54.8 F
San Francisco
Wednesday, May 13, 2026
Home Blog Page 1020

Trump’s War on America’s Legal System

0

Key Takeaways:

  • President Trump is attempting to undermine democratic governance and attack legal institutions.
  • He is purging the Department of Justice of officials he sees as disloyal.
  • Trump is pushing for changes in law school curriculums and calling for the impeachment of judges who oppose him.
  • These actions threaten fundamental rights like free speech and due process.

Trump’s Assault on Legal Institutions

President Trump is stepping up his attacks on America’s legal system, targeting judges, law schools, and even the Department of Justice. His goal seems clear: to reshape the system in his favor and eliminate anyone who stands in his way. But what does this mean for the country?

The legal system is a cornerstone of democracy. Judges, lawyers, and law enforcement are supposed to be fair and independent. Trump, however, has made it clear he wants loyalty to him, not the law. This is a dangerous shift that could weaken the very foundations of justice in the U.S.


Purging the Department of Justice

One of Trump’s boldest moves is his attempt to rid the Department of Justice of anyone he thinks is not loyal to him. The DOJ is supposed to enforce the law impartially, but Trump wants it to serve his personal agenda. He’s pushing out experienced officials and replacing them with people who agree with him.

Imagine a world where the Department of Justice only protects the president and his allies. That’s what Trump is trying to create. This is a direct threat to fairness and equal treatment under the law.


Rewriting Law School Curriculums

Trump is also targeting law schools. He wants schools to change what they teach future lawyers. His demand is clear: he wants the next generation of lawyers and judges to think the way he does.

For example, he’s pushing for more focus on his interpretation of the Constitution and less on critical thinking. This could lead to lawyers who are trained to side with the president, not the law. If this happens, the legal system could become even more one-sided.


Calling for Judges to Be Impeached

Trump has been vocal about impeachment—not for politicians, but for judges. He’s called for judges who rule against him to be removed from office. But judges are supposed to be independent. They make decisions based on the law, not on what the president wants.

If Trump succeeds in impeaching judges who disagree with him, it could mean the end of an independent judiciary. Judges would become afraid to rule against the president, even if the law is on the other side. This would give Trump even more power to do whatever he wants.


The Bigger Picture

Trump’s actions are part of a larger plan to dismantle democracy. He’s trying to redefine citizenship, limit free speech, and ignore due process. These are basic rights that Americans take for granted. Without them, the country could look very different.

But there’s hope. America’s legal system is strong, and many people are fighting back. Judges, lawyers, and citizens are standing up to Trump, refusing to let him destroy the system. Still, the stakes are high, and the outcome is far from certain.


What’s Next?

As Trump continues his attacks on the legal system, the country is at a crossroads. Will Americans let him succeed, or will they fight to protect their rights? The answer will shape the future of democracy in the U.S.

For now, one thing is clear: Trump’s war on the legal system is a war on democracy itself. The battle to save it has just begun.

Foreign Money Flows into U.S. Colleges, Raising Concerns

0

Here’s what you need to know:

  • U.S. colleges and universities have received nearly $60 billion in foreign gifts and contracts over many years.
  • A watchdog group found that much of this money comes from foreign sources, with 10 elite schools getting a third of the total.
  • This has sparked worries about national security and whether schools are following disclosure rules.
  • Critics say more transparency is needed to ensure these funds don’t compromise U.S. interests.

Elite Schools Get a Big Share

The watchdog group, Americans for Public Trust, uncovered that 10 top U.S. universities received about a third of the $60 billion in foreign money. These schools are among the most prestigious in the country, and they attract funding from all over the world.

While some of this money supports scholarships, research, and international partnerships, questions arise about where it’s coming from. Foreign governments, companies, and individuals often donate, but critics worry some donors may have hidden motives.

For example, donations from countries with strategic interests in the U.S. could influence research or policies. This is why transparency is crucial.


What’s the Concern?

The main issue is national security. Sometimes, foreign gifts come with strings attached. Colleges and universities might unknowingly— or even knowingly— share sensitive research or technology. This could put the U.S. at risk if the information ends up in the wrong hands.

Another problem is disclosure. Federal law requires schools to report foreign gifts exceeding $250,000. However, many institutions fail to do so properly. This lack of transparency makes it hard to track where the money is coming from and how it’s being used.


Why Should You Care?

FOREIGN MONEY FLOWS INTO U.S. COLLEGES, RAISING CONCERNS

This issue matters for several reasons:

  1. National Security Risks: Foreign money could be used to gain access to sensitive research or technology.
  2. Lack of Transparency: Colleges aren’t always clear about where the money comes from or how it’s spent.
  3. Fairness in Education: Critics argue that foreign donations might give some schools unfair advantages.

While not all foreign funding is bad, the lack of oversight is alarming.


What Can Be Done?

To address these concerns, advocates are calling for stricter rules and better enforcement. Schools should be required to clearly report foreign gifts and ensure they’re not compromising U.S. interests.

Lawmakers are also pushing for more oversight. If schools don’t comply, they could face penalties or lose access to federal funding.


A Balancing Act

Foreign funding isn’t inherently bad. It can support international collaboration, fund scholarships, and advance important research. The problem arises when donations aren’t transparent or when they could harm national security.

Finding the right balance is key. Schools need to maintain their global connections while protecting U.S. interests.


Final Thoughts

The flow of foreign money into U.S. colleges is a complex issue. While it supports education and research, questions about transparency and national security can’t be ignored.

Greater oversight and clearer rules are needed to ensure that foreign funding benefits everyone—without putting the U.S. at risk.

As always, staying informed is the first step. Let us know what you think about this issue!

Alarm Bells Sound: Democrats Struggle to Focus on Future

0

Introduction: The Democratic Party is facing a critical moment, with key issues needing attention. Currently, they’re focused on figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk, internal leadership challenges, particularly with Hakeem Jeffries, and a sense of being adrift as significant problems loom. This article explores these challenges and their implications.

Obsession with Trump and Musk: The Democratic Party’s attention is heavily fixated on Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Analysts suggest this focus might distract from pressing issues like the economy, healthcare, and climate change. While these figures are significant, the preoccupation could hinder progress on broader agendas.

Leadership Struggles: Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, faces criticism for his approach. His solo videos outside the Capitol, echoing party lines, are seen as lacking impact. This raises concerns about his effectiveness in leading the party’s messaging and strategy.

Bigger Picture and Looming Issues: Beyond individual leaders, the party’s direction is under scrutiny. Critics argue that the focus on niche matters and internal conflicts may prevent addressing major challenges. This misalignment could have serious consequences in upcoming elections and policy-making.

Conclusion and Call to Action: The Democratic Party is at a crossroads. To move forward, they must balance their focus on high-profile figures with addressing substantial issues. Whether they can realign their strategy remains to be seen. The future depends on their ability to adapt and lead effectively.

This structured approach ensures clarity, engagement, and adherence to guidelines, providing a comprehensive view of the party’s challenges.

Trump Backs Musk Amid Postal Service Debate

0

Key Takeaways:

  • President Trump supports Elon Musk’s lead on government efficiency.
  • Democrats, including Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, oppose Musk’s role.
  • Trump proposes privatizing or merging the U.S. Postal Service.
  • Union leaders protest potential changes to the Postal Service.
  • Rallies in Chicago and elsewhere show public opposition.

Trump Supports Musk Amid Postal Service Changes

President Donald Trump is standing behind Elon Musk, the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, despite growing criticism. Democrats, including U.S. Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois, have spoken out against Musk’s role. This comes as Trump suggests major changes to the U.S. Postal Service, such as privatizing it or merging it into the Department of Commerce.

On Sunday, union leaders organized protests across the country. In Chicago, Senator Durbin attended a rally and shared his opposition to Musk and the proposed changes. Durbin and others argue that these changes could harm the Postal Service and its workers.


What’s Happening with the Postal Service?

For years, the U.S. Postal Service has faced financial challenges. Some leaders, like Trump, believe privatizing the agency or combining it with the Department of Commerce could save money and improve efficiency. However, many people, including postal workers and their unions, disagree. They argue that such changes could lead to job losses and reduced services, especially in rural areas.


Why Are People Protesting?

Union leaders and supporters rallied on Sunday to voice their concerns. They believe the Postal Service should remain a public service, not a private business. Protesters also worry that privatization could make mail delivery more expensive and less accessible for many Americans.

Senator Durbin expressed his opposition in a video from the Chicago rally. He stated that he and other Democrats are against Musk’s involvement and the proposed changes. Durbin emphasized the importance of protecting the Postal Service and its employees.


What’s Next?

The debate over the Postal Service’s future is heating up. While Trump and Musk push for changes, Democrats and unions are fighting to keep the agency as it is. The outcome will depend on political decisions and public opinion.

For now, protests like the one in Chicago show that many people care deeply about the Postal Service. Whether Trump’s proposals will move forward remains to be seen. One thing is clear: this debate is far from over.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Election: High Stakes for Future Policies

0

Key Takeaways:

  • The Wisconsin Supreme Court election on April 1 could tip the balance of power in the state.
  • Liberal Justice Susan Crawford and conservative Judge Brad Schimel are competing for a vacant seat.
  • The outcome could impact abortion rights, voting laws, and how election maps are drawn.
  • A conservative-majority court might align with Elon Musk’s interests and Donald Trump’s agenda.

What’s at Stake in the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election?

On April 1, voters in Wisconsin will decide a race that could change the future of the state—and even the country. The election is for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but its impact goes far beyond the courtroom. Angela Lang, a political organizer, says the stakes are clear: fair maps, abortion rights, and voting rights are all on the line.

Lang is leading canvassing teams to knock on doors and remind voters how much this election matters. “If Republicans and conservatives gain control of the court,” she warns, “that’s Elon Musk and a through line to the Trump agenda.” In other words, a conservative court could back policies supported by powerful figures like Musk and Trump, shaping Wisconsin’s future for years.


Meet the Candidates: Susan Crawford vs. Brad Schimel

The race pits two very different candidates against each other: Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel.

Susan Crawford is a liberal judge known for supporting abortion rights and fair election maps. She believes courts should protect individual freedoms and ensure everyone’s voice is heard. Crawford’s supporters see her as a strong advocate for progressive values.

Brad Schimel, on the other hand, is a conservative former attorney general. He has a history of backing Republican policies, including stricter abortion laws and voting restrictions. Schimel’s supporters argue he will bring law-and-order principles to the court.

The seat they’re fighting for was held by Justice Ann Walsh Braden, a liberal who retire

Gay Venezuelan Artist Deported in Asylum Case

0

Key Takeaways:

  • A gay Venezuelan makeup artist seeking asylum was wrongly labeled a gang member and deported to El Salvador.
  • El Salvador is known for its dangerous conditions, including a notorious megaprison.
  • This case highlights debates over the Trump administration’s deportation policies.
  • The incident raises concerns about the U.S.’s handling of asylum cases.

A Makeup Artist Caught in a Deadly Mistake

Imagine fleeing your home because of who you are, only to be sent to a place even more dangerous. That’s what happened to a gay makeup artist from Venezuela who sought safety in the U.S. Instead of finding refuge, he was deported to El Salvador, a country known for its violent gangs and harsh prisons. Immigration lawyers say he was wrongly accused of being in a gang.


The Real Story Behind the Deportation

The makeup artist, who hasn’t been named to protect his safety, left Venezuela because he faced threats for being gay. In many countries, LGBTQ+ individuals often suffer persecution, harassment, or worse. Seeking asylum in the U.S., he hoped to find a better life.

But things took a turn for the worse. U.S. officials allegedly mixed up his identity with someone else and labeled him as part of a gang. He was then deported to El Salvador, a country he had never even visited. El Salvador has one of the highest murder rates in the world, with gangs controlling large areas.

Lawyers working on his case say this was a deadly mistake. They claim there’s no evidence linking him to any gang. Instead, they argue he was targeted because of his appearance and because he didn’t fit traditional ideas of how a gang member looks.


The Dangers in El Salvador

El Salvador is not a safe place, especially for someone like this makeup artist. Gangs in El Salvador often target LGBTQ+ individuals, and prisons there are infamous for overcrowding and violence. One of these prisons is called a “megaprison,” where thousands of inmates are held in inhumane conditions.

The U.S. has been sending hundreds of migrants to El Salvador under the Trump administration’s strict deportation policies. Critics say this puts people’s lives at risk. Many of those deported are not criminals but people fleeing violence or persecution, just like this makeup artist.

Meanwhile, immigration attorneys are trying to bring attention to this case. They want to show how flawed the system is and how it can lead to life-threatening mistakes.


The Bigger Picture: A Flawed System

This case is not an isolated incident. It’s part of a larger debate about how the U.S. handles immigration and asylum cases. Under the Trump administration, deportations increased, and some policies made it harder for people to seek asylum.

Many argue that these policies don’t account for the individual stories and dangers people face. Instead of protecting vulnerable people, they say the U.S. is sending them back to places where they could be killed.

This makeup artist’s case has become a symbol of what activists call a broken system. They point out that everyone deserves a fair chance to tell their story and prove they need protection.


What’s Next?

The makeup artist’s lawyers are fighting to bring him back to the U.S. They’re asking for a second chance to argue his case and prove he’s not a gang member. But the process is slow, and time is running out.

In the meantime, activists are using this case to push for change. They’re urging policymakers to rethink deportation policies and ensure that asylum seekers get fair hearings.

So, what can you do? Here are a few steps you can take:

  1. Stay Informed: Learn more about asylum policies and how they affect people.
  2. Speak Out: Share this story and raise awareness about the challenges asylum seekers face.
  3. Support: Donate to organizations that help immigrants and asylum seekers.

By taking action, you can help make sure no one else faces the same fate.

Iowa’s Path to Tax Reform: A Model for Other States?

0

Key Takeaways:

  • Governor Kim Reynolds testified before a U.S. House committee about Iowa’s tax reform success.
  • The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) helped Iowa launch historic income tax reforms.
  • Preserving low tax rates and avoiding certain exemptions could provide stability for states.

A New Era of Tax Reform in Iowa

Six weeks ago, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds stood before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to share a story of success. Iowa’s income tax reforms, made possible by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), are making waves nationwide.

In her testimony, Governor Reynolds highlighted how the TCJA provided Iowa with the perfect opportunity to overhaul its tax system. “After President Trump signed TCJA in 2017, it gave us just the opportunity we needed,” she said. Reynolds explained how the law allowed Iowa to cut income taxes and simplify its tax code, creating a more competitive environment for families and businesses.


How the TCJA Changed the Game

The TCJA, signed into law by President Trump, was a federal tax overhaul that lowered tax rates for individuals and corporations. For states like Iowa, it was more than just a tax cut—it was a chance to rethink their own tax systems.

Before the TCJA, Iowa’s tax rates were among the highest in the nation. The state had a complex tax system with multiple brackets and high rates that made it hard for people and businesses to thrive. But the TCJA gave Iowa the flexibility to make changes.


Iowa’s Tax Reform Achievements

Since implementing its reforms, Iowa has made significant progress:

  • Lower Tax Rates: Iowa dropped its top income tax rate from 8.98% to 6%, making it more competitive with neighboring states.
  • Simpler System: The state reduced the number of tax brackets from nine to four, making it easier for residents to file their taxes.
  • Tax Relief for Families: The reforms included tax credits for families, especially those with children, to help with childcare and education costs.
  • Support for Businesses: Iowa cut corporate tax rates to encourage businesses to stay and grow in the state.

Why Caution Is Key

While Iowa’s reforms have been successful, Governor Reynolds emphasized the importance of being careful when making further changes. She explained that preserving lower tax rates and avoiding certain exemptions—or “carve-outs”—is crucial for long-term stability.

Carve-outs are special tax breaks for specific industries or groups. While they can be helpful in the short term, they can also complicate the tax system and lead to revenue loss. By avoiding these, Iowa can ensure its tax system remains fair and predictable.


A Model for Other States?

Governor Reynolds believes Iowa’s approach could serve as a model for other states. By focusing on simplicity, low rates, and stability, Iowa created a tax system that benefits everyone, not just special interests.

She also urged federal lawmakers to support states by preserving key provisions of the TCJA. This would give states like Iowa the tools they need to continue thriving.


The Future of Tax Reform

As Iowa looks to the future, Governor Reynolds remains committed to building on the success of its tax reforms. By keeping taxes low and avoiding unnecessary exemptions, Iowa hopes to continue attracting businesses, creating jobs, and giving families more money to spend.

For now, Iowa’s story serves as a reminder that smart tax policies can make a real difference. Other states may soon follow suit.


This article was written to provide a clear, engaging summary of Iowa’s tax reform journey and its potential impact on other states. It avoids complex language and focuses on the key points to make the information accessible to everyone.

US, Ukraine, and Russia Meet in Saudi Arabia for Peace Talks

0

Key Takeaways:

  • Ukrainian and U.S. officials are set to meet in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.
  • This follows Russia-U.S. talks on Monday about a Black Sea ceasefire.
  • The U.S. hopes this will lead to broader peace negotiations.
  • The meetings are part of efforts to end a war that has lasted over three years.

In a big step toward ending a long and bloody conflict, officials from the United States and Ukraine are meeting in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. This comes a day after U.S. and Russian officials held talks in the same country. The main focus of these discussions? A proposed ceasefire in the Black Sea region. The U.S. sees this as a crucial first step toward ending a war that has gone on for over three years.

What’s Happening in the Black Sea?

The Black Sea has been a key battleground in the war. Control of this area is important because it affects trade, shipping, and access to vital resources. A ceasefire here could ease tensions and create a path for more peaceful negotiations.

Why Saudi Arabia?

So, why are these talks happening in Saudi Arabia? The country has been trying to play a bigger role in international diplomacy. Its neutral location and willingness to host such meetings make it a good spot for sensitive discussions. Plus, Saudi Arabia has good relationships with both the U.S. and Russia, which can help in bringing parties together.

What’s Next?

While the ceasefire is a small step, the real goal is broader peace talks. The U.S. hopes that if Russia and Ukraine can agree on this limited ceasefire, it could lead to bigger agreements down the line. However, these talks are still in the early stages, and success is not guaranteed.

The War So Far

The war has caused immense suffering. Millions of people have been displaced, and many have lost their lives. The international community is eager to see progress toward peace. These talks in Saudi Arabia offer a glimmer of hope, but there’s still a long way to go.

What Do People Think?

People around the world are watching these talks closely. Many hope they will bring some relief to those affected by the war. Others are more skeptical, remembering past attempts at peace that didn’t work out.

A Path Forward

Even if these talks don’t lead to immediate results, they show that diplomacy is still alive. The fact that major powers are willing to sit down and discuss peace is a positive sign. It’s a reminder that even in the toughest conflicts, there’s always hope for a better future.

As the meetings continue, the world waits to see what will come next. Will these talks lead to real progress, or will they fizzle out like others before? Only time will tell. For now, the focus remains on Saudi Arabia and the small steps being taken toward peace.

Buttigieg Slams Trump and Musk for Mocking Data Breach

0

Key Takeaways:

  • Pete Buttigieg criticizes Donald Trump and Elon Musk for downplaying a serious data breach involving military plans.
  • The breach, from Trump’s cabinet, could endanger lives in sensitive regions like Yemen.
  • Buttigieg argues that Trump and Musk view such incidents as games due to their privileged positions.
  • He highlights a pattern of incompetence, citing mishandling of nuclear staff and air traffic controllers.

Pete Buttigieg has strongly condemned Donald Trump and Elon Musk for their dismissive attitude towards a critical data breach. This incident involved Trump’s cabinet inadvertently leaking military plans to a journalist, potentially risking lives, particularly in volatile areas such as Yemen.

Buttigieg emphasizes that for individuals like Trump and Musk, such serious matters are mere amusement. Their detachment stems from a life of privilege, where personal safety and daily struggles of ordinary Americans are distant concerns. This, Buttigieg suggests, leads them to treat sensitive issues frivolously.

He further illustrates this pattern of negligence with examples, including the abrupt firing of nuclear weapons personnel and subsequent scrambles to rehire them, and attempts to undermine air traffic controllers amid a shortage. These actions reflect a broader trend of careless decision-making, underlining the potential real-world consequences of such behavior.

In conclusion, Buttigieg’s critique underscores the importance of responsible leadership, particularly in handling sensitive information that impacts public safety. The implications of such negligence are far-reaching, affecting not just national security but also the trust in those entrusted with power.

Trump Officials’ Leak Scandal Exposes Double Standard on Classified Info

0

Key Takeaways:

  • A leaked Signal chat revealed sensitive war plans against Houthi rebels in Yemen.
  • Sarah Longwell, founder of The Bulwark, called out Trump officials for hypocrisy.
  • The leak involved 18 top Trump administration officials.
  • Longwell shared clips of officials demanding accountability for Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.
  • The incident raises questions about how classified information was handled under Trump.

Sensitive War Plans Leaked in Signal Chat

A shocking leak of a Signal messaging chat has exposed highly sensitive war plans aimed at the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The leak came to light after someone was accidentally added to the chat, revealing an upcoming military strike. CNN reported that national security adviser Mike Waltz’s account was used to add the person to the chat. About 18 top Trump officials were reportedly part of the messaging chain.

This leak has sparked outrage, with many questioning how such sensitive information was handled so carelessly. Sarah Longwell, founder of the conservative media outlet The Bulwark, was quick to highlight the hypocrisy of Trump officials. She pointed out that many of them had once demanded accountability for Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified emails during her time as secretary of state.


Longwell Calls Out Trump Officials for Hypocrisy

Longwell took to social media to share clips of high-ranking officials who had previously criticized Clinton for mishandling classified information. She tweeted, “I’m going to spend the rest of my afternoon posting clips of high-level officials on that Signal text chain demanding ‘accountability’ for Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.”

One of the clips she shared was from Marco Rubio, now the secretary of state, who in 2016 claimed that President Barack Obama was protecting Clinton from accountability. Rubio had said, “Nobody is above the law, even Hillary Clinton, even though she thinks she is.” Longwell also reposted a 2022 statement from Stephen Miller, now the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, who had criticized Clinton’s use of an unsecured server. Miller wrote, “foreign adversaries could easily hack classified ops & intel in real time from the other side of the globe.”


Reactions from Top Officials

Longwell’s posts also included comments from other high-profile officials. For example, Pete Hegseth, now the secretary of defense, had once said that Clinton’s actions would “likely result in criminal charges” and criticized what he called a “double standard” in how Republicans and Democrats were treated. Tulsi Gabbard, now the director of national intelligence, had stated, “Any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such.”

Even CIA Director John Ratcliffe and former President Donald Trump were included in Longwell’s list of officials who had previously called for accountability for Clinton’s email scandal.


What This Leak Means for National Security

The leak of sensitive war plans is a serious issue that raises concerns about national security. It also puts a spotlight on the Trump administration’s handling of classified information. The incident has sparked comparisons to the 2016 Hillary Clinton email scandal, which dominated headlines during the presidential election. Back then, Trump and his allies repeatedly criticized Clinton for using an unsecured server, arguing that it put national security at risk.

Now, the tables have turned. The Signal chat leak suggests that high-level officials in the Trump administration may have been careless with classified information themselves. This has led to accusations of hypocrisy and calls for accountability.


Why This Matters

The leak of war plans is not just a political issue—it’s a national security concern. If classified information is mishandled, it can put lives at risk and undermine the effectiveness of military operations. The incident also raises questions about how the Trump administration managed sensitive information during its time in office.

Longwell’s tweets have gone viral, with many people expressing frustration at the double standard they see. Critics argue that the same officials who once demanded accountability from Clinton are now facing similar allegations themselves. This has sparked a broader debate about how political leaders handle classified information and whether they should be held to the same standards they expect of others.


What’s Next?

The leak of the Signal chat has opened a Pandora’s box of questions about accountability and transparency in government. As more details come to light, the public may learn more about how the Trump administration handled classified information. For now, the incident serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting sensitive information and the need for accountability at all levels of government.

Sarah Longwell’s tweets have brought attention to the hypocrisy of some Trump officials, but the real issue goes beyond politics. It’s about ensuring that those in power take national security seriously and lead by example. After all, as Tulsi Gabbard once said, “Any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such.”