The Real Insurrection

Sponsored by: Patriot Home Funding

Section 8 US Code subsection 1324 states, "Any person who encourages or induces an alien to enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence, is or will be in violation of law, and will be punished as provided for not more than 5 years. If the violation is for purpose of commercial or financial gain, imprisoned for not more than 10 years. If the violations during and in relation to causes serious bodily injury to, or places in jeopardy the life of any person, imprisoned for not more than 20 years. In the case of a violation resulting in death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life."

Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?

Further, the law was tested and affirmed in the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in the case of United States vs. Hansen. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, ruling that it is not constitutionally overbroad, and upheld and affirmed a lower court ruling of a 20-year sentence for Helaman Hansen.

Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? 

The Alien Enemies Act of 1789 states that whenever any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. It was amended in 1918 to include women.

Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?

Not if you are Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee who has a long history with President Trump, beginning with his presiding over the FISA court that allowed introduction of fraudulent evidence and illegal spying of Carter Page and the Trump campaign in 2016, to his relative slap on the wrist of FBI legal counsel Kevin Clinesmith, who was convicted of providing fraudulent evidence to the FISA court Boasberg presided over BY BOASBERG. Clinesmith's punishment? 12 months' probation and 400 hours of community service. 

Boasberg also presided over the trial of January 6 provocateur Ray Epps, who was shown on camera advocating for violence and bum rushing the capitol building. His sentence? 12 months probation and 100 hours of community service.

Now let's contrast those sentences with the other 70 January 6 defendants he sentenced. Boasberg used section 1512 c2, also known as the Enron Statute, of disrupting a federal proceeding, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court in these cases, to sentence Sandra Weyer to 14 months in prison for trespassing and parading. Cynthia Ballenger got 4 months in the federal pen for 4 misdemeanors. Former NYPD officer Sara Carpenter got 22 months for 3 misdemeanors. 

See the problem?

Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the quiet part out loud on MSNBC recently, "We put 235 progressive judges on the bench and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time." 

How many times? Trump has faced 79 injunctions from lower federal courts in his 50 months as president. Since 2001, Bush faced 6, Obama 12, and Biden 14. Of those 79 injunctions, 74 have been issued by judges appointed by Obama and Biden.

There is a common misconception that the constitution grants the federal courts check and balance power as the third branch of government. That is not true. That power is granted to the Supreme Court in Article 3, not to lower courts, who are a creation of congress. Clearly the lower court judges have overstepped their constitutional boundaries, are acting unlawfully, and since they were created by congress, congress must reclaim it's own Article 1 power, as the federal judiciary that congress has created is trying to seize Article 1 and 2 powers.

In 1803, in Marbury vs Madison, after John Adams appointed his "midnight judges" on the way out of office after the election, the Supreme Court ruled that they, not the lower district courts, held the power of judicial review, and solidified its role as the ultimate interpreter of the constitution. In 1804, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "Nothing in the constitution has given them a right to decide for the executive, more than to the executive to decide for them."

In 1866, in Mississippi vs Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that "the inferior courts had no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties."

Sounds pretty straightforward, doesn't it?

In the past 60 days, lower court judges have told the President what foreign policy he can execute, who he can hire, who he can fire, who he can deport, who can and can't serve in the military, who he can appoint to executive branch agencies, how and where those agencies spend taxpayer money, and which agencies he can execute audits on.

With the re-election of Trump, the lawfare has now transitioned into the next stage, from an attack on Trump and his supporters to an attack on the powers granted by Articles 1 and 2 of the constitution, and previous Supreme Court rulings in an attempt to seize power neither granted by legislation nor by election. 

Jefferson later wrote that making judges the ultimate deciders of law would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. We're seeing that now.

In the Federalist Papers, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, all made it clear that the judicial branch is the weakest, not the strongest, of the three branches. 

Judge Clarence Thomas warned us in 2018 when he wrote that "I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And, they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of the Article 3 courts. If their popularity continues, this court must address their legality."

The bottom line- lower court judges are not superior to the two elected branches. 

The question facing us now is will the John Roberts Supreme Court- the same court that ran like a scared dog from election fraud cases, led by the same John Roberts who allowed the coverup of the fake whistleblower in the first Trump impeachment, who buried the leak of the majority opinion in the Dobbs case, who has waded into political issues beyond his purview with his statement about congressional impeachment of judges- do the right thing and stand up for the constitution and our elected representatives? Or will it allow the real insurrection to continue, and with it, the destruction of the balance of power we have enjoyed for 249 years as we devolve from a representative republic into judicial tyranny, the judicial tyranny that is real tyranny of the unelected that the left craves?

Our survival as a nation depends on the answer......