Christ spoke about an unjust judge in Luke 18 where a widow lady sought justice from a judge who “feared not God, neither regarded man.” He was dismissive of her complaint. What did the judge have to worry about since he was a judge and she was only a widow lady; however, she kept appealing to him and sent the message that she would not cease but would continue to demand justice. Finally, the judge provided justice for her because she wearied him by her pluck, patience, and persistence.

If President Trump permits unelected judges to usurp his constitutional authority and obligation to make decisive decisions about national security then he has surrendered his authority thereby putting everyone in jeopardy and setting a dangerous precedent for future Presidents. Such results could have a catastrophic impact on our personal lives and our nation’s future.

Any U.S. President has one major responsibility–to keep Americans safe from enemies domestic and foreign. Every breathing, thinking person knows that Muslim terrorists have taken an oath to destroy us and set up a world caliphate. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto is: “Allah is our objective. The prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The U.S. military will be pleased to help them accomplish their “highest hope.”

Trump, seeking to secure our borders, issued a temporary pause in immigration from seven mainly Muslim nations and his order was struck down by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart. His decision was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Robart was brash, bold, and bigoted when he publically promoted Black Lives Matter rather than All Lives Matter! Therefore, his decision on the ban is no surprise.

We are told that the judges are simply interpreting the law not making political statements but no one really believes that except those who believe that Elvis Presley, Judge Crater, Jimmy Hoffa, and Amelia Earhart are sitting around on some Caribbean island drinking cold adult refreshments.

An attorney was quoted in the Los Angeles Times saying, “In our system of government, we should not abide the country’s most powerful executive official demeaning and disparaging the judiciary through personal attacks on a federal judge.” Evidently, the attorney is not familiar with historical confrontation between U. S. Presidents and federal judges.

Civilized people will show restraint, respect, and some reservations for all public officials; however, no public official, even a federal judge is sacrosanct. No one is exempt from being held accountable. The idea of judges being untouchable is fairly new.

President Lincoln, early in his first term, suspended the writ of habeas corpus (requiring an accused his day in court) in Maryland thereby legally justifying his arrest of thousands of private citizens who sympathized with the south. Eighty-four-year-old Chief Justice Roger Taney (pronounced Tawney) ruled that habeas corpus could be suspended, but only Congress could do it. In other words, the President was out of order! However, if the President’s suspension of habeas corpus was not legal then Lincoln was illegal in arresting and imprisoning at least 13,000 private citizens. The Columbia Law Review suggests that the number could have been 38,000 private citizens that Lincoln placed in military prisons!

John Merryman was a citizen of the state of Maryland and southern sympathizer who was accused of burning bridges and other destructive acts. He was arrested by military authorities and imprisoned at Fort McHenry. He was the first person arrested after Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and he was not released. Habeas corpus is protection of the meanest person from the mightiest person.

Merryman then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus and Chief Justice Taney ruled that Lincoln was wrong and ordered General Cadwallader to bring Merryman to court. The general, who worked for Lincoln, refused and the Court ordered a federal marshal to bring the accused and the general to court. Justice Taney issued a famous opinion against Lincoln’s actions and sent a copy to an angry and embarrassed Lincoln who ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice! The actual arrest did not take place but there was the threat from the President against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!

While Lincoln was obviously wrong to attack federal judges, the incident supports the fact that judges are not unchallengeable, unaccountable, and unassailable. That’s still true today.

Moreover, William Matthew Merrick of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia was placed under house arrest because he did not support Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus.

But in the present case, President Trump is right, not wrong and he must prevail even with the U.S. Supreme Court; after all, they are only human and susceptible to ego, prejudice, fear, etc. It is past time for congress to set some perimeters as to what the court will hear. Article three, section two of the Constitution mandates that the Court’s appellate jurisdiction is given “with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” So, congress should inform the court that they will have authority in disputes between the states, disagreements between a state and an individual, treaties, etc. but some issues are off limits.

President Trump must prevail in this dispute and he should keep in mind Christ’s parable of the unjust judge and not give up–pluck, patience, and persistence will prevail.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

My critic sarcastically asked, “And how much stronger would the church have been made had all Christians refused and been killed?” Evidently, he did not know how persecution happened in the Roman Empire. The persecution was not constant, but took place in “fits and starts.” Moreover, the worst part of persecution took place in selected localized areas, depending upon the local rulers, urban or rural areas, etc. Furthermore, many Christians did not “go public” and, therefore, did not face persecution. Believers who refused to obey Caesar and made much to do about it were given an opportunity to recant and deny Christ and some did so. And later recanted their recantation.

My critic said that case law amends the Constitution but he is wrong. If that were true, it would mean that the Constitution would be constantly changing. Case law is a constantly developing body of law which has made new interpretations of law which can be used as a precedent in similar cases. He has it backwards: case law does not amend the Constitution but case law is determined by the Constitution. The Constitution must go through the amending process before it can be changed.

Radicals want the Constitution to be “flexible” so that anything can be read into it to justify things like ObamaCare, abortion, homosexuality, etc. My critic declared, “So all it would take to silence the churches in this country would be for them to all commit hairy kerry (sic) as soon as they have less then (sic) 100% religious liberty.” I assume he meant to write “hara-kiri,” not hairy kerry, but then I often presume too much.

But back to his previous mistake about the martyrs. No, the church would not be silenced, at least not true churches. It might be one of the best things to happen in America if a thousand preachers went to jail for refusing to obey an oppressive government order. During 1662, over 2,000 preachers in England lost their pulpits or went to jail for refusing to obey the king’s order to strictly adhere to the Book of Common Prayer.

In the 1600s, the government of England started losing control of religion in Wales when hundreds of independent churches and chapels were established by nonconformist Independents, Baptists, Quakers, and others. The Nonconformists were gaining too much influence in England and Wales so the King and Parliament decided to bring them under control. The Act of Uniformity of 1662 required all ministers to assent to the rites and liturgy of the Established Church. In fact, all clergy, college professors, and schoolmasters had to agree with everything in the Book of Common Prayer! All clerics who refused to follow the common prayer book were ejected from the Church. Out of approximately 10,000 preachers throughout the country, about 2,000 were ejected (and some went to jail) but 20% to 25% of the country continued to worship illegally, holding secret services in barns and other unapproved locations. That could happen here.

My critic wrote, “I understand those who have drawn the line here, and wish them success. But souls are still being saved that won’t be if everyone gives up and goes home at the first sign of trouble.” He made a gargantuan leap in logic when he suggested that people won’t become Christians if individuals, churches, and businesses refuse to obey ObamaCare in obedience to the Bible and their conscience. I suggest that such courageous action would prove to the cynical world that there are still people who will do what is right if it costs them everything–that was everything: reputation, job, home, business, retirement plan, and personal freedom.

He accused Christians of going “home at the first sign of trouble.” Principled people are not running home; they are fighting in court; they are going on record that they will not obey the law even if they lose in court. Whatever happens in court, they know the end result: they will not obey the law! Wow, that takes courage, character, and commitment to biblical principles. Government officials, judges, media, and politicians have not met many people like that. They will be shocked when businesses, churches, hospitals, orphanages, schools and other entities are closed by the government and the leaders are marched off to jail!

Some potential compromisers have begun to set the stage (and self-justification) for their eventual compliance by stating that ObamaCare may force them “to violate their consciences,” which is not a biblical response. The principled response is, “I won’t comply whatever the threats or consequences. Period.” No room for negotiation (read: compromise).

Others have said, “Americans have no choice in this matter.” But of course we do. We have the choice to say, “Yes” or “No.” That is a choice.

I have made my decision.

However, government giveaways to help the unfortunate victims are without constitutional authorization. Let’s look at each group. No government agency has an obligation to rebuild or repair a citizen’s home or business. That is what insurance is all about. If one is so foolish as to not have insurance then he should live with his decision. As to the damage of the streets and public buildings, that is the responsibility of the county, city, state, or federal, depending on jurisdiction.

When a president or governor views the destruction, he usually promises that the government will ride to the rescue with billions of dollars of help. That money does not come from the State House or the White House but from your house. Such governors and presidents are acting illegally and are giving away money that is not theirs to give.

Without any attempt to justify their “gifts,” the politicians stumble all over each other to promise that “help is on the way.” Rather than be ashamed for their illegal actions, they boast about being sensitive to the peoples’ needs. However, they are not giving away their own money.

Even little children know that it is stealing for anyone (including governments) to take from the haves and give to the have-nots. Do sane people really believe that it is right, by any standard, to take from hardworking taxpayers and give to others, even suffering, innocent others? Sure, it is nice, commendable even noble to help those in need (which people should do) but it is not legal for government to do so.

By what logic should taxpayers bail out banks and mortgage companies for bad business practices? After all, the feds don’t rescue a small businessman who doesn’t make it in the food business or a machine shop.

It is easy to give away someone else’s money; however it is wrong, evil, wicked, immoral, illegal, etc., to give it away when the owner of the money has not authorized it. While I will be accused of being unchristian, unkind, and uncaring, I cannot be accused of being unconstitutional when I declare that public money (taxpayer’s) should not be used to bail out flood or tornado victims! Or any other victims unless they are the victims of government. Nevertheless, politicians are always quick to dip into the pot, using “federal” money for altruistic purposes. It also helps one’s next election or legacy to point to “all I did for the poor victims.”

Many will say my position is cruel, crass, and contemptible. However, no one has convinced me that public money should be used for private bailouts or to support AIDS victims in Africa, or victims in the U.S.! Federal politicians seem to look for opportunities at home and abroad to send in the cavalry with saddlebags full of money to rescue some needy group. Furthermore, hurting people certainly can’t be faulted for accepting any help they get.

The massive loss and the obscene extent of Sandy do not justify a generous but illegal reaction. Of course, private contributions are another matter and are definitely needed.

My critics cannot stand on the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution to support these efforts. It is a misreading, misinterpretation, or mishandling of that document to suggest otherwise. Thomas Jefferson aptly said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

Many later presidents had the moral courage to stand foursquare on the Constitution and veto welfare benefits for private, yes, even hurting individuals. President Cleveland (a Democrat and only man to serve nonconsecutive terms as President) correctly said of one bill that came to his desk: “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” In fact, he vetoed numerous unconstitutional spending measures during his presidency. George W. Bush seemed to be afraid of the veto pen.

I am all for being compassionate but Obama cannot be compassionate with my dollar. He can only do that with his own dollar. He cannot honestly and constitutionally give away money that is not his to give. He is only the president of the United States, not the CEO of a charity organization with unlimited funds. What is different in principle with the federal government giving aid to Americans ravaged by storms versus giving aid to a local businessman who was attacked and burned out by hoodlums? That local businessman is without help from government.

When David Crockett was a member of the U.S. Congress from Tennessee, he was asked to vote to provide a financial benefit to a widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed everyone was in favor of the bill; however, Crockett rose to the floor and spoke against the bill! He said, “We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.” He pointed out that every member of the House knew there was no constitutional authority to give public money to private individuals. The bill was defeated.

He ended his speech by saying that he was the poorest man in the House but he would be willing to give a week’s salary to the widow and if every member did the same, the amount of money would be more than the bill would have provided. Not another member of the House agreed to give anything to the widow! It seems hypocrisy was a common requirement for political office then, and now.

It is easy to give away money that belongs to others, but Mr. Obama, the money isn’t yours to give and Congress has no right (power yes but authority no) to give a dollar to victims of any disaster unless the federal government directly caused the disaster.

Any government official who votes for give-away largess should be horsewhipped on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.