Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Palin's Call for Impeachment: What is Possible?

Gov. Palin's recent call for Obama's impeachment has finally crystallized the gravity of our Republic's sorry condition.

In the face of so many scandals and cover-ups, impeachment is no longer unthinkable or politically incorrect. Clearly, the pattern of lawlessness and obstructionism exhibited by this Administration has reached a crescendo of seriousness not seen since Watergate, and sooner rather than later the tide toward impeachment may well be unstoppable.

As President Ford iterated, and as clearly explained by our Founders, an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is; thus, the bar for impeachment is as low or as high as we, through our representatives in the House, say it is.

Bearing in mind that impeachment is a political--not a legal--process, given the growing groundswell of acute opposition to the Obama Regime's arrogance and overreach, we may well be reaching that point at which the House will be compelled to invoke articles of impeachment against a chief executive who continues to ruthlessly flout the Rule of Law, circumvent Congress, and violate Art II of the Constitution.

As a purely practical political matter, however, without a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict and remove, successfully impeaching Obama or any of his henchmen, either of which requires only a majority in the House, would be little more than symbolic and would do nothing to effectively arrest the heavy-handed inclinations of the White House and its equally imperialistic bureaucratic realm.

Bearing in mind that in the alternate universe called government political equations almost invariably trump principle, my guess is that this is why Speaker Boehner is reluctant to proceed with impeachment. He's calculating that the negative political fallout stemming from a dead-end impeachment-conviction process would very likely adversely affect GOP political fortunes going forward. And this is something he wants to avoid at nearly any cost. He knows that the highly effective Liberal sound bite machine would quickly characterize the impeachment action as little more than needlessly disruptive GOP "grand-standing" and "obstructionism". Thus, for better or for worse, in the bizarro world called government where realities are dictated by whether or not one is able to retain one's political power, until the GOP captures a safe 2/3 majority in the Senate impeachment is a non-starter.

That said, the fact that there is such a widespread and growing push for impeachment indicates a republic in disarray and crisis. Unquestionably, our Republic is in greater danger from iniquitous forces from within than we've ever known in our history. How successfully we handle this unprecedented crisis and the threats which face us remains to be seen.

For the moment, the GOP is relying on the courts, often themselves at odds with the Constitution, to checkmate a runaway Executive Branch. At the grassroots level, the People are exercising their right to resist by peacefully blocking buses and standing up to BLM. But, if all those efforts fail to restore the Rule of Law and constitutional order, wise political leaders must be aware that those millions of People who value their Liberty and their Republic will be pushed only so far, beyond which all manner of God-given and Founder-sanctioned rights to resist remain constitutional options.

(See OPINERLOG blog post "Obama: Is Impeachment a Viable Option, dtd 8/1/11)

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton

"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 (1690)

Thursday, June 19, 2014

America's Survival at Stake

(Editorial published 06/19/14 in Democrat & Chronicle, Rochester NY)


For the clear-eyed among us, it is impossible NOT to conclude that an unprecedented level of menacing lawlessness grips nearly every corner of the federal government.  
With but hollow protests from our representatives, and with alarming impunity, the President’s rigid goal to “fundamentally transform the US of A” appears to be on a triumphal course.
Those oblivious among us who subscribe to this soulless transformation are irrationally elated; those who find solace in the Rule of Law are bewildered and justifiably scared.
The dizzying litany of so-called “phony scandals” such as  IRS, AP, the recent flood of unaccompanied minors into border states, the dastardly Bergdahl trade, Obamacare, NSA, breath-taking foreign policy failures, among countless other painful assaults on America’s security and constitutional moorings, have imperiled America’s very survival.
In truth, America’s nightmare won’t end until the current White House occupier is impeached and removed, and the alien Progressive contagion is finally eradicated.
("When injustice becomes law, Resistance becomes duty." Thomas Jefferson)



Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Operation American Spring Launch a "Vanguard" Moment

Hard for me to sugarcoat what was for me a launching disaster.

On the 16th, flash floods, heavy rain and cold winds ushered in what, at best, can be described as an anemic OAS turn-out on the Washington Mall. Though we put our best face forward, the acute disappointment—indeed, the dismay-- among the few hundred OAS participants was palpable.
Owing to the paucity of participants--variously reported as  somewhere between 324 to 2,000--it was often difficult to even locate the rally amid the throng of tourists which dwarfed the number of OAS participants on the Mall.

Once the weather cleared, we cautiously anticipated an appreciable uptick in participant numbers on Saturday, the 17th. But, alas, the weekend "crowd" was no less anemic.

Though we met some stalwart and energized patriots from all over the country and enjoyed a pleasant meeting with Col. Riley at the Washington Monument—he actually remembered me—my companions and I couldn’t shake our painful disappointment. 

Among OAS participants, here are some of the refrains, or variations thereof, we so often heard: “What happened? “I can’t believe this.” “So where are all those patriots?” “This is scary.” “This is terrible.” “This is embarrassing.”  “This sucks.” “I’m pissed. Doesn’t anyone care?” “This is ridiculous.” And the most poignant: “It really is all over, isn’t it.” “Man, are we in trouble.”

Recalling what appeared to have been a sizable and determined internet base of supporters and prospective participants, the dismal OAS showing was both surprising and mystifying to us all.

So, what DID happen?

While speakers from among the participants added some congealing fervor, I couldn’t help shake the notion that high-profile patriotic speakers may well have encouraged more participation, more clout. Apparently, even patriots like to be “entertained”. But, that's only speculation.

Also, I can't ignore Glenn Beck's mischaracterization of OAS as "irreponsible and dangerous", and who, on The Blaze, equated OAS with the 1848 Marxist "Spring of Nations", describing OAS hearts as "cold and hard". That ringing endorsement did little to rally supporters. And then there were other “conservative” personalities and bloggers who described the event as a “coup”. Wow! 

Given a virtual media black-out leading up to the May 16th launch, I naturally wondered if the cacophony of negativity from the right hadn't, in fact, conspired to fatally undermine the OAS effort from the start. In this vein, I wondered if it was possible that self-destructive and narcissistic turf wars among patriotic organizations  and personalities on both the local and national levels may have materially contributed to the discouraging OAS launch. OR was it simply a matter of “sunshine patriots” doing what they do best: whine and complain, but ignominiously failing to get off their dead asses and be counted? Well, from my lowly perspective, all of these toxic factors most certainly contributed to the lackluster launch.

If there is a lesson here, for me it is this: if there is no fire in the belly of patriots, no sense of urgency, no recognition that only convincing action—not blog posts and commentary alone--can turn the Marxist tide, then the OAS  effort will continue to limp along to little or no avail and the country’s downward spiral into a fetid socialist abyss will be irreversible.

So, in short, and despite the single-minded leadership of Col. Riley and the dedication of  OAS organizers and participants alike, the OAS launch was extraordinarily disappointing and, for me, it does not bode well for the Republic's survival.

Happily, Col. Riley, undeterred, intends to push forward with the hope that real patriots from around the country will eventually step up and be counted, failing which, folks, it REALLY is all over.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

The Bundy Siege: Federal Imperialism & State Sovereignty



The Bureau of Land Management’s imperious siege of the Bundy Ranch in Nevada compels me to re-publish this post. I ask readers to carefully research this issue and to decide for yourselves whether or not the federal government has violated public trust and the Rule of Law.

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 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 foundational constitutional issues, our economic growth will be hobbled, our liberties diminished, state sovereignty further degraded, constitutional order imperiled, common sense and Rule of Law 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 spin 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 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 overreach 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 dastardly 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 maintains 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 citizens 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
POSTSCRIPT: Contingent upon Nevada's 1864 admittance into the union as a State was federal insistence that unappropriated lands be permanently ceded to the federal government. In 1996 Nevadans overwhelmingly approved removal of this provision from the State Constitution, in effect amending their State Constitution. Unfortunately and surprisingly, the wording of this referendum required Congress to officially approve the amendment. THUS, to prevent further acrimony and possible bloodletting, it would seem obvious that NOW is the time for Congress to step up and approve the transfer of land. AND if Congress doesn't approve the transfer, then it seems abundantly clear that it is within Nevada's constitutional authority to unilaterally assume ownership and control of those lands--with or without congressional sanction.

"I submit that an individual who breaks the law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, it is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law." written by Martin Luther King, Jr from the Montgomery Jail.

Friday, March 21, 2014

On Elections: The Art of War

Though not yet a presidential candidate, Dr. Benjamin Carson, now a man of renown, recently won a respectable 87% in a Linn County (Iowa) straw poll. He is an appealing candidate. No question about it.

My guess is that Dr. Carson, a refreshingly clear-headed, articulate, intelligent, even-tempered, highly principled, rags-to-riches family man and professional could well be our "2016 Reagan". Or, better yet, our "2016 Dr. Franklin".  Either would be fine by me.

But, for a moment, let's take a hard look at the political realities, at least as I see them.

I will repeat this until I'm blue in the face: the soulless Progressives win elections principally because of their ruthlessly efficient get-out-the-vote ground game and their vacuous yet terribly effective and manipulative messaging.
Cleverly co-opting the baser instincts of an increasingly dependent electorate--and NOT because of their inspiring policies, visionary rhetoric, or their striking economic successes--the Progressives will remain a formidable and dangerous political force.

Thus, when it comes to getting the voters to the polls, the GOP must learn to be as hard-boiled, slash-and-burn efficient--perhaps even more so--as their Progressive antagonists. In short, the right must declare electoral war if this country is to survive.

Oh, we can lose sleep about losing the Hispanic, Black, Youth and Woman voters, but all that is secondary to victory.

If Republicans and Conservatives don't put their campaign gloves on, mercilessly and unrelentingly hit back with the unbridled truth, clearly enunciate the earth-shattering ideological choices facing the country, sharpen their ground game to blitzkrieg proportions, and strengthen their messaging, then the Progressives will continue to threaten what precious little remains of this Republic.

And let's never forget the millions of registered Republicans who stayed home on election day in November 2012. These unprincipled couch potatoes defeated Romney--NOT Romney and most certainly not Obama's messianic leadership and enlightened policies. And such a disaster could easily befall the GOP again in 2016 unless the right gets over its timidity and pulls all stops to get the lame, the halt, the healthy, the young, the old, the black, white, green and violet to the voting booth. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!!! Without votes, we can't win elections. PERIOD.

The 2014 mid-term elections will shed some light on whether or not the GOP has learned anything from its feckless, lackluster and disastrous campaign strategies of the past.
Given the woefully shoddy state of the union, the Senate should be easily swept by the GOP and more GOP numbers should flood the House. That's what should happen. But, will  it? With a wary eye to the future, I await that election's outcome with baited breath and no small amount of trepidation.

Conceivably, Dr. Carson could be the finest man alive, the most enlightened and gifted candidate the country could have ever produced. But if his supporters don't get to the polls in greater numbers than those of his Progressive opponent, the country will be cursed again with yet another neo-Marxist in the White House. And this time, folks, there will be no turning back. Our constitutional republic will be finished and the exodus to Belize and other greener pastures will begin in earnest.

A Convention of States or Nullification?

Questions: Is the sole remedy for restoring constitutional order a "Convention of States" whose dual purpose is to fashion new amendments to curtail a runaway federal government as well as to clarify core constitutional principles which have been so terribly misconstrued over the years? Or is the vigorous State nullification of unconstitutional federal acts alone the way to go?

With these critical questions in mind, my biggest concern with an Art V Convention of States (COS) process alone is the length of time it will require--up to 20 yrs, this according to Mark Levin, a leading COS proponent--during which time much more federal mischief can be perpetrated against the States, the People and the Constitution--perhaps irremediably.

Other concerns about COS: Why should we believe that the feds will faithfully uphold new amendments created by COS any more faithfully than they have upheld current amendments or the original meaning and intent of core Constitutional principles? Who can feel assured that there are a sufficient number of reliable constitutionalists in State governments to ensure a prudent and responsible COS amendment process and outcome? And who of us is reasonably confident that the insidious influence of self-serving lobbyists will not corrupt the faithfulness of COS participants and the integrity of their handiwork? These questions inexorably lead to this critical question: Can any conscious patriot possibly believe that a COS process alone can save the Republic?

To my way of thinking, our pressing for assertive State nullification/anti-commandeering actions while concurrently monitoring a well-focused and untainted Convention of States process is, very likely, the most efficacious and prudent way forward. After all, we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

It is encouraging to note that the number of State anti-commandeering and nullification actions are increasing. (Check the 10th Amendment Center site for updated info on those actions.) Coupled with a growing number of States approving a COS, it clearly appears that many thoughtful Americans in State leadership positions are finally awakening to the threat of Progressive tyranny and finally committing themselves to remedial actions.

To further encourage the advancement of this two-pronged remedial strategy to restoring constitutional order, I believe the "Operation American Spring" occupation of DC beginning May 16th and the significant uptick in nullification/anti-commandeering activities already sweeping the country may well throttle  the ruthless Progressive assault on our political system and way of life. The blockbuster combo of nullification already in play and a successful "Operation American Spring" occupation of DC will, I believe, constitute the death knell of big-government Progressivism and restore constitutional order in these united States.

With so much frustration, defiance and resistance taking place at both the grassroots and State levels today, the political elites know that the fecal matter is about to hit the proverbial fan, and that the unstoppable force of millions will simply be too much for them to ignore or to easily sweep aside.

In truth, and for the first time, I believe America's ruling class and its corporate enablers are genuinely scared and, like cornered rats, are prepared to either appease the People's demands or, in their desperation, to suicidally confront an increasingly determined throng of American patriots. Either way, my sense is that stalwart American patriots will carry the day. I have to believe this, or accept the awful prospect of tyranny's triumph.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Obama's FCC Targets the Newsrooms

What they can't win in the courts, the Progressives will attempt to win by regulation or Executive Orders.

Benghazi, IRS, AP, NSA, compelling the registration (and seizure) of guns, Common Core, the militarization of government agencies, retaining Hamas sympathizers in key administration positions, ignoring judicial rulings. imposing universal healthcare, attacks on Christianity, undermining the readiness and morale of the military, imperious Executive Orders, etc. etc. etc. Understand the trend yet?


To advance this regime's insidious slide toward authoritarianism,  the FCC recently announced its intention to introduce FCC "monitors" into media newsrooms to "study" the news media's journalistic philosophy and broadcast decision-making--of course, all in a harmless and honorable attempt to better ensure that underserved populations aren't somehow left out. Huh?


Monitors! What first came to mind when I read about this was Fascist Germany's and Stalin's relying precisely upon the same tactics to incrementally quash free speech and a free press, all in an odious effort to consolidate their political power.


Like nearly every agency of the federal government, and with the blessings of the Obama Regime, the FCC is expanding its powers well beyond its legal and constitutional limits. Anyone who isn't aware of this is either delusional, hopelessly ignorant or a fawning leftist ideologue.


As clearly as I can put it, if the media permit these "monitors" to enter their newsrooms, they will have tacitly consented to further FCC encroachment. After all, one doesn't satiate a bully's appetite by bowing and scraping, or otherwise appeasing him. If you yield, the bully will be emboldened and demand more.  Historically, that is the way it's always worked. Duh!


To those with their wits about them, introducing "FCC monitors" into newsrooms is nothing less than the undisguised application of a Fascist tactic whose aim it is to eventually quash free speech and a free press.


My advice to the media is this: JUST SAY NO! If the media doesn't say NO, then they are Fascist enablers, plain and simple. MSNBC, are you listening?


Reportedly, the media in Columbia, SC is the FCC's first target. We can be somewhat hopeful that Columbia is located in a  State which, historically, has taken its freedom very, very seriously.


As far as I'm concerned, Columbia, SC should constitute the media's--and OUR-- red line. If Columbia, SC appeases the FCC storm troopers, then we're all in big trouble.


I urge ALL media to summarily bar FCC's goose-stepping entry into their newsrooms! Don't play their game. If you do, you--and we--will lose.