitioner Raland J Brunson is an individual representing himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court.

388 Respondents, in their official capacities, are a party to this action as defendants in the trial court. including select Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, President Biden, Vice President Harris, Michael Pence as former Vice President, and 100 Jane and John Does. 


This action is against 388 federal officers in their official capacities which include President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Michael Richard Pence (“Respondents”). All the Respondents have taken the required Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as such they are liable for consequences when they violate the Oath of Office.

Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, as stated below, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States, purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy. Because of Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought this action against Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondents, and consequently this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.

On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). Proceeding was for the purpose of counting votes under the 2020 Presidential election for the President and Vice President of the United States under Amendment XII. During this Proceeding over 100 members of U.S. Congress claimed factual evidence that the said election was rigged. The refusal of the Respondents to investigate this congressional claim (the enemy) is an act of treason and fraud by Respondents. A successfully rigged election has the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the victor wants, which in this case is Biden, who, if not stopped immediately, will continue to destroy the fundamental freedoms of Brunson and all U.S. Citizens and courts of law.

Due to the fact that this case represents a national security breach on a unprecedented level like never before seen seriously damaging and violating Brunson and coincidently effects every citizen of the U.S.A. and courts of law. Therefore, Brunson moves this court to grant this petition, or in the alternative without continuing further, order the trial court to grant Brunson’s complaint in its fullest. Brunson’s complaint is the mechanism that can immediately remove the Respondents from office without leaving this country vulnerable without a President and Vice President.

<Source: Supreme Court Docket Petition>

What does it all mean?

That knowing of alleged interference with the electoral process, those named in the petition had a constitutionally-mandated duty required by their Oath of Office to investigate the allegations as a matter of national security.

Bottom line…

Will the Roberts’ Court blow off the issue when its decision is distributed for Court Conference, ironically, on January 6, 2023? The Conference will decide, by vote, if the case will be heard before the Court.  

Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority. Before each Justice is a copy of the day’s agenda. Each decides when he or she should refrain from taking any part in a case.

The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.

All conference decisions are published. The disagreements among the Justices are fully exposed to the public in the written opinions, and on occasion the language of dissent becomes vehement. <Source>

Is the Court willing to issue an opinion and risk removing sitting officials from office? 

Does the Oath of Office mean anything?

We are so screwed.

-- Steve

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS