Should a thief be allowed to become a police officer? How about someone who sells drugs on the streets? Any sane person would answer both of these questions with a resounding “no.” It shouldn’t need an explanation, but there are a few main reasons why those who break the law shouldn’t be in law enforcement. The first is that they are either immoral or even worse, they know what they’re doing is wrong and simply don’t care.… Continue Reading

Former president Barack Obama just endorsed Joe Biden in a belated, windy, narcissistic, deceitful, and platitudinous 12-minute video that should be titled “Audacious Obama’s Ironic Endorsement of Befuddled Biden.” Amid his accolades for Bernie Sanders and his admission that Biden will govern even further to the left than he did, Audacious Obama said this:

This crisis has reminded us that facts and science matter, that the rule of law matters, that having leaders who are informed and honest and seek to bring people together rather than drive them apart—those kind of leaders matter.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court will likely “give permission” for the president to obey immigration law and not Obama’s illegal amnesty, both parties will now clamor to enact the amnesty in a lawful manner. But there is no sense of urgency in Congress to enact immigration legislation to reinforce current laws and protect Americans from the ill effects of illegal immigration.

From reading the current media narratives, one would come away with the impression that nobody exists other than illegal alien “dreamers,” most of whom are valedictorians and the highest order of creation.… Continue Reading

Our political system regards the U.S. Supreme Court as superior to the other two branches of government. Why then doesn’t the high court wield its supremacy over its own branch and rein in the lawlessness of the lower courts? Shouldn’t it uproot a growing power grab by the lower courts that are issuing nationwide injunctions over broad policies? Justice Clarence Thomas seems to think so.

In Thomas’ concurrence in the “travel ban” case, he spends just one paragraph dealing with the merits of the case.… Continue Reading

If one district judge demands that a president take a given course of action and another district judge prohibits the president from making such a move, what’s a president to do? He should ignore the judiciary, of course, and only take executive action pursuant to the law and the U.S. Constitution as he sees it.

When leftist organizations forum-shop their political issues to liberal judicial districts, seeking a phantom nationwide veto on a law or executive policy, they are not always guaranteed they will get a likeminded judge drawn by random selection.… Continue Reading