August 2025 Cartoon by Ed Newmann Uncle Scam's Election Casino
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, enacted in 2013 as part of that year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), made it legal for our government to propagandize Americans for whatever purposes it deems necessary.
Since that woeful inversion of the law, Americans have been subject to a continuum of strategic campaigns to control our perceptions, generate resistance-free acceptance for government laws, programs and policies, influence and secure ever stricter two-party ideologies and elections, and seismically shift cultural norms … all to reinforce its agenda for “Continuity of Government” as the nation's primary doctrine, replacing the founding doctrine of “Individual Primacy” that originally defined America's Constitutional Republic.
The result has been more than a decade long-shift in government's communication tactics, colluding with a well-compensated mainstream media cabal. The 21st-century infowar amounts to highly coordinated media messaging across a spectrum that specifically targets our political differences to ever-widen the consensus gap.
Media's complicity cannot be understated with it's increasingly dangerous disinformation, deliberate distractions, and relentless emotional triggering, all useful ingredients for the secret sauce flavoring the increasingly chaotic American ethos.
What most Americans do not know is that the legalized infowar unleashed against us actually has a longer covert history worldwide, utilizing a centralized blueprint of destabilization and reorganization designed to benefit the latest and greatest few “Haves,” while seriously disadvantaging the remaining billions of “Have Nots.” Whether plotting for a totalitarian new world order based on Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Fascism, Oligarchical Democracy, or Monarchism, it matters not one lick which of these governance models is adopted as long as the masses comply.
The Trifecta Against Tyranny
This is where I remind readers that our U.S. and State Constitutions provide three specific authorities, three tools if you will, to contain usurpations by the administrative bureaucracies, regardless of which public sector – federal, state, county, city, or school entities – offends. These three authorities belong entirely to the people – our purview over juries, elections, and the purse (our tax dollars and how they are spent).
To manage our authorities as each applies to our constitutional republic, we must understand their genesis and purposes through time as enshrined in the founding documents and amended 27 times (the first 10 are known as the Bill of Rights) throughout our 250 years as a distinct sovereign nation. We must also become well versed in all the associated remedies available to us when our constitutionally protected authorities are interfered with by any government entities.
Always remember that the government's mandate, its primary obligation, is to protect our inalienable (natural) rights, rights that exist as inherent to our humanity, and not privileges bestowed upon us by any government. In other words, our rights exist whether government exists or not.
That is why it is essential to pay attention to the stories of fellow citizens, especially the trials (literally) and tribulations each has endured to preserve his/her individual rights and authorities.
Tina Peters Is a Political Prisoner, Not an Election Denier
Once such individual is former elected Election Official (Auditor) of Mesa County, Colorado, and Gold Star mother Tina Peters, currently serving nine years after being convicted of non-violent largely process crimes. In 2022, Mesa County District Attorney Daniel Rubinstein and company conjured novel theories and twisted them into felonious violations of administrative policy(s) for prosecution that will arguably never hold upon appeal.
But not before Tina is punished with incarceration before her appeal is heard, considered injuriously harsh for nonviolent offenders, the majority of whom remain free until their appeals are adjudicated for obvious reasons of fairness. If Tina wins her appeal, incarceration is no longer an option for the State of Colorado, so how will she get back that time and/or be compensated for her unlawful interment?
I cannot stress the importance of familiarizing yourselves with Tina Peter's ongoing case. The epic violations of her individual constitutionally protected First Amendment rights and authorities, not to mention her authority as an elected official in charge of her county's elections, against the deplorable state sanctioned lawfare (along with newly discovered federal Department of Justice (DOJ) engagement against Tina), deployed against Tina by a cast of characters, including Judge Matthew Barrett, Secretary of State Jena Griswold, Colorado Assistant Attorney General Robert Shapiro, Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, and Mesa County's local newspaper in a fine example of mainstream urinalism, unfairly covering Tina in myriad heavily biased articles.
Tina's case is far more about partisan punishment of an elected official who discovered vulnerabilities in Mesa County, Colorado's election equipment and reported it to her superiors. That is when her troubles began. This same sentiment was clearly demonstrated by Judge Barrett's particularly disgraceful conduct toward Tina throughout her trial, disallowing most of her defenses, his unreasonable sentence of nine years, her early incarceration for “potential speech” and his vitriolic animus toward Tina what he cited as her “unrepentant.”
Please let this injustice sink in. Judge Barrett ordered Tina's incarceration prior to her appeal being heard. Not for any of the crimes she was convicted for, but for her potential speech, for what she might say that he determined might be potentially dangerous. Judge Barrett openly, with vitriolic contempt for Tina, violated her habeas corpus rights without a second thought, to stop her from telling her story more widely. It begs the question: What, pray tell, are these bureaucrats so afraid Tina will reveal?
Peters Not Convicted for Copying an Election Database
Perhaps an answer lies in the direction of Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who arguably corrupted election protocols after the 2020 election by ordering all Colorado county auditors to participate in a “trusted build” protocol to update election equipment that would also erase the 2020 election databases of all those counties, forever. This erasure of the 2020 election databases would itself be an unlawful act that otherwise requires Colorado county auditors to keep their election databases for 22 months after elections before deleting them.
In compliance with federal law 52 U.S.C. § 20701, which requires election officials to preserve all records for 22 months following a federal election, Tina made a copy of Mesa county's 2020 election database prior to the “trusted bill update” to preserve her county's record of the 2020 Election, precisely as she was required to do.
However, upon reviewing that Mesa County 2020 Election database, Tina found vulnerabilities and anomalies, thereby alerting Secretary of State ((SOS) Griswold of her concerns, and triggering the chain of events against Tina, converting her election stewardship and due diligence into election and personnel crimes. You can read her reports and much more at TinaPeters.us, where you can also donate to her legal fund.
The prosecution of Tina is outrageous and I am unable to do it justice in this limited space. I have provided numerous links with a wealth of knowledge about this case. It is rumored that SOS Jena Griswold is running for Colorado Governor, and she could not be more unworthy. As for Judge Barrett, he personified injustice in Tina's trial and deserves nothing less than being disrobed, disbarred, and possibly prosecuted for his abdication of his oath of office.
Writ for Habeas Corpus
In a positive turn of events for Tina, savvy, arguably lawfare-proof attorneys have stepped up, filing a final brief for a “Writ for Habeas Corpus” on Tina's behalf with the Denver Federal Court. This ensued after U.S. District Court Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak agreed to hear arguments for the Habeas Corpus Writ, something that many legal experts believe will be awarded to Tina based on Judge Barrett's unfathomable breach when sentencing her for an incredulous nine years for mostly nonviolent process crimes, then additionally incarcerating her on the spot for potential speech. If Tina wins her argument for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, she will be immediately released as she awaits her appeal on the convictions, another hurdle for which honorable, constitutional, and measured minds will hopefully prevail this time.
The Gateway Pundit has comprehensive coverage of Tina's persecution and is a fascinating read, with all manner of sidebars worth knowing to enlarge the importance of this case.
TheGatewayPundit.com/?s=tina+peters
Treniss Evans, of the American Rights Alliance, has compiled a massive compendium of information relative to the January 6, 2021 Fedsurrection. That is also vital intel to familiarize yourselves with as part of your armor of ideas against tyranny.
In the final brief submitted on July 25, 2025, on Tina Peters' behalf, the habeas corpus argument is as follows:
“This Court has jurisdiction over this Application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), which
provides that this Court “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws … of the United States.” It is well established
that, while there is no freestanding federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal, once a state
has made provision for bail pending appeal, the determination of a person’s bail status may not
infringe on any of the panoply of rights secured by the Constitution, and the writ of habeas
corpus provides relief for a victim of such unconstitutional incarceration.”
Tina Peters' Final Brief for a Writ of Habeaus Corpus filed July 25, 2025 can be read in its entirety at RCReader.com/y/tinapeters1
There are four issues on appeal as outlined:
1. Whether the district court erred as a matter of law in denying Ms. Peters’ motion to dismiss based on her claim of immunity pursuant to the Supremacy Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
2. Whether the evidence was insufficient.
3. Whether the court denied Ms. Peters due process.
a. Whether the district court deprived Ms. Peters of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.
b. Whether the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the statutory defense of execution of a public duty, and the federal constitutional defense of Supremacy Clause immunity.
c. Whether Ms. Peters had adequate notice of the charges.
d. Whether the prosecution misled the jury by stating repeatedly that Ms. Peters’ conduct caused a “security breach.”
e. Whether the court erred by refusing to hold a hearing to investigate allegations of improper juror conduct.
f. Whether the prosecutor’s false statement in rebuttal closing requires a new trial.
4. Whether the district court’s sentence violated the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and whether the sentence was based in part on a contempt conviction that was later vacated by the Court of Appeals.
I also covered Tina Peters' trial in a previous editorial for your additional clarification of information: RCReader.com/commentary/america-is-not-a-democracy-it-is-a-republic.
