Exposed: The Clear And Present Danger Posed To America In The Aftermath Of Scalia’s Death

“The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.” ― Albert Einstein

Last week, America lost Judge Antonin Scalia from our highest court, and people are afraid of who might take his place. Americans should be afraid if they are going to continuously roll over and play dead to judicial tyranny the way they have over the last 100 years.

Some are saying: “The next appointee to the Supreme Court justice may vote liberal.”

America, there is no liberal side of the law! There is mercy to the repentant (Isaiah 66:2). Outside of that, the Law merely condemns crime; it is not turned to justify crime. Furthermore, we only have one Constitution!

Some are saying: “This is the death of conservatives!”

Not if the people are willing to fight!

Remember, Thomas Edison said:

“The strength of the Constitution, lies in the will of the people to defend it.”

People are also worried that the next SCOTUS vote on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, which is protected under the Second Amendment, may be infringed (violated).

The Supreme Court is not above the law. The only way their lawlessness abounds is if the people allow it. They do not have any authority whatsoever to act outside of the enumerated powers of the Constitution, period.

They swore before God and man, with their hands upon the Bible, to uphold the Constitution “against all enemies both foreign and domestic,” not to tear it down.

Judges are not above the Laws of our Constitutional Republic (Article 4 Section 4 of The United States Constitution). They cannot decide against written Constitutional Law. If they are allowed to get away with such things, it shows you who is corrupt (Romans 7:12), and that their rulings are not law (Deuteronomy 5:1-22).

The answer to America’s judicial tyranny is to deal with the judges! Judges are appointed to serve during good behavior (it is not good behavior to transgress moral law), and need to be removed for bad behavior (Article 3, Section 1; Article 1, Section 3; Article 2 Section 4 of The United States Constitution; Psalm 2).  

Judges are appointed to discover and apply the Law, not to re-write or to re-interpret what is easily understood by every American adult and child.  

Yet, this is what the American people have been conditioned to accept (Hosea 4:6). Somehow, people in this country have been led to believe the courts are the law (demi-god), and that whatever they say goes. False!

The Court assails the Church (the giver of the Law, Exodus 18:21) and upright and righteous Laws through oligarchy after oligarchy (few rule over many), advocating that which God condemns. The list goes on and on and on and on. Which, of course, turns the lawful into the enemies of the state. This is exactly what they are attempting to do.

In other words, they create un-laws (Psalm 94:20) that attempt to justify the wicked and condemn the righteous (Proverbs 17:15; Isaiah 5:20).

“If the Supreme Court is to be the final arbiter (to decide differences) of what the constitution say’s, then (the American people) we have ceased to be our own rulers (under God), and the Supreme Court is our ruler.” –President Andrew Jackson

Again, those who represent the people are there to uphold the law, not to tear it down and recreate it in their own ungodly image.

Speaking of the ungodly and un-American Injustices, look what these individuals have been allowed to do with this country. Look at their records (Matthew 7:16).

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  • Steven Breyer
  • Elena Kagan
  • Sandra Day O’Connor
  • John Roberts
  • Sonia Sotomayor

These are not judges. These are activists legislating away, and gutting the pith and marrow out of America’s God-given RIGHTS.

They have sanctioned the murder of the innocent to the tune of 57 million since 1973 (Exodus 20:13; Proverbs 6:17)!

They have sanctioned sodomites to “marry” one another while shutting down the American people that they work for (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:24).

They have assailed free speech, the right to bear arms, etc.

“A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.” –Benjamin Franklin

Why is it, knowing the law, that 318 million people are afraid of what effeminate Barack Hussein Obama will do next to further transgress the Constitution by attempting to appoint another corrupt judge to the bench?

America, it is time for you to now send this message: “Don’t tread on me!”

Are Americans Putting Too Much Faith In The Supreme Court?

With the recent passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, America is truly bereaved of one of her greatest defenders of justice.

Justice Scalia was a historic jurist, an exceptional legal scholar, and a stalwart defender of the Constitution as it was written by our founders.

The “crisis” being spoken of now is who will the next Supreme Court Justice be–and if he isn’t nominated by a Republican, will that sabotage America as we know it?

Regardless of what party nominates the justices, this problem with the judiciary declaring evil to be good and good to be evil will not be remedied, adjudicated, or fixed in the courts. It is unfortunate, but I feel Americans have a great deal of evidence to support the notion that the courts are the traffickers of injustice and immorality in this nation. In my lifetime alone, America has experienced horrific consequences by its obeisance to Supreme Court opinions. For example:

  • Millions of Americans have been murdered, ripped limb from limb in the womb.
  • The American family unit has been assaulted by the perversion of homosexual marriage.
  • Students have been harassed and coerced into learning without prayer, singing without Christ, and extra curricular activities with no Bible.
  • Once penalized by government for an unlawful action, now Americans are being fined for the inaction of not having government-approved healthcare.

How do we end such an epidemic trend? The Bible queries, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”  

To start, Christians, constitutionalists, and so-called “conservatives” need to recognize there is no federal government solution to our nation’s malady. Rather, our solution is found in restoring our Biblical American view of government found right in the Organic Law of our country, the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration clearly recognizes there is a God; that our rights come from Him; and that civil government, as His servant (and ours), is limited to protecting our rights.

For the purpose of securing our rights, the Constitution grants lawmaking power only to Congress and NOT to the courts, not even the Supreme Court.

You see, Article One, Section One — the very first sentence of the Constitution — says this: “All legislative power herein granted is vested in a Congress…”

So, if all federal lawmaking power is in Congress, then how much is left over for the courts?

The answer, of course, is zero.

Under our Constitution, courts render opinions in cases and controversies that come before them; they do not make laws.

Scalia understood that the courts do not make laws and have absolutely no law-making power. Yet, through so-called “Judicial Supremacy,” the federal courts claim to be the lone and final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. So what is the justification for this subversion?  They claim the “Supremacy Clause,” found in Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Constitution. But in reading this article, we find no mention of the Supreme or any federal court. We do find, however, that it is the Constitution itself that has supremacy.

Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively against this judicial tyranny. He stated in a letter to William Jarvis in 1820: “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

You see, the Constitutional authority of the courts is to apply the laws of Congress. But ask yourself this question: “How can the courts enforce a law that Congress hasn’t made?”


Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Liberals Are Endangering Our Citrus Industry

Florida’s citrus harvest has plummeted 60 percent from ten years ago, because of citrus greening disease, a bacterial infection that causes trees to produce stunted fruit and eventually die. The disease has also been found in one Los Angeles area orchard, potentially putting California’s citrus groves at risk. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are at stake.

Introduced and spread by the flying aphid-like Asian citrus psyllid, citrus greening is also called HLB, from the Mandarin word for “yellow dragon disease.” It can quickly infest entire orchards, and thus far there is no cure. Infected trees must simply be destroyed.

Fortunately, a new pesticide called sulfoxaflor can prevent infections by killing psyllids. It is the only product other than neonicotinoid insecticides that protects valuable citrus trees against HLB. (Although technically in a different class, sulfoxaflor is similar to neonics.)

Unfortunately, a three-judge panel from San Francisco’s Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently banned the chemical’s use. This is the most liberal, most frequently overturned court in the United States. But its decision has forced the Environmental Protection Agency to cancel its approval of sufloxaflor’s registration, and ban the chemical’s sale and distribution in the United States.

Both the California and Florida citrus industries need this product if oranges are going to be kept off the endangered list. Can growers and state officials secure commonsense legal decisions before it’s too late?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is extremely cautious about insecticides. Yet it approved sulfoxaflor, after discussing it with Canadian and Australian regulatory agencies and reviewing more than 400 studies, reams of data and many analyses of field tests examining effects on honeybees.

Not good enough, said the Ninth Circuit. Because “bees have been dying at alarming rates,” the judges said, they felt compelled to substitute their judgment for the EPA’s – and revoke sulfoxaflor’s approval.

In the end, their chief objection came down to three measurements of pesticide residue in nectar and pollen – out of 132 measurements taken. Because this two percent of results barely exceeded the EPA’s extremely conservative “level of concern,” and even though the detected residue amounted to only a few parts per billion (equivalent to a few seconds out of 32 years), the judges pulled the pesticide’s approval and told the EPA to do more homework.

In reality, it is the judges who need to do more homework. Their decision failed to recognize several critical facts.

First, residue detection does not equal harm. Neonicotinoids – the insecticides that the court compared to sulfoxaflor – have not impacted honeybee populations. Real-world experience and extensive field studies demonstrate that bees thrive throughout millions of acres of neonic-treated canola grown in Western Canada. These pesticides are also widely used in Australia, where the bee industry is so healthy that it exports honeybee queens worldwide.

Second, bee populations are actually rising. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that America’s colony numbers have risen slightly, from 2.6 million in 2000 to over 2.7 million in 2014. They’re currently at a 20-year high in the United States, the Washington Post reports, and up 80% worldwide since 1961.

The number of hives in Canada has also increased, even as neonic use has grown. In Ontario, hive numbers rose from 84,000 in 1995 to 97,500 in 2013. Relatively high losses in Ontario over the frigid 2014/15 winter may reflect the fact that the province has a greater proportion of hobbyist beekeepers.

They try hard to maintain their hives, commercial keeper Lee Townsend observed. But “they’re not as current as commercial beekeepers,” who are generally more up to speed on how to protect hives. Bees are “how we make our money. This is how we support our families. There’s a big difference,” he says.

Third, media reports on wintertime bee losses may have made the judges think bees are in trouble. But beekeepers lose a certain percentage of their hives every year, and view losses around 19 percent as acceptable.

When losses are higher, such as 23 percent last winter, they can cause economic setbacks for some beekeepers. But most can quickly rebuild their hives in the springtime – a detail that many news stories leave out.

Many journalists also fail to recognize that worker bees live for only six weeks in the summer. The Ninth Circuit seems to have made the same errors, ignored experts and evidence, and listened mostly to anti-chemical activists who blame neonics for seasonal bee loss fluctuations.

Fourth, it appears that significant colony losses in recent years were caused primarily by aptly named Varroa destructor mites that carry multiple bee viruses and diseases. Other serious threats to beehives have included parasitic phorid flies, intestinal fungi, the tobacco ringspot virus and abnormally cold weather in some area.

Thankfully, beekeepers are managing these challenges better, despite how difficult it is to treat bees for parasites – basically killing bugs on bugs. While trying to address hive health problems, beekeepers have sometimes accidentally killed off entire hives through overuse or off-label use of pesticides.

Fifth, while some still have problems maintaining the health of their hives, experienced, attentive beekeepers are finding their profession is “more profitable than ever,” says independent researcher and beekeeper Randy Oliver. Bees are highly sought for pollination services, and prices are high.

Meanwhile, however, U.S. citrus growers face devastation.

Sulfoxaflor offers them a chance to survive. Its safety, effectiveness and unique insect-control mechanism make it especially valuable. Even the Ninth Circuit judges acknowledged this.

As entomologist Michael Rogers, director of the University of Florida’s Citrus Research and Education Center, recently told the Lakeland Ledger: If they don’t have sulfoxaflor, “the alternatives growers would use would be more toxic” to bees that pollinate so many crops.

“Neonic crop protection is currently the only thing we have that can ensure the citrus industry survives citrus greening long enough to be rescued by genetic engineering,” Rogers adds. Ironically, many of the groups battling neonics also oppose biotechnology.

The White House’s recent National Pollinator Health Strategy emphasized the need to “balance the unintended consequences of chemical exposure with the need for pest control.” The Ninth Circuit ignored that guidance and let fear and misinformation triumph over facts.

California and Florida growers and agricultural agencies should pursue legal remedies that regain their sulfoxaflor option, before psyllids and HLB destroy the nutritious citrus fruits we love. Thankfully, the Ninth Circuit just granted the EPA’s request for a panel rehearing on its decision to ban the chemical.

Growers and other affected parties should at least file “friends of the court” briefs, to ensure that the judges are aware of all the relevant facts before it renders a new decision.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

It Is Not Just Washington Which Has Voters On The Warpath

Elsewhere in this publication, I wrote about the week I spent covering the jury trial of the State of Nevada vs. James David Norrell, the young man charged with two felonies for the “crime” of defending himself, his pregnant wife and his 2 ½ year old son in their third floor Reno, NV apartment.

After a week of reversible error, feckless judging and the kind of things you never saw on Law and Order, the result was a hung jury.

To put it mildly, it was not newbie Judge Lynn Simons’ finest moment; and the Washoe County District Attorney’s office must also shoulder some blame for even charging this case, much less taking it to trial.

The judge arrogantly flouted the Nevada case law requiring her to instruct the jury regarding defense theory of the case, even when the jury ASKED for such an instruction. Nevada has a law on the books allowing a citizen to make an arrest in certain circumstances, and she refused to tell the jury. Twice.

And, frankly, that was the tip of her fecklessness. She allowed young ADA Sean Alexander to call rebuttal witnesses who had previously been excused—after the ADA was seen in the hallway discussing their new testimony. She allowed the prosecutor to question why Norrell DIDN’T say something in his testimony in his closing—a clear violation of Supreme Court case law.

And through all of this, the jury came back with no verdict because they were 12 Americans who did their jobs much better than the Judge and the prosecutor.

For the defense and Mr. Norrell, it was like trying to play the Lakers at Staples Center with three really good players while the refs continuously made bad calls.

Here’s the problem. Norrell probably spent between $20 and $50,000 with defense co-counsel Byron Bergeron and John Malone defending himself. And the DA’s office—in a wrongheaded attempt to save some face—may still attempt to retry him. That’s a lot of money for a kid starting a family who was living in Federally subsidized housing. But his future career in security depends on his ability to carry a gun.

Here’s the bigger problem.

Most people think that the criminal justice system is fair and even-handed and concentrates on violent and property crime. Until and unless they get sucked into the system like Norrell did, they maintain that belief for most of their lives.

You can’t put a cop on every corner, so our system largely depends on voluntary compliance. People have to respect the system, and that starts with the police, the judges and the prosecutors. If the average person reads about the conduct of cases like this, what then?

Well, the symptoms of “what then?” are the rise of outsiders like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. Not that their initial success is a bad thing. But it’s a natural reaction to an increasing distrust of government at all levels.

District Attorney Chris Hicks was elected in 2014 with no opposition and virtually everybody’s endorsement. Judge Simons was also elected in 2014, and her endorsement list read like a list of everybody who ever had a reason to have their own personal judge on the bench.

District Attorneys are elected to maintain justice—not to win at all costs—and part of their job is to weed out bad cases before they are charged or proceed to trial. Hicks had plenty of chances here, and I don’t want to hear about how big the office is and how much bureaucracy it has. His name is on the door, and his employees are that bureaucracy; and he is responsible because the voters say so.

Judges are elected to call balls and strikes—not set the strike zone or the width of the plate. That is the sole province of the state legislature. Lynn Simons—despite the fact that she has only been on the bench about nine months—should know that legislating from the bench is not what District Judges are charged with doing, and she ought to be ashamed at her conduct of this trial.

This isn’t penny-ante stuff. People’s lives and liberty are at stake with the stroke of a DA’s pen and an arrogant ruling by a sitting judge. That is why it is appropriate to remind both Hicks and Simons that they were elected, and they can be unelected. As easily as Donald Trump can lead the Republican Presidential race because people are mad at Washington, Hicks and Simons can be in private practice in 2019 because of cases like the one against Norrell.

Respect isn’t something which the criminal justice system gets automatically. It must be earned by those who run it. And if the taxpayers have no respect for it, it is clearly the fault of the people who we have entrusted to run it.

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

Good Law, Bad Law – Congress Shall Make NO LAW

America’s forefathers identified Good Law in the first paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, where it speaks of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” These laws are intractable inasmuch as a tree is a tree, a man is a man and a woman is woman – that’s nature’s law based upon God’s eternal laws of the universe. It is figuratively written in stone that a tree cannot become a man, a man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a tree. No matter how contorted the human mind may become in their effort to disrupt the laws of nature and of nature’s God, “these Truths are self-evident.”

Since that declaration of Good Law, the written word has been used by man continuously and consistently to make Bad Law; and the only reason this continues to go unabated is that through the years, decades and now centuries, We the People have allowed it to happen.

To that I say, “Shame on us; let’s fix it now before it’s too late (if it isn’t already); and remember, whenever something needs fixing, the best place to start to fix it is at the beginning.”

Enshrined in the Bill of Rights attached to the other famous American founding document, the Constitution, is one of the people’s most important freedoms, the Freedom of Religion. Our forefathers used sixteen short words to declare religious liberty for all posterity. Those sixteen words read as follows: “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That’s really quite straightforward; understandable at an elementary level; concrete, clear and concise.

And what have we allowed our historical judicial tyrants to do with it? Slowly, serendipitously, stealthily steal our rights so thoroughly that we now live in a country where an innocent woman in Rowan County, Kentucky, Kim Davis, is jailed because she refuses to follow the dictates of one particular judicial terrorist of the day. And why has this happened? I believe it is because we have allowed the sworn enemies of Liberty to distort the very meaning of our God-given, constitutionally protected Rights.

For example, if in fact there is to be separation of church and state, the Bill of Rights puts this concept in the context of a “one-way street.” Congress shall make NO LAW. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything to the effect that religious people shall not influence Congress. Furthermore, if there is to be a healthy “separation” of church and state, a good understanding of the mutually respectful separation can be read in a commentary written in 1888 that includes the following paragraph:

Destroy our churches, close our Sunday-schools, abolish the Lord’s Day, and our republic would become an empty shell, and our people would tend to heathenism and barbarism. Christianity is the most powerful factor in our society and the pillar of our institutions. It regulates the family; it enjoins private and public virtue; it builds up moral character; it teaches us to love God supremely, and our neighbor as ourselves; it makes good men and useful citizens; it denounces every vice; it encourages every virtue; it promotes and serves the public welfare; it upholds peace and order. Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people, and with Christianity are bound up all our hopes for the future.

See: “The American Idea of Religious Freedom,” by Philip Schaff.

It’s no wonder the statists want to deny our children a proper understanding of American history.

For example, an early challenge to religious liberty was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 1878 in Reynolds v United States, involving the right of a Mormon to have more than one wife.

Now, to be clear, I believe in traditional Christian marriage between one man and one woman, and I agree with Mr. Philip Schaff when he states that “Christianity is the only possible religion for the American people” (see italicized paragraph above). That said, this case should never have been allowed (by We the People) to have been adjudicated at the federal level. This was a State issue and should have been finalized in Utah, where “the people” have “the right” to determine “the structure” of “their society” in “their State.” That’s federalism; that would have been in accordance with our constitution.

However, maybe because Americans were too busy building railroads in 1878, they failed to demand judicial adherence to their constitution; and the Supreme Court was allowed to insert their opinion that the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion but allowed it to legislate against action. I don’t remember seeing caveats to NO LAW that differentiated between opinion and action; do you? In my humble opinion, the supreme court of 1878 should have cited the First and the Tenth amendments to the United States constitution, declined to even hear the case and remanded it back to the State of Utah, where it should have been properly adjudicated in accordance with the will of the people. Instead, the Supreme Court’s handling of this decision seems to have been the proverbial camel’s nose under the proverbial tent.

Our religious liberty has, since then, continuously and consistently been eroded at the federal level to the point where, in the 1960’s, the supreme court required governments to “refrain from limiting religious freedom, unless they have a compelling societal reason for doing so.”

And, of course, the socialist Senator from New York, Charles (Chuckie) Schumer, and the infamous deceased Senator from Massachusetts, Edward (Teddy) Kennedy, were only too happy to enshrine the government’s “compelling interest” restriction on our First Amendment Rights in 1993 under the deceitful guise of the Restoration of Freedom of Religion Act.

I ask you: Do you really believe that Sen. Chuck Schumer or Sen. Ted Kennedy ever intended to protect your religious freedom? I rest my case.

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