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.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Article V Convention OR Invoke the 10th Amendment?

Further to my January 17th post regarding the 10th Amendment, let me briefly add the following comments.

On many sites there appears to be a battle raging between Art V and 10th Amendment proponents. The point of contention: which constitutional process will work best to restore constitutional order?

My view is that BOTH are perfectly legitimate and much-needed remedies which should be vigorously pursued.

If we all just lean back and think about it for a moment, I believe we can all agree that, hands down, nullification is the most peaceful, least onerous, least time-consuming and most efficient remedy to federal tyranny, and that only ignorance and timidity can prevent nullification's successful application.

My only concerns–NOT objections–to Art V: 1) the tortuous length of time it will require, during which all manner of federal mischief and excess can be perpetrated, and 2) how can we reasonably be assured that new amendments will be honored any more than those which currently grace the Constitution? And if those newly ratified amendments are similarly dishonored/ignored with impunity by Leviathan, then what? A circular path back to square one.

SO, I say let’s do both in tandem. Why? New amendments and the repeal of some existing amendments are clearly needed in order to restore constitutional order and economic sanity. But while the Art V process is underway, state nullification can quickly checkmate further federal erosion of State sovereignty and individual liberties, thus eliminating the very real possibility of our having to resort to rebellion or secession, both of which, by the way, are God-given natural rights and Founder-sanctioned when all else fails.


Monday, February 3, 2014

O'Reilly's Pre-Bowl Interview of Obama: My Take

There were a number of unflattering opinions published on the internet about how well O'Reilly handled his surprisingly brief Pre-Super Bowl interview of Obama yesterday. Not always a fan of Bill, I have to take exception to those negative appraisals of his performance. I thought he did as fine a job as any journalist could have done.

From the outset, and despite Obama's signature parsing, double-talk and filibustering, I thought O'Reilly was remarkably dogged, unflappable and in control. What made that clear to me was the frequency with which Obama defensively lashed out at FOX at nearly every turn.

Obama's embarrassing mendacity and insincerity was on full display for all honest and objective folks to see. His body language, blinking eyes, tell-tale and mechanical Cheshire cat grin, and his frequent loss of eye contact spoke volumes. For me, the interview didn't break new ground, but DID underscore--yet again--that Obama is, manifestly, a shameless, prevaricating hack, and nothing more.

When O'Reilly asked Obama about his stated desire to "fundamentally transform the USA" and why Obama felt that way, Obama quickly dodged and weaved, implying by his circuitous reply that he didn't use those words. My stomach turned.

This guy is a self-serving, amoral, pathological liar. An incorrigible  narcissist of the first order, he will, in fact, go down as the most morally corrupt, untrustworthy, unscrupulous and least respected chief executive in our nation's history--that is, assuming we have a history as a nation for much longer.

What is blindingly crystal clear to all but his craven sycophants is that this poor excuse for a President--and a man--needs to resign or be impeached and removed for high crimes and misdemeanors. Absolutely no question about it--at all! (Perhaps "Operation American Spring" can pull that off this summer, and for the country's sake, I sincerely hope so. GO OAS!)


So, despite all the negative commentary, to my way of  thinking O'Reilly did a creditable job. Can't imagine how he could have done better without jabbing his finger in Barry's face to evoke an unguarded response. But, let's face it. Even with that, Barry's much too instinctively serpentine to have permitted such candor and honesty.

For me, I learned nothing new. Obama was once again exposed for the charlatan and scoundrel he genuinely is.

Sunday, February 2, 2014

"Operation American Spring":Will it Work?


Though not yet covered by the MSM, the internet is abuzz with news and extensive commentary regarding "Operation American Spring" which kicks off May 16th in DC. From conservative sites, news of the operation is being met with a mix of grassroots angst, fervent support, thoughtful reservations, sincere doubts, and even some ridicule as to the efficacy, especially as it relates to the constitutionality and achievement of Phase 2 objectives described below.

Conservative grassroots anxiety has also been expressed regarding the likelihood of Obama's deliberately inciting violence and using that as a pretext for imposing martial law. Others have complained about the operation's being somehow badly timed (whatever that means), inadequately organized, and ill-equipped to handle the exigencies of such a massive and sustained turnout and occupation.

Still others worry that the media will deliberately de-legitimize and demonize the movement and its "lawless participants" (so, what's new)' thus eclipsing the movement's  momentum by undermining public support. Still other detractors have gone out of their way to argue that OAS will do little  more than seriously jeopardize conservative chances for an electoral victory in November. In short, lot's of excuses for doing nothing or more of the same, which is essentially nothing.

As can be expected, the omnipresent trolls are out in force attacking Col. Riley's motivations and impugning his honor--without a shred of proof, of course--and sowing discord and confusion to the extent possible. All very obvious to the trained reader, but to the unwary their venom has some perceptible effect.

Spearheaded by one COL. Riley, the following is the OAS plan:
Phase 1 – Field millions, as many as ten million, patriots who will assemble in a non-violent, physically unarmed (Spiritually/Constitutionally armed), display of unswerving loyalty to the US Constitution and against the incumbent government leadership, in Washington, D.C., with the mission to bring down the existing leadership. Go full-bore, no looking back, steadfast in the mission.
Phase 2 – One million or more of the assembled 10 million must be prepared to stay in D.C. as long as it takes to see Obama, Biden, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi, and Attorney General Holder removed from office. The senior republican in the US House of Representatives will become Speaker of the House and the US House of Representatives will elect a temporary President and Vice President of the United States. The U.S. Senate will take action to elect a new majority and minority leader.
As required, the U.S. Congress will execute appropriate legislation to convene new elections or U.S. States will appoint replacements for positions vacated consistent with established constitutional requirements.
Phase 3 – Those with the “principles” of a West, Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, Lee, DeMint, Paul, Gov Walker, Sessions, Gowdy, Jordan, will comprise a tribunal and assume positions of authority to convene investigations, recommend appropriate charges against politicians and government employees to the new U.S. Attorney General appointed by the new President.
*All actions in Phase 2 and 3 will be consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”
According to the Patriots for America site, considerable planning for all manner of contingencies has been underway for some time now. Nothing in the areas of logistics, self-policing/security, sanitation, medical care, emergency housing, retreat strategies, etc. is being left to chance. And, from all indications, the detailed planning and organization continues unabated and at full speed.

Having followed this for some time now, from my humble perspective, many of the naysayers are simply ignorant of the careful and detailed preparations underway to ensure the operation's success and sustainability. To wit, this isn't a government operation; this is a military-led civilian operation. And having been in a military leadership role myself (Infantry Captain, US Army), I believe we can all be assured of a well-planned, disciplined and well-executed operation from start to finish. Like every such operation, objectives and tactics will be permitted to quickly and efficiently adjust to realities on the ground. For this reason, particular objectives may necessarily change, though the overall strategy to prevail in the end will not.


The short and sweet of it is this: I am of the view that OAS is the only genuine patriotic push-back effort we have going for us at the moment. For me, arm-chair and carping patriots unwilling to get out from behind their keyboards pose a greater threat to patriotic efforts to restore constitutional order and economic sanity than anything OAS participants could possibly perpetrate.

That said, like any patriot worth his salt, I too have questions. A blind follower I have never been. As I have shared with Col. Riley, I sincerely question the attainability of Phase 2 objectives. Why? If the targeted political hacks--who, by the way, are duly elected political hacks-- refuse to resign, then what? Like the plague, an operation should avoid a "what now?" moment at all costs. Nothing could be more debilitating to an operation's momentum and demoralizing to its participants than such a moment of vacillation and uncertainty. Such a moment of ambiguity could easily encourage participants to either retreat with egg on their face or to quickly and ill-advisedly commit to a more forceful and, perhaps, undisciplined approach to removing those politicians from office. And IF the latter is the underlying aim of OAS leaders--and I have no reason to believe that it is--then it really is the beginning of a full-scale people's rebellion. At that point, we will ALL be forced to make a critically important decision for ourselves, our families and our country: yield to a more emboldened ruling class or resist by all means necessary. And though I question the Phase 2 "removal objective", in the final analysis I am confident that the careful planning underway will prevent such a debilitating moment. In the end, the prize, that being the restoration of constitutional order, will be achieved.

My hope--and, in truth, my expectation--is that as the certainty of a massive occupation of DC becomes clearer to both the MSM and to the political elites in DC, the latter who value their hides will unilaterally take corrective actions to assuage participants' fervor and to appease OAS demands before May 16th. In that regard, I'm hopeful that the mere threat of such massive numbers descending on DC will, at the very least, compel the ruling class to TIMELY appoint special prosecutors to investigate Obama's eligibility/fraud/impeachability/possible treason, as well as the Fast and Furious, Benghazi and IRS scandals. Of course a FIRM TIMELINE for completion of those investigations and appropriate and timely convictions, removals and punishment of those found in any way culpable should be insisted upon and fully achieved before OAS agrees to stand down.

I have to say that never in my lifetime could I have ever envisioned such a turbulent and dangerous time in our country. The sincere expressions of grassroots anger, fear and disillusionment are deeper and far more widespread than I could ever have imagined.  Oh, the detractors, that being the subversive trolls and the fair-weather, whimpering and overly-cautious "patriots", are making their presence known on the internet, but their whimpering is consistently and quickly drowned out by a flood of unwavering patriotic fervor unlike anything I've ever seen. So, I predict that the OAS occupation will achieve its patriotic goals this year. But, it can't  happen without a critical mass of patriots stepping up.

Finally, these words of advice from "Lone Survivor" seem especially relevant for patriots everywhere: "Find an excuse to win!" Without a convincing alternative plan for real action to restore constitutional order, excuses for inaction are totally unacceptable and meaningless.