Articles Of Impeachment For Ruth Bader Ginsburg

9843380413_6b619d5aac_k

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has once again violated her oath and the ethics of her office…

You won’t believe what she said about the Constitution.

And now she has violated the Judicial Code of Ethics….but guess what. The federal government has determined that the Judicial Code of Ethics DOESN’T APPLY to the Supreme Court unless the Supreme Court VOLUNTARILY submits to it.

SERIOUSLY??

Supreme Court Justices DO NOT have life time appointments. Pursuant to Article III, Section 1, Supreme Court Justices hold office for “good behavior” and are to be IMPEACHED if they conduct themselves otherwise.

Articles of Impeachment:

1. WHEREAS, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has failed in her duty to “support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic” in denigrating the Constitution on the record within a foreign nation.

2. WHEREAS, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has acted in a manner unbecoming a Justice of the Court of the United States in violation of Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, “A judicial employee should not lend the prestige of the office to advance or to appear to advance the private interests of others” by endorsing a position prior to a hearing on a matter to be addressed in the future by the Supreme Court.

3. WHEREAS, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has acted in a manner unbecoming a Justice of the Court of the United States in violation of Canon 3(D) declaring, “A judicial employee should avoid making public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action” by commenting on the merits of a highly politically charged case to be heard before the Supreme Court.

4. WHEREAS, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg holds her office pursuant to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which declares. “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour.”

5. WHEREAS, any other judge of a court of law in the United States would be, without question, removed from office for such behavior.

It is THEREFORE concluded that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, having clearly and distinctly acted in “bad behavior”;

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is HEREBY IMPEACHED from her office of Supreme Court Justice with great prejudice.

signed….NO ONE IN CONGRESS! But DEMANDED by WE THE PEOPLE!

Photo Credit: Stanford Law (Flickr)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Exclusive: Here’s A Recap Of My Conversation With An Israeli Soldier-To-Be

Photo credit: ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com

Let us never forget: governments may war, but it is men who fight and families who sacrifice.

During my travels, I get to meet some very amazing people.  Earlier this year, I believe by Providence, I met a businessman from Israel.

I was staying in a hotel in Dallas, when all of the sudden the power went out in the entire hotel.  As I was coming out of my room  to discover the problem, I met a fellow hotel guest.  He suggested we take the elevator together.  I warned him that I didn’t think the elevator was safe in this situation; and if we got in and got stuck, since I am extremely claustrophobic, it would not be pleasant! He tried to reassure me that he would save me if that happened, and we laughed.  The elevator wasn’t even working, so we decided to take the stairs together, equipped with our cell phone flashlights.  That’s how I met David.

As you can imagine, when we got downstairs, there were many other guests with the same questions.

Since the emergency generator was lighting the lobby, we decided to have a seat and wait for the power to return.  We began talking and ended up sitting in the lobby for over 2 hours talking about our lives, our families,  and the world around us.  I learned so very much from him about world politics as it relates to Israel.  I chuckle now because the first thing he said to me was, “If you believe everything you see on CNN, then you think Israel is a terrible place, bombs blasting non-stop and war everywhere.  But let me tell you, don’t believe everything you see on CNN.”  Of course, I reassured him that rarely do I ever watch CNN and NEVER do I believe anything they say.  Then, we laughed together.

He told me about all the beauty in Israel and all the places I have to visit.  We talked about the travels of Jesus.  To hear about those places from someone who has actually seen them was an exciting experience.  We talked about the current conflict, and he gave me something really interesting to think about.  He said, “Let me ask you a couple of questions. If the Palestinians stopped fighting today, what do you think would happen?”  I actually thought about it for several seconds and answered, “The conflict would be over and there would be peace?”  He responded, “Yes.  Ok, now if Israel stopped fighting what would happen?”  I said, “Israel would be annihilated.”  He said, “Now you understand the real conflict, the story that is not being told on CNN.”

At some point, the electricity had been fixed for over an hour; and it was nearly midnight, both of us beginning to visibly wilt at the lateness of the hour.  On our way back to our rooms, we asked the clerk what had happened.  He told us that they were not really sure.  It turns out that it was just our hotel.  The clerk said they were able to fix the transformer that served the hotel and that all should be fine now.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Victory For Hobby Lobby…But What Does That Mean For Us?

Photo Credit: McConnell Center Creative Commons

I have read the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Opinion, and it leaves me with great concern. I intend to study it further, but here is my take at first glance…

My greatest concern remains that this court continues to acknowledge the federal government’s authority to mandate healthcare.  This is Constitutionally NOT a function of the federal government, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to limit the federal government’s seizure of power just proves James Madison was right when he said:

“If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…” Virginia Assembly Report, 1800

Here are the facts that we can take away from this Supreme Court opinion:

In the Hobby Lobby opinion, SCOTUS recognizes a correlation between birth control and abortion and the financial impact of birth control upon the businesses:

“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.”

SCOTUS sees the potential “unlimited” application of HHS that would be endorsed if SCOTUS held against Hobby Lobby:

“It is HHS’s apparent belief that no insurance-coverage mandate would violate RFRA—no matter how significantly it impinges on the religious liberties of employers—that would lead to intolerable consequences. Under HHS’s view, RFRA would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question—for instance, third trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many closely held corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation. RFRA was enacted to prevent such an outcome.”

SCOTUS says that the exception carved out for not-for-profits can be easily applied to for-profits.

“Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.”

SCOTUS then does a major CYA and makes this decision SPECIFIC to birth control and SPECIFIC to Hobby Lobby, which will either create a never-ending trail of litigation or chill the entire system of due process and force the remainder of the businesses to submit in silence.

“In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fail if it conflicts with an employer’s religious belief. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious disease) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.”

Victory, yes, but very limited in its scope. There are greater dangers lurking about in the Affordable Care Act.  Hobby Lobby’s case is just the beginning.  If you want to know how deep this rabbit hole goes, read this article: http://bit.ly/1gnZu7K

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Amnesty On Trial

If the federal government were a person, and if Congress were subject to the laws they create, they would face fines, prison, or both for many of their actions.  The ENLIST Act, being touted as a “pathway” to citizenship for illegal aliens, may be one of those actions.  It could be argued that the very act itself violates federal law. Consider this:

Immigration law, 8 US Code 1324, states that it is a crime to, either knowingly or recklessly, “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection… transport, or move or attempt to transport or move” or to even “encourage or induce” an illegal alien “to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”

It is not only a crime to actually commit these offenses, but it is a crime to even attempt to do so.  Anyone found guilty of violating 8 US Code 1324 is subject to fines, prison, or both.  However, if it can be proven that this person has committed this act for personal gain, the fines go up; and the prison sentence can be as much as ten years.

The Act also appears to violate 8 US Code 1611, which sets forth specific federal benefits that cannot be given to illegal aliens.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, an alien who is not a qualified alien…is not eligible for any Federal public benefit…” (NOTE: there is an exception for emergency services in this section)

Section 1611 defines a benefit as follows:

“(A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and

(B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.”

The ENLIST Act allows illegal aliens to join the military as a “pathway” to citizenship.  These illegal aliens will sign an enlistment contract with the federal government.  This enlistment contract will not make them citizens automatically.  There will most definitely be a requirement for satisfaction of the enlistment terms before citizenship is granted. While the illegal alien is serving in our military, he will be receiving clothing, food, housing, transportation, pay, and other employment benefits to include the GI Bill for post-secondary education; and he will still be in the United States illegally.

Additionally, the entire time these illegal aliens are serving in the military, they will not only be receiving benefits; the federal government will be encouraging other illegal aliens to come into the United States while housing, feeding, transporting, and shielding them from prosecution for violating federal immigration laws.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Let’s Play “Connect The Dots” With Obamacare

Expansion of the federal government has crept along slowly but surely decade after decade.  It’s a bit like a “connect the dots” page, where you can’t quite make out the picture until the lines are all drawn.  We don’t seem to connect the dots of cause and effect, so we never seem to see the picture until it’s too late. When someone does connect the dots, it sounds like a fairy tale because we are not used to seeing it all at once.  Here is a bit of connecting the dots to make you think.

Some years ago, the Supreme Court (part of the federal government) determined that the government could bypass your rights as long as the government could establish a “compelling governmental interest”.  That is how the government can create for itself exceptions to your 4th Amendment for national security reasons, or to your 2nd Amendment for safety reasons.  The Feds say “we can, we need to, so we will because we say we can.”

Combine this government-created authority to bypass your rights with the newest big expansion of power, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and we can predict what our future may be if we stay on our present trajectory.

The ACA gives the federal government the authority to subsidize your health insurance.  Whenever the government spends money on a purpose, they are automatically vested with a “compelling governmental interest” in that purpose.  With a “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance, they inherit a “compelling governmental interest” in anything that directly or significantly impacts that interest.   Following with that Supreme Court logic, we can surmise that…

  1. A “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance creates a “compelling governmental interest” in health care.  After all, your health care and the subsequent cost of that health care directly and significantly impact your health insurance.
  2. A “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance creates a “compelling governmental interest” in your HEALTH.  After all, your health and the subsequent impact of your health on your health care directly and significantly impact your health insurance.
  3. A “compelling governmental interest” in health insurance creates a “compelling governmental interest” in what you eat, where you live, and where you work.  After all, what you eat, where you live, and where you work all directly impact your health; the subsequent cost of that health care directly and significantly impacts your health insurance.

Since according to the Supreme Court, a “compelling governmental interest” can trump any of your inalienable rights, this “compelling governmental interest” authorizes the government to tell you where you can live, what you can eat, and where you can work.

Does that sound “extreme”?  Think about this.  The federal government has an agency called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC).  This committee meets with the sole purpose to:

encourage Americans to focus on eating a healthful diet — one that focuses on foods and beverages that help achieve and maintain a healthy weight, promote health, and prevent disease. A healthy diet can reduce the risk of major chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, and some cancers.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom