"Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
Patriots are Counter-Revolutionaries trying to prevent the government from overthrowing the Constitution."
The Coach’s Team (TCT) offers the best in conservative essays along with articles taken from various internet sites. The victory of Donald Trump has provided a God-sent opportunity to reverse the years of willful damage done our nation by Barack Hussein Obama.
Ed. Once again,
proof positive that liberals are thoroughly shameless. Otherwise, Waters’
fellow Democrats would have forced this brainless hack to resign years ago.
article appeared in Breitbart on April 25th
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), in an interview at the Time
100 Gala on Tuesday, said her advice to President Trump is to “please resign.”
What a charmer
The interviewer asked Waters if she had any advice for the president, and
the California Democrat did not mince words.
“Please resign,” said
Waters, one of Trump’s most vocal critics, after being honored at the Time 100
Gala in New York. “So that I won’t have to keep up this fight of your having
impeached because I don’t think you deserve to be there. Just get out.”
Waters made the 2018 list of Time 100’s “most influential people” along with the
anti-gun Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student activists, the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah, and Trump himself.
Actress Yara Shahidi
wrote the tribute to Waters, praising her for leading the movement to “impeach”
“She is adored and
admired by people who care about social justice and is oh so eloquent in
letting the world, particularly the white men of Congress who dare test her
acumen, know that she is not here for any nonsense,” Shahidi wrote.
Waters has made it a
point as a congresswoman to criticize Trump or call for his resignation or
In an interview
with Bloomberg in November 2017, she said she “inspires” people by calling for
Waters has even
resorted to personal attacks, calling
the president a “racist” when she appeared on BET in February to give her
response to Trump’s State of the Union address.
She also declined
to attend this year’s State of the Union to protest
Trump’s “character flaw.”
article appeared in Breitbart on April 25th
By Ken Klukowski
WASHINGTON, DC – President Donald Trump had a good day at
the Supreme Court on Wednesday in the “travel ban” case involving immigrants
from terror-prone nations, as a majority of the justices seemed to signal their
agreement with the president’s lawyers on key points.
SCOTUS will overturn unlawful rulings by lib judges
arguments were the climax of an epic legal struggle that began during the
president’s first week in office, when he signed Executive Order 13769 to enact
“extreme vetting” for immigrants entering this country, later replaced by
Executive Order 13780. Both of those interim measures were superseded by
Presidential Proclamation 9645, banning entry into the United States from seven
terror-prone nations, subject to case-by-case waivers from the State
Congress, through federal
law 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) empowers the
president to “suspend entry” by “proclamation” for “any aliens or class of
aliens” he finds would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
President Trump’s September 27, 2017, proclamation is such a measure.
Liberal-leaning majorities on a couple federal courts blocked the president at
The Supreme Court is
tackling four issues: (1) whether the courts even have authority to decide this
matter; (2) whether the proclamation is permitted by the central federal
immigration law, the Immigration and National Act (INA); (3) whether the policy
violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause; and (4) whether the trial
court’s worldwide injunction in this case is overbroad.
“After a worldwide
multi-agency review, the president’s acting homeland security secretary
recommended that he adopt entry restrictions on countries that failed to
provide the minimum baseline information needed to vet their nationals,” U.S.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco began at the Supreme Court on behalf of the
Trump administration. “The proclamation adopts those recommendations. It omits
the vast majority of the world, including the vast majority of the Muslim
world, because they met the baseline.”
Congress in the
Immigration and National Act (INA) defines which aliens can be admitted into
this nation. Francisco explained that this baseline is providing sufficient
information to make an “intelligent decision” as to whether a person can be
allowed into the United States under the INA.
Comparing it to
immigration proclamations by President Jimmy Carter regarding Iran and
President Ronald Reagan regarding Cuba, Justice Anthony Kennedy remarked that
President Trump’s Proclamation 9645 gave much more detail on why the government
concluded each impacted country posed a safety risk.
informing Kennedy that “This is the most detailed proclamation ever issued in
Justice Elena Kagan
pushed back, saying that the government argued that by raising national
security, any legal challenge would be “game over,” and asking about a
hypothetical president who might get “elected who is a vehement anti-Semite and
says all kinds of denigrating comments about Jews” and trying to keep all
Jewish people out of the country.
that Cabinet officers would never give a president recommendations that would
lead to such a far-fetched situation and instead would resign before
implementing a “plainly unconstitutional order.” He also said such an order
would be facially illegitimate, and therefore could be challenged.
One item on which the
challengers may score a point is trying to include Trump’s campaign statements
as evidence. Kennedy balked, saying that if someone running for a local mayor
makes “hateful statements,” then the next day gets elected and takes office and
then acts consistent with those statements, that “whatever he said in the
campaign is irrelevant?”
that Proclamation 9645 is “not a so-called Muslim Ban,” saying, “It would be
the most ineffective … one could possibly imagine since not only does it
exclude the vast majority of the Muslim world, it also omits three
Muslim-majority countries that were covered by past orders, including Iraq,
Chad, and Sudan.”
Chief Justice John
Roberts sharply questioned Supreme Court heavyweight Neal Katyal when he took
the podium representing Hawaii and the challengers, asking if the president
could unilaterally block all entry from Syria for a full week if he believed
someone entering that week was carrying chemical weapons.
Katyal responded that
such a move would be okay, but this policy cannot be compared to that because President
Trump has had a year to get Congress to address the real-life situation through
shot back, “Imagine, if you can, that Congress is unable to act when the
president asked for legislation.” The courtroom burst into laughter in
America’s current hyper-partisan gridlock.
“Congress did act,”
Justice Samuel Alito hit back against Katyal. “It enacted 1182(f).”
Kennedy also appeared
to reject a key part of Katyal’s argument – that 1182(f) proclamations cannot
be permanent policy that may usurp Congress’s role – by noting that the
proclamation says it will be reexamined every 180 days, and that § 1182(f)
specifies they can last “for such period as he deems necessary.”
If the Court holds
that President Trump’s proclamation is authorized by the INA, it will then
reach the issue of whether Proclamation 9645 violates the Establishment Clause
of the Constitution, which forbids Congress from establishing an official
national religion. Hawaii argues that the proclamation officially discriminates
against Islam, and therefore is unconstitutional.
Pushing back against
Katyal’s arguing for a liberal Establishment Clause standard in this case,
Alito said with obvious skepticism, “Would any reasonable observer reading this
proclamation, without taking into account statements, think this was a Muslim
Justice Neil Gorsuch
went further, noting that “It’s been a long time since this Court has used the
Lemon test [meaning the reasonable observer test or “endorsement test”],”
possibly suggesting that he was reluctant to revive that test developed by a
much more liberal Supreme Court majority decades ago, and applying that test in
a new context.
Gorsuch also went
after the district court’s issuing an injunction blocking Proclamation 9645
everywhere on earth. America is divided into 94 judicial districts, and
typically a trial court can issue an order that is only broad enough to address
the parties in the case. Here, the judge blocked President Trump’s policy
The Court’s newest
justice expressed deep concern about how that has been done repeatedly since
President Trump’s inauguration, saying, “We have this troubling rise of this
nationwide injunction – cosmic injunction.”
Katyal did not even
defend what many characterize as a judicial power-grab, saying, “I share your
impulse, Justice Gorsuch.”
The following article
appeared in Powerline on April 25th
By John Hinderaker
Polar bears have
become an icon of the global warming movement. The theory is that global
warming reduces the volume of Arctic sea ice, which in turn impacts polar bear
habitat. Notwithstanding the fact that polar bears have survived through
multiple ice ages and warm periods, and in recent years polar bear populations
have grown rather than shrinking, the Left finds it convenient to use them for
Polar Bear Science is a
web site run by Susan Crockford, one of the world’s leading experts on polar
bears, with over 35 years of experience and many scientific publications.
Recently, she was viciously attacked in the New York Times (where else) by
leftists who were outraged that she pointed out the fact, based on published
data, that climate alarmists’ predictions about polar bear populations have not
Dr. Mitch Taylor was
a member of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) as a polar bear
scientist representing Canada for 28 years (1981-2008) but in 2009 he was
booted out by chairman Andrew Derocher for his skeptical views on human-caused
global warming. The group then changed their rules on membership to justify
Dr. Taylor writes:
It has become a lot
more difficult to talk about polar bears since they became an icon for climate
change as a cause.
The new model [Regehr
et al. 2016] guarantees that polar bears will decline by decoupling the model’s
population projections from climate model forecasts of sea ice conditions….
de-coupling I meant that Regehr’s model [Regehr et al. 2016] has no input from
the GCMs [General Circulation Models] for sea ice dynamics. If you suddenly
reduced CO2 levels somehow, the GCMs would respond by predicting an increase in
sea ice. Regehr’s model uses a simple regression fit to sea ice decline as
measured since the satellite record began in 1979. As you know, sea ice
declined faster than the GCMs predicted. So the PBSG has have given up on the climate models and now they just use
the historical slope to project continued sea ice decline forward. In other
words, their current argument for up-listing polar bears due to anthropogenic
global warming is now entirely independent of atmospheric CO2 levels. It
seems the PBSG agrees that climate models are not predictive with respect to
sea ice which was their central argument for up-listing them in the first
As practiced by the
alarmists, climate “science” has no integrity.
There are two ways to
get a scientific consensus. One is to present the data and the analysis in a
manner that is so persuasive that everyone is convinced. The other way is to
exclude or marginalize anyone who does not agree. This occurs so commonly now
that it has become an accepted practice. The practice of science has become
secondary to governments, NGOs, journals, and scientists who feel that the ends
justify the means.
The response to
Susan’s work is politically motivated, not an argument against her conclusions.
The journal’s response to this article and to her complaint was also political.
Sadly, BioScience is not a credible scientific journal anymore. We have fake
news and fake science.
Fake science is a
good description for pretty much all global warming alarmism.
Ed. Read Author Mirengoff's first offering on the far-left Chai Feldblum HERE.
article appeared in Powerline on April 25th
By Paul Mirengoff
Sen. Mike Lee has
been holding out against the renomination of Chai Feldblum for another term as
EEOC Commissioner. Feldblum is the architect of the Obama administration’s LGBT policy and an
enemy of religious freedom in virtually all cases where it stands in the way of
gay “dignity,” as she sees it.
I have heard that
this week, Senate leadership is making another push to confirm Feldblum, along
with two Republican nominees to the Commission. The idea, as I understand it,
is to “sweeten” the deal by throwing in President Trump’s nominee for EEOC
I’m happy to report
that Sen. Lee remains “steadfast” in opposing Feldblum. His office assures me
that throwing in the nominee for General Counsel, whom the GOP Senate can
already confirm without Democratic help, doesn’t sweeten anything.
Mike Lee deserves
major credit for blocking Chai Feldblum’s nomination. He’s not just standing up
to leadership, he’s also resisting pressure from some conservatives who want
him to accept the Feldblum package in order to give Republicans an instant
majority on the Commission.
As noted, though,
Republicans control the Senate, albeit barely. They have the ability to confer
majority status at the EEOC on Republicans without swallowing Feldblum.
The other point I
want to make pertains to the alliance between social conservatives and economic
conservatives/business interests. In Feldblum’s case, there is a tension.
Feldblum has been so aggressive in trampling religious interests that she’s
become unacceptable to social conservatives. They regard her, correctly in my
view, as worse than a generic left-liberal on key social issues.
Feldblum and her, uh, ...
Thus, the business
case (so to speak) in favor of confirming Feldblum, even assuming there is one,
will not move most strong social conservatives. Feldblum represents a red line.
If the traditional
alliance between social conservatives and economic conservatives is to be
maintained, each faction (so the speak) must respect the other’s red lines.
Some economic conservatives believe, in good faith, that there’s a good case
for confirming the Feldblum package. But this is hardly a red line issue for
So again, I believe
Sen. Lee deserves great credit for enforcing the red line against Chai