Thursday, March 22, 2018

Republicans and Democrats Collude to Pass $1.3 Trillion Monstrosity

There’s plenty of collusion going on in Washington D.C. and there isn’t a Russian in sight. Both parties - Republican and Democrat - have conspired to impoverish this country by passing a monstrous $1.3 trillion spending bill that funds the government through September.

Are we not seeing a pattern here? It seems to me Congress always passes an omnibus bill around this time of year that takes us up to the elections. Republicans, in order to justify this crap, campaign on a lack of membership which they need to stop the spendthrifts in the Democratic Party. Then they pass a continuing resolution that takes us up to the holidays. Then, while the citizenry is making merry, they pass another continuing resolution right before Christmas that gets us through the winter, and here we are again with another omnibus bill. What a bunch of scoundrels.

As I was working to put food on my table, a roof over my head and payoff the federal mafia, I listened to various radio personalities contemplate the Republican Party’s atrocious behavior. The local talent hypothesized that the leadership would rather be a minority than govern. Rush Limbaugh, who always has a unique perspective, claimed that establishment Republicans passed this monstrosity as a means to alienate President Trump from his loyal supporters. I happen to think both perspectives are correct.

Whatever the subterfuge, conservatives need to hold candidates accountable by demanding to know who they support for Speaker of the House and majority leader in the Senate. I don’t want to hear any more excuses from these people. We know leadership sets the agenda, however, it’s the rank and file who vote them in.


Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Activist Judges in Pennsylvania Face Impeachment

Finally, Republican legislators are sticking up for themselves and pushing back against power hungry Progressives. Pennsylvania lawmakers have resolved to impeach a cabal of activist judges who’ve stolen their constitutionally mandated prerogatives.

A dozen GOP Pennsylvania lawmakers filed legislation on Tuesday to impeach four Democratic state Supreme Court justices who ruled the state’s congressional map was unconstitutionally gerrymandered and replaced it with a new one.

The Republicans moved to impeach Justices David Wecht, Christine Donahue, Kevin Dougherty and Debra McCloskey Todd, all Democrats who found the state’s congressional map was designed to favor Republicans and must be replaced before the May primary. Justice Max Baer (D), who also voted to strike down the map, but said it could remain in place until 2020, wasn’t mentioned in the impeachment resolution.

Democrats are stunned that Pennsylvania’s GOP is actually fighting back against this blatant power grab.

Douglas Keith, counsel at the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, which filed a friend of the court brief supporting voters who had challenged the old map, said it was “remarkable” so many legislators were backing the impeachment effort.

“They may think this kind of posturing when they disagree with a court ruling will go over well with partisans in our current political climate, but if so they’re undermining our democracy to score cheap political points,” Keith said. “This is not what the impeachment power is for, and they’d be better served by following the lead of their Republican colleagues who said yesterday it’s time to move on.”

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, now chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, accused Republicans of seeking retribution against justices who struck down the old map.

“This brazen attack on an independent court by those who are afraid to face the people in fair elections undermines our democratic values and must be rejected,” Holder said in a statement.

An independent court to Democrats means judges can violate every tenet of our constitutions both state and federal, and they sure as hell don’t give a damn about established law that impedes their progressive agenda.

I’d like to remind Eric “Gun Runner” Holder that impeachment is also a political ends to a means. I’m sure that’s something he can appreciate.


Tuesday, March 20, 2018

One Man, One Vote Equals Secession Movements

A cabal of know-it-all libertines in blue state governments has sparked secession movements throughout the country. Hard-working Christians in rural communities are sick and tired of being ruled by a band of wastrels who have nothing but contempt for them and traditional values. Worse, they don’t have the power to protect their property, or paychecks from these popper sniffers. California is in the forefront of this movement and they’re not alone.

How did this come about? How can a small geographic area heavily populated with illegal aliens, drug addicts, butt bandits and Marxist activist commit a coup in Sacramento, California? Well, it all started with a bumper slogan: One Man, One Vote.

This bumper sticker slogan came into reality back in the 1960’s from a series of Supreme Court decisions. These decisions were/are an attack on our republican form of government as promised in Article IV of our Constitution. I blogged about this four years ago. Here is an excerpt:

A series of Supreme Court rulings dating back to the 1960’s subverted the political process by retarding the rights of a State’s self governance. These judges – this priestly class – molested federalism by dictating the manner with which States’ shall choose their senators and representatives. This was by no means a federal consideration. This was purely local.

The rulings in question are Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims, and Wesberry v. Sanders. The Supreme Court fundamentally changed the legislature of States by dictating their districts and how they were to be represented. Basically, rural citizens were to be dominated by urbanites. Degenerate values that breed on city streets would emanate from state capitols and spread throughout the countryside.

More importantly, this reconfiguration would benefit a political party that advocates centralized government. Having Democrats dominate state legislatures, they would draw districts that marginalize hard working, liberty loving citizens while packing federal congressional districts with teat squawkers, who are looking for an agent that would steal from his neighbors.

And because of activist judges, rural communities have been denied a republican form of government that safeguards their interest. Now we have secession movements within states. Here is an excerpt from a Fox News article that pretty much sums up this dilemma created by the wisdom of Supreme Court justices:

He looks at his home state of California and sees numerous clashes between the coastal cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, and the more conservative counties in the interior. This has led to the New California Movement, already organized in 35 counties, seeking to create two states where there was one. Other plans have California splitting into three states, or even six. It should be noted that these new states would still be bigger than many on the East Coast, and more populous than many in the West.

Kotkin feels this movement is driven by policies like the $15 minimum wage, “which makes sense in San Francisco, but doesn’t make sense in Fresno.” He adds those running California are “fundamentally authoritarian” with “not a lot of tolerance for any kind of economic or political diversity.” As he puts it, their attitude is “’We know the truth, we know what’s right, and it has to apply to everyone.

We don’t have to create new states to resolve this problem. What we need is to repeal these unconstitutional rulings by an activist Supreme Court and restore a republican form of government as promised in Article IV.


Monday, March 19, 2018

Progressives "Reconstruct" Our Republican Form of Government

As a student of history, l can say with certainty that there has always been a faction in this country that strives to “Reconstruct” the citizenry into doctrinaires who’ll unquestionably accept their ideology. These fanatics believe they are endowed with superior intellect and we inferior beings must bend to their will. These people will do anything to achieve those ends.

The latest iteration of radicals, as we all know, are Progressives who’ll sink to any level to obtain power. Their latest tactic is to marginalize Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees every state a republican form of government by attacking state legislatures and their rights under Article I, Section 4.

George Soros, the devil incarnate, is funding the National Democratic Redistricting Foundation which is chaired by gun runner, Eric Holder. The sole purpose for this organization is to employ rogue justices who’ll force state legislatures to forgo their constitutional prerogatives by accepting predetermined districts drawn by Progressives. North Carolina can attest to this unrelenting wave of lawsuits that challenge every state, federal and judicial district. This is happening in red states throughout the country including Texas. Here is an excerpt from State of the Nation:

With the help of hedge fund billionaire George Soros, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee hopes to wrest control from voters of congressional redistricting in 2021 when booming conservative states such as Texas will gain seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. All for the benefit of their special-interest donors.

That the first fundraisers for this self-described “super group” were held in San Francisco and Los Angeles reveals one of their goals: to reinstate Rep. Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. But they aren’t stopping there.

Headed by former Attorney General Eric Holder, the tax-exempt 527 political action committee plans a three-pronged attack to flood state-level races with outside money, to leverage activist courts to wrest control of state redistricting plans, and finally, with the formidable community organizing prowess of former President Barack Obama, to fund astroturfed ballot initiatives in the guise offairness.”

Republicans had better wake-up and understand that we are in a political war and the stakes are much higher than obtaining an office at Capitol Hill. Our Republic is endanger and its time they fought back by dusting off and employing the Constitution of the United States.


Sunday, March 18, 2018

A Weak Congress Leads to a Tyrannical Judiciary

A weak Congress leads to a tyrannical judiciary. Do you doubt it? How else can a district court judge dictate immigration and foreign policy contrary to established statutes and constitutional prerogatives? Not only can a lowly judge suspend the laws of the land but he can force the president of the United States to go hat in hand before the Supreme Court to overturn his ruling. Whatever happened to checks and balances? Who’s to check and balance the only branch of government that is unelected and therefore unaccountable?

For every problem that this country faces, I can point to a rogue judicial ruling: Plyler v. Doe legitimized illegal aliens by forcing states to educate their children; Reynolds v. Sims diluted the rural vote and attacked the very premise of a republican form of government which has led to secession movements in California and Colorado; Abington School District v. Schempp forbade Bible reading in public schools and without a doubt has a direct correlation to pervasive immorality and school shootings, and how else can an unelected body of activist judges force the citizenry to uphold their dictates? Well in Cooper v. Aaron they bound the states to uphold their decisions. Isn’t that convenient?

The dirty little secret is Congress has the constitutional authority to check a rogue judiciary. Article III Section 2 states the following:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Therefore, Congress can limit the scope on which federal courts can rule. Here is an excerpt from Limiting Judicial Review by Act of Congress written in 1935:

It is well settled that the inferior federal courts are dependent upon Congress for their existence and the powers they exercise. Once in our early history Congress abolished the inferior federal courts altogether, and in our own time, Congress abolished the United States Circuit Courts. Congress frequently has limited the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts. Since 1867 the inferior federal courts have been prohibited from enjoining the assessment or collection of a federal tax. For twenty five years District Courts have been prohibited, except by a specially constituted court of three judges, from enjoining the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission or of state officers, under state statutes, claimed to be violative of the-Federal Constitution. And a little more than a year ago Congress passed a statute depriving the United States 'District Courts of jurisdiction under certain circumstances to restrain the enforcement of the orders of state or local utilities' commissions under the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Make no mistake about it, Congress has the constitutional authority to check and balance the federal courts. The only problem is weak leadership and/or a complete ignorance of Congress’ constitutional prerogatives.