Federal Judge Slams the Brakes on 'Alligator Alcatraz.' Guess the Reasoning.

By Jeff Charles

A federal judge in Miami issued a temporary restraining order on Thursday to halt construction of a migrant detention facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.” The facility, designed to hold up to 1,000 people in repurposed shipping containers, has come under fire over the conditions in which migrants are being held. The judge’s ruling came after attorneys argued that it could violate environmental laws...............To Read More....

• Lawfare in the swamp August 7, 2025 By Bill Glahn - The headline from the U.K. Daily Mail seems a big overwrought, Trump’s Alligator Alcatraz hit with major setback as Obama-appointed judge moves to HALT construction. First of all, the facility holding illegal immigrants in the middle of the Florida Everglades has been up and running since last month, so I’m not sure what construction, if any, is still ongoing at the facility. As for “major,” the construction pause is scheduled ........To Read More....

Let's Talk About the Jugurthine War

By Rich Kozlovich

 

What prompted this article was an outstanding article by Andrea Widburg on American Thinker, DC judges let Chief Justice Roberts know that Donald Trump is a bad dude, saying:

The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia has been a safe haven for Democrats, with the justices there willing repeatedly to favor plaintiffs who have filed suits against the Trump administration. Margot Cleveland obtained a memo from a federal judicial conference held this past March showing that the DC judges are actively hostile to Donald Trump and want to ensure the Supreme Court shares that hostility. This behavior crashes into the federal canons governing judges, as well as into the reality of Trump’s conduct. 

 Andrea then goes on to outline who they are and how they're corrupting the judicial canons and the invertebracy of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roberts.  An outstanding article to say the least, and again, more reason for a 28th Amendment for age and term limits to the federal judiciary. They’re out of control, and the Congress has failed to use their Constitutional authority to rein them in.

So, let's talk about King Jugurtha of Numidia and the Jugurthine War. Never heard of that? Imagine that.  Chuckling...yeah well neither did I until I was doing some research on Julius Cesare and stumbled on to it.   Jugurtha murdered family members to become king, and bribed Roman officials, including Senators to let him get away with it.  He bribed military officers to prevent being defeated, and this went on for years with these officials happily taking their money and looking away.  Finally the public outcry over all this was so massive it forced Rome to act.

This story exposes the massive corruption that was so Roman, so vile, and so ubiquitous triggering so many civil wars in Rome's history.   I don't think most realize how corrupt and unstable Roman government was for all of it's existence.    

This kind of corruption was rampant during the three Obama terms impacting the military, the administration, and the judiciary, with Obamaites appointing federal judges for 12 years.  Twelve out of the last 17 years filling the federal judiciary with corrupt and incompetent political hacks,   All of whom are have been epitomized by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who should sitting on is a park bench, not a judicial bench.

The exposure of that corruption has been the justification for the purges going on in both the military and the administrative branches of government, but the judiciary is out of control and uncontrollable.  We need term limits as getting a two thirds vote for an impeachment conviction is impossible.

Definition leads to clarity, history is everything, and the patterns of life repeat over and over again.  I think this story is useful as this kind of corruption is now in play with the federal judiciary, and it's uncontrolled, putting their own values and agenda ahead of the Constitution, Congressional legislation, Executive privileges, their oath of office, and destroying the rule of law, which is destabilizing the nation.  It's time to stop looking the other way, it's time for a massive public outcry, and a Jugurthine War, i.e., a 28th Amendment.

I will be using this historical reference in the future. Think how China was allowed to buy advanced computer systems from the US, how N. Korea got nuclear arms, how Iran was given billions and was on the verge of a nuclear bomb, and who was responsible for that. 

The Fate Of The U.S. If The Left Got Control Of The Supreme Court

July 09, 2025/ Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

Currently at the U.S. Supreme Court, the conservatives hold a 6-3 majority. While there are exceptions, most of the politically sensitive cases break along the 6-3 ideological lines. Recent prominent examples of cases breaking in that way include Trump v. CASA (limiting the ability of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions against executive actions); U.S. v. Skrmetti (upholding Tennessee statute banning transgender surgeries on minors); and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (ending the rule that courts should “defer” to administrative agencies as to interpretation of their regulations). In these and numerous other cases, the three liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) would have reached the opposite result.

But the 6-3 conservative majority is very much a result of happenstance. Donald Trump won the 2016 election by a hair, and then got three Supreme Court appointments in his first term. Had Hillary Clinton won, she would have appointed three liberals. Barack Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland got sunk by some deft maneuvering by Mitch McConnell. Liberal David Souter, appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990, retired in 2009 (and has since died), while conservative Clarence Thomas, appointed by the same president in 1991, continues to serve.

With a few different breaks, the Court could easily have a 6-3, or even 7-2, liberal majority. Do you ever wonder what our law might look like if that had occurred?

You don’t have to look far to find out. In Europe and Israel, the political left has found ways to control the judiciary, and in particular the highest courts, no matter which political parties win the elections. And here in the U.S., the barrage of litigation against Trump administration initiatives has given a coterie of Obama- and Biden-appointed district court judges the opportunity to show their view of how the law ought to work.

In Israel and various European countries, left-wing judges have somehow arrogated to themselves powers to overrule most any decision of the political branches that they don’t like. At Gatestone Institute on July 8, Drieu Godefredi has a roundup. Godefredi calls what is going on alternately “judicial imperialism” and “judicial tyranny.” Excerpt:

From Israel to the United States, via Europe, the judicial coup d'état has become permanent. In the West, it is not the executive that threatens the separation of powers. It is faceless judges lacking democratic legitimacy who legislate on the pretext of judging.

Consider the case of Israel. Although Israel has had conservative governments for most of the last several decades (Benjamin Netanyahu has been Prime Minister for almost 18 years out of the 30 years since 1996), the Israeli Supreme Court is firmly in the hands of the left. Rather than being named by the political branches as in the U.S., the Israeli Supreme Court’s members come from a Judicial Selection Committee, the majority of whose members are selected either by the Supreme Court itself or by the Israel Bar Association. Lacking a written Constitution like we have in the U.S., the Israel Supreme Court has decided that it can declare actions of the political branches invalid because they are “unreasonable.” Godefredi:

In the 1980s and 1990s, . . . the Court took on the power to assess the "reasonableness" of government decisions, thus giving itself a political veto over the elected government's choices. . . . There is no decision of the Israeli government and parliament that cannot be overturned by unelected judges.

The court has gone as far as to disallow appointment of cabinet officers on the grounds of “unreasonableness.”

Or consider the case of France. While the Biden administration got tied up in knots trying to prosecute its main political adversary (Trump) on some phony charge or other, the French judiciary has been more efficient. Godefredi:

Leading in all the presidential polls, Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally party, has been sentenced to a five-year ban from holding public office with provisional execution. . . .

Le Pen’s alleged wrong was “assigning assistants paid by the European Parliament to French national tasks.”

Here’s another example cited by Godefredi:

In 2024, the Constitutional Council censured [struck down] several provisions of the Immigration Act, adopted under political pressure to tighten the conditions for entry and residence in France.

And in summary:

There is effectively no longer a single "right-wing" measure that can be adopted in any field by Parliament or the government without being struck down by the Constitutional Council or the courts.

Other examples cited by Godefredi include several from the European Court of Human Rights compelling European states to accept immigrants from Africa despite statutes to the contrary.

Well, the Europeans and the Israelis have nothing on some of their American counterparts. Consider the latest from one Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts. It seems that one of the many provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, that became law upon signature of President Trump on July 4, would prohibit the federal government from providing further funding for Planned Parenthood. On July 7, Planned Parenthood was promptly in court seeking an injunction against the end of its funding. Note that this termination of funding was not a result of some unilateral Trump Executive Order, but rather part of a duly enacted statute. Under what possible theory could a court order that Congress could not do that?

Here is a write-up from National Review today. Excerpt:

The case went to Judge Indira Talwani, a Barack Obama appointee. Before even waiting to hear the Justice Department’s defense of a duly enacted federal law, she issued a “temporary restraining order” (TRO) ordering that the federal government, starting immediately and continuing the next two weeks, “shall take all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed in the customary manner and timeframes to Planned Parenthood” and affiliates. Planned Parenthood is already asking the court to extend the order further before giving the federal government its day in court. . . . 

Judge Talwani did not issue a legal opinion explaining why she was overturning an act of Congress. Her order made none of the findings required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a TRO. Nor is this a proper TRO. As we have previously observed, “a TRO is supposed to restrain one side of a case temporarily, so that nothing changes until the court can issue a final order changing things, which then can be appealed. 

But [the district judge] tried to force the government to pay money it can’t get back.” By ordering that moneys be irrevocably withdrawn from the Treasury without an act of Congress — indeed, in direct contravention of an act prohibiting them — she is flatly contradicting the Constitution’s allocation of powers.

So we now have District Judges who think that they can order the President to spend taxpayer funds that Congress has specifically directed cannot be spent. I would expect this one to get overturned promptly on appeal. But that’s only because of our current Supreme Court. Is there any doubt that a Supreme Court with a majority of Ketanji Brown Jacksons would uphold Judge Talwani’s order?

Trump, the Federal Judiciary, and The Government of the United States

By Rich Kozlovich

Since there's all this foofaraw about the federal courts setting themselves up as mini Presidents, and the recent SCOTUS ruling telling them they're not, I think this chart is important.  

 

As Jeffrey Tucker notes in his article The Curbing of the Administrative State regarding the SCOTUS ruling: 

The opinion could not be plainer: “Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” That principle applies not only to this case but to the whole panoply of cases that have tethered the ability of the president to manage executive branch operations. The courts have presumed authority over the president that the Constitution plainly does not grant.

He goes on to state the government as it's been configured is in effect contrary to the intent of the Constitution.  The elected officials are supposed to be in charge, not unelected bureaucrats saying: 

The answer has been hiding in plain sight all this time. It took a dramatic and domestic exercise of administrative power, one that hit us all our lives personally, to reveal the extent of the problem. It comes down to the approximately 425 agencies with millions of permanent employees that are the real government in the United States........In 2014, just two years before Trump’s first term, the scholar Philip Hamburger wrote “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” His argument was that this machinery does not exist in the Constitution. There is no such thing as an agency that is independent of presidential control................

All these court issues are predicated on the fact Trump is exposing to the America people how corrupt it all has become,  which is the lesson he learned after his first term after being stabbed in the back by people who were disloyal, and bureaucrats who undermined everything he was attempting to do.  So he issued executive orders and triggered a fight that was long overdue.  

The chart shows who in charge of the federal government, and it's not the legislature, and it's not the judiciary.  It's the Chief Executive, and that's the President of the United States. 

Harry Truman flew to Wake Island to confront Douglas MacArthur over their differences regarding the Korean War, and protocol demanded MacArthur stand at the stairs to greet the President of the United State.  He didn't, and that went on for 45 minutes.  Finally when they were alone he told MacArthur, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I don't care what you think about Harry Truman, but don't you ever disrespect the President of the United States that way again. "

Well, that's Trump's view of reality.  He doesn't much care what you think about Donald Trump, but they're not gong to get away with disrespecting and disregarding the President of the United States.  

Unfortunately, the battle is far from over, just as one district judge Brian Murphy openly defied the court refusing to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court, there are two other ways these radical leftist judges and attorneys can subvert the ruling an the obvious intent of the Constitution.  Class action lawsuits, which normally aren't so easy to bring into being, but if the jurists are corrupt, and we already know a bunch of them are, that will not be a deterrent, since like Ketanji Brown Jackson, they could care less about the rule of law.  However, the  Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 will clearly be problematic, as the wording is an open ended invitation for abuse by district courts, and is an issue either the Congress, SCOTUS, or both will be forced to address.  Make no mistake, this is far from over.  

•  Attorneys Push for Class Action in Birthright Citizenship Case After Supreme Court Ruling
• Two Harvard law grads issue ludicrous analyses about the Supreme Court’s limits on nationwide injunctions
• The battle of ‘Lawless Lawfare’
• Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Thunderclap Heard Around the Republic

History, Time, and Truth Are on the Same Side, Not Joe Biden's

By Rich Kozlovich

Joe Biden was not a decent man, nor was he a public servant.  History and time are on the side of truth, and neither history, time, or truth will look favorably on Joe Biden. It seems to me no matter that some are saying he can recover from his cancer diagnosis, he’s now facing what happens to old people with health issues, especially when neurological problems compound their health, they face negative cascade issues. 

I don’t see him lasting much longer, and when he’s on his death bed will he get his last communion after his unending support for abortion?   Will he, like Ted Kennedy, be buried in the church?   The root word for repentance means "to turn about", which requires a change of course to make amends for wrongful actions.  I didn't see that with Kennedy, nor will we see it with Biden.

Joe Biden was a puppet who already was demonstrating serious neurological issues, yet the Democrats knowingly promoted a man they knew was losing it because the Bernie Sanders would have been unacceptable to the public.   

And by now, everyone knows that Joe wasn’t running anything in the White House, he was simply being used, a presidential puppet. He could barely speak, read, reason or walk, yet they kept putting him through his puppet paces. A poor, senile old man being forced to pretend the lights were still on.

It also seems clear his dementia was rapidly becoming worse, and they were, in order to remain in power willing to put this sad sack back into the oval office for anther term, which they had to know he wouldn't survive, and then Kamala would be President, and the media was absolutely complicit in this fraud, remember his  clean bill of health!  They all knew his was mentally incapacitated and did everything they could to hide it.

• How a Former Obama Official Described the Biden Mental Health Cover-Up: He's Not Wrong.
• Biden's Top Adviser Screamed at a Reporter to Not Publish a Story About Biden's Mental Decline

Handlers or no handlers, the fact is Joe Biden was a mean, nasty, and vicious human being, the head of the Biden Crime Family.  It wasn't his handlers that made him so, that was his character long before he entered the White House. 

 

There is only one positive Biden will leave behind?  Absolute evidence the nation needs a Constitutional Amendment adding term limits for Congress, and especially the federal judiciary, which through it's leftist corruption has usurped the power of the presidency and is now demanding the Trump administration give "due process" to all these criminals who invaded the nation.  

• The United States of America, as we have known it, Has Been Destroyed by the US Supreme Court

The judiciary has now been so badly corrupted “due process is code for delay, obfuscation, and a constant stream of billable hours flowing throughout the legal “profession”.

 

Voter ID and The Constitution

By Rich Kozlovich

On April 26, 2025  James Fite posted this article at Liberty Nation News, Voter ID: Where the President, the People and the Constitution Stand, saying "popular doesn’t necessarily equal constitutional".

He goes on to explain:

DC District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly  ruled that states don’t have to make voters show ID at the polls or show proof of citizenship to register. Trump is a fan of voter ID requirements, and so are most Americans, according to polling. But if the Constitution doesn’t support that position, then neither public opinion nor the president’s order makes it legal.

First, the DC District is filled with leftist political hacks, and she's one of them.  He then goes on to point out the Constitution defines the rules governing the federal government's role in national elections quoting the first paragraph of Article I, Section 4 which reads:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

He went on to explain:

Each state is explicitly granted the authority to determine when, where, and how US senators and representatives are elected. Then there’s an exception to that authority: Congress can legislate it at any time (well, all except the polling places). Note the lack of authorization for a president to override the states. The federal government can step in, but it has to be through the standard legislative process ......

He goes on to justify Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling noting there's nothing in the Constitution that allows the President to short circuit the legislative process, and she's right, but since when did that matter to the judiciary?  All of a sudden the leftist hacks in the federal judiciary are in love with the actual wording in the Constitution, incapable of seeing any penumbras or emanations of the Constitution to justify the President imposing voter ID on the states.  

Penumbras and emanations of the Constitution is a concept created by the judiciary, that also appears nowhere in the Constitution, but it allows them to bypass the legislative process in order find imaginary rights in order to impose laws on the nation no one passed, like the abortion, and the Chevron decisions.  It's kinda like how Hollywood twists inconvenient history in their movies with the attitude, "if it didn't happen that way, it should have".  

Yet, clearly it was the intent of the Founding Fathers that only citizens should be allowed to vote.  So, why wouldn't that justify taking the position the President was merely enforcing an unwritten law.  An unwritten law that was an obvious and understood unwritten law.  An unwritten law that didn't need to be written through the legislative process? 

Andrea posted this article in 2021, Clarence Thomas identifies the greatest danger in America, saying :

Article III of the Constitution of the United States establishes a “supreme Court.” .........While Art III limits somewhat the nature of the cases the Supreme Court may hear, it does not impose any checks or balances on the Supreme Court’s power.  Then, in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall extended the Court’s power, holding that Article III’s grant of authority inevitably gave the Court the power to overturn unconstitutional legislation. The result is a Supreme Court that has freely rewritten the Constitution to achieve political ends—and turned the Court itself from what should be a neutral judicial institution into one that has become the partisan center of D.C.

The Constitution gave Justice Marshall no such authority. The Constitution says the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary is in the hands of the Congress, not the Supreme Court. 

The public is hugely in favor of Voter ID with 98% of Republican, 84% of independents and 67% of Democrats in support.  Five states already require it, another 40 are considering doing so, and currently there's legislation introduced by Rep. Chip Roy of Texas that's passed the House called "The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act", that's in the Senate.  But it must meet the 60-vote threshold to get voted on.  Why 60 votes?  

In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 of the current 100 senators. Today, filibusters remain a part of Senate practice, although only on legislation.

Will it pass the Senate?  Who knows?  If all 53 Republicans sign on, including Murkowski, Collins, Mitch McConnell, which is iffy, that would take seven Democrats to cross over.  Given the mental and moral unfitness of so many Republicans in the Senate, I don't think it can happen unless at least a minimum of ten Democrats cross over, and I really don't see that happening.

So, why is it the courts can't find even one little penumbra or tiny emanation to justify Trump's policy?  Because  the federal judiciary is rife with incompetent, not very bright, corrupt political hacks who can't be fired.  That's what needs changing.

Lawfare, the Judiciary, and the Constitution

“Elon Musk is NOT a threat to democracy. He’s a threat to bureaucracy.” —Glenn Beck March 2025

By Robin Itzler 

Editor's Note:  This is one of the commentaries selected from Robin's weekly newsletter Patriot Neighbors. If you wish to get the full edition, E-mail her at PatriotNeighbors@yahoo.com to get on her list, it's free. RK

 

For our Constitutional Republic to continue, federal district court judges must cease making federal decisions. There is a reason why they are DISTRICT judges.

Prior to Donald Trump entering politics, this was rarely an issue. From 1963 to 1982, only 10 injunctions were issued by district court judges.

Last year, the Harvard Law Review looked at ALL injunctions issued by federal district courts over the last SIX DECADES and found that a whopping 67 percent were issued during Donald Trump’s first term. Moreover, 92 percent were by Democrat appointed judges.

Two excerpts from AMAC’s “Congress Primed to Curtail Activist Judges,” by W. J. Lee: “The U.S. Constitution vests “all legislative powers” in Congress (Article I) and executive power in the president (Article II), while Article III confines courts to address specific “cases” and “controversies.” Nowhere does it empower a lone judge to modify or delay national policy for everyone.”

“These judges aren’t checking power – they’re seizing it, transforming their courts into super-legislatures consisting of only their voice. By dictating national policy, they usurp the elected branches and the consent of the governed. The sheer amount of these contestable injunctions leveled against Trump smack of judicial bias and an intentional abuse of power.”

Congress can stop this insanity! District courts are not in the Constitution, which means Congress could eliminate entire district courts or cut funding, if it desires. Or Congress can restrict the scope of what district court judges can rule on, i.e., injunctions would be only be applicable to local jurisdiction, rather than on a national scale. This would stop Democrats from judge shopping.

Our Constitutional Republic was founded with three co-equal branches of government: 

1.  Executive branch (President)
2. Legislative branch (Congress)
3. Judiciary branch (Supreme Court)

Currently, with activist judges curtailing President’s Trump’s executive orders, the United States only has TWO branches of government. House Speaker Mike Johnson has promised that Congress is going to act on this issue. (Please, not another hearing!!! America First Patriots are becoming suicidal with all these hearings and little results!) To share your thoughts with Speaker Johnson:

Email: Click here (for constituents only) Phone: 202-225-4000 (for everyone) Write: H-232, The Capitol, Washington, D.C. 20515 (for everyone) 

Update:  The Supreme Court affirms Justice Boasberg lacked jurisdiction over Trump’s deportation decision under the Alien Enemies Act, However, this has the possibility to be a Pyrrhic victory because, while it gets it out of Boasberg’s court, it still gives judges way too much power over foreign policy.....

 

Republicans Move Against Federal Judges Blocking Trump’s Agenda

Through legislative and other means, the president’s allies are preparing to deal with judicial overreach.

By Graham J Noble | Apr 2, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

Congressional Republicans, perhaps many of them concerned about their modest majorities in the House and Senate if they don’t deliver on the Trump agenda before the midterm elections, are ready to take on the judges. Restraining orders and other types of injunctions, tying the hands of President Donald Trump’s administration, have been coming in thick and fast from federal judges across the country. Frustrated GOPers are now exploring various options for putting a stop to what increasingly appears to be a politically motivated sabotage operation being conducted through select courts and with the aid of complicit judges.

Liberty Nation depends on the support of our readers. Donate now!

Since Trump began his second term, almost every action at the executive branch level has been met with an injunction of one form or another. At least a dozen such legal rulings have stymied the president’s plans. Several of the federal judges issuing these injunctions have been revealed to be Democratic Party donors, many with associations or family connections to various progressive special interests. The idea, then, that their decisions are based purely on law and have nothing to do with politics  – according to some GOP lawmakers – is hard to swallow.

Backlash to Federal Judges Growing

An effort to impeach US District Court Judge James Boasberg is reportedly gaining momentum on Capitol Hill, even as Republican leaders hesitate. Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal aliens. The likelihood of Boasberg or any of the other “activist” federal judges being convicted and removed from office in a Senate impeachment trial is more than unlikely. Such a course of action, then, might be seen as almost petty and would amount to little more than a slap on the wrist.

A couple of legislative moves aimed at curtailing the judges’ ability to, essentially, dictate executive branch policy are underway in both chambers of Congress. In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is pushing a bill titled the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025, which would allow injunctions to be immediately appealed.

Grassley expressed one of the main concerns with the deluge of legal obstacles. “For a number of years, but particularly in the last few months, we’ve increasingly seen sweeping orders from individual district judges that dictate national policy,” the senator asserted in a statement. He elaborated:

“Judges are not policymakers, and allowing them to assume this role is very dangerous. The Judicial Relief Clarification Act clarifies the scope of judicial power and resolves illegitimate judicial infringement upon the executive branch. It’s a commonsense bill that’s needed to provide long-term constitutional clarity and curb district courts’ growing tendency to overstep by issuing sweeping, nationwide orders.”

Indeed, as Just the News reported, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan – appointed by President Barack Obama – was herself concerned by this judicial (or perhaps extrajudicial) trend. Speaking at Northwestern University Law School in 2022, Kagan said, “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal process.”

Your News – How You Like It!

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) has a more ambitious idea. It is generally understood that federal judges are appointed to lifetime terms, but Biggs notes that the Constitution does not grant lifetime tenure. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” and so there appears to be no barrier in the founding document to ousting a judge for “failing to maintain the standard of good behavior required of judges.” That quote is from the resolution the congressman has filed to remove Boasberg from office.

The bigger picture is a disregard for the democratic process. It is, to say the least, ironic that the people who constantly claim Trump is a threat to democracy are now using politically friendly judges to override the will of the people. American voters knew very well what Trump had planned for the country. They elected him and, according to the polls, remain supportive of the very actions these federal judges are blocking. It’s almost as if Democrats and progressive activist groups pursuing legal action to obstruct the Trump agenda have decided that election outcomes can and should be negated if their preferred policies are not being enacted

---

Dig Deeper Into the Themes Discussed in this Article!
Liberty Vault: The Constitution of the United States

---

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Graham J Noble Chief Political Correspondent & Satirist

The Judiciary and America's Third Revolution: Part I

They use our own values against us to destroy us.

By Rich Kozlovich

Since I'm not a Babylon Bee reader, and totally unaware of what they're all about, I was really confused when I saw this headline, Federal Judge Orders Price Of Eggs To Go Back Up, and the story why this judge ordered the price of eggs to go up saying:

"It's the court's position that egg prices must return to their previous elevated levels," District Judge Sandra Milo ruled. "Lower egg prices cause people to think President Trump is doing a good job, and that is a threat to our democracy. Therefore, egg prices must immediately go back up to their absurdly high levels. That's what the law clearly states."  "I am a federal judge, and I have spoken," she added.

My first reaction was... really?  Can this possibly be true?  Well, of course it wasn't and now I know what Babylon Bee is all about.... satire! However, I think it wise to ask ourselves; was this satire entirely out of line with the thinking that's behind the rulings of so many of these rogue judges?  Answer?   No, it isn't.   

One has to recognize that satire offers powerful insights into truth, and the fact these judges are making decisions that are as insane as this Babylon Bee satire.  One judge demanded schools provide children with offensive books with graphic sexual content, books that were removed due to "concerns over "graphic violence, racism, and discrimination, depictions of self-harm or mental illness, and sexual content".   But this judge didn't like that, calling it a violation of free speech.  Is that twisting the intent of the Founding Fathers in the First Amendment the Constitution?  Yes!  Is it insane?  I'd say so, yes!  

Three judges on the West coast have ordered the Trump Administration "must" take in refugees, and pay for their housing.  Not only unconstitutional, but insane.  I'd say so. 

For years I've been convinced, and written, that I think the federal judiciary is filled with not very bright, totally corrupt political hacks.  Yet it's still shocking to see just how many rogue federal judges are out there, and seeing how they have managed to twist justice to suit their open advocacy for far left extremist outcomes, all in violation of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

"On one level, what all this amounts to is an attempted takeover of the Executive Branch by the Judicial Branch — a judicial coup d’état.  These judges are usurping President Trump’s valid exercise of his Executive Branch powers through sheer judicial fiat — a raw assertion of power by one branch of the federal government against another."

What we're seeing here is a variation of the corrupt lawfare practices that attempted to destroy Donald Trump and all those who supported him, including his attorneys, twisting the law and the rule of law, hoping to put Trump in prison, much as has been done in Turkey, and in Brazil.  

These activist judges are doing exactly the same thing by deliberately twisting the law to sabotage Trump’s whirlwind agenda in order to buy time for “The Resistance”.   As the article points out judges care little for the Constitution quoting House Speaker Mike Johnson who as a lawyer described what went on with these activist judges during his legal career days saying:

"[I] often went up against activist judges in federal courts......“I had a judge once who looked over his glasses at me and said, ‘I know that’s what the Constitution says, but we’re doing something different here.’”

Don't delude yourself into believing that's a anomaly versus normality in the federal judicial system.  The federal judiciary is filled with not that bright political hacks, and is in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

District court judges are repeatedly failing to abide by Rule 65(c) which requires parties seeking an injunction to post a bond before an injunction can be issued, according to American Path Initiative senior legal fellow Daniel Huff. Huff, who served as a lawyer in the Trump White House and for the House and Senate Judiciary committees, said that without the security of the bond, the judges are ripping off taxpayers whose money is then tied up in legal wrangling.................

Make no mistake, this is the Third American Revolution, with these rogue judges representing a very real threat to democracy.   Senator Chuck Grassley states these District judges decisions are unconstitutional, and he's putting them on notice saying:

“District judges’ abuse of nationwide injunctions has hobbled the executive branch and raised serious questions regarding the lower courts’ appropriate jurisdictional realm..... .. Since the courts and the executive branch are on an unsustainable collision course, Congress must step in and provide clarity..... [and] to “explore legislative solutions to bring the balance of power back in check.....”

1. Unconstitutional: War erupts over local judges nullifying Trump decisions
2. Bill Barr blasts judges for trying to 'usurp' presidential authority on most critical issue

Blatantly unconstitutional, says Senator Mike Lee and he's taking action to "restrain 'whims' of judges blocking Trump orders having filed a new bill Monday aiming to restrain the district court judges that have been issuing restraining orders blocking President Donald Trump's agenda. "America's government cannot function if the legitimate orders of our commander-in-chief can be overridden at the whim of a single district court judge."

The Judicial Insurrection Is Worse Than You Think - The point of all the injunctions and restraining orders is to preserve the supreme rule of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.  At this point it’s not too much to say that the federal judiciary has plunged us into a constitutional crisis. The fusillade of injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by district court judges in recent weeks against the Trump administration — on everything from foreign aid to immigration enforcement to Defense Department enlistment policy to climate change grants for Citibank — boggles the mind............

Daniel Greenfield, who I think is one of the finest thinkers in the nation, published this piece, Disobedience to Judges is Obedience to the Constitution saying how Judge Boasberg ordered that the planes carrying criminal illegal migrants, which were long gone and in international air space, were to be immediately returned.  But since the Trump administration didn't just drop everything and obey him immediately, he was outraged, and the left screamed how Trump was destroying the checks and balances in the system.    Apparently it's Boasberg's opinion Barack Obama appointed him to rule over the entire nation, and the planet.  Well, Daniel makes this valid observation, "Trump isn’t defying checks and balances, he’s restoring them."

This is Part I in a series I'm going to publish.  I'll have a lot more to say about Judge Boasberg in another article in this series.   

Judiciary Supremacy is a Myth

By Rich Kozlovich, Tags: There's No Such Thing as a Government Shutdown

 

Judicial activist's are at war with the Constitution's separation of powers, and it's time to bring this to an end.  Finally after all this insanity by rogue judges, Trump has told them to shove it.  We'll come back to that.

Federal judges have claimed that the White House can’t mange the bureaucracy, can't offer buyouts to federal employees, can’t fire political appointees from the previous administrations, can’t pause funding, can’t cut funds to government programs, can’t change formulas allocating government grants and also can’t remove transgender ideology from government websites or the military installed by its predecessors, and cannot under any circumstances end the vast corruption that defines the Administrative State.  

The only court the Constitution creates is the Supreme Court, the rest are all creations of Congress, and they can get rid of those if they choose.  When you read about how this came about it almost seems like it was an after thought to most of them. Clearly lacking insight and vision.

As a result the other huge mistake the Founder made was not defining the duties, responsibilities, and boundaries for the Supreme Court, and then by giving them lifetime appointments that allowed them to determine what they were, and if there were any on their own. I doubt most of the Founders ever dreamed it would all get so big, and so fast.

If you notice no one in the Trump administration seems to be panicking. No hysterics and emotionally ineffective hyperventilating, so, I’m of the opinion Trump and Co. knew this was going to happen, perhaps hoping it would happen, setting the judiciary up for a Constitutional confrontation. The federal judiciary has been a loose cannon since the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling,  and now it’s almost completely out of control, and to the point the general public is seeing them for who and what they are, and the public doesn’t like it, many fearing the courts threaten the existence of the Republic.

The Constitution says the Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, not the judiciary

This is the opportunity to push Congress to exercise their Constitutional authority to start restricting the federal judiciary’s activist judges, and more importantly pass a Constitutional Amendment that does two things. Ends lifetime appointments, and do what the founders failed to do…. define the role of the judiciary, and with consequences for failing to stay within the boundaries of those definitions.   And any Constitutional Amendment that fixes this should include a provision that all federal judges must be natural born citizens.

As I stated, the only court the Constitution creates is the Supreme Court, and when you read about how this came about it almost seems like it was an after thought to most of them. Clearly lacking insight and vision.

The idea behind lifetime appointments was to ensure their independence and not be impacted by politics.  That has been an abject failure almost from the beginning, and in the last 100 years it’s been a dismal failure, one that’s been tolerated by the Congress.

The courts gave themselves that power, not the Constitution. The Constitution says it’s the Congress that determines their jurisdiction, and the failure of the Congress to stop so much of what has gone on doesn’t make the federal judiciary’s actions successful, or right, it merely shows how gutless Congress is.

When the founders put this in the Constitution those who opposed it warned the very things we’re seeing right now was going to happen, and they were right, as people will always be people, and people need boundaries to hold them in check.

• I recommend reading Mark Levin’s book, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America

 The federal judiciary after the Supreme Courts Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803 has morphed into an almost entirely political institution that just occasionally rules harmoniously with the Constitution.  

The federal judiciary is filled with political hacks, and if you ever watched some of the judiciary hearings for those who are nominated, especially when Senator John Kennedy is questioning them, you can easily conclude most of them are not the brightest pebbles in the brook, and they're dishonest.  

There's a nautical phrase, "may you have follows seas", which means may the waves move in the same direction as the ship, and I'm of the opinion that's what will be happening in the federal judiciary.  Not for all, because some are blatantly corrupt and incompetent ideologues, and we can't replace them without their consent.  That needs to be changed.

Everyone on the left is relying on the courts to ignore the Constitution to stop Trump’s “restoration to normality”, and this is the hill conservatives need to die on by challenging the myth of judicial supremacy, and better yet....again pass a Constitutional Amendment to fix the founder’s greatest Constitutional error; lifetime appointments for the federal judiciary. 

The Constitution says the supreme commander of America's military is the President of the United States.  The judiciary thinks they are!

Follow the money: 10 Dem-appointed judges blocking Trump 'They are trying to make it hard for the administration to pursue its agenda' - Federal judges ruling against President Donald Trump's recent executive actions have been almost entirely appointees of his two Democrat predecessors. Some were previously activists, others were steeped in Democrat politics, and one is a former clerk for then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor. These judges have issued rulings to block Trump's policies on immigration, federal spending, the Department of Government Efficiency, and other matters....

 

After all the lawfare corruption and the outrageous behavior of the federal courts does any sane person in America have faith in the judiciary?  This is a war, and it's going to get messy.  

Trump is draining the swamp, and the courts are telling him they don't approve, and are making decisions to prevent that.  Blatant judicial overreach”, illegally seizing power to block Trump's Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.   All of which is no only illegal it's  unprecedented.   All this is nothing short of a national conspiracy by the left to thwart Trump's agenda by flooding the courts with lawsuits.  

 

Trump Executive Order: Those Who Challenge His Policies in Court Are FINANCIALLY LIABLE When They Lose.

 

One of the most egregious of these radical judges is U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, and she's decided the bureaucracy controls the Executive branch, not the President of the United States.

DOGE

If the President of the United States appoints someone to undertake some task, that's his right and responsibility under Article II of the Constitution, and this argument these DOGE employees don't have the proper security clearances is horsepucky. The intimate authority on security clearances is the President of the United states. If says their cleared, they're cleared, and he doesn't need confirmation or permission from the FBI or anyone else. Most assuredly he doesn't need permission from the federal judiciary. 

DOGE has exposed amazing levels of waste, and the corruption by the Administrative State is so bad,it makes the 19th century’s patronage system look good.  In spite of that the federal judiciary says none of that matters.

• Federal judge blocks OPM from sharing data with DOGE. -A federal judge in Maryland has blocked the Department of Education and Office of Personnel Management from sharing the personal information of plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Trump administration with Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency. ...
• Judge Rules Against DOGE Access to Personal Data -A federal judge temporarily barred the Department of Government Efficiency from gaining access to sensitive employee information held by the Office of Personnel Management and the Education Department, reports Reuters. OPM is essentially the HR department of the government, notes Politico, which calls the ruling by US District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland "the most wide-ranging block on DOGE's activities to date." Unless overturned, it could seriously crimp Musk's team. The judge is an appointee of former President Biden.......
• Judge Blocks Education Department, OPM From Sharing Data With DOGE  The judge, however, denied a request to prevent the U.S. Treasury Department from sharing information with DOGE employees. A federal judge on Feb. 24 blocked two agencies from sharing sensitive information with Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staff. “The U.S. Department of Education; Denise L. Carter, the Acting Secretary of Education; and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys are ENJOINED from disclosing the personally identifiable information of the plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff organizations to any DOGE affiliates,” U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman wrote in a 33-page order............
• US judge blocks Musk’s cost-cutting team from Treasury data - A US judge issued an emergency order early Saturday blocking Elon Musk’s government reform team from accessing personal and financial data for millions of Americans stored at the Treasury Department, court documents showed.

How dare the President appoint people to carry out his orders demanding information and accountability?  The message from the judiciary?  Let the corruption continue. 

HIRING AND FIRING

I've tried to save articles dealing with all the issues the defines the problems between the Judicial and the Executive  branches of government.  One of the arguments from the courts is these people he's firing had terms of office, and they're right.  But they didn't have immunity to firing.  If the President of the United States feels they need fired, they're fired, irrespective if their term in office hasn't finished yet.  

The President of the United States is the Executive, and those decisions are his alone.  The courts have no jurisdiction, and even if Congress were to pass a law that tried to make those appointments permanent and a President signed off on that, none of that changes the Constitution which declares that the "executive power is vested in the President."  

Any law passed by Congress does not obviate what's laid out in the Constitution, and they've been trying to do that for decades, the right to bear arms is just one of many examples.  

Judge Blocks Trump’s Firing of Head of Office of Special Counsel - A federal judge has ruled against President Donald Trump’s firing of Hampton Dellinger, head of a federal watchdog agency, in the first ruling on a case that will test the scope of presidential power, after the Trump administration’s petition to the Supreme Court to fast-track the case was knocked back.

Until now I’ve felt impeachment of federal judges was just a waste of time, even Jefferson noted to get the required two thirds vote in the Senate was going to make it almost impossible, and that was when the Congress was far more harmonious, and much, much smaller.  I now think that’s a worthwhile endeavor, not because I think the Senate will concur, but because it will force transparency on how these misfits are abusing their positions, and the Constitution.  Hopefully that will create impetus for a Constitutional Amendment that ends lifetime appointments to the judiciary.

• Yet Another Biden-Appointed Judge Sabotages Trump - A radical Biden-appointed federal judge on Wednesday ruled President Trump does not have the authority to fire a member of the Federal Labor Relations Board..
• Obama-Appointed Judge Reinstates Biden Appointee After Trump Fired Her -A federal judge has just permanently reinstated a Joe Biden appointee to her job in the federal government after President Trump fired her from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB is “the primary agency used by civil servants to file complaints within the federal government,” and Cathy Harris is the chair of that board. She was confirmed by the Senate in 2022 and she has a 7-year term...... Also Here....
• Corrupt Obama-Appointed Judge Extends Order Reinstating Hampton Dellinger, a Fired Traitor Joe Holdover - Update: President Trump urged the US Supreme Court to intervene. “In short, a fired Special Counsel is wielding executive power, over the elected Executive’s objection, to halt employment decisions made by other executive agencies. The MSPB, the entity that respondent argues is responsible for supervising him, is deferring to his stay requests so long as the requests are rational. The MSPB, moreover, is being led by a Chairman who has herself been fired by the President, only to be reinstated by a district court,” Trump’s Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris said in a petition to the Supreme Court
• Federal Judge Rules Against Trump's Firing of Head of Special Counsel - A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump's decision to fire the head of the special counsel investigation was unlawful. The judge's decision comes after legal challenges surrounding the dismissal, marking a significant development in ongoing legal proceedings. 
• Trump DOJ Hits Back After Corrupt Obama Judge Rehires Biden-Appointed Labor Board Leader Gwynne Wilcox - The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Wilcox to file a response by Tuesday and the Trump DOJ must reply by Thursday. The Trump Justice Department on Monday filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal after a corrupt Obama judge reinstated a Biden-appointed labor board leader.
• U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson Rules the Bureaucracy Controls the Executive Branch, Not the President - Not unexpectedly, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that unelected bureaucrat, Hampton Dellinger, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel head has more unilateral power within the executive branch of government than President Donald Trump. [RULING pdf HERE].......
• Mr. Chief Justice, please spank Judge Amy - Too many liberal judges seeking some attention or trying to confront the Trump White House...Here we go again. Another liberal activist judge needs a "legal" spanking. Yes, I wrote "legal" so that I don't get a visit from whoever protects the judges.........another federal judge has misread the U.S. Constitution. They think that Article 2 only exists when a Democrat is in The White House. Let's check the story: Not unexpectedly, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that unelected bureaucrat, Hampton Dellinger, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel head has more unilateral power within the executive branch of government than President Donald Trump.

IMMIGRATION 

In spite of the nation's laws governing immigration, which falls in the domain of the legislature and the executive, the courts have decided the Constitution is all wrong, they know better, and it's time for the nation to finally understand it's up to them to make the nation's laws, because they don't like the laws that Congress passed. 

•  Judge Block Trump's Suspension of Refugee System - A federal judge in Seattle blocked President Trump's suspension of the nation's refugee admissions system on Tuesday, saying that while the president has broad authority over who comes into the country, he cannot nullify the law passed by Congress establishing the program. ..........
• Obama Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Conducting ICE Raids at Some Churches - A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump Administration from conducting ICE raids at some places of worship. US District Judge Theodore Chuang, an Obama appointee, blocked ICE raids on the churches, which filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration....
• Another Leftists Judge May Face Consequences for Trying to Sabotage Trump’s Agenda - Calls are growing for a judicial opponent of President Donald Trump to face consequences after blocking significant parts of his agenda this month.A Rhode Island judge overseeing one of the latest legal challenges against Trump was condemned on Tuesday by GOP Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), who said the ruling by District Judge John McConnell is “hurting the American people” more than the president.............

SPENDING

Article I of the Constitution states:  

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” The Constitution first vests all federal legislative powers in a representative bicameral Congress.  

Nowhere does it give the Judiciary legislative power.  The budget process belongs to the Congress, with confirmation by the President.  Nowhere in the Constitution does the Judiciary have a say in that matter, although they've usurped that on a regular basis.

• Follow the money: 10 Dem-appointed judges blocking Trump 'They are trying to make it hard for the administration to pursue its agenda' - Federal judges ruling against President Donald Trump's recent executive actions have been almost entirely appointees of his two Democrat predecessors. Some were previously activists, others were steeped in Democrat politics, and one is a former clerk for then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor. These judges have issued rulings to block Trump's policies on immigration, federal spending, the Department of Government Efficiency, and other matters....
• Meet Amir Ali: The Far-Left, Anti-Cop, BLM Supporting Biden Judge Forcing Trump to Fund USAID Grants - The foreign-born judge behind a ruling forcing President Donald J. Trump to authorize around $2 billion in payments from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is a Canadian-American jurist. United States District Court Judge Amir Ali, who serves on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, was one of the last appointees named by former President Joe Biden, becoming the first Arab American Muslim on the federal bench........
•  Biden-Appointed Judge Dresses Down DOJ Lawyers Over USAID Disbursement, Orders Trump Admin to Pay Foreign Aid Contracts - A Biden-appointed judge on Tuesday blasted DOJ lawyers over USAID disbursement and ordered the Trump Administration to pay the foreign contracts by 11:59 pm on Wednesday evening. Earlier this month, US District Judge for the District Court of Columbia, Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, temporarily blocked President Trump from cancelling foreign aid contracts.........
• Racist Judge Jack McConnell, Who Halted President Trump’s Temporary Spending Freeze, Received Over $100 Million in Government Funding for His NGO -  Well, this is interesting. What a surprise. Dirty Judge Jack McConnell, who believes he was recently elected US president, halted President Trump’s current spending freeze. But Judge McConnell is not some innocent bystander. Judge McConnell’s organization has received $117.6 million in government funding in total (ending in 2023). Maybe that’s why he wanted the money to keep flowing. He’s expecting several more million this year!..........

Even the Supreme Court has fallen victim to the insanity on spending,  Supreme Court Says Trump Admin. Must Pay $2 Billion in USAID Funds, here, here, here, here, and it didn't set well with four of the justices.  You may find this article interesting, How powerful is the Supreme Court?

Well, none of this is sitting well with a lot of people.   Articles of Impeachment are being filed, but that's a hard row to hoe but I think it's worth the time in order to publicly expose what they're doing is illegal.  This idea has been floated but it would still be an exposure solution, not a final solution.  It might be worthwhile for the Congress to hold hearings calling all these misfits before them and making them explain their decisions.  This article asks an amazingly pertinent question. If the Supreme Court Is Going to Ignore the Constitution, Trump Should Ignore the Supreme Court.

Finally, and as we've watched this playing out you knew it had to come,  President Trump Signs an Order That He Will Ignore All Lower Court Rulings Until SCOTUS Rules on the Constitutionality of Activist Judges.  Now the ball is in SCOTUS' court.  

Update:    

• Trump throws down the gauntlet to the out-of-control federal district court judges *UPDATED* -During his first administration, federal district court judges—that is, people whom the American people did not elect—used preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, to grind the Trump administration’s domestic policies to a halt. They’re doing the same thing in his second administration, but Trump has a new plan, and it’s a darn good one. He’s relying on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to insist that courts must comply with the requirement that a court may issue a preliminary or temporary injunction only if the plaintiff provides security first........... With the judges’ help, the activists have been ” functionally inserting themselves into the executive policy making process and therefore undermining the democratic process.”

P&D and The Week That Was

 Truth is the Sublime Convergence of History and Reality

---

De Omnibus Dubitandum, (Everything is to be questioned!)

---

This Link will take you to My Commentaries. 

 

By Rich Kozlovich

 

 

 

Another shake it out week.  We have the at one point Trump managing to get both Putin and Zelenskyy preparing for a truce, and then out of nowhere Putin dumps any concept of a ceasefire and launches a massive bombing raid.  Dealing with these lunatics must really be tiresome, but there's more in the background.  

 

No matter what you're reading, Putin's in trouble, and now he's having difficulties with his oligarchs, and for those who aren't aware of it, Russia is in reality an oligarchy, in many ways like Czarist Russia and their nobility.  It's these oligarchs who keep the country running, and they want the war over.  His economy is heading South, Trump is going to add more economic restrictions on Russia if he continues to squash a peace deal.  While it's true that Ukraine lost, it's also true Russia didn't win.  The number 2 military in the world hasn't been able to defeat the number 22 military in the world in three years.   And I have no idea why Trump is backing off on dealing with Russian cyber attacks, I think that's nuts. 

Trump has told NATO to pay up, or else, and guess what? The EU is putting a 800 billion euro defense plan in place.  Germany wants to overhaul their defense spending policies, the European Commission wants to borrow 150 billion Euros for "missile defense, artillery, drones, cybersecurity and more"...... all of which sounds great....but there's more.   They have no idea where that money is coming from, Slovakia is threatening to block financial aid to Ukraine, and Hungary is objecting to the verbiage in the agreement, and any new military aid.

So, if anyone had questions as to why Trump refuses to involved the EU states, and Zelenskyy and his "government" in the negotiations, this should help to dispel that confusion.  And a celebrated Ukrainian journalist wants Trump assassinated.   Personally, I say let them fight it out, and let Europe enter in or not.  Europe no longer matters.

There's no fixing stupid, and we need to leave NATO since it was created to prevent the Soviet Union from conquering Europe.  The Soviet Union no longer exists, and now we know the Russian military bear is just a Teddy Bear, and Europe has nothing to fear. Let's take our marbles and go home, and I think that's in the works as Trump is bringing 35,000 American troops home from Germany, and tell Europe to shove it.  They no longer matter, Europe is heading from a second rate continent to a third rate continent.  The cold war is over, and they're no longer the center of geopolitical concern.  It's shifting to the Middle East, and Trump has made it clear, ‘Not a Single Hamas Member Will Be Safe if You Don’t Do as I Say’.

The Democrats are nuts, as Trump address to Congress demonstrated, and now there are questions being asked whether or not Biden actually was signing documents, or even knew about them.  And given the strange people he pardoned and nominated for critical roles in the judiciary, I don't believe he had any idea about a lot that was going on.  Even Speaker Johnson acknowledged Biden wasn't aware of an executive order he allegedly signed.  And now there are those who are asking could laws “signed” by Dementia Joe be voided?  Personally, I think that's a stretch to believe that can happen. 

It's my contention the Federal government is filled with people who have a treasonous mindset. The FBI has arrested two individuals for selling classified material to China, and those who've been leaking information about immigration raids, has been identified, and if convicted face up to ten years in prison.   And they're not just in the federal government. 

Not all illegal aliens need to be arrested and deported.  Some are self deporting, like the one who was an aide for Alexandria Ocrazio-Cortex. And while I don't know for sure, it seems to me there's every indication she was aware of it, and if that's true, then she's committed a crime. 

Democrat run cities are a disaster, and the sanctuary cities are even worse.  Congress has made it clear that's unacceptable, as Democratic mayors were rebuked in Congress over immigration stance, and now twenty states are suing the federal government for firing so many people. Why?  It will adversely impact their economy.  What about what's good for the nation?

The price of eggs is high because we're insanely following Biden's policy to slaughter 150 million chickens”,.....“They spent billions of dollars randomly killing chickens within a perimeter where they found a sick chicken.”

Trump purged the leftist management at the Kennedy Center and a lot of celebrities pumped their chests and proclaimed with great moral indignation they refused to appear there any longer.  Well, who cares?  Now Trump has appointed Laura Ingraham, Maria Bartiromo to the Kennedy Center board, and I've no doubt the new board will find great entertainment, and an audience that enjoys it.  These celebrities still don't get it.  They don't count. 

And finally, Transgender Americans are leaving the country.  Wow!  I guess that means we're doomed.  Right?  Except perhaps this woman may not think so.  I think that's a story that needs watching.  Transgender people are permanent patients, and to maintain the gender image they desire requires expensive chemistry, and medical care.  So it will be interesting to see just how well they fare elsewhere, especially in nations that are being consumed by Muslim immigrants, have socialized medicine, or are having serious economic issues. 

 

I'm planning on addressing an issue that's not being focused on nearly as much as it should be.  Judicial overreach.  

So many decisions by SCOTUS over the last century undermined the Constitutional structure but it was understood there needed to be a general attitude of acceptance in order to have a stable government.   That’s now out of control, as the courts are now more arrogantly than ever usurping the power of the Legislative, and the Executive branches.

The fact is, the federal judiciary has no Constitutional enforcement power, that belongs “exclusively” to the Executive branch. The courts cannot force the President or the Congress to do anything. The Executive has the power force the Legislative to follow the law, but not the courts.  If the Executive, the President of the United States, tells the judiciary to shove it, they can't do a thing about it.  Only the Congress can, and that's via impeachment.  But if Trump did that and was impeached, he'd win, and any Republican who voted for his impeachment will not be able to hold their seat in either House. Even the RINO’s can see the storm on the horizon over the weaponization and politicization of the legal system, and it’s going to be a hurricane. 

A Constitutional confrontation with the judiciary is long overdue. The Congress and the President need to undo the failure of the founding fathers, lifetime appointments, and failing to define exactly what the responsibilities and limits of the federal judiciary are. The Constitution gives the Congress the right to determine their jurisdiction. Judicial supremacy is a myth created by the judiciary, and it’s time to end that permanently with a Constitutional Amendment.

In this week's edition I have nine commentaries of my own, and I think they're pretty good, and sixteen from others.   Some of the authors I regularly publish have views I really don't agree with, whether it's economics or social commentary, so I don't publish those pieces, and for some reason there was a lot of that this week.

Have a great weekend, and best wishes, 

Rich

My Commentaries

1. Cartoon Roundup
2. P&D Geopolitics Edition: Russo/Ukranian War, and Donald Trump
3. Some Things Can't Be Walked Back
4. Media Collapse is Inevitable, and it's a Good Morning in America! Part VIII
5. Media Collapse is Inevitable, and it's a Good Morning in America! Part IX
6. Democrats: Is That All You Got?
7. The Democrat's Palatine Hill, and The Seven Hills of Rome
8. The Wake up Call for Zelenskyy and Company
9. The Rape of Civilization

Commentaries

1. Four Democratic Mayors Under Fire for Sanctuary City Status By Kay Ballard
2. From the Back Forty: Heartlanders Cheer for the Trump-Vance Varsity Sarah Cowill
3. Stacey Abrams: Still Crooked After All These Years By Susan Daniels
4. Media Balance Newsletter (March 3, 2025) By John Droz, Jr.
5. How the Media Killed Itself  By Daniel Greenfield
6. There Won’t Be Peace in Ukraine  By Daniel Greenfield
7. Trading Soybeans for Computers By Daniel Greenfield
8. Hollywood Hates Jews  By Daniel Greenfield
9. Events From the Nation, and Around the World By Robin Itzler
10. Points to Ponder By Robin Itzler
11. One Racist Replaced by Three Racists By Robin Itzler
12. Elect Mike Morrell CAGOP ChairmanBy Robin Itzler
13. The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XXXIII By Francis Menton
14. Bureaucrats Against Bambi, Part V By Dan Mitchell
15. Taxation Changes Behavior…and History By Dan Mitchell
16. Yes, Social Security Is a Ponzi Scheme By Dan Mitchell

Permanent Links

1. 45 Communist Goals to Destroy America as Listed in the 1963 Congressional Record
2. My Seven Rules of Geopolitics
3. The John Boyd Legion of Honor

 No matter what anyone says, you can’t marginalize the truth!  You can suppress it, you can ignore it, you can avoid it, you can attempt to undermine it, you can attempt to subvert it, you can attempt to organize against it, you can even laugh at it, but if we have the courage and the fortitude to stand and confront the lies, irrespective of the personal costs, the truth will stand the test of time, because truth and time are on the same side.

Constant as the North Star