Maryland illegally disarms the federal militia

By Scott Weiser

For decades anti-gun liberals have argued for strict gun control measures claiming that the 2nd Amendment only applied to soldiers in organized state militias, basing their claims on the language “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Unwilling to admit their true agenda of repealing or ignoring the 2nd Amendment entirely in their zeal to ban guns, these activists grudgingly paid lip-service to the 2nd Amendment with their “state militia members only” mantra.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is in fact an individual right that is not conditioned upon membership in a militia, liberal gun-banners are frantically searching for some other way to ban guns, and they have found a suitable anti-gun liberal bias in the persona of the United States 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. The court hears federal cases from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, all strongly liberal Democrat states.

In a stunningly ignorant and arguably mendacious en-banc ruling the 4th Circuit just upheld Maryland’s ban of nearly all military-style semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines. The ruling is one of the most egregious and incomprehensible liberal misinterpretations of Supreme Court precedent on the 2nd Amendment ever seen.

In the wake of the horrific Newtown, Connecticut school shootings where 26 people were murdered because nobody in the school but the killer had a gun with which to put an end to the attack, the Maryland legislature passed the state “Firearms Safety Act of 2013” which bans the “transport [of] an assault weapon into the State” and makes it illegal to “possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon.”

The case made its way to the 4th Circuit, and the number of factual and plain legal errors made by the panel in its ruling call into question the qualifications of the judges on the bench to even hold law degrees much less sit as federal court judges.

Circuit Judge Robert B. King, a Clinton nominee, wrote the majority opinion that says “The Heller Court specified that ‘weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned’ without infringement upon the Second Amendment right. We are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach…Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage. Because the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are clearly most useful in military service, we are compelled by Heller to recognize that those weapons and magazines are not constitutionally protected.

This statement is absolutely false in every respect and is nothing more than an egregious example of anti-gun liberal cherry-picking and creative editing.

In Heller what the Court actually said largely as an aside (known as dicta in legal parlance) not central to its actual ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, not a “militia only” right is “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Nowhere does the Supreme Court say that military-grade weapons like the M-16 are outside of the ambit of the 2nd Amendment or that they may be banned. In fact, the Court says exactly the opposite by explicitly pointing out that historically militia members were expected (and in many cases commanded) to report for duty with their own “lawful” weapons, which at the time were as much military-grade arms as any actually issued to the U.S. Army by the Congress.

But pronouncing the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment extinct is exactly what the 4th Circuit just did, and in doing so it blatantly violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. By affirming Maryland’s self-declared power to disarm its militia members of “weapons that are most useful in military service the 4th Circuit judges have unconstitutionally trenched upon the power and ability of Congress to raise and equip armies, and the Supreme Court held this to be unlawful way back in 1886.

In Presser v. Illinois the Court ruled that “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and…the states cannot…prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

Federal law says today that the militia of the United States consists of “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and…under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard” and that the unorganized militia “consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” This means Joe Average Citizen, not member of a state-organized militia.

It was this law that anti-gun zealots cited incorrectly as proof that the right to keep and bear arms was limited only to organized state militias. Simultaneously they argued out of the other corner of their mounts that an unorganized militia of untrained citizens is outmoded and unnecessary because our army is the pride of our Nation, and our well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. Now they are trying to simply ignore the militia clause entirely in a gross and utterly unconstitutional display of mendacity and anti-gun bias.

But in Presser, Heller and its ruling in McDonald v. Chicago that made the 2nd Amendment binding on states and local governments through the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has effectively extinguished the power of a state or local government to ban entire classes of firearms, especially those firearms that are particularly well-suited to be arms of the individual soldier. This is true even when those arms are kept and borne by persons not technically subject to militia duty under the Militia Act.

Congress has the power to require that those not subject to militia duty give their arms to those who have been called to duty if necessary during times of national emergency under the power of eminent domain, subject to the payment of just compensation, as part of its authority to raise and equip armies. When a state disarms all of its citizens of militarily useful weapons it prevents Congress from exercising those powers.

Because the 4th Circuit went to such great lengths to explain exactly why the semi-automatic versions of military-grade rifles (and high capacity magazines that they use) are extremely effective arms for an individual militia member to bring with him or her when called to duty by Congress (and they are just that), the 4th Circuit has quite effectively shot its own case squarely in the foot. Perhaps we should thank them for this mistake as they are frog-marched off the bench.

While state and local governments may still impose reasonable regulations on the time, place and manner of the actual use of any weapons by their citizens so long as those regulations meet a strict scrutiny test for constitutionality and do not infringe on the fundamental enumerated right to keep and bear (acquire and possess) arms generally, they may no longer flatly ban the acquisition, transport or possession of entire classes of firearms, be they handguns or long guns, and especially not those that are of military utility, because to do so is to infringe on the ability and power of Congress to raise and equip armies.

 

Blue Moon Song

By Scott Weiser

The moon is blue tonight and I feel like howling, so the dog and I go walking through the turquoise air. The deer stand, watching warily, frozen in the liquid light of dusk. The buck, disturbed at the disruption, takes stock of us, trots a few steps and becomes once again a statue.  I call the dog to heel, leaving them to their evening meal.

We climb to the high place and I sit quietly in the gathering dusk and creeping chill, watching the fiery filaments fade over the high peaks.  When the light is gone in the west, and a faint mist fills the valley, turning the world to silver in the moon-glow, I throw back my head and howl. Trickster answers from the pasture below. He barks four times and howls, then is silent. Six beats of my heart later the whole coyote family begins. Three more heartbeats and down the valley, lost in the mist, another family joins the canticle, and the glowing darkness is filled with song.

Coyote is the Indian metaphor for our culture. In their mythology, the Trickster represents gluttony, greed and unbridled human desire. He lives in our world not as a god, but as a tribulation and a trial. He passes from here to the other-world with ease, wreaking havoc, deflowering maidens and unabashedly sating his lust for life on his own terms wherever he goes, beholden to none and heedless of the consequences of his actions. Sometimes he’s the creator of worlds, sometimes the instrument, but he is always as essential to the creation as the Creator is. Coyote is a transformer and a master of disguise, a maker of mischief, a foe to be wary of and an example not to be followed. Like man, however, Coyote is fallible, and as often as not he is the victim of his own excess. The Trickster cannot exist alone either, without any connection to mankind, any more than mankind can exist alone, without connection to nature.  His excess is our excess, his failings ours, and his excess, like our own, must be tempered by wisdom and insight if we are to live in balance.

Coyote is also the messenger of mortality – the one who foretells of our death. You might think that a dark and foreboding task, but he brings another message . . . the message that mortality is not an ending, it’s part of a cycle. He shows us that in return for the grief and loss of death, we are blessed by the joy and wonder of birth and life. He offers no bland immortality, but a life of pain and pleasure, sorrows and joys, interleaved with all the emotions and feelings that a finite life brings. Coyote brings us humanity through his imperfection and excess, and in so doing, shows us that even the worst in mankind is eclipsed by our capacity for goodness.

I think about the metaphor of Coyote in the singing night, and I ask myself why we don’t see our place in the world with the clarity of the Indians? Why have we made Coyote our metaphor in their eyes? They see the Trickster in our attempts at dominion over the earth, in our unbridled lust and excess, in our demands that nature bow to our terms, and we see in them an enigma. Their sense of place and connection to the earth is so profoundly different from ours that it sometimes seems an unbridgeable gulf, so its little wonder that there still exists such deep misunderstanding between Indian culture and our own. I think though that we still have the chance to find our proper place in the Circle, if we choose to listen and learn, and there is no better place to begin than on a high place, in a cathedral echoing with the song of the earth and filled with the light of the Blue Moon.

A dam fine opportunity for President Trump

By Scott Weiser

A basic principle of our political system is “state’s rights” or more properly state sovereignty. This means that outside of the small number of specific things that Congress is authorized to exercise nationwide authority over found in the Constitution, the states themselves retain their power and authority to regulate the goings-on within their states.

This causes considerable confusion among low-information citizens because they see the enormous size and scope of the federal government and don’t understand that the vast majority of political and legal power lies with their state government or with themselves, not the federal government. The misperception is both understandable and not accidental because the liberal-progressive arm of the federal government has been doing all it can to suppress the very idea that the states have any independent authority, much less sovereign authority limited only by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

So how did the federal government get so large and become so intrusive in our lives and how did the states go from being a union of sovereign states to what appear to be vassals of unelected bureaucrats in Washington D.C.? This is a complex question, but a large part of it is the voluntary surrender of state authority and sovereignty by the states themselves. Why do states surrender their authority? Because in many cases the Congress bribes them to do so using the “carrot and stick” method of expanding federal power and control.

This method involves levying taxes on the inhabitants of the states, transferring that money to the federal government, skimming off 30 percent or more from the top to fund the federal bureaucracy and then granting what remains back to the states subject to terms and conditions the Congress and/or the President set for obtaining such grants.

That’s how, for example, Michelle Obama’s inedible school lunch program requirements became ubiquitous. Federal grants for school lunch programs were conditioned (by executive order) upon schools obeying the unelected President’s wife’s orders. If schools refused they lost access to all school lunch grants and kids would go hungry because the money to feed them had already been transferred from the state to the federal government through taxation and the bureaucrats in Washington refused to give it back to disobedient schools.

This isn’t unique to the Obama administration, although it was egregiously abused by it, this is a system that has been used for more than a hundred years to get states to “voluntarily” comply with federal social engineering mandates. Don’t cooperate, don’t get any money. And since the money comes from the states in the first place state politicians are loathe to wean state government off of the federal teat and go it on their own because it’s political suicide and economic heresy.

State taxpayers expect whatever they can get of their hard-earned tax money back from the feds and get very vindictive when politicians refuse federal grants because they want to protect state sovereignty. Most people just don’t get it so they complain when their kids can’t get a free lunch because their legislators have been courageous enough to refuse the King’s coin in order to protect the independence and liberty of their state and their constituents. An ethical weakness perhaps, but a fact of political life in America nonetheless. But there is some good news now that the liberal progressives aren’t in charge anymore.

Now it’s time to turn the worm and see just how far Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown and the California state legislature are willing to go to preserve their ethical beliefs and dedication to their announced political “sanctuary” principles.

As it happens, there’s this dam in California that is in danger of failing because California diverted money that was supposed to be used to fix it decades ago to other more immediate political needs, like social welfare programs. The Oroville dam is the tallest dam in the U.S. and it impounds more than 3.5 million acre-feet of water. One acre-foot of water will cover one acre of ground one foot deep. It’s the second-largest man-made lake in the state of California and is an essential part of California’s water storage and delivery system. Failure of this dam would be catastrophic to towns downriver. Tens of thousands of people could die and billions in property damage could result.

Days after Governor Brown declared in a Khruschev-channeling diatribe that “California is not turning back. Not now, not ever” with respect to giving sanctuary to illegal aliens that was missing only the shoe-pounding of the lectern, he came begging for federal disaster relief funds to help the cash-strapped California budget with the costs of the evacuation of some 200,000 people and the costs of rehabilitating the damaged dam. President Trump approved federal disaster relief funds yesterday, but he should have taken a page from Michelle Obama’s playbook and put conditions on that grant.

What he should have done, and should do in the future with any federal grants to California is not to deny federal grants, but rather to offer them but condition those grants upon Governor Brown and the California Legislature utterly repudiating their insurrectionist notions of “sanctuary cities” or of making California a “sanctuary state” that harbors illegal aliens in defiance of federal immigration law. If California fails to cooperate fully in federal immigration actions then it has to immediately pay back every penny of every federal grant it gets into the indefinite future.

It’s a big dam carrot and it will let us know just how dedicated to their insurrectionist notions the Governor and state legislature actually are, because they will be dammed if they do and damned if they don’t.

Let’s force Governor Brown and the politicians in Sacramento to explain to the people of California why taxpayers have to fork over billions more in taxes to pay for the state’s liberal social welfare policies now that they can’t get federal grants to cover them because liberal progressives want to shelter illegal aliens from lawful federal immigration policies rather than take federal money.

Let’s see if Governor Brown is willing to fall on that particular sword or whether he’s going to hold himself accountable for looking after the interests of all Californians and comply with federal immigration law.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like the 9th Circuit Court

By Scott Weiser

President Trump is considering his options in response to the outrageous ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals against his temporary travel ban. One of the options the President acknowledged is that he can simply make the case moot by withdrawing the original Executive Order (EO) and issuing another more compliant one that addresses the issues the court brought up.

This would be a huge mistake. As I pointed out in my last editorial, the 9th Circuit Court has created a constitutional crisis by claiming that it has the authority to render judgement sua sponte, which is to say all on its own without any case or controversy properly before it, on President Trump’s motives for exercising his statutory authority to ban immigration from seven nations.

While the 9th Circuit claims it has jurisdiction this is simply not the case. In order for it to have jurisdiction the judge in Seattle who set this crisis in action would have to have jurisdiction to hear the complaints made by Washington and Minnesota, which he didn’t.

Worse, the 9th Circuit did not restrict itself to determining whether or not the Seattle court had jurisdiction, instead it improperly applied a de novo standard, which means that it decided all on its own to expand the inquiry beyond the bounds of the executive order itself and the claims made by the states as to standing, which is what the Justice Department argued in its appeal. Instead it shoehorned an inquiry as to the motives and intentions of the President in creating the EO so it could “preliminarily” rule on the merits of the issue in order to keep alive a case that by every legal measure should have had a stake driven through its heart by the original Seattle District Court.

In doing so the 9th Circuit set itself up in direct opposition to the Separation of Powers Doctrine and it unlawfully intruded upon the Executive Branch’s authority to act on matters of national security without having to petition the courts for permission to do so.

This is not a small matter at all, it’s a very serious intrusion into President Trump’s authority performed by a rogue court that had no standing to do what it did.

The danger is that if President Trump simply withdraws the EO and issues another one that is compliant with the issues raised by the 9th Circuit he will be seen as capitulating to the court and will both appear weak and will be leaving in place a court ruling that will be cited in the future by liberal activist judges as justification for further intrusions on executive authority, even though the case was never reviewed on the merits.

Trust me, this will happen because that’s exactly what the 9th Circuit did in its ruling. It cited many cases that sound like plausible justifications but really aren’t. One particularly important case, Landon v. Plasencia, was cited by the court as supporting the contention that “The procedural protections provided by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are not limited to citizens. Rather, they “appl[y] to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens,” regardless of “whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). These rights also apply to certain aliens attempting to reenter the United States after travelling abroad. Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 33-34 (1982). The Government has provided no affirmative argument showing that the States’ procedural due process claims fail as to these categories of aliens.”

The problem here is two-fold: First, the states don’t have standing to make procedural due process claims on behalf of their inhabitants in the first place. Only an individual who has been denied due process has such standing. Second, these due process rights only accrue, as the 9th Circuit itself said, “to all ‘persons’ within the United States.”

The whole point of the EO was to prohibit people who are not in the United States from coming here, not to eject or deport those who have a legal right to be here who are in fact on U.S. soil and therefore are accorded due process rights. Aliens and refugees don’t have due process rights unless and until they make it here, and the President has plenary authority granted to him by Congress to prevent them from making it here, which is exactly what President Trump did.

In order to prevent endless future attempts by liberal activist federal judges, of whom there are many, to interfere with the President’s national security decisions improperly, using specious precedents and open defiance of Supreme Court rulings President Trump absolutely must take this case to the Supreme Court, where he will almost certainly win 8-0 even without a Justice Gorsuch, in order to wipe out the 9th Circuit Courts outrageous violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine as if it never occurred.

This is necessary for the future protection of Executive authority over immigration and national security against direct attacks by rogue liberal activist federal judges.

 

 

Liberal Appeals Court Creates Constitutional Crisis

By Scott Weiser

President Trump should have tweeted “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings” rather than “See you in court.” In fomenting a constitutional crisis that all but guarantees a “nuclear option” confirmation of Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals predictably threw a bowl of legal spaghetti against the wall yesterday hoping something would stick. Some eighty percent of the time however its liberally-lubricated opinions slide right off into the garbage heap of anti-Republican activism the court is known for, as will this abstruse and recondite bit of legalistic pettifoggery.

In ruling against President Trump’s statutory power to ban immigration based on his sovereign judgment about the national security interests of the United States, 9th Circuit judges William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and Michelle T. Friedland ignored just about every judicial rule there is in their zeal to obstruct the President while ignoring completely the Supreme Court case that is really the only thing they needed to pay attention to.

The case, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, decided in 1923 makes it clear that the courts have no power to substitute their judgment as to the need to enforce a presumptively-constitutional statute for that of the Executive branch and that a state cannot sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens for abstract, potential or future injuries.

In Mellon, Justice Sutherland wrote “We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act.”

In their complaint the states of Washington and Minnesota argued that because some foreign students and faculty of its universities might be unable to travel to the United States this constituted justiciable harm and further that the state has authority to stand in place of the foreigners who have been temporarily discommoded. The 9th Circuit opinion ignores the “direct injury” requirement entirely by straining to put the states in a third-hand position of representing a foreign national, presumably one with either a permanent resident card or a valid travel visa, who has been temporarily denied entry.

But the Mellon Court makes it perfectly clear that neither Washington nor Minnesota have such standing, writing “The party who invokes the power must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid, but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally. Then the power exercised is that of ascertaining and declaring the law applicable to the controversy. It amounts to little more than the negative power to disregard an unconstitutional enactment, which otherwise would stand in the way of the enforcement of a legal right.”

Neither Washington nor Minnesota would or did suffer any direct injury because a few foreign nationals are temporarily unable to attend their universities. The foreign nationals might have standing, but not the states nor the universities. More importantly neither Judge Robart of the Seattle District Court nor the states of Washington or Minnesota nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals so much as mentioned, much less questioned the validity of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), the statute under which the President is authorized to ban immigration as “he may deem to be appropriate.”

Back to the Mellon decision, Justice Sutherland says “Looking through forms of words to the substance of their complaint, it is merely that officials of the executive department of the government are executing and will execute an act of Congress asserted to be unconstitutional, and this we are asked to prevent. To do so would be not to decide a judicial controversy, but to assume a position of authority over the governmental acts of another and co-equal department, an authority which plainly we do not possess.

Applied to this case, what those words mean is that even if the states had standing to sue in the first place the court’s authority is not to inquire into the President’s motives or second-guess the President in his national security decisions, but rather it’s only legitimate authority would be to rule unconstitutional the statute under which President Trump issued the Executive Order, not inject it’s own opinion of whether or not the President has sufficient justification for exercising that authority.

The Congress makes the law, the President administers the law, and the courts decide if the law and the application of that law in a particular case is constitutional. The court has no authority to inquire as to the President’s motives for enforcing the law, which is what the oral arguments made by the 9th Circuit judges showed it to be doing.

The legal spaghetti the 9th Circuit judges threw together created a constitutional crisis that the Trump administration must challenge and defeat because not to do so is to abdicate to the courts the congressional and presidential power to control immigration and provide for national security, which is an unconstitutional violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

 

Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Defends Judicial Misconduct

By Scott Weiser

Former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis accuses President Donald Trump of attacking the independence of the judiciary because of the President’s excoriation of Seattle federal District Court Judge James Robart and his side-swipe at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

In a guest commentary in the February 9th edition of the Denver Post, Kourlis writes “For one branch of government to question the legitimacy of another is analogous to saying that their teams should make their own rules and there should be no referees.” Filling her OpEd with Superbowl football metaphors Korlis makes President Trump’s expressed displeasure with the machinations and obvious politically-motivated decisions of Judge Robart, and his frustration with the arguments heard from the 9th Circuit Court judges who heard his appeal of the outrageous temporary restraining order Robart issued sound like a bald-faced attack on the Separation of Powers Doctrine and a threat to democracy.

It’s surprising to hear such nonsense from a former state Supreme Court Justice, and even more surprising to hear it from a Republican who runs the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver, whose avowed intent is to improve the operation and credibility of both attorneys and the courts.

Kourlis writes that it “troubles me” that the President “questioned the authority of a judge to do his job and rule on a matter of law.” Why would that trouble her unless she actually thinks that judges never make mistakes, never engage in activist judicial lawmaking from the bench and never allow personal biases and political beliefs to color their decisions?

President Trump was absolutely correct in questioning the authority of this particular judge to take action on this particular matter because the “Rule of Law” to which Kourlis repeated resorts in her argument happens to say quite specifically, in many different ways including procedural requirements, limitations on judicial authority and issues of standing to sue, that this judge did not have the authority to do anything other than dismiss the complaint on the basis of the plaintiff’s complete lack of standing to challenge United States immigration law as the representative of the people of the State of Washington, a legal fact expressly stated by the Supreme Court, which ruled “it is no part of [a State’s] duty or power to enforce [its citizens’] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government.”

Judge Robart was briefed on that on-point Supreme Court case that flatly informed the judge that the state had no standing to do what it did, so he has no excuse for egregiously, deliberately and without judicial authority departing from the Rule of Law by acting where he had no power to act in ways that violated a host of judicial rules in addition to the most basic one of all, which is that unless the plaintiff has legal standing to sue in the first place the complaint cannot even be considered and must be dismissed.

Kourlis admits as much when she writes “Judges should enforce the law, without regard to popularity of political winds.” On this we agree, but nowhere in her commentary does she even examine the judicial misconduct of Judge Robart or the outrageous and entirely off-topic inquiries of the 9th Circuit judges during the appeal of Robart’s improper TRO that prompted President Trump, among many, many others to express their outrage at the violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine that Judge Robart’s actions comprises. In taking up the case and issuing a nationwide restraining order based on a complaint by one state Robart is attempting to legislate from the bench by infringing on the President’s Congressionally-granted authority to bar immigration. There is no greater danger to the Rule of Law than an out-of-control judge who usurps the roles of both the Executive and Legislative branches out of ideological bias.

Kourlis speaks in platitudes about the need for an independent judiciary and demands that “we stand back and honor the system and the people who make it work: the judges. We disagree with rulings, we appeal them, but ultimately we accept them and go forward.”

No, Ms. Kourlis, we do not, not when judges engage in unconstitutional and frankly seditious legislating from the bench, which is beyond their authority, or when they violate the very Rule of Law upon which your argument rests by making blatantly unlawful and politically-motivated rulings that usurp the powers granted to Congress and the President.

We refuse to accept such lawless actions and we strive to remove such judges from the bench because it is they who have violated all of the canons of judicial process and impartiality that they have sworn to abide by and it is they who have abandoned their oaths of office in which they swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, which vests plenary power over immigration in the Congress, not in some two-bit corrupt judge in Seattle and not in some ideologically-driven liberal laughingstock of a federal Circuit Court in San Francisco.

That’s why the power to impeach and remove judges exist, and that’s exactly what needs to happen to four federal court judges on the Left Coast of what is still the United States of America…at least for the moment.

 

The Deplorables are now the Disconnected too

By Scott Weiser

In his zeal to delegitimize President Trump, Timothy Carney, senior political columnist at the Washington Examiner writes “When you’re the candidate of the disconnected and the socially isolated you can’t count on your base to make the journey with you. You’re left governing alone.”

Reacting to the tempest in a teapot over Trump’s skepticism about the crowd at the inauguration Carney blames the dearth of attendees on the specious notion that the 62,979,636 Americans who voted for Trump are “socially disconnected.” He tries to bolster his argument by claiming that 46.1 percent of all who voted in this election are “the slice of America where civil society is most eroded.”

This of course is liberal progressive propaganda at its finest. The difference between those who voted for Trump and those who voted for Clinton is a mere 2.1 percent, or 2,864,974 votes, if we discount entirely the as-yet undetermined potential for fraudulent and illegal voting in favor of Clinton. The popular vote doesn’t elect the President, for very good reasons, but for Carney to disparage nearly sixty-three million citizens as “socially disconnected” is a grave insult to our entire system of government, not to mention an astonishingly ignorant statement. It was in fact the social connectedness of those voters that gave Trump his victory.

Going on to malign Trump supporters further he writes “Trump’s base is the portion of the population that lacks a connection with neighbors and that lacks a strong faith community.” This is utter nonsense. Anybody who knows Conservatives and Republicans knows full well that they are some of the most connected, faithful people in America.

It is this group who insist on, as Obama put it, “clinging to their guns and bibles” that liberals despise and loathe. This loathing exists because modern liberal progressivism is tinged by rabid anti-theism that strives continuously to undermine the rights of the faithful to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Democrat liberal progressivism is deeply infected by the philosophy of Karl Marx, who wrote “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.”

It is neither Trump nor the 46.1 percent who support suing religious cake bakers or photographers out of business merely because they do not wish to exercise their artistic talents in the service of gays. It’s neither Trump nor the 46.1 percent who support the extirpation of all signs of religious belief from the public square.

It is Democrat liberal progressives and other leftists who want to completely eliminate any sort of “strong faith community” who do such things. They do so in order to force people to place their faith in government, not in God and not in themselves and their nation, with the intent of making them more pliant, more obedient and easier for the government to control. When the government provides your home, sustenance and medical care, the government controls your vote and your economic future.

They will promise “real happiness” to the proletarian masses just as Stalin and Mao did if only they will give up their faith in their God and in themselves and give it to government. But the political left never actually provides promised happiness, it provides only an illusion of happiness through propaganda, indoctrination, false promises and an inevitable resort to tyranny.

What this election proved is that people are not nearly as gullible and credulous as leftists thought they were. When their faith, their freedoms and their communities were threatened by the Marxist ideals and globalization threat posed by Clinton they turned out in force to keep her from the presidency.

More people did not show up at Trump’s inaugural because as Carney admits, they don’t live in and around Washington D.C. like those who can afford to march around demanding more largess from the public treasury. Trump supporters are hard-working Americans busy living and working and they showed their political strength on the day when it counted, at the polls.

Then they went back to work supporting their families, their neighbors, their churches, their police and fire departments, their communities and their nation, secure in the knowledge that their President, Donald Trump, will do his job as CEO of the United States and make America great again.