Yesterday the United States Supreme Court, as conservative half expected, disappointed those wishing to Make America Great Again. In two key cases, the Court ruled against about a third of the tariffs President Donald Trump has recently employed. Specifically, they ruled that the specific authority he cited, was not sufficient to empower him as he thought. But already the President is working around that decision. Furthermore, that workaround recalls an almost two-hundred-year-old precedent, set not by a Chief Justice, but by a President.

The specific ruling against tariffs

Reportage about the ruling of the Court is too poor to rate mention. Therefore, CNAV turns directly to the Supreme Court itself, which provides the text of its recent decisions.

The Court actually issued one opinion governing two cases:

• Learning Resources, Inc., et al., v. Trump et al. (24-1287) (from the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals), and

• Trump et al. v. VOS Solutions, Inc., et al. (25-250) (from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals).

Trump had cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as his authority to impose tariffs to deal with:

• Refusal of the governments of Canada and Mexico to deal effectively with drug smugglers, and

• Most other countries’ own tariff policy against American goods.

Lower courts in both cases (U.S. District Court for D.C. and Court of International Trade) found for two importers, Learning Resources and VOS Solutions. The convoluted trail of review petitions brought both cases before the Supreme Court, which heard argument last year.

Yesterday the Court held that the IEEPA does not empower a President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, basically held that:

• Tariffs are duties on imports,

• Congress and only Congress may “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,” and

• President Trump’s tariffs constituted a usurpation of the taxing power of Congress.

Reasoning, concurrences, and dissents

The Court then ruled that the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals must dismiss the Learning Resources case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In short, tariffs, being an element of trade policy, rate challenge in the Court of International Trade, not the D. C. District Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of International Trade in the VOS Solutions case.

Roberts cobbled together a six-member majority, chiefly by recruiting Justice Amy Coney Barrett to his side. Justice Neil Gorsuch went along for the ride. (Originalist though he is, he is also a libertarian. As such he doesn’t think tariffs have any place in the government of a free society. Never mind that other governments impose tariffs; a libertarian stubbornly insists that tariff imposers cheat themselves alone. For further exposition on this point, see Robert W. Peck’s essay opposing tariffs.)

The Equitarians – Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor JJ – uniformly concurred with Roberts. But Roberts invoked the “major questions doctrine” to say the IEEPA couldn’t grant tariff authority in any case. The Equitarians saw fit to read the IEEPA as specifically precluding such authority.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh flatly declared that his boss is crazy, and that he misreads both the Taxing Clause and the Act. Thomas and Alito JJ joined him. Similarly, Justice Thomas wrote his own dissent, saying the IEEPA does delegate regulatory authority to the President on foreign trade. Tariffs are part of such regulation – and the Constitution does permit such delegation as the IEEPA represents.

The workaround

Trump acted swiftly to reinstate the tariffs involved, or to impose others that would collect the same – or more – revenue. Alison Durkee reported only this morning in Forbes about Trump’s “backup plan.”

The Trump administration will find new ways to impose tariffs after the Supreme Court ruled against the president’s sweeping “Liberation Day” duties Friday, and while President Donald Trump announced “alternatives” Friday, including a 10% tariff he raised to 15% on Saturday, the new tariffs will likely have more restrictions than the ones the high court struck down.

This workaround does include a ten-percent tariff (now 15 percent) on all imports, from wherever. That levy is subject to a 150-day (five-month) deadline. Tellingly, his emergency declaration over a record trade deficit remains in force.

In fact, Justice Kavanaugh, in his dissent, specified the allowable workaround:

Although I firmly disagree with the Court's holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President's ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs issued in this case...Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338).

Of course libertarians like Justice Gorsuch (and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.) will object that trade deficits don’t matter. Peck (see above) blames trade deficits on the government budget deficit, and on Richard Nixon canceling the redemption of dollars with gold.

But say the United States restored full gold redemption today. Tomorrow gold would start flowing out of the country, to the point of emptying Fort Knox. Unless the country ceased to have a trade deficit and started having a trade surplus.

More saliently: Peck and others insist that “everybody wins,” and that the sum of economic outcomes need never be zero. But need never be does not equate to can never be or will never be. When Communist China builds an economy on slave labor, and undercuts American free labor, that way lies perpetual unemployment and eventual loss of political sovereignty. Recall China’s name for itself: The Middle Kingdom. To rule the world, that is.

Previous articles on tariffs

CNAV has discussed tariffs many times before. Rather than repeat everything it said before, CNAV prefers to link to those articles:

• Trump first uses tariffs against Canada, Mexico and China

• Details on how the U.S. government once financed itself

• Correcting misunderstandings about tariff policy and effects

• The Robert Peck piece,

• and our rebuttal.

How else Trump reacted

The President never minces words. Indeed he drops words like bombs, as everyone knows who has followed his life and career. After the Supreme Court issued its ruling, he came out in true form.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116104407604484915

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116104410806971686

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116105594741987893

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116105691693335080

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116105858701679073

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116109104602937332

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116109447886304328

Here are the relevant excerpts:

To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, the Court said that I’m not allowed to charge even $1 DOLLAR to any Country under IEEPA, I assume to protect other Countries, not the United States which they should be interested in protecting — But I am allowed to cut off any and all Trade or Business with that same Country, even imposing a Foreign Country destroying embargo, and do anything else I want to do to them — How nonsensical is that? They are saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee. What license has ever been issued without the right to charge a fee? But now the Court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our Country, a much more powerful Right than many people thought we had.

After quoting Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, Trump continues:

In actuality, while I am sure they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a President’s ability to both regulate Trade, and impose TARIFFS, more powerful and crystal clear, rather than less. There will no longer be any doubt, and the Income coming in, and the protection of our Companies and Country, will actually increase because of this decision. Based on longstanding Law and Hundreds of Victories to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS. The ability to block, embargo, restrict, license, or impose any other condition on a Foreign Country’s ability to conduct Trade with the United States under IEEPA, has been fully confirmed by this decision. In order to protect our Country, a President can actually charge more TARIFFS than I was charging in the past under the various other TARIFF authorities, which have also been confirmed, and fully allowed.
 
Therefore, effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged, and we are also initiating several Section 301 and other Investigations to protect our Country from unfair Trading practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
 
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

In the second Truth listed above, Trump made an electrifying accusation:

It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, and a Political Movement that is far smaller than people would think — But obnoxious, ignorant, and loud!

Trump returned to this theme in his press conference after the decision. When reporters asked him for evidence of “foreign influence” on the Court, he coyly replied, “You’ll find out.” If Trump made a generic statement that the Court has allowed the idea of cheap imports to persuade it, he needs no evidence. That a tariff-free environment serves the interests of exporters, goes without saying. But perhaps Trump has direct evidence to implicate certain Members of the Court. If he has, then he might reveal it in his next State of the Union Address.

In subsequent Truths, he announced his ten-percent baseline tariff, which he later raised to fifteen percent. He also promised further “adjustments” to his policies, which, he promised, would rake in even more money. Trump also singled out Thomas and Kavanaugh JJ for special praise.

Where did this really come from?

Let’s not kid ourselves. Yes, Justice Kavanaugh named, and described in detail, the specific workaround on tariffs Trump used. But Trump still defied the spirit of John Roberts’ decision. (And it is Roberts’ decision. That, no one may doubt with any justice.)

Yesterday, John Roberts presumed to tell a President what to do and what not to do. Trump himself described how incongruous, inconsistent, and intellectually indefensible that decision is. But more to the point, in citing separation of powers, Roberts violated separation of powers.

This, along with his decision in Florida ex rel. Bondi v. Sebelius (the Obamacare legalization decision), leads to one conclusion only. John Roberts is imitating the infamous Earl Warren. Warren decided that the Constitution would mean whatever he said it meant, any time he said it. No wonder his fellow Justice as good as said he was crazy.

This leads to another question. Can the Supreme Court truly make law that everyone else must obey? This would scandalize Hamilton, Madison and Jay (The Federalist Papers) if they saw it happen.

Trump just answered the question – but not, as some will accuse, with an original, unprecedented action.

Andrew Jackson, the first nullifier

The precedent comes from President Andrew Jackson. After the Court overruled him in Worcester v. Georgia (a Native-American land-residency case), Jackson allegedly retorted,

John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!

Jackson did decline to assist in the enforcement of a decision to release from prison a man convicted of unlawful residence on tribal lands. This arguably was the first instance of executive nullification of a judicial – or Justicial – decision.

Donald Trump has, in spirit, engaged in executive nullification. True, Justice Kavanaugh pointed out how Trump could do it with little risk of challenge or other sanction. But only someone with the boldness and stubbornness of a Trump would even think to do such a thing.

So: call this the Andrew Jackson Gambit. Jackson would be proud, for two reasons. First, no President since Jackson has done executive nullification like this. Second, Jackson presided over a government that self-financed through tariffs. So the subject matter of the case would impress Jackson at least as much as Trump’s technique.

But Trump might need to employ a more direct act of executive nullification. That would make an interesting challenge. And it might come sooner than anyone thinks, and on the subject of immigration, deportation, and removal.

For now, Trump just nullified a Supreme Court opinion on tariffs. He had to, because the alternative – giving the money back – is unthinkable. But Trump’s term will eventually test the limits of the Supreme Court’s power. The battle is joined, the horns locked – and the stakes high.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2026/02/21/foundation/constitution/tariffs-supreme-court-andrew-jackson-nullification/

Video:

The ruling:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

Previous CNAV articles on tariffs:

https://cnav.news/2025/02/02/news/tariffs-counter-tariffs-civilization/

https://cnav.news/2025/04/03/news/tariffs-trade-taxes/

https://cnav.news/2025/04/13/news/tariffs-misunderstandings/

https://cnav.news/2025/05/10/accountability/executive/tariffs-and-trade-theres-no-free-lunch/

https://cnav.news/2025/05/17/foundation/constitution/tariffs-trade-hard-truth/

Trump Truths in reaction to the ruling:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116104407604484915

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116104410806971686

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116105594741987893

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116105691693335080

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116105858701679073

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116109104602937332

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116109447886304328

Andrew Jackson’s quote and context:

https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2205966

Declarations of Truth:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

American politics, now more than ever, is facing generational change. Leftists know it, though they might not be able to bring themselves to figure out why. But they surely realize that the next generations of American children will be ever more conservative than their generation. That scares them as badly as a hunter scares an animal by first wounding it, then cornering it. And that one fact makes the American left more dangerous than ever. Already the left is trying to settle the political debate the hard way – through physical violence. But if American patriots stand firm, they can defeat even that kind of campaign.

The engines of generational change – education

About a century ago, the American left sought to bring about generational change by capturing American education. This institutional capture applies to K-12 schooling and to college and university. It has always been the most powerful weapon at their disposal. (Capturing the mass media works only until their targets on the Right develop new media they can’t capture. Schools require a little thing called accreditation that makes institutional capture easier.)

Last year saw the centennial of the most important court case that relates to educational capture. That case was State of Tennessee v. John T. Scopes. Scopes, a biology teacher, introduced the theory of evolution, as Charles Darwin most thoroughly articulated it, into his classes. Authorities arrested him and haled him into court. Attorney Clarence Darrow famously defended him – by challenging the prosecutor, William Jennings Bryan, to a debate by hostile-witness examination. Bryan submitted to this examination – whereupon Darrow changed his plea from “Not Guilty” to “Guilty” to avoid examination by Bryan. The court imposed a trifling fine on Scopes, and the Tennessee Supreme Court invalidated the penalty on a technicality.

But the real damage was the introduction of the theory of evolution into education, and the total rejection of any lessons that might possibly rely upon the existence of God. Case after case followed that erased God from mention in school at all. And so began the training of children to be functional atheists – and, therefore, leftists.

Disclaimer

Not all atheists are leftists, but libertarian and especially conservative atheists have a problem. Their problem is that, without God, no objective reason remains to prefer a morality forbidding first use of force. The late Ayn Rand tried to assert such a reason, but in reality that becomes a mere personal preference.

Furthermore, the late Nathaniel Branden reported that Rand once betrayed a key weakness of her own philosophy. In “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand,” he wrote:

[S]he became very quick on the draw in response to anything that even had the superficial appearance of irrationalism, by which I mean, of anything that did not fit her particular understanding of “the reasonable.” With regard to science, this led to an odd kind of scientific conservatism, a suspicion of novelty, an indifference -- this is only a slight exaggeration -- to anything more recent than the work of Sir Isaac Newton.

I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, “After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.”

I asked her, “You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms – including humans – evolved from less complex life forms?”

She shrugged and responded, “I’m really not prepared to say,” or words to that effect.

I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.

That something was the notion that human beings had nonhuman – indeed, non-rational – ancestors. Her philosophy of Objectivism teaches human exceptionalism – a thing Darwin denied.

Leftists have no problem with denying human exceptionalism.

A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.

Ingrid Newkirk, founder, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

In fact they decry human beings as lower than the animals, and a blight on the Earth. But that has led them to the existential crisis they now face.

A more powerful engine of generational change: anti-natalism

Anti-natalism – the notion that the earth would be better off if no more children are born – is now the rage. It wasn’t always so obvious. The left couched it in terms that appealed to the shortsighted selfishness of young women. Feminism taught women that marriage and childbirth held them back. (In its most extreme articulation, it held that childbirth was a killer disease.) So leftist women began to have children later in life. Or – even more problematically – they waited too long to have children. A man can sire children well into senescence, though spermatogenesis does slow down. But oögenesis happens entirely before birth, after which a girl’s eggs start to die. (Doctors call this atresia.) Eventually the last egg dies, and menopause sets in.

So if a woman wants children, she’s under a deadline.

At least some on the left realized the implications. Francois Truffaut and Jean-Louis Richard, adapting Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 to the screen, wrote dialog in which suburban women wondered idly about the human species dying out. (None of these women had children.) But no one seems to have paid attention.

Then the feminist movement made its worst mistake: plumping for abortion on demand. Sarah Weddington took to the Supreme Court the case of a Dallas, Texas woman who wanted an abortion. On January 22, 1973, feminists got their wish. But for forty-nine years, they didn’t realize that conservative women would keep having children.

What goes around, comes around

The 2021 Term of the United States Supreme Court, coming after the “election” of Joe Biden, shocked the Left. Reversal of abortion as the federal law of the land was bad enough. (So also was the invalidation of any “natural progression” of gun control.) But the Court also invalidated willful discrimination against religious institutions, and the disallowance of prayer on school grounds by faculty and staff. Those two cases will set precedents for even greater movements, moving forward.

But why the Court decided those cases as it did, should interest people more. In forty-nine years, the electorate underwent the beginning of a generational change. Liberals – especially women – who might have elected Al Gore instead of George W. Bush – and Hillary Clinton instead of Donald J. Trump – did not so vote because they did not exist. They literally had never been born. Their would-be mothers either aborted them away, or refused to conceive them to begin with. But conservative women did have the current generation of voters who – tellingly – elected Donald Trump in 2016.

So when Justice Antonin Scalia died (or was murdered), Donald Trump appointed another Originalist – Neil Gorsuch – to replace him. Likewise, Trump replaced one Institutionalist – Anthony Kennedy – with another, more consistent one – Brett Kavanaugh. Finally, Ruth Bader Ginsburg – an Equitarian – died, and Trump replaced her with an Institutionalist – Amy Coney Barrett. These three appointees joined with the two other Originalists to change the orientation of the Court.

But how?

Christian Heiens, who once called himself The Oracle of Virginia, explains.

https://x.com/ChristianHeiens/status/2018743494550880761

The math behind this is actually really fascinating, and it explains why the Left has to rely so much on institutional capture and mass migration to remain alive.

The children of Liberals adopt their worldview 89% of the time, while Conservatives see their kids adopt theirs 81% of the time.

But this advantage on the Left is dwarfed by the fact that they’re essentially an anti-[natalist] movement.

(Heiens posted his essay to X by smartphone, and that device’s “auto-correct” function somehow changed “natalist” to “catalyst.” In a subsequent post he explained that error.)

Heiens showed the anti-natalism of the Left, and its consequences, using an article from the Institute for Family Studies. Brian Wilcox and Grant Bailey published “The Left’s Family Problem: Marriage and Kids Cratering among Liberal Young Adults” last year. Wilcox and Bailey begin by citing multiple articles discouraging women from marrying or having children. Until recently, conservatives and liberals alike had fewer children. But beginning in the 1980s, conservatives, male and female alike, reported marrying more often, and younger, and having more children. These conservatives talk “family first,” and practice it. Liberals, in contrast, practice self first.

The statistics – to which Wilcox and Bailey turn next – show the result. Significantly more conservatives than liberals marry, and become parents. In fact, motherhood among conservative women is trending higher. Among liberal women, it is trending lower – much lower.

Wilcox and Bailey do report that the left is winning converts among young women. But these young women are avoiding childbearing as a result of that conversion.

Result: the children of the current child-bearing generation will be, on average, more conservative.

Generational change is one of two costs

Wilcox and Bailey report two costs of this mindset to liberals. First, they admit they’re lonely. Not only would it be nice to have the same adult to come home to, but it would also be nice to have a child in one’s life. Liberals who avoided marriage and childrearing “to get richer” missed out on both, and now they are admitting it.

But nearly a year and a half ago, Anastasia Berg, writing in The New York Times, sounded a more dire warning – for her side. First she admits how easy it is to dismiss low birth rates as strictly a conservative worry. But then she warns her side that, if they don’t have children, conservatives will.

We also have to realize that the possibility of a better future is conditioned on the possibility of having a future at all. That means, some people have to be having children. And if you want those children to share in the values that you yourself hold, you probably want some of those people [i.e., the mothers and fathers of those children] to be the kind of people that you yourself are.

In other words, if the children of the next generation are not yours, neither will their values be yours.

Heiens did cite some figures suggesting that value retention is less for conservatives than for liberals. But the liberal advantage in that regard is only slight. Furthermore, conservatives overcome that by having more children to begin with.

The TFR Advantage

Wilcox and Bailey cite another article from their Institute, clearly showing a Total Fertility Rate (TFR) advantage for conservatives. See Grant Bailey and Lyman Stone, “The Trump Bump: The Republican Fertility Advantage in 2024.” TFR went up in any given county, with the percent of the vote for Trump in that county in 2024.

Recall that TFR is the total number of children a woman can count on having in her lifetime. In a civilized country, the replacement level for TFR is 2.1. This is because:

1. A woman must replace herself and her husband, and

2. One in ten women must replace the child who never makes it to (or out of) puberty.

Lines of regression in scatter plots of TFR v. percent voting conservative have gotten steeper with every passing election from 2012 onwards. Furthermore, as a county swings conservative, its TFR rises.

But does it rise to replacement level? It might. Other studies have shown that TFR can rise as high as 2.4 among cohorts that all vote conservative. Furthermore, families with children are moving out of “blue” States into “red” States. They want the benefits of better education systems.

From Heiens:

If you ended all immigration and dismantled their dominance over education, the Left would be extinct in 20 years.

In fact Trump has caused a net emigration rate to hold in America today.

About education – and how generational change might work out

Dismantling the Department of Education, to remove the weapon Biden last wielded, is a good start. But conservatives who still have children in public schools, can and should “push the envelope” on what their children learn in school, just as Trump has “pushed the envelope” with what the law and Constitution let him do. In fact, many teachers are pushing against a mindset of explicit atheism. Coach Joe Kennedy, who famously won his right to pray on his high-school football field, has his imitators.

Private schools, thus far, can still teach religious values if they so choose. Their communities can cite the Carson case to end discrimination against them by State and local governments. But taking the public schools back to pre-1947 and even pre-1925 days would work even better.

CNAV can therefore predict the final result of this generational change. America’s population will decline, then bottom out as the current generation produces a more family-oriented one. They’ll vote for family-friendly policies – and conservative lessons. In another generation, the Supreme Court will have a majority that will see no harm – and indeed great good – in teaching a more Godly curriculum.

This will happen because the same value system that emphasized atheism, hedonism, and other ills, devalued the idea of having children. Liberals aren’t having children; conservatives are.

The leftist and secularist empire strikes back

This is why people on the left – both in office and in the rank and file – are fighting so hard. They actually are fighting to keep illegal aliens in the country, regardless of the additional crimes they might commit. The Minnesota Insurrection – which, sadly, is now spreading to other “blue cities” – is part of that.

But so also is the effort to:

1. Deny that anything untoward happened in the Election of 2020, and

2. Leave in place the policies and procedures that made those untoward things happen.

To that end, Senate Democrats vow never to pass the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility for America, or SAVE America, Act. “Jim Crow 2.0!” cries Sen. Charles M. Schumer (D-N.Y.), their Floor Leader. (Never mind that Jim Crow was a Democratic program, not a Republican.) SAVE America requires, among other things, that all States:

• Remove from their voter rolls, any voter registrant who is not a citizen of the United States,

• Ask for proof, not mere declaration, of citizenship from all voter registration applicants, and

• Require all unit election clerks to require photographic identification of anyone showing up to vote.

In addition to opposing these commonsense measures, the left demands that the Bureau of the Census continue to count illegal aliens for purposes of determining Congressional representation allocation among and within the several States. They also often violently oppose efforts to remove illegal aliens – even those who commit Big Four offenses. (Which are: murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.)

Stand firm and secure the win

In the face of that, Americans must push back against movements that promote gender dysphoria, Alphabet Soup orientation, and atheism. Likewise, we must not rest until the Census Bureau stops counting illegal aliens. And of course we must advocate for the removal of illegal aliens so that no one can possibly count them.

The United States Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship case will come to oral argument on April 1, 2026. Birthright citizenship directly affects how quickly the generational change will occur. Globalists are bent on changing American culture by using mass migration as a weapon. They will turn to birth tourism if the removal campaign succeeds.

Beyond that, Americans must strive to take their school systems away from secular humanists and Alphabet Soup activists. They must also reevaluate their perception of the need for and utility of a college education. And if college is to have any benefit, a new kind of university must arise to replace those that have chosen to promote globalist, “woke” and Alphabet Soup values.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2026/02/07/editorial/talk/generational-change-american-politics/

Video:

Branden N, “The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand”:

https://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/benefits1.html

Fahrenheit 451 (1966), dir. Francois Truffaut, on the Internet Movie Database:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060390/

Previous CNAV articles in the order cited:

https://cnav.news/2022/07/01/foundation/constitution/supreme-court-2021-term/

https://cnav.news/2022/06/24/foundation/constitution/roe-v-wade-fallen/

https://cnav.news/2022/06/23/accountability/judicial/second-amendment-win/

https://cnav.news/2022/06/22/foundation/constitution/supreme-court-repudiates-blaine/

https://cnav.news/2022/06/27/accountability/judicial/prayer-wins-how-much/

https://cnav.news/2018/07/05/accountability/executive/antonin-scalia-murder/

https://cnav.news/2026/01/27/accountability/executive/minnesota-insurrection/

https://cnav.news/2026/02/01/accountability/executive/election-2020-case-breaking-wide-open/

https://cnav.news/2025/12/08/foundation/constitution/birthright-citizenship-headed-scotus-2/

https://cnav.news/2019/05/24/civilization/education/college-need/

Christian Heiens’ X post:

https://x.com/ChristianHeiens/status/2018743494550880761

From the Institute for Family Studies:

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-lefts-family-problem-marriage-and-kids-cratering-among-liberal-young-adults

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-trump-bump-the-republican-fertility-advantage-in-2024

Anastasia Berg’s warning:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/16/opinion/anastasia-berg-falling-birth-rates-liberals.html

Declarations of Truth:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/

The Election of 2020 has already gone down in history as one of America’s most execrable and least excusable failures. A physical Ground Zero has proved difficult to locate. But Fulton County, Georgia (seated in Atlanta) is the most likely candidate for an Election 2020 Ground Zero. Not only did the infamous Suitcase Scandal break there, but a failed Democratic primary candidate has suspected skulduggery in Georgia figuring in her own loss. Also, the Fulton County District Attorney tried to prosecute Donald J. Trump during his political exile that began with Election 2020. (Follow this link for all Election 2020 news and opinions on CNAV.)

Now the tables, and the worm, have turned. Yesterday the FBI – adding new meaning to the phrase “under new management” – raided an “Election Hub” in Atlanta. For more than twelve hours they carted away the physical ballots, or at least those whom Atlanta election officials had not destroyed. This represents vindication for President Trump, of course. But it also creates a moment that election-integrity advocates must seize. It will prove that “The Machines” worse than failed us. City and county registrars, take note! After this you will have no further excuse to retain “The Machines,” regardless of make or model.

Review of the Election 2020 allegations

As everyone remembers – half in delight, half in outrage – America went to bed on the night of Election 2020 expecting one result, then woke up the next morning to the opposite result. The infamous “Stairstep Graph” of Biden’s votes jumping above Trump’s votes, best illustrated the switch. But the worst scandal of all broke in the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia. There, “poll managers” (Chief Officers of Election) told “poll watchers” (election observers) and reporters to go home. A water main had broken, they said, causing leaks and flooding. But surveillance footage captured the OOEs hauling papers and supplies out from under black cloth-draped tables. These included pre-filled-out ballots, which they fed into their scanner-tabulators – often three times.

America knows the eventual outcome. Decision Desk Headquarters triumphantly declared Joe Biden the winner. But rumors started to fly immediately. Nor did those rumors involve Atlanta alone. The country heard of:

• Philadelphia OOEs shoving election observers aside and often calling the police to have them arrested (or threatened with arrest).

• Drivers of mail trucks making midnight intermediate stops, only to find their loads gone, with no checking of bills of lading or any other normal check.

• Midnight deliveries of what appeared to be ballots – using snack trucks – to inner-city counting centers with covered windows. That episode happened in Detroit, Michigan.

• Network television showing vote totals for Trump rolling back during the program.

Then they heard of Eric Coomer, then with Dominion Voting Systems, and his infamous conference call:

It won’t be [fornicating] Trump. I made [fornicating] sure of it.

False judgments and settlements

Dominion Voting Systems later won a nearly billion-dollar settlement from Fox News, after a judge said Fox had defamed them. But that settlement is a trifle compared to the now demonstrably false judgments of the January 6 Event. January 6 is, of course, the date when a new Congress officially certifies a Presidential vote at Electoral College level. On that day, perhaps 200,000 people crowded onto the National Mall to hear President Trump speak. He was twenty minutes late in speaking, and other conservative activists and politicians spoke before him. (One of them: then-State Sen. Amanda F. Chase, R-Chesterfield, Virginia.)

When Trump did speak, he urged people to “walk quietly to the Capitol, to make your voices heard.” That was all. But more than two hundred people entered the Capitol without an invitation. Capitol Police showily evacuated the House chamber where the count was taking place. Outside, a squad of Capitol Police fired rubber bullets into an inoffensive crowd. That started a melee that ended with tear gas partly obscuring the Western Portico.

Smart people turned tail and evacuated the city by every possible means. Almost all who tried to get out, did get out. Those who did not, faced the out-of-control rage of the Democratic Party, now in complete control of the federal government. That Party weaponized the United States District Court and Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. For all of CNAV’s coverage of the January 6 Event, follow this link.

How might they have stolen Election 2020?

CNAV considers that the evidence conclusively establishes these two facts:

1. Fraud, not legitimate electoral chance, decided Election 2020.

2. The same cadre that defrauded Trump of victory, laid on a false-flag pseudo-operation on January 6, 2021.

The fraud on Election 2020 included manipulation of:

• Media accounts of how Joe Biden and his son acted and behaved before “early voting” started,

• Mail-in ballots, many of which went to one address for twenty people (give or take), and/or came back in pristine condition – with votes for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris only, and

• Electronic voting machines, including Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) and/or Scanner-Tabulators.

Did it involve manipulation of electronic pollbooks (EPBs)? No hard evidence on this point is available – yet. But manipulation of the voter roll, at some point, did happen. Several voters complained when chief OOEs told them they had already voted – when they had not. What had actually happened was that someone obtained an absentee ballot in their name.

As the year began, another event occurred that might not at first seem relevant. Elements of Delta Force, with the assistance of 150 aircraft and a carrier task group, raided Venezuela. Their biggest prizes: President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Alive – and talking. Talking, among other things, about election fraud in the U.S. and in 74 other countries. Then the Election Oversight Group delivered a report to the FBI and the Justice Department, listing twenty-six irregularities.

<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" title="Report of Investigation Fulton 2020" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/989542479/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-1N9hfroKokulYtvJjG0M" tabindex="0" data-auto-height="true" data-aspect-ratio="0.7729220222793488" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0" ></iframe> <p style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; display: block;"> <a title="View Report of Investigation Fulton 2020 on Scribd" href="https://www.scribd.com/document/989542479/Report-of-Investigation-Fulton-2020#from_embed" style="color: #098642; text-decoration: underline;"> Report of Investigation Fulton 2020 </a> by <a title="View kmoncla's profile on Scribd" href="https://www.scribd.com/user/22385573/kmoncla#from_embed" style="color: #098642; text-decoration: underline;" > kmoncla </a> </p>

The FBI gets a warrant and acts on it

The FBI asked for – and got – a criminal warrant to search for and seize:

1. All physical ballots from Election 2020. That means everything, including mail-in ballots, early-voting ballots, and in-person Election Day ballots.

2. The tapes from all the scanner-tabulators used for Election 2020. This means all tapes, including zero, poll opening, and poll closing tapes.

3. Ballot images produced on Election Day, during the “recount,” and at any other time. And critically:

4. The voter rolls for Fulton County, as annotated during mail-in ballot handling, early voting, in-person voting, and any other time.

https://x.com/bluestein/status/2016624170293956723

A Chief Officer of Election, like your editor, will understand best of all the importance of these demands. With these materials, one can run a true forensic audit, not a mere recount, of an election. The FBI got the warrant because any judge could see that Fulton County violated every rule in the book about fair and secure elections.

On Wednesday, January 28, the FBI showed up with two Big Rigs that they rented from Enterprise Rentals. They removed more than 700 boxes of materials and carted them to the FBI compound in Quantico, Virginia.

https://x.com/RudyGiuliani/status/2016692923828482279

But before those trucks left, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, posed with one of the loads for a snapshot. She even had a cellphone in her hand in the shot. That last made Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) furious.

Either Director Gabbard believes there was a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus – in which case she is in clear violation of her obligation under the law to keep the intelligence committees “fully and currently informed” of relevant national security concerns – or she is once again demonstrating her utter lack of fitness for the office that she holds by injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy.

https://x.com/MarkWarner/status/2016722915513753672

https://x.com/MarkWarner/status/2016722918365897127

Several X users, replying to the posts in the above thread, were not impressed.

Evidence of wrongdoing in Election 2020 already emerging

The vituperative reactions by Sen. Warner might in itself be evidence of skulduggery at the crossroads. After all, the guilty scream the loudest about detection and enforcement actions. Consider also the reaction of Fulton County Commissioner Dana Barrett. After first denouncing an investigative reporter for “spreading conspiracy theories,” she fled the scene.

https://x.com/David_Khait/status/2016620272925716572

Or Sens. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.):

https://x.com/ossoff/status/2016717119719649335

https://x.com/atrupar/status/2016706207667327029

https://x.com/SenAdamSchiff/status/2016663991980835098

Evidence of wrongdoing, or at least irregularity, was already accumulating:

• Registered voters listing empty lots, homeless shelters closed for the last ten years, and other such unlikely “residence” addresses.

• Tens of thousands of votes with no ballot image to show for them.

• Scanner-tabulator tapes without OOE or even chief’s signatures – tapes from tabulators the county did not even use for early voting.

• Tabulators allegedly used for early voting, which the county elections board had no record of possessing.

• Over three thousand duplicate ballots added to the total machine count.

This morning, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) appeared on Meet the (De)Press(ed). Hostess Kristen Welker lost her temper, accusing Johnson of aiding and abetting a sore loser, i.e., Trump.

FBI SAC fired; evidence now appearing

The Gateway Pundit implicates even Special Agent Paul Brown, FBI, the Special Agent-in-charge (SAC) of FBI Field Office Atlanta. In response to that report listing 26 irregularities, Brown sent a letter asking for the voluntary production of some (not all) of the election materials the warrant listed. He was unprofessional enough to spell several words wrong: “tallie” for tally, and “pole” (as in vaulting or dancing) for poll.

https://x.com/canncon/status/2017427160974213251

MSNOW (formerly MSNBC) reports that the FBI reassigned Brown before they moved.

Now that the FBI has the physical ballots in hand, they are finding other things election-integrity activists have long alleged. Most damningly, activists alleged that election officials received pre-printed mail-in ballots. We now see that those ballots arrived with none of the creases one would expect from returning the ballot in a standard No. 10 envelope. Furthermore, the “marking bubbles” are either perfect (as no human can achieve), or show exactly the same flaws from multiple ballots from multiple voters.

Election 2020 and moving forward: an analysis

Reversing an election after another election has intervened (which the original “loser” won) would do more harm than good. But the country must take steps to prevent a recurrence. So anyone having guilty knowledge of this disgraceful affair, deserves to go to prison. Prison serves as more than a deterrent: it prevents the malefactors from making any further mischief.

Beyond that, the country must restructure elections so that no one can “do it again.” Distinguishing between “guilty” and “not-guilty” voting “machines” would also be useless. Election Systems and Software, the main competitor to Dominion Voting Systems (the vendor-of-choice in Georgia), has proved vulnerable to “gimmicking,” or at least faulty programming, of its ExpressVote® Ballot Marking Device. Two years ago, Elon Musk, Technocrat Extraordinaire, plumped for an all-paper voting system.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1801977467218853932

Musk also crucially moved against the foreign servers that were going to “steal” the Election of 2024.

France votes on paper, and the United States can and should do the same. Congress can and should invoke the Elections Clause to mandate all-paper elections of its members. That alone would push electorates to demand all-paper elections of Presidential Electors, and perhaps of State and local officials.

Going back to all-paper will be a tall order. It will probably require the ultimate “wave election” with a cadre of lawyers ready to challenge any irregularities like those now surfacing in Election 2020. But until that happens, Election 2020 can always – always – happen again.

Link to:

The article:

https://cnav.news/2026/02/01/news/election-2020-case-breaking-wide-open/

Video:

CNAV keyword runs:

https://cnav.news/keywords/election-of-2020/

https://cnav.news/keywords/january-6-event/

Report listing 26 irregularities (courtesy Scribd.com):

https://www.scribd.com/document/989542479/Report-of-Investigation-Fulton-2020

X posts showing the warrant and various reactions:

https://x.com/bluestein/status/2016624170293956723

https://x.com/RudyGiuliani/status/2016692923828482279

https://x.com/MarkWarner/status/2016722915513753672

https://x.com/MarkWarner/status/2016722918365897127

https://x.com/David_Khait/status/2016620272925716572

https://x.com/ossoff/status/2016717119719649335

https://x.com/atrupar/status/2016706207667327029

https://x.com/SenAdamSchiff/status/2016663991980835098

Videos: further evidence, interview on Meet the Press, and evidence newly surfacing:

https://x.com/canncon/status/2017427160974213251

Elon Musk asks for eliminating the machines:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1801977467218853932

Previous CNAV articles addressing this problem:

https://cnav.news/2026/01/04/accountability/executive/trump-delivers-deeds-not-words/

https://cnav.news/2023/11/09/news/voting-machines-bad-pennsylvania-county/

https://cnav.news/2024/06/16/accountability/executive/electronic-voting-machines-eliminate-elon-musk/

https://cnav.news/2025/11/27/accountability/executive/election-2020-vindication/

https://cnav.news/2023/06/24/editorial/talk/france-votes-paper/

Declarations of Truth:

https://x.com/DecTruth

Declarations of Truth Locals Community:

https://declarationsoftruth.locals.com/

Conservative News and Views:

https://cnav.news/

Clixnet Media

https://clixnet.com/