Janice Daniels’ Corner

By Janice Daniels

Hard-hitting articles on today’s current events.  Note: The opinions expressed herein are those of the author Janice Daniels and do not necessarily reflect those of MCU’s Board of Directors or members at large.


Were We Right to Write a Bill of Rights?

I had a few questions for a new friend I met at MiCPAC-2018, and again at UPCPAC this year http://mcu.today/. My new friend is the constitutional scholar who goes by the name Publius Huldah (Really she does. Check it out for yourself, at her blog site:


I asked her if there were any specific references in the Federalist Papers that address or further define the first amendment “Freedom of the Press” in the Bill of Rights.

Going on, I asked, “Was it possible that “Freedom” was therein somehow defined as the protection of the destruction of culture, government, society and spirituality?”

My final question to Publius Huldah was, “Does the definition of “The Press” somewhere include liars, seditionists, traitors, and enemies of our Constitution?”

She responded by referencing Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist 84, which is named Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered.


I wanted to quote the source material from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84; however, I know that his writing style might confuse many and bore most of my readers, so I needed to extrapolate, consolidate and make some modern day sense of his writing (which is beyond brilliant, if you take the requisite time to actually read, study and decipher what he is saying)!

But wait, Publius Huldah did just that in her excellent answer to my original questions.  She wrote back to me saying, “When a King claims total power over his subjects, as did King John I of England, a Bill of Rights is appropriate to carve out exceptions to that claim of total power.  Thus, in 1215, the Barons forced King John I to sign the Magna Charta.

But our Constitution delegates only a small handful of powers to the federal government over the Country at large. 

To add a bill of rights to such a Constitution creates a pretext to regulate to those inclined to usurp.”

“Pretext to regulate”

A concise definition of the word “pretext” can be found on an Internet search engine, as follows:

 “A reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason” (italics mine).


Although my original query was with regard to the “right” to a “Free Press” and how to define it, I now extend the conservation to another important “right” supposedly “protected” by the Bill of Rights: The Second Amendment “Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” and I ask, “How many Federal regulations are the good men of this country going to allow to be written before they determine that their “right to bear arms” has been Infringed upon?”

Well, let’s see.  In my search for an answer, I found a “list” of Federal laws regarding firearms.  It is nine pages long (I would wonder if it’s all inclusive).

Here is the list:  http://fedcoplaw.com/html/federal_firearms_laws.html.

So, I ask, “Would 10 pages of firearm regulations be too many, promulgated by our Federal government on the pretext that the government has a “right” to regulate our Rights that are not to be infringed upon?”

As Alexander Hamilton opined in Federalist 84 … (in America), “the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations.”

Publius Huldah lists the small handful of powers delegated to the American federal government herein:


Nowhere in this list does it indicate that the federal government has any right to a pretext to regulate the rights of the people regarding religion, assembly, gun ownership or a free press, to name a few, except in the Bill of Rights.

And so, I ask again: Were we right to write a Bill of Rights?  Publius (Alexander Hamilton) didn’t think so, Publius Huldah doesn’t think so, and, upon reflection, neither do I.

Response to https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2018/05/12/colbeck-line-anti-muslim-campaign/34860179/

It is not at all surprising that this piece of journalistic malpractice doesn’t have a name associated with its authorship. No one in their right mind should want to take responsibility for writing such an uninformed and biased hit piece like this article. The focus of this article should have been the FACT that Dr. Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed was “out of line” when he said on live television on May 10, 2018, at the Michigan Press Form debate that, “Muslim Definitely Hate You” to the finest, bravest, highly intelligent and most principled candidate Michigan has had running for the Governor’s office in a long time – Mr. Patrick J. Colbeck. The Democrat Party and Dr. El-Sayed himself owe Mr. Patrick J. Colbeck the apology, if an apology is in order; not the other way around.

I would suggest that the tactic that is despicable is the tactic of name calling in response to legitimate concerns about America’s national security.  Gubernatorial candidate Patrick J. Colbeck most definitely did not “muslim bash” when he voiced concern about another person running for Governor  [To read full article, click here]

With the passage of Michigan’s Senate bill 0637 (and its corresponding SB 894) on May 18, 2018, our legislators seem to be marching head long into providing the infrastructure for a new level of technology that is the rage of geeks around the world, even though I would suggest that this technology is all quite Greek to most of our so-called law makers.


Did the Senators who voted in favor of SB 0637 and SB 894 last week look at any of the voluminous data on the verifiable long-term health risks of 5G wireless technology (especially to our children)    [To read full article, click here]

A Plan for Immigration Reform Revisited

By Janice Daniels

On June 19, 2013, Western Journalism posted my Five Point Plan for Immigration Reform.


This plan, in my humblest opinion, is still relevant today, almost four years later, even though the names and faces that surround the still perplexing issue of immigration reform might have changed.  Truthfully, that always seems to be the case when one big government scheme fails or another big government elected official loses their next election. The hangers-on just change the name of the scheme, or the people just elect another lover of big government, and we go on as usual, giving up more of our liberty but never seeming to be more secure.  At least that is the way it has always been in the past.

This year, though, in an effort to help our first conservative-liberal, American-nationalist, American-populist, brash-brilliant President Donald J. Trump President, I have resurrected and updated (with parentheses) my Five Point Plan for his and your consideration. It goes like this …

“It is the proper responsibility of a free people in a representative republic to advise elected officials on the course of action required to make good law and to protect the sovereign individuals who are legal, law-abiding citizens of that republic.

Therefore, I have constructed a simple, logical, workable five point plan for immigration reform that I would like our 100 Senators and our 435 House Representatives (and President Trump) to consider as a replacement for their complex, overbearing, ill-prioritized “gang of eight” (now called comprehensive immigration reform http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-immigration-democrats-235588) plan that is currently marching its way through our legislative system to the dismay of a large portion of this country’s legal populace.

The Five Point Plan:

  1. Secure the Borders … period. This will require that a structure be devised that will guarantee that the citizens of this country will be safe from the illegal invasion of our borders (now called build a wall http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1397/build-wall-and-make-mexico-pay-it). Maybe the assets in Utah that the National Security Administration are constructing to apparently track its own citizenry can be redirected to the tracking of illegal aliens attempting to cross our borders. Maybe the American soldiers who are stationed the world over can be re-deployed to protect our border states from the aggression that will surely follow if and when we get serious about protecting our own country. Step Number One must be completely in place before proceeding to Steps Numbered Two through Five.
  2. Deport all illegal aliens who are presently residing in the prisons and jails across this country; send them to the prisons in the country of their origin. According to 2010 data provided by one state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California’s taxpayers alone are paying $1 billion dollars a year to house illegal alien prisoners (updated in 2014 to $4.3 billion dollars


I suppose that some of these tax dollars are being used to support the perks and pleasures afforded the government’s bloated security department system, but come on – what is it doing to the country’s taxpayers and their own children whose lives, fortunes, and sacred honor are being crushed by unstoppable debt?  Although it might be impossible to calculate the total cost of housing these criminals across the United States of America, it certainly must be a healthy chunk of change.

  1. Deport all illegal aliens who are actively taking advantage of our current health care system; send them to the hospitals in the country of their origin. According to Kaiser Health News, “Federal law generally bars illegal immigrants from being covered by Medicaid. But a little-known part of the state-federal health insurance program for the poor has long paid about $2 billion a year for emergency treatment for a group of patients, who according to hospitals, mostly comprise illegal immigrants.”


  1. Deport all illegal aliens currently collecting American entitlements of any kind; send them back to collect welfare from the country of their origin. The portion of the $517 billion dollar a year (now in the trillions of dollars) entitlement payments that are provided to illegal aliens is difficult to calculate due to the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution has been systematically misused by allowing illegal entry into this country for the expressed purpose of delivering babies who are then “deemed” to be American citizens.


The actual wording of the first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment would seemingly contradict this systematic misuse if reviewed in its full context: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The operative clause that so many big government power players seem to willfully ignore is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”


According to The Federalist Blog, this clause refers to the political allegiance of the father to the child. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as having said that “aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” It is unimaginable that lawmakers in this country would have used the Fourteenth Amendment to give free citizenship to children of illegal aliens. But they did, so now it is incumbent upon us to correct these wrongs that have been wrought upon our own legal American citizen children.

  1. Only after Steps One through Four have been securely enforced (and we then have only law-abiding, healthy, productive, self-supporting illegal aliens in our country – of course fully recognizing that these good people broke the law to get here in the first place), it would then be the time for a national dialogue to begin on just how to deal with these remaining illegal aliens who are living in this country, who might be willing to swear allegiance to this country, but who have potentially taken the place of the immigrants who are faithfully attempting to follow the hundreds of laws already on the books that address legal migration into our country.

I suspect that most legal Americans would welcome that national dialogue and the legal migration that might follow. After all, we are a compassionate people; we generally mean no harm to others, but we are a society that follows the rule of law. I think that it is time that we start writing 735 word laws (like the length of my original 2013 Five Point Plan) and enforcing standards that are written to protect our own sovereignty and not the “feelings” of people who have crossed the red line of illegal entry into this country.”

Calm Down Democrats

By Janice L. Daniels

In the face of the most unflattering era of blindness to corruption and true missed opportunities for public sector leadership, does the Democrat Party really think that now is the time for them to be having spasms of self-righteousness concerning every little T that is not crossed, or every little I that might not be dotted by our refreshingly pro-private sector Trumpian administration? It is beyond absurd.

For those of us who tend to follow the machinations of the Washington power elites (just so that we can try to hold them accountable), we only need look back to 2010/2011 when Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill spoke in conciliatory terms about her “good friend,” then Senator, now Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard (Jeff) Sessions III.

Check out the video clip embedded in this post:


Now, just six or seven short years later, Jeff’s good friend Claire is one of the leading voices calling for him to resign because he told the truth as he saw it, rather than the truth as Claire and her Democrat “friends” wanted it to be seen, and they are acting as if they have caught the big one in this never-ending search for a boogieman to take down our duly-elected and much-loved President Donald J.Trump.

Gosh Claire, with friends like you, I doubt that Jeff needs any enemies, or could it be that another one of your “friends” Senator Al Franken was just flat-out sloppy in his questioning (as well as in his overall demeanor), and if he had simply framed the question properly, you all might have been able to come to terms with the truth? Or, could it be that sloppy Al’s sloppy questioning was calculated, in an effort to set up your unsuspecting friend AG Jeff Sessions? Anything is possible in a world of shifting truths and false friends.

Of course, if confronted with this particularly conspiratorial speculation, the entire Democrat Party and their “friends” in the media would just tell us not to pay attention to that part of the story; don’t go down that line of reasoning; look the other way, there’s nothing there; move along … move along; which is exactly what your “friends” are now trying to do with the fact that you, Senator McCaskill rather recently sliced and diced the truth about “meeting with the Russians” yourself. Move along.  Look the other way.


Be careful Claire. This faux gnashing of the teeth and selective spasms of superiority could well be the beginning of what could ultimately be the end of the once great Democrat Party (okay, I’m joking again – the Democrat Party has always puffed up its self-important station in real life.  Truthfully, they never really appeared all that great to me, from my constitutional conservative corner).

Nevertheless, now that we have tools in the present, that were not available to us in the past, to almost instantaneously verify or refute the “truth” about you, your “good friends,” your motives and your tactics, the Democrat Party might do well to pull back a measure, take a collective deep breath, and try to understand that you can no longer safely get away with being a good friend one year and then being a very bad friend a few years later. We will call you out on it, and it won’t be pretty.

So, Claire, if you and your Party want to remain relevant, in any sense of the word, maybe you should get off of your high Don Quixote styled horse, join in the gallant effort to put America first, and please, just calm down.


Dodd-Frank:  Street Level Injustice

By Janice L. Daniels

As is probably true with all good-intentioned legislation (now there’s an oxymoron for you), there must be some heart that underlies the legislation call the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, but I can’t find it … except maybe in the title – Consumer Protection, but that’s another example of very fake news, to be sure.


At the street level, which of the following 2 quotes would you bet is a quote from Richard Cordray, the very well compensated Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is the financing tentacle of Dodd-Frank, buried deep within the Federal Reserve System?

  • “The agency holds companies accountable for mistreating or abusing consumers, and has an important job to do.” Or …
  • “The CFPB is an unaccountable legislative leviathan hidden under the auspices of an unconstitutional behemoth that is crushing private companies right out of business through a massive regulatory bureaucracy.”

You win the bet, if you said quote number one. And why wouldn’t the good and kindly Director Cordray say something so diametrically opposed to the truth, which is represented by my own quote number two?  After all, a study published in The Washington Examiner details the fact that there is a lot of money to be made at the CFPB, with Director Cordray pulling in a paltry $179,900 annual salary (in 2013) with at least 61 percent of the bureaus 1,200 employees earning six-figure incomes. The Director was good to cap his own salary at less than his Deputy Director David Mark Silberman, who is grossing over $250,000 a year (It might be interesting to note that Mr. Silberman was the deputy council for the AFL-CIO before stepping into the swamp monster called Dodd-Frank CFPB).

Oh, and yes, by the way, Director Cordray gets to set his own salary.  We should all be so lucky, I suppose … that is, if our goal is to tear the heart right out of our constitutional republic.


So, it is not surprising that I am having trouble finding heart in this literal monster, because the original Dodd-Frank legislation is 848 pages long with the first 11 pages being an eye-glossing-over Table of Contents that lists 16 Titles, 1,601 Sections and an uncountable number of Sub-Titles, Parts and References to Amendments to previous Acts, that makes this monster almost without a soul, let alone without a heart.

Within this monstrosity, the potential for and actualization of a burgeoning regulatory cottage industry exists, with its legions of unelected bureaucrats covering the nation like locusts whose only raison d-etre (reason for existence) seems to be “congregating into thick, mobile ravenous swarms” wreaking quiet devastation and human misery upon our economy.


My allegory is meant to be amusing, but believe me, at the street level, there is nothing funny about the injustice that the Dodd/Frank legislation is inflicting upon the private sector, and President Trump would be very wise to follow through on his campaign promise to repeal Dodd-Frank, in its unjustifiable entirety.