March 19, 2025

Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.

The Imperial Judiciary Is Trying To Commandeer The U.S. Military From President Trump

By Robert Romano

In yet more violence done to the Federal Constitution by an unelected federal judge almost certainly exceeding her authority, in Talbot v. United States, U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes — the most important judges in the history of the universe, apparently — has decided to put an injunction on President Donald Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order expanding the list of disqualifying psychological disorders to include persons suffering from gender dysphoria from military service after they were summarily discharged under a Feb. 26 Defense Department memorandum.

According to Judge Reyes’ ruling, “Plaintiffs have shown they are likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment claim,” which entailed “that the Military Ban violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They also allege that the Military Ban violates the currently serving Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.”

Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition, according to Pyschiatry.org, wherein a patient experiences “psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one's sex assigned at birth and one's gender identity.”

Now, President Trump as the Commander-in-Chief of the military under Article II of the Constitution and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have expanded the list of disqualifying psychological disorders to include gender dysphoria, joining sleep disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, delusional disorders, unspecified psychoses, mood disorders with psychotic features, bipolar and related disorders, depressive disorder, recurrent single adjustment disorder, conduct disorders, oppositional defiance disorders, behavior disorders, personality disorders, encopresis, eating disorders, communication disorders, history of suicidality, history of self-harm, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, dissociative disorders, somatic symptoms and related disorders, paraphilic disorders, substance abuse, history of prescription of psychotropic medication within 36 months, history of any other mental disorders and prior psychiatric hospitalization for any cause.

It also joins other disqualifying conditions such as being overweight or suffering from asthma or paralysis, etc.

Are all of those suffering from those conditions being discriminated against too under the Fifth Amendment? This is the fantasy that Judge Reyes is indulging.

The fact is, not everyone gets to serve. And under Article II, it is the Commander-in-Chief and the chain of command who makes the determination who is fit to serve. This is affirmed by statute by Congress in 10 U.S. Code Sec. 136(b): “Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe in the areas of military readiness, total force management, military and civilian personnel requirements, military and civilian personnel training, military and civilian family matters, exchange, commissary, and nonappropriated fund activities, personnel requirements for weapons support, National Guard and reserve components, and health affairs.”

This is a core Article II responsibility that could be performed even without this grant of legislative authority that only serves to bolster President Trump and Secretary Hegseth’s argument that the executive branch alone makes the determination of which conditions are disqualifying.

There are no equal protection claims as it relates to sex or gender in the military. In fact, women in the military was not regularized until 1948 by the Women's Armed Services Integration Act. But even with their inclusion, most women based on strength requirements might not be suitable for a combat role, and there is no equal protection claim under the Fifth Amendment they would be required to be put into those positions either. Or Congress could repeal that law and make war exclusive a male affair, which it mostly is anyway, with almost 83 percent of enlisted personnel being male, according to the U.S. Naval Institute.

You know what members of the military also don’t really get to claim? Viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. For example, whether in civilian or non-civilian roles, all federal government employees have to take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States and to be adverse to the enemies of the United States.

Thinking about overthrowing the government? Want to lead a communist revolution for everyone to murder their bosses and steal their property? Certainly these are protected viewpoints under the First Amendment — provided you don’t act on them, you’ll be posing an imminent danger and violating a bunch of federal and state laws — but they are absolutely disqualifying to serve in government, whether on the civilian side or in the military. And they should be!

And there is no violation of the First Amendment, as the compelling interest of the executive to have enlisted members and officers of the military be loyal to the United States and not be communist or fascist ideologues trumps any claims of free speech.

As an aside, the same might be said for anyone here on a visa, student or otherwise, who are adhering to terrorist organizations like Hamas or Islamic State and so forth. Certainly, there are First Amendment protections to say and think what you want while being on U.S. soil, but being disloyal to the United States is absolutely a legitimate criterion for removal from the United States of non-citizens. It’s one of those things where viewpoint must be considered.

Tren da Aragua doesn’t get to claim the freedom of association under the First Amendment either to shield itself from removal under the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, either, once invoked by the President to label them a military faction. They don’t even need to be removed, the President could just send troops to attack their positions to repel the invasion.

All of the above would also be disqualifying from serving in the military as well, although for civilians in terms of viewpoint, maybe they like these extremist and criminal factions and sympathize with them, fine, whatever, these might indeed be invoking constitutional rights. Having those viewpoints does not entitle one to military service when it comes to loyalty to the American flag.  

Where Judge Reyes errs, and what will almost certainly be overturned, is the presumption that the Fifth Amendment’s requirements of equal protection and due process can easily be applied to proven medical and psychological conditions, but more so, that local federal district judges can commandeer the U.S. military in this fashion to micromanage the executive branch’s most important function, protecting the United States from attack and the manner in which that must be done. The military is supposed to be deadly, not nice, and that’s fine. Not everyone gets to stand on the wall.

Robert Romano is the Executive Director of Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2025/03/the-imperial-judiciary-is-trying-to-commandeer-the-u-s-military-from-president-trump/

Video: Trump Stands Up To Imperial Judiciary, Removes Enemy Aliens

To view online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gXB1v8k_U

Latinos Were the Final Nail in the Coffin for Harris – Without Hispanic Shift Toward Trump Harris Would be President 

By Bill Wilson

A former Clinton pollster’s dire warning to Democrats on the substantial Latino shift toward conservatives is bringing to the mainstream a demographic reality that many in the party are utterly unprepared for. 

Mark Penn, who was a pollster and advisor to Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as former New York City Counsil president Andrew Stein, recently penned a warning to Democrats in the Washington Post about President Donald Trump’s widespread – and growing – appeal to Latino voters. 

One of the most substantial swings in the 2024 election that solidified President Trump’s second term victory and win of the popular vote for the first time for a Republican in two decades was a monumental shift among Hispanics.

This shift was even more pronounced in swing states – which tend to be more ethnically diverse in the first place. As Penn and Stein point out, Latinos supported Joe Biden by 23 points over Trump four years ago, but Harris’ lead over Trump was whittled down to a mere five points. This represents an eighteen-point shift toward Trump, a shift much larger than Trump’s gains among any other racial group.   

As the authors warn, Latinos played a pivotal role in diverse battleground states that flipped toward Trump. In Nevada, for example, their analysis estimates that the Latino shift from Biden in 2020 to Trump in 2024 amounted to roughly 84,188 votes, helping turn the battleground state red for the first time since George W. Bush won it in 2004.

A similar, if smaller, pattern played out with Latino voters in Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. In Michigan the Latino share of the vote doubled and moved from an 11-point edge for Biden in 2020 to a 21-point advantage for Trump in 2024, according to the Penn and Stein’s analysis. 

The Latino vote nationwide was so substantial in Trump’s favor, that according to Penn and Stein’s analysis, if the Latino vote shift toward Trump was erased, Kamala Harris would have won the presidency with 293 electoral votes. 

For Democrats, that must be a searing realization – for all their vilification of the white voter, Latinos deserting the radical left in droves is what put the final nail in the coffin for Harris.   

There are two other important pieces to this conversation. The first is the significant correlation between young and Hispanic voters shifting to the right. Young people, specifically Gen Z, formed the bulk of the shift toward Trump compared to other age groups in the most diverse battleground states.

In Florida, Texas, and Nevada, all three of which have Latino populations between 27 and 39 percent according to the U.S. Census, Trump saw substantial shifts among both young and Latino voters.  

Trump gained twelve points in Florida among Latinos according to CNN exit polls and with voters 18-24 Trump shaved off eleven points from Harris’s margin over him compared to Biden’s margin over him in 2020. 

In Texas, Trump gained fourteen points among Latinos, and Harris’ margin over Trump among young voters shrank by eighteen points compared to Biden’s margin over Trump four years ago.

Trump also gained fourteen points with Latinos in Nevada, and Harris’ margin over Trump with voters 18-24 shrank by eleven points compared to Biden’s margin over Trump four years ago.    

We’ve covered before how the Hispanic voter population is significantly “younger” than the non-Hispanic population, and how younger minorities – and less-established voters – are much less likely to vote for Democrats than older and more established minorities are.   

A 2024 survey from UnidosUS found that almost 40 percent of the Latino electorate in 2024 were “new voters” who had participated in only one or two presidential election cycles, and newer registered Latinos were much less likely to be Democrats than voters who had been in the voter pool for several election cycles.

Just 45 percent of newer voters identified as Democrats in 2024 according to the report, compared to 59 percent of more established voters. Newer voters were also much more likely to be independent (36 percent) compared to older voters (18 percent).   

The report also noted that newer voters – which skew to the right – are significantly younger than the rest of the electorate. The report found that for newer voters who had only voted in one or two election cycles, 80 percent of them were age 39 or younger in the 2024 election.  

How this all ties together is that Latinos are growing as a share of the population, they are younger, and they are voting more conservative. Even if immigration reform tapers off, the Latino vote is younger than the native Anglo population on average, and starting families at a higher rate.   

The fact that younger Latinos are also much less likely to buy the Democrat Party’s bait and switch reveals that there are plenty of opportunities for conservatives to make their case, especially on economic issues, border security, and limited government. 

The second piece of this puzzle is that the Latino population in the country is likely even larger than we are aware of. This results from the way the U.S. Census calculates Latino ancestry, with individuals being asked to self-identify as Latino or as another ethnic group. Evidence shows that the Latino vote is undercounted, because many individuals with Latino heritage do not nessearily identify with the label on the census.   

While the census estimates that 54.6 million Americans self-identified as Hispanic in the 2020 census, the census estimates that a total of 62.1 million Latinos live in the country. 

What this means is the Latino vote is larger than the census bureau has confirmed, it skews significantly younger than the Anglo population, Latinos are more likely to be concentrated in swing-states and to make those states swing states, and Latinos are shifting toward the right.   

This does not mean that overall, the Latino vote is solidly Republican – but it does throw a wrench in the left’s early 2000’s “demographic destiny” plan, which had prominent Democrats theorizing an increase in Latino voters would pave their way to endless political victories. 

Latinos are shaping up to be a swing voter block that is currently swinging toward the right. Demographic destiny is backfiring big-time, and Democrats are caught scrambling to understand where they went wrong. We’ll see if they manage to untangle themselves from  the clutch of globalism and reverse their catastrophic losses by the next election – but I’m not holding my breath.     

Bill Wilson is the former president of Americans for Limited Government.

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2025/03/latinos-were-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-for-harris-without-hispanic-shift-toward-trump-harris-would-be-president/

ALG Praises SpaceX And NASA For Safe Return Of Two Astronauts

March 18, 2025, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement praising SpaceX and NASA for the safe return of Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams from the International Space Station:

“Americans for Limited Government is very grateful to SpaceX and NASA for their partnership in the safe return of the two courageous astronauts today from the International Space Station. This incredible achievement came after the two astronauts were unnecessarily stranded at the station for nine months by the previous administration, but now can help restore the American people’s confidence in the space program with something that all Americans regardless of politics have been rooting for: the safe return of the astronauts.

“As America looks to the stars, and as President Donald Trump and SpaceX head Elon Musk set their sights on Mars, it is moments like these that can help build public support for these important endeavors to promote the continued progress of the sciences. Humanity’s future, like its past, is to be explorers and to expand to all of the habitable regions of the solar system, as Musk often notes, while technology and resources are permissive to those ends. There’s a window of opportunity and this might be it.

“Today’s successful mission is a testament to the importance of the continued privatization of space exploration by SpaceX and other pioneers but also the need for continued partnerships with U.S. space agencies including NASA and Space Force to protect U.S. sovereignty and national security. This mission is a shining example of what can be achieved when we embrace the freedom to explore, take risks and the vision that no man or woman be left behind.”

To view online: https://getliberty.org/2025/03/alg-praises-spacex-and-nasa-for-safe-return-of-two-astronauts/