Sunday, April 30, 2017

Congress can rein in activist judges

The following article was published on the American Thinker website on April 27th

President Trump has issued two executive orders directing a temporary halt to immigration from certain countries along with the most recent order to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities and counties. 

The travel-related orders have been challenged in federal court and have been stayed by activist federal judges using the flimsy pretext that these E.O.s are an abridgement of the immigrant's constitutional right to religious freedom.

Forget for a moment that the subjects of these E.O.s aren't American citizens, therefore are not entitled to protections under our Constitution, and focus instead on the functional result of such a brazen attack on the separation of powers.  The basis for these orders is not religion, but rather the lack of functioning governments in these nations from whom we can gather sufficient information to adequately vet their émigrés. 

The order to withhold funds has also been challenged and subjected to a stay.

President Trump correctly believes that it is his duty to prevent the wrong-headed importation of potentially dangerous individuals and to halt the ongoing subsidizing of local governments enabling illegality.

The left (predictably!) lost their minds.  In their rush to oppose all things Trump, they turned to their primary method of implementing policy – the courts – usurping powers constitutionally vested in the office of the president.  The hubris of the activist wing of the judiciary has long been troubling, but this presumptive, arrogant overreach is unprecedented.

No intellectually honest interpretation of the Constitution or applicable law can provide a rational basis for just one of nearly 3,000 federal judges to have the power to exercise a de jure veto over the actions of the president in the course of his duties as commander-in-chief – especially when the existing law so clearly and unequivocally grants the president the statutory authority to act in the specific manner the judge is presuming to stay.

While such egregious misuse of the judicial power constitutes an impeachable offense, there is an easier and less protracted means of reining in these black-robed tyrants.

Congress can, under their broad authority to govern the inferior courts, strip the federal courts of their jurisdiction over executive action when the president is exercising the statutorily granted power to suspend or modify entry to the United States.

Simply put, Congress established the lower courts and can modify (even remove) the jurisdiction of those courts.

This can be done through the same administrative rules and procedures by which court districts are routinely drawn or modified.  This means streamlined committee handling and rapid implementation.

Indeed, there is precedent for this.

The "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996," signed into law by Monica Lewinsky's old boyfriend, stripped jurisdiction to challenge certain actions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (the forerunner of today's ICE) from federal courts.

Congress can put an end to this unconstitutional and irresponsible judicial activism.  Reassert the proper role of the courts, and do so before one of the once banned immigrants or refugees commit another act of criminality or terrorism.

The Terrible Damage Created by the Left’s War on Women

by Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

The left’s “inimitable” War on Poverty destroyed the Black family in our country, creating as it did a greater than 70% rate of black children born out of wedlock.  And now, the left’s demonic War on Women has turned females into the new Ugly Americans.  The notion that "anatomy is destiny" is anathema to a left whose culture wars and Woodstock generation began the death march of the American family.  And the Ugly American is our harsh American Woman liberated from herself, from her own soul.

"The barren, over-sexualized, disrespected and stupid propagandized women of the West, slapping God and the Natural Law in the face, while pursuing sexual activity on men's terms, are welcoming their conquerors with Pussy Hats." This is about the most prescient statement I have read about our disgraceful war of the sexes. When women realized they had the freedom to take the life of a little body they agreed to grow in what used to be the safest place in the world, i.e. their own wombs, they set our country on the hopeless and helpless path of today's androgynous hell. The old ad slogan, Better Living Through Chemistry is backfiring as women seek equality but, instead, get promiscuous rejection and disrespect. 

Researchers found that "women using HC (Hormonal Contraception) exhibited more symptoms of borderline personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of instability in affect regulation, impulse control, interpersonal relationships and self-image." Today’s preference for short term sexual encounters also was discussed.

How can a woman share her body, even under the blanket of matrimony and then use her children against their father?  "I don't care what color you are, when you divorce her and you have money, she's going to use the kid against you," says Black philosopher Tommy Sotomayor who tells all colors the truth as he sees it.  He was speaking especially to Black men who criticized Bill O'Reilly for telling his audience that Black children need Black fathers.  O'Reilly was bashed by an NFL star who said because O'Reilly's own family was broken, what right did he have to lecture Black men.  Sotomayor dismissed this reasoning as a non sequitur.  He tells black men that O'Reilly's divorce factor does not apply to what is now generational dysfunction in Black families.  Just look at how the Progressives' war on poverty imposed on us by Lyndon Johnson drove Black men out of their homes and deprived young black males of father figures they so desperately need today.  It's the man's fault today whether the charge is sexual harassment, marital breakdown, or workplace inequality. He did it.

Now, even worse is the Liberals' War on Women. No fault divorce and women's rights plus Democrat financial policies in government have forced wives and mothers into the marketplace and their children into daycare warrens.  The government is being made the parent.  Is that sick or what? Women now epitomize just what our culture does not need, namely binary entities that won't nurture, can't love and who are caricatures of authentic women.

The appalling attacks on President Trump during his campaign and now, after his inauguration, may have really completed Obama's fundamental transformation of America. 
Of course Marxists are BIG contributors to prosperity!

What has become of our women whose long, fake nails prevent them from holding their child close to heart, whose fake eyelashes mask botox fillers to attract men who see through their falseness?  Babies cry for a birth they never will know.  Where is the nurturing, the kindness, the here, let me help you, the I'll do without to help our family?  Something is very wrong here.  Something is wrong with our women, our wives. Why would you get married, then exchange the marriage license for a divorce decree and then fail to see the judgment falls on both parties?  Standing up on a stage in front of thousands of people to tell everyone you are a Nasty Women, to me, symbolizes what Women's Rights is doing to our American families. Going on to describe to your national audience the cringing and gory details of your monthly bodily functions, to me, symbolize how Liberals, how Democrats, successfully have used their far left political messages to turn us into things of horror and ugly avoidance. America's families are giving way to this ugliness.

Shrews, nasty women, gold diggers in theatrical make-up now are making us into symbols of the Ugly American Woman we never wanted to become.  Why have we allowed—even encouraged—the left to use their War on Women campaign slogans to claim our souls for their demonic schemes?

Saturday, April 29, 2017

What If There Is Another Government Shutdown?

By KrisAnne Hall, Guest Columnist

The shutdown showdown seems like a wild train ride and the political aftermath is only just picking up steam. I think it is important to be clear about what the faithful few are actually fighting for (and against) during the shutdown showdown. Let me reset the framework in the simplest possible terms, so that we don’t forget the essentials.

Our federal government, created by the States in 1787, was designed to be a limited and defined federal government. Not my words, but the words of the people who created it - easily researchable and verifiable.  
Language of Liberty

James Madison (called the Father of the Constitution) said in Fed. Papers #45 that “the powers (not rights) DELEGATED (a term repeated in the 10th Amendment) to the federal government are FEW & DEFINED and those that REMAIN in the States are NUMEROUS & INDEFINITE.” Madison then tells us what those few powers delegated to the feds are…he calls them “external objects” meaning the feds are limited essentially to FOREIGN affairs and then he further clarifies by saying they are specifically, “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”

HEALTH INSURANCE, not falling in one of these categories, is NOT a power that has been delegated to the federal government by the States. One might invoke the General Welfare Clause, etc. but that would be a misapplication of the Constitution.  For brevity sake, I will simply refer you to a full analysis on this issue, if you are inclined to be further educated on the proper application of the General Welfare Clause as given again by James Madison by reading this article “The General Welfare Clause, Justification for Obamacare?”  

Since healthcare is not a delegated power, its regulation by the central government is an unconstitutional act.  Alexander Hamilton clarified in Fed. #78, that “no legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid.” Therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional.  One may now say, but the Supreme Court has declared it Constitutional therefore it is.  Fortunately, that is also an improper placement of power in the hands of the Supreme Court. For brevity sake, I will refer you to a full analysis on this topic for further education in my “Letter to TX AttorneyGeneral Greg Abbott”    

Now, it is hardly disputed that the current government does not have the funding to operate Obamacare even as it is written, never mind that with all the technical difficulties it is getting more and more expensive every day. Even the proponents cannot disclaim that fact. And that is why we need to increase our borrowing limit-- to sustain ObamaCare.

Yet the biggest problem with Obamacare is NOT its economic impact, but the door it opens to federal intrusion. This stems from the application of a principle created by the Supreme Court called “significant governmental interest” or “compelling governmental interest.” This doctrine maintains that if the government has a “significant or compelling interest” in something, that interest then trumps even our Rights. It is how 134 Republicans can vote that the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to the federal government when there is a “national security” interest at stake.  National security becomes that “compelling interest” that overrides our 4th Amendment Right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Obamacare gives the federal government a “compelling interest” in our healthcare by providing our health insurance. (NOTE: Obamacare does not provide HealthCare, it provides health insurance.  Insurance doesn’t guarantee care; we should know that by now.) With a “compelling interest” in our health, the federal government can now insert itself into every aspect of our daily lives, trumping any right or freedom we might possess. With a “compelling interest” in our healthcare, we have placed in the hands of the government a “compelling interest” in our health.  The situation of our health directly impacts our healthcare. 

With a “compelling interest” in our health, the government could potentially regulate where we live, by claiming we live too far from a hospital or appropriate healthcare facility, thus preventing their ability to provide adequate healthcare and creating too great of a financial burden on our healthcare system. With this “compelling interest” the government can also claim the authority to tell us what we can and cannot eat, making certain foods ILLEGAL because they are not regulated and approved by the government as “healthy.” (Remember Bloomberg’s war on soft drinks? Put that on the national level.)  Now what you have is every aspect of our daily lives regulated by the federal government based upon a “compelling governmental interest.” That is not Liberty, it is slavery.

One of the means to check such federal overreach was placed in Article 1 section 7 of the Constitution and the founder’s explanation of the powers and purposes of those powers vested in the House of Representatives. This appears to have been the basis for the shutdown. Of course it did not work because we no longer operate by the Constitution. 

Here is how it is supposed to work: Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution reads, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”

Since the Supreme Court has declared Obamacare a tax, its funding must originate in the House. The Senate “may” propose amendments, but that is not a requirement.  So, the House has the sole authority to fund Obamacare and the sole authority to defund Obamacare.  Although the Senate may not like it, they technically have no Constitutional say in the matter. James Madison tells us exactly why:

“The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This POWER OVER THE PURSE may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”~Federalist #58 (emphasis mine)

Further clarity of intent comes from a discussion between Alexander White and James Madison, both members of the US House representing the State of Virginia:

Mr. White: “The Constitution, having authorized the House of Representatives alone to originate money bills, places an important trust in our hands, which, as their protectors, we ought not to part with. I do not mean to imply that the Senate are less to be trusted than this house; but the Constitution, no doubt for wise purposes, has given the immediate representatives of the people a control over the whole government in this particular, which, for their interest, they ought not to let out of their hands.”

Mr. Madison: “The Constitution places the power in the House of originating money bills. The principal reason why the Constitution had made this distinction was, because they were CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE, and supposed to be the best acquainted with their interest and ability.”

The purse is a power placed in the hands of the House on purpose and for a purpose.  It is, in itself, an important check on government power; reigns in the hands of the people to control the spending and growth of government. Every time the House FAILS to maintain this check; every time the House passes a Continuing Resolution instead of a Budget, that vital check fails and the House RELINQUISHES, what our framers thought to be, one of the MOST IMPORTANT POWERS held in trust for the people.

This is how our government is SUPPOSED to work. What we witnessed during the opening weeks of October 2013 is a result of years of the erosion and surrendering of strict Constitutional processes.  By using the so-called continuing resolutions (CR) rather than engaging in the legitimate budget process, Congress has SIDESTEPPED the Constitution. One cannot claim to be in a debate about the budget if there is no budget and a CR is not a budget. 

However, the depth of ignorance as to what the Constitutional mechanisms are and more importantly, why we have them, has allowed our government to be hijacked by those who would destroy the nation by driving us over the cliff of debt to support a welfare state. The ignorant populace, driven by media misinformation and propaganda, cheers this runaway train and labels those who desperately sought to return our nation to fiscal sanity as “reckless.”

I will tell you what is reckless: trying to drive this freight train completely blind, ignoring the operator’s manual while our children are tied to the tracks. America, this train is out of control, bandits are at the levers and the builders are doubtless scratching their heads wondering why we are bent on our own destruction. Remember this in the coming months as liberal Dems and RINO Republicans try to convince the voters that a ride on their crazy train is the way to go.

KrisAnne Hall is an attorney and former prosecutor. Hall hosts weekly radio and TV programs and teaches an average of 265 classes in over 22 States each year on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. KrisAnne is a disabled Army veteran, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. Learn more at

The Language of Liberty series is a collaborative effort of the Center for Self Governance (CSG) Administrative Team. CSG is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization, dedicated to training citizens in applied civics. The authors include administrative staff, selected students, and guest columnists. The views expressed by the authors are their own and do not reflect the views of CSG. Contact them at

North Korea’s Nukes

By Jim Emerson, staff writer

While America’s Christians were celebrating Easter the North Koreans celebrated the “Day of the Sun,” honoring the 105th birthday of Kim Il-sung, the nation’s first communist dictator and “eternal president.”

Thousands of soldiers, military vehicles and an array of fake weapons were marching under the careful inspection of current supreme leader Kim Jong-Un, the grandson of Kim Il-sung. Close examination reveals that Kim’s military force may be better suited for propaganda than actual battle. 

In a blazing display of saber rattling the Hermit Kingdom presented a video of its overrated ballistic missiles that explode on the Launchpad. The video demonstrated Kim’s nuclear ambitions of destroying an American city.

They key questions are whether North Korea does have any nuclear weapons and if so, would Kim have the ability to use those warheads against the United States, South Korea or Japan. Current estimates indicate that it is unlikely that North Korea has any capability to launch a nuclear-tipped, intercontinental ballistic missile.

However, if allowed to continue his preparations for war, Kim may very well have the intercontinental ballistic missile he wants. North Korean lacks the capability of creating its own missiles as it is totally dependent upon the Russians and Chinese for parts. A U.N. panel of experts revealed that debris obtained from a flight-tested missile contained Chinese and Russian components. 

North Korea’s engineers and scientists lack the skill and technology necessary either to build missiles that can launch a nuclear payload or construct warheads that can survive re-entry. But if the Hermit Kingdom is allowed to continue they may very well solve those problems. Should the North Koreans succeed in the manufacture of a working model, they will gladly sell the technology to other third world despots.

The United States along with Chinese leader Xi Jinping are against further testing and development of North Korea’s nuclear weapon’s program. Yet simply calling for further sanctions against North Korea will do little to deter Kim’s ambition. However, sanctions that actually cut off supplies of missile and nuclear goods from places such as China, Russia and Pakistan would indeed impact further development. And it’s certain that neither Russia nor China would be comfortable with nuclear weapons under Kim Jong-Un’s control. 
Kim Jong-Un

If North Korea’s Kim becomes desperate he may use any nuclear warheads in his possession and place them on Nodong (or Rodong-1) medium-range missiles to attack South Korea, Japan and any American or allied ships near Korean shores. It would be a war that no one wants.

If the Chinese cannot halt North Korea’s nuclear ambitions the United States may have to go it alone and destroy the nation’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles sites. Even so, this will only set-back Kim’s nuclear program. And if North Korea gets the message that China or Russia will not come to its aid in a show down with the United States they may very well consider finding a new leader.