A Sanctions Regime as a Foreign Policy Tool
When a head of state – such as the President of the United States, for example – wants to encourage certain behaviors in a foreign government, the toolbox is limited.
Citizen Writers Fighting Censorship by Helping Americans Understand Issues Affecting the Republic.
When a head of state – such as the President of the United States, for example – wants to encourage certain behaviors in a foreign government, the toolbox is limited.
Honest answers to a few basic questions will lead the faithful to the inevitable conclusion that we have a moral duty to use ALL means available to prevent government overreach from encroaching on our God given rights.
The Trump administration has deported 238 illegal aliens, who were members of the terrorist gang Tren de Aragua. District Judge James Boasberg has ordered the President to return them to the United States. The Dems are insisting that it will be a constitutional crisis if the President refuses to comply with the judge’s order. Their reasoning is completely backwards.
Discretionary wording is found throughout the Constitution and its Amendments.
Article I: “Each house MAY determine the rules….”
Article IV: “New states MAY be admitted by the Congress….”
Civilian authority over our military is a bedrock, non-violate must be in our constitutional republic that should under no circumstances-ever-be watered down.
The old rule about not criminalizing policy can’t apply when it’s not about policy but actual, outright criminality.
As President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance took their oaths of office on January 20, they represented a sharp turn for the government of the United States.
Because Gaetz doesn’t mind making enemies; he would clearly enjoy doing exactly what needs to be done at the Dept of Justice.
We hear a lot about democracy in the elections today. But what is really, and what does it need to sprout and flourish?
While the idea of small government may be appealing in its simplicity, it misses the mark when it comes to the constitutional vision of governance. The U.S. Constitution does not demand a government that is small; it demands a government that is limited
Former Vice President Dick Cheney (R, WY) has endorsed former Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) for president this fall.
In an election season when we have much more important things to talk about, why are we wasting column inches – and our readers’ precious time – on a local dispute interesting only to pizza purists?
Because words matter.
The original intent of the U.S. Constitution serves as the secure foundation of the success of our republic, anchoring our legal and governmental systems to the principles envisioned by the framers.
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may justify any action at all under that aegis.
The U.S. Constitution, the foundation of American law and governance, stands as a testament to the vision and wisdom of the Founding Fathers.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
To the rabid left, the U.S. Constitution is like that annoying friend who always insists on following the rules.
On this July 4th, I am acknowledging the significance of our founding fathers’ gift to us, while recognizing that it is dying before our eyes.
Pretty much everyone except the “fundamental transformation” commies and their Ivy League useful idiots agree that using the law to undermine the Constitution is kind of a bad thing. The question is what to do about it.
When Harry Browne said, “I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution,” he spoke for every single patriot in the country alive today — and all of the dead ones.