02/13/17

It’s Time to Impeach the Judges

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media

She endorsed him, and he paid respects at her funeral, but it appears that President Donald Trump hasn’t read Phyllis Schlafly’s book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It. Rather than simply Tweet his disgust with rulings against his immigration executive order, Trump and his advisers should read the book, especially Schlafly’s Chapter 15. It offers a series of measures, including impeachment, to stop tyrannical judges.

Originally published in 2004, the book is available as a free download at Schlafly’s Eagle Forum website.

It’s a mess, a complete mess, is what Trump might say of the rulings against his executive order. But as President, he can do something about it. Yet, he has simply issued a series of Tweets, one of the latest being that “dangerous” foreigners are being allowed into the U.S. because of the judicial rulings. But since when do judges decide the foreign or immigration policies of the United States? Where is that written in law or the Constitution?

Two conservative scholars, Dr. John C. Eastman and Hans von Spakovsky, have clearly explained how the judicial rulings against the order are not based on law or the Constitution. What is lacking is an effort by the administration and Congress to remove or restrict the power of tyrannical judges who present their own liberal personal opinions as expressions of the facts and the law.

In matters like this, the media are careful to outline the bounds of acceptable legal opinion. Hence, it is assumed in much of the coverage and commentary that Trump has no option other than to abide by the judicial rulings. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Schlafly’s book explains.

In his column, Eastman writes, “…the notion that a single federal trial court judge can take it upon himself to determine national security and immigration policy, in the face of explicit determinations made by the president with the full support of law actually adopted by Congress, is so far beyond the judicial role as to pose a serious threat, not just to our national security, but to the rule of law.”

Columnist J.B. Williams argues that Trump’s new head of the Department of Homeland Security, General John F. Kelly, appeared to be taking orders from unelected judges instead of the Commander-in-Chief when he issued a statement promising “compliance” with the court order. This constituted a “mutiny” against the President, Williams argued. Kelly knows “that the order issued by Trump was both legal and necessary to the security of the United States and that the Commander-in-Chief had the full authority to issue that directive,” he wrote.

Trump and his advisers should read Schlafly’s book to understand the damage that has already been done by these tyrannical judges.

A lawyer who wrote more than a dozen books, Schlafly listed many examples of how judges have rewritten the Constitution, noting how they have:

  • censored the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;
  • removed the Ten Commandments from public schools, buildings, and parks;
  • changed the definition of marriage;
  • banned the acknowledgment of God in public schools, at graduations, and at football games;
  • imposed taxes and spending of taxpayers’ money;
  • rewritten laws of criminal procedures;
  • dismantled laws that protect internal security; and
  • upheld racial preferences and quotas in hiring and college admissions

Schlafly wrote, “The cancer of judicial supremacy will not go away until the American people rise up and repudiate it. It’s time for the American people to notify their elected representatives, federal and state, that it is their mission to restore the Constitution with its proper balance among the three branches of the federal government. We must save self government from the rule of judges. The whole future of America depends on it.”

The future is now. The American people don’t have to wait for Judge Neil Gorsuch or others to be confirmed to the high court for this problem to be rectified. The President and the Congress can, and should, take action right now.

Schlafly’s steps to terminate the rule of judges and restore constitutional self-government include:

  • Reforming Senate rules so liberals are not able to defeat constitutionalist nominees by preventing the Senate from voting them up or down;
  • Curbing the power of the judicial supremacists by legislating exceptions to court jurisdiction;
  • Prohibiting the spending of federal money to enforce obnoxious decisions handed down by judicial supremacists;
  • Congress should impeach federal judges who make outrageous rulings that have no basis in the Constitution; and
  • Congress should prohibit federal courts from relying on foreign laws, administrative rules, or court decisions.

Columnist J.B. Williams wonders if Trump is really up to this task. He asks if the President has the backbone to fight and defeat these anti-American activists in the courts in order to “drain this swamp?” He then asks, “Do his appointees, like General Kelly and Jeff Sessions, really have what it takes to put these illegal activists in their place and return this country to the rule of constitutional law?”

In his statement on her passing, Trump called Phyllis Schlafly “a conservative icon who led millions to action, reshaped the conservative movement, and fearlessly battled globalism and the ‘kingmakers’ on behalf of America’s workers and families.”

One of her best and most relevant books was The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It. Trump’s advisers should purchase or download copies of the book and provide them to members of the Cabinet and members of Congress. The book outlines how the president can go beyond Tweets in curbing the power of tyrannical judges.

If Trump and his Cabinet are serious about draining the swamp, writes J.B. Williams, the left must be stopped from using activist judges to thwart Trump’s attempts to secure the USA and enforce our laws. “Or else,” he writes, “the notion of draining this swamp is a joke!”

Trump is now in a position to confront the “kingmakers” in the courts. But he must do more than Tweet his disapproval of them. In his words, they are so-called judges. But recognizing their authority by filing another set of appeals is not the answer. He must seek their removal from the bench.


Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.

12/16/16

Balanced Budget Amendment: The Solution? Or Deathblow?

By: Publius Huldah

The BBA Made Simple

Say you want your Butler to buy some groceries; so you give him your credit card.  You can:

  1. Give him an ENUMERATED LIST of what you want him to buy: 1 chicken, 5# of apples, two heads of cabbage, a 2# sack of brown rice, and a dozen eggs.  Whatever amount he spends for these enumerated items will be charged to you.
  1. Tell him he may spend on whatever he wants, and ask him to please don’t spend more than 18% of your weekly income. But whatever amount he decides to spend (on pork and other things) will be charged to you.

The first illustrates how our Constitution is written:  The items on which Congress is authorized to spend money are listed – enumerated – in the Constitution.  To see the list, go HERE.

The second illustrates how a balanced budget amendment (BBA) works:  It creates a completely new constitutional authority to spend on whatever the federal government wants to spend money on.  And there is no enforceable limit on the amount of spending.

Our Constitution Limits Spending to the Enumerated Powers

Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want.  If Congress obeyed our Constitution, they would limit spending to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money, excessive federal spending is not the result of a defective Constitution, but of disregarding the existing constitutional limitations on federal spending.

Because everyone has ignored these existing limitations for so long, we now have a national debt of some $20 trillion plus a hundred or so trillion in unfunded liabilities. 1

Various factions are now telling conservatives that the only way to stop out of control federal spending is with a BBA.

Obviously, that is not true.  The constitutional answer is to downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.  Eliminate federal departments (Education, Energy, Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, etc., etc., etc.), for which there is no constitutional authority.  2

Since our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government, most of what they’ve spent money on since the early 1900s is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

Yet our Constitution is still legally in place; and can be dusted off, read, and enforced by a Repentant People.  They can shrink the federal government to the size established by the Constitution which created it. 3

Using the Federal “Budget” to Snap the Trap on an Unsuspecting People

Our Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.

Spending is to be limited by the enumerated powers.  Pursuant to Art. I, §9, clause 7, the Treasury is to publish periodic Statements and Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditures.  Since the list of objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money is so short, it would be a simple matter to monitor federal spending and receipts.

But since the unconstitutional Budget & Accounting Act of 1921, Presidents and Congress have been putting into the “budget” whatever they want to spend money on.

Do you see that if the federal government is given constitutional authority (via a BBA) to spend money on whatever they want, they are ipso facto granted constitutional authority to exert power over whatever they want?

Oh, Americans!  False friends lead you astray and confuse the path you should take.  Under the pretext of imposing “fiscal responsibility” with a BBA, they would legalize the totalitarian dictatorship which has been developing in this Country for 100 years.

Creating the all-powerful federal government by Amendment

A BBA changes the standard for spending from whether the object is an enumerated power to whatever the federal government wants to spend money on. 4

So a BBA would transform the federal government created by our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to one of general and unlimited powers because it would authorize Congress to appropriate funds for – and hence have power over – whatever they or the President decide to put in the budget!

A BBA Doesn’t Reduce Federal Spending

A BBA wouldn’t reduce federal spending because:

  • All versions permit spending limits to be waived when Congress votes to waive them; and
  • Congress can always “balance the budget” with tax increases. Compact for America’s “balanced budget amendment” delegates massive new taxing authority to Congress:  it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) in addition to keeping the income tax.

Typical Misconceptions

Americans think, “I have to balance my budget; so the federal government should have to balance theirs.”

They overlook the profound distinctions between the economies of their own family unit and that of the national government of a Federation of States.  Our federal Constitution sets up a system where Congress is to appropriate funds only to carry out the enumerated powers; and the bills are to be paid with receipts from excise taxes and import tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by a direct assessment on the States apportioned according to population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).

Americans also think that since States have balanced budget amendments, the federal government should have one.  They overlook the profound distinction between the federal Constitution and State Constitutions:  5

  • The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of enumerated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.
  • But State Constitutions created State governments of general and almost unlimited powers. Accordingly, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything.  So State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.

Conclusion

A BBA would have the opposite effect of what you have been told.  Instead of limiting the federal government, it legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers; transforms the federal government into one which has power over whatever they decide to spend money on; and does nothing to reduce federal spending.

Twenty-eight States have already passed applications for a BBA.  Go HERE to check the status of your State.  Warn your friends and State Legislators.  For a model your State can use to rescind its previous applications, go HERE and look under “Take Action” column, or contact me.  Do not let the malignant elite complete their revolution by replacing our Constitution.

Endnotes:

1 State governments are voracious consumers of federal funds.  THIS shows what percentage of your State’s revenue is from federal funds.  Contrary to what RINO State Legislators say, they don’t want federal spending reduced: They want to keep those federal dollars flooding in.

2 George Washington’s Cabinet had 4 members:  Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General.

3 Our federal Constitution is short and easy to understand.  The only way you can avoid being misled is to find out for yourself what it says.  Be a Berean (Acts 17:10-12).

4 Amendments change all language to the contrary in the existing Constitution.  Eg., the 13th Amendment changed Art. I, §2, clause 3 & Art. IV, §2, clause 3 because they were inconsistent with the 13th Amendment.

5 In Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from end), James Madison said:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

09/3/15

One Messy Affair

Arlene from Israel

I am referring, of course, to the whole business of the votes in Congress on the Iran deal.

Netanyahu has come out with a statement, echoing what I and others said yesterday, that things can still change, and we must keep fighting.

Those who oppose the deal have already achieved a major goal in publicizing its various faults and weaknesses – its dangers.  At this point, the majority of the American people understands those dangers and is opposed to the deal.

~~~~~~~~~~

As there seems some confusion, I want to clarify once again: there are two votes anticipated. The first on whether to accept the deal.  In that case, a simple majority of members of Congress suffices., as it will be couched in the negative: we do not accept.  And if that vote is taken, those opposed to the deal should hold sway – it should be rejected.

It is with regard to this vote that I wrote yesterday about the “moral majority” – the more reject the deal, the greater the moral and political impact.  Whatever happens subsequently, a majority of Congress will be on record as having declared against the deal.

Remember this, and use it: If Obama wins, it will not be because a majority of the Congress was with him.  It will be because of the games that have been played,  games that make it possible for Obama to win with a minority of the Congress voting with him.

For a better understanding of this, see Andrew McCarthy on the Corker Bill, which set the current process in place:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421349/congress-must-ditch-corker-bill-and-treat-iran-deal-either-treaty-or-proposed

~~~~~~~~~~

There is talk that the acceptance of the deal might never come to a vote – because a filibuster might be instituted: The rules of the Senate permit members to speak for indefinite lengths of time, thus preventing a vote from being called.  I say there is “talk” about this, but it is not at all clear that it will happen.  Senate rules require at least 2/3 of its members – or 60 Senators – to vote for cloture, to close debate.  Reversing the numbers, that means Obama would need 41 Senators to vote against cloture, so the filibuster could continue.  He does not have nearly that number now.

~~~~~~~~~~

If the deal is rejected by a vote of Congress, the president will veto it.  And this is where Mikulski’s declaration in support comes in: it means that – right now – the opposition does not have the necessary number to override the veto.

We will continue to work, in hopes of a change in this situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

It was my dear friend Sharmaine who advanced the most important suggestion in this regard, one I am remiss for not having mentioned sooner:

“…the timing for the vote is perfect after Rosh Hashana…We need to pray ….. For heavenly intervention on the vote!”

Amen on this.  Please!

~~~~~~~~~~

There have been a good many other suggestions as well that have been sent to me, broadly in line with the McCarthy piece from July, cited above. There are multiple suggestions that this deal is really a treaty, and illegal or unconstitutional as currently structured.  There is the suggestion (advanced in American Thinker by Skloroff and Bender) that the Senate must sue the executive, “triggering a confrontation between the judicial [Supreme Court] and the executive branches.”

I do not intend to consider these various thoughts – which have merit – in any detail, however.  This is because it is my perception that there are a good many wimps among the Republicans in the Senate. They failed the nation in the first place, when they agreed to the current configuration for voting, which puts the onus on those who are opposed to the deal, rather than the other way around.  And I simply do not believe that they are about to take on Obama in any seriously confrontational fashion.

In the exceedingly unlikely event that they would do so, it has to be because some Republicans of courage in the Senate have considered various legal ramifications and have decided to move forward.  It must come from within the Republican ranks of the Senate.  It SHOULD come from their ranks, but…

What I do see as a possibility is that a scheme may be devised by the Republicans that is less confrontational. but has the effect of at least partially blocking what Obama intends to advance.  For example, there may be a push for reinstatement of sanctions.

~~~~~~~~~~

I speak of Republican wimps, and I would like to use this opportunity to enlarge on this comment.  Many of us celebrated when Republicans gained control of the Congress. Today, many of us mourn the way in which that Republican majority has failed the nation.  I am not saying that there are no Republicans in Congress who have courage and integrity; I am saying the Republican majority bloc has not moved with determination and strength – in pursuit of a clear-eyed vision for the nation.

Just as there was unconscionable game-playing with regard to how the vote on the Iran deal would be structured, so have there been multiple other instances in which Obama has secured the upper hand when he should not have been permitted to.  Now I hear that the deal should have been a treaty, and that what Obama has done is not legal. But the Republicans agreed to it!  Just as they acquiesced in a dozen other instances in which the president has played fast and loose with the rules.

Is it that the president has the nation in his thrall?  Or that he plays such hardball that there is hesitation to move against him?  One matter is very clear: he plays the race card, which makes opponents uneasy about taking him on, lest they be charged with racism.

~~~~~~~~~~

What we see again and again is that the president has no compunction about dancing around the truth, and evading direct promises that have been made.  All politicians do this to some extent, but he is an all time master.  We’ve seen this with “absolute” assurances he offered on the Iran deal, which have turned out to be no assurances at all.  Yet somehow, he has managed to get away with it, when Congress should have called a halt.

Add to this the telling of bold-faced lies.  I mention this here because only days ago, he did a webcast for the American Jewish community.  “We’re all pro-Israel,” he declared.  “We’re all family.”

Can anyone really believe this, after seeing that he agreed to a situation for Iran that will increase terrorism against Israel by Iran’s proxies?

“Nothing in this agreement prevents us from continuing to push back forcefully against terrorist activity,” he offered reassuringly.

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/LIVE-STREAMING-Obama-gives-special-Iran-deal-address-to-North-American-Jews-413590

Right… give Iran access to increased numbers of conventional weapons and huge sums of money, all of which will serve to bolster Iran’s terror proxies such as Hezbollah, and then provide assurance that there will be action against terrorism.

I am not sure how he says all of this with a straight face.  But he does, and manages without eliciting wholesale outrage.  I have not read of anyone who asked him, “What do you take me for, a fool?”

This tells me that America is in a very bad place.

09/2/15

Media Nervous Over Hillary Sting Videos

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

You know an event is potentially damaging to Hillary Clinton or other top Democrats when Dana Milbank of The Washington Post shows up. Hence, Milbank’s attendance at Tuesday’s James O’Keefe news conference on Clinton campaign violations of federal election law was an indication that the Democrats are concerned. This time, despite video evidence of top staffers for Hillary accepting cash from a known foreign national, most of the media reaction was vintage Milbank. “Is this a joke?” the media wanted to know.

DSC06808

In fairness, Milbank’s questions seemed mild, when compared to some of the other media reactions.

The joke question came from Olivia Nuzzi of The Daily Beast, with other liberals joining in and wondering what the press conference was all about. The law says that foreigners are strictly prohibited from contributing to U.S. political campaigns, and O’Keefe had dramatic evidence of the campaign law violation. Thevideo was played on a television screen for all to see.

Looking for some reason not to pay attention to the facts, some in the media seized upon the small amount of money that was used to pay for the Hillary campaign merchandise in question.

This was not the only media reaction, but it seemed to be one of the most popular. “James O’Keefe Targets Clinton Campaign For Legally Selling A T-Shirt,” was the dishonest headline over an article attacking O’Keefe published by Media Matters, the pro-Hillary and George Soros-funded group. This article set the tone for the pro-Hillary contingent in the press.

However, the great number of journalists who showed up was an indication that, when it comes to Hillary, nobody really knows how serious the law-breaking will get. O’Keefe suggested that more evidence against the campaign is yet to come.

Milbank may be in a quandary about what to do with Hillary, who is dropping in the polls against the socialist career politician Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and leaving the Democratic presidential field open to other candidates, most notably Vice President Joe Biden, a notorious plagiarist. (In Biden’s case, Media Matters had also defended him, insisting the plagiarism wasn’t as serious as some knew to be the case).

Milbank’s modus operandi in the past has been to ridicule conservatives who provide evidence of corruption by top Democrats such as Hillary and Barack Obama. For example, he attacked those who investigated Obama’s relationship with communist Frank Marshall Davis. He showed up at an AIM conference to write an article distorting the findings of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, which investigated Hillary’s role in covering up the terrorist attack that killed four Americans.

Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist has written that Milbank “serially exaggerates or distorts what he writes about. It’s just what he does.”

But those distortions won’t suffice when the video evidence itself can be seen by millions, telling the real story that some in the media try to conceal. As Project Veritas emphasized, the video shows Molly Barker, the Director of Marketing for Hillary Clinton’s national campaign, knowingly breaking campaign finance law by accepting a straw donation from a foreign national.

O’Keefe, who almost single-handedly took down the Alinskyite ACORN organization, has also investigated Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio. He wrote the book, Breakthrough: Our Guerilla War to Expose Fraud and Save Democracy, and has targeted Republican politicians in the past as well.

His reputation meant that O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action news conference at the National Press Club was packed, with at least seven television cameras there to record the proceedings.

Washington Post reporter David Weigel conveyed the message from the Clinton campaign that the event was much ado about nothing. But at least he did an advance story about the video and got the Clinton campaign response.

Los Angeles Times reporter Evan Halper played the story to the advantage of the Hillary campaign, insisting that the video somehow missed its target. It was “Hardly the stuff of a Pulitzer Prize,” he insisted. He found it newsworthy, and somehow relevant to the issue of federal law violations, that the journalist from The Daily Beast had treated the video as a joke.

The “joke” response said more about the lack of seriousness from The Daily Beast than it did about O’Keefe’s video. Making matters worse, Olivia Nuzzi of The Daily Beast seemed proud of the fact that she didn’t grasp the seriousness of the election law violations, highlighting her “Is this a joke?” responses on her Twitter account.

O’Keefe may have the last laugh, as he repeatedly emphasized that more videos are coming, and that other Hillary officials may be in them and forced to resign. Reporters in attendance, anxious to dismiss these charges, seemed nervous about this prospect. They repeatedly pressed O’Keefe to spill more details about other undercover operatives he may have in the Clinton and other campaigns. He told the media they would just have to wait.

It was nervous laughter from the press, as they couldn’t figure out what other damaging evidence O’Keefe’s crew may have against the Democratic presidential candidate.

In a message to his supporters, O’Keefe noted, “Since at least 1996, Hillary and her husband Bill have been accused of accepting foreign contributions to further their political ambition. Back then, it was China accused of funneling massive amounts of money into the Clinton campaign and the DNC [Democratic National Committee]. The State Department investigated the matter. Three Americans were convicted of crimes, one of whom, Johnny Chung, admitted that $35,000 of his contributions came from the Chinese military. But Bill and Hillary got off clean.”

Not all media were prepared to laugh this all away. In his story about the O’Keefe news conference, Alan Rappeport of The New York Times seemed to admit that O’Keefe had struck gold, noting, “Foreign donations are a sensitive subject for the Clintons, as their family foundation has been under scrutiny for accepting money from overseas while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, and recent State Department emails showed that former President Bill Clinton tried to get permission to give paid speeches in North Korea and the Democratic Republic of Congo.”

One question is whether the illegal transactions captured in the Project Veritas video are part of a pattern of illegal conduct. The media will just have to wait. Maybe their laughter will die down in the wake of more videos being released.

Asked why the major media don’t do these kinds of undercover investigations and the job falls on him and his staff, O’Keefe dismissed the significance of liberal media bias and said that he thinks journalists are more motivated by a desire to protect their access to candidates like Hillary. In other words, reporters have to flatter the candidates with fawning coverage.

But it’s increasingly difficult to portray Hillary in a favorable light. At the campaign event where the video of the illegal contribution was recorded, Hillary had told the crowd that she would “stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people.”

A reporter seeking to maintain access to a candidate like this, caught in scandal after scandal, is something that is destined to truly become a joke.

08/28/15

Pockets of Resistance Fight Back! Demand Local Approval of Refugee Invasion!

Resistance1

“Terrorists have made it known they want to manipulate the refugee program to sneak operatives to the West…” – Mike McCaul

This shocking video describes the imminent threat we face as the State Department moves to secretly bring 65,000 unvetted Syrians to America under Obama’s regime with no local knowledge or control.

The federal Refugee Resettlement (RR) program is operated today by the Global Left, the UN, Islam, and religious frauds. The goal is to Change America by Changing its People.

As a result, we are drowning in refugees who are destroying our Constitutional freedoms, overburdening our welfare system and posing a genuine national security threat.

Will you as an American citizen stand up and fight this national suicide via LEGAL IMMIGRATION?

By signing this petition, you are telling your Governor and state representatives to take specific action to allow City and County Councils to decide if their budgets can support refugee resettlement and if their people want it!

What’s needed is a proviso to your state budget such as this:

No state funds shall be expended to assist in the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program unless the community targeted for resettlement approves.

Sign the petition if these are your words:

I will not tolerate giving my tax dollars to secretly “planted”, unvetted refugees that would otherwise go to aid poor families in my community.

I demand you do your job by representing the Will of The People rather than the Resettlement industry that may be funding your campaigns.

Once you have signed the petition, check to see your signature among your fellow patriots marked on the interactive map.

Use the social media icons on the petition to share it via email, Twitter, Facebook with your friends and watch the map light up as “Pockets of Resistance” like you fight back.