RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2025/06/20/breaking-court-lets-trump-keep-natl-guard-in-la-n4940982

An appeals court has once more ruled that the president of the United States does have the authority to keep the National Guard deployed in Los Angeles to put down the dangerous, and even deadly, anti-ICE riots.

A federal appeals court issued the decision in favor of Donald Trump late Thursday, blocking District Judge Charles Breyer’s order to put California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has largely sided with the anti-immigration crazies, back in control of the National Guard in LA. Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney shared screenshots of the decision and noted that it was unanimous, with a Joe Biden appointee joining in with two Trump appointees on the decision.

The decision stated, “We also conclude that the other stay factors — irreparable harm to Defendants, injury to Plaintiffs, and the public interest — weigh in Defendants’ favor. Thus, we grant the motion for a stay pending appeal.”

The judicial panel found Newsom’s claims of the National Guard escalating the situation and interfering with law enforcement were “too speculative.” The lack of proof for the complaints against Trump led the judges to rule in Trump’s favor.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-big-lie-stolen-land/

Mob violence recently took place in L.A. and hundreds of other cities over Donald Trump’s efforts to obey the Constitution and “faithfully execute” the duties of the president, and carry out the laws by deporting illegal aliens. At the same time, Israel began a massive attack on Iran’s weapons and leaders in order to prevent that regime from acquiring nuclear weapons––which Iran now has a “zero- breakout-time” for achieving–– and fulfill the jihadists’ genocidal oath to “wipe Israel off the map,” as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in 2003.

What links these events is the “big lie” of “stolen land,” indulged by the leftist Democrats in L.A., and Israel’s enemies everywhere. Leftists and jihadists both adhere to the precept “any means necessary,” which validates violence. But as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has said, the “big lie” is codependent with violence, “since it can conceal itself with nothing except the lie, and the lie has nothing to uphold it save violence.” Marxism is famous for both.

From the beginning, Karl Marx boasted of Marxists’ embrace of violence. In 1843 he threatened the Prussian government, “We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes, we shall not disguise our terrorism.” The next year he publicized his “plan of action,” and stated, “Far from opposing the so-called excesses, those examples of popular vengeance against hated individuals and buildings which have acquired hateful memories, we must not only condone these examples but lend them a helping hand.” This, of course, foreshadows today’s leftist Dem politicians who support violent protests and riots, and those governors and congressmen who encourage and support the rioters.

True to Solzhenitsyn’s observation, Marxists have employed propaganda and “big lies” to legitimize their violence. This affinity for lying, which George Orwell’s phrase from 1984, “2+2= 5,” epitomized, was endemic among the Bolsheviks and their propaganda that penetrated every dimension of society and politics. Pierre Pascal, an apostate from Soviet communism, in 1924 wrote in his journal, No regime has ever been a regime of lies to this extent.”

Another repentant true believer, Boris Souvarine––anticipating Orwell––wrote of the Bolshevik’s public discourse, “Not one fact, not one quotation, not one idea, not one argument: only impudent affirmations with a half-dozen interchangeable words come from the ‘heights.’” We who have witnessed during the last decade the regime media repeating endlessly the same preposterous talking points, often word for word, know what Souvarine is talking about.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/06/20/no-kings-except-in-california/

Last weekend’s No Kings rallies were yet another real-time illustration of psychological projection by the political left. Meanwhile, a West Coast governor who wants to be president so badly that his hair hurts continues to act as if he’s a sovereign accountable to no one.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is a pen-and-phone chief executive. In 2020, while Californians were suffocating under his cruel COVID restrictions, the politician groomed by the San Francisco political syndicate issued an executive order outlawing internal-combustion engine automobiles in the state. Beginning in 2035, all new cars sold in California will have to be of the zero emission variety, which means battery-powered electrics since there are no realistic alternatives.

Newsom caught a bit of flak from legislators who felt that his “law” should have gone through the legitmate policymaking process. But the complaints soon faded because, after all, his order was perfectly in line with the Democrats’ eco-militant agenda. A one-man diktat is no vice in the pursuit of progressive rule.

Two years after Newsom single-handedly enshrined his EV mandate, the California Air Resources Board tried to provide him cover. It voted unanimously to approve his executive order, regarding the mandate “codified” by its endorsement. That’s a cheeky claim from a board that is not elected but appointed – chiefly by the governor.

Newsom’s excess was recently restrained by Congress and President Donald Trump through the proper lawmaking process. Trump signed a bill that he said “will kill, totally kill” California’s EV mandate “forever.”

Newsom’s response was not only to sue, which is certainly within the scope of his position, but to also behave as if, again, he is accountable to no one. He defiantly shot back on June 12 with an order that “reaffirms” the state’s “commitment to accelerate the deployment of zero-emission technologies, including passenger, medium and heavy-duty vehicles.” He recognizes no one’s authority but his own.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21691/rule-by-judges

Under Article 3 of the United States Constitution, judges are supposed to play a critical role in checking and balancing the excesses of the other branches. Their central responsibility is to enforce the procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights, most particularly those assuring due process, equal protection and the right of dissent. They have no legitimate business interfering with the substantive policies of the executive or legislative branches.

Judges look harder to find procedural objections to policies and actions of which they disapprove.

[Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis] consistently voted to uphold laws and practices with which he had strong substantive disagreements, so long as they did not clearly violate express provisions of the Constitution. That is the proper role of unelected judges in a democracy.

The people — not the judges — should rule the land.

The Book of Ruth begins with an ominous warning: “In the days when the judges ruled, there was famine in the land.”

History shows that judges make poor leaders. Thomas Jefferson understood this when he tried to limit the influence of the “midnight judges” appointed by John Adams. Andrew Jackson refused to implement a Supreme Court decision that he believed undercut his policy toward Native American tribes. Abraham Lincoln responded to what he regarded as the overreaching of judges by suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court when the justices tried to dismantle his congressionally-enacted New Deal.

Now, many district court judges are determined to thwart the policies of President Donald Trump. Judicial efforts to thwart executive and legislative actions have occurred frequently in our history, as have executive and legislative responses to such judicial activism.

Under Article 3 of the United States Constitution, judges are supposed to play a critical role in checking and balancing the excesses of the other branches. Their central responsibility is to enforce the procedural safeguards of the Bill of Rights, most particularly those assuring due process, equal protection and the right of dissent. They have no legitimate business interfering with the substantive policies of the executive or legislative branches.