OPINERLOG

Cuomo's "Secret Gun Confiscation Task Force" Exposed!

2013-04-13T18:34:00.000-07:00

Tom Bauerle of Western New York's WBEN reported on Friday, April 12th, that at the behest of Homeland Security, earlier this week Governor Cuomo convened the NYS Police and one representative from the NYS Criminal Justice Department for the purpose of forming a "clandestine task force" whose nefarious goal is to circumvent NY citizens' 4th Amendment rights as well as HIPAA privacy rules in an aggressive effort to confiscate the guns and to pull the pistol permits of any NYS citizen who, over the past 10 years, has visited a mental health provider or been prescribed anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medication during that period.

Make no mistake, folks. IF TRUE, Cuomo, the NYS Police Superintendent and the CJD participant, among other Cuomo accomplices yet unidentified, have clearly violated our civil rights and, by law, should be 1) removed from office, and 2) tried for their criminal behavior.

And to make matters worse--if that's even possible--through a friend of Mr. Bauerle, one Doug Hagman, a Homeland Security informant reported that this lawlessness was sanctioned and encouraged by VP Biden and the White House! In short, and according to the Homeland Security informant, the Obama Adminstration intended that this "task force" test the efficacy of Obama's systematic gun confiscation policies in NYS.

Unfortunately for these statist thugs, it looks like they may have blown it big time.

Their first target, one David Lewis, a librarian in Erie County whose guns had been reportedly taken from him, didn't fold. He retained counsel and is fighting back, a level of resistance the "secret task force" had not at all anticipated. The State Police response? "We got the wrong man." What? So, who was the right man and how did they obtain the "right man's" mental health records? Prevaricating, ruthless dunderheads! This time, our shameless Progressive overseers may have gone a tad too far--even for them.

My guess is that Cuomo, New York State's resident Progressive-in-Chief, can kiss his presidential bid good-bye. We can only hope that he and his thuggish co-conspirators end up in jail as well. They don't belong on the streets much less in public office.

I urge all New Yorkers to contact their State representatives and to insist upon a swift and thorough investigation. Absolutely nothing less should be tolerated. And let the chips fall where they may.

Sobering Postscript: it's important to note that the Assembly's Judiciary Committee is controlled by Progressives (odious apparachik Sheldon Silvers), thus appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate this lawlessness is, at best, doubtful. And, of course, we can't expect any help from the US Justice Department. Both our 2nd and 4th Amendment protections hang in the balance. Only a concerted grassroots effort will nip this tyranny in the bud. PUSH your reps to fully investigate and, if the wealth of reports are incontrovertible, we must all urge Cuomo to resign.

Did Our Founders Foresee Our Republic's Demise?

2013-04-11T07:40:00.001-07:00

Did our Founders foresee our Republic's demise or dissolution? In a word, unequivocally.

When in 1787 Dr. Benjamin Franklin stepped outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia wherein delegates from the various States had fashioned our Constitution, he was met by a woman who eagerly asked if we had a monarchy or a Republic, to which Dr. Franklin famously replied, "You have a Republic, madam, if you can keep it." And as it turns out, keeping our Republic has been a very tall order-- indeed, an abject failure.

From that point forward, our Republic's unraveling began for all the reasons our Founders had wisely anticipated.

Today, in what conservative Mark Levin has insightfully characterized as America's "post-constitutional period", it should be both sobering and, indeed, alarming to realize that 3/4 of our federal laws have been promulgated, not by our elected representatives, but by a faceless, heavy-handed and essentially unaccountable bureaucracy, effectively supplanting bedrock republican principles of governance with imperious bureaucratic rule.

Alien ideology, self-serving party politics, cynical political pandering, a destructive squandering of our national wealth to provide bread and circuses to nurture dependency, the dumbing down of a politically correct population, relentless attempts to legitimize immoral behavior, a calculated effort to destroy our religious foundations and the traditional nuclear family, and widespread ignorance of or hostility toward our foundational constitutional principles, have conspired to bring this country to a tipping point of economic collapse and political suicide.

Astute historians and students of human behavior, the Founders well-understood and apprehended the age-old tendency of human nature to corrupt the best laid and loftiest plans of man. Below is but a sampling of some very astute observations and warnings offered up by our Founders and other historical figures which should give us all pause:

"I agree to the Constitution...and I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." Benjamin Franklin

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit, by consolidation first, and then corruption...The engine of consolidation will be the federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting instruments." Thomas Jefferson

"The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create...a real despotism." George Washington

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely, for the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county, municipality...and pay them out of the public treasury; they may assume the provision of the poor...Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government establishment by the people of America." James Madison

If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freeman, we must live through all time or die by suicide." A. Lincoln

On the matter of "soft tyranny”, this: "The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided--men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till the nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which government is the shepherd." Alexis De Tocqueville, "Democracy in America" (1830)

Do we accept the awful reality of our situation and soberly prepare for peaceful and orderly dissolution, or do we, at our own peril, accommodate and embrace the Godless Progressive agenda and their authoritarian reordering of our lives? This is the critical question before us.

And when you hear Progressives proclaim the virtues of democracy over and over again, remember these sinister quotes:

“Democracy is the road to Socialism”: Karl Marx

“Socialism is the road to Communism.” Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Got it?

In the throes of wishful thinking, complacency, confusion, fear, anxiety, anger and uncertainty, with one voice patriots have yet to define a clear remedial course of action going forward. But, time is running out, and seizing upon a practicable remedy to our political and economic miasma cannot be far off.

Whatever form that remedial course of action may take, when faced with the looming threat of political oppression and economic self-destruction let us always rely on the wise counsel of our Founders.

Let us never surrender to the utopian assault. In the end, bullies are bullies, and always back down. Standing up in unity to these soulless vermin must be our sacred mission.

“Never give in—never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force, never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” Winston Churchill

Et Tu, Colonel West?

2013-04-06T17:23:00.001-07:00

My sense is that the crap is about to hit the proverbial fan--head-on!

First off, let me disabuse you of any delusions about where I stand on the issue of Obama's constitutional ineligibility and of the massive documentary fraud perpetrated either by him or on his behalf over the past five years: I am an unabashed "birther", and I believe that the mountain of evidence already presented by credible investigative sources is unassailable. And, just to be clear, to those of you who aren't thinking my way on this monumentally crucial issue, either you haven't been paying attention, or you are either diehard ideologues, pollyannas, racists, traitors, or utterly brain dead.

With that behind us, let's move on.

Despite the aggressive disinformation campaign by Obama's apologists, useful idiots, and starry-eyed fans over the last five years, it is now crystal clear to all but the ideologically blind that the preponderance of evidence clearly indicates that Obama's birth certificate released by the White House last year is an embarrassingly obvious computer-generated forgery and that both his social security and selective service cards are also fraudulent. (And this doesn't even get into the critical constitutional question as to whether or not he satisfies the "natural born citizenship" requirement to be President.)

Though I've deliberately reserved final judgement on this matter, in light of the unimpeachable evidence presented so far, my reserving judgement is no longer a rationale option. Whether Obama himself committed these frauds or was knowingly complicit in their commission, these crimes rise to the level of felonies. Most importantly, this fraud obfuscates Obama's real identity and places in serious doubt his constitutional eligibility to serve as President.

That said, even my hero, Col. Allen West, former Tea Party congressmen from Florida, when recently presented the evidence of fraud in Florida, cavalierly dodged the issue. Why? Because, by his own admission, his personal political ambitions trump Principle, the Constitution and the TRUTH. But, he's in notable company--O'Reilly, Beck, among other media talking heads, and ALL the political elites on both sides of the aisle are also complicit.

Upshot: we have an imposter occupying our White House, a mole, this with the knowledge and tacit consent of the media elites and political establishment.

While it's too much to get into here, and bearing in mind that Sheriff Arpaio launched his investigation for the sole purpose of discrediting--not proving--the rumors of Obama's ineligibility and fraud, I urge everyone to get up to speed on the shattering findings of the Arpaio Cold Case Posse's investigation NOW. No sense being blind-sided.

Bear in mind too that these investigators are not wild-eyed right wingnuts or conspiracy theorists, but sober, well-respected civic-minded patriots and volunteer professional law enforcement officers and attorneys. To be clear, responding to repeated requests from patriotic organizations to investigate the rumors of fraud, these volunteers undertook the investigation to objectively disprove and dismiss the rumors--NOT to substantiate those rumors. Tragically, the facts spoke for themselves, and the Posse no longer harbors any doubts whatsoever as to the validity and verifiability of their disturbing findings.

No amount of ridicule, dismissiveness, wishful thinking, marginalization, disinformation, ad hominen can alter the FACT that an insidious fraud has been perpetrated on the American people, and culpability extends to many high profile political leaders. We're talking TREASON here, folks. Plain and simple.

I urge detractors to get beyond the name-calling and carefully review the evidence already uncovered. And if you are so inclined, I urge you to expose the Arpaio Cold Case Posse's findings for the lies you'd like to believe they are. In any event, ridicule alone neither proves nor disproves anything. Only due diligence and objective analysis can do the job of proving or disproving the evidence. So, trash the rose-colored glasses and get busy. I'm not summarizing the research for you here only to be attacked as a conspiracist. IF you care about pursuing the truth, then YOU do the vetting and research.

It is more than obvious that this putative Chief Executive has deliberately, and at enormous cost, concealed his documentation from public scrutiny for years. Why? Well, now we know why. In his words, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." Couldn't have said it better, Barry.

Once the evidence is vividly and cogently presented to the public in the coming months, the folks will listen, and my guess is that many heads will roll. Oh, we'll survive the political tumult occasioned by disclosure of this elaborate and reprehensible hoax, and my sense is that there won't be the rioting in the streets which so many lilly-livered "leaders" have quietly and fearfully predicted. Why? Because folks, whether they be white, black, indigo, pink or chartreuse, liberal or conservative, simply don't like being lied to. Who does the lying is irrelevant. Period.

Stay tuned, folks. It promises to be one helluva ride in the months ahead.

And to my erstwhile hero, Mr. West, shame on you, sir. If you were the last man standing, I wouldn't support you for dog-catcher. Dogs deserve better. You either walk the walk or you're no better than the rest of them.

Obama cheerleaders, the ball's in your court. Prove the Posse dead wrong, horribly misguided or, at the very least, insane. For starters, check out link below.

https://usjf.net/2013/04/stunning-new-revelations-from-lt-mike-zullo-obama-fraud-case/

Doctrine of Incorporation, Due Process, the 2nd Amendment & NYS

2013-03-12T07:04:00.008-07:00

Always fascinated, albeit troubled, by the intriguing and often corrupting twists and turns of constitutional development, I happened upon the seemingly esoteric “doctrine of incorporation” which should be of more than passing interest to those of us who honor the Constitution and extoll the virtues of the 2^nd Amendment.

Unknown to most is the fact that at the Republic’s inception the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was ratified by the States to limit the powers of the federal government—NOT the powers of the States. This founding principle was reaffirmed by the Marshall Court’s unanimous ruling in Barron v Baltimore in 1833. However, because the States were so closely invested in and supportive of the foundational principles and liberties enshrined in the Constitution, States had routinely applied the Bill of Rights within their jurisdictions without federal judicial intervention or congressional interference.

All that changed with“ratification” of the 14^th Amendment in 1868 when States were suddenly and gratuitously prohibited by the federal government from depriving any of its citizens of life, liberty or property without due process. This would be fine and entirely lawful were it not for the glaring historical realities that 1) the 14^thwas improperly ratified, thus in violation of the Constitution itself, meaning that the 14^th is simply and categorically unlawful, and 2) that, as said, the Bill of Rights was originally intended to limit federal—not State powers.

To wit, despite the 14th's lofty intention to protect the civil rights of emancipated slaves in all states, as constitutional scholar Dr. Gutzman noted,“The Fourteenth Amendment was never constitutionally proposed to the States by Congress and never constitutionally ratified by the States”. (Without getting into the nitty-gritty here, for an instructive and detailed analysis of the 14th's rigged ratification process, I refer you to pages 128-133 of Dr. Gutzman’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution”. It’s a sobering eye-opener.)

In effect, with "ratification" of the 14th the Bill of Rights was, by fiat and for purposes of political expediency, incorporated against the States. Whether a good thing or bad thing, it is still unconstitutional and the result has been an unbroken stream of errant and intrusive judicial rulings which, over the years, has piled one violative ruling atop another—we fondly dub that stare decisis—effectively nullifying original intent and rendering the foundational doctrine of State sovereignty increasingly irrelevant.

Rather than relying upon the will of the citizens of the various States to determine what does and does not violate the Constitution within their sovereign territories, the federal judiciary has successfully, albeit illegally, usurped State jurisdiction and authority. This has resulted in our having permissively elevated the standing of the Supreme Court to that of an arbitrary modern day Delphic Oracle whose infallible--and often tragically unintelligible--pronouncements are routinely deified by an ignorant and disengaged citizenry. In effect, the Supreme Court has eclipsed the constitutional authority of the States, but, in many ways, of Congress and the Executive as well. NOT AT ALL what the framers had envisioned!

As Thomas Jefferson warned in 1820, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [would be] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of a [judicial] oligarchy”. And that’s precisely where we find ourselves today. And permitting Congress broad authority to dictate gun rights throughout the country is nothing short of insane.

With particular respect to the 2^nd Amendment, and despite the National Rifle Association's best intentions to protect a citizen's right to keep and bear arms, NRA’s relentlessly pushing the federal government to impose conceal-carry reciprocity agreements among the States or to extend blanket protection to all American citizens of their right to keep and bear arms serves little more than to invite the ravenous fox into the proverbial chicken coop.

So, yes, while the Supreme Court’s McDonald v Chicago ruling (which extended the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms) is hailed by 2^nd Amendment advocates, we should also be mindful that what we permit the feds to give can also be taken away.

In short, if the State is sovereign, and the 2^nd Amendment is intended to restrain the federal government, then by what stretch of logic and commonsense should we entrust the federal government to faithfully uphold the rights of citizens in all the States to keep and bear arms? Obviously, we can’t! As can be seen, Feingold and Company are already attempting a mindless curtailment of gun ownership in each and every State. So much for States restraining the federal government from infringing our gun-bearing rights, huh?

And, finally, there’s the disturbing issue of Gov. Cuomo’s assault on our inherent right to keep and bear arms.

While 44 State Constitutions specifically uphold a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, NY’s Constitution does not. Strictly speaking then, since, from the originalist standpoint, the feds have no constitutional authority to dictate gun control in NYS, and since there is no specific right to keep and bear arms in the NYS Constitution, decisions regarding gun ownership and any limitations thereto in NYS remain the sole province of the citizens of NYS. Thus, though self-defense is, in my humble opinion, a God-given right which trumps both State and federal law, I still strongly suggest that NYS citizens insist that the NYS Constitution be amended to include a provision which specifically prohibits the State from in any way infringing a NYS citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. (And while they're at it, they would do well to ensure that the 10th Amendment language is adopted as well.)

As this "doctrine of incorporation" illustrates, we’ve certainly made mincemeat of the Constitution, and in the process we’ve created mountains of needless uncertainty, contradiction and jurisdictional confusion, all of which serve only to either obliterate or erode individual liberties. My advice: we’d best get back on solid constitutional footing—and soon--or the vacuum of lawlessness created by this jurisdictional muddle may well be filled by political opportunists driven by motives other than purely republican.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee, Letters From The Federal Farmer, # 18 (January 25, 1788)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... " Samuel Adams

“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them.” Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (February 6, 1788)

“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” George Mason

“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” Fisher Ames in letter to F.R. Minoe (June 12, 1789)

Does 2nd Amendment Confer an Individual Right to Bear Arms?

2013-01-30T10:04:00.003-08:00

Intuitively, I had always believed that the 2nd Amendment protected my inherent right to keep and bear arms for my own personal safety; that this right was derived from “natural law” irrespective of any right to same which may have been specifically granted or denied by either the United States or any of the States.

Further, I had always believed that since the federal government was not specifically granted the right to restrict my right to self-protection, that, in accordance with the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government did not have the right to in any way deny my right to self- protection; that, similarly, since the right to self-defense is an inherently natural right that no State could abridge or otherwise deny that right as well.

In light of the recent District of Columbia v Heller (2008) decision in which SCOTUS struck down DC’s handgun ban as well as its ban on loaded, operable firearms for DC residents’ self-defense and the McDonald v City of Chicago case which protected the right to keep and bear arms from infringement by local governments, my curiosity got the best of me and I decided to explore the meaning of the 2nd Amendment for myself.

Briefly, this is what the Heller decision said: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” and “that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” However, SCOTUS tempered its decision by allowing for “prohibitions against possession of weapons by felons or the mentally ill” or “carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”. In short, the Court ruled that the Amendment’s prefatory clause, i.e. “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, serves to clarify the operative clause, i.e. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

The first thing I discovered is that quite apart from the supercilious and intrusive world of social engineers who continually advocate a wholesale ban on privately owned guns without any allusion to constitutional justification, over the years there really has been a serious and honest difference of opinion among respected constitutional scholars as to the precise meaning of the 2nd Amendment, a difference which the Heller and McDonald decisions finally resolved for every American. While Heller has affirmatively addressed the 2nd Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms who reside within federal territories, the McDonald ruling extended that right to the local and state levels.

But, first, let’s very briefly highlight some authoritative, albeit contradictory, case law on this subject before proceeding further:

1. Barron v Baltimore (1833): held that the Bill of Rights applies directly to the federal government—not to state governments. In effect, the court ruled that states could infringe on the Bill of Rights since the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government. (Don’t ask. I didn’t delve deeply into the reasoning behind this decision.)

2. Nunn v State of Georgia (1846): held that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and that “the right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed or broken in upon in the smallest degree.”

3. Cockrum v State of Texas (1859): ruled that “the right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the ‘high powers’ delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” (Clearly, at some variance with Barron v Baltimore.)

4. 14th Amendment (1868): to address the possible oppression of freed slaves following the civil war and to ensure that former slaves, among other citizens, were able to Keep and Bear Arms for that purpose, Congress passed this amendment which provides that states may not “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (If you can’t get there one way, try another route.)

5. The Slaughter-House Cases (1873): held that only those “privileges and immunities” that “owe their existence” to the US Constitution were protected; thus, the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states because the Bill of Rights protected basic human rights which existed before the ratification of the Constitution.

6. United States v Cruikshank (1876): clarified that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms existed before the Constitution but that the 2nd Amendment, indeed the 1st Amendment, were not protected from infringement by the states or by private individuals. (Here the court ignored the 14th Amendment and parroted Barron v Baltimore.)

7. Presser v Illinois (1886) and Miller v Texas (1894): held that the 2nd Amendment didn’t directly protect against infringement by the states.

8. People v Zerillo (Michigan, 1922): Ruled that “the provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.”

9. Gitlow v New York (1925): ruled that the 14th Amendment prohibited states from violating some of the rights of citizens without “due process” but stopped short of “incorporating” all of the Bill of Rights at once.

10. Since Gitlow, and only on a case by case basis, courts have held that on the strength of the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process Clause”, the Bill of Rights is protected against state infringement. In effect, the Bill of Rights has been “incorporated” into the Due Process Clause vide the generally accepted Theory of Substantive Due Process. (Note: today, the 2nd Amendment is one of the last rights in the Bill of Rights to be incorporated.)

11. District of Columbia v Heller (2008): the court ruled that the Cruikshank decision failed to properly weigh 14th Amendment protections and that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

So, though most states protect the individual right to keep and bear arms, the McDonald v City of Chicago ensured that the full force of the 2nd Amendment extended to all localities as well. Particularly in those states where there are no state constitutional safeguards, plaintiffs are especially concerned. Without 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, gun owners are at the mercy of state legislators, social engineering lobbyists and the like.

But, what’s behind the McDonald challenge? In short, the Illinois state constitution states that “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” By failing to “incorporate” 14th Amendment inquiry as was required by Heller, in June 2009 the 7th Court of Appeals reaffirmed Illinois’ power to ban handguns by relying solely—and erroneously—on the Cruikshank decision of 1876, thereby ignoring nearly all other pertinent case law as well.

By contrast, earlier, in April 2009, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit (Nordyke v King) in California concluded that since “the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” that this right is, therefore, “incorporated” into the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and applies to the states.” This decision was on hold awaiting a SCOTUS decision on the McDonald v City of Chicago case. Thus, we had two appellate courts and two divergent views in the same year. The earlier decision relied upon the 14th Amendment as required by Heller and the panel opinion relied upon Cruikshank which had been overruled by Heller. (How mortal jurists be?)

So, owing to the contradictory case law subsequent to the US Constitution’s adoption in 1787, I opted to simplify my inquiry by examining what our framers had to say about all this. Being the real experts, their correspondence and debates carry considerably more weight for me than do contemporary interpretations from either the left or the right.

First, the 2nd Amendment states that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Like all things constitutional, context is absolutely everything, and both logic and a studious level of caution dictate that the expressed intent of the framers should always take precedence over what might be faulty subsequent interpretation. And rather than weighing and examining a dizzying array of contradictory interpretations, I have found solace by relying upon an “originalist” approach to better capture the meaning of the framers in this regard. It just seems eminently more sensible and the least painful path to follow.

Bearing in mind Thomas Jefferson’s admonishment that “on every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed”, any conclusions as to the framers’ intent and, thus, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, will be left to the objectivity and integrity of the reader.

From what I have read, the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a check on the standing army and any foreign armies. To wit, Noah Webster and Tench Coxe, the latter an ally and correspondent of James Madison, admonished that “before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” Similarly, George Mason warned that “the colonies’ recent experience with Britain”, in which King George’s goal had been “to disarm the people…was the best way to enslave them.”

Further, it appears that the overarching purpose of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the Constitution, was to better ensure private rights by specifically proscribing federal violations of those rights. Thus, in short, “well-regulated militia” did not at all mean Congressional regulation of that militia or, by extension, the regulation of the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Also, the text of the Amendment expressly confirms that the right to keep and bear arms is retained “by the people”, and not the states. Important to note too is that whenever the word “regulate” appears within the Constitution’s text, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being regulated. However, in the 2nd Amendment the term “well regulated” describes a militia—not an army reserve or national guard--but does not define who or what regulates it. Thus, from what I could understand, the framers intended that the people comprise an essentially unorganized militia which may, of necessity, be organized and well regulated, but by the people themselves.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton (Federalist, No. 29): “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” Thus, it also appears to have been clearly intended by the framers that law-abiding armed citizens could collectively organize and train and that doing so would not necessarily pose a threat to their fellow citizens, but would, in fact, help “to ensure domestic tranquility” and “provide for the common defence”.

But, rather than further wading through a plethora of interesting, albeit esoteric, and often contradictory opinions let’s take a brief look at some notable quotes of the framers themselves to better understand their meaning and intent with respect to the 2nd Amendment. It’s just more edifying—for me anyway:

1. “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms…” Thomas Jefferson

2. “The people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state…” Pennsylvania Declaration of 1776

3. “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed—unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms.” James Madison, Federalist Paper #46

4. “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.” John Adams, 1787

5. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well- regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” James Madison, 1789

6. “…the ultimate authority…resides in the people alone.” James Madison

7. “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tench Coxe, 1788

8. “The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee, 1788

9. “The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping and bearing arms.” Samuel Adams, 1788

10. “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” Richard Henry Lee, 1788

11. “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Alexander Hamilton

12. “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?” Thomas Jefferson

13. “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

14. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence…To ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference…When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.” George Washington

While there are also many luminaries, like Einstein, Machiavelli, Ayn Rand, Blackstone, et. al, who celebrate the individual right to keep and bear arms, there are notable detractors as well:

1. “Gun registration is not enough; the most effective way of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian population.” Janet Reno. Atty General, 1991

2. “Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, 1994

3. “…Our ultimate goal—total control of all guns—is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition totally illegal.” Nelson Shields, Handgun Control

4. “What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.” Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, 1994

5. “Citizens! Turn in your weapons.” (English translation of Soviet Union poster 1919.)

FYI: Current US Code defines militia like this: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age. The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard, and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members in the militia who are not members of the National Guard.” Title 10, Section 311(a) of the United States Code.

And, finally, no discussion of the 2nd Amendment can be properly wrapped up without this incisive quote from Thomas Jefferson: “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary of trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evil, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man…”

So, there you have it. Shouldn't the Framers’ understanding of the 2nd Amendment be rendered more authoritative than the stream of conspicuously contradictory legal opinions which followed over the years? The age-old controversy. As said, for me the Framers’ clearly stated opinions as to their meaning and intent necessarily hold sway.

POSTSCRIPT:

Currently under serious assault by Progressives at both the federal and state levels, the inviolabilty of the 2nd Amendment hangs in the balance. Pushback is widespread, and already there are hundreds of Sheriffs who refuse to obey these unconstitutional infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Many States have taken action to nullify federal gun control laws. Stay tuned. This could get very messy.

How to Stop Progressive Tyranny COLD

2013-01-14T11:42:00.000-08:00

For some time now, and particularly since November 6th, I have speculated as to what can be done to effectively counter the unrelenting Progressive onslaught on our liberties and individual sovereignty.

Sincerely believing that Progressives must, at long last, be boldly and constitutionally challenged and outmaneuvered, and thinking outside the proverbial box, I think I've come up with a plan worth pursuing. But, like any political action plan worth its salt, so much depends upon the honor, political courage and integrity of our key political players. (Sadly, that requirement could be this plan's Achilles' heel.)

To counter the Progressive tyranny, many States are finally getting a spine and asserting their sovereignty by actually nullifying federal edicts, laws, directives and, some day soon I hope, judicial activist rulings as well. And if rule of law is our goal, then nullification remains an indispensable tool in that effort.

From a historical standpoint, the sheer volume of nullification activities over the last four years exceeds anything this country has seen since before the War of Northern Agression in 1861, misleadingly dubbed the "civil war". A very hopeful trend, indeed, and a trend we should all endorse and encourage. For as Thomas Jefferson asserted, nullification is "the rightful remedy" to federal encroachment. (Note: with the fearless and dedicated efforts of the 10th Amendment Center, I suspect that acts of nullification/interposition will be on the upswing in the years ahead. And thank God for that!)

Of course, there's impeachment to stop the madness. However, impeachment's a fine idea ONLY if we can be assured of conviction and removal as well. Otherwise the political tumult occasioning an impeachment process will, for the most part, be of little consequence. And with the Senate firmly in the hands of the Progressives, I suspect only incontrovertible acts of outright treason or murder by our putative Chief Executive would convince enough Senators to actually convict and remove. (In truth, however, since the ruthless Progressives have become so brazenly unprincipled, I'm not even sure murder or treason would do the trick these days.) Thus, impeachment alone cannot be relied upon to effectively remedy federal lawlessness.

So, here's what I propose. It's a simple, doable and powerful antidote to dangerous federal excesses. More importantly, this plan, if faithfully implemented, will eliminate the need for outright rebellion or secession, unsettling prospects which, in the absence of effective grassroots resistance and political courage at the top, have become increasingly real.

1. Call for Nullification: Bearing in mind that We the People and our immediate fiduciary agents, the States, creators of this union, are the ultimate arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional, when the White House or any department of the Executive Branch issues an unconstitutional order or directive, or if the Supreme Court issues a ruling which is clearly unconstitutional, and the offending entity refuses to rescind that order, directive or ruling, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Leader must urgently and publically appeal to the several States to nullify those encroachments straightaway. In effect, they must boldly circumvent federal perpetrators of lawlessness and directly exhort the States and the people to disobey and to apppropriately resist.

If the States refuse to honor and act upon those unlawful orders/rulings/directives, for all practical purposes the federal actions are of no force and the feds will have no choice but to back off in those jurisdictions where nullification has been invoked. Such resistance will also help restore the balance of power between the States and the federal government as envisioned by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution. Further, this would place us back on the road to constitutional order and dramatically restore public trust in our representatives.

During these appeals, the Speaker and the Minority Ldr must studiously and clearly explain why such resistance is necessary and constitutionally justified, explicating in vivid and understandable detail the natural/unalienable rights of man, the principles of State sovereignty and the separation/balance of powers doctrine enshrined in our Constitution. And, of course, the exhortation must include a concise explanation of the 10th Amendment would be in order.

*And if these key legislative leaders choose not to take such dramatic action, which I suspect might well be the case, then State Senators/Representatives should promptly and boldly assume this patriotic responsibility for their respective States. Senators and Congressional members have bully pulpits too. They just need to use them.

2. Appeal to Sheriffs: In the same televised address to the country, and as appropriate to the nature of the federal excess, both the Speaker and the Minority Ldr or State Senators/Representatives, as may be the case, should directly exhort all Sheriffs to uphold their oath of office by refusing to comply with any and all unlawful federal orders within their jurisdiction from whatever federal entity those excesses might originate. On the otherhand, the Speaker and Minority Ldr may opt to appeal to State leaders to exhort the sheriffs within their jurisdiction.

3. Impeachment & Withholding of Funds: In parallel, the House should deny funding to the offending office and immediately invoke articles of impeachment against the offending federal officials--not merely threaten to impeach, but formally act to both impeach and remove. This should also include heretofore untouchable, unaccountable Supreme Court justices.

4. Concurrently, take the perpetrators--whomever they may be--to court.

This entirely lawful and principled 4-pronged approach to remedying Progressive overreach and restoring constitutional order would stop the heretofore unchecked Progressive contagion cold, and the authority of the People's House, that being the House of Representatives, will be restored.

In the meantime, patriotic organizations around the country should continue to unite, monitor both federal and State excesses, and appropriately initiate, support and coordinate national resistance wherever federal or State excesses occur.

For whatever good it does, I shared this proposal with the offices of both the Speaker and the Senate Minority Leader. I also copied in Sen. Lee of Utah and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. How much political courage and boldness in defense of liberty they possess remains to be seen.

As Ben Franklin warned in 1787, we have a Republic, if we can keep it. And on Nov. 6th the Republic took it on the chin big time. As Karl Marx noted, "Democracy is the road to Socialism", and Nov. 6th placed us firmly on that suicidal path.

Only political courage and lawful, boldly fresh, intensive and assertive patriotic activism at all levels can avert political and economic disaster and, yes, rebellion. The alternative for us, of course, is more appeasement, accommodation and, eventually, servitude. Which course will we choose?

At long last, ACTION and PATRIOTISM must be more than words. Let's roll!

Is Patriotism Alone Enough?

2013-01-10T09:46:00.002-08:00

Of late, there's been much more talk on conservative blogs about uniting and moving forward with more energy and effectiveness. While I am heartened by that sentiment, I am mindful that action always speaks louder than words.

We can do what we can to organize locally, as many of us have done, and to actively participate in the local political party machine to effect change from within, as some of us have also done, but that is simply NOT enough.

The major parties are powerful and influential precisely because they are well-coordinated and well-organized both locally and nationally. Thus, patriotic organizations' deliberately or unwittingly restricting themselves to localized activity and pontificating alone is inadequate.

The truth is we need to be organized both nationally AND locally. Otherwise, we will be less than credible or effective, membership and participation will continue to dissipate, and the country will further careen into oblivion.

If patriotic organizations remain splintered and parochial, we are doomed, as is our country. It's time for patriots to get very, VERY serious and much more activist. Learn from the Left.

Obviously, someone at the national level needs to lead the charge, encourage local and regional alliances, and promote the timely convening of a representative "national convention of patriots" in 2013 which would represent those local/regional alliances, this in order to fashion a genuinely national ACTION AGENDA to take back our country. Who knows, such a convening might even result in the birth of a formidable political party which will attract adherents from both the left and the right. Well, from the right anyway.

Among others, I would urge Allen West and/or Sarah Palin to sound the clarion call for unity and to lead the charge. I can only hope they are reading this. But, assuming they aren't, I emailed a copy of this article to both of them.

A re-energized national Tea Party movement comprised of millions of TPers and other patriots from all over the country coalescing around one activist agenda would seriously threaten the elite establishment and would, I think, compel the GOP to either adopt our first-principles agenda going forward or face the certainty of irrelevance and impotence.

Being organized and well-coordinated on both a local and national level would most certainly stem the Progressive tide and would preclude the contemplation of secession or rebellion. Splintered, however, the TP and other patriotic entities will remain a nearly useless therapeutic matrix of venting platforms. A lot of sound and fury signifying essentially nothing in real terms.

Faithfully grassroots in orientation, but national in scope, patriots' clout would be greatly enhanced. Being thoroughly grassroots, we would be honoring the maxim that all politics is local. But, more importantly, our ground game alone would flip both State and DC elective offices.

As for a "national convention of patriots", think of such a historical convening as the 21st century equivalent of the 18th century Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Just more directly representative this time. Tell me that didn't make a gargantuan difference in America's destiny! Let history and the basics of "community organizing", the latter which makes the Leftist radicals so powerful inspite of their vacuous and destructive agenda, be our guide.

No more pointificating, whining, woe-is-me, hollow TP rallies to the exclusion of a more activist nationalist agenda. Much MUCH more is needed if we are to save what little remains of this Republic. Activism works!

On the local level, let each of us begin in earnest the unifying process. And let's make it all come together in 2013!

If not Impeachment, What?

2013-01-09T12:21:00.003-08:00

Sobered and deeply troubled by the election debacle on November 6th, and mindful that, over the next four years, Obama and his Progressive minions are now more determined than ever to completely undermine what precious little remains of this Republic, it becomes crystal-clear that a genial solution to our nation's challenges is likekly impossible.

So, what can we do? Well, I think we can eliminate impeachment as a realistic remedy.

Bear in mind that impeachment (indictment) is a political--not a legal--process. A majority in the House of Representatives can impeach, but 2/3 of the Senate (trial) is required to convict and remove a sitting President. And because it is such an onerous and highly politicized process, only two Chief Executives, Andrew Johnson and William Clinton, have ever been impeached, though, significantly, neither of them was convicted and removed from office.

Given the extensive Progressive contagion which has swept DC, both on the left and the right, the chances of successfully applying this two-step process is, therefore, very, very remote. As things now stand, it appears only a flagrant act of presidential treason or murder would persuade the House and Senate to respectively impeach and remove Obama.

Briefly, despite deliberate and all too often successful political attempts over the years to misinterpret the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors", my research manifestly renders Obama both impeachable and removable. Why? We must remember that "high crimes and misdemeanors" aren't restricted to murder and treason. In fact, our Founders considered mal-administration, breach of public trust, abuse of power, negligence and, yes, even immoral behavior, among others, as impeachable offenses.

In essence, an impeachable offense is not necessarily an indictable offense and an indictable offense is not necessarily an impeachable offense. Simply put, an impeachable offense is WHATEVER Congress may say it is at any given time.

That said, I refer you to Canada Free Press which has creditably kept track of Obama's impeachable offenses--50+, so far. As of today, we may be able to add several others, among those being Benghazigate (selling arms to Islamists) and committing US military assets to Libya without Congressional approval. Thus, while the CFP list is hardly exhaustive, it fairly highlights some of the more egregious offenses so far committed by this imperial president. In their totality, these offenses are breathtaking in scope and seriousness. But, again, ONLY if the House indicts, and ONLY if the Senate convicts can this smug imperial ideologue be removed.

From my lowly vantage point, Obama is, hands-down, the most impeachable chief executive in our nation's history. And because he is constitutionally ineligible for re-election in 2016--this despite an odious proposal by Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY 15th), member of the Democratic Socialists of America, to eliminate presidential term limits--short of impeachment, conviction or incapacity we have only our God-given natural and constitutional rights of resistance, e.g. civil disobedience, nullification, secession and rebellion, to shield us from Obama's brazen utopian transformation of this union and to prevent our slide into economic oblivion. And to rely on the federal courts to support the Constitution against this Progressive thug is extremely doubtful.

So, yes, folks, sorry to say, but the remedy is now squarely on our shoulders and on the shoulders of our respective States to resist. We can rely on nothing else. Wishful thinking, benign neglect, and prayers alone won't turn the tide and save this country. And with both our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights under attack, now more than ever patriots need to be solidly united. Are we up to it? That remains to be seen...

Stop Politicizing the Massacres

2012-12-17T11:41:00.000-08:00

During his recent Newton speech, the President promised to "use all the power of his office"--and then some, I'll wager--to "protect our children." A lofty goal, but why are his words not reassuring, but, rather, cause for genuine concern?

With Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste" in mind, my justifiable concern is that Progressives don't merely seek "gun control"; they seek "people control", which is precisely why their gun control arguments are so often mystifying, twisted, disingenuous, illogical, grossly ineffective, and dangerously farcical.

Without trampling the Constitution, there are eminently practical solutions to better safeguarding our children which do not involve disarming law-abiding citizens. For example, schools are currently “gun-free zones”, an inane invention of the Left, which essentially renders schools "free fire zones" for armed evildoers. Like in Israeli border areas, one or two armed and trained staffers in each school would dramatically reduce or virtually eliminate the slaughter of innocents. Deterrence with the threat of deadly counterforce works!

If we follow what passes for liberal "logic", to reduce the preventable slaughter in our country across the board, then trains, airplanes, motor vehicles, knives, playgrounds, bows and arrows, stones, cribs and tire irons, among other lethal objects, should also be dramatically curtailed or altogether outlawed. Oh. And let's not forget doctors whose malpractice is responsible for nine times more deaths than gun homicides! Duh.

In any case, let’s insist that an honest, bipartisan, professional, objective and sober cause-and-effect appraisal follows this horrible Newtown tragedy--not more ideologically-motivated palaver which serves only to enhance government control and precious little else.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Is an American Confederation in our Future?

2012-11-17T13:48:00.002-08:00

(Written a few weeks before the Nov. 6th election)

I am anticipating that if Obama is somehow re-elected, his reign will be short-lived.

The train of executive abuses and excesses already perpetrated by this imperial president will not be tolerated for much longer.

Faced with the awful reality of an unbridled neo-Marxist at the helm, and at the insistence of millions of irate, fearful and demoralized citizens, I anticipate that Congress will be compelled to impeach and possibly remove him from office. Of course, this assumes that there is a sufficient number of "blue dog" Democrats in the Senate who value their country's future over Progressive ideology. On the otherhand, if Obama doesn't moderate, and if Congress fails to constitutionally remedy the situation, then other forms of resistance will be inevitable.

But, let's say Obama is impeached, but, which is more than likely, the Senate fails to convict and remove? What then?

There is precious little doubt in my mind that many millions of patriots will take to the streets and, eventually, massive marches on DC to curb federal overreach and profligacy will ensue. And if that too fails to rid us of the Obama and Progressive tyranny, then millions will likely resort to outright civil disobedience, and in State Houses the push for nullification and secession will be on the upswing.

The spark? The unbridled Progressive assault on the 2nd Amendment, the bedrock core of the Bill of Rights. Even a patriotic military takeover is not out of the question. And, of course, there is always the specter of a second American Revolution.

Frankly, to prevent the total collapse of the nation, I believe the people will insist upon impeachment and removal. We will be momentarily shaken by this unsettling development, but we will survive intact and, more importantly, we will be on the road to constitutional and economic recovery.

Clearly, this is a critical juncture in our nation's history, probably the most critical since Valley Forge. In the final analysis, we either restore constitutional order nationwide, or the union fractures, and rightly so. And given the deep and likely irreparable ideological divide which already exists in these "united States", perhaps the formation of confederacy of socialist republics on one side and of constitutional republics on the other will be irresistible.

Even without Obama and Progressive tyranny acting as a catalyst for such a dissolution, isn't this reordering of our political system inevitable anyway? I think so, and I think history is on my side.

When our learned and perceptive founders delved into political history to guide them in fashioning an efficacious system of governance grounded in republicanism, they essentially agreed that a republic is successful only when the polity is virtuous, yes, but also when the republic is manageable both in size and population. They well-understood this republic was an "experiment". And while they hoped the experiment would succeed, they were not delusional.

They understood that a large and excessively diverse & corrupted electorate would inevitably undermine republican principles and lead to authoritarianism and centralization, this in an effort to effectively govern; that, historically, the natural inclination of government was to expand its power and control. This, of course, would mean a unitary system of governance which would rely upon a one-size-fits-all formula, a formula which would prove to be inefficient, arbitrary and heavy-handed, and which would, inevitably, lead to tyranny, resistance and dissolution.

One way or the other, patriots will get through tumult IF we remain rigidly united and faithfully determined to safeguard our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some Advice to "Secession Petitioners"

2012-11-15T09:43:00.000-08:00

Historically, short of revolution or rebellion, secession is the ultimate practical check on centralization.

No branch of the federal government is empowered to decide upon the merits of a State's inherent right to secede. By its very nature, secession is an anti-federal act not requiring federal sanction.

Petitioning the federal government for permission to secede is self-contradictory and has no basis in English common law or American constitutional history. Secession/rescission/withdrawal is a unilateral action and is not dependent upon mutual agreement between the parties to that contract.

When one enters into a contract and the other party violates that contract, does one request permission of the offending party to withdraw from that contract already violated? Of course not. All compacts are subject to the equitable remedy of rescission in the event of a breach of contract. It's really common sense, basic contract law. It's that straightforward.

At its inception, the US of A was a voluntary compact (contract) of sovereign States, each retaining the inherent authority to rescind its contractual relationship with the federal government, the other party to that contract, should the latter violate the terms of that contract/compact. That contractual relationship hasn't changed, though the misnamed "civil war" may have led us to believe otherwise. (By the way, "civil war" means that two or more factions are militarily struggling over control of the central government; however, in America's so-called "civil war", the South was defending its sovereign territory, not entertaining the capture and control of the central government in DC.)

Force of arms alone by a revisionist, self-contradictory, union-at-any-price nationalist, that being our heretofore venerated Abe Lincoln, cannot--and did not--invalidate a State's inherent right to secede, or to otherwise rescind its ratificaton of this contract, no more than the federal government can legally or constitutionally annul the People's right to rebel in the face of tyranny.

Note: if secession were treasonous, which some maintained it was, why then were not southern leaders dragged into court following the North's successful invasion of the Confederate States of America? Easy. Because the North didn't want to lose in court what they thought they had won on the battlefield.

Perpetual union at any price was never contemplated or embraced by the Founders. Rebellion, secession, nullification, civil disobedience remain essential elements of America's republican fabric, and the threat or application of force on the part of the federal government cannot eradicate those foundational, inherent and unalienable rights of a free people.

When ratifying the Constitution, and only to the extent that it delegated certain of its sovereign powers to the federal government, not once did any State surrender its sovereignty. All powers voluntarily granted by the States to the federal government were very limited and very specific. All other powers not delegated remained with the States. The 10th Amendment enshrined that principle in the Constitution and, in so doing, reasserted the foundational principle that the federal government cannot unilaterally redefine the limits of its powers. To join the union, the States were not compelled to surrender anything, much less their sovereignty.

And remember, we not only seceded from England, but also, one by one, from the Articles of Confederation (which was said to be "perpetual") in order to form the current union of States, a union which was initially comprised of but 9 States, the remaining 3 sovereign States freely opting to remain outside the union until well after the Constitution's adoption. This "MORE perfect union"--MORE perfect, NOT perfect--was not intended or expected to exist in perpetuity, but, like the Articles of Confederation, only until such time that the compact outlived its usefulness. Our Founders, studious historians, were not stupid men and well understood the corruptibility of men and all that man may devise. While our Founders hoped the union would be strong, free and productive, they did not view secession and dissolution as ill-conceived, treasonous or unanticipated. We've just been brainwashed into believing that secession and dissolution are vile, wrong, corrupt and treasonous. Not so at all. If that were true, then our Founders were charlatans and short-sighted fools. They weren't.

All that said, as a first step I recommend that States opt for nullification, the "rightful remedy" as Jefferson described it, to resist unconstitutional acts by the Supreme Court, the Congress, the Chief Executive and their myriad bureaucracies which now comprise the unofficial fourth branch of government. And to render nullification more efficacious, States should enact punitive laws to prohibit the enforcement of those federal acts nullified by the State. This is called "interposition", or a State's insinuating itself between intrusive federal authority and the citizens of the State. Interposition would actually require the arrest, trial and imprisonment of any State OR federal agent who attempts to enforce a nullified federal act. Of course, implicit in nullification is the threat of secession should the invasive federal government fail to retreat to contractual parameters. But, again, secession is not by its nature treasonous or unavoidably violent. Not at all.

Finally, while I sincerely appreciate the wave of secessionist sentiment sweeping the country, secession, a serious constitutional matter, requires a majority of a State's residents to support the act. Anything less than a majority constitutes a protest and nothing more. And even with a majority expressing its support for secession, the people's State representatives must be won over as well, this if the label of "insurrection" is to be avoided and Art I Sec 8 Para 15 be invoked. Note: per Art IV Sec 4 of the Constitution, "on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)", the feds can be asked to intervene, whether that intervention is morally repugnant or not. Secession is a political act, not merely a feel-good act. Thus, on the subject of secession, both the people of a State and their duly elected State representatives must be one.

So, to the near one million well-intentioned petitioners around the country, this: without a majority within a State as well as State legislative support, secession is an impossibility. Great PR--maybe--but nothing more.

"The source of Lincoln's power was his willingness to exercise power not grounded in the orginal Constitution but in in his creative abilities to undermine the Constitution while rhetorically defending it." Donald Livingston, "Rethinking the American Union..."

"The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution." William Rawles (1825)

What's Next is Up to Us!

2012-11-07T09:11:00.000-08:00

Shattered by the disastrous presidential election outcome, at midnight last night I quietly and somberly lowered the American flag and replaced it with a defiant “Don’t Tread on Me” banner which will remain aloft for as long as alien ideologues occupy this nation’s capital.

Pollyannas take careful note: at best, the Republic is now in limbo. Not quite dead and buried yet, but not quite alive either. More accurately, it’s on life-support. So, on that score let’s stop deluding ourselves. If we are to restore constitutional governance, American exceptionalism and economic productivity we must all unite and fearlessly commit ourselves to patriotic a-c-t-i-o-n. No more excuses. No more waiting for it to take care of itself. No more whining. No more preaching to the choir. It’s too late for anything but active and constructive engagement.

Obviously, the “experts” grossly underestimated Obama’s well-organized political machine as well as the commitment of Obama’s utopian drones who, having bought into his false promises of bread and circuses, mindlessly turned out in unanticipated numbers to sweep the Obama thugocracy back into power.

I could say we all get what we deserve in a democracy. Problem is I, like nearly 50 million other Americans, didn’t vote for four more years of corruption, mendacity and imperial rule. AND, of course, we are not a democracy. Our Founders fashioned a republic. Yet again, what the election does underscore is that the ballot box cannot always be counted upon to remedy our ills. (Gaza comes quickly to mind.)

Surviving four years of Obama was enormously challenging and draining. But, unless he genuinely moderates-- and there’s zero likelihood of that—patriots’ and the union surviving four more years of his “fundamentally transforming the US of A” is quite simply a bridge too far.

Today, our enemies, both foreign and domestic, are rejoicing. Iran, undeterred now, remains on course to developing its nuclear arms program, Russia eagerly awaits Obama's promise to be more “flexible”, however imperiled our national security will end up being. Draconian and debilitating cutbacks in our defense apparatus remains a clear and present danger. The shutting down of Catholic health facilities is more likely than ever before, further degrading our healthcare system. A Middle East cataclysm is now a near certainty. Nationalized heathcare is on course to rob us of life, income and liberty. The corrosiveness of crony capitalism and unionism will now be epidemic; class warfare will continue to be stoked by the Progressive neo-Marxists further eroding the bonds which hold this country together; the globalist agenda (Agenda 21, etc) will be fast-tracked; EPA invasiveness will be unchecked. Dependency on foreign oil will remain a costly burden on productivity. In increasing numbers, businesses will be compelled to close or to relocate overseas. As Obama promised, utility costs will “skyrocket”. Unemployment and commodity prices will continue to soar, ensnaring both drones and patriots alike. Gargantuan budget deficits will continue, and an already unsustainable national debt will further explode. Liberal political activists will replace conservative justices at all levels and the relevance of the constitution will be further diminished. And as in all tyrannies, federal gun control efforts will be redoubled. Hard to find a silver lining here, folks, but it's nothing any of us didn't anticipate.

So, what are we to do? What is our duty to family, community and country?

Short of open rebellion (for now), and barring a military coup d’etat to rescue the republic, the States, particularly those which are dominated by conservatives and traditionalists, should be immediately enjoined to earnestly and fearlessly nullify ALL federal usurpations, inclusive of judicial rulings and executive orders which do not clearly comport with the US Constitution or which otherwise violate the bedrock doctrines of balance of power and state sovereignty. And if that remedial action fails, what then? Civil disobedience and, without hesitation, secession.

The terrible price the robotic starry-eyed drones are willing to pay for their bread and circuses is NOT the price patriots are willing to pay. At least not this patriot.

Compromise and accommodation with a soulless alien ideology is no longer tolerable nor useful—not when our individual liberties are at stake.

Let the power elite be on notice. Patriots are uniting to defend their unalienable God-given rights!

Don’t Tread on Me!

Revisiting Secession: A Constitutional Check on Federal Tyranny

2012-11-04T17:51:00.000-08:00

Regarding the nature of this hallowed union of States, Americans must never, ever forget how the Founders viewed this union and the States which comprise it.

We must get past the adolescent, uninformed, politically correct and self-destructive notion that this union is inviolably indissoluble. This union is not indivisible and never has been. To believe otherwise defies logic, commonsense and flies in the face of our founders’ understanding. Despite the relentless brainwashing over the years, a little honest research—without the blinders—is all that is required for readers to clearly understand the unassailability of a State’s right to secede.

From its inception, the united States of America has been a voluntary association of sovereign States. In truth, no States were coerced to become members of that association. The union is a contractual association, a compact of independent States, any of which may secede from that association should the other party to that contract, that being the federal government, fails to uphold its contractual obligations. To wit, as a condition of their ratifying the US Constitution, Virginia, Maryland and Rhode Island explicitly reserved their right to secede, and no objections from the Founders were raised. And, in accordance with the 10^th Amendment, because the Constitution does not prohibit secession, that power, like all other powers not specifically delegated to the federal government is reserved to the States.

No amount of revisionist history, lawyerly contrivances, political obfuscation, or otherwise misguided case law can nullify that fundamental truth. The judiciary is not sovereign and supreme. The States and the People are, and that is the way our founders intended it to be.

Further, without the approval of a duly-elected State legislature or, should it be impossible to timely convene the legislature, an invitation of the Governor, may force of arms be applied by either the federal government or sister States to quell rebellion within a particular State or to otherwise impose the union’s will on any member of that compact. Because a misapplication of military force against a State or States may have been perpetrated in the past can in no way render that action lawful or constitutional.

To be specific, Article IV, Sec 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “The US shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” As such, it provides that the federal government shall protect each of the States of the union “against invasion, and on application of the legislature, or of the governor (when the legislature cannot be timely convened) against domestic violence.”

Extremely important to note is the admonition of James Madison respecting this federal guarantee: in Federalist 43, he stated that the authority of the federal union “extends no further than to a guaranty of a republican form of government”...and that “whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so.”

Conveniently overlooked by”nationalists”, proponents of a supreme central government, is the fact that during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison, father of the Constitution, expressed his revulsion with the notion of the federal government's committing armed force against any State for any reason outside that limited purpose clearly provided for in Art IV, Sec 4, asserting that “a Union of States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction,” saying that “the use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war” and, to the party being assailed, “would probably be considered as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it was bound [to the union}.”

Thus, again, the only instance when the States or the federal authority may use force of arms against a State is if that State violates Art 4 Sec 4 of the Constitution, a provision which mandates that all State governments be republican in design. And only if a foreign entity has seized control of that State’s republican apparatus, thus rendering the legislature something other than duly-elected and/or the governor something other than duly-authorized, may the States and/or the federal government apply military force to bring that State back into compliance with the Constitution.

That said, with the acquiescence of Congress, it is manifestly obvious that Pres. Lincoln, for whatever reason, political or otherwise, overreached his constitutional authority by committing armed forces against the seceding Confederate States of America in 1861, plunging this nation into one of the bloodiest and costliest wars in its history. And only by force of arms and a gun to their heads did the victorious North illegally compel the vanquished southern States to officially repudiate their inherent constitutional right to secede--which begs the question that if the States did not have the residual and inherent power and right to secede then why would they be required to renounce that authority?

Asserting that the union was somehow indivisible, a concocted notion entirely foreign to the Founders, Mr. Lincoln, with much patriotic fervor, political fanfare, lofty rhetoric, and faulty argumentation, brazenly flouted the constitution with impunity by violating the sacred right of those 11 sovereign States to legally secede from this voluntary union. In truth, the Founders well-understood that this union of States was never intended to be any more perpetual, aka eternal, than the confederation of States which preceded it, and that the union's survival was solely dependent upon both parties to the compact fully upholding their obligations under that contract.

It should be remembered that when any suggestion of calling forth military force against a State was brought up in the Constitutional or State Ratifying Conventions, the notion of indivisibility was unanimously rejected by both framers and ratifiers alike. Irresistible and unavoidable conclusion: by plunging the union into war with the Confederate States of America, our childhood hero, Abraham Lincoln, was in clear violation of the original meaning, intent and spirit of the Constitution. In short, Mr. Lincoln, was dead wrong and our history teachers and textbooks have routinely and thoughtlessly foisted the myth of indivisibility upon generations of gullible children.

In all of my research over the years, there has been no evidence that the myopic notion of union at any price was ever conceived of or in any way embraced by the Founders. In fact, there's considerable evidence that the Founders viewed the very concept of indivisibility as dangerous. The States’ inherent right to secede, to interpose, to resist an overreaching central government remains as unmistakable, unambiguous and unalienable today as it was in 1787.

For future reference, let that truth sink in. To safeguard individual liberty, constitutional governance, and the sovereignty of the States, the immediate fiduciary agents of We the People, if our resistance to tyranny must necessarily entail secession, then that rightful form of redress and resistance must be fully embraced and fearlessly acted upon.

If the clear choice is liberty or union, can there be any doubt as to a free people's choice? Of course not. And the Founders knew that very well.

WHAT IF? A Call for Convention

2012-10-25T10:50:00.001-07:00

(Posted on "REAL CONSERVATIVES", "Tea Party Nation", "Patriot Action Network", "Right Face!")

On patriotic sites, I often read commenters’ heart-felt frustrations over both the unchecked lawlessness of the federal government as well as the painful absence of effective and concerted remedial action on the part of patriots everywhere to correct those abuses.

WHAT IF Obama is re-elected and stubbornly continues on his reckless course to “fundamentally transform the US of A”?

WHAT IF he, his progressive allies and acquiescent politicians on the other sideof the political aisle continue to ignore and, by their neglect, enable the federal government’s continuing to routinely flout and undermine the US Constitution with impunity?

My sense is that for millions of patriots, four more years of progressive tyranny would be a bridge too far. Backs to the wall and fearing for their lives, liberties and their ability to pursue happiness, my guess is that these patriots would, with proper leadership and in a spirit of civic-mindedness, tenaciously and unselfishly commit to taking all appropriate action to arrest America’s transformation and to otherwise nullify progressive tyranny.

With the Constitution as their guide, among these countless patriots, political accommodation, appeasement and compromise would be adjudged odious, self-destructive and, yes, treasonous. Seriously committed to restoring constitutional & economic order as well as to safeguarding and applying the foundational doctrines of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” at all levels of government, my guess is that the resulting societal and political impact on the nation would be historical in both scope and intensity.

At least, that is my fervent hope.

Desperate, the question then becomes how can patriots, short of open rebellion, effectively push back and stop the progressive/statist tide, failing which Americans everywhere must, by their ineffective action or silence, reconcile themselves to subservience to the State?

While I’m sure my proposal doesn’t break new ground, here it is anyway:

First and foremost, to be effective, organized patriotic resistance must be rigidly guided by participants’ unwavering and fearless pledge to uphold, defend and fully implement the original meaning and intent of the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitutions of the several States. Importantly, personal agendas and self-serving playbooks cannot be permitted to play any part whatsoever.

Secondly, to effectively counter the power elite, and while retaining their independence from one another, patriotic organizations around the country must link up and pledge their “patriotic cooperation” with the aim of effecting a reversal of progressive tyranny and to restore constitutional governance.

Third, all patriotic organizations should, at some point soon, immediately dispatch representatives to a “national convention of patriots” (ironic were it to be convened in Philadelphia) to develop both a list of grievances, again firmly grounded in the Constitution and our founding documents-- not in short-sighted parochial or self-aggrandizing considerations--and a corresponding list of specific strategies for effective, nationwide and well-coordinated civil disobedience and other activist engagement. (Among countless strategies, this initial grassroots agenda might well entail widespread refusal to pay various taxes/fees whose payment would constitute a clear violation of the Constitution; actively resisting EPA bullying by on-site demonstrations of solidarity with those job-creating industries (coal?) which have been especially injured by EPA overreach; developing a draft of Article V reforms; pressing State legislative representatives to resist federal overreach and to encourage States to immediately assume control over and to drill for oil/gas in those “federal lands” illegally held by the federal government. Obviously, the possibilities are endless . But, you get the picture.) Representatives might opt to extend invitations to constitutional scholars and historians to elicit their input and participation as well.

The burning question is what organizers of which creditable patriotic organizations already in existence who already enjoy notoriety and a following are willing to take the lead in this patriotic networking effort? What knowledgeable organizers are willing to initiate contacts with other national and local grassroots patriotic organizations to propose this patriotic networking and convention of patriots? Who’s willing to step up? All we need is leadership.

Finally, this: why wouldn’t a “National Patriot Convention"--not a constitutional convention--be entirely appropriate? Both progressivism, the enemy of republicanism, and an unscrupulous disregard for and ignorance of the original meaning of the Constitution on the part of our other political elites--both on the left and right--constitute an insidious contagion, a “clear and present danger”, which imperils both our way of life and our republican form of government.

If, indeed, and as provided for in the Constitution and by the framers and ratifiers of same, We the People are the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional, and if We the People are, in fact, sovereign and pre-eminent in this republican system of government, then the duty rests squarely on our shoulders to remedy the “train of abuses”.

No more excuses. No more inaction. No more let-the-other-guy-do-it. No more therapeutically preaching or venting to the choir. Going forward, we must fully understand that only active, constructive, effective and unified nationwide grassroots engagement will turn the authoritarian tide and restore constitutional order.

I pray someone steps up to help move this grassroots effort forward. Gov. Palin? Tea Party organizers/blog managers? So many excellent possibilities too numerous to suggest here.

Truth is millions of patriots are chomping at the bit to make a REAL difference. Individually, we are reduced to whining, frustrated victims of tyranny. United, well-coordinated and firm in our civic-minded conviction to restore public trust and constitutional order, we millions are a powerhouse and can absolutely influence the direction both of our States and our nation.

If the re-election of Obama doesn’t spur us to effectively act in patriotic concert, just what will—ever? Doing nothing is a surefire recipe for disaster, a tacit consent to tyranny.

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance.” Thomas Jefferson

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Thomas Jefferson

“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” John Locke

Executive Orders & the Death of a Republic

2012-10-19T18:49:00.000-07:00

Retroactive from 1862, not until 1907 were Executive Orders (EO’s) published in the Federal Register. And today, over 13,000 EO’s have been issued and published. But, just what are they, and, more importantly, are they constitutional?

The short of it is that EO’s, aka signing statements, presidential determinations, presidential memorandums, presidential notices, presidential orders, have inexorably led to legally binding presidential directives substantially affecting not only executive administrative matters, but both national and foreign policy as well.

With that in mind, the greatest fear of the founders was the establishment of a powerful central government and a strong political leader at the center of that government. They were determined to prevent the rise of monarchs, potentates or czars. Their plan was for a voluntary association of sovereign States in which power emanated from the States and the People, not from an overweaning central authority. For the framers and ratifiers, Congress, properly checked by both the Judiciary and the Executive, was intended to be THE focus of federal power and THE source of federal law.

Art I, Sec 1 of the US Constitution concisely and unambiguously provides that “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress...” In sharp contrast, Art II specifically outlines Executive powers and duties, none of which include legislating in any form. And to checkmate an overreaching Chief Executive, Art II also provides for the impeachment and removal of not only the Chief Executive, but of any and all officers comprising the Executive Branch.

Originally intended to soley direct executive departments how to faithfully implement laws legislated by Congress, since the early 20^th century EO’s have morphed into far-reaching imperial edicts which have little real hope of being invalidated by an unaccountable Supreme Court or overridden by a permissive Congress. In fact, in all our history only two EO’s have been successfully invalidated/overriden: Truman’s 1952 order to place all steel mills under federal control was invalidated by the Supreme Court, and a Clinton EO in 1995 which attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll was overturned by Congress. Thus, despite their being in flagrant violation of the Constitution, while EO’s can be voided, to do so is, indeed, acutely challenging and, therefore, rarely accomplished.

Worth noting are those less appealing and unsavory EO’s such as Franklin Roosevelt's order to remove all Japanese & German Americans from military zones, and to relocate Japanese Americans to internment camps which proceeded unchallenged by either Congress or the Supreme Court.

So, how can Congress, the People’s House, void an EO, assuming Congress was so inclined?

First, Congress must have the political will, rectitude and the numbers to effectively countermand EO’s. That said, as it plays out now if Congress disapproves an EO, it can withhold funds. But, to do so requires enactment of a law which must pass muster both in the House and the Senate. The rub: if the law intended to countermand an EO is vetoed by the President, to override that veto requires a 2/3 vote, a super majority, in both chambers of Congress, clearly a politically daunting task indeed. And, of course, there is the laborious process of impeachment and removal of the offending President to remedy the executive overreach. But, again, removal would require a 2/3 majority in the Senate, a very unlikely outcome.

The alternative means of voiding an EO is if a suit is brought against the President before the Supreme Court and the court invalidates the EO, again a highly unlikely scenario. And, as we all know, the Supreme Court, which has proven to be far less than faithful to the meaning and intent of the Constitution, is often on the wrong side of constitutional questions. Seemingly guided by Chief Justice Hughes’s arrogant and insidious assertion in 1941 that “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is”, the court's unelected judicial oligarchs--and, yes, judicial legislators--have, over the years, proven to be unreliable defenders of the Constitution.

It should be remembered that Roger Sherman, a principal among the framers, held that the president should not have legislative authority; that his job was to execute the laws and nothing more: “The Executive Branch is nothing more than an institution for carrying the will of the legislature into effect”.

Similarly, another principal framer, James Wilson, asserted that “the only powers strictly executive were those of executing laws, appointing officers, not appertaining to, and appointed by, the legislature.”

And upon the advice of fellow framer Charles Pinckney, none other than James Madison asserted that the president should have “power to carry into effect the national laws, to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for, and to execute such other powers—not legislative or judiciary--in nature.”

In effect, the framers insisted that the Chief Executive could not propose or make legislation under any guise, but, with respect to legislation, was absolutely restricted to executing those laws passed by Congress. Crystal clear, but grossly ignored by today’s power elite.

With the “help” of a habitually unfaithful Supreme Court, a corrupted Congress, and a complacent citizenry, is it any wonder we’ve strayed so far afield from the Constitution?

So, in the absence of a President who might happen to be personally inclined to faithfully adhere to the Constitution, we have little defense against a tyrannical Chief Executive. Thus, if the Supreme Court and Congress are unwilling to restore constitutional order by affirmatively re-establishing the doctrine of separation of powers at the federal level, then, ultimately, and in accordance with the 10^th Amendment, it falls to the States and/or the People to take appropriate action to remedy the breach. As James Madison asserted, “…the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution.”

In closing, our now tattered and barely recognizable republic which was originally held securely in place by a carefully crafted system of checks and balances and separation of powers is no more. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking, or, worse, delusional.

Since TR, with his 1006 unchallenged EO’s, Woodrow Wilson’s 3,723 EO’s and Obama’s in excess of 130 frighteningly Orwellian EO’s, the imperial presidency has clearly taken on a life of its own, unchecked and tyrannical, effectively blurring any similarity to genuine republicanism. In truth, all that holds this sham of a republic in place is the President's appearance of faithfulness to the constitution and a pervading hope that the President, whomever he or she might be, will kindly opt not to overstep his or her constitutional authority. But, if history is any authoritative guide, such self-inflicted delusion and misplaced confidence can only lead to national disaster.

Going forward, patriots everywhere had best pull out all stops to usher in a Constitution-first conservative takeover in DC. But, that’s only half the battle. Once elected, we must hold their corruptible feet to the fire to ensure a full restoration of our now deeply wounded constitutional republic, failing which only the dissolution of these united States by whatever means, violent or peaceful, is most certainly inevitable.

To be clear, EO's aren't a Progressive or Republican problem. EO's are an equal opportunity contagion. Both parties, all modern presidents, Congress, the Supreme Court, and, yes, We the People are culpable. If we deserve better, we will beget better.

Judicial Tyranny & We the People

2012-09-18T08:40:00.001-07:00

With the polls showing a very close presidential race, fears are mounting among patriots that if Obama is re-elected very liberal justices will be appointed to fill the vacancies of at least two retiring justices, one of whom may be Justice Scalia, a fairly reliable conservative jurist.

Can you imagine the damage done should two more Kagans or Sotomayors be appointed and a 5-4 or 6-4 liberal SCOTUS rear its ugly head? With the judiciary in his back pocket, Obama's "fundamental transformation of the United States" might well prove to be a fairly leisurely cakewalk.

But, not so fast!

First, for the libs to take over SCOTUS, the Senate would have to remain in Progressive hands, an unsettling prospect which diminishes with each unemployment report and blazing American consulate. For that reason alone, patriots had best pull out all stops to ensure a Republican/Tea Party takeover of the Senate this year.

That said, in all honesty, I am always flummoxed, and not a little disappointed, when I hear patriots feverishly warn against and whine about a liberal takeover of the Supreme Court, asserting that a liberal-dominated court will inevitably result in more socialism and statism.

Well, in truth, with or without a liberal majority on the bench, the judicial world as we now know it isn't a lot to celebrate. Yes, over the years liberal justices have done incalculable harm, even more so than self-identified conservative judges. Years of faulty and revisionist case law, to which both schools have often been a party, is ample proof of the harm already perpetrated by a runaway judiciary inconsistently faithful to the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.

But let's not forget that OUR permitting the States to routinely submit to the federal judiciary to fairly settle constitutional disputes with the federal government (a surefire recipe for disaster), and OUR allowing the omniscient courts to imperiously overrule voter referendums, thus imposing THEIR own will on the people, have also materially contributed to the breakdown in constitutional order. So, who's really at fault? What is the proximate cause of this breakdown in the constitutional order? We are! Overweaning liberal judges are merely a symptom of OUR failure. And at some point, WE will have to do something about it if our "representatives" won't.

My point is that the harm occasioned by judicial overreach--whether by liberal or conservative jurists--can be effectively thwarted IF IF IF the States and We the People assert their 9th and 10th Amendment constitutional powers.

Contrary to the opinion of many brainwashed law students, it is the U.S. Constitution--NOT the "Supreme" Court--which is the supreme law of the land, and both the 9th and 10th Amendments, both very much essential components of that Constitution, were intended to ensure constitutional supremacy, balance of powers and liberty.

When SCOTUS overreaches its authority with unconstitutional rulings/opinions, then the States, per the 9th and the 10th Amendments, are legally and morally obliged to summarily nullify, aka render null, void and unenforcable, those rulings. In this regard, the framers' intention was crystal clear.

The Constitution works brilliantly to safeguard liberty, our core principles of checks and balances and separation of powers, but ONLY if it is honored and enforced by all parties to the federal-state contract we call the Constitution. And if the States, equal parties to that contract, are too weak-kneed or corrupted by federal handouts to honor the supreme law of the land, that being the Constitution and no other, then it is encumbent upon We the People, the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional, to assert our central role as the guardian of the Constitution. If that means nationwide well-coordinated civil disobedience, then so be it! If it means Tea Parties marching on and, yes, occupying our State houses to "convince" them to assert their authority over a runaway federal government, so be it. No more pussy-footing, no more whining. Going forward, only meaningful a-c-t-i-o-n will suffice.

Let this sink in: only with the single-minded enforcement of the 9th and 10th Amendments by the States and/or the People can our constitutional republic be restored. And the ball is clearly in OUR court.

In short, folks, we need to get very seriously organized if Obama is re-elected. But we also need to get organized even if Romney is elected. The growth of the imperial presidency, to say nothing of the Supreme Court's imperiousness, screams for remedial grassroots action.

In truth, the Supreme Court, a servant of the central government, has become an essentially unbridled, unaccountable, black-robed oligarchy, beholden to its federal creators alone and driven by personal, political and ideological agendas. Tragically, the court's faithfulness to the Constitution has long ago dissipated. Revealingly, Gov. Hughes, who served as Chief Justice from 1930-1941, asserted that "We are under a Constitution, BUT the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Wow! And that pretty much sums up where we are now. Absent congressional remedial action, without meaningful grassroots opposition, judicial supremacy will continue to effectively trump constitutional supremacy and, in so doing, the judiciary will continue to dangerously undermine the very underpinnings of our republic.

For me, THE burning question is this: by our disengagement, submissiveness, benign neglect, or by our merely hoping that the problem will eventually go away, will we continue to permit the foundational collapse of what remains of our constitutional republic? We each need to honestly answer that question for ourselves and for our families.

"If the Federal Government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the PEOPLE, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed [the Constitution], and take such measure to redress the injury to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 33.

"I know of no safe despository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; this is the true corrective of abuses of Constitutional powers." Thomas Jefferson

"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiselesss foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the state governments into the jaws of that which feeds them; the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary." Thomas Jefferson

QE3: Magic Elixir or Our Last Hurrah?

2012-09-14T17:55:00.002-07:00

The imperial Federal Reserve's shocking and mystifying decision to further flood the market with more increasingly worthless dollars reminds me of Dr. Einstein's definition of insanity, that being "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

QE3 will NOT ease the nearly 20% real unemployment rate, nor will it spur economic growth. If anything, QE3 will hasten our acceleration toward the looming financial cliff.

It must surely be painfully obvious now to all but the willfully ignorant that bloated, profligate and irresponsible government coupled with an unaccountable Federal Reserve are THE principle reasons for our economic malaise and headlong rush toward national economic suicide.

While those who have wisely hoarded precious metals will see the value of those assets increase, the rest of us will have to grapple with painfully increasing gasoline prices and shrinking disposable income, neither of which will lead to economic recovery.

Good luck, America. You'll need it.

Libyan & Egyptian Islamists Honor 9/11

2012-09-12T08:41:00.003-07:00

The death of our Ambassador and several of our diplomatic staff in Benghazi as well as our timid response both to that outrage as well as to the violent attack on our Cairo embassy is symptomatic of a weak, ineffectual, permissive Administration whose sympathies are stunningly confused, if not suspect, and whose knee-jerk response is to apologize for America even when it is America which is attacked without provocation.

And what does Barry say during his press conference? "The World" must stand together in the face of this outrage. "The World"? How about this Adminstration? Why must it always be a world thing with Obama? Because he's a hardcore globalist who holds the world in higher esteem than the United States. He's an unmitigated fraud, an unconvincing word- smith, an un-American disaster. By my count, he mentioned "world" and "globe" as many times as he did America. Tedious and shameful. Though sensitive and heartfelt in his comments before the press corps this morning, his response fell utterly flat. FLAT! And totally inadequate.

Our Ambassador and three other diplomatic staff were slaughtered! Let that sink in. "Outrageous and disgusting", as Romney described the violence, seemd far more appropriate and representative of Americans' genuine outrage. Conversely, Obama's remarks were mind-numbingly tepid and painfully measured.

Again, the Administration's knee-jerk policy of apologizing and tempering Americans' ire when our national honor and internationally accepted standards of diplomatic conduct are so brazenly violated by our enemies are wearing thin--very thin!

My understanding is that the marine guard was ordered to stand down. I also understand that neither Libyan nor Egyptian police timely intervened with appropriate force. Yes, the mobs might not have been representative of Libyans and Egyptians in general--and that too remains questionable--but the lack of appropriate intervention by their police forces to protect US embassy grounds is justifiable cause for serious doubts as to how widespread Libyan and Egyptian support for those attacks may have been.

As Romney indicated, how the Administration handled this situation demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect and understanding on the part of this Administration for America's fundamental principles. I couldn't agree more.

Hillary's response--after the embassy apology--seemed balanced and sensible, though the lack of strength and appropriate indignation was notable. To her credit, she did indicate that the Administration would not rest until those responsible are caught and punished. Obama echoed that reassurance. How very moving. But, how very uninspired. And just who in Egypt and Libya will dare to hunt down and arrest the perpetrators of this Islamist violence?

And just to keep it interesting, nearly simultaneously Prime Minister Netanyahu's request for a meeting with the Obama to discuss the menacing Iranian nuclear threat was spurned. Afterall, in Barry's Progressive mind campaigning for four more years of failure, malaise and fundamental transformation as well as his obscene obsession with golfing take priority. No surprise there. To even the casual observer, Barry has been the Campaigner-in-Chief for nearly four years now, attending a scant 48% of those pesky national security briefings during that time. Right on top of things, huh?

What the Hell is this effete, liberal, aristocratic Progressive in the White House thinking? Dare I even speculate?

In times like this, yes, we must be cautious, take into account the bigger picture, the longer range effects of any actions taken, but I heard NOTHING in terms of deliberate US "actions" which would indicate that Libya or Egypt would be punished for failing to protect our embassies. NOTHING. And that is beyond annoying and unsettling. That is inexcusable. An attack on any embassy is an act of war!!! Am I calling for war? No! But, I am calling for credible, persuasive, punitive action.

Is it any wonder our foreign policy appears to be adrift and confused? Is it any wonder why our enemies no longer respect or fear us?

And on top of this, our defense budget is likely to be drastically reduced while Obama insists upon "taxing the rich" before he disallows sequestration to taking effect at the end of the year. Could it be this untrustworthy scoundrel's intention really is to bring down the United States? That question must now be taken seriously.

Anyone who thinks we're in good shape, either economically or militarily, is either willfully ignorant or hopelessly delusional. This is a mess of the first order. Obama and his un-American Progressive minions MUST go!!!! This Progressive plague, which I firmly believe constitute the "enemy within", must be removed from our political system once and for all.

Today's scorecard: Radical Islam 1. America 0.

Will Obama's Secrecy Finally Precipitate a Constitutional Crisis?

2012-08-07T11:08:00.001-07:00

Over the years, I and many others have delved into the matter of Obama's ineligibility to hold the office of President of the United States, and have carefully explained the bases for our very serious doubts regarding his qualifications.

One of those concerns was raised by me in my December 2008 blog post cited below, in which I questioned Obama's presidential ineligibility on the basis of his likely being an Indonesian citizen, a citizenship status which may not have been legally remedied by Obama when he returned to the United States and before his presidential run in 2008.

"And when young Obama was taken to Indonesia by his adoptive Indonesian parent, Leo Soetoro, where he attended a school to which only Indonesian citizens were permitted to enroll and where school records list OBH's citizenship as Indonesian, shouldn't a reasonable person be expected to ask questions? Or was that simply a matter of fraudulent enrollment? Who knows?"

Now, all hell is breaking loose yet again. Unlike any President before him, "Mr. Transparency" is definitely keeping the mysteries about his background and doubts about his eligibility painfully alive.

Wayne Root of RootforAmerica, a 1983 Columbia graduate, the same year Obama was reportedly graduated from Columbia, is reporting that none of his fellow pre-law/PoliSci classmates at Columbia have any knowledge or recollection of either a Barack Obama or of a Barry Soetoro in their class, the latter being Barack's adoptive Indonesian moniker.

More importantly--and as many of us have questioned for a very long time now--Root asks how Obama, of limited financial means, financed his Ivy League education. So, buttressed by a report from a Breitbart investigator in Jakarta who telephonically confirmed to Root earlier today that he has impeccable proof that Obama, aka Soetoro, was/is an Indonesian Citizen, Root speculates that Barack, or whatever his legal name may be, most likely relied upon his "foreign student" status to access the needed funding and that this is precisely the reason why Obama has sealed his college records--that reason being to conceal the fact that he, Obama, aka Soetoro, is not a US Citizen and, thus, ineligible to be President.

To this very day, US Citizen Barack Obama or Indonesian Citizen Barry Soetoro remains a proverbial puzzle wrapped in an enigma, and until his real identity and presidential eligibility are proven without a shadow of a doubt the Republic remains in mortal danger.

If Root's speculation is on the mark, and with Sheriff Arpaio's investigative posse relentlessly on Obama's tail, it is not unrealistic to conclude that a constitutional crisis of the first order is surely at hand: we may actually see an imposter President and a host of Democratic Party co-conspirators arrested and tried for assorted felonies and treason. The exposure of a putative president would precipitate an unprecedented crisis which our nation must face and a crisis we can and should endure. And the sooner the better.

And here's to you, Senator Reid, and your fellow DNC apparatchiks. My profound thanks for finally opening Pandora's Box. You want Romney's tax returns? Fine. For a start, we want Obama's college records. ALL of them--his applications for admission and his grades. (Gee, do I hear the pitter-patter of scurrying cockroaches? Yup! I believe I do.)

God save the Republic.

August 10, 2012 PostScript:

After I wrote this post, I quickly consulted my three immigration reference books. Upshot: Clearly, Barry, being under 18 while in Indonesia, could not have renounced his US Citizenship.

However, what I cannot absolutely determine is if Indonesia recognized dual citizenship at that time. I don't think they did. If not, then how did Barry become an Indonesian Citizen as reported by a Breitbart investigator in Jakarta yesterday? Did Barry's adoptive Indonesian dad, Lolo Soetoro, commit fraud in Indonesia in order to obtain Barry's Indonesian citizenship documents which both enabled Barry's enrollment in public school there as well as Barry's travelling to Pakistan at a time when Americans were disallowed entry? Not terribly burning questions, but part of the whole ball of wax.

More importantly, since the Breitbart investigator claims to have irrefutable proof of Barry's Indonesian Citizenship, can a dual citizen (American and Indonesian in this case, for example) legally apply for F-1 or J-1 student status in the US? If so, can s/he do so AFTER s/he has re-entered the US of A? Everything I've so far read is that a foreign student must apply at an American Consulate overseas BEFORE entry; that s/he must, in fact, be a bonafide alien; that to change their non-immigrant status (which Barry apparently wasn't) after entry requires considerable, if not insuperable, hoops to navigate. And if Barry was a US Citizen, despite his dual citizenship, how could he have been even remotely eligible for F-1 or J-1 status? More fraud by his having hidden his dual citizenship from I-20 school authorities?

On a related note, I had read some time ago that a Palestinian friend, Khalidi Mansour, had arranged college funding from Arab benefactors for US Citizen Barry's higher education expenses. If true, that would render the issue of dual citizenship irrelevant for purposes of determining how Barry was financially able to attend Occidental, Columbia and Harvard. But, if Barry did attend those schools, why did none of his classmates know of him? Were the universties paid off so extravagantly by Khalidi's well-heeled Arab friends that Barry's actually attending classes was unnecessary ? Who knows? Well, Barry, Khalidi and the school adminstrations, of course.

Endless questions still.

Still searching, but, at the moment, I have considerably more questions than answers about Mr. Enigma. And we all know Barry WON"T divulge his sealed records. So, the mystery, the questions, the anxiety continue.

Also, and most importantly, would the framers have recognized a dual citizen as being eligible to be president? Absolutely not. Aftreall, the framers' whole purpose of obliging a presidential candidate to be a "natural born citizen" was to prevent dual allegiances. To put the dual citizenship problem to rest, wouldn't Barry have been required to somehow conceal his Indonesian citizenship upon his return to the USA, this to eliminate any qualification issues to run for prez?

Though I've never seriously doubted his US Citizenship, his "natural born citizenship" is quite another matter. On the NBC issue, the shameless and nonstop disinformation and obfuscation on the part of his acolytes and apologists have been nothing short of mind-boggling, infuriating and entirely unhelpful.

One thing this sorry episode has taught me: if intelligent, hard-working, educated and otherwise upright Germans could have been persuaded to buy into and excuse tyranny, then ANY person in ANY country at ANY time can also succumb to the razzle-dazzle of a glittering smile & false promises. That reality should be extremely troubling to us all.

Sadly, while the truth inevitably comes out, it is often at a terrible price to both innocents and perpetrators alike. In the end, however, we may all have to pay that awful price. Just hope it's sooner rather than later. Would be nice to get it all behind us--the sooner the better.

Another concern: IF Barry is denied a second term at the ballot box, will all of these matters be properly investigated and appropriate punishment meted out to all violators? Or will the investigations be dropped? I honestly don't know what I can reasonably expect anymore of our terribly corrupted political system.

With the prospect of punishment staring Barry and his Progressive minions in the face, my guess is that they will stop at NOTHING to prevent their defeat at the ballot box in November. And then there's the intervening lame-duck period between the election in November and the possible swearing in of a new President in January 2013. All sorts of mischief can be perpetrated during that period in the interest of "national security". That prospect should give us all pause. All I can say is it's going to be one helluva six months ahead of us. Anything can happen. My advice: buckle up, keep your family and friends close, and be ready for anything.

Is it too Late to Restore Constitutional Order?

2012-07-26T09:29:00.001-07:00

Though the first sentence in Article II of the Constitution provides that “ executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”, none of the Framers or Ratifiers at any time suggested that this sentence would grant any executive authority beyond those specific powers enumerated in Sections 2 and 3.

In short, presidential powers are well-defined and limited to faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress and, with studious and proper legislative oversight, to preside over foreign affairs. A Chief Executive's violating these obligations was determined by the Founders to be a “breach of trust” and, therefore, grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

Clearly, over the years, Executive powers under both Democrat and Republican chief executives have grown exponentially to the extent that the range of those exercised powers would stagger our republican Founders. (That said, the extent to which Barack Obama has usurped authority is beyond staggering. His actions in this regard have been manifestly impeachable. And it is my guess that should Republicans sweep both the House and Senate in November, this President, if re-elected, stands a better than even chance of facing impeachment and removal from office. And despite the civil unrest that might result from such a remedial action, impeachment is precisely what our Founders and the Constitution they crafted would have counseled.)

So, how did this dangerous expansion of presidential powers come to pass? Very simply, because government, a creature of human nature, is, if ineffectively checked, predisposed to expanding its authority and power. And in designing the Constitution, the Framers were painfully aware of and warned against this natural tendancy toward centralization and, ulitmately, tyranny. Not surprisingly, despite their warnings we've permitted ourselves to slip into the clutches of Statism and lawlessness.

For whatever reason--much of it having to do with the enormous growth in the federal government and its expansion into areas never envisioned by the Founders or sanctioned by the Constitution--Congress has ceded or otherwise delegated enormous powers to the Executive Branch and, by extension, to that branch’s officers and departments. The catastrophic result of this irrresponsible congressional delegation of powers and judicial consent is twofold: an imperial presidency and an essentially unchecked Fourth Branch of government, that being the nearly omnipotent federal bureaucracy which, in a real sense, manages our increasingly unwieldy and intrusive federal government apparatus.

Thus, we must now accept the crystal-clear reality that “throwing the bums out” in Congress is no longer a viable remedy; it is merely a desperate, shortsighted and delusional reformist’s rallying cry “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. In truth, only if the wings of the Executive Branch are clipped and the unbridled Fourth Branch is downsized and more properly supervised by Congress, "the people's house", can genuine constitutional order be restored.

Tragically, what NO ONE has been talking about in this campaign is the need to reign in BOTH the Executive Branch and Leviathan’s runaway bureaucracy which have been eating away at the very vitals of our republic. Only by deliberately restricting presidential powers to those which faithfully comport with the Constitution, and both eliminating or drastically reducing the power of the Fourth Branch of government can our inexorable slide toward tyranny be arrested.

Is it too late? Probably. And if that’s the case, then the several States, at the insistence of an aroused citizenry, should re-examine their unhealthy association with an increasingly corrosive central government no longer faithful to the Constitution or to the People. In faithful pursuit of constitutional order, States must understand that they are duty-bound to strike out on their own, either unilaterally or in alliance with like-minded sister States.

Thus, the burning question for me is this: no matter the terrible price one must pay, should a patriot who values his liberty continue to routinely and blindly submit to the self-destructive, albeit high-sounding, Lincolnesque notion of “indivisible unity”? Not no. But, Hell no!

Unless constitutional order is restored, I dare say that disunion ought, of necessity, be embraced. And given the chasmic ideological divide existing in the country, I really don't believe disunion anything but inevitable.

“I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive; most bad government has grown out of too much government; the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the cause which impel them to the separation.” (Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776)

Happy 4th of July!

2012-07-04T09:28:00.002-07:00

Though our political representatives are entrusted with the responsibility of selflessly honoring their pledge to defend and uphold the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, on this, the 236th birthday of our Republic, let no American patriot ever forget that, ultimately, it is "We the People"--not Congress, not the President, and most certainly not the Supreme Court--upon whom lies the sacred duty to ensure that our Constitution and our individual liberties are properly safeguarded.

As Liberty's Keepers, the Final Arbiters, it is We the People who are Supreme. It is we who are ultimately responsible for determining what is and what is not constitutional, what is just and unjust, and what constitutes tyranny and treason.

We are, therefore, duty-bound to fully restore the Republic to its former glory, the first step toward achieving that lofty goal being the eradication of the Progressive contagion which currently plagues all levels of our increasingly intrusive government.

Constantly challenged and often overwhelmed by a litany of stupefying Progressive outrages, it is easy to simply surrender, to disengage; but to save our republic, patriots cannot--must not-- fold. Our duty is to relentlessly and fearlessly re-assert our God-given rights to constitutional self-government and individual freedom. We must never accept anything less ever again. More to the point, we must no longer tolerate nor otherwise accommodate the Progressives' ruthless and pernicious effort to fundamentally transform the United States into a utopian tyranny.

And always remember this: the Constitution cannot defend itself. That responsibility lies squarely upon our shoulders. Shirk that sacred duty and we condemn ourselves and our posterity to oppression and meaninglessness.

("...[you have] a Republic, if you can keep it." Benjamin Franklin, when emerging from Constitution Hall in Philadelphia, 1787.)

Federal Imperialism vs State Territorial Sovereignty

2012-05-09T13:06:00.001-07:00

For a painfully long time now, our federal masters and their judicial enablers have ignored and, to my way of thinking, flagrantly violated the Constitution with impunity. All too often, Supreme Court rulings have served to override equity, common sense, constitutionality and original intent.

And so long as black-robed, unelected and unaccountable judicial oligarchs, aka judges–as well as the submissive states themselves–allow “judicial supremacy” to trump “constitutional supremacy” on a whole host of consequential constitutional issues, our economic growth will be hobbled, our liberties diminished, state sovereignty degraded, constitutional order imperiled and common sense abandoned.

To wit, per Art 1.8.17 of the Constitution and provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and despite a veritable cesspool of clubby, contrived and revisionist court rulings over the years through which I was barely able to wade, it appears glaringly obvious to me that our federal overseers are occupying millions of otherwise productive acres within the several states without the “concurrence” of those states and without constitutional justification.

Article 1.8.17 (“Enclave Clause”) granted power to Congress “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States [i.e. the District of Columbia], and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” Crystal-clear what the original meaning is here despite the shamelessly self-serving litany of subsequent spinmeistering on the part of our judicial overlords, lap dogs of the federal government.

Clearly this clause meant that the people of the states empowered Congress to exercise complete jurisdiction and authority over all lands or facilities purchased within a state, provided it was with the consent of the legislature of that state, and that such lands would be used for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.” Clearly implied in this clause is that the several states, the immediate fiduciary agents of the people, reserve the right to assume title to all lands within their borders which are not being used by the federal government for the specific purposes provided in the clause, that being “the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.”

It is also important to note that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the enumerated power of complete jurisdiction and authority over state territory; thus, state retention and ownership of public lands stems from the 10th Amendment which reserves all rights to the states which are not specifically granted to Congress. The twisted and carefully crafted Delphic court rulings notwithstanding, the original meaning seems abundantly clear to me.

Art 4.3.1 allowed a mechanism for the formation and admission of new states into the union, and Art 4.3.2 described the extent of congressional authority over federal territory within those states. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled that federal property applies only to the territory at the time of the Constitution’s adoption and is considered public land only until that territory is granted statehood and the national debt incurred by the Revolutionary War is paid. In other words, temporary federal control over those lands.

In accordance with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was re-enacted after the Constitution’s ratification, all new states were to be admitted to the union on the basis of full equality with the original thirteen states. It was generally understood that as territories were granted statehood, the people of those states would acquire title to all lands within their state boundaries—except, of course, those lands granted to the feds for those well-defined purposes cited in Art 1.8.17.

To help pay down the national debt, Congress assured the states of full title to those lands not used for federally sanctioned purposes when that land was sold off. The following then became the established policy for new states:

1. The feds would retain all ungranted public lands.
2. The feds guaranteed that it would dispose of these lands as soon as possible.
3. The new state would acquire jurisdiction over these lands as fast as they were sold to private individuals.
4. States would be admitted on the basis of “equal footing” with the original 13 states (each of which retained complete ownership/control over their respective territories.

As a result, all states east of the Mississippi and those comprising the Louisiana Purchase eventually acquired title to all but a very small portion of the land lying within their state boundaries.
However, following our war with Mexico, Congress inexplicably digressed from this policy and virtually eliminated the sale or disposal of federal lands in the western states. This resulted in Congress’s retaining major portions of those state lands, this in seemingly direct contravention of the Constitution and of the Northwest Ordinance. Essentially, the federal government became the sole owner and manager of nearly 30%, or a whopping 650 million acres, of America’s landmass, for the constitutionally unspecified purposes of maintaining national forests, national parks, national monuments, Indian reservations, coal and oil reserves, lands leased to farmers and ranchers, and resources-rich so-called “wilderness areas”. And, of course, the cost to taxpayers for maintaining the sprawling federal bureaucracy in order to manage these federally controlled lands is in the billions of dollars.

Federal defenders of this overeach breathlessly point to the so-called “property clause” (Art 4.3.2) which provides that “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make any needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States and any territory or property belonging to the United States.” Clearly, doesn't this create a convenient constitutional ambiguity by contradicting the original intent of Art 1.8.17? Does this not exact restrictions on the western states, which had never been imposed on earlier states? So much for states being admitted into the union on “equal footing” and “full equality” with earlier states. Is federal retention of 30% of America’s real estate really a “necessary and proper” exercise of federal powers? For me to believe that would require a willful suspension of common sense.

To give you an idea of how much state land is now imperially held by the feds, check this out: NV 85%, AL 70%, UT, 60%, OR 53%, AZ 47%, CA 45%, WY 42%, NM 42%, CO 37%, and poor Alaska 96%! Note: 65% of federal land holdings are located west of the Mississippi and a paltry 1% of all federally controlled land in the country is currently being utilized for those specific purposes cited in Art 1.8.17. One must wonder why these lands are still being held by the feds. Pay off the Revolutionary War debt? Gee, I don’t think so. Lofty, if not entirely contrived, constitutional justifications? Or, more likely, the relentless federal grasp for power and, today, a way to placate a host of environmental allies by denying the states and the country access to those climate-warming pollutants such as oil and gas.

Regarding the Enclave Clause, James Madison stated that “the public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.” But, have the courts sought the concurrence of the states? Nope.

Clearly, the federal government is occupying millions of acres without the “concurrence” of those states, but maintain their grip with the twisted and self-serving judicial sanction of federal Courts intent upon expanding and strengthening federal power.

So, what is the recourse of the several states? My opinion, which is shared by many other originalists, is that in keeping with the doctrine of state sovereignty, original intent and the 10th Amendment, states should simply legislatively assume title of all lands not being utilized by the federal government as specified in the Enclave Clause. Of course, to placate the courts and public opinion, states should first sue the federal government to acquire title. And since the states will not prevail in such a lopsided judicial struggle, they should then rightfully and unhesitatingly assert their 10th Amendment rights by immediately assuming direct ownership and control of what I have dubbed the “royal federal reserves” lying within their state boundaries.

But, do the chastened, weak-kneed, and heavily bribed states have the backbone to hazard the restoration of their constitutional sovereignty and honor? Ah, yes, that’s the burning question.

The constitutional issue aside for a moment, in truth the achievement of energy independence alone should provide ample motivation for the states and their people to step up and take back their land, which is illegally held by the feds. And should the states fail to assert their rights under the original constitution, they should quietly accept their bondage and compliantly move on with their drab, submissive lives.

“An injustice unchallenged is justice denied.” Author Unknown

“In the Constitution, the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea…of people, territory and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.” State of Texas v White (1868)

“Nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to absurd or unjust consequences.” Abraham Lincoln (1861)

Marco Rubio: a Constitutional Dilemma

2012-04-25T06:48:00.004-07:00

My beef with a Rubio VP candidacy is that it creates a painful moral dilemma for those of us who respect the Constitution and who are determined to uphold its inviolability.

Like millions of other anti-Progressive, anti-Marxist, anti-"living constitution" voters, I am Conservative and, most importantly, an originalist.

That said, though the prospect of four more years of subversive Progressive dominion in DC is fearsome indeed, I may be compelled to stay home in November. Why? After years of carefully researching the meaning of “natural born citizen”, it is painfully clear to me that, like our putative President, Sen. Rubio is, per the Presidential Clause, constitutionally ineligible for that office. I have seen absoutely NO persuasive constitutional evidence to the contrary and I am, therefore, acutely disinclined to violating my oath merely to placate the political party with which I am currently registered.

If, like the Progressives, the GOP also perversely ignores the Constitution's Presidential Clause, in good conscience I cannot–I should not–violate my oath to uphold the Constitution. As it should be for every patriot, the Constitution should ALWAYS trump blind, self-serving parochial party loyalty. That is the way our Founders would see it.

I can only hope and pray that the Romney campaign seeks an affirming SCOTUS advisory opinion on Rubio’s eligibility before tapping him for the VP slot. While Mr. Rubio is stellar in so many ways, we should vote with our heads and not with our hearts.

The widespread willful ignorance on this issue which has contaminated nearly every part of our society, has been nothing short of shameful and alarming.

And if Obama is re-elected, he should be promptly impeached, convicted and removed from office for myriad constitutional violations, not the least of which is his ineligibility. For this reason alone, we must redouble our efforts to take back the Senate where a 2/3 majority to convict and remove a president is required. We should then go after those co-conspirators, in whatever dark corner we may find them hiding, who had a hand in perpetrating this insidious fraud on the American people.

"Cold Case Posse" Confirms Obama Documentation Fraud & Forgery

2012-03-01T14:04:00.003-08:00

Just finished viewing Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio's very somber press conference regarding the initial findings of his volunteer "cold case posse" on the matter of Obama's birth certificate, selective service registration card and birth place.

The short of it is he and his lead posse investigator concluded that there is sufficient probable cause and sworn affidavits to conclude that fraud and forgery have, in fact, been committed.

Very briefly, despite his investigators' attempt to affirmatively validate the authenticity of the birth certificate presented by the White House last year the posse investigators were unable to do so; that following a careful and expert forensic examinatioin, the document shown by the White House last year was, in fact, a forgery and that "a person of interest" has been identified as the likely forger; that, similarly, his Selective Service registration documentation is also a forgery; that when trying to locate INS travel documentation for persons travelling to and from the US in August 1961, that for the period Aug 1 - 7 all documents were missing from the archives without explanation; that there is a sworn affidavit that a person was present when Obama, in his earlier years, was introduced in the yard of Bill Ayers as a foreign student; that the investigation could not determine with certitude whether or not Obama was born in the United States or elsewhere.

The assembled press immediately launched an attack on Sheriff Arpaio and his investigative team, impugning the motives of the Sheriff and his volunteer investigators, animatedly charging them with deliberately accusing Obama of fraud. Sheriff Arpaio stoutly defended his position as a law enforcement professional, saying that he wasn't accusing the President of anything, but that, like any other criminal investigation, he is treating the evidence uncovered as part of a criminal investigation but is NOT accusing anyone of a crime--yet.

He did suggest that the President might want to unilaterally "come up with documentation to put the case to rest" and to verify his "place of birth", but, again, he did not in any way suggest that the President has committed a crime. And in answer to a hostile press enquiry, his lead investigator also noted that a certificate of live birth does not provide credible evidence of one's identity or citizenship.

Again, it was not a gleeful event. It was somber, professional and very serious. No one was in a celebratory mood that I could see.

As to the next step, Sheriff Arpaio confirmed that deciding upon the next step will be "tough", though he did laugh off any thought of turning the matter over to the Justice Department for follow-through. He did indicate that at this juncture he would prefer a congressional investigation.

The posse's investigation will continue until the forger(s) are identified and, presumably, arraigned. Where this investigation, arraignments and sworn statements lead is anyone's guess. But, frankly, it doesn't look good for the President. In retaliation, I suspect Atty Gen Holder will redouble his efforts to further harrass the Sheriff in the meantime.

The American people are indebted to Sheriff Arpaio and his volunteer "Cold Case Posse" for their deliberate and professional effort.

Stay tuned. That proverbial fan against which fecal matter is often prone to slap is just starting to rotate.

This is a very, very serious moment in our history. This long-standing issue can no longer by conveniently ducked by the willfully ignorant or politically motivated. It's now a criminal investigation.

Obama's Economic Razzle-Dazzle

2012-02-16T11:42:00.001-08:00

Sadly, but not surprisingly, the Administration’s recent rosey economic statistics are simply f-r-a-u-d-u-l-e-n-t.

In January 2012, the Bureau for Labor Statistics (BLS) changed the way the unemployment rate is measured; thus, it turns out that the miraculous unemployment “drop” from 8.9% to 8.3% is not a drop at all. (Reportedly, the real unemployment rate is closer to a staggering 22%.)

In fact, measured in pre-January 2012 metrics, unemployment remains unchanged at 8.9%. Note: deducting those no longer seeking employment are conveniently omitted from the equation rendering a considerably brighter, albeit erroneous and misleading, stat. (The troubling truth is that the percentage of our population in the labor force is actually the lowest its been since the 1950’s. And that's what our Dear Leader calls "recovery"?)

Pointing to an upsurge in personal borrowing, Obama assures us of more robust consumption and, therefore, economic growth. Note: the upsurge in credit debt is because student loans are now included in the credit debt metric. In fact, Visa and MC debt hasn’t appreciably changed at all.

And don’t forget the Congressional Budget Office's recent projection that unemployment by year’s end will near 9%--and that’s using the new BLS measuring formula.

As we all know, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

Obama's retaining his princely power and glory is a helluva lot more important to him and his bloodsucking cronies than any silly recovery for the unwashed. The trick, of course, is to convince inattentive voters and those who are hooked on government handouts that the economy really is moving "in the right direction" and that the feds will, of course, continue to dole out the goodies. And, for the most part, that cynical campaign strategy might very well work on the majority who are either willfully ignorant or totally without virtue or self-respect.