Two Constitutional Crises Coming Soon

Two major constitutional crises are on the short-term horizon.

The first is the recent 4th Circuit decision upholding a lower court ruling against the so-called “travel ban.” There’s more than a hundred pages of gobbledy-gook, but the only way the court could reach that decision was to extend the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to the entire world. Otherwise, the plaintiffs would not have had standing to sue. You can read it here. If your eyes glaze over, skip to the dissent. If the Supreme Court upholds this decision by making something up that isn’t in the Constitution (typical), the Globalists will have won their battle in court. The Nationalists, who want to preserve US sovereignty and the makeup of our society, would have nothing to lose by going hot. On the other hand, if the Court rules in favor of the ban, it would be a victory for those who value the rule of law (Nationalists), and a setback for the Global Left, which doesn’t ever play by the rules, admit defeat, or go away. The Left is extremely violent, as history has shown over and over. The Left in such a situation could go hot, although I think that’s much less likely than the reverse scenario because they are in power in California, NY, and a few other large Blue States. (If the court splits 4 to 4, the 4th Circuit decision stands. That’s the worse possible outcome, in my opinion, but it could happen if Justice Ginzburg expires before a decision is handed down, or recuses herself because of her campaign comments and/or Justice Kennedy cucks.)

In no case is the division between “liberal” and “conservative.” It is between Nationalists and Globalists, which will make for some very interesting alliances and curious bed fellows (such as lifelong Democrats voting for Trump and Recucklicans like McStain, Ryan, and McConnell seeking to thwart their own party’s president whenever possible).

The second constitutional crisis is California and other states signing “agreements” with foreign governments. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution explicitly forbids states entering into treaties, but that is precisely what California, Oregon, Washington are doing. Other states have announced they will go along with California: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and wannabe Puerto Rico. The last is of course not even a state.

There is definitely a gigantic collision on the near horizon because of these two intractable issues.

The Paris Climate Accords (which no one in media or social media on either side of the issue has read, or is even remotely familiar with in any meaningful way) is not about the weather. Climate change is too nebulous and in any event cannot be reduced to a testable hypothesis. This is a deliberate move by the Globalists, who are maneuvering to transfer wealth from the US to China and elsewhere.

I put the odds of California increasingly ignoring the federal Constitution at 100%. Oregon and Washington’s governments will go along with California’s, although majority populations in counties east of the Cascades will not want to. There’s not much they could do about it, except perhaps to join Idaho. Will the coastal blue parts of those states say good riddance and to each his own? That’s the best case scenario.

What will the federal government do about California? I am 100% certain that China will back California like we back Taiwan, and there’s not much the Federal government could do about California’s actions short of going to war with California, which I think is unlikely.

Our mass media is either outright owned/majority shareholder-controlled by foreigners (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Fox, Twitter, etc.) or global corporations (CNN, Facebook, Hollywood studios, etc.) that are inimical to a sovereign US. Thus you can be assured that the level of shilling and fake news will continue to increase even beyond their already hysterical levels.

The tricky part: California agriculture feeds much of the US, but California agribusiness is dependent on the rest of the US for the water it needs to do so. Our times are about to get very, very interesting.

Either Trump will be impeached and removed from office through an exercise of raw globalist power or top-level Globalists in both parties are going to jail.

I don’t know the outcomes of any of these scenarios, I’m just certain that they are headed our way, and fast.

Advertisements

You Know Where They Stand

The Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch, speaking to an Islamic group less than 24 hours after the terrorist attack in California said, “We stand with you in this.”

She also said “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

“We” means Attorney General Lynch, the President, and her Islamic audience. “They” means us: people opposed to the Islamification of the US and Europe.

She also urged moslem parents of children who may be bullied in school to contact the Federal government. No, I am not kidding.

Yesterday, referring to the San Bernardino attack, she said, “We’re at the point where these issues have come together really like never before in law enforcement thought and in our nation’s history and it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change.”

Change.

There is no such thing as “violent talk.” The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech (and publication), including what those on the Left call “hate speech.”

Islam is a heathen religion that is incompatible with the US Constitution and American law and jurisprudence. Because it is incompatible with the US Constitution, which officers such as the Attorney General are sworn to defend, the Attorney General should vow to investigate and prosecute Islamic terrorism in the US. Instead, she does the opposite: promises to prosecute Americans while “standing with” moslems.

Moreover, she announced that she has ordered a federal investigation into the arrest of clock boy. That will deter local law enforcement from investigating future citizen complaints or tips. Neighbors of the San Bernardino terrorists said after the fact that they had noticed Middle Eastern men coming and going and thought it odd. But they said nothing because they didn’t want to seem “islamophobic,” a completely made-up nonsense word.

So, not only does US foreign policy promote Islam, it is objectively observable that domestic policy also promotes Islam, including actively importing moslems into the US.

The Attorney General has said explicitly which side she and the President are on. You know where they stand.

Insanity in Federal Court

Last week, the US Army Court of Appeals ordered that references to Bradley Manning “shall be neutral, e.g. Private First Class Manning or appellant, or employ a feminine pronoun.”

I cannot think of a more absurd– and dangerous– ruling in all of Anglo-American jurisprudence. It is absurd on its face because, despite his claims, Bradley Manning is not a woman, but a man. It is dangerous for the same reason: the court is ordering the government and citizens in this case to speak and behave in a manner that is not only inconsistent with reality, but directly contrary to empirical fact.

Put another way, the court is enforcing a lie, and requiring those over whom it has jurisdiction to not only accept it, but to actively promote it.

This order is now federal law. It will be used as precedent to enforce other Leftist lies in the future.

Any man who thinks he is a woman is ipso facto insane. It doesn’t matter whether he honestly believes it or not. I’m sure there is a madman somewhere who thinks he’s a dog; would this same court order counsel to refer to him as such?

This court ruling is itself an act of madness.

Full text of the order (two pages): Order_030515