Does Crockett want Trump dead? – Sponsors “DISGRACED Former Protectees Act” to make it happen.

Dallas, TX — A storm is brewing in North Texas politics as Rep. Jasmine Crockett [D-TX-30], whose district lies just south of Dallas, faces fierce backlash from Texas Republicans. The uproar stems from her co-sponsorship of H.R.8081, the “Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act.” This bill, had it passed, would have stripped former President Donald Trump of his Secret Service protection following his conviction on felony charges in New York.

The call for Crockett’s resignation was led by 16 Texas Republicans, including prominent figures such as State Rep. Brian Harrison and State Sen. Bob Hall. In a letter released Monday, these lawmakers stated, “Texans believe that, regardless of party, Presidents of the United States of America, both current and former, must be protected.”

Crockett’s legislative move came under intense scrutiny especially after the recent assassination attempt on Trump during a rally in Pennsylvania. Trump, grazed by a bullet that penetrated his right ear, was swiftly attended to by secret service, who surrounded the President while other agents neutralized the would be assassin.

Despite the controversy, Crockett remained defiant. Her office has yet to comment on the calls for her resignation or her stance on the bill following the assassination attempt. On her official X account, Crockett expressed her concerns, stating, “My thoughts are with Mr. Trump as he recovers. My deepest appreciation is extended to law enforcement for their selfless & decisive action. Political violence in all forms must be condemned.”

Hollow words from a Congressman that literally would vote to put his life in jeopardy. Maybe Mrs. Crockett should have thought about that before cosponsoring the bill.

With Crockett up for re-election, the timing of this controversy could not be more pivotal. Facing Independent candidate Ken Ashby, who is gaining traction among conservative voters, Crockett finds herself in a precarious position. Notably, there is no Republican candidate running in District 30, making Ashby the primary conservative alternative.

Crockett’s political career has been marked by her dedication to civil liberties and justice, particularly for underrepresented communities. From her early days as a public defender to her tenure in the Texas House of Representatives, she has consistently championed progressive causes. However, her involvement with the controversial DISGRACED Former Protectees Act has cast a shadow over her legislative achievements.

Ken Ashby, the independent challenger, has seized this opportunity to criticize Crockett’s judgment and question her commitment to the safety and security of American leaders. In a recent statement, Ashby remarked, “This bill is a dangerous precedent. We must protect all our Presidents, past and present, to uphold the dignity of the office and ensure national security.”

As Election Day approaches, voters in Texas’ 30th District will have to weigh Crockett’s track record of advocacy and reform against the recent controversy and the calls for her resignation. The outcome of this race could significantly impact the political landscape in North Texas, highlighting the ongoing tensions and divisions within the state’s political sphere.

About Rep. Jasmine Crockett

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett has a storied career dedicated to public service and justice. She has worked as a public defender, civil rights attorney, and was a key figure in the Texas House of Representatives. Crockett has been a vocal advocate for criminal justice reform, economic opportunity, and civil liberties. Her work in Congress aims to expand healthcare access, voting rights, and economic equity across Texas. She is a member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. and holds degrees from Rhodes College and the University of Houston.

As the political drama unfolds, one thing remains clear: the voters of District 30 have a critical decision to make, one that will resonate far beyond the boundaries of North Texas.

In the expansive realm of Texas politics, Daniel Miller, the dynamic President of the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM), has been a fervent advocate for the TEXIT movement since its inception in 1996. Recognized on major news networks and international outlets, Miller’s charismatic stance on Texas independence has positioned him as a central figure in the Lone Star State’s political landscape. As the face of the TEXIT movement, Miller’s leadership warrants scrutiny, delving into both successes and challenges that shape the narrative of his tenure.

Background History of Daniel Miller:

Daniel Miller, a sixth-generation Texan, brings a unique blend of tech consultancy and entrepreneurial spirit to the TEXIT movement. His political journey, however, is marked by setbacks. In the 2012 House District Republican primary, Miller faced a formidable defeat against Allan Ritter, securing only 27% of the votes. Undeterred, he ventured into the 2022 Texas Lt. Governor primary, yet the outcome echoed his previous loss, with Dan Patrick commanding 76% of the votes and Miller securing a distant second with just 7%. These early challenges in Miller’s political career provide context for the hurdles he would later navigate in steering the TEXIT movement toward its goal of Texas independence.

The Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM):

The TNM, under Daniel Miller’s leadership since its evolution in 2005, has become a pivotal force in Texas politics, not because of Miller’s involvement, but in spite of it. Evolving from a faction of the old Republic of Texas, the TNM’s mission is explicit: “the complete, total and unencumbered political, cultural and economic independence of Texas.” Operating as an unincorporated association, the TNM’s focus on peaceful political advocacy, education, and the pursuit of a statewide referendum sets the stage for the TEXIT movement. Miller’s role extends beyond advocacy, as he testifies on legislation and participates in conferences globally, solidifying the TNM’s status as a formidable political entity.

Series of Failures:

Referendum Mishaps:

The handling of the TEXIT referendum became a critical juncture in Miller’s leadership. He failed to understand the law and submit ballots on time. He failed to understand the legal requirement for wet signatures. And technical glitches on the petition website likely meant that many more signatures could have been obtained. These missteps not only delayed the movement’s momentum but raised questions about the TEXIT leadership’s competence and preparedness.

The technical failure of the petition website was particularly problematic. For days, perhaps weeks, programming errors plagued the platform, preventing individuals from completing the registration process. The system’s incapacity to rectify errors disenfranchised countless individuals. The severity of these issues questioned the TEXIT movement’s technological infrastructure and its ability to navigate complex legal processes. We should also mention that this is actually the type of business that is Miller’s main job … and it failed miserably.

TEXITCON Press Restrictions:

The TEXITCON event, which was a great idea that was long overdue, faced a critical misstep under Miller’s leadership – a failure to allow free press opportunities. The Texas Liberty Journal’s attempts to secure a press pass were met with complete silence, pointing to a broader issue of restricted media coverage and public awareness. Access to the event would only be possible if one paid for admission. This is not how the press operates and any amateur event organizer would know this. This communication breakdown not only hindered media engagement but also raised concerns about the real motivations of the event. Was it about awareness and organization? Or was it just about making money?

This press restriction holds broader implications. Limited media coverage restricts the dissemination of information about the TEXIT movement’s goals, progress, and activities. The absence of a robust media presence opens the door to misinformation and limits constructive public discourse. In a movement where public perception is pivotal, stifling media access has far-reaching consequences, potentially isolating the TEXIT movement from valuable feedback and alternative viewpoints.

Legal Troubles and Financial Irregularities:

a. IRS Closure of 501c(4):

A significant episode under Miller’s leadership was the closure of TNM’s 501c(4) status by the IRS in May 2023. This move may signal legal troubles or it may once again represent incompetence. In the very least it represents a lack of transparency as no mention of this has been made by the TNM. The closure raises questions about the internal governance and financial practices of the Texas Nationalist Movement Inc. as well. Did they stop being a non-profit? Where is the money from the online store going?

The IRS closure unveils a broader challenge in managing the legal aspects of the movement. As a key advocacy organization, maintaining compliance with federal regulations is paramount. The closure not only tarnishes the image of the TNM but underscores the importance of robust governance mechanisms in movements of this nature.

b. Business Registration Shell Game:

Further scrutiny reveals a concerning practice – the shelling of the Texas Business Registration through another company, “TNM Protective Services, LLC.” This maneuver introduces an element of opaqueness into the organizational structure. Coupled with the inactive status of the “Texas Nationalist Movement Foundation Inc”, this prompts questions about organizational transparency and accountability.

The use of multiple entities and the status of these entities raise concerns about financial practices and organizational integrity. Advocating for political, cultural, and economic independence necessitates a level of transparency that aligns with the movement’s core values. The complexities in business registration demand a closer examination of the TEXIT movement’s financial strategies and its commitment to ethical conduct.

c. Lost Domain Name

When Miller launched his book in 2020 “Texit: Why and How Texas Will Leave The Union“, the back cover of his book listed his domain as www.DanielMiller.com. Sometime after the publication he lost control of his own domain. This often happens when the owner fails to pay the renewal fee to their domain host. Generally, domain names run about $15.00 / year but when the owner fails to renew a domain, ‘squatters’ can jump in and grab it. Often, they will then jack up the price and hope that the owner will pay to have it restored. For common names, or names of celebrities, the fee can go up quite a bit. In this case, DanielMiller.com is currently offered for sale at $79,888.

Few in their right mind would pay such a fee and such a domain name is only valuable to a person who shares this name…that’s a pretty small market. This appears to be the case for Miller who has subsequently registered the domain www.DanielOMiller.com … adding the ‘O’. But the question remains, how does one fail to renew their own domain name? What does it say about a person’s management skills that they would fail at such a simple task? Miller has not returned our inquiry so we are unable to get his side of the story.

The Elusive Financial Trail:

The uncertainty surrounding the online TEXIT product store adds another layer to this financial opaqueness. With little information available about the revenue distribution and the company handling these transactions, questions linger about the accountability of the TEXIT movement. Transparency in financial matters is not just a legal requirement but a moral obligation, especially for a movement that seeks to empower Texans in determining their destiny.

Conclusion: A Call for Renewed Leadership in the TEXIT Movement

As we meticulously examine Daniel Miller’s leadership of the TEXIT movement, a pattern of failures and incompetence emerges, raising serious questions about his ability to steer the movement forward after over two decades. The challenges faced, from referendum mishaps to the restrictions on press freedom and legal and financial irregularities, paint a concerning picture of the movement’s current trajectory.

Delayed ballot submissions, a lack of understanding about legal requirements, and technical failures on the petition website, showcase a level of incompetence that is detrimental to a movement striving for Texas independence. These missteps not only hinder the momentum of TEXIT but also cast doubt on Miller’s capacity to navigate the intricate legal and technological landscape that such a movement demands.

The press restrictions observed at TEXITCON further underscore a deficiency in leadership. In a movement that claims to champion transparency and democratic principles, stifling media access raises serious concerns about accountability and openness. The lack of media engagement limits public awareness and stifles constructive discourse, hindering the movement’s ability to gain broad support.

The IRS shut down the  501c(4), a move that typically happens after a company fails to turn in its forms for 3 consecutive years. The questionable business registration practices that hide who is running the company reveal an unsettling lack of governance and transparency. For a movement that advocates for the political, cultural, and economic independence of Texas, such financial opaqueness is not just a red flag; it is a fundamental betrayal of the ideals the movement professes.

After more than 20 years under Miller’s leadership, it becomes imperative for the people invested in the TEXIT movement to critically assess its direction. The numerous failures and shortcomings raise a pivotal question: Is Daniel Miller the right leader to guide the movement into the future? A movement takes more than passion to succeed, it takes leadership, experience, and competence. Perhaps it is time for the people to seek out a new representative who can bring these fresh perspectives and a strategic understanding of the complexities of politics.

Moving the TEXIT movement forward requires adept leadership that can learn from past mistakes, adapt to challenges, and effectively navigate the intricate web of politics, legality, and public relations. The vision of a free and independent Texas is too significant to be hindered by the failures of the past. It is time for the people to seek a leader who can reinvigorate the movement, inspire confidence, and, most importantly, lead Texas toward a future that aligns with the aspirations of its people.

What if: Harris Becomes President after Votes Have Been Cast for Biden?

With Joe Biden’s age and obvious health concerns at center stage in the election, questions about the continuity of the presidency and the electoral process could lead to a bonafide Constitutional Crisis. If, in this hypothetical scenario, President Biden were to resign or be removed from office right before election day, after votes have been cast in early voting, the nation could face an unprecedented constitutional crisis.

Following the provisions of the 25th Amendment, Vice President Harris would ascend to the presidency, the minute Biden is no longer able to fulfill his duties. At a minimum, she would remain President up until the transfer of power the following January. But it’s the timing of this hypothetical event that causes the issue, with a significant portion of the electorate having expressed their choices through early voting.

In this scenario, Harris’ name will not be on the ballot as a “Presidential” candidate. At best, she would be listed as the “Vice President” … assuming Biden continues to keep her on his ticket. At the time of this writing, it looks like he will.

But what happens in the election if Biden is unable to continue? There is a risk, however small, that Biden could win the election even though he would not assume office. Some scholars would argue, that despite the vagueness of the Constitution in this matter, the 2024 presidential election would automatically pass to Harris … even though she was not elected as “President”.

Even though partisan political operatives would attempt to make a case that President Harris could simply cancel the election, this is simply not the case, and it would be grossly unconstitutional for a President to attempt to cancel the election. If she did, she would almost certainly be impeached, and the Speaker of the House would step in…congratulations Speaker Johnson.

A more likely scenario is that the Democrat party would instantly jump into action and declare that ALL votes previously cast for Biden are hereby directed to a new nominee. They will make the farcical assertion that the votes cast were for a “party”, not a “person”.

Drawing on historical examples, we can reflect on the 1912 U.S. presidential election, where the sudden death of the Republican Party’s Vice Presidential candidate, James Sherman, prompted rapid adjustments. In a race split between President Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt, the unexpected vacancy led to the selection of Nicholas Murray Butler as the new Vice-Presidential candidate. The ensuing controversy likely contributed to Woodrow Wilson’s victory.

In another example, the tragic plane crash involving Senator Paul Wellstone occurred on October 25, 2002, just 11 days before the scheduled U.S. Senate election in Minnesota. Senator Wellstone, a Democrat seeking re-election for a third term, was traveling with his wife Sheila, their daughter Marcia, three campaign staffers, and two pilots when their plane went down in freezing weather conditions in northern Minnesota.

The sudden and devastating crash resulted in the loss of Senator Wellstone, his wife, his daughter, and the other passengers on board. The incident sent shockwaves through the state and the nation, as Wellstone was a well-respected and influential figure in Minnesota politics.

With the election only days away and early voting already underway, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL), which is affiliated with the Democratic Party in Minnesota, faced a significant challenge. Minnesota law allowed the major political parties to replace a candidate in the event of death within a certain timeframe before the election.

In response to the tragedy, the DFL swiftly convened to select a replacement candidate. Former Vice President Walter Mondale emerged as the party’s choice to fill the vacancy left by Senator Wellstone. Walter Mondale had a long and distinguished political career, having served as Vice President under President Jimmy Carter and as a U.S. Senator from Minnesota prior to that.

The decision to replace Wellstone with Mondale was not without controversy, as some critics argued that the sudden change in candidate disrupted the electoral process. Nevertheless, the DFL moved forward with Mondale’s candidacy, and his name was placed on the ballot as the new Democratic nominee. He ultimately lost, but the precedent stands.

Another example is the accent of Gerald Ford.

Gerald Ford’s ascension to the presidency was indeed a unique and historic event. Ford became the 38th Vice President of the United States on December 6, 1973, following the resignation of Vice-President Spiro Agnew, who faced legal troubles related to tax evasion and bribery. Ford, a Congressman from Michigan and the House Minority Leader, was appointed by President Richard Nixon as Vice-President, and confirmed by Congress as Agnew’s replacement.

The political landscape took a dramatic turn when President Richard Nixon faced the Watergate scandal, a political crisis involving the cover-up of illegal activities within the Nixon administration. As the scandal intensified and the likelihood of Nixon’s impeachment grew, Gerald Ford found himself thrust into the limelight.

On August 8, 1974, Richard Nixon became the first U.S. president to resign from office. Following Nixon’s resignation, Gerald Ford was sworn in as the 38th President of the United States on August 9, 1974.

Now, let’s take this hypothetical scenario a step further. Imagine that, due to unforeseen circumstances, Joe Biden is unable to follow through with the election. What are the legal maneuvers that the Democrat Party would embark to resolve the situation?

 Faced with this unprecedented challenge, the Democratic Party makes a groundbreaking decision. All delegates, traditionally bound by primary and caucus outcomes, are granted the status of superdelegates, able to vote for any candidate they choose.

With amazing and mind-baffling speed, the majority of delegates rally around California Governor Gavin Newsom, instead of sitting President, Kamala Harris. Known for his progressive policies and leadership, Newsom emerges as a consensus candidate who could unite the party and appeal to a broad spectrum of voters…so they believe.

This scenario sets the stage for an unconventional Democratic National Convention, where every delegate, now a superdelegate, wields independent voting rights. The decision to pivot towards Governor Newsom reflects a collective belief that he possesses the qualities necessary to lead the party and the nation during a challenging period.

However there is no legal or constitutional authority that grants a party the ability to transfer a vote cast by a citizen from one person to another. But this won’t stop Democrats from trying and they most assuridily will find a judge to agree with them … in these extraordinary times.

Therefore, Harris would continue as the first Woman President until Newsom is sworn in on January 20, 2025.

But this hypothetical scenario assumes an alternate universe where Donald Trump is not victorious in the 2024 election. The more likely scenario is that the Democrats will use the chaos caused by Biden’s inability to continue with the election to declare that Trump, once again, is an illegitimate President. Thus, causing a whole new era of riots in the streets, impeachments, FBI setups etc. … just like 2016.