Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Federal Judges are in Rebellion

by ,

Our federal judiciary has long been usurping the powers of Congress, legislating from the bench. In Roe v. Wade, for example, the Supreme Court declared a right to kill unborn children that can be found nowhere in the Constitution. In Obergefell v. Hodges, they redefined marriage to include homosexual and lesbian couples.

Now, some federal judges are blatantly usurping the powers of the executive as well. The recent decisions by judges in Washington state and Hawaii, denying the validity of President Trump’s executive orders limiting immigration defy the president’s power to execute the laws that Congress has established. Title VIII of the United States Code 1182 states that “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” The denial of President Trump’s orders pursuant to this law is clearly an illegal action by the federal judges.

Unfortunately, the divided state of our country’s politics has made it impossible to respond appropriately to these illegal judicial actions. The obvious reaction should be for Congress to remove the judges by impeachment. A judge’s disobedience to federal law is clearly a “high crime,” and justifies his removal. The problem is that Democrats in Congress have become so radicalized that conviction in the Senate is impossible. There is simply nothing that a liberal official could do that would get a majority in the Senate to convict him. For Senate Democrats, the highest principle is party or ideological loyalty. In this environment, impeachment has completely lost its power. The Framers of the Constitution could never have predicted this degree of partisanship.

The longest range solution is to wait for the leftist judges to retire or die, and replace them with people who will respect the Constitution and the role of the judiciary established by it. Or to educate enough voters that replacing leftists in Congress would be possible. But we need a solution that will take less than a whole generation to accomplish.

A medium range solution would be a Constitutional amendment to require federal judges to be re-confirmed by the Senate periodically. This essentially gives up on the idea of an “independent judiciary.” That would be a serious move, since it goes against one of the principles the Framers had in mind when they created the Constitution. But it may be justified, because that principle presupposes judges who are committed to the Constitution and the law. We can’t assume that any longer. In any case, we need an even more immediate response to the crisis of judicial rebellion.

The three branches of our federal government are intended to be co-equal. None of them are to be completely dominant. Judicial rebellion means that the federal judges hold themselves higher than the legislative or executive branches. President Trump should declare that these rulings are illegal, and he should enforce his legally justified executive orders in spite of the judges’ orders.

What would be the downside of such an action by the president? The mainstream media, dominated by the globalist left in the Council on Foreign Relations and other such organizations, would go ballistic, of course. But how much worse could their treatment of Trump and conservatives in general become? It seems to me that they are already doing their worst.

The Democrats and fake Republicans in Congress would almost certainly try to impeach President Trump. But it seems unlikely that they could muster even a simple majority in the House, let alone the super-majority required in the Senate. The debate would be acrimonious, but the end result would be that the president would have retained his authority as prescribed by law.

The leftist federal judges have obviously decided that there is now no limit to what they can get away with. One way or another, the survival of our Republic requires that they be brought back under the Constitution.

Fast Track Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole

by ,

Since 1974, Congress has frequently ceded the Senate’s power to accept (ratify) or decline treaties, under the so-called Fast Track trade negotiating authority. First given to Gerald Ford by the Trade Act of 1974, Fast Track allows the president to negotiate a trade related treaty with foreign powers, then submit it to Congress for approval by a majority, without amendments. This circumvents the constitutional procedure of the president presenting the treaty to the Senate for debate, followed by potential reservations, and a ratification vote, which requires a two thirds majority to pass. Under Fast Track, no amendments or reservations are allowed, and passage requires only a majority vote.

The current attempt by President Obama and the establishment Republican congressional leadership to implement a version of Fast Track is intended to grease the skids for passage of several trade agreements: the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Parnership (TTIP) and others. The proponents of these treaties position them as “free trade” bills that should make American goods more competitive internationally. What they actually do is to set up international bureaucracies with legislative powers that supersede the powers granted to Congress. (<– Please do click that link)

The treaties themselves are inherently unconstitutional. The Constitution does not grant to Congress the power to delegate its own legislative authority to anyone, least of all a foreign body. Congress also has no constitutional authority to grant judicial powers to others. But cases that arise out of these treaties will be decided by the bureaucrats who administer the bodies created by the treaties. Americans would have to live with the decrees of the “administrative law judges,” since US courts would not be authorized to interfere.

So what we have is an unconstitutional process being used to implement unconstitutional treaties. We have congressional leadership, including especially the Republican Senate and House leadership, colluding with the least trustworthy president in generations, to grant that president carte blanch to negotiate the treaties, with almost no possibility of failure to ratify them. Most bizarrely of all, we find ourselves having to rely on sleazy congressional Democrats and their union allies to prevent all of this: right at home in Alice in Wonderland.

It’s too late to do anything about the Senate, since they’ve already gone to the dark side. The House of Representatives is supposed to be “the people’s house,” so it’s past time for “the people” (you and me) to weigh in. Find your representative’s contact information and call, write, or email your opposition to Fast Track and the so-called free trade agreements.

Remember Katanga!

by ,

Fifty years ago today, the life work of Alger Hiss came to fruition. Hiss, a US State Department official, served the United Nations as its acting Secretary General during its founding conference in the spring of 1945. On October 24, 1945 the United Nations Charter became effective as a majority of the countries that had signed it ratified their signatures. Several years later, Hiss went to a federal penitentiary for committing perjury when testifying that he was not a Soviet agent. His personal career was over, but his most important work, the United Nations, lived on.

Globalists everywhere are today citing the “accomplishments” of the United Nations during its 50-year life. One of the feats accredited to the UN was the reunification of the Belgian Congo by a UN “peacekeeping” force. Since most of the people I talk to have never heard of this piece of history, it seems appropriate to review it on this anniversary.

The tragedy of Katanga started on June 30, 1960 when Belgium granted independence to its former province of the Congo. Leadership of the new nation fell to Moscow-sponsored terrorist Patrice Lumumba. Lumumba was so highly regarded by Soviet dictator Khrushchev that he renamed the Moscow “Peoples Friendship University” the “Patrice Lumumba Friendship University” upon Lumumba’s death. In a directive to the heads of the Congolese provinces, Lumumba wrote that they should use “terrorism, essential to subdue the population.” His directive was carried out enthusiastically.

In order to avoid the nightmare that attended Communist rule in the Congo, the province of Katanga declared its independence. Its president, the Christian, pro-American Moise Tshombe, announced that “we are seceding from chaos.” Tshombe asked Belgium to send military officers to recruit and train a Katangese army to restore order in Katanga. Lumumba and his successor, Cyrille Adoula, asked for and got the aid of United Nations “peacekeepers” to force Katanga back under Congolese rule. It took two years of UN warmaking to accomplish this goal.

The troops transported to Katanga using US Air Force aircraft came from Ireland, Sweden, Italy, Ethiopia, and India. According to numerous eyewitness accounts, the troops of the UN’s Operation Morthor carried on one of the most brutal military campaigns of our century. In their 1962 report, 46 Angry Men, the 46 civilian doctors of Elizabethville, Katanga denounced the atrocities carried out by UN troops.

According to the doctors, the UN consistently bombed, machine-gunned, and looted civilian targets: hospitals, ambulances, churches, schools, homes, cars. “Over ninety percent of the buildings bombed and shelled by the United Nations were strictly civilian structures with no military value,” said the doctors’ report. After protesting the UN attacks on ambulances, Mr. Georges Olivet of the Swiss Red Cross was murdered by UN troops as he traveled in a Red Cross ambulance.

Worse yet, if possible, was the behavior of Congolese troops supplied and transported by the UN to invade Katanga from the north. Reports of cannibalism, massacre of missionaries and other civilians, and other atrocities were rife. The passage of these UN allies left in its wake complete anarchy in place of the peace and prosperity that had formerly prevailed in that region.

Before and during the two-year UN war against Katanga, the UN insisted that its troops had orders not to interfere with the internal affairs of the Congo or Katanga. Globalists in the Kennedy administration cooperated fully with this propaganda. The whole operation was sold to the American people as necessary to prevent the Congo from “going Communist.”

With such a legacy, the UN-boosters in and out of government ought to lie low on this fiftieth United Nations Day. They ought to be hoping that we would forget that we have been inflicted with fifty years of the UN. Instead, they are celebrating the UN’s birthday from sea to shining sea. They are openly talking about increasing the ability of the United Nations to conduct “peacekeeping” operations. There is even serious talk among them of giving the UN some powers of taxation. When will we begin to learn from history?