Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By Matthew Vadum — Front Page Mag—— Bio and Archives—August 10, 2020

President Donald Trump is quietly turning a stinging defeat at the Supreme Court over an illegal amnesty for hundreds of thousands of young illegal aliens into what could end up being a victory for the Constitution and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court, of course, has no authority to tell the president of the United States that he cannot rescind an illegal executive amnesty ordered by his predecessor in the same manner it was instituted.

Normally, presidents of both parties rush to raise their arms in surrender whenever the black-robed life-tenured politicians on the high court demand it.

The president appears to be taking a stand against rampant judicial supremacism by drawing inspiration from President Andrew Jackson

Not Trump.

The president appears to be taking a stand against rampant judicial supremacism by drawing inspiration from President Andrew Jackson, whose portrait proudly hangs in the Oval Office.

After the chief justice of the day overreached in Jackson’s opinion, the 7th president allegedly uttered the following immortal words: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Now the Trump administration is taking heat over its failure to immediately resume processing of illegal aliens under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program after the Supreme Court, headed by the ever-weaselly John Roberts, found in a particularly bizarre ruling June 18 that it failed to properly rescind the Obama-era program that was created with the mere stroke of a pen.

Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm, an Obama appointee, criticized the Trump administration July 24 for not yet complying with the high court’s order, including not yet updating informational pages on government websites.

“That is a problem,” Grimm said. “As for the inaccuracy on the website, that has to change and that should be able to change very quickly. … It creates a feeling and a belief that the agency is disregarding binding decisions by appellate and the Supreme Court.”

U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Stephen Pezzi told Grimm that new DACA applications were being “held” and “placed into a bucket” while DHS officials figured out what to do with the program.

“It is a distinction without a difference to say that this application has not been denied, it has been received and it has been put in a bucket,” the judge said.

The Trump administration is sending out mixed messages and “that puts applicants in doubt,” whined John Freedman, attorney for the DACA recipients.

“It puts immigration lawyers in doubt. Nobody knows what’s going on,” Freedman said. “It reinforces impressions that … the administration, the defendants are not complying with the rule of law.”

But Freedman has it backwards.

The federal judiciary, not President Trump, is violating the law, commentator Daniel Horowitz argues.

“The courts are defying the law, the Constitution, and 130 years of their own settled case law that illegal aliens have no standing to sue for a right to remain in the country against the will of the political branches of government. It is they who are defying the law. Moreover, as Hamilton noted in Federalist #78, the courts ‘must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments.’ Thus, Trump declining to actively use his powers to violate immigration laws duly passed by Congress is not defying the courts; it’s following the law being defied by the judiciary.”

“You see,” Horowitz writes, “this case is different from almost every case that comes before the courts.”

“Typically, the courts will invent a contrived right and demand that the other branches take an action they need not take. In this case, the court is jumping two steps by demanding Trump not only refrain from deporting illegal aliens, but affirmatively use the tools of government to grant resident documents to people whom our law explicitly prohibits from having them. [italics original]

“If separation of powers means anything at all and we are to preserve a country of checks and balances, Trump must not issue these visas.”

Not processing DACA applications has the effect of upholding the rule of law

Horowitz has it exactly right: not processing DACA applications has the effect of upholding the rule of law, as opposed to upholding the perverse version of the rule of law proffered by Chief Justice John Roberts and the other four liberals on the Supreme Court.

Trump’s patriotic stalling buys him time to decide what to do about the much-mythologized 700,000 to 800,000 individuals eligible under the DACA program.

These people are a subset of about 4 million “DREAMers,” many of whom failed to apply for relief under DACA, but who could qualify under a further amnesty were one to be granted. Law-abiding Americans, including Trump’s political base, are adamantly opposed to the lawless program and amnesties in general.

The current dispute between the open-borders left and Trump grows out of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling earlier this summer in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) v. Regents of the University of California that the administration did not follow every jot and tittle of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), when it rescinded the program that temporarily prevented young people who came to the United States illegally from being deported.

The APA requires the government to fully explain the reasons for certain decisions, though few before the infamous ruling believed it applied to Barack Obama’s kingly fiats.

“The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts, who has been deservedly ridiculed by conservatives for this and a series of grotesquely absurd recent rulings.

“The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS, so that it may consider the problem anew.”

Like so many Supreme Court decisions nowadays, the court opinion is a pseudo-legal essay brimming with lawyerly codswallop

Like so many Supreme Court decisions nowadays, the court opinion is a pseudo-legal essay brimming with lawyerly codswallop, an after-the-fact rationalization written to justify a preordained result. The goal was not to do justice but to frustrate Donald Trump.

The court, under pressure from the illegal-alien left, invented an elaborate excuse to keep the program in place, reasoning in effect that because the decision to rescind DACA affects many people and would disrupt the lives that these illegal aliens have unlawfully been living in the U.S., the cancelation of the program needed to be stopped.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh wisely dissented from the main finding in the majority opinion.

“Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas accused the members of the court’s majority of creating their own extra-legal solution to the DACA problem out of whole cloth.

“The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong DHS’ initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own. In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong—the political branches. Such timidity forsakes the Court’s duty to apply the law according to neutral principles, and the ripple effects of the majority’s error will be felt throughout our system of self-government.”

If President Trump continues to work to counteract those ripple effects, America will be better off.

* * *

Photo credit: Pax Ahimsa Gethen

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh —— Bio and Archives—August 6, 2020

When I first became aware of U.N. Agenda 21, two decades ago, I started reading everything I could find and the more I read, the deeper my searches took me – the large octopus using the environment as an excuse was stretching its tentacles far and wide across the globe. I could hardly believe it myself as I found long documents, conferences, videos of politicians, presidents, and famous people pushing this globalist agenda and passing executive orders to implement it by fiat at all levels of government.

It was shocking that the whole cabal was there in plain sight, yet people accused us of being conspiracy theorists. Even some conservatives spoke of U.N. Agenda 21 in hushed tones and suggested that the only proper mention of it was in context of property rights, yet it is so much more because it encompasses everything we do in our daily lives and in business. (Source)

The globalists have made such huge strides that they have morphed the initial 1992 U.N. Agenda 21 into U.N. Agenda 2030. (Source)

The Democrat [Socialist] Party passed it as the Green New Deal, which is neither green, nor new, nor a deal, on the contrary, it is a total control of our personal and economic lives. (Source)

Using unelected individuals and NGOs tentacles, U.N. Agenda 21 spread across the world at the local, state, and federal government levels like wildfire in the name of green growth, smart growth, with its lynchpin Sustainable Development (SD) and its seventeen goals.

People were caught unaware and suddenly found out that their private property, way of life, development and business models were fundamentally changed by corrupt politicians beholden to these NGOs who devised, developed, and forced communities to adopt their ideas in urban development, real estate, transportation, family, religion, birth rates, housing, food, wealth redistribution, education, welfare, medical care, construction, technology, fuel use, water use, recreation, zoning, agriculture, and everything else that makes our lives and economy what they are, fundamentally transforming societies to fit their environmentalist ideas and Marxist philosophy.

To sum it all up, over time, while we all slept blissfully because we were a free society, we became wards of the United Nation’s octopus and its third world bureaucrats in alliance with powerful billionaires and technocrats. Worst of all, the U.N. used our own taxpayer dollars to accomplish its nefarious U.N. Agenda 21.

The idea of the globalist “interdependence” can be found in many leftist organizations and environmental charters.

Historian Henry Steele Commager, an alleged definer of modern liberalism in America and a persistent fighter against McCarthyism, drafted an alarming document, “A Declaration of Interdependence,”  which was presented at the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia on October 24, 1975 and then signed on January 30, 1976 at Congress Hall in Philadelphia by several members of Congress and endorsed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and U.N. agencies. The fact that such a document was signed on our nation’s Bicentennial is even more insulting.

“Two centuries ago, our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order.”

“We affirm that the economy of all nations is a seamless web, and that no one nation can any longer effectively maintain its processes of production and monetary systems without recognizing the necessity for collaborative regulation by international authorities.”

And who might these international authorities be that would control and regulate our monetary systems – United Nations of course and its affiliates. Now we can see more clearly through the precipitous drive to have a cashless economy, supposedly beleaguered by the shortage of coins and dirty paper money and the evolving idea of a one world currency.

U.N. Agenda 21 was one of the documents produced and signed in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro by 178 countries. “The Earth Summit produced the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Statement of Forest Principles, and Agenda 21. The Earth Summit also led to the establishment of the Convention of Biological Diversity, and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (Source)

The David Suzuki’s website states that “The Declaration of Interdependence expresses our values as an organization. It was written for the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where portions of our declaration were woven into the work of others around the world to form the Earth Charter.”  (Source)

The Global Interdependence Center wrote its own Declaration of Interdependence to include among others, the goal to “ESTABLISH A NEW WORLD ORDER of compassion, peace, justice, and security, it is essential that mankind free itself from the limitations of national prejudice, and acknowledge that the forces that unite it are incomparably deeper than those that divide it – that all people are part of one global community, dependent on one body of resources, bound together by the ties of a common humanity and associated in a common adventure on the planet Earth.” (Source)

The existence of America as a country is now a “national prejudice” in their view and we must establish a new world order in their Marxist-designed global community for the common good, for the collective.

The Unanimous Declaration of Interdependence was drafted by Cliff Humphrey drawing upon and revising the Declaration of Independence to create in September 1969 what was dubbed as “the founding document of the environmental movement.” Using similar calligraphy and syntax, the one-page paper looked like Thomas Jefferson’s document.(Source)

The National Education Association (NEA) produced in 1976 a social studies curriculum called “A Declaration of Interdependence: Education for a Global Community.” Congresswoman Marjorie Holt (R-MD) described it as “an atrocious betrayal of American independence.” (Source)

The first “cardinal premise” of this curriculum as presented on p. 8 of the original document was Global Community explained as “Stressing our relationship as a nation to the other nations of the world and our responsibilities as human beings to the biosphere. Recognizing the concepts of multiethnic, multicultural, and multilingual education in pluralistic societies.” (Source)

During our Bicentennial celebration of America, the NEA teachers were preparing the ground of fundamentally transforming our country by seeding students with the idea that they are not Americans, but citizens of the world.  “Education in America’s third century will be a process of preparing students to be citizens of the world, a world in which this country forms but a part of the whole.” (p. 20) This is how the NEA was saying Happy Birthday to America. (Source)

Of the 17 Sustainable Development goals of U.N. Agenda 21, Goal #4 aims to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.” (Source)

Goal #4 is supported by Global Education First Initiative (GEFI). GEFI is focused on “putting quality, relevant and transformative education at the heart of the social, political, and development agendas and generating additional and sufficient funding for education through sustained global advocacy efforts of global movement for education.” (Source)

In case you wonder why our country is turning so unpatriotic, anti-American, self-hating, and Marxist, look at America’s brainwashed teachers, the academia, the long history of dumbing down of American children’s education, and the destruction of America by the globalist U.N. Agenda 21 which has been implemented quietly in your neighborhood for the last 28 years. The “dumbing down” of America’s education has been accomplished in less than five decades.

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By Rev. Michael Bresciani —— Bio and Archives—August 6, 2020

The attacks on statues, people, policemen and conservatives by Antifa activists, are proof that the fine line that exists between ideologues and idiots, has been egregiously breached.

But rioting has the effect of keeping crowds in the mindless mode and while they think they are woke, they have been lulled to sleep by a false unifying purpose.

The ranting and destruction are the products of the walking dead, mindlessly trying to get their pound of flesh. But, no amount of nutrients from the living, can keep any dead person, purpose, or cause alive.

When your cause hurts others – winning is always losing.

Black lives matter is more than a slogan, it is a fact, but, not because it is now so popular to say it, but it is a fact based on this – wait for it – because all lives matter.

No, I will not pick up my marbles and run home because you can’t have one without the other.

If all lives don’t matter, then black lives don’t matter.

Conversely, if only black lives matter, we have entered a nascent realm, that can only be called – the new racism.

Since we can’t expect the walking dead to wake up or shut up long enough to listen, we will have to go to others to ask the most important question. It is here that you will see the truth in the adage – “It depends on who you ask.”

Ask Planned Parenthood

If you ask Planned Parenthood if black lives matter the answer is an unequivocal – no!

“Abortion is the number one killer of black lives in the United States.  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, abortion kills more black people than HIV, homicide, diabetes, accident, cancer, and heart disease … combined.” (grrtl.org)

Ask the Democratic Party

If you ask the Democratic Party if black lives matter the answer is – “Only at election time.”

In fact, it would be best to ask that of a democrat, namely former presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren who reminds us that black lives only matter to Democrats during elections.

Ask Joe Biden

If you ask Joe Biden if black lives matter, he will answer, “If you don’t vote for me – you ain’t black.”

Is America really buying this?

Not everyone is buying this tripe and when Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald rebuts the black lives matter narrative, it is dissolved in less than 40 minutes by use of sound empirical evidence, not philosophy, semantic wrangling or the rhetoric of anti-policing advocates.

Other Questions for Joe Biden

The biggest question here is, will we get to ask any questions at all. Biden is entertaining the idea of not debating President Trump at all before the elections.

Michael Cantrell’s piece on the Flag and Cross website declares, “One of the major benefits of having all of this coronavirus hoopla going on in our nation is that the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has an excuse to avoid public appearances and making a bigger fool of himself than he already has over the last 12 months.”

The next question is, if Joe can’t face one single opponent in the race for president; how will he face all America’s enemies, problems, and economic challenges for the next 4/8 years?

Perhaps the most poignant question of all for Joe, is, – are you willing to look like a coward to the entire country because you will not debate the man you insist is a dunce? If you are so classy and he is so crappy – whence cometh the fear?

The Next Question is for Us Alone

The ultimate question is not whether Biden can win the election, but rather, can we win if he does.

Joe is a dusty democrat from the tutelage of Senator, Robert Byrd and a classmate of the Manchurian, Barack Obama. He is followed by a less than stellar record that can only produce yawning and a need to take a nap.

The final question is would we place America’s security, her history and her entire future in the hands of a man who may not know where he is when he wakes up from his nap?

Which King Will our King Submit To

The Bible declares that God rules in the kingdoms of men. The affairs of all men are in his purview and the very hearts of kings and rulers are his alone to guide. To wit:

“The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.” (Proverbs 21:1)

Having reached the age of accountability means that all men are submitted to one authority or another even if they don’t clearly see which one, they are subject to.

They are either under the authority of the God of all creation or the god of this world. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

From which source would Joe Biden get his power to rule?

According to the bible someone who believes that babies are up for the killing, men can marry men and being gay is as normal as apple pie – is not getting his inspiration or orders from the God who gave us his son to die for those specific kinds of sins and gross immorality.

Isn’t calling Joe Biden to the presidency of these United States like asking the devil to rule over us?

Don’t let the future answer this question because by then, it will be far too late.

Related

A Biden Presidency Would be Bad – His VP ‘Picks’ as President Would be Worse

Law and Order Will Win Election

Racism Cannot Drive Out Racism