MAGA WANTS PERP WALKS: A LEGAL MATTER BIGGER THAN EPSTEIN

MAGA WANTS PERP WALKS; A LEGAL MATTER BIGGER THAN EPSTEIN

The push to make the Jeffrey Epstein files a critical issue, often spearheaded by Democratic lawmakers, has been driven by a combination of a desire for accountability for elite sexual abuse, strategic political maneuvering against Republican figures, and pressure to investigate potential cover-ups within the justice system. Get Trump! Midterm Elections!

Democrats, the Radical Left, and the George Soros' crowd pride themselves on sending "useful idiots" every year to cushy, air conditioned offices to rule over their subjects and metaphorically, and sometimes actually, spit on the Flag and the Constitution. They don't mind profaning the Holy Bible in the process. Their family, friends and supporters gather on a cold day in a City Hall to swear on the Holy Bible an oath to God and Man that they will uphold and defend the Constitution, the Law of the Land. Muriel Bowser, a fifth-generation Washingtonian, has taken the oath of office as Mayor of the District of Columbia multiple times, most recently for a historic third term on January 2, 2023. She is the first female Mayor elected to three four-year terms, emphasizing a "fresh start" and bold action during her inaugurations. The Oath goes something like this:

I, (mayor's name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the laws of the United States of America and of the District of Columbia, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Mayor of the District of Columbia, which I am about to enter.

Violating the oath of office as the DC Mayor can lead to serious legal consequences, including potential criminal charges for perjury or false swearing (imprisonment up to 3 years and/or fines). Other penalties include civil penalties.

In an oath, the phrase "my ability" (often stated as "to the best of my ability") refers to a solemn, personal commitment to perform duties, obligations, or promises using the maximum extent of one's skills, capacity, and efforts. It is an acknowledgment that while you may not be perfect, you promise to act with integrity and without substandard effort.

It is sanctioned and required under law for every Executive in the Land. It is the fingerprint of Rule. In DC, it is required under DC Code § 1–604.08. Oath of office. The Mayor of the District of Columbia takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and the District of Columbia, preserve the Constitution, and faithfully discharge the duties of the office. This oath is generally administered during the inaugural ceremony every four years.

Muriel Bowser has been sworn in for three terms as the Mayor of the District of Columbia, with the oaths administered by the Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for each term.

First Term (2015): Sworn in by Eric T. Washington, Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals, on January 2, 2015.
Second Term (2019): Sworn in by Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals, on January 2, 2019.
Third Term (2023): Sworn in by Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals, on January 2, 2023.

All ceremonies for her inaugurations took place at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.

Federal judges in the U.S. are required to execute two oaths—the Constitutional Oath and the Judicial Oath—before assuming office to swear allegiance to the Constitution, impartially administer justice, and faithfully discharge their duties, as outlined in 28 USC 453 and 5 U.S.C. § 3331. These oaths, often administered during a formal ceremony, ensure the, impartial, fair treatment of all parties. Progressive federal judges often include Biden appointees with backgrounds as public defenders, civil rights attorneys, or labor lawyers. Key figures identified for their progressive backgrounds or rulings include Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and circuit judges such as Nancy Abudu, Nicole Berner, Rachel Bloomekatz, and Myrna Perez.

Eric T. Washington: Nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1995 to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. He later served as Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals. The Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) is recognized as a progressive organization. Washington was President. In his early career, he served as Legislative Director and Counsel to U.S. Congressman Michael A. Andrews (Texas) (1983-87). Andrews is a former Democratic U.S. Representative from Texas who served six terms in the House (1983–1995). Andrews was a progressive on social issues. Washington has a reputation for advocating social justice.
Anna Blackburne-Rigsby: Appointed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush in 2006. She became Chief Judge in 2017. Prior to her appointment to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Blackburne-Rigsby was nominated by President William Jefferson Clinton to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and served from 2000-2006. The National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ) is considered a progressive organization aimed at promoting diversity and gender equity within the judiciary. Blackburne-Rigsby is the President of NAWJ. Her judicial decisions reflect a commitment to fairness, resonating with the aims of the Black Lives Matter movement. NAWJ is committed to eliminating bias and enhancing diversity in the judiciary. They advocate for gender equity, fair treatment for marginalized communities, and equal access to justice, specifically studying how systemic issues like courtroom gender dynamics disproportionately affect women and LGBTQ+ individuals.

Judges advocating for fairness in their decisions often resonate with broader social movements, including those focused on the rights of illegal immigrants.

No Strict Constitutionalists here.

Progressive, or liberal, perspectives on illegal immigration generally prioritize humanitarian treatment, pathways to legal status, and systemic reform over detention and deportation. They advocate for addressing root causes of migration, protecting the rights of illegal aliens, abolishing immigration enforcement agencies like ICE, and viewing immigration as a civil rights issue rather than a criminal one. The District of Columbia Superior Court is often viewed as operating within a, or moving towards a, progressive legal environment, largely driven by its location in a liberal city and a focus on social justice initiatives, though it faces unique federal constraints. Based on the U.S. Constitution and the D.C. Home Rule Act, a U.S. President does not have the unilateral authority to terminate sitting judges on the D.C. Superior Court.

Simply, they oppose the "upholding" of the U.S. Constitution with every fiber of their being. Protected by a "black robe" against those seeking God's justice on earth.

What does it mean to "uphold and defend the Constitution"?

"Support and defend the Constitution" is a solemn oath taken by U.S. officials, military personnel, and naturalized citizens to uphold the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It signifies a commitment to the rule of law, adherence to constitutional limits on power, and placing democratic principles above personal ambition or party loyalty.

George Washington took the presidential oath of office on April 30, 1789, on the balcony of Federal Hall in New York City. Administered by Chancellor Robert Livingston, a leading Patriot during the American Revolution and a key figure in the Democratic-Republican Party alongside Thomas Jefferson, Washington placed his hand on a Holy Bible and pledged: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States". He then added, "So help me God," and kissed the Holy Bible. Washington established traditions including placing a hand on the Bible, taking an oath, and delivering an address. The Democratic-Republicans of Livingston and Jefferson favored:Strict Constitutionalism: A limited federal government with most powers reserved for the states. Washington is best classified as an 18th-century "republican" who favored national unity, a strong central government, and strict adherence to the Constitution.

Constitutional limits on power? Constitutional limits on power are legal restrictions designed to prevent authoritarianism and protect individual liberty by subjecting government actions to written, supreme law. Key mechanisms include enumerated powers, the separation of powers among three branches, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, and federalism (division of power between state and federal governments). Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the concentration of power in a single authority or a small group. What makes Democrats authoritarian?:

Leadership can be characterized by calls for inclusivity and progressive policies but may also advocate for strong regulatory measures and State control in areas like healthcare and environmental policy.
Policies may focus on social justice and equality, sometimes leading to accusations of "cancel culture" and restricting free speech in the name of inclusivity.

Prqgressive Judges expect their state or city executives to be progressive. Progressive judges in Washington, D.C. are typically associated with the D.C. Court of Appeals (the highest local court) and the D.C. Superior Court (the trial court), alongside federal judges appointed by progressive administrations to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Progressive judges typically expect state or city executives to be active partners in advancing systemic reform, promoting equity, and dismantling perceived structural injustices. Rather than a strictly formalist interpretation of separation of powers, progressive judicial philosophy often favors an "energetic government" that uses its executive power to address social, economic, and racial inequities. Progressive jurists tend to favor executive branch authority when it is used to implement policies they view as beneficial to society. They often expect city and state leaders to act as a "shield" against perceived federal retrenchment on rights, using executive orders and agency action to advance agendas. When judges let their political preferences, dictate their rulings, it violates the requirement of impartiality. Specifically, judicial activism—where judges "legislate from the bench" to advance a specific policy agenda rather than interpreting the law—violates the principle of a neutral judiciary. Systematic bias—such as consistently ruling in favor of a progressive executive agency regardless of the law—could be interpreted as violating the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, which demands an impartial arbiter.

Violating the Fifth Amendment is not inherently a criminal act in itself, but rather a constitutional violation by government officials, primarily during criminal investigations or proceedings. It protects individuals from forced self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and guarantees due process. Congress can remove federal judges, including those perceived as biased, through the constitutional process of impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. This requires a House majority and a two-thirds Senate vote for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", having occurred 15 times in U.S. history. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is under pressure from conservatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against federal judges perceived as biased or politically motivated, particularly those stalling President Trump's executive orders. While Jordan has held hearings on "judicial overreach," he faces challenges due to a narrow GOP majority, with some Republicans questioning the feasibility of successful convictions.

JIM, GET TO WORK!

How judges guard executives against the Constitution matters greatly in immigration discussions and executing justice. Harboring an illegal alien is against federal law. Harboring an illegal alien is a federal crime under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1324), not specifically a violation of the Constitution itself. It is illegal to knowingly conceal, harbor, or shield from detection an individual who has entered or remained in the US unlawfully. Catholic Legal Immigration Network reports it as "knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact than an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation. INA §274(a)(1)(A)(iii); 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) [hereinafter the “harboring provision” or “Section 1324 (a)”]. " The Network makes it plain, it applies to everyone. The Network reports, "The harboring prohibition is not restricted to those individuals who are in the business of smuggling undocumented immigrants into the United States or who employ undocumented immigrants in sweatshop-like conditions. As interpreted by the courts, harboring can apply to any person who knowingly harbors an undocumented immigrant. See, e.g., United States v. Shum, 496 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Zheng, 306 F.3d 1080, 1085 (11th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 925 (2003); United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573-74 (2d Cir.1999); United States v. Rubio-Gonzalez, 674 F.2d 1067, 1073 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173, 1180 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063 (1978)."

Catholic further reports, "To establish a violation of the harboring provision, the government must prove the following inmost jurisdictions: “(1) the alien entered or remained in the United States in violation of the law, (2) the defendant concealed, harbored, or sheltered the alien in the United States, (3) the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that the alien entered or remained in the United States in violation of the law, and (4) the defendant’s conduct tended to substantially facilitate the alien remaining in the United States illegally.”" The Jesuit priests must have written this report. Jesuit priests are often stereotyped as highly intellectual, liberal "thinkers" within the Catholic Church, functioning as progressive educators, theologians, or "radical" missionaries. They are perceived as questioning, politically active, and sometimes "too permissive" regarding doctrine, contrasting with conservative factions. Catholic reports, " Although Congress passed legislation to prohibit and punish the “harboring” of undocumented individuals, it never defined the term. The work of defining what constitutes “harboring” has been left to the courts. As shown below, the federal courts have not settled on one uniform definition, but rather many of the circuit courts have adopted their own definition of “harboring.”" Cognress needed on Aisle 7 for Mass Deportation!

The Catholic Church is not legally involved in facilitating illegal immigration, but its extensive humanitarian aid networks provide food, shelter, and legal assistance to migrants regardless of their legal status. This humanitarian focus has made the Church a central figure in intense political and legislative debates regarding U.S. border policy. Catholic Charities does not take part in or facilitate illegal immigration, a position Catholic Charities USA and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have maintained. However, the organization's extensive, taxpayer-funded humanitarian aid to migrants has made it a focal point of intense political debate, congressional investigations, and federal funding rollbacks. In the National Catholic Reporter's "Faith groups say House Republicans' probe into immigration work violates their religious freedom", Jack Jenkins wrote, "A House investigation launched by two Republican congressmen into dozens of religious organizations and denominations, from the U.S. Catholic bishops to the Unitarian Universalist Association, is being called a violation of the groups' religious liberty."Jenkins continues, "The lawmakers unveiled a letter they planned to send to all of the organizations. Among other allegations, the letter argues the Biden administration's reliance on nonprofit groups signaled "those who arrived illegally or without proper documentation that they could expect such assistance, all expensed to American taxpayers, once they arrived in the United States."

The letter included a link to a lengthy questionnaire asking the groups if they had received any "grant, contract, or other form of disbursement from the federal government" or provided "legal services, translation services, transportation, housing, sheltering, or any other form of assistance" to undocumented immigrants or unaccompanied immigrant children."

Harboring is a felony. Federal Law (8 U.S.C. §1324): This statute makes it a felony to "harbor" (provide a secure haven or refuge) an undocumented person. 8 U.S.C. §1324 penalizes bringing in, harboring, or inducing unauthorized immigrants, with fines up to $250,000 ($500,000 for organizations) and prison sentences ranging from 1 to 20 years. Penalties increase significantly for commercial gain, endangering lives, or causing death (potentially life imprisonment or death penalty). Sanctuary states and cities are municipalities or states that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities like the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), typically by restricting local law enforcement from sharing information or detaining individuals solely based on immigration status. These policies aim to foster trust between immigrant communities and local police, ensuring residents report crimes without fear of deportation. Sanctuary states and cities limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities (ICE), specifically by restricting, declining, or not honoring detention requests for undocumented immigrants. While critics argue this shields criminal aliens, proponents state these policies foster community trust, encourage crime reporting, and are not designed to protect criminals.

The key is the terms "harbor" and "shield". Though both terms deal with protection, "harbor" emphasizes safety and refuge, while "shield" focuses on defense and protection against potential harm.The Constitutional endear "harbor". The UnConstitutional endear "shield". They hide behind the Tenth Amendment in shielding illegal aliens from the harm of deportation. The Tenth Amendment protects sanctuary cities by prohibiting the federal government from forcing state/local officials to enforce federal immigration law, a principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. This allows localities to limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without violating the Constitution. If Congress defines "harbor", then mass deportation can begin! This is why the debate over deporting the illegals that have committed violent crimes versus the mere illegal alien. They are shielded by the Democrats, the Radical Left, and the Republicans-In-Name-Only (RINO). They can easily say, "We are not against the Constitution, in fact, we are using the Constitution to keep undocumented persons from the harm of illegal deportation by President Donald Trump and ICE." They say you can say the Democrats, the Radical Left, and the RINOs are friends of the Constitution. They are not! They are magicians hoping that you don't uncover the secrets of their tricks. The Founding Fathers, particularly Anti-Federalists and James Madison, intended the Tenth Amendment to ensure the federal government remained one of limited, enumerated powers. It was added to the Bill of Rights to alleviate fears of federal overreach, clarifying that powers not explicitly delegated to the national government are reserved for the states or the people.

James Madison: As the primary drafter of the Bill of Rights, Madison viewed the Tenth Amendment as crucial to confirm that the Constitution created a limited government, resisting the idea that the federal government had inherent, broad authority.
"Expressly" Debate: Interestingly, there was a debate over whether to include the word "expressly" (as it appeared in the Articles of Confederation) regarding powers delegated to the U.S. Congress. It was ultimately excluded, leaving the phrase as "powers not delegated," which allowed for some implicit federal power, contrary to a stricter, more states-rights-focused interpretation.
Core Purpose: The Founders saw it as a cornerstone of the constitutional structure to protect individual rights and ensure that local issues were handled by state and local governments.

Madison and Jefferson, emphasized that it established a limited government of enumerated powers, reinforcing that federal authority is restricted.

“Gentlemen indulge too many unreasonable apprehensions of danger to the state governments; they seem to suppose that the moment you put men into a national council [federal government], they become corrupt and lose all their affection for their fellow citizens.”

Alexander Hamilton, Speech to New York Constitutional Convention, 1787

In 2015, Mayor Bowser led a coalition of 73 cities and counties to file an amicus brief in support of President Obama's executive actions on immigration, which aimed to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and offer them legal avenues to remain in the U.S. Throughout her tenures, Bowser has consistently championed D.C.'s status as a "sanctuary city," working to protect undocumented residents from federal deportation efforts and supporting expedited paths to citizenship for undocumented workers. Despite her pro-immigration stance, Bowser faced a breaking point in the summer of 2022 when border-state governors began busing thousands of migrants to the nation's capital. This led her to formally request assistance from the National Guard, citing an overwhelming "humanitarian crisis" on local infrastructure. In 2026, Bowser proposed repealing the city's "sanctuary city" statute, sparking significant political and legal friction. Facing federal pressure from the Trump administration, her actions have generated substantial pushback from the D.C. Council, advocacy groups, and immigrant communities. Mayor-elect Janeese Lewis George (who holds the title of councilmember for Ward 4) strongly opposes federal immigration raids and strictly opposes local collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). George has consistently campaigned on immediately rescinding the D.C. Mayoral Order that permits the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to work with ICE. She opposes any local involvement in federal deportations or the transfer of individuals to ICE custody. She introduced the [Safe Community Places and Policing Amendment Act of 2025](1.2.7, 1.2.14). This legislation is designed to legally prohibit D.C. agencies from facilitating or providing transportation for federal law enforcement during immigration raids and to protect sensitive community locations like schools and hospitals. George maintains that D.C. autonomy must be protected. She has stated she will actively work with D.C. delegates and the Attorney General to defend the city’s self-governance. Her broader migrant justice platform includes boosting funding for immigrant legal aid, increasing mental health services, and decriminalizing street vending to curb the exploitation of undocumented and migrant workers in the District. U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested that he'd order another federal takeover of Washington D.C. if the "crazy socialist" mayoral candidate was elected.

The Democrats, the Radical Left, and the RINOs have bastardized the Constitution putting millions of people in harm's way. The federal government, not the states and cities, has exclusive, plenary power over immigration policy in the United States. While states can pass laws regarding state-level benefits or cooperate with federal enforcement, the authority to regulate immigration, admission, and naturalization lies with Congress and federal agencies. This federal control was primarily established in 1876, when the Supreme Court ruled immigration a federal responsibility, later solidified by the Immigration Act of 1891. The U.S. Congress established the federal government's authority over immigration through a series of legislative acts in the late 19th century, most notably the Immigration Act of 1882 and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This was backed by the Supreme Court, which declared immigration a strictly federal responsibility in an 1875 landmark case (Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York). The Immigration Act of 1891 was passed by the 51st United States Congress and signed into law by Republican President Benjamin Harrison on March 3, 1891. It was a bipartisan effort, but primarily pushed by the Republican-controlled Congress to expand federal control over immigration, adding new categories of excludable aliens and establishing the Bureau of Immigration.

It is highly unlikely that Democrats—or any mainstream political group—would have thought of creating a "sanctuary state or city" in 1891 in the modern sense of the term. The concept, as defined by local governments limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, did not exist in the 19th century. San Francisco is widely considered the first U.S. city to adopt a formal, binding "sanctuary city" ordinance in 1989 with its "City of Refuge" ordinance (No. 12-h), limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Earlier, Los Angeles passed "Special Order 40" in 1979 restricting police inquiry into immigration status. Democratic-led states and cities utilize "sanctuary" policies to limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities (ICE), aiming to protect undocumented residents and foster community trust. These policies typically restrict sharing inmate information or holding individuals for deportation, focusing local resources on community policing rather than federal enforcement. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) pushes to abolish sanctuary states and cities. Graham says, “If you want to have immigration policed, our Democratic friends will never be there for you. They turned their back on you and your family and allowed this nation to be invaded by 10, 15, 20 million people. Who the hell knows?” Graham continues, “I have legislation… [that] says if a state or local official does not turn over to the federal government an illegal immigrant who’s … been convicted or facing criminal charges, then that state or local official can go to jail. You have an obligation under federal law to turn these people over.” Congress, clean-up on Aisle 5 before Mass Deportation! Mass Incarceration of state and local executives!

MO News reports, "White House officials are urging House Republicans to avoid talking about “mass deportations” ahead of the midterm elections, and instead focus on deporting violent criminals." This is not the Election mood of Trump's MAGA constituents. Politico's Samuel Benson in "Furious allies lobby Trump to keep deporting migrants" writes, "A group of longtime Trump allies, immigration restrictionist groups and hawkish policy experts have formed the Mass Deportation Coalition to lobby the Trump administration to refocus its efforts on deporting all eligible migrants. The group has commissioned new polling from one of Trump’s top pollsters to back its thesis that doing so will ensure GOP wins this November, and plans to share that data with White House officials, agency heads and every member of Congress." Benson continues, "The new poll was conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, a pollster that Trump has used in all of his presidential elections, and shared exclusively with POLITICO. It found that 66 percent of likely 2026 voters support deporting any migrants who enter the country illegally. When asked if they support deporting all deportable migrants, not just violent criminals, a majority (58 percent) say they do.

Eighty-seven percent of Trump 2024 voters surveyed, including 79 percent of Hispanic Trump voters, want the president to exceed the previous largest deportation effort in history, led in the 1950s by former President Dwight D. Eisenhower." To Hell with Eisenhower, we need to surpass President Barack Hussein Obama! Obama holds the record for the most formal deportations (removals) of noncitizens in U.S. history. During his two terms in office (2009–2016), the Obama administration formally removed more than 3 million people. Trump needs to set a goal. by Executive Order, of 4 million illegal aliens deported by October 28, 2026. If the goal is not met, he can blame Democrats, the Radical Left and RINO's that have shielded illegal aliens in sanctuary states and cities. Perfect for Election 2026! We need to get rid of those in Office that harm Americans with illegal immigration. Wednesday, October 28, 2026 could begin with a formal naturalization event of 50 "new"Americans from every state of the Union, especially San Francisco, California, and one from the District of Columbia at the White House. Announce success or failure of the War on Illegal Immigration and set charge for Election Day. National Immigrants Day is celebrated in the United States annually on October 28th to honor the contributions, culture, and history of immigrants who have shaped the nation. Designated in 1987 by Congress and President Ronald Reagan, it commemorates the anniversary of the unveiling of the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty was officially unveiled and dedicated on October 28, 1886. Imagine the Gala!

MAGA wants perp walks especially with the sunrise of the Epstein files. Perp walks for those that have done unjustly for so long and gotten away with it in Washington and beyond. Violations of the oath to defend the Constitution by a DC Mayor can involve undermining federal supremacy, abusing authority, or failing to protect civil liberties. Examples include, or are alleged to include, enacting "sanctuary city" policies in violation of federal immigration law, allowing unlawful detainment by federal agents, or enabling police retaliation. Examples of a DC Mayor potentially violating their oath to defend the U.S. Constitution include implementing "sanctuary city" policies that critics argue defy federal immigration law, violating Fourth Amendment rights through improper policing, or failing to protect due process for individuals. These actions are often framed as betrayals of public trust and constitutional duty.

Bowser has long affirmed Washington, D.C.'s status as a "sanctuary city," stating in 2018, "We protect the rights and humanity of all our residents, and our #DCValues and our local culture are guided by a celebration of diversity and inclusivity". However, in May 2025, she shifted position by proposing to repeal key elements of the law that prohibit the Department of Corrections from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, notes CNN. DCist's Rachel Kurzius in "D.C. Is Still A Sanctuary City, Mayor Bowser Says, Regardless Of Trump’s Threats" wrote, "Bowser said that “anything that says the government wouldn’t work with cities is worrisome,” and that being a sanctuary city keeps D.C. safer because it ensures that all residents can call law enforcement without fear. The District of Columbia officially expanded its voter rolls to include noncitizens, including undocumented immigrants, by shifting the eligibility term to "resident" on February 23, 2023. This expansion was enacted through the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Law 24-242), which the D.C. Council passed in late 2022. The legislation amended the D.C. Election Code of 1955 to expand the definition of a "qualified elector" in local elections to include otherwise eligible noncitizen residents who have lived in the District for at least 30 days. Because D.C. operates under a federal structure, the bill underwent a mandatory congressional review period and successfully took effect on February 23, 2023. Congress, eliminate Home Rule and start again. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 was a landmark federal statute that officially placed the nation's capital under the exclusive legislative control of the U.S. Congress, as authorized by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Crucially, it established the circuit court of the District of Columbia and granted the President the authority to appoint local Justices of the Peace.

While you are eliminating Home Rule, Congress give back Alexandria County to DC! Alexandria was historically part of Washington, D.C. From 1801 to 1847, the land south of the Potomac River—including the current city of Alexandria and all of what is now Arlington County—was known as Alexandria County, DC. The Retrocession Act of 1846 (passed July 9, 1846) was an act of the U.S. Congress that returned the 31-square-mile portion of the DC south of the Potomac River (which included the city of Alexandria and modern-day Arlington) to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Alexandria and Arlington counties are represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by Democrat Don Beyer, who serves Virginia's 8th Congressional District. Trump and Dongress, do your part to reduce the "surplus population" of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and say good-bye to Beyer. Beyer (D-VA) is a strong advocate for comprehensive immigration reform and generally opposes mass deportation and harsh enforcement tactics. He supports pathways to citizenship for long-term undocumented residents and "Dreamers," and heavily criticizes policies that separate families or utilize aggressive ICE enforcement in local communities.The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the Retrocession Act of 1846. The only major Supreme Court case to address the issue, Phillips v. Payne (1875), deliberately sidestepped the constitutional arguments and dismissed the case on a legal technicality. As easy as a repeal or a SCOTUS decision!

In addition to its symbolism, sanctuary cities prevent local law enforcement from asking about immigration status during routine stops and limit their cooperation with federal deportation orders.

D.C. has about 70,000 immigrants, and roughly 25,000 are undocumented. “I will not let the residents of D.C. live in fear,” she said. “The District is and will continue to be a sanctuary city.”"

Why not satisfy both camps on Cinco de Mayo. MAGA WANTS PERP WALKS. Celebrate Cinco de Mayo and the Sanctuary states and cities with the Democrats, the Radical Left, and the RINOs. They love Cinco de Mayo because it has nothing to do with Amerca. Cinco de Mayo, celebrated on May 5th, commemorates the Mexican army's 1862 victory over France at the Battle of Puebla. While a minor, symbolic date in Mexico, it has become a major celebration of Mexican-American culture in the United States, marked by parades, mariachi music, traditional dancing, and food. Perp walk every executive of a sanctuary state or city to jail for violating their oath of office. Yes, a case can go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court, but only in rare, specific circumstances. While most cases arrive via appeal, the Court has "original jurisdiction" over disputes between states, cases involving ambassadors, or by filing an "extraordinary writ" for issues of immense public importance, though this is uncommon. An extraordinary writ is a judicial order issued by a higher court to a lower court, government official, or agency to perform a mandatory duty or stop an abuse of discretion, when no other adequate remedy exists. Unlike standard appeals, these are discretionary, rare, and considered a "last resort" for immediate relief.

Talk about BIGGER THAN EPSTEIN!

Sanctuary cities and states are jurisdictions with policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities (ICE), often prohibiting local police from inquiring about immigration status or holding individuals solely for civil immigration violations. Major examples include California, Illinois, New York, and cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, DC and NYC. A U.S. President can issue executive orders instructing the DOJ and FBI to prioritize specific, lawful investigations. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is actively investigating and taking legal action against "sanctuary" states and cities that restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Following a 2025 executive order, the DOJ published a list of designated jurisdictions, threatening to withhold federal funding, filing lawsuits, and examining local officials for potential obstruction. Take the step of most resistance for the sake of Election Glory. A "perp walk" (short for perpetrator walk) is a US law enforcement practice of parading an arrested suspect in handcuffs through a public area—usually from a police station to a vehicle or courthouse—to allow the media to photograph or film them. Originating in the early 20th century, it is used to demonstrate police efficiency and, according to critics, often serves to publicly humiliate suspects before trial, violating the presumption of innocence. They aren't innocent! They are guilty of executive leadership over sanctuary states and cities, violations of oaths of office. Take the Executive, imagine the panic of the city councilmembers?

Imagine perp walks for the following:

STATES:

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D)

Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D)

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont (D)

Delaware Governor Matt Meyer (D)

District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser (D)

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker (D)

Maryland Governor Wes Moore (D)

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D)

Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo (R)

New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D)

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek (D)

Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee (D)

Vermont Governor Phil Scott (R)

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger (D)

Washington Governor Jay Inslee (D)

COUNTIES:

Baltimore County, MD County Executive Kathy Klausmeier (D)

Cook County, IL County Executive Toni Lynn Preckwinkle (D)

Montgomery County, MD Counyt Executive Marc Elrich (D)

Prince Geurge's County, MD County Executive Aisha Braveboy (D)

San Diego County, CA County Executive Ebony N. Shelton (D)

San Francisco County, CA County Executive Daniel Lawrence Lurie (D)

CITIES:

Albuquerque, NM Mayor Tim Keller (D)

Berkeley, CA Mayor Adena Ishii (D)

Boston, MA Mayor Michelle Wu (D)

Chicago, IL Mayor Brandon Johnson (D)

Denver, CO Mayor Michael Johnston (D)

East Lansing, MI Mayor Erik Altmann (D)

Hoboken, NJ Mayor Emily Jabbour (D)

Jersey City, NJ Mayor James Solomon (D)

Los Angeles, CA Mayor Karen Bass (D)

New Orleans, LA Mayor Helena Moreno (D)

New York City, NY Mayor Zohran Mamdani (DS)

Newark, NJ Mayor Ras J. Baraka (D)

Paterson, NJ Mayor Andre Sayegh (D)

Philadelphia, PA Mayor Cherelle Parker (D)

Portland, OR Mayor Keith Wilson (D)

Rochester, NY Mayor Malik D. Evans (D)

Seattle, WA Mayor Katie Wilson (D)

San Francisco City, CA Mayor Daniel Lawrence Lurie (D)

Ladies and Gentlemen, you're bunkmate awaits1

I wish I was the originator of this idea. However, Congressman Gary Palmer beat me to the punch. In "Gary Palmer: Mayors of sanctuary cities VIOLATED their oath of office by illegally providing sanctuary to criminals", Palmer makes us keenly aware: “When you declared your city sanctuary cities, you did so illegally,” Palmer argued. “Do you understand that? We’re disagreeing with the law. It’s against the law to give sanctuary to people who have committed felonies, and it’s a felony to cross the border illegally. You gave sanctuary to people who are here illegally. You violated your oath to uphold the Constitution because of the Supremacy Clause.” The Congressman continues, "[Palmer] also told the mayors that he has been considering referring charges to the U.S. Justice Department over their failure to follow federal immigration laws."

The moment has come.

Mass Deportation Coalition states. "Prioritization of criminal enforcement policy, also known as “worst-of-the-worst,” is rooted in the Clinton Administration and morphed from the exception into the rule during the Obama and Biden Administrations. It is unwarranted in the Trump Administration as it creates an operational cap on enforcement results. Focusing the bulk of removal resources on a small subset of the removable population results in small removal numbers. Instead, the Phase II focus should be on populations that are easier to remove such as deportable aliens with final orders of removal and visa overstays, and policies like worksite enforcement."

In the world of community, who is my neighbor? The one who harbors illegal foreigners. Or shields men and women who are from the patriotism and essential justice of the Nation. My neighbor is the one who is the one that consents and pledges allegiance to our country. Trump dom't give up, don't give in and don't give over. Send them all home! Overcoming adversity requires resilience, turning obstacles into opportunities for growth and strength. Key quotes include: "Strength doesn't come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn't" (Rikki Rogers), and "The best way out is always through". These insights emphasize that, like a butterfly, adversity builds character. Trump, America needs character not characters. Send them all HOME!