BLOGS

On February 28th, 2026 the United States of America assaulted Iran, a nation that has not provoked America or her allies with military aggression in well over 47 years. This attacked during a 2 week pause in negotiations, where credible sources stated they were within 24 hours of having a new peace deal signed in ink. Neither the nature of the attack, the reason for the attack, or the timing of the attack are lawful. They aren’t lawful for a myriad number of reasons, but not least of which is that Congress has the sole power to declare war. It is a fundamental principle of our Constitution to sperate the powers of the federal government. It was blatantly ignored. What’s worse is that Congress seems to have handed over their authority by refusing to vote on the War Powers Resolution before the end of the session this week.

All of these facts combine to paint a very bleak and disturbing picture: our nation is compromised by Israel, and our Congress is aiding and abetting the criminal enterprises of the Trump Administration.

The Constitution defines Treason in the following manner, and is therefore the sole means by which anyone can charged with Treason:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Israel is who Epstein was working for as a Mossad agent. Israel is the nation that has the greatest influence in US Politics through PAC’s such as AIPAC. Israel has debilitating blackmail against 25% of the Cabinet, and Donald Trump himself. Israel has been waging a genocide against Palestinians for over 2 years, and is currently illegally annexing the West Bank. Israel has also attacked their neighbors, including Iran, repeatedly over the past 80 years. Israel is completely reliant upon US funding for both administrative function, and military capabilities. Israel is a Rogue State, and has compromised our National Security up to the highest levels.

That all of the Congressmen, President, and Secretaries “following orders”, supporting this attack, have committed acts of treason is clear to any citizen of the USA. Stop the War. Prosecute the Criminals!

Dear Board of Elections.

I represent Samuel Ronan, a candidate for the 15 th Congressional District Republican primary in Ohio. Mr. Ronan’s candidacy has ostensibly been protested by Marc A. Schare, who claims to be a member of the Ohio Republican Party and eligible to vote in Mr. Ronan’s election. As explained below, Mr. Schare’s protest is defective in two ways: First, it fails to include Mr. Schare’s signature. Second, it fails to state any legitimate reason for protesting Mr. Ronan’s candidacy. As made clear by the courts and Ohio’s Secretary of State, candidates are free to change political parties as they wish. For either and both reasons, Mr. Schare’s protest – regardless of the specious claims he makes -- must be dismissed for failing to state a claim for

which any relief can be granted.

I. Candidates in Ohio Who Do Not Hold Office Are Legally Permitted to Change Political Parties Without Restriction.

Mr. Schare makes a number of immaterial, irrelevant and specious complaints about Mr. Ronan’s candidacy. In Mr. Schare’s words, Mr. Ronan is impermissibly “altering [his] political party affiliations for opportunistic reasons,” something not allowed under Ohio law. He is not, Mr. Schare claims, acting in good faith, and is thus not a true Republican candidate.

Mr. Schare cites State ex rel. Guest v. Husted, 109 N.E.3d 1229 (Ohio 2018), and Jolivette v. Husted, 694 F.3d 760, 770 (6th Cir. 2012), to support his propositions, claiming in particular that they specifically establish that “[a]lthough Ohio law allows candidates to change parties, it prohibits them from ‘altering their political party affiliations for opportunistic reasons.’” Schare Protest at 3. Mr. Schare’s use of quotation marks would suggest that one of the two cited cases actually stated such a proposition, but neither one in fact did. Indeed, no court in Ohio or the Sixth Circuit has made such a statement to limit a candidate’s ability to change political parties.

Both the Guest v. Husted case and the Jolivette v. Husted case addressed the problem of party members disassociating themselves from their political parties to run as unaffiliated (independent) candidates. In that context, both cases point out that the candidate must act in good faith. However, courts -- including the Jolivette court – have pointed out that this good faith requirement does not apply to candidates who change political parties. Instead, in this latter context R.C. § 3513.191(B) controls, and it provides in relevant part that “either of the following persons may be candidates for nomination of any political party at a party primary: (1) A person who does not hold an elective office; (2) A person who holds an elective office other than one for

which candidates are nominated at a party primary.”

Consequently, under R.C. § 3513.191(B) any “person who does not hold an elective office” may be a  "candidate[] for nomination of any political party at a party primary.” (Emphasis added).

That this statutory provision means exactly what is says and does not imply any “good faith” requirement or “anti-opportunistic” principle was made clear in Jolivette v. Husted, 886 F. Supp. 2d 820 (S.D. Ohio 2012), aff’d, 694 F.3d 760 (6 th Cir. 2012), where the Cour discussed the differing requirements for candidates seeking to disassociate to run as independents and those seeking to change political parties.

For a candidate to be qualified to run as an independent candidate, the individual must actually be  unaffiliated or disaffiliated from any political party, and there is a corresponding requirement that the claim of unaffiliation or disaffiliation must be made in good faith. See Morrison. There is no similar requirement for a partisan candidate to show that the change in party affiliation was made in good faith.

It is the general rule in Ohio that “No person shall be a candidate for nomination or election at a party primary if the person voted as a member of a different political party at any primary election within the current year and the immediately preceding two calendar years.” Ohio Rev. Code § 3513.191(A). However, a person may be a candidate for nomination of any political party at a primary election, regardless of party affiliation established by voting in a prior partisan primary, if the person does not hold elective office, or the person holds an elective office other than the one for which candidates are nominated at a party primary. Ohio Rev. Code § 3513.191(B). Furthermore, notwithstanding the general rule, a person who holds an elective office for which candidates are nominated at a party primary may be a candidate at a primary election for a different party if the person completes and files a declaration of intent to seek the nomination of that party by the 30th day before the filing deadline for the primary election. Ohio Rev. Code § 3513.191(C)(1). A person may file such declaration of intent only once during a period of 10 years after filing the first declaration of intent. Ohio Rev. Code § 3513.191(C)(3).

Thus, while there are restrictions in Ohio as it relates to a candidate changing parties, there is no requirement that the candidate make the change in good faith, unlike the rule that applies to a candidate who disaffiliates from a party. 886 F. Supp.2d at 834-35 (Emphasis added). The Sixth Circuit affirmed this precise point, stating that “[b]ecause of the differences between the pathways to the ballot of partisan versus independent candidates in Ohio, we agree with the district court that Jolivette's equal-protection arguments lack merit.” 694 F.3d at 771-72.

The Ohio Secretary of State has reiterated these Courts’ conclusions in the Ohio Candidate Requirement  Guide 2026, https://www.ohiosos.gov/globalassets/publications/election/2026_crg.pdf, at page 24: A person   may be a candidate for nomination of any political party at a primary election (regardless of party affiliation established by voting in a prior partisan primary) if either of the following apply (R.C. 3513.191): The person does not hold elective office[, or] [t]he person holds an elective office for which candidates are not nominated at a primary election.

Mr. Ronan does not presently hold elective office. He thus under R.C. § 3513.191(B) may run in any party primary he chooses. This is true regardless of whether he acts in good faith (for the record, he does act in good faith) or as an opportunist (for the record, he does not act as an opportunist). Mr. Schare’s protest raises no legitimate complaint. It fails to state a proper claim It should be dismissed without the necessity of a hearing.

II. The Protestor Failed to Sign His Protest.

Mr. Schare failed to comply with R.C. § 3513.05 by signing his written protest. Section 3513.05 states that all protests “shall be in writing.” It also requires that those who protest primary candidates must be “a member of the same political party as the candidate and … eligible to vote at the primary election for the candidate whose declaration of candidacy the elector objects to.” Together, these requirements implicitly require the protestor’s signature, if for nothing else than to compare with voting records to determine whether the protestor is who he says he is and to determine whether he is eligible to vote in the primary. Voter signatures are required. Candidate signatures are required. Protestor signatures are required, too. Fly by filings are not sufficient.

Because Mr. Schare did not sign the protest, it must be dismissed.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Schare’s protest should be dismissed.

In recent events outside the DNC Headquarters, the egregious response of law enforcement to peaceful protesters advocating for a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine has raised alarming concerns about the protection of First Amendment rights and the ethical conduct of those in authority. As a Presidential candidate committed to safeguarding the principles that define our democracy, I staunchly condemn any actions that infringe upon the rights of citizens and threaten the foundations of our nation.

The right to peaceful assembly and free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy, a belief that I hold dear as both a Presidential candidate and a proud United States Air Force veteran. The disturbing scenes outside the DNC Headquarters underscore the urgent need for a reevaluation of law enforcement tactics and the accountability of public officials who overstep their bounds.

One of the most disconcerting aspects of the incident is the proposed use of tear gas against peaceful demonstrators. It is crucial to emphasize that deploying tear gas against civilians, for any reason, is considered a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. The use of such tactics not only violates international law but also contradicts the very values that our nation claims to uphold. As someone who has served in the military, I am acutely aware of the gravity of these actions and the importance of adhering to ethical standards, even in times of unrest.

As a Presidential candidate, my policies are clear: I unilaterally protect the rights of civilians to exercise their First Amendment rights without fear of reprisal. Peaceful protest is a fundamental expression of democracy, and my administration will prioritize the preservation of these rights. Moreover, I recognize the need for punitive measures against public officials, especially law enforcement, who violate the constitutional rights of citizens.

In implementing these policies, my administration aims to foster an environment where dialogue and peaceful dissent are not only tolerated but encouraged. The use of force against citizens exercising their right to protest not only undermines the democratic principles we hold dear but also erodes the trust between the government and the people.

In addressing the incident outside the DNC Headquarters, it is essential to emphasize the importance of open communication and understanding. As a nation, we must collectively strive towards unity, empathy, and a commitment to resolving conflicts through peaceful means. The use of tear gas against peaceful protesters is not just a violation of their rights; it is a failure to uphold the principles that make America a beacon of democracy.

In conclusion, my commitment to protecting the rights of American citizens is unwavering. The incident outside the DNC Headquarters serves as a stark reminder of the need for comprehensive reform in law enforcement tactics and a renewed dedication to upholding the values that define our great nation. Together, we can build a future where peaceful dissent is respected, and the rights of every citizen are safeguarded.