Trump Was Right to Step In on D.C. Crime — But Federal Agents Don’t Get a Free Pass to Trample Rights

Washington, D.C. is suffering from rising crime and lawlessness, prompting President Trump to intervene for restoration of order. However, federal actions must not violate the Fourth Amendment or intimidate citizens. True leadership targets criminals while ensuring accountability and upholding liberties. Safety should not come at the expense of individual freedoms.

Trump Was Right to Step In on D.C. Crime — But Federal Agents Don’t Get a Free Pass to Trample Rights Read More

Maryland Liberals on Nextdoor Discover Federalism and Firearms—Too Late

Screenshots from Nextdoor reveal a shift among Montgomery County liberals discussing “soft secession” and advocating for firearm ownership against perceived federal overreach. This unexpected stance contradicts their history of supporting gun control. As political anxiety rises, Maryland residents grapple with irony, rediscovering principles they previously dismissed amidst fears of tyranny.

Maryland Liberals on Nextdoor Discover Federalism and Firearms—Too Late Read More

Montgomery County’s Hypocrisy on Press Freedom

Montgomery County Council’s denial of press access to The Montgonion, a satirical news outlet, raises significant First Amendment concerns. Citing outdated journalism guidelines, the Council risks unconstitutional censorship. Satire is an important aspect of journalism, and silencing it undermines accountability. The community demands restoration of press access and greater inclusivity.

Montgomery County’s Hypocrisy on Press Freedom Read More

California’s AB 495: A “Family Preparedness” Plan or a Backdoor Attack on Parental Rights?

California’s Assembly Bill 495 aims to provide care continuity for children when parents are unavailable but faces criticism for its vague language, which could enable unauthorized adults to make critical decisions for children without oversight. Critics argue it undermines parental rights and poses risks of exploitation, while supporters defend it as necessary for families in crisis.

California’s AB 495: A “Family Preparedness” Plan or a Backdoor Attack on Parental Rights? Read More

The Income Illusion: How America’s Tax and Child Support Laws Collide with Supreme Court Precedent

The U.S. tax and child support systems rest on a legal contradiction: for over a century, the Supreme Court has maintained that wages are not “income,” yet the IRS and child support agencies tax and seize wages as if they are. This inconsistency raises serious constitutional concerns, affecting Americans’ rights and finances.

The Income Illusion: How America’s Tax and Child Support Laws Collide with Supreme Court Precedent Read More

Chris Van Hollen: More Passion for Politics Than His Constituents

Senator Chris Van Hollen is criticized for prioritizing partisan issues over the real challenges faced by Maryland families. His focus on due process is perceived as selective, emphasizing high-profile cases while ignoring local judicial failures. The disparity between his activism for foreign issues and silence on domestic struggles highlights a disconnect with constituents’ needs.

Chris Van Hollen: More Passion for Politics Than His Constituents Read More

Why Do Courts Hate Due Process? And Why It’s So Hard for Family Court Litigants to Obtain

Family courts often disregard constitutional due process, prioritizing expediency over fairness. This environment fosters misconduct due to secrecy and lack of oversight. Litigants, usually self-represented, may struggle to assert their rights. To combat this, parents must document objections, use specific legal terminology, file motions, and consider appeals to ensure accountability.

Why Do Courts Hate Due Process? And Why It’s So Hard for Family Court Litigants to Obtain Read More

Could Donald Trump Finally Take on America’s Family Court Corruption—and Save the Children?

Donald Trump’s declaration on missing children and commitment to international cooperation raises a crucial question about his potential response to the corruption in America’s family courts. These courts, shrouded in secrecy, are accused of unjustly separating families for financial gain. Advocating for transparency and parental rights could define Trump’s legacy and address this hidden crisis.

Could Donald Trump Finally Take on America’s Family Court Corruption—and Save the Children? Read More

Conover v. Conover (2016): How Maryland Courts Redefined Parenthood at the Expense of Parents

In 2016, Maryland’s Conover v. Conover recognized “de facto parents,” posing a threat to biological parents’ rights by allowing non-parents equal standing in custody disputes without proving parental unfitness. This conflicted with the Supreme Court’s Troxel ruling, which prioritized parental autonomy, creating legal uncertainties and increasing litigation in family courts.

Conover v. Conover (2016): How Maryland Courts Redefined Parenthood at the Expense of Parents Read More

NFL Justice vs. Family Court Reality: How Money and Fame Can Erase Domestic Violence Allegations—But Everyday Fathers Get Crushed

The post by Michael Phillips contrasts the experiences of NFL players accused of domestic violence, who benefit from legal resources and public support, with regular fathers facing similar allegations. For everyday fathers, accusations can lead to immediate loss of custody, damaged reputations, and financial ruin, highlighting systemic inequalities in the justice system.

NFL Justice vs. Family Court Reality: How Money and Fame Can Erase Domestic Violence Allegations—But Everyday Fathers Get Crushed Read More