The Truth Is Out There

Archive for May, 2025

The National Injunction Crisis Is Threatening Global Stability


Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

Washington did not freeze at Valley Forge, nor did Lincoln bleed the Union at Gettysburg, so that two and a half centuries later, federal judges could rewrite American foreign policy from a bench in Boston. Yet here we are: unelected district court judges issuing orders with global repercussions, shackling the executive branch, endangering diplomacy, and destabilizing entire regions.

The case of D.V.D. v. DHS, now immortalized in Secretary of State Marco Rubio‘s sworn declaration, is the most vivid and alarming example yet. A single judge, Brian E. Murphy, appointed by President Joe Biden, has upended delicate international arrangements, disrupted military coordination in a counter-terrorism hotspot, and jeopardized humanitarian efforts across the Horn of Africa, all with a flourish of his gavel.

This is not justice, it is judicial imperialism. And if it is not stopped, it will unravel the fabric of constitutional government.

Let us begin with the basics. The Constitution vests foreign policy authority in the executive branch. Article II is unambiguous. The President “shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers,” and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, “make Treaties.” In practice, the president, through the Secretary of State, negotiates with foreign powers, calibrates the tone and tenor of our international presence, and oversees the strategic deployment of both soft power and military muscle.

The judiciary, by contrast, was never intended to function as a foreign policy apparatus. The Federalist Papers make this clear. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, the judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse.” Its power “may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” Yet what we see today is the inverse: a judiciary with the will of a legislature and the force of an executive.

Consider the chaos Judge Murphy has sown. Secretary Rubio’s declaration outlines how the judge’s May 20 injunction halted the removal of eight foreign nationals, including convicted felons, who were en route to South Sudan, rerouting them into Djibouti instead. This was not a harmless detour. It required US diplomats to scramble and re-explain our shifting commitments to a key regional partner. It delayed counter-terrorism operations headquartered at the Combined Joint Task Force–Horn of Africa. It chilled humanitarian coordination efforts in famine-stricken zones. It even postponed a major energy deal in Libya, costing American enterprise and reducing our leverage in a country already teetering on civil war.

What gives one man sitting in a courthouse on the East Coast the authority to rewrite US policy in Tripoli, Juba, and Djibouti? What constitutional principle justifies such reach?

None. But the vehicle of this judicial arrogance is the nationwide injunction, a tool so radical, so constitutionally suspect, and so corrosive to governance that even liberal legal scholars have begun to question its proliferation. Justice Clarence Thomas, prescient as ever, warned in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) that nationwide injunctions “have a tendency to encourage forum shopping, politicize the judiciary, and deprive other courts of the ability to weigh in on legal questions.”

Indeed, if one sympathetic judge can block an executive action across all 50 states, then the presidency is no longer unitary, it is hostage. Foreign leaders are not engaging with the United States government, but with whichever district judge last issued a ruling. Our diplomacy becomes erratic, our word less reliable, our authority diluted.

This distortion of power is not theoretical. It is real, and it is recurring. Remember when a district court blocked President Trump’s ban on travel from terrorism-prone countries in 2017? That nationwide injunction, issued by Judge James Robart in Washington, not only overruled the president’s national security judgment but also forced foreign governments to reevaluate their cooperation with US intelligence, uncertain if the courts or the White House were truly in charge.

The incentive structure is equally perverse. Activist groups now scour the country for friendly judges, ideological allies with a record of lawfare activism, then file lawsuits not to win narrow relief for plaintiffs, but to engineer sweeping political victories that Congress never authorized and voters never endorsed. These are not lawsuits, they are stealth coups.

One need not be a strict textualist to grasp the danger here. Imagine if a single judge could halt a military deployment, override a treaty, or block a Secretary of State from evacuating embassy personnel. We are sliding into precisely that paradigm. The judiciary, far from checking the executive, is usurping its powers outright. The result is paralysis, confusion, and an erosion of the separation of powers upon which our constitutional order depends.

The problem is compounded when the judiciary aligns itself with globalist NGOs and open-borders ideologues. In D.V.D., the class members whose deportations were halted include not just migrants with questionable asylum claims but convicted criminals. By granting them judicial sanctuary, the court effectively overrides the State Department’s security assessments, replacing sovereign discretion with ideological dogma. Is the court prepared to vet these individuals itself? Is Judge Murphy better informed on regional conflicts in the Horn of Africa than the National Security Council? Or is this just another example of a liberal judge indulging his priors at the expense of the republic?

The stakes are high. With the return of President Trump to office and the reshaping of America’s global posture, the courts must not become a backdoor veto. We are witnessing a transition away from the apologetic diplomacy of the Obama-Biden years toward a policy of strength, reciprocity, and unapologetic national interest. That pivot cannot be sabotaged by judges still committed to the prior regime.

What is to be done? First, the Supreme Court must act on the opportunity already before it. The Court has heard oral arguments in a pending case involving birthright citizenship that includes critical questions about the legitimacy and scope of nationwide injunctions. All that remains is a decision. The Court should use this case to strike down the practice as inconsistent with Article III limitations on judicial power. Such rulings should be confined to the parties before the court, not the entire country. Injunctions should bind defendants only to the extent necessary to provide relief to plaintiffs, not to reshape executive policy for 330 million Americans.

Second, Congress should act. A statute should clarify that nationwide injunctions exceed the judicial power under the Constitution. This would restore balance, eliminate forum shopping, and return the courts to their proper role: arbiters of disputes, not architects of foreign policy.

Finally, the executive must resist. The State Department and DHS should not preemptively concede to every nationwide injunction as a fait accompli. Where there is ambiguity or statutory discretion, the administration should assert its prerogatives. The president is elected. The judge is not. Accountability matters.

History offers little comfort to those who allow unelected tribunals to dictate the terms of sovereignty. Empires have collapsed under the weight of judicial excess. Rome, after all, did not fall to barbarians alone, but to internal legal sclerosis and a metastasized bureaucracy. If we do not rein in our courts, we will cede our republic to the whims of the courts and socialist courts at that.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

It’s time to put Earth Day to bed and get on taking care of God’s creations


It seems that some people/organization leaders have either not awakened to the truth or want to try to keep the funds coming in in a fight against the non-extent fear of Global Warming.  It would be (it is) easy to dig deep – back to the early days of Earth Day and find out where the upside-down science came from. Why have the purveyors of” Man-made global warming is destroying the earth, so we must rid the earth of most humans and Oh, take control of every aspect of life on earth as well, pushed this nonsense?

It all began because some people wanted to control the entire world. They found each other and began planning how to achieve world-dominance.

Cecil Rhodes, in his Confession of Faith, is credited with the idea of recapturing the United States for the British Empire. This idea was to lead to the United Nations and all the necessary steps to erase nationalism and establish a one-world order. And many steps there were, as you can imagine – from setting up eleemosynary (in name only) organizations/foundations 1 that would form the basic tools of public/private/partnerships associated with the United Nations to reinvent governments around the world – especially the constitutional American one.

In order to scare the pants off us – enough to be willing to do almost anything to rid the world of excess CO2 (which actually keeps us alive) – the powers-that-be on both sides of the political aisle – have fed us lies as facts, lies that tell us if we don’t reduce the earth’s population by over 95%, quit eating meat, quit using fossil fuels. There’s a huge list of forbidden activities if we want to save Mother Earth and her non-human inhabitants. 2

CFACT’s climate specialist, Marc Morano, pointed out, “We can’t distinguish between natural variability and human impact”. (note: this short piece spells it out, short but not at all sweet.. 

Oh, yes, there really are climate scientists who wholeheartedly disagree with the supposed findings that spurred the Global Biodiversity Assessment. The original study of Global Warming didn’t show that we were facing a dire future. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.” 3

From day one, honest scientists have been telling us “Global warming” was a hoax. And ever since, we get intermittent articles reminding us. For example, in 2007, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works put out a news release stating harsh sound facts: 

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research.  Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

I think what we are seeing is an intense drive to bring back the lies the globalist elite and their toadies have promulgated for far too many decades. We have a window here that we must take advantage of a window that is open to sound science, reason, logic, and rule of law. Almost all of the tenets we believe in, based our values, attitudes, and beliefs on have been under attack by Socialist one-worlders who have been free to brainwash, program, and indoctrinate across the spectrum of venues from the schools to the churches to the mainstream media  — even our courts and governments.

Now it truly is time to write and speak the truth of global warming. It is time for reason and logic to prevail over it all.

Sources:

  1. The foundation’s power is the power of money.
  2. Ski runs, grazing of livestock, disturbance of the soil surface, fencing of pastures or paddocks, agriculture, modern farm production systems, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, building materials, industrial activities, human-made caves of brick and mortar or concrete and steel, paved and tarred roads, highways, railroads, floor and wall tires, aquaculture, technology improvements, farmlands, rangelands, hunting, sewers, drain systems, pipelines, fisheries, golf courses, scuba diving, synthetic drugs, List from the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report by the United Nations
  3. https://scholar.google.com/sreascholar_lookup?journal=World%20Climate%20Review&title=Conspiracy,%20consensus%20or%20correlation?%20What%20scientists%20think%20about%20the%20%E2%80%98popular%20vision%E2%80%99%20of%20global%20warming&author=P%20Michaels&volume=1&publication_year=1993&pages=11&

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Why Western Europe Is Literally Returning to the Dark Ages


A line of people stretched for blocks at a bus stop at Cibeles Square in downtown Madrid as subway and trains went totally out of service Monday. Power went out across all of Spain and Portugal and parts of France and Belgium, cutting cellphone and internet networks, halting trains and trapping people in elevators.

A line of people stretched for blocks at a bus stop at Cibeles Square in downtown Madrid as subway and trains went totally out of service Monday. Power went out across all of Spain and Portugal and parts of France and Belgium, cutting cellphone and internet networks, halting trains and trapping people in elevators. (Thomas Coex – AFP / Getty Images)

In between the fall of the Roman Empire and the birth of the Italian Renaissance, Western Europe economically stagnated and culturally declined in what are commonly called the Dark Ages.

This period, which lasted several centuries, has become known as the Dark Ages primarily because societal advancements and human progress generally ceased as sound science, facts, and the truth were disregarded by elites who sought power and control.

Sadly, Western Europe is treading down this road again.

A few days ago, Spain, Portugal, and parts of France and Belgium literally went dark for hours after a massive power disruption led to a system-wide grid collapse.

More than 50 million people were left without electricity. Traffic signals did not work, causing chaos on the roadways. Subway systems couldn’t function, leaving people stranded wherever they were. Stores and businesses closed, as payments were limited to cash only. Mobile phone service was spotty, rendering smartphones almost useless and making rapid communication impossible. Even some hospitals and medical facilities, which generally have backup generators, were left without power.

In other words, modern life nearly ground to a total halt for tens of millions of people in some of the most advanced nations and cities in the world.

The reason this dreadful event occurred is that Western European elites have rejected sound science, common sense, and the truth in favor of climate alarmism.

It is no great surprise that Western Europe is the undisputed world champion when it comes to pushing the so-called green agenda. From the Paris Accords to the UN’s heavy-handed role in supporting the climate alarmism narrative over the past several years, Western Europe is ground zero when it comes to climate-change zealotry.

Therefore, it should also come as no surprise that the cause of Europe’s biggest power outage in modern history occurred in Spain, which is a darling of the green movement because it generates more than half of its power from wind and solar.

Specifically, two solar power plants in southwest Spain experienced a sudden and steep reduction in power generation, triggering a systemic collapse of grid infrastructure that occurred almost instantly.

Put simply, it is absurd to assume that a modern nation like Spain can power itself primarily via renewable energy.

As everyone knows, the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow. This obvious fact means that renewable energy sources have an Achilles heel in that they are intermittent by nature.

It is also true that there is not nearly enough battery storage capacity to keep extra power on hand when these sources are not providing reliable power.

Despite these clear shortcomings, European elites have insisted that renewable energy must be adopted as soon as possible. From net-zero madness to ESG scores, Europe has been at the vanguard of eliminating affordable and reliable energy in favor of unaffordable and unreliable so-called green energy.

What makes this whole climate alarmism narrative even more nonsensical is the fact that so-called green energy is not environmentally friendly. Scores of reports and studies show that huge solar panel fields and gargantuan wind turbines produce a host of environmental problems, such as habitat destruction, wildlife loss, etc. After these massive structures meet their shelf life, which is typically only a decade or so, they are also impossible to recycle.

I am more than confident that the very elites who have been pushing the green movement for the past many years are completely aware of these matters, however, they have chosen to forge ahead, undaunted by these pesky facts.

This leads me to believe that they do not intend nor desire to “save the planet.” It also makes me much surer that they are not interested in improving the lives of hardworking, middle-class Europeans. If that were the case, they would have abandoned the green energy nonsense long ago.

With that being said, I can’t help but wonder if their actual intent is to increase their power and control.

Europe, unlike the United States, has a very long history of wealthy elites wielding outsized power and control in a system rigged against the masses. In many instances, these elites have conspired to create zero-sum systems in which they win, and the rest lose.

Make no mistake, Western European elites are committed to forcing their climate alarmist agenda upon the masses, whether they like it or not.

As such, we must underscore the sheer stupidity of their ridiculous, yet sinister, plan to replace reliable, affordable, and abundant energy with unreliable, unaffordable, and environmentally destructive power sources that are wholly dependent on sunny and windy conditions.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Trump’s Next Move Could Be the Ultimate Economic Weapon


one studio 900

As President Donald Trump ramps up his economic battle with China, a powerful new strategy is gaining attention: delisting Chinese companies from American stock exchanges. While some conservatives are wary of pushing too far, this tactic may be the ultimate weapon to rebalance the global playing field—and it’s one the U.S. can wield unilaterally.

The backdrop is already tense. Trump’s tariff crackdown has triggered a tit-for-tat exchange with the Chinese Communist Party, which is notoriously sensitive about losing face internationally. While tariffs dominate headlines, another pressure point is emerging behind the scenes—Chinese companies accessing billions in American capital without playing by the same rules.

According to a recent report from Just the News, many Chinese firms listed on U.S. exchanges routinely dodge compliance with basic securities laws and audit transparency. They benefit from the prestige and liquidity of American financial markets, but avoid the scrutiny that American companies face under U.S. regulations.

Delisting those companies would do more than just send a message. It could seriously disrupt Beijing’s ability to raise capital and fund its sprawling global ambitions.

Legal expert and longtime China analyst Gordon Chang emphasized the uneven playing field created by a 2013 agreement signed during the Obama administration. That memorandum of understanding between U.S. regulators and Chinese authorities gave Chinese firms an unprecedented pass—allowing them to access American investors without subjecting their auditors to onsite inspections.

“This 2013 memorandum was unjustified,” Chang said. “In other words, giving China access to our markets under terms which are more favorable than companies from any other country.”

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, U.S.-listed companies are required to comply with strict auditing standards and oversight by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). But Chinese companies were essentially given a carveout—one that could now be costing American investors both money and national security.

It’s a loophole the Trump administration is finally ready to slam shut.

While tariffs have sparked headlines and retaliation, delisting offers a different kind of leverage. It doesn’t rely on bilateral agreements or global consensus. It simply means enforcing U.S. law and holding foreign firms to the same standards as American ones.

This approach also puts the ball in China’s court. Beijing must decide: will it allow transparency and oversight, or will it sacrifice access to the world’s most lucrative capital markets?

Many Chinese firms are heavily dependent on U.S. markets—not just for funding, but also for credibility. Being listed on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq sends a global signal that a company is legitimate and stable. Removing that endorsement could be a devastating reputational blow, particularly for tech firms and state-owned enterprises.

It’s not just about financial fairness. At a time when China is openly challenging U.S. influence and attempting to spread authoritarian norms across the globe, funding those ambitions through American wallets is indefensible.

Critics will warn about market volatility and diplomatic fallout, but the reality is this: for too long, China has been allowed to game the system. Delisting their companies might finally force some accountability.

President Trump has already signaled he supports tougher restrictions. In a recent statement, he blasted the Obama-era decision to allow China such easy access and hinted that stronger action is coming.

As the trade war escalates and China tries to counter Trump’s tariffs with propaganda and cheap goods, cutting off their financial lifeline could be the boldest move yet.

This is about more than economics. It’s about national strength, investor protection, and refusing to let hostile regimes exploit the American system.

The next front in the U.S.-China standoff may not be at the border—but on Wall Street.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: