WATCH: SPEAKER JOHNSON DROPS BOMBSHELL: COURTS ON CHOPPING BLOCK! April 24,,  2025

In a bold and necessary move, House Speaker Mike Johnson has issued a stark warning to the far-left activist judges waging lawfare against President Donald J. Trump. Since his triumphant return to the White House on January 20, 2025, President Trump has faced an unprecedented wave of politically motivated legal attacks—137 cases in less than two months, with only two closed. This is not justice; this is a judicial insurrection, as Senior Counsel Josh Hammer of the Article III Project rightly called it on The War Room with Steve Bannon.

The radical left, unable to defeat Trump at the ballot box, has weaponized the courts to sabotage his presidency. During his first term, Trump faced 65 nationwide injunctions—already an outrageous number. But now, the lawfare has escalated to staggering levels, with activist judges—many appointed by Biden and Obama—issuing reckless rulings designed to obstruct the will of the American people.

Speaker Johnson, finally recognizing the existential threat posed by these rogue judges, declared that CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DEFUND AND EVEN DISBAND THESE LAWLESS COURTS. In a statement that sent shockwaves through the liberal media, Johnson said: (THIS IS AWESOME)
“We do have authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power over funding for the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act. So stay tuned for that.”

This is a long-overdue response to the left’s judicial tyranny. The Supreme Court, sadly, has failed to rein in these activist judges, leaving Congress as the last line of defense. The liberal media, of course, is in full panic mode, framing Johnson’s warning as an “attack on democracy.” But what about the real attack on democracy—unelected judges legislating from the bench to undermine a duly elected president?

nn

nn

A lot of us feel the same way....Where are all the arrests

 Why is it only a problem now?

Steve Crabtree  Yesterday at 11:35 AM 

 

Did you know? Under Obama, over 3 million people were deported—but 75–83% never saw a judge or had a chance to plead their case.

Most were removed through expedited processes at the border—no court hearing, no trial.

And this isn’t unique to Obama. Under Clinton and Bush, millions were also deported without judicial oversight.

Due process? Apparently, only if a republican or Donald Trump is in charge! 

So I ask you—where was all the outrage then? Where were the protests against Obama, Clinton, or Bush? This has been standard practice under many presidents before Trump 

No president in U.S. history has ever been required to get permission from the courts—or from anyone else—to defend the sovereignty of their own borders.

Why is it only a problem now?

vv

With all the federal judges cozying up together against President Trumps illegal immigrant deportation agenda, maybe they should ALL be made to read this !

R** S******z

Thomas Jefferson, no novice when it comes to government and the
Constitution, warned of judicial extremes.

This Founding Father stated:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . .The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”(2)

In a letter to Judge Roane, September 6, 1819, Jefferson restated his concerns regarding the judiciary, contending that the Constitution did not give them control over the other two branches.
Had it done so, Jefferson contended that:
“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”(3)

In a letter to Diplomat William Jarvis (September 28, 1820), Jefferson again warned that making the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional issues would lead to despotism:

“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. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”(4)
And at the risk of boring you with Jeffersonian wisdom, eloquence, and accurate predictions, here is one more statement referencing the judiciary as the “most dangerous” branch of our government:

“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the Constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance...” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)(5)

Thomas Jefferson knew the weaknesses of human nature, and that “judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.”(6) Indeed, the last line of defense for the deep state and leftist legislators, in their attempts to maintain control of America seems now to be the courts.

 
As Daniel Horowitz stated:
“They have ordered the administration to fund private foreign aid organizations, reinstate specific personnel, and publish designated information on government websites. In one case, a judge even directed the Secretary of Defense to retract a statement on the Pentagon’s policy regarding transgender troops. And over the weekend, U.S. District Judge James Boasburg attempted to block the deportation of violent gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. [The same judge who serves on FISA, the court that issued warrants to spy on the Trump campaign nine years ago. He later sentenced an FBI agent who falsified information in order to obtain the warrant to only probation, while sentencing January 6 participants to years in prison.]

“What’s next? Will they order Trump to stop threatening Hamas or remove the bust of Andrew Jackson from the Oval Office?

“Judges have forgotten who they are: unelected shields against government overreach, not legislative swords that can impose policies. Perhaps Trump needs to examine that bust of “Old Hickory” Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office and recall his (likely apocryphal) response to Chief Justice John Marshall’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia: ‘John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!’”(7)

In the past few years, we have watched rogue judges (and prosecutors) try to destroy President Trump and those associated with him. Now they are attempting to keep him from exposing and ending fraud in our government, and from deporting violent criminals – who came to America illegally in the first place. If we were not all watching this lunacy take place, it would be beyond belief. Hundreds of congressional leaders and numerous judges don’t want the fraud exposed or the criminals deported!

 
Dutch Sheets 4/24/2025

Lindita OdjoskaART, LITERATURE, POETRYAND MORE   April 7 at 3:25 PM ·

The Lie said to the Truth, "Let's take a bath together, the well water is very nice. The Truth, still suspicious, tested the water and found out it really was nice. So they got naked and bathed. But suddenly, the Lie leapt out of the water and fled, wearing the clothes of the Truth. The Truth, furious, climbed out of the well to get her clothes back. But the World, upon seeing the naked Truth, looked away, with anger and contempt. Poor Truth returned to the well and disappeared forever, hiding her shame. Since then, the Lie runs around the world, dressed as the Truth, and society is very happy... Because the world has no desire to know the naked Truth.

?

Chilling Connections Between Anti-Trump Judge, Supreme Court Revealed

By Jack Davis  April 1, 2025COURT

 

 



 

Appointed to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Chief Justice John Roberts and reportedly a former Yale roommate of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Boasberg has become a lightning rod for conservative criticism. Now serving as chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Boasberg has faced backlash for rulings that include blocking deportations of violent illegal immigrants and presiding over cases involving leaked internal government communications—moves Trump and his supporters say reflect judicial bias, Fox News reported.

“The Chief Justice handpicked DC Obama Judge Jeb Boasberg to serve on the FISA court,” said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project. “The DC federal judges are in a cozy little club, and they protect their own.” His remarks echo a broader sentiment on the right that Boasberg’s judicial decisions – and his close ties within the legal establishment – reflect a partisan tilt against the president.

Boasberg, a native of Washington, D.C., earned a graduate degree in Modern European History from Oxford University in 1986 before attending Yale Law School, where he reportedly shared housing with Kavanaugh, according to multiple reports. After graduating in 1990, Boasberg clerked for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then joined the San Francisco law firm Keker & Van Nest as a litigation associate from 1991 to 1994. He later practiced at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans in Washington, D.C., from 1995 to 1996, Fox noted.

After working in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Boasberg was appointed in 2002 by President George W. Bush as an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the local trial court for the city. In 2011, President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He was confirmed by the Senate and officially received his commission on March 17, 2011.

Boasberg was later appointed to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) by Roberts to serve a seven-year term. The FISA Court consists of 11 federal judges, each selected by the chief justice. Judges on the court undergo extensive background checks and are tasked with reviewing and authorizing surveillance and wiretap requests from federal prosecutors, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. Much of the court’s work is classified. Boasberg served as the presiding judge of the FISA Court from 2020 to 2021, after which he resumed his duties on the D.C. District Court.

Boasberg faced renewed criticism after being randomly assigned to oversee a lawsuit related to a leaked Signal chat involving the Trump administration. Following the assignment, Trump took to Truth Social to accuse Boasberg of “grabbing the ‘Trump Cases’ all to himself.”

Davis also took to social media, writing, “Judge Jeb Boasberg is lighting on fire his legitimacy over an unnecessary, lawless, and dangerous pissing match with the President Jeb will lose. Let’s hope the Chief Justice doesn’t light the entire federal judiciary’s legitimacy on fire by siding with his personal buddy Jeb.”

The Founding Fathers deeply distrusted judges. They thought the lawyer class was dangerous, and if given unbridled power they would undermine and destroy free society.    Newt Gingrich April 1 2025

R** S******z  Yesterday at 1:20 PM

The American Founders’ invocation of the transcendent moral authority of nature is one of the most remarkable acts of statesmanship in human history.

Christianity was the first non-political religion in the West. Being a Christian was not a question of what political community you belonged to, it was a matter of faith or belief. While that was incredibly liberating—because it meant salvation was open to every human being—it created unprecedented challenges for politics and citizenship.

In order to establish republican self-government, the American Founders had to solve these complicated problems. The solution they came up with is famously stated in the Declaration of Independence:

“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
This revolutionary truth, combining human reason and divine revelation, provided the basis for establishing religious liberty for the first time in human history.

By looking to the laws of nature (or laws of reason) and nature’s God as the ultimate justification for their revolution, the Founders were asserting that there was an objective moral order in the world because that world was created by a benevolent and reasonable God.

Since our minds are a gift from God, and He intended us to use them, we can perceive much of this moral order through our own rational faculties.

This natural moral order exists outside of our will—it exists whether we like it or not. We are born into both a physical and a moral world that we do not create. the laws of nature and nature’s God are fixed and unchanging. They serve as the ground for political authority and supply conventional or everyday law with sacred and transcendent authority. In establishing this foundation for American politics,the Founders -

First, they solved the split between piety and citizenship by supplying a common ground for morality. Because the morality of the Bible and the morality of reason are compatible, one can be both a pious believer and a good citizen, while avoiding the contentious sectarian disputes that tore Europe apart.

Second, the separation of church and state becomes possible for the first time. The Declaration’s teaching about the laws of nature and nature’s God establishes a kind of political theology, a non-sectarian ground of legitimacy that makes the laws “sacred” without getting the government involved in theological disputes about the Trinity, faith versus works, etc. According to many Protestant ministers of the Founding era, this also allowed true Christianity to flourish for the first time because Christianity could be practiced by choice rather than by coercion.

Third, the Founders solved the problem of religious persecution. Because the government and the churches can agree on a moral code that is compatible with both reason and revelation, each can operate in its proper realm without intruding on the other. It becomes possible to institutionalize religious liberty by prohibiting religious tests for office and keeping government out of the business of punishing heresy.

The American Founders’ invocation of the transcendent moral authority of nature is one of the most remarkable acts of statesmanship in human history. The question which we and all American patriots confront today is whether we still understand and appreciate this incredible gift of religious liberty bequeathed to us by the Founders.

Do we still have the knowledge and courage to keep alive the sacred fire of liberty?

Glenn Ellmers

WH Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett: More Than 50 Countries Started Trade Negotiations This Weekend
Posted By Tim Hains On Date April 6, 2025

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, the president promised all through the campaign that prices would come down right away. Said they’d come down right away. Now he's saying, hang tough. It won't be easy. How high are prices going to go? How long will they stay there?

KEVIN HASSETT: I actually saw in this story that you just gave, George, there's kind of like a logical disconnect between the stories – the competing stories that your team is using to attack President Trump.

On the one hand, you're saying that the countries are really angry, they're going to have to retaliate. On the other hand you're saying that consumers are going to bear the costs and it’s going to drive inflation up. But if U.S. consumers are bearing the cost, there's no reason for the countries to be angry. So, the fact is, the countries are angry and retaliating and, by the way, coming to the table.

I got a report from the USTR last night that more than 50 countries have reached out to the president to begin a negotiation. But they're doing that because they understand that they bear a lot of the tariff. And so, I don't think that you're going to see a big effect on the consumer in the U.S. because I do think that the reason why we have a persistent, long-run trade deficit these people have very inelastic supply. They've been dumping goods into the country in order to create jobs, say, in China.

And, George, also, I promise you, I'll answer your question directly and not filibuster. So, I'll stop with that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, what do you base your – where do you base your conclusion that you're not going to see an increase in prices? Just about every economist who’s looked at this said you are going to see an increase in prices, including Goldman Sachs, including JP Morgan, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve?

HASSETT: Well, there might be some increase in prices. But the fact is that if we’re going to be a heavy burden on the U.S. consumer, then this trade deficit that for 30 years we've seen really since China entered the WTO would be something that would have gone down. It would have gone down over time. It would have responded to the prices.

The bottom line is that China entered the WTO in 2000. In the 15 years that followed, real incomes declined about $ 1,200 cumulatively over that time.

And so, if cheap goods were the answer -- if cheap goods were going to make Americans real wages, real welfare better off, then real incomes would have gone up over that time. Instead, they went down because wages went down more than prices went down.

So, we got the cheap goods at the grocery store, but then we had fewer jobs. And that's why President Obama and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and President Trump have come out saying, we've got to come up with a better policy, a policy that treats our workers fairly compared to everybody else.

And now, President Trump, true to his word, just like he promised during the campaign, just like he put into his campaign platform, he's delivering on his word.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Right, but you also -- he also said prices were going to come down and he just conceded the prices are going to go up,

Also on Truth Social, the president retweeted a post that said the market drop was part of a deliberate strategy to force the Fed to lower interest rates. Is that the president's strategy? If not, why did he post it?

HASSETT: Yeah -- that -- you know, the bottom line is the president has been talking about tariffs for 40 years and this is like been absolutely the policy that he's focused on in the campaign and throughout his political career. And you know, the cyclical cycle of the Fed, it comes and goes. That's a different matter.

But this is President Trump's desired policy. He's been arguing for it ever since. I think he was on “The View” 30, 40 years ago, and it's exactly -- the baseline tariff is exactly what he -- he put into the convention.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But is it his strategy --

HASSETT: So, this is not a surprise for anyone.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it his strategy to force the Fed to lower interest rates, and that the market crash was part of that strategy?

HASSETT: We understand the Fed is an independent agency. We respect the independence of the Fed. But the president's allowed to have an opinion. The -- absolutely, the president's allowed to have an opinion but there's not going to be any political coercion over the Fed, for sure.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So -- so that is his strategy? Tank the market so the Fed will lower interest rates? Well, you just said the president's allowed to have an opinion. Is that his opinion or not?

HASSETT: He's not trying to tank the market. He's trying to deliver for American workers.

And -- I mean, what would you have him do? Again, real wages down 15 years in a row under the previous policy, and that's why Americans voted for him. They brought him in to turn the economy around for the American worker, and that's what he's focused on.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm -- I'm just trying to get some clarity. Is that the strategy --

HASSETT: I’m going to give clarity.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, is that the president's strategy or not? He posted it. He said the strategy is to lower to -- for the markets to crash so the Fed lowers interest rates. Is that the president’s strategy?

HASSETT: It's not a strategy for the markets to crash. It is not a strategy for the markets to crash. It's a strategy to create a golden age in America for the American worker. That's his strategy.

STEPHANOPOULOS: JPMorgan says the risk of a recession has climbed to 60 percent. Your response?

HASSETT: We just had one of the stronger jobs reports I've seen in a long time. It was about 50 percent better than markets expected. It's the second one in a row. We've created already something like 10,000 auto jobs since President Trump took office, and I just got word -- anecdotal word last night that auto plants are adding second shifts in the U.S. in order to respond to these tariffs these days.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we've also seen auto companies like Stellantis say they're having layoffs.

HASSETT: There's -- we've got the data. We just got the data for last month or the month before, both times, manufacturing employment went up, and auto employment went up. And again, we're looking at about 10,000 auto jobs. George, that's more than we got all of last year with Joe Biden.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's looking back. But looking forward, Stellantis did say this week they were laying off workers. They did.

HASSETT: The reason that they were starting it in the last two months was they anticipated the tariffs that were announced this week and they're starting to ramp up in anticipation of that.

I would expect that the jobs numbers and I'll come back and talk to you about it when they come out or going to go up by even more now that the tariffs are in place.

Why won't Roberts help Trump out a little more ???

This first article is from June 2015 

The Blackmailing of John Roberts 

In which crazy people think President Obama blackmailed Roberts for his Affordable Care Act vote. Oh, and same-sex marriage is now legal.

By Charles P. PiercePublished: Jun 26, 2015 10:13 AM EDT

Purely as a political matter, Chief Justice John Roberts did the Republican party great good yesterday when he laughed the absurd King v. Burwell out of the Supreme Court. Now, the various Republican candidates can rouse the fury of The Base without ever having to present an alternative. And, also, by ruling the way he did, Roberts blunted the edge of any Democratic attacks about the future of the Court itself. However, deep in the base, there are people who know What's Really Going On, and they are not fooled.

Just blackmail one or two key conservative leaders to stop the GOP from blocking Obama's agenda. Just find out the weak link of a key opposition leader or government official and hold it over their heads. It's that simple. Suddenly sworn lifelong conservatives are giving Obama whatever he wants – Obamacare, Trans Pacific Partnership, massive tax increases, amnesty for illegals. The list is long. Am I being too cynical? Really? Did anyone suspect former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was a child molester who commited crimes with underage boys? Because he sure had everyone fooled. He looked like a choir boy. But he clearly did something terrible that forced him to agree to pay millions of dollars in blackmail.

That's just logic right there.

The comments are an absolute delight.

This is dead simple. Justice Roberts has two adopted children. There were some shenanigans getting the adoption paper work done. The threat against him is not actually against him but against his adopted daughters that could be deported which would also devastate his wife and him. So, yes, Obama is blackmailing him with deporting his daughters. Pure Alinsky – can't attack the man so attack his family and a strong family commitment then becomes his achille's heel. Keep in mind how the Obama administration handles deportations. They enforce the law selectively. Illegal immigrant rapists and murders are let loose on the streets but cross them and your adopted children will be deported.This is all documented. I saw an article somewhere some time after the first Obamacare decision that was butchered by Roberts about his adopted children. Do the research. It's there. But it was a back page little blurb that could have been blown up into a national scandal and possibly have removed Roberts from the bench. But nothing came of it. Why? Because they knew they would need it again later. Now apply this to Boehner, McConnell, military leaders, anyone at all that gets in the way. Make them an offer they can't refuse.

I think "This is all documented. I saw an article somewhere sometime..." is my favorite attribution ever. And the same Supreme Court just ruled that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Wake up, sheeple!!!

this second article, though not dated is current

 Donald Trump and John Roberts: A president, a chief justice and a judiciary under pressure  Story by Andrew Chung   6 min read

(Reuters) -For two of the most powerful men in the United States, Donald Trump and John Roberts, it has been a delicate dance from the start.

In 2015, the man who would become the chief executive of the United States assailed the integrity of its chief justice, calling Roberts "disgraceful" and "disappointing" - and, later, an "absolute disaster" - for earlier upholding the Affordable Care Act, the Obamacare law that Trump subsequently sought to repeal.

A little more than a year later on the U.S. Capitol steps, Roberts, an enigmatic conservative Supreme Court justice from the American Midwest, swore in Trump, a brash businessman-turned-politician from New York City, as president. Any lingering tension had evaporated under smiles, handshakes and a backdrop of applause.

Since then, the dynamic between the two has remained complicated, marked by dramatic legal wins for Trump as well as painful losses, and punctuated by clashes between the two as Trump shattered norms by aggressively pushing his policies while brooking little dissent - including from the coequal branch of government that Roberts leads: the judiciary.

The tension has risen once again, culminating in an extraordinary public statement by Roberts on Tuesday rebuking the Republican president for urging the impeachment of a Washington-based federal judge who faulted the administration's actions in a dispute over the legality of deportation flights.

"For more than two centuries," Roberts said, "it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."

For Roberts, who is seen as deeply conservative but also concerned about the institutional credibility and perception of the Supreme Court, chastising Trump puts him in a difficult spot. It has drawn sharp criticism from Trump's allies and comes as the court braces for the flood of legal challenges to Trump's myriad executive actions.

'A CERTAIN MEASURE OF CONTEMPT'

"I suspect Roberts has a certain measure of contempt for Trump and the way he treats judges," said University of Michigan law professor Richard Friedman, a Supreme Court historian. "Roberts is an establishment Republican, but I think he's horrified."

While Roberts and Trump often may converge on legal and substantive goals, there are sharp divergences emerging, according to University of Chicago constitutional law expert Aziz Huq.

Through his flurry of executive actions to shutter federal departments, fire thousands of federal employees, target perceived enemies and eradicate policies he dislikes such as diversity mandates from the public and private sectors, Trump is "proceeding as if legal constraints don't matter," Huq said.

"If presidents are not bound by statutes, if they're not bound by regulations, if they're not bound by the (U.S. Constitution's) First Amendment, then it's not really clear what the job of the Supreme Court is," Huq added.

Huq said that the "casting into institutional doubt of the court's role is I think the hard nub of conflict between the two."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Supreme Court had no immediate comment.

Since Trump first took office in 2017, Roberts has figured prominently in the president's fortunes, and in many ways, vice versa.

Trump appointed three justices in his first term, creating the 6-3 conservative majority that Roberts needed to deliver landmark rulings rolling back abortion rights and affirmative action practices, expanding gun rights and curbing federal regulatory power.

Roberts, meanwhile, presided over the first of Trump's two impeachment trials - he was acquitted both times - and has penned Supreme Court rulings that both boosted the president - including by granting him broad immunity from criminal prosecution - and constrained him at key moments.

The landmark immunity ruling authored by Roberts last July involved federal criminal charges against Trump over his efforts to undo his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, bolstering his bid to regain the presidency by effectively delaying a trial that ultimately never took place.

Trump thanked Roberts as Supreme Court justices attended the president's address to a joint session of Congress this month.

"I won't forget," Trump added.

The president later stated that he was thanking Roberts for swearing him into office.

"It's very hard to see that decision as being anything but highly consequential in electoral terms, and as anything other than a real choice on Roberts' part," Huq said of the immunity case. "Having done that, what does he think now?"

TRAVEL BAN

Roberts also authored a ruling that gave Trump one of his biggest victories during his first term, upholding his travel ban blocking people from several Muslim-majority countries from coming to the United States against claims that the policy represented religious discrimination in violation of the Constitution.

Trump's administration now is considering issuing a new travel ban that could include dozens of countries.

On the other hand, Roberts has handed Trump some setbacks.

In recent weeks, Roberts joined a narrow majority of Supreme Court justices in declining to let Trump immediately fire the head of a federal watchdog agency or withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work they already performed for the government - though neither decision resolved the legal merits of the cases.

In 2019, Roberts joined the court's liberal justices to block his plan to add a contentious citizenship question to the national census questionnaire, prompting Trump to suggest that the administration would find a way to move forward anyway - before backing down.

In 2020, Roberts wrote a ruling that let a New York prosecutor obtain Trump's financial records, and the chief justice again joined the liberals to block Trump's bid to end a program protecting from deportation immigrants - known as "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children.

"These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives," Trump wrote on social media after that ruling.

Friedman said, "From Trump's point of view, it may be very perplexing because he thinks you're going to have a judge entirely in his favor or against. But that's not the way the world works. From Roberts point of view, there's no mystery. He's deciding cases."

Roberts, Friedman added, "is a good, smart lawyer with an allegiance to constitutional procedures. And that's something that's a little bit out of Trump's understanding."

A PREVIOUS REBUKE

The chief justice's rebuke of Trump on Tuesday was not his first.

After Trump in 2018 called a federal judge appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama who ruled against his policy barring asylum for certain immigrants an "Obama judge," Roberts responded in a statement.

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts wrote, referring to former presidents who made the appointments and emphasizing the importance of an independent judiciary.

In recent weeks, some legal scholars and Trump critics have questioned whether his administration's pushback against orders by judges impeding his policies amounts to defiance of the judiciary by the executive branch, which could provoke a constitutional crisis.

Asked during a Tuesday interview on the Fox News program "The Ingraham Angle" whether he would defy a court order, Trump said: "No, you can't do that," but also said that there are "judges that shouldn't be allowed."

Whether the administration defied U.S. Judge James Boasberg's orders to halt deportation flights of alleged gang members to Venezuela is at the heart of Trump's call for the judge's impeachment by Congress, which could lead to removal from the bench.

If Roberts wants to preserve the legitimacy and authority of the Supreme Court, "The issues that are likely coming down the pike are going to put the court's power to the test," Albany Law School professor Raymond Brescia said.

"The most important of these issues is the question of the court's authority to ensure the executive branch complies with court orders," Brescia said. "I hope we can expect (Roberts) to support the lower courts in their efforts to ensure compliance with their orders, even if that means seeking to rein in actions of the Trump administration."

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Amy Stevens and Will Dunham)

how can one Judge be allowed to interfere in the presidential agenda ?

Judge Boasberg Caught In Another Scandal Involving Mueller Investigation, Russia Hoax FISA Court

By Will TannerApril 1, 2025

Revelations surrounding anti-Trump US District Court Judge James E. Boasberg continue rolling in as the pro-Trump right delves into his past with increasingly intense scrutiny, finding such scandals as his connection to Hillary Clinton emails and his wife’s involvement with donating to leftists, with another revelation hammering him for his connection to the Russia Hoax FISA court scandal.

The issue at hand is that Judge Boasberg was the convicting and sentencing judge in the prosecution of Kevin Clinesmith, the former FBI lawyer who was convicted of falsifying a claim that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court used to sustain government surveillance on Carter Page, a Trump ally who was unfairly smeared as part of Crossfire Hurricane and the Russia Hoax. Boasberg gave Clinesmith a mere slap on the wrist, which has led to outcry online, given his current attempts to again block the Trump Administration. Adding to the scandal is that Boasberg also served as the warrant-providing judge for the FISA court.

The Department of Justice, reporting on what Clinesmtih did to unjustly target and smear Mr. Page at the time Clinesmith pleaded guilty in 2020, said, “According to court documents and statements made in court, between July 2015 and September 2019, Clinesmith was employed with the FBI as an Assistant General Counsel in the National Security and Cyber Law Branch of the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C. On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a Foreign Agents Registration Act investigation, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” into whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating activities with the Russian government. By August 16, 2016, the FBI had opened cases under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella on four individuals, including an individual identified in this case as [Carter Page].”

Continuing, the DOJ noted that Clinesmith had worked with the FBI as part of Crossfire Hurricane to target Page and justify surveilling him by lying to FISA courts, saying, “Clinesmith was assigned to provide legal support to FBI personnel working on Crossfire Hurricane, and he assisted FBI personnel with applications prepared by the FBI and the Justice Department’s National Security Division to conduct surveillance under the FISA. During the investigation, there were a total of four court-approved FISA applications targeting [Carter Page]. Each of the FISA applications alleged there was probable cause that [Carter Page] was a knowing agent of a foreign power, specifically Russia.”

The DOJ further noted that Clinesmith did so despite knowing Carter Page was working with the CIA, and not a Russian agent, then provided, “Clinesmith pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement within both the jurisdiction of the executive branch and judicial branch of the U.S. government, an offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years and a fine of up to $250,000. Judge Boasberg scheduled sentencing for December 10, 2020.”

Page commented on what Clinesmith’s lies had done to him and his family, noted that they had ruined his life and devastated his family. As NBC News reported at the time of Clinesmith’s sentencing, he said “This manufactured scandal and associated lies caused me to adopt the lifestyle of an international fugitive for years.” Page added, “I often have felt as if I had been left with no life at all. Each member of my family was severely impacted.”

Despite that, Judge Boasberg gave Clinesmith a mere slap on the wrist, sentencing him to mere probation despite the pain caused by his lies. NBC News said, reporting on the jaw-dropping ruling, “Federal District Court Judge James Boasberg said that while Clinesmith’s actions were serious, the warrant application probably would have been approved anyway without his misstatement.”

 

ZIM is owned by the ROTHCHILDS

 I see my sidebar is a mess...don't know what happened there, will fix it when I get back to home base (I hope)

I haven't posted for a while, Been on vacation from retirement. I was in Florida for a while and I'm sending this from North Carolina. I'll be back home by Thursday. I think this is a good post,...wish I had written it...Oh well !!

"I love when people call Trump Stupid"..

March 25 at 3:50 AM ·

You mean the multi-billionaire who kicked every Democrats butt, buried 16 career Republican politicians, and continues to make fools out of once reputable news organizations ..
You mean the guy who won the presidency?
You mean the guy with the super model wife?
You mean the guy whose words alone put a massive slow down on illegal border crossings?
You mean the guy whose mere presence made the stock market smash its previous records?
You mean the guy who created 1 million jobs in his first 7 months in office?
Are you sure you even know what it is you're resisting?
Are you sure you back a party that enables the decimation of every core principal of Christianity?
Are you sure you back a party that voted 100% against the abolition of slavery?
Are you sure you really take a politician like Maxine Waters seriously?
Are you sure you don't see anything wrong with someone who has a 40 yr career as a public servant living in a $4.5 mansion representing a district she doesn't even live in?
Are you sure you see nothing wrong or peculiar about Hillary Clinton a woman being involved in politics for the last 30 yrs having a net worth of $240 million?
Are you sure you're not just basing your opinion on hatred spewed by a crooked paid for media platform?
Could you even tell me 5 things the Democratic Party has done to improve your day to day prosperity as a hard working American citizen?
Probably not..
Do you realize the debacle you are sending your children into once they become adults by continuing to support a political party that has done nothing for the poor except kept them poor, gave them free abortions, and a few hundred a month to keep food in their fridge?
The prosperity and safety of its citizens is job one of your government.
Get with the program.
Everyone else has horribly failed you!
Smarten up and take a position for the sake of your children.
I promise you a country full of illegal immigrants, abortions, $15 an hour jobs, and non-gender specific people aren't gonna make your country and life any more prosperous.
Rosie, Madonna, Katy Perry, and Robert Deniro are not just like you. They don't have to live through the real world day to day disparity of an average American.
Men don't hate women, white people don't hate black people, and Donald Trump is not a racist.
Stop allowing yourself to be brainwashed by a party that has continuously failed you.
Be about your prosperity, your safety, your children, and an America First mindset.
Dump these crooked politicians that have stunted your growth.
Dump these crooked politicians that have stunted your children's growth.
Toughen up, take a stand, and act like a proud American.
See the spirit of Trump supporting and freedom loving Americans and just imagine where we could be as a country if everyone had the same priorities”

Cecil Raymond Freeman.....March 25th 2025

For those of you (like mysejf) who don't really understand what Trump is doing (or trying to do), maybe the two following articles may shed some light and help you to understand a little more.

 #1

2

Mike Barrett  Feb 27th 2025

For those that don't understand what President Trump is doing......In Dec 2023 there was a decision by the World Court, that gave water above land shelves to those countries and ruled they were not international water. The renaming of the Gulf of America isn't renaming the whole gulf. It is renaming the area above our land shelves as our territory. You can't exactly put signs or border walls in the middle of the ocean. So for legal reasons, we need to identify these new changes on the map, so that new borders are made clear to maritime traffic. Those new maps will set the latitude and longitudes of where our border begins, or the Gulf of America. So all maritime traffic knows when they are leaving international waters. This is where knowing what is happening in the world, will help you filter out drama, and help you understand the legalities in your own country. This had nothing to do with Trump's ego, he is strengthening our borders and making sure all maritime traffic understands the changes that happened in 2023. Putting legal protections in place to help us enforce any military actions or incursion in the future. Betting most of you never realized the US grew by thousands of miles.
Likewise some of this radical idea of buying Greenland and possibly Canada. has nothing to do with his ego. That has to do with the race for minerals in the Arctic Ocean, protecting our borders, and getting us the legal right to help Europe protect their borders from the Russian and Chinese fleets that have been doing damage to infrastructure. If Greenland is the territory of the US, but still their own country like Puerto Rico, then we have the legal right to have a base there and the legal right to protect the waters around Greenland. The whole premise right now, if we were to go help Europe it would trigger an act of war. We would have to wait for Nato action to do anything. If we have the legal right, to be there. Legal right to protect Greenland, then any response to defend our territory is not considered an act of war. It makes it easier to help our Allies. Also, like as not, Russia and China have been making plans to invade Greenland. I have been hearing they are trying to buy up land around harbors in several countries or eyeing what they can take by force.

So Trump is not crazy. Not being an egotistical dictator. He is trying to strengthen the U.S. and working to provide some checks and balances that strengthen our ability to help Allies and prevent another world war. A lot of countries are getting we are the lesser of the two evils.

Media not so much, they have grown allergic to fact-checking, and understanding any complex issue and just become about stirring drama rather than reporting facts, all of the facts.

#2

Michael McCune Feb 28th 2025

Many of you probably watched what took place between Donald Trump and Zelenskyy tonight. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you might be thinking to yourself, Oh my God, Donald Trump just screwed up.

However, as a lifelong practitioner of martial arts, strategy, and philosophy, let me explain the difference between what you believe you witnessed and what actually happened.

Donald Trump has been under constant political persecution since the beginning of his first term. Over time, he has learned to be patient and calculated.

Tonight, Zelenskyy was invited to the Oval Office. However, both Trump and JD Vance knew exactly what Zelenskyy was going to do—he would use this opportunity, in front of the American people, to make a power play. Both Trump and Vance anticipated this.

When Zelenskyy began appealing to the emotions of the American people, JD Vance stepped in, accusing him of disrespecting Donald Trump. This was brilliant strategy. It’s important to understand that Zelenskyy is trying to gain access to NATO.

Trump knew this but could not allow it to happen. If Ukraine joins NATO, the U.S. would be bound by NATO’s collective defense agreement—an attack on one is an attack on all.

Now consider the larger implications: Ukraine and Russia despise each other. If Ukraine were to become a NATO member, any future skirmish between them would obligate the U.S. to enter into direct conflict with Russia. This would mean World War III. And if that happened, China would have to choose a side—they would almost certainly align with Russia.

So what you witnessed tonight was a setup. Trump and JD Vance knew that the only way to achieve peace was to strategically align, at least on the surface, with Russia. Why? Because Russia would never sign a peace treaty if Ukraine were admitted into NATO.

This is why Trump dismantled Zelenskyy’s argument. And when Zelenskyy, seeing his play failing, tried to backtrack and offer a treaty, Trump refused.

Zelenskyy’s real intent was clear—he would not agree to peace unless security guarantees were in place. But what was he actually saying? That NATO must accept Ukraine. However, Russia would never agree to peace, knowing that NATO, their historical adversary, would surround them.

Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump all knew this. Zelenskyy, thinking he had Democratic support, believed he could make this bold move on live television. But Trump and Vance saw right through it and outmaneuvered him.

They knew that, in the short term, Democrats and the media would try to use this moment against them. But they also knew they had two years before midterms to prove their strategy was the right one. So they held their ground—brilliantly so.

Now, Zelenskyy will have no choice but to back down and accept Trump's terms. But here’s the genius part—Trump is actually protecting Ukraine without dragging the U.S. into war.

By negotiating a mineral deal, Trump ensures that Americans will be involved in Ukraine’s mining industry. This prevents Russia from launching an invasion, because attacking Ukraine would mean endangering American lives—something that would force the U.S. to respond.

Trump played both sides like a master chess player. In the end, Zelenskyy will have no choice but to concede, because without U.S. support, Ukraine cannot win a prolonged war against Russia. And once U.S. companies have mining operations in Ukraine, Putin will be unable to attack without triggering massive international consequences.

Don’t underestimate Donald Trump. In this game of chess, he’s 10 moves ahead of everyone.