![Eric Sammons Profile](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1807736493944786944/Yp1pdUVF_x96.jpg)
Eric Sammons
@EricRSammons
Followers
42K
Following
19K
Statuses
27K
Editor-in-Chief of @CrisisMag. "Woefully ignorant" - The New York Times
Joined October 2014
That’s a dumb and unserious question. My point is that it’s not so simple as Israel is better than any Muslim country. Christians, for example, were relatively well protected in both Syria and Iraq under Muslim rulers (before we overthrew those rulers). And they are also relatively protected in both Jordan and Lebanon. Sure, they don’t have full rights, but neither do they in Israel. We shouldn’t have a comic book view of good guys and bad guys in that region.
1
0
2
This is what an actual attempted coup looks like.
LAWFARE: In an egregious and unconstitutional assault on executive authority, Judge Paul Engelmayer has unilaterally forbidden all of Trump's political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from accessing Treasury Department data. This ruling, concocted without legal precedent or constitutional justification, is nothing short of judicial sabotage. Worse, it was issued ex parte—meaning Trump administration lawyers weren’t given notice, weren’t allowed to argue, and weren’t even in the room. Only Democrat attorneys general were heard, ensuring a predetermined outcome. Engelmayer’s order is legally indefensible. He cites no statutory basis because none exists. He offers no constitutional rationale because the Constitution directly contradicts him. Instead, he fabricates a fiction: that the duly appointed Treasury Secretary is nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead, akin to a powerless monarch, while unelected bureaucrats—who answer to no voters—control the nation’s finances. This is judicial tyranny masquerading as jurisprudence. The implications are staggering. By stripping the executive branch of access to its own financial data, this ruling effectively transfers control of the federal purse to the permanent bureaucracy—the so-called “deep state.” That is a direct assault on the Constitution’s separation of powers, which vests executive authority in the elected President and his appointees, not in career government employees. This is lawfare at its most brazen: a raw, partisan power grab dressed up in legalese. If allowed to stand, this decision sets the precedent that any left-wing judge can unilaterally strip the President of his authority and hand it to the administrative state. That is not democracy. It is not law. It is judicial dictatorship. While the order is currently set to last only a week, no serious person believes this won’t be extended if the courts think they can get away with it. The Trump Administration should treat this for what it is—an unconstitutional usurpation—and consider defying it outright. No judge has the authority to cripple the executive branch and hand power to unelected bureaucrats. Beyond that, the Supreme Court must intervene and overturn this blatant violation of constitutional governance. Judge Engelmayer should be barred from hearing any future cases related to executive authority, and every Democrat lawyer who enabled this attack on the Constitution should be sanctioned. This is not a legal dispute—it is a coup by the judiciary against the elected government. And it cannot be allowed to stand.
2
18
144
@AJDelgado13 @JDVance Maybe he's an actual adult and so changes his mind based upon changing information (and also perhaps Trump has changed some too). I went from Never Trump in 2016 to middling support in 2020 to full MAGA in 2024. And I didn't do it out of ambition. The same can be true of Vance.
1
0
12
@chris_hodel My point is that we are too dependent on government now, and breaking that dependence would probably make us smaller for a time, but when we can build from that.
0
0
27
@ccpecknold Honestly, at this point I'd want to avoid any form of partnership until we get our internal situation squared away. Perhaps a robust Church could successfully partner with a secular government, but I don't think our current one can.
0
0
27
@FaithNotesCo I don't think gold has the future that bitcoin does, but this rule does apply to gold as well.
1
0
2