Categories
China Coronavirus Courts

Launching An Economic Cold War With China

Rod Thomson

The time for civil behavior regarding Communist China is past. An Economic Cold War is required or someday, a terrible hot war will be. And such an Economic Cold War is both doable and winnable. But not cost-free.

First, before getting to how we fire the first salvo in such a Cold War, we have to briefly document what a dangerous government runs China. It is now well-known around the globe (if not to the Chinese people) that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is directly and completely responsible for loosing COVID-19 on the world. 

The CCP in Wuhan and Beijing covered up and lied, with the support of the World Health Organization, for a month after determining that this new coronavirus spread between humans, allowing about five million people from Wuhan and Hubei Province to travel around the world, including direct flights from Wuhan to the United States and Europe. The Chinese Communists also ordered the destruction of evidence, including early samples and research, “disappeared” doctors who were trying to alert the world to the new danger, expelled journalists, blocked the CDC from visiting and helping, lied to the World Health Organization and imprisoned “rumor-mongers” trying to blow the whistle on the epidemic. To this day, the CCP continues to lie about the number of infections and deaths; by some estimates, as many as a million Chinese have died from COVID-19.

Epidemiologists now believe that if Wuhan had been isolated just three to four weeks earlier and the world knew to enact travel restrictions and quarantines, the virus likely would have been contained to a sharp but local outbreak in Hubei Province. And none of the rest of the world would be threatened as it is today. Hundreds of thousands would not have died from it. Perhaps millions would not have died from the ill-conceived total shutdowns of western economies, largely the U.S., that feed subsistence level people in Third-World countries. In fact, the shutdown was predicated on bad models with corrupted information from China.

None of it would have happened if it were not for a venal, brutal dictatorship in Beijing.

All of these deaths are not on President Trump or Gov. Andrew Cuomo or Italy (which had direct flights from Wuhan to Northern Italy). They are on Communist China. 

But this is just the final nail in the coffin of the failed policy — which I was warm to early on — that China could be wooed into the fraternity of civilized nations through increased economic integration and more open trade. Many conservative thought leaders who once subscribed to this concept, such as William McGurn, Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt and many others — now recognize it largely failed and that a sea change is needed. It’s not clear where liberal/progressive thought leaders are on this because their entire intellectual processes are consumed with removing Trump from the White House.

Like us on FACEBOOK

Communist China may be the biggest threat to its own people, as one of the worst human rights violators on the planet. They have shipped more than a million Uyghurs to concentration camps for the crime of being Muslims. The Uyghur men are separated from the women, including husbands and wives, with the goal of essentially eliminating the ethnic minority in a generation by being unable to procreate, except those Uyghur women who are given to Chinese Communist Party members.

The Chinese Communists also imprison Christians, other Muslims, Hindus, journalists, and literally — by law — anyone who says something critical of the Communist regime. This is a terrible, repressive government.

And a terrible neighbor. China has illegally built islands in the South China Sea and fortified them militarily with air bases and army units. They have turned loans to impoverished or foolish countries into blackmail projects through their Belt and Road project, economically subjugating some Third World nations to gain access to their resources and ports.

And right now, China is using the cover of the COVID-19 pandemic to crackdown on Hong Kong and eliminate the citizens’ rights it agreed to retain when England returned the prosperous island city to China. Hong Kong freedoms are going to be erased, as will many Chinese in Hong Kong.

Communist China has stolen U.S. military technology, interfered with elections, infiltrated high-ranking American officials such as U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat. They have hacked the U.S. government and major American corporations. They have cheated on trade agreements and blackmailed U.S. companies. And they enable the unthinkably brutal and dangerous North Korean regime.

They are building a strong navy and air force to go with their giant army, often using pilfered technology from the U.S. and occasionally Europe.

China’s ambitions are for world domination, and there is no other way to read it. They are playing the long game and have played the United States from Nixon to Obama. We need a President with the backing of Congress who will stand up to China before it is too late. And that means now.

That sure isn’t Joe Biden, whose son Hunter was given more than a billion dollars by the Chinese Communists for his “investment” fund after flying in with his then Vice President father on Air Force Two. 

According to the New York Post: “In 2013, then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Less than two weeks later, Hunter Biden’s firm inked a $1 billion private equity deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China. The deal was later expanded to $1.5 billion. In short, the Chinese government funded a business that it co-owned along with the son of a sitting vice president.”

That was the first of a couple of rounds of investments in Hunter Biden’s firm that greatly enriched him and could well be part of the reason that Joe Biden is so soft on the Chinese Communists. That, and being perennially wrong on foreign affairs.

If China is the true existential threat to the United States as we know it, then Joe Biden is the exact wrong person in the White House to be dealing with them.

This has to end and it seems to me there is only one person willing to stand up to the Communist thugs in Beijing — the only President in two generations that has.

Firing the first salvo in the Economic Cold War

The Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party are one and the same. And that means that nations such as the United States can sue the CCP without running into sovereign immunity protections that apply to governments but not organizations or companies. Missouri already has already done so. Nations suing other nations, national governments suing other national governments, is a go-nowhere prospect because of sovereign immunity. But suing individuals, companies and organizations is an accepted practice.

The lawsuits would be for economic damages due to the CCP’s mischief in covering up the dangers of the new virus. A German newspaper has estimated that the Chinese government owes Germany about $155 billion for damages due to their malfeasance.

So lawsuits could be brought against the CCP by the United States or by individual states in federal court. If the courts rule in favor of Missouri or other states, or the federal government if it launched a lawsuit, collection is not as hopeless as it sounds because China has huge investments in the U.S. That’s a legal point of leverage. A court or even the federal government could put a freeze on certain investments, as we have done with Iran and others, which of course would invite China to retaliate against American investments there. That would be painful in the short term, but in the long term it would expedite the necessary shift out from China.

Italy, England, France, South Korea, Malaysia, Japan, Australia and dozens of others could also sue China in their national courts  — or the European Union courts for the European countries. Who knows how successful these might be, but they would keep the Chinese Communists on their heels and some would probably have success. We saw how the European Union ruled against Apple and Google in cases and that required payment from both U.S. companies as well as a change in how they operated in Europe. The CCP’s actions have been much more deleterious than anything Apple and Google did.

Again, it’s not suing the country of China, but the Communist Party, a non-sovereign organization. The lawsuits can also name individuals in China, which would include multiple leaders in the CCP.

This is just one path for holding China accountable, but one that would hit the CCP hard. 

Congress can and should hold investigatory hearings that would form the basis for a radical shift in our relationship, policies and trade with China. This has to happen, and could mean a significant paradigm shift from how we have done business since Nixon. 

The very worst result would be that there ends up being no accountability for the Chinese Communists, and the world just goes back to business as normal. That would embolden the tyrants in Beijing. They would take from this that they can get away with anything. And the entire world would pay the price.

Rod Thomson is an author, former journalist, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Like Rod on Facebook.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Categories
Courts Redistricting Truth

DeSantis Victory Saves The Florida Supreme Court And Redistricting

by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

Amid all of the talking head analysis of Tuesday’s election, one aspect is often overlooked: Republican Ron DeSantis’ victory for Governor of Florida will sharply change the makeup of the Florida Supreme Court to a large majority conservative, constitutionalist, which will have a powerful impact on redistricting in the nation’s third largest state.

But it was close — less than 1 percent close. Andrew Gillum could have been the first African American governor in the history of Florida. Indeed, the last time this degree of historical significance graced a candidate, he won the Presidency of the United States.  

But Andrew Gillum’s race turned out differently. Tallahassee’s mayor had an excellent performance in his primary election defeating Florida darling Gwen Graham — daughter of former Governor and former Senator Bob Graham — when many felt he couldn’t. Gillum exceeded all expectations, and he did it at a fraction of the cost as more well-heeled candidates battled each other with attack ads.

All the various reasons why Gillum won the primary will be the object of endless discussion and debate, but in the end, the qualities that put him over the top in the primary were the same ones that doomed him in the general.

Gillum ran on plans to make Florida a sanctuary state, to implement an income tax, and to turn the Florida Supreme Court deep blue progressive. The prospects of those changes were too repugnant to Floridians. Florida is an extremely diverse state, but in the face of one of the greatest economies in the country, and Floridians’ aversion to a state income tax, the prospect of turning in a polar opposite direction was too much for the electorate.

And understand, that in most respects, Florida is a red state. Every statewide office holder, including all of the elected cabinet positions are Republican and have been Republican for many years. The Legislature is nearly veto-proof Republican. Only the highest level statewide races make it purple.  

With no experience in Florida government, DeSantis will have a difficult transition from his present duties as a congressman. But perhaps the easiest task for him is arguably the most substantial: picking three conservative Supreme Court judges.

More Truth On Patreon

A Gillum win would have maintained and rejuvenated the Court’s liberal majority. But now, the 4-3 votes in favor of liberals will become 6-1 votes in favor of conservatives; sweet justice for social conservatives and strict constitutionalists who have seen their legislations recurrently blown up by a hostile court.

Oh, and let’s not forget the effect the new Court will have on redistricting challenges by the Democrats a mere three years away. The old 4-3 Court was very friendly to the liberal redistricting lawsuits. The new one will likely be less so, affecting state elections but also congressional elections.  

For Republicans, there is great hope in a DeSantis governorship, but like President Trump, the effect on the Florida Supreme Court alone will suffice in making this win worthwhile.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Courts Elections Judges Truth

Once Again, Judges Insert Themselves Into Florida Political Campaign

By Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

In a move with significant implications to Florida’s gubernatorial election, the Florida Supreme Court granted an order sought by the League of Women Voters of Florida prohibiting Gov. Rick Scott from naming the successors to three Supreme Court justices scheduled to retire on the same day the Governor relinquishes power to his own successor.

Unlike the federal Constitution, the Florida Constitution requires Supreme Court justices to retire once they reach the age of 70, except that the retiring justices may continue to serve until the last day of their term; the same day the governor’s term ends. Additionally, a Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) provides the governor between three and six nominees from which to choose their successors.

The JNC is supposed to offer recommendations to the governor within 30 days of the occurrence of the vacancy, and the governor is to appoint his choice within 60 days of certification of the nominations to the governor by the JNC. Article V, Section 20(c)(5) of the Florida Constitution describes the required make up of the board and states that each member of the board serve for four years such that the same JNC members who are presently serving will be serving at the time the new governor takes office.

In Florida, three of the seven Supreme Court justices are scheduled to term out on Jan. 8.  Gov. Scott argues that he ought to be making the appointments in keeping with the established precedent of appointing judges in such a manner so as to avoid vacancies. In anticipation of the deadline, Scott instructed the JNC to have its nominations on his desk by Nov. 10.  

But the Court disagreed.

In an unsigned order, the Court said that the authority for filling vacancies lies solely with the governor who is elected in the November 2018 election, meaning the winner of the contest between Republican Ron Desantis and Democrat Andrew Gillum. What’s more, the Court said that the JNC did not need to comply with the Governor’s Nov. 10 deadline. The Court was amenable to hearing arguments regarding the time by which the JNC needed to certify its recommendations to the Governor.

(A few weeks before Florida’s primaries, an Obama-appointed federal judge skewed skewed the flow of funds to some election campaigns while sparing others without forewarning, and with significant effects on the outcome of primary elections.)

Who gets to select the next three justices to the Florida Supreme Court is important not only because of the sheer number of appointments, but because the balance of power in the Court hangs on the ballot. At this time, the Florida Supreme Court carries a 4-3 edge of liberals over conservatives. All three retiring justices are liberals.

Get More Truth On Our Facebook Page

It is safe to presume then, that if DeSantis wins, the Court will have a 6-1 conservative majority, but if he should lose, the liberal Court will keep its 4-3 lead with perhaps an even more liberal slant considering Gilluim’s strongly leftist positions. What effect a JNC appointed by a conservative governor can have in controlling the political slants of a new, liberal governor’s judicial appointments remains to be determined. 

One thing is clear, however, the stakes of the Florida gubernatorial race just got a lot higher. And when the winner takes office, there will be three Supreme Court vacancies.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Courts Politics Truth

Obama-Appointed Judge’s Ruling Is Actual Election Meddling

By Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

Rightly, Americans are worried about the use of dark money in our election process, money that flows from organization to organization (political action committees, or PACs) without identification as to the source, and used for the purposes of supporting candidates or campaigns.

Americans are also worried about the possibility of foreign governments, most notably the Russians, meddling with our election process.

But in August, without the knowledge of the overwhelming number of Americans, an Obama-appointed federal judge skewed the flow of funds to some election campaigns while sparing others without forewarning, and with significant effects on the outcome of primary elections like the ones in Florida that were so near the time of the ruling.

So while some Americans worry about Russian meddling, a clearer case of election tampering from inside the United States just occurred.

The case, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, et al, arose out of a 2012 incident in Tampa, Fla., involving Karl Rove. Apparently, at a fundraiser sponsored by Crossroads GPS, Rove made an offer. He told those in attendance that an “anonymous donor” had offered to match up to $3 million in contributions to whatever contributions they made that night. The offer resulted in an extra $1.3 million being raised.  

Shortly thereafter, another organization, Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington, D.C. — founded by two liberal Democrats — filed a complaint claiming that Crossroads GPS had failed to disclose the identity of those who had contributed to the event. Their logic was that the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) required that persons disclose their identities when contributing to an organization intended to affect the outcome of an election.  

The Federal Elections Commission had interpreted the statute to mean that the identities of the persons needed only to be disclosed when they were made in support of specific independent expenditures. In other words, if the donor was only intending to support the overall efforts of the organization, then no disclosure needed to be made, but when the same donor contributed to the same organization with specific instructions that such funds be used to support a specific candidate the identity would need to be revealed.

Join Our Fight For American Values!

In Karl Rove’s case, the anonymous donor requested that the money go towards the support of the Republican challenger in the 2012 Ohio Senate race without specifying how the funds should be spent. For 38 years and 19 prior elections, the law had been interpreted in such a manner that those kinds of generalized instructions would not require the disclosure of the donor.  

The complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission and in 2014, while acknowledging issues regarding the proper interpretation of FECA, the Commission tossed out the case because, in its opinion, the regulation did not require such a disclosure. The Commission was concerned that interpreting the law in the manner CREW was requesting would allow for a significantly more expansive interpretation of the situations by which donors’ identities needed to be disclosed.  

About four years later, the case reached the federal trial court where Judge Beryl A. Howell, an Obama appointee, ruled, on Aug. 3, 2018, that the Commission’s rule must be vacated because, in the court’s opinion, CREW’s interpretation was a more proper one. Howell recognized that this new interpretation could have a “chaotic” effect on the upcoming elections and therefore stayed her order for 45 days while the Commission revised its rule.  

Immediately, Political Action Committees (PACs) across the country reacted with fear as the rules under which they were accustomed to working were being pulled out from underneath them, and they risked being forced to disclose the identity of their donors. Funding towards campaigns all over the country halted as the PACs figured out what the ruling meant and its significance to their donors’ privacy concerns.

In Florida, the effect was profound.

Like Us On Facebook

The Florida primary was scheduled for Aug. 28, just 21 days later with early voting schedules beginning about 10 days later. In accordance with McCain-Feingold, candidates were busy spending their hard dollars as they jockeyed for position in the arena of public opinion. These candidates were also prohibited from communicating with the PACs that had issued commitments on their behalf, so they could not ascertain why the independent expenditures that they thought were coming by way of political ads, mailers, and fliers never appeared. What’s worse, those PACs whose contributors were not concerned about the protection of their identities continued to spend without a care for the same judicial ruling that was paralyzing their competitors.  

In the meantime, the Federal Elections Commission refused to change its rule despite the court’s order since it was confident that the case would be overturned on appeal.  

By Aug. 24, with the Florida primary elections a mere four days away and the ruling disparately advantaging certain candidates over others, Crossroads GPS asked the Circuit Court of Appeals for an extension on the stay of Howell’s order, but the appellate court refused.

On Aug. 28, the Florida primary elections were held. The damage had been done, and the court had, either unwittingly or purposely, irreversibly affected the public’s opinions of the various candidates throughout the state, and successfully interfered with the election process and its outcomes. True meddling.

And so it was that an event taking place six years earlier impacted the outcomes of countless races in various states, but especially Florida, under the guise of being an administrative emergency. 

Subscribe To Us On Youtube

It would not be until Sept. 15, 2018, two weeks after the conclusion of Florida’s primary elections, that the appellate court would issue a ruling upholding the lower court’s actions.  

Too late to affect the Florida primaries, but still hoping to rectify the situation, Crossroads GPS asked the Supreme Court to hear the case in order to still be able to impact the midterms. On Sept. 16, 2018, Chief Justice Roberts, acting alone, ordered that the rule remain in effect pending further orders, effectively reversing the rulings of the lower courts. But two days later, he reversed himself, apparently with the participation of the rest of the Court.

What does this mean to election finance laws? At least for now, it means more disclosures of federal campaign donors. Of course, actions calling for greater transparency are helpful towards ensuring an open elections process, but it will also have a chilling effect on political speech, particularly when the status of the law remain in a state of flux.

The great injustice here is that a monumental shift in the interpretation of our nation’s election finance laws was allowed to happen weeks before an election and three months prior to the midterms.

In other words, who needs the Russians to attempt  to meddle in our elections process when the courts can successfully do it themselves?

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Courts Kavanaugh Supreme Court Truth

Republicans Need To Grow A Spine In Kavanaugh Confirmation

by Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hold hearings regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation on Monday, very late and suspiciously timed by Sen. Diane Feinstein after she had the letter for eight weeks.  Judge Kavanaugh is eager to answer the allegations and speak to their falsities. 
 
Now, in a not-so-unexpected twist, the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, through her attorney, has communicated to the Judiciary Committee that she will not appear unless an independent FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh is undertaken.  
 
Blasey’s request is complete and utter nonsense.  

First, there is no crime for the FBI to criminally investigate as the statute of limitations has long run out. Second, the FBI has already conducted its investigation of Judge Kavanaugh in support of the hearings. For the FBI to go back and investigate this allegation is a wasteful exercise in futility, particularly in light of there being no prospects for criminal sanctions.  

Third, Blasey is coming forward, as a citizen, with information she feels is necessary for the Committee to consider. As such, it is up to the Committee to consider her testimony, at its discretion, based on the credibility and relevance of the information cited. It is certainly not up to Blasey to dictate the terms by which the Committee reviews her information. Once she provides her information, the Committee would then act in whatever manner it felt appropriate.
 
Fortunately, thus far, Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has reassured the public and Blasey that the Committee will hold a hearing to consider her testimony on Monday, September 24; a hearing to be held publicly or privately, however Blasey likes. Chair Grassley should not deviate from that position. 

Join Our Fight For American Values! 

At this point three things are becoming increasingly evident. First, the charges Blasey is bringing against Judge Kavanaugh are looking like a sham designed only to disrupt the progression of the confirmation process; a process that appears to be otherwise unavoidable. Second, the Democrats are demonstrating their desperation in their quest to delay the confirmation of a perfectly qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. And third, this is yet another example of the gross disregard the Democrats will demonstrate to the sanctity of the law and the Republic if they ever regain power.  
 
The time has come for the Republicans to stick to their guns and demand adherence to procedure and decorum. First, the Committee must continue with its plans to have Blasey testify on Monday.  If Blasey does not do so, then the Senate must immediately move for a vote on confirmation on Tuesday. Adhering to this plan will result in the confirmation of a conservative judge to the Supreme Court in time for the upcoming judicial session. More importantly, moving in this manner will help preserve what little respect there remains for the institutions that make up our Republic; institutions that today’s Democrats are all too eager to destroy for their own political gain.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Courts DACA Immigration Judges Obama Truth

Alienage Discrimination Is Now A Thing. And It’s Really Bad

Rod Thomson

“Alienage discrimination” is exactly what is sounds like; the discrimination against people specifically based on them being in the country illegally. It’s little known, but it is fatally dangerous for America.

Right up front, the threat here is that if alienage discrimination gains the same legal civil rights protections as, say, racial discrimination, then we can shut down ICE and any deportations. Once someone slips into the United States they will have essentially the full legal protections of any legal resident. Which is approximating insanity.

But traveling the remaining distance into the nationally insane, there would be standing and precedent to ultimately require “undocumented residents” the actual right to vote. If you are looking for the signs of America’s ultimate downfall from within, this would be in flashing neon.

Not surprisingly perhaps, this affront to legal, rational reasoning and national sovereignty comes courtesy of President’s Obama’s pen when he created DACA after Congress would not do what he wanted. Also not surprising, it is finding some foothold with Obama-appointed judges who act solely as policymakers, not arbitrators of law. (If political leaders are seeking appropriate places to use impeachment, these judges are prime targets.)

This is not a one-off.

Twice now in the past few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants have legal standing to sue American employers that won’t hire them because they are here illegally. The companies require their workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents such as green card holders. Not that long ago, this was seen as the responsible way to limit illegal immigration; by businesses not hiring them.

The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in South Florida, who handed an open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a giant U.S. company of alienage discrimination against an illegal immigrant by not hiring him because he was in the country illegally.

Help Us Fight For Foundational American Values!

The lawsuit was filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a radically leftist, anti-American group that launches lawsuits on behalf of illegal immigrants. MALDEF has an extensive political agenda, including pushing for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering educational standards to accommodate new illegal immigrants. MALDEF officially labels American immigration enforcement as racist and xenophobic, going so far as to charge that it is racist for English to be the country’s official national language. And naturally, it violates civil rights to wall off the southern border.

Judicial Watch has been following these cases. It reports:

In the recent Florida case a Venezuelan immigrant, David Rodriguez, living in Miami is suing consumer goods corporation Procter & Gamble for refusing to give him a paid internship because he is not a legal resident or citizen of the United States. MALDEF filed the lawsuit last year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Procter & Gamble requires citizenship and immigration status information on its applications and warns that candidates “must be a U.S. citizen or national, refugee, asylee or lawful permanent resident.” Rodriquez is neither and he quickly played the discrimination card after getting nixed as a candidate. In a statement MALDEF’s president reminds that “work-authorized DACA holders are valuable contributors to our economy” and “should not have to face arbitrary and biased exclusions from employment, especially by large and sophisticated corporations like Procter & Gamble.”

In 2014, MALDEF filed a lawsuit against Northwestern Mutual insurance company in New York because the company required a Mexican illegal alien protected by DACA to have a green card. MALDEF claimed that requiring Ruben Juarez, a Mexican national, to provide proof of legal residency resulted in “alienage discrimination.” The judge ruled in favor of Juarez.

In the most recent case, Judge Kathleen Williams, a 2011 Obama appointee, cited that 2014 ruling in her ruling in favor of Venezuelan Rodriguez. In denying Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s lawsuit, Judge Williams ruled the Venezuelan immigrant’s claims are “strikingly similar” to Juarez’s.

Like us on Facebook

What this means is that DACA is clearly not seen as a temporary measure to help the “kids” — although Rodriguez is 34 years old, meaning he was nearly an adult when he slipped illegally into the United States. It’s obviously being used to create a pathway for permanent, legally-protected status and citizenship-level rights for people who came here illegally. And it’s being accomplished without any elected official ever taking a vote or making a decision. It’s all through activist judges.

But this alienage discrimination method/precedent has vaster implications. First, it could — and will with legal successes — turn into class action lawsuits against every major U.S. corporation that has policies in place for only hiring people in America legally. That would likely include all Fortune 500 companies plus thousands of others who have high training costs for new employees. It’s unknown what the total financial costs of that would be, but unarguably deep into the billions of dollars that American companies following American laws might be required to transfer to people who are in America illegally.

Second and most serious, establishing the concept of alienage discrimination would cripple America’s efforts to maintain internal order among its citizens. A nation that cannot regulate or deport people who come to the country illegally, or overstay illegally, is a country that is quickly enroute losing its sovereignty.

Subscribe to our Revolutionary Youtube

If “undocumented residents” are given special civil rights discrimination protections currently afforded to certain minorities — which is what MALDEF is asking for and these rulings are beginning to confer — then they have a case for proportional representation in employment, university acceptance and so on; against alienage profiling by law enforcement; and ultimately a case for voting rights. If it is illegal to discriminate against blacks, for instance, in voting rights and illegal aliens are protected by the same civil rights, then voting must follow.

If that sounds absurd and extreme, please see the history of the past few years.

This is not how the United States continues as a functioning, sovereign nation. Many have long said that America will not fall from without, but from within. This would be a pathway in accomplishing that fall.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.


Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


 

Categories
California Constitution Courts Democrats Elections Politics Truth

Here’s How California’s Rebellion Could Lead To Dissolution Of The Union

Rod Thomson

This headline is most certainly not clickbait. The path from this point to dissolution of the Union or actual armed conflict between California authorities and federal authorities is not hard to map. Whether it happens depends largely on the actions of California.

Right now, California is the first and only state to pass a law making itself a “sanctuary state” where it forbids all state and local law enforcement officers — oddly named at this point — from cooperating with federal officials seeking to deport people who came to this country illegally. However, as California’s dangerous wantonness has not come with immediate costs, other states are considering the same move.

Now Attorney General Jeff Sessions is marshalling the forces of the Department of Justice to sue California over its lawlessness in the same way that Obama’s DOJ sued Arizona for trying to uphold border law. It inevitably had to come to this.

In a speech announcing the action, Sessions took aim at both the awful policies and individual politicians, such as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, Democrat, who publicly warned illegal immigrants in her city last month about an impending raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents: “How dare you? How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open-borders agenda?”

Calling on vast reserves of disingenuity, the Washington Post called Sessions a states’ rights hypocrite while pretending to write a news story, by referring to invisible and unnamed “observers” and finding some yahoo at Sam Houston State to make the reporters’ argument:

“As a Republican senator from Alabama for 20 years, Sessions was known as an advocate for states’ rights. But, as attorney general, observers say, he is making an exception when state policies bump against his conservative agenda.

“As soon as Attorney General Sessions is able to craft federal policy that matches what he believes to be the interest and values of America, he is perfectly fine with strengthening the federal government and overcoming states’ rights,” said Benjamin E. Park, author of “American Nationalisms” and an assistant professor of history at Sam Houston State University. “States’ rights philosophies are always skin-deep and work until you want a strong federal government to support your policies.””

This case is nonsense because states’ rights is a long-time American ideal, tradition and constitutional issue — except in very few cases where there are “enumerated” rights for the federal government. The reporters and the professor may want to consider reading the document.

Our Revolutionary Youtube Chanel

In Section 1 Article 8 of the Constitution, these enumerated rights are spelled out and include naturalization of citizens and national security, which clearly requires border control. Californian cannot do that as it is a prescribed power of the federal government, which Sessions is supporting. Whereas the federal government has taken on all sorts of rights that are not prescribed for it, which Sessions opposed. See, guys? Read the Constitution.

 

California is Arizona, except opposite

It is easy to empathize with the plight of Arizona being overrun by illegals crossing the Mexican border and the federal government’s refusal to enforce existing federal law — like, you know, what the president promises to do when he places his hand on the Bible and is sworn into office. But the Supreme Court ruled correctly in favor of the corrupt Holder DOJ in saying that border enforcement is a federal responsibility and a state may not do it. That was a Constitutionally correct ruling, not the political kind we get too much of in the Ninth Circuit Court.

Precisely the same principle applies to California. The state is trying to usurp an area of clearly delineated federal authority in border control, naturalization and national security. Just like in Arizona, they are duty-bound to lose at the Supreme Court — almost assuredly the Ninth will issue a law-free political decision, and then will be overturned.

What’s not clear is what happens next. And this is where things get really dicey.

Like us on Facebook

No one serious worried that Arizona would revolt and threaten dissolution. The state acquiesced to order and law and backed down on enforcement. Will California?

Arizona was trying to enforce federal law and so as expected followed the ruling. California, which is increasingly run by truly radical progressives, was trying to break federal law. Will they follow the ruling of the Supreme Court and eliminate their sanctuary state status? Will they begin cooperating with federal ICE agents and not warn illegals of coming raids?

If you think they obviously will, you have not been paying attention. There are reasonable betting odds that the radicals running the state in Sacramento will simply continue to flout federal law. They will maintain their sanctuary status and they will continue to not cooperate with ICE. Further, probably more will do what the Oakland mayor did and actively work to undermine the efforts of the federal government to enforce federal law by siding with criminals — even very low-level criminals. It’s also not impossible that there are some California radical Democrats who actually want to see the state secede from the Union and the dissolution of the United States.

 

Dissolution, civil war or new leaders

So if California openly and publicly ignores a Supreme Court ruling, then what do the feds do? How does Washington respond to a rogue State in the Union?

It seems there would be three ultimate options — after exhausting several intermediary attempts to come to a resolution, such as withholding federal funding, which may or may not be found to be legal or effective.

One, the people of California could revolt electorally against the radical leadership and elect new leaders that are a little bit more pro-America, and rational. This is obviously the most desirable outcome. But it seems like a longshot.

The biggest reason for that is that California laws and judicial rulings are putting non-Americans in the voting booth, probably in very large numbers. As we reported in January:

“California is baking into its laws, regulations and governmental attitude the opportunity for literally millions of Mexican nationals and other non-American citizens to be voting in American elections. This has probably already happened at least in some small ways.”

Two, the federal government could do nothing and accept California’s rebellion. That will encourage even more lawlessness on the part of the Sacramento radicals and embolden other liberal states to take similar steps. At that point, we will have anarchy, or a form of Civil War, or the dissolution of the United States.

Three, the federal government could move troops into California to essentially occupy the state and put down the rebellion, preserving the Union.

Seeing what happens beyond that is difficult. Would California National Guard units actually fire on U.S. Army units? Probably not. Very few radicals of this stripe are militarily inclined. But would there be armed insurrection? Probably so. And exactly what role might Mexico play? That they have harbored desires for the dissolution of the United States and return of regions to Mexico is hardly a secret. 

California may yet relent, but it does not look likely. And barring that, it’s hard to see how this ends well for anyone, including California, considering the current leadership of California.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.


Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


 

Categories
Courts Judges Liberalism Trump Truth

Another Liberal Activist Judge Rules; Congress Can Stop The Madness

by  Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

In another striking judicial development, Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee from San Francisco, issued an injunctive order Jan. 9 prohibiting President Trump from moving forward rescinding President Obama’s DACA order.

Although it only applied to established DACA applicants, and left untouched the ban on future applications, the order is offensive nevertheless, and demonstrates the terrible problem plaguing our country resulting from the actions of activist judges.

Essentially, the plaintiffs, which included the State of California, argued that President Trump had acted randomly and capriciously in removing the DACA order because, among other reasons, he did not give notice and did not allow for a period of public commentary prior to issuing his rescindment.  

But here’s the thing, neither did Obama.

Obama himself issued his own DACA order single-handedly, without due process, and outside any compliance with any statutory requirements — and after saying he did not have the Constitutional authority to do so. Therefore, when President Trump acted to discontinue the DACA order, he was actually rescinding an illegal act, making Alsup’s ruling even more egregious — and overtly political.  

The inescapable conclusion of all these actions is that Judge Alsup was less informed in his ruling by the law, than by his disdain for the President’s policies, and possibly, for the President himself. Relevant to this: Just two weeks before this political ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a different DACA-related Alsup order.

Additionally, the judge applied his order to the whole nation. This latter issue is particularly problematic as it is allowing individuals in the judiciary to paralyze policy decisions on a national scale even though the district of any particular judge does not encompass a large geographical area.

Check Our Youtube Site

This latter problem is actually one that can be fixed by Congress.  Congress has the authority to create and define the powers of the lower courts.  As evidenced by the results of this case, it is time for Congress to limit the scope of judicial orders to only the geographical extent of their district.

And as for the greater problem of an overzealous judiciary, it is high time that the American people enact some sort of check on America’s increasingly partisan courts.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com to arrange a lecture or book signing.