It appears that America is at an interesting crossroads. We are struggling, well, some folks are, with understanding that illegal means illegal. If you have committed an action that is illegal, that means you have committed a crime. If you are supporting, advocating, and enabling illegal activities, meaning criminal actions, then you are aiding and abetting illegal actions, meaning supporting crime. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but that seems like a very simple, widely held, and common-sense understanding and explanation.
Well, unless you are a delusional and deranged progressive socialist leftist. Take, for instance, one US Congresswoman named Jasmine Crockett, who thinks she can best President Trump in an IQ test. Rep. Crockett publicly stated that entering our Country illegally is not a crime, to which Border Czar Tom Homan reminded her of the exact statute it violates. So, how can we have legislators (lawmakers) who have no comprehension about what the law is? As Forrest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Now, this delusion is not just relegated to members of the legislative branch, mostly leftist members, mind you. This derangement has also infected the judicial branch. Take, for instance, the most recent head-scratching decision from a black robed unelected jurist. U.S. Federal District Court Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California, go figure, ruled that the Trump Administration cannot cut federal funding to sanctuary cities. First of all, let's understand that district courts were created by the legislative branch, so they can kinda be reined in by such, that is called checks and balances. Now, perhaps this Judge Orrick, an Obama-appointed judge, can make a ruling that applies to his district jurisdiction, but who is this cheeky fella to believe that he can determine the appropriations of American taxpayer dollars?
And, let's ponder this: what exactly is a "sanctuary city" or state, for that matter?
Well, it appears that the leftists have declared certain geographical areas that they control as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Uh oh, going back to our aforementioned assertion, doing something illegal connotes committing a crime. So, are we to believe that these municipalities and states have a constitutional right to harbor criminals? So, if a member of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other Islamic jihadist group designated as a terrorist organization entered into our Nation illegally, this judge believes that a city openly harboring them should receive American taxpayer funding? Dummy me, I thought that harboring a criminal in America was a crime in and of itself. I guess it is also a means to defraud the federal government of taxpayer monies as well.
Perhaps leftists should take a gander at Article VI, Section 1 of the US Constitution, known as the "Supremacy Clause." When the United States, meaning the federal government, is acting "in pursuance thereof" of said Constitution and our rule of law, they are supreme over the States, and that would include municipalities. Now, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, known as the "Guarantee Clause," clearly articulates that the United States, meaning the federal government, is to guarantee to every state, and ensuing municipalities, protection from invasion. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 speaks of "predatory incursions" and that the President of the United States has the enumerated power to deport said threats and incursions.
So, what part of sanctuary cities and states is constitutional? Simple answer, there ain't!
What part of “stuck on stupid” does a judge have to embrace to believe that federal funding should go to any level of governance that is in violation of our Constitution and undermining our national sovereignty? Since when do people who have broken our laws to illegally enter our Country, commit acts of violence against American citizens, and are members of designated terrorist organizations become deserving of constitutional rights, including due process?
But I think the biggest question to be answered by these judges, including seven on the US Supreme Court, has to be where were their rulings when the Biden administration was enacting unconstitutional policies and undermining our rule of law? Last time I checked, Article II of the Constitution did not grant any enumerated power to the President to create an app and give non-citizens (illegal immigrants) parole to enter our Republic. Hmm, talk about a threat to democracy.
No one referred to Joe Biden as a tyrant for allowing millions of single military-aged males (non-state, non-uniformed belligerents) into our Country. So, what da heck is this about referring to Donald Trump as a tyrant and Hitler for enforcing our laws, and providing safety and security to the American people? American citizens and legal residents are entitled to Constitutional rights and Due Process. So-called sanctuary cities and states should not get a single penny of federal funding since they have decided to aid and abet criminal activity.
I am more than happy to sit and have this debate with any leftist, starting with Senator Chris Van Hollen and every other loony leftist running down to El Salvador (on the American taxpayer dime, perhaps?). This little missive just goes to prove ya don't need a law degree to understand The Law. Just read Frederic Bastiat and have some common doggone sense.
Steadfast and Loyal.