November 7, 2025
You are going to want to read ALL Of This!!!
The following is not legal advice, and you should consult a COMPETENT ATTORNEY ON YOUR OWN.
Starving 42 Million Americans as Political Leverage: Bondi’s Admission Is an Abuse of Power the Courts Were Born to Stop
Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s recent statement condemning the Rhode Island federal court for ordering the Trump administration to fund November SNAP benefits is not merely tone-deaf — it is a confession of UNCOSCIONABLE unconstitutional thinking. NEVER BEFORE SINCE SLAVERY HAVE WE SEEN OR SLIPPED INTO SUCH LEGAL IMORALITY and The Lord Jesus Christ has made it clear in Matthew 25:41-46, that Bondi and all other goats will burn in hell for eternity if she doesn't come to her senses and repent!
The Lord has raised me up over the last 37 years to be in a very unique position. I am not just a Section 1983 and constitutional scholar but also a biblical scholar and many don't realize that God The Father and The Lord Jesus Christ have given us the supreme law we are to follow, and sadly, as a watchman for the Lord Jesus Christ, I must declare, after praising Bondi's appointment with high hopes, that Bondi, has woefully lost her way!
Bondi’s argument — that the court had no business intervening in what she calls a “political negotiation” between Congress and the Executive — is as chilling as it is revealing. It is an open acknowledgment that 42 million Americans could be used as hostages in a fiscal standoff for political leverage. The claim that feeding the nation is “political” while starving it is “lawful” spits in the face of every constitutional safeguard ever built to prevent tyranny.
Checks and Balances Exist for a Reason
Bondi’s premise ignores the central pillar of American governance: the judiciary exists precisely to restrain executive and legislative abuse.
As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
That single sentence is the foundation of judicial review. It means the courts — not the politicians starving citizens to win a negotiation — have the final word on how statutes are interpreted and applied.
If a federal law provides for contingency reserves, then the question of how those reserves may be used is not a “political” one; it is a legal one. And when the Executive branch refuses to follow statutory directives, it is the judiciary’s duty — not its “activism” — to intervene.
Courts Have Always Stopped Executive Overreach
History is crystal clear on this point:
In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), the Supreme Court struck down President Truman’s attempt to seize private steel mills during wartime, affirming that “the President’s power, if any, must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” This also really calls into question, without showing a shred of evidence to the public, the blatant murder by the Trump administration of so-called drug boats allegedly headed towards the United States, when they are 2000 miles away and only allegedly have enough fuel for 100 miles or so. But that is another article for another day.
→ In other words, “national emergency” or “political necessity” does not create authority where Congress hasn’t granted it.
In Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975), the Court held that President Nixon could not withhold funds that Congress had appropriated, declaring that the Executive must “carry out the full objectives of Congress.”
This is Exactly what the USDA attempted to subvert here by slow-walking SNAP disbursements.
In United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946), the Court ruled Congress cannot use appropriations as a weapon to punish or control individuals — a direct warning against weaponizing the “power of the purse.”
Each of these decisions affirms the same principle: no branch of government may use the public’s livelihood as leverage for power.
Starving the Poor Is Not Negotiation — It’s Extortion and POLITICAL TERRORISM!!
Bondi’s defense of the Executive’s conduct as “political negotiation” is not just cynical; it’s a moral collapse.
It’s a public admission that the administration knowingly used food insecurity — hunger — as a tactical weapon to extract concessions.
That isn’t “governance.” It’s extortion, oppression, and TERRORISM with a federal letterhead.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that irreparable harm — especially to the vulnerable — triggers the judiciary’s equitable duty to act.
See Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954): the Court didn’t wait for “political negotiations” to end segregation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP PAM BONDI! WHO HATH BEWITCHED YOU??
See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970): the Court held that welfare benefits cannot be terminated without due process because they are “a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.” You are a tyrannical legal trainwreck and a heartless and merciless runaway freight train to even participate in such wickedness!
If due process is required before cutting off one family’s benefits, what should we call cutting off forty-two million????
Judicial Review Is Not Activism — It’s the Republic’s Immune System
Pamela Bondi’s complaint that a single district court “took center stage” is a testament to how fragile our institutions have become.
The judiciary is supposed to take center stage when the Executive tramples statutory limits.
The court did what Marbury, Youngstown, and Train demand: it checked power run amok, compelled obedience to the law, and protected citizens from starvation by fiat.
To call that “activism” is to confess ignorance of the Constitution — or worse, contempt for it.
The Real Activism: Starving the Poor to Score Political Points
The Constitution’s preamble begins, “We the People, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare…”
Starving 42 million citizens to extract a budget deal is not “promoting the general welfare.” It’s the inverse. It’s economic warfare on your own people.
No amount of procedural rhetoric can disguise the reality: the courts stepped in because the Executive refused to govern lawfully and HUMANELY!!
Bondi’s outrage should be directed not at the judge who enforced the law, but at the officials who defied it.
The judiciary exists for moments exactly like this — when the other two branches forget they serve the people AND have lost their ever-living mind!
It is not “activism” when the courts remind them that power without compassion is tyranny, and that no political negotiation justifies starvation.
Pamela Bondi’s defense of this abuse will go down as one of the most morally bankrupt statements ever issued by an officer of the law —
and the Rhode Island judge’s order will stand as one of the few moments the Constitution still remembered what justice looks like.
Final Word
1. Legal Definition of Terrorism
Under U.S. federal law, terrorism typically has two components:
Violence or threat of violence (or dangerous acts to human life),
Intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy.
See 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) (domestic terrorism definition).
So legally, “terrorism” requires either:
an act dangerous to human life, or
a threat of violence or coercion that causes fear for safety or life.
Using economic leverage — even cruelly — doesn’t fit that narrow statutory definition unless it causes or threatens direct harm to human life or safety through violence or force.
So Bondi’s conduct — obstructing food benefits as “political negotiation” — is not “terrorism” in the criminal-code sense, because it lacks physical violence or explicit threats.
2. But Ethically and Politically? It Can Be Seen as Political Terror
The broader term “political terrorism” in political science includes:
“The deliberate use of fear, deprivation, or harm against civilians to achieve political objectives.”
When government officials intentionally inflict mass suffering to compel political outcomes, even without bombs or bullets, that crosses into moral terrorism — the use of terror as policy.
Denying food to 42 million people during a shutdown,
Knowing it causes panic, hunger, and desperation,
And doing so explicitly “as leverage” to influence negotiations,
fits the moral pattern of terror-based coercion: using fear, deprivation, and despair to bend the will of the populace or opposing party.
That’s not “governing.”
That’s collective punishment, a tactic outlawed in war by the Geneva Conventions.
3. Historical and Legal Parallels
The Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) condemned executive power grabs during crises. Truman’s “national emergency” claim was rejected — the Court said even war cannot justify unlawful executive seizure.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), Justice O’Connor wrote:
“A state of war is not a blank check for the President.”
The same principle applies here: a shutdown is not a blank check to starve people.
International law (e.g. Article 54, Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions) defines as a war crime:
“Starving civilians as a method of warfare.”
While we’re not in war, deliberately using mass hunger as political leverage mirrors that tactic ethically.
So while not legally terrorism under U.S. criminal code, it is functionally coercive governance through mass harm — the moral cousin of terrorism.
4. What It Is: State Coercion and Collective Punishment
Bondi’s justification is a textbook case of state coercion:
Withholding essential services (food) to extract a political concession.
Justifying it as “negotiation.”
Claiming the judiciary cannot intervene.
That is state-sponsored economic terror — government-induced suffering to control outcomes.
Even if “lawful” in narrow procedural terms, it’s unconstitutional in spirit and inhumane in fact.
Courts exist to prevent exactly this — the tyranny of using administrative power to crush the powerless.
5. The Bottom Line
Legally: Not terrorism under federal code, because there’s no violence or threat of violence.
Politically and ethically: It embodies the logic of terrorism — using mass fear and suffering to compel action.
Morally: It’s closer to political extortion or collective punishment — the state wielding deprivation as a weapon.
However, I would argue that Starvation and withholding food IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE!
1. Starvation as Violence in International Law
International law does recognize starvation as a form of violence under certain conditions.
Article 54, Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977):
“Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.”
It goes on to forbid “attacking, destroying, removing or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.”
That’s not metaphorical. It treats withholding food as an act of violence, because it endangers life and uses suffering as a means to coerce.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv), codifies this:
“Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival”
is a war crime.
Did Pam Bondi and the Trump administration COMMIT A WAR CRIME?
in armed conflict, deliberate starvation = violence. The only reason U.S. domestic law doesn’t label it “terrorism” or “assault” is that those statutes narrowly define “violence” as involving physical force or weapons. But morally—and in humanitarian law—starvation is the slowest weapon AND FORM OF VIOLENCE of all. I could expound the living daylights out of this, but I will end this here:
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Matthew 25:41-46
Key Citations
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) – Judicial review: courts say what the law is.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) – Executive power limited to statute or Constitution.
Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975) – President cannot withhold appropriated funds.
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) – Welfare benefits are statutory entitlements; due process applies.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) – Courts act when political branches fail to deliver justice.
United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946) – Congress cannot weaponize appropriations to punish citizens.
Matthew 25:41-46
May we all continue to Stand On the Word Of The Lord Jesus Christ and the Constitution Of The United States Of America and may the Grace, Mercy, And Peace Of The Lord Jesus Christ Be With You All. In order for that to happen however, you must be completely committed to Jesus Christ and His Word, not political idolatry and wickedness. I beg you all who have supported such wickedness out of blind hate for your political opponents to come to your senses and repent from the sin of IMPLACABILITY!
"Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:" Romans 1:31.
In The Name Of Jesus Christ, REPENT!
WLBJ