Clinton and Obama’s Brazen Lie About the Iraq Withdrawal

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the first presidential debate of the 2016 general election, Donald Trump blamed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the rise of ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. According to Trump, Obama and Clinton created a “disaster” by “the way they got out of Iraq.” This refers to the tragedy that occurred after the U.S. pulled out of Iraq, and ISIS swept through the nation while imposing Sharia law and executing, raping and enslaving the Iraqi people.

Clinton responded to Trump that she hopes “the fact-checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard,” because “George W. Bush made the agreement about when American troops would leave Iraq, not Barack Obama.” She then asserted that “the only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that.”

This protection was a legal immunity that would prevent Iraqi courts from prosecuting U.S. soldiers. Obama has made the same claim, and many media outlets have published stories saying he is correct, such as the Washington Post, Salon, FactCheck.org, and PolitiFact, the last two of which are “fact checkers” often invoked by the Clinton campaign.

In reality, news reports that were published when the U.S. troops were withdrawn prove that Clinton and Obama are being deceitful. As documented below, the articles show that:

the “agreement” Clinton spoke of was not intended to determine a hard date but to provide a soft placeholder.

“everyone” expected that this date would be extended.

the date was not extended because the Obama administration poisoned the negotiations and refused to use a simple and sure process to provide immunity to U.S. troops.

the U.S. State Department led by Hillary Clinton was a primary actor that destroyed these negotiations.

after the troops were pulled, Obama took credit for this and insisted that it was the right thing to do.

These articles also show that after this decision looked disastrous in hindsight, Obama and Clinton began falsely accusing Bush of forcing them to withdraw the U.S. troops.

The Status of Forces Agreement

The “agreement” Clinton spoke of was called the Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA. It stated that U.S. forces “shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory” by the end of 2011.

Contrary to what Clinton led the debate audience to believe, the SOFA merely provided a placeholder to satisfy Iraqis who opposed an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq. When Obama announced in October 2011 that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year, the New York Times reported:

And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. …

At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.

The same article explained that the troops did not stay because the Obama administration “pressed the Iraqi leadership” to take a “controversial” public stand on immunity for troops “that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.”

On the same day of the Times article, The Cable, a publication of the influential magazine Foreign Policy, revealed that Obama’s State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, refused to employ an easy and straightforward process to keep the U.S. troops in Iraq:

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the [Iraqi] Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

“An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. “If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its a**.”

These claims that Obama and Clinton could have used this option were proven true in 2014, when Obama employed the same process to provide immunity for 300 U.S. troops sent back into Iraq after ISIS rose to power and began wreaking havoc. As reported in a 2014 New York Times article:

The Obama administration said on Monday that it has accepted from the Iraqi government the same sort of immunity agreement for newly dispatched Special Operations troops that it refused to accept in 2011, when it opted to withdraw all American troops from Iraq rather than keep a residual force behind.

The Times related that the White House defended these conflicting positions by claiming that “this situation is different because Mr. Obama is sending only 300 troops in an advisory role, rather than keeping 5,000 there, as was discussed in 2011.” However, the article presented no evidence that any relevant law or agreement made distinctions based on the number or role of the troops. Nor has any member of the Obama administration or media presented such evidence in dozens of articles reviewed for this research.

Obama Took Credit Until It Went Wrong

On the day the troop withdrawal was announced, Obama gave a White House press conference in which he stated:

“As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end….”

“After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.”

Contrary to the notion that Obama wanted to keep U.S. forces in Iraq but was prevented by Bush’s agreement, the above-mentioned article by The Cable contains a note at the end of it that states:

This article was amended after a White House official called in to say that it was not the “White House” that was pushing for an extension of U.S. troops.

“The White House has always seen the president’s pledge to get all troops out of Iraq as a core commitment, period,” the White House official said.

A few days after the troop withdrawal was announced, Obama’s presidential campaign produced an ad stating: “Because of Barack Obama the mission in Iraq ended.”

A few months later, Obama boasted before soldiers in Fort Bragg, NC that “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” At the same event, Michelle Obama said to the troops that Obama “has kept his promise to responsibly bring you home from Iraq.”

In a 2012 debate with Mitt Romney, Obama said to Romney, “Every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.” As an example of such, Obama said “You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day.”

Yet, in an August 2014 press conference, after Iraq was in the midst of what Obama called a “growing humanitarian crisis” and potential “genocide,” a reporter asked him if he had “second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq.” Obama responded, “What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision.” Obama then gave the same explanation that Hillary used at the debate, which is that Bush’s agreement forced him to do this.

In sum, Obama campaigned on a promise to pull the troops from Iraq, which he and Clinton proceeded to do against the advice of Iraq’s top army officer and U.S. military officials. Obama then took credit for this, bragged about it, and defended it as the right thing to do — up until the point when it went wrong. Then he and Clinton began saying that Bush did it. (For more from the author of “Clinton and Obama’s Brazen Lie About the Iraq Withdrawal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Murkowski Insider, KTVA’s John Tracy, Fails to Declare Conflict of Interest in PFD Grab

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Former Murkowski media consultant John Tracy this week took on the topic of Bill Walker’s PFD grab on his weekly television spot “Reality Check,” defending the embattled governor and suggesting that Alaskans opposed the governor’s legally dubious executive action are being unreasonable.

It’s time to “reality check” John Tracy.

Tracy suggests it is ordinary Alaskans who don’t want to just hand their money over to an outsized, wasteful and confiscatory government who are being unreasonable, not the government that is deficit spending at a reported $360,000 an hour.

He even goes so far as to invoke the Alaska Constitution as justification for confiscating the common property of all Alaskans for the benefit of a few.

But the section cited explicitly states: “the fund should provide a means of conserving a portion of the state’s revenue from mineral resources to benefit all generations of Alaskans.”

What Tracy never begins to explain is how diverting those resources to some Alaskans now, without fixing the underlying problem, serves the interests of all Alaskans now, much less benefits “all generations of Alaskans.”

He further compounds his error by suggesting the PFD is an “entitlement,” rather than just compensation for private property taken by the State of Alaska, our mineral rights.

At first blush it would appear Tracy is just another arrogant elitist blowhard, but when one scratches below the surface something else altogether emerges.

John Tracy’s high-sounding rhetoric about Governor Walker’s knowing the difference between politics and governing – read, being a statesman –  is nothing more than a manipulative ploy to cover for his bosses.

The truth is, Tracy is being paid big bucks by KTVA to say what he says. KTVA is owned by GCI, whose President and CEO Ron Duncan co-Chairs the Alaska’s Future campaign, a special interest cabal comprised of major corporations, unions, and corrupt politicians pushing to take ordinary Alaskans’ PFD to solve the State’s fiscal woes.

Duncan has gone so far as to blackmail our politicians by threatening to pull as much as $220 million in planned capital improvements off the table if the State government doesn’t comply with their demands.

John Tracy further has counted Senator Lisa Murkowski among his major clients, who has for years favored the PFD grab, dating all the way back to her days in the State legislature before her father appointed her to the United States Senate.

Even over the objections of a whopping 83% of Alaskans, Murkowski co-sponsored and voted for legislation to take your PFD, a measure her father backed strongly as governor of Alaska.

Earlier this year, Senator Murkowski reiterated her support for an all-options-on-the-table approach to the State’s budget shortfall, including your PFD.

John Tracy is certainly entitled to his opinion, but he owes Alaskans a full accounting of his rather substantial conflicts of interest. Because maybe, just maybe, his opinions are shrouded in self-interest.

In the interest of full disclosure, Restoring Liberty publisher Joe Miller drafted the Recall Walker petition application that is circulating around the state.

Here’s hoping the mainstream media catches up to speed on full disclosure.

________________________________________

For more on KTVA’s questionable reporting, click HERE.

The Left Is Fascist. Its War on Free Speech Proves That.

/0 Comments/in , /by

LifeSiteNews has reported on the most recent effort by leftist elites to silence free speech. To mark the festive, traditional French holiday, the “Global Day of Action for Access to Safe and Legal Abortion,” France’s minister for “Families, Childhood and Women’s Rights” Laurence Rossignol

unveiled plans to criminalize those [web]sites that aim to dissuade women from obtaining a “voluntary interruption of pregnancy,” a procedure that is 100 percent state-funded in France during the first 12 weeks of gestation. Offenders will incur prison sentences of up to two years and fines up to 30,000 euro (about $33,650) when the plan becomes law.

Arrested for “Maligning Islam”

It isn’t just Frenchmen who want to save babies from abortionists who are feeling the leftist cork stuffed into the mouths. It’s also Austrian women who want to protect themselves from sexually aggressive and violent Muslim colonists. As The Daily Caller reports:

When the migrant crisis transformed ordinary life in Austria, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff — a self-described housewife in Austria — held innocuous citizen seminars teaching about Islam. An aspiring young journalist secretly taped her remarks, leading to Sabaditsch-Wolff’s prosecution for impugning Islam. [emphasis added]

Here’s an sample of the “hate speech” which landed Sabaditsch-Wolff in court, drawn from her recent remarks in Dallas:

For the past nine months Austria and the rest of Western Europe have undergone a profound transformation, one that will inevitably change the face of Europe permanently. I refer, of course, to the migration crisis, which began in earnest last summer, and is continuing as I speak to you. As the weather warms up and spring gives way to summer, we may expect the crisis to intensify even further. More than a million immigrants arrived in Austria and Germany via the “Balkan route” last year, and at least as many are expected to come this year — probably significantly more.

These migrants are generally referred to by our political leaders and the media as “refugees,” but this is hardly the case. Not only are most of them from countries where there is no war to flee from, but they are also overwhelmingly young Muslim men, of fighting age. In other words, the current crisis is actually an instance of Islamic hijra, or migration into infidel lands to advance the cause of Islam. The hijra goes hand in hand with jihad — once enough Muslim migrants have settled in the target country, violent jihad can begin.

Does that sound like incitement to violence to you? Doesn’t matter. We’re way, way past arguments about shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. This is more like outlawing fire extinguishers because they might be offensive to arsonists. The left wants to make it impossible even to express any dissent to its increasingly unhinged program of social transformation.

The Left No Longer Even Pretends to Value Freedom

That’s the only possible explanation for a law like New York City’s, which forces employers to use made-up transgender pronouns like “ze” and “hir” or face “civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct,” according to the Washington Post.

Progressives around the world are dropping the pretense that they care about freedom of speech, expression, or association. You will hear academics in humanities departments — as I did, while finishing my Ph.D. in English lit — denounce ideas such as “pluralism” and “free debate” as the tools of the “privileged” to keep their hold on power. Such “bourgeois” relics of a bygone era must be unmasked and discarded, in favor of paternalist efforts by institutions to aggressively reshape the beliefs of students and citizens. You know, along the lines that Hillary Clinton had in mind, when in 2015 she claimed that women’s reproductive rights required that Christians be brainwashed into favoring abortion. Or as she put it, according to LifeNews:

“Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,” Clinton said, using the euphemism for abortion.

“Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton argued. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Leftists rarely even talk about “freedom” anymore, except now and then in a ritualistic sense. Or else they take the word and turn it inside out, to mean its exact opposite — as when they promise to keep a college campus “free” of “offensive” speech that might serve as a “microaggression” that violates the “safe space” of their students.

Fighting Thoughtcrime on Campus

That was the pretext used by “Catholic” DePaul University to ban from campus the calm, rational conservative speaker Ben Shapiro — treating him as if he were some violent thug with a bullhorn shouting threats at passersby. Of course, violent thugs shouting threats at passersby are entirely welcome on campus, so long as they serve leftist causes that meet elite approval. So Black Lives Matter can terrorize passersby caught wearing Trump hats. While public outcry forced the University of Missouri to fire Melissa Click — a journalism professor who was filmed calling for “muscle” to terrorize student journalists — have no fear! The Jesuit-run Gonzaga University has honored Click’s sacrifice by stepping up and hiring her. The Jesuits, you will recall, are the religious order that vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine volunteered to help, as they ran guns to Communist terrorists in Honduras from the totalitarian Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. At least we know the kind of government whose idea of freedom meets their approval.

Toss the Deplorables’ Heads Into a Basket

The best, most comprehensive look at the left’s war on personal freedom can be found in Angelo Codevilla’s recent essay, “After the Republic,” where he notes:

A commission in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts reported that even a church may be forced to operate its bathrooms according to gender self-identification because it “could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.” California came very close to mandating that Catholic schools admit homosexual and transgender students or close down. The Justice Department is studying how to prosecute on-line transactions such as vacation home rental site Airbnb, Inc., that fall afoul of its evolving anti-discrimination standards.

Codevilla unflinchingly pinpoints exactly why progressives are willing to toss Constitutional protections and individual rights onto the ash-heap. Progressives believe, and are increasingly willing to say, that

America’s constitutional republic had given the American people too much latitude to be who they are, that is: religiously and socially reactionary, ignorant, even pathological, barriers to Progress. Thankfully, an enlightened minority exists with the expertise and the duty to disperse the religious obscurantism, the hypocritical talk of piety, freedom, and equality, which excuses Americans’ racism, sexism, greed, and rape of the environment. As we progressives take up our proper responsibilities, Americans will no longer live politically according to their prejudices; they will be ruled administratively according to scientific knowledge.

Progressivism’s programs have changed over time. But its disdain for how other Americans live and think has remained fundamental. More than any commitment to principles, programs, or way of life, this is its paramount feature. The media reacted to Hillary Clinton’s remark that “half of Trump’s supporters could be put into a ‘basket of deplorables’” as if these sentiments were novel and peculiar to her. In fact, these are unremarkable restatements of our ruling class’s perennial creed.

(For more from the author of “The Left Is Fascist. Its War on Free Speech Proves That.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

AfterBern: Trump’s Socialist Policies Aren’t Working on the ‘Bernie or Bust’ Crowd

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s been a few months since Hillary Clinton clinched the Democratic party nomination, and it might be high time for the Trump campaign to realize that trying to siphon off her former intraparty opponent’s supporters might be a fruitless endeavor to say the least.

On Thursday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump once again attempted to court socialists on the campaign trail, saying that his economic policies should appeal to supporters of former Democrat candidate and unabashed ‘democratic’ socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. (F, 16%), making the latest in months-long string of appeals to bring the disaffected aboard the Trump train.

Trump has been trying to win over the ‘after Berners,’ disaffected Sanders supporters, for a few months now, but his approach recently has shifted from personality to policy.

Trump’s initial line of appeal to former Sanders supporters was based primarily off similarities on trade and their respective anti-establishment narratives.

In an April interview with Fortune magazine, Trump pointed to a short list of areas on which he and the socialist senator overlapped: “One thing we have in common is trade. We both know the US is getting ripped off by trade,” he said. “The difference is I can do something about it and he can’t.”

“We’re talking about free markets but the problem is, we’re open, but the rest of the world isn’t open,” he continued, further outlining the two’s similarities on issues of keeping corporations in the U.S. and their views of currency manipulation.

“The only way you’re going to get jobs back into this country is, number one, [China and Mexico] cannot devalue their currencies, which they’re killing us with. Number two—and very importantly—we’re going to have to use the threat of taxation in order to keep jobs here and also in order to get jobs back.”

In June, Trump said that he and his camp would welcome “Bernie or bust” voters who had “been left out in the cold” after Clinton’s primary victory “with open arms.”

The use of this common narrative of a “rigged system” common to supporters of both candidates would be bolstered a month later by foul play allegations at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, which was punctuated by the DNC email hack.

The thousands of leaked emails revealed a conspiratorial effort among party officials to sabotage Sanders’ underdog campaign during the primary, leading to the resignation of then-party chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, R-Fla. (F, 8%) and giving Trump another avenue to make his case to the former Sanders camp.

“The system’s rigged and [Wasserman Schultz] was rigging the system for Hillary,” said Trump at a rally in North Carolina, in the wake of the developments. He also made note of his and Sanders’ similar protectionist agendas on trade policy.

“[Sanders] and I are similar in trade,” he told the supporters. “The difference is I can do something about it. I’m going to bring jobs back to North Carolina … The trade agreements we have are one-sided agreements for other countries, and it’s disgraceful.”

In fact, for all of the first presidential debate’s bluster and personality squabbling, government-funded child care was one of the multiple policy points upon which Trump and Democrat Party nominee Hillary Clinton publicly agreed on stage.

Trump also made his case to Sanders’ supporters based on the Clinton campaign’s choice of Tim Kaine as running mate, due to the Virginia senator’s support for NAFTA and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership.

And Trump does have some of the shared policies to make the case. In addition to his anti-free-market stances on the minimum wage and international trade, Trump has also added Big Government child care to his portfolio of promises.

A few weeks ago, ostensibly at his daughter Ivanka’s behest, Trump rolled out a policy proposal that, among its other provisions, includes a socialist, taxpayer-funded maternity leave program.

Unfortunately for the Trump campaign, the months-long effort isn’t working at all. As it turns out, running to the left on economic policies isn’t buy the candidate the socialist defectors that they’d hoped for. Rather, what it actually appears to be doing is turning Republicans away from the free market.

According to August data analysis at FiveThirtyEight, most of those Bernie supporters ended up falling along the Democratic Party line. But, even if the remaining holdouts could all find their way to become nose-holders, they don’t have the numbers to do much for Trump anyway.

“The Sanders holdouts aren’t that large a group. If they were forced to choose only between Clinton and Trump, the vast majority would choose Clinton and yet they would add only about 1 percentage point to her overall margin over Trump, according to [August] polls,” explains FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten. “That could matter in a close election, but the election isn’t looking all that close at the moment.”

Some factors, however, have changed. Thanks to pneumonia-gate, ongoing email releases, and a list of other things working against Clinton, the polls have tightened, and — at the time of this writing — the RealClearPolitics spread has Clinton up a mere 2.9 points.

But still, it doesn’t look like Bernie holdouts are going to line up behind the New York billionaire anytime soon. If it hasn’t happened by this point, it’s probably not going to happen.

Meanwhile, the GOP candidate’s protectionist rhetoric and departure from free trade seems to brought an alarming number of Republicans along for the ride. A recent Politico-Harvard poll found that 85 percent of GOP voters believe that free trade policies have cost more jobs than they have created … contrasted against a mere 54 percent of Democrats.

But, who knows? This could really be the start of something. After all, if Donald Trump’s efforts could turn such a significant swath of the former free market, small government party against the concept of free trade, who knows what a majority of Republican voters will think about socialist maternity leave in a few weeks? (For more from the author of “AfterBern: Trump’s Socialist Policies Aren’t Working on the ‘Bernie or Bust’ Crowd” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judicial Amnesty? Federal Judge Indicates He Might Revive Obama’s DAPA Amnesty

/0 Comments/in , /by

Could a federal judge pave the road to reviving Obama’s DAPA amnesty in most of the country? Are we about to see a mass judicial amnesty on top of Obama’s existing executive amnesties that are still in operation?

As we reported in August, an illegal alien recipient of Obama’s DACA status sued in federal court to have Obama’s DAPA amnesty (which renewed DACA applications for three years) reinstated. The illegal alien, represented by the Soros-funded National Immigration Law Center (NILC), is asking the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of New York to ignore the Fifth Circuit’s injunction on Obama’s amnesty because, in their estimation, the injunction should not apply outside of the 26 states that sued the administration, given that the Supreme Court was deadlocked at a national level. The consequence of this decision would open up DAPA for New York City and potentially in many other states.

At the time, we suggested that it would be absurd for a judge to grant standing to an illegal alien to sue for affirmative citizen privileges on an illegal executive amnesty that even the administration is no longer pursuing. It’s bad enough to rule that Obama has the authority to override the sovereignty of the nation and the plenary power of inviolable congressional statutes. But to proactively order the administration to revive its executive amnesty — at the behest of an illegal alien — would be mind-blowing to even liberal justices of previous generations, as I demonstrate in chapter 4 of Stolen Sovereignty.

Sadly, the men in robes on the federal bench ain’t your grandfather’s judicial activists. They literally believe that the Constitution and statutes are amendable to their geopolitical world view. It now appears that Judge Nicholas Garaufis, a Clinton appointee, is not only willing to grant Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, an illegal alien from Mexico, standing to sue for citizen rights, but he indicated his personal sympathies and inclination to rule in Vidal’s favor.

Here is the report from Law360 (subscription required) on the initial hearing:

A New York federal judge has indicated a willingness to break from a Texas court on Thursday in a case seeking to exempt certain New York residents from the block against the president’s executive actions on immigration, saying he had “no intention” of “marching behind in the parade,” according to a transcript. […]

“I don’t know what’s going on out there [in] Texas on the border, but I know what’s going on in New York,” said Judge Garaufis, according to a transcript of an initial hearing held Thursday. “And I’m very concerned about it, and I have absolutely no intention of simply marching behind in the parade that’s going on out there in Texas, if this person has rights here.”

What right does a judge have to be concerned with illegal aliens? Ironically, the plaintiff is actually suing the Obama administration for NOT following through with its own egregious executive action in the other states. Yet, when the lawyer for the DOJ complained to Judge Garaufis about their untenable situation, the judicial tyrant responded, “I sympathize with your problem, but I do not sympathize with the idea that I am hamstrung in dealing with an issue involving individual rights and including the right to go make a living and have a life as an immigrant in the United States.”

Freeze frame right there!

This is the constitutional crisis we face. Courts think that they have the power to not only change the Constitution and statutes, but force an executive to enact a revolutionary executive action and grant standing to an illegal in order to tickle their social sensibilities. Who are we to “hamstring” them from getting what they want by any means?!

t would be scandalous enough for a judge to grant standing to a plaintiff in order to force the Executive Branch to enact any executive action, even as it relates to American citizens. But to grant such standing to an illegal alien to sue for affirmative benefits who, under the most settled aspect of American law and sovereignty must be deported, is beyond comprehension. Yet, this judge believes this man has individual rights and calls him an “immigrant” as if he’s here with the consent of the citizenry. If transgenderism could be applied to jurisprudence, it would look something like this.

Moreover, as Dale Wilcox of the Immigration Reform Law Institute points out, the injunction has to be applied nationwide because “nothing would stop the millions of illegal aliens in Texas (and Louisiana and Alabama) going out of state to apply for and receive DAPA-benefits” in a state like New York (if the judge reinstates the program). That alien could then return home and force one of the state’s that received injunctive relief to issue a driver’s license.

To make matters worse, consider the following warped juxtaposition: sovereign states, law enforcement, and individual taxpayers are denied standing to sue the administration when it manifestly violates Congressional immigration statutes. States, towns, communities, civil services, and the criminal justice system are then flooded with illegal aliens, often violent ones. Yet, individuals in this country without the consent of the people can obtain standing to sue the administration for NOT taking action to violate Congress’ plenary power over immigration.

Stolen Sovereignty, indeed!

As I warn in my book, if the courts are not stripped of their power to adjudicate cases granting illegal aliens rights, there are already enough lower court judges who would create an affirmative right to immigrate and nullify our national sovereignty — the most profound manifestation of what Justice Scalia called “social transformation without representation.”

The courts are engaging in nullification and civil disobedience. That Congress sits idly while lower court judges, which are created and controlled by Congress, subvert our system of governance, enlarge their role, nullify congressional statutes, ignore 200 years of case law, and shred the preamble of the Declaration of Independence — which calls for governance by the consent of the government (citizenship by consent) — is something our Founders could never have envisioned in their worst nightmares.

If Congress refuses to use Article III Sec. 2 to take immigration away from the courts or use the power of the purse to defund adjudication that violates our sovereignty, the people and the states must rise up and ignore the courts. As Robert Bork said 20 years ago, “[T]o the objection that a rejection of a court’s authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience.” And at the time, Bork wasn’t even confronted with the stolen sovereignty and mandated transgenderism we face today. (For more from the author of “Judicial Amnesty? Federal Judge Indicates He Might Revive Obama’s DAPA Amnesty” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.