Friday, April 24, 2015

Levin's Take on the Uranium One Scheme

Mark Levin has an intriguing opinion as to why the New York Times may have showcased a story on the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play "Uranium One" scandal.

Since no fewer than seven Cabinet secretaries formally chopped off on the "Uranium One" deal, Levin rightly points out that culpability extends far beyond just Bill & Hillary.

Levin opines that to divert attention from the Obama Administration for its central part in this nefarious uranium deal with the Russians, the left-leaning NYT pointed the finger at Hillary and Bill alone, altogether ignoring the fact that the Obama Administration formally approved the deal.

For Levin, the big story is that this scandal--every bit as abominable as Teapot Dome--is, in actuality, an Administration scandal of the first order--and no one is talking about it!

Sounds very plausible to me.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

President Hillary? God Help Us!

Oh, goody! Hillary is running for President. Here we go again.

Mired in scandals and serious controversy nearly all her political life, Hillary has the distinction of being the first First Lady to come under criminal investigation.

Whitewater, Travelgate, Benghazi, highly questionable foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, Emailgate, relentless dodging and weaving, congenital lying, and a sordid litany of horrendous fundraising scams and other ethical breaches marks a woman deeply flawed, narcissistic and profoundly Machiavellian.

A disciple of and admirer of Saul Alinsky, aka "The Red", a notorious community organizer who dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to none other than Lucifer himself, it is terribly obvious that Hillary is utterly unfit to lead America.

Even Hillary insiders and confidantes have been sounding the warning about her unbridled vindictiveness, single-minded thirst for power and her cold-blooded, indiscriminate pursuit of the politics of personal destruction.

On the positive side, Hillary is a woman and a grandmother...

2016 could be America's last chance to restore the Rule of Law and constitutional order in DC. So, please, America, don't blow it again!!!

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Hillary: As Ruthless and Lawless as Obama

Oh, the webs we weave and the innocents we scar, maim and kill.

And Black Widow Hillary has constructed one helluva web of deceit, lies and perfidy--probably no less odious and intricate than the forest of webs weaved by most other entitled elites on the left. But Hillary is a tad different in this regard. Why? Her shameless deceit and cold, calculated, self-serving heartlessness as Secretary of State directly contributed to the needless death of five stellar Americans in Benghazi.

But, gee. That's "old news". I mean, what difference does it make anyway. Right, Hillary? You have more important matters to consider, like deleting your thousands of official emails--after the State Dept. asked you to return them--and, of course, running for President of the United States of America, surely a challenging task requiring your undivided attention. I mean, gee. What's the big deal anyway? It's your turn at the helm of state. No need for folks to read your emails which may shed some light on what actually happened in Benghazi. I mean, how nosey can some folks be. The gall!

My question is this: like  toady Holder, Comrade Obama and a seemingly endless array of other criminals on the left, will Hillary get away with her cavalierly thumbing her nose at America?  In a word, probably. Why? Because she's a poor helpless woman whose character is being brutally and unfairly sullied by a vicious cadre of women-haters on the right. Oh, she'll get away with it because, well, she's a Progressive Democrat and, again and above all else, she's a woman. And somehow, being a woman, a homosexual, a transsexual, or a minority today--but only if you are of the Democratic Progressive persuasion, of course--is the only acceptable qualification to hold the title of Commander-in-Chief and President. But, really, wouldn't any fair-minded, clear-thinking American want Hillary on the receiving end of that 3AM call? Oops! Silly me. Did I forget that "3 AM" life-or-death call from our guys in Benghazi which she so adroitly and honorably handled? I'm just so forgetful these days.

Sarcasm aside, one needs to be willfully ignorant and utterly devoid of integrity and objectivity not to see that Hillary's ascendancy to the Presidency would be the final nail in this tattered republic's coffin. (Of course, Elizabeth Warren, aka Pocohantas, another congenital liar, would also accomplish the same end. Which leaves me to wonder who on the far left would be a tolerable pick for President. Easy answer: None!)

I leave you with this for your thoughtful consideration. Today, the American Conservative 2 Conservative blog reported the following: As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality."A paragon of virtue, that Ms. Rodham; definitely presidential timber.

So, this pretty much sums up my position on this terribly flawed woman with fundamental and long-standing character flaws. In short, she's just what Americans DON'T need in a President.

In time, I sincerely hope Mrs.Clinton can tame her demons, restore her dignity, regain the respect of her fellow countrymen, find peace, and live a happy life with her family--FAR FAR from the White House.

Sunday, February 22, 2015

DHS BILL: Defend or Subvert the Constitution?

Image result for obama amnesty decreeIt should go without saying that the most sacred duty of our elected representatives is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Only on the Left would any American think otherwise.

To date, Senate Democrats have successfully filibustered a bill which would fully fund the Department of Homeland Security but which would deny funding for Obama's brazenly unconstitutional amnesty decree.

Upholding the Rule of Law and faithfully defending the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, should always TRUMP any misguided, albeit well-intentioned, desire on the part of the Senate GOP to restore "regular order", inclusive of the filibuster. In the case of DHS funding, "regular order" merely enables Senate Democrats to press for passage of a so-called "clean" bill--inclusive of amnesty funding.

Obviously, passage of a so-called "clean" DHS bill, less the amnesty defunding piece, would serve only to both legislatively circumvent a federal circuit court's temporary injunction against Obama's amnesty decree and lend a veneer of lawfulness to Obama's lawlessness. And that is totally unacceptable.

If the GOP submits to Democratic pressure by permitting passage of the DHS bill--inclusive of funding for amnesty--the GOP is complicit in undermining both Judge Hanen's scholarly ruling and the Constitution itself, and the cloud of ignominy will forever hang over both political parties.

As Charles Krauthammer and Mark Levin have persuasively and wisely counseled, the Senate GOP should ABANDON THE FILIBUSTER rule until a new and more trustworthy and principled president is sworn in 2017. In short, it is incumbent upon our representatives in Congress to use ALL available legislative and legal tools to thwart violations of law and the further erosion of our republic.

Hellbent to fundamentally transform the United States during his remaining tenure in office, the awful truth is that Obama and his arrogant totalitarian minions cannot be trusted to uphold the Rule of Law in this or any other matter. Short of impeachment and removal, abandoning the filibuster would better ensure that Obama is constitutionally restrained. Let HIM veto DHS funding. More fodder for impeachment and removal should it come to that.

It comes down to this: which is more important to the republic? The GOPs restoring regular order in the Senate, thus permitting Democrats to filibuster the DHS funding bill OR the GOPs faithfully upholding the Constitution by denying Democrats the power to filibuster this bill? The answer to that question would be painfully obvious to our Founders.

Oh, by the way, DHS will NOT be shut down even with Obama's veto. 80% of DHS personnel have been deemed essential. Thus, they will dutifully show up for work to protect our nation--unless, of course, King Obama dares to physically prevent them from doing so. And, frankly, I put NOTHING past this White House interloper.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Honor & Integrity Lacking at White House

(Opinerlog Editorial Published by Rochester "Democrat & Chronicle" 02-10-15)

None other than the New York Times reported that Speaker Boehner did inform the White House of the invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu before the invitation was accepted. For whatever nefarious reason, the White House remained silent until after Netanyahu accepted the invitation. In short, folks, there was no "breach in protocol" and the White House knew it.

So, what induced this White House chicanery? Embarrass and undermine Netanyahu and impugn Speaker Boehner. Nothing more high-minded than that.

One must properly question if this White House is capable of dignity, integrity, sound judgement and grace.

With each lie, "phony" scandal, act of lawlessness and rank adolescence, this White House disgraces both the Office of the President and the American people. If unchecked, two more years of this sophomoric and unprincipled administration may be more than America and the World can bear.

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Obama Arbitrarily Seizes Sovereign Alaskan Territory

Am getting mighty sick of Congress whining about executive overreach and of States helplessly bemoaning lawless federal seizures of their real estate. Mighty sick!!!

Since Sen. Murkowski characterizes the recent federal seizure of 12 million acres of Alaskan territory "a war on Alaska", my advice to Alaskans is simple and direct: if you really believe this, then NULLIFY this imperial White House decree at once!!! (The White House's justifying its imperiousness by dubbing the seized ANWR acreage "off-limits wilderness" is akin to putting lipstick on a pig! You can dress it up, but it's still invasive federal tyranny.)

If Alaskans really care to understand their constitutional authority over their own territory, for starters I urge Alaskans--as well as citizens of all other States--to read the US Constitution and to check out my post entitled "Federal Imperialism vs State Sovereignty" on

The solution to this brazen federal overreach is as plain as the snow on an Alaskan's face! Stop whining and stop meekly submitting to federal excess! JUST SAY NO BLOODY WAY!!!!!! Who knows. You might even encourage other States to finally stand tall and proud.

But, what will Alaskans most likely do to resolve this federal excess? Well, if history is any indication, Alaskans will submit to lengthy litigation in FEDERAL courts with precious little hope of prevailing in the end. I mean, if you have a territorial dispute with another party, why wouldn't you, the aggrieved party, rely upon the other party's lawyers to fairly settle the dispute? Because doing so would be both stupid and irresponsible. That's why!

I am just so very sick of States who are so routinely unwilling to stand up for themselves, the US and their own State Constitutions, the rights of their Citizens and the Rule of Law. SICK!!!!

If you choose to be spineless and unprincipled, you deserve what you get, Alaska!

Friday, January 23, 2015

On Censuring Obama & Tightening Up Article II of Constitution

Since Congress lacks the political courage to impeach the most reckless, overreaching and lawless chief executive in our nation's history, it's time for Congress to, at the very least, censure Obama.

Obama is desperately looking for a respectable legacy, something which, to my way of thinking anyway, will most certainly elude him once future historians objectively weigh in on his serial lawlessness and prevarication. But with a formal congressional censure on record, his historical reputation and respectability will, in any event, be justifiably tarnished forever,

While there is no legal consequence to a censure resolution against the President, the purpose is to publicly and formally rebuke, condemn, reprimand, denounce the president for his unacceptable actions. The practical effect is to warn him/her to desist, the underlying threat being that of impeachment--assuming, of course, that Congress ever finds its constitutional backbone to do so. Very importantly, such a public rebuke by the "people's house" would be a shot across the bow to future chief executives who, subject to human frailty and pride, might be similarly tempted to abuse their constitutional powers as well, the latter a troubling prospect which should profoundly concern all Americans of every political stripe everywhere.

And, yes, while the censure of a Chief Executive does not appear in the Constitution, Congress's censuring the president is not unprecedented, nor is it prohibited.

In 1834, Andrew Jackson was formally censured by the Senate. In 1842, the Senate censured John Tyler. In 1848, the House of Representatives censured James Polk, and both James Buchanan and Abe Lincoln were similarly rebuked by the Senate.

In short, a strong, undiluted message must be conveyed by the people's representatives to this insufferably arrogant and imperial Chief Executive that his lawlessness and serial lying, both rendered "high crimes and misdemeanors" by our Founders (look it up), are totally unacceptable, indisputable grounds for impeachment, and fully deserving of formal condemnation.

Tragically, Congress's simply wringing its collective hands and complaining about executive lawlessness does nothing more than sanction more executive lawlessness. When confronted with such unbridled executive overreach, congressional inaction is terribly unprincipled, misguided, irresponsible and intolerable.

Absent impeachment of this lawless chief executive or the successful congressional defunding of his unconstitutional executive actions, there remains no higher purpose for our representatives than to faithfully defend the Constitution from executive overreach. As such, there must be other constitutional remedies upon which the people may rely.

So, here's what I'm suggesting:

First, call your representatives and insist they aggressively move toward censuring this president forthwith, explaining why.

Second, to prevent further erosion of constitutional order, urge them to begin serious work on a constitutional amendment specifically designed to effectively restrain chief executives should they opt to exercise executive powers not specifically granted to them in the Constitution.

Toward that end, Article 2 should be amended to unambiguously define and clearly limit the scope of executive orders, memorandums, signing statements, etc. Such an amendment must be carefully crafted in a manner which renders its definition and meaning impervious to deliberate or inadvertent misinterpretation now or in the future by either lawyers, courts or politicians, often one and the same.

And because Congress cannot be relied upon to exercise its impeachment authority and because the Supreme Court may, in truth, only offer up unenforceable opinions on the constitutionality of laws/orders/regulations emanating from the Chief Executive, in lieu of congressional impeachment/conviction/removal from office per Art 1 Sec 3, the new amendment must include an efficient method for 60% of State Governors or Assemblies to nullify any such executive fiats within 60 days of their issuance, during which time those actions would not have the force of law. And should the States fail to meet this deadline, the House of Representatives would be required to approve or nullify such executive fiats within 30 days--during which time the executive action would be unenforceable--with a 60% vote. And should the Chief Executive ignore either the States or Congress in this matter, he and all officers illegally acting on the nullified executive action would be subject to immediate arrest and removal from office by US Marshals at the direction of Congress.

Unless this frightening executive excess is very carefully, substantively and urgently addressed now, we can be sure that future chief executives, emboldened by the lawless precedent set by Obama, will remain effectively unrestrained and our Constitution will be further and irretrievably eroded. This corrosive overreach will serve only to give license for more executive tyranny masked by the ambiguity of current law and inaction of Congress. This perilous situation must be eliminated if we are to properly safeguard what remains of our tattered Constitution and our fading Liberty.  If we fail to quickly address this issue head-on, tyranny will be the inevitable consequence.

To continue to do nothing about this brazen tyranny is a grievous disservice to America. Call your timid representatives, bring their attention to this urgent matter, and let's get this process moving!