The answer is simple – it comes from the Judgment Fund which is the mother of all slush funds. Nothing in the world is comparable to it other than dictators stealing the treasury of a nation. In the U.S., Congress has made such secret payments legal and routine.

The Judgment Fund pays judgments against the United States and settlements agreed to by the Department of Justice. It is a fund that does not disclose the receipt of the payments or settlements even when the actions establish major agency policy or when requested by congressional appropriators. It is a fund without accountability or transparency since the federal agencies making the payments will not provide Congress or taxpayers information about who was paid by the fund.

How does the Judgment Fund work? It is a permanent, indefinite, and unlimited congressional appropriation continuously available to pay money judgments entered against the United States and settlements of cases in or likely to be in litigation with the United States. As an indefinite appropriation, it is so secret that Congress no longer even debates what the amounts are for. The funds are appropriated, no matter what the amount. The Department of the Treasury just pays the claims when the proper paperwork is presented to it.

How did such a fund come about? Prior to 1956, Congress actually appropriated funds to pay for every single judgment against the United States. Under this procedure, Congress was actually aware of what claims were being made against the United States and was able to evaluate the actions of the agencies being sued.

In 1956 Congress passed the Judgment Fund Act to provide for payment of most judgments against the United States without the need for individual appropriations. The congressional justification was to enhance the efficiency of the appropriations process. In 1961 Congress amended the statute to pay for settlements in addition to judgments but with a ceiling on such payments of $100,000. In 1977 Congress eliminated the ceiling and now the fund is available to pay any covered judgment or settlement, regardless of amount.

The Judgment Fund functions as an automatic withdrawal from the nation’s treasury. Moreover, the payments made to satisfy a judgment against the US or to settle the alleged illegal activity of the agency, do not come out of the agency’s budget.  There is no penalty to the agency for misconduct or illegal activity since payments do not have to be reimbursed unless Congress appropriated funds to the agency for such payments. Simply, agencies are not required to pay for their misconduct or unlawful activities.

What payments have been made under the Judgment Fund? While the Department of the Treasury provides a list of payments and the amounts, it does not identify who received the payments. In a 2016 article, Politico described how federal agencies, using the Judgment Fund, hid more than $4.3 billion in payment to settle sexual harassment complaints. In 2020, the Judgment Fund paid out nearly 7,500 payments totaling over $14 billion.

Even after the House and Senate, Committees on Appropriations requested details concerning the names of claimants, the amounts to be paid and a description of the facts, the Treasury continued its refusal to provide the information to Congress. Moreover, the Obama administration settled over sixty lawsuits with environmental groups. It is likely it utilized the Judgment Fund since there was no other money appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to settle lawsuits. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know since the EPA, like all federal agencies, refuses to release the names of the recipients

Are there limits to these secret payments? Unless there is a specific statute authorizing payments in a different manner, there are no limits to payments from the Judgment Fund. According to a September 7, 2016, House Judiciary Committee report, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, the Obama administration likely used the Judgment Fund to settle the $1.7 billion payment to the Islamic Republic of Iran for claims made on the sale of military equipment before the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This is the incident in which the US flew planeloads of cash, in foreign currencies, to Iran as part of what could be termed a ransom payment for American prisoners.

It is time for Congress to take seriously one of its main legislative responsibilities; its control over the nation’s purse as required by Article I, section 9, clause 7 of our Constitution. It can no longer leave the Executive branch with blank checks to be used when needing money to make secret payments, most times for wrongdoing. It is time for our government to be honest with us about what it spends and the recipients of its spending. After all, it is our money!

The post The Judgment Fund – The Mother of all Slush Funds appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Conservative Catholic Group in Ferndale, Michigan Has the Constitutional Right to Worship as They See Fit

by Lee Enochs

The principle of religious liberty is embedded in the U.S. Constitution and is sacrosanct to most Americans. President Thomas Jefferson once said, “The Constitutional freedom of religion is the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights” (Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819). The very idea of religious liberty is the reason why many of our forefathers crossed oceans and sacrificed everything to worship God as their consciences and religions dictated. The right to worship as one sees fit is as American as baseball, hot dogs and mother’s sweet apple pie.

Thus, it is with grave concern I must come to the defense of a conservative Catholic group located in Ferndale, Michigan. This traditionalist Catholic organization known as the “Church Militant” has been the object of protest and censorship by a radical leftist group known as the “Michigan People’s Defense Network” (MPDN).

These detractors of the “Church Militant” say that its message is misogynistic and hateful towards the LGBTQ community. However, upon careful inspection of this conservative Catholic organization’s website and religious message, it can be conclusively demonstrated that the “Church Militant” is simply communicating the same religious message the Roman Catholic Church has maintained for over two millennia. The “Church Militant” simply wants to be faithful to the teaching of Christ as its followers deem fit.

On the other hand, I am not attempting to infringe upon the MPDN’s First Amendment right to protest the “Church Militant’s” decidedly conservative message. However, I am concerned with rhetoric and statements coming out of the MPDN that convey that they will attempt to stop individuals from attending a men’s religious conference this weekend.

The U.S. Constitution is very clear that American citizens have the right to worship or not worship God as our consciences dictate, even if we don’t agree with each other.

As famed Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Homes Jr., in the seminal legal verdict Abrams v. United States (1919), “I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”

In other words, each American citizen should be able to worship and communicate their views even if we vigorously disagree with them. While I am not a Roman Catholic, I feel it is appropriate to defend the “Church Militant’s” right to worship God and spread the Word of the Lord as they deem fit.

Religious liberty is a cherished American value safeguarded in the U.S. Constitution. I must stand with this Catholic group, even though I am not Catholic, because, one day I may need someone to stand with me.

EDITOR’s NOTE: The views expressed are those of the author, they are not necessarily representative of The Libertarian Republic or its sponsors.

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post The Militant Left’s Attack on the Roman Catholic Church appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Rob Shimshock

An organization oriented around free speech filed suit against a university Wednesday after the university arrested students for handing out pocket-sized Constitutions.

Nonprofit organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed for a temporary injunction against Kellogg Community College after the university arrested two members of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) for distributing small Constitutions on campus, according to a press release obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

An administrator told Kellogg students Brandon Withers and Michelle Gregorie that students from rural areas have “grown up to be ultra polite” and “might not feel like they have the choice to ignore” the students.

“That’s who I’m trying to protect,” said the unnamed administrator.

WATCH:

In the complaint, YAL and ADF allege that Kellogg’s Solicitation Policy “grants KCC officials unbridled discretion to restrict the content and viewpoint of student speech if it does not ‘support the mission of Kellogg Community College (KCC) or the mission of a recognized college entity or activity.’”

“It is shocking and upsetting to see officials from public colleges refer to our country’s founding document as a threatening solicitation,” said Cliff Maloney Jr., president of YAL. “The blatant disregard for free speech on public campuses is precisely why the words and rights of the U.S. Constitution should be spread far and wide.”

“College personnel spoke with the individuals and politely asked them to complete basic paperwork and continue their activities inside the KCC Student Center, a high-traffic area located approximately 100 feet from where the individuals were standing,”said Eric Greene, Kellogg’s director for public information and marketing, in a statement emailed to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “The individuals repeatedly refused KCC’s requests to register or move to a different location and were arrested that afternoon on trespassing charges.”

Greene noted that Kellogg teaches courses on the U.S. Constitution, hands out free Constitution copies on Constitution Day, and “takes seriously” any accusation concerning infringement of a student’s freedom of expression.

“Under the terms of the Solicitation Policy, the College does not take into consideration the content of speech or solicitation when granting individuals or organizations access, but it does govern the time, place and manner of such activities in accordance with longstanding state and federal laws.”

The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to ADF, but received no comment in time for publication.

Follow Rob Shimshock on Twitter

Connect with Rob Shimshock on Facebook

Send tips to rob@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post University Sued After Arresting Students For Distributing Constitutions appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Saagar Enjeti

President Donald Trump legally justified his Thursday strike on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s airbase by invoking his authority under the U.S. Constitution.

Trump launched the strike Thursday over Assad’s use of chemical weapons in an attack Tuesday.

“It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,” Trump declared after ordering the strike. Trump’s justification relies on Article 2 of the Constitution, and cites the national interest as “promoting regional stability, which the use of chemical weapons threatens,” per administration talking points obtained by Josh Rogin of the Washington Post.

“No authorization from Congress is necessary,” the talking points assert. “The U.S. strikes were a justified use of force because of several factors, including promoting regional stability, discouraging the use of chemical weapons, and protecting a civilian population from humanitarian atrocities.”

Trump also recalled Assad’s violation of Syria’s own international commitments as basis for the strike saying, “there can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council.”

Lawfare, in an analysis of the White House’s pretext for the bombing, notes that the Office of Legal Council does not classify a “relatively short-term and small-scale operations abroad” as “war.” A longer term agreement would need an authorization for use of military force from Congress.

“As long as the military intervention in Syria is short term and limited and does not involve ground troops against Assad forces, it breaks no new legal ground,” Jack Goldsmith of Lawfare declared.

Marty Lederman, a legal expert at Just Security, conversely said the strike was likely not constitutional because it violates the United Nations charter. A breach of the U.N. charter would require congressional approval, which Trump did not seek before military action Thursday. The lack of authorization puts Trump in breach of the Constitution, per Lederman’s thinking.

Follow Saagar Enjeti on Twitter

Send tips to saagar@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Here’s How Trump Justified His Strike On Syria appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

by Ian Tartt

Most people are familiar with “safe spaces” on college campuses. Conservatives tend to oppose them, while liberals tend to support them. Safe spaces in theory can be good, but not in reality, at least not the present reality. As they’re currently run, safe spaces encourage students to distract themselves from their negative emotions rather than teach them how to manage them. Students entering a safe space are greeted by toys, cookies, bubbles, videos of animals, and other distractions. This doesn’t help them grow or develop into rational adults. Instead, it reinforces within them the idea that anything they don’t like is bad and must be avoided.

But the damage isn’t limited merely to the safe spaces. It spills over into regular college activities: professors are prevented from teaching their students uncomfortable truths about the world, controversial guest speakers routinely have their venues blocked by human chains or are forced out by bomb threats or protesters who pull the fire alarm, and the free exchange of ideas is either threatened or shut down entirely. These students then take their ideas into their jobs, where they push for policies intended to silence and punish anyone who says something they don’t like. From there, they call for laws intended to criminalize speech acts with which they disagree or that threaten their worldview. These people are incapable of managing their own emotions, so they attempt to force others to adjust their behavior so as not to upset them. They aren’t free, and they think the way to become free is to reduce the freedom of everyone else.

The solution to this is to add counselors or therapists to the safe spaces, or for colleges that already do that, encourage them to adopt a requirement that students who visit the safe spaces must seek help either from the campus counselors or outside professionals. When students that are triggered come into the safe spaces, they can play with toys, watch videos of animals, or do whatever else is offered to calm down a bit, and then they can see a professional who will help them learn to manage their emotions. This will instill greater confidence in the students, and over time, they’ll get to the point that they don’t even need the professional help or the safe spaces anymore. They can then go through life with the skills they need to feel how they want to feel instead of allowing others to control their emotions. Will they be completely immune from outside influences? Of course not, but in more cases than not, they’ll be in control of their emotions. The more they can control themselves, the less they’ll be controlled by others, and the less they’ll want to be controlled by others. This is how to maximize what remains of our freedoms, and the more people who are emotionally free, the easier it will be to create a free society.

The post How Safe Spaces Can Make Us Free Again appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Chief Justice of Alabama Roy Moore has been removed from his duties after defying the Supreme Court’s recent marriage ruling and refusing to legally officiate gay marriages.

According to the Associated Press:

The nine-member Alabama Court of the Judiciary suspended Moore without pay for the remainder of his term. While the court stopped short of outright removing him as they did in 2003, the punishment has the same effect, ending his rule as Alabama’s top jurist.

The judiciary court ruled that Moore defied law already clearly settled by the high court’s Obergefell vs. Hodges ruling when he told Alabama’s probate judges six months later that they were still bound by a 2015 state court order to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.

“Beyond question, at the time he issued the January 6, 2016, order, Chief Justice Roy Moore knew about Obergefell and its clear holding that the United States Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry,” the court wrote in the unanimous decision.

They said Moore also flouted a federal judge’s order that enjoined the judges from enforcing Alabama’s same sex marriage ban after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.

The 50-page decision indicated that a majority of justices wanted to completely remove Moore — not just suspend him without pay — but they lacked unanimous agreement.

Moore said the decision violates the standards of evidence and the requirement of a unanimous vote to remove a judge, and his lawyer announced an appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court.

It “clearly reflects the corrupt nature of our political and legal system at our highest level,” Moore said in a statement. “This was a politically motivated effort by radical homosexual and transgender groups to remove me as chief justice of the Supreme Court because of outspoken opposition to their immoral agenda.”

Moore had previously gotten into trouble for refusing to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments on public property that he was federally ordered to take down a decade ago.

The post Alabama Justice Denies Gay Marriage, Loses Bench appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Yeah, about that.

Yesterday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rocked the medical cannabis community by upholding a ban on the sale of guns to those who are legal medical marijuana patients.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by a Nevada medical marijuana cardholder, S. Rowan Wilson, in 2011. A judge had previously ruled that a gun store owner was right in refusing to sell to Wilson on the grounds that a federal rule bans the sale of guns to medical cannabis cardholders.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, it is “reasonable” for a gun store owner to assume a medical marijuana cardholder is a user of illegal drugs.

From the Associated Press:

The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision agreed that it’s reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder is more likely to use the drug.

In addition, a ban on the sale of guns to marijuana and other drug users is reasonable because the use of such drugs “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated,” Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff said.

For a moment, let us put aside the ridiculous nature of the federal prohibition of cannabis (don’t worry, we’ll return to it very soon).

It’s “reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder is more likely to use the drug?” So a person can be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights because it’s “assumed” that it’s “likely” that they broke federal law? And this is determined without any sort of due process through an investigation, a trial or even a hearing?

And medical marijuana users are more at risk of “irrational or unpredictable behavior” as determined without any sort of due process, so they can be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights? Isn’t infringing on the constitutional rights of someone without due process a gross violation of the Constitution under the 5th and 14th amendments?

Beyond all of that, of course, is the matter of someone being denied his or her natural right to defend themselves because of their choice of a less dangerous, less addictive medicine to treat their ailments: a choice the state they live in says is a legal one. But because the federal government has arbitrarily deemed cannabis to be illegal and cannabis users to be criminals even though they have not infringed on the rights of anyone else, a gun store owner can deny them their 2nd Amendment rights.

Denying someone their constitutional rights without due process is unconstitutional. Denying someone the right to defend oneself because they chose not to take deadly, addictive pills is immoral. The 9th Circuit Court’s ruling violates human rights on every level.

The system is broken. There is no fixing or tweaking it. If you have a pile of crap before you and you stir it around with your foot a little bit, it’s still a pile of crap. And if you wad up a copy of the U.S. Constitution and shove it into that pile of crap, you have yesterday’s ruling.

The post Federal Court Upholds Gun Ban for Medical Marijuana Patients appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

According to Heatstreet:

“Congressional Democrats ended their 25-hour sit-in on the House floor this afternoon, failing to force a vote on two pieces of gun legislation. The controversial sit-in included 26 Democratic lawmakers who themselves own guns, Heat Streetlearned after examining 2013 USA Today data on congressional firearms ownership. The participants also included 12 more Democrats in Congress who either didn’t respond to USA Today’s gun survey or declined to say whether or not they possessed a firearm.

The sit-in, launched by civil-rights leader Rep. John Lewis, centered on two pieces of proposed gun legislation. One would expand background checks to cover all commercial gun sales; the other seeks tougher prohibitions against gun purchases for terror suspects.

The participation of Democratic gun owners can be viewed as the pursuit of reasonable compromise by left-wing firearm fans—or, potentially, as hypocrisy.“

The full article, complete with a list of every Democrat that participated, can be found HERE.

The post Report: 26 of the Pro-Gun Control Sit-In Democrats Are Gun Owners Themselves appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

States the report:

During an insane speech at a rally in Ft. Worth, Texas, Trump said he wants to “open up our libel laws so when [reporters] write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” Trump said he would want to be able to sue newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post when they write negative articles about him and his finances. He called the Times and the Post, “the most dishonest media outlets I’ve ever seen in my life. I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I’ve ever met. They’re terrible.”

Trump continued, “When The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit-piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

Changing the free-press laws would require serious alterations to the meaning of the First Amendment. But Trump never mentioned that part.

Something to note, however: While the original report claimed to include “video,” the footage was an unrelated Kasich interview speaking on which GOP candidate will win TX.

The post Donald Trump Wants to “End the First Amendment.” Says Report appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.