They claim to respect the Second Amendment, but would deny citizens of other states their right to keep and bear arms while in their state. That doesn’t support the Second Amendment. They claim to respect the rights of lawful and responsible gun ownership, but not for citizens of others states. That violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Due to IEEPA tariffs, President Trump has negotiated agreements worth trillions of dollars with major trading partners, including most recently China. Unwinding those agreements, he warns, would expose us to ruthless trade retaliation by far more aggressive countries and drive America from strength to failure, with ruinous economic and national security consequences.
In response to the COVID-19 vaccine mandates, several states passed legislation to put a halt to such practices. For example Idaho recently passed the Medical Freedom Act. The question is, does this legislation protect medical freedom or is it just another example of government overreach?
When government tells you what you can do with your property, your property rights are diminished. When people claim a right to education, healthcare, or any other commodity, your right to yourself, your liberty and, of course, your property rights, are destroyed. Even the right to keep and bear arms becomes abusive when it deprives someone of the right to control their property.
In general, the police need a warrant to enter your home without your permission, however there are exceptions to the warrant requirements. The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches, not warrantless searches. The case Case v. Montana is about what makes police entry into a private home reasonable.
Rather than protecting children from harm, this law prevents minors from getting the treatment that 90% of them need. The evidence that “conversion therapy” is harmful is questionable at best and medical malpractice at worst. I wonder what would have happened if Ms. Chiles’ legal team had studied the Constitution rather than constitutional law?
Again, no case in history supports that theory. Indeed, if Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk, and crash.
Most of us believe that our state legislatures are making our state laws. But what if that is only partially true? What if a third-party was making the laws for your state? Would you be OK with that? Would you be concerned to find out that two private entities are making the laws your state uses regarding commerce?
There have been a lot of questions lately about the powers of the President. Can a President fire a member of an independent agency? Does the President have to spend money appropriated by Congress? Is it legal for the President to send the National Guard to our cities? Most of these questions can be answered by understanding a single constitutional point: The unitary executive.
When it comes to freedom of speech, there are two things that generate a fair amount of controversy. The first is yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater and the second is burning the United States flag. Recently, Donald Trump issued an Executive Order about flag burning. So let’s take a look at the order and some of the law and history around flag burning.
Like any other profession, there are good law enforcement officers and bad law enforcement officers. While I believe that most LEOs are good men and women, doing a difficult and dangerous job, often with little respect because of the actions of bad LEOs. For years, courts have been protecting these bad officers through their rules and doctrines.
Donald Trump’s recent executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington, D.C. has created quite an uproar, both for and against. While there have been many claims on both sides, what I haven’t heard, except for my radio program, is a real constitutional analysis of his actions. With his recent post about sending National Guard troops to Chicago, I think it’s time we do that type of analysis.
This is why decisions of the Supreme Court are not law, much less the supreme law of the land. They are not law because only Congress can make law. Furthermore, the court is not an elected branch of government. Also, they are not the supreme law because that would mean the United States is not a republic, but on oligarchy ruled by nine justices in black robes.
As a society, we’ve decided that certain things like alcohol, tobacco, and pornography are not safe for minors. When I buy wine at the grocery store, I have to show my ID to verify my age. Take a look at my picture on the website and you’ll see I am well over the age where I can purchase alcohol, but I’m still asked to verify my age. That’s because my rights end when it infringes on the rights of another.
Congress created Medicaid in 1965 to subsidize state healthcare system for people unable to afford healthcare. South Carolina has a law that prohibits public funds being used for abortion. For this reason, South Carolina disqualified Planned Parenthood from participating in the state’s Medicaid system. It should be no surprise that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued. The Supreme Court’s decision though, that may surprise you.
I guess we can take the win, but personally, I want more. I want a court, a judiciary, an entire legal system, that follows the law and doesn’t make it up for themselves as they see fit. That’s why I cannot be satisfied with this court’s decision.
Which came first, the states or the federal government? An even better question should be who created whom? Did the federal government create the states? No, the states created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution. So if the states are the “parents” of the federal government, why are they not sovereign over it?
So why did the attorneys for Braidwood Management take such an odd and twisted approach to the illegal actions of the task force? Probably because courts have so twisted and ignored the Constitution they simply make up new rules as they need them, and that this was the best approach they thought they had. To me, that is a truly bad state of affairs.
At least for now, the children in the MCPS will be protected from the sexualization and indoctrination the Board attempted to force on them over the objection of the parents. I pray that the court’s prediction comes true, and that this type of indoctrination is exposed for the evil it is.
Tennessee didn’t prohibit the use of puberty blockers or hormones to anyone, only to minors. This is important because in this country not only are minors unable to give consent, the state is expected to step in when a child is being harmed, even by their parents. It’s one of the few situations where the state can legitimately interfere with parental rights, when the health or safety of the child is at risk.
As it plainly states, this Executive Order only identifies what common sense and the explanation of Senator Jacob Howard Merritt, the person who submitted the text “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to the joint resolution that would eventually become the Fourteenth Amendment. That means foreigners and aliens do not have a right to citizenship at birth.
As I stated earlier, half of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are dedicated to protecting your rights through due process. Maybe these amendments should be the “sexy” ones. These amendments focus on our legal rights that are designed to make sure the wheels of government don’t run over us.
Next year with be the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Over the next 365 days I expect to see plenty of opportunities to remember the date. I want to start by remembering the reason why we declared independence in the first place.
Personally, while I find the actions of the FBI both negligent and reprehensible, the actions of the District and Circuit courts are irresponsible, culpable, and impeachable. Those judges took an oath to support the Constitution, an oath they denigrated with their vile abuse of power.
The underlying concern I have is the ever growing belief that governments have the right to tell people how to live their lives. While the desire to use government to get one’s own way is nothing new, in this country it seems more and more people are willing to use the power of government not only to protect their own legal rights, but to also infringe on the legal rights of others.
Birthright citizenship has been a very hot topic for the last few years. When Donald Trump signed an executive order that quoted both the Constitution of the United States and federal law, claiming that would be the policy of the United States, that triggered multiple lawsuits. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. CASA, but rather than focusing on the birthright citizenship question, they were asked to resolve the question of nationwide, or universal injunctions.
Cities and states have been trying to put gun manufacturers out of business for decades with frivolous lawsuits, blaming them for the criminal use of their products. This got to be such a problem that Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Now Mexico has joined the fight, blaming Smith & Wesson for their drug cartel problems.
In poker there’s a move called “Buying the pot.” This is when one person makes a very large bet in an attempt to discourage others from continuing the hand. But what if we’re not talking poker? What if we’re talking permit fees for the use of your own land? That is exactly what George Sheetz sued the County of El Dorado California for.
Because Memorial Day is the last Monday in May, it has become the unofficial beginning of the summer season. Celebrated with cook-outs and other family get togethers, it seems fewer and fewer people are focused on the honoring of those who died to secure their rights and instead are enjoying their cook-outs and planning for summer vacations.
The major concern I have personally regarding REAL IDs is that national database. Will Congress one day try to force the states to only issue REAL ID driver’s licenses? While unconstitutional, illegal, and void, it would not surprise me one little bit. And if you’re hoping the courts would prevent such unconstitutional legislation, recent history shows that would be unlikely.
The question of if and when parents should be allowed to opt their children out of certain activities and curriculum in public schools has been raging for quite a while. With our society’s rapidly changing standards, the need for parents to oversee and control the upbringing of their children has become even more important.
It seems quite obvious that the State of Wisconsin’s desire to have as many employees in their unemployment insurance system as possible is driving them to narrow the religious purpose exemption. They are so focused on the ministerial aspects of religious purpose, they ignored all the other possibilities.
The Johnson Amendment is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious. It was introduced by a United States Senator to protect his own re-election campaign. It was targeted not only at the non-profit organizations, some of whom were impacting Johnson’s campaign, but at religious and other organizations.
There will always be tension between our desires for privacy and safety. We’re all for privacy, until we find that an invasion of said privacy could have stopped some terrible event. But are we willing to trade our privacy for safety? As Benjamin Franklin said: “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”
I don’t know which of the three branches of government does the most to infringe on your rights. Take, for example, the recent Supreme Court decision in the case Bondi v. Vanderstok, where Mr. Vanderstok challenged the recent regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives redefining weapons parts kits as firearms. It seems the Supreme Court has a hard time reading either the law or the Constitution.
I have a lot of concerns regarding this case. Yes, Mr. Robinson was in the act of committing a crime by being a felon in possession of a firearm, but no one other than Mr. Robinson knew that until after he was frisked. Yes, the stop was legal, since the officer observed the occupants driving without their seatbelts on.
That is why I urge you to contact your state representatives and urge them to rescind these “duty to inform” laws. In this country, we are not only to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, but we have the right to both be secure from unreasonable searches and to not be forced to witness against ourselves.
Ibriam Kendi is often quoted as saying “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” Is that true? Above the main entrance to the Supreme Court is a promise chiseled into the marble façade: “equal justice under law”. How can we have equal justice under law if one side is always discriminating against another?
Yes, the Supreme Court has failed to “provide clarity” in regard to their previous decision, but the fault is not all theirs. After all, the judges in the District and Circuit courts took oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the opinions of other judges. If either of those courts in this case had bothered to look beyond precedent, they may have seen the Fourteenth Amendment violation.
Most of us are aware of the Fourth Amendment’s Unreasonable Search and Seizure Clause. While definitions of what is “reasonable” have been argued since the Bill of Rights was ratified, it is pretty much agreed that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures includes the use of unreasonable force during an encounter with law enforcement.
Not only has the Supreme Court once again placed the interests of law enforcement above those of the general public. While I believe the vast majority of law enforcement are honest and honorable people trying to do a difficult job, there are those who use the badge as a power trip. They believe they have the power to order people around, without reasonable cause, and this case reinforces that belief.
Imagine the police have to enter your home, and in doing so, they damage your property. Who pays for those damages? Your insurance? The police? That was the controversy brought to the District Court. Before we dig into that though, let’s look at the background.
More disturbing is the fact that a District Court judge either cannot read plain English or doesn’t care about their oath of office. Which brings me to the next question: If the court got the question of standing so badly wrong, is the State of Arkansas required to abide by the order? Sure, Arkansas can appeal the judges decision to the Circuit Court, and that might be the safer answer, but is it the most just answer?
I also think, since the power to regulate medical care is not delegated to the United States, any department or agency thereof should be prohibited from influencing their standard by criminal statute. It is not enough to simply say a department or agency cannot influence board standards, but there must be punishment for those who do.
Again, I whole heartedly support the inclusion of civics in our educational systems. I simply wish Congress would educate itself about its legal powers beforehand. How can members of Congress claim to pull the spec out of the eye of our education system while a gigantic beam is wedged in theirs?
The transgender agenda has been moving fast the last few years. That said, several states have moved to slow their progress, especially among our young people. One state, Tennessee, is being sued by the federal government. Oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court in November.
As we prepare to celebrate another orbit around the sun and look forward to a new year, let’s remember the lessons of our past year and use them to make next year better. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good. By which I mean, don’t be put off by the fact you cannot fix everything, just fix something.
So if these holidays were originally set aside for special religious observance, shouldn’t we take this opportunity to restore them to that high cause? Why not start with Christmas? I’m not saying we have to give up our traditions, but wouldn’t this be a good time to remember the purpose of the holiday?
For my entire adult life, I’ve only answered a handful of questions on the census. My name, my address, and the number of people who live in my house. This went from a decennial nuisance to a regular infringement on my rights. Contrary to what it says on the Census envelopes, not only is your response not required by any legitimate law, but their repeated searches for information is the violation of the law.
One of the reasons I like answering questions is they prompt me to look at things I hadn’t thought about before. Take for example the recent request I had to review the Federal Tort Claims Procedure. While I review lawsuits regularly here, I’d never taken the time to look at this particular legislation.
I don’t believe a serious study of the Constitution can be made without looking at the public debates over the document. After the Constitutional Convention sent the proposed constitution to the states for ratification, a great debate was had over its pros and cons. Supporters of the document as proposed, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, published essays in New York State newspapers under the pseudonym Publius.
In the case Garland v. VanDerStok, the issue seems to come down not just to what the definition of a firearm is, but who gets to decide. What seemed to be forgotten in the oral arguments is the fact that an ‘arm’ by any other name, is still protected by the Second Amendment.
How California handles its water quality is their business. Placing a federal agency in the middle does nothing but add more bureaucracy to an already bureaucratic nightmare. Maybe that’s why the framers limited Congress to only making laws necessary and proper for executing the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States.
This answer is only partially correct. No, the people themselves are not the arbiters of what is constitutional, but the justices of the Supreme Court have not been delegated that power either. Since that power is not prohibited by the Constitution to the states, they retain the power to determine if a law is contrary to the Constitution.
If We the People are not willing to sit in judgment of our fellow man, who will? Wouldn’t it be the judge? The government employee acting as judge, jury, and possibly executioner? Would that be a free country? Not according to those 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence. They recognized that freedom is not free.
The republic for which our flag stands is crumbling under the weight of collectivism, tyranny, and elitism, in no small part because the people who believe in individual rights, in liberty and justice for all, cannot be bothered to go to the polls every couple of years to vote.
How far can law enforcement go when it comes to arresting someone? For example, if police have probable cause to charge you with a misdemeanor, how far can they “bootstrap” that charge into something more serious? That appears to be the question in the case Chiaverini v. City Of Napoleon, Ohio.
Everyone knows we have a right to remain silent, correct? What if I told you that in 2013 the Supreme Court upheld a decision basically stating that is not true. You only have the right to remain silent if you verbally claim the right in the first place, otherwise, according to SCOTUS, your silence can be used against you. Let’s take a look at this case and some of the history behind this violation of your rights.
It’s nice to see a judge that not only recognizes they are bound to the supreme law of the land, but willing to act on it. While I’m not surprised that the Commonwealth sees differently, the real question is, what does the Supreme Judicial Court think? History tells me they are much more likely to find for the Commonwealth than for the defendants, no matter what the Constitution says.
Which is why it is so important that We the People read and study the Constitution. Not only so we are prepared to defend and assert our rights from the abusive powers of the bureaucrats, but so we can hire representatives at the state, federal, and yes, even local level, to help us protect ourselves and our rights.
Are there weapons too dangerous for the people to use? If there are, then they are too dangerous for people in government to use as well. In fact, the very aspects of the AR-15 and the other arms listed as “assault weapons” are exactly why our right to own and carry them are protected by the Second Amendment.
It is up to us, to both diligently read and study the Constitution of the United States. I know it sounds daunting, but I can tell you from personal experience, it’s not nearly as hard as you’ve been led to believe. Only after we have a grasp of the fundamental and paramount law can we judge if other laws are complaint with it, if our states should abide by them, and if our representatives are fulfilling their oath to support it.
Then imagine, after providing your drivers license, you’re pulled out of your car, searched, handcuffed, and “stuffed” into the back of the police cruiser while the officer searches your vehicle from stem to stern, even though you’ve done nothing wrong.
Federal limitations on gun possession have been a sticking point among the Second Amendment community for decades. I know several groups and law firms that have been looking for the perfect case to challenge these laws. Instead, Zackey Rahimi got his case to the Supreme Court first.
When I sat down and read the Constitution for the first time, I was struck by two things. First, how much I had not been taught in school. Second, how much of what I had been taught was absolutely wrong. This idea that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until 1868 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment is one of those things we’re taught that’s absolutely false.
What can we conclude from this decision? First and foremost, that everyone deserves due process, regardless of how despicable we may think them to be. Remember, no matter how badly you may want someone to pay for their actions, there’s probably someone out there who feels the same way about you.
The beauty of our system, especially the due process protections, is that everyone gets them. Rich or poor, popular or not, the Constitution protects all of our rights. If we allow them to be trampled because of tradition, we lose more than just the right to a trial by jury, we lose the most basic protections of justice.
I do have a concern. Now that the courts are expected to infer what Congress meant when it was silent or ambiguous, we have a similar problem, just with another branch of government. What is to keep the courts from “interpreting” the law to mean something exactly the opposite of what Congress wrote? After all, that is exactly what they did in Chevron in the first place.
The court’s disregard of the Constitution goes far beyond Donald Trump and his January 6th actions. Consider that attacks against pro-lifers advocates, parents, traditional Roman Catholics, and so many more by the Biden Administration’s so-called Department of Justice.
When does a rifle become a machine gun? That is the question asked in the Supreme Court case Garland v. Cargill. When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives suddenly decided to redefine bump stocks as machine guns, many Americans simply complied. However, when Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF, he did so under protest, filing suit to challenge the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Constitution marks out the form, but it is up to us to provide the substance and do the business. If we are to be the land of the free, then We the People need to be brave enough to stand and declare our independence. Independence from the illegal agencies, from the usurpation of powers, and from ignoring both the law and the oath those in government took to support it.
There has been a lot of controversy over parent’s rights lately, especially related to public schools. From the teaching of Critical Race Theory to Drag Queen Story Hours, there has been situations where the relationship between parents and the school district have become outright hostile.
Trust in our institutions has been falling fast. Based on the reactions to the Trump conviction, it appears whatever faith people had is either completely gone or eroding at an astounding rate.
According to federal law, if someone is convicted of a crime and punished with more than one year in jail, they lose their rights protected under the Second Amendment. A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court not only brought that federal law into question, but decided it was wrong. The court didn’t find that this federal law violated the Constitution, rather they found it violated Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.
For over 220 years Congress had funded federal agencies through appropriations from the Treasury. Then, in 2011, Congress decides to fund a new agency in a different way. After this new agency promulgated rules that members of the CFSA objected to, the trade agency sued, making several claims of both statutory and constitutional violations.
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement has been in the news again lately. Not only does this United Nation organization want the power to take over the world in a “health emergency”, but numerous politicians and commentators keep claiming that if Joe Biden signs this treaty, it would be legally binding. The truth is that is just not true, for several reasons.
I meet a lot of people who think the Constitution is useless, while others wonder how people can get away with violating it. While these may appear to be opposing positions, I believe they stem from the same misconception: That the Constitution of the United States is some superhero that will come flying in to save the day. Rather, the Constitution is ink on parchment, a tool and nothing more.
Rather than following the Constitution and laws of the United States, the courts, and all of the attorneys arguing the cases, are attempting to design a system to meets their ends. They are legislating from the bench, rather than applying the law to the case at hand. While Mr. Trump is attempting to turn the Presidency into a Kingship, the courts are trying to turn the United States into an oligarchy.
Maine’s governor allowed an unconstitutional piece of legislation to become “law” without her signature. LD 1578, An Act to Adopt an Interstate Compact to Elect the President of the United States by National Popular Vote is not only foolish and unconstitutional, but the latest attempt to change the United States from a union of republics into a monolithic democracy.
And here we have the Biden Administration, telling us we need to give up our essential liberty, our rights to due process, and to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, all with the promise of protecting our national security. Are you willing to give up your essential liberties for what has shown to be the false promise of temporary safety?
If there’s a boogie man in the anti-gun community, it’s probably the National Rifle Association. Accused of complicity in almost every gun crime from gang violence to mass murder, the NRA has become the lightning rod for the vitriol of those whose fear of firearms has grown to an irrational state.
There’s another battle that few Americans seem to know about. A battle where Americans stood up against corrupt government with force of arms in order to protect their rights and those of their neighbors. I wrote about it in my article The Battle of Athens, TN. Perhaps we should remember this day as well.
If Congress were competent, and truly concerned about applications spying on the American people, they would draft legislation that actually protected us. Instead, we see a bipartisan stand to screw up this situation even more. I cannot read minds, but my guess is this political grandstanding is more about votes this November than the title of the bill suggests.
Only if the American people recognize that those who work in government serve us, not the other way around, and are willing to pay the price so that the following generations can live free, do I believe we will be brave enough to ensure that the land our children live in will be free.
I can see only one logical reason for this type of legislation. Similar to the orders to destroy the firearms and ammunition of the colonists, this legislation is meant to leave the American people unarmed, untrained, and unprepared to act as a free people. This leaves them dependent on government for their own safety, and makes them subject to the government’s will.
In 1913 our states began the process of reducing us from free citizens to the miserable state of tributary slaves. I hope now you see why I am so in favor of the repeal of this amendment of tyranny we call the Sixteenth Amendment.
Saddest of all, neither the judges, justices, attorneys, nor parties to this case, seem aware of the fundamental coup d’etat this represents. It’s the destruction of our Constitution and a fundamental alteration of our form of government.
While many people say “Knowledge is Power”, that is not actually true. Knowledge only has power if it’s used for some action. Now that you have the knowledge and a better understanding of how the United States elects a President, I hope you will use it to exercise your power as a United States citizen.
I’ve spoken repeatedly about the unconstitutionality of most mask mandates. Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to review two cases where people were punished for attending school board meetings while refusing to wear masks. Sadly, the cases, as described in the Circuit Court opinion, seem poorly founded, thus leading to decisions against the plaintiffs.
This should be an interesting opinion to read. I wonder how many U.S. citizens have been captured by the No Fly List without any probable cause or due process? This is also not the first time a government has attempted to get away with illegal acts by changing things after the fact and calling the claims against them moot. All in all, it could be a very interesting opinion indeed.
Imagine walking into a voting booth, and the ballot listing all the names of the people who have qualified to run for office? There still needs to be some vetting process for candidates, some paperwork to request access to the ballot, and probably some process to insure there is enough support to warrant being included. Beyond that, let all comers be on the ballot and let the people decide.
This is why it’s so important for you to read and understand the Constitution for yourself. Not only so you can recognize these unconstitutional acts, but so you can prepare yourself to defend and assert your rights, including the right to have the supreme law of the land faithfully enforced.
Unless you’ve been hiding from everything politics in the United States, you are aware that there are actors in several states that have sued in their state courts to disqualify Donald Trump from being on their states primary election ballot for President of the United States. As of this writing, in only two states, Colorado and Maine, have those actors found some measure of success.
Chevron appears to have been an attempt to “keep things going” when Congress was silent or ambiguous on a specific issue. If Congress leaves gaps in their legislation, it’s up to Congress, the representatives of the people and the states, to fill them in. It’s most certainly not within the powers delegated to the executive or judicial branches. We’ll have to wait and see if a majority of the justices on the court recognize the usurpation of powers Chevron Deference has become.
By both mooting the case and vacating the First Circuit’s decision that Ms. Laufer had standing, the court does restore some sense of justice by restricting the use of malicious prosecution. However, by not deciding the question of Ms. Laufer’s standing, the court also allows her, and others like her, to act as federal vigilantes.
Why should you pay very close attention to this case? Because, as a direct tax on something other than income, a wrong opinion from the court could open up a deluge of new direct federal taxes on everything from your home, investments, even your childhood Baseball Card collection.
I know, I sound like a broken record, but I believe reading the Constitution is something we should be doing at least once a year. In fact, it you read the Constitution 3, 4, or even 12 times a year, that would not be a bad thing. I agree with our first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay. If you want to know when your rights are being violated, and be prepared to defend and assert them, then read and study the Constitution of the United States.
As we celebrate Christmas, followed shortly by New Years, let us consider the present all of us are leaving to future generations. Will our children, and our children’s children, live in a country better than the one we live in now? That depends on what we do today, tomorrow, and for the rest of our tomorrows, as we try to secure such a nation for them.
There’s a reason why power is distributed in this country, not just within the federal government, but between the state and federal governments as well. Liberty, the ability to live your life as you see fit, is protected by such separation. So when we see the Executive Branch being delegated and assuming powers not their own, your liberty is in danger.
Not once, but twice, George Washington was called on to be President of the new country under the new Constitution, and twice he agreed. With the expectation that he would be called again a third time, Mr. Washington wished only to retire to Mount Vernon. After seeking advice from those in his confidence, he made it clear that he intended to return to the retirement he had previously enjoyed.
If We the People wish to remain free, it’s up to us to FORCE the government to stop aiding the collectivists. I don’t mean denying their rights, but stop aiding and abetting those who are trying to destroy this country. Stop federal funding of education. Stop subsidizing the collectivist agenda. Not by writing letters or signing petitions, but by making the politicians more afraid of disappointing the American people than their donors and political parties.
Today, many in the federal government walk around believing they are wrapped in robes of power, some because of their own arrogance and others because “experts” have told them so. Most of the American people seem to go along with the lie, not because they can see the power robes, but because of the lies they have been told.
Let’s step back and look at the big picture. Should people who are under a credible threat of serious physical harm or death be granted a restraining order? Absolutely, but we need to remember that those orders are nothing but ink on paper. The order cannot protect you, but it can help law enforcement restrain a person if they violate the order.
Social media has become so much a part of our everyday lives that we often don’t think about how we use it. This has led to what appears to be a large percentage of Americans developing what can at best be described as some “interesting ideas” about the relationship between government and the various social media platforms.
Studies show that the best outcomes for children is when they live in a home with their married parents. If the world were perfect, then all children would have that chance. The world isn’t perfect though, and either by accident or as the consequences of the actions of adults, children will be in need of people to step in for their parents.
Do you have a right to record people in public? A recent case out of Oregon asked that very question. Can states restrict who and when people can record conversations in public? An Oregon law prohibiting recording public conversations except in certain limited circumstances, was challenged by Project Veritas.
By knowing your rights, including your right against self witness, you will be better prepared should you one day encounter law enforcement. When I told the FBI agent that I did not get chatty with law enforcement, he told me he understood and both agents returned to their vehicle and left. Thankfully, that’s as far as it went, but I was prepared if the FBI tried to push for more.
Since the election process would be less under the thumb of the political parties, each state would be able to try different variations of these or other methods of running their elections. If the people we hire to represent us are smart, they can learn from what others are doing and compete to make their election process the best in the land.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Several years ago I wrote an article about the Battle of Athens, TN. In the article I showed the corruption in the McMinn County Sheriff’s Department, where the Sheriff and his deputies did not receive a salary, but were paid for everyone they booked, incarcerated, and released.
I was having a discussion with someone online about how we elect the President and Vice President of the United States. I was doing some research to reinforce my point when I discovered something interesting: A state which had a fraudulent ballot in 2020. Thinking this was probably an individual mistake, I started looking at the sample ballots from each state in the 2020 election.
When did Executive Orders become edicts from a monarch? Like so many things, it happened slowly, then very rapidly. It started with Congress not wanting to write laws, so they started writing “frameworks” and turned over the details to the executive agencies. We didn’t think too much about Congress abdicating their lawmaking power to the executive branch, so we said nothing.
I believe most Americans have never read the Constitution of their country, and of those who have they seem to lack the confidence and understanding to use it. Part of the reason for this seems to be the fact that the Constitution is not taught in schools anymore.
The fact that a government school is teaching something that does not comport with your religious beliefs, doesn’t prevent you from exercising your religion. It does not even prevent a parent from teaching their children that the instruction they receive from the government school is wrong because it’s contrary to their belief. What we have here is not a violation of plaintiff’s free exercise right, but an establishment of religion.
There’s a lot of confusion out there about artificial intelligence. Some claim that AI’s have the power of independent thought which will, one day, allow them to take over the world. Others write AI’s off as nothing but a novelty. Based on my experience, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Arizona for Abortion Access, a political action committee, has contacted Arizona Secretary of State, Adrian Fontes, in an attempt to get a constitutional amendment protecting abortion on the November 2024 ballot. Activists in Florida have been collecting signatures in an attempt to overturn recent state law to protect the right to abortion.
I encourage people to ask questions. I believe there are only two “stupid” questions in the world: The one you don’t ask and the one you ask three times. Questions are important. We cannot truly learn unless we ask questions. Several weeks ago I posted the article The Role of Congress.
We need to remember, this is only a preliminary injunction. While it will remain in effect until the case is decided, or the injunction is overturned by a higher court, there is still a long way to go before justice can be served. That said, this injunction, not to mention the details within, gives me hope that our judicial system isn’t completely corrupt.
The role of the courts is that of an umpire, making decision based on the law using the facts presented to them. Today, we have elevated their decisions beyond law into rulings, as if they were kings and queens on high. It would be one thing if their decisions were based in the law rather than the rantings of their predecessors.
Our judicial system today works like a bad case of the game “telephone”. You probably remember that game from grammar school. The teacher would whisper something into one child’s ear, who would then whisper it into the next child’s ear, and on and on until the message got all the way around the room.
Racism, both systemic and societal, has been a problem in this country for centuries. In many ways it was societal racism, the general belief in the inferiority of certain races, that led to many of the racist laws or systemic racism. To me, this leads to a Catch-22. How do you get rid of one without getting rid of the other? While we have gotten rid of many of the racist laws in our country, racist ideas are still around, and they have led to other racist laws.
